Get enough ARMbooks in the wild, and the vendors will just make fat binaries for both arches.
Yeah...
Imagine, for a moment, that some people would buy a netbook with no third party software; they just use Microsoft products (assuming MS ports more than just the OS). Are those the people who are going to buy enough software to create a viable market? After all, if they wanted third party software, they probably would have gone with an x86 to begin with.
I am crafting the search string to generate output. Unless every single search string has been pre-vetted by Wolfram, it's quite obvious that it is mine. If I vary the the search string, I get different results. That's pretty obviously "original".
If you walk into a piano bar, and tell the pianist, "Hey, play me something upbeat." If he improvises a melody on the spot, do you think the copyright for that music should be yours?
As a starter, how about a tax on financial transactions that do not involve real goods and services: apply a 1% tax to hedge fund investment transactions, etc. Slow down the non-productive use of money.
I'm sorry, but where do you think that money goes?
That's how corporations are able to raise capital to expand their businesses. By levying a tax on the transfer of money from one investment to another, all you're doing is incentivizing people to keep their money in less productive concerns. How is that supposed to help the economy?
4 banks on Wall Street currently control $296 TRILLION [cfo.com] dollars in derivatives. Consider that the world GDP is around 50 trillion per year, if these 4 banks go under they take with them 6 years' worth of the WORLD's GDP.
You should learn what Notional Amount means. Those big numbers look a lot less scary, when you know what they mean.
Why? Because decades of AI research and countless "breakthroughs" have failed to deliver upon just that.
Oh crap, you're right. After "decades" of research trying to replicate the functionality of the most intricate and complex piece of machinery in the solar system, it's probably best if we just give up. After all, anything this hard couldn't be worthwhile.
A group of neurons can be connected together to form a calculator. But, you can't multiply 20 digit numbers in your head. You don't have access to the "hardware" layer of your brain. Why would a sufficiently advanced AI be any different?
As such you generally tend to base it against the opponent you are playing. An AI cannot tell if you are an aggressive or passive person, you're strategic abilities or understanding of game mechanics having never met you before playing the game.
I play online games against people I've never met before too. What magical ability do I have, that a computer could not?
But it can't copy our illogical decisions. Because our Illogical decisions are just based on poor logic.
You can program a computer to make a mistake - but its not the same.
What makes you think they would explicitly program in the rules of logic? Why couldn't the program be designed to find them out itself, through trial and error, just like a human does? In such a case, why couldn't the program develop poor logic?
[...] but we also have diseases wich were almost unheard of 100 years ago.
Yeah, that's because 100 years ago we'd have been dead of something else, before we got whatever it is that you're talking about. Remember, if you die of smallpox, you're not going to be dieing of colon cancer or heart disease.
Are you telling me supergrrl actually wasn't over in Iraq writing about her personal experience with the latest road side bomb? Damn, you're right. You do need a super-power to realize it!!!
See, there's your problem. Supergirl was DC. Everybody knows only Marvel super heroes really exist.
Uh, that's a pretty disgustingly American viewpoint of the issue. Can't we all agree that if you didn't come in first, then you can still be a winner?
No, we can't; not unless you want to redefine the word "winner" in such a way that it loses all meaning.
That's not to say that the people who didn't win, don't get anything out of the experience. I learned a hell of a lot about recommender systems. But, I still did not "win". I'm okay with that.
This has been taught in schools for a long time now, it still hasn't been internalized?
so how do you ascertain who won? all the teams won
No, they didn't, at all.
Any bozo can get 5% improvement. It's the last 5% that's tough. And, of that last 5%, the first 2.5% is cake, compared to the last 2.5%.
they should take the final prize money and try to fractionate each incremental improvement in the algorithm and proportionally dole out the money that aways. anything else is unfair
As someone who participated, but did not win, the first place team deserves the entire million (if not more). This was a race, and second place is the first loser.
Non state actors do not give a shit to the population of the host country, and they are too dispersed to be counter-nuked. There are very little to lose for them to initiate a first strike.
