An real world example of the power of metadata is Google. Basicly, the ranking works because of metadata, originating as metadata or derived from the content of the page.
While probably correct, there really isn't much substance to your comment, so I decided to add some links to one of the best examples of exploiting metadata: network analysis (or applied graph theory, depending on your bent). It's been applied to webpages, phone call records (using just who calls whom), scientific collaboration networks, social networks, and a whole bunch more. The following links make for some interesting reading about the scope and power of exploiting metadata (at least the introductions):
Maybe the fact that nobody's ever *heard* of this obscure Google service is part of the reason it hasn't been successful.
At AAAI this year (one of the largest and most well known A.I. conferences), they had a demonstration of Lively (not sure how it fits the A.I. moniker). It basically consisted of a what was probably a (very smug) recent college grad sitting around a Lively set up and playing with it himself. Of course, that mainly consisted of him sitting around in a virtual "room" waiting for someone to show up, which didn't happen.
All in all, it looked like a sad throwback to 1998's VRML and the promise of how it was the "next step" and would "change the web". Then, as now, I ask -- WHY?!@?!?!
I caught the trailer during the opening of Quantum of Solace and must say felt the same way. Right from the Fast and Furious-like opening scene, through the brief flashes of sex and Spock getting all mad, it really seems like they're pumping it full of Summer Flick Formula(r). Someone mentioned this earlier in an older thread about the movie, but why is it that everything today has to be re-imagined as darker, more filled with violence and sexier? Ironically, that's how I felt about Q of S too -- it just wasn't fun anymore, and isn't that why so many of us put up with (nay, relished!) the carpet-on-a-rock aliens of TOS?
That said, I must add that the shot of the half-built Enterprise looming in the distance while a teen kirk on a motorbike looks on was actually quite stirring... Even though this might be "Star Trek babies" in the end, I'm hoping it might still redeem itself in the end with scenes like that one. One of my biggest complaints with TOS was that they didn't show enough of Earth other than generic "Federation HQ" shots (and no, ST 4 doesn't count). It might be cool to see what the peeps on good ol' Earth-without-a-monetary-economy were doing while Kirk was vigorously fornicating with green alien chicks in shady exoplanetary bars...
The problem I had after watching this trailer was that it looks like they're turning Star Trek into a mindless summer action flick
I caught the trailer during the opening of Quantum of Solace and must say felt the same way. Right from the Fast and Furious-like opening scene, through the brief flashes of sex and Spock getting all mad, it really seems like they're pumping it full of Summer Flick Formula(r). Someone mentioned this earlier in an older thread about the movie, but why is it that everything today has to be re-imagined as darker, more filled with violence and sexier? Ironically, that's how I felt about Q of S too -- it just wasn't fun anymore, and isn't that why so many of us put up with (nay, relished!) the carpet-on-a-rock aliens of TOS?
This should have been called a "Think Village", because I doubt any large enough city will have traffic that is forgiving enough to allow a small electric car to reach 30 (either kph or mph) in 6.5 seconds. Seriously, just start counting off 6.5 seconds right now.
Or, you could do what Obama does and let the same person give multiple donations to you with the same credit card under whatever pseudonym you like, thereby bypassing any sort of campaign donation limit.
Yes, because it's totally inconceivable that two people would use the same credit card or have the same credit card number. Merrill Lynch (MBNA really) and a lot of other credit card companies give additional cardholders (family, friends, etc. of the primary cardholder) the same credit card number, and often these people share the same billing address. Therefore, more than one person can legally be associated with the same credit card number.
i mean, on a routing line with a hundred users on one end, it's thousands of hash-checks to be made for every stupid rebuilt file
Actually, it gets worse than that. Say that I have an "illegal" image that I want to transmit to you. All I would have to do is embed it in a random frame of some 700 MB DivX movie. Then, not only do files have to be checked, but every frame of every video too.
And the age-old question of "is this MP3 file legal"? That is an example of an uncomputable question.
More likely, this is intended for idiots who don't use encrypted connections. But people who don't have the brains to use encryption are probably going to be apprehended by law enforcement anyway before they can do too much law-breaking. So in other words, invest in massive infrastructure for pretty much nothing.
