This makes perfect sense. There's always been a way to distinguish between pseudorandom and random value sets. There's also no reason to believe an encryption algorithm could somehow start producing genuinely random values, so it follows that encrypted value sets should be distinguishable form truly random value sets.
I've used TigerDirect several times, and I've used newegg several times.
I've had more problems with the delivery service (UPS/FedEx) than I've had with either retailer. For example, for a while, the UPS man kept delivering my packages to my neighbors' rather than my home (despite the clear house numbers on each house and mailbox). In fact, the shipping carrier and charges are usually the make-or-break issues for me when it comes down to choosing which to use.
Tin whiskers are an issue (or at least used to be and issue) with some leadless solder (which I think is what he is referring to), but I'm not sure to what extent soldered components are used in such application nor am I sure to what extent such solders are used today.
...assuming a person with whom you disagree is automatically wrong does not magically make he/she wrong, or anymore detached from reality than you are.
Creating "life" in a laboratory hinges more on what our definition of life is than biology.
That being said, scientists "creating life" using special equipment, special (non-random) ingredients, highly controlled conditions, etc would in no way prove life can self-generate.
That's like saying anyone with access to gold and a diamond I can make a diamond ring.
Given the vast capabilities of modern systems, desktop environments are not sapping the "majority of your computer resources"... That's just silly.
To counter your insistence that "eye candy" is of no use, let me ask a question: what type of chair do you sit in when you are working at your machine? You probably have a fairly nicely padded (possibly leather) office type chair. Why? Wouldn't a wooden stool or a box do just as well? Wouldn't a more simple object to sit on require far fewer resources?
One would choose the comfortable chair because the comfort and usability improve overall productivity. Desktop environment "eye candy" can do the same thing. I'm not saying all eye candy is a great thing, and I honestly used to think that minimalism was the best route.
The logic of "Cogito ergo sum" is the foundation upon which the Turning Test resides. Too many people refuse to accept the idea there are "things" they can't know...
This is precisely why the Turning Test is valid.
The failure of these entries speak to the profound philosophical basis for the Turing Test. Not one of these machines is not capable of arbitrarily convincing a person it is human - as you illustrate, doing so is very, very difficult. That being said, if a machine manages to do so (regardless of implementation) what basis have we to suggest that machine is not "intelligent" in the same way we consider a person "intelligent"?
You do illustrate an interesting aspect to the test though - it is much better at determining what is not "intelligent" by its standards than it is at determining what is "intelligent". The test uses our innate (often arbitrary) definition of "intelligence" so saying a machine (or a particular human for that matter) is indeed intelligent is quite difficult, but determining a machine certainly is NOT intelligent is trivial.
I think you missed the point of the Turing Test.
It's not a test of machine capability, but an exploration of what we define to be "intelligent".
Basically this is the argument: in so far as one can believe another human is intelligent, if a machine can convince you it is a human, there is no logical basis for differentiating the two.
It's not a rubber stamp saying "This machine is Intelligent" but rather an analogy saying "If this man is intelligent, why would would this machine not be considered intelligent?" The whole point is, we cannot see past this "facade", whether it be a machine or your daughter. As such, we should not artificially differentiate between the two.
There are a couple problems with addressing "the journey to intelligence". The biggest being it's inefficient. Do you really want to build a machine that takes 20 years to educate? Likewise, what is "True AI"? Clearly defining a metaphysical construct such as this is impossible without being able to clearly and completely model human brain function (assuming you are basing your idea of "intelligence" on human mental capacity).
I would argue second-hand sales have little affect on the sale of new copies. Second-hand game markets are just an easy method of price discrimination. Very few people buy used copies of games they would consider buying new copies of (if I'm willing to buy a new copy of a game, I'm probably not going to settle for a used copy). Personally, I don't buy used games; if I don't want the game enough to buy a new copy, I just don't buy it.
I've never been much of a fan for the idea.
Although I can recognize some of the potential benefits, I don't see an overall advantage.
How much data are we really willing to give over to Google, Microsoft, etc. Much like the DRM fiasco of interest as of late, what happens if Google decides to discontinue Google Docs? It's not just a "control" or "free software" issue.
Cloud Computing isn't the answer; Competent Computing is the answer.
