And some people waste 50% of their time regurgitating this oft repeated truism to crowds of people who already know it in order to achieve a high karma score from the newbies who think it's profound.
This is a very important point that seems to have been neglected. I'm as strong as a Darwinian as they come but I've never seen it demonstrated that evolution is "shown to explain the origins of life" even once, let alone time and time again. The sad thing is that for someone to say this means that they clearly don't understand what evolution is about and the fact that they need to make this claim means that they are one of these people who has adopted Evolution as a religion rather than as a rational belief. We could use fewer of these people posting stories to/. not more, they're a bit of an embarassment.
Don't believe that stuff about someone's vision. I think directors work best when faced with difficult constraints and with constant reminders that they're making movies for other people, not just to please themselves. For example look at what has happened with Star Wars now that Lucas has total control. Or look at what happened when the Wachowskis earned enough trust from the studio to make the movie they really wanted to. (And look how good they were on a tiny budget like with Bound.) Whenever I hear a director say "now I can finally make the movie I have always dreamed of" I cringe.
A few years back I worked at a company that did visual effects. The director of a highly succesful movie had come in to make the movie that he really wanted to make and we were going to do the effects. This was story that he really believed in and he told people this. The succesful movie: Mask. The director: Chuck Russell. The movie he truly wanted to make: er...um...Bless the Child.
When a director has freedom to make what they want, it's time to run.
People have been doing that for millennia. It works fairly well but it's not 100% reliable. This is well known. It's hardly a crazy idea and given its lack of reliability it seems reasonable to use other methods of education too.
By "invented morals" I didn't mean "acquired moral behavior". As you rightly point out, animals aren't particularly different from humans in this respect. What I was talking about were morals as a stick to beat other people. By that I mean the form of argument that goes "you shouldn't do this because it's wrong". It's a convenient way for the speaker to turn subjective desire "I want you not to do this" into what looks like objective fact "it's wrong". What's more, most people fall for it. This kind of linguistic trickery required quite a bit of linguistic sophistication and I doubt it's shared by animals in any form.
...is that people love nothing more than looking down on other people from what they perceive is the moral high ground. This force has driven humans since they invented morals. Just be thankful that the people pushing for open source aren't burning people at the stake for worshipping the wrong god or stoning women to death because they were unfortunate enough to get raped. In the grand scheme of things the zealots of the open source community are fairly harmless and the ones that put their money where their mouth is by actually producing usable open source are providing a valuable service for the rest of us.
I hope this isn't perceived as a troll, I think it's a pretty accurate description of OSS zealots and fits pretty well with the kinds of behaviors we seen on Slashdot. It's not for nothing that these things are called 'religious wars'.
"Analog" is really a poor way of describing a quantum state.
No it's not. It's exactly right.
it is in all states at the same time
Don't let that metaphysics stuff distract you from the actual issue. The state of a single isolated qubit is defined by a complex vector of norm 1. There's no beating about the bush. It's as analog as, say, a voltage, and its time evolution is given by a differential equation. Yes, when you come to observe it you'll measure a zero or one, but that doesn't invalidate that its internal workings are basically analog.
I think that is the best summary I've read so far! Basically they are analog computers. And this is why I'm also so skeptical of them - I doubt you can do analog physics with the required degree of accuracy, even with error correction. Every paper I've seen on quantum error correction assumes a special form for Hamiltonian of an external interaction and yet an analog system is never like that. There are always other terms interacting, and in the case of QM those terms grow exponentially and swamp the data you really want.
I'm a pure mathematician and I think this story is both uninteresting and irrelevant. It's not nerdy at all. It's a parochial feel-good story for Indians but unfortunately, because it's available over the world, that's to the Web, it's been mistaken for relevant story about something interesting.
...hundreds of new mathemtical theorems are discovered by people around the world. Many of these become peer reviewed and published. So why is this particular one on the front page? It's basically unknown outside of mathematical circles and is posted on a web site where any crackpot can post. Shall we start having stories about JSH on sci.math?
It is hoped that this research can provide further insights into
Parkinson's Disease
Or at least it's hoped that by associated this research with Parkinson's disease, something that actually affects some people's lives even though it's unconnected to this work, we can raise some more funding or even attract enough interest to get onto/.
