The grandparent makes a good point, despite you calling him retarded. I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or just plain ignorant.
No, and neither.
The post to which I replied didn't mention the correlation/causation meme at all, by the way. It talked about illegitimate data mining in statistics. But it was also nearly incomprehensible. And that is why I called him retarded.
Furthermore, for classification algorithms they consider a Support Vector Machine and Boosting. Both of these classifiers are certainly not comparable to what the brain does. Why not use a neural network if they aim is to mimic the brain?
Probably because a suitable ANN would take years to converge.
One editor famously told Dr. Jahn that he would consider a paper "if you can telepathically communicate it to me."
That's not exactly ideal academic objectivity.
I don't have any particular reason to believe these guys. At the same time, I have little reason to doubt their methodology. If their paper made a point, it should have at least seriously considered for publication, and not been rejected out of hand.
Not the OP. I can tell the difference between MP3 and CDDA, however. I took a double blind test to prove it (to myself -- you can do it too, if you'd like. Google "ABX test software")
I don't have a particularly nice stereo. I have an old Hitachi amplifier with a nasty buzz and a scratchy volume knob -- though I'm currently building a replacement. But I have a decent set of speakers that can go loud without much distortion. This is a nice thing. I can sit on the couch between my carefully arranged speakers, close my eyes, and engage what I'm listening to.
I also have an iPod for when I'm on my bike or on the bus. Or at work. And at the gym. Places where I'm not actively listening to the music, but using it as an entertaining distraction. And it suits me just fine.
But when I want to be an active listener, I much prefer my stereo.
...Adium (I know, Mac only, but it's OSS and could be ported and is a sweet IM client)...
You know, Adium is based on libgaim, the library Gaim uses. See this. Gaim kind of sucks compared to Adium though. Adium's user interface is much nicer, but that's not going to change any time soon, since Adium uses a bunch of Cocoa frameworks.
But I wrote tons of perl before I discovered Python and it is a long, long road to upgrade all that stuff. But every time I do one, I get a more maintainable, more english-like tool. Sometimes it takes me several minutes to even understand what the heck a perl script (even one of mine) is trying to do.
Any of the first, second, or fourth are appropriate interpretations. Of course, the three are very closely related. See this analysis, based on the American Heritage dictionary, as used by Answers.com for an explanation.
Yeah. Michael Gambon is doing is really shitty job as Dumbledore. Richard Harris was soft spoken and gentle, like Rowling described in the books. Gambon acts like he's never heard the phrase "speak softly and carry a big stick."
Presumably, "exactly in accordance with the meaning of the phrase" or the adverbial form of 'unembellished'. Context makes me think the latter was intended, but you make a case for either (especially since the two are already closely related). Note that the latter is also similar to an intensifier, like 'strongly.' However, there is a crucial difference. Consider:
"The cat was very sleepy" and "The cat was literally dying to sleep".
Obviously, in the first case, 'very' acts as an intensifier, intensifying 'sleepy'. The second sentence contains no intensifiers -- the work of making the sentence sound like an exaggeration is done by the phrase "dying to sleep." This is figurative language, but we should know that "dying to sleep" means something along the lines of "very sleepy". The 'literally' in the second sentence tells us that "The cat was very sleepy, and that is no exaggeration".
Schematically, given a phrase P, let M(P) denote a phrase with the same meaning in the context in which P occurs. Then the sentence "Bob is literally P" means the same thing as "Bob is M(P), and I mean that exactly in accordance with the meaning of the phrase M(P)." Tricky -- I don't like trying to divide meaning up into equivalence classes of phrases like this. But I hope you catch my drift.
I would tend to agree that 'literally' is more-or-less useless. It definitely doesn't do the work our high school teachers intended, except in very narrow contexts (like English class). It's about as useful as 'very' and 'really'. If you look up 'very' in the dictionary, you'll see that its secondary meaning is 'truly.' 'Really's primary meaning is 'truly', though I hope you can now see why it can be seem to act (be used) as an intensifier.
There are plenty of perfectly good uses for the word 'literally'. I counted 6 when I looked in my dictionary.