IMO, the origin of this entire discussion is a fundamental underappreciation for the immense computing potential even the average computer user (with a computer that may be several years old) has these days. No one needs Cloud Computing. A bargain basement Dell these days is still a very good machine.
Granted these formats (and probably these disks themselves) are older than I am, the most surprising is that the data was readable at all (without some forensic intervention).
Magnetic storage for going on 30 years is quite impressive.
I totally agree about the voice recognition.
Voice communication is terribly inefficient. It is also a very difficult thing to do naturally with a machine. For most people, it is very uncomfortable to "talk" to a machine - it's almost universally disdained.
I hope they throw the book at him.
He made it very clear he understood the potential consequences of his actions, yet he still did it. When you make a conscious decision, you deserve no leniency.
No doubt that knowledge useful, but all information, regardless of the source, must be taken and scrutinized before one accepts it as fact. The bottom line is, children are not taught to scrutinize information in this way (and most of the public do not think this way as a result). Instead, we as society have been trained (whether intentionally or not) that Science dictates fact, and if some scientist somewhere says it, it's true until proven wrong.
There is no logical basis for the concept that anything in the universe is measurable, categorizable, or even perceivable in any meaningful way.
Science completely relies on the BELIEF that humans are capable of accurately observing, cataloging, describing, comparing, and explaining observations. None of which have any logical basis, yet one is expected to believe "the latest research" "They" do is absolute truth?
The real crime at the heart of this entire debate over Science, is the wholesale abandonment of Philosophy.
Schools do not teach Science. Schools teach information deemed "fact" by scientific academia. The test is wrong, the schools are wrong, the scientists are wrong... Science is not writing an encyclopedia of "facts". Science is a process founded on a philosophically unsound foundation. Science as a process is perfectly reasonable, but the mechanist foundation scientific academia cling to is unreasonable.
This article presupposes the validity of "Science", when this entire discussion should be "Are US Voters Informed Enough to Pursue Philosophy?"
Slashdot Mirror
In First Autonomous Act, Robot Flees New Jersey
This makes perfect sense. There's always been a way to distinguish between pseudorandom and random value sets. There's also no reason to believe an encryption algorithm could somehow start producing genuinely random values, so it follows that encrypted value sets should be distinguishable form truly random value sets.
I've used TigerDirect several times, and I've used newegg several times. I've had more problems with the delivery service (UPS/FedEx) than I've had with either retailer. For example, for a while, the UPS man kept delivering my packages to my neighbors' rather than my home (despite the clear house numbers on each house and mailbox). In fact, the shipping carrier and charges are usually the make-or-break issues for me when it comes down to choosing which to use.
Sounds like the making of another Die Hard to me.
Yeah, they have two of those now. Weird, right?
Tin whiskers are an issue (or at least used to be and issue) with some leadless solder (which I think is what he is referring to), but I'm not sure to what extent soldered components are used in such application nor am I sure to what extent such solders are used today.
How much did those T1's run you back when dialup was viable?
Cheap. Awesome. Loud noises. Involves simple electronics and interesting EM phenomena.
...assuming a person with whom you disagree is automatically wrong does not magically make he/she wrong, or anymore detached from reality than you are.
Creating "life" in a laboratory hinges more on what our definition of life is than biology. That being said, scientists "creating life" using special equipment, special (non-random) ingredients, highly controlled conditions, etc would in no way prove life can self-generate. That's like saying anyone with access to gold and a diamond I can make a diamond ring.
Given the vast capabilities of modern systems, desktop environments are not sapping the "majority of your computer resources"... That's just silly. To counter your insistence that "eye candy" is of no use, let me ask a question: what type of chair do you sit in when you are working at your machine? You probably have a fairly nicely padded (possibly leather) office type chair. Why? Wouldn't a wooden stool or a box do just as well? Wouldn't a more simple object to sit on require far fewer resources? One would choose the comfortable chair because the comfort and usability improve overall productivity. Desktop environment "eye candy" can do the same thing. I'm not saying all eye candy is a great thing, and I honestly used to think that minimalism was the best route.
That's hardcore...
Thank you for correctly applying Descartes.
The logic of "Cogito ergo sum" is the foundation upon which the Turning Test resides. Too many people refuse to accept the idea there are "things" they can't know...
