Originally FISC was created as a safeguard, because of the findings of the Church committee. The problem is that since then its powers have been expanded by the Patriot Act, etc. Furthermore, all courts are garbage if somebody has the judges in their pocket (ideologically and politically in this case, not financially).
American: In my country I can go on TV, in front of millions of people, and call the president of the United States an idiot.
Russian: So what, in my country I too can go on TV, in front of millions of people, and call the president of the United States an idiot.
P.S. At the time that was true in the United States. It was a less dangerous time. The biggest problem we faced was nuclear annihilation in less time than it takes to eat dinner. Now we face guys who put black powder in pressure cookers.
It makes sense that you would want M versions of the program, but once you have some that work well enough for something you want to do, you can still create copies of those versions.
Want more diversity? Get real 4 year olds. Don't forget snacks.
I agree, but after a program has learned for a while, you can make a copy of it. So if it takes 4 years to teach the program, it doesn't mean it takes 4 years for every copy of the program.
We are nowhere near getting an AI that can navigate the world at the level of a 4 year old. All the program can do is simple tasks in vocabulary and such with no real understanding of those words. Nothing to see here.
The headline is the usual attention grabbing junk, but the article itself does a decent job of explaining it:
Sloan said ConceptNet 4 did very well on a test of vocabulary and on a test of its ability to recognize similarities.
“But ConceptNet 4 did dramatically worse than average on comprehension—the ‘why’ questions,” he said.
One of the hardest problems in building an artificial intelligence, Sloan said, is devising a computer program that can make sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts–the dictionary definition of commonsense.
Commonsense has eluded AI engineers because it requires both a very large collection of facts and what Sloan calls implicit facts–things so obvious that we don’t know we know them. A computer may know the temperature at which water freezes, but we know that ice is cold.
“All of us know a huge number of things,” said Sloan. “As babies, we crawled around and yanked on things and learned that things fall. We yanked on other things and learned that dogs and cats don’t appreciate having their tails pulled. Life is a rich learning environment.”
IQ tests mean little enough for a human being, for AI they're little more than cute. Most 4 year old's know if someone is mad at them (expression, tone of voice, etc.) and, from past experience, often know why someone is mad at them. They're also clever enough to pretend they don't know why someone is mad at them. Most importantly (and practically), they know to start acting cute before somebody kills them. Let me know when an AI program can do that.
P.S. This is not to disparage the AI work, just to keep things in perspective.
I live in the San Joaquin Valley. This is seriously not a big deal here. It's not like we are all stumbling around, sick. Like most illnesses, it really is only 'dangerous' to high risk people, like infants and the elderly.
Everybody starts out as an infant, and most if us stick around long enough to become elderly. You're not talking miniscule demographic groups there.
You don't have to wade very far through the legal apologia to find the key sentence:
Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable."
Translation: go screw yourself, we're not going to recognize the 4th as applying to pen registers because we don't want to. The whole 'not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable"' is subjective nonsense, or in less polite language, something the majority on the court pulled from their posteriors because that's the conclusion they wanted to come to.
They don't know what society is prepared to recognize as reasonable, and don't even attempt to find out. Expert testimony on scientific and technical issues is subject to all sorts of vetting, but deciding what society thinks can apparently be decided by five "justices" through pure application of wisdom, or reading chicken entrails, or something.
Wikipedia, LOL I said documented/verified. If you trust the sort of historical records Wikipedia is basing their shit off of, you'd have to believe in leprechauns and mermaids.
Or worse, a random Internet poster. Here is the Wikipedia article's references. Let us know when you debunk them. In the interim please post your references.
The best way to avoid mosquitoes is to sit next to somebody who attracts them more than you do. The little bastards bother me some, but not too much. They devour my wife though. If I sit next to her, they don't bother me at all!
I've been to the Everglades. Under the circumstances the GP described, I would've siphoned half the tank and lit it up. NPS and EPA be damned. It's actually a fascinating place to visit, but should be renamed Mosquito National Park.
I've tried Northern mosquitoes but they're nothing compared to the Everglades. Mosquitoes never bite me - except there! Remember to bring repellant. They only sell it at the end of the road you travel (basically a dead end), and by the time you get there you'll happily exchange your first born child and all your future earnings for a bottle.
What's really surprising is that people were convinced that fertilizer was a modern "invention" in the first place.
If by modern you mean 3000 years ago. RTFA. It wasn't an assumption - they just didn't have any evidence to the contrary. Much work has been done on early Middle Eastern agriculture because that's one of the spots where it started, and from whence it spread to Europe. Basically they just started looking more at early European agriculture.
