TFA says that out of 130 test subjects, only 5 were able to beat the algorithm. Which isn't that surprising, when you think about it. People are good at picking up on stuff like that in person, because we can recognize millions of little cues, ranging from inflection to body language. But in a text message, all of that is stripped away. We have a hard enough time picking up on sarcasm in text. Picking out gender would be even tougher. You'd pretty much have to look for key topics or words, at which point the AI is on even footing.
Civil disobedience is a great way to effect change, it's true, but it really can't be applied to warrantless wiretapping. Hell, for us to "ignore" their laws about wiretaps is exactly what they want.
If you want to change this, you need to vote for the most liberal candidate in every election. For the purposes of this post, I'm talking about liberal in terms of civil liberties. Don't worry about their views on economics or foreign policy or whatever, if your main concern is civil rights. Usually, there aren't any that are actually liberal. Don't make the mistake of thinking Democrat = liberal... with few exceptions, Democrats these days are far to the right of Republicans from a few decades ago. But vote for the candidate furthest to the left, and start dragging the overton window back to the realm of sanity.
The forces that be rely on your apathy to allow them to keep dragging the window further and further into fascist territory. They expect you to get tired and depressed and give up. Don't.
Don't expect results in the next twenty or thirty years. It took decades to corrupt the government this far, and it will take decades to fix. It may not even happen in your lifetime. But if you don't fight at every opportunity, it will continue to get worse indefinitely.
Bad news. Things are only unconstitutional if SCOTUS agrees that they are. And given authoritarians like Scalia and Clarence "Strip-search-teenage-girls" Thomas, I doubt warantless wiretapping will become unconstitutional any time soon.
the trillion of new debt spent on "stimulus" was actually very effective
It created millions of jobs, as intended. So yes. It just wasn't big enough to stem the rising tide of unemployment entirely.
the key to economic growth actually is to hugely increase deficit spending
Yup. The government can borrow at lower rates than the rest of us, and use the money to provide us with a safety net so that we can take risks in spending more, helping to break the self-sustaining cycle of a recession. Just look at how poorly austerity plans have worked out when used.
to raise the rate at which we tax the economy
Not until the recession is over, ideally, but yes. You need to raise money in the good times to pay for the bad times.
then this guy will also be wrong
He's a creationist (i.e. prone to believing what he wants to believe) and on the payroll of people who have a pre-existing interest in casting doubt on global warming. So yeah, he's probably wrong.
NASA's data will show the exact opposite of what he says it does
Quite possibly. We'll have to wait for other, more trustworthy scientists to evaluate it. But we'd be fools to take this guy at his word.
Typical anarchist bullshit. Yes, eventually, society does need to use force to enforce its laws. It's a last resort, but it must exist otherwise no laws would have any weight. That's the drawback of being physical creatures. But the only alternative is to have absolutely no laws at all. Only a crazy person would want that.
The problem isn't that government exists. The problem is that wealthy people are able to twist the government to their liking.
I'm not going to respond to most of this stuff, because frankly you're talking past me by ignoring the fact that I said, over and over and over and over, to trust a majority consensus.
But in response to the notion that human society as you know it doesn't employ specialization, let me just say that you are either a recently unthawed cave man, or a moron. You can't go a single day without using the works of a thousand other people whom you will never meet. You trust they do their jobs without even thinking about it. It's been that way ever since ancient man started having people specialize in digging irrigation ditches or building homes, while others farmed, and still others hunted.
What are you even going on about? I said, right in the post you're replying to, that if "most agree" you should trust them. Are you really suggesting that all the climatologists the world over are in some big conspiracy? Why? What possible purpose could they have? It sure as hell isn't money, because the oil companies can pay more, and no one goes into science for the money anyway (if you want cash, quit after your masters and go into engineering).
And as for your last little tidbit, I'd say there's a consensus among the computer science profession that firefox doesn't steal my passwords and send them off to the Mozilla foundation. I haven't checked the code myself, but I'll trust the experts.
Welcome to human society. We have this neat little thing called specialization.
