I'd argue, the loser should be on the hook for the winner's expenses by default.
There is a middle ground which comes from the Scottish system. The judge rules at the same time whether the case was reasonable, even if not proven. So the verdicts available are not guilty, not proven, and guilty.
We could then make that, by default, "not guilty" for the other side means you have to pay their expenses and not proven means each pays their own way.
'Hydrogen is quite a dangerous gas. You know, it's suitable for the upper stage of rockets, but not for cars,' he said."
You mean like that other common rocket fuel, gasoline, which is used in the Russian R-12 also known as the Scud missile? Yeap, we would never use that in a car.
It's like, the worst habit _ever_ to use, like, so many super duper words, like in, like the "hardest game _ever_", as if! It's like OMG how do they know that, WTF?? I was like, no way it's the hardest ever.
/sarcasm
Seriously, can we do away with unsupported high school superlatives such as "world's hardest", "best ever", etc.?
Oops, I forgot, this is slashdot, editors are morons.
Barring time travel, if evidence for something hasn't survived, there is simply no way of knowing it.
Correct, however how do you know if evidence didn't survive. Who in 1920 would have guessed we could reconstruct the main residence places of a person from mineral isotopes in the bones of said person?
Similarly, want to know what language was spoken by the people of stone age Britain? Tough, you can't- they didn't write it down, and there is quite literally no way for you to know. Ever.
The entire language likely not, but I bet already today we can use phylogenetic tools to identify some words that have survived from then until today. Once again who would have predicted 80 years ago that we could one day do analysis of this kind?
there is a real sense of mystery that will never and can never be lifted.
Never is a very long time.
I can go back to my childhood and make a long list of "we will never know" things that we know now, starting with the Titanic. I've read several books saying how we would never reach since it was at depths much beyond what divers and submersibles could reach, and in a span of ocean too vast to be effectively searched. Yet here we are, retrieving artifacts from the bottom of the sea.
Everyone is complaining about the UI, but how about the fact that it forces to merge your personal Windows live account with what could well be a work-and-play device?
Windows 8 makes a work computer into a personal play thing and melds the two. Once you are connected to Windows live, it stats uploading things to the cloud, which violates the privacy policies of about half the western world, if you happen to have somebody else's personal data on your hard drive.
In the remote continent of North America, in the English speaking tribes the men cook meat on the barbeque while in the Spanish speaking tribes is mostly the women who use the "azador".
You mean to tell me that someone is going to decide not to go on a shooting spree for fear of the paperwork afterwards?
You fail to see that often murders start by someone pulling out a gun just to scare someone. You couldn't do this in Switzerland. First because it is a rifle, second because you would have to break the government seal to load your rifle and then you would have to explain to your senior officer why the seal is broken.
They have no intention or incentive to be truthful,
Actually in many European countries by law advertising has to be truthful. Only in America are companies given so much leeway in twisting the facts in ad copy.
This has to do in part with strong first amendment rights but also in part to straight out lobbying from industry.
Actually in this very specific case the Occam razor's version of event was a malicious attempt.
Just the other day I arrived at work to find traces of my externally accessible office door being jimmied. Now what is more likely (1) that the janitors lost the master key and forced their way in to vacuum clean or (2) that someone (likely a petty burglar) opened it and took my missing radio?
There is a suid exploit inserted in an unauthorized way. The simplest explanation is a backdoor attack. The subsequent investigation seems to support this further, even though we still do not know with certainty since the guilty person was never caught. However we can operate on the assumption that this was a malicious attack and discuss it as such.
Bills have (or used to have) intentional mistakes that a hand engraver was likely to fix subconsciously, including in some cases typos in microprint and tiny jagged (as if by accident) straight lines.
Nowadays bills are copied using high-speed high-precision laser scanners so I do not know if those artifacts are still used as security devices.
Actually look a bit deeper still and you'll see that people defending Perl regexps have never written a industrial size regular expression based application. Because if they had, they would realize that debugging complex regular expressions (in the sense of determining if it properly catches all instances) is _hell_.
Then you are only writing baby regular expressions.
At an open source project written in Perl we used to have lengthy discussions if a given regular expression would catch all instances of a specific language construct. This was a discussion between Perl ninjas, mind you, and often we would discover to our surprise that a seemingly correct expression wasn't.
