I've run lots of GAs with mutation turned off, letting crossover do all the work.
Then you do crossover so one in the new generation can get "extra" material from a parent? In that way, a gene can be copied and modified. That is a known mechanism in the genome. There are lots of genes in every species that are modified copies of other genes.
Without any new species being created.
You could probably do a trivial mathematical argument that such a crossover operation in the normal genome has the same "algorithmic power" as crossover + mutations, since crossover operations could cut/paste in the same information -- given enough cuts and pastes from different areas...
Any HTML page is a valid PHP page. You can sprinkle some PHP in an existing HTML page for some automation
Well... there are multiple engines for including Perl in a web page like Mason and Apache::ASP.
But the Perl world is moving away from code-in-html. Generally, it is considered a better idea to isolate UI and logic from each other. The web frameworks for Perl, like e.g. Catalyst and Jifty, generally use Template engines like HTML::Template and Template Toolkit (Google/cpan yourself.)
It seems to me the only way for most discussions is simply to have some sort of a online-friendship type thing emerge via message boards or comments.
It is possible to get there -- but I believe you have to consciously work for it. The "standard" will quickly degenerate if you don't educate new users when they arrive. (My politeness level isn't always that high on Kuro5hin, but much better here on slashdot.)
To get a "nice" culture, I think you have to work for it. Perlmonks got there by a quite simple voting system -- and the oldtimers put energy into whipping new arrivals into shape.
You argued that since Hezbollah is a terror organization, it can't break war laws.
I answered that "argument" with that EU, amongst others, doesn't consider Hezb a terror organization and that it is friggin' illegal to be a terror organization anyway (by definition, they do things that would be classified war crimes if a state did them). So it is quite equivalent.
I really can't see how your definition game can matter, since committing war crimes like targeting civilians (by EU definition) is about as bad as being a terrorist organization. At least troll well if you have nothing to say.
I argued that -- Afaik, Israel hasn't targeted civilians as primary targets but that if you have an air bombing campaign, you will hit civilians -- it isn't war crimes and that Hezb had lots of control over which dead was counted as civilians and which were counted as Hezb (almost none, strangely enough).
You point out that Amnesty and HRW accused Israel of bombing civilian infrastructure needlessly (HRW
reformulated the initial claims to be that they couldn't find Hezb where Israelis had bombed, which is logical since there will be mistaken targeting -- and it isn't believable they can have an opinion when being shepherded by Hezb through bombing sites, check other documents on their sites). Which isn't relevant for my point, either. (Others in this thread have pointed out documented cases of where Hezb really integrated Iran's, sorry, their infrastructure with civilians.)
If you are going to be a troll, at least don't be a stupid and boring one.
The EU doesn't classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization -- so they break war laws, according to EU. It breaks international law to be a terrorist organization, by definition. You can't defend Hezbollah's behaviour.
Afaik, Israel hasn't targeted civilians as primary targets. If nothing else, that would be stupid, since they can only lose by doing so -- in international opinion and in internal opinion in Israel. (You will get misses and wrongful targeting in any war. That is legal.) Also, Hezbollah have an interest in getting civilians killed -- and could influence the count of what the dead was...
Also, since you obviously know even less than me about counter artillery fire, why don't you read up on the subject before blaiming one side for shooting back at people targeting their civilians...? Because that is what every damn army will do on the planet.
Or were you attacking the 'use of Christian villages' - if indeed that was the case? In which case, it's also logical that if you could attack from a location where your enemy is less likely to retaliate, then you would.
First, please read up on war laws -- it is frigging illegal to use civilians for shields in a war. As it is to explicitly target civilians. Hezbollah did both, at the same time!
Second, afaik, counter artillery is so fast that they only go after values on an arillery radar. Often/usually, the artillery doesn't really know what they shoot back at! Because of that, Hezbollah was probably trying to get Israel to kill civilians for propaganda values rather than to get shields.
Third, an army that as a matter of planning use civilians for cover to shoot at other civilians -- and you blaim the side shooting back equally?!?! Talk about double standards.
Contrary to popular myth, Hezbollah (unlike Hamas and the other Palestinian groups) prefers not to operate around civilians.
Well, there were interviews in Washington Post (and NY Times, but my memory can fool me here) about how the Hezbollah used to go into Christian villages and fire rockets and run away before the counter fire came.
taking out hundreds of Merkavas
Hundreds?! Can you give a source for THAT claim?
it's a big question mark on how to deal with them.
I am not a military expert, but I think history over millennia has shown two working ways of handling fanatical guerillas in bad terrain: (a) Hearts and minds of the civilian population and (b) clearing the area of people totally and not leave stone on stone.
