The point is that the AI learned to play the game from only screen data. No maps, no preset strategy, just visual data. So, it has to learn to recognize threats and obstacles, and what to do when it does.
Beating humans is a good test, because humans are good at exploiting patterns, so shortcuts like always taking a fixed route wouldn't work for long.
Of course, the US could have pursued a different policy, and possibly ended it all sooner, with less bother for everybody.
Or, you know, killed us all in a nuclear holocaust. But in the real world, the plan actually did work, the USSR crumbled, the cold war was over, no nuclear war. Happy ending.
But some people will criticize anything, it seems.
its highly probable that every single transcontinental link is 'managed' and tappable.
Heck, the undersea cables of hostile powers were tapped from the early 70s (presumably friendly powers followed). The US built a special-purpose nuclear submarine, capable of very deep dives and of "installation and maintenance of underwater equipment" just for the purpose of stealthily locating and tapping undersea cables.
Keys in pockets don't scratch modern phones. What does is sand. Sand and grit is all over the place - and yes, it gets in your pocket and on your keys. Some of that grit is of a hardness that will scratch the screens. For sure. It shouldn't scratch sapphire - but then this article says the lens isn't actually fully sapphire.
Came here to post this, but let me just quote the AC who got here first. Sand is the killer. Sand easily scratches glass, rarely scratches quartz, and won't scratch topaz or sapphire. That's why sapphire is key: it's sand proof (which makes it nearly everything-proof, for scratching).
Weakness doesn't provoke the likely opponent to additional military spending, but strength can.
Yes, Exactly. That was the strategy. Cause the collapse of the USSR, while maintaining the show of strength to prevent them from attacking us. It worked, and ended the cold war and threat of global nuclear war (at least for a couple generations).
It seemed more scary at the time than it was, because we could only assume the USSR was as strong as it looked, but it turned out they were only putting on a show. Most of they're nuclear silos were empty (built just to show up on our intel photos), and most of the actual missiles hadn't been maintained and couldn't launch. Most of the military equipment stored for use when needed had been sold on the black market. They had very minimal modern armor, and were moving their modern tank brigades around quickly on trains, letting them get photographed at on place and then another, to create the illusion of strength. How much of that did Reagan know? More than we did, for sure.
Reagan understood the USSR better than you do. Weakness invites attack; strength doesn't. That's just how bullies think. Why is it people think an enemy is just someone we haven't hugged enough? I blame lack of studying history.
There was a time )or so I'm told) when people in power in America sought to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
There's simply no reason for me to give any politician the benefit of the doubt. She looks corrupt, so she's corrupt until proven otherwise. He looks crazy, so he's crazy until proven otherwise. Personally, I think America can tolerate a little crazy more than it can more corruption, but that's just me.
Over 50% of the people who met with Clinton when she was Secretary of State donated to the Clinton Foundation. That's as blatant as it gets: for sure there was quid-pro-quo: pay for access. There's plenty of evidence for pay-for-results as well, if you care. The TARP thing? The documents are new and maybe fake, but why would it be even a little surprising? We know this is how it works - there are limits and disclosure around campaign contributions, but not around "charitable donations", so problem solved.
Does $1000 seem like an appropriate bribe for a billion dollars?
You have to go down the list. E.g., J.P Morgan gave to lots of people to get their $25B TARP quid-pro-quo. Yeah, it probably cost them less than a million in bribes total, but bribery has a very high return on investment in a nation as corrupt as ours.
And what's the freaking point when this money is used for charity anyhow
Lot's of things ares speculative, but one thing we know for sure is that the Clinton Foundation gives only a token amount to actual charity, and the vast majority is "expenses". o all appearances, it's the largest, most open bribery racket in the Western world.
And no one seems very worked up about it. I guess we're we're so accustomed to corruption that "seeing how the sausage is made" - the actual mechanism for laundering bribery money - has no outrage left to provoke.
