If women were really doing better then more of them would be in CS. It's improving, but their is still a huge gap. If they represent 60% of all Degrees but only represent 12% of CS Degrees then what Degrees are they being over represented in? They could easily be going into more fluff degrees which would make their quantity meaningless. Figure out why they avoid Math and Science before you go off saying they are doing better compared to Men. Until they do the same things that the Men are doing it's like comparing apples and oranges.
No, it's not to save money. We voted out their stupid "Buy Every Kid A Laptop" to save money program because any moron knew it was going to cost a lot more money then all the teachers they cut to spend the money on Laptops. They just wanted to give HP 150 Million every few years. We voted out the stupid "Lets Bust the Teachers Union" to save money because we're already a right-to-work state, they just wanted to do some useless union busting. We voted against requiring students to have online courses because the K-12 online program does nothing but make more dropouts than a public school. But they helped pay for the Super Intendents campaign a few years back so he figured he owed them. We figured it was a waist of money.
It's not about money ether. We originally voted in a 6 cent sales tax that was marketed as money that was supposed to go to our public schools. Once past, the legislature turned around and said the state constitution says ALL REVENUE goes into the general fund. Boise, the best school district in the state, passed it's own tax increase to counter all the budget cuts the State Legislature has put though.
This is being done because the Legislature thinks that Khan Academy can be used to rout the public school system. Nothing more, Nothing less. On the other had, Khan Academy is honestly trying to help, and if they can prove to be a benefit then they will be adopted.
Many States do public policy polling already. It does give them some good information to act on. However, they are always done on the cheap side of things. Many want to see these results with +-1% margin of error, but that costs millions. They'd rather just spend 50k and get maybe +-5% - 10%, but then anything that's close is meaningless.
The proposed methodology for petitions is flawed. You can't improve the reliability of a petition, and any attempt at using them for anything other than "Is their interest in said topic" is delusional. A petition should convince someone to do a broader, more scientifically accurate, and valid Poll. It's not that 4Chan and the NRA are manipulating your petitions. It's that you're using your petition for something it can never do, and deluding yourselves into believing you can fix it will not end well.
In the message there were several sets of numbers. One set it probably the decryption setting like the information for the one time pad or something similar and the other sets are probably the "here" you're so stressed out about.
That's actually a part of the reason the FCC has taken so long to pass the regulation in the first place. However, that argument no long applies. The technical document describing it is here. That document describes the Normalization process the commercial should be sent though to make it in compliance. Someone could probably try to subvert it, but that's what the reporting is for. If there is a complaint then the FCC will go back and look to see if it was a problem with the Algorithm or if it was someone subverting it.
You think that a Red Dwarf solar system is statistically important? It's funny that the article would even consider this solar system to be anything like our own given one of the important parts is radically different. It's nice we're getting to the point where we can see details like the article is pointing out, but we're still a ways away from having anything that would sway the Fermi Paradox to one conclusion or the other.
Is Julian really that much of an idiot, or is he just trying to play the Paranoia Violin. "Entire Nations are Intercepted" is a pretty bold paranoia claim. Now if he's just just over blowing the fact that every nation spys on each others international traffic then he should read a history book. The NSA has been in the business of trying to intercept international communications for a while now. I highly doubt the US can copy all of Russias Traffic or any others traffic. However, international communications are a different story, and any country or person thinking those kind of things haven't been business as usual is foolish.
People have held grudges for far less. However, his deliberate miss interpretation of the jury instructions is almost certainly rooted in his past legal battles.
I like this word Supposedly. Supposedly a 1 TerraHertz processor is possible. The Wii U's processor needs a real bench mark. Devs saying it's "too slow" and then no numbers to back up their claim isn't good enough. Devs should be able to write a bench mark and Prove the GFLOPS so that no one would even consider using the word Supposedly in conjunction with their description.
I'm not sure if I buy into the logic of the argument. I've been able to get dollar coins form a vending machine at work. However, because the transition never really happened when I'd try to use them people were always confused. I put a coin into the bus and the driver stat their dumbfounded until he figured out the machine was registering a dollar. Then New version of the coins wouldn't work at all. Their little lets put a different president on each run really made vending machines hit or miss with them. If I used them with a clerk they would think I only game them a quarter. Too much of that, and yea I'll just be putting them in jars till I have enough to put in a coin machine and get cash for coin.
Just because it's smaller than the ram doesn't mean it doesn't reduce the cache trashing. If Intel or AMD offered a processor with 32MB of eDRAM I'd consider it. And the Wii U has 2 GB of ram not 1. 1 Gig for the OS and 1 Gig for games. What ever that means. I always assume that the amount of Memory an OS needs is variable, but they are stating it as if it's static. Maybe they don't want to put the expectation to programmers that they can eat into the extra gig.
