At some point debugging comes down to, the computer can only do what people tell it to do. A lot of advancement has been made in making it easier for programmers to communicate with computers. Advances are made in methods for reporting just what is being done or why something can't be done. But in the end, the bottleneck is the programmer who has sit down with his pencil and paper and slide rule and figure out, "is this really what I want to tell the computer to do?"
Heehee, perhaps Spock's little rant is one of the reasons physicists don't get picked for juries more often.
The prosecutor argued that the the law had really meant centriPETAL which the judge allowed.(Doesn't give one a lot of confidence in judges, does it.)
Actually, one of the judge's duties is to interpret the law. The law could be as broad as applying to all knives, could describe particular characteristics of some knives, or specify the exact make and model of knife this person was caught with.
Such interpretations consider not only the letter of the law, but also the spirit and intentions of the legislature. In this case the judge felt the law was intended to restrict possession of the knife in question. This interpretation is a matter of law which may be basis for an appeal. Sounds like the system worked in this case. (Doesn't give me a lot of confidence in physicists trying to be lawyers.)
There is also an issue of information which has not been presented as evidence and examined by both the prosecutor and defense entering into the jury deliberations. What if Spock was on the jury in the case he discusses and during deliberations he tells the other jurors he knows the knife in question releases on the application of centripetal force, not centrifugal force as specified in the law. Well, then Spock would be offering testimony, possibly poisoning the jury, and certainly causing grounds for appeal, if not a mistrial. If the judge instructs the jury centripetal force and centrifugal force have the same meaning and effect in regards to the law (which is not the same as in regards to physics) then the jury should consider those terms interchangeable. If this is indeed the case is an issue to be decided by the trial and appellate judges.
To conclude, in this case the lawyers and judges did their jobs, the system worked, and if lawyers agree to not play physicist, will the physicists agree to not play lawyer? Though Spock may want to start offering his services as an expert witness. I can hear old man Weatherby now, "I would of gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for that damn meddling physicist."
But The Silmarillion deals with the history of Middle Earth before the events in the LOTR. So would the current movies actually be 4, 5, and 6 in the series?
Just don't tell me it turns out Sauron is Frodo's father.
First, if you followed the thread on V=video vs. V=versatile, you'd know DVD stands for DVD, is short for DVD, and is an abbreviation of DVD. In other words, the word is 'DVD'. DVD is not an abbreviation.
Second, only lower case and single letter abbreviations get 's. Others just get an s.
DVDs, CDs, cgi's, A's.
( http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/pubstyle/ch6_1.htm and http://www.wooster.edu/psychology/apa-crib.html#ab brev )
There's a very short description of this at theinquirer.net found through mini-itx.com where this is old news.
The PCs, about the size of a soccer ball, are spherical and use Via's Mini-ITX design with an EPIA motherboard, a 40GB hard drive and an external 200 watt power supply.
The balls open in the middle and are expected to cost ¥5,000 when they ship.
I posit the upcoming Matrix movies are sequels even though the story line throughout the three movies was conceived as a whole. The Star Wars saga was conceived as a whole, yet all of the Star Wars movie are sequels. (Episode 4 is a sequel to the upcoming Episode 3 (4 comes after 3) as Episode 1 was a sequel to Episode 6 (1 was filmed and released after 6))
What do the Matrix and Star Wars movies have that the LOTR movies (except for the ROTK) don't have?
Endings! The Matrix had an ending. It can be treated as a single movie and stand on its own merits.
On the other hand, the FOTR ended but did not have an ending. If it was taken as a single movie, you'd have to consider FOTR as one of the biggest loads of crap ever produced. The darn thing just ends in the middle of the story!
The upcoming Matrix movies are sequels, the upcoming LOTR movies are continuations, not sequels, and LOTR is not an acronym; it is an abbreviation.:p
The original BTTF was good entertainment, but 2 and 3 were complete stinkers. If memory serves, both sequels were filmed at the same time or back-to-back. Which does not leave me optimistic for the Matrix sequals.
(LOTR isn't in the same category, as they aren't sequals, just a story told in three movies.)