"(a)" is hardly possible with the Shia by the Israeli border. Saddam Hussein did a variant of "(b)" with the Shia after their uprising -- outright atrocities in such a volume they stopped giving him trouble. A civilized country like Israel can't do that unless they are desperate (or the Palestinian problems would only be in history books).
Hezbollah isn't so much a guerilla as a dug down army division. Their problem is that they are easy to keep down using air -- and then use a big army unit clearing out area after area.
Let us hope none of the methods will have to be done -- and that the international community will keep its promise this time and make it a calm border. If Hezbollah continues to throw rock on the bear, it will certainly wake up again, angrier for every time it happens.
Now of course as an individual [in a public healthcare system] who would benefit from such a drug you have the option in some cases to "go private" and receive the treatment.
There is a subtle difference compared to the US.
The problem is that fewer can afford "going private" -- after paying much higher taxes to pay for everyone else's health care.
(But the US health care system seems even more dysfunctional than my local Swedish one. That is another discussion.)
So we must gloss over the historical deficiencies and wrongs perpetrated by Islam because it is Islam? Why must this one religion be given such royal treatment whenever any critical examination of religions is being made? Why must the glaring shortcomings of Islam be glossed over while every other religion has its innards dissected?
you go for a check-up with your doctor and discover you have a tumour in your brain that will become fatal unless proper surgery is administered. Would you rather receive pre-paid health care as a part of your right as a tax-paying citizen of your country, or would you rather be asked to present your wallet on the spot?
The problem is that you probably won't get good care in a public health system either.
To take a local Swedish example, you don't want to hear that the cancer clinic is closed for the summer -- but we can test if it is aggressive in a couple of months... (The news this week said that the quality of cancer care varied incredibly in different parts of this country with just 9 million people.)
Also note that after paying the high taxes to pay for the public health system, very few can afford to go private.
(That said -- the US system seems incredibly fscked, but the country has 30 times the Swedish population and a centrally planned health care system is probably theoretically impossible there.)
Well, personally I'd agree that Microsoft's criminal business practices more are theft than crimes against humanity, according to the accepted legal term.
Yes, Microsoft hasn't participated in mass murders or normal atrocities against civilians -- but have literally lowered the quality of life for many people. With more competition, there would have been more alternatives and faster evolution in the software jungle. That would mean a better life for me and many others. (I guess we should be happy Gates didn't go into politics...)
If you want to argue against that, you are arguing for the advantage of centrally planned systems and against competition; the economists seem to have finished that argument.
On the other hand. the economists might argue that many (if far from all) of the people suffering are computer people -- and hence it might be considered a Good Thing...:-)
So let me get this straight: YOU rant incoherently, clearly not having reading the article or studied the issue for more than 30 seconds, but THEY haven't thought it through?
You have a point, it is a well considered issue. But you also have it a bit wrong.
The main motivation is probably that 2006 is an election year in Sweden.
So that was a very well considered press release... The idea is to defuse a question or to attract some voter group. Lots of expensive, mostly spin, consultants has probably considered the question.
The world will be trying to lessen the oil use, yes. But if it takes 14 or 24 years in Sweden probably doesn't have anything to do with that declaration!
I wonder, would this have been news if it was a rock core sample? [...] it seems a little strange to suggest that people outside this field of science should get excited.
Nukes are neat. You might be able to build 'em big enough to solve this, but there might be consequences.:-)
If nothing else, nukes close to the Earth would blow the civilian satellites with radiation. That is why Orions can't start from the surface these days, if I remember correctly from the "Project Orion" book...:-(
I read about an alternative on the Usenet space groups. See the first hit on
this, for instance.
What's the chance that ebooks will be available on a media-charge-only basis to those who already have the dead-tree edition?
Youth of today has no historical memory!
Remember when we went over to CDs? You could trade a LP in for a CD. Very generous. It will certainly be the same here. Sony is second only to Microsoft as the ethical bedrock of the world; they care about customers.
(So I don't start a bad meme -- this post might contain a little bit of irony.)
Apple, on the other hand, is notorious for being overly optimistic in their speed comparisons - They always pick the benchmark which will make the competition look as bad as possible
This brings back bad memories when I was trying to reason with the most dishonest troll (Swedish) I've even heard of. He probably printed the netiquette on his toilet papers; quoting emails, fragrant lying, lying about things in email(!), canceling of posts (I don't know if he used to repost falsified ones, though). Etc, etc.
I don't disagree with your points on Apple marketing speech regarding processor speeds. They are as bad as Intel and SPEC marks, but that is with the processor maker. If you would design a test to cheat on it, here is how you'd do it:
Take an old, respected test used to compare standard systems, not processors
Join the organization releasing the tests and put lots of money into it, so you can both influence the choices and see coming test versions early (needed for the rest of the steps)
Specially build test systems with faster memory architectures than any standard chipset supports (the SPEC said that you had to be able to buy the systems; let some people write that they had 'em!)
