You misunderstand my point... the teacher here was evidently trying to help the students gain an intuitive understanding of how much work they reasonably needed to do... and that's a laudable goal. However, that intuition is often only gained by experience... if they haven't yet had sufficient experience testing that out, how can it possibly be expected they would have it?
Or do you mean by "intelligent" that they are somehow gifted savants that just somehow always know what the right amount to say about a subject is without any prior real exposure to doing it?
It should require every device that has is connected to have a unique default password, and that password should be printed on a sticker that is afixed to the device in a location that is consumer-accessible, but does not affect functionality or aesthetic appeal (ie, on the bottom or back of the device) if possible, or if and only if the device has no such convenient location, on a similarly sized piece of paper that is packaged with the device.
I wasn't suggesting a causal relationship. I thought he was a good professor despite having policies that definitely antagonized a lot of students. My point was only that such policies are not necessarily counterproductive to being an effective teacher.
Nowhere in the initial promise was it suggested that they would move jobs from China to the USA, only that they would bring jobs to the USA. The original plan would entail *expanding* capacity, not simply trying to move it to somewhere that can't do the job anywhere nearly as efficiently... even if they did move to the USA, productivity would be so abysmally low on account of lack of infrastructure that prices would go through the roof.
It's cheaper, no matter how you slice it, to just make Americans pay more for goods that come from China than it is to try and develop that infrastructure domestically without cooperating with China.
Of course, the even cheaper option would be to not tariff China on goods that America can't really produce as efficiently themselves simply because of a lack of domestic infrastructure.
If one is going to charge import tariffs to make their own citizens pay more for something from somewhere else, it makes sense to restrict it to things that they can actually meet their own domestic demand for rather than things that their citizenry has perhaps come to depend on coming from elsewhere. But then, this president isn't known for doing things that are overly sensible.
It's a safe bet that the number of American jobs that these tariffs will actually create, if any, will be entirely overwhelmed by the economic downturn of people simply paying more for those goods.
I consider it a bit like refusing to give a student any credit for an assignment that's due at midnight, turned in at 12:03 AM, and is of high quality.
I remember one professor in the computer science faculty where I studied that had a policy like that. Assignments were due at the beginning of the class on the due date, and after class started, the door was closed and locked. He had a zero tolerance for lateness, and any more than two unexcused absences were grounds for failing the course. I had this professor for multiple clases, usually at least one each semester, and one time I had him in two.
In the first class I had with him, I thought he was kind of an asshole, to be honest.... but as I had more courses with him, I ended up respecting him more than any other professor I had. He was strict, but you couldn't take his classes and possibly even pass without actually really learning some serious shit.
True, but they'd be paying more to develop domestically because the infrastructure for developing certain kinds of products simply isn't as large in the USA as it is in China, and the inability to produce the same amount of goods due to lack of infrastructure would result in higher prices even if you completely leave labour costs out of the equation.
As long as they didn't turn in something like a one paragraph paper, I gave them credit.
But that's where the problem is... you implicitly imposed a minimum length on the students without actually telling them what it was. How, reasonably, should a student know what expectations are upon them unless they are told in quantitatively measurable terms?
In the real world, you don't need such quantitative descriptors because people hopefully have enough experience by then to gain an intuitive understanding of how much or how little they need to write to convey their position adequately, but while one is learning, they don't necessarily yet have the background to intuitively recognize it.
Developing an intuition for how much or how little you need to write to convey your point across is something you can only learn by trying, and probably failing a lot along the way... and even if they don't do well in the draft, that doesn't mean they aren't learning something from it.
It's pretty cool that you're getting students to do that though... I wouldn't give in on giving them a page count or paragraph count, even if they ask for one... just help them develop that intuition that you seem to realize that they are going to need in the real world, and make it explicitly clear that's what you are trying to do.
Did you give them the subject they were to write about?
Because if not, I'm sure some smart-ass student could hand in a half page paper that as thoroughly covered the topic as is humanly possible simply because it's not interesting enough to most people to have had that much information published about it yet.
I imagine it has to do with the objectivity of the metric, and ensuring that what the author of the paper has chosen to write about is sufficiently broad and complex enough that a paper of that length will not feel repetitious, while at the same time ensuring that the paper remains focused enough in its intent to not be much longer than the target length.
That would only be applicable if they lacked the ability to prevent it. I was operating under the assumption that they did, and if that were the case, there would be no compelling reason to explain what was done to mitigate the problem from occurring in the future.
Which itself is fine... there's no reason to disclose that information, but was it something they can mitigate, or is it only a matter of time before somebody else tries it?
