Easiest way to do that is to go the pure maths route and just use pen and paper. You can do stuff with pen and paper that top of the line ARM and x64 CPUs haven't caught up with, provided you have access to a well trained maths brain (and this means training your own...)
Git uses SHA-1 to hash the contents of a file, then uses that hash as in internal name. I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to modify git to use a different hash (one of the SHA-2 ones) and then create a new repo and check the files into that. I don't know about transferring history to a repo hashed with a new hashing algorithm, but overall a shift to a different hash would be easy enough.
Try transmitting an hour of Full HD video compressed with MPEG1. Also, consider subtle variations on H264 for those programmers interested in experimenting. How different does a codec need to be to H264 to not be patented, and is it possible to implement a low bitrate high quality codec without violating those patents? If not, the patent effectively blocks development by a competitor, which is not good. This ability for a patent to block development if there's only a small number of sensible ways to solve a problem is the problem of the patent system, especially where software is involved.
Consider http://thewikiman.allsup.co/MegaMetaPatent, and how what is described there could represent any patent. Then consider ways of scrambling the language and perhaps making things just specific enough to get a patent granted, then rinse-lather-repeat until you've mined out your desired area of the market.
But we haven't yet found a reliable way of making it. Genetic and early learned dispositions may make one person more likely than another to find a way of doing maths easily by chance, and possibly to derive more enjoyment from it, but mathematical ability is made and learned.
As with many things, a disciplined approach, practice and AbsoluteMasterOfTheBasics are what matters. When it comes to basic counting, you should be so familiar with it that it is effortless: every time you need to spend an iota of effort on basic couting, you diminish what your intution can see. You also need to see and feel what mathematical beauty feels like, and enjoy the thrill of solving problems and communicating their solution. How to get kids interested in this without trying to force them into it is something we haven't figure out yet, but need to.
Re:Yeah, but it does depend on the area of science
on
How Science Goes Wrong
·
· Score: 2, Funny
That's why if you look through, say the TRIP database of medical studies, what you see is synopses of what look to be 'it really works, honest!' stories reminiscent of fake Amazon reviews, and little in the way of 'research downers' to make it look legit. The kind of success rate you see in these research papers is like the poll outcomes you get in stuffed ballot box elections in the middle of some countries whose dictators don't quite understand how democracy is supposed to work.
Imagine your the referee for a paper on an experiment at CERN. Either you work at CERN and are not independent, or else you do not and do not have access to the resources to replicate the experiment.
And for that matter, a mathematical result whose informal proof in a published paper relies on ten other informal proofs in ten other papers, who in turn rely on others, etc. until to make sure you have to check through tens of thousands of pages of informal proofs and verify that everything can be made logically rigorous on suitable foundations.
Is that many experimental results are too resource intensive for most people to replicate. Just try replicating the findings that support the existence of Higg's Boson.
Too much funding is too dependent on satisfying funding bodies' requirements for the quantity of published research. Failure to publish jeopardises one's research career. But funding bodies do not have the resources or expertise to verify the correctness of publication, and nor do the referees. It doesn't take a rocket scientists to work out what happens next.
Consider how long it takes for the brain to trigger motor neurons, and the sensory neurons to pick up the effect and send this back to the brain. That gives a rough idea of how long their simulation can accurately model a real brain: the brain functions differently depending on its circumstances, and these need to be modelled accurately too if the overall results are to be meaningful. I doubt the amount of serious understanding resulting from this will be worth the effort invested.
Nor should such a scientist rely on the results of computer code in his research. What you rely on in proper research, you should be an expert in. Scientists who use code should be codemonkeys, but not all scientists should use code -- pen, paper and a well drilled mind are far more powerful, properly mastered and harnessed.
That modern research rewards egoism is one of the most dangerous, worrying and disillusioning features of modern research. The best thinkers are sure to be suffocated in the face of masses of intellectual university graduates chasing research money and the dream of being regarded as one of those 'best thinkers'.
and to improve how it looks, and lose the shame that we instinctively feel in the face of criticism. No-one codes perfectly, so there is always room for useful criticism and progress, and we need to get that awareness of coding issues out as well, not just code alone.