Sure, but as long as there are enemies who will be deterred by MAD, we still need it. But, what do we lose against these diffuse types of enemies by having MAD capability?
I look at what we did to Saddam Hussein - made up a story about him, set impossible conditions for him to meet, then used that as an excuse to capture and execute him. In this case, it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, but it would not be unreasonable on a purely selfish personal basis for somebody in his position (facing extinction with no way out) to lash out with everything he's got.
Okay. I see what you're saying. Though, I don't think that kind of situation is terribly likely for a few reasons.
First, we didn't do that to a nuclear power. We knew Saddam didn't have nukes. I would think that situation would have played out much differently, and without an invasion, if he had. (Of course, the unintended consequence of this kind of thinking is what makes nuclear research so important to these kinds of countries.)
Second, sure the leader may be driven to suicidal extremes. But, there's always a second in command. And he didn't get there by being stupid. If push ever came to shove, I think you'd find said suicidal leader ousted from within. Maybe he wants to die; the rest of the country sure doesn't. There is always someone who'd be better off not being annihilated.
And third, these aren't the kinds of countries that we need to be worried about. None of them are capable of deploying an effective nuclear strike against the US. That won't be the case forever, of course. But, as long as we don't lose our massive lead, they'll never catch up.
... but how much do you trust some emerging power that just figured out how to go nuclear? Do you trust the rebels in a coup that siezes control of a nuclear arsenal?
I don't trust them at all. That's why we have all those nukes. It makes it crystal-fucking-clear that we can destroy them utterly. Every single person in a newly-minted nuclear power knows that. We make sure they know that. As long as they know they will never ever win a nuclear war against us, it doesn't matter who's in power.
Personally I think the odds of my living to see a nuclear exchange that kills at least a billion people are greater than 1 in 4.
Where do you get that number? And who exactly would the exchange be between?
Where MAD falls apart is when the leaders don't give a rat's ass about the civilian population.
I would say that recent events in Iran make it pretty clear that the civilian population doesn't matter all that much to the leaders. North Korea is at that level or perhaps worse. If the military leadership in either country could be confident of survival I don't see MAD being a deterrent at all.
So what if 80% of the civilian population is wiped out?
You realize that both of those countries are (or will be) able to field no more than a handful (at most) of nuclear weapons, right? And, that neither has the capability to disrupt our own volley of nukes.
Neither of them is able to "win" a nuclear war. Even if the leadership survives, and 80% of the population is killed, they won't really have a country left to lead, let alone maintain a military to defend against anything. It still doesn't make any sense for them to use nukes.
That doesn't stop the US and a lot of other nuclear armed countries fitting nuclear weapons on just about everything that flies or sails.
Nor should it.
Really, having a few nuclear ICBMs is simply sane with other hostile countries. However, loading submarines with multiple warheads is not. If you must have nuclear armed subs, arm each one with one low-yield nuke. Any more and you are just begging for an accident.
What you describe is not a credible nuclear deterrent. To be effective, a deterrent needs to make launching a first-strike so unthinkably catastrophic for the aggressor, that there would be no way to "win". If we implemented the kind of deterrent you advocate, a nuclear war would be "winnable", and much more likely.
Remember, an accidental launch of a nuclear weapon is not the worst-case scenario.
There are degrees of rationality. And MAD works for pretty much all of them except people who are completely off their rockers'. Don't find many of those kinds of people running nuclear powers (Yes, I'm including Iran, NK, and Pakistan.)
Slashdot Mirror
Get enough ARMbooks in the wild, and the vendors will just make fat binaries for both arches.
Yeah...
Imagine, for a moment, that some people would buy a netbook with no third party software; they just use Microsoft products (assuming MS ports more than just the OS). Are those the people who are going to buy enough software to create a viable market? After all, if they wanted third party software, they probably would have gone with an x86 to begin with.
Then, who's the piano player?
I am crafting the search string to generate output. Unless every single search string has been pre-vetted by Wolfram, it's quite obvious that it is mine. If I vary the the search string, I get different results. That's pretty obviously "original".
