That's how all AI algorithms work. They all have to be "trained" and then tested using specific sets of training data. There are always limitations in the algorithms used as well as in the sets of training data. When a large short-coming like this is spotted, the algorithm and/or set of training data has to be fixed, and then the system has to be re-trained and tested carefully to make sure the chances didn't cause even bigger problems. I've worked with web site categorization AI routines, and they come up with unusual associations all the time if you don't watch them closely (e.g. motorcycle helmets = weapons).
Just ask Google how much time and money they've spent tweaking their page ranking algorithms to try to fix problems like this. It's the same thing, really.
Actually, just about all the cell phones and tablets use OpenGL ES, so you can get a lot farther with OpenGL. Also, the state of drivers in general is pretty poor outside of nVidia (not just for OpenGL). I've done quite a bit of 3D graphics development (some D3D, but mostly C++/OpenGL/Cg/GLSL), and as a developer I can say that ATI is to 3D graphics as IE is to web browsers (something you wish you could drop support for but you can't because too many people use it).
Don't get me wrong, nVidia needs a strong competitor to keep them honest, so I'm glad ATI is still doing well. I just wish their drivers weren't so bad.;-)
Have you tried getting them to stop inhaling first? Unless some of the AGW skeptics on here want to argue on the cause-and-effect relationship between inhaling and exhaling, I'm pretty sure you have to stop one to get the other to stop.
Maybe he just sucks at looking for (and/or interviewing for) a job. A lot of good programmers do. That's why I publish code online with articles to show what I can do. I end up with companies and head hunters coming after me, which saves me the trouble of looking and interviewing. I've landed two good long-term jobs over the phone without even having to meet the people hiring me, and I get offers from companies like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. often. Of course, it also helps that I don't suck at programming, but if CubicleZombie doesn't suck, he could try the same thing.
As a developer who has written at least one game (and multiple apps) for each platform, I think the opposite is true. I think it's higher than 23 times, but either way it can't be tracked accurately.
The reason I say that is that you don't need to root your Android phone to install pirated apps. Just go into the settings and put it in development mode, and you can go crazy installing apk files (which are just zip files containing the app binaries) from all over the world (many of which are cracked or had no DRM in their earlier versions). Pirating on Android is completely easy and painless (just go into Settings and check a box), but pirating on iOS can be scary and painful. And unfortunately if you make stealing easy and painless, tons of people will do it. I would say it's primarily kids/teens with no money or credit cards, but I know too many adults with plenty of money that have enormous amounts of pirated music, TV shows, movies, etc.
The flip side of that is that Apple's iOS is a real pain in the ass to develop for in some ways. You can't just check a box on your iPhone and start pushing your own development builds to it to test. Everything is locked down very tightly. Apple seems to be equally paranoid of developers and users abusing their platform, though in many ways that paranoia has paid off - like when it comes to developers getting paid (which Apple takes a sizable chunk of), and when it comes to users feeling safe installing apps from the store.
Universities should run a number of psychology experiments to see how this can be done to human intelligence to see how susceptible it is compared to AI. Or you could just study people who tune in to .
Speaking as a father of two (currently ages 12 and 13) who has been reading them stories like this for a number of years, I will say that if you start at such an early age, you'll need to introduce most of these stories by reading them to him first. Sometimes you can start reading him a story and he'll take over (e.g. if he can't stand to wait until you get home to find out what happens next). Sometimes he'll simply go back and re-read his favorite books after you're done, and sometimes he'll just re-read his favorite parts.
The Belgariad by David Eddings - Both my son and daughter loved this one at a young age, and my son has re-read this series on his own several times.
The Dragonlance Chronicles - This one was a close second for my son, but not so much for my daughter (who loved certain characters but didn't like the story as much overall).
Ender's Game - Great story that's accessible to young boys (I think Ender was 8 at the beginning of the story), but it's probably better for age 10 than 8. Of course, "age appropriate" always depends on the child.
Short stories by Heinlein and Bradbury - You'll want to read these yourself and cherry-pick the most appropriate stories for your son's age and reading level.
Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, Eragon, Hunger Games, etc. - My wife and/or kids picked these out at various times. The kids liked them to varying degrees.
