Here's the way to shut the idiot up. Logged in users only, sorry. Set your long comment +1 bonus to 1 char, reparent thresholds on, mark the shithead as a foe with a penalty of -1 and read at 0.
Here's the way to shut the idiot up. Logged in users only, sorry. Set your long comment +1 bonus to 1 char, mark the shithead as a foe with a foe penalty of -1 and read at 0.
I think we're a darn sight closer to steps 2 and 3 than number 1. I can serously see step two happening anytime soon, we are a lot closer in this field of AI than any other. Step 3 would probably take a few months once step 2 is complete- there's not really much more work there is there? As for the Turing test, it never will be passed using current techniques, all of which (with the possible exception of MegaHAL) have been bigger glorified verions of ELIZA, which came out in the fifties. Sure you say it just needs a new approach and we'll manage it- well nobody's managed anything since then so my hopes are very much not up.
Re:We (probably) won't ever actually ACHIEVE AI
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 1
Indeed, back in the 50's and 60's compiler design was considered AI! I guess the problem is with intelligence (artificial or otherwise), however intelligent you are there is always something new to learn...
We always knew the xbox would be vastly superior to PS2 and probably GameCube as far as the technical bits and pieces are concerned, but like it says in the first paragraph of the article- the only thing that matters is the games.
Now I'm in the UK so I've not actually SEEN much in the way of the games over here so far but it doesn't look to great so far. Having said that the initial releases for any consoles usually (IMO) fail to capture the imagination so there's no telling yet, and the xbox sounds like it should be a lot easier to code for than PS2, it is just a standardized PC afterall, so it could really take off.
Motion tracking is also useful in military software, ie to find that pesky moving Afghan and point a gun at him. Similar technology is also used in some CCTV systems, but apart from that it doesn't seem to have crossed over into the mainstream much. There's a lot of cool software and ideas out there, much of it in the public domain if not GPL'd exactly so I'm sure it's just waiting for someone with a really good idea...
Fortran is used a lot traditionally by Maths and Physics types, in British universities at least. The language I would reccomend however is ML, I just graduated from uni and I remember that this was the language used by all the lecturers who would describe Computer Science as a branch of Mathematics. It's very easy to use if you're used to mathemtical formulae, logic and all that stuff, I remember it being very easy to define Finite Autonoma and Grammar Parsers (I didn't get into it big style but if there's one language I was going to code a Turing machine in it'd be ML) I imagine you'll find it easy enough to define your problem in the context of one of these.
I suppose another thing to worry about is setup- presuming we used DHCP to give the devices address we need to run a server on the machine, but it's less plug-and-play than firewire is.
Also should we worry about security? I for one could live with out having to deal with splo!ts for my external hdd or cd-writer...
Umm, actually it's quite possible to run Gigabit Ethernet on Cat5 UTP- it allows for much smaller length between devices but this isn't a problem for periphirals really. Gigabit hubs and switchs are expensive but I would think the need for them if each device had an in and out port and they were daisy-chained to form a bus. The actual ports are still expensive, but this kind of thing would be a great way of bringing down the price.
The other thing is that Firewire can carry power, but no kind of Ethernet (AFAIK!) can do so, so it would require more wiring.
If your physical security is so weak that anybody can just go up to your server and plug a card in, *or take one out* does it matter much about the IT security aspect?
Slashback time eh? That means it really is on-topic to bring up this thread. Can we now have a sensible discussion about the moderation system? Or shall I and all who answer me be mod'ed to oblivion? Well, I'll just say now that I don't care what happens to my karma- and we're away!
I present two opinions. Firstly, it is quite clear that the editors made a massive moderation to the thread mentioned above (all replies set to -1, on more than 1 occasion). There is nothing wrong with this per se- it is their site, however/. does claim to be a *user* moderated site, the readership is generally anti-censorship and pro-freedom of speech and the site claims to be built from it's community. While the/. editors waste no time in pointing out other censors on the net they have, hypocritically, maintained a complete silence on this issue. The thread's parent has now been mod'ed over 600 times, it is quite clear that there is a massive depth of feeling about this that needs attention, I don't imagine 'negativekarma now' has much karma but I imagine his friends list is longer than mosts following this. This Slashback should have had a part on the matter, the people whose paychecks are paid for by site impressions from the readership owe it to us.
