This is probably the worst thing I've seen in this discussion that has some factual basis, because it's willful removal of markings.
One of the problems I have with this is that it's not clear sometimes. For example, you said that she 'was having trouble receiving classified information', but the article doesn't say that, it says whether or not it was classified is unknown.
For some reason, people think that I'm trying to defend her, but i'm trying to understand what exactly she did and how bad it was on a scale from 1 to 10. I keep getting the impression that Fox thinks it's a 10 (purposefully handing marked TS/SAP info to the Chinese) and her campaign saying it was a 1 (she got an email that the classified coffee maker was broken). Does it matter? I think so. It doesn't help that people are simply wrong when they say things like the above ('classified information' versus 'sensitive information').
Try to keep up: What did she do, when did she do it, what was the classified information and when, was it marked? Unfortunately, I can't figure out exactly what happened based on all the yelling.
For example, this NPR article says that 84 emails were retroactively classified, some to confidential, some to secret, some to top secret. That's bad. Is that different from someone receiving / sending marked documents? I think so. Do you think it's the same?
Releasing names of intelligence operatives is a great example. For example, Valerie Plame was an operative whose name was leaked by Scooty Libby, for which he was thrown in jail. (Not exactly, he got thrown in jail for lying about it later, but then Bush bailed him out.) Can you please point me at a source of Clinton naming intel operatives?
The closest thing I can find is: this which says that certain unmarked emails 'passed through her server' (whatever that means? Did someone send her something? Did she send someone something) that 'tracked' classified documents. So: someone sends you an email, and some years later, the CIA says that the information is the same as information in a classified document. How much trouble are you in?
And the brazen manner in which Clinton directed her staff to strip the classified markings off of material and transmit them in an insecure channel in at least one instance. The time the classified fax machine was not working it is documented that she did this.
As someone with a clearance, that sounds really bad. Can you please point me at a source?
First I've heard of this. There were emails and / or attachments that were marked as special access? Who was the classification authority and when were they classified?
There is a big difference between things that are marked as classified, with the appropriate headers and footers, declass dates, etc, and things that someone 2 years later in a different agency says 'those should have been classified'. The first is a felony, the second isn't. Do people understand the difference? I don't think so.
Boy, you're a dickhead. See this article on why some people say math and some say maths. Often we talk about the sciences (plural) when we refer to biology, physics, chemistry, etc. Others refer to maths like geometry, algebra, trig, calculus. Are they one or plural? Lots of English speakers use the plural.
Huge numbers of americans are creationists (about a third). about a third cannot give an explanation for seasons (they think its because we are closer to the sun). Plenty of people believe in homeopathy, astrology (remember Reagan?), and lots of other BS.
50% sounds about right. Also see this. It's different though, because it's a poll about whether they exist, not whether they have visited.
If you take a look at his web site, he follows people that actually do get a room. They can go someplace private, do whatever they do, then return, and this guy will show videos on his web site. For him, it really appears to be about 'shame'. I'm guessing he just gets off on thinking about other people having sex.
Ahem....no. That's the per capita cost. Total cost for the mission is about $720 million, or about $2 per person.
Comparatively, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program cost is $1.3 trillion, the Boston Big Dig cost $24 billion ($7 billion was federal money), the new Vikings stadium is expect to cost just over $1 billion (and will probably run way over). New Horizons was a bargain and exactly what NASA should be doing, not SLS.
It would be better if they guy wasn't 1. paid so much money himself ; and 2) a total dick about paying his employees living wages in general. See: http://www.epi.org/blog/romney...
Yes, you can make the arguments about robots replacing people, and yes, it's going to happen, but this guy is one of the worst salespeople for it and a magnificent representative of the upper management asshole
The author makes very valid arguments, such as "Manliness in the field thus makes the science (and scientist) more credible." The whole premise is that people find some some science more credible than other science based on sexist judgments. Disagree with the conclusions (whatever they are, I only skimmed the paper), but don't get pissed because it reaches conclusions you dislike. Even failures are worthy as long as they're rigorous.
