kghose

Do they support Pussy Riot and the Falung Gong? Or are they only interested in folks who reveal US secrets and work against the US government?

You seem to have called a spade a spade and some folks don't seem to like that. Yes, that page (the article and the byline) does seem a little anxious to establish the author's credentials. But that should be taken separately from the content.

I'm surprised that the article got so many up-votes considering it has so little technical detail.

So, I read through the article and could not find what was concretely wrong, technically, with the data. Does he state that any where? Thanks.

Also see ekranoplanes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle

(And hydrofoils, I was very excited by hydrofoils when I was a kid)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrofoil

In India they have competitive admission tests for toddlers into pre-school/kindergarden.

The good news is that it did not seem, in observation, to scar the population for life - except perhaps give them an aversion to learning - but it did give me anxiety about school, even though I joined this particular game when I was a teenager.

I was hoping other countries would not adopt such an inhumane way of admitting/assessing children but I see a wider adoption in the United States and I have heard it has been a system for a while in Japan.

When resources are limited I think you should do a lottery (and explicitly say its a lottery) so that children have no shame when they don't get in or destructive pride when they do.

Anyone have a list of countries where they do this kind of testing for pre-schoolers/kindergardeners?

Nope, you have to go after Iran again, which is funding the terrorist groups who did the bulk of the killing in Iraq (and still are).

All the easier to feed the correct information to subjugated subjects.

Only if you have gobs and gobs of money.

There are important issues that crop up when the dispute resolution claims a higher authority. The societal pressure to accept such judgements are a lot higher and the arbitrariness and biases (against women, for example) of such judgements are also higher.

You can see them straining, gritting their teeth saying "Must ... not ... report ... p-value ... must ... report ... CONFIDENCE INTERVAL"

"the incoming class is regulated to be approximately in line with the annual demand for new lawyers"

There are dangers with trying to predict demand for individual goods and services for larger countries/markets.

Plasma cannons don't kill people, people kill people, and we've already invented those.

The New York Daily News is where I go to get important news, like how Bat Boy fared in his fight against the Vampires on Saturn. Just sayin'

In suburbs of Boston this is a very common thing. They are "all cash buyers" and often beat out regular folk who want to buy a home via a mortgage.

Does Dev have kids?

It would only trip people up if they memorize the rule: "You can't make a move that exposes your king to check" but then, for some strange reason, forget that it applies to the other guy too.

This is indeed an interesting question. Why can't the brain develop a reverse blur function? We can do this with algorithms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics). There was a fad (I guess) once about correcting your vision with practice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method).

I guess this is a limitation of the plasticity of our brains. People who have hearing or vision or other losses as young children adapt faster and better than people who have these losses when older.

It would be interesting to understand if young children with vision deficits can learn to see better with time.

My personal recollection is that I had NO idea things were blurry until my first visit to the optometrist when they put glasses on me. Things were so SHARP!

I think the core of this is that out adaptability depends on sensori-motor loops. We can calibrate our responses for faulty sensors, but we don't correct just for the sake of correctness.

I was told the following legend about how shoes were invented. A haughty princess wanted to leave her pristine castle and explore the world. But she found the world very dusty. She told her wise men to come up with a plan to cover the world in a lush carpet. The wise men pondered and said that this could not be done. The princess threw a fit. The wise men pondered some more. Then they said "Princess, we can not cover the world in a large carpet, but we can, however, cover your feet in a small one". And the princess was pleased. And that, kids, is how we got shoes.

I see it now, thanks!

Hi!

The statement "if the neuron's actual output is close to the desired output, i.e., y=y(x) for all training inputs x, then the cross-entropy will be close to zero"

is not true. The function peaks in the middle (~ 0.7)

Thanks! -Kaushik

Combining with the comments below, there is a note that the test worked even when they changed a vital configuration (seemed to be a control test).

When a control fails, the conclusion is that the experiment is buggy and you need to rethink things. Unfortunately, it seems from the article, the conclusion was that some new physics was at work here.

I found that the statement about the cross entropy not true. When y==a the function is non-monotonic with 0 at the extremes but not at the middle. So the "proof" shown is confusing to me.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

Ah, the original humblebrag.

I agree with the other poster - I think your problem is motion blur rather than focus - if you have a decent lens (one of the "pro" lenses, rather than kit) the focus is very fast, smooth and does well in low light for both Nikon and Canon.

This attitude is part of 'better to be dead than a slave'. I think many people saw what the Nazis did in the occupied territories and their thinking was influenced by that (extending it to, what would happen if the Soviets invaded our lands).

I always recall Larry Niven's RingWorld and that amazing statement about probability (The Puppeteers breeding "lucky people").

However, statistics can be misleading if not filtered.

I am proud to say, I am part of this 35%. I have owed $15 to a hospital for a long time. I also owed a bigger bill for a long time. Despite having the money. We moved, lost track of correspondence, had life happen to us etc.

I'm not sure, however, which employers reject you on such bases. When I worked at a hospital, we had background checks. At my present job, no such thing.

Was this written by a computer?

  A = [1, 2, 4, 5, 7]
  A_s = sorted(A)
  b = A_s[0]
  for a in A_s[1:]:
    if a - b > 1:
      print b + 1
      break
    else:
      b = a
  else:
    print 'No missing element'

Trying to be more Pythonic:

  def test(l):
    l_s = sorted(l)
    print [l0 + 1 for l1, l0 in zip(l_s[1:], l_s[:-1]) if l1 - l0 > 1]

Ah, yes, I see the time-limit. However, for me the presence or absence of a down vote button seems to be somewhat arbitrary.