You're right that the LRA is a huge deal, and you may be right that right-wing extremism is a real factor in the USA. (Even the left is getting violent these days.) Speaking of my own England though, our terror tends to be the Islamic variety.
Every time there's a violent incident in the west, we all wait to find the ideology behind it, and if it's Islam, it's labelled "terrorism" and if it's not, it's labelled "a nut job."
Go ahead and list for me the UK terrorist incidents which the oh-so-racist media have been denying.
The British media were falling over themselves to refer to the Finsburys incident as terrorism, precisely because non-Islamist terror is such a break form the norm here.
When it's a Christian attacking, you move to "as far as we know he wasn't motivated by his own religion."
You're assuming that because we're talking about a white British male, he must be Christian. As far as I can tell, we're not really sure what religion he held, if any. Britain being Britain, the odds are pretty good that he's non-religious.
Anyway, about the assumption you describe: pretty much, yes, because it generally isn't the case. Here in England, we really don't have a problem with Christianity-inspired violence.
Of course, jihadists aren't normally quiet about their motivations. We can be quite certain the Borough Market attackers were religiously inspired, as they were shouting about it at the time.
Do you take the same attitude of examining the details of their religion and saying it's not terrorism when it is an attack by a Muslim motivated by "a mad hatred of all Christians"?
I wasn't clear here, but I'm not denying that the Finsbury incident counts as terrorism. The fact that I referred to him as a nutter doesn't mean I'm denying that it's an act of terrorism -- of course it's terrorism. I'll gladly use 'nutter' to refer to the men who committed the Borough Market attack, too.
Anyway, sure -- not every terrorist act committed by a muslim has to pertain to Islamism.
That doesn't mean I'm a racist imperialist who's just making assumptions, though. Again, jihadists don't leave us to figure out their motivations; we're talking about people who go on the rampage screaming about how it's for their god.
That's another example of biased data taking-- so, apparently, wherever you live, attacks on Muslims aren't news, while attacks by Muslims are.
'Apparently'? What? You've not presented any relevant numbers here. Hypothesising an epidemic of anti-muslim violence isn't the same as demonstrating that one both exists, and is being systematically ignored by the mainstream media.
Left-leaning media like the Guardian and BBC are not shy to report anti-muslim violence. There's little lethal violence in that category, at least in the UK.
there is no doubt the overwhelming majority of terrorists are Christian
Uh. Citation needed.
Every time there's a terrorist incident in the west, we all politely wait to find out the ideology behind it, and it almost invariably turns out to be jihadism. I'm British. This shit seems to happen every other week now, and it's never Christian extremism that motivates it. The closest we've seen is a Muslim-hating nutter, but as far as we know he wasn't motivated by his own religion (if he even had one), but by a mad hatred of all muslims.
As you so eloquently put it: No, they fucking shouldn't, that's fucking retarded.
There's a reason no-one uses enormous-scale lithium batteries. At the national-power-grid level, you go with something like pumped storage, as AC already pointed out.
Denying the existence of numerical subtraction is a novel line of argumentation, I'll grant you that much.
It doesn't matter whether it was by half a point, by a random bounce, or by a bad referee call.
Yet again: I'm not concerned with the intensity of your emotional response. Still you refuse to grasp what leaving someone in the dust actually means: defeat by a significant margin. I really don't care whether you find the score-difference to be interesting, it remains that this is what the phrase means.
Looking at discussion elsewhere in this thread, it may have been Alpha Go's 'deliberate' strategy not to pull that far ahead: it may have made the 'choice' to play it safe and keep slightly ahead for the remainder of the game.
But you're wrong in another way as well: For many years, there have been people posting here who claimed "Go is so much harder than chess! Computers will never be able to beat humans at go!." Those claims are most definitely left in the dust now.
Uh... did I ever make that claim? No. As you imply, that's a stupid claim to make. In principle, there's no problem-solving task at which humans will necessarily outperform computers.
Moreover, after centuries of practice, humans aren't going to get significantly better at playing Go. Computing systems are just getting started. Humans will undoubtedly be left hopelessly behind very soon, just like they have been with chess.
Agreed, even acknowledging breakthroughs in 'human-play strategy' which colinwb points out.
