Because it's like asking for a drug that cures viruses. We develop drugs that help deal with specific viruses all the time, but there are a lot of viruses.
Improvements in cancer detection and treatment also seem to be relatively incremental. Something that killed 90% of patients a generation ago maybe kills 50% now, and maybe next year a treatment or diagnostic tool or screening program comes out that brings that down to 45%.
Can someone who knows more about these things comment on the efforts to make blockchain realisable using less power than, say, Denmark? That seems like the single largest hurdle to it potentially taking off.
Carlsen is a remarkable player. He's been the top rated player since 2010, mostly by a margin comparable to Kasparov at his peak, and he's been World Champion since 2013. Carlsen's recent form hasn't been quite to his usual standards, and Caruana has matched that dip with gains of his own. In terms of elo rating, the statistical ranking used in chess, they're currently neck and neck. This means that an outright match victory (it's best of 12 games) would probably make Caruana not just World Champion but also the world #1 ranked player for the first time. At 27 and 26 years old respectively, they could be duking it out for a long time to come - pro chess players can retain almost all of their peak strength well into their 40s.
Imagine there are 3 episodes. Possible orders are 123, 132, 213, 231, 312, 321. As you say, 3! = 6 orders.
But if I watch the episodes 1231321312 I've covered all six in an overlapping way. Is this the shortest way? I don't know. I'd probably check it exhaustively. That'll work up to some fairly short length where the number of combinations get crazy.
The score is about equivalent to being a rook down without compensation. Even strong club players could beat computers from such positions. Of course, what it really hinges on is Rybka's ability to evaluate the notion of compensation, but I can believe that the percentage of positions Rybka evaluates at -5.12 or worse in which there exists a win for the 'weaker' side is very small. So, yes, not a proof, but a strong practical indicator.
Surely any competitive system to select people for desirable posts is going to encourage dubious behaviour? Those editorials don't seem to offer very significant changes, just new metrics for people to game. It's not just academia either - every career where your value is measured by some proxy metrics is going to see unethical behaviour from people near the cut-off.
The atmospheric pressure on Mars is quite variable, from 0.0044 bar to 1.15 bar (if it sea like ours, one entire hemisphere would be under water). The figure you've quoted seems to be from around as high as you can go. The other end of the scale is around earth normal or even a bit higher. Temperatures are also more hospitable. Also, Lunar dust gets everywhere. There is no simple answer here.
Does it bother you at all that that is not at all what he said? I ask because it makes me sad to see a human being incapable of parsing a very simple piece of text. Many people are dispirited by the realpolitik practised by most parties with any actual power, by the lobbying power of industries and of special interest groups with views which appear grotesque or simply stupid, and by political corruption. Furthermore, many countries have voting systems which are conservative - the populace tend to vote for the incumbents, or oscillate between two power blocks which are not radically different from one another. To state that most parties appear not to represent ones beliefs is very different from saying that one has almost no beliefs. Democracy, as it is currently practised, is certainly not a pleasant sight for an idealist. I'd do something about it, but I don't think I have the stamina, money, cynicism and skills. At least I can understand a simple post though.
It is, but not of the kind they were looking to avoid. There are Costas arrays without that pattern, but they're not known for sizes over 28 x 28. They're called 'sporadic' arrays, and they're actually the most common type for small sizes (there are infinitely many generated by field theory, but that's not a fair comparison as we can't find large sporadic arrays).
I'm note a musical guy, but I understand the maths, so I'll try to answer this.
It would help if there were some definitions for "random" and "pattern-free" in this context. I find it annoying that he several times says that random music is not pattern-free.
1. He never plays the same note twice. (A Costas array is a permutation) In a random piece, the same note can (and probably will) appear more than once.
2. If he plays middle A, then middle B (consecutive notes), he'll never play consecutive notes (e.g. C_0 and D_0) again.
3. If he plays middle A, then something else, then middle B, he'll never play consecutive notes spaced by another note again.
4. If he plays middle A, then two other notes, then middle B, he'll never play consecutive notes spaced by two other notes again.
5. etc.
6. The same applies to pairs of notes two notes apart (e.g. middle A and middle C), three notes apart, etc.
7. Finally, he uses a Golomb ruler for the spacing between notes. I'm note quite sure what he did there, but possibly each spacing is unique. Can someone else explain? At any rate, a Golomb ruler defines unique gaps such that you get every possible gap between some pair of marks on it. (Think of a 4 cm ruler with 0 cm, 1 cm, 2 cm and 4 cm marked on it. You don't need a mark at 3 cm because you can get that from the gap between the 1 cm mark and the 4 cam mark.)
