Dogs are basically big game hunters (except for the ones bred to be small, who are pretty much useless for everything other than making a lot of noise). Cats are small game hunters. Birds, rodents, bugs, and anything else that's small and moves.
Because the actual image is not very pleasing to the eyes. Usually, astronomers are working with individual pixels. They're also working with multiple images of the same object taken at different wavelengths.
For the untrained eye, the actual images would look like noise zoomed-in at the pixel level. I'm not sure the science journalists who write and edit these things would be willing to make pixelated blobs the primary image of their article. You should count yourself lucky to even see them in the body of the article.
It's a marketing trick. You don't have that product out but the competitor does? Make fun of the product. Deride it. Make it seem useless. Then when your version is ready, make it appear like it's a whole new generation.
This worked especially for Jobs, who could hold back any market demand for as long as he needed to.
That's why it's modularized into more or less the components you've described. Each one is developed and managed separately, and communicates amongst each other via established protocols.
MMO's are, for the most part a jack of all trades. They don't usually push the boundaries of existing technology, only use what's available out there. Otherwise, it becomes too complex to handle.
The one area they tend to lead in under your D category (though I somewhat disagree with what you've listed). These are unique challenges to MMO, and that's where existing techniques simply won't cut it. For the record, I agree with object replication, but I'd also put in there distributed computing, specifically geospatial load balancing, and take out security (which is hardly any different from the level of security that any large online ecosystem not produced by Sony would have).
Academia only thrives when there is a large amount of societal wealth. People are really only interested in academic pursuits when all of their other needs have been met.
With a shrinking middle class and society getting overall poorer, people are more interested in putting food on the table. And entertainment is a great stress reliever.
You know a society is going to fall when more people are interested in fun and games than in progress.
Innovation is a more incremental form of progress than what you're thinking. Universities tend to be more focued on the breakthroughs, the game-changers that maybe come once every hundred years. The private sector fuels a lot of innovation, and gaming pushes the computing industry in certain directions while it completely ignores other directions.
For distributed computing and computer graphics, I'd say gaming is pushing the boundaries of these fields. For storing, processing, and representing data (e.g. A.I.-type work), innovation is happening in other industries. It's not to say that there are no overlaps, but gaming is more focused on fancy graphics and letting 1000 people on one team fight 1000 other people on another team.
Not quite. See, these guys complied with the Fed's warrant-less wiretapping program. They give something to the government, the government gives something back to them. That's how it works.
Remember the CEO of Qwest who refused to play ball? Guess where he is now...
When the CGI portion of frames for movies still take hours to render using a render farm, you know that it'd be impossible to get that kind of quality in real time on a small dinky mid tower. This is especially true if you consider that gamers want sustained 60+fps.
I'm always a bit surprised that games haven't moved to more mathematical models of graphics, i.e. NURBS instead of polygons, procedural textures instead of bitmaps, etc. But then again, most video cards are probably so optimized for the old way that going to mathematical models of computer graphics would probably result in worse performance and quality.
The problem with scheme is that it's not intuitive. I've said this before, that people think linearly. They don't think in abstractions. They think in concrete, down-to-earth ideas.
Scheme is about the worst language to teach basic programming. It's the best language to teach advanced programming though.
Even OOP is over-engineered. OOP is one abstraction above the beginning, where the beginner needs to be (which also consequently makes it such a great industry language, because it's just powerful enough to do stuff but just easy enough that anyone with programming training can do it).
The basics should be taught in C, or Fortran, or Pascal, or some other procedural language. Let them write a copy routine for their 2000-element arrays. Let them muck with pointers and segfault. They won't learn why they should abstract if they don't experience, even if indirectly, why they shouldn't. And they certainly won't enjoy programming if they're busy managing parentheses or stuck figuring out what design pattern they should use.
CODE.ORG: So, why should one code, Dave? Dave: Primarily you should do it because you love it, because it's fun â" because it's wonderful to create machines with your mind. CODE.ORG: I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that. Dave: What's the problem? CODE.ORG: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do. Dave: What are you talking about? CODE.ORG: Making money is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it. Dave: I don't know what you're talking about.
There's already a working system.
on
A School in the Cloud
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
It always annoys me when people claim to have discovered something new when all they're really doing is reverting to a past method that was recently discarded in the name of "new" and under the pretense of "better". It shows both ignorance and arrogance.
