Indeed. I'm not as smart as Turing was, so he must have been a fuckin' genius. No living human could ever hope to match him. Basically a god.
You know he made some really important contributions to discrete mathematics, logic and what would eventually be called computer science. But a lot of people were able to make really important contributions to computer science and the war. What exactly makes Alan Turing a god, and not, say, Claude Shannon? Or Richard Feynman? Or Enrico Fermi?
Genius is a wondrous thing but its counterproductive to turn it into a cult.
Humans are genuinely an amazing animal... but to claim that all humans are above average is to demonstrate a fundamental lack of awareness of both math, and humanity.
See, I didn't say everyone was above average. Tagging something as "mediocre" implies not just that it's average, but that it's inadequate or redundant.
Turing was very intelligent, but so was Reinhardt Heydrich. Intelligence doesn't itself guarantee virtue or necessity. By a lot of standards the US is overrun by redundant, overeducated people whose intelligence far exceeds its utility.
So, it's best to practice reticence whenever you're tempted to assign some kind of relative value to people. It's dangerous, and, I think, really stupid, to say this or that person is "better" than any other; some people are definitely better at some things, but everybody plays their role, we need everyone, there's no group of useless people "holding us back," the dumbest janitor is just as much "us" as our greatest inventor, artist, or athlete.
I mean, think of all those "amazing animals" whose corpses sit at the bottom of the Atlantic. Just because all they had was a deck gun and their courage, they are mediocrities? Britain wouldn't have won the war if all it had was a bunch of super geniuses sitting in a hut in Bletchley Park.
The problem with people like Turing, Einstein etc. is that nobody understands them nor the way they think (or thought)
This is a trope. We have a lot of first-hand accounts of Turing and Einstein, and Einstein's mental process is basically an open book. The problem is people fall into the trap of believing that genius is inscrutable and fundamentally "beyond" or transcendent of normal intelligence, and that it simply cannot be understood. What people have done, to an extent, is they've simply taken the myth of angelic or divine revelation, and interpolated onto a naturalistic framework and then applied it to great scientists.
Turing was a man, Einstein was a man, their brains were, genetically and in essence, probably identical to yours. They were special for what they did, what they wrote, what they accomplished; not what they were.
Also, "genius" is generally a label that gets stuck on people after they die, and it becomes part of the myth-making that goes along with the historiography of science.
I felt like the drama in Particle Fever was really manufactured, these people really didn't have much on each other and they sorta made it in editing. Also to be honest I thought the technical treatment of the material was really glib.
Also it's a documentary that was released directly to on-demand and probably didn't cost a million bucks.
Yeah, move audiences are really chomping at the bit for a probing discussion of the Halting Problem and the Turing-Church correspondence.
The Imitation Game changed aspects of the real Alan Turing's personality to conform more closely to our idea of the solitary nerd. It falls in line with the tired idea that only outcasts could love computers...As for explaining the science behind Turing's code-breaking machine, the movie doesn't bother.
It's a complicated topic, mainly because his work for GCHQ was only tangentially related to his work on universal computing machines or his theoretical mathematics, they never actually built a Turing-complete computing system to defeat Enigma (with bombes) or the Fish cipher (Colossi) -- and even this distinction between the two fundamentally different problems is lost to the film.
The movie isn't about computers, it's not even really about codebreaking. The movie is about a recluse with a dark secret, who, despite not fitting in and being generally weird, finds a purpose for himself and a way to make a contribution to the war, only to see his greatest accomplishments hidden from view and perverted by the security state. The movie is basically a retelling of A Man for All Seasons.
This proposal, of course, works from the assumption that you can get marginal gains in intelligence from marginal increases is brain mass, which I'm pretty sure hasn't been established empirically.
It's really hard to build a piece of portable equipment that properly grounds all noise sources, mainly because there's no earth connection and shields have to just dump to the battery, and but have to be really carefully filtered from the audio and data grounds before they all come back together.
Don't you mean AC-blocking choke or inductor? Caps block DC.
There's more than a few people who don't code or develop for iOS or OS X, but ponied up the $99 a year to get a developer account, just to have access to betas.
Sorry, I read "lightweight" literally. The H4n is very mass-efficient; on the other hand all the kewl kids now shop for rigs like an Olympus LS-100, mainly because the H4n only uses AAs and the Olympus recorders just have much better battery life.
Zoom H4N (well regarded by professional audio guys for lightweight field recording)
I'm a "professional audio guy" and an H4n owner, and my regard for it is... adequate. It's mic self-noise is probably far in excess of any SD card noise. I still bring by Sound Devices running at 192k if I have to do anything serious (though I use SD cards for that, too).
I've read Tesla's Colorado Springs Notes, he spent years, essentially, inventing magic tricks. Academic citations of his work from this period are non-existent. It was a waste.