Now you take the human translated recognition, and use it to train your genetic algo or neural net against the original images.
Sorry to be pedantic, but a genetic algorithm is a search heuristic, not a learning algorithm. You could train it to search for discriminative patterns in the training data, but it would almost certainly overfit because it's the wrong tool for the job. Neural nets, while more appropriate as a learning algorithm, have recently been usurped by Support Vector Machines (SVMs), which are much better at not overfitting.
I'm on sqaforums.com, and 99% of the threads posted there are n00bs from India asking people to do their job for them. It seems a high percentage of people there don't want to learn on their own and figure out things.
Your statement is a numerical fallacy. You cannot make judgments about a percentage of "people there" when your sample consists of a self-selecting Internet "help" message board, and "there" contains more than three times as many (in 2005) engineering grads than the States.
It isn't rocket surgery, it is logic. If the known universe is expanding outward, that means that it has to have someplace to go, right? Or am I just high right now?
Ummm....I would say the latter (bold emphasis mine). Then again, it is very easy to confuse rocket surgery and logic.
I had heard from LiveScience that someone had been speculating our universe was shaped like a higher dimensional torus. Isn't there a type of hyperdimensional torus with a very small hole that kind of looks like a cushion (the middle one [wikimedia.org])? Maybe that could cause material to flow to a central point while the torus expands.
I don't understand this speculation -- is there any reason to believe that matter is flowing to the center of the universe while it expands? TFA talks about unexplained forces from the region of space beyond the reach of light from the big bang, i.e. the unobservable universe. Although it says space/time probably doesn't work the same there, there's no reason to believe in exotic higher-dimensional structures for the universe unless there's a good reason and empirical evidence to do so.
Then are we also looking at near the time of the big bang?
Since no one reads TFA anyway, and since you clearly didn't:
The universe is thought to have formed about 13.7 billion years ago. So even if light started travelling toward us immediately after the Big Bang, the farthest it could ever get is 13.7 billion light-years in distance. There may be parts of the universe that are farther away (we can't know how big the whole universe is), but we can't see farther than light could travel over the entire age of the universe.
And then:
A theory called inflation posits that the universe we see is just a small bubble of space-time that got rapidly expanded after the Big Bang. There could be other parts of the cosmos beyond this bubble that we cannot see.
In these regions, space-time might be very different, and likely doesn't contain stars and galaxies (which only formed because of the particular density pattern of mass in our bubble). It could include giant, massive structures much larger than anything in our own observable universe. These structures are what researchers suspect are tugging on the galaxy clusters, causing the dark flow.
Finally, on a side note, years of watching slashdot paid off in a truly interesting story!
IP addresses are a virtual commodity. if we run out of IPv4/IPv6 addresses, we'll simply create new address spaces as needed. that's not really a problem.
Yes THEORETICALLY it's not a problem, but in case you haven't noticed, the move to IPv6 hasn't exactly been lightning fast. The move to IPv7/IPv8 is unlikely to be faster.
The theremin has its detractors, but you should at least give it a try, especially if its played by someone halfway competent. Can't say anything about geekiness factor though.
The next revision of SquirrelFish, said to make Javascript not suck anymore, is due to be released in 2048.
I know you're just trolling, but Javascript is actually getting fun to program in for recreational purposes. It reminds me of assembly programming back in the day, at least that's where its development seems to be in terms of a programming language. It's actually fun to hack, and you can already do some nifty things like pseudo-threading using its window.setTimeout() function and some clever programming. The fact that the engines are getting more powerful just makes it more fun and likely to pay off.
I remember when C/C++/ASM programming was fun to hack, until the age of monolithic libraries like MFC and OWL (and now things like the JDK and.Net) came and ruined that fun by restricting your freedom. If there's one thing that will make me buy into the whole browser-as-OS thing, it's an efficient, bare-bones and flexible Javascript implementation, kind of like programming in C for your browser.
Seems plausible to me that politics and world affairs are more stressful to americans because we feel responsible.
Well then perhaps it's a good thing that you're feeling a little stressed -- if not for anything other than the fact that the repercussions of meddling (not mediating) in international politics are almost certainly going to be (and have been) felt in America. It's an unfortunate situation caused by rampant myopia, which reinforces the fact that educating kids about politics and the world is a Good Thing.