Secondly- on moderation itself, as the original thread postulated, the system is not working. In many respects it is good and I propose only a minor tweak. Currently it is possible to mark up or down a post by up to 5 points on whether it is a friend's or foe's post or if it has been mod'ed as any particular type (troll, funny, flamebait, etc),and to set AC's to -1. Additionally it is possible to set the threshold score, posts scoring less than that do not appear. I propose that in addition to these it be made possible to completly block, in effect setting to -2 perhaps, any post by a foe, anonymous coward or by modification keyword. Many people, myself included like to browse at -1. This isn't because I want to see page-lengthening posts or ascii goatse.cx, it's because some of the funniest posts are called trolls by the majority and because some of the most thought provoking are caled flamebait. By making this simply change it would be possible for people like myself to read what we want to from this site, and would in all probability kill off the real crap-flooders, as most everyone would foe list them and exlude them completely. This modification would have no effect on those people who are happy with the system in it's current state.
The censors are at it again!! After floating back upto it's rightful moderation of +5 the entire thread has been mod'd to -1. Again. Having no had over 100 moderator points spent on it surely the janitors would have put 2 and 2 together?
It is now official - Netcraft has confirmed: Domain names are dying
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered DNS community when recently IDC confirmed that new domains account for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all internet sites. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that domains names have lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. DNS's are collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict domain names' future. The hand writing is on the wall: domain names face a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for domain names because domain names are dying. Things are looking very bad for domain names. As many of us are already aware, domain names continue to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. *.com is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core domain names.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of.net's. How many users of.org are there? Let's see. The number of.net's versus.org posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400.org users..gov posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of.org posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of.gov. A recent article put.com at about 80 percent of the domain market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400.com users. This is consistent with the number of.com Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of BIND, giving their buggy software away for free and so on,.com went out of business and was taken over by.mil who sell another troubled domain space. Now.mil is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that domain names have steadily declined in market share. Domain names are very sick and their long term survival prospects are very dim. If domain names are to survive at all it will be among internet hobbyist dabblers. Domain names continue to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save them at this point in time. For all practical purposes, New domains are dead.
Fact: DNS is dead, remember your IP address.
Mad propz to the BSD trolls, and don't forget to smack the porpoise!
maybe now that we've got the friends and foes structure we should be able to do our own moderation. I wouldn't be suprised if this is what the divine Taco has planned anyway...
Bleeding edge is a play on words of Cuttting edge, basically it means the very newest stuff- unfortunatly so very new that it doesn't work properly and is a pain to use and maintain. Hence bleeding...
With the price of hard-drives being so cheap these days, doesn't it make sense if it is truly worth ensuring nobody ever reads your data again to destroy the hard drive?
It would clearly be a massive shift for the company- but that is way I would propose using the old iMac rather than something new, they've already spent money designing, marketing and tooling up for it. Corners could be cut in place to, low-level users don't need Airport (hell, it's an open door to hackers unless you really know what you're doing), the same goes for firewire.
You've got a point about MS, ie. if they get scared they'll stop supporting Office, but there are still plenty of Office-esque suites out there. I'm pretty certain that once companies have made that first spend they'll pay to keep it valid (isn't this how MS have been operating?) It's not as if these things are expensive or hard to produce either, Apple could ship an Office suite with the OS maybe, after all a word processor is much mre a fundamental part of the OS than, say, a web browser...
Not neccesarily so, most 'ordinary' users simply want something to do their documents on, connect to the internet and play a few games on. Added to this, companies tend to buy in bulk very generic PCs so that their support staff have an easier time- again all joe staffer needs is a word proccesor, a spreadsheet and connectivity to the company's net apps.
Apple probably could compete at this end of the market by keeping the original iMac alive and selling it cheap (I'm thinking no more than £500, which is about $750 I believe)
I think that if they can secure the low-end of the market as well as keeping their foot in at the top end that the middle ground of the market shall come to them naturally
I agree! I like to browse at -1, but don't want to hear from AC's or foes. Being able to completly cut these spastics from loop is the only way to make them stop- after all we all know they only carry on with this kind of cos nobody wants to look at them, let alone communicate with them in the real world. Also is it too much to ask that posts contain the goatse.cx link be diverted to the round file?
Of course submitting all this to the RFE means all that signing up, which I'm not happy to do...
So they would have one weapon that, if heavily modified, might(please read the article!) be able to destroy a city versus a country with hundereds of devices designed only for this purpose, and have already used them twice? You're an idiot. The Japanese are probably the only people of the world who might be trusted.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the way to shut the idiot up. Logged in users only, sorry. Set your long comment +1 bonus to 1 char, reparent thresholds on, mark the shithead as a foe with a penalty of -1 and read at 0.
Voila.
