Yes, although aborting.5 seconds from launch is a bit unusual (but as has been said better than the alternative and better than what NASA has done at times).
To be fair, photographers replaced painters around the turn of the century--many asked why anyone ought to make "photo-realistic" (of course they didn't call it that at the time) paintings if you could just snap a photo instead. If CGI replaced photos entirely in the media then it would be a sort of restoration as it seems to me the CGI artist is more like a painter than a photographer.
I really like how when a Microsoft-funded group does something with malicious it's legal but when a private individual or group of individual does something to show security weaknesses or support a political cause it lands them in prison.
I'm not sure what your point regarding m is, but if you just take out the 'one of these is 1' predicate it's still true since 5 primes is in the domain of 'no more than 6'.
I wouldn't make any generalizations based on my error; truth be told I'm no expert at set theory; I know enough to know that there is a relation between sets and the natural numbers. Of course this is a really important part of set theory so the error is significant. This is not evidence based, but I think sets are rather intuitive; it's the notation that trips me and other undergrads up. (Also reading some of the related articles in the comments, it seems this is true of some indigenous peoples as well; they can use numbers abstractly in their heads even without having the words for it as long as some less abstract method is used to test that ability--like having groups of rocks, etc. stand for the numbers and then repeating a sound and asking how many times it was repeated, as opposed to the subject counting on their fingers which doesn't necessarily correspond to some internal concept of the number.)
Re: #3 They want leverage. They may now have access to the software, but based on the condition of their air force they are using ~30 year old aviation technology and most of that is probably bought from China, Russia, etc. as opposed to being manufactured at home. Since they can't manufacture their own drones anytime soon they can at least potentially trade not using the information for anything else--or more likely not giving it to China or Russia--to advance their nuclear program. (And actually they might very well give the information to China or Russia if they then can get more support for their nuclear research.)
I understand why they might want to do this, but it seems like it takes a certain amount of slack out of the monetary system. Surely some things really aren't worth 5 cents more than others and would benefit from the in-between increments. On the other hand, unless governments periodically redefined their currencies (which has been done in the past) the built-in inflation of most countries will lead to the value of the physical material of the coinage being greater than its face value. Of course there's also been a push for cashless systems which limits one's ability to conduct transactions without the government or other people knowing about it.
Is it really "ignorance"? He's knowledge of physics/atoms/subatomic particles seems solid enough. What's really at issue is the semantics of "sub-atomic". And that's a perfectly fine thing to investigate, but it's a bit of a leap to go from "you didn't read closely enough" to "you are ignorant".
Besides which I'm inclined to agree with the above poster that the quote seems wrong--electrons are on the same level as protons and neutrons, but quarks of of a lower order yet that phrase seems to lump them all in the same set.
You forgot your tags. So what's your beef here? That we don't know for sure that reducing CO2 emissions will reduce global warming? Let's not even talk about global warming then, eh? Think about how much soot, smog, acid rain, etc. is produced by coal plants. That alone I think justifies looking for an alternative. Electric cars are difficult, but remember that the alternative is oil cars--U.S. demand for oil helps boost the economies of oppressive fundamentalist regimes across the Middle East. Isn't it time we boost oppressive fundamentalist regimes right here in the U.S.A.? As for nuclear, nuclear fission is safe and efficient assuming we can trust that government and private industry will be competent in keeping it up to standards. But time and time again government and private industry have proven they cannot be trusted, that they are not competent (BP oil spill, Fukushima Daiichi, etc.). In addition nuclear would be better than coal, but if we were to try to convert over entirely to nuclear, the necessary isotopes of uranium, etc. would run out pretty quickly, so it could not be relied upon in a permanent way. Fusion on the other hand offers a lot more potential, because it only requires relatively light and abundant input chemicals.
So I've been taught in linguistics classes that there isn't really such a thing as a future tense--all verbs are either present or past. E.g. is/was seem related but are will/would (present/past) really the same thing? shall/should is similar to will/would but if we're arguing that shall is future then what the heck is the present tense of shall?
Except that most models show that the temperature lags behind carbon emissions, and carbon emissions are rising anyway, so even if there were a decrease in the rate of increase of carbon emissions, chances are that Ukraine may have its decade in the sun but after that point each and every agricultural zone of the world will have less output, leading to a global famine, nevermind that most of Florida will be under water.
5.9's a pretty big earthquake for the East Coast, no? I'm surprised there wasn't more damage. Anyone know what magnitude the buildings are built to withstand?
(As far as cell/internet/land lines being down, that happens on the West Coast too, but it's just because everyone's trying to use them at the same time.)
I'm from LA, and I can say that the fragmentation problem is major, but there's also a socio-economic problem in that most middle class people in LA (my family included) are unwilling to use mass transit, viewing it as low-class or not allowing for enough personal freedom. This is the attitude of my parents and unfortunately I have inherited it. The couple of times I have taken the bus have been rather awful--it's easy to get confused as to where you're going, you can't just turn around and get back on track, and truthfully the condition of the buses is not good. What's more, the bus routes simply do not go to the places they need to, and certainly not at the speed they should.
All that said, I don't think that my own distaste for mass transit is insurmountable: when I visited Paris I enjoyed using the Métro, and to a lesser extent in New York. LA does have major earthquakes, thus making the prospect of building a full-fledged subway more difficult than it would be on an East-Coast city. That said, it seems to me that building an above-ground mass transit system rather than adding lanes to existing freeways would be the best solution--in fact, why not close down one freeway lane in each direction, elevate it, and put in rail? To some extent this has already been done, but again not in a way that services the whole city.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has been discussing a subway expansion, yet that is only in planning stages and has been for years. It mostly runs into opposition from land-owning no in my backyard types. Anyway this city's either farked or headed to a glorious traffic-free future.
I don't really think any attempt to govern better still using the same underlying system (at all levels) will succeed, and even if it did things would just end up back the way they started. I think what we actually need is a system that disincentivizes people to playing to the crowds, etc. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and it seems that there's a systematic effort to inculcate the idea in all of our minds from an early age that American Democracy is the best possible form of government, but if you think about it, our supposed democratic traditions are responsible for a lot of the problems in our society. For instance, it makes large yet relatively easily won over groups like corporations and unions able to have disproportionate influence. So once elected, politicians rarely do more than what is required for them to get re-elected by appeasing those groups. If on the other hand we took jobs like mayor, governor, senator, president, etc. and made them true civil service jobs (i.e. no different than being an engineer for the city's sewer lines) than we would probably be living in a much more efficient and less corrupt society. There would of course be problems with this approach--mainly that it could easily become a dictatorship--but the "checks and balances" system provides a template for possible countermeasures to that problem. In addition to that system, the U.S. judicial system (at least below the level of the Supreme Court, which is far more politicized) provides evidence that relatively dictatorial systems can nevertheless be fair.
Forgive me for further feeding the troll, but I see other people taking this guy seriously so I couldn't resist.
RTFM--here I'll even post if for you:
Article the third...... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Note those pesky little parts about a *right* to peaceably assemble and a *freedom* of speech. It does not say "limited protection of". In fact the word protection, nor any other form (protect, protective, etc.) does not appear once in the Bill of Rights.
I think the problem with this was the time it would take to travel from the East Coast to Europe by plane -- the bill wasn't finally agreed upon until close to the deadline of expirations of certain provisions (or at least that's how media outlets portrayed it) so there wasn't time for that.
Well A really entails B as in order to learn language computers would have to be predisposed to human language structures (see generative grammar. Linguistics has led to a number of categories of language (including logic, programming languages, and natural language). Before the 1950s people who applied mathematics to language thought human language might be regular. This was disproved by Chomsky using the hypothetical a^n,b^n language, and for human language examples of recursion (i.e. My wife is going to the show, My wife's sister is going to the show, My wife's sister's friend is going to the show) show that they are outside regular language and then are at a minimum context-free. In the 1980s there was finally good evidence that natural language might be even further out and a lot of grammars based on tree hierarchies with movement (which equates to dependencies between different words or morphemes in the sentence) were developed. This puts English and presumably all other natural languages into the context-sensitive category.
Since the 1980s there has not been a development as significant as either saying that natural language belongs to some other category - if it goes beyond context-sensitive then the calculations become so large that they are virtually impossible. So the question becomes can a computer represent a human brain (actually just the language subsystem).
I believe the answer is yes, partially based on research into so-called learning algorithms.
These usually take the form of given
a b
c b
a and c must be syntactically interchangeable.
You would probably be amazed at how readily a computer can then distinguish between nouns, verbs, etc. based on a simple one-difference algorithm like this. That's what I'm currently working on. Now imagine if that were hooked up to a semantic database (presumably informed by a human) and perhaps some sort of sensory input much like a child is informed by a parent. Then the computer would not only produce grammatical sentences but ones that at least seemed intelligent.
"You might think of linguistics as being interesting but not really useful"
Way to go Slashdot, insult one of the most important fields in existence. Do the editors and readers really not realize how closely comp ling is related to AI? I have confidence that eventually computational linguistics will crack speech/language in general and lead to computers that can learn languages as readily as human infants. This will be momentous because it would allow communication between computers and humans. Now it wouldn't solve the consciousness problem, but it would be a step in the right direction.
It's highly unlikely that they would produce sounds anything like our own (with the possible exception of vowels). The sounds that the human vocal system can produce is entirely determined physiologically - because of our ability to vibrate our vocal folds or not (producing voiced and unvoiced sounds), the ability to send air through the nose creating nasalized sounds, and especially the positioning of the tongue which can constrict and stop airflow allowing for turbulent airflow as well as sudden release.
Personally I think there's a balance... with previous Rockstar Games (GTA IV, Red Dead Redemption) there was some in-game dialogue but it would sometimes be hard to make out (because it comes in the middle of a gun fight or chase) or possible to skip over (by just capping the motherfucker), but if they really integrate this into the game I could see that as good. On the other hand, I was actually kind of disappointed with Fallout: New Vegas (not by Rockstar) because of its lack of cutscenes--the game uses the same engine as a previous installment so it seems a little out of date, and all the dialogue is in-game. Another game, Alan Wake, largely uses in-game dialogue (with really good graphics imo) but in that case the story is absolutely linear, so it will be interesting to see something comparable in an open-ended game.
Well personally I'd like to see large-scale wind and solar investment (and fusion as well). I think that there is certainly a campaign especially on the part of right wing politicians and media sock-puppets to categorically state that wind and solar are not viable options now (and never will be) which is totally inaccurate. I suppose if given the choice between clean coal and fission, I'd go with fission.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, although aborting .5 seconds from launch is a bit unusual (but as has been said better than the alternative and better than what NASA has done at times).
To be fair, photographers replaced painters around the turn of the century--many asked why anyone ought to make "photo-realistic" (of course they didn't call it that at the time) paintings if you could just snap a photo instead. If CGI replaced photos entirely in the media then it would be a sort of restoration as it seems to me the CGI artist is more like a painter than a photographer.
I really like how when a Microsoft-funded group does something with malicious it's legal but when a private individual or group of individual does something to show security weaknesses or support a political cause it lands them in prison.
I'm not sure what your point regarding m is, but if you just take out the 'one of these is 1' predicate it's still true since 5 primes is in the domain of 'no more than 6'.
I wouldn't make any generalizations based on my error; truth be told I'm no expert at set theory; I know enough to know that there is a relation between sets and the natural numbers. Of course this is a really important part of set theory so the error is significant. This is not evidence based, but I think sets are rather intuitive; it's the notation that trips me and other undergrads up. (Also reading some of the related articles in the comments, it seems this is true of some indigenous peoples as well; they can use numbers abstractly in their heads even without having the words for it as long as some less abstract method is used to test that ability--like having groups of rocks, etc. stand for the numbers and then repeating a sound and asking how many times it was repeated, as opposed to the subject counting on their fingers which doesn't necessarily correspond to some internal concept of the number.)
Hmm, but if sets _are_ intuitive then it follows that numbers are too based on set theory. {} = 0 {{}} = 1 2 = {{{}}} = {0,1} ...
Re: #3 They want leverage. They may now have access to the software, but based on the condition of their air force they are using ~30 year old aviation technology and most of that is probably bought from China, Russia, etc. as opposed to being manufactured at home. Since they can't manufacture their own drones anytime soon they can at least potentially trade not using the information for anything else--or more likely not giving it to China or Russia--to advance their nuclear program. (And actually they might very well give the information to China or Russia if they then can get more support for their nuclear research.)
I understand why they might want to do this, but it seems like it takes a certain amount of slack out of the monetary system. Surely some things really aren't worth 5 cents more than others and would benefit from the in-between increments. On the other hand, unless governments periodically redefined their currencies (which has been done in the past) the built-in inflation of most countries will lead to the value of the physical material of the coinage being greater than its face value. Of course there's also been a push for cashless systems which limits one's ability to conduct transactions without the government or other people knowing about it.
