This also means that various software updates need to be installed when the machine boots, which makes a boot time of 15 minutes seem quite realistic (these corporate software management systems are usually horrible pieces of crap).
That depends on where the nondeterminism comes from. If it arises from a chaotic process, then the system (if not the exact behavior) can be modeled in a computer. Computers can approximate this kind of non-determinism very well. (Strictly speaking it's deterministic, but given some non-zero measuring error it becomes non-deterministic).
If the non-determinism stems from some quantum process, and this is truly the key to intelligence then there may be some trouble (I think this is Penrose's thesis), but I really seriously doubt that this is the case. Neurons by themselves are pretty simple machines. It's the fact that there's 20 billion of them that makes AI a difficult question.
The emergence of intelligence from a large interconnected network of simple machines is the problem. I can't imagine that the whole system is chaotic, but small bits of it may be, to provide some kind of randomness to the brain. Considering how easy it is to write a random number generator on a deterministic computer, I doubt this will be a big part of the problem either.
Are you serious? A good solution? The ISP not just throttling my traffic when I use a P2P program, but actually modifying it, to show not what the application I'm running should show me, but something they think I ought to see. That's worse than DRM, that's worse than most things they've come up with so far. This isn't a creative solution, it's a a fucking man-in-the-middle attack. And all of it on a very dodgy definition of illegality. Downloading is not illegal (just making the material available) so searching definitely isn't illegal. So I'm doing something that's not illegal, and they start interfering with my traffic because they think it would be 'better' if I downloaded some other version.
What if I already own the cd? What if I don't want DRM-laden crap? What if they got it wrong and I did actually want free content? Come to think of it, it would actually be quite lucrative for them to accidentally set their threshold too high, so I can't find my free content through all the paid-for DRM'ed content. Any ISP that implements this completely betrays their customers trust and deserves to die quickly.
Re:blah the emporer has his new clothes on again.
on
The Walking House
·
· Score: 1
Chrome has a privacy mode; Google says you can create an "incognito" window "and nothing that occurs in that window is ever logged on your computer." The latest version of Internet Explorer calls this InPrivate. Google's use-case for when you might want to use the "incognito" feature is e.g. to keep a surprise gift a secret. As far as Microsoft's InPrivate mode is concerned, people also speculated it was a "porn mode."
They've taken IE's disgusting perverted porn mode idea that only perverts would use, and put it in their own browser so now you can use it to keep your wholesome family activity like buying surprise gifts for your loving husband or your precious children, a delightful little secret for now. Finally, a browser for good-old fashioned God fearing Americans like you and me. Gosh, those perverts at Microsoft, a porn mode! Who would imagine such a thing...
There's no such thing a perfectly trustworthy information. Ever, anywhere.
The following goes for all information: If you care about being able to trust it, you verify with another source. The more you care, the more you verify.
Wikipedia has a hard limit to its trustability, and within that limit they are doing very, very well.
So in answer to your question: he use of information that no-one can trust is as a starting point. It's the use of any single source of information.
That's not what that sentence says. What wikia has are buttons that try your search on other search engines. It's like Google having a button "try this search on Altavista". Not a great functionality on established search engines, but on a system like this, that needs to find it's place, it's a pretty good idea.
The main reason they're doing this, I imagine, is that they want to be people's home page, so it's a good idea to offer the same functionality as their previous homepage (eg. Google).
I took one course in Information Retrieval, and I could come up with most of these things with an evening or two of brainstorming, at least on a general level like this. Ideas like PageRank gave Google the edge in the early days, but now, their advantage lies in other areas. The have a stunning amount of capital tied up in hardware, giving them amazing speed, and amazing amounts of data. They have code optimized to handle those amounts of data in reasonable time. They have the experience to take simple probability models like the ones described in the article, and make them work with those amounts of data.
This is why it's impossible to beat Google at search and other data-based markets. It's not one simple patented idea anymore. If it was just that, Google would've disappeared years ago. The only way to beat the points described above, is to have the capital to buy the hardware, and knowledge to match Google. Microsoft can do that, but Google has one other thing that Microsoft doesn't. They understand their developers. They understand that if you give these kinds of scientist/developers an interesting problem, a fantastic dataset and the freedom to attack it in their own way, you barely even have to pay them anymore. The interest will take over and completely fuel the project. They will work overtime, and come in on the weekends, without being asked.