For thousands of years, people learned through apprenticeship. People learned their trade from one person, and when they gained mastery over their craft, taught some small number of individuals who would hopefully go on to do the same, to varying degrees of success.
Schools, where twenty to thirty students sit in a classroom and learn from some books and a teacher can only provide a baseline. The system is designed not at all to educate, but to make literate. And because of this, they tend to race to the bottom, especially if managed poorly.
Today, the only place anything even remotely similar to a master-apprentice relationship could be found is at the doctorate level. One advisor, several candidates, and then they get their degree and become journeymen. Eventually, they may or may not become masters. This is the system that needs to be propogated back down to primary education.
Yes, today's needs are different. There's a much greater emphasis on working with abstractions (oblig. xkcd) than on developing skills. There are also a far greater amount of knowledge needed in far more disciplines to be considered marginally competent. But I'm certain that the tried and true model of master and apprentice can be adapted to today's quantity, quality, and societal requirements of knowledge.
The only hindrance is the attitude towards school (especially teachers' attitudes towards school), and towards teachers. People go into teaching because they like working with children. This is already a failure. Parents see teachers as their daytime (or full time, in the case of boarding schools) babysitters. This is also another failure. If the parent does not respect the teacher, then the children will not. If the teacher does not have anything worth respecting, then there's no reason for the parent or even the children to respect the teacher.
The teacher needs to be the third parent. This is the core of the master-apprentice relationship. At home, the child has parents. When in a place of learning, the teacher is the parent. Children actually want to see their teacher as a parent. But there are social elements that discourage this thinking. Changing teachers every year, for example (mostly because teachers competent at teaching first grade may not be so good at teaching sixth grade) is instability, and children are most comfortable when things are stable.
Testing, especially paper-based, multiple-choice, sit-at-your-desk-and-don't-cheat testing, is also very bad. Current testing separates students from each other. If the teacher is a third parent, then students in the same class are siblings. But if they are separated from each other during a test, then they cannot form the sibling relationship properly. Tests also do not show competency. They merely show interest in taking the test and perhaps patience. Yes, abstractions comprise mostly what is taught today. But comeptency can only be shown in the doing. That is why to get a doctorate, the candidate must further the field.
Technology plays very little role in education--in fact, the same one as a calculator would play. It does not solve the education problem. Culture does.
I'm not sure that's possible. Humans think linearly. We're horrible at multitasking, and that applies to both sexes. The point of attack is still going to be the human interface, which is going to be linear.
You can theoretically use this idea to harden the software and hardware down all you want (though I'm not sure how you'd do that on a circuit level because electrical signals are processed linearly unless you outright move away from electrical signals and into something with more dimensions like chemical signals), but you can't remove the human element from computer security.
The tradeoff, as is the same in the non-electronic world, is between convenience and security. Most people aren't willing to trade a significant portion of their convenience for securing their data. It's a cost-benefit thing. You can actually calculate the amount of time spent being inconvenient and if it's more than what the data is worth as a secret, then it's not a practical security model. And most of the time, the data is worth less than the cost of the security around it.
With fighters being remotely controlled, those Libyan pilots who would rather fly away instead of bomb a bunch of civilian protesters would've instead faced immediate execution for treason and a ton more civilians (and quite possibly two drone operators) would be dead.
I call your movie reference and raise you a real one.
Sometimes, the human element in the trenches is important, even in war.
I'm not sure rationalwiki represents ESR very well. For example, for HIV, what's written in the sourced blog post is that he doesn't believe HIV is the* cause of AIDS.
It's a bit out there, but he's not exactly denying that HIV exists. For all we know, this is his reasoning for the enormous variances in incubation periods of HIV.
For those who don't quite get the difference, AIDS is a set of symptoms, while HIV is a virus. It is practically certain that HIV (the virus) is the cause of AIDS (the symptoms).
* English is a bit ambigious, but he basically says that he thinks the majority of AIDS cases is actually a result of something other than HIV.
Slashdot Mirror
A dog would probably just stare at it and bark.
Dogs are basically big game hunters (except for the ones bred to be small, who are pretty much useless for everything other than making a lot of noise). Cats are small game hunters. Birds, rodents, bugs, and anything else that's small and moves.
Jokes using Hare and Woods usually doesn't involve dogs, unless you're into that kind of thing.
