Incidentally, I just went to a talk today by Jeff Dean (a Google fellow) in which he mentioned Google Translate, and some of the things they're doing to develop a viable machine translation system. One of the things that stuck with me was maintaining a database of statistically probable 5-word phrases in the target language, obtained largely by analyzing un-translated news stories and other such things. Also, to the extent that examples are available, they'll directly compare documents that were translated by a human, sentence by sentence, to give the machine a better representation of phrases and syntax that is acceptable in normal language. The machine could basically choose phrases and words that, according to past examples, make sense with the words and phrases around it, giving the translation a much more natural flow. (These new techniques are in place for only Chinese-English and Arabic-English translations, so supposedly those work best at the moment.)
Granted, Jeff Dean first brought up Google Translate by pointing out how much machine translation sucks in general, so nobody's under the illusion we'll have reliable online translaters within a few months. However, there are a lot of intriguing and innovative ideas out there that are still being implemented, and we could have borderline-acceptable machine translation in the not-too-distant future. Human translators are not in danger.
This is very true, and it also seems slightly ridiculous that the 84" table has a lower resolution than the 45".
I can see why, though, after looking around a bit. On such a large table, if you're collaborating, you want to be able to see and read what's going on on the other side of the table. If it were more standard-sized pixels, a lot of people couldn't tell for the life of them what their comrade on the other side of the table is pointing at. Granted, ideally we'd have high (good-looking) resolution and just use large fonts and such, but why? It's cheaper to use bigger pixels and it wouldn't add much functionality to upgrade to 6400x4800.
You can see in the first picture in their (pdf) Brochure a dialog box on the table that is a good 12" wide. In order for people all around the table to see and read the window, it all but needs to be huge.
Sorry, offtopic, but I remember once in early high school I was trying to figure out what "fallacious" meant, and was trying to break it down to its roots (I know too few roots for that really to be useful) and looking for words that sound similar to see if that gave some hint. The only word I came up with was "fellatio," and as you might guess, that gave me an odd pespective.
Now, whenever anyone uses "fallacious," my first response is as if it were "fellatious."
I'm not contesting the content of your comment at all, your testimony sounds solid, but whenever anybody in any year says anything like "It should be easy now in @YEAR" they just sound silly, especially in retrospect.
"It's 1997! I shouldn't have to tie my own shoes anymore!" "It's 1905! Why am I still jerking myself off?"
I'm curious: Is there any chance within our lifetimes that this artifical life could actually survive in a non-meticulously-controlled real-world environment, or will our attempts to best God destined to die with a whimper in a petri dish?
The first and most obvious reaction to this is worrying about some sort of mega-virus (created by accident or on purpose) that will either turn us all to zombies or be no fun and just kill us, but the first "artifical life" will be, compared to anything natural, a joke. (Note: still a huge accomplishment and very hard/impressive/better than I could do, but not anything that will compete in nature.)
TFA says the main hurdles are creating a cell membrane, some sort of genetic system, and a metabolism. Once they have that, how close is it to something like a real bacteria or virus? And after that, how many steps to creating an organism that could be introduced into the world and actually survive? Are we talking decades? Generations? Millennia?
Thank you, I was hoping someone would post a nice summary of that long-ass essay. Sometimes I feel like reading, but sometimes it just doesn't seem worth my time.
...you shouldn't fool yourself into thinking you're safer because you've punished those who have already done bad things.
There is the argument, though, that creating negative consequences for the people who've done bad things does create some safety. If you've bombed a building and get away without punishment, I might expect you to try again. Likewise, if you haven't yet but know three guys who've gotten away with bombing (or some other crime), you're more likely to try it yourself, because punishment seems so unlikely. It's a more indirect and questionable route to safety, and it lends itself to abuse, but it is arguable.
IANAL, but since it sounds like copies were distributed and a fair number of people actually saw the original, might a judge reasonably decide the copy is a valid replica of the document, given the testimony of enough witnesses? And if a judge decides that the copy is valid and that it can legally be used as evidence, then the government can't really walk in and say "No." They can argue "State Secrets" and so on, but the judge decides. And the two judges mentioned as relevant to the case (Justices Garr King and Vaughn Walker) don't seem to be hindering the case at all.
