I disagree. One needs the right to use the word "process" in its general but still technical sense: A series of causally related events and states. Often but not always an "organized and constrained" series of causally related events and states. Often but not always achieving or configured/designed/arranged to achieve some particular purpose or end result.
If conventional, present-day computing has borrowed this common English term and specialized it further, fine, but that shouldn't prevent someone correctly using a more general version of the term in a discussion of an alternate information processing architecture, such as the brain's.
The nature of the computational problems being solved by the brain suggests that a good processing architecture would be a hierarchy of processing (with feedback of course) in which parallel processing and serial processing take place at many levels in the hierarchy, with the leaf nodes of processing being massively parallel search/matching/associative traversal, but with serial decision / aggregation of result mixed in there. Map reduce anyone?
But that sort of mixed parallel serial computing should happen at different granularities up and down various hierarchies of functional processing organization, and it would not be surprising if at one of those many levels, there were about 50 concurrent instances of computing processes running. Further down toward primitive feature recognition and primitive feature associative inference there would almost certainly be many many more parallel computations going on, feeding up into the higher-level model formation and higher-level concept formation and inference processes.
Or, you could use grid-scale energy storage, combined with low-loss HVDC long-distance transmission. HDVC lines can be over 2000km long, bigger than an individual weather system, so a network of them can redistribute intermittent wind and solar output effectively.
Our governments, and, oops, those who elected them.
The kind of target they are going for (especially the 2050 one) is in the ballpark of the kind of target we would all have to hit to avoid a complete screw-up on this file.
Are you a betting person?
I think it's great what Denmark's doing, but it saddens me to realize that political will in the rest of the world is so far far off the mark.
> None of those have a requirement for anonymous voting.
Wrong. Organization executive elections require anonymous voting. And there have definitely been 100s of thousands of those conducted over the last 8 or 9 years.
I mean virtual "physical home" addresses that you can rent, along with the suitable internet proxy server to make you appear to be from that state. Combine this with a "we will deliver your purchased goods to your real address for a nominal fee" service, wrap that all up in a bow, and voila: shiny new car !
Yeah. You know it's almost as if the Russians didn't get a copy of the memo that says we are only permitted to use about 1/3 of the current known reserves. You know, the memo that notes that if we don't leave the other 2/3 in the ground, we are COMPLETELY SCREWING OURSELVES and our little dogs too, on the climate front.
You know, sooner or later, our current "leaders" are going to be held liable for this criminally insane path they are steering us down with a greed-twisted grin on their faces. I can only hope it is sooner.
Whereas science needs both hypothesis generation and experimental validation/repudiation of hypotheses.
Hypothesis generation sometimes has to go out there, and invent new concepts that have so far only been thought about, not yet tested.
So to summarize, science needs both creative conceptualization (ontology formation) and experimentation (validation or repudiation of the ontology and/or hypothesis). These need to go on in circular reinforcement. (Spiral development model).
Experimentation without re-conceptualization will eventually run dry, because it will get stuck in a local-maximum paradigm, and people won't know what new things/aspects to test any more.
Remember, relativity was discovered in a thought experiment by Einstein. Is a thought experiment a real experiment in the article author's view? I doubt it. Einstein, from the outside, was doing "magic". Speculating about the larger truth. Relativity was an example of theory creating a completely new set of concepts that were way ahead of the ability to carry out experiments that could validate or repudiate them. It was a well-formed theory, in that it clearly suggested new kinds of experiments that could test it, but it was pure non-experimental theorizing nonetheless.
Darwin also, most likely, happened on his key theoretical insight about natural selection (the simple core of it), by thinking about the generalization of many observations, and having a theoretical insight.
Experimentation has its essential place in science, no doubt (keeps the theorists honest and humble), but it is only half of the game. The other half is innovative philosophy, carefully practiced, in the mind.
Look, there's nothing stopping anyone from studying the evidence from which the consensus arose. Them saying there's a consensus so believe it is just their way of saying "I don't have time to explain all the myriad details to you until such time as you indicate sufficient interest and cognitive capability of grokking the general area of scientific inquiry, say, by getting an M.Sc. in it, then we'll talk about/debate the finer points."
Ok, I lied. There's scientific journal paywalls stopping you from studying the evidence in detail, but that's a whole other egregiously unacceptable story.
