Re:Ruby could be the answer as well
on
Open Source Math
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I don't suppose Ruby has something comparable to SciPy and IPython? Also, I want to avoid a language discussion, but a lot of languages have some form of iterators, even if the syntax varies slightly. Even Java kind of got them now. In Python: for key, value in mydict.iterkeys():
print '%s: %s' % (key, value) with file('somefile.txt', 'r') as f:
for line in f:
print line
All this stuff sounds either very naive or very marketing. You choose. I choose to think it's very naive of them to agree to be very obvious marketing shills. Personally I think it reflects badly on the writer to appear so excited over being able to diagnose a simple dangling reference bug. Maybe they figured no-one would ever see it. It's fine to have sponsors (the company in question is an official PAVE sponsor), but cheapening yourself like this.. cheapens you.
Sounds like a software developer's decision, picking the language/environment you're familiar with rather than the one appropriate for the job. You wouldn't normally make a control system that depended on a specific OS that was expensive and unsuitable for embedding. "If only we'd studied cybernetics..." is more like it. At least, I don't think they teach cybernetics with C# anywhere, but who knows what kind of crazy things they get up to at Princeton.
They generally know very little about how the money are allocated. In a similar study about foreign aid, the majority of people believed the US gave over 1% of the national budget in foreign aid. (against an actual 0.17%) [source] I'd like to decry their apathy and ignorance, but I myself know very little about my own country's budget allocations.
It's a pretty huge disparity, though. Did they really believe everything else had to manage with the remaining 43%? I'll bet a survey with more items would show the average citizen of USA believe the national budget allocations adds up to a lot more than 100%. Does anyone know the real/perceived numbers for other science/research?
Well I bet you'll change your mind once you stand face to face with the new race of fearless, regenerating mice that can run six kilometres without rest and glow in the dark. But by then it will be far too late to do anything but welcome our new cheese-eating overlords. Their only weakness is a slightly increased risk of cancer when exposed to various substances. Oh, if only we had invested equal resources in building better cats!
Like other medical imaging technologies such as ultrasound, the images are medically pretty much worthless without a qualified operator to read them. For ultrasound systems, a far cheaper technology, the cheapest systems seem to be around $10,000. And while I could see the geek appeal of messing around with ultrasounding various animate and inanimate objects, I am sure that if the price should reach sub-1000's, it would quickly become another weapon in the arsenal of hypochondriacs and hysteric pregnant women. Much of the same goes for MRIs.
What you said though, wasn't just that a truncated 256-bit algorithm was 'fine', but that it would actually be stronger than a native 128-bit hash. That's what you're being called out on, because it is bullshit assuming that both hashes are secure. Of course it's going to be more secure if the 128-bit algorithm is broken and the 256-bit one is not, but that's not what was suggested.
It will presumably have vibration functions, so sure, if you are a particulary Google-loving nerd girl you could indulge in that kind of... product placement.
Those wouldn't even fool image fingerprinting technology from the 80's. If the people that made this had their hearts in it, and if they were willing to allow some small amount of false positives, I'd assume that there's no way to trick it without also significally inconviencing human viewers.
Well, I'll bet an fair amount of UK children are going to read Anarchist's Cookbook now. Let's hope any media coverage is informed enough to mention that the stuff in the book is less than 100% factual, but I doubt it. They'll probably make it sound like a really cool read.
It isn't entirely unreasonable to assume that there is some reasoning behind the behaviour, though. I don't expect them to philosophize about meta-implications or whatever, but take some tool use from the videos people have linked to, picking up a bucket with a steel wire and dropping nuts on roads; The conditions are unnatural enough that they shouldn't be doing it by instinct alone. The steel wire thing has similarities with digging up insects with sticks, but the road thing? So if not by instinct, that leaves simple positive feedback learning. But look at the steel wire thing. That's no happy accident. And in the road case, they would have to accidentally fly over the road with a nut, drop it in front of cars, then retrieve it safely, probably multiple times. (Though we may assume that once one crow has learnt it, the behaviour spreads via imitation.)
