Other people are using a *public* wifi connection you're connected to, using some of the bandwidth you feel you're entitled to, so you attack them with a cache poisoning exploit?
Hopefully you do this to someone who can hit back. Or just get arrested.
The best thing about Python is Cython. You can use all the nice bits of Python and then when you want something to run fast you can write some C code and just use it.
I often use Python to help write C where standard debuggers don't cut it. Need to graph something or display an image to debug your algorithm? No problem. And when you're done, you have Python wrappers as a bonus.
R is going strong because there isn't really an alternative. It's a pretty horrible language, but that part is copied from something else (SPlus).
Python is much the same. R evolved to replace things like SAS, which are expensive, proprietary and clunky for research. Python got adopted to replace MatLab, which is expensive, proprietary and can be clunky for many kinds of research. In both cases, there's a lot of ancillary stuff that needs to work well - plotting, signal and image processing, interfaces to peripherals, databases, etc. In science, whatever most people choose is going to become dominant and stay that way until there's a good reason to switch.
So, here's my problem with whitespace being syntactically significant... everybody likes to see code with different levels of indent. There isn't one "naturally readable" way which everybody agrees on. And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".
Use tabs. Set your tab stop to however many spaces you like. There you go. As a bonus, I can read your code with my preferred level of indent as well.
One of the few things that irritates me about Python is the PEP that suggests you should use spaces for whitespace.
I'm not sure what acceptable support is, which is one of the reasons I'd like to hear whether you have any actual foundation for your argument.
There are a few learning strategies that animals, including humans, have been observed to use. One is mimicry, which has been demonstrated in primates (just recently for the first time by macaques in the wild), where one animal watches another perform a task then imitates it. Another is reinforcement learning, where an animal becomes more likely to demonstrate a given behaviour due to a positive outcome, or less likely due to a negative one. The general theme is learning through repetition and some form of positive and negative feedback.
Both of those learning strategies have been demonstrated by programs.
You seem to be implying that humans somehow learn differently than programs because the program is "programmed" and we're not. Do you have anything to support that assertion, besides "it's blatantly obvious to anyone with technical experience?" There's fairly good evidence that we've been "programmed" very effectively, and quite beyond what most of us would like to believe, by evolution.
You may not modify, distribute, publish, compile, share, view or in any other way make use of this source code without the express written permission of Richard M. Stallman. This is for the protection of your freedoms, comrade!
Open source is pretty IRRELEVANT to the average user. They want something that lets them run Word and look at Facebook. To anybody with the technical ability to make use of the source, the open parts of OS X are the important ones. Not having the source code to your window manager isn't the end of the world. For example, this situation - the vulnerability is in the open source part, so you can go ahead and patch it yourself.
It's a stupid statement anyway. OS X is partly open source and partly closed. The bug is in the open source bit. So just download a patched version of bash, compile it, and install. Problem solved, just like you could do with any open source OS. People have even written a bunch of scripts to do the whole thing for you.
Somebody else already told you about Theano. To add to that, a lot of neural net stuff gets done in Python because Theano will happily take your equation, compile it for a multi-GPU or CPU setup, optimize it, and run it fast.
A neural net is a couple of equations that need to run fast and a lot of data manipulation and visualization. Theano, Cython, a C module, pyOpenCL/pyCUDA, or something equivalent takes care of the little bit that needs to be fast.
My statement is not based on observational evidence alone. Several countries have done the experiment. See the various things Bangladesh has done, for example. There's even a great TED talk on it.
Educating women is by far the most effective means of reducing population growth, and various agencies from national governments to the UN have discovered that it's extremely difficult to do that until people have enough to eat. Otherwise the kids go to work growing food instead of going to school. That's also a contributing factor to poor families having lots of kids - cheap labour to help out growing food or running the business. "Who's going to take care of me when I'm old" seems to be less than a primary concern when you don't have enough to eat.
There aren't. From outside the event horizon, a singularity of a particular mass is indistinguishable from an object with that matter distributed evenly throughout the volume within the event horizon, or a shell of matter right at the event horizon. Never mind from ten thousand light years away.
The other part, about stars never being able to form an object with an event horizon, is, at least in principle, observationally testable. But I don't think we've examined any stellar black hole candidates closely enough.
The slowest population growth (it's negative) is in the first world, among populations that have plenty of food. Your assertion simply isn't supported by reality.
An abundance of food creates leisure time, which allows people, especially women, to do things like go to school. Educated people, especially women, have fewer babies. As has been shown over and over and over, the solution to population growth problems is secure basic needs followed by education. The only problem is that it works too well.
"Emanuel says that Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible."
Omitting the fad stuff, exercise and eating well improve the length of time you will remain healthy. The quote makes it sound like taking care of yourself will just let you hang on by your fingernails for a little bit longer. The opposite is actually true. Exercise, diet and mental engagement in particular improve health and mental function in old age, not necessarily overall longevity.
If you want to be a healthy octogenarian, take care of yourself now. If you want to be frail and going in for your third bypass operation, don't.
There's actually some decent research on that point. A surprising number of people die very close to the age they expect to, more than can be explained by genetics. The placebo effect is a powerful thing.
I'm convinced I'm immortal, so things might be interesting in forty or fifty years.
Enjoy your life, don't wait for your retirement. I don't see an especially good chance of ever being able to retire. Plus there are a lot of things I want to do while I can comfortably walk for eight hours a day, see, hear and smell well, and take a hit or two.
Slashdot Mirror
Other people are using a *public* wifi connection you're connected to, using some of the bandwidth you feel you're entitled to, so you attack them with a cache poisoning exploit?
Hopefully you do this to someone who can hit back. Or just get arrested.
How is a high level interpreted language "basics"?
We'll all eventually decide assembly programming is best.