Heaviside was a genius and made some of the all-time greatest contributions to mathematical physics. He was also an eccentric loner who went mad in his old age.
Sounds like a bunch of philistine engineers to me. Armstrong's quote could easily be applied to Einstein or Maxwell. Heaviside probably would have condemned the Manhattan Project as a bunch of theorists.
It's telling that Tesla draws the line at Morse, who invented Tesla's chosen field of engineering. And Tesla was a brilliant engineer. But later, as an actual scientist and researcher, as someone that had to do experiments and develop new theory, Tesla was a failure. His work was a dead end.
Sometimes you aren't recording the voice and instruments at different times, sometimes you're using your DAW software to create the monitor mixes the performers are cueing to.
Once you've recorded everything latency doesn't matter but people do need the live mixing to be in sync.
(That said, people trying to do this at 96k should probably just do this in hardware...)
Wel, by definition, if something is copyrighted it's "released," you have to publish something in order to obtain a copyright.
Maybe everybody having their own idiosyncratic language isn't a copyright thing, but it's a pretty standard business tactic for vendors, for everyone from IBM to Apple. IBM or Control Data were happy to give you source code with their distribution, because they were pretty satisfied that you'd never be able to run the code on anything but their gear.
Nowadays shops like Microsoft or Google just create incompatible extensions to Java to keep people targeting their runtime infrastructure. Or Apple just up and creates a Rust clone (an arguably much improved one, but still pretty redolent of the original).
I don't know if the GC problem is that terrible. Apple's clone of Rust, Swift, manages to work without a garbage collector and it's pretty straightforward, you just have to use type annotation to mark retain loops, other than that the memory model Just Works.
Well, except that my point was that libertarians ARE mostly shadows of the major political coalitions and that pure ideology is pretty irrelevant. If you can assign an ideology a coordinate or a quadrant on some graph (who exactly is placing the origin?), that ideology is probably pretty meaningless.
Political beliefs don't exist on lines of real numbers. They're usually more categorical than that.
The Nolan chart can map political attitudes to points on a graph, but you can't make any kind of induction based on the graph representation-- just because two points are close together doesn't mean they represent people or attitudes that are politically compatible, and just because a cluster of points might exist, it doesn't necessarily mean that those points for a coherent ideology, let alone a viable political constituency.
(The whole point of the Nolan Chart was to prove that libertarianism is distinct and doesn't fit into the neat boxes of American political discourse. The Nolan chart is a worldview that tries to prove libertarians exist, and aren't just meaningless shadows of the major political coalitions.)
Slashdot Mirror
Can you cite an example of a popular entertainment that does this? Seriously asking.
If that's your values, I guess I can't argue with that.
You know he made some really important contributions to discrete mathematics, logic and what would eventually be called computer science. But a lot of people were able to make really important contributions to computer science and the war. What exactly makes Alan Turing a god, and not, say, Claude Shannon? Or Richard Feynman? Or Enrico Fermi?
Genius is a wondrous thing but its counterproductive to turn it into a cult.
See, I didn't say everyone was above average. Tagging something as "mediocre" implies not just that it's average, but that it's inadequate or redundant.
Turing was very intelligent, but so was Reinhardt Heydrich. Intelligence doesn't itself guarantee virtue or necessity. By a lot of standards the US is overrun by redundant, overeducated people whose intelligence far exceeds its utility.
So, it's best to practice reticence whenever you're tempted to assign some kind of relative value to people. It's dangerous, and, I think, really stupid, to say this or that person is "better" than any other; some people are definitely better at some things, but everybody plays their role, we need everyone, there's no group of useless people "holding us back," the dumbest janitor is just as much "us" as our greatest inventor, artist, or athlete.
I mean, think of all those "amazing animals" whose corpses sit at the bottom of the Atlantic. Just because all they had was a deck gun and their courage, they are mediocrities? Britain wouldn't have won the war if all it had was a bunch of super geniuses sitting in a hut in Bletchley Park.
This is a trope. We have a lot of first-hand accounts of Turing and Einstein, and Einstein's mental process is basically an open book. The problem is people fall into the trap of believing that genius is inscrutable and fundamentally "beyond" or transcendent of normal intelligence, and that it simply cannot be understood. What people have done, to an extent, is they've simply taken the myth of angelic or divine revelation, and interpolated onto a naturalistic framework and then applied it to great scientists.
Turing was a man, Einstein was a man, their brains were, genetically and in essence, probably identical to yours. They were special for what they did, what they wrote, what they accomplished; not what they were.
Also, "genius" is generally a label that gets stuck on people after they die, and it becomes part of the myth-making that goes along with the historiography of science.
I felt like the drama in Particle Fever was really manufactured, these people really didn't have much on each other and they sorta made it in editing. Also to be honest I thought the technical treatment of the material was really glib.
Also it's a documentary that was released directly to on-demand and probably didn't cost a million bucks.