Being that children can't vote, and no-one cares about their political opinions, doesn't this survey say that they're basically worried about things they have no control over?
Yes, but children do a funny thing...they grow up. It's better to get them engaged at ANY age so that when they're 18, they have a better chance of having better formed opinions than their peers. Bonus points if you can get them interested before the teen years and raging hormones REALLY set in.
Not meaning to troll, but this aversion to politics and world-affairs as "stress inducers" seems to be uniquely American. Elsewhere, children are subjected to things called "Geography" and "Civics" from very early on.
It would be nice if our leaders were superhuman and were experts on every facet of policy, but the reality is that no one can be an expert on everything.
Then again, if I were to pick a presidential candidate to be an expert at ONE thing, it would probably be constitutional law. And a terminal degree in his/her chosen field wouldn't be a bad thing either.
How isnt India hostile? They have nukes pointed at Pakistan and Pakistan has nukes pointed at them. They are CONSTANTLY fighting over Kashmir. This could be percieved as an escalation or at least a way to unbalance the MAD equation in that part of the world.
Nukes pointed at country X....check.
Country X has nukes pointer at them...check.
Constantly fighting over country Y....check.
Funny...the US seems to fit that bill for being "hostile" pretty well too. Let's not forget that India is a large, stable, secular democracy with a decent non-proliferation record in spite of not having signed the NPT, has a strong economic interest in remaining peaceful and friendly with China and the U.S., and is consenting to international oversight of nuclear facilities as part of this deal.
Since India has the toys and is much more stable than Pakistan,NK and Iran, it's better that they place nice than if they don't. This is the safest, most practical and pragmatic way of ensuring that.
So, some researchers used Facebook as a singularly inefficient method of DDoSing someone.
Agreed. Especially since a user trying to interact with ANYTHING dynamic on a profile page has to CLICK it to enable it. Embed your own "malicious" DDOS flash code into an "application" with some cutesy front end, and have it pull a large NASA image and push it as a form upload to the target site. Basically, once the user clicks your flash/activeX/blaahXY content, you have an array of flash/activeX/blaahXY exploits to exploit.
Unless of course they figured out a way of activating the dynamic content without the user clicking (this was a hack submitted a while ago as a XSS exploit, local news went nuts about it). Now THAT would be a nice hack, as it would allow the design of apps to counter-stalk (i.e. see who's been viewing your profile).
Slashdot Mirror
An real world example of the power of metadata is Google. Basicly, the ranking works because of metadata, originating as metadata or derived from the content of the page.
While probably correct, there really isn't much substance to your comment, so I decided to add some links to one of the best examples of exploiting metadata: network analysis (or applied graph theory, depending on your bent). It's been applied to webpages, phone call records (using just who calls whom), scientific collaboration networks, social networks, and a whole bunch more. The following links make for some interesting reading about the scope and power of exploiting metadata (at least the introductions):
PageRank, HITS: rank webpages as authoritative based on the links between them (i.e. assume that good pages link to good pages, etc.) PageRank Analyzing the web web communities based on link structure analyzing scientific collaborations based only on patterns of co-authorship and co-citation another one like the previous (although as a computer scientist, i don't think much of mark newman, he writes well).
Remember kids, it's popular because it works!
Maybe the fact that nobody's ever *heard* of this obscure Google service is part of the reason it hasn't been successful.
At AAAI this year (one of the largest and most well known A.I. conferences), they had a demonstration of Lively (not sure how it fits the A.I. moniker). It basically consisted of a what was probably a (very smug) recent college grad sitting around a Lively set up and playing with it himself. Of course, that mainly consisted of him sitting around in a virtual "room" waiting for someone to show up, which didn't happen.
All in all, it looked like a sad throwback to 1998's VRML and the promise of how it was the "next step" and would "change the web". Then, as now, I ask -- WHY?!@?!?!
I caught the trailer during the opening of Quantum of Solace and must say felt the same way. Right from the Fast and Furious-like opening scene, through the brief flashes of sex and Spock getting all mad, it really seems like they're pumping it full of Summer Flick Formula(r). Someone mentioned this earlier in an older thread about the movie, but why is it that everything today has to be re-imagined as darker, more filled with violence and sexier? Ironically, that's how I felt about Q of S too -- it just wasn't fun anymore, and isn't that why so many of us put up with (nay, relished!) the carpet-on-a-rock aliens of TOS?
