I'd like to add that creating diagrams with tikz or pstricks is so simple, and they look great. I also like Kile for hiding many of latex's idiosyncrasies.
The record is actually for flying the furthest in eight days across the Pacific, not the furthest non-stop flight ever as implied by the headline. Which is not surprising - the common swift, for example, can spend years in the air without landing. http://www.commonswift.org/records_english.html
Nonetheless, these birds are still impressive.
Re:Few are working on the grand integration
on
Whatever Happened To AI?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There are a (very) few working on it. Another poster mentioned Ben Goetzel. A couple of other names that come to mind are Eliezer Yudkowsky and Steve Omohundro. Google for "artificial general intelligence".
Replying to myself. I forgot to add: 2/3 of our school year took GCSE maths a year early. That is to say, below-average pupils were considered good enough to take the exam a year early. That shouldn't be possible imo.
I think the exams have become easier. I took GCSE maths in 1991, and I had a chance to compare the papers of those days with the O-levels (the equivalent exam) of a few decades before. I got an easy A grade at GCSE, but the O-levels were way beyond me at the time.
A couple of years ago, I took a look at the latest syllabus, and it appeared that the exams had got even easier.
It's not a good situation for those that go on to take A-level and university courses in maths or science subjects. There is a lot of catching up to do later.
Unfortunately, my computers are in my bedroom. You don't realise just how bright they are until all the lights go out. The light on my mouse is so bright I can (just about) read by it. I cover a lot of them up before I go to sleep by throwing clothes over the brighter ones.
It seems to me that this technology makes humans more powerful, but not better.
Indeed - for now at least. Ultimately though, this technology will allow humans to modify themselves. More intelligent humans will, I think, be better humans: most of the world's problems seem to caused not by malevolence, but by ignorance. And even real malevolence could eventually be engineered away.
This is my great hope for the future of the species anyway. This place isn't going to get any better until people fundamentally change - which they sure aren't going to do by themselves.
I abhor the use of the word "enjoy" in the media and by marketing people in particular. Form fields may *have* protection; they do not *enjoy* protection because they aren't fucking conscious. And nobody enjoys, say, the protection of car insurance. I don't sit at home feeling all warm and fuzzy because I've just taken out some policy.
Seeing this in tech news just shows how much this has spread. I no longer want to use the word enjoy at all because every time I hear it, I am reminded of this usage and feel a twinge of annoyance.
I want my English language back from these idiots! In addition to enjoy, the following words also need to be reclaimed: now (as in "call this number *now*") sensational
I can't think of more off the top of my head at this time in the morning. There are loads. Feel free to add your own.
The only movie I can think of about time travel that doesn't have gaping flaws in the plot is Twelve Monkeys. Sure, if you look for them, I'm sure they're there, but the writers seem to understand the need for logical consistency: they don't allow someone from the present to go back to the past and change said present.
This is in contrast to, say, the many trek episodes on time travel. The Voyager ones were the worst: whenever they encountered a serious temporal plot flaw, they would just say, "Yes, it's weird, don't think about it"!. This, from what was previously a pro-science show.
A bunch of reasons:
1. I like having my computers available instantly when I want to use them.
2. Turning a machine on and off many times can be harmful, so it is said. Others say it's a myth. I don't know who to believe, but it seems feasible that this could be so.
3. I run back-ups and virus checks during the night.
4. The computers work on protein-folding during their idle time.
5. My machines are in my bedroom, and they keep me nice and warm at night. Besides, there's nothing like the low purr of case fans so send you off to sleep:)
Re:Real geeks only please
on
Top Ten Geek Girls
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Everyone is pointing out the silly choices and the huge number of worthy candidates not on the list. But I think the most poignant line is the bit about Rosalind Franklin where it says something about DNA and X-ray crystallography (and I've lost the quote because I closed the page and now it's slashdotted - d'oh) and then says in brackets "don't ask". This is supposed to be about geeks ffs, and asking is the first thing geeks do. This just shows that cnet is about the geek as a passing trend, and has nothing to do with intellectualism.
I don't see paying in advance as the answer either, as it limits the available selection to "known" authors who've already made a name for themselves.
First, that's true for current authors/artists too: it's very difficult to get a company to back your multi-million $currency movie without some prior work to show them. In this new system, artists would have to produce their first works out of their own pocket or with a loan, and gradually work their way up, much like an entrepreneur starting a small business (as another reply pointed out).
Further, I tend to see it generating "more-of-the-same" content. Weber may be getting ready to branch out, but what happens when his fans only want to pay up front for more HH?
Then he has the choice of working for the money and doing what the fans want, or pursuing his own interest and working for less this time. Sure, many will follow the money, but those who feel most passionately about their art will not. And again, this is similar to today's situation in which we see many movie remakes, sound-alike artists, etc.
