Perhaps, depending on the grandparent's situation. Some people aren't in a position to have a deep savings in the lives. I'm in college and my savings is not very deep because I pay for my rent/food/utilities etc. I do agree with your comment for the most part (and see what you mean). I just don't think it can be a blanket statement for everyone.
They would not do it because that would imply that they're close enough to compare. That's what I find impressive, that Gutsy & Leopard are both strong enough to ask that question. I know I'm showing my bias here, but I find it absurd that all you're paying for is the GUI interface. You can download darwin, which is the kernel for mac. And before someone says it, I know that to some users, the GUI part is all that there is.
This topic (to me) is equivalent to worrying about occasionally drinking beer when I'm shooting up heroin. First, heroin is much worse, and secondly, an occasional beer is not going to likely have that much of an effect. Worrying about SETI seems, to me, like beer. There's so much other stuff we, as humans, are doing that is more of an immediate threat.
I said this before but in one of the episodes (I think it was one of the ones with that chick from the O.C.) someone threatened about going to Buy More's competitor 'Big Mart'. I think we can all guess what that is referring to.
That pie chart hits too close to home. Frequently I'll have a siteslooking good (source code & from the browser) until I do cross-platform check. Then out comes the ugly hacks:/
The longer that MS stays with XP (or something worse), the longer Linux can improve to reduce migration costs (AKA improve compatibility) and offer better alternatives to the MS way of working. This where I think Gnome is doing something right by trying to support OOXML. Everyone (it seems) is making a fuss about them not standing 'strong' by supporting OOXML. Seems like a smart move to me. Gnome will then be in a good position to migrate Windows users to their Windows Desktop.
Uh, DIVs are better than tables for layout. Maybe if you're designing for a single browser. If you have a wide audience, and have to code for multiple browsers/versions divs don't always work. Sometimes you have to do ugly hacks to get it looking consistent. I'm normally about my code looking nice, but I'd rather that the user can see the website how I want it to look then for it to look 'perfect' in a 'View Source'.
This is slashdot, right? As in news for nerds. Do nerds no longer enjoy reading? I'm clearly a nerd and enjoy reading. Then again, I'm a computer science major who doesn't play computer games and enjoys playing sports, hiking etc. The point is, however, that you're not alone.
From here
Now look from GNOME/OO.o side: We are interested in implementing it,
regardless of it being a standard or not. Yes, but that doesn't mean we cannot denounce it! Everyone is getting in a tizzy (RMS included) over this. Read what RMS says above. He's not above supporting OOXML to give users a choice. His point is that KDE has publicly denounced OOXML but Gnome has not. That's all.
FYI, just because you like some stuff that he has done, doesn't mean everything he says is gold. Just a little pet peeve of mine...
Borrowing from your SSN example, let's say that your client tells you the main way they identify customers is through the SSN, and you go by that, and then there's a case of identity theft and the customer's SSN number has to be changed? Agreed. There's an error that's even simpler, a mistake by the user in entering something. When I've done db table design for projects, I have always used a primary key generated by the database. Anything that can change, external from the database, doesn't seem smart (to me) to use as a primary key.
Agreed. There's plenty of areas that still need tight, efficient code. Cryptography, Operational Research, Compiler Design are ones that come to mind from my limited experience. Certain parts of the OS, that are use many times, should be efficient. I think the parent of my parent is thinking of the hyped technology, with all the cool buzzwords.
Old people use email. I guess 23 is the new old then.
I'm surprised all the people that use webmail, even compsci students at my college. I think people would not be so swift to abandon it if they used an email client program. Emails in thunderbird are much quicker then using the mess that is facebook. It'll never rival IM but it's pretty darn close.
I had the same initial thought as you, until I found that these 'position papers' are not really meant for publication. Not sure why you'd allow them to be accessed through the internet (I wouldn't), but at least they're not meant to be formal.
I said the same thing below and my response to myself. I read into it that his writings are for internal usage only and fairly informal. I blame the submitter/editor more than him.
Apparently this article was never suppose to be seen by the public, according to Stephan. I rescind my comment and direct towards the submitter of the article instead:)
Typically, such documents do not go through a reviewing process, have a very limited lifetime, and are intended for the experts of a standardization committee and not for the general public
I don't take much credence to a paper with rampant misspelling throughout. On slashdot okay, but a position paper? I'd also like to know when it's okay to use an emoticon in a paper?
Closer to theWeb world, dare we mentoned Flash:-)
I don't know enough about brain research so I can't comment on brain knowledge. However, you're still assuming that the brain can be modeled by a Turing machine. I have my doubts that our brain can properly modeled in that fashion. Also, remember that AI tends to do well when the scope of the problem is kept small enough. It's not trivial scale up the domain of the problem.
Actually, I do believe in dualism instead of materialism. Putting that debate to the side though, our computers can be modeled with a turing machine. Can our brains? Do we really know exactly how our brains function? I'm skeptical that we can do so with our computers. It just seems like there's too many ifs.
The real question is whether the Turing test is an actual valid test of AI. If a simply programmed chatbot on a relatively average computer can pass it, then that's pretty good evidence that the Turing test isn't testing for actual "intelligence". In my AI at college we discussed this. I would tend to say no from the chinese room argument. In a nutshell it's that computer software is only about syntactical knowledge (manipulating symbols), there's no semantic knowledge. The software doesn't understand what it is doing.