I can't think of a way to traditionally walk you through the book and summarize it, because there are simply too many subplots and wacky characters to do a scene-by-scene breakdown, so if that's what you're looking for it's best to read the back cover of the book.
I'd like to concentrate on Arquette's writing style, which is so unique that I feel there are many reasons this book will become a breakout cult classic bestseller.
It's nice to read an actual book review instead of the book reports usually posted on fiction.
What we really need is the Total Information Tracking System program. Yeah, what this country needs is more TITS. And redundant systems to be on the safe side--we should have 2 TITS side-by-side.
Actually the Himalayas are being formed by the movement of the Indian subcontinent up into Asia, not volcanic activity.
And where do you think land comes from? A rock factory in the center of the Earth? Lava is just recycled rock, so volcanic activity just redistributes the land mass.
Why would there not be oceans like we think of them today billions of years ago?
Part of the issue may be FatWallet posting sale prices before they were advertised by the retailer, possibly a trade secret issue.
But another possible issue is price comparison sites and deal finder sites and the way they are being used are compromising the very idea of a loss-leader and the way retailers use sales and specials.
Take CR-Rs as an example. Walk into any computer or office supply store, and you'll likely some deal for free or almost free CR-R spindle (at least given my experience with computer and office supply stores in the US of A). Maybe 50 disks for $25 with a $10 instant rebate and a $15 mail-in rebate. They're not banking on the profit from giving away disks, but hoping your shopping list includes several items that are profit-makers. You pick their shop for the cheap disks, but buy all the items on your list.
However a lot of people, and I suspect a large portion of the audience for a site like FatWallet, don't shop that way anymore. If they have 5 items on their shopping list, they go to 5 different retailers if that gives them the best deal. At each retailer they only buy the one loss-leader and nothing that yields any profit. For example, my last new computer came from a half dozen or so different retailers. The only times I bought more than one item from a single shop were obvious combinations like cpu/mobo and case/power supply.
I think FatWallet is 100% right and hope they stick to the suit and win, and whomever at the big retailers decided to invoke the DMCA in this case should be taken out back and shot. But I also understand why the retailers might not see FatWallet as free advertising.
Re:Galacttic Anal Probing Inc..
on
Spielberg's Taken
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Why do we do these anal probes anyway?
All we've discovered is 1 subject in 10 doesn't mind.
To backup data, I print all my files as a binary string. Adding a decimal to the left I get number like: 0.110010101101010110100011010101011101010.. .
Then I make a mark on an inanimate carbon rod such that the ratio of the length of one segment of the rod to the length of the other segment is a fraction equivalent to my binary string.
To restore data, I simply accurately measure the segments on either side of the mark, calculate the fraction, and type in the binary string.
The idea that we should judge AI by conversation skills is pretty weak. A program that responds 'No!' to all queries doesn't necessarily hold the potential of the average 2-yr old. Yet many such conversations occur every day .
By the same token, aren't ELIZA's "tricks" the same techniques we use every day? If I hear something in the first person, it is natural to continue with the same subject by exchanging first and second personal pronouns. If I reach a point in the conversation where I'm not sure how to respond, I'll likely return to some previous thread.
Rather than reject ELIZA as too simple to be real A.I., perhaps human conversation, for the most part, is REALLY REALLY simple, and ELIZA replicates that well.
The problem is confusing human conversation and human intelligence. Take Linus for example. What if I had an A.I. that could perfectly reproduce the conversational qualities of Linus. Of what use would that be? Well, not much. Linus's value is in his actions, as are most people's. An intelligence that is all talk and no action is not a very lofty goal. Do we really need autonomous artificial marketers?
One of ELIZA's fundamental "tricks" is the pronoun reversal exhibited in the first exchange. Mapping "my" to "your" and "me" to "you," the robot echoes the client input by exchanging first and second personal pronouns. Other replies are generic defaults, giving the illusion of some understanding. If the client says anything with the prefix "I need some X," the robot replies with "What would it mean to you if you got some X?" It doesn't matter whether X is help, money, food, water, love or time. The same answer will cover almost all the likely inputs. Still other ELIZA replies are based on simple keyword recognition, as in the exchange about the client's mother, when the robot says, "Tell me more about your family." The appearance of the keyword "mother" anywhere in the input may have triggered this response.
