So you let your kids wander around a shopping mall by themselves while you go shopping?
If one wants to prevent children from straying, then they must be watched by those responsible. (ie parents)
It is often the case that competing interests cannot be weighed one against the other. In this case the "security" of the children vs open access to information.
Realistically, modern lifestyles make it difficult for parents to accompany them to the library. Now, while librarians can provide guidance, they should not provide child minding.
Further, is it unreasonable to expect that children be accompanied by an adult when browsing the internet? After all, such restrictions exist already in the real world.
Perhaps volunteers from the community could provide the guidance leaving the librarians to do their job.
There is significant dissatisfaction with the moderation system. People use slashdot as a public forum for which ideas can be communicated, points can be debated and things are learnt. A discussion on the current discussion method on slashdot is not "useless" or "redundant".
Registering for slashdot doesn't automatically make your points any more valid, or your reasoning any better.
Of course, there is a lot of noise, but it could be argued that the source of the noise is not just AC's alone. The point is that moderation is slightly effective in filtering out noise - but a lot of signal is lost in the process.
Your position seems to be that although moderation is flawed, it is necessary to continue reasoned debate and to filter noise
Fine, but I see the point of the exersize to point out that it doesn't allow debate, it stifles it!
You have acknowledged that moderation is flawed but it appears you don't want to do anything about it.
As an aside, it is bigotry and nothing less to assert that people who claim that other peoples postings contain no value, especially when the posting disagrees with their opinion.
(read with ascii green beeping character mode on) sitrep: echelon report: key word hit rate %20 --> "some plutonium and am ready to start Operation blow up the white house" -- origin: sweetooth@sweetooth.org (/stupid hollywood terminal mode off)
Meanwhile, down in the depths of NSA... "Hey, some guy named 'sweetooth' is planning to blow up the white house with plutonium"....
Firstly, I also don't think that abolishing inheritance is necessarily a good idea.
I wonder if you've ever seen the blue eyes-brown eyes doco? At the very least, its a demonstration about how easy it is to apply prejudice and how to hurt people with it, especially when in a large group.
The relevance of all this is that it is often easier to go along with your comfortable notions than actually, to put it bluntly "Think outside the box".
Of course, if people have no incentive then they will be perfectly happy to remain in their situation, assuming they have food and shelter, of course.
But what about those that aren't? These people need to be given a chance, and after a few failures it is easy to loose heart.
I assert that it is very difficult to move up from a socio-economic group, because of prejudice. Note, prejudice isn't always done conciously... For example, a white employer may quite happily award the job to another white person, comfortable in the knowledge that the decision was made objectively.
It may well have been - but there is always the possibility that the decision was made on comfort - ie it is often felt that you know how other people of your own socio-economic group think, and that means you feel partially closer than other people not in the same group.
Also, I think the safety net is there to provide stability as well. Remember the French Revolution? People don't take kindly to starving and exploitation while others live decadently... (Feel free to tell me that my reference to the FR is not valid because of....)
Also, you mention "grab welfare checks from the mailbox". Does that not assume that the person has a mailbox, and therefore a home? Or did you mean from the post office?
My point about money under the bed means that it is good for an economy (and thus for everybody at large) if there is a large amount of capital flowing... it won't flow very well if everyone hides under it their beds....
Finally, isn't money a token which allows one to aquire goods and services? Which means that to some degree it is the government which determines the value of money? In order to have money (at least one that is signed by the treasury) you need to have a government, and some means to support it. That means trade and taxes since very few governments and societies are totally subsistent.
I apologise for the length of the post, but hey, its an interesting thread. (I think, anyway!)
What about foreign langauges (Sorry, NOFORN allowed here), or ciphers? What about using Shakespeare to communicate with other "comrades"?
I mean, really what would be the point of echelon? Less than 1% of all communication could be considered at all seditious, and it could hardly be expected that those that are would be communicated in plain sight?
I also note that the words "echelon", and "anarchy", "Marx", etc are missing from this supposed "list"...
The reason that the poor the way they are is because they refuse to work? Come off it!
You seem to be saying that people prefer to live on the streets with no homes and no idea where the next meal is coming from because they dont WANT to work?
Again, we seem to be forgetting that there is not a level playing field, and that apart from wealth as an advantage, the prejudices exist which keep the advantages with the wealthy.
Don't believe me? Surely it must be admitted that the statement "the poor don't want to work" is a prejudicial statement?
I agree that giving money wholesale to the poor from the rich is not a good solution, but I don't think that is the one being put forward. Rather, it is to force the wealthy to redistribute their wealth - to keep the money flowing instead of hiding it under the mattress where it stagnates and hurts the economy in general.
I'd also like to debunk the notion that taxes are theft. They are theft only if you disagree with the notion of government.
The price of stability is partially charged in taxes => money to run the government, maintain law and order (with police), distaster relief so that a region can re-establish production, courts and so on.
Now, the proportion of tax distribution may be argued, but the notion that taxes are theft is nonsense.
Many of the groups that have been mentioned here are minorities, whereas the WMC is perceived to be part of a majority.
Often in discussions about prejudice it is sometimes forgotten that a level playing field does not exist between the various groups in our society.
Quite often, the WMC is afforded an advantage in western Society. Although it may appear that there is some "reverse" discrimination going on, or that the WMC is subject to prejudice from other minorities, it should be remembered that imbalances exist in our society, and that other minorities are more likely to require support than the WMC's.
But is the lack of empiricism in mathematics (What about probability?) enough to distinguish it completely from science? Could it be said that counter examples are analagous to falsification?
(Not that it really matters if maths is science or not; both are useful in their own right.)
Also, does the practice of empiricism uniquely determine the scientist? What about economists whose theories are based upon mathematical models?
I'd also like to take issue briefly with "independant reality". Is the fact that mathematicians define their "reality" and then discover the relationships and that scientists cannot see their "reality" and must therefore use conjecture enough of a difference to say that mathematicians are not "doing" science?
Moving everything to a functional programming paradigm is an intersesting idea, but you have already noted the real problem.
It is the serial part of your algorithm (IO is an example) which provides the upper bound on performance.
Now, you also have real problems with certain algorithms; specifically data dependencies.
Even though lots of tricks and many paradigms for parallel processing exist, some problems are just very nasty.
Another point to make is that although for the "average" user processors are powerful enough, for the high performance computing sector, it will never be enough. (Ie: more of those intractable problems).
Also, there is no real benefit to be gained by having slowed chip development. It would seem that the technological insights gained by this research outweighs the potentional temporary cost benefit, and costs are dropping in any case.
A point to be made is that with capitalism, is that the worth of everything is in terms of money. For instance, everyone knows how to run transport systems at a profit, just run only the most popular services.
Of course, what happens to the person who can't get home at 11pm? How do you measure that cost in money terms? The driver's wages, and the cost of fuel are easy.
While this is a troll, I believe people are forgetting a point when they reply to it, namely is that keeping things obscure tends only to help those who already have the knowledge.
Administrators need to know these things, and that means keeping the source open. Closing the source means that only a select few know about the problems. (Usually those in black hats).
From "Chess, the Records" (such a definitive guide, I know)
"The number of games 40 moves long is approximately 10^120, which is larger than the estimated number of electrons in the universe 10^90"...
So, yes you need a hell of a pruning algorithm. Basically, you use a variant of alpha-beta. (A generic tree search algorithm where you have a window of upper and lower bounds of the score, and finding the variation which makes alpha \le score \le beta.. You can find it in your local algorithms bible)
Even so, its still not good enough...
There are other tricks however, which you can use. Don't forget that a large number of variations are nonsense...ie those that leave the queen en prise....
On another note: As for computers vs humans, there is a large difference in the way the silicon and carbon play.
The carbon players generally plan and evaluate the position based on the strategic attributes of the position, find a few candidate moves and then calculate those.
The silicon players generally generate all the moves, order them according to some heuristic and calculates as far as it can go, which is about depth 16(8 moves) for commercial programs.
So the results of Kasparov vs Deep Blue and Kasparov vs World probably do not scale.
Slashdot Mirror
" Iridium will not burn in vain"
Of course, that means that they will have
to avoid repeating the mistakes that got them
into trouble in the first place.
"Normal people will never use Iridium again"
Did "Normal" people ever use it anyway?
Although, I have to say this is better than
just wasting all the hardware and the billions
required to build/launch the satellites...
So you let your kids wander around a shopping mall
by themselves while you go shopping?
If one wants to prevent children from straying,
then they must be watched by those responsible.
(ie parents)
It is often the case that competing interests
cannot be weighed one against the other. In this
case the "security" of the children vs open access
to information.
Realistically, modern lifestyles make it difficult
for parents to accompany them to the library.
Now, while librarians can provide guidance, they
should not provide child minding.
Further, is it unreasonable to expect that
children be accompanied by an adult when
browsing the internet?
After all, such restrictions exist already in the real world.
Perhaps volunteers from the community could
provide the guidance leaving the librarians to
do their job.
I'd have to disagree.
There is significant dissatisfaction with the
moderation system. People use slashdot as a
public forum for which ideas can be communicated,
points can be debated and things are learnt.
A discussion on the current discussion method
on slashdot is not "useless" or "redundant".
Registering for slashdot doesn't automatically
make your points any more valid, or your reasoning
any better.