Wool and Molly Fyde by Hugh Howey - I read these to my kids at ages 11-12 and they both loved them. Wool sucked them in quickly (they kept begging me to keep reading it until I'd finished the series), but the story is dark for age 8, so I recommend you read it yourself first and decide when you think it's a good idea to introduce it. Molly Fyde is lighter and more "fun", closer to a "Star Wars" type of story. My kids felt that the first chapter was slow, but it really picked up after that.
A few more from the "kids" section:
11 Birthdays - It's not technically sci-fi/fantasy, and it's technically on the "girls" side of the kids section, but trust me on this one. It involves a little magic and a time loop, and IMO it's one of the best books I've ever read from the kids section. Both my kids love it, and they've shared it with their friends at school (who also love it).
Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children - One of my kids' favorites.
It would get way too hot for that. You could use the excess heat to generate enough electricity to power your laptop. Then you could use your laptop to warm your hands.
"Can be done very simply with a little bit of tcpdump."
Um, no. Not even close. This is a web site that can find any Skype user in the world by their Skype username. No one (not even the web server) needs to have Skype installed to use this, and no packet sniffing is being done. Since the encryption used for Skype's TCP connections starts with a Diffie-Hellman key exchange, a tcpdump would be pretty useless. Sure you could see your own Skype client talking to 100 different IP addresses, but you wouldn't have any idea who was at the other end of them, and you would have no way of sniffing the packets of every Skype user world-wide.
I agree that this isn't surprising, though. Skype's protocol has been cracked (and those cracks have been published) so that anyone could write a program to talk to the Skype supernodes (any normal Skype client that allows incoming connections can be promoted to a supernode) and to perform this kind of search. The problem here lies in how much Skype supernodes trust any client that knows how to speak its language. The author considered that part of the Skype client to be sufficiently crack-proof, but he was wrong.
I expected this argument to come back right away, but it took a while.;-)
When it comes to mountains, it's more an issue of size than of placement. If you go back to the river comparison, a mountain range is like a dam across a river. With a dam, you end up allowing MUCH less water past that point, which backs up the river to form a lake. Water escapes from the lake more slowly by evaporation, seeping into the ground, etc. This effectively removes water from the downstream side of the river just as much as crop irrigation would, and obviously that would have a huge impact.
Mountain ranges can't act like a dam for air (they can't stop the air from going over or around), but they can act like a dam for water vapor. Moist air passing over a mountain is forced to a higher altitude where it condenses it into clouds. There it gets squeezed and wrung out like a rag, and falls back as precipitation before it has a chance to go over or around the mountains. If you think about it, while the really large Rocky mountains on the west coast create deserts, the Appalachian mountains on the east coast are too small. The Appalachians are more like large boulders sitting in a river than a full dam. I don't know about you, but I've never seen a windmill anywhere close to the size of even one mountain in the Rockies (or even the Appalachians). In fact, I doubt all the windmills in the world put together would come close to the mass of even one small mountain.
Having said that, if they started building windmills the size of mountains, I would be more worried about them.
"If you take energy out of a closed system then that system HAS less energy, end of story." "If you convert wind energy to electricity then that wind energy is gone from the climate."
That argument would make sense except for a few key things you missed:
1) I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the Earth is NOT a closed system. Massive amounts of energy are constantly transmitted to our planet from the sun (primarily in the form of visible light). That energy is converted to infrared light and transmitted back out into space, never to be seen again. If you generate an enormous amount of heat on the surface (let's take nuclear power plants as an example), it doesn't warm the planet because the planet is NOT a closed system. The heat escapes into space very quickly. The primary concern about global warming has to do with atmospheric changes that reflect infrared light back to the surface without reflecting visible light. It has nothing to do with how much "energy" is in the system at any given time, but with how quickly energy enters and exits the system.
2) Energy isn't created or destroyed in this case. That energy "taken" by a windmill isn't actually removed from the system. It's still here. When the energy in that electricity gets used, it generates heat, which puts that energy back into the system.
3) If windmills don't remove that energy, the next tree, hill, or mountain will. The surface of the Earth (even the waves on the ocean) are constantly slowing the wind down. The friction generates a small amount of heat, most of which gets sent back into space as infrared light. Once again, it would be fairly easy to argue that adding windmills simply decreases wind erosion. It's an over-simplification, but it's not necessarily wrong.