These three are the key to motivation in many activities. Without fun it's hard to get started, without joy it's hard to keep going, and only later do you see the beauty, first hand, that you can achieve through really mastering a discipline.
Surely one must begin by teaching what 'intelligent' means. Unfortunately this isn't yet understood even by modern mainstream science, and just captures an intuitive notion that we can roughly grasp, but noone yet can really pin down. The same happens with evolution (which really by now should have been founded on solid maths and physics, rather than being put forward as a biological principle in line with nineteenth and early twentieth century tradition).
The following of science by the masses who don't understand science is yet another example of this 'mental illness' that we call human nature. It was well known in ancient times that blind religious following was a problem, and that you have to understand the original thinking at the centre of the the movement, not just toddle along like a groupie. That our basic human nature draws us away from this is part of what was taught, whether you turn to Middle Eastern, Indian or Chinese traditions, this basic understanding is there. Basic human nature as a mental illness you have to grow out of is the point of all proper spiritual traditions, and the lessons we have preserved for us from ancient times are the written accounts of attempts by people who 'get it' to explain things to those who do not. In the modern world we have things like trying to explain why Ponzi schemes don't work to the average Joe, and explanations being repeated inaccurately until they lose their meaning, and bigwigs in powerful positions hammering down those erroneous explanations like they were holy law until someone who gets it comes along to explain what was originally meant. Then they (the bigwigs) do their best to silence the opposition, like happens today, and happened in first century Palestine to a certain itinerant rabbi who taught against what the mainstream tradition insisted their scriptures meant.
A false faith is fragile, but some will cling to it as if their lives depend upon it rather than moving on towards the unknown where a proper faith is to be found. My gripe with 'evolution' is not the principle, but the take that many biologists put upon it. The idea that evolution is something to do with biology rather than the necessary effect of feedback in a closed system (and as such follows from basic mathematical and physical principles that take effect way below the level of biological life). Proper faith is founded on a kind of intuitive abstract truth that can't be captured with simple logic, yet just like well tested physical principles, doesn't give way no matter what you throw at it. Proper spiritual faith looks like the faith a physicist has in the maths and physics that underlies their understanding of reality. The problem is that religions are generally propagated from proper teachings by masses who don't properly understand those teachings (like 'cargo cult science' whereby the superficial surface details are copied, known experiments are reproduced, but real progress doesn't happen because genuine understanding is lacking). For Christians, the gospel accounts should be sufficient to show that those who followed Jesus didn't really understand his teachings while Jesus was alive, hence one would expect the teachings of the church that followed to be less than exact when it came to continuing what the original Jesus taught. Words like 'inspiration' and 'holy spirit' and 'divine guidance' get bandied around as excuses for not seeing this, but really people should get past such thinking by their early teens. The problems like this that arose in the early church and persist to this day, however, are general problems due to human nature, and are beginning to happen with the understanding that modern science is giving to the world (in the sense that experts in one area tend to have a blind faith as to the correctness of other areas, and some do not even know their own area despite working in it). I could go on, but really there is nothing to say on the matter than has not already been said countless times, and ignored countless times.
Music is an art of creative self-expression. If more people get to express themselves creatively, that is for the better, even if the performance art aspect diminishes. Learning an instrument properly is a self-discipline, and it is good to see examples of what can be done with proper practice, but how important it is that people can dedicate their lives to mastering a single instrument is another question: self-discipline is a tool to aid daily life, not a replacement for it. The death of industrialised performance art where music is a tool for making money should rightly be welcomed.
There's nothing like a teacher who loves what they teach and love teaching it. This cannot be measured, and it is hard to gauge the long term effects, since inspiration can often flare up years after being taught, and lessons sink in years later. Measure obsessed bureaucrats should be treated for OCD, not rewarded with publication credits and plaudits for pointless research.
Slashdot Mirror
Easiest way to do that is to go the pure maths route and just use pen and paper. You can do stuff with pen and paper that top of the line ARM and x64 CPUs haven't caught up with, provided you have access to a well trained maths brain (and this means training your own...)
