So long as the developers are interested in a project, they probably won't abandon it. Since they're allowed to work on what they want, they're probably going to be interested in whatever they're working on. As an added bonus, you probably get lots of people using their strengths, which I can say is definitely not the case when someone else is assigning you work based on what they think you're good at.
I suppose I'm one of those 60% - 70% of the "AI community" (or of the former AI community, because I left AI and went into algorithms, which was what I wanted to do more anyway, when people started spouting this nonsense), but I'm skeptical of any claims that we will develop strong AI by a certain time period that do not propose a reasonable way of doing so.
Here's a hint: it's not about raw processing power! The challenge is still theoretical. We can't even implement AI on an oracle the way things are now, much less a real machine. Great, so you'll have a powerful enough CPU to simulate a brain. Any idea how you're going to write a program that simulates one, considering we don't know anywhere near the requisite level of detail of the brain's operation yet?
When you touch something, it generates electrical signals in your nerves, which are essentially wires, and we look at it and think, "that's basically IT" - it's biological IT, so we need to talk to some biological companies to do that bit, but once we've got them in touch with electrical signals, it's basically our domain.
No, it isn't IT. We design all of the hardware in IT; we know under what circumstances signals are going to be sent. It's kind of hard to have that level of control when you're talking about the nervous system, especially with how little we understand about it now. The best analogy I can think of is attempting to prove a theorem in physics and mathematics (the former is regarded as bad science; the scientific method is empirical). We make the rules in math, so we know when something agrees with those rules. New rules come from old ones, so everything remains intact. We don't make the rules of physics (or biology), and there's plenty we still don't know about those rules.
He's not necessarily a genius because he graduated in one year. He simply found a system that allowed him to do such a thing and decided to take advantage of that system.
When I went to high school, it wasn't even possible to take 72 AP credits. Similarly, most colleges will not allow you to take more than 18-22 credits per semester without permission of the dean; 37 would be completely out of the question.
He blazed through college in a year, probably missing out on a lot of the transformative moments as a college student, not the least of which is the ability to get a feel for what mathematicians and physicists do. It's no surprise to me that he wants to become a lawyer.
He is considering a doctorate in math "if he wants to stay in college". That's the wrong attitude to go into a doctorate (speaking as a first-year CS doctoral student myself), because you will be miserable every second of the program if you go for that reason. It should have nothing to do with whether you want to stay in college and everything to do with whether you have a fascination with a narrow area of knowledge that can only be sated by deep study of that area.
Not invalidated - extended. Newtonian physics is still correct; it's just a special case of relativity. In other words, we've learned something more fundamental about how the universe works.
If there is not enough time to simultaneously take notes and understand the course, the professor is going too fast. This is how you get classes (especially on the graduate level) where a bunch of intelligent students spend so much time furiously scribbling that when the professor finally decides to stop and ask a question, half of the class is too preoccupied with catching up in their note-taking to answer and the other half has no clue what's going on because they haven't actually analyzed a word they've just written down yet. I know. I just came from one of those classes.
By the time students do get around to analyzing their own notes, the class is over and the opportunity to ask the professor questions in a class setting is lost.
This is when PowerPoint slides might actually come in handy. Many professors misuse them, but correctly used, they are a powerful tool for presenting large amounts of information in a small amount of time. This method lets students outline the lecture (the lecture itself may be more like an outline as a result of the slide format as well), filling the specifics either from research, the textbook, or an online copy of the slides. If you miss all of the information on a slide, you can go back to the course page (or directly to the professor, if the slides aren't posted anywhere) after class and find it in its entirety, with no time pressure to copy the information down.
If I tried to outline the notes I just took at the class I came from, I would probably miss some information I need to do the homework. Since the notes are gone as soon as the professor erases them from the whiteboard, this leaves me with no way of getting the information if I miss it in class. Since my professor has an attitude, I can't count on him to tell me what those notes were if I miss them, either - he'd probably quip about how I should have been paying more attention in class.
Their requirements sounded ambiguous, but I imagine they would have allowed a platform library such as Winsock.
Otherwise, even the standard library that comes with the language doesn't qualify. Even something as trivial as a simple cout becomes very complicated in that case.
So this is going to put someone like me, who does not believe in the notion of credit, at a disadvantage if I ever have to apply for a job because I'm responsible enough not to spend other people's money?
I shouldn't need to borrow money and pay it back just to demonstrate that I'm fiscally responsible. It should be self-evident by the fact that I've survived on savings and income for as long as I have without accruing any debt.
The signup date requirement is sufficient to prevent sockpuppetry. There's no need to require a certain number of edits as well.
Perhaps a paragraph stating the voter's views should also be required with the vote. Many people leave these anyway, and I bet that puppeteers would tire very quickly of writing multiple statements for sockpuppet accounts.
