That's good, because I am not so sure about search.
Google "Is the Earth flat?" and you still mostly get flat Earth cranks on the first page - it's telling that the answers in Genesis article is actually one of the more sane articles returned.
I don't think the author is criticizing the inclusion of technical details, so much as the lack of a more general overview. What mostly confuses me about your critique is if you have done the "heavy lifting," why in the world would are you using wikipedia as a reference for a technical subject? Is there really no better reference available at that level?
Better may not be what I am optimizing on.
Suppose I am writing a paper and I needed the exact definition of the Weinberg angle. Now, I have references in my downstairs office with this info - I have Weinberg's QFT books, for that matter, so, sure, I can get up, and try and find a suitable reference. Maybe that will take 5 minutes. Or, I can open up a browser page, go to Wikipedia, and what I need is right there. Elapsed time, maybe 30 seconds. I may do this every 5 or 10 minutes, so the saving in time is significant. If I can't find what I need there, there is always NASA ADS and Inspire.
Yeah, I studied calculus, discrete math and linear algebra as an undergraduate, and I can't make heads or tails out of articles that I think I ought to be able to... I'd like to at least know which other book(s?) I should read in order to be able to understand the wikipedia articles.
It's a rare article that doesn't have references. I would start there.
I appreciate the articles not being pap. When I am working I frequently have to look up technical details on various subjects, and its nice to have descriptions that actually have some technical details. It is, to me, what makes it useful.
Keep the level as it is. If there is a need for more basic descriptions, expand the introduction.
Iran is not a signatory to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works or the WIPO Copyright Treaty, or a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), so it is not bound by international copyright laws. Why? The United States has vetoed Iran's ascension to the WTO 22 times, and Iran will not play by the rules if they don't get to join the club.
Sputnik 1 was a scientific satellite. It was spherical so that atmospheric drag could be measured simply, without worrying about the spacecraft orientation, and the beeps at two frequencies made it possible to estimate the density of the ionosphere underneath it.
The US military already encrypts GPS for themselves - it can still be jammed, but it can't be spoofed.
Of course it can be spoofed ("meaconned"), even if you assume that the encryption cannot be cracked. An attacker can receive the satellite signal and retransmit it. This signal will arrive at the target late, but it will still be valid - of course the attacker has to manipulate power / jamming etc to convince the receiver that the meacon signal is the valid one. You can be sure much thought has been given to this topic.
The particular attacks in the original post appear to be related to protecting Putin. I doubt the military attacks get rolled out for such a simple purpose.
This is apparent decline of productivity is typical of a mature science.
One day, for example, semiconductors will hit their physical limits and Moore's law will cease to apply. At that point, these "Boffins" will presumably conclude that productivity in that industry had ceased to grow, and that it could all be fixed if we just had more on the ball researchers. They presumably also think that we could have 500 MPH cars if only the automotive researchers weren't so lazy. .
I asked the technical lead Kirk Bresniker (chief architect at Hewlett Packard Labs) about this exact thing at the launch yesterday, and he said no, that you should be able to use conventional software (I specifically asked about Python), with the speed-up occuring under the hood.
I am not entirely convinced that it will be that easy...
I thought the current theory was that most of the gaps in Saturn's rings are caused by gravitational resonances with other orbiting bodies; these resonances having cleared the resonance orbits in question. I haven't RTFA yet, but is the point that actually finding nothing validates the model, or is there too much nothing, or what?
Yes, the gaps are cleared by resonances with the moons, and this finding does not change that at all. Cassini was going beneath the rings, between the D ring and the upper atmosphere of Saturn, and the general feeling was that there would be a constant stream of ring material ("dust," although really it would be small ice particles) going down from the rings to burn up in Saturn's atmosphere. Now, it seems that isn't so, and I am sure some theorists are working on papers to explain why even as we discuss it here.
Slashdot Mirror
I am sorry, but I simply do not care. No real purpose is served in finding out the motives of these men.
Does anyone else see that AI is basically a religion to its proponents?
That's good, because I am not so sure about search.
Google "Is the Earth flat?" and you still mostly get flat Earth cranks on the first page - it's telling that the answers in Genesis article is actually one of the more sane articles returned.
I find that the Wolfram articles tend to be too condensed to be really very useful. YMMV.
At least they generally know how to use apostrophes.
I don't think the author is criticizing the inclusion of technical details, so much as the lack of a more general overview. What mostly confuses me about your critique is if you have done the "heavy lifting," why in the world would are you using wikipedia as a reference for a technical subject? Is there really no better reference available at that level?
