Quite what I was afraid I understood. If you're afraid of doing dynamic allocation yourself you shouldn't be allowed to use a real programming language in the first place anyways. I mean seriously, that trend that consists in going "eww, dynamic allocation", "omg, a pointer, what is that thing!?" or even "I wonder how people could live without garbage collection" makes people sound like sissies.
So why are they spending all this money on this nonsense?
It's called progress. Also, don't just look at the first immediate application of this research, you don't know what other research/applications it might spawn. That's why there's always been so much "because we can" research, because you have no clue what doors your research will open.
Picture the Manhattan Project scientists going "Why research atomic bombs when we can do more damage with incendiary carpet bombing?", then think about all the things nuclear research has lead to.
What you're talking about is coding data (when the raw data consists of, for example, transcripts of talk in a classroom).
Is it? Are you talking about parsing transcripts of discussions into extracting the main opinions and quantifying them? If so then no, that's a great idea, but that's very ambitious. My idea was more along the lines of a cross-over between a traditional poll and Slashdot's tagging system.
Well, the link in your sig demonstrates a method for starting a debate, create a discussion and somehow poll people in a fairly innovative fashion, however it's not quite my idea.
My idea is pretty much, start a poll with a question such as "What do you think about X?", and don't provide poll options, let the users do it, somehow. So if with such a system you asked "What do you think about death penalty?" you wouldn't get a say "23% for, 77% against" but more like 21% for "All killing is wrong, therefore the death penalty is wrong.", 10% for "Bad people need to die", 7% for "It doesn't deter murder so it's useless", and we can imagine that you could go in-depth and explore close ideas that have been grouped together, like for example you could find out that 40% of opinions grouped in the latter example actually said "What we need is to enforce existing laws, not to make tougher ones", which is a fairly similar idea but still quite a nuance, and so on..
So if we legitimately have to shoot down an hijacked airliner as we should have in September 2001, we won't be able to shoot an AIM-9 at it, we'll have to get close enough in order to shoot it down with the fighter's gun?
Why test it on commercial jets when it'd be much more useful on military planes to say help with anti-missile countermeasures such as flares?
I agree, after some more thought about it, it's indeed quite similar to Slashdot tags, with the detail that you would know in what proportions people "tagged" what, and that as you said it would be a little more verbosituous (is there an actual term that means the same as this awkward neologism?) than mere tags.
I really wish someone would pick that idea up and experiment with it.
Considering that it combines successful natural language parsing with solving the strong AI problem, I'd say you're quite right about that.
Or you could find a human solution to the problem, for example allow users to edit options in a Wiki-like fashion, or let people specify how similar their input is to other people's (specific) input. I think it's definitely worth some serious consideration, as most of the time I'm considering making a poll I think "if only there was a way people could define the poll options instead of me trying to guess their opinions in advance".
If such a thing were to be successfully implemented I'm fairly confident it would change quite something in the way we listen to people's opinion online.
Facebookers opined that Hillary Clinton is "onto Barack like a Rottweiler" one moment and "has about as much experience and common sense as an avacado [sic]" the next. Ron Paul is a "looney" to some, but "the only one who understands economics" and "the only logical and realistic choice," to others.
So, put it that way, people say anything and its opposite about candidates, and we hardly have any way to quantify what they think as a whole. So we can (pretty much) qualify what people think but not quantify. Sounds like a problem.
Here's what I wish would exist on the web, sort of polls in which no poll choices would be defined by the poll creator, but would emerge from what people say. I'm going to use TFA's Mitt Romney example to illustrate the idea : "Mitt Romney, who arguably endured the largest share of attacks during the Republican debate, drew mixed reviews: everything from "the only one who understands insurance," "looks younger than 60," to "is getting creamed," and "lost this debate.""
Basically, from such a polling system's user input would emerge dominating trends, for example "Only Romney understands insurance", "Romney lost the debate", "Romney looks young", and people's input would be categorised under these self-grouping ideas and thus you could both qualify and quantify at the same time what people think and agree on.
Unfortunately the "grouping user input into a few categories" thing might be the difficult part.
Console players don't mind needing the disk, DVD watchers don't mind needing the disk. Why should PC gamers be special?
For the same reason why PC gamers would be pretty pissed off if the latest FPS could only be played with a gamepad? That means because a PC isn't a fucking console, quit comparing apples with oranges goddamnit.