It is very difficult to debug a regular expression with more than 50 terms.
page ranking are "post-90's AI techniques... those statements are bullshit.
This is just ridiculous. There was nothing like page ranking in AI before it was independently discovered by two non-AI groups. One in Altavista under Jon Kleinberg (a theory guy) and the other within the Database group in Stanford, by Larry and Sergey.
All the AI-ish techniques put together in the pre-page ranking era were useless. Any search engine user from back then can attest to that. In fact they were so bad that for the most part they were not even deployed and they were outperformed by a simple "query term distance" count, also first proposed by non AI researchers.
Even today page-ranking in Google uses very little classical "intelligence in the machine" AI. They go for statistical analysis which just recently was criticized on these pages by a very famous AI researcher as not being AI.
Pay attention: there are three people in this thread telling you now that you are full of shit.
Nothing new there. They were saying the same thing as I predicted the "AI winter" blowback years before it happened. Or when I commented that the 5th generation project would go nowhere back when people were all excited about it.
I've gone through the ups and downs in AI, and something that is a constant throughout is that it attracts many of the weaker CS students with faulty BS detectors. These weak students get their panties all tied up on a knot when you point out to them the con they've fallen for.
There are also some very intelligent AI researchers, and I've been fortunate to meet many of those too. That's where the real progress has come from and it was by far the minority and well outside the AI mainstream in the 1980s.
You used Computer World to try to prove an academic point, I'm using Wikipedia to prove a "popularity of culture" point. But since you keep on coming back to it, let me highlight one of its sentences for you:
The excessive hype over artificial intelligence promises in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s have made the public weary of unfulfilled promises.
Back to your posting:
Machine learning of today is very similar to the machine learning of the 50s,
This deserves no comment. It's a gem all on its own.
To finish it off, I have sitting on my shelf the proceedings of AAAI/IJCAI from 1988 until 2010. A quick browse through them shows not just the progress in the field, but an entire change in tone and techniques as it shed the 1980s-ho- air-promises and replaced with newly minted, hard techniques such as PAC, computational statistics, modern computer translation, SVMs, etc.
Just like computation goes back to the Babylonians, yet it would be ridiculous to attribute the IBM PC to them. Machine learning today has very little to do with the "intelligence in the machines" hot air of the 80's AI.
(In different words, you have no idea what you're talking about.)
Says the guy who uses a Computer World article as a reference.
As I said, I'm referring to a well known failure, so much so that it has its own entry in Wikipedia. You on the other hand seem surprised by it.
This matches my experience. I reported to police a crime that I happened to witness and was given the third degree and added to the list of suspects. I have not spoken to police since.
From the article
Finally, are the police really that corrupt and/or stupid?
Again, in my experience yes. Not all of them of course, but all you need is a large enough minority to make it not worthwhile talking to them, and the stupid ones most definitely cross that threshold.
On the other hand, every time you search the Web, get a movie recommendation from NetFlix or speak to a telephone voice recognition system, tools developed chasing the great promise of intelligent machines do the work.
which is patently false for the first two. These techniques were developed in the mid 90's using post 1980's style AI, such as machine learning and page ranking. The one that borrows more from 80's AI is voice recognition and guess what, this is the suckiest of the three and only recently improved by the use of massive speech databases, which is once again contrary to "intelligence in the machine" 1980's AI.
But you don't need to trust me. The fact that AI was all hot air is well known. There is even a term for the consequences of their overhyped research agenda: AI winter
This. Another completely useless, incredibly expensive, press-release driven from the steaming pile of 1980's-style AI.
And what do we get? another human brain. Because suddenly there seems to be a shortage of them, since we only have 7 billion with another 2 billion to be added over the next thirty years.
This is the typical response of an abuse enabler. People from all walks of life have repeatedly pointed out that Jobs was an A grade a-hole, yet we have noh8rz10 belittling one of the targets of his abuse.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd argue, the loser should be on the hook for the winner's expenses by default.
There is a middle ground which comes from the Scottish system. The judge rules at the same time whether the case was reasonable, even if not proven. So the verdicts available are not guilty, not proven, and guilty.
We could then make that, by default, "not guilty" for the other side means you have to pay their expenses and not proven means each pays their own way.
