That means is it REASONABLE to doubt that someone did it. The jury said no, it isn't, and it looks as though they are correct, it wasn't.
How does it "look as though they were correct"? The fact that a conclusion is found to be true doesn't do anything at all to prove that the conclusion was arrived at correctly. The jury could have flipped a coin and still have got the same result, but that doesn't mean that flipping a coin would then be vindicated as a good way of choosing a verdict.
I've never been able to sing with any vibrato myself. Is it something that everybody can do with proper coaching, or does it require some innate ability that only certain individuals possess? Any links to relevant on-line information would be appreciated.
I thought repeatability would be a somewhat inaccurate way of referring to the feasibility of generating collisions, i.e. being able to "repeat" a particular value of the hash.
Obviously cryptographic algorithms are deterministic and thus repeatable in a mathematical sense.
It destroys one of the principles of a crypto signature: non-reputability.
I would think that a crypto signature should be reputable? Oh right, you mean non-repeatability. I wonder if the Chinese can spell their own language; perhaps that's what's giving them an edge.
It's ironic that in the "Land of the Free" by joining the organization tasked with defending it you lose your Freedom to virtually congregate and by extension freedom of thought among peers.
It's not any more ironic than if you have a McDonald's hamburger and you don't love it. Nowadays "land of the free" is just a self-congratulatory slogan with no substance.
NASA is in need of capturing the imagination of the American public and showing congressmen that they're a worthy investment. With that in mind, here are my suggestions:
The We Need More Funding Telescope.
The Sexier Than Natalie Portman Telescope.
The Protection For America's Children Telescope.
The We're Still Better Than China Telescope.
By the way, I am available as a telescope naming consultant for the low low price of $200/hour. Hire me now and beat the other telescope making countries!
There are free Drupal themes available on the Net, but I haven't been able to find a nice one with light text on dark background. For some reason there seem to be many more free themes for e.g. Joomla.
But if you want to run proprietary applications on a desktop, Qt is a poor choice. For starters it costs money. Furthermore, Nokia can charge whatever they want for proprietary licenses, and this might change at any point; there are no guarantees.
This is quite trollish. Qt is no different in those respects from the other innumerable commercial libraries that are routinely used in proprietary software development. Singling out Qt as a "risk" suggests an axe to grind, and recommending GNOME for proprietary applications confirms it.
A couple of other companies have used a similar argument, shortly before getting shut down. Napster and Grokster were basically search engines that could be used for both legal or illegal purposes, but the American courts didn't buy it.
It seems pretty appropriate that the fake e-mail appears to come from a company called Gusanito, which literally means "little worm".
Re:Anthropomorphizing obvious simulation result
on
Robots Learn To Lie
·
· Score: 1
That, or maybe you're upset that things thought to belong exclusively to the animal kingdom are really just computation (with a bit of noncomputation thrown in, thank you Gödel and Turing).
Or perhaps you're projecting the way your own opinions are influenced by your emotions on random strangers in the Internet. Let's just agree that playing amateur psychoanalyst on people we know nothing about is not very productive.
But is it not at least a tid bit sensational that an AI would be so intelligent as to be capable of lying?
That's why the use of anthropomorphic words such as "lie" when speaking about simple AI simulations is inadequate -- it leads people to assume human connotations where there are none.
When humans lie, the liar has a complex enough model of the target's behaviour and is creative enough to come up with certain false information that will prod that target to behave in the desired way. That requires that the liar posseses certain intelligence.
What we are apparently seeing here is that a number of bots with random information transmission behaviors are being pitted against each other, and some bots that happen to transmit incorrect information are coming out on top. That doesn't require any intelligence at all in the bots.
Saying these bots must be intelligent because they are "lying" to each other would be like saying the flu viruses are intelligent because they "lie" to the human immune system. And not only that, flu viruses are capable of defeating vaccines and drugs designed by scientists! Does that mean the flu viruses are more intelligent than the scientists?
Anthropomorphizing obvious simulation result
on
Robots Learn To Lie
·
· Score: 3, Informative
There seems to be a whole category of stories here at Slashdot where some obvious result of an AI simulation is spun into something sensational by nonsensically anthropomorphizing it. Robots lie! Computers learn "like" babies! (at least two of the latter type in the last month, I believe).
As reported, this story seems to be nothing more than some randomly evolving bots developing behavior in a way that is competely predictable given the rules of the simulation. This must have been done a million times before, but slap a couple of meaningless anthropomorphic labels like "lying" and "poison" on it and you got a Slashdot story.