When I need my car fixed, I go to a mechanic. I don't understand everything he does, but if most mechanics agree I need an oil change, then I'll trust them.
When I need a home to live in, I go to an architect. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that my home will stay standing, then I'll trust them.
When I need to cross a river, I go to a civil engineer. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that the bridge is safe, then I'll trust them.
When I feel sick, I go to a doctor. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that a certain medicine will help, then I'll trust them.
When I am hungry, I go to a chef. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that something is edible and nutritious, then I'll trust them.
When I need to go online, I go to electrical engineers and programmers. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that my computer and OS and browser aren't stealing my passwords, then I'll trust them.
When I want to know what is happening with the climate, I go to a climatologist. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that human release of CO2 is altering the climate, then I call them a bunch of damned liars and frauds and demand they make it all easy enough for me to understand!
It's a blatant double standard, and it only applies to fields that Republicans don't like, such as climatology and evolution.
Fine, then compile every post you've made on Slashdot, and all other forums, and give me that. Your cynical privacy argument no longer applies. The point is that the goal of these demands is to harass scientists, and nothing else.
Well, if the people who are disagreeing with you are deniers and shills, it doesn't seem like it should be. Unfortunately, the deniers and shills have mod points.
The scientific community already has a consensus. But you can never convince someone who's decided that they don't want to be convinced. Should we be forced to prove evolution to the satisfaction of creationists before teaching it in schools?
Don't answer that... you're probably some slack-jawed Republican, so I'll go ahead and guess that your answer is an emphatic "yes!"
Give me your full name, your high school transcripts, every essay you've ever written, all emails from the past five years, and the names of every person you've ever slept with. After all, they're just facts. You can't trademark, copyright, or patent them. Therefore I should (by your bizzarro logic) be able to compel you to waste time complying with my every demand, even though you know I only want to info so I can find a way to harass you with it.
They will dig through the data and find the one datapoint (taken when Jimmy the REU accidentally spilled coffee on the sensor) that disagrees with the other 99 million points. They will then trumpet that one datapoint to the high heavens, and the disinterested masses will pay only just enough attention to get the subliminal impression that there is some doubt about climate change.
It really is absurd that purportedly educated people can believe that climatologists would spend over a decade in school, working long hours for peanuts, only to risk their professional careers by accepting bribes from fat cat environmentalists, all while those poor defenseless oil companies can't afford to defend themselves. It would be laughable, if only it weren't such a frightening display of the power demagogy holds over people.
Why not? We talk about American cops all the time (and usually not in a flattering manner). Both most of the time, the cops involved aren't even staties -- they're the local cops from whatever town. But they're still American.
The police don't need to catch all the hackers. They just need to catch enough that the script kiddies in Anonymous look around nervously, see their buddies disappearing, and decide to stick to legal ways to pass the time. A few people will still become hackers, but their smaller numbers will make them less of a threat.
All crime works this way. The criminal justice system has two goals -- reintegrate offenders into society, and visibly punish them so that other people are less likely to become offenders. Just look at speed limits. Enforcement is spotty and punishment is light, so people know they can speed and get away with it. But for double parking in a crowded city street, the enforcement is far more consistent and punishment is worse (getting towed or booted), so most people know not to try it, even though it's far less dangerous than speeding is.
Deterrence works great, except for crimes of passion. Hacking isn't something many people do in the heat of the moment, so deterrence should work against it too.
I think the GP is more referring to still images. I can look at a photo of a person without feeling at all creeped out, but show me the "White Chicks" movie poster, and I want to get the hell out of there. Although that might just be humanity's instinctive aversion to the Wayans brothers.
Don't take things so seriously. I wasn't trying to offer a sophisticated analysis of the differences.
But you're the one who needs a course in statistics. If there are 80k sales with 10% being on Linux, then that's 8k Linux users. The three I named contributed close to $6k dollars. That'd drive up the average by 75c. Obviously not the whole difference, but far from insignificant. And there weren't yet 80k sales when I posted (indeed there aren't even that many now).
