Of course, but the weight gained before it has actually been diagnosed and treated (which unfortunately can sometimes take many years before anyone realizes that a medical condition is actually responsible in the first place) remains... and will not go away, even after they start taking proper medication for it.
You're missing my point... what Uber is doing is essentially not any different from what I mentioned above... in both cases, there is profit being made, so I'm just not seeing why they should be treated any differently.
Yeah.... they can be pretty strict on those zones in front of the terminal. In a nutshell, you really can't actually wait for anybody there. You have to arrange with whoever you are picking up where you will meet them, and then you can stop there In those zones in front of the terminal you basically have to be either loading or unloading, and clearly in the process of picking up or dropping off someone, or else you can be ticketed. In my experience, cabs don't so much have an exemption to this as much as they have a designated area in front of the terminal where cabs are allowed to be which is generally quite clearly marked, and regular passenger pickup isn't supposed to occur there anyways.
In my experience at international airports, being dropped off "near" an airport without acttually going on their property would entail at least a 20 minute walk just to get from where you were dropped off to the terminal. Their parking lots are huge. Not particularly fun if you are also trying to manage luggage
If I call my friend and ask him to give me a lift to the airport and I give him, say, $20 in exchange which is considerably more than what it would cost in gasoline (almost an order of magnitude more, in fact), is he breaking the law by accepting the transaction? Am I breaking the law by soliciting such assistance? If not, then why is it somehow different if the driver is not somebody personally known to me?
I have to say that I was not overly impressed as well. To this guy's credit, however, at least this one was equipped with (although you do not ever actually see it, but are going only by what the fellow claims about it) all-terrain tank treads that would enable it to move over any surface, while most of the decent K-9 replicas that I've seen would not perform very well on soil, or dirt, for example.
But this honestly doesn't impress me as a K-9 replica. Sure, it seems like it's a decent start on one, but it looks far from finished. Even if all that is really left to do on is just "spit 'n polish" to make it look like the genuine article, it seems almost as far from a replica of K-9 as it would be to apply the term 'light saber replica' to a painted broom handle.
And its head doesn't even move... no extensible nose antenna or waggy ears or tail.
Nope.... just nope.
Like I said though... maybe I've just gone to too many cons or something, because I've seen vastly more impressive replicas of K-9 and other famous robots than this in recent years.
This is something I was actually in the market for at one point and had researched as thoroughly as I could a few years back. The bad news as I discovered it was that anything that's cheap is junk, and anything that's not junk is not cheap. Although this was, as I said, a few years ago now, and it's possible that other alternatives have arisen since then.
One of the best things I found at the time which was modestly inexpensive was some hardware that plugged into an iPad or iPhone. The one that I found was a device called iMSO, and it has a bandwidth in the neighborhood of a few Mhz, which isn't too shabby for an analog oscilloscope that cost under $300.
A show like mythbusters would examine the general viability of something like a spiderman suit or some other portable wall-scaling device that the average tv watcher is going to understand, not about testing the Van der Waals force specifically.
I dunno.... did they ever test anything based on Van der Waals force? I remember one where they tested various magnets and suction mechanisms, but did they do another one?
... between what Uber has set up, and simply giving somebody else a ride, but expecting to be compensated for one's time as well as gas. Is it illegal to carpool if the driver is profiting from it?
Heck, before I got my driver's license, I would sometimes ask my friends who already had their license for a ride somewhere and pay them for their time and gasoline as well. Was that illegal?
I mean, if you aren't allowed to give some packets higher priority, then doesn't that make the whole point of getting a quality of service guarantee moot?
I suspect that laws will probably eventually be passed prohibiting inconspicuous recording devices from masquerading as something stylish without some type of legal permit for it.
Indeed... but my point is that these kids weren't caught... They admitted to what they were doing as soon as they realized that it worked. They only did those things to demonstrate that they had actually successfully hacked it, since they didn't seem to initially believe them.
They weren't caught in the act... they voluntarily came forward to state what they had done... if they had not done this, nobody would have been the wiser, and the kids would know how to unlock admin mode on said atms without anyone else knowing that they knew how to do that.
Not anywhere close. Watsons total storage capacity was about 16 terabytes, the information on the Internet is more than 20,000 petabytes. Google alone processes over 2 dozen petabytes of data daily.