It is true that their definitions are not equivalent, but it seems that he is implying that you cannot generate "pattern-free" music using randomly played notes, and that -depending of the definition of "pattern-free" of course- seems very, very unlikely.
Can't is note quite true, but won't is more like it. Consider 3.14159265358979323 - the first 18 digits of pie. Random digits? Maybe (randomness, as you note, needs to be defined). However, look at triplets: 141, 535, 979, 323. Played as music, people will hear repetitions like that. Or at least, that seems to be the theory; I have no ear for these things to test it. Maybe you can hear them?
There are additional possible solutions. They used an 88x88 Costas array for the notes, and a length 88 Golomb ruler for the intervals. I'm not sure how many Golomb rulers there are of that size, but there are more Costas arrays of that size - at least as many as there are primitive roots of 89.
You might create a tune with no pattern but chances are there will be a pattern of some kind in there.
Exactly. This is why sports fans think that there's such a thing as form. Human beings are very bad at judging randomness - we actually bias towards alternating patterns, which is decidedly non-random.
I'm an academic working in optics. This is holographic, not OCT. The difference is small - mainly the coherence length of the laser, but essentially the holographic microscope has slightly better resolution at the cost of much worse rejection of out of focus light. So this device is probably better for examining a biopsy or some water for contamination or something rather than looking at a hunk of tissue, which is where OCT shines. The holographic approach is better in one other way - it grabs an image in one shot, where as most other 3D techniques require scanning. That could be an advantage in in-vivo imaging of cells.
I'd mod the parent insightful if I had the points. Most of the PhDs I've worked with have been very conscious of their limitations. Maybe it's a cultural thing, or maybe the OP is bringing his own biases to the table.
All the more so as the modern publishing industry is often rather lax in proof-reading standards, making the one lasting use for them rather less important than it might otherwise be.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's like asking for a drug that cures viruses. We develop drugs that help deal with specific viruses all the time, but there are a lot of viruses.
Improvements in cancer detection and treatment also seem to be relatively incremental. Something that killed 90% of patients a generation ago maybe kills 50% now, and maybe next year a treatment or diagnostic tool or screening program comes out that brings that down to 45%.
Can someone who knows more about these things comment on the efforts to make blockchain realisable using less power than, say, Denmark? That seems like the single largest hurdle to it potentially taking off.
Carlsen is a remarkable player. He's been the top rated player since 2010, mostly by a margin comparable to Kasparov at his peak, and he's been World Champion since 2013. Carlsen's recent form hasn't been quite to his usual standards, and Caruana has matched that dip with gains of his own. In terms of elo rating, the statistical ranking used in chess, they're currently neck and neck. This means that an outright match victory (it's best of 12 games) would probably make Caruana not just World Champion but also the world #1 ranked player for the first time. At 27 and 26 years old respectively, they could be duking it out for a long time to come - pro chess players can retain almost all of their peak strength well into their 40s.
Imagine there are 3 episodes. Possible orders are 123, 132, 213, 231, 312, 321. As you say, 3! = 6 orders. But if I watch the episodes 1231321312 I've covered all six in an overlapping way. Is this the shortest way? I don't know. I'd probably check it exhaustively. That'll work up to some fairly short length where the number of combinations get crazy.
Did I write it? http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909998&cid=34546562
The score is about equivalent to being a rook down without compensation. Even strong club players could beat computers from such positions. Of course, what it really hinges on is Rybka's ability to evaluate the notion of compensation, but I can believe that the percentage of positions Rybka evaluates at -5.12 or worse in which there exists a win for the 'weaker' side is very small. So, yes, not a proof, but a strong practical indicator.
Surely any competitive system to select people for desirable posts is going to encourage dubious behaviour? Those editorials don't seem to offer very significant changes, just new metrics for people to game. It's not just academia either - every career where your value is measured by some proxy metrics is going to see unethical behaviour from people near the cut-off.
The atmospheric pressure on Mars is quite variable, from 0.0044 bar to 1.15 bar (if it sea like ours, one entire hemisphere would be under water). The figure you've quoted seems to be from around as high as you can go. The other end of the scale is around earth normal or even a bit higher. Temperatures are also more hospitable. Also, Lunar dust gets everywhere. There is no simple answer here.
You might be interested to know that Banks was once asked whether the Culture was a utopia or a distopia. He replied, "Yes."