That will bring energy to a project and a company, that you can never get through any tactic that Microsoft is likely to employ. I admit I don't precisely know what Microsoft is like on the inside, but I simply cannot conceive of them as a company that understands the joy of programming, or the joy of science (which is a huge big part of information retrieval). In any case, one blog post with some sketchy details isn't going to tell Microsoft anything they don't know already.
This doesn't really hold up, because for any bugreport, you're told to reproduce the bug in a clean minefield install (the nightly build) first. Since you're using another version without plugins to reproduce the bug anyway, it doesn't matter if the bug that the browser originally occurred in has weird settings. Besides, I don't really run the beta for the benefit of the product (although I will gladly report anything I see), I run it because it's better and faster, and I don't mind a slim chance of a crash.
I'm a Drupal user, but I think I can answer your question. You're not too far off the mark. Especially with frameworks like Rails (or even the basic php library) that bring the 'basic language' as close as you can get to a CMs, without actually being one.
The reason you would use one of these packages is that, like with any hobby-project, at some point in the development of your website you run into something that you just can't implement yourself. You can make a little blog yourself, but what if you decide that you want RSS feeds? Or internationalization? Proper management of images (including resizing)? User comments, with escaped markup, captchas? As your home brew site scales, you'll run into these things.
Of course there are libraries, for most of these, but the library authors don't know what you database looks like, or how to access your basic objects (stories or pages or whatever). Use a CMS, and all these things are tied into one standardized package, and ninety-nine times out of a hundred, you won't have to write a line of code.
Slashdot Mirror
This also means that various software updates need to be installed when the machine boots, which makes a boot time of 15 minutes seem quite realistic (these corporate software management systems are usually horrible pieces of crap).
I think if you're shitting on your junk, you've got a problem to begin with.
That depends on where the nondeterminism comes from. If it arises from a chaotic process, then the system (if not the exact behavior) can be modeled in a computer. Computers can approximate this kind of non-determinism very well. (Strictly speaking it's deterministic, but given some non-zero measuring error it becomes non-deterministic).
If the non-determinism stems from some quantum process, and this is truly the key to intelligence then there may be some trouble (I think this is Penrose's thesis), but I really seriously doubt that this is the case. Neurons by themselves are pretty simple machines. It's the fact that there's 20 billion of them that makes AI a difficult question.
The emergence of intelligence from a large interconnected network of simple machines is the problem. I can't imagine that the whole system is chaotic, but small bits of it may be, to provide some kind of randomness to the brain. Considering how easy it is to write a random number generator on a deterministic computer, I doubt this will be a big part of the problem either.
Don't you love it when the Slashdot moderation system cuts off the set up, and leaves only a punchline like this?
Can't blame them going for Africa. Those three extra armies at the beginning of every can come in really handy.
Are you serious? A good solution? The ISP not just throttling my traffic when I use a P2P program, but actually modifying it, to show not what the application I'm running should show me, but something they think I ought to see. That's worse than DRM, that's worse than most things they've come up with so far. This isn't a creative solution, it's a a fucking man-in-the-middle attack. And all of it on a very dodgy definition of illegality. Downloading is not illegal (just making the material available) so searching definitely isn't illegal. So I'm doing something that's not illegal, and they start interfering with my traffic because they think it would be 'better' if I downloaded some other version.
What if I already own the cd? What if I don't want DRM-laden crap? What if they got it wrong and I did actually want free content? Come to think of it, it would actually be quite lucrative for them to accidentally set their threshold too high, so I can't find my free content through all the paid-for DRM'ed content. Any ISP that implements this completely betrays their customers trust and deserves to die quickly.
Just hope it doesn't step in anything.
And Ronald McDonald's no better.
Somebody should trademark C octothorpe, and sue Microsoft for every place they've used the wrong character.