There's no such thing as a mediocre human being.
Yeah, move audiences are really chomping at the bit for a probing discussion of the Halting Problem and the Turing-Church correspondence.
It's a complicated topic, mainly because his work for GCHQ was only tangentially related to his work on universal computing machines or his theoretical mathematics, they never actually built a Turing-complete computing system to defeat Enigma (with bombes) or the Fish cipher (Colossi) -- and even this distinction between the two fundamentally different problems is lost to the film.
The movie isn't about computers, it's not even really about codebreaking. The movie is about a recluse with a dark secret, who, despite not fitting in and being generally weird, finds a purpose for himself and a way to make a contribution to the war, only to see his greatest accomplishments hidden from view and perverted by the security state. The movie is basically a retelling of A Man for All Seasons.
This proposal, of course, works from the assumption that you can get marginal gains in intelligence from marginal increases is brain mass, which I'm pretty sure hasn't been established empirically.
It's really hard to build a piece of portable equipment that properly grounds all noise sources, mainly because there's no earth connection and shields have to just dump to the battery, and but have to be really carefully filtered from the audio and data grounds before they all come back together.
Don't you mean AC-blocking choke or inductor? Caps block DC.
There's more than a few people who don't code or develop for iOS or OS X, but ponied up the $99 a year to get a developer account, just to have access to betas.
Yeah, because armies of users come to post on Apple forums to let people know the update's working fine for them. :)
(FD. Yosemite's working great for me.)
Sorry, I read "lightweight" literally. The H4n is very mass-efficient; on the other hand all the kewl kids now shop for rigs like an Olympus LS-100, mainly because the H4n only uses AAs and the Olympus recorders just have much better battery life.
Is that even permitted under PCI DSS? I know other projects, like Coin, get hung up on this, for good reason.
I'm a "professional audio guy" and an H4n owner, and my regard for it is... adequate. It's mic self-noise is probably far in excess of any SD card noise. I still bring by Sound Devices running at 192k if I have to do anything serious (though I use SD cards for that, too).
I've read Tesla's Colorado Springs Notes, he spent years, essentially, inventing magic tricks. Academic citations of his work from this period are non-existent. It was a waste.
Heaviside was a genius and made some of the all-time greatest contributions to mathematical physics. He was also an eccentric loner who went mad in his old age.
Sounds like a bunch of philistine engineers to me. Armstrong's quote could easily be applied to Einstein or Maxwell. Heaviside probably would have condemned the Manhattan Project as a bunch of theorists.
It's telling that Tesla draws the line at Morse, who invented Tesla's chosen field of engineering. And Tesla was a brilliant engineer. But later, as an actual scientist and researcher, as someone that had to do experiments and develop new theory, Tesla was a failure. His work was a dead end.
Call me when you've got everyone in the marketing department up to speed on groff.
Sometimes you aren't recording the voice and instruments at different times, sometimes you're using your DAW software to create the monitor mixes the performers are cueing to.
Once you've recorded everything latency doesn't matter but people do need the live mixing to be in sync.
(That said, people trying to do this at 96k should probably just do this in hardware...)
Doesn't Rust use refounts?
Wel, by definition, if something is copyrighted it's "released," you have to publish something in order to obtain a copyright.
Maybe everybody having their own idiosyncratic language isn't a copyright thing, but it's a pretty standard business tactic for vendors, for everyone from IBM to Apple. IBM or Control Data were happy to give you source code with their distribution, because they were pretty satisfied that you'd never be able to run the code on anything but their gear.
Nowadays shops like Microsoft or Google just create incompatible extensions to Java to keep people targeting their runtime infrastructure. Or Apple just up and creates a Rust clone (an arguably much improved one, but still pretty redolent of the original).
I don't know if the GC problem is that terrible. Apple's clone of Rust, Swift, manages to work without a garbage collector and it's pretty straightforward, you just have to use type annotation to mark retain loops, other than that the memory model Just Works.
Well, except that my point was that libertarians ARE mostly shadows of the major political coalitions and that pure ideology is pretty irrelevant. If you can assign an ideology a coordinate or a quadrant on some graph (who exactly is placing the origin?), that ideology is probably pretty meaningless.
Political beliefs don't exist on lines of real numbers. They're usually more categorical than that.
The Nolan chart can map political attitudes to points on a graph, but you can't make any kind of induction based on the graph representation-- just because two points are close together doesn't mean they represent people or attitudes that are politically compatible, and just because a cluster of points might exist, it doesn't necessarily mean that those points for a coherent ideology, let alone a viable political constituency.
(The whole point of the Nolan Chart was to prove that libertarianism is distinct and doesn't fit into the neat boxes of American political discourse. The Nolan chart is a worldview that tries to prove libertarians exist, and aren't just meaningless shadows of the major political coalitions.)
In other words ya got nothing...