Oh, and in short: you can STFU yourself. It's you who has absolutely no idea what you're talking about. People like you who would encourage an endless array of laws that do nothing to solve core problems are only feeding the fire.
Unfortunately, we don't have a "loser pays" legal system in the U.S. That is absolutely no excuse for enacting bad legislation; it means we need to fix the way the legal system works. There is a huge difference.
I'll be sure to encourage your local prosecutor to find a way to charge you with something the next time you tell a lie of any kind. Oh, wait... that isn't what you wanted? Consumers are responsible for knowing the law, and we don't need any more legislation designed to protect people from themselves. The networks can say anything they please; it doesn't make it true, and it doesn't mean it stands a chance in hell of being the basis for a successful lawsuit. Joe Blogger isn't gonna lose in court because he wrote about a football game.
It's the consumer's responsibility to know the law. I can put a sign on my front door saying it's illegal to walk past it between the hours of 0300 and 0500. That doesn't make it true, and I don't see the need for any law preventing me from posting such a sign. In fact, I'm generally not in favor of nanny state legislation designed to protect people from their own ignorance when it comes to such matters.
Those lattices you're talking about are what I just referred to as initial programming. Listen, we're already at the point where humans don't really design CPUs anymore; our greatest input is the research into smaller and more efficient fabrication processes, coupled with innovations in communications technologies that allow systems to talk to each other more efficiently. Largely, computers already design new generations of computers based on some fairly simple goals.
We're building the infrastructure required to support a sufficiently powerful computing system (most probably in the form of large numbers of massively interconnected discrete systems) that will carry itself over the tipping point with the aid of some initial kickstarting on our part. After that, such a system simply won't need any intervention from us to improve itself.
No, it's not. That is pretty much impossible, unless you stick machine learning systems in machines that actually interact with the world.
Yes, it is. A sufficiently powerful and interconnected system, provided with interfaces to enough external knowledge and fabrication resources, will be able to accomplish this. You need to stop thinking of machine intelligence in terms of human evolution; these are completely different topics. It's a classic mistake in understanding what the end result of AI evolution might look like, with "end result" being the point at which the system has both the intellectual capacity to improve itself and sufficient "real world" interfaces (in terms of acquisition of raw materials, fabrication facilities, etc) to do so.
You're correct in your perception that human programming is required to get it to the "kickstart" point, but further intervention will not be required after that. What this means for humanity is completely unpredictable, but given the accelerating pace of technological development it's probably only a matter of time before we outdo ourselves as a species. I don't find this as troubling as some folks might; nothing is forever in this universe. Like other blobs of matter floating around in the cosmos, we're here today... but who knows about tomorrow?
You're grossly missing the point. The idea behind AI is to create a system that is capable of improving itself in all dimensions (volume of knowledge, the rate at which is can acquire new knowledge, and its own underlying "hardware") without further human intervention.
I stand corrected with regard to the Eee PC. That said, I still haven't had any other issues with mainstream HP, Dell, or Toshiba laptops. The scanner support bit I get as well for your case, but I haven't hit that issue on anything personally.
Especially for the use case indicated on the G3, I think it's safe to say everything is going to "just work."
I own two Macs. They're great machines. That said, have you actually installed Ubuntu on anything in the last couple of years? Even on several brand new laptops (which are typically the worst for hardware support), I've had zero issues with compatibility. Either you're trying to spread FUD, or you're talking about something you know nothing about.
The GP specifically stated that the older Mac is a good browsing platform. It's not hard to train Grandma or Auntie to click a different icon to launch their web browser. Actually, come to think of it, it's the same icon but in a different place. That's not a huge leap; my mother in-law knows jack about computers, and easily switched to using Ubuntu on her laptop for stuff that is considerably more complicated than this.