Really? How hard would it be for a group to send a few "martyrs" to a place where there's a widespread Ebola outbreak to get exposed to the disease, then board a plane to New York City
Yeah, I think I saw that movie.
Fukushima
Three-Mile Island was a worst-case nuclear disaster for the US. The operations crew made the problem worse at every decision point, doing the opposite of what they were supposed to do. (To be fair, the "UI" was really quite bad). I was living not far downwind at the time. The result? A small amount of radioactive steam was released.
I can believe through some combination of a hacker and incompetence that a reactor could be made to melt down, but we seem to have thought through failure modes reasonably well here.
Which is why being prepared for the eventuality that you'll have to survive on your own without a government, or the military, playing nanny for you and your neighbors, is the prudent way to behave.
Only if you think the risk of that is large enough to be worth preparing for, and you wish to survive in such a world.
My point is that recently the hive mind on Slashdot is attacking WikiLeaks instead of supporting it. What changed? Hillary was criticized, that's what changed. Can't have a source of news that's not carefully controlled, can we?
That's one possible outcome, to be sure - won't work, of course, since we've never managed to collect more that 20% of GDP as federal taxes for very long. Far more likely IMO is that we'll just print the money to pay the seniors, while continuing to lie about inflation where it maters for inflation-adjusted payouts. Naturally, a future where we spend less isn't to be taken seriously - those barrels will be full of pork come what may!
So, what you're telling me here, is that Trump is the one politician who's campaign statements you actually believe?
Trump could do wonders for the Congress and the courts remembering that they're supposed to be 3 co-equal branches of government, instead of just rolling over for the president on almost everything, letting executive orders go unchallenged, and so on.
We don't like click-baity, misleading, and misrepresentative headlines here. They're disingenuous and you should be ashamed for having snuck this one past the editors
Have you been in a coma since 1998? Click-baity, misleading, and misrepresentative headlines are almost all Slashdot does these days. At least the new management has damped down the sexism/racism-related clickbait articles - I'll give him that much - but it's still mostly clickbait.
An organisation like that run responsibly would be excellent for transparency, reform, etc.
Ah, you mean: an organization that would only publish stuff harmful to the Right, and not even the slightest embarassment to the Left? That's already 95% of mainstream media, but what the heck - start one if you're passionate about it.
I'd still probably vote for Hillary. Trump [.. is basically Hitler]. If he gets elected i'm honestly worried that the world might end in a nuclear fireball.
Which is exactly what the Left said about Reagan, Bush, and Bush (and probably more before I was born). Very tired old propaganda. I'm sure he's also racist, sexist, transphobic, Isamaphobic, and all the new bad things that, well, are also too played out for anyone serious to care about.
Trump has been a moderate Democrat most of his life, and most of his positions are still the same. His only real talking point is immigration, and he doesn't seem too firm on that. In short, nothing worth worrying about.
hacks their way into a nuclear power plant's control system and causes a meltdown
The reactor wouldn't be contributing to the grid again, but power would certainly be back fast enough - worst case with rotating blackouts during high demand times.
Relying on other people to keep you alive in an emergency is silly.
Unless civilization collapses, "other people" will be working to restore normality - aside from the selfish ones hiding in their bunkers. If civilization collapses, "other people" are all that matters, as threats, victims, food, whatever.
We're talking here about malicious actors taking out specific utilities, or perhaps several, using software exploits, not the collapse of civilization. In the latter case, what you really want is a neighbor who has saved up everything you need, but is strongly anti-gun.
Slashdot Mirror
Chip and signature is not chip and PIN. Nothing you said is relevant to the US. This "upgrade" has downsides and no upside for the consumer.
But do go on about the entirely unrelated system you like.
The point is that the AI learned to play the game from only screen data. No maps, no preset strategy, just visual data. So, it has to learn to recognize threats and obstacles, and what to do when it does.
Beating humans is a good test, because humans are good at exploiting patterns, so shortcuts like always taking a fixed route wouldn't work for long.