From the article it sounds like, at least so far, the government has had to reluctantly allow the pre-pre-court proceedings to go onward, indicating they can't find an immediate way to nullify it.
Tinfoil hat or not, an assassination just wouldn't make sense at this point.
True, very true, I did have a bit of aluminum in my hair. I was largely just musing that if he does die before the case is decided, under any circumstances, it would have the potential to join the likes of the JFK assassination among the great conspiracy theories of our time.
And I looked up the numbers and was surprised to see the impressive range of modern sniper rifles, so I felt like mentioning it. I've never been a gun/military nerd in any sense. 1829 meters (effective range) is... a long distance.
Of course he did, wouldn't you? He filed the lawsuit with one, since they took the first one away. TFA:
The lawyers retrieved one of the remaining copies of the document -- presumably from Saudi Arabia -- and used it to file a complaint in U.S. District Court in Oregon in February of last year.
And here's to hoping he doesn't mysteriously "commit suicide." From 1500 meters.
98% of the population that won't murder women and molest dogs.
98 percent? That feels uncomfortably low to me. But then, I think molesting dogs is generally a private matter that you don't hear too much about, so you may be right.
I'd try googling for statistics, but for some reason I'm reluctant to search for "dog molestation."
I think a decent proportion of the current population using the web does think Google is the internet...
I mean, if somebody set it up for them and Google is their homepage, then when you click on the internet, it's just Google! Then you type something into Google and it takes you to a list of the internet! Therefore, what is the internet but Google? They've got no reason (well, not really, but, you know, it happens) to think otherwise.
I think he was referring to how the Brits vote for a party rather than for individuals, and each party gets their share of seats in Parliament (I think). On a ballot in Britain, I infer, you basically choose a party and you're done. In America, you can just pick a party, but lots of people pick and choose for each office and have a mixed ballot. Also, I don't know how it is in Britain, but in America there are many more things on a ballot than just elected officials, like sometimes amendments or propositions and also more local officials and issues as well. So Americans vote on those issues on the ballot specifically. In summary: on a single American ballot, you vote on a bunch of things, including issues. In Britain, you pretty much choose the party (based on its personality, maybe?) you like best, at least in the general election.
Note: I have no personal experience of any voting systems, because I am freshly 18 and have never voted, so if any of that is glaringly wrong, please do forgive me.
Seems risky to say "no viable market alternative" to Windows on Slashdot, as arguable as that may be.
It would be interesting if MS were attacked on those grounds, because the obvious (IA certainly NAL) defense is highlighting the viable market alternatives, which any monopolist is loath to do. Likewise, all those who would enjoy seeing MS lose would be caught in the Catch-22 of admitting that [insert favorite minority OS] is a non-viable alternative... I think this has solid potential for some entertaining threads here and there.
But I think the more notable lie/damned lie is that 1/3 can still access their previous company's network after termination. It seems like there'd be more important security implications with disgruntled fired IT guys still having unbridled access to the company network.
Hm... did the counties in Michigan copy each other's notes? Your "Wireless Oakland" is almost identical to our Wireless Washtenaw, save the private party involved.
I'm really looking forward to having Wi-Fi out in the marshes by me. There's even a chance I'll get a radio mounted on top of my house, which would include the fastest/best package available (numbers are failing me) in exchange for the mounting rights. The whole thing really is a win-win all the way round, both the service-for-mounting deal and the county-wide Wi-Fi, assuming enough people actually do sign up. I predict many of us will.
This is a really good thing, it sets a good precedent and so on and so forth, and is probably news worth posting on its own merit. Why must we promote it with "nude thumbnails" in the title? I mean, you should only add an empty promise of porn if the story can't stand on its own. With an interesting story, it's just distracting.
But then I think we get into some convoluted territory, because millions (I think) of people are willing to and do pay what eBay demands. I really don't know what I'm talking about here, (IANAEconomist) but if people pay for an unnecessary service, even if a company virtually has a monopoly on that service, it must be worth at least as much as they pay, right? So, really, you can't pay more for something than it is worth, barring vendor deception or chicanery or customer stupidity, because if you're paying, then it's worth at least that much to you. I don't think eBay is much into the deceitful end of business, so people get what they pay for at a price they're willing to pay.
