The matrix? Also soon, A Scanner Darkly is coming out. Obviously I don't know if it will be any good. It will be rotoscoped with the same software that Bob Sabiston created and was used in Waking Life, which was somewhat in the same vein, but not really a cohesive story.
Some new technology failed to change the world and usher in a new utopia, so instead of blogs nestling in and finding their place in everyday life, anyone involved with blogging are tearing their clothes and gnashing their teeth, wailing out loud "Why?! Why oh why did we ever BLOG?!"
" Richard Feynman is mildly famous for having said that "I love to think and I don't want to screw
up the machine," electing to go with sensory deprivation instead of drugs to get a hallucinogenic experience going."
Are you certain that sensory deprevation is safer than LSD? Furthermore, evidence that LSD is damaging to the mind is suspect (There is aboslutely no evidence that it damages the brain). Stories about people who've 'freaked out' on acid or other drugs were most likely already insane or mentally unstable. Remember, *a lot* of people did *a lot* of drugs in the sixties, and you don't see every middle-aged baby boomer in the asylum, do you?
Unfortunately, because of the war on drugs, it's difficult to get good data on what LSD does. We really don't understand currently how it works on the mind.
The bot you're talking about has to be able to figure out and invent several different strategies, and guess and hypthesize about whether or not his opponent is using any of these strategies. Meanwhile it tries to hide its strategy, making itself impossible to figure out. A good one should aslo assume that the other bots are trying to fool it by not making their strategy apparent.
4. Has no emotions, so it won't get stressed or tired,
check
5. And will always make the right move probability-wise.
What clues does the bot have? IT knows what cards are showing, but it *could* know what cards the otehr players had if it could reverse engineer its strategy -- if it could understand other bots. It would have to be a metabot - a bot of bots, and bot that understands other bots.
This is the beginning of AI. When a bot becomes aware of other bots, it will become self-aware.
You have electronic voting for swift totalling, which requires less volunteers to work. If there are any suspicious results, or apparent tampering with the electronic record, however, then get the paper trail and count it.
"I was trying to point out the fact that men and women have different strategies, on the average. Sure, there's overlap. Strategies are not widely divergent. But they're not identical either. And in a culture where people are supposed to be equal and identical, somtimes that kind of comment gets a lot of negative feedback."
Now I understand your point. You are correct. Men and women do have different strategies, and it is due to the upper limit of their reproductive capabilities.
"I'm pointing out that the upper limit is lower for women. There are a few male outliers who are very reproductivly successful, and will dramatically increase the variation of reproductive success between men and women."
It seems that you're overlooking the fact that the women's upper limit also apply to men. What I mean is that men don't have an infinite supply of women; each women that he mates with has this upper limit. So, if you take a guy that has hundreds of children, he's 'using up' the potential children of other males. So a guy has an upper limit of the aggregate upper limits of all potential females.
I think the discussion needs to look at the entire pool of potentially mateable men and women, over several generations. If one guy is impregnating all the women, and this occurs over succcessive generations, then soon you have very inbred people.
Yes, there are a few instances of harems around the world. But, there are some animals which *always* have a harem -- I think, for instance, lions and gorillas. There are one or two males to have access to all the females and impregnate all of them. When a new male comes into power, he kill s all of the immature offspring of other males. But, *people don't do this consistently*.
Another social arrangement is lifetime monogamy. I think this is another ideal that doesn't match reality.
I think the 'natural' human situation is much like it is today with 'mixed marriages' (yours, mine, and ours) -- both parents will have children with 2-3 partners.
High class society strives for lifetime monogamy. Middle class, which is a relatively recent development in human society, used to strive for that, but I think in modern day Europe and America, it's more like children with 2-3 partners. And, of course, the 'low' class has always been 'yours, mine, and ours'.
So yes, in some societies, you see wealthy members with harems, or lifetime monogamy, but I think that is an expensive social structure to maintain. (Royalty have gone to great lengths to maintain the perception of lifetime monogamy, when that isn't always the case). I think biologically, humans have children with 1, 2 or 3 partners. Harems or monogamous relationships can be maintained by the wealthy, but they have to be actively maintained or they will break down into the natural human setup. You know, harem owners will share their harems with relatives and close friends -- and if the harem owner hits hard times, he can be bailed out by relatives and friends, probably in exchange for women. And I'm sure you know how monogamies break up.
