This planet won't be around forever. Our understanding of stars has pretty much guaranteed that. Why not work on extending our hegemony past this star to ensure mankinds survival?
You do? If it rains for a week straight I can make a prediction that the river level will rise over the course of that week without knowing what the level of the river was before it started raining. It could be a dry creek bed or it could be an inch from bursting it's banks, that information doesn't necessarily factor into my prediction of a rise.
Is that an accurate prediction?
What if the week before it was raining more, like a monsoon, and the week after it was hit with tidal wave?
Point is, the fact that you know its happening doesn't actually mean it's going up. You need to know what it was like before for it to have any meaning.
Your whole point was based on the assumption that it wasn't raining before your week started, thus, you knew the existing preconditions.
Well how do you FOR SURE say that something is THE BEST or not? For that you'd need to have access to all of the security books ever and thoroughly gone through and evaluated all of them and ranked them too. Then as soon as a new book is released you must do the exact same process.
Arguably adds the effect of, "Yes - it IS the best security book out there as far as we know. It's entirely possible there is a better one, but we don't know of it. Someone would have to argue for it"
That depends on your definition of environment. Planting our Earth manufactured robot underneath a bunch of martian sand might have profound effects in the future, butterfly and all that.
You can be sued but you can't guarantee you'll win the case.
There aren't TOO many cases where people have won the lawsuit where they are suing just for emotional damages. Otherwise, I could sue my employer for not letting me spend every waking moment over at a ski-resort.
You'd be in for quite a stretch if you were going to sue someone for emotional damages over being offered a beverage.
Well recognising an individual face requires more intensive image capturing and processing - which isn't impossible its just more expensive. Then yes, essentially, you could do such a thing. But they've gone with the pseudo similar answer of generalizing a person based on the qualities it can identify, and dishing it whatever answer they have stored.
Instead of having to increase storage space for remembering each face it sees each day - Generalizing the public and adjusting rates dependant on its interaction doesn't require you to change anything on the machine, ever. It doesn't require more storage space for new faces because it doesn't remember faces. It already has a table of probably drinks per perons build, so the only thing that gets altered is the relational table of drinks to builds, which is altered at the time of interaction. Thus, you have a learning machine based on trends without any extra need to store any information than it already has the ability to store.
That depends, you go to it often enough, and the data it's collected will say "In my personal experience as a vending machine, quite a few people with facial hair and mohawks like iced tea". And then it'll offer you iced tea.
Problem is - this kind of profiling isn't against the law.
Where's the lawsuit about Tab Energy being marketted directly towards women?
Go look for it. That should keep you buys for a while.
Re:100%, and I didn't even take it.
on
2010 Geek IQ Test
·
· Score: 1
lol. How long did it take for you to copy, switch tabs, paste, find the answer, switch back, select and submit?
It's the human reaction that takes time - not the actual google search times.
Re:100%, and I didn't even take it.
on
2010 Geek IQ Test
·
· Score: 1
Well yes - if you're allowed do-overs then there is no point to it at all, trial and error will get you the right answers without even looking it up.
Re:100%, and I didn't even take it.
on
2010 Geek IQ Test
·
· Score: 1
While ultimately that IS the answer to any problem you find today, a proper test would set time limits per question. Make them just short enough that you might have trouble googling the answer to the question before the limit runs out. Somewhere around the ballpark of 5-10 seconds.
That's an extremely bad idea. At the end of the day it would end up being exploited by crackers and in the best case it would give people the idea that if they don't secure their computers that somebody will do it for them.
People already have that idea. That isn't giving it to them, its already there.
We have been trying education for years now, but users are still falling to terribly bad email scams.
The answer is going to have to be something that requires no work on the part of the user. You can't fix stupid, no. You can't stop someone from entering their credit card on a fake website if they are silly enough to fall for it. You CAN however stop them from landing at those places.
Any tech-savvy user won't be infected by the antivirus anymore than they'd be infected by a regular virus. That's the beauty of it.
The great thing about it is that even if it annoys you that you keep getting infected by it - you can at least rest knowing that its not trying to steal your information, you're safer battling to get the antivirus off your machine than you would be battling to get a regular virus off your machine.
how about some intelligent discussion about either educating the general public or another more intelligent solution?
We did that about 10 years ago when this story was fresh.
We've been doing that for the past 10 years. And we've decided that PEBKAC.
My idea of an intelligent solution is an infectious antivirus - spreads like other viruses do, via email, poisoned URLS, phishing, etc etc - use all the vulnerable vectors you can to spread an antivirus. It goes and tries to remove any viruses it can find and occaisonally calls back to some central server for an updated list on new threats and how to combat them.
Not a perfect solution, but I think we need to start fighting fire with fire.
Old programmers can tell you that software has always been a type of art. An esoteric form of art perhaps, but a piece of well written code is a thing of beauty.
