No, I meant the mean. But I had continuous distributions in mind when I wrote that, and apparently you were thinking of finite distributions. They're both right.:-)
They're probably looking at a normal distribution of times. If the mean is 12 minutes, then 50% are infected before then. If this is the case, the standard deviation must be pretty high. I hope.
Quite a long tirade. I would suggest you skip the presumption that I am uneducated. You're quite quick to jump on that claim, with absolutely no evidence. I made no claim about your level of education, and my "excuse" was made for your benefit. Anyone can claim to be literate, but your lack of linguistic sophistication betrays itself. If you really think there is an English language outside of its usage, you are deluded. There are no rules of English outside of how words are used by English speakers. Everything is fair game if it is understood. Even "manifest" -- the employees in your store have coined a new meaning for that symbol, and it is now a part of the language game played in your store. If you don't like it, tough. That's the way languages work.
There is no "logical approach" Your score only proves that you're a good test taker, not a competant communicator. Your "argument" here is, in fact, evidence against your abilities to communicate.
First, noting a high score on an exam might be evidence towards a point. One would have to argue that it is. But it certainly is not an argument. Moreover, as far as I recall, no one has assumed that "English doesn't follow logic." It has been claimed that English has no internal logic. There is a difference in function between a claim and an assumption. Knowing that they are syntactically similar is of no use without knowledge of their semantics. This is evidence that one cannot coherently think of language "in terms of logic."
I'm sorry, for a person who speaks the English language, the phrase "operating system agnostic" makes sense. It means, in context, that the hardware is not committed to any particular operating system. There is no metaphor. You're just not familiar with the breadth of definitions available to you. Perhaps a quick look into a dictionary would help when you feel so confused.
I do find it humourous how you just assumed that your misunderstanding was due to Steve Job's lack of education when it was obviously your own lack of modern literacy that caused it. I'm not being judgemental here. We each have our own linguistic history. There will certainly be uses we've never heard. But assuming that someone is uneducated because they didn't fit into our limited mold is foolish.
There's a difference between the natural evolution of a language over time, and the massacre that has been happening in recent years. Things like '*ould of' that don't even make grammatical sense are far more problematic in my mind than misspellings like 'alot' or 'loosing.' I can even cut some slack to people who frequently use text messaging and get in the habit of using those abbreviations online, but there are plenty of scary errors that are commonplace, and 'evolving language' is a weak excuse for laziness.
You're just old. So you haven't been able to keep up with the slang and are feeling left out. It happens to everybody at some point, though I've come to hope that more of you "fuddie duddies" realize this and lighten up. I'm sure your generation came up with lots of changes for the English language. Just check the OED, 1930-1959, and I bet you'll find thousands of words coined, thousands modified, and thousands put into disuse. Do you really think your changes didn't upset the old people then? Did that stop you from using them? Did it mean you were lazy?
Nice example. "No voy a comer nada" would be translated literally as "I'm not going to eat nothing," but idiomatically means "I'm not going to eat anything."
No, the rate of fire of neurons is not important in determining the reaction of the neuron. Neurons only store one peice of information, the voltage diffrence between the inside and outside of the cell, diffrent chemicals affect that, and neurons can run out of the transmiter chemical in their axion, but the exact response of the neuron can be known by looking at the chemicals in and near the cell, without knowing anything else about what happened in the past.
Now you're just being silly. You're right, neurons store only one peice of information: the voltage between the inside and outside of the cell. Now we're getting somewhere. It is also true that there is no instantaneous jump from 0v to firing voltage. A different types of neurons require more or less neurotransmitters to reach the threshold voltage. In particular, there are more states than just on or off. And these voltages decay exponentially, so that if a single neuron doesn't fire quickly enough, the neuron fired upon won't go off (unless another neuron helps it).
You claim I'm wrong. And you say that our brains are not analog computers. That's quite a straw man.
