Sorry but no, Plato does not refer to an 'apocaliptic war' at all. There's a war between Atlanteans and Atheneans, yes, but the destruction of Atlantis is not an effect of this war, in fact is indirectly pointed out as a posible cause.
So no, I've played Fate of Atlantis, yes, but not that much!:)
Plato, talking about Atlantis, refers a major blast on that time frame (9000 years before his epoch), but related to a major event in the Atlantic Ocean, maybe the remains found in America were not the main or sole impact.
There's also a lot of 'deluge' legends on tribes at both sides of Atlantic Ocean that locates the blast/explosion/destrucion on the middle on the actual Atlantic Ocean (sud-american tradition located at the east cost refers to a major destruction an corresponding or escape episode from the east, and african/europan traditions located at the west coastal rim talks about the same kind of episodes but from the west.
Of course oral traditions are ambigous, and unreliable, but in this case ('deluge' mith), many of them share a curios aspect: They explicitely state the need to pass to further generations the testimonial of the existance and experience of such a major disastrous event that will be not be considered possible to exist for future generations.
Nope I've been using Mandriva for years, you have both DE, but KDE is the default, and it's far more polished than Gnome, so to be fair Mandriva should also be counted as a 'KDE' distro.
The same goes for statistical classifiers. Human categories ( 'faces', 'cars' , 'landscapes' ) are not mathematical objects (there's no mapping between concepts/cultural constructs and formulaes/formal expressions). Any formal system trying to express a non formal one is doomed to fail, except for the very few special cases where human categories maps well defined mathematical objects (ie, ball - 2d/3dcircle, box-2d/3drectangle).
Statistical systems try to create a map between basic data characteristics (lines/textures/disposition) and a category (ie: 'face', 'car'), using data sets as 'examples' of those categories, trying to derive a relatively simple mathematical/geometric relation between the characteristics of the samples (ie; clustering is all about projecting those samples on a n-dimensional space, searching for a minimal distance between samples of a given category and a maximal one between samples of diferent categories).
The problem is that no matter how many charateristics you may use, or how clever you make the relation/projection, the resulting data don't have to map to a geometric shape, so the success rate is more related to the specialization of the categories/data sets, than a real category detection 'methodology'.
There's still hope in the neuronal simulation field, (ie, recurrent neuronal simulation) but TFA seems not to be in this line of thought.
There was a firehose entry about a serious gcc bug (wrong sign in inlined abs() mixed with negative constants) those last days, but it never reached the main/developers page. It is that 'normal'??? It should be clearly advised to any developer using gcc right now.!
Absolutely correct.
Programming physical machines/factories/objects is a very interesting ambient. When your (or someone else) mistake correlates (or have the potential to) to physically damaging people you'll get a new sense of what a 'programming error' is.
I was a good VB programmer. But my VB experience was an eight-month interval between C++ jobs.
Ha! Bullshit! Everybody knows that mastering VB needs at least 30 years or so of hard work! Eight months is barely enough to start understanding what a variant is. Jesus!:)
I am afraid you ruined your previously well balanced post.:(
If Jody thinks OOXML should be an ECMA standard (there's an explicit Jody post in the discussion) that's fine, but is only a one person opinion, and it is in frontral contradiction with your previous post about the Gnome foundation being not against OOXML ECMA approval.
Overall, it seems you/(Gnome?) are forgetting about the primary goal: OOXML should not even exist, is a trap plain and simple, it's a deliberate MS effort to keep promoting incompatible formats. So your 'balanced' view does not help end users.
About 'whinging vs rocking', 'overwhelming strength of his credibility' and 'utter lack of relevance' I just can hope to be non representative on the Gnome foundation.
Really exists something 'human-readable' in XML?:)
Just kidding, but IME to have to use an xml-parser library just for reading/writing an applications settings is a waste of resources, an usually innecesary bloat, why not just plain text files? (hey! they already are 'human readable'...).:)
Neither GNOME the project, nor The GNOME Foundation is in any way or form backing OOXML!
From TFA : It appears that the Gnome Foundation is participating in ECMA TC 451 regarding resolving comments and contradictions for DIS 29500.
Being the DIS 29500 about the OOXML specification, what's true? is the Gnome trying to 'resolve contradictions' on the OOXML spec or not?. Please clarify Gnome position, are those facts (Gnome participation at the TC 451) incorrect?.
I really wish Gnome is not being used by MS, but allowing de Icaza at the board is already bad enough.
The 'windows killer' linux feature is the KDE desktop programming.
The power of the combined Kernel + Qt + KDE api's, are the most important threat to the MS programming model. If the desktop programming has to be the next battlefield (server side has already been taken), the KDE programming environment is the most powerfull asset in the linux camp.
I am not trying to feed the old Gnome/KDE flame war, just pointing at the fact that the toolset that KDE provides, is the best tool for graphical desktop programming. Just remember how Novel 'switched' to Gnome after Suse's acquisition (the biggest KDE promoter at this time), that was a 'political' move, not a technical one.
