I don't think glasses are the problem, so much as the crappy-fake 3d gives most people headaches and still looks fuzzy because the angles of the stereoscopic images aren't quite right. In this case, you have 2 glasses viewing a one 2d-image and filtering out the other. So, potentially, there would be little to no fuzzing as your brain isn't trying to integrate images at angles it's not used to processing. It could work well for this particular use.
There's no math in that link you posted. It's just a puff piece of well-known mathematicians trying to show that electron "free will" is equivalent to human "free will". And, it does nothing to define what consciousness actually is. I think you might have gotten too excited about the announcement before attempting to understand their material.
Ok, can someone explain to me how consciousness is represented mathematically? I'm not aware of any theorem that proves you can't have consciousness on higher scales unless it occurs at the quantum level. Mostly because consciousness is usually dealt with as an abstract topic.
The main concern I have is that the radiation on a flight is ambient, whereas the radiation from one of those terminals is induced by a person and consequently has multiple points of failure. Hardware fail safes might not work, software fail safes might not work, the operator may not know what s/he is doing. For some fun horror stories, just read about Therac-25. Yes, I'm probably conflating the issue, but we're talking about taking a relatively untested device (at least by people who are not selling the device) being used by individuals with minimal training and implementing it on millions of passengers, hell even children and pregnant women, all in the name of security theater.
At the moment, nothing horrible has happend, but I'm sure I could dig up a study or two where long-term radiation exposure has led to an increased prevalence in cancer. As an example in other domains, habitual smoking has lead to lug cancer and drinking to liver failure.
So if you're happy with the federal government and the TSA shaving 5-10 years off of your life feel free to let yourself be irradiated like a frozen burrito. As for me, if I can avoid or minimize my risk, I will.
To be fair, it is scientifically interesting if he can prove that the drugs in combination perform better than they do individually, and, if so, to what magnitude. Sometimes, making cocktails of drugs don't work due to unintended consequences or bad side effects; and sometimes it does. Show that he's mature enough to follow through on an interesting idea is what shows his potential as a scientist worth funding.
Why would they go to all the effort of slapping a custom-build gps device on a car when an iPhone will do the trick much more effectively? Plus, there's no risk of negative PR. It'll be a feature to be tracked by the FBI, so they can keep you safe at all times.
Since you can store anything in the database, you might want to constrain your inputs at the application layer, maybe with an ORM or some validation checking. I've ended up using mongo with python (weak typing) so I could just write:
country = { "code" : "ca", "name":"canada" }
db.places.insert(country)
Since you can enter primitive values in place of ca or canada, garbage can get in your data. Mongo would just interpret it a certain way and store it in the db. In other words, you can totally shoot yourself in the foot if you're not careful. That being said, this also means that you can have application code which uses it and doesn't have to be written to a specific type. To me, this is like the argument of strongly typed languages vs weakly typed languages: No type checking can lead logic errors, but has much terser code in general.
I saw that too, and it was funny:). But I'm not using mongo for "webscale". I'm using it to store and retrieve fuckload of data that needs to be accessed quickly for analysis. So my only other options are: cram it into RAM (not really an option), use SQL (a bit too slow for my purposes unless I have access to a cluster), or NoSQL (fast and good enough). The argument in MONGO IS WEBSCALE is don't toss out proven solutions on the problems its build for, for the trendy new technology. It didn't however, mention that mongo was unusable for the problems that it was built for.
I haven't noticed data loss yet. But that's probably because I and only a few other people are using it. Most of this use is non-concurrent and will be readonly once the initial batch of data gets in the db. Again, my argument is that this depends highly on the use case. Mine is to have some relatively fast local storage to do some large-scale statistics.
Have you ever used a noSQL database and experience data loss? Is this for all NoSQL databases or just a few? (I know mongo provides some form of logging to let you know if the query executed properly. If have run into data loss issues can you provide a concrete example (database, data, and possible race conditions) under which that situation manifests? Or are you just regurgitating counter-arguments that are floating around on the web.
At the moment, my db is stable and I haven't run into any issues. Even if the tool is not verified to be safe, I can still make effective use of it and take precautions where needed once things ramp up; hard drive space is relatively after all. Again, it all comes down to use case. I'm messing around with statistics not order entries. If a small percentage of several million entities glitches, then I can probably work around that or run multiple tests to ensure consistent output.