I'm posting this from an iMac and my MacBook Pro is sitting next to me. While I love Macs, you need to recognize that there will come a point where older operating systems just aren't supported anymore. The GP specifically stated that his older Mac makes a good browsing platform (aside from Flash)... guess what? A fresh Ubuntu install makes a better browsing platform, with much better support for today's web. Oh, and Flash works fine.
By doing what, expressing a sentiment that is not popular around here?
No. You're expressing a sentiment that is patently wrong; it isn't a matter of opinion. I don't need to personally babysit the codebase for Firefox, as there is a ton of transparent, active development on it. Security issues are reported by both the community and third party vendors, and they're handled rapidly. On the other hand, I have absolutely no assurance that Microsoft will either (1) be aware of security issues, or (2) responsibly handle them. How many times do we have to get stung by holes that were reported to Microsoft months ago, when they only get forced into doing something about it due to a widespread and very nasty exploit? That's no way to run an I.T. platform.
I've got 20 years of combined public sector, private sector, and military experience that says I'm right. Again, hand waving isn't going to negate that.
Hint #1: If you have not personally evaluated the source code of the browser you are using, nor employed a skilled specialist to do so for you, then you are just as dependent on other parties over whom you have no direct control to identify and patch security issues before the bad guys exploit them.
Speaking of tired old arguments, you lost all credibility right there. Thankfully, it was in the opening statement of your "rebuttal," so I don't feel too compelled to slog through a more lengthy reply.
Suffice it to say there are a lot of eyes on Firefox, for both the code itself and for evaluating and testing exploits. This process occurs transparently; anyone can (and a crapload of people do) participate. This is absolutely the opposite of Microsoft's model, and no amount of denial or hand-waving on your part is going to change that.
The fundamental issue here actually is "security through obscurity," although not in the context that you use it (instead, referring to the traditional context). With closed source software, you're at the mercy of the manufacturer when it comes to even getting an acknowledgment of security issues, let alone receiving fixes in a timely fashion or before damage is already done. Microsoft has a terrible track record in this department; more times than I can count I've become aware of a security issue they were alerted to weeks or months late.
With Firefox, there is generally a very high degree of transparency when it comes to security problems. Additionally, fixes are pushed out quickly. Although Firefox continues to gain market share, the actual damage caused by exploits continues to remain quite low. That's certainly not the case with IE, and as long as it's closed source that won't change.
The level of socialization and types of behaviors you just described are immensely common among public school students. I don't believe it had anything to do with her homeschooling.
Home school kids are massively underdeveloped socially, they miss out on a lot of cues that the rest of the population learned the hard way in social environment.
Home schooling doesn't mean the kids sit at home all day. This is yet another oft-cited (and erroneous) view that doesn't hold water. There are networks designed to provide daily social interaction for these kids. Additionally, trips to the park, museums, restaurants, etc provide good opportunities for learning about other people and society in general.
I have several friends who were home schooled in this manner, and they are all well-rounded, socially adept individuals who have gone on to lead happy and successful lives.
What matters is that it could become the standard going forward, and if we've learned anything from the iPhone and iPod it's that Apple has tremendous influence in driving the standards of consumer electronics.
You have a choice. If you don't want to play by those rules, go install Linux or BSD. I run both MacOS X and Linux, and each serve different needs.
Blasphemy! Spam is crafted of only the highest quality frequently unidentifiable portions of animals mostly known to science. How dare you utter such lies!
I'd say the primary culprit is pure and simple failure to reimplement UNIX concepts on top of a consumer-grade operating system, while attempting to change everything that has made UNIX work so well for several decades. Along came Linux, and Windows ceased to matter for a huge portion of the business market, especially on the server side. Hell, even Solaris is free these days. How can Windows possibly hope to compete against that?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and in short: you can STFU yourself. It's you who has absolutely no idea what you're talking about. People like you who would encourage an endless array of laws that do nothing to solve core problems are only feeding the fire.
Unfortunately, we don't have a "loser pays" legal system in the U.S. That is absolutely no excuse for enacting bad legislation; it means we need to fix the way the legal system works. There is a huge difference.