'Hydrogen is quite a dangerous gas. You know, it's suitable for the upper stage of rockets, but not for cars,' he said."
You mean like that other common rocket fuel, gasoline, which is used in the Russian R-12 also known as the Scud missile? Yeap, we would never use that in a car.
Inside the World's Hardest Game
It's like, the worst habit _ever_ to use, like, so many super duper words, like in, like the "hardest game _ever_", as if! It's like OMG how do they know that, WTF?? I was like, no way it's the hardest ever.
Seriously, can we do away with unsupported high school superlatives such as "world's hardest", "best ever", etc.?
Oops, I forgot, this is slashdot, editors are morons.
Barring time travel, if evidence for something hasn't survived, there is simply no way of knowing it.
Correct, however how do you know if evidence didn't survive. Who in 1920 would have guessed we could reconstruct the main residence places of a person from mineral isotopes in the bones of said person?
Similarly, want to know what language was spoken by the people of stone age Britain? Tough, you can't- they didn't write it down, and there is quite literally no way for you to know. Ever.
The entire language likely not, but I bet already today we can use phylogenetic tools to identify some words that have survived from then until today. Once again who would have predicted 80 years ago that we could one day do analysis of this kind?
there is a real sense of mystery that will never and can never be lifted.
Never is a very long time.
I can go back to my childhood and make a long list of "we will never know" things that we know now, starting with the Titanic. I've read several books saying how we would never reach since it was at depths much beyond what divers and submersibles could reach, and in a span of ocean too vast to be effectively searched. Yet here we are, retrieving artifacts from the bottom of the sea.
I can give many other examples.
Everyone is complaining about the UI, but how about the fact that it forces to merge your personal Windows live account with what could well be a work-and-play device?
Windows 8 makes a work computer into a personal play thing and melds the two. Once you are connected to Windows live, it stats uploading things to the cloud, which violates the privacy policies of about half the western world, if you happen to have somebody else's personal data on your hard drive.
Senior professors make $75k and above and it goes a long way in Israel.
I call BS. Cost of living in Israel is substantially higher than in the USA.
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Israel&country2=United+States
Additionally senior professors make $150k in the USA, so the wage difference is 3-4x in favor of the USA.
New Guinea, why go that far?
In the remote continent of North America, in the English speaking tribes the men cook meat on the barbeque while in the Spanish speaking tribes is mostly the women who use the "azador".
You mean to tell me that someone is going to decide not to go on a shooting spree for fear of the paperwork afterwards?
You fail to see that often murders start by someone pulling out a gun just to scare someone. You couldn't do this in Switzerland. First because it is a rifle, second because you would have to break the government seal to load your rifle and then you would have to explain to your senior officer why the seal is broken.
Switzerland has just as many guns and far less murders.
No they do not. They have rifles under lock and key and every single bullet has to be accounted for.
Correlation does not imply causation
They have no intention or incentive to be truthful,
Actually in many European countries by law advertising has to be truthful. Only in America are companies given so much leeway in twisting the facts in ad copy.
This has to do in part with strong first amendment rights but also in part to straight out lobbying from industry.
Actually in this very specific case the Occam razor's version of event was a malicious attempt.
Just the other day I arrived at work to find traces of my externally accessible office door being jimmied. Now what is more likely (1) that the janitors lost the master key and forced their way in to vacuum clean or (2) that someone (likely a petty burglar) opened it and took my missing radio?
There is a suid exploit inserted in an unauthorized way. The simplest explanation is a backdoor attack. The subsequent investigation seems to support this further, even though we still do not know with certainty since the guilty person was never caught. However we can operate on the assumption that this was a malicious attack and discuss it as such.
Bills have (or used to have) intentional mistakes that a hand engraver was likely to fix subconsciously, including in some cases typos in microprint and tiny jagged (as if by accident) straight lines.
Nowadays bills are copied using high-speed high-precision laser scanners so I do not know if those artifacts are still used as security devices.
Let me FTFY:
It is the same, it's backed by nothing material. It's a promissory note from the issuing government, just like, say, company issued debt .
Actually look a bit deeper still and you'll see that people defending Perl regexps have never written a industrial size regular expression based application. Because if they had, they would realize that debugging complex regular expressions (in the sense of determining if it properly catches all instances) is _hell_.