Since the comparison is between digital electronics and analog electronics, our brains are much more like analog electronics. For one, the brain uses multiple valued control logic at the "hardware level"-- evidence: rate of fire of neurons is important in determining neuronal reaction. For two, our brain does not operate at a fixed clock clock rate, as would be required by digital electronics (modulo the use of clock multipliers in digital electronics). For three, neurotransmitter firing is pretty inefficient. It takes a non-negligible amount of time for a peak concentration of neurotransmitters to develop between neurons. For four, the excitation of neurons is both neurotransmitter and time dependent. It appears that when a neuron is hit by a neurotransmitter, the threshold for excitation is lowered, but rises to baseline exponentially (albiet with a negative exponent). The brain is what is called "organic," and with good reason.
Your instant-fire-dopamine model is seriously flawed.
Solar UAVs for spying would have a problem - if they're over the clouds, the camera sees nothing but clouds. If they're below the clouds, the solar panel sees nothing but clouds. Either way, it's not really that useful.
Don't be silly. These things cruise at 65,000 feet, higher than anything but storm clouds. And they're designed to stay up for a week at a time. Unless a storm stays over one spot for three to four days, these things will eventually do their jobs. The U2 flies so high that the pilot must wear a space suit.
Frankly, I suspect this announcement is related to the recent loss of a U2 in South East Asia.
Uh, no. A brain is more like an analog computer than any sort of digital computer. However, just because this is true does not mean that a digital computer can't model the workings of the brain. For one thing, there is an upper bound on the number of states an analog measuring device can have, thus there is an upper bound on the number of states an analog computer can have. Mind you, these numbers are enormous and figuring out what the states are is likely impossible, but in principle, one should be able to come up with an encoding for the states.
Sorry for the late reply. The post to which you were replying isn't particularly revealing, but I was too tired to give a full answer.
Stereo systems can have any number of channels, other than one. "Stereo" refers to the use of steregraphic projection in recording to generate a stereo image during playback. During two-channel stereo recording, two microphones are place in strategic locations in relation to the source and recording is done simultaneously. Each channel will be similar, but each will have distinct timing and intensity information. Upon playback we use that information to triangulate the positions of elements recorded relative to the speakers.
Binaural recordings are similar to stereo recording systems, except that they use a baffle between the microphones to simulate head related transfer function -- your head reflects and distorts sound. Binaural recordings are meant to be played through headphones.
Goddamnit, 12.5% of the country lives below the poverty line. The poor are a sizable minority, but don't have enough money to be a market for businesses. So they become disenfranchised.
There isn't enough data here for me to claim that this 12% is nation's poorest, but I suggest that there is significant cross-over, as they've shown themselves to be either unwilling or unable to buy a new television.
The speaker/room combination is still the most important component in a quality audio system. There are products that attempt to lessen the effects of a bad speaker/room combination, but it just isn't physically possible.
Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired, for I wrote no such thing. So here is my previous post rehashed. Read it more carefully, any you might figure out why you're wrong. I'll let the reader decide who's right. This is my final post on the topic.
You claim that my use of the term "modest proposal" is unfounded. Of course, I never did say that it was the intention of the originator of the idea to use space rings to create a modest proposal. What I did say is that the article acts like a Modest Proposal, which causes people come out and say that it would be cheaper to curtail the introduction of carbon into the atmosphere than it would to implement such an absurd idea. Indeed, a cursory glance at the thread in response to the article reveals that this very point was raised at least a dozen times. Absurd schemes like the one presented in TFA have the effect of making people think of alternatives. This is an empirical truth, regardless of the author's intent.
So I'm right. You're wrong, either through willfull misinterpretation or crap reading comprehension. If you really want to see whose dick is bigger, I'll warn you: mine is.
You are accusing me of being disingenuous (note the spelling -- this is the second time you make that churlish mistake) for offering a candid interpretation of the post in question. This is absurd, by the very definition of the word disingenuous.
