There seems to be a strong positive correlation between "time spent" and "skill" in both chess and street fighter. Sure, occassionally you might find a prodigy who is a master his first time playing, but for most people for most challenging tasks you have to put in time and effort before you become skilled.
Some tasks don't have clearly visible metrics that let you know who is more skilled (i.e. programming). Other tasks have random elements to them that can give illusory images of skill in the short term (i.e. poker). In both of these tasks there exists less skilled participants who think that they are masters. Often these people have not put in the time that true masters of these disciplines have.
But, I agree that time spent does not necessarily mean high skill, nor does lack of time spent guarantee non-mastery.
Features aquired while alive do NOT get passed on.
Sometimes they are. The sex of an alligator is influenced by the temperature of the eggs. Lower temperature produce more females. Higher temperatures produce more males. The kicker is that the male hatched at a higher temperature will produce offspring with a higher setpoint. That is the temperature needed for more males will be greater for those offspring than for the parents. It works the other way around for cooler temperatues. This makes the alligator line more robust in the face of climate change.
Certainly this is a trait that alligators evolved, but it really looks like a form Lamarckianism.
There are two guaranteed ways for an instance of bullying to end: 1) The victim stops going to that school; 2) the bully stops going to that school. A variety of ways exist to accomplish each, few with consequences less severe than the bullying itself.
I think that is one of the best things about being an adult. "Just walk away" actually works most of the time.
He is right. Both are important. Unfortunately, sales and marketing people are better at selling themselves. Companies value the sales team more because they are sold on the idea.
I've found that people value the skills that they themselves do not have. Most technical companies are started by technical people, so the sales and marketing people get paid more than the technical people. I've never heard of a marketing company where the technical people are paid more, but it doesn't surprise me.
Your eyes can track items than are moving pretty quickly. As your eyes are tracking an item you will not see any motion blur on that item. Your eyes will get motion blur on items who images are moving across your retina faster than the capture rate of your rods and cones. But you don't notice this so much because that is not where your attention is focused. If you attention were focused there your eyes would naturally try to track the object.
The racing game cannot accurately similulate this effect. If it could increase the refresh rate of the monitor as the car drives faster it could. Then everything would be rendered in sharp detail several hundred times a second. Your eyes would create the motion blur but would still be able to clearly track fast moving objects. The motion blur in the game is trying to simulate what you would see if you were looking forward while driving at high speeds (assuming that they are not blurring everything int he field of vision). The fact that you don't have to look forward and can focus on the simulated periphery blurring is a limitation of the medium. Even if they could track your eyes and unblur the things you are looking at, the objects near the edge wouldn't appear to move smoothly across the screen. They would jump from point to point and look unrealistic.
The only reason you do all of those things is so that you could post about it to show other people how much you care about the environment: it's a statement, not an answer.
PAT (or PRT) is an example of re-engineering the environment (in a non-ecological sense) so that machines are able to function better. Computers are getting fast enough, and artificial intelligence advanced enough, that the correct strategy is to re-engineer the machines so they can function better in the current environment. The DARPA grand challenge is encouraging development of autonomous vehicles. Once that technology is mature nobody will own a car. Instead you will subscribe to a car service which will pick you up at any location and take you anywhere you want to go. Unlike current public transportation, the vehicles will dynamically adapt their routes to best serve immediate demand.
In the movie they stated that humans found a solar system with dozens of planets and hundreds of moon and they went about terraforming them. They sort of implied that such a solar system was an anomaly (of the non-temporal kind).
If there is only one blue eyed person he doesn't know if there are any on the island. The Guru gives him this information. I think that as you add more blue eyed people the amount of uncertainty (entropy in information theory) remains the same, but it is spread across all of the blue eyed villagers.
If there is only one person with blue eyes then he doesn't know if there are any blue eyed people on the island. The Guru gives him that information. As you add more blue eyed people, that uncertainty is spread across all of them. It is difficult for me to understand and express what that fractional uncertainty is in an intuitive way.
This may seem silly, but I think the wording of the question could be improved to answer this.
When does the Guru leave? After speaking does he realize he is the Guru and therefore has green eyes and leaves the next day? Or does he not know the eye color of the Guru (it might be red in the puzzle?) and stay on the island forever?
Slashdot Mirror
There seems to be a strong positive correlation between "time spent" and "skill" in both chess and street fighter. Sure, occassionally you might find a prodigy who is a master his first time playing, but for most people for most challenging tasks you have to put in time and effort before you become skilled.
Some tasks don't have clearly visible metrics that let you know who is more skilled (i.e. programming). Other tasks have random elements to them that can give illusory images of skill in the short term (i.e. poker). In both of these tasks there exists less skilled participants who think that they are masters. Often these people have not put in the time that true masters of these disciplines have.
But, I agree that time spent does not necessarily mean high skill, nor does lack of time spent guarantee non-mastery.