Sure, but maybe BUG_ON isn't the best way to express that? Heck, what is the standard in the Linux kernel for "crash immediately".
Come down off your thrown jerk-face
How would you throw a jerk-face, and why would you stand on one?
Of course, the US could have pursued a different policy, and possibly ended it all sooner, with less bother for everybody.
Or, you know, killed us all in a nuclear holocaust. But in the real world, the plan actually did work, the USSR crumbled, the cold war was over, no nuclear war. Happy ending.
But some people will criticize anything, it seems.
Perhaps the person who confuses "RN" for "UM" is not qualified to make assessments as to who is dumb?
To be fair, with default fonts Slashdot has a keming problem.
its highly probable that every single transcontinental link is 'managed' and tappable.
Heck, the undersea cables of hostile powers were tapped from the early 70s (presumably friendly powers followed). The US built a special-purpose nuclear submarine, capable of very deep dives and of "installation and maintenance of underwater equipment" just for the purpose of stealthily locating and tapping undersea cables.
Keys in pockets don't scratch modern phones. What does is sand. Sand and grit is all over the place - and yes, it gets in your pocket and on your keys. Some of that grit is of a hardness that will scratch the screens. For sure. It shouldn't scratch sapphire - but then this article says the lens isn't actually fully sapphire.
Came here to post this, but let me just quote the AC who got here first. Sand is the killer. Sand easily scratches glass, rarely scratches quartz, and won't scratch topaz or sapphire. That's why sapphire is key: it's sand proof (which makes it nearly everything-proof, for scratching).
At this point you're either trolling badly, or astroturfing far too obviously. Either way: murk lore.
Weakness doesn't provoke the likely opponent to additional military spending, but strength can.
Yes, Exactly. That was the strategy. Cause the collapse of the USSR, while maintaining the show of strength to prevent them from attacking us. It worked, and ended the cold war and threat of global nuclear war (at least for a couple generations).
It seemed more scary at the time than it was, because we could only assume the USSR was as strong as it looked, but it turned out they were only putting on a show. Most of they're nuclear silos were empty (built just to show up on our intel photos), and most of the actual missiles hadn't been maintained and couldn't launch. Most of the military equipment stored for use when needed had been sold on the black market. They had very minimal modern armor, and were moving their modern tank brigades around quickly on trains, letting them get photographed at on place and then another, to create the illusion of strength. How much of that did Reagan know? More than we did, for sure.
Reagan understood the USSR better than you do. Weakness invites attack; strength doesn't. That's just how bullies think. Why is it people think an enemy is just someone we haven't hugged enough? I blame lack of studying history.
I assume all politicians are lying at all times. Doesn't any reasonable person? Past actions are useful to examine however.
There was a time )or so I'm told) when people in power in America sought to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
There's simply no reason for me to give any politician the benefit of the doubt. She looks corrupt, so she's corrupt until proven otherwise. He looks crazy, so he's crazy until proven otherwise. Personally, I think America can tolerate a little crazy more than it can more corruption, but that's just me.
Over 50% of the people who met with Clinton when she was Secretary of State donated to the Clinton Foundation. That's as blatant as it gets: for sure there was quid-pro-quo: pay for access. There's plenty of evidence for pay-for-results as well, if you care. The TARP thing? The documents are new and maybe fake, but why would it be even a little surprising? We know this is how it works - there are limits and disclosure around campaign contributions, but not around "charitable donations", so problem solved.
Does $1000 seem like an appropriate bribe for a billion dollars?
You have to go down the list. E.g., J.P Morgan gave to lots of people to get their $25B TARP quid-pro-quo. Yeah, it probably cost them less than a million in bribes total, but bribery has a very high return on investment in a nation as corrupt as ours.
And what's the freaking point when this money is used for charity anyhow
Lot's of things ares speculative, but one thing we know for sure is that the Clinton Foundation gives only a token amount to actual charity, and the vast majority is "expenses". o all appearances, it's the largest, most open bribery racket in the Western world.