I agree with the article. I disagree with Wales. The author of the article does not run Wikipedia, however.
Case in point, clicking on the "vote in the board of trustees election" link from the article says this:
"Wikimedia Board of Trustees election From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search
Sorry, you are not qualified to vote in this election here on the English Wikipedia. You need to have made 400 edits here before 00:00, 1 August 2006; you have made 253. Also, your first edit on this wiki was at 13:59, 30 August 2003; it needs to be before 00:00, 3 May 2006.
You may be eligible to vote on another Wikimedia project where you are active. If so, please visit that project and try again. Thank you!"
I'm not referring to a single edit, or even any group of edits. I don't get into disputes with other members; I help resolve them (thus the AMA membership). I'm referring to mailing list discussions, voting on policy change (when I left, lots of voting pages had "you must have made xxx edits to vote" - probably to discourage sockpuppets, but you could just as easily use signup date), IRC chat, and other things that should generally include the entire community.
I did not join Wikipedia to "make my voice heard". I joined Wikipedia because I knew stuff that wasn't already in the encyclopedia. Once a Wikipedian, however, I did expect to be treated as a member of the community, not as a number. If I'm going to edit the encyclopedia, I should have a say in the environment that I do it in. Since the environment changed in a way I did not feel comfortable with, I stopped editing.
The number of edits you make means nothing because an edit can mean writing an entirely new article or a very small change (some articles, such as "peerage", have hundreds, if not thousands, of such edits).
The obsession over edit count was the reason I stopped contributing to Wikipedia to begin with: My voice wasn't being heard because I did not have the time to make thousands of changes to the encyclopedia.
The fact that we are still having this discussion indicates that little has changed.
I don't know about G4s, but most modern CPUs will halt if the fan stops (or most modern BIOSes will power off the system if it doesn't). IIRC, the P4 actually scaled back the clock speed and kept running. The temperature increase is slow enough for the system to take countermeasures.
It's really the heatsink coming off that you have to worry about, as that raises the temperature of the CPU far quicker than fan failure. Tom's Hardware once did a review where they removed the heatsinks from CPUs - the Athlons in particular did not fare well.
(I mostly buy AMD CPUs, BTW. I'm not an Intel fanatic; I'm just stating what they found).
Someone proposed a plausible-looking proof for the Riemann hypothesis a while back. I remember the story making Slashdot. What happened to that? I'm guessing that the proof was flawed?
Also, shouldn't we be calling it "the Poincare theorem" now that it's proven?
If you can't write a good spec., the team in India won't be able to code for you either.
The employer-employee relationship should be a relationship of reciprocal trust and respect. Remember that while there are lots of other employees out there, there are also lots of other employers. The best programmers are scooped up in a minute, usually non-competitively, and nothing dissuades them more than an employer who thinks they should consider themselves privileged to work there - the way they see it, the employer should feel privileged that they are applying!
If you just want "programmer monkeys", being condescending in an interview will work fine. If you're looking for a team that can get things done an order of magnitude better at the same cost, however, you need to treat your programmers like valuable members of the team, equal to yourself. This goes for any type of employee where skills are more variable than salary.
This was always something I took into consideration when evaluating job prospects. The restrictions on Internet use aren't that big a deal on their own, but it sends the signal that the company does not trust me with all of the tools I may need to use on the job (Most of my positions were in IT).
There is an infinite amount of knowledge (when we learn new things, we are presented with new questions), but only a finite amount of things that we can know. Of course our knowledge is incomplete. It always will be.
That does not mean we shouldn't try to learn as much as possible, however. What we have accomplished is far beyond what any other animal on earth has done.
On the one hand, you argue that "part of the definition of a terrorist group is they are stateless, now they have a state do they not? they are now a government."
On the other hand you state that "its against the whole of lebanon for the sake a few extremists who happen to live there."
If Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government (they do constitute part of its parliament, though I think you were confusing Hamas and Hezbollah), their attacks on Israeli cities (as well as the kidnappings that started all this) are acts of war, and Israel has the prerogative to respond against whatever parts of Lebanon it deems necessary to end the threat.
I was going to make the same point about music, but I wasn't sure if people would see the connection to the topic.
It is very easy to add emotion to music, because every aspect of a piece, from the scale used to the placement of individual notes and rests, carries emotion. (Yes, rests. Silence can be extremely emotional if used properly).
What the game can do on top of the music is focus that emotion on a certain situation or character, amplifying the emotion present in the story alone.
I find that the music retains its emotional connotation even when later heard outside of a game, which could explain why I tend to enjoy OSTs much more after playing the games.
Slashdot Mirror
So long as the developers are interested in a project, they probably won't abandon it. Since they're allowed to work on what they want, they're probably going to be interested in whatever they're working on. As an added bonus, you probably get lots of people using their strengths, which I can say is definitely not the case when someone else is assigning you work based on what they think you're good at.