And there's more:
They've taken IE's disgusting perverted porn mode idea that only perverts would use, and put it in their own browser so now you can use it to keep your wholesome family activity like buying surprise gifts for your loving husband or your precious children, a delightful little secret for now. Finally, a browser for good-old fashioned God fearing Americans like you and me. Gosh, those perverts at Microsoft, a porn mode! Who would imagine such a thing...
Welcome to the internet.
And the fossils are like pepperoni slices that God topped his pizza with to test our faith. It all adds up.
"Body odor". Thus spoke the others.
Richard Gere, is that you?
[citation needed]
Try installing flashblock. Those ads tend to steal a lot of cycles. Worked for me anyway.
Imagine watching Catwoman on this thing. The more you cringe, the longer it will last.
It's not a fallacy unless you're using it as an argument. This is just metaphorical language.
He has Chinese eyes. They're in a jar in his fridge.
There's no such thing a perfectly trustworthy information. Ever, anywhere.
The following goes for all information: If you care about being able to trust it, you verify with another source. The more you care, the more you verify.
Wikipedia has a hard limit to its trustability, and within that limit they are doing very, very well.
So in answer to your question: he use of information that no-one can trust is as a starting point. It's the use of any single source of information.
That's not what that sentence says. What wikia has are buttons that try your search on other search engines. It's like Google having a button "try this search on Altavista". Not a great functionality on established search engines, but on a system like this, that needs to find it's place, it's a pretty good idea.
The main reason they're doing this, I imagine, is that they want to be people's home page, so it's a good idea to offer the same functionality as their previous homepage (eg. Google).
I took one course in Information Retrieval, and I could come up with most of these things with an evening or two of brainstorming, at least on a general level like this. Ideas like PageRank gave Google the edge in the early days, but now, their advantage lies in other areas. The have a stunning amount of capital tied up in hardware, giving them amazing speed, and amazing amounts of data. They have code optimized to handle those amounts of data in reasonable time. They have the experience to take simple probability models like the ones described in the article, and make them work with those amounts of data.
This is why it's impossible to beat Google at search and other data-based markets. It's not one simple patented idea anymore. If it was just that, Google would've disappeared years ago. The only way to beat the points described above, is to have the capital to buy the hardware, and knowledge to match Google. Microsoft can do that, but Google has one other thing that Microsoft doesn't. They understand their developers. They understand that if you give these kinds of scientist/developers an interesting problem, a fantastic dataset and the freedom to attack it in their own way, you barely even have to pay them anymore. The interest will take over and completely fuel the project. They will work overtime, and come in on the weekends, without being asked.
That will bring energy to a project and a company, that you can never get through any tactic that Microsoft is likely to employ. I admit I don't precisely know what Microsoft is like on the inside, but I simply cannot conceive of them as a company that understands the joy of programming, or the joy of science (which is a huge big part of information retrieval). In any case, one blog post with some sketchy details isn't going to tell Microsoft anything they don't know already.
This doesn't really hold up, because for any bugreport, you're told to reproduce the bug in a clean minefield install (the nightly build) first. Since you're using another version without plugins to reproduce the bug anyway, it doesn't matter if the bug that the browser originally occurred in has weird settings. Besides, I don't really run the beta for the benefit of the product (although I will gladly report anything I see), I run it because it's better and faster, and I don't mind a slim chance of a crash.
I'm a Drupal user, but I think I can answer your question. You're not too far off the mark. Especially with frameworks like Rails (or even the basic php library) that bring the 'basic language' as close as you can get to a CMs, without actually being one.
The reason you would use one of these packages is that, like with any hobby-project, at some point in the development of your website you run into something that you just can't implement yourself. You can make a little blog yourself, but what if you decide that you want RSS feeds? Or internationalization? Proper management of images (including resizing)? User comments, with escaped markup, captchas? As your home brew site scales, you'll run into these things.
Of course there are libraries, for most of these, but the library authors don't know what you database looks like, or how to access your basic objects (stories or pages or whatever). Use a CMS, and all these things are tied into one standardized package, and ninety-nine times out of a hundred, you won't have to write a line of code.
On the other hand... Einstein's sandwiches? Shit. (Not to mention his tits.)