If you walk into a piano bar, and tell the pianist, "Hey, play me something upbeat." If he improvises a melody on the spot, do you think the copyright for that music should be yours?
If not, what's the difference?
As a starter, how about a tax on financial transactions that do not involve real goods and services: apply a 1% tax to hedge fund investment transactions, etc. Slow down the non-productive use of money.
I'm sorry, but where do you think that money goes?
That's how corporations are able to raise capital to expand their businesses. By levying a tax on the transfer of money from one investment to another, all you're doing is incentivizing people to keep their money in less productive concerns. How is that supposed to help the economy?
4 banks on Wall Street currently control $296 TRILLION [cfo.com] dollars in derivatives. Consider that the world GDP is around 50 trillion per year, if these 4 banks go under they take with them 6 years' worth of the WORLD's GDP.
You should learn what Notional Amount means. Those big numbers look a lot less scary, when you know what they mean.
And a computer could not have consciousness because...
Why?
Because decades of AI research and countless "breakthroughs" have failed to deliver upon just that.
Oh crap, you're right. After "decades" of research trying to replicate the functionality of the most intricate and complex piece of machinery in the solar system, it's probably best if we just give up. After all, anything this hard couldn't be worthwhile.
Because programming -IS- Logic.
A group of neurons can be connected together to form a calculator. But, you can't multiply 20 digit numbers in your head. You don't have access to the "hardware" layer of your brain. Why would a sufficiently advanced AI be any different?
As such you generally tend to base it against the opponent you are playing. An AI cannot tell if you are an aggressive or passive person, you're strategic abilities or understanding of game mechanics having never met you before playing the game.
I play online games against people I've never met before too. What magical ability do I have, that a computer could not?
But it can't copy our illogical decisions. Because our Illogical decisions are just based on poor logic.
You can program a computer to make a mistake - but its not the same.
What makes you think they would explicitly program in the rules of logic? Why couldn't the program be designed to find them out itself, through trial and error, just like a human does? In such a case, why couldn't the program develop poor logic?
Again, IMO, the incidents of cancer that we're seeing these days are directly linked with what we're doing to our food supply.
You're absolutely right.
-We have access to plentiful and cheap food today.
-We don't die of starvation.
-We live long enough to get cancer.
[...] but we also have diseases wich were almost unheard of 100 years ago.
Yeah, that's because 100 years ago we'd have been dead of something else, before we got whatever it is that you're talking about. Remember, if you die of smallpox, you're not going to be dieing of colon cancer or heart disease.
I have a hard time seeing what improvement Monsanto [wikipedia.org] (for example) brought to anyone than themselves [...]
Round-Up ready soybeans, which allow farmers to work the soil less, which reduces run-off and erosion. There you go.
Are you telling me supergrrl actually wasn't over in Iraq writing about her personal experience with the latest road side bomb? Damn, you're right. You do need a super-power to realize it!!!
See, there's your problem. Supergirl was DC. Everybody knows only Marvel super heroes really exist.
If that happens way more than people realize, then people are unaware of these sites.
Do you have some magical "spider-sense" which allows you to determine that what you are reading hasn't been copy-pasted from an AP story?
It's almost as if the guy was implying that most people don't have such a super-power...
Yeah, that particular part was probably a bit harsh.
Harsh? I'm like the 300th loser. I'd love to be the first loser.
Uh, that's a pretty disgustingly American viewpoint of the issue. Can't we all agree that if you didn't come in first, then you can still be a winner?
No, we can't; not unless you want to redefine the word "winner" in such a way that it loses all meaning.
That's not to say that the people who didn't win, don't get anything out of the experience. I learned a hell of a lot about recommender systems. But, I still did not "win". I'm okay with that.
This has been taught in schools for a long time now, it still hasn't been internalized?
And I hope it never will be.
so how do you ascertain who won? all the teams won
No, they didn't, at all.
Any bozo can get 5% improvement. It's the last 5% that's tough. And, of that last 5%, the first 2.5% is cake, compared to the last 2.5%.
they should take the final prize money and try to fractionate each incremental improvement in the algorithm and proportionally dole out the money that aways. anything else is unfair
As someone who participated, but did not win, the first place team deserves the entire million (if not more). This was a race, and second place is the first loser.