You're right, I forgot about erosion. I remembered it later in a reply to another post. When you consider the net energy of a river, the gravity is constantly pulling the water downward and the riverbed is constantly pushing back on it (limiting the speed). When you dabble your toes in the water, the net result should be to take some of the energy away from the riverbed (as your toes end up helping the riverbed limit the speed as opposed to actually slowing it down). In theory that should slow erosion down a tiny bit, as your toes are taking some of the beating the riverbed normally takes, but as you pointed out, it is a chaotic system.
However, if you go back to the original argument (that of windmills), wind erosion takes MUCH longer than water erosion, and even water erosion can take a VERY long time. So while your argument is correct, I don't think it invalidates the point I was trying to make. I can't imagine anyone being worried about windmills impacting wind erosion.
"Or course trees block wind and change climate, everyone knows this. That does not change the fact the wind farms do this as well."
Actually, the wind-blocking effect of trees affects local weather patterns, NOT climate. Climate change from trees comes from converting CO2 to O2 (something a wind turbine doesn't do) and releasing water vapor into the air that turn into clouds (something a wind turbine also doesn't do). Also, I wasn't arguing that wind farms would have zero impact. I was arguing that the impact would most likely be beneficial instead of harmful. Most weather scientists consider the wind-blocking effect of trees to be a good thing because they slow down local storm winds and interfere with tornado formation.
"And of course a single toe slows a river."
Actually, it doesn't change the speed at all. You have to take into account terminal velocity. Imagine an object falling from a high altitude. It accelerates toward the ground until wind resistance balances out the force of gravity, giving it a constant speed. Now imagine that object passing through something like a wind turbine that slows it down at one specific point in its fall (or thousands of different points, it still doesn't matter). As soon as that object gets past the obstacle(s) slowing it down, gravity speeds it right back up to its terminal velocity. So while the interference does cause it to hit the ground a bit later than it normally would have, that object still hits the ground at the same speed and with the same amount of force.
Now imagine a constant stream of objects falling and hitting the ground. The first time you insert an obstacle to the path, there would be a "bubble" (or gap, or wave, or however you want to visualize it) in the stream of objects hitting the ground. That one temporary bubble would be the only difference noticeable on the ground. Once that bubble passed by, the stream of objects hitting the ground would continue on exactly as it had before at the exact same speed.
The same concept applies to toes in a river (where the riverbed provides the resistance to control the water speed). You're not removing energy from the river when you dip your toes in. You're removing it from the riverbed. I suppose you could argue that you're slowing down erosion a tiny bit by sticking your toes in the river, but I doubt anyone would really worry much about that.;-)
Because it's mostly BS. Think about it. What do you think planting trees does to the wind? What about cutting trees down? We've cut enough trees down over the past 200 years that we could probably put a billion wind turbines up and not get back to what was "natural" 200 years ago.
As far as the forces involved, imagine a kid dabbling his toes in a river. Does he slow the river down or change its course? No. What about 100 kids? Still no. The forces pushing the river are so much larger and stronger than anything toes can interrupt. Sure a tiny bit of the river slows down as the water swirls and eddies around the toes, but as gravity continues to pull it downstream, it speeds right back up to the speed it was going before. If you're not actually removing water (e.g. for a city water supply) or blocking enough to form a lake (e.g. a dam), you're not going to have a noticeable impact downstream.
Oh no, it wasn't anywhere near that old. I turned that option off as soon as the first patch started downloading, but as soon as the second patch became available, it still locked me out of the game. It just didn't start the patch download automatically. When I complained to support about how ridiculous that was, they told me the only way to stop it from locking me out was to play in "Offline mode" indefinitely. Which killed all of Steam's other functionality.
Slashdot Mirror
That's how all AI algorithms work. They all have to be "trained" and then tested using specific sets of training data. There are always limitations in the algorithms used as well as in the sets of training data. When a large short-coming like this is spotted, the algorithm and/or set of training data has to be fixed, and then the system has to be re-trained and tested carefully to make sure the chances didn't cause even bigger problems. I've worked with web site categorization AI routines, and they come up with unusual associations all the time if you don't watch them closely (e.g. motorcycle helmets = weapons).