No, it's false. Besides incorrect assumptions you have to make to obtain your erroneous conclusion, a smaller percentage doesn't mean you're less likely, because whereas 20% of car accidents are caused by drunken people, much less than 20% of the people driving are actually drunk, which makes an accident more likely to happen if you are drunk.
Yes, but that's nothing compared to the market share of the OS I created, CrapzorOS! It went from 0 users to 1 user (me!) during the same period of time.
I'll let you calculate the market share increase it represents, and then you'll tell me who the true winner is.
I hope that people realise that by covering 7 regions of the sky instead of one, and 40 times as much spectrum bandwidth as before, assuming that aliens are as likely to emit on any of these frequencies (which after all is not such a bad assumption considered we don't know a thing about them), statistically that will make us discover alien signals 280 times faster than before.
Very basically, that means that if we were say 1,000 years from finding an alien signal with the previous setup (which you can't say sounded so unlikely, I mean we barely listened for 40 years, and not always with the means we have now), we are now 3 years and a half away from that instead.
I've been thinking about a number of situations in which you might want to surreptitiously record what you say and hear, which makes me want to ask, what are the best suited devices and setups for wire-tapping yourself?
I have been thinking very seriously to introduce a recorder in my life to settle arguments with my girlfriend [...] Arguments often boil down to who said what.
Do like me! Only talk to your girlfriend on MSN, and log it all!
Slashdot Mirror
I think he's suggesting the .NET framework.
Quite what I was afraid I understood. If you're afraid of doing dynamic allocation yourself you shouldn't be allowed to use a real programming language in the first place anyways. I mean seriously, that trend that consists in going "eww, dynamic allocation", "omg, a pointer, what is that thing!?" or even "I wonder how people could live without garbage collection" makes people sound like sissies.
Everyone should be forced to give up manual memory allocation regardless of the power it can afford.
I beg your pardon?? What is it you're suggesting with that respect exactly?
So why are they spending all this money on this nonsense?
It's called progress. Also, don't just look at the first immediate application of this research, you don't know what other research/applications it might spawn. That's why there's always been so much "because we can" research, because you have no clue what doors your research will open.
Picture the Manhattan Project scientists going "Why research atomic bombs when we can do more damage with incendiary carpet bombing?", then think about all the things nuclear research has lead to.
Now where's my driver-less flying car? I mean it, flying cars won't ever get anywhere unless they're "driver-less".
Add in a 3d physics simulator, and you're halfway to true AI.
Excuse me but what exactly do you mean by "true AI"?? It'd better not be "strong AI" cause if it is I want some of whatever it is you're smoking.
No you got it wrong. I'm not suggesting to put flares on airliners, but to put this laser system on fighter planes, in addition of flares.
Perhaps blizzard learned with their N64 port that RTS ports generally don't work on consoles/handhelds.
Yeah, but did the N64 have a touchscreen?
My girlfriend works for an airline and in training the DHS flat out told them they shot down one of the planes.
If they shot down Flight 93 then eye-witnesses on the ground who reported seeing the crash from up close would have noticed.
What you're talking about is coding data (when the raw data consists of, for example, transcripts of talk in a classroom).
Is it? Are you talking about parsing transcripts of discussions into extracting the main opinions and quantifying them? If so then no, that's a great idea, but that's very ambitious. My idea was more along the lines of a cross-over between a traditional poll and Slashdot's tagging system.
Well, the link in your sig demonstrates a method for starting a debate, create a discussion and somehow poll people in a fairly innovative fashion, however it's not quite my idea.
My idea is pretty much, start a poll with a question such as "What do you think about X?", and don't provide poll options, let the users do it, somehow. So if with such a system you asked "What do you think about death penalty?" you wouldn't get a say "23% for, 77% against" but more like 21% for "All killing is wrong, therefore the death penalty is wrong.", 10% for "Bad people need to die", 7% for "It doesn't deter murder so it's useless", and we can imagine that you could go in-depth and explore close ideas that have been grouped together, like for example you could find out that 40% of opinions grouped in the latter example actually said "What we need is to enforce existing laws, not to make tougher ones", which is a fairly similar idea but still quite a nuance, and so on..
If they had proposed testing on a plane-ful of bunnies, it'd be stopped faster than Hitler.
You mean in less than 12 years?
So if we legitimately have to shoot down an hijacked airliner as we should have in September 2001, we won't be able to shoot an AIM-9 at it, we'll have to get close enough in order to shoot it down with the fighter's gun?