I suppose I'm one of those 60% - 70% of the "AI community" (or of the former AI community, because I left AI and went into algorithms, which was what I wanted to do more anyway, when people started spouting this nonsense), but I'm skeptical of any claims that we will develop strong AI by a certain time period that do not propose a reasonable way of doing so.
Here's a hint: it's not about raw processing power! The challenge is still theoretical. We can't even implement AI on an oracle the way things are now, much less a real machine. Great, so you'll have a powerful enough CPU to simulate a brain. Any idea how you're going to write a program that simulates one, considering we don't know anywhere near the requisite level of detail of the brain's operation yet?
No, it isn't IT. We design all of the hardware in IT; we know under what circumstances signals are going to be sent. It's kind of hard to have that level of control when you're talking about the nervous system, especially with how little we understand about it now. The best analogy I can think of is attempting to prove a theorem in physics and mathematics (the former is regarded as bad science; the scientific method is empirical). We make the rules in math, so we know when something agrees with those rules. New rules come from old ones, so everything remains intact. We don't make the rules of physics (or biology), and there's plenty we still don't know about those rules.
He's not necessarily a genius because he graduated in one year. He simply found a system that allowed him to do such a thing and decided to take advantage of that system.
When I went to high school, it wasn't even possible to take 72 AP credits. Similarly, most colleges will not allow you to take more than 18-22 credits per semester without permission of the dean; 37 would be completely out of the question.
He blazed through college in a year, probably missing out on a lot of the transformative moments as a college student, not the least of which is the ability to get a feel for what mathematicians and physicists do. It's no surprise to me that he wants to become a lawyer.
He is considering a doctorate in math "if he wants to stay in college". That's the wrong attitude to go into a doctorate (speaking as a first-year CS doctoral student myself), because you will be miserable every second of the program if you go for that reason. It should have nothing to do with whether you want to stay in college and everything to do with whether you have a fascination with a narrow area of knowledge that can only be sated by deep study of that area.
Not invalidated - extended. Newtonian physics is still correct; it's just a special case of relativity. In other words, we've learned something more fundamental about how the universe works.
If there is not enough time to simultaneously take notes and understand the course, the professor is going too fast. This is how you get classes (especially on the graduate level) where a bunch of intelligent students spend so much time furiously scribbling that when the professor finally decides to stop and ask a question, half of the class is too preoccupied with catching up in their note-taking to answer and the other half has no clue what's going on because they haven't actually analyzed a word they've just written down yet. I know. I just came from one of those classes.
By the time students do get around to analyzing their own notes, the class is over and the opportunity to ask the professor questions in a class setting is lost.
This is when PowerPoint slides might actually come in handy. Many professors misuse them, but correctly used, they are a powerful tool for presenting large amounts of information in a small amount of time. This method lets students outline the lecture (the lecture itself may be more like an outline as a result of the slide format as well), filling the specifics either from research, the textbook, or an online copy of the slides. If you miss all of the information on a slide, you can go back to the course page (or directly to the professor, if the slides aren't posted anywhere) after class and find it in its entirety, with no time pressure to copy the information down.
If I tried to outline the notes I just took at the class I came from, I would probably miss some information I need to do the homework. Since the notes are gone as soon as the professor erases them from the whiteboard, this leaves me with no way of getting the information if I miss it in class. Since my professor has an attitude, I can't count on him to tell me what those notes were if I miss them, either - he'd probably quip about how I should have been paying more attention in class.
Their requirements sounded ambiguous, but I imagine they would have allowed a platform library such as Winsock.
Otherwise, even the standard library that comes with the language doesn't qualify. Even something as trivial as a simple cout becomes very complicated in that case.
So this is going to put someone like me, who does not believe in the notion of credit, at a disadvantage if I ever have to apply for a job because I'm responsible enough not to spend other people's money?
I shouldn't need to borrow money and pay it back just to demonstrate that I'm fiscally responsible. It should be self-evident by the fact that I've survived on savings and income for as long as I have without accruing any debt.
It isn't equivalent to the Nobel because you can still win a Nobel Prize after 40.
The signup date requirement is sufficient to prevent sockpuppetry. There's no need to require a certain number of edits as well.
Perhaps a paragraph stating the voter's views should also be required with the vote. Many people leave these anyway, and I bet that puppeteers would tire very quickly of writing multiple statements for sockpuppet accounts.
I agree with the article. I disagree with Wales. The author of the article does not run Wikipedia, however.
Case in point, clicking on the "vote in the board of trustees election" link from the article says this:
"Wikimedia Board of Trustees election
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Sorry, you are not qualified to vote in this election here on the English Wikipedia. You need to have made 400 edits here before 00:00, 1 August 2006; you have made 253. Also, your first edit on this wiki was at 13:59, 30 August 2003; it needs to be before 00:00, 3 May 2006.