Just ask Google how much time and money they've spent tweaking their page ranking algorithms to try to fix problems like this. It's the same thing, really.
Actually, just about all the cell phones and tablets use OpenGL ES, so you can get a lot farther with OpenGL. Also, the state of drivers in general is pretty poor outside of nVidia (not just for OpenGL). I've done quite a bit of 3D graphics development (some D3D, but mostly C++/OpenGL/Cg/GLSL), and as a developer I can say that ATI is to 3D graphics as IE is to web browsers (something you wish you could drop support for but you can't because too many people use it).
Don't get me wrong, nVidia needs a strong competitor to keep them honest, so I'm glad ATI is still doing well. I just wish their drivers weren't so bad. ;-)
Have you tried getting them to stop inhaling first? Unless some of the AGW skeptics on here want to argue on the cause-and-effect relationship between inhaling and exhaling, I'm pretty sure you have to stop one to get the other to stop.
Maybe he just sucks at looking for (and/or interviewing for) a job. A lot of good programmers do. That's why I publish code online with articles to show what I can do. I end up with companies and head hunters coming after me, which saves me the trouble of looking and interviewing. I've landed two good long-term jobs over the phone without even having to meet the people hiring me, and I get offers from companies like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. often. Of course, it also helps that I don't suck at programming, but if CubicleZombie doesn't suck, he could try the same thing.
My step-dad has been looking for years for a way to keep the neighbors' cats off his car. This just might be it.
As a developer who has written at least one game (and multiple apps) for each platform, I think the opposite is true. I think it's higher than 23 times, but either way it can't be tracked accurately.
The reason I say that is that you don't need to root your Android phone to install pirated apps. Just go into the settings and put it in development mode, and you can go crazy installing apk files (which are just zip files containing the app binaries) from all over the world (many of which are cracked or had no DRM in their earlier versions). Pirating on Android is completely easy and painless (just go into Settings and check a box), but pirating on iOS can be scary and painful. And unfortunately if you make stealing easy and painless, tons of people will do it. I would say it's primarily kids/teens with no money or credit cards, but I know too many adults with plenty of money that have enormous amounts of pirated music, TV shows, movies, etc.
The flip side of that is that Apple's iOS is a real pain in the ass to develop for in some ways. You can't just check a box on your iPhone and start pushing your own development builds to it to test. Everything is locked down very tightly. Apple seems to be equally paranoid of developers and users abusing their platform, though in many ways that paranoia has paid off - like when it comes to developers getting paid (which Apple takes a sizable chunk of), and when it comes to users feeling safe installing apps from the store.
Sorry, Slashdot stripped out my "insert questionable media outlet here" message. I previewed it a bit too quickly.
Universities should run a number of psychology experiments to see how this can be done to human intelligence to see how susceptible it is compared to AI. Or you could just study people who tune in to .
Melts onto the surface of the brain? I can't imagine that being abused.
Speaking as a father of two (currently ages 12 and 13) who has been reading them stories like this for a number of years, I will say that if you start at such an early age, you'll need to introduce most of these stories by reading them to him first. Sometimes you can start reading him a story and he'll take over (e.g. if he can't stand to wait until you get home to find out what happens next). Sometimes he'll simply go back and re-read his favorite books after you're done, and sometimes he'll just re-read his favorite parts.
The Belgariad by David Eddings - Both my son and daughter loved this one at a young age, and my son has re-read this series on his own several times.
The Dragonlance Chronicles - This one was a close second for my son, but not so much for my daughter (who loved certain characters but didn't like the story as much overall).
Ender's Game - Great story that's accessible to young boys (I think Ender was 8 at the beginning of the story), but it's probably better for age 10 than 8. Of course, "age appropriate" always depends on the child.
Short stories by Heinlein and Bradbury - You'll want to read these yourself and cherry-pick the most appropriate stories for your son's age and reading level.
Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, Eragon, Hunger Games, etc. - My wife and/or kids picked these out at various times. The kids liked them to varying degrees.
Wool and Molly Fyde by Hugh Howey - I read these to my kids at ages 11-12 and they both loved them. Wool sucked them in quickly (they kept begging me to keep reading it until I'd finished the series), but the story is dark for age 8, so I recommend you read it yourself first and decide when you think it's a good idea to introduce it. Molly Fyde is lighter and more "fun", closer to a "Star Wars" type of story. My kids felt that the first chapter was slow, but it really picked up after that.
