Fuzzy logic doesn't use probabilities--just weights. Probabilities add up to 1. Fuzzy values can add up to more than 1. For instance, If I say a cup of tea is hot, and on a scale of 0 to 1 weight the "hotness" of the tea, I may rank it at.7 . Under a fuzzy system, that doesn't mean I rank the "coldness" of the tea at.3 . It could be more or less or equal to.3.
Yeah, I would like to see a really hot CG Shannon Tweed style psychological thriller, you know where the fly-ass shrink/sex therapist can't stop banging everyone.
But I also think they could make some bad ass gun-fu scenes with this stuff. Stuff that would shame The Matrix. And explosions, lots of cool explosions.
Re:theory, - Moderators what are you smoking?
on
One of Many
·
· Score: 1
A fact is a phenomena that can be measured or directly observed.
The problem with "ah well, these guys were just poking around, the publishers should have used proper security" is that it raises the bar of what security is to what we experts think it ought to be. Many people don't have the capability to employ such measures, so we're denying them legal recourse.
1. These people are experts.
2. From a practical viewpoint, it should not have been on that server if it wasn't to be served. Anyone with sensitive data should at least be able to employ that measure. 3. Why should they have legal recourse against typing things in the address bar of a browser?
If the P4 takes a narrow and deep approach to performance and the G4e takes a wide and shallow approach, the 970's approach could be characterized as wide and deep
Hey ladies!! My approach could be characterized as wide and deep too.
Having no grand narrative in not a bad thing per se.
I see the absence of such a grand narrative as a more real responsibility on the programmer/computer scientist to be very deliberate with what they do and thus create a better specific narrative, rather than relying on the status quo and the past to validate their efforts.
Yeah Postmodernism is *neat*, and I do agree that CS needs more "thinking outside the box" that is more than just *marketing* pretty cases, but. ..
Section 9 is titled "No Metaphor" and begins, "Postmodern programming rejects overreaching grand narratives." The 5th paragraph begins "Within modern computer science. ..there is an intellectual posture that accepts metaphors from other disciplines uncritically, without providing arguments as to why that metaphor should be applicable."
Isn't *Postmodernism* a metaphor from another discipline, presented here without arguments as to why that metaphor *should* be applicable? And as such, doesn't that make their paper a "grand narrative"?
No, that is the formal root of things. It can be used to show things like, a program cannot be written that will decide if another arbitrary program will halt on a given input. Or that a particular calculation, while possible, cannot possibly complete in any amount of useful time.
What they're saying is that formal methods cannot show that any given specification of a problem is correct. The key words being *semiotic* and *abduction*. This is where the new "root of things" is in postmodern CS.
I was talking to a friend about a more libertarian or maybe even anarchistic legal system . ..I think there really is a constructive role for government to play, if only they were effective and actually represented the people. ..I forget the technical legal term. . . and he was telling me about an example (which I also forgot).
In a way, I think Napster helped kill the idea that unsigned bands could easily be successful by publishing their stuff on the Internet (and getting free airtime).
Was that really an idea? Doesn't really follow if you ask me. I guess it depends on what you mean by *successful*.
They will be successful at providing access to their music. Providing access per se does not guarantee that anyone will listen to your music(believe me, I've played enough empty bars to know).
Internet access to music really only helps someone hear you if they are looking for you, like in your Van Halen example. But isn't that really all there is, or ever was, to making a successful band--getting someone to *look* for you? I guess the idea that any band could be *easily* successful doesn't make sense to me.
Slashdot Mirror
CG Yoda would kick CG Golum's ass.
Fuzzy logic doesn't use probabilities--just weights. Probabilities add up to 1. Fuzzy values can add up to more than 1. For instance, If I say a cup of tea is hot, and on a scale of 0 to 1 weight the "hotness" of the tea, I may rank it at .7 . Under a fuzzy system, that doesn't mean I rank the "coldness" of the tea at .3 . It could be more or less or equal to .3.
"Oh, Sam!"
Yeah, I would like to see a really hot CG Shannon Tweed style psychological thriller, you know where the fly-ass shrink/sex therapist can't stop banging everyone.
But I also think they could make some bad ass gun-fu scenes with this stuff. Stuff that would shame The Matrix. And explosions, lots of cool explosions.
A fact is a phenomena that can be measured or directly observed.