Is it really "ignorance"? He's knowledge of physics/atoms/subatomic particles seems solid enough. What's really at issue is the semantics of "sub-atomic". And that's a perfectly fine thing to investigate, but it's a bit of a leap to go from "you didn't read closely enough" to "you are ignorant". Besides which I'm inclined to agree with the above poster that the quote seems wrong--electrons are on the same level as protons and neutrons, but quarks of of a lower order yet that phrase seems to lump them all in the same set.
You forgot your tags. So what's your beef here? That we don't know for sure that reducing CO2 emissions will reduce global warming? Let's not even talk about global warming then, eh? Think about how much soot, smog, acid rain, etc. is produced by coal plants. That alone I think justifies looking for an alternative. Electric cars are difficult, but remember that the alternative is oil cars--U.S. demand for oil helps boost the economies of oppressive fundamentalist regimes across the Middle East. Isn't it time we boost oppressive fundamentalist regimes right here in the U.S.A.? As for nuclear, nuclear fission is safe and efficient assuming we can trust that government and private industry will be competent in keeping it up to standards. But time and time again government and private industry have proven they cannot be trusted, that they are not competent (BP oil spill, Fukushima Daiichi, etc.). In addition nuclear would be better than coal, but if we were to try to convert over entirely to nuclear, the necessary isotopes of uranium, etc. would run out pretty quickly, so it could not be relied upon in a permanent way. Fusion on the other hand offers a lot more potential, because it only requires relatively light and abundant input chemicals.
So I've been taught in linguistics classes that there isn't really such a thing as a future tense--all verbs are either present or past. E.g. is/was seem related but are will/would (present/past) really the same thing? shall/should is similar to will/would but if we're arguing that shall is future then what the heck is the present tense of shall?
Except that most models show that the temperature lags behind carbon emissions, and carbon emissions are rising anyway, so even if there were a decrease in the rate of increase of carbon emissions, chances are that Ukraine may have its decade in the sun but after that point each and every agricultural zone of the world will have less output, leading to a global famine, nevermind that most of Florida will be under water.
5.9's a pretty big earthquake for the East Coast, no? I'm surprised there wasn't more damage. Anyone know what magnitude the buildings are built to withstand? (As far as cell/internet/land lines being down, that happens on the West Coast too, but it's just because everyone's trying to use them at the same time.)
actually pleaded is becoming common is US too
I'm from LA, and I can say that the fragmentation problem is major, but there's also a socio-economic problem in that most middle class people in LA (my family included) are unwilling to use mass transit, viewing it as low-class or not allowing for enough personal freedom. This is the attitude of my parents and unfortunately I have inherited it. The couple of times I have taken the bus have been rather awful--it's easy to get confused as to where you're going, you can't just turn around and get back on track, and truthfully the condition of the buses is not good. What's more, the bus routes simply do not go to the places they need to, and certainly not at the speed they should. All that said, I don't think that my own distaste for mass transit is insurmountable: when I visited Paris I enjoyed using the Métro, and to a lesser extent in New York. LA does have major earthquakes, thus making the prospect of building a full-fledged subway more difficult than it would be on an East-Coast city. That said, it seems to me that building an above-ground mass transit system rather than adding lanes to existing freeways would be the best solution--in fact, why not close down one freeway lane in each direction, elevate it, and put in rail? To some extent this has already been done, but again not in a way that services the whole city. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has been discussing a subway expansion, yet that is only in planning stages and has been for years. It mostly runs into opposition from land-owning no in my backyard types. Anyway this city's either farked or headed to a glorious traffic-free future.
I don't really think any attempt to govern better still using the same underlying system (at all levels) will succeed, and even if it did things would just end up back the way they started. I think what we actually need is a system that disincentivizes people to playing to the crowds, etc. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and it seems that there's a systematic effort to inculcate the idea in all of our minds from an early age that American Democracy is the best possible form of government, but if you think about it, our supposed democratic traditions are responsible for a lot of the problems in our society. For instance, it makes large yet relatively easily won over groups like corporations and unions able to have disproportionate influence. So once elected, politicians rarely do more than what is required for them to get re-elected by appeasing those groups. If on the other hand we took jobs like mayor, governor, senator, president, etc. and made them true civil service jobs (i.e. no different than being an engineer for the city's sewer lines) than we would probably be living in a much more efficient and less corrupt society. There would of course be problems with this approach--mainly that it could easily become a dictatorship--but the "checks and balances" system provides a template for possible countermeasures to that problem. In addition to that system, the U.S. judicial system (at least below the level of the Supreme Court, which is far more politicized) provides evidence that relatively dictatorial systems can nevertheless be fair.
