You are mostly correct. I'd even guess that you would have been modded up if you hadn't included "And don't dare fucking criticize the piece of fucking shit that is Linux.".
At first. But - never *ever* bring back a character that you have demonstrably killed off. Do that and the viewer will then rightfully think that every closure, regardless of how small, is just a plot device to be demonstrated as a trick later. Lazy third grade story telling. No, sorry, not even an eight year old does that.
Here's how it is at every single chip-enabled reader (many recently installed) I've seen in the US:
Items are scanned. Total it displayed and told to me verbally by cashier. Wait for the credit card reader to be ready to accept my card / display the same total. Insert credit card (which isn't as fast as a swipe). Wait with my hand still on the card to make sure the reader recognizes the card is in. Wait while the reader says "do not remove card". The reader may ask if I want to charge it as credit or debit, may ask me to confirm the amount, and may ask me to sign. At some point I'm told I can remove my card and I remove it. It may be before or after any of the prompts above. Remove my card and place it in my wallet. Place my wallet in my pocket. Grab my shit and go.
With the ol' swipe, it worked like this:
Items are scanned. Total it displayed and told to me verbally by cashier. Wait for the credit card reader to be ready to accept my card / display the same total. Swipe my card and put it back in my wallet (the feedback as to whether or not the swipe was good is quicker than I can put it back in my wallet) and put my wallet back in my pocket. The reader may ask if I want to charge it as credit or debit, may ask me to confirm the amount, and may ask me to sign. Grab my shit and go.
I'd be fine with this in a chip+pin scenario. But as it is, the chips in the cards in the US do absolutely nothing for security. Cloners for chipped cards were available before the chipped cards.
If you dont have root on your device, you cannot trust it. Apple devices do not give you root, thus they give you no path to 'Trust, but verify'. All other problems flow from there.
And if you have root access on your device, you still can't trust it. The whole stack - from software to firmware to hardware - has to be transparent and auditable. No modern hardware is truly trustworthy.
Can we trade you in and get the moo/cows troll back, or maybe the luddite/apps troll? Hell, I'd even settle for the "space nutters" troll or the "republicans want to kill us all" troll.
I suspect it's a bit less sinister. The old saying of never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
The "corporations are bad, up there in their corporate tower being all corporation-y" wing of the American leftists seem to be gaining momentum in much the same way the Tea-baggers did after Obama won in 2008.
Expect a lot of screaming and crying about how people shouldn't make money and stuff...
That old saying is retarded.
1: That's just what a malicious actor would want you to think.
2: If someone does some shit, why would you care about whether it was due to stupidity or maliciousness? The response shouldn't be more lenient if it was due to stupidity. That only enables stupidity AND malice. The stupid aren't punished and weeded out, and the malicious feign stupidity and aren't weeded out at the malicious actor rate. Instead, they get the stupid actor discount.
From the last 2 decades. You're comparing platforms over 1 year apart in age. A fairer comparison (but still biased to Intel due to age) would be to compare X370 boards to Z270 boards.
Great debating technique. I can tell this is going to be good.
It absolutely does self-correct. When it encounters data that doesn't match its model it adjusts the model. If the AI is biased to say that a certain sex is more likely to have a certain trait, then if it encounters data that says otherwise the model is adjusted.
That's not correction. In order to self correct, it has to recognize that the output is wrong. You are talking about adding another data point to its statistical model.
You seem to think that the algorithm is beyond reproach here, but there are many obvious ways for it to be less than great. How does it handle historical data, is there some cut off age or is older data weighted differently, or does it just consider cases from the 1817 as valid as ones from the 2017? How is the data verified for accuracy and how does it integrate corrections? How is each data point weighted and what checks are done to ensure that the weighting is fair?
The AI can't determine causation vs. correlation, as you pointed out. Because the AI can't determine anything. It's all statistical. So when your real-world dataset exceeds the scope of your test dataset (or the human-driven classification of it), you have two choices: Accept the output and hope your AI is correct, or reject the output, retrain the AI, and hope you were correct in rejecting the output.
You call me an idiot, and then agree with me. Correlated data suggests you are an idiot too.
Calling an idiot an idiot is a great debating technique. Because idiots need to be told they're idiots.