Specially write a compiler that literally generates hand optimized code for the specific test cases in the SPEC suite; have a ok compiler added to it for any other use
Make certain the test code isn't released unless people pays too much money for individuals (otherwise the previous steps are quite meaningless)
Publish the test figures everywhere and make certain journo's mention them as gospel
I haven't trusted the computer press since. Big advertisers can do anything and smell like roses.
Disclaimer: It was quite a while ago so details on the SPEC might be wrong -- and I don't know anything about the last 6-7 years.
(-: Full disclosure of my loves and hates to verify veracity: PCs I buy are strictly AMD since I read up on SPEC. I like Macs, Debian and Emacs. Vi and RPM are bad. I think about moving to BSD. Microsoft is criminal (sorry, that was a verdict, not opinion).:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Then you do crossover so one in the new generation can get "extra" material from a parent? In that way, a gene can be copied and modified. That is a known mechanism in the genome. There are lots of genes in every species that are modified copies of other genes.
Without any new species being created.
You could probably do a trivial mathematical argument that such a crossover operation in the normal genome has the same "algorithmic power" as crossover + mutations, since crossover operations could cut/paste in the same information -- given enough cuts and pastes from different areas...
But, sigh, are there even theories that suggest the possibility of stasis fields?
Well... there are multiple engines for including Perl in a web page like Mason and Apache::ASP.
But the Perl world is moving away from code-in-html. Generally, it is considered a better idea to isolate UI and logic from each other. The web frameworks for Perl, like e.g. Catalyst and Jifty, generally use Template engines like HTML::Template and Template Toolkit (Google/cpan yourself.)
It is possible to get there -- but I believe you have to consciously work for it. The "standard" will quickly degenerate if you don't educate new users when they arrive. (My politeness level isn't always that high on Kuro5hin, but much better here on slashdot.)
To get a "nice" culture, I think you have to work for it. Perlmonks got there by a quite simple voting system -- and the oldtimers put energy into whipping new arrivals into shape.
You argued that since Hezbollah is a terror organization, it can't break war laws.
I answered that "argument" with that EU, amongst others, doesn't consider Hezb a terror organization and that it is friggin' illegal to be a terror organization anyway (by definition, they do things that would be classified war crimes if a state did them). So it is quite equivalent.
I really can't see how your definition game can matter, since committing war crimes like targeting civilians (by EU definition) is about as bad as being a terrorist organization. At least troll well if you have nothing to say.
I argued that -- Afaik, Israel hasn't targeted civilians as primary targets but that if you have an air bombing campaign, you will hit civilians -- it isn't war crimes and that Hezb had lots of control over which dead was counted as civilians and which were counted as Hezb (almost none, strangely enough).
You point out that Amnesty and HRW accused Israel of bombing civilian infrastructure needlessly (HRW reformulated the initial claims to be that they couldn't find Hezb where Israelis had bombed, which is logical since there will be mistaken targeting -- and it isn't believable they can have an opinion when being shepherded by Hezb through bombing sites, check other documents on their sites). Which isn't relevant for my point, either. (Others in this thread have pointed out documented cases of where Hezb really integrated Iran's, sorry, their infrastructure with civilians.)
If you are going to be a troll, at least don't be a stupid and boring one.
The EU doesn't classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization -- so they break war laws, according to EU. It breaks international law to be a terrorist organization, by definition. You can't defend Hezbollah's behaviour.
Afaik, Israel hasn't targeted civilians as primary targets. If nothing else, that would be stupid, since they can only lose by doing so -- in international opinion and in internal opinion in Israel. (You will get misses and wrongful targeting in any war. That is legal.) Also, Hezbollah have an interest in getting civilians killed -- and could influence the count of what the dead was...
Also, since you obviously know even less than me about counter artillery fire, why don't you read up on the subject before blaiming one side for shooting back at people targeting their civilians...? Because that is what every damn army will do on the planet.
First, please read up on war laws -- it is frigging illegal to use civilians for shields in a war. As it is to explicitly target civilians. Hezbollah did both, at the same time!
Second, afaik, counter artillery is so fast that they only go after values on an arillery radar. Often/usually, the artillery doesn't really know what they shoot back at! Because of that, Hezbollah was probably trying to get Israel to kill civilians for propaganda values rather than to get shields.
Third, an army that as a matter of planning use civilians for cover to shoot at other civilians -- and you blaim the side shooting back equally?!?! Talk about double standards.
Well, there were interviews in Washington Post (and NY Times, but my memory can fool me here) about how the Hezbollah used to go into Christian villages and fire rockets and run away before the counter fire came.
