1. Increased safety. Did you know that in the US, 1 out of 9,000 people die in a car accident each year? That is freaky high. Over a lifetime that works out to almost a 1% chance. Autonomous cars can be much safer, are never distracted and never get tired. 2. Increased access. Folks who are blind or have other disabilities cannot get around by car. Same for older people or people to young to drive. Same for drunk people.. 3. Increased productivity. A car can be your office. Get work done or spend time doing personal reading. 4. Increased fuel efficiency. Autonomous cars will eventually have the ability to work together to draft and save gas milage 5. Decreased costs. Autonomous cars will eventually lead to services where you do not have to buy a car. Simply pay for a ride and have a car show up when you need it.
After thorough consideration of this first post and its contents, I find this I must respond in the most considerate and throughtful way possible. This first post was clearly written before the second post and well in advance of this reply. Based on this, it is only logical to assume that this first post was written before any other posts. This leads me to think that crazyjj was quicker reflexes and reading skills than his compatriots.
My research has shown that people with quick reflexes make 80% more in real dollar terms than others[1] and are more likely to lead a longer life than their slower reading friends [2]. Clearly crazyjj is at an extreme advantage compared to the rest of slashdot.
Can America survive with this type of inequality? I think not. We must institue some type of equalizer. Perhaps crazyjj should be given a keyboard with several broken keys. Or perhaps we should simply bash his fingers a few times. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, "A man who types too fast can't be trusted."[3] Abraham Lincoln saw the danger that crazyjj represents and warned us. Will we listen?
Apologies for misconstruing what you said. I am very excited by these advances in education and see it as one of the pillars that a true world civilization will be built on. This is something I couldn't even have imagined 20 years ago and am flabbergasted by the progress I have seen in my lifetime...
I think you are confusing a degree with education. Education can be had for free. A degree is part of a formal program. There is intersection but the two are not mutually inclusive.
Seriously, though, we'd all do better if we had a master in a field personally teach us. But guess what? That means only the uber-rich will have access. Today, a poor person in India has a shot at getting a decent education and using it to make a living. In your world only the top 1% would have access to higher learning. Sure it isn't the same as a personal relationship with a master, but it is much better than no access.
So you can go back to your Greek world where only free property owning males were educated, but I sure as hell don't.
I am so lucky to be living in this era. I have so much access to information and knowledge, more than the richest person of a century ago could even imagine. I did the Stanford AI thing, and despite not having time to really devote to it (I was pursuing a Master's at the time), it was a good experience. Now that I am through with the Master's I intend to sample from the buffet.
We live in a wonderful era, tens of thousands of years of civilization and I think we are less than a century away from becoming a Type I civilization...
Wow. You read the whole summary in under a minute and still had time for first post. Quite amazing. And there was absolutely no sarcam in my post. Nope. No sarcasm at all.
This is awesome! The longer Kepler is up, the more chance it has of finding Earth-like planets. It isn't simply a matter of probability, but the need to see three transits to get confirmation. So at least two Earth years, but often more like 3-5 years. The longer it is up, the more longer orbital period planets it will find!
Monetary lesson: Our economy is based on goods and services. Money is only a medium for the exchange of those items. What you are suggesting is really going back to a barter system.
Second lesson: The "devaluation" that you speak of is called inflation. Yes, over time an individual dollar is worth less. We also make more of these dollars for our time. This is not some giant conspiracy.
Third lesson: Gold and land do not have a constant value. That is complete lunacy. Like every other good and service its value is relative to other goods and services
Fourth lesson: If you want to use gold as a curency, go for it. It doesn't change the underlying issue that it only stands in for the goods and/or services you wish to buy/sell.
"According to Beck and McKeown (1991), 5 to 6 year olds have a working vocabulary of 2,500 to 5,000 words."
"The average student learns about 3,000 words per year in the early school years -- that's 8 words per day (Baumann & Kameenui, 1991; Beck & McKeown, 1991; Graves, 1986), but vocabulary growth is considerably worse for disadvantaged students than it is for advantaged students (White, Graves & Slater, 1990)." http://www.balancedreading.com/vocabulary.html
"David Crystal described a simple research project — using random pages from a dictionary — that suggests these figures are severe underestimates. He concludes that a better average for a college graduate might be 60,000 active words and 75,000 passive ones. But this method of assessing vocabulary counts dictionary headwords only; it would be possible to multiply it several-fold to include different senses, inflected forms, and compounds. Another assessment — of a million-word collection of American texts — identified about 38,000 headwords. Bearing in mind this was all general writing, this doesn’t sound so different from David Crystal’s estimates for graduate vocabularies."