I've been working with mongo noSQL for a little while now, and it's nice because it's fast and you don't have to de-normalize data that should not have been normalized in the first place. E.g. article{ title, authors, keywords } instead of having a separate table for authors and keywords. This probably attributes to the faster speeds in those databases too. It's not so much that SQL sucks or JOINs are evil, rather that they fit a different use case very well. The argument is somewhat similar to: why should I use a flathead screwdriver on cross-head screws when a phillip's screwdriver is more effective?
I think people who get entangled into the arguments of which flavor of database is better, are often leaning towards what they're familiar with as opposed to does the tool match the problem. NoSQL is relatively new and seems complementary to SQL. If there's a framework (maybe coSQL) that combines the benefits and reduces the weaknesses of both, that seems like a welcome change.
For me, I've always been amused at getting those "Your Windows Registry has been infected by a Trojan" popups on my linux box. Nope, my non-existent system32 is quite clean thankyouverymuch.
Hah, good point. I guess my comment was restricted to objects which don't have social mores attached to them. As one of your repliers have mentioned, bodies, religious artifacts, national symbols, etc, can be considered items which we as a society have decided it's not ok to do certain things to them. In a philosophical sense, we've attached deeper meaning/morales to them, such that a sense of repulsion arises when they are misused. So, there are two things at play here, the right to use what you own however you wish and a restriction on how to use items that we as a collective have recognized as special. A gun and ps3 fall under the former category and a body, religious icons, and nationalistic symbols fall under the latter. Perhaps the reason for recognition of the latter group, even if you don't consider the item special, is that it can be socially disruptive to violate that item.
A body, for instance, might be a clear-cut case as we are humans, and therefore project some empathy onto a human body being misused. Therefore, as a human race collective, we'd say don't misuse that body unless you have a very good reason (like sanctioned medical research). A flag is more of a grey area, because groups of people will respect their own flags but not someone else's. Therefore, there is contention between collectives as to how sacred a flag is. The bigger or louder the collective, the more sacred it probably is. Given that, I don't think we as a collective have attached the same meaning to a gun or a ps3. So, I believe my point still stands for regular items.
And in case you bring up the same case for animal corpses: while the corpse might not be sacred, it does raise some ethical, health, and sanity concerns that the collective might care about.
You can do whatever you want to the gun, sure. Provided you're not breaking any other laws like assault and battery as I'm sure you're implying. Just like someone can hack their ps3, but they are not allowed to bludgeon/hack people with it. There's a difference between doing whatever you want to some inanimate object you own and doing whatever you want with some inanimate object you purchase.
I agree somewhat. The problem is two fold: graphing libraries do the same things and there is not much meaning to be had in the raw data. For the former item, many visualization libraries are designed to display graph/network data somewhat gracefully. Consequently, many visualizations center around, how do we put this thing in graph form? rather than what interface naturally explains this data best? The second problem is that this huge morass of data just has frequency counts and n-grams. So, we sorta know how things are connected and their magnitude, but very little of the semantic context that goes with that data. There are other datasets such as the Penn Treebank (which applies parts of speech tags) and Medline articles which have (Medical Subject Headings) which provide semantic meaning to the content within. Other sources such as semantic web try to provide structure to the underlying meaning of data: a is_a b, b contains c, etc. Getting this data is hard because it is a largely manual process as meaning comes from us fleshy humans.
One could sorta use automatic techniques to discover structure, but depending on the model's assumptions, one could apply a flawed structure to the data. Due to these issues, we tend to have pretty visualizations that show the connectivity and magnitude data rather than their meaning. This isn't entirely a bad thing as it will probably lead to groups bootstrapping semantic structure into this data.
It's a valid point. It's less valid than taxing the fuck out of the top end and giving tons of free money to the bottom. The bottom is going to spend it buying the top half's products anyway, making them richer ten minutes later than they would have been if we reduced their taxes. Tax reductions don't make people rich, sales do.
Actually you just made a valid point for taxing the rich in that the poor will eventually spend money to buy their products. Only in this scenario, it promotes jobs through work and production. Conversely, if people don't have money to spend, there's less demand for stuff, less work, and rich people ultimately become poorer. Individuals are rich, not just by the size of their bank accounts but by what society produces for them as well: technology, healthcare, infrastructure, etc.
Why not? People not in this tax bracket certainly aspire to be in it one day. And people making over this are the ones that supply jobs. Increasing their taxes makes jobs scarcer.