The best thing about Python is Cython. You can use all the nice bits of Python and then when you want something to run fast you can write some C code and just use it.
I often use Python to help write C where standard debuggers don't cut it. Need to graph something or display an image to debug your algorithm? No problem. And when you're done, you have Python wrappers as a bonus.
R is going strong because there isn't really an alternative. It's a pretty horrible language, but that part is copied from something else (SPlus).
Python is much the same. R evolved to replace things like SAS, which are expensive, proprietary and clunky for research. Python got adopted to replace MatLab, which is expensive, proprietary and can be clunky for many kinds of research. In both cases, there's a lot of ancillary stuff that needs to work well - plotting, signal and image processing, interfaces to peripherals, databases, etc. In science, whatever most people choose is going to become dominant and stay that way until there's a good reason to switch.
Use tabs. Set your tab stop to however many spaces you like. There you go. As a bonus, I can read your code with my preferred level of indent as well.
One of the few things that irritates me about Python is the PEP that suggests you should use spaces for whitespace.
Well, Holonyak just made a red version of existing IR LEDs, so giving him the prize would be doing the same thing to the IR LED inventors.
You haven't seen Resident Evil, hey?
I'm not sure what acceptable support is, which is one of the reasons I'd like to hear whether you have any actual foundation for your argument.
There are a few learning strategies that animals, including humans, have been observed to use. One is mimicry, which has been demonstrated in primates (just recently for the first time by macaques in the wild), where one animal watches another perform a task then imitates it. Another is reinforcement learning, where an animal becomes more likely to demonstrate a given behaviour due to a positive outcome, or less likely due to a negative one. The general theme is learning through repetition and some form of positive and negative feedback.
Both of those learning strategies have been demonstrated by programs.
You seem to be implying that humans somehow learn differently than programs because the program is "programmed" and we're not. Do you have anything to support that assertion, besides "it's blatantly obvious to anyone with technical experience?" There's fairly good evidence that we've been "programmed" very effectively, and quite beyond what most of us would like to believe, by evolution.
He said modern language.
The GPL v4:
You may not modify, distribute, publish, compile, share, view or in any other way make use of this source code without the express written permission of Richard M. Stallman. This is for the protection of your freedoms, comrade!
Open source is pretty IRRELEVANT to the average user. They want something that lets them run Word and look at Facebook. To anybody with the technical ability to make use of the source, the open parts of OS X are the important ones. Not having the source code to your window manager isn't the end of the world. For example, this situation - the vulnerability is in the open source part, so you can go ahead and patch it yourself.
It's a stupid statement anyway. OS X is partly open source and partly closed. The bug is in the open source bit. So just download a patched version of bash, compile it, and install. Problem solved, just like you could do with any open source OS. People have even written a bunch of scripts to do the whole thing for you.
That's what the giant samurai robot was for.
Learn about deep networks. Google is throwing money at people who can build them.
Your post is entirely reasonable except for:
"but it's not the same as 'human learning' at all."
You need to support that position.
Somebody else already told you about Theano. To add to that, a lot of neural net stuff gets done in Python because Theano will happily take your equation, compile it for a multi-GPU or CPU setup, optimize it, and run it fast.
A neural net is a couple of equations that need to run fast and a lot of data manipulation and visualization. Theano, Cython, a C module, pyOpenCL/pyCUDA, or something equivalent takes care of the little bit that needs to be fast.
My statement is not based on observational evidence alone. Several countries have done the experiment. See the various things Bangladesh has done, for example. There's even a great TED talk on it.
Educating women is by far the most effective means of reducing population growth, and various agencies from national governments to the UN have discovered that it's extremely difficult to do that until people have enough to eat. Otherwise the kids go to work growing food instead of going to school. That's also a contributing factor to poor families having lots of kids - cheap labour to help out growing food or running the business. "Who's going to take care of me when I'm old" seems to be less than a primary concern when you don't have enough to eat.
Since the OP is referring to a population problem.
There aren't. From outside the event horizon, a singularity of a particular mass is indistinguishable from an object with that matter distributed evenly throughout the volume within the event horizon, or a shell of matter right at the event horizon. Never mind from ten thousand light years away.
The other part, about stars never being able to form an object with an event horizon, is, at least in principle, observationally testable. But I don't think we've examined any stellar black hole candidates closely enough.
The slowest population growth (it's negative) is in the first world, among populations that have plenty of food. Your assertion simply isn't supported by reality.
An abundance of food creates leisure time, which allows people, especially women, to do things like go to school. Educated people, especially women, have fewer babies. As has been shown over and over and over, the solution to population growth problems is secure basic needs followed by education. The only problem is that it works too well.
Fucking makes problems better. Fucking without contraceptives makes things worse.
Don't worry, that will change in a hurry when the boomers start going into nursing homes. There are lots of bedpans that are going to need emptying.
From the summary:
"Emanuel says that Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible."
Omitting the fad stuff, exercise and eating well improve the length of time you will remain healthy. The quote makes it sound like taking care of yourself will just let you hang on by your fingernails for a little bit longer. The opposite is actually true. Exercise, diet and mental engagement in particular improve health and mental function in old age, not necessarily overall longevity.
If you want to be a healthy octogenarian, take care of yourself now. If you want to be frail and going in for your third bypass operation, don't.
There's actually some decent research on that point. A surprising number of people die very close to the age they expect to, more than can be explained by genetics. The placebo effect is a powerful thing.
I'm convinced I'm immortal, so things might be interesting in forty or fifty years.
Enjoy your life, don't wait for your retirement. I don't see an especially good chance of ever being able to retire. Plus there are a lot of things I want to do while I can comfortably walk for eight hours a day, see, hear and smell well, and take a hit or two.