I don't know of anyone who comes home after a long day, sits down on the couch, and plays Angry Birds for an hour to unwind. Mobile games tend to be played in short bursts when you're bored. On the bus, at the airport, etc... But games with deeper gameplay, better graphics, better controls, better multiplayer, and a more comfortable posture to play will always be preferred for leisure time.
And as for money.... yes, people will spend the extra $300 on a console. The sort of people who play console games already spend hundreds of dollars a year on the games themselves. The $200 they spend on a phone will no more eat into that budget than the money they spend on food or shelter. All are seen as "essentials" to them.
Maybe someday phones will get so powerful that you just plug them into docking stations and they become your PC or console. But until then, they're not going to replace anything.
Well, I was going to give this bundle a pass since I already own all but Hammerflight, but that sounds irresistibly awesome.
I also want to plug Crayon Physics as well worth playing to anyone who hasn't tried it. It starts pretty simple -- you can solve most of the early levels by drawing a catapult. But later on, you are driven to draw all sorts of creative things to solve the puzzles. I had some maps where I created a series of elevators and conveyer belts, all hand drawn, to get to the goal.
Linux users are starved for quality games, and thus heap praise (and money) upon anyone who develops for their platform. Same for Mac users, but to a lesser extent ever since Valve started releasing games for them. Windows users are spoiled by having every game of the past twenty years developed for their platform.
Or maybe Jonathan Blow, Markus Persson, and whoever "ExpiredPopsicle" is all reported themselves as Linux users and pulled up the average.
I've found that Bing usually gives me better results than Google. Also, I don't know what Bing you're using, but the Bing I use has ads on the side, not in the middle.
And on top of that, searching for "NFL Free Agency" on Bing right now has the top 8 results all from the past 24 hours, followed by the Wikipedia article explaining what a "Free Agent" is. I suspect that you're just inventing reasons to hate on Microsoft's product.
Slashdot Mirror
TFA says that out of 130 test subjects, only 5 were able to beat the algorithm. Which isn't that surprising, when you think about it. People are good at picking up on stuff like that in person, because we can recognize millions of little cues, ranging from inflection to body language. But in a text message, all of that is stripped away. We have a hard enough time picking up on sarcasm in text. Picking out gender would be even tougher. You'd pretty much have to look for key topics or words, at which point the AI is on even footing.
Civil disobedience is a great way to effect change, it's true, but it really can't be applied to warrantless wiretapping. Hell, for us to "ignore" their laws about wiretaps is exactly what they want.
If you want to change this, you need to vote for the most liberal candidate in every election. For the purposes of this post, I'm talking about liberal in terms of civil liberties. Don't worry about their views on economics or foreign policy or whatever, if your main concern is civil rights. Usually, there aren't any that are actually liberal. Don't make the mistake of thinking Democrat = liberal... with few exceptions, Democrats these days are far to the right of Republicans from a few decades ago. But vote for the candidate furthest to the left, and start dragging the overton window back to the realm of sanity.
The forces that be rely on your apathy to allow them to keep dragging the window further and further into fascist territory. They expect you to get tired and depressed and give up. Don't.
Don't expect results in the next twenty or thirty years. It took decades to corrupt the government this far, and it will take decades to fix. It may not even happen in your lifetime. But if you don't fight at every opportunity, it will continue to get worse indefinitely.
Bad news. Things are only unconstitutional if SCOTUS agrees that they are. And given authoritarians like Scalia and Clarence "Strip-search-teenage-girls" Thomas, I doubt warantless wiretapping will become unconstitutional any time soon.
the Tea Party is wrong
Yes.
the trillion of new debt spent on "stimulus" was actually very effective
It created millions of jobs, as intended. So yes. It just wasn't big enough to stem the rising tide of unemployment entirely.
the key to economic growth actually is to hugely increase deficit spending
Yup. The government can borrow at lower rates than the rest of us, and use the money to provide us with a safety net so that we can take risks in spending more, helping to break the self-sustaining cycle of a recession. Just look at how poorly austerity plans have worked out when used.
to raise the rate at which we tax the economy
Not until the recession is over, ideally, but yes. You need to raise money in the good times to pay for the bad times.
then this guy will also be wrong
He's a creationist (i.e. prone to believing what he wants to believe) and on the payroll of people who have a pre-existing interest in casting doubt on global warming. So yeah, he's probably wrong.
