is what many Americans seem to forget. Elections come around more often than once every four years. Presidential elections are once every four years, but mid-term elections are held between those, and most localities (if not all) actually have general elections EVERY YEAR. In addition, there are primary elections, so if he covered all of these, there were probably 60+ elections (including run-offs) he covered in that 20 year span, so his error rate would be less than 2%.
That's such a good question, I decided tor research it. Here's what I found:
The networks' 1992 national exit poll overstated Democrat Bill Clinton's advantage by 2.5 percentage points, about the same as the Kerry skew
Now, I'll agree that there was a lot of fishy things going on in the '04 election, but it's not the first time exit polls have been wrong. (Dewey defeats Truman?)
Here's another question with respect to "what's changed" - for those who think the exit poll techniques are flawed, what's changed there that made them so flawed in '04, but not in prior elections?
If you're going back to 1860 to find an exception, then the exception pretty much proves the rule. In general, neither party has complained about elections being stolen. What's changed?
Well, one thing, of course, is the rise of the "new media" (i.e., bloggers) who mention things that wouldn't be covered by mainstream media - for better or worse.
String theory can't be "correct" because it isn't complete. Bohr's model can be considered a very crude first approximation. Furthermore, if I had to guess, I'd guess that even if "completed", it still wouldn't be correct. So, Bohr's model is not a bad analogy, except that - as others have pointed out - Bohr's model was far more complete than string theory is today.
We did a lot of analysis on the speedup conferred by parallelizing our code. Interestingly enough, for a long while it was actually super-linear! I.e., quadrupling the number of CPU's cut the time to less than 1/4th of the original time. This was explained by the effects of having a larger total cache size.
Nevertheless, sure, many applications will not benefit from parallelization as much as ours. Neural networks are naturally parallelizable.
If I add more cores, it's so I can simulate bigger neural networks in close to real time. Depending on my level-of-detail, 10,000 neurons take anywhere from 250-750 MB. In order to run 100,000 neurons I need dozens of CPUs (currently done via Beowulf clusters), and each CPU needs a lot of RAM. (Up to about 100k neurons, synapses scale roughly as n^2, not n - at least in our model of the hippocampus.)
I try to vote in every primary and every general election. Especially the local ones. Actually, the only Republican I've voted for since '96 (when I voted for Dole) was local. Since our city council is overwhelmingly Democratic (100% now), I thought having a Republican would keep some diversity. It seemed like the right thing to do as diversity does seem to be a plank in the Democratic platform.:)
The other thing helping VA's Dem prospects is Allen's "macacca" comment, not to mention the way he's handled it. I really hope Webb wins.
If think if someone came up with a competing theory that was a bit more elegant you would see scientists flocking to it in a hurry.
That's the thing. Lee Smolin thinks he is working on a competing theory that is a bit more elegant - namely loop quantum gravity. I personally am not qualified enough to judge the validity of that assertion.
String theory might not have earned the rights to be called a theory yet, but as with Bohr's model of the atom, perhaps we could agree that it has earned the right to be called a model.
Having a "rolled up" dimension doesn't require an extra dimension, because they're not _actually_ rolled up. The metric used to describe them is just easy to picture that way. Just like curved 4-dimensional space time doesn't need a 5th dimension to be curved into. I tried looking for a good web-site that explains this, but didn't find one in the time I'm willing to spend looking for one. I'm sure someone else knows of one, though.
Move to a state that's barely red. One way to defeat the Republicans is to leave a handful of states as ~100% Republican, and then redistribute the Democrats so that an overwhelming majority of states have a ~60% Democrat majority.
Of course, then you have to deal with the Democrats.
If, within 5 years, (as Intel is promising) I'll be happy if it only has the bandwith to keep 20 going. I do understand the problem with them not keeping other bottlenecks up to the task of 80 cores, but, if I can only get 20, that's better than 2 or 4.
In yet another article in Ars Technica we read that Intel is look to an 80 core chip. I like the Core 2 Duo a lot but I hope the Intel megahertz fixation isn't just going to become a "core" fixation.
Speaking as someone who uses code that is very parallelizable - I hope it does! (Well, assuming that they also address memory bottlenecks and what not.)
The CMB does indeed provide one (useful) stationary frame of reference. Of course, there are lot of other useful stationary frames of reference. The CMB does not have some magical power in special, or, general, relativity.
In a vacuum, photons travel at "the speed of light", since that phrase is usually shorthand for c, the speed of light in vacuo. However, in a medium such as air, the speed of photons is less than c, and varies (slightly) depending on frequency.
Not that I'm saying that this isn't rubbish. "Relativity" is not the magic word the author seems to think it is.
He was farther left than he pretended. I liked the real Kerry better than the Kerry he was pretending to be. Of course, I hated that he was pretending to be someone he wasn't. Granted, I disliked Bush (and still do) even more, but still...
