Nobody cares about the resource usage. It is annoying to have to wait an extra second, or however long, before you can do what you're trying to do. Yes, one second is an incredibly negligible amount of time, but the fade provides literally zero benefit, for some people. Negligible amount of nuisance + zero benefit = net negative utility = bad idea.
Four tests, midterm, final, AND a project, are you kidding? I have a bachelor's degree in engineering from a big 10 school, and the majority of classes I took involved about four "large" responsibilities, total. Two or three exams and one final OR project. And I never had a "midterm" that was in any way distinct from an "exam".
You know, if consumer technology ever gets to the point that sk1rpt k1dd1es can mess with DNA and create biological weapons from scratch... I'm pretty sure I will want researchers investigating the creation and mitigation of biological weapons.
Defense agencies and contractors in the US monitor all employee computer use, and I don't expect that to change here any time soon - and I don't really have a problem with it. Is this law going to apply to the German government as well?
You have a valid point, but your scenario is much more of a short-term problem. Millions of people can keep dying from preventable illnesses in developing countries, and that would still not be as bad as the supposed inevitable catastrophes of climate change.
Save millions of lives now with combustion generators, or save millions of lives plus every coastal city 100 years from now with more renewable energy plants and research?
How is $30/month a reasonable number? I don't have a smartphone, but as I understand it, $30 is probably just the "data" fee - which comes on top of the "voice" fee of $50 or $60. My iphone friends like to claim that they really only pay $30 for the "data" - and yes, I understand that different services make use of several networks, which may have different upkeep costs, etc... but that distinction doesn't really make sense anymore. The "voice" fee is really just a "base" fee, and the amount you're paying for data really is $80 or $90, not $30.
When I can pay $30/month TOTAL for data access, then that number will be a reasonable comparison...
I use the keyboard shortcut to go to the search bar, then ctrl-up/down to select my search site, which is google or wikipedia in 99% of cases. It's pretty fast.
What's funny to me is that I know technical people that will ignore the google search bar, type "www.google.com" into the url bar, search for wikipedia on the google homepage, click the top result, then FINALLY type their wikipedia search query into the wikipedia search box.
I think you're right. "The wisdom of crowds" refers to the cream of the crop, not the average. The bigger the crowd is, the bigger 1% of the crowd is, and the better the chance of insightful, intelligent commentary. Not really a difficult concept.
This article is long but fascinating - long story short, guy loses his vision as a young child (possibly the key point), regains it 45 years later, struggles very much to deal with sight for several years, but misses his past, sight-less life. He has a very hard time correlating objects' feel with their appearance, he has a hard time appreciating perspective, he can only navigate around his own house by using key landmarks and following preset paths, etc. Eventually he mostly gives up on being able to perceive the world visually. His state of mind plays a huge role in the situation, and visiting his childhood home helps significantly.
Maybe this is just anecdotal and I'm certainly no expert. But before reading this, my thoughts would have been exactly what you wrote, and that is not entirely accurate.
I believe it is well documented that some humans lose almost all ability to process vision information, if they go long enough without it. Surely this depends on the age at which vision is lost, and the duration of the blindness, but the problem of restoring vision processing, for those who have lost it, is significantly harder to solve.
Yes, the problem is that "quintillion-flop", although its meaning is obvious to anyone who speaks English, is not a standard, accepted term - that is what maxwell demon originally tried to point out. daveime seems to think there is some problem with units, which is bizarre. "quintillion-flop" is still a rate of calculations per second, even though it isn't a standard term. What point are you trying to make?
The first corresponds to the phrase in quotes in my last comment, equivalent to "unbounded".
The second is indeed different than the first. The "arbitrarily" is not used in the mathematical sense here, and the "large" does not necessarily imply unboundedness.
To me the phrases "the value is unbounded" and "the value can be arbitrarily large" are precisely equivalent (in this context). I don't see any reason that one should be labeled as more or less complicated than the other.
Just so we're clear, all I'm doing is trying to understand your argument, not really trying to convince you of anything. I feel like you have something interesting to say and I just can't interpret you correctly....
Is it not the case that "for any desired numerical value of the difference between inertial mass and gravitational mass, the phenomenon can be controlled such that this difference is achieved" ?
If not, then I agree with you (I honestly don't know whether it is or isn't). If that IS the case, then how is this situation different than any use of the term "arbitrary" in an analysis textbook?
Is your complaint about the fact that there is a practical limit to the "arbitrary" difference, because of the finite amount of matter in the universe?
"Arbitrarily large" is a term used commonly in mathematics, it really isn't obscure or complicated if you read enough math books. Usually that isn't asking too much, around here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrary#Mathematics
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody cares about the resource usage. It is annoying to have to wait an extra second, or however long, before you can do what you're trying to do. Yes, one second is an incredibly negligible amount of time, but the fade provides literally zero benefit, for some people. Negligible amount of nuisance + zero benefit = net negative utility = bad idea.
Four tests, midterm, final, AND a project, are you kidding? I have a bachelor's degree in engineering from a big 10 school, and the majority of classes I took involved about four "large" responsibilities, total. Two or three exams and one final OR project. And I never had a "midterm" that was in any way distinct from an "exam".