NASA's data will show the exact opposite of what he says it does
Quite possibly. We'll have to wait for other, more trustworthy scientists to evaluate it. But we'd be fools to take this guy at his word.
Typical anarchist bullshit. Yes, eventually, society does need to use force to enforce its laws. It's a last resort, but it must exist otherwise no laws would have any weight. That's the drawback of being physical creatures. But the only alternative is to have absolutely no laws at all. Only a crazy person would want that.
The problem isn't that government exists. The problem is that wealthy people are able to twist the government to their liking.
I'm not going to respond to most of this stuff, because frankly you're talking past me by ignoring the fact that I said, over and over and over and over, to trust a majority consensus.
But in response to the notion that human society as you know it doesn't employ specialization, let me just say that you are either a recently unthawed cave man, or a moron. You can't go a single day without using the works of a thousand other people whom you will never meet. You trust they do their jobs without even thinking about it. It's been that way ever since ancient man started having people specialize in digging irrigation ditches or building homes, while others farmed, and still others hunted.
What are you even going on about? I said, right in the post you're replying to, that if "most agree" you should trust them. Are you really suggesting that all the climatologists the world over are in some big conspiracy? Why? What possible purpose could they have? It sure as hell isn't money, because the oil companies can pay more, and no one goes into science for the money anyway (if you want cash, quit after your masters and go into engineering).
And as for your last little tidbit, I'd say there's a consensus among the computer science profession that firefox doesn't steal my passwords and send them off to the Mozilla foundation. I haven't checked the code myself, but I'll trust the experts.
Welcome to human society. We have this neat little thing called specialization.
When I need my car fixed, I go to a mechanic. I don't understand everything he does, but if most mechanics agree I need an oil change, then I'll trust them.
When I need a home to live in, I go to an architect. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that my home will stay standing, then I'll trust them.
When I need to cross a river, I go to a civil engineer. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that the bridge is safe, then I'll trust them.
When I feel sick, I go to a doctor. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that a certain medicine will help, then I'll trust them.
When I am hungry, I go to a chef. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that something is edible and nutritious, then I'll trust them.
When I need to go online, I go to electrical engineers and programmers. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that my computer and OS and browser aren't stealing my passwords, then I'll trust them.
When I want to know what is happening with the climate, I go to a climatologist. I don't understand everything they do, but if most agree that human release of CO2 is altering the climate, then I call them a bunch of damned liars and frauds and demand they make it all easy enough for me to understand!
It's a blatant double standard, and it only applies to fields that Republicans don't like, such as climatology and evolution.
Fine, then compile every post you've made on Slashdot, and all other forums, and give me that. Your cynical privacy argument no longer applies. The point is that the goal of these demands is to harass scientists, and nothing else.
Well, if the people who are disagreeing with you are deniers and shills, it doesn't seem like it should be. Unfortunately, the deniers and shills have mod points.
The scientific community already has a consensus. But you can never convince someone who's decided that they don't want to be convinced. Should we be forced to prove evolution to the satisfaction of creationists before teaching it in schools?
Don't answer that... you're probably some slack-jawed Republican, so I'll go ahead and guess that your answer is an emphatic "yes!"
Give me your full name, your high school transcripts, every essay you've ever written, all emails from the past five years, and the names of every person you've ever slept with. After all, they're just facts. You can't trademark, copyright, or patent them. Therefore I should (by your bizzarro logic) be able to compel you to waste time complying with my every demand, even though you know I only want to info so I can find a way to harass you with it.
They will dig through the data and find the one datapoint (taken when Jimmy the REU accidentally spilled coffee on the sensor) that disagrees with the other 99 million points. They will then trumpet that one datapoint to the high heavens, and the disinterested masses will pay only just enough attention to get the subliminal impression that there is some doubt about climate change.