Just creating links to your image is not copying it. Deep linking is legal or the entire WWW is illegal. Can't have it both ways.
Just organizing links to your images with my own text surrounding the links is not copying it. Creating a program to programmatically present a sequence of links to your images over time to a web-browser-image-copying-program is not copying it.
Some else's web browser may indeed copy your image onto their computer, but you were definitely allowing that anyway by publishing the image on the open worldwide web.
People are innately wired for a tendency to social agreement, it's true. So all groups of people who share commonalities may tend to come to general consensus on many issues. But scientists, of any group, are likely to diverge from the group consensus if they can prove their case, because they will become leaders of a new consensus group. And their reasons for daring to promote a divergent theory or scientific conclusion, by and large, would be rational and because of strong evidence, because otherwise, they'd be shot down rapidly. Scientists are more likely than other types of groups to be individually convinced to switch teams if the evidence starts leaning strongly the other way. They are governed by a process (scientific method, use of logic and mathematics, and peer review) which facilitates that.
So the presence of a PERSISTENT near total scientific consensus on an issue does tend to suggest that no strong opposing evidence has made it through the ringer of scientific peer scrutiny.
Talk about setting up a straw man to knock it down.
If you prefer, we can do it this way:
1. Set limit on total carbon budget into the atmosphere. Humans can net-emit 1 trillion tonnes and have a 50/50 chance of staying under 2 degrees Celsius global temperature rise . We are a little over half way through the trillion tonnes now, but our pace of emitting is still increasing. http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/0...
2. Set a function for carbon pricing (carbon tax, taxed at source) so that the price will increase exponentially so as to keep the emissions under the budget. If you prefer, the revenue from the tax can be redistributed as corporate and personal income tax reductions. Some would advocate devoting a good portion of it to transition funding, split between job transitioning funding and alternative energy and transportation technology R&D acceleration.
3. Under those conditions, let the market take hold and determine the best solutions.
On the first and second points, to which you will object, remember that physics does not negotiate. It's the most extremist of them all. It's not just gravity. It's the law. It's not just differential absorption/reflection/transmission of EM radiation energy by the atmosphere with different chemical composition. It's the law.
No. The computer display should be blanked (from interaction screens - maybe a map screen with no controls is ok) when the car is in any gear other than P.
I'd say security failure is partly due to incentive alignment failure for developers.
Bad security design is a problem that's going to bite, but usually a little later, after version 1 is out the door and everyone's paid.
Not meeting the pretty much arbitrary and insanely optimistic delivery schedule is going to bite developers right now.
Corners will be cut, even if some of the developers know what SHOULD be done.
In general, almost every architectural aspect of software, including security, (well-factoredness, maintainabilty, scalability, extensiblity, low-coupling, you name it) is hidden, except to a few experts who aren't usually those in decision-making roles. That's why so much software delivered is a Potemkin village.
I don't know about you, but I'd say that someone who is creating architecture, is, oh, I don't know, an architect. Who cares about the title. "Chief codemonkey with a clue" will do just fine. There seems to be some mythology out there about software architects who don't come from coding. Sort of like MBA managers. Never seen one of those. If they're not still coding, they don't love the craft enough to be good architects.
To me, it's just someone who can model a complex system in different cross-cutting aspects, can understand big-picture and long-term concerns with the goals and evolution of the software, know and use many appropriate tried and true patterns, and pragmatically marry that with project realities.
I suspect that most programmers who don't see the need for software architecture work within the confines of already heavily architected frameworks, platforms, and network stacks.
Thus their comments are akin to saying "I don't think we need an architect to help us rearrange the furniture and paint on the walls".
This plus facetime (and the lunchcart robot) now completely eliminates the need to get any exercise whatsoever during the work day (except finger jumpingjacks and stretches on the keyboard, of course).
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. One needs the right to use the word "process" in its general but still technical sense: A series of causally related events and states. Often but not always an "organized and constrained" series of causally related events and states. Often but not always achieving or configured/designed/arranged to achieve some particular purpose or end result.
If conventional, present-day computing has borrowed this common English term and specialized it further, fine, but that shouldn't prevent someone correctly using a more general version of the term in a discussion of an alternate information processing architecture, such as the brain's.