You may be eligible to vote on another Wikimedia project where you are active. If so, please visit that project and try again. Thank you!"
I'm not referring to a single edit, or even any group of edits. I don't get into disputes with other members; I help resolve them (thus the AMA membership). I'm referring to mailing list discussions, voting on policy change (when I left, lots of voting pages had "you must have made xxx edits to vote" - probably to discourage sockpuppets, but you could just as easily use signup date), IRC chat, and other things that should generally include the entire community.
I did not join Wikipedia to "make my voice heard". I joined Wikipedia because I knew stuff that wasn't already in the encyclopedia. Once a Wikipedian, however, I did expect to be treated as a member of the community, not as a number. If I'm going to edit the encyclopedia, I should have a say in the environment that I do it in. Since the environment changed in a way I did not feel comfortable with, I stopped editing.
Loud? No. Important? How do you judge that on a number?
The number of edits you make means nothing because an edit can mean writing an entirely new article or a very small change (some articles, such as "peerage", have hundreds, if not thousands, of such edits).
The obsession over edit count was the reason I stopped contributing to Wikipedia to begin with: My voice wasn't being heard because I did not have the time to make thousands of changes to the encyclopedia.
The fact that we are still having this discussion indicates that little has changed.
I don't know about G4s, but most modern CPUs will halt if the fan stops (or most modern BIOSes will power off the system if it doesn't). IIRC, the P4 actually scaled back the clock speed and kept running. The temperature increase is slow enough for the system to take countermeasures.
It's really the heatsink coming off that you have to worry about, as that raises the temperature of the CPU far quicker than fan failure. Tom's Hardware once did a review where they removed the heatsinks from CPUs - the Athlons in particular did not fare well.
(I mostly buy AMD CPUs, BTW. I'm not an Intel fanatic; I'm just stating what they found).
Someone proposed a plausible-looking proof for the Riemann hypothesis a while back. I remember the story making Slashdot. What happened to that? I'm guessing that the proof was flawed?
Also, shouldn't we be calling it "the Poincare theorem" now that it's proven?
If you can't write a good spec., the team in India won't be able to code for you either.
The employer-employee relationship should be a relationship of reciprocal trust and respect. Remember that while there are lots of other employees out there, there are also lots of other employers. The best programmers are scooped up in a minute, usually non-competitively, and nothing dissuades them more than an employer who thinks they should consider themselves privileged to work there - the way they see it, the employer should feel privileged that they are applying!
If you just want "programmer monkeys", being condescending in an interview will work fine. If you're looking for a team that can get things done an order of magnitude better at the same cost, however, you need to treat your programmers like valuable members of the team, equal to yourself. This goes for any type of employee where skills are more variable than salary.
This was always something I took into consideration when evaluating job prospects. The restrictions on Internet use aren't that big a deal on their own, but it sends the signal that the company does not trust me with all of the tools I may need to use on the job (Most of my positions were in IT).
They can't attack the position, so they attack the lawyer!?
There is an infinite amount of knowledge (when we learn new things, we are presented with new questions), but only a finite amount of things that we can know. Of course our knowledge is incomplete. It always will be.
That does not mean we shouldn't try to learn as much as possible, however. What we have accomplished is far beyond what any other animal on earth has done.
I leave my email in the inbox for as long as I need to deal with it. Once I finish, I delete it and it goes into the trash.
:)
The thing is that I never empty the trash - I still have emails as far back as 2001 in there
I doubt the PS4 will exist if Sony doesn't concentrate more on making the PS3 more appealing.
That would be outlawed, or it would eventually cause the economy to collapse. Capitalism only works when at least the illusion of choice is given.
On the one hand, you argue that "part of the definition of a terrorist group is they are stateless, now they have a state do they not? they are now a government."
On the other hand you state that "its against the whole of lebanon for the sake a few extremists who happen to live there."
If Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government (they do constitute part of its parliament, though I think you were confusing Hamas and Hezbollah), their attacks on Israeli cities (as well as the kidnappings that started all this) are acts of war, and Israel has the prerogative to respond against whatever parts of Lebanon it deems necessary to end the threat.
The best position to be in is one where they are not looking to hire anyone but you. Networking is one means to achieve that end.
I was going to make the same point about music, but I wasn't sure if people would see the connection to the topic.
It is very easy to add emotion to music, because every aspect of a piece, from the scale used to the placement of individual notes and rests, carries emotion. (Yes, rests. Silence can be extremely emotional if used properly).
What the game can do on top of the music is focus that emotion on a certain situation or character, amplifying the emotion present in the story alone.
I find that the music retains its emotional connotation even when later heard outside of a game, which could explain why I tend to enjoy OSTs much more after playing the games.