Better may not be what I am optimizing on.
Suppose I am writing a paper and I needed the exact definition of the Weinberg angle. Now, I have references in my downstairs office with this info - I have Weinberg's QFT books, for that matter, so, sure, I can get up, and try and find a suitable reference. Maybe that will take 5 minutes. Or, I can open up a browser page, go to Wikipedia, and what I need is right there. Elapsed time, maybe 30 seconds. I may do this every 5 or 10 minutes, so the saving in time is significant. If I can't find what I need there, there is always NASA ADS and Inspire.
Yeah, I studied calculus, discrete math and linear algebra as an undergraduate, and I can't make heads or tails out of articles that I think I ought to be able to... I'd like to at least know which other book(s?) I should read in order to be able to understand the wikipedia articles.
It's a rare article that doesn't have references. I would start there.
I appreciate the articles not being pap. When I am working I frequently have to look up technical details on various subjects, and its nice to have descriptions that actually have some technical details. It is, to me, what makes it useful.
Keep the level as it is. If there is a need for more basic descriptions, expand the introduction.
Iran is not a signatory to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works or the WIPO Copyright Treaty, or a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), so it is not bound by international copyright laws. Why? The United States has vetoed Iran's ascension to the WTO 22 times, and Iran will not play by the rules if they don't get to join the club.
Sputnik 1 was a scientific satellite. It was spherical so that atmospheric drag could be measured simply, without worrying about the spacecraft orientation, and the beeps at two frequencies made it possible to estimate the density of the ionosphere underneath it.
The US military already encrypts GPS for themselves - it can still be jammed, but it can't be spoofed.
Of course it can be spoofed ("meaconned"), even if you assume that the encryption cannot be cracked. An attacker can receive the satellite signal and retransmit it. This signal will arrive at the target late, but it will still be valid - of course the attacker has to manipulate power / jamming etc to convince the receiver that the meacon signal is the valid one. You can be sure much thought has been given to this topic.
The particular attacks in the original post appear to be related to protecting Putin. I doubt the military attacks get rolled out for such a simple purpose.
It's next year, of course.
This is a dictionary attack, which is not the same as cracking, assuming that they can't make a few 100 million trials to crack into each account.
The AI systems are "trained". They can only reproduce the expertise by someone who provides the training data sets.
And in many cases they are parasitic, as that "someone" is not being paid for the training or reimbursed for the use.
This is apparent decline of productivity is typical of a mature science.
One day, for example, semiconductors will hit their physical limits and Moore's law will cease to apply. At that point, these "Boffins" will presumably conclude that productivity in that industry had ceased to grow, and that it could all be fixed if we just had more on the ball researchers. They presumably also think that we could have 500 MPH cars if only the automotive researchers weren't so lazy. .
The cost of one crash where they were judged negligent could bankrupt just about any airline, so there is more to this than the cost of salaries.
That means that this is an attempt to generate a fake Benghazi type scandal.
Let us know when a responsible person comes to the same conclusion.
Why not? He presumably paid good money for them.
All of the memory is non-volatile.
I asked the technical lead Kirk Bresniker (chief architect at Hewlett Packard Labs) about this exact thing at the launch yesterday, and he said no, that you should be able to use conventional software (I specifically asked about Python), with the speed-up occuring under the hood.
I am not entirely convinced that it will be that easy...
Nature has no preferences.
I don't think Mr. Taplin knows what a natural monopoly is.
Note: It is not a market share gained through the neglect of anti-trust.
Lightnings in Saturn atmosphere are already stronger than any plutonium explosion
Not to mention that the Plutonium-238 used in RTGs is not fissile and produces only alpha particles, and thus can never go critical.
Beneath. Between the lowest ring and the upper atmosphere of Saturn.
I thought the current theory was that most of the gaps in Saturn's rings are caused by gravitational resonances with other orbiting bodies; these resonances having cleared the resonance orbits in question. I haven't RTFA yet, but is the point that actually finding nothing validates the model, or is there too much nothing, or what?
Yes, the gaps are cleared by resonances with the moons, and this finding does not change that at all. Cassini was going beneath the rings, between the D ring and the upper atmosphere of Saturn, and the general feeling was that there would be a constant stream of ring material ("dust," although really it would be small ice particles) going down from the rings to burn up in Saturn's atmosphere. Now, it seems that isn't so, and I am sure some theorists are working on papers to explain why even as we discuss it here.