This was an open call that you could have participated in if you had better to offer. Instead you chose to heckle from afar - from Slashdot where such a vacuous criticism can be rated 'informative'... ha!
Maybe you'd care to expand on those two words to explain why you don't think that there are classes of computational processes for which classes of specification can be proven as met, or why you don't think this is useful...
So far the British Phonographic Industry has had little to say about the concurrency theory research in ubiquitous computing or models for non-classical computation.
(Whether you meant 'IT' beyond the scope of the article I don't know, but suggest that you read it...)
Systems that come close enough to the Turing Test that its terms have to be clarified and refined are already with us.
Furthermore the type of results we get from funding those kind of AI goals are drying up.
These are both reasons why we need new challenges...
You'll want to quote more now the article's finally been subject to some editing!
irishdaze [originally wrote] "ABC News is reporting that apparently only 18% of adult web searchers can tell the difference between actual search results and advertisements. In addition to this astounding conclusion, the Pew Internet and American Life Project's survey of 2,200 adults (only 1,399 of which are actual internet users, mind you) also indicates that 92% of web searchers feel they are confident in their own searching abilities. When I do the math, 92% of 2200 is 2024. This means that Pew/Internet is saying that more people are confident with their web searching skills than actually use the Internet. Saying that something is wrong here just doesn't cover it."
(La)TeX is a source format (that people actually write)... to produce Postscript and PDF!
(No one sits and writes Postscript!)
I do, however, agree that Quark is more appropriate for some tasks... mostly graphical design-heavy stuff, whereas (La)TeX rules the maths-heavy stuff.
(Furthermore PDF is little more than a fancy Postscript wrapper.)
if I read another ad for this asshole's fucking blog _where he doesn't even actually write any of the fucking content_, it'll be too fucking soon
Couldn't agree more. This time rather than ripping content from the New Scientist, he's ripping it from a publication he doesn't even know the name of: it's not 'Business' (what the hell kinda sense would that make? it's about bio-sciences!), it's 'BBSRC Business'!
Anybody who can send over a thousand SMS messages a month either has really fast thumbs or doesn't have much time left for studying.
I know you're only joking, but my little brother used to have an 'unlimited' free SMS contract that was revoked because he exceeded the 1800 per month 'reasonable use' clause (by 200%!)... and he's starting a Maths degree in September!
If so you're probably unable to bear, as I am, the take-over-resultant Yahoo Groups interface (I pulled everything I had on there off it), and know just how awful this could be...
What's a taxonomy without hierarchy?
This is just simple classification for indexing and it's a shame to misuse the terminology and make all the ignorant responses above right about the whole article being a blur of buzzwords (... and, God damn it, not programming jargon!)
The project FAQ on protein folding would like to persuade us that the major difference between Folding@Home and the IBM Grid version is 'predictive versus dynamic' folding. That's not my interpretation of the difference - that one is in academic hands, the other in commercial. I won't even think of contributing until I know that the results are not going to end up as private IP (but as usual Slashdotters obsess about operating systems as if they're the important issue...)
I think the first AC was correct. It turns out you do have to compile in options for the no-exec option to work. This is being discussed [useless link]
I'm not qualified to say whether it's true or not that on this platform, processes with dynamically-checked non-executable memory pages need to be compiled for that purpose (doesn't sound, from an OS theory pov, necessary - sounds more like you're looking for static checks with such an option), but what I can say is that the link you provided does not discuss this... try again!
Really, Justin is a cool, clever fellow, and your sneering comment is quite unjustified, except perhaps by the assumption-laden brevity of the expression to which you reacting.
Whatever cool means in this context, he ought to be clever enough to realise that 'getting there first' is only half the story and doesn't imply ownership. I was hardly sneering - if anyone's tone is off it's his; witness also "[n]owadays, because of its immense popularity, most people have only heard of swarming because of Bittorrent". I didn't need a lecture from him or from you - I'm not so ignorant and can make up my own mind about where credit is due and not without being talked down to...
Slashdot Mirror
This was an open call that you could have participated in if you had better to offer. Instead you chose to heckle from afar - from Slashdot where such a vacuous criticism can be rated 'informative'... ha!
So far the British Phonographic Industry has had little to say about the concurrency theory research in ubiquitous computing or models for non-classical computation.
(Whether you meant 'IT' beyond the scope of the article I don't know, but suggest that you read it...)
RTFA - Ubiquitous Computing touches heavily on this...
Systems that come close enough to the Turing Test that its terms have to be clarified and refined are already with us. Furthermore the type of results we get from funding those kind of AI goals are drying up. These are both reasons why we need new challenges...
I wasn't suggesting that no ones generates Postscript - the very opposite!
Now who's not comparing like with like?!?
(La)TeX is a source format (that people actually write)... to produce Postscript and PDF!
(No one sits and writes Postscript!)
I do, however, agree that Quark is more appropriate for some tasks... mostly graphical design-heavy stuff, whereas (La)TeX rules the maths-heavy stuff.
(Furthermore PDF is little more than a fancy Postscript wrapper.)
"My name is Marco and I can't stop thinking about P2P. P2P is cool; and by cool I mean totally sweet."
Or what if, like, you were telling them how your wife has disappeared and then they hear this whispering on the line?
Nah, sounds like the plot of a bad movie...
Pretty common (integrated radio receivers, that is) in Europe now...
Mobile phone - got to carry it around anyway and it dips the volume when it rings...
Remember eGroups?...
If so you're probably unable to bear, as I am, the take-over-resultant Yahoo Groups interface (I pulled everything I had on there off it), and know just how awful this could be...
What's a taxonomy without hierarchy? This is just simple classification for indexing and it's a shame to misuse the terminology and make all the ignorant responses above right about the whole article being a blur of buzzwords (... and, God damn it, not programming jargon!)
The project FAQ on protein folding would like to persuade us that the major difference between Folding@Home and the IBM Grid version is 'predictive versus dynamic' folding. That's not my interpretation of the difference - that one is in academic hands, the other in commercial. I won't even think of contributing until I know that the results are not going to end up as private IP (but as usual Slashdotters obsess about operating systems as if they're the important issue...)
If only Bill Shatner were on board to see it!
This is charming!
The site says "I have no animosity towards Bittorrent"... no animosity, huh?
How generous not to begrudge people developing for free!