I frequently get annoyed by the sensational tone of many Slashdot stories, but this particular story template angers me more than most because it's so transparent, formulaic and devoid of any real information.
Blender is great software with a not-so-great GUI. Actually, it's not so much that the GUI is badly thought up, it's that its learning curve is terribly steep at the beginning because it doesn't follow any of the usual UI conventions people are used to. You need to invest a few hours of learning upfront to feel comfortable at even the most basic tasks. I'm sure people who use Blender very frequently can be very productive with this GUI, but I'm also guessing that those people are outnumbered by several orders of magnitude by would-be occassional users that just end up giving up because the GUI is too unintuitive for them.
My hope would be that they implement a GUI for occassional users that follows the standard GUI conventions; it doesn't need to include all the more obscure features, because occassional users won't know how to use them anyway. Provided Blender's core functionality is properly separated from the GUI in the code, it probably shouldn't be much effort, and it would open up Blender to lots of new users.
Yeah, I was thinking about twisted pair ethernet. About getting hit by lightning, since the devices connected to a plastic fiber network would usually still need to get their power from a wall socket, I'm not sure how much more protected they would be.
The article is Slashdotted and the summary doesn't address it, so... what are the advantages of 100Mbps plastic fiber over wired and wireless Ethernet?
learning C (and I don't just mean knowing the language, but actually being able to solve problems with it) will help you use your favorite high-level language effectively
I don't think the distinction is so much low-level vs. high-level as statically compiled to machine code vs. translated into byte-code and then interpreted/dynamically compiled by a JIT compiler. You can mostly predict what a C/C++ compiler is going to transform your code into and how the CPU is going to execute the result, but doing that for languages such as Java or C# is much more difficult, not to mention interpreted languages where the execution costs mostly depend on the interpreter implementation and can change from version to version.
I have quite a bit of experience in C, C++ and assembler, and I enjoy coding in those languages when their use is justified. But what many experienced (read old) programmers refuse to acknowledge is that the areas where their use is justified are continually shrinking. Sure, you wouldn't write kernel code in Java (although I sure somebody will try), but how many people write kernel code for a living?
Slashdot Mirror
Or, to put it in a more Slashdot-friendly way:
Homer Simpson: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa Simpson: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]
That means is it REASONABLE to doubt that someone did it. The jury said no, it isn't, and it looks as though they are correct, it wasn't.
How does it "look as though they were correct"? The fact that a conclusion is found to be true doesn't do anything at all to prove that the conclusion was arrived at correctly. The jury could have flipped a coin and still have got the same result, but that doesn't mean that flipping a coin would then be vindicated as a good way of choosing a verdict.
I've never been able to sing with any vibrato myself. Is it something that everybody can do with proper coaching, or does it require some innate ability that only certain individuals possess? Any links to relevant on-line information would be appreciated.
I thought repeatability would be a somewhat inaccurate way of referring to the feasibility of generating collisions, i.e. being able to "repeat" a particular value of the hash. Obviously cryptographic algorithms are deterministic and thus repeatable in a mathematical sense.
It destroys one of the principles of a crypto signature: non-reputability.
I would think that a crypto signature should be reputable? Oh right, you mean non-repeatability. I wonder if the Chinese can spell their own language; perhaps that's what's giving them an edge.
If Linus murders, it's obviously for the good of all of us
... except the ones who are dead.
Can you say 'one world government by proxy' ?
No. Proxies are now outlawed too.
If he doesn't squander it away on Xbox games and hookers he's set for life.
You've got it wrong. He's going to spend a lot of money on games and hookers. The rest he'll squander (with apologies to George Best).
Gives a whole new meaning to the term "copper network".
Perhaps the government knows something those citizens don't.
It's ironic that in the "Land of the Free" by joining the organization tasked with defending it you lose your Freedom to virtually congregate and by extension freedom of thought among peers.
It's not any more ironic than if you have a McDonald's hamburger and you don't love it. Nowadays "land of the free" is just a self-congratulatory slogan with no substance.
- The We Need More Funding Telescope.
- The Sexier Than Natalie Portman Telescope.
- The Protection For America's Children Telescope.
- The We're Still Better Than China Telescope.
By the way, I am available as a telescope naming consultant for the low low price of $200/hour. Hire me now and beat the other telescope making countries!There are free Drupal themes available on the Net, but I haven't been able to find a nice one with light text on dark background. For some reason there seem to be many more free themes for e.g. Joomla.
But if you want to run proprietary applications on a desktop, Qt is a poor choice. For starters it costs money. Furthermore, Nokia can charge whatever they want for proprietary licenses, and this might change at any point; there are no guarantees.