8000 years ago it wasn't as arid. Once upon a time, what now seems like the ironically named Fertile Crescent really was fertile. A lot of the degradation also has to do with soil exhaustion and erosion, cutting down too many trees, etc.
Even native americans knew burying a fish next to a corn plant helped it grow faster
As far as anyone can tell that was actually a European trick that some Indians had learned. When the Indians taught it to the Pilgrims, the Pilgrims just figured it was an Indian trick.
And much more of it is preserved and undisturbed by 12 thousand years of European warfare and constant reworking of the land.
Instead it was disturbed by 12000 years of warfare and reworking of the land in the Americas. It is a shame though that most of the Amerindians didn't have writing. There are so many things we could learn, for example, about the Mississippian culture, the spread of maize agriculture northward and its effect on how people lived, ecological problems they encountered in say the Southwest and Ohio Valley, etc. etc., etc. Not to mention the eternal riddle of why they tolerated those hairy smelly invaders from across the Atlantic.
P.S. Great book on the pre-Columbian Americas is 1491 (there's also a good "sequel" called 1493).
Just because we imported the word from Latin 400+ years ago, is no reason to keep using the Latin style pluralization. In the spirit of being even more pretentious by recommending a less pretentious style, there is a general trend to consider it correct to use, or even preferable to use, English style pluralization for words that English imported from Latin and Greek. May it be so for many milleniums.
I don't even live in New York but a quick Google search reveals that you can get from Long Island into Manhattan without paying a toll
Where did I say otherwise? Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburgh and Queensboro bridges are all toll free. My point was that to get to/from Long Island to anyplace other than NYC means paying an exorbitant toll.
Slashdot Mirror
It was -1 for the "moderator didn't agree" reason. Censorship in plain language.
He could still serve a 2nd term. I'd take him in a heartbeat.
Originally FISC was created as a safeguard, because of the findings of the Church committee. The problem is that since then its powers have been expanded by the Patriot Act, etc. Furthermore, all courts are garbage if somebody has the judges in their pocket (ideologically and politically in this case, not financially).
Reminds me of an old Cold War joke.
Russian: You think your country is so great. Why?
American: In my country I can go on TV, in front of millions of people, and call the president of the United States an idiot.
Russian: So what, in my country I too can go on TV, in front of millions of people, and call the president of the United States an idiot.
P.S. At the time that was true in the United States. It was a less dangerous time. The biggest problem we faced was nuclear annihilation in less time than it takes to eat dinner. Now we face guys who put black powder in pressure cookers.
As other have said, Carter was a complete disaster for the US.
Yes, many others have said that. It doesn't mean it's true. Why do you think Carter "was a complete disaster for the US"?
It makes sense that you would want M versions of the program, but once you have some that work well enough for something you want to do, you can still create copies of those versions.
Want more diversity? Get real 4 year olds. Don't forget snacks.
I agree, but after a program has learned for a while, you can make a copy of it. So if it takes 4 years to teach the program, it doesn't mean it takes 4 years for every copy of the program.
We are nowhere near getting an AI that can navigate the world at the level of a 4 year old. All the program can do is simple tasks in vocabulary and such with no real understanding of those words. Nothing to see here.
The headline is the usual attention grabbing junk, but the article itself does a decent job of explaining it:
Sloan said ConceptNet 4 did very well on a test of vocabulary and on a test of its ability to recognize similarities.
“But ConceptNet 4 did dramatically worse than average on comprehension—the ‘why’ questions,” he said.
One of the hardest problems in building an artificial intelligence, Sloan said, is devising a computer program that can make sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts–the dictionary definition of commonsense.
Commonsense has eluded AI engineers because it requires both a very large collection of facts and what Sloan calls implicit facts–things so obvious that we don’t know we know them. A computer may know the temperature at which water freezes, but we know that ice is cold.
“All of us know a huge number of things,” said Sloan. “As babies, we crawled around and yanked on things and learned that things fall. We yanked on other things and learned that dogs and cats don’t appreciate having their tails pulled. Life is a rich learning environment.”
IQ tests mean little enough for a human being, for AI they're little more than cute. Most 4 year old's know if someone is mad at them (expression, tone of voice, etc.) and, from past experience, often know why someone is mad at them. They're also clever enough to pretend they don't know why someone is mad at them. Most importantly (and practically), they know to start acting cute before somebody kills them. Let me know when an AI program can do that.
