utoku

Yeah, they have badly linked documentation from there. Most of their plans are on their wiki, ex: https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/wiki/Power_Cube_v15.6 . The plans assume you have quite a varied set of equipment at hand already, know welding, etc. Youtube searches also help.

This immediately reminded me of Yvon Chouinard quote from 180 Degrees South documentary:

"Taking a trip for six months, you get in the rhythm of it. It feels like you can go on forever doing that. Climbing Everest is the ultimate and the opposite of that. Because you get these high-powered plastic surgeons and CEOs, and you know, they pay $80,000 and have Sherpas put the ladders in place and 8,000 feet of fixed ropes and you get to the camp and you don’t even have to lay out your sleeping bag. It’s already laid out with a chocolate mint on the top. The whole purpose of planning something like Everest is to effect some sort of spiritual and physical gain and if you compromise the process, you’re an asshole when you start out and you’re an asshole when you get back.”

It is because of the template class code. In C++, a template is not really a class or a function.

https://isocpp.org/wiki/faq/templates#templates-defn-vs-decl

Reminds me of a habit I have which made me end up on tops of mountains occasionally. I guess the algorithm can be called "observable ascent":

1. Look around 2. Find a relatively close high spot that is visible 3. Plan and climb on top of it 4. From the peak, find the next highest spot visible 5. Repeat

Also works for other topologies.

Here's Vapnik's story, I first forgot where it was from, then I remembered:

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-compu...

quote:

Now, the history lesson, all this stuff feels fairly new.

It feels like it's younger than you are.

Here's the history of it.

Vapnik immigrated from the Soviet Union to the United States in about 1991.

Nobody ever heard of this stuff before he immigrated.

He actually had done this work on the basic support vector idea in his Ph.D. thesis at Moscow University in the early '60s.

But it wasn't possible for him to do anything with it, because they didn't have any computers they could try anything out with.

So he spent the next 25 years at some oncology institute in the Soviet Union doing applications.

Somebody from Bell Labs discovers him, invites him over to the United States where, subsequently, he decides to immigrate.

In 1992, or thereabouts, Vapnik submits three papers to NIPS, the Neural Information Processing Systems journal.

All of them were rejected.

He's still sore about it, but it's motivating.

So around 1992, 1993, Bell Labs was interested in hand-written character recognition and in neural nets.

Vapnik thinks that neural nets-- what would be a good word to use?

I can think of the vernacular, but he thinks that they're not very good.

So he bets a colleague a good dinner that support vector machines will eventually do better at handwriting recognition then neural nets.

And it's a dinner bet, right?

It's not that big of deal.

But as Napoleon said, it's amazing what a soldier will do for a bit of ribbon.

So that makes colleague, who's working on this problem with handwritten recognition, decides to try a support vector machine with a kernel, in which n equals 2, just slightly nonlinear, works like a charm.

Was this the first time anybody tried a kernel?

Vapnik actually had the idea in his thesis but never though it was very important.

As soon as it was shown to work in the early '90s on the problem handwriting recognition, Vapnik resuscitated the idea of the kernel, began to develop it, and became an essential part of the whole approach of using support vector machines.

So the main point about this is that it was 30 years in between the concept and anybody ever hearing about it.

It was 30 years between Vapnik's understanding of kernels and his appreciation of their importance.

And that's the way things often go, great ideas followed by long periods of nothing happening, followed by an epiphanous moment when the original idea seemed to have great power with just a little bit of a twist.

And then, the world never looks back.

And Vapnik, who nobody ever heard of until the early '90s, becomes famous for something that everybody knows about today who does machine learning.

Its speed is most likely relative to Sun.

Earth moves at about 30km/s relative to sun. So that's your minimal starting speed.

It is _the_ book on knots, although it does miss knots invented later in the 20th century, like the Zeppelin bend. I was amazed to learn that it was used as a reference book by mathematical topologists. They will refer to a bend in space as Ashley#1024 for example, since all the knots in the book are numbered in a referential fashion.

Lovely. Armies A1 and A2 destroying each other with confirmation messages.

And after the internet age, when the facts hit the people who were not even aware of it went "Oh shit, did our military really do this to those people?". If it wasn't for internet, most Turks would stay ignorant of the military power abuse in the Southeast, the way a regular US citizen didn't hear about Guantanamo Bay. So what is your point? Should Turkey degenerate more or should Turkey try to improve? If Turkey cannot improve, the few in power will abuse it, and this time even more people will suffer.

Orwellian control of the internet will not make power abuse go away, it will increase it.

Unfortunately they are not roughly equivalent. A solid shell or a ring around a star is not a Dyson sphere. The correct Dyson sphere is composed of many separate orbiting elements. A solid shell or semi-shell is unstable and is bound to collide with the star or just wander away. Yes, the Ringworld is unstable. This was one of Niven's mistakes and misunderstanding of Dyson spheres.

On the contrary, if you consider that supernovae make our version of life possible, maybe life will happen someday at M82 because of this explosion.

We are all supernova dust, after all.

Andrea: Unhappy the project that breeds no coders.

Galileo: No, Andrea: Unhappy is the project that needs a coder.

I agree with you. I am calling them total bullshit on the scientific part.

They could at least try to put the Alpha Cassiopeiae and and Beta Cassiopeiae in the same "general" direction from the Sun. It would fool more people.

Distances seem to be correct but the coordinates aren't true at all.