Granted, a fair price for one man is a highway robbery to another, so we can still complain heartily.
Slashdot Mirror
And House?
Incidentally, I just went to a talk today by Jeff Dean (a Google fellow) in which he mentioned Google Translate, and some of the things they're doing to develop a viable machine translation system. One of the things that stuck with me was maintaining a database of statistically probable 5-word phrases in the target language, obtained largely by analyzing un-translated news stories and other such things. Also, to the extent that examples are available, they'll directly compare documents that were translated by a human, sentence by sentence, to give the machine a better representation of phrases and syntax that is acceptable in normal language. The machine could basically choose phrases and words that, according to past examples, make sense with the words and phrases around it, giving the translation a much more natural flow. (These new techniques are in place for only Chinese-English and Arabic-English translations, so supposedly those work best at the moment.)
Granted, Jeff Dean first brought up Google Translate by pointing out how much machine translation sucks in general, so nobody's under the illusion we'll have reliable online translaters within a few months. However, there are a lot of intriguing and innovative ideas out there that are still being implemented, and we could have borderline-acceptable machine translation in the not-too-distant future. Human translators are not in danger.
This is very true, and it also seems slightly ridiculous that the 84" table has a lower resolution than the 45".
I can see why, though, after looking around a bit. On such a large table, if you're collaborating, you want to be able to see and read what's going on on the other side of the table. If it were more standard-sized pixels, a lot of people couldn't tell for the life of them what their comrade on the other side of the table is pointing at. Granted, ideally we'd have high (good-looking) resolution and just use large fonts and such, but why? It's cheaper to use bigger pixels and it wouldn't add much functionality to upgrade to 6400x4800.
You can see in the first picture in their (pdf) Brochure a dialog box on the table that is a good 12" wide. In order for people all around the table to see and read the window, it all but needs to be huge.
Now, whenever anyone uses "fallacious," my first response is as if it were "fellatious."
I wonder what a fellatious statement would be...
Here's one: The Clonus Horror. It was remade as The Island.
I'm not contesting the content of your comment at all, your testimony sounds solid, but whenever anybody in any year says anything like "It should be easy now in @YEAR" they just sound silly, especially in retrospect.
"It's 1997! I shouldn't have to tie my own shoes anymore!"
"It's 1905! Why am I still jerking myself off?"
I'm curious: Is there any chance within our lifetimes that this artifical life could actually survive in a non-meticulously-controlled real-world environment, or will our attempts to best God destined to die with a whimper in a petri dish?
The first and most obvious reaction to this is worrying about some sort of mega-virus (created by accident or on purpose) that will either turn us all to zombies or be no fun and just kill us, but the first "artifical life" will be, compared to anything natural, a joke. (Note: still a huge accomplishment and very hard/impressive/better than I could do, but not anything that will compete in nature.)
TFA says the main hurdles are creating a cell membrane, some sort of genetic system, and a metabolism. Once they have that, how close is it to something like a real bacteria or virus? And after that, how many steps to creating an organism that could be introduced into the world and actually survive? Are we talking decades? Generations? Millennia?
Oh, that's more than enough. Judging from the other comments, it seems like your summary pretty much hit the nail on the head. Good job!
Thank you, I was hoping someone would post a nice summary of that long-ass essay. Sometimes I feel like reading, but sometimes it just doesn't seem worth my time.
About as much as you can trust a company that can't spell "googol."
There is the argument, though, that creating negative consequences for the people who've done bad things does create some safety. If you've bombed a building and get away without punishment, I might expect you to try again. Likewise, if you haven't yet but know three guys who've gotten away with bombing (or some other crime), you're more likely to try it yourself, because punishment seems so unlikely. It's a more indirect and questionable route to safety, and it lends itself to abuse, but it is arguable.
IANAL, but since it sounds like copies were distributed and a fair number of people actually saw the original, might a judge reasonably decide the copy is a valid replica of the document, given the testimony of enough witnesses? And if a judge decides that the copy is valid and that it can legally be used as evidence, then the government can't really walk in and say "No." They can argue "State Secrets" and so on, but the judge decides. And the two judges mentioned as relevant to the case (Justices Garr King and Vaughn Walker) don't seem to be hindering the case at all.
From the article it sounds like, at least so far, the government has had to reluctantly allow the pre-pre-court proceedings to go onward, indicating they can't find an immediate way to nullify it.
And I looked up the numbers and was surprised to see the impressive range of modern sniper rifles, so I felt like mentioning it. I've never been a gun/military nerd in any sense. 1829 meters (effective range) is... a long distance.
TFA:
And here's to hoping he doesn't mysteriously "commit suicide." From 1500 meters.
I'd try googling for statistics, but for some reason I'm reluctant to search for "dog molestation."
Hah! Oh, man, that's rich.
Seriously, though, you may want to stay away from the internet for the next week or so. It'll be better that way.
I think a decent proportion of the current population using the web does think Google is the internet...
I mean, if somebody set it up for them and Google is their homepage, then when you click on the internet, it's just Google! Then you type something into Google and it takes you to a list of the internet! Therefore, what is the internet but Google? They've got no reason (well, not really, but, you know, it happens) to think otherwise.
I think he was referring to how the Brits vote for a party rather than for individuals, and each party gets their share of seats in Parliament (I think). On a ballot in Britain, I infer, you basically choose a party and you're done. In America, you can just pick a party, but lots of people pick and choose for each office and have a mixed ballot. Also, I don't know how it is in Britain, but in America there are many more things on a ballot than just elected officials, like sometimes amendments or propositions and also more local officials and issues as well. So Americans vote on those issues on the ballot specifically. In summary: on a single American ballot, you vote on a bunch of things, including issues. In Britain, you pretty much choose the party (based on its personality, maybe?) you like best, at least in the general election.
Note: I have no personal experience of any voting systems, because I am freshly 18 and have never voted, so if any of that is glaringly wrong, please do forgive me.
I think you may have just started and ended the entirety of the possible (intelligent) debate on this topic single-handedly in the first post.
Bravo. My hat is off to you.
Seems risky to say "no viable market alternative" to Windows on Slashdot, as arguable as that may be.
It would be interesting if MS were attacked on those grounds, because the obvious (IA certainly NAL) defense is highlighting the viable market alternatives, which any monopolist is loath to do. Likewise, all those who would enjoy seeing MS lose would be caught in the Catch-22 of admitting that [insert favorite minority OS] is a non-viable alternative... I think this has solid potential for some entertaining threads here and there.
But I think the more notable lie/damned lie is that 1/3 can still access their previous company's network after termination. It seems like there'd be more important security implications with disgruntled fired IT guys still having unbridled access to the company network.
Hm... did the counties in Michigan copy each other's notes? Your "Wireless Oakland" is almost identical to our Wireless Washtenaw, save the private party involved.
I'm really looking forward to having Wi-Fi out in the marshes by me. There's even a chance I'll get a radio mounted on top of my house, which would include the fastest/best package available (numbers are failing me) in exchange for the mounting rights. The whole thing really is a win-win all the way round, both the service-for-mounting deal and the county-wide Wi-Fi, assuming enough people actually do sign up. I predict many of us will.
I almost wish it had just been unequivocally rejected (as impossible as that is), because that would have been just about hi-larious.
After all the hype... "Um, never mind about that iPhone. We'll get another iNoun out in a year or two!"
This is a really good thing, it sets a good precedent and so on and so forth, and is probably news worth posting on its own merit. Why must we promote it with "nude thumbnails" in the title? I mean, you should only add an empty promise of porn if the story can't stand on its own. With an interesting story, it's just distracting.
But then I think we get into some convoluted territory, because millions (I think) of people are willing to and do pay what eBay demands. I really don't know what I'm talking about here, (IANAEconomist) but if people pay for an unnecessary service, even if a company virtually has a monopoly on that service, it must be worth at least as much as they pay, right? So, really, you can't pay more for something than it is worth, barring vendor deception or chicanery or customer stupidity, because if you're paying, then it's worth at least that much to you. I don't think eBay is much into the deceitful end of business, so people get what they pay for at a price they're willing to pay.
Granted, a fair price for one man is a highway robbery to another, so we can still complain heartily.