... where do we go to login with the posted usernames and passwords and become the next senator/governor/president of florida?
Forgive me for further feeding the troll, but I see other people taking this guy seriously so I couldn't resist. RTFM--here I'll even post if for you: Article the third ...... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Note those pesky little parts about a *right* to peaceably assemble and a *freedom* of speech. It does not say "limited protection of". In fact the word protection, nor any other form (protect, protective, etc.) does not appear once in the Bill of Rights.
I think the problem with this was the time it would take to travel from the East Coast to Europe by plane -- the bill wasn't finally agreed upon until close to the deadline of expirations of certain provisions (or at least that's how media outlets portrayed it) so there wasn't time for that.
Well A really entails B as in order to learn language computers would have to be predisposed to human language structures (see generative grammar. Linguistics has led to a number of categories of language (including logic, programming languages, and natural language). Before the 1950s people who applied mathematics to language thought human language might be regular. This was disproved by Chomsky using the hypothetical a^n,b^n language, and for human language examples of recursion (i.e. My wife is going to the show, My wife's sister is going to the show, My wife's sister's friend is going to the show) show that they are outside regular language and then are at a minimum context-free. In the 1980s there was finally good evidence that natural language might be even further out and a lot of grammars based on tree hierarchies with movement (which equates to dependencies between different words or morphemes in the sentence) were developed. This puts English and presumably all other natural languages into the context-sensitive category.
Since the 1980s there has not been a development as significant as either saying that natural language belongs to some other category - if it goes beyond context-sensitive then the calculations become so large that they are virtually impossible. So the question becomes can a computer represent a human brain (actually just the language subsystem).
I believe the answer is yes, partially based on research into so-called learning algorithms.
These usually take the form of given
a b
c b
a and c must be syntactically interchangeable.
You would probably be amazed at how readily a computer can then distinguish between nouns, verbs, etc. based on a simple one-difference algorithm like this. That's what I'm currently working on. Now imagine if that were hooked up to a semantic database (presumably informed by a human) and perhaps some sort of sensory input much like a child is informed by a parent. Then the computer would not only produce grammatical sentences but ones that at least seemed intelligent.
"You might think of linguistics as being interesting but not really useful" Way to go Slashdot, insult one of the most important fields in existence. Do the editors and readers really not realize how closely comp ling is related to AI? I have confidence that eventually computational linguistics will crack speech/language in general and lead to computers that can learn languages as readily as human infants. This will be momentous because it would allow communication between computers and humans. Now it wouldn't solve the consciousness problem, but it would be a step in the right direction.
It's highly unlikely that they would produce sounds anything like our own (with the possible exception of vowels). The sounds that the human vocal system can produce is entirely determined physiologically - because of our ability to vibrate our vocal folds or not (producing voiced and unvoiced sounds), the ability to send air through the nose creating nasalized sounds, and especially the positioning of the tongue which can constrict and stop airflow allowing for turbulent airflow as well as sudden release.
Studying well-studied critters actually makes a lot of sense as many variables have already been accounted for.
Personally I think there's a balance... with previous Rockstar Games (GTA IV, Red Dead Redemption) there was some in-game dialogue but it would sometimes be hard to make out (because it comes in the middle of a gun fight or chase) or possible to skip over (by just capping the motherfucker), but if they really integrate this into the game I could see that as good. On the other hand, I was actually kind of disappointed with Fallout: New Vegas (not by Rockstar) because of its lack of cutscenes--the game uses the same engine as a previous installment so it seems a little out of date, and all the dialogue is in-game. Another game, Alan Wake, largely uses in-game dialogue (with really good graphics imo) but in that case the story is absolutely linear, so it will be interesting to see something comparable in an open-ended game.
Well personally I'd like to see large-scale wind and solar investment (and fusion as well). I think that there is certainly a campaign especially on the part of right wing politicians and media sock-puppets to categorically state that wind and solar are not viable options now (and never will be) which is totally inaccurate. I suppose if given the choice between clean coal and fission, I'd go with fission.