"Distribute" means to make available to the public the original and copies of the Work or Adaptation, as appropriate, through sale or other transfer of ownership.
If the modified version is only used in-house then it not made available to the public so clauses about redistribution do not apply.
A slight modification of this makes a memory cell. Very useful as the basis of computers which are basically memory cells and gates. You could have quite a bit of fun with 7400 series logic gate and some breadboard.
If this guy was an normal anthropologist studying some remote tribe he would be hauled before an ethics committee and expelled from university for this sort of behaviour. The field of anthropology has spent over a century establishing research methods for studying cultures. As a rule the best way to observe is to have as small an impact as possible so you see how the culture really behave. Effects where a culture modify its behaviour due to the presence of a researcher are common and a big barrier to objectivity. By provoking you get the abnormal behaviour so its not really good research.
Is there really a difference between virtual world and real cultures. Should not the same ethics apply when studying either?
I'm not convinced its worth protecting against pirates at all. The philosophy I take is that there are basically two sorts of people, those who are likely to pay for your software and those who are not. As a rule the first are not going to be interested in getting pirate copies and the second group are unlikely to switch to becoming paying customers. So while there may be a lot of people with pirate copies these don't actually represent lost sales, as these folks would not buy the full price version anyway.
Adding anti-pirate measures takes a lot of your valuable developer time and may well piss off your paying customers. Both are bad things.
Often I will trust my friends more than the stuff on the internet. Friends are not trying to sell me stuff unlike much on the internet, friends will largely share my world view and not try to impose some other agenda on me (well not too much), and if they are good friends may actually know enough about me to know the sort of info that I need. I've also got a pretty good idea of how much weight to put on different friends suggestions.
Just the other day I was doing some DIY and a friend came by and gave me a good simple suggestion which was better than all the stuff I've read on websites.
I'm wondering if this result is actually saying anything particularly interesting about the primes?
If I had to a-priori guess how the first digit of prime numbers were distributed then I would guess it would be some version on Zipf's law. Which indeed proves to be the case. What would have been more interesting if it failed to follow the rule which would have perhaps given some more insight into the distribution. Or maybe I've missed something.
So its sort of an anti-result - every thing is as predicted. In other news: the sun will rise tomorrow.
The tricky part of the an alternative solution seems to be modelling human behaviour - in order to detect if something is human or not your need to have a pretty good model of what humans do. I suspect there would be a lot of variation in the sort of way people interact, if I'm feeling sleepy I would present a very different profile of use to when I'm on task and in flow. A program to do this will probably have to be statistical in nature with some sort of confidence intervals of humanness. Maybe it will need some Cluster Analysis. This all makes for some pretty hard code and I'm not convinced the difference between two humans will be smaller than the difference between human and bot.
I did my sums and came out at a tenth of that (2,970 KWH). Only one person and I don't run a data-center. Heating is from wood and one electric radiator, cooking from bottled gas. Not many gadgets to run small fridge and a washing machine (no drier) both A rated for efficiency, one desktop PC on most of the time hardly every watch the telly and thats it. Can't really see what people manage to use all that electricity on. Having a low consumption is nice as the electric company currently owe me 500 pounds.
Small wind-turbines have a very specific use, for mobile locations and other places which don't have access to the mains grid. You see these sort of turbines a lot on canal boats, caravans and other RV's. In such locations some power is better than no power. The cost-benefit analysis is considerably different, weight and portability of the device are important characteristics.
For a couple of years, we ran a project completely off the grid, no electric, no gas, no water. Our power rig was a small wind turbine (about 1m diameter) a solar panel, and a bank of about 10 batteries. We also used 12 volt, low power equipment - specialised lighting 12 volt TV's etc. Heating was from wood, cooking from bottled gas. With this set-up our electricity use was small and I don't think we ever ran out of juice. Cost of the rig was small comparable with the £1000 it would have cost to get a mains hookup.
Did you look at the content they actually reverted?
