forgot the link to the modern castilian form of quixote, search 'quijote' in the Real Academia" (on Dicccionario de la Lengua) using the 'busqueda escalonada' option, and then search 'quixote'.
astronomy is a clasical and easy explanation, the problem I have with this one, is that 1) is too simple and 2) is an opinion from our own culture, 'we' have astronomy but what about the ones that lived 20Ky before?.
There's still no reason to believe that devastating impacts are more frequent than we did before.
No, no more frequent, but if our memories are right, they already happened (ie: there are strong indications of an abrupt end of the Bronce Age (3.5Ky), that expanded across northen africa to middle east and extensive fiires on south europe). Those are not very ancient events, the problem is that our memories are very short.
Agreed on historic manipulation by religions and politics, but the lets not forget that the fact is that this kind of memories exist on every tradition, from the 'big' ones to the small aboriginal peoples.
That excludes the posibility of being only local plots, and the simplest remaining explanation is that these are memories from natural events. The interesting part is that if even in our limited memories (just some thousands of years) we already have that kind of experiences, those episodes seems to be more frecuent that we use to believe today.
I am not sure about missile efectiveness on a NEO episode, probably very low, but if you look at ancient history (miths and ancient traditions) there are clear traces of similar episodes in our past.
Fire from sky, falling rocks, tidal waves and other catastrofic events are recorded in almost every tradition all over the world. In fact I don't know of any single ancient culture without this kind of memories.
As someone said about a NEO impact; the question is not 'if', is just 'when'. Our traditions registers that survivers considered the events so paramount than they shall not be forgoten!. I am not pretending to favor armament industry, but self defense is something natural.
I remember maybe 10 years ago a bed manufacturer who used a grid of pressure sensors, and a neural network to sense people presence, position and activity.
The idea was simple and seemed good, but I've never see-it in the real world.
Anyway, technological aids are only that, aids, never a people replacement.
Not exactly.. I was thinking on a different setup... the server has only the static/public part (apps binaries, static non personal data), and the portable part should have ALL the dinamic/private data, sending or storing private data on a remote server is a fools strategy.
We need massive static/always-on memories to do that kind of thing.
The EU system is still too complex, people doesn't understand how it works, and that's why that kind of weird things find a place to happen.
In a more simple and logical system people is aware of what's going on, and have more direct ways to interact. Of course EU goverment is still in preliminary stages, we have just aprouved a (still to be referended) new (and complex) constitution, that's why we need to be specially careful. It's really easy that a 'technical' matter as software patents could be politically manipulated by interested lobbies as a 'minor' question.
One of the big problems in the EU process is the dichotomy between states fighting to keep his power, and the need of a better interstate and interregional harmonization, another is the need to equilibrate very different economies. In that big scenario software patents risk to be a undesired and silenced loss!
More than ever we need to keep talking about these things.
No matter how good those formats are (XML/RDF/etc) they all fail at the simplicity norm, the KISS principle.
In the example of the article, by not using a simple text oriented format they innecesarily complicates the access by any program to these values, and that leads to the second point.
The computational cost involved in parsing / validating all those formats; the day that our cpu's can process hundreds or thousands of simultaneous parsings without a noticeable impact on performance, that day it could start to make sense to popularize his usage, until then, they are a luxury and as such restricted to a limited (especialized) usage.
On the RDF case, metadata is data, the 'meta' part is a human hability and can be used wherever we want, no need for a special format. By pretending to format the 'metadata' concept we are just defining a new stream format, and if we consider how wide the 'meta' concept is, it seems dificult to limit to a simple ontology. The result? the need of another international consortium to stablish a reasonable set of vocabularies, big deal!
I think there are better ways to spend our cpu cicles than to parse verbose formats, but how knows?
Unless things change and change soon we will not live the arrival of another astronaut to another planet, it's a shame. Space and not war should be the human goal, after all, space still is the last frontier.