Not necessarily true. You're assuming that there is some kind of trickle down effect in which rich people distribute their money to poorer people through jobs. An article from the huffington post shows that the opposite is true, that the income gap is widening. If it was true, that wealthy people create jobs, then the ~10% jobless rate should be mitigated right? It seems rather, that rich people either horde money or don't spend it as fast as needed to distribute the wealth. This isn't a problem caused by Bush, but just how the economy is shifting. I personally think that a strong middle class, you have a healthier more educated citizenship that can drive technology/innovation forward. If the middle class goes away, then you have a weaker economy because consumption goes down and demand for things to consume along with it.
Um, what? Please point to one article that proves this.
I was basing my point on the wikipedia link I provided. Here it is again link.
Last I checked, the Democrats controlled both houses and the Presidency
The problem with the Democrats is that they're not very well coordinated and are somewhat spineless. They did have the majority, but there was enough inner-party disagreement, which coupled with a coordinated GOP movement, made it difficult to pass anything.
I maintain that I still find it hard to think of Obama has a bad president when he's dealing with the selfish people within his own party, the crap leftover from Bush and probably Clinton administrations, and coordinated attacks by the GOP and Fox News (I imagine that very wealthy special interest groups are driving the propaganda here). It's just a matter of perspective.
Meh, my impression was that Obama wanted to tax people over 250k a year (if you're not in that tax bracket you shouldn't care) and provide a universal healthcare plan, which got gutted down to insurance reform. I'd argue that Bush has done more to bankrupt the country with a war we don't need which coincided with the financial collapse (not really his fault) and that Obama is trying to triage the situation; See wikipedia for some fun stats on how that is turning out. While the Demcrats do advocate social spending, it appears they actually make an effort to reduce the debt. Obama may not be the best president, but I do think he's a significant step up from Bush. I blame the fact that he has a hard time accomplishing anything on the GOP, which has adopted the policy of opposing him for the sake of recouping clout and power lost by Bush jr.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think glasses are the problem, so much as the crappy-fake 3d gives most people headaches and still looks fuzzy because the angles of the stereoscopic images aren't quite right. In this case, you have 2 glasses viewing a one 2d-image and filtering out the other. So, potentially, there would be little to no fuzzing as your brain isn't trying to integrate images at angles it's not used to processing. It could work well for this particular use.
He's like the Kenny of Doctor Who. I'll find it amusing if it ever gets to the point where he's died and resurrected more than the Doctor.
Ok, thanks. This is what I was looking for. Unforunately, it will take me a while to grok it can some up with a sensible reply.
There's no math in that link you posted. It's just a puff piece of well-known mathematicians trying to show that electron "free will" is equivalent to human "free will". And, it does nothing to define what consciousness actually is. I think you might have gotten too excited about the announcement before attempting to understand their material.
Ok, can someone explain to me how consciousness is represented mathematically? I'm not aware of any theorem that proves you can't have consciousness on higher scales unless it occurs at the quantum level. Mostly because consciousness is usually dealt with as an abstract topic.
The main concern I have is that the radiation on a flight is ambient, whereas the radiation from one of those terminals is induced by a person and consequently has multiple points of failure. Hardware fail safes might not work, software fail safes might not work, the operator may not know what s/he is doing. For some fun horror stories, just read about Therac-25. Yes, I'm probably conflating the issue, but we're talking about taking a relatively untested device (at least by people who are not selling the device) being used by individuals with minimal training and implementing it on millions of passengers, hell even children and pregnant women, all in the name of security theater.
At the moment, nothing horrible has happend, but I'm sure I could dig up a study or two where long-term radiation exposure has led to an increased prevalence in cancer. As an example in other domains, habitual smoking has lead to lug cancer and drinking to liver failure.
So if you're happy with the federal government and the TSA shaving 5-10 years off of your life feel free to let yourself be irradiated like a frozen burrito. As for me, if I can avoid or minimize my risk, I will.
Sad thing is, I'd rather have a patdown over increased chances of cancer.
To be fair, it is scientifically interesting if he can prove that the drugs in combination perform better than they do individually, and, if so, to what magnitude. Sometimes, making cocktails of drugs don't work due to unintended consequences or bad side effects; and sometimes it does. Show that he's mature enough to follow through on an interesting idea is what shows his potential as a scientist worth funding.
Why would they go to all the effort of slapping a custom-build gps device on a car when an iPhone will do the trick much more effectively? Plus, there's no risk of negative PR. It'll be a feature to be tracked by the FBI, so they can keep you safe at all times.