But, what about the cross section of people who get spam telling them to enter their MySpace username/password? Per TFA, the author does not have a MySpace account. (Nor do I, but I don't know if I've gotten this spam or not.)
"Really, it should read: the most commonly used passwords, by MySpace users who were targeted by and fell for a phisher" - or by people pretending to be MySpace users when targeted by a phisher - or by people giving a bogus password when targeted by a phisher.
Everyone in the polling place has to be naked. That makes it much harder to slip in a fraudulent vote. In the case that there is a miscount, tests for fecal coliform bacteria are performed.:P
Still you haven't answered my question. What should be our number one priority? It's a fair question when the report you're touting proposes that terrorism is not as grave a threat as a natural disaster. So, Educate me!:)
Our number one priority should be knowledge. I know it's trite, but knowledge is power. That's true for dealing with terrorists (one needs to understand the terrorists and not just label them evil), and that's true for dealing with natural disasters.
Furthermore, it's not just a matter of what our number one priority should be, but how we should decide on what our priorities should be in general. When we overreact (e.g., by imagining scenarios where we'll all be forced to convert to Islam), we make bad decisions. We should do our best to think rationally (even though that means not assuming our adversaries are acting rationally) and not emotionally.
Environmentalists so often put saving the planet before protecting the human life which inhabits it.
Some environmentalists have gotten to the point where they're willing to let the planet protect itself. To that end, they're practically joing forces with ExxonMobil and friends. However, most environmentalists talk about sustainable development. The idea is that we need to "save" the planet in order to protect the human life which inhabits it.
Why can't we tap our own natural resources to break our dependence from the middle east?
Our own natural resources would not break our dependence from the Middle East without both (a) using coal in dangerous amounts, and even then, (b) serious R&D. I'm assuming by natural resources you're refering to the fossil-fuel variety. However, if by our own natural resources you mean our brain power, wind, sun, and - yes - nuclear power, then I'm all for it.
Why does the U.N. ban the use of spray that would stop the spread of malaria, saving millions of lives? Is the IEEE making the same mistakes?
By "spray", I'm guessing you mean DDT. The first reasons that a DDT ban was called for was due to its cancer link. The link to bald eagles' eggs, etc., came later. However, I'm all for research into related sprays, etc. It all boils down to thinking rationally and fully analyzing our consequences. We should consider the impact on the 7th generation from now.
How is IEEE making the "same mistakes"? IEEE is arguing about taking steps to reduce the danger from both terrorist attacks and natural disasters. Did you even read the article?
Of course, as others have said with Citizendium et al., it still makes an excellent addition to the wiki-verse. Well, at least for those of us with an interest in computational neuroscience, dynamical systems, and/or computational intelligence. Presumably, additional scholastic areas will be added as demand calls for it. (If you are interested in these areas, you might also enjoy NeuroJet.net. It, too, has a wiki, but it's only helpful if you're planning on using the neural network simulator that is NeuroJet.)
I also want to give a shout out to Eugene Izhikevich (founder and editor-in-chief of Scholarpedia) for his contributions to all of those fields.
Slashdot Mirror
is what many Americans seem to forget. Elections come around more often than once every four years. Presidential elections are once every four years, but mid-term elections are held between those, and most localities (if not all) actually have general elections EVERY YEAR. In addition, there are primary elections, so if he covered all of these, there were probably 60+ elections (including run-offs) he covered in that 20 year span, so his error rate would be less than 2%.
Here's another question with respect to "what's changed" - for those who think the exit poll techniques are flawed, what's changed there that made them so flawed in '04, but not in prior elections?
If you're going back to 1860 to find an exception, then the exception pretty much proves the rule. In general, neither party has complained about elections being stolen. What's changed?
Well, one thing, of course, is the rise of the "new media" (i.e., bloggers) who mention things that wouldn't be covered by mainstream media - for better or worse.
String theory can't be "correct" because it isn't complete. Bohr's model can be considered a very crude first approximation. Furthermore, if I had to guess, I'd guess that even if "completed", it still wouldn't be correct. So, Bohr's model is not a bad analogy, except that - as others have pointed out - Bohr's model was far more complete than string theory is today.
We did a lot of analysis on the speedup conferred by parallelizing our code. Interestingly enough, for a long while it was actually super-linear! I.e., quadrupling the number of CPU's cut the time to less than 1/4th of the original time. This was explained by the effects of having a larger total cache size.
Nevertheless, sure, many applications will not benefit from parallelization as much as ours. Neural networks are naturally parallelizable.
If I add more cores, it's so I can simulate bigger neural networks in close to real time. Depending on my level-of-detail, 10,000 neurons take anywhere from 250-750 MB. In order to run 100,000 neurons I need dozens of CPUs (currently done via Beowulf clusters), and each CPU needs a lot of RAM. (Up to about 100k neurons, synapses scale roughly as n^2, not n - at least in our model of the hippocampus.)