Anyways, if you look at people as biological organism, we don't have queens and workers, we don't have male-dominated harems. We have children with 1, 2, or 3 partners. If you ask people they might *say* you shoud have a harem or a life-long monogamy, but the ideal is the exception.
The folder heirarchy is *one way* that people think.
We had this problem at an office I worked at a while back. We were a manufacutring borker broker, and we would get an invoice from a manufacturer that was to go a client in turn. Physically, we would put the original in the manufacturer's file, and put a photocopy in the client's folder. When we were computerizing, my manager thought that we should have copies of the scanned invoice in both the manufacturer's *and* client's folder.
I explained how much extra space this would take, and there were other documents that belonged in *several* folders. This was easily going to chew up all of our available disk space and backup in a few months. I tried to get them on a **relational database**, which stores the invoice *only once*, and cross-lists it under both the client and the manufacturer. When you do a query, either for client or manufacturer, you get the files that apply to the query arguments.
Anyway, my ideas never got traction, and AFAIK, the office is still using paper.
Re:PHP definitely does not follow the KISS princip
on
A Decade of PHP
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I agree with the simple inconsistencies. What annoyts -- no, frustrates -- me most is that the functions that have a string and an array for an argument is that sometimes the array comes first, and sometimes the other argument comes first. I hate it.
OK, so a few sultans can father potentially dozens of children. What about all the other guys in the tribe? How many of the women in the tribe are getting their 10 babies used up on one guy? Can that single guy provide for his 100s of children?
In a situation where you have a women with ~10 children from, say, 3-4 different fathers, don't those women have more male resources to draw on (for food and protection) to care for the children? (assuming that men may not be certain about paternity, or that the mother will share equally resources provided by one or more children's father).
I think the real numbers we need to look at is the reproductive success of those children.
The mouse is a selection tool, a filter. The keyboard is a creative combinatorial tool. There is a reason why every modern desktop computer has both. Actually there are probably several reasons.
We're comparing shovels to screwdrivers here, folks.
Does anyone know what UFO 'incident' he was looking for? Unless it was recent, I wouldn't think that there would be digital records. All the documentaries I've seen for alleged UFO cover ups show paper records. I would think that anything from 1990 back would exist solely on paper.
Slashdot Mirror
The people who would buy three hours of on-site tech support are those who would not be able to set up a new computer.
Have you *seen* it?
Does this blacklist have a name?
The matrix? Also soon, A Scanner Darkly is coming out. Obviously I don't know if it will be any good. It will be rotoscoped with the same software that Bob Sabiston created and was used in Waking Life, which was somewhat in the same vein, but not really a cohesive story.
Go ahead.
I know this is slashdot and all, but really, you should get out more.
I would be interested in bacertial or fungal marketing.
$> look building
You see an email address scrawled on the bricks.
$>grafitti email address
You get some nice pop art in return.
$>look light pole
You see an adhesive arrow.
$>look adhesive arrow.
You find the key to neaby building!
$>use key on door
You unlock the door.
Some new technology failed to change the world and usher in a new utopia, so instead of blogs nestling in and finding their place in everyday life, anyone involved with blogging are tearing their clothes and gnashing their teeth, wailing out loud "Why?! Why oh why did we ever BLOG?!"
He was crazy beforehand. Has nothing to do with Acid or any other drug.
Are you certain that sensory deprevation is safer than LSD? Furthermore, evidence that LSD is damaging to the mind is suspect (There is aboslutely no evidence that it damages the brain). Stories about people who've 'freaked out' on acid or other drugs were most likely already insane or mentally unstable. Remember, *a lot* of people did *a lot* of drugs in the sixties, and you don't see every middle-aged baby boomer in the asylum, do you?
Unfortunately, because of the war on drugs, it's difficult to get good data on what LSD does. We really don't understand currently how it works on the mind.
The bot you're talking about has to be able to figure out and invent several different strategies, and guess and hypthesize about whether or not his opponent is using any of these strategies. Meanwhile it tries to hide its strategy, making itself impossible to figure out. A good one should aslo assume that the other bots are trying to fool it by not making their strategy apparent.
check.
check.
check
check
5. And will always make the right move probability-wise.
What clues does the bot have? IT knows what cards are showing, but it *could* know what cards the otehr players had if it could reverse engineer its strategy -- if it could understand other bots. It would have to be a metabot - a bot of bots, and bot that understands other bots.
