The short story "Dogfight" from the Burning Chrome collection has a young street criminal discover that he has a talent that could bring him a legitimate source of income and friends.
Since it's my answer to the title question, you can guess that it doesn't end well. The whole story's online here and a couple of other places.
The plan requires high school students to take online courses for two of their 47 graduation credits.
This sounds like a cost-cutting measure. Online classes are for times when the alternative is not having the class. They're "better than nothing", not "better".
If a school wanted to offer students a course in programming but didn't have anyone capable, then it might make sense to arrange for them to take an online course offered by a third party (preferably a tech school or college in the same area). It doesn't sound like this is anything close to what they're doing.
This idea has been tried several times and it always ends the same way (with fail [wikipedia.org]).
Its neighbor could conquer it if the neighbor so desired, but that's true for many small nations. It accepted aid offered by a neighbor during a disaster (the fire), but nations do that all the time.
It defeated an armed invasion by a group of mercenaries, and it has existed in a state of self-rule since 1967 (ignoring British firearm laws).
I'm not trying to be confrontational -- I'm genuinely curious. Both B.Sc. and B.A. have breadth requirements, partly to encourage inquiry outside of the student's chosen discipline. If you strip those away, you're no longer talking about a university education but a trade-school-style training.
No, trade school-style training would be learning how to perform the basic tasks expected in an industry, with little if any of the theory.
Taking a good school's CS or mathematics program, stripping out the requirements for intro-level soft-science classes, and replacing them with more relevant classes wouldn't turn it into a trade school program. It would just be a more specialized university degree.
Visible and Optional v Invisible and On-By-Default
on
The Rise of Filter Bubbles
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Having these filters as an option is a good thing; that's just a tool you can use to refine a search.
Having them on by default and invisible (or obfuscated) is not. In this case, information is being hidden from searchers who may not even realize that filtering is taking place.
The TED page for the speech has a transcript for those who don't have sound, or just don't want to sit through a nine-minute video.
The more I think about it, the more likely it seems that you're right, seeing as he just wanted the illusion of fireworks and not a detailed (physics-wise) simulation. Applying an actual force and then calculating the velocity would have been a waste of time for him, so he probably just assigned a velocity at birth and (erroneously) called it a force in the article.
We have determined that the problem occurs only when our customers are simultaneously using peer-to-peer file sharing applications and running the game. Therefore we recommend turning off the peer-to-peer setting in the World of Warcraft game and ensuring that no peer-to-peer applications are running on any connected computer. Rogers will engage our customers to ensure they are aware of these recommendations, while continuing to work on a longer term solution.
Are they missing the point or just playing dumb?
For one, their "advice" isn't going to accomplish anything. That's like fixing a broken limb by amputating it.
Secondly, Rogers is the one that's breaking things, so it's their responsibility, not the responsibility of their users. Whether a workaround exists is irrelevant, because they shouldn't be breaking things in the first place.
It's not giving the parents any legal power that they didn't already have. It's forcing the companies to jump through useless hoops in order to show the Ministry's disapproval of an activity.
The project will require online game companies to set up a web page, enquiry hotline and other special channels for parental supervision of their children.
Of course, next to a lot of other crap China has in place, this is pretty much inconsequential. I doubt the expenses are going to drive anyone to bankruptcy. Sure, it's part of the way things are normally done there. It's still a nanny state action.
Thank God! And cancer? Still unsolved. I'll bet computer time could be used for that too. (sorry, bullsh*t like this hits very close to home for me recently. Nothing like having people dying, and then hearing how we are using resources for utter crap)
I don't think the limiting factor in cancer research is lack of computer time. If it were something so simple, getting the resources wouldn't be a problem.
I wasn't offering the breeder pattern as an example of self-replication, just as an example of a "glider gun gun". As for Wade's pattern... Well, I've been running the simulation for over an hour and it's barely past generation 10M (and the actual replication isn't supposed to be complete until almost 40M). Perhaps the construction outpaces the destruction in such a way that we do have two full copies of the original pattern, eventually.
Wolfram did seem impressed by Wade's pattern; he just said that the interviewer was trying to apply it to the wrong field:
Rather than contributing to our understanding of life, Wolfram says Wade's discovery could help devise ways to build a molecular-scale computer, starting from tiny components like the cells in Life.
You would need a glider gun that shoots out more glider guns.
Which would be hella fun, actually.
There is a breeder pattern that uses a set of ships to produce a stream of glider guns, but (being regular Gosper Glider Guns) they don't move once they've been created.
The applet on Paul Callahan's page has it stored as one of the example patterns.
Isn't this just different age groups acting out their normal roles?
The young take the world as they see it and learn from it, adults try to use it productively, and elders warn people about observed and potential dangers.
To their great joy, communication worked well between them even without this fancy 'grammar' grown-ups brag about.