You claim that my use of the term "modest proposal" is unfounded. Of course, I never did say that it was the intention of the originator of the idea to use space rings to create a modest proposal. What I did say is that the article acts like a Modest Proposal, which causes people come out and say that it would be cheaper to curtail the introduction of carbon into the atmosphere than it would to implement such an absurd idea. Indeed, a cursory glance at the thread in response to the article reveals that this very point was raised at least a dozen times. Absurd schemes like the one presented in TFA have the effect of making people think of alternatives. This is an empirical truth, regardless of the author's intent.
So I'm right. You're wrong, either through willfull misinterpretation or crap reading comprehension. If you really want to see whose dick is bigger, I'll warn you: mine is.
I suspect you don't know what a Modest Proposal is. Understandable, if you're not a native English speaker. Otherwise, what you've written makes absolutely no sense in light of what I wrote.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I meant the mean. But I had continuous distributions in mind when I wrote that, and apparently you were thinking of finite distributions. They're both right. :-)
They're probably looking at a normal distribution of times. If the mean is 12 minutes, then 50% are infected before then. If this is the case, the standard deviation must be pretty high. I hope.
It takes slightly more time to get pwn3d now.
Quite a long tirade. I would suggest you skip the presumption that I am uneducated. You're quite quick to jump on that claim, with absolutely no evidence. I made no claim about your level of education, and my "excuse" was made for your benefit. Anyone can claim to be literate, but your lack of linguistic sophistication betrays itself. If you really think there is an English language outside of its usage, you are deluded. There are no rules of English outside of how words are used by English speakers. Everything is fair game if it is understood. Even "manifest" -- the employees in your store have coined a new meaning for that symbol, and it is now a part of the language game played in your store. If you don't like it, tough. That's the way languages work.
First, noting a high score on an exam might be evidence towards a point. One would have to argue that it is. But it certainly is not an argument. Moreover, as far as I recall, no one has assumed that "English doesn't follow logic." It has been claimed that English has no internal logic. There is a difference in function between a claim and an assumption. Knowing that they are syntactically similar is of no use without knowledge of their semantics. This is evidence that one cannot coherently think of language "in terms of logic."
Adj. #2.
I'm sorry, for a person who speaks the English language, the phrase "operating system agnostic" makes sense. It means, in context, that the hardware is not committed to any particular operating system. There is no metaphor. You're just not familiar with the breadth of definitions available to you. Perhaps a quick look into a dictionary would help when you feel so confused.
I do find it humourous how you just assumed that your misunderstanding was due to Steve Job's lack of education when it was obviously your own lack of modern literacy that caused it. I'm not being judgemental here. We each have our own linguistic history. There will certainly be uses we've never heard. But assuming that someone is uneducated because they didn't fit into our limited mold is foolish.
You're just old. So you haven't been able to keep up with the slang and are feeling left out. It happens to everybody at some point, though I've come to hope that more of you "fuddie duddies" realize this and lighten up. I'm sure your generation came up with lots of changes for the English language. Just check the OED, 1930-1959, and I bet you'll find thousands of words coined, thousands modified, and thousands put into disuse. Do you really think your changes didn't upset the old people then? Did that stop you from using them? Did it mean you were lazy?
Nobody cares what you scored. Get over yourself.
Nice example. "No voy a comer nada" would be translated literally as "I'm not going to eat nothing," but idiomatically means "I'm not going to eat anything."
I don't get it. Why would Duke Nukem trade gravy forever?
No, I hadn't heard of asynchronous logic. Thanks for the link.
Since the comparison is between digital electronics and analog electronics, our brains are much more like analog electronics. For one, the brain uses multiple valued control logic at the "hardware level"-- evidence: rate of fire of neurons is important in determining neuronal reaction. For two, our brain does not operate at a fixed clock clock rate, as would be required by digital electronics (modulo the use of clock multipliers in digital electronics). For three, neurotransmitter firing is pretty inefficient. It takes a non-negligible amount of time for a peak concentration of neurotransmitters to develop between neurons. For four, the excitation of neurons is both neurotransmitter and time dependent. It appears that when a neuron is hit by a neurotransmitter, the threshold for excitation is lowered, but rises to baseline exponentially (albiet with a negative exponent). The brain is what is called "organic," and with good reason.