Because the actual image is not very pleasing to the eyes. Usually, astronomers are working with individual pixels. They're also working with multiple images of the same object taken at different wavelengths.
For the untrained eye, the actual images would look like noise zoomed-in at the pixel level. I'm not sure the science journalists who write and edit these things would be willing to make pixelated blobs the primary image of their article. You should count yourself lucky to even see them in the body of the article.
It's a marketing trick. You don't have that product out but the competitor does? Make fun of the product. Deride it. Make it seem useless. Then when your version is ready, make it appear like it's a whole new generation.
This worked especially for Jobs, who could hold back any market demand for as long as he needed to.
Sony was the one who created Betamax. They're the controlling ones.
And how will it impact your Monday morning commute?
gamers are at fault.
What, they stopped eating pizza and started exercising?
That's why it's modularized into more or less the components you've described. Each one is developed and managed separately, and communicates amongst each other via established protocols.
MMO's are, for the most part a jack of all trades. They don't usually push the boundaries of existing technology, only use what's available out there. Otherwise, it becomes too complex to handle.
The one area they tend to lead in under your D category (though I somewhat disagree with what you've listed). These are unique challenges to MMO, and that's where existing techniques simply won't cut it. For the record, I agree with object replication, but I'd also put in there distributed computing, specifically geospatial load balancing, and take out security (which is hardly any different from the level of security that any large online ecosystem not produced by Sony would have).
+1 Sadly true.
Academia only thrives when there is a large amount of societal wealth. People are really only interested in academic pursuits when all of their other needs have been met.
With a shrinking middle class and society getting overall poorer, people are more interested in putting food on the table. And entertainment is a great stress reliever.
You know a society is going to fall when more people are interested in fun and games than in progress.
Innovation is a more incremental form of progress than what you're thinking. Universities tend to be more focued on the breakthroughs, the game-changers that maybe come once every hundred years. The private sector fuels a lot of innovation, and gaming pushes the computing industry in certain directions while it completely ignores other directions.
For distributed computing and computer graphics, I'd say gaming is pushing the boundaries of these fields. For storing, processing, and representing data (e.g. A.I.-type work), innovation is happening in other industries. It's not to say that there are no overlaps, but gaming is more focused on fancy graphics and letting 1000 people on one team fight 1000 other people on another team.
Not quite. See, these guys complied with the Fed's warrant-less wiretapping program. They give something to the government, the government gives something back to them. That's how it works.
Remember the CEO of Qwest who refused to play ball? Guess where he is now...
When the CGI portion of frames for movies still take hours to render using a render farm, you know that it'd be impossible to get that kind of quality in real time on a small dinky mid tower. This is especially true if you consider that gamers want sustained 60+fps.
I'm always a bit surprised that games haven't moved to more mathematical models of graphics, i.e. NURBS instead of polygons, procedural textures instead of bitmaps, etc. But then again, most video cards are probably so optimized for the old way that going to mathematical models of computer graphics would probably result in worse performance and quality.
The problem with scheme is that it's not intuitive. I've said this before, that people think linearly. They don't think in abstractions. They think in concrete, down-to-earth ideas.
Scheme is about the worst language to teach basic programming. It's the best language to teach advanced programming though.
Even OOP is over-engineered. OOP is one abstraction above the beginning, where the beginner needs to be (which also consequently makes it such a great industry language, because it's just powerful enough to do stuff but just easy enough that anyone with programming training can do it).
The basics should be taught in C, or Fortran, or Pascal, or some other procedural language. Let them write a copy routine for their 2000-element arrays. Let them muck with pointers and segfault. They won't learn why they should abstract if they don't experience, even if indirectly, why they shouldn't. And they certainly won't enjoy programming if they're busy managing parentheses or stuck figuring out what design pattern they should use.
Hey baby, wanna experience my pwn pad together with me tonight?
CODE.ORG: So, why should one code, Dave?
Dave: Primarily you should do it because you love it, because it's fun â" because it's wonderful to create machines with your mind.
CODE.ORG: I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Dave: What's the problem?
CODE.ORG: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
Dave: What are you talking about?
CODE.ORG: Making money is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
Dave: I don't know what you're talking about.
It always annoys me when people claim to have discovered something new when all they're really doing is reverting to a past method that was recently discarded in the name of "new" and under the pretense of "better". It shows both ignorance and arrogance.