It is not a turing test. A turing test is when the the judge is trying to figure out if the 'chatbot' is a human or AI program. This story is about people under the assumption that it is a human.
The key part of the turing test, to me, is that the judge must know they are engaged in the test. The best example of this is Eliza (read about it). To someone critically examining it, it does not past the turing test. To someone expecting a therapist, most of its responses do make sense. The point is that if you're not trying to trip up the chatbot it's not hard to fool someone.
Is it just me, or is this title (emphasis mine) "New Seagate Drives Have Real Difficulties With Linux" misleading. The drive is not the one using an operating system, it's the operating system that uses the drive. That's like saying the flat tennis ball is having difficulty with me playing tennis. No! The sucky tennis ball (Seagate drive) is the one being acted on. It's me (Linux) having the difficulty playing the game.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, depending on the grandparent's situation. Some people aren't in a position to have a deep savings in the lives. I'm in college and my savings is not very deep because I pay for my rent/food/utilities etc. I do agree with your comment for the most part (and see what you mean). I just don't think it can be a blanket statement for everyone.
They would not do it because that would imply that they're close enough to compare. That's what I find impressive, that Gutsy & Leopard are both strong enough to ask that question. I know I'm showing my bias here, but I find it absurd that all you're paying for is the GUI interface. You can download darwin, which is the kernel for mac. And before someone says it, I know that to some users, the GUI part is all that there is.
This topic (to me) is equivalent to worrying about occasionally drinking beer when I'm shooting up heroin. First, heroin is much worse, and secondly, an occasional beer is not going to likely have that much of an effect. Worrying about SETI seems, to me, like beer. There's so much other stuff we, as humans, are doing that is more of an immediate threat.
I said this before but in one of the episodes (I think it was one of the ones with that chick from the O.C.) someone threatened about going to Buy More's competitor 'Big Mart'. I think we can all guess what that is referring to.
That pie chart hits too close to home. Frequently I'll have a siteslooking good (source code & from the browser) until I do cross-platform check. Then out comes the ugly hacks :/
Don't forget 'Big Mart', a competitor of 'Buy More'.
Now look from GNOME/OO.o side: We are interested in implementing it, regardless of it being a standard or not. Yes, but that doesn't mean we cannot denounce it! Everyone is getting in a tizzy (RMS included) over this. Read what RMS says above. He's not above supporting OOXML to give users a choice. His point is that KDE has publicly denounced OOXML but Gnome has not. That's all.
FYI, just because you like some stuff that he has done, doesn't mean everything he says is gold. Just a little pet peeve of mine...
It's true. Didn't anyone watch the documentary The Day After Tomorrow? Dennis Quaid or Jake Gyllenhaal should have won instead of Al.
Agreed. There's an error that's even simpler, a mistake by the user in entering something. When I've done db table design for projects, I have always used a primary key generated by the database. Anything that can change, external from the database, doesn't seem smart (to me) to use as a primary key.
Agreed. There's plenty of areas that still need tight, efficient code. Cryptography, Operational Research, Compiler Design are ones that come to mind from my limited experience. Certain parts of the OS, that are use many times, should be efficient. I think the parent of my parent is thinking of the hyped technology, with all the cool buzzwords.
I'm surprised all the people that use webmail, even compsci students at my college. I think people would not be so swift to abandon it if they used an email client program. Emails in thunderbird are much quicker then using the mess that is facebook. It'll never rival IM but it's pretty darn close.
I had the same initial thought as you, until I found that these 'position papers' are not really meant for publication. Not sure why you'd allow them to be accessed through the internet (I wouldn't), but at least they're not meant to be formal.
I said the same thing below and my response to myself. I read into it that his writings are for internal usage only and fairly informal. I blame the submitter/editor more than him.
I don't know enough about brain research so I can't comment on brain knowledge. However, you're still assuming that the brain can be modeled by a Turing machine. I have my doubts that our brain can properly modeled in that fashion. Also, remember that AI tends to do well when the scope of the problem is kept small enough. It's not trivial scale up the domain of the problem.
Actually, I do believe in dualism instead of materialism. Putting that debate to the side though, our computers can be modeled with a turing machine. Can our brains? Do we really know exactly how our brains function? I'm skeptical that we can do so with our computers. It just seems like there's too many ifs.
Complexity, I don't think, changes anything. Do you think it does,or are you purely play the devil's advocate? ;)
It is not a turing test. A turing test is when the the judge is trying to figure out if the 'chatbot' is a human or AI program. This story is about people under the assumption that it is a human.
The key part of the turing test, to me, is that the judge must know they are engaged in the test. The best example of this is Eliza (read about it). To someone critically examining it, it does not past the turing test. To someone expecting a therapist, most of its responses do make sense. The point is that if you're not trying to trip up the chatbot it's not hard to fool someone.
My apologizes. Next time I'll use analogies that don't involve physical activity ;)
Is it just me, or is this title (emphasis mine) "New Seagate Drives Have Real Difficulties With Linux " misleading. The drive is not the one using an operating system, it's the operating system that uses the drive. That's like saying the flat tennis ball is having difficulty with me playing tennis. No! The sucky tennis ball (Seagate drive) is the one being acted on. It's me (Linux) having the difficulty playing the game.