Wait, so I'm being modded down for calling BS on the suggestion that double standards are okay? That's just doubly wrong.
I'll be sure to encourage your local prosecutor to find a way to charge you with something the next time you tell a lie of any kind. Oh, wait... that isn't what you wanted? Consumers are responsible for knowing the law, and we don't need any more legislation designed to protect people from themselves. The networks can say anything they please; it doesn't make it true, and it doesn't mean it stands a chance in hell of being the basis for a successful lawsuit. Joe Blogger isn't gonna lose in court because he wrote about a football game.
As an additional note, I'd like to point out that your sig seems to contradict your stated position:
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
It's the consumer's responsibility to know the law. I can put a sign on my front door saying it's illegal to walk past it between the hours of 0300 and 0500. That doesn't make it true, and I don't see the need for any law preventing me from posting such a sign. In fact, I'm generally not in favor of nanny state legislation designed to protect people from their own ignorance when it comes to such matters.
Those lattices you're talking about are what I just referred to as initial programming. Listen, we're already at the point where humans don't really design CPUs anymore; our greatest input is the research into smaller and more efficient fabrication processes, coupled with innovations in communications technologies that allow systems to talk to each other more efficiently. Largely, computers already design new generations of computers based on some fairly simple goals.
We're building the infrastructure required to support a sufficiently powerful computing system (most probably in the form of large numbers of massively interconnected discrete systems) that will carry itself over the tipping point with the aid of some initial kickstarting on our part. After that, such a system simply won't need any intervention from us to improve itself.
No, it's not. That is pretty much impossible, unless you stick machine learning systems in machines that actually interact with the world.
Yes, it is. A sufficiently powerful and interconnected system, provided with interfaces to enough external knowledge and fabrication resources, will be able to accomplish this. You need to stop thinking of machine intelligence in terms of human evolution; these are completely different topics. It's a classic mistake in understanding what the end result of AI evolution might look like, with "end result" being the point at which the system has both the intellectual capacity to improve itself and sufficient "real world" interfaces (in terms of acquisition of raw materials, fabrication facilities, etc) to do so.
You're correct in your perception that human programming is required to get it to the "kickstart" point, but further intervention will not be required after that. What this means for humanity is completely unpredictable, but given the accelerating pace of technological development it's probably only a matter of time before we outdo ourselves as a species. I don't find this as troubling as some folks might; nothing is forever in this universe. Like other blobs of matter floating around in the cosmos, we're here today... but who knows about tomorrow?
You're grossly missing the point. The idea behind AI is to create a system that is capable of improving itself in all dimensions (volume of knowledge, the rate at which is can acquire new knowledge, and its own underlying "hardware") without further human intervention.
Being "in IT" anymore could be someone that runs Ethernet cable to someone that processes orders for NewEgg.
I was just reminded of how many different things the term "medical professional" can mean.
I stand corrected with regard to the Eee PC. That said, I still haven't had any other issues with mainstream HP, Dell, or Toshiba laptops. The scanner support bit I get as well for your case, but I haven't hit that issue on anything personally.
Especially for the use case indicated on the G3, I think it's safe to say everything is going to "just work."
I own two Macs. They're great machines. That said, have you actually installed Ubuntu on anything in the last couple of years? Even on several brand new laptops (which are typically the worst for hardware support), I've had zero issues with compatibility. Either you're trying to spread FUD, or you're talking about something you know nothing about.
The GP specifically stated that the older Mac is a good browsing platform. It's not hard to train Grandma or Auntie to click a different icon to launch their web browser. Actually, come to think of it, it's the same icon but in a different place. That's not a huge leap; my mother in-law knows jack about computers, and easily switched to using Ubuntu on her laptop for stuff that is considerably more complicated than this.