This is quite trollish. Qt is no different in those respects from the other innumerable commercial libraries that are routinely used in proprietary software development. Singling out Qt as a "risk" suggests an axe to grind, and recommending GNOME for proprietary applications confirms it.
Did the person identified by the supposedly non-existent records sue the Toll Authority then?
A couple of other companies have used a similar argument, shortly before getting shut down. Napster and Grokster were basically search engines that could be used for both legal or illegal purposes, but the American courts didn't buy it.
Fixed that for you.
It seems pretty appropriate that the fake e-mail appears to come from a company called Gusanito, which literally means "little worm".
That, or maybe you're upset that things thought to belong exclusively to the animal kingdom are really just computation (with a bit of noncomputation thrown in, thank you Gödel and Turing).
Or perhaps you're projecting the way your own opinions are influenced by your emotions on random strangers in the Internet. Let's just agree that playing amateur psychoanalyst on people we know nothing about is not very productive.
But is it not at least a tid bit sensational that an AI would be so intelligent as to be capable of lying?
That's why the use of anthropomorphic words such as "lie" when speaking about simple AI simulations is inadequate -- it leads people to assume human connotations where there are none.
When humans lie, the liar has a complex enough model of the target's behaviour and is creative enough to come up with certain false information that will prod that target to behave in the desired way. That requires that the liar posseses certain intelligence.
What we are apparently seeing here is that a number of bots with random information transmission behaviors are being pitted against each other, and some bots that happen to transmit incorrect information are coming out on top. That doesn't require any intelligence at all in the bots.
Saying these bots must be intelligent because they are "lying" to each other would be like saying the flu viruses are intelligent because they "lie" to the human immune system. And not only that, flu viruses are capable of defeating vaccines and drugs designed by scientists! Does that mean the flu viruses are more intelligent than the scientists?
There seems to be a whole category of stories here at Slashdot where some obvious result of an AI simulation is spun into something sensational by nonsensically anthropomorphizing it. Robots lie! Computers learn "like" babies! (at least two of the latter type in the last month, I believe).
As reported, this story seems to be nothing more than some randomly evolving bots developing behavior in a way that is competely predictable given the rules of the simulation. This must have been done a million times before, but slap a couple of meaningless anthropomorphic labels like "lying" and "poison" on it and you got a Slashdot story.
I frequently get annoyed by the sensational tone of many Slashdot stories, but this particular story template angers me more than most because it's so transparent, formulaic and devoid of any real information.
Did you get a different version of the game than I did? One where most of the dialogs actually make sense?
Blender is great software with a not-so-great GUI. Actually, it's not so much that the GUI is badly thought up, it's that its learning curve is terribly steep at the beginning because it doesn't follow any of the usual UI conventions people are used to. You need to invest a few hours of learning upfront to feel comfortable at even the most basic tasks. I'm sure people who use Blender very frequently can be very productive with this GUI, but I'm also guessing that those people are outnumbered by several orders of magnitude by would-be occassional users that just end up giving up because the GUI is too unintuitive for them.
My hope would be that they implement a GUI for occassional users that follows the standard GUI conventions; it doesn't need to include all the more obscure features, because occassional users won't know how to use them anyway. Provided Blender's core functionality is properly separated from the GUI in the code, it probably shouldn't be much effort, and it would open up Blender to lots of new users.
Yeah, I was thinking about twisted pair ethernet. About getting hit by lightning, since the devices connected to a plastic fiber network would usually still need to get their power from a wall socket, I'm not sure how much more protected they would be.
The article is Slashdotted and the summary doesn't address it, so... what are the advantages of 100Mbps plastic fiber over wired and wireless Ethernet?
learning C (and I don't just mean knowing the language, but actually being able to solve problems with it) will help you use your favorite high-level language effectively
I don't think the distinction is so much low-level vs. high-level as statically compiled to machine code vs. translated into byte-code and then interpreted/dynamically compiled by a JIT compiler. You can mostly predict what a C/C++ compiler is going to transform your code into and how the CPU is going to execute the result, but doing that for languages such as Java or C# is much more difficult, not to mention interpreted languages where the execution costs mostly depend on the interpreter implementation and can change from version to version.
I have quite a bit of experience in C, C++ and assembler, and I enjoy coding in those languages when their use is justified. But what many experienced (read old) programmers refuse to acknowledge is that the areas where their use is justified are continually shrinking. Sure, you wouldn't write kernel code in Java (although I sure somebody will try), but how many people write kernel code for a living?