I hold that the chaotic nature driven by these un-modelable nonlinearities which extend beyond the molecular level will mean we will never develop accurate long-term forecasts, although our statistical predictions should hold out fine.
yes, stats are clearly limited as a modeling tool, I prefer the 'let us simulate realiity' or modeling approach (ie: cellular automata), it gives a better understanding of the problem at hand. Stats are just as good as data set are, no more, but models reflect our own (lack of?) knowledge of the modeled thing.
I can try...:)
Yes, trucks are bigger than cars, but is not that significative, both are a minuscule part of a highway, and both run on a single track, so dinamics are similar. On the other hand, stock orders easily vary 2 or 3 orders of magnitude.
About chaotic not being random, true, absolutely true, but the idea was that wheather can be reasonably predicted if you consider enough information for the desired detail level, it only becomes unmanegeable once you try to predict particular events (ie, tornado's path) or too future conditions, that's where the question becomes 'chaotic' or 'random' or simply 'too complex' if you prefer.
How true!
In my experience, you have to drive a slow car to learn what 'protective drive' is. People with 'normal' (fast) cars never realize how easily the flow is changed. Drive a slow car for a decent period of time (one year) should be part of the trainning of any driver.
Slashdot Mirror
forgot the link to the modern castilian form of quixote, search 'quijote' in the Real Academia" (on Dicccionario de la Lengua) using the 'busqueda escalonada' option, and then search 'quixote'.
Wrong
The original spelling was with X, just look at a facsimil edition.
The parent poster was right, castilian as almost every other language has changed on those 400 years.
But that doesn't line the pockets of weapons makers, so we remain in the grip of faith/fear that has ruled us since time immemorial.
just to be fair: modern weapon makers are not responsable of inmemorial stupidity, just unlimited greed. :)
astronomy is a clasical and easy explanation, the problem I have with this one, is that 1) is too simple and 2) is an opinion from our own culture, 'we' have astronomy but what about the ones that lived 20Ky before?.
There's still no reason to believe that devastating impacts are more frequent than we did before.
No, no more frequent, but if our memories are right, they already happened (ie: there are strong indications of an abrupt end of the Bronce Age (3.5Ky), that expanded across northen africa to middle east and extensive fiires on south europe). Those are not very ancient events, the problem is that our memories are very short.
Agreed on historic manipulation by religions and politics, but the lets not forget that the fact is that this kind of memories exist on every tradition, from the 'big' ones to the small aboriginal peoples.
That excludes the posibility of being only local plots, and the simplest remaining explanation is that these are memories from natural events. The interesting part is that if even in our limited memories (just some thousands of years) we already have that kind of experiences, those episodes seems to be more frecuent that we use to believe today.
I am not sure about missile efectiveness on a NEO episode, probably very low, but if you look at ancient history (miths and ancient traditions) there are clear traces of similar episodes in our past.
Fire from sky, falling rocks, tidal waves and other catastrofic events are recorded in almost every tradition all over the world. In fact I don't know of any single ancient culture without this kind of memories.
As someone said about a NEO impact; the question is not 'if', is just 'when'. Our traditions registers that survivers considered the events so paramount than they shall not be forgoten!. I am not pretending to favor armament industry, but self defense is something natural.
Isn't it ironic to moderate the parent post as Funny?
The main point for me is never forget that 'the elderly' are not 'them' but 'us'.
I remember maybe 10 years ago a bed manufacturer who used a grid of pressure sensors, and a neural network to sense people presence, position and activity.
The idea was simple and seemed good, but I've never see-it in the real world.
Anyway, technological aids are only that, aids, never a people replacement.
Not exactly.. I was thinking on a different setup... the server has only the static/public part (apps binaries, static non personal data), and the portable part should have ALL the dinamic/private data, sending or storing private data on a remote server is a fools strategy.
We need massive static/always-on memories to do that kind of thing.
Beautiful idea, but I want to carry his memory/state with me on a little and duplicable box or card.
The EU system is still too complex, people doesn't understand how it works, and that's why that kind of weird things find a place to happen.
In a more simple and logical system people is aware of what's going on, and have more direct ways to interact.