This is precisely why the Turning Test is valid. The failure of these entries speak to the profound philosophical basis for the Turing Test. Not one of these machines is not capable of arbitrarily convincing a person it is human - as you illustrate, doing so is very, very difficult. That being said, if a machine manages to do so (regardless of implementation) what basis have we to suggest that machine is not "intelligent" in the same way we consider a person "intelligent"? You do illustrate an interesting aspect to the test though - it is much better at determining what is not "intelligent" by its standards than it is at determining what is "intelligent". The test uses our innate (often arbitrary) definition of "intelligence" so saying a machine (or a particular human for that matter) is indeed intelligent is quite difficult, but determining a machine certainly is NOT intelligent is trivial.
I think you missed the point of the Turing Test. It's not a test of machine capability, but an exploration of what we define to be "intelligent". Basically this is the argument: in so far as one can believe another human is intelligent, if a machine can convince you it is a human, there is no logical basis for differentiating the two. It's not a rubber stamp saying "This machine is Intelligent" but rather an analogy saying "If this man is intelligent, why would would this machine not be considered intelligent?" The whole point is, we cannot see past this "facade", whether it be a machine or your daughter. As such, we should not artificially differentiate between the two. There are a couple problems with addressing "the journey to intelligence". The biggest being it's inefficient. Do you really want to build a machine that takes 20 years to educate? Likewise, what is "True AI"? Clearly defining a metaphysical construct such as this is impossible without being able to clearly and completely model human brain function (assuming you are basing your idea of "intelligence" on human mental capacity).
I would argue second-hand sales have little affect on the sale of new copies. Second-hand game markets are just an easy method of price discrimination. Very few people buy used copies of games they would consider buying new copies of (if I'm willing to buy a new copy of a game, I'm probably not going to settle for a used copy). Personally, I don't buy used games; if I don't want the game enough to buy a new copy, I just don't buy it.
What do you know? 2012 is the start of Colonization! Whoever told you there's nothing to 2012 is just part of the conspiracy!
I've never been much of a fan for the idea. Although I can recognize some of the potential benefits, I don't see an overall advantage. How much data are we really willing to give over to Google, Microsoft, etc. Much like the DRM fiasco of interest as of late, what happens if Google decides to discontinue Google Docs? It's not just a "control" or "free software" issue. Cloud Computing isn't the answer; Competent Computing is the answer. IMO, the origin of this entire discussion is a fundamental underappreciation for the immense computing potential even the average computer user (with a computer that may be several years old) has these days. No one needs Cloud Computing. A bargain basement Dell these days is still a very good machine.
Granted these formats (and probably these disks themselves) are older than I am, the most surprising is that the data was readable at all (without some forensic intervention). Magnetic storage for going on 30 years is quite impressive.
I totally agree about the voice recognition. Voice communication is terribly inefficient. It is also a very difficult thing to do naturally with a machine. For most people, it is very uncomfortable to "talk" to a machine - it's almost universally disdained.
I hope they throw the book at him. He made it very clear he understood the potential consequences of his actions, yet he still did it. When you make a conscious decision, you deserve no leniency.
No doubt that knowledge useful, but all information, regardless of the source, must be taken and scrutinized before one accepts it as fact. The bottom line is, children are not taught to scrutinize information in this way (and most of the public do not think this way as a result). Instead, we as society have been trained (whether intentionally or not) that Science dictates fact, and if some scientist somewhere says it, it's true until proven wrong. There is no logical basis for the concept that anything in the universe is measurable, categorizable, or even perceivable in any meaningful way. Science completely relies on the BELIEF that humans are capable of accurately observing, cataloging, describing, comparing, and explaining observations. None of which have any logical basis, yet one is expected to believe "the latest research" "They" do is absolute truth?
The real crime at the heart of this entire debate over Science, is the wholesale abandonment of Philosophy. Schools do not teach Science. Schools teach information deemed "fact" by scientific academia. The test is wrong, the schools are wrong, the scientists are wrong... Science is not writing an encyclopedia of "facts". Science is a process founded on a philosophically unsound foundation. Science as a process is perfectly reasonable, but the mechanist foundation scientific academia cling to is unreasonable. This article presupposes the validity of "Science", when this entire discussion should be "Are US Voters Informed Enough to Pursue Philosophy?"