The nature of the computational problems being solved by the brain suggests that a good processing architecture would be a hierarchy of processing (with feedback of course) in which parallel processing and serial processing take place at many levels in the hierarchy, with the leaf nodes of processing being massively parallel search/matching/associative traversal, but with serial decision / aggregation of result mixed in there. Map reduce anyone?
But that sort of mixed parallel serial computing should happen at different granularities up and down various hierarchies of functional processing organization, and it would not be surprising if at one of those many levels, there were about 50 concurrent instances of computing processes running. Further down toward primitive feature recognition and primitive feature associative inference there would almost certainly be many many more parallel computations going on, feeding up into the higher-level model formation and higher-level concept formation and inference processes.
at the bottom of the classic slashdot homepage.
9.5 out of 10 on the annoying and intelligence-insulting scale.
Dice please exterminate this local outbreak of this putrid Internet fungal growth.
Hey, maybe we don't even need those credit card companies in the mix at all.
May all those who are not earth-huggers be spun off into space by their own inertia.
Or, you could use grid-scale energy storage, combined with low-loss HVDC long-distance transmission. HDVC lines can be over 2000km long, bigger than an individual weather system, so a network of them can redistribute intermittent wind and solar output effectively.
Our governments, and, oops, those who elected them.
The kind of target they are going for (especially the 2050 one) is in the ballpark of the kind of target we would all have to hit to avoid a complete screw-up on this file.
Are you a betting person?
I think it's great what Denmark's doing, but it saddens me to realize that political will in the rest of the world is so far far off the mark.
> None of those have a requirement for anonymous voting.
Wrong. Organization executive elections require anonymous voting. And there have definitely been 100s of thousands of those conducted over the last 8 or 9 years.
for organization executives, policy approvals, and stockholder proxy votes have been conducted without incident so far.
A handful of problem cases are to be expected amidst this flood.
I would doubt that the relative incidence of rigging paper-ballot elections is smaller.
in our narcissistic society.
Really, it puts "selfie-sticks" to shame.
Now, if you'll excuse me I need to search for my recent slashdot posts to admire them again.
I mean virtual "physical home" addresses that you can rent, along with the suitable internet proxy server to make you appear to be from that state. Combine this with a "we will deliver your purchased goods to your real address for a nominal fee" service, wrap that all up in a bow, and voila: shiny new car !
Yeah. You know it's almost as if the Russians didn't get a copy of the memo that says we are only permitted to use about 1/3 of the current known reserves.
You know, the memo that notes that if we don't leave the other 2/3 in the ground, we are COMPLETELY SCREWING OURSELVES and our little dogs too, on the climate front.
You know, sooner or later, our current "leaders" are going to be held liable for this criminally insane path they are steering us down with a greed-twisted grin on their faces. I can only hope it is sooner.
Trying to launch one week into the shadow of the massive iPhone 6 launch?
Guaranteed burial and gross embarassment by comparison.
Execution matters, and now we'll see an execution.
Whereas science needs both hypothesis generation and experimental validation/repudiation of hypotheses.
Hypothesis generation sometimes has to go out there, and invent new concepts that have so far only been thought about, not yet tested.
So to summarize, science needs both creative conceptualization (ontology formation) and experimentation (validation or repudiation of the ontology and/or hypothesis).
These need to go on in circular reinforcement. (Spiral development model).
Experimentation without re-conceptualization will eventually run dry, because it will get stuck in a local-maximum paradigm, and people won't know what new things/aspects to test any more.
Remember, relativity was discovered in a thought experiment by Einstein. Is a thought experiment a real experiment in the article author's view? I doubt it.
Einstein, from the outside, was doing "magic". Speculating about the larger truth.
Relativity was an example of theory creating a completely new set of concepts that were way ahead of the ability to carry out experiments that could validate or repudiate them. It was a well-formed theory, in that it clearly suggested new kinds of experiments that could test it, but it was pure non-experimental theorizing nonetheless.
Darwin also, most likely, happened on his key theoretical insight about natural selection (the simple core of it), by thinking about the generalization of many observations, and having a theoretical insight.
Experimentation has its essential place in science, no doubt (keeps the theorists honest and humble), but it is only half of the game. The other half is innovative philosophy, carefully practiced, in the mind.
Exper
Look, there's nothing stopping anyone from studying the evidence from which the consensus arose.