I'd argue that a truly intelligent chess-playing computer should be able to play chess better than a human without actually analyzing more board combinations that will arise from play than what the best human players will do during their own turn, which even for chess masters is generally no more than about a half dozen full moves (your move plus your opponent's move) ahead (although many of the best players can do more, there is diminishing returns past about that point to make searching much beyond that to be largely an impractical waste of time), and even after that, the total number of board combinations that they have actually considered before making a move will not generally more than a few hundred or so (compared to billions that the best chess-playing computer programs today currently analyze). If today's chess playing computer algorithms only considered as many board combinations as a chess grandmaster actually does, even a very novice player would be able to beat it without much difficulty.
Re:A pretty low requirement
on
Turing Test Passed
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Watson did not search the Internet for answers while playing. This was something that they specifically mentioned during the program which featured it, during one of their documentary breaks from the main game. During its learning phase, it was of course quite connected, but while playing the actually game, Watson was designed to exclusively rely on the static database of knowledge that it had at the start of the game. No Internet search facilities were employed.
I'm pretty sure the entire point of using a machine to do a task is so that a human won't have to, either because it subjects human beings to hazards that one wishes to avoid, or to free up a human's time to pursue other activities, or perhaps simply because a machine may be able to do the work in less time or more efficiently than a human being can.
And it's implicitly admitted by the article itself, where while it lists the top five people, it elaborates briefly on the first place holder of PageRank's algorithm, Carl Linnaeus, to state what the person was actually famous for. Really, if he was the most influential person in human history, one would typically expect that such clarification would not generally be needed. Indeed, there is no such clarification given for 2DRank's #1 place holder, Adolf Hitler, either. Neither is there any explanation needed or offered by others in the top five of either algorithm.
If you want to know how influential somebody was, try and count (or even just make a crude estimate of) how many people, both living and dead, that are or were impacted by that person, or what that person did. Honestly, the modern naming convention for organisms that Linneaus invented isn't liable to impact anyone outside of scientific circles, and probably doesn't even affect a billion people, while the founder of Buddhism, for example, I can't remember his name off the top of my head, almost certainly impacted the lives of at least tens of billions.
That's one way to look at it.... another is to see it as an organized carpooling system where the riders are willing to compensate the drivers for their time.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, but the weight gained before it has actually been diagnosed and treated (which unfortunately can sometimes take many years before anyone realizes that a medical condition is actually responsible in the first place) remains... and will not go away, even after they start taking proper medication for it.
Perhaps I should have mentioned that at the time I was looking for an analog oscilloscope.
You're missing my point... what Uber is doing is essentially not any different from what I mentioned above... in both cases, there is profit being made, so I'm just not seeing why they should be treated any differently.
Yeah.... they can be pretty strict on those zones in front of the terminal. In a nutshell, you really can't actually wait for anybody there. You have to arrange with whoever you are picking up where you will meet them, and then you can stop there In those zones in front of the terminal you basically have to be either loading or unloading, and clearly in the process of picking up or dropping off someone, or else you can be ticketed. In my experience, cabs don't so much have an exemption to this as much as they have a designated area in front of the terminal where cabs are allowed to be which is generally quite clearly marked, and regular passenger pickup isn't supposed to occur there anyways.
In my experience at international airports, being dropped off "near" an airport without acttually going on their property would entail at least a 20 minute walk just to get from where you were dropped off to the terminal. Their parking lots are huge. Not particularly fun if you are also trying to manage luggage
If I call my friend and ask him to give me a lift to the airport and I give him, say, $20 in exchange which is considerably more than what it would cost in gasoline (almost an order of magnitude more, in fact), is he breaking the law by accepting the transaction? Am I breaking the law by soliciting such assistance? If not, then why is it somehow different if the driver is not somebody personally known to me?
I have to say that I was not overly impressed as well. To this guy's credit, however, at least this one was equipped with (although you do not ever actually see it, but are going only by what the fellow claims about it) all-terrain tank treads that would enable it to move over any surface, while most of the decent K-9 replicas that I've seen would not perform very well on soil, or dirt, for example.
But this honestly doesn't impress me as a K-9 replica. Sure, it seems like it's a decent start on one, but it looks far from finished. Even if all that is really left to do on is just "spit 'n polish" to make it look like the genuine article, it seems almost as far from a replica of K-9 as it would be to apply the term 'light saber replica' to a painted broom handle.
And its head doesn't even move... no extensible nose antenna or waggy ears or tail.
Nope.... just nope.
Like I said though... maybe I've just gone to too many cons or something, because I've seen vastly more impressive replicas of K-9 and other famous robots than this in recent years.
*Edit - typo.... (damn, I noticed it as soon as I hit "submit") The iMSO cost *around* $300, not less...