Git uses SHA-1 to hash the contents of a file, then uses that hash as in internal name. I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to modify git to use a different hash (one of the SHA-2 ones) and then create a new repo and check the files into that. I don't know about transferring history to a repo hashed with a new hashing algorithm, but overall a shift to a different hash would be easy enough.
Try transmitting an hour of Full HD video compressed with MPEG1. Also, consider subtle variations on H264 for those programmers interested in experimenting. How different does a codec need to be to H264 to not be patented, and is it possible to implement a low bitrate high quality codec without violating those patents? If not, the patent effectively blocks development by a competitor, which is not good. This ability for a patent to block development if there's only a small number of sensible ways to solve a problem is the problem of the patent system, especially where software is involved.
Consider http://thewikiman.allsup.co/MegaMetaPatent, and how what is described there could represent any patent. Then consider ways of scrambling the language and perhaps making things just specific enough to get a patent granted, then rinse-lather-repeat until you've mined out your desired area of the market.
But we haven't yet found a reliable way of making it. Genetic and early learned dispositions may make one person more likely than another to find a way of doing maths easily by chance, and possibly to derive more enjoyment from it, but mathematical ability is made and learned.
As with many things, a disciplined approach, practice and AbsoluteMasterOfTheBasics are what matters. When it comes to basic counting, you should be so familiar with it that it is effortless: every time you need to spend an iota of effort on basic couting, you diminish what your intution can see. You also need to see and feel what mathematical beauty feels like, and enjoy the thrill of solving problems and communicating their solution. How to get kids interested in this without trying to force them into it is something we haven't figure out yet, but need to.
That's why if you look through, say the TRIP database of medical studies, what you see is synopses of what look to be 'it really works, honest!' stories reminiscent of fake Amazon reviews, and little in the way of 'research downers' to make it look legit. The kind of success rate you see in these research papers is like the poll outcomes you get in stuffed ballot box elections in the middle of some countries whose dictators don't quite understand how democracy is supposed to work.
Imagine your the referee for a paper on an experiment at CERN. Either you work at CERN and are not independent, or else you do not and do not have access to the resources to replicate the experiment.
And for that matter, a mathematical result whose informal proof in a published paper relies on ten other informal proofs in ten other papers, who in turn rely on others, etc. until to make sure you have to check through tens of thousands of pages of informal proofs and verify that everything can be made logically rigorous on suitable foundations.
Is that many experimental results are too resource intensive for most people to replicate. Just try replicating the findings that support the existence of Higg's Boson.
Too much funding is too dependent on satisfying funding bodies' requirements for the quantity of published research. Failure to publish jeopardises one's research career. But funding bodies do not have the resources or expertise to verify the correctness of publication, and nor do the referees. It doesn't take a rocket scientists to work out what happens next.
Consider how long it takes for the brain to trigger motor neurons, and the sensory neurons to pick up the effect and send this back to the brain. That gives a rough idea of how long their simulation can accurately model a real brain: the brain functions differently depending on its circumstances, and these need to be modelled accurately too if the overall results are to be meaningful. I doubt the amount of serious understanding resulting from this will be worth the effort invested.
Nor should such a scientist rely on the results of computer code in his research. What you rely on in proper research, you should be an expert in. Scientists who use code should be codemonkeys, but not all scientists should use code -- pen, paper and a well drilled mind are far more powerful, properly mastered and harnessed.
That modern research rewards egoism is one of the most dangerous, worrying and disillusioning features of modern research. The best thinkers are sure to be suffocated in the face of masses of intellectual university graduates chasing research money and the dream of being regarded as one of those 'best thinkers'.
and to improve how it looks, and lose the shame that we instinctively feel in the face of criticism. No-one codes perfectly, so there is always room for useful criticism and progress, and we need to get that awareness of coding issues out as well, not just code alone.
These three are the key to motivation in many activities. Without fun it's hard to get started, without joy it's hard to keep going, and only later do you see the beauty, first hand, that you can achieve through really mastering a discipline.