There is a difference between a narrow victory and 'leaving someone in the dust'. Don't pretend there isn't.
Nobody went around saying "Yes, but they barely won."
We aren't talking about the ways society celebrates victory, we're talking about the accuracy of the claim that the AI left the human player 'in the dust'.
That's not 'ethically complex', that's just the ability to be unethical.
Are you, in copyright terms, permitted to make use of that existing work? This is generally a pretty simple question. Violating the GPL in non-GPL-compatible code is disallowed and wrong. Using copycentered code is permissible and ethically fine.
If it doesn't have power of arrest, how is it a police officer? It's a chatbot for pete's sake.
If you damage it, are you guilty of assaulting a police officer? My understanding is that this sort of question is the reason police dogs are considered officers.
No, we aren't. Overuse of antibiotics is driving bacterial populations to higher levels of resistance. Restraint is needed, and the current state of affairs is nowhere near good enough. Preventative use of antibiotics in livestock is still a thing. That's so irresponsible it's obscene.
People making mistakes implementing a spec is not in itself a good reason to drop it.
I'd go father when it's this straightforward. We're not talking about race-conditions in kernel code here. If your web-devs can't produce a well-formed RSS feed, they're either morons on they're just not trying.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right that the LRA is a huge deal, and you may be right that right-wing extremism is a real factor in the USA. (Even the left is getting violent these days.) Speaking of my own England though, our terror tends to be the Islamic variety.
Every time there's a violent incident in the west, we all wait to find the ideology behind it, and if it's Islam, it's labelled "terrorism" and if it's not, it's labelled "a nut job."
Go ahead and list for me the UK terrorist incidents which the oh-so-racist media have been denying.
The British media were falling over themselves to refer to the Finsburys incident as terrorism, precisely because non-Islamist terror is such a break form the norm here.
When it's a Christian attacking, you move to "as far as we know he wasn't motivated by his own religion."
You're assuming that because we're talking about a white British male, he must be Christian. As far as I can tell, we're not really sure what religion he held, if any. Britain being Britain, the odds are pretty good that he's non-religious.
Anyway, about the assumption you describe: pretty much, yes, because it generally isn't the case. Here in England, we really don't have a problem with Christianity-inspired violence.
Of course, jihadists aren't normally quiet about their motivations. We can be quite certain the Borough Market attackers were religiously inspired, as they were shouting about it at the time.
Do you take the same attitude of examining the details of their religion and saying it's not terrorism when it is an attack by a Muslim motivated by "a mad hatred of all Christians"?
I wasn't clear here, but I'm not denying that the Finsbury incident counts as terrorism. The fact that I referred to him as a nutter doesn't mean I'm denying that it's an act of terrorism -- of course it's terrorism. I'll gladly use 'nutter' to refer to the men who committed the Borough Market attack, too.
Anyway, sure -- not every terrorist act committed by a muslim has to pertain to Islamism.
That doesn't mean I'm a racist imperialist who's just making assumptions, though. Again, jihadists don't leave us to figure out their motivations; we're talking about people who go on the rampage screaming about how it's for their god.
That's another example of biased data taking-- so, apparently, wherever you live, attacks on Muslims aren't news, while attacks by Muslims are.
'Apparently'? What? You've not presented any relevant numbers here. Hypothesising an epidemic of anti-muslim violence isn't the same as demonstrating that one both exists, and is being systematically ignored by the mainstream media.
Left-leaning media like the Guardian and BBC are not shy to report anti-muslim violence. There's little lethal violence in that category, at least in the UK.
I don't get you. It's not 'intrinsic' if it depends on external factors.
Agree that the LRA is way under-reported, but
there is no doubt the overwhelming majority of terrorists are Christian
Uh. Citation needed.
Every time there's a terrorist incident in the west, we all politely wait to find out the ideology behind it, and it almost invariably turns out to be jihadism. I'm British. This shit seems to happen every other week now, and it's never Christian extremism that motivates it. The closest we've seen is a Muslim-hating nutter, but as far as we know he wasn't motivated by his own religion (if he even had one), but by a mad hatred of all muslims.
I'll also leave you with this extremely NSFW submission from The Onion, which makes the point rather nicely.