Here's the way to shut the idiot up. Logged in users only, sorry. Set your long comment +1 bonus to 1 char, mark the shithead as a foe with a foe penalty of -1 and read at 0.
Voila.
I think we're a darn sight closer to steps 2 and 3 than number 1. I can serously see step two happening anytime soon, we are a lot closer in this field of AI than any other. Step 3 would probably take a few months once step 2 is complete- there's not really much more work there is there? As for the Turing test, it never will be passed using current techniques, all of which (with the possible exception of MegaHAL) have been bigger glorified verions of ELIZA, which came out in the fifties. Sure you say it just needs a new approach and we'll manage it- well nobody's managed anything since then so my hopes are very much not up.
Indeed, back in the 50's and 60's compiler design was considered AI! I guess the problem is with intelligence (artificial or otherwise), however intelligent you are there is always something new to learn...
We always knew the xbox would be vastly superior to PS2 and probably GameCube as far as the technical bits and pieces are concerned, but like it says in the first paragraph of the article- the only thing that matters is the games.
Now I'm in the UK so I've not actually SEEN much in the way of the games over here so far but it doesn't look to great so far. Having said that the initial releases for any consoles usually (IMO) fail to capture the imagination so there's no telling yet, and the xbox sounds like it should be a lot easier to code for than PS2, it is just a standardized PC afterall, so it could really take off.
Motion tracking is also useful in military software, ie to find that pesky moving Afghan and point a gun at him. Similar technology is also used in some CCTV systems, but apart from that it doesn't seem to have crossed over into the mainstream much. There's a lot of cool software and ideas out there, much of it in the public domain if not GPL'd exactly so I'm sure it's just waiting for someone with a really good idea...
Hmm, not sure about any resources on the net, but I did similar stuff at uni so I can recommend a book. Try Image processing, analysis and machine vision by hlavac et al. It's a very good book with plenty of code-neutral algorithms. Good luck.
Fortran is used a lot traditionally by Maths and Physics types, in British universities at least. The language I would reccomend however is ML, I just graduated from uni and I remember that this was the language used by all the lecturers who would describe Computer Science as a branch of Mathematics. It's very easy to use if you're used to mathemtical formulae, logic and all that stuff, I remember it being very easy to define Finite Autonoma and Grammar Parsers (I didn't get into it big style but if there's one language I was going to code a Turing machine in it'd be ML) I imagine you'll find it easy enough to define your problem in the context of one of these.
I suppose another thing to worry about is setup- presuming we used DHCP to give the devices address we need to run a server on the machine, but it's less plug-and-play than firewire is.
Also should we worry about security? I for one could live with out having to deal with splo!ts for my external hdd or cd-writer...
Umm, actually it's quite possible to run Gigabit Ethernet on Cat5 UTP- it allows for much smaller length between devices but this isn't a problem for periphirals really. Gigabit hubs and switchs are expensive but I would think the need for them if each device had an in and out port and they were daisy-chained to form a bus. The actual ports are still expensive, but this kind of thing would be a great way of bringing down the price.
The other thing is that Firewire can carry power, but no kind of Ethernet (AFAIK!) can do so, so it would require more wiring.
If your physical security is so weak that anybody can just go up to your server and plug a card in, *or take one out* does it matter much about the IT security aspect?
Slashback time eh? That means it really is on-topic to bring up this thread. Can we now have a sensible discussion about the moderation system? Or shall I and all who answer me be mod'ed to oblivion? Well, I'll just say now that I don't care what happens to my karma- and we're away!
/. does claim to be a *user* moderated site, the readership is generally anti-censorship and pro-freedom of speech and the site claims to be built from it's community. While the /. editors waste no time in pointing out other censors on the net they have, hypocritically, maintained a complete silence on this issue. The thread's parent has now been mod'ed over 600 times, it is quite clear that there is a massive depth of feeling about this that needs attention, I don't imagine 'negativekarma now' has much karma but I imagine his friends list is longer than mosts following this. This Slashback should have had a part on the matter, the people whose paychecks are paid for by site impressions from the readership owe it to us.
,and to set AC's to -1. Additionally it is possible to set the threshold score, posts scoring less than that do not appear. I propose that in addition to these it be made possible to completly block, in effect setting to -2 perhaps, any post by a foe, anonymous coward or by modification keyword. Many people, myself included like to browse at -1. This isn't because I want to see page-lengthening posts or ascii goatse.cx, it's because some of the funniest posts are called trolls by the majority and because some of the most thought provoking are caled flamebait. By making this simply change it would be possible for people like myself to read what we want to from this site, and would in all probability kill off the real crap-flooders, as most everyone would foe list them and exlude them completely. This modification would have no effect on those people who are happy with the system in it's current state.