Non state actors do not give a shit to the population of the host country, and they are too dispersed to be counter-nuked. There are very little to lose for them to initiate a first strike.
Sure, but as long as there are enemies who will be deterred by MAD, we still need it. But, what do we lose against these diffuse types of enemies by having MAD capability?
If you kill an infidel you go to heaven and get sixty virgins, plus there's an all you can eat buffet.
Do you still get the buffet if your actions cause the US to destroy Mecca?
I look at what we did to Saddam Hussein - made up a story about him, set impossible conditions for him to meet, then used that as an excuse to capture and execute him. In this case, it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, but it would not be unreasonable on a purely selfish personal basis for somebody in his position (facing extinction with no way out) to lash out with everything he's got.
Okay. I see what you're saying. Though, I don't think that kind of situation is terribly likely for a few reasons.
First, we didn't do that to a nuclear power. We knew Saddam didn't have nukes. I would think that situation would have played out much differently, and without an invasion, if he had. (Of course, the unintended consequence of this kind of thinking is what makes nuclear research so important to these kinds of countries.)
Second, sure the leader may be driven to suicidal extremes. But, there's always a second in command. And he didn't get there by being stupid. If push ever came to shove, I think you'd find said suicidal leader ousted from within. Maybe he wants to die; the rest of the country sure doesn't. There is always someone who'd be better off not being annihilated.
And third, these aren't the kinds of countries that we need to be worried about. None of them are capable of deploying an effective nuclear strike against the US. That won't be the case forever, of course. But, as long as we don't lose our massive lead, they'll never catch up.
... but how much do you trust some emerging power that just figured out how to go nuclear? Do you trust the rebels in a coup that siezes control of a nuclear arsenal?
I don't trust them at all. That's why we have all those nukes. It makes it crystal-fucking-clear that we can destroy them utterly. Every single person in a newly-minted nuclear power knows that. We make sure they know that. As long as they know they will never ever win a nuclear war against us, it doesn't matter who's in power.
Personally I think the odds of my living to see a nuclear exchange that kills at least a billion people are greater than 1 in 4.
Where do you get that number? And who exactly would the exchange be between?
Where MAD falls apart is when the leaders don't give a rat's ass about the civilian population.
I would say that recent events in Iran make it pretty clear that the civilian population doesn't matter all that much to the leaders. North Korea is at that level or perhaps worse. If the military leadership in either country could be confident of survival I don't see MAD being a deterrent at all.
So what if 80% of the civilian population is wiped out?
You realize that both of those countries are (or will be) able to field no more than a handful (at most) of nuclear weapons, right? And, that neither has the capability to disrupt our own volley of nukes.
Neither of them is able to "win" a nuclear war. Even if the leadership survives, and 80% of the population is killed, they won't really have a country left to lead, let alone maintain a military to defend against anything. It still doesn't make any sense for them to use nukes.
That doesn't stop the US and a lot of other nuclear armed countries fitting nuclear weapons on just about everything that flies or sails.
Nor should it.
Really, having a few nuclear ICBMs is simply sane with other hostile countries. However, loading submarines with multiple warheads is not. If you must have nuclear armed subs, arm each one with one low-yield nuke. Any more and you are just begging for an accident.
What you describe is not a credible nuclear deterrent. To be effective, a deterrent needs to make launching a first-strike so unthinkably catastrophic for the aggressor, that there would be no way to "win". If we implemented the kind of deterrent you advocate, a nuclear war would be "winnable", and much more likely.
Remember, an accidental launch of a nuclear weapon is not the worst-case scenario.
MAD assumes rationality.
Wars are not started by rational people.
There are degrees of rationality. And MAD works for pretty much all of them except people who are completely off their rockers'. Don't find many of those kinds of people running nuclear powers (Yes, I'm including Iran, NK, and Pakistan.)
No matter how careful you are, Murphy's Law is always around...
Sure. But, we can engineer the probability of failure down to a level where the costs of not having nukes will be higher.