Summary; I find it unlikely that all of these behaviours are just instinct or feedback learning. Did you have any other likely causes in mind that don't involve reasoning?
Well, as I've understood it the performance problems they are having are in large part due to a miserable architecture that just can't be made to scale properly. If so, LL's about the last people I'd want working on a standard protocol for such things.
That's just your choice of games, though. There are games available for us that enjoy a good story. For an extreme example, how about 'Hotel Dusk: Room 215'? It's basically an interactive book, and I still enjoyed it quite a lot. It doesn't have to be story, either. A rich, explorable game world can have artistic merit even in the total absence of plot. How about Myst?
Heh, release things with 'Windows' in its name and hope Microsoft sues and settles, that actually sounds like a pretty nice minimal-effort business model. I want in on that.
Sure, just log in, go to preferences -> homepage, and uncheck the box that says 'kdawson'. The slashdot admins will instantly take notice of your preference and kick him of the team, and with any luck you'll never hear from him again.
Yes, benevolent tumors exist. The summary specifies 'malignant, fast-growing, lethal cancers', though, which sounds pretty bad. I can't find that exact quote in the article itself, nor anything specifically mentioning fast-growing and lethal, but they're pretty clear on the tumors in question being cancerous and malignant.
You're forgetting, the lie detector is part of an interrogation. I'd expect any skilled interogation, with or without a polygraph, to give better results than mere chance, so even if the polygraph adds nothing, it's still reasonable to have significantly better results than 50%.
In what civilized country could you end up being forced to take a lie detector test?... Is what I'd like to ask, but going by the comments, apparently half of the people on Slashdot have taken one. I'll take a wild guess that this is a US thing? And I suppose they also have you peeing in cups for drug testing, and make you take tea leaf readings to check for bad karma?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't suppose Ruby has something comparable to SciPy and IPython?
Also, I want to avoid a language discussion, but a lot of languages have some form of iterators, even if the syntax varies slightly. Even Java kind of got them now.
In Python:
for key, value in mydict.iterkeys():
print '%s: %s' % (key, value)
with file('somefile.txt', 'r') as f:
for line in f:
print line
Personally I think it reflects badly on the writer to appear so excited over being able to diagnose a simple dangling reference bug. Maybe they figured no-one would ever see it.
It's fine to have sponsors (the company in question is an official PAVE sponsor), but cheapening yourself like this.. cheapens you.
Sounds like a software developer's decision, picking the language/environment you're familiar with rather than the one appropriate for the job. You wouldn't normally make a control system that depended on a specific OS that was expensive and unsuitable for embedding.
"If only we'd studied cybernetics..." is more like it. At least, I don't think they teach cybernetics with C# anywhere, but who knows what kind of crazy things they get up to at Princeton.
They generally know very little about how the money are allocated.
In a similar study about foreign aid, the majority of people believed the US gave over 1% of the national budget in foreign aid. (against an actual 0.17%) [source]
I'd like to decry their apathy and ignorance, but I myself know very little about my own country's budget allocations.
It's a pretty huge disparity, though. Did they really believe everything else had to manage with the remaining 43%? I'll bet a survey with more items would show the average citizen of USA believe the national budget allocations adds up to a lot more than 100%. Does anyone know the real/perceived numbers for other science/research?
Well I bet you'll change your mind once you stand face to face with the new race of fearless, regenerating mice that can run six kilometres without rest and glow in the dark. But by then it will be far too late to do anything but welcome our new cheese-eating overlords.
Their only weakness is a slightly increased risk of cancer when exposed to various substances. Oh, if only we had invested equal resources in building better cats!
Sure, why not? They do seem to find the time to update whatever RNG they use in the MS Word layout engine between versions.
Like other medical imaging technologies such as ultrasound, the images are medically pretty much worthless without a qualified operator to read them.
For ultrasound systems, a far cheaper technology, the cheapest systems seem to be around $10,000. And while I could see the geek appeal of messing around with ultrasounding various animate and inanimate objects, I am sure that if the price should reach sub-1000's, it would quickly become another weapon in the arsenal of hypochondriacs and hysteric pregnant women. Much of the same goes for MRIs.