Snarky comment aside, you'll notice I first asked OP for a source. I then demonstated that his citation did not imply that an individual's vocabulary was 1,000 words, but that the average paper used about 1,000 words. Huge difference.
And what makes your "facts" so funny is that you are one of those people "who've never bothered to find out" that glass is NOT a liquid.
Third point, common experience can tell you that a vocabulary size of 1,000 would make you almost illiterate in today's society. If you told me that the average house were six feet tall, I wouldn't need a study to prove you were wrong.
I ran this through a couple of short documents I wrote
One had 525 words, 272 were unique. I got to 90% of the text's words in 220 unique words One had 1325 words, 619 unique. I got 90% of the text's words in 486 unique words
WIldly extrapolating, if a paper uses 500 unique words to define 90% of its text, it will have about 640 unique words. This certainly does not equate to a vocabulary. This can be demonstrated very easily....
I am the author of both documents. if what you were saying is accurate, I have a 272b word vocabulary. In the other I have a 619 word vocabulary? Which is correct? Neither. I was writing for specific purposes and only used a subset of my "three+ sigma" words in each.
First, thank you for the link. I would argue, however, that there is a large difference between the most frequently used words and a vocabulary. There is also a large difference between a given text and a persons vocabulary. If I write a ten page paper for a marketing class, it may be 5,000 words and 4500 of them will be normal every day words. The other 500 are more specialized. Same for a technical paper.
I am actually curious.... I'm going to write a unique word counter and run it over some things I have written this year to see what I can see.
. For myself, I spent much of my time in college training myself to focus
Can you elaborate on this? I find at work I am divided among 12 tasks simultaneously. After so many years of this, I've found it hard to sit through a book like I used to and just read cover to cover... instead, I skim and jump around. What exercises did you use? Any online references?
I grew up with the Encyclopedia Britannica. Apparently, though, your reading skills are poor. No, I wasn't steered wrong. The point isn't the quality of the encyclopedia, it is the fact that it IS an encyclopedia. It is not original work, and oughtn't be treated as if it were.
Your insults are weak, misdirected and repetitve. You can't get a simple concept through your head and instead misconstrue it as if we are putting down the Encyclopedia Britannica. We are not. Encyclopedias should not be used as a reference source, only the sources they reference. If you yourself really read articles in the Encyclopedia, you would find they have quite a bit of cross reference. Unless you are a lazy researcher, which you certainly appear to be, you go to those sources, read the material for yourself and then write your paper referring to the original sources.
You call me and the OP "fast fooders". You are the one who lazily reads an encyclopedia and then cites it as a source. Grow up. Learn to read, and argue the point being argued.
No, you have it entirely wrong your insults notwithstanding. Even in middle school, which was 25+ years ago, I was not allowed to use an Encyclopedia reference. I was taught that an encyclopedia is a good starting point, but for the facts contained, you had to go to the source that the encyclopedia referred to. The encyclopedia, in and of itself, is not a source of information but a collection of sources.
So if you don't understand that, then perhaps you had a poor education.
The problem I have is when warning labels go on items where we really haven't established that is a carcinogen. I remember the alar scare of '89(?). A lot of apple growers were hurt by the publicity. Then alar got cleared but not after a lot of economic damage to the industry.
"30 picowatts and measured an output of 69 picowatts of light - an efficiency of 230%. The physical mechanisms worked the same as with any LED: when excited by the applied voltage, electrons and holes have a certain probability of generating photons. The researchers didn’t try to increase this probability, as some previous research has focused on, but instead took advantage of small amounts of excess heat to emit more power than consumed. This heat arises from vibrations in the device’s atomic lattice, which occur due to entropy."
They are not claiming more than 100% efficiency in total terms.
Slashdot Mirror
What is the point of a driverless car?
In order of importance:
1. Increased safety. Did you know that in the US, 1 out of 9,000 people die in a car accident each year? That is freaky high. Over a lifetime that works out to almost a 1% chance. Autonomous cars can be much safer, are never distracted and never get tired.
2. Increased access. Folks who are blind or have other disabilities cannot get around by car. Same for older people or people to young to drive. Same for drunk people..
3. Increased productivity. A car can be your office. Get work done or spend time doing personal reading.
4. Increased fuel efficiency. Autonomous cars will eventually have the ability to work together to draft and save gas milage
5. Decreased costs. Autonomous cars will eventually lead to services where you do not have to buy a car. Simply pay for a ride and have a car show up when you need it.
Have prions been showed to be a/the cause of Alzheimers? I remember reading that it was theorized to be a cause, but hadn't heard confirmation.
After thorough consideration of this first post and its contents, I find this I must respond in the most considerate and throughtful way possible. This first post was clearly written before the second post and well in advance of this reply. Based on this, it is only logical to assume that this first post was written before any other posts. This leads me to think that crazyjj was quicker reflexes and reading skills than his compatriots.
My research has shown that people with quick reflexes make 80% more in real dollar terms than others[1] and are more likely to lead a longer life than their slower reading friends [2]. Clearly crazyjj is at an extreme advantage compared to the rest of slashdot.
Can America survive with this type of inequality? I think not. We must institue some type of equalizer. Perhaps crazyjj should be given a keyboard with several broken keys. Or perhaps we should simply bash his fingers a few times. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, "A man who types too fast can't be trusted."[3] Abraham Lincoln saw the danger that crazyjj represents and warned us. Will we listen?
Apologies for misconstruing what you said. I am very excited by these advances in education and see it as one of the pillars that a true world civilization will be built on. This is something I couldn't even have imagined 20 years ago and am flabbergasted by the progress I have seen in my lifetime...
I think you are confusing a degree with education. Education can be had for free. A degree is part of a formal program. There is intersection but the two are not mutually inclusive.
Then don't use it.
Seriously, though, we'd all do better if we had a master in a field personally teach us. But guess what? That means only the uber-rich will have access. Today, a poor person in India has a shot at getting a decent education and using it to make a living. In your world only the top 1% would have access to higher learning. Sure it isn't the same as a personal relationship with a master, but it is much better than no access.
So you can go back to your Greek world where only free property owning males were educated, but I sure as hell don't.
I am so lucky to be living in this era. I have so much access to information and knowledge, more than the richest person of a century ago could even imagine. I did the Stanford AI thing, and despite not having time to really devote to it (I was pursuing a Master's at the time), it was a good experience. Now that I am through with the Master's I intend to sample from the buffet.
We live in a wonderful era, tens of thousands of years of civilization and I think we are less than a century away from becoming a Type I civilization...
Wow. You read the whole summary in under a minute and still had time for first post. Quite amazing. And there was absolutely no sarcam in my post. Nope. No sarcasm at all.
This is awesome! The longer Kepler is up, the more chance it has of finding Earth-like planets. It isn't simply a matter of probability, but the need to see three transits to get confirmation. So at least two Earth years, but often more like 3-5 years. The longer it is up, the more longer orbital period planets it will find!
I love this!
Monetary lesson: Our economy is based on goods and services. Money is only a medium for the exchange of those items. What you are suggesting is really going back to a barter system.
Second lesson: The "devaluation" that you speak of is called inflation. Yes, over time an individual dollar is worth less. We also make more of these dollars for our time. This is not some giant conspiracy.
Third lesson: Gold and land do not have a constant value. That is complete lunacy. Like every other good and service its value is relative to other goods and services
Fourth lesson: If you want to use gold as a curency, go for it. It doesn't change the underlying issue that it only stands in for the goods and/or services you wish to buy/sell.
I apologize.
And here are more facts for you...
"According to Beck and McKeown (1991), 5 to 6 year olds have a working vocabulary of 2,500 to 5,000 words."
"The average student learns about 3,000 words per year in the early school years -- that's 8 words per day (Baumann & Kameenui, 1991; Beck & McKeown, 1991; Graves, 1986), but vocabulary growth is considerably worse for disadvantaged students than it is for advantaged students (White, Graves & Slater, 1990)."
http://www.balancedreading.com/vocabulary.html
"David Crystal described a simple research project — using random pages from a dictionary — that suggests these figures are severe underestimates. He concludes that a better average for a college graduate might be 60,000 active words and 75,000 passive ones. But this method of assessing vocabulary counts dictionary headwords only; it would be possible to multiply it several-fold to include different senses, inflected forms, and compounds. Another assessment — of a million-word collection of American texts — identified about 38,000 headwords. Bearing in mind this was all general writing, this doesn’t sound so different from David Crystal’s estimates for graduate vocabularies."
http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/howmany.htm
Snarky comment aside, you'll notice I first asked OP for a source. I then demonstated that his citation did not imply that an individual's vocabulary was 1,000 words, but that the average paper used about 1,000 words. Huge difference.
