I have to say I don't know enough about AI or CS to know what to make of that list. I hear this guy frequently billed as some uber-genius AI scientist...is that just a bunch of self-promoting-nonsense? Can anybody that actually works in AI comment on him?
sorry - but all I see in this country convinces me that any 'paper rights' have long since been invalided IN PRACTICE.
I agree. The "why" is because the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper" in the minds of our elected representatives^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hleaders for quite some time now.
Heat produced that way still isn't as cost-effective as that provided by a heat pump, so it might not be that great unless you're using resistance heaters in your home. Modern heat pumps provide more than three Joules of heating for every Joule of electrical energy consumed.
I was wondering if anybody was gonna post something other than, "oh noez! ur IT man, u cant do grafix!" It's not as if you must be some kind of artistic genius to be a designer--as you pointed out it's a job with skills that can be learned by almost anybody (at least enough to get by in a business setting). It just takes some effort. Thanks for the link, too; it seems quite helpful.
Er...I didn't. Does not knowing what the fuck "GLADOS" is now make me a grumpy old man that's out of touch with geek pop culture? In that case, take your GLADOS and get off my lawn!!!
But instead of stopping, the rotor began to accelerate. Heins recounts that the first time it happened, the magnets starting flying off and hitting the walls, as he ducked for cover.
So from all I could gather he's claiming this thing produces a net output (yeah he won't state it that way, but I don't see what else he could be saying). It sounds like he's saying there's a large amount of energy coming from somewhere in a short period of time; i.e., this is not some wimpy effect only measurable with careful, precise observation. If this is the case, it's not so hard to make the scientific community sit up and take notice. Either it has to have an external power source to produce this effect, or it doesn't. So if it:
requires external power: connect the shaft of the machine to a conventional generator, and use this generator to provide the input. Use a resistor bank to dissipate the "extra" energy that's coming from wherever it comes from.
doesn't require external power: connect the shaft of the machine to a mechanical brake and use that to dissipate the extra energy.
Mount the whole assembly on a Lucite stand so that it's clearly visible that there's no external power being piped in. Use a wattmeter or measure how much water the dissipation element can boil away to determine how much "extra" energy it produces. Start the machine, which could possibly involve feeding external power for some time, and measure the total input energy. Let it run until it stops and see how much total energy it generated. If energy out is greater than energy in plus any energy that might conceivably have been stored in the device, go directly to Nobel Prize. Show that it's a black box that can repeatedly give back more energy than it takes in. How hard is that, if the claims are true?
I suppose it's possible that all the overunity/perpetual motion talk was coerced or added by journalists wanting a snazzy headline; if that's the case then I feel sorry for the guy. Hell, I feel sorry for him anyway, considering that this has cost him his marriage and his kids already.
I figured the lack of a launch phase might matter for some defense systems, if they depend on being able to see the launch vehicle's signature. I thought most ballistic nuke warheads detached from their launch vehicles though; is there any reason a ballistic missile warhead would be that much bigger than an artillery round carrying a comparable payload?
Well, since they've already got some for conventional artillery, I really doubt they'd have much difficulty coming up with one that will fit in a rail gun. I also doubt (as the sibling post suggests) that a railgun would pose many novel acceleration challenges: we've been building complex projectiles that are shot out of a tube by a big honking explosion at many thousands of G's for a long time.
Anybody know if artillery rounds from a gun like this would be more difficult to destroy than ballistic missle warheads? The lead time might be a lot shorter if the projectile is coming from only a few tens or hundreds of kilometers away (as opposed to having a launch vehicle you can spot from satellite, etc.), but I don't know how much advance warning proposed defense systems need.
"...an 'experimental helmet which scientists say could reverse the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease..."
"Low level infra-red red is thought to stimulate the growth of cells of all types of tissue and encourage their repair..."
I guess I'm just a cynical bastard now, but having weasel words in a story like this whispers, "snake oil" or, "wishful thinking" to me. Maybe it's because all the people selling quack stuff are careful about how they say things for legal reasons, and now I put too much effort into scrutinizing how medical claims are worded. Call me when it's actually curing Alzheimers in a no-shit, double-blind, randomized study with more than a handful of participants.
So I often find myself in situations where I feel stupid for not grasping something that is readily apparent to most everyone else, but at the same time I've been successful with teaching myself certain concepts other people wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole.
I had wondered if anybody else had this sort of experience; good to know it happens to others I suppose. For most of my life (although much less now than when I was in school) I have received some ridicule for not seeing or knowing "obvious" things, even in subject areas where I pretty much know my way around.