Despite human fallibility, it is still entirely possible for fallible humans to create infallible algorithms. Such algorithms achieve notoriety relatively quickly and often are named after either a metaphor for how the algorithm works, or no less commonly, the first person who published it. Bubble sort and Djistra's shortest path algorithm come to mind as examples.
The real breach is in that the attackers were somehow able to change the web page content to achieve this end. Do they know how the attackers accomplished this? If not, what's to stop it from reoccurring, even if not by the same people, when someone else figures it out?
Where I would say that CCG's like Magic crosses the line and becomes gambling is that you don't know in advance how valuable the cards you get are going to be... while perhaps as a tangible good they might technically have the same monetary value as whatever you paid for them, sometimes you will get multiple cards that you like in a single booster pack, but other times you'll get a whole pack of cards where none of them will offer any significant benefit.
In the end, the practical usefulness of individual cards (and by implication, their value in the second hand market) within different packages is simply too disparate for this to be anything but gambling.
It might be a sufficient defense against an *alleged* enabling of a crime.
Destruction of evidence is a crime... should the company that makes the software that deletes contents of devices be charged with a crime if someone uses it to erase evidence of another crime they committed?
Why, are you wanting to fund the building of a reactor or something?
Because otherwise, what difference should it make to you that it must necessarily be cheaper to run?
What is your problem with making an entirely safe nuclear reactor that may happen to probably be somewhat more expensive to operate than an unsafe one, but can still be priced advantageously compared to other power generation techniques that we are trying to get rid of?
And for what it's worth, it probably is still cheaper when you account for lawsuits... but again, what difference would that make to you?
If he uploaded 4GB to Facebook servers and then 6 million viewers downloaded 25 PB from Facebook servers, then FaceBook should be at least partially responsible for enabling this to happen.
Is Facebook expected to manually vet every video uploaded to it before it is allowed to be viewed by anyone else?
And in the middle of winter, when you go far enough north, the sun sets early enough that even with an extra hour of daylight at the end of it, it will still be after sunset by the time most people might need to go home from work.
And if the sun is rising that much later in the winter, the lack of any sunlight in the morning almost certainly badly affect melatonin cycles and probably worsen seasonal depression disorder.
I can sympathize with wanting an extra hour of daylight in the evenings, but as soon as you get more than about 45 degrees away from the equator or so, the sun is already rising late enough as it is in the winter months, and in practice, one wouldn't be able to enjoy the extra hour of daylight at the end of the day in the winter either, because they would probably be at work until sunset anyways.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we leave DST as it is, I think that the abomination should be abolished forever, but I firmly believe that we should stay on standard time, and not simply shift the middle of the day to 1PM. You might be able to convince me to shift clocks forward only half an hour only once, and one last time to split the difference, but I don't know if I've been really sold on that yet.
Noon should be as close as is reasonably possible to the middle of the day, not an hour before it (or else you may as well call it 12AM, considering what AM and PM mean, since that is what it would always be if we settled on using DST year-round).
Only if you count third world countries. Among developed nations for the time, the USA wasn't dead last in abolishing slavery, but they were regretfully still far too late to the party to be thought of as "one of the first". Spain and England deserve far more credit in that regard. In the end, the USA still did the right thing in abolishing slavery, and that is what matters.
The only things the cybernet needs from you are information, physical maintenance an an energy supply
That's not bionic, that sounds more parasitic.
Besides, using an operating system to accept input from a human doesn't make that system bionic, or else every home computer ever made would qualify as bionic.
"Bionic" is a portmanteau of biology and electronic. Anything that doesn't encompass those two, functioning together as if they were a *SINGLE* thing, not merely one accessing the other, is not bionic. The classical example is of course electronic artificial limbs, but there are others. I once read about a guy who implanted an RFID reader in his body, and over time his brain adapted to the signals it was receiving from the reader so that he could actually understand some of it. That would be an example of bionics as well.
I'm betting whoever came up with "Bionic" for the name of the chip probably didn't realize that word had any particular meaning beyond sounding like a cool science fictiony term that might impress people.
So in other words, uploads are effectively like copying to/dev/null?
Because even if it doesn't infringe on copyright, it's all copyrighted... or at least probably mostly copyrighted. Hell, the uploader might even own the copyright on it. After all, it's copyrighted, isn't it?
The question to be asking is if the uploaded copyrighted content infringes on copyright law, or if the copyright holder might want to claim copyright infringement (whether or not they actually did do so).
Computers cannot currently do this without a lot of human intervention on a case-by-case basis, however, so this law is asking companies to do something that is technologically impossible today.
So what, exactly, did lawmakers have in mind with this kind of law? What sort of magic do they think computers have to make this sort of thing even *remotely* achievable?
I fail to see why you would conclude that is the only possible outcome of artificial intelligence.