In the West, no-one gets killed for making fun of Christianity.
people choose to be Muslim and can change at any time
Not always, no.
optionally with some private memory.
Like where? I've never seen this. Threads of the same process share a common memory-space by definition, no?
Will be interesting to see what happens here - Samsung being Korean, the EU might have a harder time laying down the law than with VW.
I think that Apple does not want users to be able to run comparable benchmarks
But you can run Windows on a Mac.
You're correct, but you're the fifth person to be correct.
As you so eloquently put it: No, they fucking shouldn't, that's fucking retarded.
There's a reason no-one uses enormous-scale lithium batteries. At the national-power-grid level, you go with something like pumped storage, as AC already pointed out.
I don't care if you don't like it. It's not an obscure product. That was the point, remember?
Don't feed the trolls. Especially not the lazy ones.
Goddamn, do you always manage to be so angry? Your blood pressure must really be something.
Modulo inverted totalitarianism muddying the waters?
To be maximally annoying, insist on using 'blockchain' as an uncountable noun.
Who will save us from the cyber AI revolution?
Idea for an Arnie flick...
Nope. If you lose, you're simply a loser.
Denying the existence of numerical subtraction is a novel line of argumentation, I'll grant you that much.
It doesn't matter whether it was by half a point, by a random bounce, or by a bad referee call.
Yet again: I'm not concerned with the intensity of your emotional response. Still you refuse to grasp what leaving someone in the dust actually means: defeat by a significant margin. I really don't care whether you find the score-difference to be interesting, it remains that this is what the phrase means.
Looking at discussion elsewhere in this thread, it may have been Alpha Go's 'deliberate' strategy not to pull that far ahead: it may have made the 'choice' to play it safe and keep slightly ahead for the remainder of the game.
But you're wrong in another way as well: For many years, there have been people posting here who claimed "Go is so much harder than chess! Computers will never be able to beat humans at go!." Those claims are most definitely left in the dust now.
Uh... did I ever make that claim? No. As you imply, that's a stupid claim to make. In principle, there's no problem-solving task at which humans will necessarily outperform computers.
Moreover, after centuries of practice, humans aren't going to get significantly better at playing Go. Computing systems are just getting started. Humans will undoubtedly be left hopelessly behind very soon, just like they have been with chess.
Agreed, even acknowledging breakthroughs in 'human-play strategy' which colinwb points out.
There is a difference between a narrow victory and 'leaving someone in the dust'. Don't pretend there isn't.
Nobody went around saying "Yes, but they barely won."
We aren't talking about the ways society celebrates victory, we're talking about the accuracy of the claim that the AI left the human player 'in the dust'.
Leaves Humans In the Dust
No. In fact:
AlphaGo beat Ke Jie with only half a point difference--the smallest possible--but that may be due to the AI’s “safer” winning strategy.
Yes, that article is about the first match. It doesn't matter.
That's not 'ethically complex', that's just the ability to be unethical.
Are you, in copyright terms, permitted to make use of that existing work? This is generally a pretty simple question. Violating the GPL in non-GPL-compatible code is disallowed and wrong. Using copycentered code is permissible and ethically fine.
If it doesn't have power of arrest, how is it a police officer? It's a chatbot for pete's sake.
If you damage it, are you guilty of assaulting a police officer? My understanding is that this sort of question is the reason police dogs are considered officers.
Not a fan of dishonest headlines.
I would say we are doing ok
No, we aren't. Overuse of antibiotics is driving bacterial populations to higher levels of resistance. Restraint is needed, and the current state of affairs is nowhere near good enough. Preventative use of antibiotics in livestock is still a thing. That's so irresponsible it's obscene.
People making mistakes implementing a spec is not in itself a good reason to drop it.
I'd go father when it's this straightforward. We're not talking about race-conditions in kernel code here. If your web-devs can't produce a well-formed RSS feed, they're either morons on they're just not trying.
the crap IPv6 design on the world, arguably one of the most expensive blunders in the history of technology
Am I missing a /s?
It depends. It's pretty rare for a bug to be resistant to all available antibiotics.
Give it time.
proper management of antibiotic use reduces the threat significantly.
We don't have proper management. Hence the article, no?
It'll run inside VirtualBox though, right?