It's even smaller than Esoteric - a piece of well written code isn't actually MEANT to be seen by anyone. A perfect piece of code would never need to be touched again, were such a thing possible (I know its not). I view good code as something that preforms its function - accounts for a wide variety of input - and is highly maintainable. If you've achieved that, you won't be needing to alter the code that much, if at all.
What Pixar does is actually ART art. It's something that you put on display for the masses of people to enjoy. Even if it were something esoteric, it's still meant to be seen.
A lot of the code written today is not generally meant to be on public display. It's meant to either work and be done with - or open sourced for other people to review and check and compile and use - but not really to admire.
Don't get me wrong - I will pause for a moment if I see something truly genius, and smile. But I don't get any of the other strong emotions that these other forms of art can do. I've cried in movies, whens the last time you cried at a piece of code? (Besides looking back at your first Geocities page with javascript)
I don't understand why Japan is so obsessed with creating androids, while (arguably) the most essential technology behind enabling interaction with humans; the AI field of Natural Language Processing is being glossed over
Because we're doing all of that stuff. Look at the turing test, westerners love it!
A large part of our communication is in body language. They're just focusing on making that possible from the robots perspective when we get around to it.
Oh come on. That's not even Rule 34 worthy - that's just "Japan".
Rule 34 would be taking 5 or 6 of these things, making them have a massive orgy inside an F-22 Bomb-bay only to climax and spew battery acid all over the citizens of some city which inadvertantly destroys all their clothes which gets everyone horny and breaks out into an even bigger orgy.
And if that's not a rule 34 - then it's a Rule 35.
They further found it was not an abuse of process to sue to 'stop the publication of negative information and opinion.'"
That line alone shows that they basically see suing people as a way to stop free speech - and that it should be allowed, even if the law isn't technically on their side. Basically, abusing the system to get people to stop saying things you don't like is considered legal.
Can you imagine how many people have been in a situation like Chris, but haven't had the money to go into a legal battle with them?
That just made me realize, after a big car accident, often times emergency response teams are probing with questions. What happened, are you okay, who can we call, etc etc.
Perhaps if the ambulance had tetris on board for your hospital ride and they left the questions till the next day - people involved in serious accidents would be better off...
Slashdot Mirror
This planet won't be around forever. Our understanding of stars has pretty much guaranteed that. Why not work on extending our hegemony past this star to ensure mankinds survival?
Baby steps.
just because a prediction is untestable has no bearing on it's accuracy.
It has a huge bearing on its accuracy, you can't BE accurate without testing it!
"Aliens live on mars" - I can claim that is an accurate prediction so long as we do not test that claim.
This doesn't even make sense. I don't even...
Troy offered to buy it from me for $250 dollars. I paid twenty bucks for it.
So he has the opportunity to make a cool $230 - and somehow he ends up at gunpoint? What the what the what?
You do? If it rains for a week straight I can make a prediction that the river level will rise over the course of that week without knowing what the level of the river was before it started raining. It could be a dry creek bed or it could be an inch from bursting it's banks, that information doesn't necessarily factor into my prediction of a rise.
Is that an accurate prediction?
What if the week before it was raining more, like a monsoon, and the week after it was hit with tidal wave?
Point is, the fact that you know its happening doesn't actually mean it's going up. You need to know what it was like before for it to have any meaning.
Your whole point was based on the assumption that it wasn't raining before your week started, thus, you knew the existing preconditions.
Well how do you FOR SURE say that something is THE BEST or not? For that you'd need to have access to all of the security books ever and thoroughly gone through and evaluated all of them and ranked them too. Then as soon as a new book is released you must do the exact same process.
Arguably adds the effect of, "Yes - it IS the best security book out there as far as we know. It's entirely possible there is a better one, but we don't know of it. Someone would have to argue for it"
either they finally created a perpetual motion machine
Those have actually been around for ages.
See: Children
That depends on your definition of environment. Planting our Earth manufactured robot underneath a bunch of martian sand might have profound effects in the future, butterfly and all that.
Wouldn't that make ballons better?
I'm not an expert either. In fact, I have an odd feeling I might be ridiculed for asking such a question.
You can be sued but you can't guarantee you'll win the case.
There aren't TOO many cases where people have won the lawsuit where they are suing just for emotional damages. Otherwise, I could sue my employer for not letting me spend every waking moment over at a ski-resort.
You'd be in for quite a stretch if you were going to sue someone for emotional damages over being offered a beverage.
Would you like fries with that?
Well recognising an individual face requires more intensive image capturing and processing - which isn't impossible its just more expensive. Then yes, essentially, you could do such a thing. But they've gone with the pseudo similar answer of generalizing a person based on the qualities it can identify, and dishing it whatever answer they have stored.
Instead of having to increase storage space for remembering each face it sees each day - Generalizing the public and adjusting rates dependant on its interaction doesn't require you to change anything on the machine, ever. It doesn't require more storage space for new faces because it doesn't remember faces. It already has a table of probably drinks per perons build, so the only thing that gets altered is the relational table of drinks to builds, which is altered at the time of interaction. Thus, you have a learning machine based on trends without any extra need to store any information than it already has the ability to store.
