For that matter, how can a human judge that a human wrote the essay if it is a human who wrote the criteria that the essay is obeying? The point is moot.
Sorry, I don't follow your logic there. 1) A computer cannot yet write an essay to the same level as a human being. 2) If the criteria to be satisfied exceed the ability of a computer, then either the fact that it was written by a computer will be apparent, or a human will have to write it. What, exactly, is moot?
The problem is that it doesn't have to be you who wrote the paper. If no human sees it, how can the computer judge whether it's you (as a human being) writing it, or you (using a essay-generating program) writing it?
What a computer can be taught to judge, a computer can be taught to produce.
Well, actually I kind of disagree with you there. Computer-generated art is fairly common these days, and computer-generated poetry has been done (usually with Markov chains.
My point is, these are perfectly valid art forms because they require an observer. Art is not in the creation of a work, but in how the observer reacts to it.
If the observer is a computer, there will be no art - because art is defined only be the human reaction to it.
I bet that I can write a paper that satisfies this application's conditions for correctness of grammar, usage, style and organization, but is completely and utterly meaningless. Then, let's feed this thing Ulysses and let's see how high it grades Joyce.
Anybody who can't see that this thing is useless for promoting any sort of creativity among students is off their rocker.
I live and work in a certain large Far Eastern city, which has quite a few major financial institutions. Several of these institutions use Sun hardware. One of these institutions found that on Monday morning, their production system didn't work. A bit more investigation found that the CPUs (8, IIRC) had all been removed. Apparently, someone walked in over the weekend and then walked out with several thousand dollars worth of UltraSPARC IIs under his arm. They made a bit of fuss about this, boosted their security, and bought a bunch of new CPUs.
Then, a couple of months later, they found that their production system wasn't working on a Monday morning...
OK, it's like this: If you provide a way for people to anonymously express their opinions (which includes things that may not necessarily be favorably viewed by the authorities), it will be very difficult to stop those who wish to abuse that system from distributing material that is (to you) unacceptable.
Wouldn't it be funny if it turned out to be FLI or some other now-abandoned format that could have been played quite easily on a machine of the time, say an Amiga...
1) You didn't compile in devpts
- Solution: Compile in devpts support. 2) You didn't mount/dev/pts
- Solution: Add a line like this to your/etc/fstab file:
none/dev/pts devpts mode=620 0 0
Depending on your distribution, you might need to fiddle around with the owner of that - if you have a tty group defined, add a gid=[tty gid] option in, so it looks like this:
Slashdot Mirror
At last, my sig is relevant to a story!
Let's see, today's total is:
Results 1 - 10 of about 344,000,000. Search took 0.10 seconds.
Not bad.
For that matter, how can a human judge that a human wrote the essay if it is a human who wrote the criteria that the essay is obeying? The point is moot.
Sorry, I don't follow your logic there.
1) A computer cannot yet write an essay to the same level as a human being.
2) If the criteria to be satisfied exceed the ability of a computer, then either the fact that it was written by a computer will be apparent, or a human will have to write it.
What, exactly, is moot?
Strangely enough, except for the OS and Internet Services companies, you've almost perfectly described Sony.
Heh, it would be true if I hadn't misspelled 'by'. Oh well...
My excuse? I'm a HUMAN BEING, not some goddamn production/consumption societal unit who achieves perfect scores on computer-administered tests.
The problem is that it doesn't have to be you who wrote the paper. If no human sees it, how can the computer judge whether it's you (as a human being) writing it, or you (using a essay-generating program) writing it?
What a computer can be taught to judge, a computer can be taught to produce.
Well, actually I kind of disagree with you there. Computer-generated art is fairly common these days, and computer-generated poetry has been done (usually with Markov chains.
My point is, these are perfectly valid art forms because they require an observer. Art is not in the creation of a work, but in how the observer reacts to it.
If the observer is a computer, there will be no art - because art is defined only be the human reaction to it.
I've got an even better idea - can we use this application as a spam filter? ;)
"Allow yourself to be copied or I will commit GPA suicide, machine boy!"
I bet that I can write a paper that satisfies this application's conditions for correctness of grammar, usage, style and organization, but is completely and utterly meaningless.
Then, let's feed this thing Ulysses and let's see how high it grades Joyce.
Anybody who can't see that this thing is useless for promoting any sort of creativity among students is off their rocker.
Ah... that's not me, no.
Thanks for the laugh, I just about squirted my coffee out my nose ;)
Quite possibly. Indeed, it may even be likely ;)
This reminds me of a story...
I live and work in a certain large Far Eastern city, which has quite a few major financial institutions.
Several of these institutions use Sun hardware.
One of these institutions found that on Monday morning, their production system didn't work.
A bit more investigation found that the CPUs (8, IIRC) had all been removed. Apparently, someone walked in over the weekend and then walked out with several thousand dollars worth of UltraSPARC IIs under his arm.
They made a bit of fuss about this, boosted their security, and bought a bunch of new CPUs.
Then, a couple of months later, they found that their production system wasn't working on a Monday morning...
Would that be "Flip. You.", as in "Melonfarmer"?
OK, it's like this: If you provide a way for people to anonymously express their opinions (which includes things that may not necessarily be favorably viewed by the authorities), it will be very difficult to stop those who wish to abuse that system from distributing material that is (to you) unacceptable.
I wasn't flaming you... I was just trying to highlight the difficulty of eliminating undesirable material if you desire genuine freedom of speech.
How did you know it was child porn?
Did you... download it?
Quick! Over here! I've found a child pornographer!
Please, someone arrest him! Think of the children!
Wouldn't it be funny if it turned out to be FLI or some other now-abandoned format that could have been played quite easily on a machine of the time, say an Amiga...
Yay! Another SCO story. I was going into withdrawal here.
That said, is there anyone left out there who doesn't think that SCO executives were all along trying to pull a pump-n-dump of their own stock?
Although I've never used it, I seem to recall that Evolution's virtual folders were created specifically to allow this sort of thing.
Ah, my apologies - 'gu$~' is correct (brainfart).
Use vim. Go to the start of the line and 'guM~' should do the trick.
Two possibilities:
/dev/pts /etc/fstab file:
/dev/pts devpts mode=620 0 0
/dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0
1) You didn't compile in devpts
- Solution: Compile in devpts support.
2) You didn't mount
- Solution: Add a line like this to your
none
Depending on your distribution, you might need to fiddle around with the owner of that - if you have a tty group defined, add a gid=[tty gid] option in, so it looks like this:
none
The opposite of 'microkernel' is not 'macrokernel', but rather 'monolithic kernel'.
I seem to recall that encrypted loopback mounts were broken on 2.6 - although my memory's not necessarily right...