Of course, there is a lot of noise, but it could
be argued that the source of the noise
is not just AC's alone. The point is that
moderation is slightly effective in filtering out
noise - but a lot of signal is lost in the process.
Your position seems to be that although moderation
is flawed, it is necessary to continue reasoned
debate and to filter noise
Fine, but I see the point of the exersize to
point out that it doesn't allow debate, it stifles
it!
You have acknowledged that moderation is
flawed but it appears you don't want to do
anything about it.
As an aside, it is bigotry and nothing less to
assert that people who claim that other peoples
postings contain no value, especially when the
posting disagrees with their opinion.
How about leaving the car at home and using
alternatives, e.g. walking?
Heh. Is it any better for the 1e9 pages? ...
"Well, its one louder, i'n it?"
:However, as I said before, I am an
: instrument of policy, not a policy-maker.
: So, yes sir no sir and away I go.
Ah! The Nuremburger defence...."I was just following orders!"
Well, the ideal appointee for editor is a "black welsh women disabled trade unionist" for editor, you don't know any do you?
Obviously your [male?] cow-orkers were your
.bat files were sorta like shell scripts
typical patronising MS loving, football playing
jerks...
If they had at all used *nix, they would have told
you that
on unix, only far inferior...
;)
(This had better be moderated as flamebait...)
"Hell hath no fury like a women's scorn for Sega!"...;)
(read with ascii green beeping character mode on)
sitrep: echelon report: key word hit rate %20 -->
"some plutonium and am ready to start Operation
blow up the white house"
-- origin: sweetooth@sweetooth.org
(/stupid hollywood terminal mode off)
Meanwhile, down in the depths of NSA...
"Hey, some guy named 'sweetooth' is planning to
blow up the white house with plutonium"....
Firstly, I also don't think that abolishing
....)
inheritance is necessarily a good idea.
I wonder if you've ever seen the blue eyes-brown
eyes doco? At the very least, its a demonstration
about how easy it is to apply prejudice and how
to hurt people with it, especially when in a large
group.
The relevance of all this is that it is often
easier to go along with your comfortable notions
than actually, to put it bluntly "Think outside the box".
Of course, if people have no incentive then they
will be perfectly happy to remain in their
situation, assuming they have food and shelter,
of course.
But what about those that aren't? These people
need to be given a chance, and after a
few failures it is easy to loose heart.
I assert that it is very difficult to
move up from a socio-economic group, because of prejudice.
Note, prejudice isn't always done conciously...
For example, a white employer may quite happily
award the job to another white person, comfortable
in the knowledge that the decision was made
objectively.
It may well have been - but there is
always the possibility that the decision was made on comfort -
ie it is often felt that you know how other people
of your own socio-economic group think,
and that means you feel partially closer than
other people not in the same group.
Also, I think the safety net is there to provide
stability as well. Remember the French Revolution?
People don't take kindly to starving and
exploitation while others live decadently...
(Feel free to tell me that my reference to the
FR is not valid because of
Also, you mention "grab welfare checks from the mailbox".
Does that not assume that the person
has a mailbox, and therefore a home? Or did you
mean from the post office?
My point about money under the bed means
that it is good for an economy (and thus for
everybody at large) if there is a large amount
of capital flowing... it won't flow very well
if everyone hides under it their beds....
Finally, isn't money a token which allows one
to aquire goods and services? Which means that
to some degree it is the government which determines the value of money?
In order to have money (at least one that is signed by the treasury)
you need to have a government,
and some means to support it.
That means trade and taxes since very few
governments and societies are totally subsistent.
I apologise for the length of the post, but
hey, its an interesting thread. (I think, anyway!)
What about foreign langauges (Sorry, NOFORN allowed here), or ciphers? What about using
Shakespeare to communicate with other "comrades"?
I mean, really what would be the point of echelon?
Less than 1% of all communication could be
considered at all seditious, and it could hardly
be expected that those that are would be communicated in plain sight?
I also note that the words "echelon", and "anarchy", "Marx", etc are missing
from this supposed "list"...
The reason that the poor the way they are is
because they refuse to work? Come off it!
You seem to be saying that people prefer to live
on the streets with no homes and no idea where
the next meal is coming from because they dont
WANT to work?
Again, we seem to be forgetting that there is
not a level playing field, and that apart from
wealth as an advantage, the prejudices exist which
keep the advantages with the wealthy.
Don't believe me? Surely it must be admitted that
the statement "the poor don't want to work" is
a prejudicial statement?
I agree that giving money wholesale to
the poor from the rich is not a good solution,
but I don't think that is the one being
put forward. Rather, it is to force the wealthy
to redistribute their wealth - to keep
the money flowing instead of hiding
it under the mattress where it stagnates and
hurts the economy in general.