I'm posting this from an iMac and my MacBook Pro is sitting next to me. While I love Macs, you need to recognize that there will come a point where older operating systems just aren't supported anymore. The GP specifically stated that his older Mac makes a good browsing platform (aside from Flash)... guess what? A fresh Ubuntu install makes a better browsing platform, with much better support for today's web. Oh, and Flash works fine.
I'm a huge Mac fan, but you could always just install Linux on that G3 to give it a new lease on life, with the added benefit of more modern software.
Precisely. On a Linode Linux VPS, for example, this can be accomplished via the console using the following command:
/etc/ssh/ssh_host_rsa_key.pub
ssh-keygen -l -f
By doing what, expressing a sentiment that is not popular around here?
No. You're expressing a sentiment that is patently wrong; it isn't a matter of opinion. I don't need to personally babysit the codebase for Firefox, as there is a ton of transparent, active development on it. Security issues are reported by both the community and third party vendors, and they're handled rapidly. On the other hand, I have absolutely no assurance that Microsoft will either (1) be aware of security issues, or (2) responsibly handle them. How many times do we have to get stung by holes that were reported to Microsoft months ago, when they only get forced into doing something about it due to a widespread and very nasty exploit? That's no way to run an I.T. platform.
I've got 20 years of combined public sector, private sector, and military experience that says I'm right. Again, hand waving isn't going to negate that.
Hint #1: If you have not personally evaluated the source code of the browser you are using, nor employed a skilled specialist to do so for you, then you are just as dependent on other parties over whom you have no direct control to identify and patch security issues before the bad guys exploit them.
Speaking of tired old arguments, you lost all credibility right there. Thankfully, it was in the opening statement of your "rebuttal," so I don't feel too compelled to slog through a more lengthy reply.
Suffice it to say there are a lot of eyes on Firefox, for both the code itself and for evaluating and testing exploits. This process occurs transparently; anyone can (and a crapload of people do) participate. This is absolutely the opposite of Microsoft's model, and no amount of denial or hand-waving on your part is going to change that.
The fundamental issue here actually is "security through obscurity," although not in the context that you use it (instead, referring to the traditional context). With closed source software, you're at the mercy of the manufacturer when it comes to even getting an acknowledgment of security issues, let alone receiving fixes in a timely fashion or before damage is already done. Microsoft has a terrible track record in this department; more times than I can count I've become aware of a security issue they were alerted to weeks or months late.
With Firefox, there is generally a very high degree of transparency when it comes to security problems. Additionally, fixes are pushed out quickly. Although Firefox continues to gain market share, the actual damage caused by exploits continues to remain quite low. That's certainly not the case with IE, and as long as it's closed source that won't change.
The level of socialization and types of behaviors you just described are immensely common among public school students. I don't believe it had anything to do with her homeschooling.
Home school kids are massively underdeveloped socially, they miss out on a lot of cues that the rest of the population learned the hard way in social environment.
Home schooling doesn't mean the kids sit at home all day. This is yet another oft-cited (and erroneous) view that doesn't hold water. There are networks designed to provide daily social interaction for these kids. Additionally, trips to the park, museums, restaurants, etc provide good opportunities for learning about other people and society in general.
I have several friends who were home schooled in this manner, and they are all well-rounded, socially adept individuals who have gone on to lead happy and successful lives.
What matters is that it could become the standard going forward, and if we've learned anything from the iPhone and iPod it's that Apple has tremendous influence in driving the standards of consumer electronics.
You have a choice. If you don't want to play by those rules, go install Linux or BSD. I run both MacOS X and Linux, and each serve different needs.
Blasphemy! Spam is crafted of only the highest quality frequently unidentifiable portions of animals mostly known to science. How dare you utter such lies!
I'd say the primary culprit is pure and simple failure to reimplement UNIX concepts on top of a consumer-grade operating system, while attempting to change everything that has made UNIX work so well for several decades. Along came Linux, and Windows ceased to matter for a huge portion of the business market, especially on the server side. Hell, even Solaris is free these days. How can Windows possibly hope to compete against that?
Okay, so what policies did the student violate?