AI is just intelligence that happens to be artificial.... there is no more of a rational reason to be afraid of what it might attempt to do than there is to be afraid of artificial limbs.
Slashdot Mirror
You misunderstand my point... the teacher here was evidently trying to help the students gain an intuitive understanding of how much work they reasonably needed to do... and that's a laudable goal. However, that intuition is often only gained by experience... if they haven't yet had sufficient experience testing that out, how can it possibly be expected they would have it?
Or do you mean by "intelligent" that they are somehow gifted savants that just somehow always know what the right amount to say about a subject is without any prior real exposure to doing it?
It should require every device that has is connected to have a unique default password, and that password should be printed on a sticker that is afixed to the device in a location that is consumer-accessible, but does not affect functionality or aesthetic appeal (ie, on the bottom or back of the device) if possible, or if and only if the device has no such convenient location, on a similarly sized piece of paper that is packaged with the device.
I wasn't suggesting a causal relationship. I thought he was a good professor despite having policies that definitely antagonized a lot of students. My point was only that such policies are not necessarily counterproductive to being an effective teacher.
Nowhere in the initial promise was it suggested that they would move jobs from China to the USA, only that they would bring jobs to the USA. The original plan would entail *expanding* capacity, not simply trying to move it to somewhere that can't do the job anywhere nearly as efficiently... even if they did move to the USA, productivity would be so abysmally low on account of lack of infrastructure that prices would go through the roof.
It's cheaper, no matter how you slice it, to just make Americans pay more for goods that come from China than it is to try and develop that infrastructure domestically without cooperating with China.
Of course, the even cheaper option would be to not tariff China on goods that America can't really produce as efficiently themselves simply because of a lack of domestic infrastructure.
If one is going to charge import tariffs to make their own citizens pay more for something from somewhere else, it makes sense to restrict it to things that they can actually meet their own domestic demand for rather than things that their citizenry has perhaps come to depend on coming from elsewhere. But then, this president isn't known for doing things that are overly sensible.
It's a safe bet that the number of American jobs that these tariffs will actually create, if any, will be entirely overwhelmed by the economic downturn of people simply paying more for those goods.
I remember one professor in the computer science faculty where I studied that had a policy like that. Assignments were due at the beginning of the class on the due date, and after class started, the door was closed and locked. He had a zero tolerance for lateness, and any more than two unexcused absences were grounds for failing the course. I had this professor for multiple clases, usually at least one each semester, and one time I had him in two.
In the first class I had with him, I thought he was kind of an asshole, to be honest.... but as I had more courses with him, I ended up respecting him more than any other professor I had. He was strict, but you couldn't take his classes and possibly even pass without actually really learning some serious shit.
True, but they'd be paying more to develop domestically because the infrastructure for developing certain kinds of products simply isn't as large in the USA as it is in China, and the inability to produce the same amount of goods due to lack of infrastructure would result in higher prices even if you completely leave labour costs out of the equation.
But that's where the problem is... you implicitly imposed a minimum length on the students without actually telling them what it was. How, reasonably, should a student know what expectations are upon them unless they are told in quantitatively measurable terms?
In the real world, you don't need such quantitative descriptors because people hopefully have enough experience by then to gain an intuitive understanding of how much or how little they need to write to convey their position adequately, but while one is learning, they don't necessarily yet have the background to intuitively recognize it.
Developing an intuition for how much or how little you need to write to convey your point across is something you can only learn by trying, and probably failing a lot along the way... and even if they don't do well in the draft, that doesn't mean they aren't learning something from it.
It's pretty cool that you're getting students to do that though... I wouldn't give in on giving them a page count or paragraph count, even if they ask for one... just help them develop that intuition that you seem to realize that they are going to need in the real world, and make it explicitly clear that's what you are trying to do.
Did you give them the subject they were to write about?
Because if not, I'm sure some smart-ass student could hand in a half page paper that as thoroughly covered the topic as is humanly possible simply because it's not interesting enough to most people to have had that much information published about it yet.
I imagine it has to do with the objectivity of the metric, and ensuring that what the author of the paper has chosen to write about is sufficiently broad and complex enough that a paper of that length will not feel repetitious, while at the same time ensuring that the paper remains focused enough in its intent to not be much longer than the target length.
That would only be applicable if they lacked the ability to prevent it. I was operating under the assumption that they did, and if that were the case, there would be no compelling reason to explain what was done to mitigate the problem from occurring in the future.
Which itself is fine... there's no reason to disclose that information, but was it something they can mitigate, or is it only a matter of time before somebody else tries it?
Despite human fallibility, it is still entirely possible for fallible humans to create infallible algorithms. Such algorithms achieve notoriety relatively quickly and often are named after either a metaphor for how the algorithm works, or no less commonly, the first person who published it. Bubble sort and Djistra's shortest path algorithm come to mind as examples.