I try to vote in every primary and every general election. Especially the local ones. Actually, the only Republican I've voted for since '96 (when I voted for Dole) was local. Since our city council is overwhelmingly Democratic (100% now), I thought having a Republican would keep some diversity. It seemed like the right thing to do as diversity does seem to be a plank in the Democratic platform. :)
The other thing helping VA's Dem prospects is Allen's "macacca" comment, not to mention the way he's handled it. I really hope Webb wins.
String theory might not have earned the rights to be called a theory yet, but as with Bohr's model of the atom, perhaps we could agree that it has earned the right to be called a model.
Having a "rolled up" dimension doesn't require an extra dimension, because they're not _actually_ rolled up. The metric used to describe them is just easy to picture that way. Just like curved 4-dimensional space time doesn't need a 5th dimension to be curved into. I tried looking for a good web-site that explains this, but didn't find one in the time I'm willing to spend looking for one. I'm sure someone else knows of one, though.
You can read about him on Wikipedia, if you like.
Move to a state that's barely red. One way to defeat the Republicans is to leave a handful of states as ~100% Republican, and then redistribute the Democrats so that an overwhelming majority of states have a ~60% Democrat majority.
Of course, then you have to deal with the Democrats.
Here's a link that should work for you.
If, within 5 years, (as Intel is promising) I'll be happy if it only has the bandwith to keep 20 going. I do understand the problem with them not keeping other bottlenecks up to the task of 80 cores, but, if I can only get 20, that's better than 2 or 4.
The CMB does indeed provide one (useful) stationary frame of reference. Of course, there are lot of other useful stationary frames of reference. The CMB does not have some magical power in special, or, general, relativity.
In a vacuum, photons travel at "the speed of light", since that phrase is usually shorthand for c, the speed of light in vacuo. However, in a medium such as air, the speed of photons is less than c, and varies (slightly) depending on frequency.
Not that I'm saying that this isn't rubbish. "Relativity" is not the magic word the author seems to think it is.
He was farther left than he pretended. I liked the real Kerry better than the Kerry he was pretending to be. Of course, I hated that he was pretending to be someone he wasn't. Granted, I disliked Bush (and still do) even more, but still...
But, what about the cross section of people who get spam telling them to enter their MySpace username/password? Per TFA, the author does not have a MySpace account. (Nor do I, but I don't know if I've gotten this spam or not.)
"Really, it should read: the most commonly used passwords, by MySpace users who were targeted by and fell for a phisher" - or by people pretending to be MySpace users when targeted by a phisher - or by people giving a bogus password when targeted by a phisher.
Everyone in the polling place has to be naked. That makes it much harder to slip in a fraudulent vote. In the case that there is a miscount, tests for fecal coliform bacteria are performed. :P
Our number one priority should be knowledge. I know it's trite, but knowledge is power. That's true for dealing with terrorists (one needs to understand the terrorists and not just label them evil), and that's true for dealing with natural disasters.
Furthermore, it's not just a matter of what our number one priority should be, but how we should decide on what our priorities should be in general. When we overreact (e.g., by imagining scenarios where we'll all be forced to convert to Islam), we make bad decisions. We should do our best to think rationally (even though that means not assuming our adversaries are acting rationally) and not emotionally.
Some environmentalists have gotten to the point where they're willing to let the planet protect itself. To that end, they're practically joing forces with ExxonMobil and friends. However, most environmentalists talk about sustainable development. The idea is that we need to "save" the planet in order to protect the human life which inhabits it.
Our own natural resources would not break our dependence from the Middle East without both (a) using coal in dangerous amounts, and even then, (b) serious R&D. I'm assuming by natural resources you're refering to the fossil-fuel variety. However, if by our own natural resources you mean our brain power, wind, sun, and - yes - nuclear power, then I'm all for it.
By "spray", I'm guessing you mean DDT. The first reasons that a DDT ban was called for was due to its cancer link. The link to bald eagles' eggs, etc., came later. However, I'm all for research into related sprays, etc. It all boils down to thinking rationally and fully analyzing our consequences. We should consider the impact on the 7th generation from now.
How is IEEE making the "same mistakes"? IEEE is arguing about taking steps to reduce the danger from both terrorist attacks and natural disasters. Did you even read the article?
Of course, as others have said with Citizendium et al., it still makes an excellent addition to the wiki-verse. Well, at least for those of us with an interest in computational neuroscience, dynamical systems, and/or computational intelligence. Presumably, additional scholastic areas will be added as demand calls for it. (If you are interested in these areas, you might also enjoy NeuroJet.net. It, too, has a wiki, but it's only helpful if you're planning on using the neural network simulator that is NeuroJet.)
I also want to give a shout out to Eugene Izhikevich (founder and editor-in-chief of Scholarpedia) for his contributions to all of those fields.