Really, is that a fact?
Yeah!! Like grow weed and smoke weed and stuff
And I'm allowed into your house to browse around if you forget to lock your windows. Get a grip.
No, but I'm allowed to see in your house if you leave the curtains/blinds open.
The problem with "ah well, these guys were just poking around, the publishers should have used proper security" is that it raises the bar of what security is to what we experts think it ought to be. Many people don't have the capability to employ such measures, so we're denying them legal recourse.
1. These people are experts.
2. From a practical viewpoint, it should not have been on that server if it wasn't to be served. Anyone with sensitive data should at least be able to employ that measure.
3. Why should they have legal recourse against typing things in the address bar of a browser?
I don't stand in front of the window facing the street with the curtains open, beating my meat when I don't want to be seen jerking off.
.
Well, except when, uh, you know. .
"The incident has severely damaged confidence in us as individuals and in Intentia as a company"
Well I should hope so. A business that writes software so business can collaborate should know how to run a webserver.
How could it possibly be considered private if it was accessable by url?
.htaccess -- or -- it could have been placed somewhere other than on a "production" server.
As the parent pointed out, it could have been protected by
If the P4 takes a narrow and deep approach to performance and the G4e takes a wide and shallow approach, the 970's approach could be characterized as wide and deep
Hey ladies!! My approach could be characterized as wide and deep too.
I saw this on a bumper sticker:
Militant Agnostic:
I don't know and I'm sure you don't either.
I'ma get you high today. 'Cause it's Friday, you ain't got no job, and you ain't got shit to do!!
Having no grand narrative in not a bad thing per se.
I see the absence of such a grand narrative as a more real responsibility on the programmer/computer scientist to be very deliberate with what they do and thus create a better specific narrative, rather than relying on the status quo and the past to validate their efforts.
It's *very* arrogant (and stupid) to try to tell a person starving in a 3rd world country that he/she is just part of a social construct.
Colonialism and it's aftermath are indeed real parts of reality, but guess what else they are.
Yeah Postmodernism is *neat*, and I do agree that CS needs more "thinking outside the box" that is more than just *marketing* pretty cases, but. . .
.there is an intellectual posture that accepts metaphors from other disciplines uncritically, without providing arguments as to why that metaphor should be applicable."
Section 9 is titled "No Metaphor" and begins, "Postmodern programming rejects overreaching grand narratives." The 5th paragraph begins "Within modern computer science. .
Isn't *Postmodernism* a metaphor from another discipline, presented here without arguments as to why that metaphor *should* be applicable? And as such, doesn't that make their paper a "grand narrative"?
No, that is the formal root of things. It can be used to show things like, a program cannot be written that will decide if another arbitrary program will halt on a given input. Or that a particular calculation, while possible, cannot possibly complete in any amount of useful time.
What they're saying is that formal methods cannot show that any given specification of a problem is correct. The key words being *semiotic* and *abduction*. This is where the new "root of things" is in postmodern CS.
My lawyer told me to inform you that I did not inhale.
Maybe they all have an Ellen Feiss fetish.
I was talking to a friend about a more libertarian or maybe even anarchistic legal system . . .I think there really is a constructive role for government to play, if only they were effective and actually represented the people. . .I forget the technical legal term. . . and he was telling me about an example (which I also forgot).
Yeah, I like smoking weed with my friends too.
Maybe in your socalist ideal world people can't do without the government holding their hands but most people can get by without them just fine.
Go you Anarchists Go Go!!
So is that Pentium 4 2.80G processor 2 times faster than a Pentium 4 1.4G?
If so, does it complete jobs 2 times faster?
This is crack-smoking semantics.
In a way, I think Napster helped kill the idea that unsigned bands could easily be successful by publishing their stuff on the Internet (and getting free airtime).
Was that really an idea? Doesn't really follow if you ask me. I guess it depends on what you mean by *successful*.
They will be successful at providing access to their music. Providing access per se does not guarantee that anyone will listen to your music(believe me, I've played enough empty bars to know).
Internet access to music really only helps someone hear you if they are looking for you, like in your Van Halen example. But isn't that really all there is, or ever was, to making a successful band--getting someone to *look* for you? I guess the idea that any band could be *easily* successful doesn't make sense to me.
Funny how "free market equilibrium" quickly becomes "to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability"