There's nothing wrong with pointing to gaps. That's what science is all about.
True
And there's nothing wrong with suggesting God as one candidate theory to explain a gap. All theories are allowed.
False, if you are talking about scientific theories. Let me quote:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.
That's why the "God theory" is not a theory, and why ID is completely incompatible with the scientific method.
Science can't work with untestable theories, but unfortunately that's not the same as proving them false. We could be unlucky. The truth might be beyond our testing. There's no harm in facing that possibility.
Just mention a few other candidates besides God to explain the gaps. And show some examples of what used to be gaps, that have now been filled in. Now you've got a science course, that covers everything that ID supporters can ask to cover.
Unfortunately that doesn't work in practice, because you end up teaching that any idea can be considered a scientific theory, and that is completely false. Yes, one could say
There are some people who think X, Y and Z, but that's just unsubstantiated ideas
and see the wrath of ID'ers strike down on you. No religious person would want their "theories" to be associated with the "theory" that a great ball of pasta is what makes the world turn. Or that there is a pink unicorn whose dreams we inhabit.
In the end, it all boils down to this basic issue:
Fear of Death
So people will do everything they can to maximize their chances against it. And if it means believing in something against all odds, and the greater the odds, the greater your belief, the greater your chances, then so be it. There's nothing more to it.
The trick with #6 is looking at the arrow that points to the square. This gives you a directional anchor. Then you just need to notice that all the cubes have the other square on the right, except for A.
Well I am not so sure that the test linked at in the summary is that effective. I personally am pretty good at spatial stuff, and on my first pass of the test it took me a good 15 minutes, scoring 8/9. I thought I did well. But then about 15mn later I showed it to my father in law and went through it again. It took me all of 3 minutes tops, not because I'd done it before but because I'd gotten much better at it. I didn't even need to visualize the cubes any more, I just looked at the flat patterns. I scored 9/9. I think it would be very difficult to create such spatial tests unless you get into 3D geometry, where you try to visualize the cross section of a cylinder skewering a cone.
Just like you can't stop someone from secretly recording a face-to-face conversation, Snapchat tries to enforce as much as possible the demands for privacy: if the recipient stores the message (through a camera screen capture for example), then it is clear s/he is going against the wishes of the sender, and that ultimately could have legal ramifications. Technically the data isn't transmitted in the clear. You have to do some work to crack its encryption.
For the generation that grew up on video games such as Rock Band, it can be of huge help. Imagine you're going to play a gig, put on the Glasses and sit behind your drums. Now you don't need to perfectly remember all those bits and pieces of the song, just play along. Of course the software should have some feedback mechanism that listens to the actual beat and song that the band is playing, to accelerate or slow the tab down. But I can see it helping there.
He just did post the db dump. But I agree with you. It seems he just wants to get rid of it with the least amount of work. Understandable, but unfortunate.
I'm not saying it's fully autonomous. But it seems it can do some stuff autonomously. Then again, all I see is some hexapod walking around and kicking a barrel.
I agree that "technologies and tools are easy to pick up". With one caveat: the lack of classes on system architecture (not just CPU architecture) but complete system architecture and design is unacceptable in today's age. Yes it's good to learn about CPU pipelining (if taught), but then one also needs to learn about macro stuff such as interactions between system components (DBs, servers, memory stacks, NAS, etc...). After all, even ridiculous economics is taught at micro and macro level (I did major in econ and math)
You have lots of free time in uni. Make use of it. Build your website. Contribute to dozens of open source projects. Learn about them, install them, use them, provide patches and improvements. Go through the whole stack: - learn to install and manage an OS (say Debian Linux) - learn to install and manage the web server (e.g. Apache) - learn to install and manage the DB server (e.g. MySQL) - learn to install and program the scripting language of your choice (perl, python, php, ruby...) - learn HTML, CSS, JavaScript - learn SQL - learn the concepts behind NoSQL - learn server-side MVC frameworks - learn client-side MVC frameworks
CGN has already happened in countries that were late on the Internet bandwagon and got too few IPs. I am currently an unfortunate subscriber going through CGN, and let me tell you, the time I spent debugging connectivity issues is mindblowing. For those who don't understand the extent of the problem, CGN is also called NAT444: Your internal network has an IPv4 subnet, say 10.17.0.x. Then your router is allocated an IPv4 from your ISP. You think that's your IP, but it isn't. Your ISP itself is running NAT internally, and ultimately your data is being sent through the wire to the wider Internet with yet another IP. So you have 3 networks: IPv4 IPv4 IPv4 Practically speaking, nothing that acts as a server will work. i.e. none of the modern multiplayer networking stacks work reliably, for example. When testing your PS3 networking, it will say (correctly) that you are screwed because you have a "Type 3 NAT", which is Sony speak for NAT444.
I also systematically refuse the microwave scanners. I was on my way out of Chicago last week, and was instructed to go through it. I simply told the TSA guy "no". There was a regular metal detector next to it, but he told me I'd get a patdown. No problem I said, but had to wait a couple of minutes for the patdown guy ahead to finish. Then I had a pretty light gloved patdown (nothing to write home about, not even as effective as the one you get in any Arab country airport by default) and then he rubbed a cotton swap on his gloves and sent it through the explosives detector machine. Anyway, it all went without a hitch but the operation itself takes 3-5 minutes. As I was getting my stuff, I saw another person do the same thing. All we need is for a few more % of people to request the patdown and it'll be utterly impossible for the TSA to handle the demand, thus reducing it to getting rid of the microwave scanners. Those things need to go.
User scores are not reviewer reviews. Reviewers have experience and thoughtful analyses but suffer from small sample size and conflicts of interest. Users have the strength of numbers but suffer from groupthink and emotional coloring.
The way I use MC is that I get a good feel for the game based on user score averages, then look at the reviewers that I like and analyze their pros and cons. Then I make a decision, based on whether the cons are bad enough for me or not.
Diablo 3 on Metacritic is the 2nd highest rated current game. Don't take averages for truth, they're just averages. Use Metacritic as a source of reviews, find the reviewers (people) who you have the most affinity with over time, and then focus on what their own scores are.
The problem is that the Facebook engineers went too far. In their hubris (not necessarily generally bad) they thought that they could literally create a very deep interface between their html code and the underlying native APIs. Essentially abstracting the underlying native APIs with a code interpreter that would allow their servers to send the same html to any device, and some additional stuff for those that had other features. As usual, they started simple and everything worked, but then over a few months they added more features and the stuff kept growing in complexity and ultimately ate crap. And debugging some kind of virtual machine on a smartphone isn't the easiest thing. So they're finally figuring out that it ain't working, and going back to native development on top of their standard JSON (or whatever) server API.
That's right. KDB is one of the little-known DB systems used in very high performance environments of financial system. It is so ridiculously small and fast that I just couldn't believe it when I looked at it over 10 years ago. I just looked now, and the 3.0 version of kdb+ is all of 258k in size (zipped, OS X). It's got the database engine, q language interpreter and http server among others. And a small sample dataset. Try it out, it's mind-blowing.
PS: I never did use it in production because (at the time) of the steep learning curve
There is a massive downside to NAT that any home user at an ISP that has been allowed few IPs will tell you. Any ISP in a non-western country will probably have been allocated far far fewer IPs than it's got clients. Therefore that ISP will be using NAT on his outside network. Couple that with NAT on the inside network for the home user, and you've got the clusterfucks called NAT444 and (the slightly better) NAT464 among others. They're also commonly called Carrier-grade NAT (CGN) or large-scale NAT (LSN): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT
This consistently completely screws up all sorts of connections, such as: - XBox and Playstation 3 networking (you'll see "NAT Type 3" on the network config) - FaceTime - etc...
Basically anything that is a peer-to-peer protocol with reciprocal client-server stuff is shot.
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing wrong with pointing to gaps. That's what science is all about.
True
And there's nothing wrong with suggesting God as one candidate theory to explain a gap. All theories are allowed.
False, if you are talking about scientific theories. Let me quote:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.
That's why the "God theory" is not a theory, and why ID is completely incompatible with the scientific method.
Science can't work with untestable theories, but unfortunately that's not the same as proving them false. We could be unlucky. The truth might be beyond our testing. There's no harm in facing that possibility.
Just mention a few other candidates besides God to explain the gaps. And show some examples of what used to be gaps, that have now been filled in. Now you've got a science course, that covers everything that ID supporters can ask to cover.
Unfortunately that doesn't work in practice, because you end up teaching that any idea can be considered a scientific theory, and that is completely false. Yes, one could say
There are some people who think X, Y and Z, but that's just unsubstantiated ideas
and see the wrath of ID'ers strike down on you. No religious person would want their "theories" to be associated with the "theory" that a great ball of pasta is what makes the world turn. Or that there is a pink unicorn whose dreams we inhabit.
In the end, it all boils down to this basic issue:
Fear of Death
So people will do everything they can to maximize their chances against it. And if it means believing in something against all odds, and the greater the odds, the greater your belief, the greater your chances, then so be it.
There's nothing more to it.
The trick with #6 is looking at the arrow that points to the square. This gives you a directional anchor. Then you just need to notice that all the cubes have the other square on the right, except for A.
Well I am not so sure that the test linked at in the summary is that effective. I personally am pretty good at spatial stuff, and on my first pass of the test it took me a good 15 minutes, scoring 8/9. I thought I did well. But then about 15mn later I showed it to my father in law and went through it again. It took me all of 3 minutes tops, not because I'd done it before but because I'd gotten much better at it. I didn't even need to visualize the cubes any more, I just looked at the flat patterns. I scored 9/9.
I think it would be very difficult to create such spatial tests unless you get into 3D geometry, where you try to visualize the cross section of a cylinder skewering a cone.
absolutely not. complete miss.
Just like you can't stop someone from secretly recording a face-to-face conversation, Snapchat tries to enforce as much as possible the demands for privacy: if the recipient stores the message (through a camera screen capture for example), then it is clear s/he is going against the wishes of the sender, and that ultimately could have legal ramifications.
Technically the data isn't transmitted in the clear. You have to do some work to crack its encryption.
For the generation that grew up on video games such as Rock Band, it can be of huge help.
Imagine you're going to play a gig, put on the Glasses and sit behind your drums. Now you don't need to perfectly remember all those bits and pieces of the song, just play along.
Of course the software should have some feedback mechanism that listens to the actual beat and song that the band is playing, to accelerate or slow the tab down. But I can see it helping there.
He just did post the db dump. But I agree with you. It seems he just wants to get rid of it with the least amount of work. Understandable, but unfortunate.
I'm not saying it's fully autonomous. But it seems it can do some stuff autonomously. Then again, all I see is some hexapod walking around and kicking a barrel.
It can be controlled remotely via wifi. The in-seat driver is optional.
The video couldn't have been worse, considering how interesting the subject is.
The videographer should be shot on general principle.
I agree that "technologies and tools are easy to pick up". With one caveat: the lack of classes on system architecture (not just CPU architecture) but complete system architecture and design is unacceptable in today's age.
Yes it's good to learn about CPU pipelining (if taught), but then one also needs to learn about macro stuff such as interactions between system components (DBs, servers, memory stacks, NAS, etc...).
After all, even ridiculous economics is taught at micro and macro level (I did major in econ and math)
You have lots of free time in uni. Make use of it. Build your website. Contribute to dozens of open source projects. Learn about them, install them, use them, provide patches and improvements. Go through the whole stack:
- learn to install and manage an OS (say Debian Linux)
- learn to install and manage the web server (e.g. Apache)
- learn to install and manage the DB server (e.g. MySQL)
- learn to install and program the scripting language of your choice (perl, python, php, ruby...)
- learn HTML, CSS, JavaScript
- learn SQL
- learn the concepts behind NoSQL
- learn server-side MVC frameworks
- learn client-side MVC frameworks
That's for year 1. :)
CGN has already happened in countries that were late on the Internet bandwagon and got too few IPs.
I am currently an unfortunate subscriber going through CGN, and let me tell you, the time I spent debugging connectivity issues is mindblowing.
For those who don't understand the extent of the problem, CGN is also called NAT444:
Your internal network has an IPv4 subnet, say 10.17.0.x. Then your router is allocated an IPv4 from your ISP. You think that's your IP, but it isn't. Your ISP itself is running NAT internally, and ultimately your data is being sent through the wire to the wider Internet with yet another IP.