And no, I didn't agree with you. Your post was fucking retarded. You claimed AI systems can't ask for additional information or self correct. That shows you know fucking nothing.
AI doesn't understand this and can't ask for additional information or self-correct.
Your basic AI "expert system" outputs a result, a confidence level, and self-adjusts when it's fed training data (including being re-fed data it gave the wrong result for along with the desired result/correction).
The i7-2600k in that article ( http://www.gamersnexus.net/gui... ) is quite a bit behind the new Ryzen CPUs for most tests, even though they have it running at 4.7 GHz vs. the Ryzen's 4 GHz with 2933 MHz RAM. The 2600k is only really winning for certain games.
Ryzen overclocking has improved a bit since that article was published, but you'll still be hard-pressed to get a Ryzen CPU much past 4 GHz. What does matter a lot more is running your memory at a higher speed. Since the infinity fabric interconnect is tied to the memory clock, any time a core needs to reach out over that interconnect to talk to another core, you're going to wait on the infinity fabric. Increasing memory speed has a significant effect on Ryzen in synthetic CPU tests and in many games. Additionally, there have been some game updates for Ryzen that have massively improved performance, and some Windows scheduler updates (I think Windows 10 only) that have yielded a moderate improvement.
I myself have a i7-2600k in my main system. I intend to build a Ryzen (or Threadripper) system later this year.
Don't forget - AMD motherboards tend to be significantly cheaper than Intel motherboards. Whether that holds true going forward remains to be seen. All the potential platform cost savings could be eaten up by RGB lighting.
The data is incomplete. AI, like humans, makes mistakes like "correlation = causation". The problem is, like some humans, AI doesn't understand this and can't ask for additional information or self-correct.
You're an idiot.
The AI doesn't need to understand anything. Nor does it need to ask for additional information. It absolutely does self-correct. When it encounters data that doesn't match its model it adjusts the model. If the AI is biased to say that a certain sex is more likely to have a certain trait, then if it encounters data that says otherwise the model is adjusted.
This is why AIs have a "training" data set and a "testing" data set. You train it until it's good, then you test it on data it hasn't seen before but data that us meatbags have properly categorized and know the desired result for. You repeat this until the wildest and craziest test data you expect the AI to handle in production yields the correct results to some degree of accuracy / certainty.
The only "problem" is when you try to use AI to solve a problem humans haven't solved. The AI can't determine causation vs. correlation, as you pointed out. Because the AI can't determine anything. It's all statistical. So when your real-world dataset exceeds the scope of your test dataset (or the human-driven classification of it), you have two choices: Accept the output and hope your AI is correct, or reject the output, retrain the AI, and hope you were correct in rejecting the output.
If you're asking an AI to determine how much to charge someone for auto insurance based on a photo, it's going to absolutely be biased in race, sex, age, etc. Whether you forcefully try to tune it to ignore those biases per policy or you accept the fact that it may just be exposing uncomfortable truths is a human problem.
I don't like the fact that Slashdot is censoring us, but I also don't like your spamming. I enjoy a good troll, but you're just spamming trash. Put some effort into it, please. For example, you can get around this particular censoring without bolding, italicizing, or otherwise visibly altering the word.
Population centers have grown where water is available.
Los Angeles county has a population of 10 million. (Plus all the undocumented residents, since the census merely asks households to report them and no one is dumb enough to report themselves or their family.)
Its shame because DV certs don't really prove much at all IMHO.
Neither do EV certs.
Unless you're physically interacting with a CA and they're physically inspecting you or your systems, why would you trust the "verification" process? All they ever verify is that your name, domain, business name, are not obviously fake and that your payment goes through. You have stronger verification in place when trying to buy antihistamines.
Slashdot Mirror
You are mostly correct. I'd even guess that you would have been modded up if you hadn't included "And don't dare fucking criticize the piece of fucking shit that is Linux.".
I can't think of a Netflix-produced show I'd give even 4 stars to (if that were even possible nowadays).
Their animated shit is the best shit they make. Bojack Horseman, F is for Family, Voltron, etc.
At first. But - never *ever* bring back a character that you have demonstrably killed off. Do that and the viewer will then rightfully think that every closure, regardless of how small, is just a plot device to be demonstrated as a trick later. Lazy third grade story telling. No, sorry, not even an eight year old does that.
Jon Snow & The Hound?