Them saying there's a consensus so believe it is just their way of saying "I don't have time to explain all the myriad details to you until such time as you indicate sufficient interest and cognitive capability of grokking the general area of scientific inquiry, say, by getting an M.Sc. in it, then we'll talk about/debate the finer points."
Ok, I lied. There's scientific journal paywalls stopping you from studying the evidence in detail, but that's a whole other egregiously unacceptable story.
Just creating links to your image is not copying it.
Deep linking is legal or the entire WWW is illegal. Can't have it both ways.
Just organizing links to your images with my own text surrounding the links is not copying it.
Creating a program to programmatically present a sequence of links to your images over time to a web-browser-image-copying-program is not copying it.
Some else's web browser may indeed copy your image onto their computer, but you were definitely allowing that anyway by publishing the image on the open worldwide web.
"temps have stayed the same and maybe even have gone down"
Good luck with that.
People are innately wired for a tendency to social agreement, it's true. So all groups of people who share commonalities may tend to come to general consensus on many issues. But scientists, of any group, are likely to diverge from the group consensus if they can prove their case, because they will become leaders of a new consensus group. And their reasons for daring to promote a divergent theory or scientific conclusion, by and large, would be rational and because of strong evidence, because otherwise, they'd be shot down rapidly.
Scientists are more likely than other types of groups to be individually convinced to switch teams if the evidence starts leaning strongly the other way. They are governed by a process (scientific method, use of logic and mathematics, and peer review) which facilitates that.
So the presence of a PERSISTENT near total scientific consensus on an issue does tend to suggest that no strong opposing evidence has made it through the ringer of scientific peer scrutiny.
Talk about setting up a straw man to knock it down.
If you prefer, we can do it this way:
1. Set limit on total carbon budget into the atmosphere. Humans can net-emit 1 trillion tonnes and have a 50/50 chance of staying under 2 degrees Celsius global temperature rise . We are a little over half way through the trillion tonnes now, but our pace of emitting is still increasing.
http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/0...
2. Set a function for carbon pricing (carbon tax, taxed at source) so that the price will increase exponentially so as to keep the emissions under the budget.
If you prefer, the revenue from the tax can be redistributed as corporate and personal income tax reductions. Some would advocate devoting a good portion of it to transition funding, split between job transitioning funding and alternative energy and transportation technology R&D acceleration.
3. Under those conditions, let the market take hold and determine the best solutions.
On the first and second points, to which you will object, remember that physics does not negotiate. It's the most extremist of them all. It's not just gravity. It's the law. It's not just differential absorption/reflection/transmission of EM radiation energy by the atmosphere with different chemical composition. It's the law.
Could you give some specifics of things Bill Gates has been revisionist about? Just curious.
No. The computer display should be blanked (from interaction screens - maybe a map screen with no controls is ok) when the car is in any gear other than P.
I'd say security failure is partly due to incentive alignment failure for developers.
Bad security design is a problem that's going to bite, but usually a little later, after version 1 is out the door and everyone's paid.
Not meeting the pretty much arbitrary and insanely optimistic delivery schedule is going to bite developers right now.
Corners will be cut, even if some of the developers know what SHOULD be done.
In general, almost every architectural aspect of software, including security, (well-factoredness, maintainabilty, scalability, extensiblity, low-coupling, you name it) is hidden, except to a few experts who aren't usually those in decision-making roles. That's why so much software delivered is a Potemkin village.
I don't know about you, but I'd say that someone who is creating architecture, is, oh, I don't know, an architect.
Who cares about the title. "Chief codemonkey with a clue" will do just fine.
There seems to be some mythology out there about software architects who don't come from coding.
Sort of like MBA managers.
Never seen one of those. If they're not still coding, they don't love the craft enough to be good architects.
To me, it's just someone who can model a complex system in different cross-cutting aspects, can understand big-picture and long-term concerns with the goals and evolution of the software, know and use many appropriate tried and true patterns, and pragmatically marry that with project realities.
I suspect that most programmers who don't see the need for software architecture work within the confines of already heavily architected frameworks, platforms, and network stacks.
Thus their comments are akin to saying "I don't think we need an architect to help us rearrange the furniture and paint on the walls".
This plus facetime (and the lunchcart robot) now completely eliminates the need to get any exercise whatsoever during the work day (except finger jumpingjacks and stretches on the keyboard, of course).
Was this invented by a cabal of cardiologists?