Features aquired while alive do NOT get passed on.
Sometimes they are. The sex of an alligator is influenced by the temperature of the eggs. Lower temperature produce more females. Higher temperatures produce more males. The kicker is that the male hatched at a higher temperature will produce offspring with a higher setpoint. That is the temperature needed for more males will be greater for those offspring than for the parents. It works the other way around for cooler temperatues. This makes the alligator line more robust in the face of climate change.
Certainly this is a trait that alligators evolved, but it really looks like a form Lamarckianism.
There are two guaranteed ways for an instance of bullying to end: 1) The victim stops going to that school; 2) the bully stops going to that school. A variety of ways exist to accomplish each, few with consequences less severe than the bullying itself.
I think that is one of the best things about being an adult. "Just walk away" actually works most of the time.
I dodged taxi fare by buying a car.
I dodged restaraunt bills by cooking my meals.
I dodged cleaning bills by doing laundry
Lazy good for nothing freeloader!
No. They will charge as much as the market will bear.
Or even worse they might start producing better shows that more people want to see. Those no good deceiving dirty deceivers.
Oh no... there goes my dream in tatters down the tube...
"There have been people who play chess for years and yet French people will turn their noses up at British cooking."
OMG! It all makes sense now. You, sir, are a genius!
Oh! Oh!
Can I carry a sword too? Then we could be like the three muskateers!
And then there is the paper from 2005 written by my former advisor:a ai-05-rev.pdf
ftp://ftp.cs.utexas.edu/pub/qsim/papers/Kuipers-a
A very strong headwind.
He is right. Both are important. Unfortunately, sales and marketing people are better at selling themselves. Companies value the sales team more because they are sold on the idea.
Researchers are quoted as saying, "Hypnosis is great! It is better than 'Cats'. I'm going to see it again and again."
I've found that people value the skills that they themselves do not have. Most technical companies are started by technical people, so the sales and marketing people get paid more than the technical people. I've never heard of a marketing company where the technical people are paid more, but it doesn't surprise me.
Your eyes can track items than are moving pretty quickly. As your eyes are tracking an item you will not see any motion blur on that item. Your eyes will get motion blur on items who images are moving across your retina faster than the capture rate of your rods and cones. But you don't notice this so much because that is not where your attention is focused. If you attention were focused there your eyes would naturally try to track the object.
The racing game cannot accurately similulate this effect. If it could increase the refresh rate of the monitor as the car drives faster it could. Then everything would be rendered in sharp detail several hundred times a second. Your eyes would create the motion blur but would still be able to clearly track fast moving objects. The motion blur in the game is trying to simulate what you would see if you were looking forward while driving at high speeds (assuming that they are not blurring everything int he field of vision). The fact that you don't have to look forward and can focus on the simulated periphery blurring is a limitation of the medium. Even if they could track your eyes and unblur the things you are looking at, the objects near the edge wouldn't appear to move smoothly across the screen. They would jump from point to point and look unrealistic.
The only reason you do all of those things is so that you could post about it to show other people how much you care about the environment: it's a statement, not an answer.
PAT (or PRT) is an example of re-engineering the environment (in a non-ecological sense) so that machines are able to function better. Computers are getting fast enough, and artificial intelligence advanced enough, that the correct strategy is to re-engineer the machines so they can function better in the current environment. The DARPA grand challenge is encouraging development of autonomous vehicles. Once that technology is mature nobody will own a car. Instead you will subscribe to a car service which will pick you up at any location and take you anywhere you want to go. Unlike current public transportation, the vehicles will dynamically adapt their routes to best serve immediate demand.
In the movie they stated that humans found a solar system with dozens of planets and hundreds of moon and they went about terraforming them. They sort of implied that such a solar system was an anomaly (of the non-temporal kind).
Bunnies! It must be bunnies!!! ... or maybe midgets.
Is this site real or a humorous parody?
http://weeklyradioaddress.com/
If there is only one blue eyed person he doesn't know if there are any on the island. The Guru gives him this information. I think that as you add more blue eyed people the amount of uncertainty (entropy in information theory) remains the same, but it is spread across all of the blue eyed villagers.
If there is only one person with blue eyes then he doesn't know if there are any blue eyed people on the island. The Guru gives him that information. As you add more blue eyed people, that uncertainty is spread across all of them. It is difficult for me to understand and express what that fractional uncertainty is in an intuitive way.
This may seem silly, but I think the wording of the question could be improved to answer this.
When does the Guru leave? After speaking does he realize he is the Guru and therefore has green eyes and leaves the next day? Or does he not know the eye color of the Guru (it might be red in the puzzle?) and stay on the island forever?
Once the Guru speaks he knows he is the Guru and therefore has green eyes. He leaves the very next day.
Why does that sound like a computer role playing game?