TI Calculators
Ya, instead they stole Babylon 5's storyline after having a look at Straczynski's scripts.
Since you can store anything in the database, you might want to constrain your inputs at the application layer, maybe with an ORM or some validation checking. I've ended up using mongo with python (weak typing) so I could just write: country = { "code" : "ca", "name" :"canada" }
db.places.insert(country)
Since you can enter primitive values in place of ca or canada, garbage can get in your data. Mongo would just interpret it a certain way and store it in the db. In other words, you can totally shoot yourself in the foot if you're not careful. That being said, this also means that you can have application code which uses it and doesn't have to be written to a specific type. To me, this is like the argument of strongly typed languages vs weakly typed languages: No type checking can lead logic errors, but has much terser code in general.
I saw that too, and it was funny :). But I'm not using mongo for "webscale". I'm using it to store and retrieve fuckload of data that needs to be accessed quickly for analysis. So my only other options are: cram it into RAM (not really an option), use SQL (a bit too slow for my purposes unless I have access to a cluster), or NoSQL (fast and good enough). The argument in MONGO IS WEBSCALE is don't toss out proven solutions on the problems its build for, for the trendy new technology. It didn't however, mention that mongo was unusable for the problems that it was built for.
I haven't noticed data loss yet. But that's probably because I and only a few other people are using it. Most of this use is non-concurrent and will be readonly once the initial batch of data gets in the db. Again, my argument is that this depends highly on the use case. Mine is to have some relatively fast local storage to do some large-scale statistics.
Have you ever used a noSQL database and experience data loss? Is this for all NoSQL databases or just a few? (I know mongo provides some form of logging to let you know if the query executed properly. If have run into data loss issues can you provide a concrete example (database, data, and possible race conditions) under which that situation manifests? Or are you just regurgitating counter-arguments that are floating around on the web.
At the moment, my db is stable and I haven't run into any issues. Even if the tool is not verified to be safe, I can still make effective use of it and take precautions where needed once things ramp up; hard drive space is relatively after all. Again, it all comes down to use case. I'm messing around with statistics not order entries. If a small percentage of several million entities glitches, then I can probably work around that or run multiple tests to ensure consistent output.
I've been working with mongo noSQL for a little while now, and it's nice because it's fast and you don't have to de-normalize data that should not have been normalized in the first place. E.g. article{ title, authors, keywords } instead of having a separate table for authors and keywords. This probably attributes to the faster speeds in those databases too. It's not so much that SQL sucks or JOINs are evil, rather that they fit a different use case very well. The argument is somewhat similar to: why should I use a flathead screwdriver on cross-head screws when a phillip's screwdriver is more effective?
I think people who get entangled into the arguments of which flavor of database is better, are often leaning towards what they're familiar with as opposed to does the tool match the problem. NoSQL is relatively new and seems complementary to SQL. If there's a framework (maybe coSQL) that combines the benefits and reduces the weaknesses of both, that seems like a welcome change.
Well they said it was a thin layer of armor, so I'm assuming duct tape.
For me, I've always been amused at getting those "Your Windows Registry has been infected by a Trojan" popups on my linux box. Nope, my non-existent system32 is quite clean thankyouverymuch.
On the off chance that a shill for the movie industry posts a high-quality video?
Hah, good point. I guess my comment was restricted to objects which don't have social mores attached to them. As one of your repliers have mentioned, bodies, religious artifacts, national symbols, etc, can be considered items which we as a society have decided it's not ok to do certain things to them. In a philosophical sense, we've attached deeper meaning/morales to them, such that a sense of repulsion arises when they are misused. So, there are two things at play here, the right to use what you own however you wish and a restriction on how to use items that we as a collective have recognized as special. A gun and ps3 fall under the former category and a body, religious icons, and nationalistic symbols fall under the latter. Perhaps the reason for recognition of the latter group, even if you don't consider the item special, is that it can be socially disruptive to violate that item.
A body, for instance, might be a clear-cut case as we are humans, and therefore project some empathy onto a human body being misused. Therefore, as a human race collective, we'd say don't misuse that body unless you have a very good reason (like sanctioned medical research). A flag is more of a grey area, because groups of people will respect their own flags but not someone else's. Therefore, there is contention between collectives as to how sacred a flag is. The bigger or louder the collective, the more sacred it probably is. Given that, I don't think we as a collective have attached the same meaning to a gun or a ps3. So, I believe my point still stands for regular items.