Then you are only writing baby regular expressions.
At an open source project written in Perl we used to have lengthy discussions if a given regular expression would catch all instances of a specific language construct. This was a discussion between Perl ninjas, mind you, and often we would discover to our surprise that a seemingly correct expression wasn't.
It is very difficult to debug a regular expression with more than 50 terms.
page ranking are "post-90's AI techniques... those statements are bullshit.
This is just ridiculous. There was nothing like page ranking in AI before it was independently discovered by two non-AI groups. One in Altavista under Jon Kleinberg (a theory guy) and the other within the Database group in Stanford, by Larry and Sergey.
All the AI-ish techniques put together in the pre-page ranking era were useless. Any search engine user from back then can attest to that. In fact they were so bad that for the most part they were not even deployed and they were outperformed by a simple "query term distance" count, also first proposed by non AI researchers.
Even today page-ranking in Google uses very little classical "intelligence in the machine" AI. They go for statistical analysis which just recently was criticized on these pages by a very famous AI researcher as not being AI.
Pay attention: there are three people in this thread telling you now that you are full of shit.
Nothing new there. They were saying the same thing as I predicted the "AI winter" blowback years before it happened. Or when I commented that the 5th generation project would go nowhere back when people were all excited about it.
I've gone through the ups and downs in AI, and something that is a constant throughout is that it attracts many of the weaker CS students with faulty BS detectors. These weak students get their panties all tied up on a knot when you point out to them the con they've fallen for.
There are also some very intelligent AI researchers, and I've been fortunate to meet many of those too. That's where the real progress has come from and it was by far the minority and well outside the AI mainstream in the 1980s.
You used Computer World to try to prove an academic point, I'm using Wikipedia to prove a "popularity of culture" point. But since you keep on coming back to it, let me highlight one of its sentences for you:
The excessive hype over artificial intelligence promises in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s have made the public weary of unfulfilled promises.
Back to your posting:
Machine learning of today is very similar to the machine learning of the 50s,
This deserves no comment. It's a gem all on its own.
To finish it off, I have sitting on my shelf the proceedings of AAAI/IJCAI from 1988 until 2010. A quick browse through them shows not just the progress in the field, but an entire change in tone and techniques as it shed the 1980s-ho- air-promises and replaced with newly minted, hard techniques such as PAC, computational statistics, modern computer translation, SVMs, etc.
Machine learning goes back to the 1950's
Just like computation goes back to the Babylonians, yet it would be ridiculous to attribute the IBM PC to them. Machine learning today has very little to do with the "intelligence in the machines" hot air of the 80's AI.
(In different words, you have no idea what you're talking about.)
Says the guy who uses a Computer World article as a reference.
As I said, I'm referring to a well known failure, so much so that it has its own entry in Wikipedia. You on the other hand seem surprised by it.
This matches my experience. I reported to police a crime that I happened to witness and was given the third degree and added to the list of suspects. I have not spoken to police since.
From the article
Finally, are the police really that corrupt and/or stupid?
Again, in my experience yes. Not all of them of course, but all you need is a large enough minority to make it not worthwhile talking to them, and the stupid ones most definitely cross that threshold.
Well the article is wrong. For example it says:
On the other hand, every time you search the Web, get a movie recommendation from NetFlix or speak to a telephone voice recognition system, tools developed chasing the great promise of intelligent machines do the work.
which is patently false for the first two. These techniques were developed in the mid 90's using post 1980's style AI, such as machine learning and page ranking. The one that borrows more from 80's AI is voice recognition and guess what, this is the suckiest of the three and only recently improved by the use of massive speech databases, which is once again contrary to
"intelligence in the machine" 1980's AI.
But you don't need to trust me. The fact that AI was all hot air is well known. There is even a term for the consequences of their overhyped research agenda: AI winter
This. Another completely useless, incredibly expensive, press-release driven from the steaming pile of 1980's-style AI.
And what do we get? another human brain. Because suddenly there seems to be a shortage of them, since we only have 7 billion with another 2 billion to be added over the next thirty years.
This is the typical response of an abuse enabler. People from all walks of life have repeatedly pointed out that Jobs was an A grade a-hole, yet we have noh8rz10 belittling one of the targets of his abuse.