Finally, the up-front "salary" kills the dream as far as I'm concerned. Every author, singer, actor, and director dreams of the "great american novel" or hit song or blockbuster movie. Those dreams convince them to take risks and experiment with new ideas. I don't want those dreams dampened with a "just a job" mentality, working for minimum wage...
I don't think it would "kill the dream": an established artist in great demand could charge a large upfront fee for their work. Many artists make a great deal of money from their fame in other ways too. And if does turn out to make them less rich, I'm ok with that: I'd prefer them to be in it for the art rather than the money anyway.
I think grandparent is on the right track. I'd love to see that sort of system in place, though I know it will take many years for that to happen (if it ever does).
"The government has spent millions of pounds to change public awareness of drink-driving and smoking.
"As a society, we need to go through a similar process for creativity and intellectual property."
This isn't the change that needs to happen, and it won't happen. People don't see downloading material as wrong because it isn't wrong: nobody gets hurt by it.
I think big change is required, and the new system should consider these points as axioms:
1. The transfer of digital information deprives nobody of anything, and should be lawful.
2. People who create digital works that society considers desirable should be compensated.
This suggests to me a system whereby the creators are paid once, up front, for their creation, and then it must be freely distributable.
Of course, that's the thinnest shell of a new system, and it would raise many questions and problems. But people aren't going to drop their belief in points 1 and 2, and I see this sort of system as the only way of resolving them.
... but it's not a proper quantum computer. It's based on tunneling, not entanglement. The latter is what everyone understands by the term 'quantum computer'. Their computer just requires knowledge of quantum theory to build it. Well, so do conventional computers...
Slashdot Mirror
I would say the slashdot editors know it too. (And if you disagree with this post, I'll know you're only doing it for the karma).
Does anyone know if the UK has a similar party? They sound like the kind of people I would vote for.
I'd like to add that creating diagrams with tikz or pstricks is so simple, and they look great. I also like Kile for hiding many of latex's idiosyncrasies.
The record is actually for flying the furthest in eight days across the Pacific, not the furthest non-stop flight ever as implied by the headline. Which is not surprising - the common swift, for example, can spend years in the air without landing. http://www.commonswift.org/records_english.html
Nonetheless, these birds are still impressive.
There are a (very) few working on it. Another poster mentioned Ben Goetzel. A couple of other names that come to mind are Eliezer Yudkowsky and Steve Omohundro. Google for "artificial general intelligence".
Replying to myself. I forgot to add: 2/3 of our school year took GCSE maths a year early. That is to say, below-average pupils were considered good enough to take the exam a year early. That shouldn't be possible imo.
I think the exams have become easier. I took GCSE maths in 1991, and I had a chance to compare the papers of those days with the O-levels (the equivalent exam) of a few decades before. I got an easy A grade at GCSE, but the O-levels were way beyond me at the time.
A couple of years ago, I took a look at the latest syllabus, and it appeared that the exams had got even easier.
It's not a good situation for those that go on to take A-level and university courses in maths or science subjects. There is a lot of catching up to do later.
That Carlin quote comes from this routine about religion. If you haven't seen it, it's very funny, and well worth a watch imo.
Hehe.
But if you're going to make fun of spelling (something that I wholeheartedly encourage), it helps to check your own.
Phoenixes.
Yes, and from the article:
Juan Arredondo, from Texas, who lost his hand in Iraq in 2004, has also been fitted with one of the hands.
"Every day I have the hand, it surprises me," he said.
It's ALIVE!
They do look kinda nice.
Unfortunately, my computers are in my bedroom. You don't realise just how bright they are until all the lights go out. The light on my mouse is so bright I can (just about) read by it. I cover a lot of them up before I go to sleep by throwing clothes over the brighter ones.
It seems to me that this technology makes humans more powerful, but not better.
Indeed - for now at least. Ultimately though, this technology will allow humans to modify themselves. More intelligent humans will, I think, be better humans: most of the world's problems seem to caused not by malevolence, but by ignorance. And even real malevolence could eventually be engineered away.
This is my great hope for the future of the species anyway. This place isn't going to get any better until people fundamentally change - which they sure aren't going to do by themselves.
I hate to nitpick too ;)
But...
How much the sun moves depends on your frame of reference. It's cruising round the galactic centre at a fair ol' rate, for example.
Sorry to go offtopic, but this is a pet peeve.
I abhor the use of the word "enjoy" in the media and by marketing people in particular. Form fields may *have* protection; they do not *enjoy* protection because they aren't fucking conscious. And nobody enjoys, say, the protection of car insurance. I don't sit at home feeling all warm and fuzzy because I've just taken out some policy.