P.S. This is not to disparage the AI work, just to keep things in perspective.
No, but at least it doesn't hang when you ask it the value of pi.
I live in the San Joaquin Valley. This is seriously not a big deal here. It's not like we are all stumbling around, sick. Like most illnesses, it really is only 'dangerous' to high risk people, like infants and the elderly.
Everybody starts out as an infant, and most if us stick around long enough to become elderly. You're not talking miniscule demographic groups there.
You don't have to wade very far through the legal apologia to find the key sentence:
Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable."
Translation: go screw yourself, we're not going to recognize the 4th as applying to pen registers because we don't want to. The whole 'not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable"' is subjective nonsense, or in less polite language, something the majority on the court pulled from their posteriors because that's the conclusion they wanted to come to.
They don't know what society is prepared to recognize as reasonable, and don't even attempt to find out. Expert testimony on scientific and technical issues is subject to all sorts of vetting, but deciding what society thinks can apparently be decided by five "justices" through pure application of wisdom, or reading chicken entrails, or something.
Wikipedia, LOL I said documented/verified. If you trust the sort of historical records Wikipedia is basing their shit off of, you'd have to believe in leprechauns and mermaids.
Or worse, a random Internet poster. Here is the Wikipedia article's references. Let us know when you debunk them. In the interim please post your references.
The best way to avoid mosquitoes is to sit next to somebody who attracts them more than you do. The little bastards bother me some, but not too much. They devour my wife though. If I sit next to her, they don't bother me at all!
Pig manure.
All you're doing is exchanging mosquitoes for flies.
That product and its ilk (e.g. Vegemite) probably explain why the people who eat it talk so funny. Us 'mercans avoid it. I'd rather have malaria.
I've been to the Everglades. Under the circumstances the GP described, I would've siphoned half the tank and lit it up. NPS and EPA be damned. It's actually a fascinating place to visit, but should be renamed Mosquito National Park.
Found a better solution, emigrated to the USA ;-)
Where were you from, and what part of the USA do you live in without mosquitoes? The desert? (seriously).
I've tried Northern mosquitoes but they're nothing compared to the Everglades. Mosquitoes never bite me - except there! Remember to bring repellant. They only sell it at the end of the road you travel (basically a dead end), and by the time you get there you'll happily exchange your first born child and all your future earnings for a bottle.
What's really surprising is that people were convinced that fertilizer was a modern "invention" in the first place.
If by modern you mean 3000 years ago. RTFA. It wasn't an assumption - they just didn't have any evidence to the contrary. Much work has been done on early Middle Eastern agriculture because that's one of the spots where it started, and from whence it spread to Europe. Basically they just started looking more at early European agriculture.
Since it's far more arid in the Middle East
8000 years ago it wasn't as arid. Once upon a time, what now seems like the ironically named Fertile Crescent really was fertile. A lot of the degradation also has to do with soil exhaustion and erosion, cutting down too many trees, etc.
Even native americans knew burying a fish next to a corn plant helped it grow faster
As far as anyone can tell that was actually a European trick that some Indians had learned. When the Indians taught it to the Pilgrims, the Pilgrims just figured it was an Indian trick.
And much more of it is preserved and undisturbed by 12 thousand years of European warfare and constant reworking of the land.
Instead it was disturbed by 12000 years of warfare and reworking of the land in the Americas. It is a shame though that most of the Amerindians didn't have writing. There are so many things we could learn, for example, about the Mississippian culture, the spread of maize agriculture northward and its effect on how people lived, ecological problems they encountered in say the Southwest and Ohio Valley, etc. etc., etc. Not to mention the eternal riddle of why they tolerated those hairy smelly invaders from across the Atlantic.
P.S. Great book on the pre-Columbian Americas is 1491 (there's also a good "sequel" called 1493).
the plural of erratum is errata
Or erratums.
Just because we imported the word from Latin 400+ years ago, is no reason to keep using the Latin style pluralization. In the spirit of being even more pretentious by recommending a less pretentious style, there is a general trend to consider it correct to use, or even preferable to use, English style pluralization for words that English imported from Latin and Greek. May it be so for many milleniums.
http://www.memidex.com/erratums
For which the French should thank us. Can you imagine how embarrassing it would be for your country to still have a monarch in the 21st century?
I don't even live in New York but a quick Google search reveals that you can get from Long Island into Manhattan without paying a toll
Where did I say otherwise? Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburgh and Queensboro bridges are all toll free. My point was that to get to/from Long Island to anyplace other than NYC means paying an exorbitant toll.