Hundreds?! Can you give a source for THAT claim?
I am not a military expert, but I think history over millennia has shown two working ways of handling fanatical guerillas in bad terrain: (a) Hearts and minds of the civilian population and (b) clearing the area of people totally and not leave stone on stone.
"(a)" is hardly possible with the Shia by the Israeli border. Saddam Hussein did a variant of "(b)" with the Shia after their uprising -- outright atrocities in such a volume they stopped giving him trouble. A civilized country like Israel can't do that unless they are desperate (or the Palestinian problems would only be in history books).
Hezbollah isn't so much a guerilla as a dug down army division. Their problem is that they are easy to keep down using air -- and then use a big army unit clearing out area after area.
Let us hope none of the methods will have to be done -- and that the international community will keep its promise this time and make it a calm border. If Hezbollah continues to throw rock on the bear, it will certainly wake up again, angrier for every time it happens.
The problem is that fewer can afford "going private" -- after paying much higher taxes to pay for everyone else's health care.
(But the US health care system seems even more dysfunctional than my local Swedish one. That is another discussion.)
Emacs. Vi is bad.
Since most countries will have a higher living standard, consider the worst case problem:Sounds like what the bleeding hearth leftists want, but implemented by the economist right wingers...
If your country is mismanaged, you have to write code for half the pay of people living in better managed countries.
To take a local Swedish example, you don't want to hear that the cancer clinic is closed for the summer -- but we can test if it is aggressive in a couple of months... (The news this week said that the quality of cancer care varied incredibly in different parts of this country with just 9 million people.)
Also note that after paying the high taxes to pay for the public health system, very few can afford to go private.
(That said -- the US system seems incredibly fscked, but the country has 30 times the Swedish population and a centrally planned health care system is probably theoretically impossible there.)
(Hint: you can't remove the oxygen supply of Open Source projects...)
BeOS, sigh... That could have been neat. :-(
But what is better for Hindi and Urdu -- Vi or Emacs?
Sigh... but I guess a bit of flame war is a good change of pace in this dull story about Linux deployment in a traditional Windows markets.
Yes, Microsoft hasn't participated in mass murders or normal atrocities against civilians -- but have literally lowered the quality of life for many people. With more competition, there would have been more alternatives and faster evolution in the software jungle. That would mean a better life for me and many others. (I guess we should be happy Gates didn't go into politics...)
If you want to argue against that, you are arguing for the advantage of centrally planned systems and against competition; the economists seem to have finished that argument.
On the other hand. the economists might argue that many (if far from all) of the people suffering are computer people -- and hence it might be considered a Good Thing... :-)
How can you make such broad statements? Are you a troll or does this go against your religion (christianity, marxism, etc)?
(Now, which way did evolutional pressures go? We won't know much for quite a few years.)
The worst problem was pH levels in lakes. (-: Forests are the only things growing well in most parts of e.g. Sweden. :-)
The main motivation is probably that 2006 is an election year in Sweden.
So that was a very well considered press release... The idea is to defuse a question or to attract some voter group. Lots of expensive, mostly spin, consultants has probably considered the question.
The world will be trying to lessen the oil use, yes. But if it takes 14 or 24 years in Sweden probably doesn't have anything to do with that declaration!
You can find more news articles about old rocks if you Google for a minute.
If nothing else, nukes close to the Earth would blow the civilian satellites with radiation. That is why Orions can't start from the surface these days, if I remember correctly from the "Project Orion" book... :-(
I read about an alternative on the Usenet space groups. See the first hit on this, for instance.
Remember when we went over to CDs? You could trade a LP in for a CD. Very generous. It will certainly be the same here. Sony is second only to Microsoft as the ethical bedrock of the world; they care about customers.
(So I don't start a bad meme -- this post might contain a little bit of irony.)
Second comment on a story points out that it is a dupe. And is moded as Redundant??
I don't disagree with your points on Apple marketing speech regarding processor speeds. They are as bad as Intel and SPEC marks, but that is with the processor maker. If you would design a test to cheat on it, here is how you'd do it:
I haven't trusted the computer press since. Big advertisers can do anything and smell like roses.
Disclaimer: It was quite a while ago so details on the SPEC might be wrong -- and I don't know anything about the last 6-7 years.
(-: Full disclosure of my loves and hates to verify veracity: PCs I buy are strictly AMD since I read up on SPEC. I like Macs, Debian and Emacs. Vi and RPM are bad. I think about moving to BSD. Microsoft is criminal (sorry, that was a verdict, not opinion). :-)
Without Googling, I think public reviews of other really complex languages, like C, has taken as long...
(And for any sleep deprived (and/or idiots) that might be reading the above -- yes, C is a relatively simple language. That was irony.)