Seeing this in tech news just shows how much this has spread. I no longer want to use the word enjoy at all because every time I hear it, I am reminded of this usage and feel a twinge of annoyance.
I want my English language back from these idiots! In addition to enjoy, the following words also need to be reclaimed:
now (as in "call this number *now*")
sensational
I can't think of more off the top of my head at this time in the morning. There are loads. Feel free to add your own.
Ha. Five minutes ago there was no rain. I read your comment, looked out of the window, and now it's raining.
Yes, I'm in England too.
The introduction to biology with Lander and Weinberg is excellent too. Lander in particular is a superb lecturer.
The only movie I can think of about time travel that doesn't have gaping flaws in the plot is Twelve Monkeys. Sure, if you look for them, I'm sure they're there, but the writers seem to understand the need for logical consistency: they don't allow someone from the present to go back to the past and change said present.
This is in contrast to, say, the many trek episodes on time travel. The Voyager ones were the worst: whenever they encountered a serious temporal plot flaw, they would just say, "Yes, it's weird, don't think about it"!. This, from what was previously a pro-science show.
A bunch of reasons: :)
1. I like having my computers available instantly when I want to use them.
2. Turning a machine on and off many times can be harmful, so it is said. Others say it's a myth. I don't know who to believe, but it seems feasible that this could be so.
3. I run back-ups and virus checks during the night.
4. The computers work on protein-folding during their idle time.
5. My machines are in my bedroom, and they keep me nice and warm at night. Besides, there's nothing like the low purr of case fans so send you off to sleep
Everyone is pointing out the silly choices and the huge number of worthy candidates not on the list. But I think the most poignant line is the bit about Rosalind Franklin where it says something about DNA and X-ray crystallography (and I've lost the quote because I closed the page and now it's slashdotted - d'oh) and then says in brackets "don't ask". This is supposed to be about geeks ffs, and asking is the first thing geeks do. This just shows that cnet is about the geek as a passing trend, and has nothing to do with intellectualism.
Oh, and I vote for Lisa Randall :)
5. Takes up 90% of system resources to give the impression that it's actually doing something useful.
I don't see paying in advance as the answer either, as it limits the available selection to "known" authors who've already made a name for themselves.
First, that's true for current authors/artists too: it's very difficult to get a company to back your multi-million $currency movie without some prior work to show them. In this new system, artists would have to produce their first works out of their own pocket or with a loan, and gradually work their way up, much like an entrepreneur starting a small business (as another reply pointed out).
Further, I tend to see it generating "more-of-the-same" content. Weber may be getting ready to branch out, but what happens when his fans only want to pay up front for more HH?
Then he has the choice of working for the money and doing what the fans want, or pursuing his own interest and working for less this time. Sure, many will follow the money, but those who feel most passionately about their art will not. And again, this is similar to today's situation in which we see many movie remakes, sound-alike artists, etc.
Finally, the up-front "salary" kills the dream as far as I'm concerned. Every author, singer, actor, and director dreams of the "great american novel" or hit song or blockbuster movie. Those dreams convince them to take risks and experiment with new ideas. I don't want those dreams dampened with a "just a job" mentality, working for minimum wage...
I don't think it would "kill the dream": an established artist in great demand could charge a large upfront fee for their work. Many artists make a great deal of money from their fame in other ways too. And if does turn out to make them less rich, I'm ok with that: I'd prefer them to be in it for the art rather than the money anyway.
I think grandparent is on the right track. I'd love to see that sort of system in place, though I know it will take many years for that to happen (if it ever does).
This is exactly what I've been thinking, but you explain it much better than I can. Can I copy it?
1. Stop releasing sequels.
2. Stop remaking classics.
3. Stop turning books/comics into films.
4. Stop relying on special effects.
5. Write a good story, dammit.
From TFA:
"The government has spent millions of pounds to change public awareness of drink-driving and smoking.
"As a society, we need to go through a similar process for creativity and intellectual property."
This isn't the change that needs to happen, and it won't happen. People don't see downloading material as wrong because it isn't wrong: nobody gets hurt by it.
I think big change is required, and the new system should consider these points as axioms:
1. The transfer of digital information deprives nobody of anything, and should be lawful.
2. People who create digital works that society considers desirable should be compensated.
This suggests to me a system whereby the creators are paid once, up front, for their creation, and then it must be freely distributable.
Of course, that's the thinnest shell of a new system, and it would raise many questions and problems. But people aren't going to drop their belief in points 1 and 2, and I see this sort of system as the only way of resolving them.
... but it's not a proper quantum computer. It's based on tunneling, not entanglement. The latter is what everyone understands by the term 'quantum computer'. Their computer just requires knowledge of quantum theory to build it. Well, so do conventional computers...