It really is absurd that purportedly educated people can believe that climatologists would spend over a decade in school, working long hours for peanuts, only to risk their professional careers by accepting bribes from fat cat environmentalists, all while those poor defenseless oil companies can't afford to defend themselves. It would be laughable, if only it weren't such a frightening display of the power demagogy holds over people.
Why not? We talk about American cops all the time (and usually not in a flattering manner). Both most of the time, the cops involved aren't even staties -- they're the local cops from whatever town. But they're still American.
The police don't need to catch all the hackers. They just need to catch enough that the script kiddies in Anonymous look around nervously, see their buddies disappearing, and decide to stick to legal ways to pass the time. A few people will still become hackers, but their smaller numbers will make them less of a threat.
All crime works this way. The criminal justice system has two goals -- reintegrate offenders into society, and visibly punish them so that other people are less likely to become offenders. Just look at speed limits. Enforcement is spotty and punishment is light, so people know they can speed and get away with it. But for double parking in a crowded city street, the enforcement is far more consistent and punishment is worse (getting towed or booted), so most people know not to try it, even though it's far less dangerous than speeding is.
Deterrence works great, except for crimes of passion. Hacking isn't something many people do in the heat of the moment, so deterrence should work against it too.
Well, we'll remain in the Middle East long after the oil is gone, but it won't be for glass. It'll be for the lithium buried under Afghanistan.
I think the GP is more referring to still images. I can look at a photo of a person without feeling at all creeped out, but show me the "White Chicks" movie poster, and I want to get the hell out of there. Although that might just be humanity's instinctive aversion to the Wayans brothers.
Don't take things so seriously. I wasn't trying to offer a sophisticated analysis of the differences.
But you're the one who needs a course in statistics. If there are 80k sales with 10% being on Linux, then that's 8k Linux users. The three I named contributed close to $6k dollars. That'd drive up the average by 75c. Obviously not the whole difference, but far from insignificant. And there weren't yet 80k sales when I posted (indeed there aren't even that many now).
I can't speak for all of them, but V^6 and AYIM should both work.
Perhaps the fine folks at Altium can provide a free copy of OrCAD to the developers and/or the documentation needed.
I think the folks over at Cadence might have something to say about that.
I don't know of anyone who comes home after a long day, sits down on the couch, and plays Angry Birds for an hour to unwind. Mobile games tend to be played in short bursts when you're bored. On the bus, at the airport, etc... But games with deeper gameplay, better graphics, better controls, better multiplayer, and a more comfortable posture to play will always be preferred for leisure time.
And as for money.... yes, people will spend the extra $300 on a console. The sort of people who play console games already spend hundreds of dollars a year on the games themselves. The $200 they spend on a phone will no more eat into that budget than the money they spend on food or shelter. All are seen as "essentials" to them.
Maybe someday phones will get so powerful that you just plug them into docking stations and they become your PC or console. But until then, they're not going to replace anything.
Well, I was going to give this bundle a pass since I already own all but Hammerflight, but that sounds irresistibly awesome.
I also want to plug Crayon Physics as well worth playing to anyone who hasn't tried it. It starts pretty simple -- you can solve most of the early levels by drawing a catapult. But later on, you are driven to draw all sorts of creative things to solve the puzzles. I had some maps where I created a series of elevators and conveyer belts, all hand drawn, to get to the goal.
Linux users are starved for quality games, and thus heap praise (and money) upon anyone who develops for their platform. Same for Mac users, but to a lesser extent ever since Valve started releasing games for them. Windows users are spoiled by having every game of the past twenty years developed for their platform.
Or maybe Jonathan Blow, Markus Persson, and whoever "ExpiredPopsicle" is all reported themselves as Linux users and pulled up the average.
I've found that Bing usually gives me better results than Google. Also, I don't know what Bing you're using, but the Bing I use has ads on the side, not in the middle.
And on top of that, searching for "NFL Free Agency" on Bing right now has the top 8 results all from the past 24 hours, followed by the Wikipedia article explaining what a "Free Agent" is. I suspect that you're just inventing reasons to hate on Microsoft's product.
How much of those costs are amortizing NRE expenses? It's hard to imagine that they're spending billions on server maintenance.