What you said though, wasn't just that a truncated 256-bit algorithm was 'fine', but that it would actually be stronger than a native 128-bit hash.
That's what you're being called out on, because it is bullshit assuming that both hashes are secure.
Of course it's going to be more secure if the 128-bit algorithm is broken and the 256-bit one is not, but that's not what was suggested.
It will presumably have vibration functions, so sure, if you are a particulary Google-loving nerd girl you could indulge in that kind of... product placement.
Maybe there are a lot of vampires in your area? I seem to remember something about them not being able to enter circles without being invited.
Then you would not care if they could have steered the next Katrina away from your house, but didn't?
It should be noted that Python does have some nifty LOGO homage:
from turtle import *
for i in range(4):
forward(100)
right(90)
right(45)
forward(sqrt(20000))
Those wouldn't even fool image fingerprinting technology from the 80's.
If the people that made this had their hearts in it, and if they were willing to allow some small amount of false positives, I'd assume that there's no way to trick it without also significally inconviencing human viewers.
Well, I'll bet an fair amount of UK children are going to read Anarchist's Cookbook now. Let's hope any media coverage is informed enough to mention that the stuff in the book is less than 100% factual, but I doubt it. They'll probably make it sound like a really cool read.
It isn't entirely unreasonable to assume that there is some reasoning behind the behaviour, though.
I don't expect them to philosophize about meta-implications or whatever, but take some tool use from the videos people have linked to, picking up a bucket with a steel wire and dropping nuts on roads;
The conditions are unnatural enough that they shouldn't be doing it by instinct alone. The steel wire thing has similarities with digging up insects with sticks, but the road thing?
So if not by instinct, that leaves simple positive feedback learning. But look at the steel wire thing. That's no happy accident. And in the road case, they would have to accidentally fly over the road with a nut, drop it in front of cars, then retrieve it safely, probably multiple times. (Though we may assume that once one crow has learnt it, the behaviour spreads via imitation.)
Summary; I find it unlikely that all of these behaviours are just instinct or feedback learning. Did you have any other likely causes in mind that don't involve reasoning?
The really funny thing is, I'm flicking back and forth between watching the video and the Youtube comments, and going 'Hmmm...'
Ah, well. I guess now we know.
Well, as I've understood it the performance problems they are having are in large part due to a miserable architecture that just can't be made to scale properly. If so, LL's about the last people I'd want working on a standard protocol for such things.
That's just your choice of games, though. There are games available for us that enjoy a good story.
For an extreme example, how about 'Hotel Dusk: Room 215'? It's basically an interactive book, and I still enjoyed it quite a lot.
It doesn't have to be story, either. A rich, explorable game world can have artistic merit even in the total absence of plot.
How about Myst?
Yeah, death tends to do all of that to you.
Heh, release things with 'Windows' in its name and hope Microsoft sues and settles, that actually sounds like a pretty nice minimal-effort business model. I want in on that.
Sure, just log in, go to preferences -> homepage, and uncheck the box that says 'kdawson'. The slashdot admins will instantly take notice of your preference and kick him of the team, and with any luck you'll never hear from him again.
Yes, benevolent tumors exist. The summary specifies 'malignant, fast-growing, lethal cancers', though, which sounds pretty bad.
I can't find that exact quote in the article itself, nor anything specifically mentioning fast-growing and lethal, but they're pretty clear on the tumors in question being cancerous and malignant.
You're forgetting, the lie detector is part of an interrogation. I'd expect any skilled interogation, with or without a polygraph, to give better results than mere chance, so even if the polygraph adds nothing, it's still reasonable to have significantly better results than 50%.
In what civilized country could you end up being forced to take a lie detector test?...
Is what I'd like to ask, but going by the comments, apparently half of the people on Slashdot have taken one. I'll take a wild guess that this is a US thing? And I suppose they also have you peeing in cups for drug testing, and make you take tea leaf readings to check for bad karma?