Yes I do a lot of reverting myself the majority of which simple adolescent comments. The second class will be people trying to push a particular political interpretation. Then there are the random facts they heard somewhere on the internet, of course there is no source given so no way of knowing if it has any basis in truth. Add in a few misguided attempts to make an article better, which mostly end up making it much worse, and you find there is a lot of reversion to do.
All this reversion is necessary to meet the dual goals of a quality encylopedia and allowing anyone to edit.
This seems to be a classic case of WP:POINT: do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Whatever the merits of of linking/delinking wikipedia is not the appropriate venue. The sole reason for including something in wikipedia should be its encylopedic value.
It seems like the way to make money on facebook is to develop crap. Some simple gift application where the punter need to spend money to send a fancier gift, or be bombarded with add designed to fool users. Developer time is the most expensive resource so reduce that to a minimum.
Of course you may have a few more scruples and want to make a good game. I'd say stand firm, keep your premium rate content. The valuable users are those willing to pay, the rest who don't pay and then complain are not worth much time or energy.
The nice thing, though, was that we picked every POSSIBLE library that we could find and submitted them and their copyrights for their analysis/aproval.
But that was still a solid week of wasted time that I'll never get back.
Was it really wasted time? You got to spend a week doing a lot of research into the OpenSource eco-system. I guess thats given you some valuable knowledge, and you may even have even used some of those projects you have found.
The circularity we are seeingin wikipedia is really nothing new. Indeed this cyclic confirmation of ideas have been going on throughout human history. Much our our beleifs are the result of Chinese whispers with one source quoting another source and the original being lost in history, if it ever existed. Astrology and conspiracy theories are prime examples of this basing whole beleif systems on what others have said.
It is one of the reasons we have profesional historians whose job is to untangle a complex web of documents to find the reality behind a situation.
Scholarpedia is not really comparable to wikipedia or britanica. It is very much a specialised encylopedia focusing only on Computational Neuroscience, Dynamical Systems, Computational Intelligence, and Astrophysics. Often with considerably more technical details on specialised topics. It does benefit in terms of style by having single authors rather than patchy writing in wikipedia.
Indeed for gifted students Java is a good choice. I know one 15 year old home ed kid who started on Java using eclipse at 14. I was quite amazed to see that a year later he was writing fully object oriented code.
Contrariwise the syntax can confuse some. Some students I've had to teach seem to get on a lot better with VB type syntax than the C type syntax.
One thing I would recommend is something which has a good graphical output: drawing lots of circles squares etc. These give a good feedback between the code and results and plenty of oportunity for loops and logic. I provide students with a simple framework with a Canvas and a timer and then let the student develope on top of that framework. Plenty of oportunity to develope classic games from the framwork: tennis, snake...
FWIW William Playfair is credited with inventing statistical graphics. Nightingale used playfairs pie chart, but is credited (along with others) with the Polar area diagram.
Its worth remembering why verifiability was introduced in the first place: to discourage things people just made up. If something has no references at all it is very likely to be made up, or someone's pet theory, or some gossip. So verifiability is step one on the path to truth and it has proved to be a most effective tool in eliminating hokum.
That said verifiability can sometimes make things hard especially for subjects which have a oral tradition. Martial art is a case in point, where the body of knowledge is passed orally and not written down and that which is written is of a low standard. I've seen cases where every practioner of the art knows some specific details but there no written sources in existence.
Scholarpedia is a much better site than Citizendium. Some of the articles there are very impressive. Very much an academic exercise so you won't find a page on warhammer. It does not really do drive by editing either.
Disclaimer I'm an admin. I generally consider myself generally inclusionist but I've just deleted 12 article (3 bands no ones herd of, 1 made up political party, 1 possibly real political party with no web references so no way of telling its a hoaxs or not, 1 book, 1 soccer player who not played in the first team, 1 school play, and a canteen in a halls of residence) and I ditheres over Team Fortress 2 Updates. Does this stuff harm wikipedia. For two reasons yes, 1) it damages the rep of wikipedia, a few years back wikipedia had a rep of being full of cruff and articles which are nothing more than ads. 2) this stuff takes attention dealing with this stuff takes time away from other probably more useful task like making maths articles accessible.
