28 karma · joined February 24, 2008
technoguyrob @ [letter before h]mail (math\.uic\.edu)\/~(robertk) -> $2 @ $1
Your search - "sarah palin" - did not match any documents. Makes me anxious that she is a vice presidential contender.
Top result for "iraq war" is a historical note on the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988).
Top result for "myspace" is an online storage portal (a whopping free 50MB).
"LCD" refers to a webcomic, not an LCD display.
Top result for "china" is a web page whose title is "New Page 1".
And of course ycombinator is nowhere to be heard of. :)
var x = 1;
var y = 3;
var list = [0,1,2];
x in list; //true
y in list; //false
1 in list; //true
y in [3,4,5]; //true
That last expression is false. This is because the "in" operator does not check for values in the list; it checks for keys. Try this: javascript:alert(3 in [3,4,5])
The only things that will be true for "X in [3,4,5]" are 0, 1, and 2 for X (since these are the natural keys for the terms in the array). More specifically, "in" in general checks for members associated with objects (e.g., keys in an array, methods of a class, etc.): javascript:alert("The setFlag method " + ("setFlag" in {setFlag:function(){}} ? "exists" : "does not exist"))
EDIT: This makes the keyword considerably less useful (since indexOf doesn't work for the Array object in IE--although jQuery has a way around this), although it can be used to replace the less elegant if (typeof object.method == "undefined")Aha! A new spam filter!
Alright, see you guys in a week.
But I beg the question...
EDIT: I sort of disagree with you. I'm in graduate school right now, and 90% of a modern mathematician's life is spent on keeping up with the progress of others, particularly in the last 50 years. That is true. However, over time, we also filter out the unimportant stuff. While automorphic forms may be an important field today so that we can bring in fresh minds to try to tackle the Langlands Program, once that is solved there won't be as much of an emphasis. I knew "more" calculus than Isaac Newton when I was 12 in the sense that I had learned things like Stoke's theorem that he had not even known about, but Newton's knowledge was much more of a mess, as well. The stuff you learn from textbooks is not how researchers originally discovered things. Think of the analogy of starting a fresh startup codebase that looks horrible, but becomes very polished and clean after several refactorings; it may take weeks to introduce a person to the former codebase, but for the latter it may only take a good one-hour tutorial.
One of Kurzweil's really strong points was to treat "AI" as a very loose term. That is, it could for example mean replacing every human neuron with a manmade (e.g., silicon) counterpart. This has already been done on a small scale in rats (I can't find the reference, but it's in his book).
"Upgrading humanity" IS artificial intelligence if you take artificial to be functionally equivalent to manmade: man has "upgraded" himself, and hence created something artificially intelligent.
My impression is that we couldn't, just like we couldn't decode an audio file that stream forever without real-time decoding. Once we "compute it" "very slowly," the AI will already have improved twice, tenfold, a thousandfold. It will be fruitless.
Not to mention, even if the AI is simply a Von Neumann machine with really impressive specs, what makes you think we'd be able to decode it? If you gave me a RAM chip, I wouldn't know what to do with it without an EE book. Now imagine a technology a thousand times more advanced.
It always frustrates me to see things like this so undervalued. To me, it seems something like this could have a societal impact on the same order-of-magnitude as the internet, yet the story only has 16 upvotes, and it will probably take over two decades, if not longer, for this manufacturing system to materialize in, for example, my neighborhood. Why is that? I realize there are certain costs to introducing it and it does have its risk (and some problems, as gibsonf1 mentioned), but wouldn't this be a marvelous investment not just financially, but in general for humankind? I suppose the point of my ramble is to raise the question: why is viral marketing so hard to perform in "real life"?
Try this:
Go to Gmail, then when it's loaded, in the top right in Chrome go to Page -> Create App Shortcut and choose a location (say the Desktop). Then go to the location, and "open" the application. It's like an actual Windows app!
Chrome: Array object 131 Date object 30 Error handling 7 Math object 13 RegEx object 52 String object 41 DOM 51 Ajax declarations 295 Total Duration 620
Opera: Array object 172 Date object 47 Error handling 31 Math object 47 RegEx object 109 String object 63 DOM 31 Ajax declarations 62 Total Duration 562
If we assume Google can get AJAX declaration down to 62ms just like Opera (which seems perfectly reasonable, I don't imagine they had those in mind when considering speed), ten that would bring Chrome's execution time down to:
387ms!!
Assuming it can get a few more milliseconds down (it is after all only in beta stage, now that it's been open-sourced I can imagine a good couple of improvements will stream in), that means it's 1.5x faster than Opera! (which is hailed as the absolute king of Javascript execution)
Also, Opera does some kind of caching thing I think. On some of the tests (like Array and DOM), Opera consistently scored eiter X or 2X (e.g., 90, or 180). There is no way there could be a 2x speed difference just out of thin air like that, so I imagine it's some trick that notices when it can be sped up. If Chrome did that it could have the speed gain as well.
Personally, I haven't laughed at an XKCD this much in a while.
No, but really, I agree with you. However, this might still be a step in that direction, as less tax money for the government to spend means less spending.
P.S. Streamfile is written in Erlang, which is kind of cool.
<img>[Bitmap data]</img>
or what?EDIT: Clever, looks like it uses the IE-supported XML shapes (this is how Frontpage exports simple shape graphics). The javascript line
javascript:prompt('',$($('.line')[0]).html())
produced
<SPAN style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline-block; PADDING-LEFT: 0px;
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; OVERFLOW: hidden; WIDTH: 21px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; HEIGHT: 16px" width="21" height="16">
<?xml:namespace prefix = v /><v:group style="LEFT: 0px; WIDTH: 21px; POSITION: relative; TOP: 0px;
HEIGHT: 16px" jQuery1216275956207="2" coordsize = "21,16">
<v:shape style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; WIDTH: 21px; PADDING-TOP: 0px;
POSITION: relative; TOP: 0px; HEIGHT: 16px" coordsize = "21,16" filled = "t" fillcolor = "#cdf"
stroked = "f" path = " m0,15 l0,1,3,5,6,3,10,15,13,11,16,5,19,11,19,15 e"> </v:shape>
<v:shape style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px;
WIDTH: 21px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; POSITION: relative; TOP: 0px; HEIGHT: 16px" coordsize = "21,16"
filled = "f" strokecolor = "blue" strokeweight = "1pt" path = " m0,1 l0,1,3,5,6,3,10,15,13,11,16,5,19,11 e"> </v:shape>
<v:oval style="LEFT: 16px; WIDTH: 4px; POSITION: absolute; TOP: 9px; HEIGHT: 4px" coordsize = "21600,21600"
filled = "t" fillcolor = "#f80" stroked = "f"></v:oval></v:group></SPAN>EDIT: Also, I think it is unfair to label people like de Grey or Kurzweil as simply "afraid to die." They just see it as a necessity for reaching the boundaries of human exploratory possibilities. Although it is true that new minds produce new insights, it is undoubtedly also true that if a single person could live for two centuries instead of one in a healthy state of mind, he could probably do more research in his field than two separate people in those centuries, since he would have both the advantage of more overall knowledge and passing on that greater collective to his colleagues and students (who in turn will likely benefit more than from a 50-year-old professor that has had less experience in the field).
Honestly, what do the "community's values" matter at all? That's like arguing a religion with only ten constituents in a given town can't have any evangelism because most people think it's nutty. It seems like violating free speech, to me.
EDIT: I have to admit, however, this line was gold: “people are at least as interested in group sex and orgies as they are in apple pie.”