Yes, that's the feeling. I've been also programming since that days, and the switch some years ago to 'linux only mode' (well, return to unix roots in fact) has been a source of pleasure. It's like old days where things were 'open' in the wider sense of the word and everything was still new.
I am only sorry for those people professionally 'devoured' by the MS monoculture, is a trap that has wasted too much proffesional talent and effort. Some day it will be noticed the ingent waste of resources that the MS monopoly has caused to the computing world.
However TFA's suggested use of its explanation as a way of addressing resistance to other counterintuitive concepts like Darwinian evolution is something new, and worth thinking about for a few minutes.
The same concept has been already worked in a much exhaustive way by Stephen Wolfram in 'A new kind of science', if you avoid the hype and the ego on the book there's a good deal of innovative ideas about how to treat computationally those kind of domains.
Just a n-dimensional random distribution, with small adjustment steps. The 'n' of the system being chosed by hand, not even automatically computed. It works for Netflix because the domain being modeled is not 'wild' statistically, and have a very simple topology.
The 'presumed' relation with a 'wisdom of the crowds' concept is just coincidence, try to apply such a simple system to a really complex domain (ie: natural language syntax) and it will fail.
On the other hand, it's true that simple statistics can be used for a lot of tasks (ie: language/topic detection), but nothing really new here.
The actual decoding and meta-data extraction from each uploaded video may not take much but matching signatures within the entire database of content (including matching it to sublengths of different content to catch the 30-seconds-of-a-2-hour-movie cases) would require astronomical computational abilities.
Well, once the 'signatures' have been computed, we (not Google) are searching the contents of a 2 hours video (with parts as little as 4 secs) vs an 68h video pool in 300 seconds, and if the math is correct we expect to doit in less than 30 seconds really soon, using a 'normal' pc, without hardware optimizations.
Brute force would need an astronomical number of computations, but a proper mathematical understanding of the problem can result in a really efficient image comparison system.
Presumably they are creating fingerprints from the original material and comparing those against uploads.
No need of fingerprints it's better to compare full video image directly. We are comparing a 25 fps video stream against a 40h video pool at real time speed on a comodity pc.
Don't know how Google is doing the detection, but the technology to make it possible has already been here for some time, see the iMMem site for information about the still image comparison technology being used in our video search programs.
Yes, I am also working on big scale image comparison (video is a perfect case) and your points are valid (even backward/rotated images are easily detected), the only question is how fast do you detect a video (or part of) duplicate?
Slashdot Mirror
They are just making too much money managing the current ipv4 limitations, that's the problem.
Sorry but no, Plato does not refer to an 'apocaliptic war' at all. There's a war between Atlanteans and Atheneans, yes, but the destruction of Atlantis is not an effect of this war, in fact is indirectly pointed out as a posible cause.
So no, I've played Fate of Atlantis, yes, but not that much! :)
Plato, talking about Atlantis, refers a major blast on that time frame (9000 years before his epoch), but related to a major event in the Atlantic Ocean, maybe the remains found in America were not the main or sole impact.
There's also a lot of 'deluge' legends on tribes at both sides of Atlantic Ocean that locates the blast/explosion/destrucion on the middle on the actual Atlantic Ocean (sud-american tradition located at the east cost refers to a major destruction an corresponding or escape episode from the east, and african/europan traditions located at the west coastal rim talks about the same kind of episodes but from the west.
Of course oral traditions are ambigous, and unreliable, but in this case ('deluge' mith), many of them share a curios aspect: They explicitely state the need to pass to further generations the testimonial of the existance and experience of such a major disastrous event that will be not be considered possible to exist for future generations.
Nope I've been using Mandriva for years, you have both DE, but KDE is the default, and it's far more polished than Gnome, so to be fair Mandriva should also be counted as a 'KDE' distro.
One of the most interesting works in this field was Dynamic synapse for signal processing in neural networks, unfortunatelly that was 2002!
Yes
The same goes for statistical classifiers. Human categories ( 'faces', 'cars' , 'landscapes' ) are not mathematical objects (there's no mapping between concepts/cultural constructs and formulaes/formal expressions). Any formal system trying to express a non formal one is doomed to fail, except for the very few special cases where human categories maps well defined mathematical objects (ie, ball - 2d/3dcircle, box-2d/3drectangle).
Statistical systems try to create a map between basic data characteristics (lines/textures/disposition) and a category (ie: 'face', 'car'), using data sets as 'examples' of those categories, trying to derive a relatively simple mathematical/geometric relation between the characteristics of the samples (ie; clustering is all about projecting those samples on a n-dimensional space, searching for a minimal distance between samples of a given category and a maximal one between samples of diferent categories).
The problem is that no matter how many charateristics you may use, or how clever you make the relation/projection, the resulting data don't have to map to a geometric shape, so the success rate is more related to the specialization of the categories/data sets, than a real category detection 'methodology'.
There's still hope in the neuronal simulation field, (ie, recurrent neuronal simulation) but TFA seems not to be in this line of thought.