That said, I must add that the shot of the half-built Enterprise looming in the distance while a teen kirk on a motorbike looks on was actually quite stirring... Even though this might be "Star Trek babies" in the end, I'm hoping it might still redeem itself in the end with scenes like that one. One of my biggest complaints with TOS was that they didn't show enough of Earth other than generic "Federation HQ" shots (and no, ST 4 doesn't count). It might be cool to see what the peeps on good ol' Earth-without-a-monetary-economy were doing while Kirk was vigorously fornicating with green alien chicks in shady exoplanetary bars...
The problem I had after watching this trailer was that it looks like they're turning Star Trek into a mindless summer action flick
I caught the trailer during the opening of Quantum of Solace and must say felt the same way. Right from the Fast and Furious-like opening scene, through the brief flashes of sex and Spock getting all mad, it really seems like they're pumping it full of Summer Flick Formula(r). Someone mentioned this earlier in an older thread about the movie, but why is it that everything today has to be re-imagined as darker, more filled with violence and sexier? Ironically, that's how I felt about Q of S too -- it just wasn't fun anymore, and isn't that why so many of us put up with (nay, relished!) the carpet-on-a-rock aliens of TOS?
Be patient. The paychecks will come.
I'm in a Ph.D. program you insensitive clod!
This should have been called a "Think Village", because I doubt any large enough city will have traffic that is forgiving enough to allow a small electric car to reach 30 (either kph or mph) in 6.5 seconds. Seriously, just start counting off 6.5 seconds right now.
Yes, because it's totally inconceivable that two people would use the same credit card or have the same credit card number. Merrill Lynch (MBNA really) and a lot of other credit card companies give additional cardholders (family, friends, etc. of the primary cardholder) the same credit card number, and often these people share the same billing address. Therefore, more than one person can legally be associated with the same credit card number.
Actually, it gets worse than that. Say that I have an "illegal" image that I want to transmit to you. All I would have to do is embed it in a random frame of some 700 MB DivX movie. Then, not only do files have to be checked, but every frame of every video too.
And the age-old question of "is this MP3 file legal"? That is an example of an uncomputable question.
More likely, this is intended for idiots who don't use encrypted connections. But people who don't have the brains to use encryption are probably going to be apprehended by law enforcement anyway before they can do too much law-breaking. So in other words, invest in massive infrastructure for pretty much nothing.
There's another easy way to recover blurred text in Photoshop: Ctrl+Z.
Now you take the human translated recognition, and use it to train your genetic algo or neural net against the original images.
Sorry to be pedantic, but a genetic algorithm is a search heuristic, not a learning algorithm. You could train it to search for discriminative patterns in the training data, but it would almost certainly overfit because it's the wrong tool for the job. Neural nets, while more appropriate as a learning algorithm, have recently been usurped by Support Vector Machines (SVMs), which are much better at not overfitting.
Your statement is a numerical fallacy. You cannot make judgments about a percentage of "people there" when your sample consists of a self-selecting Internet "help" message board, and "there" contains more than three times as many (in 2005) engineering grads than the States.
It isn't rocket surgery, it is logic. If the known universe is expanding outward, that means that it has to have someplace to go, right? Or am I just high right now?
Ummm....I would say the latter (bold emphasis mine). Then again, it is very easy to confuse rocket surgery and logic.
I had heard from LiveScience that someone had been speculating our universe was shaped like a higher dimensional torus. Isn't there a type of hyperdimensional torus with a very small hole that kind of looks like a cushion (the middle one [wikimedia.org])? Maybe that could cause material to flow to a central point while the torus expands.
I don't understand this speculation -- is there any reason to believe that matter is flowing to the center of the universe while it expands? TFA talks about unexplained forces from the region of space beyond the reach of light from the big bang, i.e. the unobservable universe. Although it says space/time probably doesn't work the same there, there's no reason to believe in exotic higher-dimensional structures for the universe unless there's a good reason and empirical evidence to do so.