And no one seems very worked up about it. I guess we're we're so accustomed to corruption that "seeing how the sausage is made" - the actual mechanism for laundering bribery money - has no outrage left to provoke.
Really? How hard would it be for a group to send a few "martyrs" to a place where there's a widespread Ebola outbreak to get exposed to the disease, then board a plane to New York City
Yeah, I think I saw that movie.
Fukushima
Three-Mile Island was a worst-case nuclear disaster for the US. The operations crew made the problem worse at every decision point, doing the opposite of what they were supposed to do. (To be fair, the "UI" was really quite bad). I was living not far downwind at the time. The result? A small amount of radioactive steam was released.
I can believe through some combination of a hacker and incompetence that a reactor could be made to melt down, but we seem to have thought through failure modes reasonably well here.
Which is why being prepared for the eventuality that you'll have to survive on your own without a government, or the military, playing nanny for you and your neighbors, is the prudent way to behave.
Only if you think the risk of that is large enough to be worth preparing for, and you wish to survive in such a world.
My point is that recently the hive mind on Slashdot is attacking WikiLeaks instead of supporting it. What changed? Hillary was criticized, that's what changed. Can't have a source of news that's not carefully controlled, can we?
That's one possible outcome, to be sure - won't work, of course, since we've never managed to collect more that 20% of GDP as federal taxes for very long. Far more likely IMO is that we'll just print the money to pay the seniors, while continuing to lie about inflation where it maters for inflation-adjusted payouts. Naturally, a future where we spend less isn't to be taken seriously - those barrels will be full of pork come what may!
So, what you're telling me here, is that Trump is the one politician who's campaign statements you actually believe?
Trump could do wonders for the Congress and the courts remembering that they're supposed to be 3 co-equal branches of government, instead of just rolling over for the president on almost everything, letting executive orders go unchallenged, and so on.
We don't like click-baity, misleading, and misrepresentative headlines here. They're disingenuous and you should be ashamed for having snuck this one past the editors
Have you been in a coma since 1998? Click-baity, misleading, and misrepresentative headlines are almost all Slashdot does these days. At least the new management has damped down the sexism/racism-related clickbait articles - I'll give him that much - but it's still mostly clickbait.
An organisation like that run responsibly would be excellent for transparency, reform, etc.
Ah, you mean: an organization that would only publish stuff harmful to the Right, and not even the slightest embarassment to the Left? That's already 95% of mainstream media, but what the heck - start one if you're passionate about it.
I'd still probably vote for Hillary. Trump [.. is basically Hitler]. If he gets elected i'm honestly worried that the world might end in a nuclear fireball.
Which is exactly what the Left said about Reagan, Bush, and Bush (and probably more before I was born). Very tired old propaganda. I'm sure he's also racist, sexist, transphobic, Isamaphobic, and all the new bad things that, well, are also too played out for anyone serious to care about.
Trump has been a moderate Democrat most of his life, and most of his positions are still the same. His only real talking point is immigration, and he doesn't seem too firm on that. In short, nothing worth worrying about.
I wish I worked on anything where that sort of performance mattered these days. Other challenges, sure, but not as fun.
weaponize and use an extremely virulent disease
Movie plot threat.
hacks their way into a nuclear power plant's control system and causes a meltdown
The reactor wouldn't be contributing to the grid again, but power would certainly be back fast enough - worst case with rotating blackouts during high demand times.
Relying on other people to keep you alive in an emergency is silly.
Unless civilization collapses, "other people" will be working to restore normality - aside from the selfish ones hiding in their bunkers. If civilization collapses, "other people" are all that matters, as threats, victims, food, whatever.
We're talking here about malicious actors taking out specific utilities, or perhaps several, using software exploits, not the collapse of civilization. In the latter case, what you really want is a neighbor who has saved up everything you need, but is strongly anti-gun.