Plenty of flamewars get started due to miscommunication when someone either says something that they don't mean to say, or tries to compress an idea too much and winds up making a vague statement that can be interpreted in different, or even conflicting, ways. It's easy enough to do this with "correct" or formal writing.
Poke around in the comments section of YouTube and you'll find that this new mode communication isn't really working well, even for the people who use it regularly. It would be more noticeable to the people using it if more of them actually were interested in understanding what other people are saying.
As you imply in your last paragraph, if someone wants to simplify grammar, it needs to be done in such a way that functionality is not lost.
And it won't be a clusterfuck because it's currently impossible to prove whether the imagined benefits will in fact exist.
I was thinking that it would be one for that reason, as well as the gray legality, but upon further thought you may be right. The ISPs might not be able to actually do as ordered, but they'll spend money on creating a department of Bill X Compliance, pass that cost onto the consumers, and it won't be possible to prove that it isn't having any major effect. After all, the media companies can just claim that the piracy rate would have increased even more if it weren't for the ISP's efforts...
I'm not sure what the bill's chances are of being passed (the summary says "will", but it's a "would" if I understand the article correctly).
If this were an act of law enforcement and the money were a fine, I believe some sort of trial would be required.
What's actually happening is that the UK's government is forcing ISPs to warn people who they believe are breaking the law. Of course, ISPs are saying that this is expensive and that they plan to pass the costs along to consumers.
I think this is going to be a laughable clusterfuck.
"They say it's impossible to stop now," Evelyn Torres, 48, of the Bronx, said of her son's use of antipsychotics since he received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder at age 3.
Okay, I understand that it's possible for three-year-olds to be bipolar, but how on Earth do you reliably test for that?
Slashdot Mirror
The short story "Dogfight" from the Burning Chrome collection has a young street criminal discover that he has a talent that could bring him a legitimate source of income and friends.
Since it's my answer to the title question, you can guess that it doesn't end well. The whole story's online here and a couple of other places.
I suspect some of the top people in the class went in with a full understanding of the subject matter, intending to test the class itself.
The plan requires high school students to take online courses for two of their 47 graduation credits.
This sounds like a cost-cutting measure. Online classes are for times when the alternative is not having the class. They're "better than nothing", not "better".
If a school wanted to offer students a course in programming but didn't have anyone capable, then it might make sense to arrange for them to take an online course offered by a third party (preferably a tech school or college in the same area). It doesn't sound like this is anything close to what they're doing.
This idea has been tried several times and it always ends the same way (with fail [wikipedia.org]).
Its neighbor could conquer it if the neighbor so desired, but that's true for many small nations.
It accepted aid offered by a neighbor during a disaster (the fire), but nations do that all the time.
It defeated an armed invasion by a group of mercenaries, and it has existed in a state of self-rule since 1967 (ignoring British firearm laws).
What would you consider a "success"?
I'm not trying to be confrontational -- I'm genuinely curious. Both B.Sc. and B.A. have breadth requirements, partly to encourage inquiry outside of the student's chosen discipline. If you strip those away, you're no longer talking about a university education but a trade-school-style training.
No, trade school-style training would be learning how to perform the basic tasks expected in an industry, with little if any of the theory.
Taking a good school's CS or mathematics program, stripping out the requirements for intro-level soft-science classes, and replacing them with more relevant classes wouldn't turn it into a trade school program. It would just be a more specialized university degree.
Having these filters as an option is a good thing; that's just a tool you can use to refine a search.
Having them on by default and invisible (or obfuscated) is not. In this case, information is being hidden from searchers who may not even realize that filtering is taking place.
The TED page for the speech has a transcript for those who don't have sound, or just don't want to sit through a nine-minute video.
The more I think about it, the more likely it seems that you're right, seeing as he just wanted the illusion of fireworks and not a detailed (physics-wise) simulation. Applying an actual force and then calculating the velocity would have been a waste of time for him, so he probably just assigned a velocity at birth and (erroneously) called it a force in the article.
Upward force is applied to the object. Upward velocity is the result.
Problem?
Santos Dummont - inventor of the air plane
No, that's an attempt by Brazil to pump up a national hero.
The Wright brothers didn't use a catapult in the 1903 flight, and the claim you just made would be wrong even if they had.
His reading comprehension isn't at fault here.
the offensive attack the US had planned if they didn't use the bomb would have been far worse. And that is historical fact.
"That" refers to the preceding statement. The quote claims that a hypothetical outcome is a historical fact.
the offensive attack the US had planned (and that is historical fact) if they didn't use the bomb would have been far worse.
This is what you meant (and yes, it is most likely true).
Editing out scenes that had the old WTC was stupid, and so is this.
Stop being oversensitive nutless wonders and expecting others to be the same.