It took this guy a few hours to figure out he'd seen and solved the same problem? More likely it took him a few hours to go through all the code he burned to CD when it became obvious the pink slip was coming.
Odds are you can't use his 'solution' because he didn't originate it.
How do you expect me to win?
on
To The Pain
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Slashdot Mirror
At some point debugging comes down to, the computer can only do what people tell it to do. A lot of advancement has been made in making it easier for programmers to communicate with computers. Advances are made in methods for reporting just what is being done or why something can't be done. But in the end, the bottleneck is the programmer who has sit down with his pencil and paper and slide rule and figure out, "is this really what I want to tell the computer to do?"
Heehee, perhaps Spock's little rant is one of the reasons physicists don't get picked for juries more often.
Actually, one of the judge's duties is to interpret the law. The law could be as broad as applying to all knives, could describe particular characteristics of some knives, or specify the exact make and model of knife this person was caught with.
Such interpretations consider not only the letter of the law, but also the spirit and intentions of the legislature. In this case the judge felt the law was intended to restrict possession of the knife in question. This interpretation is a matter of law which may be basis for an appeal. Sounds like the system worked in this case. (Doesn't give me a lot of confidence in physicists trying to be lawyers.)
There is also an issue of information which has not been presented as evidence and examined by both the prosecutor and defense entering into the jury deliberations. What if Spock was on the jury in the case he discusses and during deliberations he tells the other jurors he knows the knife in question releases on the application of centripetal force, not centrifugal force as specified in the law. Well, then Spock would be offering testimony, possibly poisoning the jury, and certainly causing grounds for appeal, if not a mistrial. If the judge instructs the jury centripetal force and centrifugal force have the same meaning and effect in regards to the law (which is not the same as in regards to physics) then the jury should consider those terms interchangeable. If this is indeed the case is an issue to be decided by the trial and appellate judges.
To conclude, in this case the lawyers and judges did their jobs, the system worked, and if lawyers agree to not play physicist, will the physicists agree to not play lawyer? Though Spock may want to start offering his services as an expert witness. I can hear old man Weatherby now, "I would of gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for that damn meddling physicist."
But The Silmarillion deals with the history of Middle Earth before the events in the LOTR. So would the current movies actually be 4, 5, and 6 in the series?
Just don't tell me it turns out Sauron is Frodo's father.
I said, DON'T TELL ME!!
Wow, wrong on both counts.
b brev )
First, if you followed the thread on V=video vs. V=versatile, you'd know DVD stands for DVD, is short for DVD, and is an abbreviation of DVD. In other words, the word is 'DVD'. DVD is not an abbreviation.
Second, only lower case and single letter abbreviations get 's. Others just get an s.
DVDs, CDs, cgi's, A's.
( http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/pubstyle/ch6_1.htm and http://www.wooster.edu/psychology/apa-crib.html#a
Their icon should be a dog with shifty eyes.
There's a very short description of this at theinquirer.net found through mini-itx.com where this is old news.
I posit the upcoming Matrix movies are sequels even though the story line throughout the three movies was conceived as a whole. The Star Wars saga was conceived as a whole, yet all of the Star Wars movie are sequels. (Episode 4 is a sequel to the upcoming Episode 3 (4 comes after 3) as Episode 1 was a sequel to Episode 6 (1 was filmed and released after 6))
:p
What do the Matrix and Star Wars movies have that the LOTR movies (except for the ROTK) don't have?
Endings! The Matrix had an ending. It can be treated as a single movie and stand on its own merits.
On the other hand, the FOTR ended but did not have an ending. If it was taken as a single movie, you'd have to consider FOTR as one of the biggest loads of crap ever produced. The darn thing just ends in the middle of the story!
The upcoming Matrix movies are sequels, the upcoming LOTR movies are continuations, not sequels, and LOTR is not an acronym; it is an abbreviation.
Were the last two movies.
The original BTTF was good entertainment, but 2 and 3 were complete stinkers. If memory serves, both sequels were filmed at the same time or back-to-back. Which does not leave me optimistic for the Matrix sequals.