A few more from the "kids" section:
11 Birthdays - It's not technically sci-fi/fantasy, and it's technically on the "girls" side of the kids section, but trust me on this one. It involves a little magic and a time loop, and IMO it's one of the best books I've ever read from the kids section. Both my kids love it, and they've shared it with their friends at school (who also love it).
Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children - One of my kids' favorites.
The Gideon Trilogy - Kids traveling back in time.
It would get way too hot for that. You could use the excess heat to generate enough electricity to power your laptop. Then you could use your laptop to warm your hands.
"Frost and Fire" is one of my favorite short stories of all time. Of course, a good number of my favorites are from Ray Bradbury.
“Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You can't stare at it long, it's too risky. You get a sense of it then you look away.”
Seinfeld
I'm surprised I didn't see anyone else mention this segue from eclipse to areolas.
I hear you may be able to find what you're looking for if you're willing to learn Japanese.
This is good news. It means more for the rest of us.
Google can steal all my cancer. I wouldn't mind one bit. I wouldn't even mind the ads, in that case. ;-)
I'm picturing lab mice (e.g. Pinky and the Brain).
"Can be done very simply with a little bit of tcpdump."
Um, no. Not even close. This is a web site that can find any Skype user in the world by their Skype username. No one (not even the web server) needs to have Skype installed to use this, and no packet sniffing is being done. Since the encryption used for Skype's TCP connections starts with a Diffie-Hellman key exchange, a tcpdump would be pretty useless. Sure you could see your own Skype client talking to 100 different IP addresses, but you wouldn't have any idea who was at the other end of them, and you would have no way of sniffing the packets of every Skype user world-wide.
I agree that this isn't surprising, though. Skype's protocol has been cracked (and those cracks have been published) so that anyone could write a program to talk to the Skype supernodes (any normal Skype client that allows incoming connections can be promoted to a supernode) and to perform this kind of search. The problem here lies in how much Skype supernodes trust any client that knows how to speak its language. The author considered that part of the Skype client to be sufficiently crack-proof, but he was wrong.
I expected this argument to come back right away, but it took a while. ;-)
When it comes to mountains, it's more an issue of size than of placement. If you go back to the river comparison, a mountain range is like a dam across a river. With a dam, you end up allowing MUCH less water past that point, which backs up the river to form a lake. Water escapes from the lake more slowly by evaporation, seeping into the ground, etc. This effectively removes water from the downstream side of the river just as much as crop irrigation would, and obviously that would have a huge impact.
Mountain ranges can't act like a dam for air (they can't stop the air from going over or around), but they can act like a dam for water vapor. Moist air passing over a mountain is forced to a higher altitude where it condenses it into clouds. There it gets squeezed and wrung out like a rag, and falls back as precipitation before it has a chance to go over or around the mountains. If you think about it, while the really large Rocky mountains on the west coast create deserts, the Appalachian mountains on the east coast are too small. The Appalachians are more like large boulders sitting in a river than a full dam. I don't know about you, but I've never seen a windmill anywhere close to the size of even one mountain in the Rockies (or even the Appalachians). In fact, I doubt all the windmills in the world put together would come close to the mass of even one small mountain.
Having said that, if they started building windmills the size of mountains, I would be more worried about them.
Next they'll make it talk so it can say "Damnit Doctor, I'm a screwdriver, not a blow-torch!"
"If you take energy out of a closed system then that system HAS less energy, end of story."
"If you convert wind energy to electricity then that wind energy is gone from the climate."
That argument would make sense except for a few key things you missed:
1) I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the Earth is NOT a closed system. Massive amounts of energy are constantly transmitted to our planet from the sun (primarily in the form of visible light). That energy is converted to infrared light and transmitted back out into space, never to be seen again. If you generate an enormous amount of heat on the surface (let's take nuclear power plants as an example), it doesn't warm the planet because the planet is NOT a closed system. The heat escapes into space very quickly. The primary concern about global warming has to do with atmospheric changes that reflect infrared light back to the surface without reflecting visible light. It has nothing to do with how much "energy" is in the system at any given time, but with how quickly energy enters and exits the system.