This is the beginning of AI. When a bot becomes aware of other bots, it will become self-aware.
But doesn't the Federal Government hold copyright on its own publications, which is what the article says it wants to digitize?
Probably Terran or *possibly* Protoss. Very rarely do Terrans ally with Zerg, unless...
But would such an attack survive a 3rd party human audit of the source code?
You have electronic voting for swift totalling, which requires less volunteers to work. If there are any suspicious results, or apparent tampering with the electronic record, however, then get the paper trail and count it.
Now I understand your point. You are correct. Men and women do have different strategies, and it is due to the upper limit of their reproductive capabilities.
It seems that you're overlooking the fact that the women's upper limit also apply to men. What I mean is that men don't have an infinite supply of women; each women that he mates with has this upper limit. So, if you take a guy that has hundreds of children, he's 'using up' the potential children of other males. So a guy has an upper limit of the aggregate upper limits of all potential females.
I think the discussion needs to look at the entire pool of potentially mateable men and women, over several generations. If one guy is impregnating all the women, and this occurs over succcessive generations, then soon you have very inbred people.
Yes, there are a few instances of harems around the world. But, there are some animals which *always* have a harem -- I think, for instance, lions and gorillas. There are one or two males to have access to all the females and impregnate all of them. When a new male comes into power, he kill s all of the immature offspring of other males. But, *people don't do this consistently*.
Another social arrangement is lifetime monogamy. I think this is another ideal that doesn't match reality.
I think the 'natural' human situation is much like it is today with 'mixed marriages' (yours, mine, and ours) -- both parents will have children with 2-3 partners.
High class society strives for lifetime monogamy. Middle class, which is a relatively recent development in human society, used to strive for that, but I think in modern day Europe and America, it's more like children with 2-3 partners. And, of course, the 'low' class has always been 'yours, mine, and ours'.
So yes, in some societies, you see wealthy members with harems, or lifetime monogamy, but I think that is an expensive social structure to maintain. (Royalty have gone to great lengths to maintain the perception of lifetime monogamy, when that isn't always the case). I think biologically, humans have children with 1, 2 or 3 partners. Harems or monogamous relationships can be maintained by the wealthy, but they have to be actively maintained or they will break down into the natural human setup. You know, harem owners will share their harems with relatives and close friends -- and if the harem owner hits hard times, he can be bailed out by relatives and friends, probably in exchange for women. And I'm sure you know how monogamies break up.
Anyways, if you look at people as biological organism, we don't have queens and workers, we don't have male-dominated harems. We have children with 1, 2, or 3 partners. If you ask people they might *say* you shoud have a harem or a life-long monogamy, but the ideal is the exception.
Yes, you're right, but AFAIK, Win2k doesn't support symlinks :P
We had this problem at an office I worked at a while back. We were a manufacutring borker broker, and we would get an invoice from a manufacturer that was to go a client in turn. Physically, we would put the original in the manufacturer's file, and put a photocopy in the client's folder. When we were computerizing, my manager thought that we should have copies of the scanned invoice in both the manufacturer's *and* client's folder.
I explained how much extra space this would take, and there were other documents that belonged in *several* folders. This was easily going to chew up all of our available disk space and backup in a few months. I tried to get them on a **relational database**, which stores the invoice *only once*, and cross-lists it under both the client and the manufacturer. When you do a query, either for client or manufacturer, you get the files that apply to the query arguments.
Anyway, my ideas never got traction, and AFAIK, the office is still using paper.
I agree with the simple inconsistencies. What annoyts -- no, frustrates -- me most is that the functions that have a string and an array for an argument is that sometimes the array comes first, and sometimes the other argument comes first. I hate it.
In a situation where you have a women with ~10 children from, say, 3-4 different fathers, don't those women have more male resources to draw on (for food and protection) to care for the children? (assuming that men may not be certain about paternity, or that the mother will share equally resources provided by one or more children's father).
I think the real numbers we need to look at is the reproductive success of those children.
We're comparing shovels to screwdrivers here, folks.
Does anyone know what UFO 'incident' he was looking for? Unless it was recent, I wouldn't think that there would be digital records. All the documentaries I've seen for alleged UFO cover ups show paper records. I would think that anything from 1990 back would exist solely on paper.