A better question to ask is "why in the world would widescreen monitors be so prevalent when so much content is predominantly vertical?"
You know, if consumer technology ever gets to the point that sk1rpt k1dd1es can mess with DNA and create biological weapons from scratch... I'm pretty sure I will want researchers investigating the creation and mitigation of biological weapons.
I don't think programming "works" like that either... though I guess technically COMEFROM is more viable than "tracking receivers".
Of course, most every phenomenon in the universe involves "other particles"... perhaps you want to rephrase that comment?
Defense agencies and contractors in the US monitor all employee computer use, and I don't expect that to change here any time soon - and I don't really have a problem with it. Is this law going to apply to the German government as well?
Because old rich people are attractive?
Unless of course, all the bots use the exact same algorithm, and they all make the same mistake on the book words. Recaptcha uses consensus, right?
You have a valid point, but your scenario is much more of a short-term problem. Millions of people can keep dying from preventable illnesses in developing countries, and that would still not be as bad as the supposed inevitable catastrophes of climate change.
Save millions of lives now with combustion generators, or save millions of lives plus every coastal city 100 years from now with more renewable energy plants and research?
That's "almost" 7% of a petabyte.
How is $30/month a reasonable number? I don't have a smartphone, but as I understand it, $30 is probably just the "data" fee - which comes on top of the "voice" fee of $50 or $60. My iphone friends like to claim that they really only pay $30 for the "data" - and yes, I understand that different services make use of several networks, which may have different upkeep costs, etc... but that distinction doesn't really make sense anymore. The "voice" fee is really just a "base" fee, and the amount you're paying for data really is $80 or $90, not $30.
When I can pay $30/month TOTAL for data access, then that number will be a reasonable comparison...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephantnose - this fish can generate and sense electrical impulses. This seems to be a unique ability.
I use the keyboard shortcut to go to the search bar, then ctrl-up/down to select my search site, which is google or wikipedia in 99% of cases. It's pretty fast.
What's funny to me is that I know technical people that will ignore the google search bar, type "www.google.com" into the url bar, search for wikipedia on the google homepage, click the top result, then FINALLY type their wikipedia search query into the wikipedia search box.
I think you're right. "The wisdom of crowds" refers to the cream of the crop, not the average. The bigger the crowd is, the bigger 1% of the crowd is, and the better the chance of insightful, intelligent commentary. Not really a difficult concept.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060831124229/http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/articles/060619fr_archive01
This article is long but fascinating - long story short, guy loses his vision as a young child (possibly the key point), regains it 45 years later, struggles very much to deal with sight for several years, but misses his past, sight-less life. He has a very hard time correlating objects' feel with their appearance, he has a hard time appreciating perspective, he can only navigate around his own house by using key landmarks and following preset paths, etc. Eventually he mostly gives up on being able to perceive the world visually. His state of mind plays a huge role in the situation, and visiting his childhood home helps significantly.
Maybe this is just anecdotal and I'm certainly no expert. But before reading this, my thoughts would have been exactly what you wrote, and that is not entirely accurate.
I believe it is well documented that some humans lose almost all ability to process vision information, if they go long enough without it. Surely this depends on the age at which vision is lost, and the duration of the blindness, but the problem of restoring vision processing, for those who have lost it, is significantly harder to solve.
Yes, the problem is that "quintillion-flop", although its meaning is obvious to anyone who speaks English, is not a standard, accepted term - that is what maxwell demon originally tried to point out. daveime seems to think there is some problem with units, which is bizarre. "quintillion-flop" is still a rate of calculations per second, even though it isn't a standard term. What point are you trying to make?
"quintillion-flop" is also a rate of calculations per second, which is equivalent to the more concise "exaflop". What's the problem?
Isn't it just logically inconsistent? Would that count as a legal reason?
fair enough
The first corresponds to the phrase in quotes in my last comment, equivalent to "unbounded".
The second is indeed different than the first. The "arbitrarily" is not used in the mathematical sense here, and the "large" does not necessarily imply unboundedness.
To me the phrases "the value is unbounded" and "the value can be arbitrarily large" are precisely equivalent (in this context). I don't see any reason that one should be labeled as more or less complicated than the other.
Just so we're clear, all I'm doing is trying to understand your argument, not really trying to convince you of anything. I feel like you have something interesting to say and I just can't interpret you correctly....
Is it not the case that "for any desired numerical value of the difference between inertial mass and gravitational mass, the phenomenon can be controlled such that this difference is achieved" ?
If not, then I agree with you (I honestly don't know whether it is or isn't). If that IS the case, then how is this situation different than any use of the term "arbitrary" in an analysis textbook?
Is your complaint about the fact that there is a practical limit to the "arbitrary" difference, because of the finite amount of matter in the universe?
"Arbitrarily large" is a term used commonly in mathematics, it really isn't obscure or complicated if you read enough math books. Usually that isn't asking too much, around here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrary#Mathematics
I thought I had my head wrapped around it after reading that article a few weeks ago, but I can't really recall how I thought I understood it.