And what makes your "facts" so funny is that you are one of those people "who've never bothered to find out" that glass is NOT a liquid.
Third point, common experience can tell you that a vocabulary size of 1,000 would make you almost illiterate in today's society. If you told me that the average house were six feet tall, I wouldn't need a study to prove you were wrong.
In short, your misdirected insult is humorous.
I ran this through a couple of short documents I wrote
One had 525 words, 272 were unique. I got to 90% of the text's words in 220 unique words
One had 1325 words, 619 unique. I got 90% of the text's words in 486 unique words
WIldly extrapolating, if a paper uses 500 unique words to define 90% of its text, it will have about 640 unique words. This certainly does not equate to a vocabulary. This can be demonstrated very easily....
I am the author of both documents. if what you were saying is accurate, I have a 272b word vocabulary. In the other I have a 619 word vocabulary? Which is correct? Neither. I was writing for specific purposes and only used a subset of my "three+ sigma" words in each.
This comment has 128 words and 72 unique words.
First, thank you for the link. I would argue, however, that there is a large difference between the most frequently used words and a vocabulary. There is also a large difference between a given text and a persons vocabulary. If I write a ten page paper for a marketing class, it may be 5,000 words and 4500 of them will be normal every day words. The other 500 are more specialized. Same for a technical paper.
I am actually curious.... I'm going to write a unique word counter and run it over some things I have written this year to see what I can see.
It is actually difficult to define vocabulary size. If I know "jump", does "jumper", "jumped" and "jumping" count as new words?
Regardless, the 1,000 - 2,000 word vocabulary is unbelievable for most individuals over the age of 8.
Please cite a source for this. It is absolutely unbelievable.
. For myself, I spent much of my time in college training myself to focus
Can you elaborate on this? I find at work I am divided among 12 tasks simultaneously. After so many years of this, I've found it hard to sit through a book like I used to and just read cover to cover... instead, I skim and jump around. What exercises did you use? Any online references?
I grew up with the Encyclopedia Britannica. Apparently, though, your reading skills are poor. No, I wasn't steered wrong. The point isn't the quality of the encyclopedia, it is the fact that it IS an encyclopedia. It is not original work, and oughtn't be treated as if it were.
Your insults are weak, misdirected and repetitve. You can't get a simple concept through your head and instead misconstrue it as if we are putting down the Encyclopedia Britannica. We are not. Encyclopedias should not be used as a reference source, only the sources they reference. If you yourself really read articles in the Encyclopedia, you would find they have quite a bit of cross reference. Unless you are a lazy researcher, which you certainly appear to be, you go to those sources, read the material for yourself and then write your paper referring to the original sources.
You call me and the OP "fast fooders". You are the one who lazily reads an encyclopedia and then cites it as a source. Grow up. Learn to read, and argue the point being argued.
No, you have it entirely wrong your insults notwithstanding. Even in middle school, which was 25+ years ago, I was not allowed to use an Encyclopedia reference. I was taught that an encyclopedia is a good starting point, but for the facts contained, you had to go to the source that the encyclopedia referred to. The encyclopedia, in and of itself, is not a source of information but a collection of sources.
So if you don't understand that, then perhaps you had a poor education.
And my numbers are off. In 2011, 43 times out of 63, the lower seed won for about a 68% win rate.
Should be lower seed (I am the AC).
The problem I have is when warning labels go on items where we really haven't established that is a carcinogen. I remember the alar scare of '89(?). A lot of apple growers were hurt by the publicity. Then alar got cleared but not after a lot of economic damage to the industry.
"30 picowatts and measured an output of 69 picowatts of light - an efficiency of 230%. The physical mechanisms worked the same as with any LED: when excited by the applied voltage, electrons and holes have a certain probability of generating photons. The researchers didn’t try to increase this probability, as some previous research has focused on, but instead took advantage of small amounts of excess heat to emit more power than consumed. This heat arises from vibrations in the device’s atomic lattice, which occur due to entropy."
They are not claiming more than 100% efficiency in total terms.
Not 2GB 2Gb.
Which is why I originally said "And, yes I don't see how 2Gb is enough for a movie. Perhaps the press release folks confused bits with bytes?"