We have determined that the problem occurs only when our customers are simultaneously using peer-to-peer file sharing applications and running the game. Therefore we recommend turning off the peer-to-peer setting in the World of Warcraft game and ensuring that no peer-to-peer applications are running on any connected computer. Rogers will engage our customers to ensure they are aware of these recommendations, while continuing to work on a longer term solution.
Are they missing the point or just playing dumb?
For one, their "advice" isn't going to accomplish anything. That's like fixing a broken limb by amputating it.
Secondly, Rogers is the one that's breaking things, so it's their responsibility, not the responsibility of their users. Whether a workaround exists is irrelevant, because they shouldn't be breaking things in the first place.
It's not giving the parents any legal power that they didn't already have. It's forcing the companies to jump through useless hoops in order to show the Ministry's disapproval of an activity.
The project will require online game companies to set up a web page, enquiry hotline and other special channels for parental supervision of their children.
Of course, next to a lot of other crap China has in place, this is pretty much inconsequential. I doubt the expenses are going to drive anyone to bankruptcy. Sure, it's part of the way things are normally done there. It's still a nanny state action.
Thank God! And cancer? Still unsolved. I'll bet computer time could be used for that too. (sorry, bullsh*t like this hits very close to home for me recently. Nothing like having people dying, and then hearing how we are using resources for utter crap)
I don't think the limiting factor in cancer research is lack of computer time. If it were something so simple, getting the resources wouldn't be a problem.
Your raging is pointless.
I wasn't offering the breeder pattern as an example of self-replication, just as an example of a "glider gun gun". As for Wade's pattern... Well, I've been running the simulation for over an hour and it's barely past generation 10M (and the actual replication isn't supposed to be complete until almost 40M). Perhaps the construction outpaces the destruction in such a way that we do have two full copies of the original pattern, eventually.
Wolfram did seem impressed by Wade's pattern; he just said that the interviewer was trying to apply it to the wrong field:
Rather than contributing to our understanding of life, Wolfram says Wade's discovery could help devise ways to build a molecular-scale computer, starting from tiny components like the cells in Life.
You would need a glider gun that shoots out more glider guns.
Which would be hella fun, actually.
There is a breeder pattern that uses a set of ships to produce a stream of glider guns, but (being regular Gosper Glider Guns) they don't move once they've been created.
The applet on Paul Callahan's page has it stored as one of the example patterns.
They just choose to ignore a different set of civil liberties.
The Chronicles of Riddick WAS "Riddick 3".
1. Pitch Black
2. Dark Fury
3. Chronicles of Riddick
Isn't this just different age groups acting out their normal roles?
The young take the world as they see it and learn from it, adults try to use it productively, and elders warn people about observed and potential dangers.
To their great joy, communication worked well between them even without this fancy 'grammar' grown-ups brag about.
Plenty of flamewars get started due to miscommunication when someone either says something that they don't mean to say, or tries to compress an idea too much and winds up making a vague statement that can be interpreted in different, or even conflicting, ways. It's easy enough to do this with "correct" or formal writing.
Poke around in the comments section of YouTube and you'll find that this new mode communication isn't really working well, even for the people who use it regularly. It would be more noticeable to the people using it if more of them actually were interested in understanding what other people are saying.
As you imply in your last paragraph, if someone wants to simplify grammar, it needs to be done in such a way that functionality is not lost.
For all the talk of "Dances with Wolves", the two things that Avatar reminded me of the most were Ferngully and Alpha Centauri (the game, that is).
Apart from the general plot being the same, the jealous boyfriend with a pair of hangers-on was pretty much the same guy that he was in Ferngully.
And it won't be a clusterfuck because it's currently impossible to prove whether the imagined benefits will in fact exist.
I was thinking that it would be one for that reason, as well as the gray legality, but upon further thought you may be right. The ISPs might not be able to actually do as ordered, but they'll spend money on creating a department of Bill X Compliance, pass that cost onto the consumers, and it won't be possible to prove that it isn't having any major effect. After all, the media companies can just claim that the piracy rate would have increased even more if it weren't for the ISP's efforts...
I'm not sure what the bill's chances are of being passed (the summary says "will", but it's a "would" if I understand the article correctly).
If this were an act of law enforcement and the money were a fine, I believe some sort of trial would be required.
What's actually happening is that the UK's government is forcing ISPs to warn people who they believe are breaking the law. Of course, ISPs are saying that this is expensive and that they plan to pass the costs along to consumers.
I think this is going to be a laughable clusterfuck.
"They say it's impossible to stop now," Evelyn Torres, 48, of the Bronx, said of her son's use of antipsychotics since he received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder at age 3.
Okay, I understand that it's possible for three-year-olds to be bipolar, but how on Earth do you reliably test for that?
14 is 22% younger than 18 (it's 22% of 18).
18 is 29% older than 14 (it's 29% of 14).
14 is 22% younger than 18 (it's approximately (100-22)% of 18).
18 is 29% older than 14 (it's approximately (100+29)% of 14).
Silly.