They don't make that argument; they make that bald assertion. This paper should be doing some research indicating that, for example, consumers think that glacier science is more credible when it is presented in a 'manly' way: do a survey, measure peoples' opinions, do A/B testing on different groups. Then, ask more questions: is this specific to glacier discussions? More or less so than other fields? Is it specific to particular groups? That's how you do science. The paper as written is just a bunch of wild-ass statements, with no basis in anything other than their political / gender views. That doens't make it right or wrong; it makes it useless.
...If the research into that so far has only really looked at men, then the research is lacking, and it's right to publish a paper saying so.
Has it? That would be a good thing to research. The way to do that is to do some sort of analysis of the published literature, or publicity regarding glaciers, or reporting on it; then discuss how male-dominated terms affect public opinion (if any). Great, do that. The paper in question (and I read it) doesn't do anything of the sort. It makes bald assertions about gender bias regarding glaciers and talks about how that needs to be fixed, but doesn't 1) show that it's a problem based on any sort of analysis or 2) present a way to fix it.
The problem isn't that the paper is wrong, it's that it is content-free.
I found the section on Ursula K. LeGuin particularly depressing. The Left Hand of Darkness is a great book, and a thought-provoking piece on gender identity and it's effect on society. The paper goes on about how the characters in the book spend time crossing the glacier, but doesn't derive any conclusions from that, or incorporate it into a larger context.
Agreed. We use Angular 1, and it's all javascript, all the time. Shameless plug: it's a composable dashboard with a widget library; you can see it here
That sounds about right... I remember a porn mag circulating amongst the boys back in elementary school. We were suitably impressed but only because it was "forbidden stuff"; it was way before anyone got sexually active and the actual content was, well, boring as hell. And not one little bit scary.
For me, it was middle school. It was impressive, but not because it was forbidden. It's because it was sexually exciting and 'fit' with other things that were going on with me. I had been noticing various young lady parts for a while, and then to be able to see a picture of them uncovered was truly awesome.
Assuming this is a fairly standard episode, the question is what this would mean for what kids should be exposed to. Does it mean that kids should be exposed to naked parts earlier (so that when they hit teens it doesn't have such a dramatic effect)? Does it mean that I should not be able to see them until far past the teens? Don't know.
All the time. You just don't see it in press releases and it doesn't appear here on/. Take a look at the cost curve for batteries. It's not flat, it's been decreasing significantly as the technologies have been integrated and production volume has gone up. For example, read this discussing the decreasing costs for EV and hybrid vehicles. its one of the primary reasons that the Bolt will less expensive. 5 years ago, it would be twice the price.
The goal of the GPL is not to get the most widely used software (although that's a noble goal). The goal is to ensure that the users of the software are able to maintain and secure it so they don't get left hanging out to dry if something happens to their upstream vendor.
Which would be the case if the source code was available. And it is. (Crap like this is why I avoid GPL'ed code like the plague. Because it is the plague: it infects everything and brings no benefit. Having developed open source software for a long time, I'm a huge fan of permissive licenses, which is why we always use Apache or MIT. )
The GPL license is the problem here. I know that SFC wants Oracle to change, but maybe changing the GPL would be better. Add a clause that says that you can distribute the binaries if you also distribute the source.
Sorry I was unclear: Yes, you are correct about the US. Most HIV positive people are males homosexuals, and that has not changed.
Looking at the world, it is not and has not been about gay men. Look at: https://www.avert.org/professi... . Most are in sub-Saharan Africa. Almost 5% of the population there is a carrier.
It's not being taken for granted, dumbass. At this point, it's history. Battery / solar / HIV treatments have gotten dramatically better. Yes, slowly; yes, gradually; yes, every improvement has been hard fought. It's not guaranteed to get even better, but only idiots think that it will get better instantly or without effort.
And, yet, solar prices have dropped dramatically and the number of installations is growing dramatically. Batteries have been getting better / cheaper.