Sites like deletopedia are great, there is a place on the web for this stuff its just not wikipedia. I think this was one of Jimbos setting up of wikia a whole host of specalist encylopedia. Specalist wikis often have a better chance of being able to maintain this sort of material better.
If you look at the featured article list you get a very different view of wikipedias preferences. The Media, Music, Video Games sections are pretty big, but the mainstream sciences CompSci and maths have far fewer featured articles.
It seems clear to me that wikipedia need more work on core mainstream articles rather than more TF2 articles.
The comic is a lie. The allocation of processes is quite complecated
chromes-process-model. With a standard install you can quite easily create multiple tabs per process. Basically on a website site right click on a link to a page in the same website and select open in new tab. The new tab is then allocated to the same process. Once you have such a tab you can navigate to elsewhere on the web so you can easily end up with a situation where two different website in two different tabs share the same process.
It depends on how you model the topology of the space. If you take space to be standard R^3 with teleportation then momentum is not conserved. If however you take space as being a 3-manifold with some handles joining disparate parts and define local coordinate systems (i.e. charts) then momentum is locally conserved. You do however loose the convenience of having a global chart. Taking a 3-manifold approach does cause problems with gravity which becomes discontinuous field, which leads to some interesting physics.
If you just look at their steps of the workflow, the way they discribe it just isnt possible (like the way they "stereoscopically" create a depth-map from a _single_ still photograph..).
In the video they say they use structure from motion to create the depth map.
Slashdot Mirror
If the modified version is only used in-house then it not made available to the public so clauses about redistribution do not apply.
A slight modification of this makes a memory cell. Very useful as the basis of computers which are basically memory cells and gates. You could have quite a bit of fun with 7400 series logic gate and some breadboard.
Is there really a difference between virtual world and real cultures. Should not the same ethics apply when studying either?
Adding anti-pirate measures takes a lot of your valuable developer time and may well piss off your paying customers. Both are bad things.
Just the other day I was doing some DIY and a friend came by and gave me a good simple suggestion which was better than all the stuff I've read on websites.
If I had to a-priori guess how the first digit of prime numbers were distributed then I would guess it would be some version on Zipf's law. Which indeed proves to be the case. What would have been more interesting if it failed to follow the rule which would have perhaps given some more insight into the distribution. Or maybe I've missed something.
So its sort of an anti-result - every thing is as predicted. In other news: the sun will rise tomorrow.
The tricky part of the an alternative solution seems to be modelling human behaviour - in order to detect if something is human or not your need to have a pretty good model of what humans do. I suspect there would be a lot of variation in the sort of way people interact, if I'm feeling sleepy I would present a very different profile of use to when I'm on task and in flow. A program to do this will probably have to be statistical in nature with some sort of confidence intervals of humanness. Maybe it will need some Cluster Analysis. This all makes for some pretty hard code and I'm not convinced the difference between two humans will be smaller than the difference between human and bot.
I run about 30,000 KWH per year in my house.
I did my sums and came out at a tenth of that (2,970 KWH). Only one person and I don't run a data-center. Heating is from wood and one electric radiator, cooking from bottled gas. Not many gadgets to run small fridge and a washing machine (no drier) both A rated for efficiency, one desktop PC on most of the time hardly every watch the telly and thats it. Can't really see what people manage to use all that electricity on. Having a low consumption is nice as the electric company currently owe me 500 pounds.
For a couple of years, we ran a project completely off the grid, no electric, no gas, no water. Our power rig was a small wind turbine (about 1m diameter) a solar panel, and a bank of about 10 batteries. We also used 12 volt, low power equipment - specialised lighting 12 volt TV's etc. Heating was from wood, cooking from bottled gas. With this set-up our electricity use was small and I don't think we ever ran out of juice. Cost of the rig was small comparable with the £1000 it would have cost to get a mains hookup.