Why test it on commercial jets when it'd be much more useful on military planes to say help with anti-missile countermeasures such as flares?
I agree, after some more thought about it, it's indeed quite similar to Slashdot tags, with the detail that you would know in what proportions people "tagged" what, and that as you said it would be a little more verbosituous (is there an actual term that means the same as this awkward neologism?) than mere tags.
I really wish someone would pick that idea up and experiment with it.
Considering that it combines successful natural language parsing with solving the strong AI problem, I'd say you're quite right about that.
Or you could find a human solution to the problem, for example allow users to edit options in a Wiki-like fashion, or let people specify how similar their input is to other people's (specific) input. I think it's definitely worth some serious consideration, as most of the time I'm considering making a poll I think "if only there was a way people could define the poll options instead of me trying to guess their opinions in advance".
If such a thing were to be successfully implemented I'm fairly confident it would change quite something in the way we listen to people's opinion online.
Facebookers opined that Hillary Clinton is "onto Barack like a Rottweiler" one moment and "has about as much experience and common sense as an avacado [sic]" the next. Ron Paul is a "looney" to some, but "the only one who understands economics" and "the only logical and realistic choice," to others.
So, put it that way, people say anything and its opposite about candidates, and we hardly have any way to quantify what they think as a whole. So we can (pretty much) qualify what people think but not quantify. Sounds like a problem.
Here's what I wish would exist on the web, sort of polls in which no poll choices would be defined by the poll creator, but would emerge from what people say. I'm going to use TFA's Mitt Romney example to illustrate the idea : "Mitt Romney, who arguably endured the largest share of attacks during the Republican debate, drew mixed reviews: everything from "the only one who understands insurance," "looks younger than 60," to "is getting creamed," and "lost this debate.""
Basically, from such a polling system's user input would emerge dominating trends, for example "Only Romney understands insurance", "Romney lost the debate", "Romney looks young", and people's input would be categorised under these self-grouping ideas and thus you could both qualify and quantify at the same time what people think and agree on.
Unfortunately the "grouping user input into a few categories" thing might be the difficult part.
You mean, not everyone spends their lunchtimes reading Slashdot?
No, in Soviet Russia, Slashdot reads your lunch while it eats you.
How do I find a willing girl?
Ever heard of Craigslist?
The first page of the instructions say: Uninstall Vista, install something else.
Argh! Please, stop with the overly subtle sarcasms, I'm so confused now!
I am totally shocked that even Diebold could screw up this badly
At this point I wonder why Microsoft doesn't enter the market of voting machines. Even they wouldn't fuck it up this badly.
Console players don't mind needing the disk, DVD watchers don't mind needing the disk. Why should PC gamers be special?
For the same reason why PC gamers would be pretty pissed off if the latest FPS could only be played with a gamepad? That means because a PC isn't a fucking console, quit comparing apples with oranges goddamnit.
It's true, but it's also BS.
No, it's false. Besides incorrect assumptions you have to make to obtain your erroneous conclusion, a smaller percentage doesn't mean you're less likely, because whereas 20% of car accidents are caused by drunken people, much less than 20% of the people driving are actually drunk, which makes an accident more likely to happen if you are drunk.
Isn't that a bigger victory for linux?
Yes, but that's nothing compared to the market share of the OS I created, CrapzorOS! It went from 0 users to 1 user (me!) during the same period of time.
I'll let you calculate the market share increase it represents, and then you'll tell me who the true winner is.
I hope that people realise that by covering 7 regions of the sky instead of one, and 40 times as much spectrum bandwidth as before, assuming that aliens are as likely to emit on any of these frequencies (which after all is not such a bad assumption considered we don't know a thing about them), statistically that will make us discover alien signals 280 times faster than before.
Very basically, that means that if we were say 1,000 years from finding an alien signal with the previous setup (which you can't say sounded so unlikely, I mean we barely listened for 40 years, and not always with the means we have now), we are now 3 years and a half away from that instead.
I've been thinking about a number of situations in which you might want to surreptitiously record what you say and hear, which makes me want to ask, what are the best suited devices and setups for wire-tapping yourself?
I have been thinking very seriously to introduce a recorder in my life to settle arguments with my girlfriend [...] Arguments often boil down to who said what.
Do like me! Only talk to your girlfriend on MSN, and log it all!