What about round trip latency?? How long does it take me to get my 10GB Full HD video after I've clicked??
Surely one must begin by teaching what 'intelligent' means. Unfortunately this isn't yet understood even by modern mainstream science, and just captures an intuitive notion that we can roughly grasp, but noone yet can really pin down. The same happens with evolution (which really by now should have been founded on solid maths and physics, rather than being put forward as a biological principle in line with nineteenth and early twentieth century tradition).
The following of science by the masses who don't understand science is yet another example of this 'mental illness' that we call human nature. It was well known in ancient times that blind religious following was a problem, and that you have to understand the original thinking at the centre of the the movement, not just toddle along like a groupie. That our basic human nature draws us away from this is part of what was taught, whether you turn to Middle Eastern, Indian or Chinese traditions, this basic understanding is there. Basic human nature as a mental illness you have to grow out of is the point of all proper spiritual traditions, and the lessons we have preserved for us from ancient times are the written accounts of attempts by people who 'get it' to explain things to those who do not. In the modern world we have things like trying to explain why Ponzi schemes don't work to the average Joe, and explanations being repeated inaccurately until they lose their meaning, and bigwigs in powerful positions hammering down those erroneous explanations like they were holy law until someone who gets it comes along to explain what was originally meant. Then they (the bigwigs) do their best to silence the opposition, like happens today, and happened in first century Palestine to a certain itinerant rabbi who taught against what the mainstream tradition insisted their scriptures meant.
A false faith is fragile, but some will cling to it as if their lives depend upon it rather than moving on towards the unknown where a proper faith is to be found. My gripe with 'evolution' is not the principle, but the take that many biologists put upon it. The idea that evolution is something to do with biology rather than the necessary effect of feedback in a closed system (and as such follows from basic mathematical and physical principles that take effect way below the level of biological life). Proper faith is founded on a kind of intuitive abstract truth that can't be captured with simple logic, yet just like well tested physical principles, doesn't give way no matter what you throw at it. Proper spiritual faith looks like the faith a physicist has in the maths and physics that underlies their understanding of reality. The problem is that religions are generally propagated from proper teachings by masses who don't properly understand those teachings (like 'cargo cult science' whereby the superficial surface details are copied, known experiments are reproduced, but real progress doesn't happen because genuine understanding is lacking). For Christians, the gospel accounts should be sufficient to show that those who followed Jesus didn't really understand his teachings while Jesus was alive, hence one would expect the teachings of the church that followed to be less than exact when it came to continuing what the original Jesus taught. Words like 'inspiration' and 'holy spirit' and 'divine guidance' get bandied around as excuses for not seeing this, but really people should get past such thinking by their early teens. The problems like this that arose in the early church and persist to this day, however, are general problems due to human nature, and are beginning to happen with the understanding that modern science is giving to the world (in the sense that experts in one area tend to have a blind faith as to the correctness of other areas, and some do not even know their own area despite working in it). I could go on, but really there is nothing to say on the matter than has not already been said countless times, and ignored countless times.
an MS-DOS-alike with an alternative API and support libraries.
Music is an art of creative self-expression. If more people get to express themselves creatively, that is for the better, even if the performance art aspect diminishes. Learning an instrument properly is a self-discipline, and it is good to see examples of what can be done with proper practice, but how important it is that people can dedicate their lives to mastering a single instrument is another question: self-discipline is a tool to aid daily life, not a replacement for it. The death of industrialised performance art where music is a tool for making money should rightly be welcomed.
Not to mention that this is obvious to anybody with half a brain. The US patent system is idiotic.
Pre touchscreen phones often allowed you to direct dial emergency services even if the phone was password locked.
There's nothing like a teacher who loves what they teach and love teaching it. This cannot be measured, and it is hard to gauge the long term effects, since inspiration can often flare up years after being taught, and lessons sink in years later. Measure obsessed bureaucrats should be treated for OCD, not rewarded with publication credits and plaudits for pointless research.
If human interaction is what you need practice with, a computer is a poor substitute.