The "tweed jackets" (nice flamebait there, by the way. I happen to wear tweed every day) have shown that one of the commonly used meanings for the word is vacuous. To paraphrase Wittgenstein, the meaning of a phrase is in its uses. And this possibly figurative meaning can be perfectly exact. Ergo, a phrase can be meant literally and figuratively at the same time.
Please look in a dictionary. Only one of the five to six meanings for the word 'literal' is opposite in meaning to 'figurative.' The rest are orthogonal. Indeed, the primary and secondary definitions are "conforming to the exact meaning of words",[1] and adverbial forms of 'real', 'factual', and 'unembellished'.
Really, it's good that you paid attention in high school. You learned a lot of great rules of thumb that will help you avoid making grammatical errors. But they're just rules of thumb. They don't make you qualified to correct other people's errors in domains in which the rules you learned don't apply.
[1] Before you throw a hissy fit about the use of the words 'exact' and 'meaning,' read this.
The answer is: free hot food and some current workers to talk with (and not to) the students. College students are always hungry. Don't skimp. Go for something nutritious and delicious.
I assume the CFL is putting lots of noise on the power line. I looked at the X10 specs, and it looks like X10 communications are sent on the wire at 120 kHz. My proposed relay solution would work, provided that the circuit the CFL is on is isolated from the circuit X10 is on. This is unlikely. Your best bet would be to put a simple low pass filter between the X10 control module and the CFL lamp. Something with a cut off frequency between 80 and 100 Hz.
I don't know enough about a CFL's noise characteristics to tell you if this will reduce the CFL's efficiency too much, but I wouldn't think so. Maybe an EE will tell us.
Slashdot Mirror
The grandparent makes a good point, despite you calling him retarded. I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or just plain ignorant.
No, and neither.
The post to which I replied didn't mention the correlation/causation meme at all, by the way. It talked about illegitimate data mining in statistics. But it was also nearly incomprehensible. And that is why I called him retarded.
Furthermore, for classification algorithms they consider a Support Vector Machine and Boosting. Both of these classifiers are certainly not comparable to what the brain does. Why not use a neural network if they aim is to mimic the brain?
Probably because a suitable ANN would take years to converge.
They got goatse right too, but over-estimated the visual impact of the shadow on the left.
Oh christ.
'Effect' is both a noun and a verb. So is 'affect.'
What are you fucking talking about? You aren't helping the sceptical cause. Because you are retarded.
One editor famously told Dr. Jahn that he would consider a paper "if you can telepathically communicate it to me."
That's not exactly ideal academic objectivity.
I don't have any particular reason to believe these guys. At the same time, I have little reason to doubt their methodology. If their paper made a point, it should have at least seriously considered for publication, and not been rejected out of hand.
I'm disappointed in science today.
Bravo! Fantastic rant!
Not the OP. I can tell the difference between MP3 and CDDA, however. I took a double blind test to prove it (to myself -- you can do it too, if you'd like. Google "ABX test software")
I don't have a particularly nice stereo. I have an old Hitachi amplifier with a nasty buzz and a scratchy volume knob -- though I'm currently building a replacement. But I have a decent set of speakers that can go loud without much distortion. This is a nice thing. I can sit on the couch between my carefully arranged speakers, close my eyes, and engage what I'm listening to.
I also have an iPod for when I'm on my bike or on the bus. Or at work. And at the gym. Places where I'm not actively listening to the music, but using it as an entertaining distraction. And it suits me just fine.
But when I want to be an active listener, I much prefer my stereo.
I'd rather listen to exceptional music, bold or not.
...Adium (I know, Mac only, but it's OSS and could be ported and is a sweet IM client)...
You know, Adium is based on libgaim, the library Gaim uses. See this. Gaim kind of sucks compared to Adium though. Adium's user interface is much nicer, but that's not going to change any time soon, since Adium uses a bunch of Cocoa frameworks.
You are not far off. I suggest reading "Society of the Spectacle", by Guy Debord -- though it sounds like you might have already.
There are too many opposing constraints. Sure, jet setting would be fun. But in the end, nothing would get done.
Wait, maybe I do want the job.
If that's Rob, what does Big Rob look like?
But I wrote tons of perl before I discovered Python and it is a long, long road to upgrade all that stuff. But every time I do one, I get a more maintainable, more english-like tool. Sometimes it takes me several minutes to even understand what the heck a perl script (even one of mine) is trying to do.