And treatment for HIV is getting better, people are living longer, we keep learning more and more. Most experimental things never make it to the real world. However, the real world is better more and more solar / battery / HIV treatments, so your whining is stupid and pointless, and wrong.
1. You are incorrect about HIV transmission. In the US, yes, it _was_ largely a gay disease. It is not, and has not been, primarily about gay men for a long time now. In the places where it is most devastating (Africa), it has never been about men fucking each other in the ass.
2. The time / money spent on a disease depends on many factors, and it's a limited pool so, yes, spending money on HIV means less for others. But:
A. the effect of HIV worldwide has been huge, even compared to other diseases.
B. What we learn about HIV can be applied to many other communicable diseases.
The underlying algorithm has learned to play many games. That's actually the more important part of this breakthrough. Yeah, yeah, you're going to say that it doesn't count because the exact same trained system doesn't play all the games simultaneously. That's coming.
From some sort of objective measure of the underlying OS, perhaps you are right. However, as a person that runs Linux on my workstations / servers, I cannot use it on my desktop because I need Outlook and MS Office. That's not a technical requirement, but it's the world that people actually live in and need to be productive. No, Thunderbird doesn't cut it; no, LibreOffice does not cut it. Plus, I can't play Eve Online in Linux. So, I use Windows.
That's because AI has a real definition: "computers that think like humans."
If you use a trick to solve the problem, then good job, but it's not AI.
Except that it is beginning to look like human intelligence is also just 'tricks'. Your brain takes short-cuts, makes assumptions, 'fills things in' both perceptually and conceptually, and forms a consciousness that is largely made up from evolutionary history and previous memories. Yes, it's wet and it evolved, but it's just a bundle of ad hoc solutions that combine to form your mind.
I think that you are underestimating the breakthrough here. Previous Go programs were not even close; there were fundamental flaws and inability to solve the problem. If this program can beat someone of this rank on a 19x19 board then even if they lose to other ones later this year, they will beat them handily next year. It's all over but the crying.
Slashdot Mirror
This is probably the worst thing I've seen in this discussion that has some factual basis, because it's willful removal of markings.
One of the problems I have with this is that it's not clear sometimes. For example, you said that she 'was having trouble receiving classified information', but the article doesn't say that, it says whether or not it was classified is unknown.
For some reason, people think that I'm trying to defend her, but i'm trying to understand what exactly she did and how bad it was on a scale from 1 to 10. I keep getting the impression that Fox thinks it's a 10 (purposefully handing marked TS/SAP info to the Chinese) and her campaign saying it was a 1 (she got an email that the classified coffee maker was broken). Does it matter? I think so. It doesn't help that people are simply wrong when they say things like the above ('classified information' versus 'sensitive information').
Try to keep up: What did she do, when did she do it, what was the classified information and when, was it marked? Unfortunately, I can't figure out exactly what happened based on all the yelling.
For example, this NPR article says that 84 emails were retroactively classified, some to confidential, some to secret, some to top secret. That's bad. Is that different from someone receiving / sending marked documents? I think so. Do you think it's the same?
Releasing names of intelligence operatives is a great example. For example, Valerie Plame was an operative whose name was leaked by Scooty Libby, for which he was thrown in jail. (Not exactly, he got thrown in jail for lying about it later, but then Bush bailed him out.) Can you please point me at a source of Clinton naming intel operatives?
The closest thing I can find is: this which says that certain unmarked emails 'passed through her server' (whatever that means? Did someone send her something? Did she send someone something) that 'tracked' classified documents. So: someone sends you an email, and some years later, the CIA says that the information is the same as information in a classified document. How much trouble are you in?
And the brazen manner in which Clinton directed her staff to strip the classified markings off of material and transmit them in an insecure channel in at least one instance. The time the classified fax machine was not working it is documented that she did this.
As someone with a clearance, that sounds really bad. Can you please point me at a source?
First I've heard of this. There were emails and / or attachments that were marked as special access? Who was the classification authority and when were they classified?