You think that the cash with serial numbers on it and a camera pointed at nearly every register is untraceable?
Here's how it is at every single chip-enabled reader (many recently installed) I've seen in the US:
Items are scanned.
Total it displayed and told to me verbally by cashier.
Wait for the credit card reader to be ready to accept my card / display the same total.
Insert credit card (which isn't as fast as a swipe).
Wait with my hand still on the card to make sure the reader recognizes the card is in.
Wait while the reader says "do not remove card".
The reader may ask if I want to charge it as credit or debit, may ask me to confirm the amount, and may ask me to sign.
At some point I'm told I can remove my card and I remove it. It may be before or after any of the prompts above.
Remove my card and place it in my wallet.
Place my wallet in my pocket.
Grab my shit and go.
With the ol' swipe, it worked like this:
Items are scanned.
Total it displayed and told to me verbally by cashier.
Wait for the credit card reader to be ready to accept my card / display the same total.
Swipe my card and put it back in my wallet (the feedback as to whether or not the swipe was good is quicker than I can put it back in my wallet) and put my wallet back in my pocket.
The reader may ask if I want to charge it as credit or debit, may ask me to confirm the amount, and may ask me to sign.
Grab my shit and go.
I'd be fine with this in a chip+pin scenario. But as it is, the chips in the cards in the US do absolutely nothing for security. Cloners for chipped cards were available before the chipped cards.
If you dont have root on your device, you cannot trust it. Apple devices do not give you root, thus they give you no path to 'Trust, but verify'. All other problems flow from there.
And if you have root access on your device, you still can't trust it.
The whole stack - from software to firmware to hardware - has to be transparent and auditable. No modern hardware is truly trustworthy.
Oooooooooooooooooh! I know! I know! Pick me!!!!
The answer is apps ! Apps apps apps ! You luddites can suck an egg!
Can we trade you in and get the moo/cows troll back, or maybe the luddite/apps troll?
Hell, I'd even settle for the "space nutters" troll or the "republicans want to kill us all" troll.
I suspect it's a bit less sinister. The old saying of never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
The "corporations are bad, up there in their corporate tower being all corporation-y" wing of the American leftists seem to be gaining momentum in much the same way the Tea-baggers did after Obama won in 2008.
Expect a lot of screaming and crying about how people shouldn't make money and stuff...
That old saying is retarded.
1: That's just what a malicious actor would want you to think.
2: If someone does some shit, why would you care about whether it was due to stupidity or maliciousness? The response shouldn't be more lenient if it was due to stupidity. That only enables stupidity AND malice. The stupid aren't punished and weeded out, and the malicious feign stupidity and aren't weeded out at the malicious actor rate. Instead, they get the stupid actor discount.
Yes x 4
Do you really need to be told why?
The education offered was superficial.
The students going in were the sort who couldn't make it in a real program.
The students coming out were well versed in buzzwords and trendy shit, but not much else.
Employers would rather pay less to get the same level of skill from a bunch of H1-Bs.
You really think someone would do that? Just go on the Internet and tell lies?
From the last 2 decades.
You're comparing platforms over 1 year apart in age.
A fairer comparison (but still biased to Intel due to age) would be to compare X370 boards to Z270 boards.
Try again and let me know.
You're an idiot.
Great debating technique. I can tell this is going to be good.
It absolutely does self-correct. When it encounters data that doesn't match its model it adjusts the model. If the AI is biased to say that a certain sex is more likely to have a certain trait, then if it encounters data that says otherwise the model is adjusted.
That's not correction. In order to self correct, it has to recognize that the output is wrong. You are talking about adding another data point to its statistical model.
You seem to think that the algorithm is beyond reproach here, but there are many obvious ways for it to be less than great. How does it handle historical data, is there some cut off age or is older data weighted differently, or does it just consider cases from the 1817 as valid as ones from the 2017? How is the data verified for accuracy and how does it integrate corrections? How is each data point weighted and what checks are done to ensure that the weighting is fair?
The AI can't determine causation vs. correlation, as you pointed out. Because the AI can't determine anything. It's all statistical. So when your real-world dataset exceeds the scope of your test dataset (or the human-driven classification of it), you have two choices: Accept the output and hope your AI is correct, or reject the output, retrain the AI, and hope you were correct in rejecting the output.