At the same time, I get incredulous comments such as, "how did you know to do that?" because I just knew how something worked, and was able to solve a problem or fix something that was an utterly insurmountable obstacle to somebody else who might even be more experienced than me. It's great when the incredulous comment comes from the same person that was dishing out ridicule not too long before.:P
This could also be useful for identifying misplaced radioactive sources. I don't know if such incidents are common nowadays, but I recall reading about incidents in which a source gets misplaced/stolen and unfortunate innocent people are exposed to unhealthy doses because of it. I wonder how well such a system could cope with false positives from natural sources, the dentist's X-ray in the office next to yours, etc.
Speaking as someone who works for a company whose product uses a database that is neither relational nor object-oriented, I can say from experience that folks who have devoted a significant amount of their lives to mastering that methodology see anything else as a threat.
I've bumped into this attitude in the little bit of time I spent as a developer: people who think that every last bit of configuration and data can (and must!) be crammed into a relational model, whether it belongs there or not. Performance and complexity be damned....it's relational! It's got to be good!
Well, assuming Apple's market share is increasing (which I don't know for sure, just taking it as a given for making my point), some significant fraction of those new Mac owners are former PC owners. Many of these people will assume that all the crapware they "needed" for their Windows machine is just part of owning a computer. It's not that there's a problem with a Mac, it's that a lot of people just don't know any better.
That's why Ruby is nice, it's as readable as Python but it has regex included...
Just curious, are you talking about having to "import re" in Python instead of just having regex support by default, or is there something significant lacking in Python's regex support? (Not trolling, it's just nice to have some additional information about the differences in the languages)
I'm with you on twisted; you nead to twist your head around it.... Django on the other hand...
As I understand it, Twisted is more of a framework for writing frameworks; it's not meant to provide the sort of higher-level stuff that people generally expect when they say "web framework." If I'm wrong about that, somebody please correct me.
Oops, I just noticed that you said "everyone." But I still think you're going to have the majority of competitors needing to invest lots and lots of time/effort, since people can go watch mediocre players at their local little league game.
To compete in professional sports should not require everyone to burn the candle at both ends.
It seems to me that, so long as there is competition (whether in sports, business, etc.), anybody that wants to compete at any level significantly above that of hobbyist will be required to burn the candle at both ends. Anybody really interested in competing will invest a lot of time in it, and--in general--competition is about doing better than your peers, so there's always going to be this strong skew towards the "both ends of the candle" end of the spectrum.
It's been a while since I used Windows regularly and I'm honestly not quite certain what they're talking about. Is this some folder that allows people outside one's home network to get at the contents via a series of magical fairy tubes? Do things in it automatically become available via some P2P protocol?
I presume that these folks were actively sharing these MP3 files via some means, or there'd be nothing to sue them over.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to say I don't know enough about AI or CS to know what to make of that list. I hear this guy frequently billed as some uber-genius AI scientist...is that just a bunch of self-promoting-nonsense? Can anybody that actually works in AI comment on him?
I agree. The "why" is because the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper" in the minds of our elected representatives^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hleaders for quite some time now.
So....then....in Soviet OGLE-2006-BLG-109L, hamburgers eat you?
Heat produced that way still isn't as cost-effective as that provided by a heat pump, so it might not be that great unless you're using resistance heaters in your home. Modern heat pumps provide more than three Joules of heating for every Joule of electrical energy consumed.
I was wondering if anybody was gonna post something other than, "oh noez! ur IT man, u cant do grafix!" It's not as if you must be some kind of artistic genius to be a designer--as you pointed out it's a job with skills that can be learned by almost anybody (at least enough to get by in a business setting). It just takes some effort. Thanks for the link, too; it seems quite helpful.
Er...I didn't. Does not knowing what the fuck "GLADOS" is now make me a grumpy old man that's out of touch with geek pop culture? In that case, take your GLADOS and get off my lawn!!!
So from all I could gather he's claiming this thing produces a net output (yeah he won't state it that way, but I don't see what else he could be saying). It sounds like he's saying there's a large amount of energy coming from somewhere in a short period of time; i.e., this is not some wimpy effect only measurable with careful, precise observation. If this is the case, it's not so hard to make the scientific community sit up and take notice. Either it has to have an external power source to produce this effect, or it doesn't. So if it:
Mount the whole assembly on a Lucite stand so that it's clearly visible that there's no external power being piped in. Use a wattmeter or measure how much water the dissipation element can boil away to determine how much "extra" energy it produces. Start the machine, which could possibly involve feeding external power for some time, and measure the total input energy. Let it run until it stops and see how much total energy it generated. If energy out is greater than energy in plus any energy that might conceivably have been stored in the device, go directly to Nobel Prize. Show that it's a black box that can repeatedly give back more energy than it takes in. How hard is that, if the claims are true?