I'd also like to debunk the notion that taxes
are theft. They are theft only if you disagree
with the notion of government.
The price of stability is partially charged in
taxes => money to run the government, maintain
law and order (with police), distaster relief so
that a region can re-establish production, courts and so on.
Now, the proportion of tax distribution may be argued, but the notion that taxes are theft is nonsense.
Many of the groups that have been mentioned here
are minorities, whereas the WMC is perceived to
be part of a majority.
Often in discussions about prejudice it is
sometimes forgotten that a level playing field
does not exist between the various groups in our
society.
Quite often, the WMC is afforded an advantage
in western Society. Although it may appear that
there is some "reverse" discrimination going on,
or that the WMC is subject to prejudice from
other minorities, it should be remembered that
imbalances exist in our society, and that other
minorities are more likely to require support
than the WMC's.
But is the lack of empiricism in mathematics
(What about probability?) enough to distinguish
it completely from science? Could it be said that
counter examples are analagous to falsification?
(Not that it really matters if maths is science
or not; both are useful in their own right.)
Also, does the practice of empiricism uniquely
determine the scientist? What about economists
whose theories are based upon mathematical models?
I'd also like to take issue briefly with
"independant reality". Is the fact that
mathematicians define their "reality" and then
discover the relationships and that scientists
cannot see their "reality" and must therefore
use conjecture enough of a difference to say
that mathematicians are not "doing" science?
Moving everything to a functional programming
paradigm is an intersesting idea, but you have
already noted the real problem.
It is the serial part of your algorithm
(IO is an example) which provides the
upper bound on performance.
Now, you also have real problems with
certain algorithms; specifically
data dependencies.
Even though lots of tricks and many
paradigms for parallel processing exist,
some problems are just very nasty.
Another point to make is that although for the
"average" user processors are powerful enough,
for the high performance computing sector,
it will never be enough. (Ie: more of those
intractable problems).
Also, there is no real benefit to be gained
by having slowed chip development. It would seem
that the technological insights gained by this
research outweighs the potentional temporary
cost benefit, and costs are dropping in any case.
Its a trade off between the need to share
information with certain people who may not
be a member of your organisation and the need
for security.
Computers work best when they can talk to other computers. Systems can be secured,
but if they are so bulky, nobody will use them.
But still, you are right.
Building secure systems are tricky, and the
people designing the systems need to know this stuff.
Pure reasearch is its own reward....
Seriously, maybe they're interested in the
effects of shm of a string ~ 1e-9 metres long...
Ie the effect on human tissue for instance...
I found a reference that said the G4 could be
run in SMP systems, although the apple buy
site doesn't appear to offer SMP systems.
Can anybody direct me to some more info regarding
the G4 and SMP?
This would be appreciated, thanks....
(Email or reply post is sufficient)
A point to be made is that with capitalism, is
that the worth of everything is in terms of money.
For instance, everyone knows how to run transport
systems at a profit, just run only the most popular services.
Of course, what happens to the person who can't
get home at 11pm? How do you measure that cost
in money terms? The driver's wages, and the cost
of fuel are easy.
: Don't overlook, either that this game was 5
: advisors against GK, everyone just voted for the : advisor that they believed the most.
Belief? More like the advisor they liked the
most.
Irina Krush naked and petrified, oh yeah...
(Sorry, just had to jump on the ol' bandwagon)
While this is a troll, I believe people are
forgetting a point when they reply to it, namely
is that keeping things obscure tends only to help
those who already have the knowledge.
Administrators need to know these things, and
that means keeping the source open. Closing the
source means that only a select few know about
the problems. (Usually those in black hats).
Ref: "Cuckoo's egg", Dr Stoll, Cliff.
From "Chess, the Records"
(such a definitive guide, I know)
"The number of games 40 moves long is approximately 10^120, which is larger than
the estimated number of electrons in the universe
10^90"...
So, yes you need a hell of a pruning algorithm.
Basically, you use a variant of alpha-beta.
(A generic tree search algorithm where you have
a window of upper and lower bounds of the score,
and finding the variation which makes
alpha \le score \le beta.. You can find it in your
local algorithms bible)
Even so, its still not good enough...
There are other tricks however, which you can
use. Don't forget that a large number of
variations are nonsense...ie those that leave the
queen en prise....
On another note: As for computers vs humans,
there is a large difference in the way the
silicon and carbon play.
The carbon players generally plan and evaluate
the position based on the strategic attributes
of the position, find a few candidate moves and
then calculate those.
The silicon players generally generate all the
moves, order them according to some heuristic
and calculates as far as it can go, which is
about depth 16(8 moves) for commercial programs.
So the results of
Kasparov vs Deep Blue and Kasparov vs World
probably do not scale.