2) Energy isn't created or destroyed in this case. That energy "taken" by a windmill isn't actually removed from the system. It's still here. When the energy in that electricity gets used, it generates heat, which puts that energy back into the system.
3) If windmills don't remove that energy, the next tree, hill, or mountain will. The surface of the Earth (even the waves on the ocean) are constantly slowing the wind down. The friction generates a small amount of heat, most of which gets sent back into space as infrared light. Once again, it would be fairly easy to argue that adding windmills simply decreases wind erosion. It's an over-simplification, but it's not necessarily wrong.
You're right, I forgot about erosion. I remembered it later in a reply to another post. When you consider the net energy of a river, the gravity is constantly pulling the water downward and the riverbed is constantly pushing back on it (limiting the speed). When you dabble your toes in the water, the net result should be to take some of the energy away from the riverbed (as your toes end up helping the riverbed limit the speed as opposed to actually slowing it down). In theory that should slow erosion down a tiny bit, as your toes are taking some of the beating the riverbed normally takes, but as you pointed out, it is a chaotic system.
However, if you go back to the original argument (that of windmills), wind erosion takes MUCH longer than water erosion, and even water erosion can take a VERY long time. So while your argument is correct, I don't think it invalidates the point I was trying to make. I can't imagine anyone being worried about windmills impacting wind erosion.
"Or course trees block wind and change climate, everyone knows this. That does not change the fact the wind farms do this as well."
Actually, the wind-blocking effect of trees affects local weather patterns, NOT climate. Climate change from trees comes from converting CO2 to O2 (something a wind turbine doesn't do) and releasing water vapor into the air that turn into clouds (something a wind turbine also doesn't do). Also, I wasn't arguing that wind farms would have zero impact. I was arguing that the impact would most likely be beneficial instead of harmful. Most weather scientists consider the wind-blocking effect of trees to be a good thing because they slow down local storm winds and interfere with tornado formation.
"And of course a single toe slows a river."
Actually, it doesn't change the speed at all. You have to take into account terminal velocity. Imagine an object falling from a high altitude. It accelerates toward the ground until wind resistance balances out the force of gravity, giving it a constant speed. Now imagine that object passing through something like a wind turbine that slows it down at one specific point in its fall (or thousands of different points, it still doesn't matter). As soon as that object gets past the obstacle(s) slowing it down, gravity speeds it right back up to its terminal velocity. So while the interference does cause it to hit the ground a bit later than it normally would have, that object still hits the ground at the same speed and with the same amount of force.
Now imagine a constant stream of objects falling and hitting the ground. The first time you insert an obstacle to the path, there would be a "bubble" (or gap, or wave, or however you want to visualize it) in the stream of objects hitting the ground. That one temporary bubble would be the only difference noticeable on the ground. Once that bubble passed by, the stream of objects hitting the ground would continue on exactly as it had before at the exact same speed.
The same concept applies to toes in a river (where the riverbed provides the resistance to control the water speed). You're not removing energy from the river when you dip your toes in. You're removing it from the riverbed. I suppose you could argue that you're slowing down erosion a tiny bit by sticking your toes in the river, but I doubt anyone would really worry much about that. ;-)
Because it's mostly BS. Think about it. What do you think planting trees does to the wind? What about cutting trees down? We've cut enough trees down over the past 200 years that we could probably put a billion wind turbines up and not get back to what was "natural" 200 years ago.
As far as the forces involved, imagine a kid dabbling his toes in a river. Does he slow the river down or change its course? No. What about 100 kids? Still no. The forces pushing the river are so much larger and stronger than anything toes can interrupt. Sure a tiny bit of the river slows down as the water swirls and eddies around the toes, but as gravity continues to pull it downstream, it speeds right back up to the speed it was going before. If you're not actually removing water (e.g. for a city water supply) or blocking enough to form a lake (e.g. a dam), you're not going to have a noticeable impact downstream.
Oh no, it wasn't anywhere near that old. I turned that option off as soon as the first patch started downloading, but as soon as the second patch became available, it still locked me out of the game. It just didn't start the patch download automatically. When I complained to support about how ridiculous that was, they told me the only way to stop it from locking me out was to play in "Offline mode" indefinitely. Which killed all of Steam's other functionality.