There is a big difference between things that are marked as classified, with the appropriate headers and footers, declass dates, etc, and things that someone 2 years later in a different agency says 'those should have been classified'. The first is a felony, the second isn't. Do people understand the difference? I don't think so.
Boy, you're a dickhead. See this article on why some people say math and some say maths. Often we talk about the sciences (plural) when we refer to biology, physics, chemistry, etc. Others refer to maths like geometry, algebra, trig, calculus. Are they one or plural? Lots of English speakers use the plural.
Huge numbers of americans are creationists (about a third). about a third cannot give an explanation for seasons (they think its because we are closer to the sun). Plenty of people believe in homeopathy, astrology (remember Reagan?), and lots of other BS.
50% sounds about right. Also see this. It's different though, because it's a poll about whether they exist, not whether they have visited.
If you take a look at his web site, he follows people that actually do get a room. They can go someplace private, do whatever they do, then return, and this guy will show videos on his web site. For him, it really appears to be about 'shame'. I'm guessing he just gets off on thinking about other people having sex.
Ahem....no. That's the per capita cost. Total cost for the mission is about $720 million, or about $2 per person.
Comparatively, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program cost is $1.3 trillion, the Boston Big Dig cost $24 billion ($7 billion was federal money), the new Vikings stadium is expect to cost just over $1 billion (and will probably run way over). New Horizons was a bargain and exactly what NASA should be doing, not SLS.
It would be better if they guy wasn't 1. paid so much money himself ; and 2) a total dick about paying his employees living wages in general. See: http://www.epi.org/blog/romney...
Yes, you can make the arguments about robots replacing people, and yes, it's going to happen, but this guy is one of the worst salespeople for it and a magnificent representative of the upper management asshole
The author makes very valid arguments, such as "Manliness in the field thus makes the science (and scientist) more credible." The whole premise is that people find some some science more credible than other science based on sexist judgments. Disagree with the conclusions (whatever they are, I only skimmed the paper), but don't get pissed because it reaches conclusions you dislike. Even failures are worthy as long as they're rigorous.
They don't make that argument; they make that bald assertion. This paper should be doing some research indicating that, for example, consumers think that glacier science is more credible when it is presented in a 'manly' way: do a survey, measure peoples' opinions, do A/B testing on different groups. Then, ask more questions: is this specific to glacier discussions? More or less so than other fields? Is it specific to particular groups? That's how you do science. The paper as written is just a bunch of wild-ass statements, with no basis in anything other than their political / gender views. That doens't make it right or wrong; it makes it useless.
...If the research into that so far has only really looked at men, then the research is lacking, and it's right to publish a paper saying so.
Has it? That would be a good thing to research. The way to do that is to do some sort of analysis of the published literature, or publicity regarding glaciers, or reporting on it; then discuss how male-dominated terms affect public opinion (if any). Great, do that. The paper in question (and I read it) doesn't do anything of the sort. It makes bald assertions about gender bias regarding glaciers and talks about how that needs to be fixed, but doesn't 1) show that it's a problem based on any sort of analysis or 2) present a way to fix it.
The problem isn't that the paper is wrong, it's that it is content-free.
I found the section on Ursula K. LeGuin particularly depressing. The Left Hand of Darkness is a great book, and a thought-provoking piece on gender identity and it's effect on society. The paper goes on about how the characters in the book spend time crossing the glacier, but doesn't derive any conclusions from that, or incorporate it into a larger context.
Agreed. We use Angular 1, and it's all javascript, all the time. Shameless plug: it's a composable dashboard with a widget library; you can see it here
That sounds about right... I remember a porn mag circulating amongst the boys back in elementary school. We were suitably impressed but only because it was "forbidden stuff"; it was way before anyone got sexually active and the actual content was, well, boring as hell. And not one little bit scary .
For me, it was middle school. It was impressive, but not because it was forbidden. It's because it was sexually exciting and 'fit' with other things that were going on with me. I had been noticing various young lady parts for a while, and then to be able to see a picture of them uncovered was truly awesome.