Since no one reads TFA anyway, and since you clearly didn't:
The universe is thought to have formed about 13.7 billion years ago. So even if light started travelling toward us immediately after the Big Bang, the farthest it could ever get is 13.7 billion light-years in distance. There may be parts of the universe that are farther away (we can't know how big the whole universe is), but we can't see farther than light could travel over the entire age of the universe.
And then:
A theory called inflation posits that the universe we see is just a small bubble of space-time that got rapidly expanded after the Big Bang. There could be other parts of the cosmos beyond this bubble that we cannot see. In these regions, space-time might be very different, and likely doesn't contain stars and galaxies (which only formed because of the particular density pattern of mass in our bubble). It could include giant, massive structures much larger than anything in our own observable universe. These structures are what researchers suspect are tugging on the galaxy clusters, causing the dark flow.
Finally, on a side note, years of watching slashdot paid off in a truly interesting story!
Yes THEORETICALLY it's not a problem, but in case you haven't noticed, the move to IPv6 hasn't exactly been lightning fast. The move to IPv7/IPv8 is unlikely to be faster.
The theremin has its detractors, but you should at least give it a try, especially if its played by someone halfway competent. Can't say anything about geekiness factor though.
I know you're just trolling, but Javascript is actually getting fun to program in for recreational purposes. It reminds me of assembly programming back in the day, at least that's where its development seems to be in terms of a programming language. It's actually fun to hack, and you can already do some nifty things like pseudo-threading using its window.setTimeout() function and some clever programming. The fact that the engines are getting more powerful just makes it more fun and likely to pay off.
I remember when C/C++/ASM programming was fun to hack, until the age of monolithic libraries like MFC and OWL (and now things like the JDK and .Net) came and ruined that fun by restricting your freedom. If there's one thing that will make me buy into the whole browser-as-OS thing, it's an efficient, bare-bones and flexible Javascript implementation, kind of like programming in C for your browser.
Um....ok..? Bit much coffee today? I joke...
Well then perhaps it's a good thing that you're feeling a little stressed -- if not for anything other than the fact that the repercussions of meddling (not mediating) in international politics are almost certainly going to be (and have been) felt in America. It's an unfortunate situation caused by rampant myopia, which reinforces the fact that educating kids about politics and the world is a Good Thing.
Yes, but children do a funny thing...they grow up. It's better to get them engaged at ANY age so that when they're 18, they have a better chance of having better formed opinions than their peers. Bonus points if you can get them interested before the teen years and raging hormones REALLY set in.
Not meaning to troll, but this aversion to politics and world-affairs as "stress inducers" seems to be uniquely American. Elsewhere, children are subjected to things called "Geography" and "Civics" from very early on.
Then again, if I were to pick a presidential candidate to be an expert at ONE thing, it would probably be constitutional law. And a terminal degree in his/her chosen field wouldn't be a bad thing either.
Hello Virginia, meet my friend Support Vector Machine and his cousin, ol' naive Bayes.
If there's nothing obviously wrong with the machines, it might never get looked at, especially in larger counties.
Nukes pointed at country X....check.
Country X has nukes pointer at them...check.
Constantly fighting over country Y....check.
Funny...the US seems to fit that bill for being "hostile" pretty well too. Let's not forget that India is a large, stable, secular democracy with a decent non-proliferation record in spite of not having signed the NPT, has a strong economic interest in remaining peaceful and friendly with China and the U.S., and is consenting to international oversight of nuclear facilities as part of this deal.
Since India has the toys and is much more stable than Pakistan,NK and Iran, it's better that they place nice than if they don't. This is the safest, most practical and pragmatic way of ensuring that.
Agreed. Especially since a user trying to interact with ANYTHING dynamic on a profile page has to CLICK it to enable it. Embed your own "malicious" DDOS flash code into an "application" with some cutesy front end, and have it pull a large NASA image and push it as a form upload to the target site. Basically, once the user clicks your flash/activeX/blaahXY content, you have an array of flash/activeX/blaahXY exploits to exploit.
Unless of course they figured out a way of activating the dynamic content without the user clicking (this was a hack submitted a while ago as a XSS exploit, local news went nuts about it). Now THAT would be a nice hack, as it would allow the design of apps to counter-stalk (i.e. see who's been viewing your profile).