I suppose it's possible that all the overunity/perpetual motion talk was coerced or added by journalists wanting a snazzy headline; if that's the case then I feel sorry for the guy. Hell, I feel sorry for him anyway, considering that this has cost him his marriage and his kids already.
I figured the lack of a launch phase might matter for some defense systems, if they depend on being able to see the launch vehicle's signature. I thought most ballistic nuke warheads detached from their launch vehicles though; is there any reason a ballistic missile warhead would be that much bigger than an artillery round carrying a comparable payload?
Excuse me, but Daleks are not robots. They are living (and apparently very angry, very speciesist) creatures in a small armored vehicle.
Well, since they've already got some for conventional artillery, I really doubt they'd have much difficulty coming up with one that will fit in a rail gun. I also doubt (as the sibling post suggests) that a railgun would pose many novel acceleration challenges: we've been building complex projectiles that are shot out of a tube by a big honking explosion at many thousands of G's for a long time.
Anybody know if artillery rounds from a gun like this would be more difficult to destroy than ballistic missle warheads? The lead time might be a lot shorter if the projectile is coming from only a few tens or hundreds of kilometers away (as opposed to having a launch vehicle you can spot from satellite, etc.), but I don't know how much advance warning proposed defense systems need.
I guess I'm just a cynical bastard now, but having weasel words in a story like this whispers, "snake oil" or, "wishful thinking" to me. Maybe it's because all the people selling quack stuff are careful about how they say things for legal reasons, and now I put too much effort into scrutinizing how medical claims are worded. Call me when it's actually curing Alzheimers in a no-shit, double-blind, randomized study with more than a handful of participants.
I had wondered if anybody else had this sort of experience; good to know it happens to others I suppose. For most of my life (although much less now than when I was in school) I have received some ridicule for not seeing or knowing "obvious" things, even in subject areas where I pretty much know my way around.
At the same time, I get incredulous comments such as, "how did you know to do that?" because I just knew how something worked, and was able to solve a problem or fix something that was an utterly insurmountable obstacle to somebody else who might even be more experienced than me. It's great when the incredulous comment comes from the same person that was dishing out ridicule not too long before. :P
This could also be useful for identifying misplaced radioactive sources. I don't know if such incidents are common nowadays, but I recall reading about incidents in which a source gets misplaced/stolen and unfortunate innocent people are exposed to unhealthy doses because of it. I wonder how well such a system could cope with false positives from natural sources, the dentist's X-ray in the office next to yours, etc.
I think the grandparent poster was referring to a situation in which they used an idea or story from somebody's blog without attribution.
Well, assuming Apple's market share is increasing (which I don't know for sure, just taking it as a given for making my point), some significant fraction of those new Mac owners are former PC owners. Many of these people will assume that all the crapware they "needed" for their Windows machine is just part of owning a computer. It's not that there's a problem with a Mac, it's that a lot of people just don't know any better.
"Please place your EXTRA SMALL TROJAN CONDOMS on the belt. Thank you for shopping at MegaMart, PHILIP J. FRYE!"
Just curious, are you talking about having to "import re" in Python instead of just having regex support by default, or is there something significant lacking in Python's regex support? (Not trolling, it's just nice to have some additional information about the differences in the languages)
As I understand it, Twisted is more of a framework for writing frameworks; it's not meant to provide the sort of higher-level stuff that people generally expect when they say "web framework." If I'm wrong about that, somebody please correct me.
Oops, I just noticed that you said "everyone." But I still think you're going to have the majority of competitors needing to invest lots and lots of time/effort, since people can go watch mediocre players at their local little league game.
It seems to me that, so long as there is competition (whether in sports, business, etc.), anybody that wants to compete at any level significantly above that of hobbyist will be required to burn the candle at both ends. Anybody really interested in competing will invest a lot of time in it, and--in general--competition is about doing better than your peers, so there's always going to be this strong skew towards the "both ends of the candle" end of the spectrum.
must...resist...making...Chuck...Norris...reference...
big dv/dt == changing speed quickly == stressful
big v == going fast != stressful
It's been a while since I used Windows regularly and I'm honestly not quite certain what they're talking about. Is this some folder that allows people outside one's home network to get at the contents via a series of magical fairy tubes? Do things in it automatically become available via some P2P protocol?
I presume that these folks were actively sharing these MP3 files via some means, or there'd be nothing to sue them over.