It usually means that if you were to consult a panel of experts - there would be a debate.
It does not mean that "someone, anyone, could argue for it" like you seem to think.
You forgot Kneepads.
That depends, you go to it often enough, and the data it's collected will say "In my personal experience as a vending machine, quite a few people with facial hair and mohawks like iced tea". And then it'll offer you iced tea.
Problem is - this kind of profiling isn't against the law.
Where's the lawsuit about Tab Energy being marketted directly towards women?
Go look for it. That should keep you buys for a while.
lol. How long did it take for you to copy, switch tabs, paste, find the answer, switch back, select and submit?
It's the human reaction that takes time - not the actual google search times.
Well yes - if you're allowed do-overs then there is no point to it at all, trial and error will get you the right answers without even looking it up.
While ultimately that IS the answer to any problem you find today, a proper test would set time limits per question. Make them just short enough that you might have trouble googling the answer to the question before the limit runs out. Somewhere around the ballpark of 5-10 seconds.
That's an extremely bad idea. At the end of the day it would end up being exploited by crackers and in the best case it would give people the idea that if they don't secure their computers that somebody will do it for them.
People already have that idea. That isn't giving it to them, its already there.
We have been trying education for years now, but users are still falling to terribly bad email scams.
The answer is going to have to be something that requires no work on the part of the user. You can't fix stupid, no. You can't stop someone from entering their credit card on a fake website if they are silly enough to fall for it. You CAN however stop them from landing at those places.
Any tech-savvy user won't be infected by the antivirus anymore than they'd be infected by a regular virus. That's the beauty of it.
The great thing about it is that even if it annoys you that you keep getting infected by it - you can at least rest knowing that its not trying to steal your information, you're safer battling to get the antivirus off your machine than you would be battling to get a regular virus off your machine.
how about some intelligent discussion about either educating the general public or another more intelligent solution?
We did that about 10 years ago when this story was fresh.
We've been doing that for the past 10 years. And we've decided that PEBKAC.
My idea of an intelligent solution is an infectious antivirus - spreads like other viruses do, via email, poisoned URLS, phishing, etc etc - use all the vulnerable vectors you can to spread an antivirus. It goes and tries to remove any viruses it can find and occaisonally calls back to some central server for an updated list on new threats and how to combat them.
Not a perfect solution, but I think we need to start fighting fire with fire.
Old programmers can tell you that software has always been a type of art. An esoteric form of art perhaps, but a piece of well written code is a thing of beauty.
It's even smaller than Esoteric - a piece of well written code isn't actually MEANT to be seen by anyone. A perfect piece of code would never need to be touched again, were such a thing possible (I know its not). I view good code as something that preforms its function - accounts for a wide variety of input - and is highly maintainable. If you've achieved that, you won't be needing to alter the code that much, if at all.
What Pixar does is actually ART art. It's something that you put on display for the masses of people to enjoy. Even if it were something esoteric, it's still meant to be seen.
A lot of the code written today is not generally meant to be on public display. It's meant to either work and be done with - or open sourced for other people to review and check and compile and use - but not really to admire.
Don't get me wrong - I will pause for a moment if I see something truly genius, and smile. But I don't get any of the other strong emotions that these other forms of art can do. I've cried in movies, whens the last time you cried at a piece of code? (Besides looking back at your first Geocities page with javascript)
I don't understand why Japan is so obsessed with creating androids, while (arguably) the most essential technology behind enabling interaction with humans; the AI field of Natural Language Processing is being glossed over
Because we're doing all of that stuff. Look at the turing test, westerners love it!
A large part of our communication is in body language. They're just focusing on making that possible from the robots perspective when we get around to it.
Oh come on. That's not even Rule 34 worthy - that's just "Japan".
Rule 34 would be taking 5 or 6 of these things, making them have a massive orgy inside an F-22 Bomb-bay only to climax and spew battery acid all over the citizens of some city which inadvertantly destroys all their clothes which gets everyone horny and breaks out into an even bigger orgy.
And if that's not a rule 34 - then it's a Rule 35.
And it has far reaching implications.
They further found it was not an abuse of process to sue to 'stop the publication of negative information and opinion.'"
That line alone shows that they basically see suing people as a way to stop free speech - and that it should be allowed, even if the law isn't technically on their side. Basically, abusing the system to get people to stop saying things you don't like is considered legal.
Can you imagine how many people have been in a situation like Chris, but haven't had the money to go into a legal battle with them?
It sucks indeed.
That just made me realize, after a big car accident, often times emergency response teams are probing with questions. What happened, are you okay, who can we call, etc etc.
Perhaps if the ambulance had tetris on board for your hospital ride and they left the questions till the next day - people involved in serious accidents would be better off...
Just thinking outloud.