Yes I do a lot of reverting myself the majority of which simple adolescent comments. The second class will be people trying to push a particular political interpretation. Then there are the random facts they heard somewhere on the internet, of course there is no source given so no way of knowing if it has any basis in truth. Add in a few misguided attempts to make an article better, which mostly end up making it much worse, and you find there is a lot of reversion to do.
All this reversion is necessary to meet the dual goals of a quality encylopedia and allowing anyone to edit.
which seeks to be microsoft speak for Wikipedia killed encarta. First big victory for the open content movement.
This seems to be a classic case of WP:POINT: do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Whatever the merits of of linking/delinking wikipedia is not the appropriate venue. The sole reason for including something in wikipedia should be its encylopedic value.
Of course you may have a few more scruples and want to make a good game. I'd say stand firm, keep your premium rate content. The valuable users are those willing to pay, the rest who don't pay and then complain are not worth much time or energy.
The nice thing, though, was that we picked every POSSIBLE library that we could find and submitted them and their copyrights for their analysis/aproval.
But that was still a solid week of wasted time that I'll never get back.
Was it really wasted time? You got to spend a week doing a lot of research into the OpenSource eco-system. I guess thats given you some valuable knowledge, and you may even have even used some of those projects you have found.
It is one of the reasons we have profesional historians whose job is to untangle a complex web of documents to find the reality behind a situation.
Scholarpedia is not really comparable to wikipedia or britanica. It is very much a specialised encylopedia focusing only on Computational Neuroscience, Dynamical Systems, Computational Intelligence, and Astrophysics. Often with considerably more technical details on specialised topics. It does benefit in terms of style by having single authors rather than patchy writing in wikipedia.
Contrariwise the syntax can confuse some. Some students I've had to teach seem to get on a lot better with VB type syntax than the C type syntax.
One thing I would recommend is something which has a good graphical output: drawing lots of circles squares etc. These give a good feedback between the code and results and plenty of oportunity for loops and logic. I provide students with a simple framework with a Canvas and a timer and then let the student develope on top of that framework. Plenty of oportunity to develope classic games from the framwork: tennis, snake ...
FWIW William Playfair is credited with inventing statistical graphics. Nightingale used playfairs pie chart, but is credited (along with others) with the Polar area diagram.
That said verifiability can sometimes make things hard especially for subjects which have a oral tradition. Martial art is a case in point, where the body of knowledge is passed orally and not written down and that which is written is of a low standard. I've seen cases where every practioner of the art knows some specific details but there no written sources in existence.
Scholarpedia is a much better site than Citizendium. Some of the articles there are very impressive. Very much an academic exercise so you won't find a page on warhammer. It does not really do drive by editing either.
Sites like deletopedia are great, there is a place on the web for this stuff its just not wikipedia. I think this was one of Jimbos setting up of wikia a whole host of specalist encylopedia. Specalist wikis often have a better chance of being able to maintain this sort of material better.
If you look at the featured article list you get a very different view of wikipedias preferences. The Media, Music, Video Games sections are pretty big, but the mainstream sciences CompSci and maths have far fewer featured articles.
It seems clear to me that wikipedia need more work on core mainstream articles rather than more TF2 articles.
The comic is a lie. The allocation of processes is quite complecated chromes-process-model. With a standard install you can quite easily create multiple tabs per process. Basically on a website site right click on a link to a page in the same website and select open in new tab. The new tab is then allocated to the same process. Once you have such a tab you can navigate to elsewhere on the web so you can easily end up with a situation where two different website in two different tabs share the same process.
It depends on how you model the topology of the space. If you take space to be standard R^3 with teleportation then momentum is not conserved. If however you take space as being a 3-manifold with some handles joining disparate parts and define local coordinate systems (i.e. charts) then momentum is locally conserved. You do however loose the convenience of having a global chart. Taking a 3-manifold approach does cause problems with gravity which becomes discontinuous field, which leads to some interesting physics.
In the video they say they use structure from motion to create the depth map.