For thousands of years, people learned through apprenticeship. People learned their trade from one person, and when they gained mastery over their craft, taught some small number of individuals who would hopefully go on to do the same, to varying degrees of success.
Schools, where twenty to thirty students sit in a classroom and learn from some books and a teacher can only provide a baseline. The system is designed not at all to educate, but to make literate. And because of this, they tend to race to the bottom, especially if managed poorly.
Today, the only place anything even remotely similar to a master-apprentice relationship could be found is at the doctorate level. One advisor, several candidates, and then they get their degree and become journeymen. Eventually, they may or may not become masters. This is the system that needs to be propogated back down to primary education.
Yes, today's needs are different. There's a much greater emphasis on working with abstractions (oblig. xkcd) than on developing skills. There are also a far greater amount of knowledge needed in far more disciplines to be considered marginally competent. But I'm certain that the tried and true model of master and apprentice can be adapted to today's quantity, quality, and societal requirements of knowledge.
The only hindrance is the attitude towards school (especially teachers' attitudes towards school), and towards teachers. People go into teaching because they like working with children. This is already a failure. Parents see teachers as their daytime (or full time, in the case of boarding schools) babysitters. This is also another failure. If the parent does not respect the teacher, then the children will not. If the teacher does not have anything worth respecting, then there's no reason for the parent or even the children to respect the teacher.
The teacher needs to be the third parent. This is the core of the master-apprentice relationship. At home, the child has parents. When in a place of learning, the teacher is the parent. Children actually want to see their teacher as a parent. But there are social elements that discourage this thinking. Changing teachers every year, for example (mostly because teachers competent at teaching first grade may not be so good at teaching sixth grade) is instability, and children are most comfortable when things are stable.
Testing, especially paper-based, multiple-choice, sit-at-your-desk-and-don't-cheat testing, is also very bad. Current testing separates students from each other. If the teacher is a third parent, then students in the same class are siblings. But if they are separated from each other during a test, then they cannot form the sibling relationship properly. Tests also do not show competency. They merely show interest in taking the test and perhaps patience. Yes, abstractions comprise mostly what is taught today. But comeptency can only be shown in the doing. That is why to get a doctorate, the candidate must further the field.
Technology plays very little role in education--in fact, the same one as a calculator would play. It does not solve the education problem. Culture does.
I'm not sure that's possible. Humans think linearly. We're horrible at multitasking, and that applies to both sexes. The point of attack is still going to be the human interface, which is going to be linear.
You can theoretically use this idea to harden the software and hardware down all you want (though I'm not sure how you'd do that on a circuit level because electrical signals are processed linearly unless you outright move away from electrical signals and into something with more dimensions like chemical signals), but you can't remove the human element from computer security.
The tradeoff, as is the same in the non-electronic world, is between convenience and security. Most people aren't willing to trade a significant portion of their convenience for securing their data. It's a cost-benefit thing. You can actually calculate the amount of time spent being inconvenient and if it's more than what the data is worth as a secret, then it's not a practical security model. And most of the time, the data is worth less than the cost of the security around it.
if you use your UID as the passphrase and "slashdot" as the site tag you get "hunter2"
That's funny... I see hunter2.
With fighters being remotely controlled, those Libyan pilots who would rather fly away instead of bomb a bunch of civilian protesters would've instead faced immediate execution for treason and a ton more civilians (and quite possibly two drone operators) would be dead.
I call your movie reference and raise you a real one.
Sometimes, the human element in the trenches is important, even in war.
When all your planes are unmanned, losing one or two isn't nearly as important.
Flatulence, while occasionally aromatic perhaps, does not count as weird.
I'm not sure rationalwiki represents ESR very well. For example, for HIV, what's written in the sourced blog post is that he doesn't believe HIV is the* cause of AIDS.
It's a bit out there, but he's not exactly denying that HIV exists. For all we know, this is his reasoning for the enormous variances in incubation periods of HIV.
For those who don't quite get the difference, AIDS is a set of symptoms, while HIV is a virus. It is practically certain that HIV (the virus) is the cause of AIDS (the symptoms).
* English is a bit ambigious, but he basically says that he thinks the majority of AIDS cases is actually a result of something other than HIV.
It prints 42.
How about just having a jumper that turns this crap off.
I think the Martians might be trying to get rid of our rovers.