I present two opinions. Firstly, it is quite clear that the editors made a massive moderation to the thread mentioned above (all replies set to -1, on more than 1 occasion). There is nothing wrong with this per se- it is their site, however
Secondly- on moderation itself, as the original thread postulated, the system is not working. In many respects it is good and I propose only a minor tweak. Currently it is possible to mark up or down a post by up to 5 points on whether it is a friend's or foe's post or if it has been mod'ed as any particular type (troll, funny, flamebait, etc)
Discuss...
The censors are at it again!! After floating back upto it's rightful moderation of +5 the entire thread has been mod'd to -1. Again. Having no had over 100 moderator points spent on it surely the janitors would have put 2 and 2 together?
It is now official - Netcraft has confirmed: Domain names are dying
.net's. How many users of .org are there? Let's see. The number of .net's versus .org posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 .org users. .gov posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of .org posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of .gov. A recent article put .com at about 80 percent of the domain market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 .com users. This is consistent with the number of .com Usenet posts.
.com went out of business and was taken over by .mil who sell another troubled domain space. Now .mil is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered DNS community when recently IDC confirmed that new domains account for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all internet sites. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that domains names have lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. DNS's are collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict domain names' future. The hand writing is on the wall: domain names face a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for domain names because domain names are dying. Things are looking very bad for domain names. As many of us are already aware, domain names continue to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. *.com is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core domain names.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of
Due to the troubles of BIND, giving their buggy software away for free and so on,
All major surveys show that domain names have steadily declined in market share. Domain names are very sick and their long term survival prospects are very dim. If domain names are to survive at all it will be among internet hobbyist dabblers. Domain names continue to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save them at this point in time. For all practical purposes, New domains are dead.
Fact: DNS is dead, remember your IP address.
Mad propz to the BSD trolls, and don't forget to smack the porpoise!
maybe now that we've got the friends and foes structure we should be able to do our own moderation. I wouldn't be suprised if this is what the divine Taco has planned anyway...
Q.E.D.
As Is Demonstrated.
Bleeding edge is a play on words of Cuttting edge, basically it means the very newest stuff- unfortunatly so very new that it doesn't work properly and is a pain to use and maintain. Hence bleeding...
Why is everyone a troll for having a laugh?
Because VA Linux owns Slashdot? Obviously the prescribed view is that Linux is serious
You forget the rules of big companies and court- It's cheaper for them to pay you off than to fight you
At least give us some options! Or dare I say I could do with a clue?...
With the price of hard-drives being so cheap these days, doesn't it make sense if it is truly worth ensuring nobody ever reads your data again to destroy the hard drive?
It would clearly be a massive shift for the company- but that is way I would propose using the old iMac rather than something new, they've already spent money designing, marketing and tooling up for it. Corners could be cut in place to, low-level users don't need Airport (hell, it's an open door to hackers unless you really know what you're doing), the same goes for firewire.
You've got a point about MS, ie. if they get scared they'll stop supporting Office, but there are still plenty of Office-esque suites out there. I'm pretty certain that once companies have made that first spend they'll pay to keep it valid (isn't this how MS have been operating?) It's not as if these things are expensive or hard to produce either, Apple could ship an Office suite with the OS maybe, after all a word processor is much mre a fundamental part of the OS than, say, a web browser...
Not neccesarily so, most 'ordinary' users simply want something to do their documents on, connect to the internet and play a few games on. Added to this, companies tend to buy in bulk very generic PCs so that their support staff have an easier time- again all joe staffer needs is a word proccesor, a spreadsheet and connectivity to the company's net apps.
Apple probably could compete at this end of the market by keeping the original iMac alive and selling it cheap (I'm thinking no more than £500, which is about $750 I believe)
I think that if they can secure the low-end of the market as well as keeping their foot in at the top end that the middle ground of the market shall come to them naturally
I agree! I like to browse at -1, but don't want to hear from AC's or foes. Being able to completly cut these spastics from loop is the only way to make them stop- after all we all know they only carry on with this kind of cos nobody wants to look at them, let alone communicate with them in the real world. Also is it too much to ask that posts contain the goatse.cx link be diverted to the round file?
Of course submitting all this to the RFE means all that signing up, which I'm not happy to do...
So they would have one weapon that, if heavily modified, might(please read the article!) be able to destroy a city versus a country with hundereds of devices designed only for this purpose, and have already used them twice? You're an idiot. The Japanese are probably the only people of the world who might be trusted.