For example: I have some PDF papers on computer algebra. Do they go under 'Math' or under 'Computer Science'. That's just a trivial example. When you have thousands of papers crossing subject boundaries it becomes hard to classify them. Music is fairly easy by comparison: Artist/Album/Track usually gets me there. But even in the latter case it's nice to be able to ask for all 'Ambient' music.
Slashdot Mirror
And some people waste 50% of their time regurgitating this oft repeated truism to crowds of people who already know it in order to achieve a high karma score from the newbies who think it's profound.
This is a very important point that seems to have been neglected. I'm as strong as a Darwinian as they come but I've never seen it demonstrated that evolution is "shown to explain the origins of life" even once, let alone time and time again. The sad thing is that for someone to say this means that they clearly don't understand what evolution is about and the fact that they need to make this claim means that they are one of these people who has adopted Evolution as a religion rather than as a rational belief. We could use fewer of these people posting stories to /. not more, they're a bit of an embarassment.
Ah, you must be one of the people who took the blue pill.
...of pi. It's not random at all, I always get 3.14159....
A few years back I worked at a company that did visual effects. The director of a highly succesful movie had come in to make the movie that he really wanted to make and we were going to do the effects. This was story that he really believed in and he told people this. The succesful movie: Mask. The director: Chuck Russell. The movie he truly wanted to make: er...um...Bless the Child.
When a director has freedom to make what they want, it's time to run.
..."Extrasolar planet really really confirmed, we're quite sure this time, honest".
Cracks of MS Office are free too. It's a lot more compatible with MS Office too.
By "invented morals" I didn't mean "acquired moral behavior". As you rightly point out, animals aren't particularly different from humans in this respect. What I was talking about were morals as a stick to beat other people. By that I mean the form of argument that goes "you shouldn't do this because it's wrong". It's a convenient way for the speaker to turn subjective desire "I want you not to do this" into what looks like objective fact "it's wrong". What's more, most people fall for it. This kind of linguistic trickery required quite a bit of linguistic sophistication and I doubt it's shared by animals in any form.
...is that people love nothing more than looking down on other people from what they perceive is the moral high ground. This force has driven humans since they invented morals. Just be thankful that the people pushing for open source aren't burning people at the stake for worshipping the wrong god or stoning women to death because they were unfortunate enough to get raped. In the grand scheme of things the zealots of the open source community are fairly harmless and the ones that put their money where their mouth is by actually producing usable open source are providing a valuable service for the rest of us. I hope this isn't perceived as a troll, I think it's a pretty accurate description of OSS zealots and fits pretty well with the kinds of behaviors we seen on Slashdot. It's not for nothing that these things are called 'religious wars'.
I think that is the best summary I've read so far! Basically they are analog computers. And this is why I'm also so skeptical of them - I doubt you can do analog physics with the required degree of accuracy, even with error correction. Every paper I've seen on quantum error correction assumes a special form for Hamiltonian of an external interaction and yet an analog system is never like that. There are always other terms interacting, and in the case of QM those terms grow exponentially and swamp the data you really want.
It's the only way to make a great hit. Without you can just make a quite successful movie, but not a hit.
Yeah, if it were a PowerBook, that would be news, but a Thinkpad?
The 'News' bit.
But can I use tar to make backups?
I'm a pure mathematician and I think this story is both uninteresting and irrelevant. It's not nerdy at all. It's a parochial feel-good story for Indians but unfortunately, because it's available over the world, that's to the Web, it's been mistaken for relevant story about something interesting.
This is pure psychobabble like something lifted out of Star Trek. And it gets modded up!
Same here. I went back after many years and couldn't believe he was still dominating the group. In the old days it was Ludwig Plutonium.
After 8 years the joke wears thin!
...hundreds of new mathemtical theorems are discovered by people around the world. Many of these become peer reviewed and published. So why is this particular one on the front page? It's basically unknown outside of mathematical circles and is posted on a web site where any crackpot can post. Shall we start having stories about JSH on sci.math?
Last time I played a game in an arcade (admittedly a few years ago) I vaguely remember having to start right from the beginning yet again.
For example: I have some PDF papers on computer algebra. Do they go under 'Math' or under 'Computer Science'. That's just a trivial example. When you have thousands of papers crossing subject boundaries it becomes hard to classify them. Music is fairly easy by comparison: Artist/Album/Track usually gets me there. But even in the latter case it's nice to be able to ask for all 'Ambient' music.
Yeah, but you ought to be able to save your high score and position in an arcadde game on a flash drive.