Of course EU goverment is still in preliminary stages, we have just aprouved a (still to be referended) new (and complex) constitution, that's why we need to be specially careful. It's really easy that a 'technical' matter as software patents could be politically manipulated by interested lobbies as a 'minor' question.
One of the big problems in the EU process is the dichotomy between states fighting to keep his power, and the need of a better interstate and interregional harmonization, another is the need to equilibrate very different economies. In that big scenario software patents risk to be a undesired and silenced loss!
More than ever we need to keep talking about these things.
no need for trolls, just say Linux is a programator, and you will be moded down. :)
Linux is the first skynet program and Linus is just a programmattor.
No info about the genetic algortihm used. I though New Scientist was a science paper...
It's obvious that indents should be no more than 4 spaces and no less than 2 spaces
You.. insensitive clod!
Sure, and so are our understanding and culture, being natural is not a reason to not use intelligence, I prefer the other way.
to sleek, quick computers with the most technologically advanced OS available (for the desktop, at least).
True!
The Apple succes on unix desktops always reminds me how right was Steve Jobs with his NeXT computers, ahead of time by 19 years!.
And some people still thinks we are in the fast lane!
XML != RDF
1-RDF as XML need a 'neutral' or 'established' set of vocabularies to be really useful (interoperability).
2-Both are verbose.
Not sooo different, if you remember that metadata is data. XML formats data, RDF formats metadata, big deal!
And please don't forget the data acquisition bottleneck that all those annotated formats produce.
Good, yet another format to use/suffer!
No matter how good those formats are (XML/RDF/etc) they all fail at the simplicity norm, the KISS principle.
In the example of the article, by not using a simple text oriented format they innecesarily complicates the access by any program to these values, and that leads to the second point.
The computational cost involved in parsing / validating all those formats; the day that our cpu's can process hundreds or thousands of simultaneous parsings without a noticeable impact on performance, that day it could start to make sense to popularize his usage, until then, they are a luxury and as such restricted to a limited (especialized) usage.
On the RDF case, metadata is data, the 'meta' part is a human hability and can be used wherever we want, no need for a special format. By pretending to format the 'metadata' concept we are just defining a new stream format, and if we consider how wide the 'meta' concept is, it seems dificult to limit to a simple ontology. The result? the need of another international consortium to stablish a reasonable set of vocabularies, big deal!
I think there are better ways to spend our cpu cicles than to parse verbose formats, but how knows?
Unless things change and change soon we will not live the arrival of another astronaut to another planet, it's a shame. Space and not war should be the human goal, after all, space still is the last frontier.
This could be possibly alleviated by having a system-level VM that was initialized at boot time or something,
The incredible thing is that after YEARS of waiting for such a simple thing, still is not here. Incredible indeed.
I hold that the chaotic nature driven by these un-modelable nonlinearities which extend beyond the molecular level will mean we will never develop accurate long-term forecasts, although our statistical predictions should hold out fine.
yes, stats are clearly limited as a modeling tool, I prefer the 'let us simulate realiity' or modeling approach (ie: cellular automata), it gives a better understanding of the problem at hand. Stats are just as good as data set are, no more, but models reflect our own (lack of?) knowledge of the modeled thing.
Can you spell T R U C K?
I can try... :)
Yes, trucks are bigger than cars, but is not that significative, both are a minuscule part of a highway, and both run on a single track, so dinamics are similar. On the other hand, stock orders easily vary 2 or 3 orders of magnitude.
About chaotic not being random, true, absolutely true, but the idea was that wheather can be reasonably predicted if you consider enough information for the desired detail level, it only becomes unmanegeable once you try to predict particular events (ie, tornado's path) or too future conditions, that's where the question becomes 'chaotic' or 'random' or simply 'too complex' if you prefer.
How true!
In my experience, you have to drive a slow car to learn what 'protective drive' is. People with 'normal' (fast) cars never realize how easily the flow is changed. Drive a slow car for a decent period of time (one year) should be part of the trainning of any driver.