(LOTR isn't in the same category, as they aren't sequals, just a story told in three movies.)
It's nice to read an actual book review instead of the book reports usually posted on fiction.
What we really need is the Total Information Tracking System program. Yeah, what this country needs is more TITS. And redundant systems to be on the safe side--we should have 2 TITS side-by-side.
I always feel much better when I'm facing 2 TITS.
<ob Smirnoff>In Soviet Russia the tits suck you!
Actually the Himalayas are being formed by the movement of the Indian subcontinent up into Asia, not volcanic activity.
And where do you think land comes from? A rock factory in the center of the Earth? Lava is just recycled rock, so volcanic activity just redistributes the land mass.
Why would there not be oceans like we think of them today billions of years ago?
Associating beer with fun is stupid.
You don't need fun to have alcohol.
wibstr.
Part of the issue may be FatWallet posting sale prices before they were advertised by the retailer, possibly a trade secret issue.
But another possible issue is price comparison sites and deal finder sites and the way they are being used are compromising the very idea of a loss-leader and the way retailers use sales and specials.
Take CR-Rs as an example. Walk into any computer or office supply store, and you'll likely some deal for free or almost free CR-R spindle (at least given my experience with computer and office supply stores in the US of A). Maybe 50 disks for $25 with a $10 instant rebate and a $15 mail-in rebate. They're not banking on the profit from giving away disks, but hoping your shopping list includes several items that are profit-makers. You pick their shop for the cheap disks, but buy all the items on your list.
However a lot of people, and I suspect a large portion of the audience for a site like FatWallet, don't shop that way anymore. If they have 5 items on their shopping list, they go to 5 different retailers if that gives them the best deal. At each retailer they only buy the one loss-leader and nothing that yields any profit. For example, my last new computer came from a half dozen or so different retailers. The only times I bought more than one item from a single shop were obvious combinations like cpu/mobo and case/power supply.
I think FatWallet is 100% right and hope they stick to the suit and win, and whomever at the big retailers decided to invoke the DMCA in this case should be taken out back and shot. But I also understand why the retailers might not see FatWallet as free advertising.
Why do we do these anal probes anyway?
All we've discovered is 1 subject in 10 doesn't mind.
I'm lucky! You're lucky! The banister's lucky!
Too bad we can't read it.
Well, most folks post without RTFA anyway, so why have the links?
To backup data, I print all my files as a binary string. Adding a decimal to the left I get number like:. .
0.110010101101010110100011010101011101010.
Then I make a mark on an inanimate carbon rod such that the ratio of the length of one segment of the rod to the length of the other segment is a fraction equivalent to my binary string.
To restore data, I simply accurately measure the segments on either side of the mark, calculate the fraction, and type in the binary string.
What could be easier?
What ever happened to 10 gigs on a roll of scotch tape(TM)?
There is no substitute.
The idea that we should judge AI by conversation skills is pretty weak. A program that responds 'No!' to all queries doesn't necessarily hold the potential of the average 2-yr old. Yet many such conversations occur every day .
By the same token, aren't ELIZA's "tricks" the same techniques we use every day? If I hear something in the first person, it is natural to continue with the same subject by exchanging first and second personal pronouns. If I reach a point in the conversation where I'm not sure how to respond, I'll likely return to some previous thread.
Rather than reject ELIZA as too simple to be real A.I., perhaps human conversation, for the most part, is REALLY REALLY simple, and ELIZA replicates that well.
The problem is confusing human conversation and human intelligence. Take Linus for example. What if I had an A.I. that could perfectly reproduce the conversational qualities of Linus. Of what use would that be? Well, not much. Linus's value is in his actions, as are most people's. An intelligence that is all talk and no action is not a very lofty goal. Do we really need autonomous artificial marketers?
It took this guy a few hours to figure out he'd seen and solved the same problem? More likely it took him a few hours to go through all the code he burned to CD when it became obvious the pink slip was coming.
Odds are you can't use his 'solution' because he didn't originate it.
I don't. I expect you to die!
Whoever thought it was a good idea to have constant music in the background shouldn't be allowed to own a television, let alone work on a show.
But why does he wear a giant carrot on his head?