The real breach is in that the attackers were somehow able to change the web page content to achieve this end. Do they know how the attackers accomplished this? If not, what's to stop it from reoccurring, even if not by the same people, when someone else figures it out?
Where I would say that CCG's like Magic crosses the line and becomes gambling is that you don't know in advance how valuable the cards you get are going to be... while perhaps as a tangible good they might technically have the same monetary value as whatever you paid for them, sometimes you will get multiple cards that you like in a single booster pack, but other times you'll get a whole pack of cards where none of them will offer any significant benefit.
In the end, the practical usefulness of individual cards (and by implication, their value in the second hand market) within different packages is simply too disparate for this to be anything but gambling.
It might be a sufficient defense against an *alleged* enabling of a crime.
Destruction of evidence is a crime... should the company that makes the software that deletes contents of devices be charged with a crime if someone uses it to erase evidence of another crime they committed?
Why, are you wanting to fund the building of a reactor or something?
Because otherwise, what difference should it make to you that it must necessarily be cheaper to run?
What is your problem with making an entirely safe nuclear reactor that may happen to probably be somewhat more expensive to operate than an unsafe one, but can still be priced advantageously compared to other power generation techniques that we are trying to get rid of?
And for what it's worth, it probably is still cheaper when you account for lawsuits... but again, what difference would that make to you?
Is Facebook expected to manually vet every video uploaded to it before it is allowed to be viewed by anyone else?
And in the middle of winter, when you go far enough north, the sun sets early enough that even with an extra hour of daylight at the end of it, it will still be after sunset by the time most people might need to go home from work.
And if the sun is rising that much later in the winter, the lack of any sunlight in the morning almost certainly badly affect melatonin cycles and probably worsen seasonal depression disorder.
I can sympathize with wanting an extra hour of daylight in the evenings, but as soon as you get more than about 45 degrees away from the equator or so, the sun is already rising late enough as it is in the winter months, and in practice, one wouldn't be able to enjoy the extra hour of daylight at the end of the day in the winter either, because they would probably be at work until sunset anyways.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we leave DST as it is, I think that the abomination should be abolished forever, but I firmly believe that we should stay on standard time, and not simply shift the middle of the day to 1PM. You might be able to convince me to shift clocks forward only half an hour only once, and one last time to split the difference, but I don't know if I've been really sold on that yet.
Noon should be as close as is reasonably possible to the middle of the day, not an hour before it (or else you may as well call it 12AM, considering what AM and PM mean, since that is what it would always be if we settled on using DST year-round).
Wrong
Only if you count third world countries. Among developed nations for the time, the USA wasn't dead last in abolishing slavery, but they were regretfully still far too late to the party to be thought of as "one of the first". Spain and England deserve far more credit in that regard. In the end, the USA still did the right thing in abolishing slavery, and that is what matters.
Locking the case closed comes to mind as one preventative measure.
That's not bionic, that sounds more parasitic.
Besides, using an operating system to accept input from a human doesn't make that system bionic, or else every home computer ever made would qualify as bionic.
"Bionic" is a portmanteau of biology and electronic. Anything that doesn't encompass those two, functioning together as if they were a *SINGLE* thing, not merely one accessing the other, is not bionic. The classical example is of course electronic artificial limbs, but there are others. I once read about a guy who implanted an RFID reader in his body, and over time his brain adapted to the signals it was receiving from the reader so that he could actually understand some of it. That would be an example of bionics as well.
I'm betting whoever came up with "Bionic" for the name of the chip probably didn't realize that word had any particular meaning beyond sounding like a cool science fictiony term that might impress people.
Why on earth would anyone name their product "bionic" if it didn't have something that connected to or operated in cooperation with a living organism?
So in other words, uploads are effectively like copying to /dev/null?
Because even if it doesn't infringe on copyright, it's all copyrighted... or at least probably mostly copyrighted. Hell, the uploader might even own the copyright on it. After all, it's copyrighted, isn't it?
The question to be asking is if the uploaded copyrighted content infringes on copyright law, or if the copyright holder might want to claim copyright infringement (whether or not they actually did do so).
Computers cannot currently do this without a lot of human intervention on a case-by-case basis, however, so this law is asking companies to do something that is technologically impossible today.
So what, exactly, did lawmakers have in mind with this kind of law? What sort of magic do they think computers have to make this sort of thing even *remotely* achievable?
I fail to see why you would conclude that is the only possible outcome of artificial intelligence.
AI is just intelligence that happens to be artificial.... there is no more of a rational reason to be afraid of what it might attempt to do than there is to be afraid of artificial limbs.