Assuming this is a fairly standard episode, the question is what this would mean for what kids should be exposed to. Does it mean that kids should be exposed to naked parts earlier (so that when they hit teens it doesn't have such a dramatic effect)? Does it mean that I should not be able to see them until far past the teens? Don't know.
All the time. You just don't see it in press releases and it doesn't appear here on /. Take a look at the cost curve for batteries. It's not flat, it's been decreasing significantly as the technologies have been integrated and production volume has gone up. For example, read this discussing the decreasing costs for EV and hybrid vehicles. its one of the primary reasons that the Bolt will less expensive. 5 years ago, it would be twice the price.
The goal of the GPL is not to get the most widely used software (although that's a noble goal). The goal is to ensure that the users of the software are able to maintain and secure it so they don't get left hanging out to dry if something happens to their upstream vendor.
Which would be the case if the source code was available. And it is. (Crap like this is why I avoid GPL'ed code like the plague. Because it is the plague: it infects everything and brings no benefit. Having developed open source software for a long time, I'm a huge fan of permissive licenses, which is why we always use Apache or MIT. )
The GPL license is the problem here. I know that SFC wants Oracle to change, but maybe changing the GPL would be better. Add a clause that says that you can distribute the binaries if you also distribute the source.
Sorry I was unclear: Yes, you are correct about the US. Most HIV positive people are males homosexuals, and that has not changed.
Looking at the world, it is not and has not been about gay men. Look at: https://www.avert.org/professi... . Most are in sub-Saharan Africa. Almost 5% of the population there is a carrier.
It's not being taken for granted, dumbass. At this point, it's history. Battery / solar / HIV treatments have gotten dramatically better. Yes, slowly; yes, gradually; yes, every improvement has been hard fought. It's not guaranteed to get even better, but only idiots think that it will get better instantly or without effort.
And, yet, solar prices have dropped dramatically and the number of installations is growing dramatically. Batteries have been getting better / cheaper.
And treatment for HIV is getting better, people are living longer, we keep learning more and more. Most experimental things never make it to the real world. However, the real world is better more and more solar / battery / HIV treatments, so your whining is stupid and pointless, and wrong.
1. You are incorrect about HIV transmission. In the US, yes, it _was_ largely a gay disease. It is not, and has not been, primarily about gay men for a long time now. In the places where it is most devastating (Africa), it has never been about men fucking each other in the ass.
2. The time / money spent on a disease depends on many factors, and it's a limited pool so, yes, spending money on HIV means less for others. But:
A. the effect of HIV worldwide has been huge, even compared to other diseases.
B. What we learn about HIV can be applied to many other communicable diseases.
The underlying algorithm has learned to play many games. That's actually the more important part of this breakthrough. Yeah, yeah, you're going to say that it doesn't count because the exact same trained system doesn't play all the games simultaneously. That's coming.
From some sort of objective measure of the underlying OS, perhaps you are right. However, as a person that runs Linux on my workstations / servers, I cannot use it on my desktop because I need Outlook and MS Office. That's not a technical requirement, but it's the world that people actually live in and need to be productive. No, Thunderbird doesn't cut it; no, LibreOffice does not cut it. Plus, I can't play Eve Online in Linux. So, I use Windows.
That's because AI has a real definition: "computers that think like humans." If you use a trick to solve the problem, then good job, but it's not AI.
Except that it is beginning to look like human intelligence is also just 'tricks'. Your brain takes short-cuts, makes assumptions, 'fills things in' both perceptually and conceptually, and forms a consciousness that is largely made up from evolutionary history and previous memories. Yes, it's wet and it evolved, but it's just a bundle of ad hoc solutions that combine to form your mind.
I think that you are underestimating the breakthrough here. Previous Go programs were not even close; there were fundamental flaws and inability to solve the problem. If this program can beat someone of this rank on a 19x19 board then even if they lose to other ones later this year, they will beat them handily next year. It's all over but the crying.