Your instant-fire-dopamine model is seriously flawed.
Don't be silly. These things cruise at 65,000 feet, higher than anything but storm clouds. And they're designed to stay up for a week at a time. Unless a storm stays over one spot for three to four days, these things will eventually do their jobs. The U2 flies so high that the pilot must wear a space suit.
Frankly, I suspect this announcement is related to the recent loss of a U2 in South East Asia.
Uh, no. A brain is more like an analog computer than any sort of digital computer. However, just because this is true does not mean that a digital computer can't model the workings of the brain. For one thing, there is an upper bound on the number of states an analog measuring device can have, thus there is an upper bound on the number of states an analog computer can have. Mind you, these numbers are enormous and figuring out what the states are is likely impossible, but in principle, one should be able to come up with an encoding for the states.
...
Is that an offer?
Stereo systems can have any number of channels, other than one. "Stereo" refers to the use of steregraphic projection in recording to generate a stereo image during playback. During two-channel stereo recording, two microphones are place in strategic locations in relation to the source and recording is done simultaneously. Each channel will be similar, but each will have distinct timing and intensity information. Upon playback we use that information to triangulate the positions of elements recorded relative to the speakers.
Binaural recordings are similar to stereo recording systems, except that they use a baffle between the microphones to simulate head related transfer function -- your head reflects and distorts sound. Binaural recordings are meant to be played through headphones.
Goddamnit, 12.5% of the country lives below the poverty line. The poor are a sizable minority, but don't have enough money to be a market for businesses. So they become disenfranchised.
Don't be naive. of the country lives below the poverty line. The poor are a sizable minority, but don't have enough money to be a market for businesses. So they become disenfranchised.
There isn't enough data here for me to claim that this 12% is nation's poorest, but I suggest that there is significant cross-over, as they've shown themselves to be either unwilling or unable to buy a new television.
Obviously.
Note that you linked to "Binaural." There's a difference between that and "stereo."
The speaker/room combination is still the most important component in a quality audio system. There are products that attempt to lessen the effects of a bad speaker/room combination, but it just isn't physically possible.
Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired, for I wrote no such thing. So here is my previous post rehashed. Read it more carefully, any you might figure out why you're wrong. I'll let the reader decide who's right. This is my final post on the topic.
You claim that my use of the term "modest proposal" is unfounded. Of course, I never did say that it was the intention of the originator of the idea to use space rings to create a modest proposal. What I did say is that the article acts like a Modest Proposal, which causes people come out and say that it would be cheaper to curtail the introduction of carbon into the atmosphere than it would to implement such an absurd idea. Indeed, a cursory glance at the thread in response to the article reveals that this very point was raised at least a dozen times. Absurd schemes like the one presented in TFA have the effect of making people think of alternatives. This is an empirical truth, regardless of the author's intent.
So I'm right. You're wrong, either through willfull misinterpretation or crap reading comprehension. If you really want to see whose dick is bigger, I'll warn you: mine is.
You are accusing me of being disingenuous (note the spelling -- this is the second time you make that churlish mistake) for offering a candid interpretation of the post in question. This is absurd, by the very definition of the word disingenuous.
You claim that my use of the term "modest proposal" is unfounded. Of course, I never did say that it was the intention of the originator of the idea to use space rings to create a modest proposal. What I did say is that the article acts like a Modest Proposal, which causes people come out and say that it would be cheaper to curtail the introduction of carbon into the atmosphere than it would to implement such an absurd idea. Indeed, a cursory glance at the thread in response to the article reveals that this very point was raised at least a dozen times. Absurd schemes like the one presented in TFA have the effect of making people think of alternatives. This is an empirical truth, regardless of the author's intent.
So I'm right. You're wrong, either through willfull misinterpretation or crap reading comprehension. If you really want to see whose dick is bigger, I'll warn you: mine is.
I suspect you don't know what a Modest Proposal is. Understandable, if you're not a native English speaker. Otherwise, what you've written makes absolutely no sense in light of what I wrote.