You call me an idiot, and then agree with me. Correlated data suggests you are an idiot too.
Calling an idiot an idiot is a great debating technique. Because idiots need to be told they're idiots.
And no, I didn't agree with you. Your post was fucking retarded. You claimed AI systems can't ask for additional information or self correct. That shows you know fucking nothing.
AI doesn't understand this and can't ask for additional information or self-correct.
Your basic AI "expert system" outputs a result, a confidence level, and self-adjusts when it's fed training data (including being re-fed data it gave the wrong result for along with the desired result/correction).
The i7-2600k in that article ( http://www.gamersnexus.net/gui... ) is quite a bit behind the new Ryzen CPUs for most tests, even though they have it running at 4.7 GHz vs. the Ryzen's 4 GHz with 2933 MHz RAM. The 2600k is only really winning for certain games.
Ryzen overclocking has improved a bit since that article was published, but you'll still be hard-pressed to get a Ryzen CPU much past 4 GHz. What does matter a lot more is running your memory at a higher speed. Since the infinity fabric interconnect is tied to the memory clock, any time a core needs to reach out over that interconnect to talk to another core, you're going to wait on the infinity fabric. Increasing memory speed has a significant effect on Ryzen in synthetic CPU tests and in many games. Additionally, there have been some game updates for Ryzen that have massively improved performance, and some Windows scheduler updates (I think Windows 10 only) that have yielded a moderate improvement.
I myself have a i7-2600k in my main system. I intend to build a Ryzen (or Threadripper) system later this year.
Don't forget - AMD motherboards tend to be significantly cheaper than Intel motherboards. Whether that holds true going forward remains to be seen. All the potential platform cost savings could be eaten up by RGB lighting.
i Am PeRfEcT.
i Am NoMaD.
The data is incomplete. AI, like humans, makes mistakes like "correlation = causation". The problem is, like some humans, AI doesn't understand this and can't ask for additional information or self-correct.
You're an idiot.
The AI doesn't need to understand anything. Nor does it need to ask for additional information.
It absolutely does self-correct. When it encounters data that doesn't match its model it adjusts the model. If the AI is biased to say that a certain sex is more likely to have a certain trait, then if it encounters data that says otherwise the model is adjusted.
This is why AIs have a "training" data set and a "testing" data set. You train it until it's good, then you test it on data it hasn't seen before but data that us meatbags have properly categorized and know the desired result for. You repeat this until the wildest and craziest test data you expect the AI to handle in production yields the correct results to some degree of accuracy / certainty.
The only "problem" is when you try to use AI to solve a problem humans haven't solved. The AI can't determine causation vs. correlation, as you pointed out. Because the AI can't determine anything. It's all statistical. So when your real-world dataset exceeds the scope of your test dataset (or the human-driven classification of it), you have two choices: Accept the output and hope your AI is correct, or reject the output, retrain the AI, and hope you were correct in rejecting the output.
If you're asking an AI to determine how much to charge someone for auto insurance based on a photo, it's going to absolutely be biased in race, sex, age, etc. Whether you forcefully try to tune it to ignore those biases per policy or you accept the fact that it may just be exposing uncomfortable truths is a human problem.
I don't like the fact that Slashdot is censoring us, but I also don't like your spamming. I enjoy a good troll, but you're just spamming trash. Put some effort into it, please. For example, you can get around this particular censoring without bolding, italicizing, or otherwise visibly altering the word.
If you want the actual photos without all of the fake assery all the links show you, click this: https://www.missionjuno.swri.e...
At least trolling is still a art.
How many die first though before the people move?
Who cares? / Not enough.
Population centers have grown where water is available.
Los Angeles county has a population of 10 million. (Plus all the undocumented residents, since the census merely asks households to report them and no one is dumb enough to report themselves or their family.)
Its shame because DV certs don't really prove much at all IMHO.
Neither do EV certs.
Unless you're physically interacting with a CA and they're physically inspecting you or your systems, why would you trust the "verification" process?
All they ever verify is that your name, domain, business name, are not obviously fake and that your payment goes through. You have stronger verification in place when trying to buy antihistamines.
>What's left?
OTTOMH, Disk Encryption, Data loss protection, Solidcore, and a bunch of expensive fluff.
Fixed that for you.