Does it bother you at all that that is not at all what he said? I ask because it makes me sad to see a human being incapable of parsing a very simple piece of text. Many people are dispirited by the realpolitik practised by most parties with any actual power, by the lobbying power of industries and of special interest groups with views which appear grotesque or simply stupid, and by political corruption. Furthermore, many countries have voting systems which are conservative - the populace tend to vote for the incumbents, or oscillate between two power blocks which are not radically different from one another. To state that most parties appear not to represent ones beliefs is very different from saying that one has almost no beliefs. Democracy, as it is currently practised, is certainly not a pleasant sight for an idealist. I'd do something about it, but I don't think I have the stamina, money, cynicism and skills. At least I can understand a simple post though.
No, white noise is random, which wouldn't have the same properties as this. For a start, it would have the same key more than once.
Well spotted (by which I mean, mod parent up!). He could have used a larger primitive root of 89, like 30, and that wouldn't have occurred.
Interestingly, if you try to generate more than 88 notes by the method Rickard described, they start to repeat periodically.
It is, but not of the kind they were looking to avoid. There are Costas arrays without that pattern, but they're not known for sizes over 28 x 28. They're called 'sporadic' arrays, and they're actually the most common type for small sizes (there are infinitely many generated by field theory, but that's not a fair comparison as we can't find large sporadic arrays).
Please note that "note a musical guy" was not intended as a pun, but was in fact my brain on too little sleep.
No patterns?
It would help if there were some definitions for "random" and "pattern-free" in this context. I find it annoying that he several times says that random music is not pattern-free.
1. He never plays the same note twice. (A Costas array is a permutation) In a random piece, the same note can (and probably will) appear more than once.
2. If he plays middle A, then middle B (consecutive notes), he'll never play consecutive notes (e.g. C_0 and D_0) again. 3. If he plays middle A, then something else, then middle B, he'll never play consecutive notes spaced by another note again. 4. If he plays middle A, then two other notes, then middle B, he'll never play consecutive notes spaced by two other notes again. 5. etc. 6. The same applies to pairs of notes two notes apart (e.g. middle A and middle C), three notes apart, etc. 7. Finally, he uses a Golomb ruler for the spacing between notes. I'm note quite sure what he did there, but possibly each spacing is unique. Can someone else explain? At any rate, a Golomb ruler defines unique gaps such that you get every possible gap between some pair of marks on it. (Think of a 4 cm ruler with 0 cm, 1 cm, 2 cm and 4 cm marked on it. You don't need a mark at 3 cm because you can get that from the gap between the 1 cm mark and the 4 cam mark.)
It is true that their definitions are not equivalent, but it seems that he is implying that you cannot generate "pattern-free" music using randomly played notes, and that -depending of the definition of "pattern-free" of course- seems very, very unlikely.
Can't is note quite true, but won't is more like it. Consider 3.14159265358979323 - the first 18 digits of pie. Random digits? Maybe (randomness, as you note, needs to be defined). However, look at triplets: 141, 535, 979, 323. Played as music, people will hear repetitions like that. Or at least, that seems to be the theory; I have no ear for these things to test it. Maybe you can hear them?
There are additional possible solutions. They used an 88x88 Costas array for the notes, and a length 88 Golomb ruler for the intervals. I'm not sure how many Golomb rulers there are of that size, but there are more Costas arrays of that size - at least as many as there are primitive roots of 89.
Random != no pattern
You might create a tune with no pattern but chances are there will be a pattern of some kind in there.
Exactly. This is why sports fans think that there's such a thing as form. Human beings are very bad at judging randomness - we actually bias towards alternating patterns, which is decidedly non-random.
C is not that uncommon, particularly among engineers.
I'm an academic working in optics. This is holographic, not OCT. The difference is small - mainly the coherence length of the laser, but essentially the holographic microscope has slightly better resolution at the cost of much worse rejection of out of focus light. So this device is probably better for examining a biopsy or some water for contamination or something rather than looking at a hunk of tissue, which is where OCT shines. The holographic approach is better in one other way - it grabs an image in one shot, where as most other 3D techniques require scanning. That could be an advantage in in-vivo imaging of cells.
I'd mod the parent insightful if I had the points. Most of the PhDs I've worked with have been very conscious of their limitations. Maybe it's a cultural thing, or maybe the OP is bringing his own biases to the table.
Come with me if you want to shop!
All the more so as the modern publishing industry is often rather lax in proof-reading standards, making the one lasting use for them rather less important than it might otherwise be.
My understanding is that the lights overheat. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/966/can-some-people-extinguish-streetlamps-by-means-of-their-bodily-emanations