And in case you bring up the same case for animal corpses: while the corpse might not be sacred, it does raise some ethical, health, and sanity concerns that the collective might care about.
You can do whatever you want to the gun, sure. Provided you're not breaking any other laws like assault and battery as I'm sure you're implying. Just like someone can hack their ps3, but they are not allowed to bludgeon/hack people with it. There's a difference between doing whatever you want to some inanimate object you own and doing whatever you want with some inanimate object you purchase.
I agree somewhat. The problem is two fold: graphing libraries do the same things and there is not much meaning to be had in the raw data. For the former item, many visualization libraries are designed to display graph/network data somewhat gracefully. Consequently, many visualizations center around, how do we put this thing in graph form? rather than what interface naturally explains this data best? The second problem is that this huge morass of data just has frequency counts and n-grams. So, we sorta know how things are connected and their magnitude, but very little of the semantic context that goes with that data. There are other datasets such as the Penn Treebank (which applies parts of speech tags) and Medline articles which have (Medical Subject Headings) which provide semantic meaning to the content within. Other sources such as semantic web try to provide structure to the underlying meaning of data: a is_a b, b contains c, etc. Getting this data is hard because it is a largely manual process as meaning comes from us fleshy humans.
One could sorta use automatic techniques to discover structure, but depending on the model's assumptions, one could apply a flawed structure to the data. Due to these issues, we tend to have pretty visualizations that show the connectivity and magnitude data rather than their meaning. This isn't entirely a bad thing as it will probably lead to groups bootstrapping semantic structure into this data.
I'm against regulation of the internet and for regulation of the isps.
It's a valid point. It's less valid than taxing the fuck out of the top end and giving tons of free money to the bottom. The bottom is going to spend it buying the top half's products anyway, making them richer ten minutes later than they would have been if we reduced their taxes. Tax reductions don't make people rich, sales do.
Actually you just made a valid point for taxing the rich in that the poor will eventually spend money to buy their products. Only in this scenario, it promotes jobs through work and production. Conversely, if people don't have money to spend, there's less demand for stuff, less work, and rich people ultimately become poorer. Individuals are rich, not just by the size of their bank accounts but by what society produces for them as well: technology, healthcare, infrastructure, etc.
Why not? People not in this tax bracket certainly aspire to be in it one day. And people making over this are the ones that supply jobs. Increasing their taxes makes jobs scarcer.
Not necessarily true. You're assuming that there is some kind of trickle down effect in which rich people distribute their money to poorer people through jobs. An article from the huffington post shows that the opposite is true, that the income gap is widening. If it was true, that wealthy people create jobs, then the ~10% jobless rate should be mitigated right? It seems rather, that rich people either horde money or don't spend it as fast as needed to distribute the wealth. This isn't a problem caused by Bush, but just how the economy is shifting. I personally think that a strong middle class, you have a healthier more educated citizenship that can drive technology/innovation forward. If the middle class goes away, then you have a weaker economy because consumption goes down and demand for things to consume along with it.
Um, what? Please point to one article that proves this.
I was basing my point on the wikipedia link I provided. Here it is again link.
Last I checked, the Democrats controlled both houses and the Presidency
The problem with the Democrats is that they're not very well coordinated and are somewhat spineless. They did have the majority, but there was enough inner-party disagreement, which coupled with a coordinated GOP movement, made it difficult to pass anything.
I maintain that I still find it hard to think of Obama has a bad president when he's dealing with the selfish people within his own party, the crap leftover from Bush and probably Clinton administrations, and coordinated attacks by the GOP and Fox News (I imagine that very wealthy special interest groups are driving the propaganda here). It's just a matter of perspective.
Meh, my impression was that Obama wanted to tax people over 250k a year (if you're not in that tax bracket you shouldn't care) and provide a universal healthcare plan, which got gutted down to insurance reform. I'd argue that Bush has done more to bankrupt the country with a war we don't need which coincided with the financial collapse (not really his fault) and that Obama is trying to triage the situation; See wikipedia for some fun stats on how that is turning out. While the Demcrats do advocate social spending, it appears they actually make an effort to reduce the debt. Obama may not be the best president, but I do think he's a significant step up from Bush. I blame the fact that he has a hard time accomplishing anything on the GOP, which has adopted the policy of opposing him for the sake of recouping clout and power lost by Bush jr.