That's your own damn fault.
How is this news? XML::Simple is old. Really old. 1999 old.
Except, when she first contacted Lycos, her account wasn't deleted. It was simply inaccessible. Restoring access would have cost $19.95.
He's supposed to serve the customer. From her perspective, he's just rubbing the shitty job he did in the first place in her face.
Any of the first, second, or fourth are appropriate interpretations. Of course, the three are very closely related. See this analysis, based on the American Heritage dictionary, as used by Answers.com for an explanation.
Yeah. Michael Gambon is doing is really shitty job as Dumbledore. Richard Harris was soft spoken and gentle, like Rowling described in the books. Gambon acts like he's never heard the phrase "speak softly and carry a big stick."
Presumably, "exactly in accordance with the meaning of the phrase" or the adverbial form of 'unembellished'. Context makes me think the latter was intended, but you make a case for either (especially since the two are already closely related). Note that the latter is also similar to an intensifier, like 'strongly.' However, there is a crucial difference. Consider:
"The cat was very sleepy" and
"The cat was literally dying to sleep".
Obviously, in the first case, 'very' acts as an intensifier, intensifying 'sleepy'. The second sentence contains no intensifiers -- the work of making the sentence sound like an exaggeration is done by the phrase "dying to sleep." This is figurative language, but we should know that "dying to sleep" means something along the lines of "very sleepy". The 'literally' in the second sentence tells us that "The cat was very sleepy, and that is no exaggeration".
Schematically, given a phrase P, let M(P) denote a phrase with the same meaning in the context in which P occurs. Then the sentence "Bob is literally P" means the same thing as "Bob is M(P), and I mean that exactly in accordance with the meaning of the phrase M(P)." Tricky -- I don't like trying to divide meaning up into equivalence classes of phrases like this. But I hope you catch my drift.
I would tend to agree that 'literally' is more-or-less useless. It definitely doesn't do the work our high school teachers intended, except in very narrow contexts (like English class). It's about as useful as 'very' and 'really'. If you look up 'very' in the dictionary, you'll see that its secondary meaning is 'truly.' 'Really's primary meaning is 'truly', though I hope you can now see why it can be seem to act (be used) as an intensifier.
Keep using 'literal' if you want. Like I said, the rules of thumb we all learned aren't wrong. They're just incomplete.
Did I say that?
There are plenty of perfectly good uses for the word 'literally'. I counted 6 when I looked in my dictionary.
The "tweed jackets" (nice flamebait there, by the way. I happen to wear tweed every day) have shown that one of the commonly used meanings for the word is vacuous. To paraphrase Wittgenstein, the meaning of a phrase is in its uses. And this possibly figurative meaning can be perfectly exact. Ergo, a phrase can be meant literally and figuratively at the same time.
Please look in a dictionary. Only one of the five to six meanings for the word 'literal' is opposite in meaning to 'figurative.' The rest are orthogonal. Indeed, the primary and secondary definitions are "conforming to the exact meaning of words",[1] and adverbial forms of 'real', 'factual', and 'unembellished'.
Really, it's good that you paid attention in high school. You learned a lot of great rules of thumb that will help you avoid making grammatical errors. But they're just rules of thumb. They don't make you qualified to correct other people's errors in domains in which the rules you learned don't apply.
[1] Before you throw a hissy fit about the use of the words 'exact' and 'meaning,' read this.
The answer is: free hot food and some current workers to talk with (and not to) the students. College students are always hungry. Don't skimp. Go for something nutritious and delicious.
Wow! Slashdot lets us post pics now! Here's a miniature goatse:
=EO3=
I assume the CFL is putting lots of noise on the power line. I looked at the X10 specs, and it looks like X10 communications are sent on the wire at 120 kHz. My proposed relay solution would work, provided that the circuit the CFL is on is isolated from the circuit X10 is on. This is unlikely. Your best bet would be to put a simple low pass filter between the X10 control module and the CFL lamp. Something with a cut off frequency between 80 and 100 Hz.
I don't know enough about a CFL's noise characteristics to tell you if this will reduce the CFL's efficiency too much, but I wouldn't think so. Maybe an EE will tell us.