There was a firehose entry about a serious gcc bug (wrong sign in inlined abs() mixed with negative constants) those last days, but it never reached the main/developers page.
It is that 'normal'???
It should be clearly advised to any developer using gcc right now.!
D'ont forget clay tablets, as old traditions says, the best in case of intense fire (durable even after nuclear upheavals).
Change your name from 'Nick' to 'Robbensttein' it could help.
Now I am only expecting the next version of Mandriva (the best KDE oriented distro?) to incorporate the new KDE generation. Good work!
Absolutely correct.
Programming physical machines/factories/objects is a very interesting ambient. When your (or someone else) mistake correlates (or have the potential to) to physically damaging people you'll get a new sense of what a 'programming error' is.
Ha! Bullshit! Everybody knows that mastering VB needs at least 30 years or so of hard work! Eight months is barely enough to start understanding what a variant is. Jesus! :)
I am afraid you ruined your previously well balanced post. :(
If Jody thinks OOXML should be an ECMA standard (there's an explicit Jody post in the discussion) that's fine, but is only a one person opinion, and it is in frontral contradiction with your previous post about the Gnome foundation being not against OOXML ECMA approval.
Overall, it seems you/(Gnome?) are forgetting about the primary goal: OOXML should not even exist, is a trap plain and simple, it's a deliberate MS effort to keep promoting incompatible formats. So your 'balanced' view does not help end users.
About 'whinging vs rocking', 'overwhelming strength of his credibility' and 'utter lack of relevance' I just can hope to be non representative on the Gnome foundation.
Wow, curiously you missed to comment on the important part (tip, the Allen-Vulcan-Ximian-Novell conexion)! :)
Really exists something 'human-readable' in XML? :)
Just kidding, but IME to have to use an xml-parser library just for reading/writing an applications settings is a waste of resources, an usually innecesary bloat, why not just plain text files? (hey! they already are 'human readable'...). :)
Very informative AC post.
From TFA : It appears that the Gnome Foundation is participating in ECMA TC 451 regarding resolving comments and contradictions for DIS 29500.
Being the DIS 29500 about the OOXML specification, what's true? is the Gnome trying to 'resolve contradictions' on the OOXML spec or not?. Please clarify Gnome position, are those facts (Gnome participation at the TC 451) incorrect?.
I really wish Gnome is not being used by MS, but allowing de Icaza at the board is already bad enough.
The 'windows killer' linux feature is the KDE desktop programming.
The power of the combined Kernel + Qt + KDE api's, are the most important threat to the MS programming model. If the desktop programming has to be the next battlefield (server side has already been taken), the KDE programming environment is the most powerfull asset in the linux camp.
I am not trying to feed the old Gnome/KDE flame war, just pointing at the fact that the toolset that KDE provides, is the best tool for graphical desktop programming. Just remember how Novel 'switched' to Gnome after Suse's acquisition (the biggest KDE promoter at this time), that was a 'political' move, not a technical one.
Yes, that's the feeling.
I've been also programming since that days, and the switch some years ago to 'linux only mode' (well, return to unix roots in fact) has been a source of pleasure. It's like old days where things were 'open' in the wider sense of the word and everything was still new.
I am only sorry for those people professionally 'devoured' by the MS monoculture, is a trap that has wasted too much proffesional talent and effort. Some day it will be noticed the ingent waste of resources that the MS monopoly has caused to the computing world.
The same concept has been already worked in a much exhaustive way by Stephen Wolfram in 'A new kind of science', if you avoid the hype and the ego on the book there's a good deal of innovative ideas about how to treat computationally those kind of domains.
Just a n-dimensional random distribution, with small adjustment steps. The 'n' of the system being chosed by hand, not even automatically computed. It works for Netflix because the domain being modeled is not 'wild' statistically, and have a very simple topology.
The 'presumed' relation with a 'wisdom of the crowds' concept is just coincidence, try to apply such a simple system to a really complex domain (ie: natural language syntax) and it will fail.
On the other hand, it's true that simple statistics can be used for a lot of tasks (ie: language/topic detection), but nothing really new here.
Well, once the 'signatures' have been computed, we (not Google) are searching the contents of a 2 hours video (with parts as little as 4 secs) vs an 68h video pool in 300 seconds, and if the math is correct we expect to doit in less than 30 seconds really soon, using a 'normal' pc, without hardware optimizations.
Brute force would need an astronomical number of computations, but a proper mathematical understanding of the problem can result in a really efficient image comparison system.
No need of fingerprints it's better to compare full video image directly. We are comparing a 25 fps video stream against a 40h video pool at real time speed on a comodity pc.
Don't know how Google is doing the detection, but the technology to make it possible has already been here for some time, see the iMMem site for information about the still image comparison technology being used in our video search programs.
Yes, I am also working on big scale image comparison (video is a perfect case) and your points are valid (even backward/rotated images are easily detected), the only question is how fast do you detect a video (or part of) duplicate?
I have to say it too , try Mandriva is the easiest distro to use for new (windows) ands not so new (linux) users.