This is something I was actually in the market for at one point and had researched as thoroughly as I could a few years back. The bad news as I discovered it was that anything that's cheap is junk, and anything that's not junk is not cheap. Although this was, as I said, a few years ago now, and it's possible that other alternatives have arisen since then.
One of the best things I found at the time which was modestly inexpensive was some hardware that plugged into an iPad or iPhone. The one that I found was a device called iMSO, and it has a bandwidth in the neighborhood of a few Mhz, which isn't too shabby for an analog oscilloscope that cost under $300.
A show like mythbusters would examine the general viability of something like a spiderman suit or some other portable wall-scaling device that the average tv watcher is going to understand, not about testing the Van der Waals force specifically.
I dunno.... did they ever test anything based on Van der Waals force? I remember one where they tested various magnets and suction mechanisms, but did they do another one?
Heck, before I got my driver's license, I would sometimes ask my friends who already had their license for a ride somewhere and pay them for their time and gasoline as well. Was that illegal?
How does net neturality impact QOS in IPv6?
I mean, if you aren't allowed to give some packets higher priority, then doesn't that make the whole point of getting a quality of service guarantee moot?
I suspect that laws will probably eventually be passed prohibiting inconspicuous recording devices from masquerading as something stylish without some type of legal permit for it.
Indeed... but my point is that these kids weren't caught... They admitted to what they were doing as soon as they realized that it worked. They only did those things to demonstrate that they had actually successfully hacked it, since they didn't seem to initially believe them.
They weren't caught in the act... they voluntarily came forward to state what they had done... if they had not done this, nobody would have been the wiser, and the kids would know how to unlock admin mode on said atms without anyone else knowing that they knew how to do that.
Not anywhere close. Watsons total storage capacity was about 16 terabytes, the information on the Internet is more than 20,000 petabytes. Google alone processes over 2 dozen petabytes of data daily.
I'd argue that a truly intelligent chess-playing computer should be able to play chess better than a human without actually analyzing more board combinations that will arise from play than what the best human players will do during their own turn, which even for chess masters is generally no more than about a half dozen full moves (your move plus your opponent's move) ahead (although many of the best players can do more, there is diminishing returns past about that point to make searching much beyond that to be largely an impractical waste of time), and even after that, the total number of board combinations that they have actually considered before making a move will not generally more than a few hundred or so (compared to billions that the best chess-playing computer programs today currently analyze). If today's chess playing computer algorithms only considered as many board combinations as a chess grandmaster actually does, even a very novice player would be able to beat it without much difficulty.
Watson did not search the Internet for answers while playing. This was something that they specifically mentioned during the program which featured it, during one of their documentary breaks from the main game. During its learning phase, it was of course quite connected, but while playing the actually game, Watson was designed to exclusively rely on the static database of knowledge that it had at the start of the game. No Internet search facilities were employed.
You evidently didn't read the third reason I gave...
Costing less time or money constitutes as being more efficient.
Oh... and what is the "profit" being maximized when you use a dishwasher at home instead of manually doing the dishes yourself?
I was talking about the entire point of using labor-saving machines as a general concept, not just about its commercial applications.
I'm pretty sure the entire point of using a machine to do a task is so that a human won't have to, either because it subjects human beings to hazards that one wishes to avoid, or to free up a human's time to pursue other activities, or perhaps simply because a machine may be able to do the work in less time or more efficiently than a human being can.
And it's implicitly admitted by the article itself, where while it lists the top five people, it elaborates briefly on the first place holder of PageRank's algorithm, Carl Linnaeus, to state what the person was actually famous for. Really, if he was the most influential person in human history, one would typically expect that such clarification would not generally be needed. Indeed, there is no such clarification given for 2DRank's #1 place holder, Adolf Hitler, either. Neither is there any explanation needed or offered by others in the top five of either algorithm.
If you want to know how influential somebody was, try and count (or even just make a crude estimate of) how many people, both living and dead, that are or were impacted by that person, or what that person did. Honestly, the modern naming convention for organisms that Linneaus invented isn't liable to impact anyone outside of scientific circles, and probably doesn't even affect a billion people, while the founder of Buddhism, for example, I can't remember his name off the top of my head, almost certainly impacted the lives of at least tens of billions.
That's one way to look at it.... another is to see it as an organized carpooling system where the riders are willing to compensate the drivers for their time.
If one is expecting compensation for their time in addition to the expense of fuel, then they are making a profit, aren't they?