So you have 3 networks: IPv4 IPv4 IPv4
Practically speaking, nothing that acts as a server will work. i.e. none of the modern multiplayer networking stacks work reliably, for example. When testing your PS3 networking, it will say (correctly) that you are screwed because you have a "Type 3 NAT", which is Sony speak for NAT444.
They're using the UAV to scare birds. They NEED to fly low and loud. Which means they're the perfect target for a #7 shot of 12-gauge.
Progress marches on: keep up or stop for tea with Ozymandias.
Poor Ozymandias should not be accused of stopping for tea or falling behind.
Absolutely. It's Montgomery who stands accused for all those Market Garden deaths.
This is awesome:
O. Jackson, J. Li, and N. D. Nehru. A First Course in Advanced p-Adic Calculus. Zambian Mathematical Society, 1935.
I also systematically refuse the microwave scanners.
I was on my way out of Chicago last week, and was instructed to go through it. I simply told the TSA guy "no". There was a regular metal detector next to it, but he told me I'd get a patdown. No problem I said, but had to wait a couple of minutes for the patdown guy ahead to finish. Then I had a pretty light gloved patdown (nothing to write home about, not even as effective as the one you get in any Arab country airport by default) and then he rubbed a cotton swap on his gloves and sent it through the explosives detector machine. Anyway, it all went without a hitch but the operation itself takes 3-5 minutes.
As I was getting my stuff, I saw another person do the same thing. All we need is for a few more % of people to request the patdown and it'll be utterly impossible for the TSA to handle the demand, thus reducing it to getting rid of the microwave scanners.
Those things need to go.
User scores are not reviewer reviews.
Reviewers have experience and thoughtful analyses but suffer from small sample size and conflicts of interest.
Users have the strength of numbers but suffer from groupthink and emotional coloring.
The way I use MC is that I get a good feel for the game based on user score averages, then look at the reviewers that I like and analyze their pros and cons. Then I make a decision, based on whether the cons are bad enough for me or not.
Diablo 3 on Metacritic is the 2nd highest rated current game.
Don't take averages for truth, they're just averages. Use Metacritic as a source of reviews, find the reviewers (people) who you have the most affinity with over time, and then focus on what their own scores are.
The problem is that the Facebook engineers went too far.
In their hubris (not necessarily generally bad) they thought that they could literally create a very deep interface between their html code and the underlying native APIs. Essentially abstracting the underlying native APIs with a code interpreter that would allow their servers to send the same html to any device, and some additional stuff for those that had other features.
As usual, they started simple and everything worked, but then over a few months they added more features and the stuff kept growing in complexity and ultimately ate crap. And debugging some kind of virtual machine on a smartphone isn't the easiest thing.
So they're finally figuring out that it ain't working, and going back to native development on top of their standard JSON (or whatever) server API.
That's right. KDB is one of the little-known DB systems used in very high performance environments of financial system.
It is so ridiculously small and fast that I just couldn't believe it when I looked at it over 10 years ago.
I just looked now, and the 3.0 version of kdb+ is all of 258k in size (zipped, OS X).
It's got the database engine, q language interpreter and http server among others. And a small sample dataset.
Try it out, it's mind-blowing.
PS: I never did use it in production because (at the time) of the steep learning curve
And of course Objective-C 2.0:
# Obj-C [xs fold:^(int x, int y) { return x + y; });
Obligatory 80s reference:
"Sirius Presents... PLASMANIA! HAHAHAHA"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6krSk2dddaI
(it's the bloodstream, not the intestines, but still...)
There is a massive downside to NAT that any home user at an ISP that has been allowed few IPs will tell you.
Any ISP in a non-western country will probably have been allocated far far fewer IPs than it's got clients. Therefore that ISP will be using NAT on his outside network. Couple that with NAT on the inside network for the home user, and you've got the clusterfucks called NAT444 and (the slightly better) NAT464 among others. They're also commonly called Carrier-grade NAT (CGN) or large-scale NAT (LSN): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT
This consistently completely screws up all sorts of connections, such as:
- XBox and Playstation 3 networking (you'll see "NAT Type 3" on the network config)
- FaceTime
- etc...
Basically anything that is a peer-to-peer protocol with reciprocal client-server stuff is shot.