Regardless, it looks beautiful. But it would be more beautiful if you could actually see their true locations. Without it, it is a just a game ui demo.

A bit of clarification, I think the orbiters are in sight of Earth for most of the day.

It is Curiosity that is not in sight of the Orbiters, again because of their low orbit.

According to wikipedia article, the power source is designed to create 125 watts of electrical power from 2000 watts of thermal power. (It might look inefficient, but they are using the heat in all parts of the rover.)

For comparison, that might be how much your graphics card might be consuming while you are reading this article.

I guess that also means it is going to move very slow.

Like most people here, I just don't like the fact that some people are trying to put digital walls around me.

To buy my nexus 1 phone, I had to use a machine in US. I bought some other stuff from UK that way, using my machine in UK. But then UK started blocking other sites, so I had move that machine to Germany.

Someone needs to come up with a research paper, showing the optimum number of virtual machines needed to access the whole internet (with their locations). Or better, make a business out of it.

tarballed beta programs should really install themselves on /usr/local imho.

Thank you. There is attention to detail here. It actually amused me when I watched Andrew Ng's videos at 1.2 or 1.5 speed that his voice didn't become squeaky because it is frequency modulated.

I think the problem might be a deeper problem.

The writer of the article is asking generally about how a system's rules can be exploited to the point that the original intention of the system is no longer achievable. The sortition is also a system with rules, therefore it can be exploited. As soon as I saw the rock-paper-scissors, I remembered a competition some time ago where different bots played rock-paper-scissors against each other. Now the best bot exploited the reality of the seed number generators, compiled a database of sequences to find which seed the opponent was using, and so on.

So even sortition might be exploitable.

In the real good old days, many internetworking attempts failed because they tried to have a point of central control. Only the current internet protocol survived the evolution.

uname -a shows

Linux (none) 2.6.20 #3 Sat May 14 19:08:30 CEST 2011 i586 GNU/Linux

The first study I know of is the 1996 book "The Road to Excellence" http://www.amazon.com/Road-Excellence-Acquisition-Performanc... . I got it after I read Peter Norvig's essay on "Teach Yourself Programming in 10 Years." http://norvig.com/21-days.html .

So here are the numbers, in short, for mastery:

It takes about 10k hours of practice.

It takes about 10 years.

That means about 3 hours of practice everyday. Everyday.

I discovered last year that this is still a field where good honest money can be made since everyone is bitching about the fact that there is not a good solution.

I just wanted to keep my MRI and digital X-ray scans. I wanted to send them to the doctors to get their opinions on them and pay them for the time.

I still haven't done much on this myself, but lately I did use http://www.webpax.com to send some scans to several doctors. Their ideas saved me from a "recommended" operation by a previous doctor. Uploading DICOM could be easier, but still at least there is someplace on the web that enables it for me.

My leftist friends think I am a hardcore capitalist. My rightist friends think I am an irrevocable socialist or communist. They don't put me in the middle ground.

Hackers like to point out the flaws in all kinds of systems. So be prepared to be ashamed at least some of the time. Some people just like to think about how to improve the systems.

I disagree. Devices like Antikythera would have probably cost a lot more than their weight at their time. One of the reasons that artifacts don't last is that some metals like iron don't last because of oxidation. Bronze however resists corrosion, and especially sea corrosion really well. And Antikythera is one of those bronze devices that we got out of the sea, it lasted two thousand years underwater.

You almost identified the problem correctly.

Internet is already distributed. The attacks against Visa and MC are also distributed. But Visa and MC are not. They are single points of trust for our financial transactions.

A more distributed system, where a web of trust and transaction system exists, could be used. But such a thing hasn't been invented yet.

I thought about it some last year, but such a system is hard to design. I did design several prototypes, but they had lots of problems. It also involved changing the structures of presumed governmental financial structures ("central" bank for example, is also a single point of trust).

So I think, the rephrasing of the problem should be: We do need to think about how our financial systems can be reorganized to be 100% distributed systems to prevent future abuses by anyone, including governments.

Kind of funny in the sense that the bread and butter language of the academia lacks a grammar.

The problems with questions in imagined worlds is that sometimes it is hard to get the premises right. Even if you treat the problem as a thought experiment, it feels uncomfortable because:

- Ball bouncing with 60% energy remaining all the time is actually a premise, a rule, because we are not supposed to consider atoms or their interactions. There is no reason to it, it becomes a fact.

- Ball is a singular object. We don't have atoms, so we don't have to think things like "What happens when the height of the bounce gets shorter than the size of the atom?" The concept of the ball becomes a premise.

- We get a picture that shows the balls losing speed in direction x at each bounce, but since the question asks for us to judge "qualitatively", we will omit that. We cannot have observations for this problem, it is not the real world.

- There is no friction, or spin, so vertical speed cannot be transfered into horizontal speed and vice versa.

- The concept of bounce might be different, this question probably assumes it happens at 0 (instant) time without deforming the ball, since remember our ball is singular.

- The rest we can probably treat with Newtonian physics in Euclidean geometry, no air, interaction between ball and surface frictionless, etc.

But it feels uncomfortable, because I too can make up an imaginary world for myself, dress it like the real world and ask my question and hide the premises behind.

When I do it, I use the "workrave" program under Linux. You can set your times and it shows you when you need to give a break. It also shows some exercises during breaks.

so your list is http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/other/testing.html ? That's about 270 bugs at the moment.