More like clock frequencies no longer equate to horsepower. At least this article mentioned the eDRAM which changes how many OPS you can get from the processor. The latest CPUs have been so radically different that saying one is better than the other is difficult. The eDRAM is a big deal for the WiiU chip, but does 32 MB address the cache thrashing? I think it should, and clearly Nintendo did since they opted for cheaper slower memory, but put in a quantity I didn't think Nintendo would consider. I thought they would only go up to 1 Gig Max, if that.
Subjective morality, or as it's more commonly referred to in scientific circles, moral relativism, does not define that "no one can be morally right or wrong." Rather, it is recognition and acceptance of the absolute fact that morality, in general, is a subjective concept, and that the judgement of what is or is not a moral act is based not on any sort of metric, but rather personal interpretation of the topic at hand.
Wrong.
Wiki
Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.
Free Dictionary
the belief that morality is relative to the society where it exists and that its criticism and evaluation are irrelevant.
freerepublic.com
Situational Ethics. The essential equity between opposing moral and legal paradigms. Ethics are just an opinion, no one person can tell any other what's right or wrong.
So are you arguing Descriptive, Meta-ethical, or Normative? None of them give you the leverage that you want to make a statement that we shouldn't program morals into a machine because it's Immoral. All of them actually stat that you cannot make that kind of a judgement with Moral Relativism, and that ones that allow it don't allow for you to do anything about it. Pick your poison. You're probably basing your logic on Sam Harris who makes an argument for an currently unknown Objective Morality, and until we know that unknown we only have Moral Relativism. I suspect his basis is rooted only in anti-religious views, and has found out that you can't make good moral statements without an Objective Moral basis.
Nice cop out, but this is because you don't understand what Subjective Morality is. Subjective Morality is where no one can be morally right, and no one can be morally wrong because everyone can have different morals. Your argument is that "Forcing the public at large to follow a single person's idea of morality is, at the most basic level, an immoral act in itself". Under Subjective Morality that isn't possible, and is an Objective Moral stance. Only Objective Morality allows for absolute rules like "It is immoral to imposes my beliefs on others". Under Subjective Morality it might not be moral to you, but could be moral for someone else. Admitting it's Subjective, as you have, means you know your position has no moral meaning, or you don't know what Subjective Morality really is. If your statement of Immorality is subjective then it falls to the "Says who?" challenge. Garry Marcus, clearly, believes that is it a moral duty to make moral machine, and that it would be immoral not to. He is even using the "Greater Good" argument. The problem with Subjective Morality is that it can be used to justify ANY moral position you want, and who is to say, other than yourself, that position is always correct.
You're arguing for Universal Morality witch is Objective Morality not Subjective Morality. That is the core fault of Subjective Morality. You're entire argument is to establish an Objective Moral position, but claim that Morals are Subjective. Your entire position is only true if you can derive Objective Morals, but you're claiming that Morals are Subjective. As for your argument about Slavery you should look up and reread the entire history of Civil Rights. Many Older Black in the hayday of the Civil rights movement viewed it as "Not Their Place" to demand equal rights. In essnse their position was that their lack of right was ok with them. Objective Morality can be used to say that Jim Crow Laws were always wrong. Subjective morality allows you to say It's ok as long as you get away with it.
Forcing the public at large to follow a single person's idea of morality is, at the most basic level, an immoral act in itself.
Says Who?
Because you've concluded that "Morality is subjective" it is only Immoral to you. Who are you to make that claim for everyone? From your logic I could easily conclude that is it Immoral for you to impose your view that it is immoral for me to program a moral machine. Subjective morality may or may-not be real, but it sure is a bitch if you use it.
You're statement of Immorality is only meaningful as an Objective Moral Statement, and as a Subjective Moral Statement it is meaningless.
The AI we currently use cannot have Morals and Ethics programmed in. Weak AI as we have today is the picture perfect tool, but as a Tool it can't know or understand the world in a way it could make a Moral or Ethical choice. Weak AI can only ever Do what it was intended to Do and Nothing more. Lets take Watson as an example. It's being used in medicine now. Lets say a patient asked it a question about what they were dying of, but lets say that if the patient knows too much they will sink into a depression and die faster than if a Doctor broke it down for them gently. Watson would just blut out whatever answer it thought was correct consequences be dammed. Strong AI is what would be able to have Morals and Ethics, but can you have Strong AI, and can you properly define ethics? Lets say you can have a Strong AI, for the sake of argument. The philosophy of morals and ethics is tricky. Subjective Morality is bad because it can be used to justify anything you want to justify. On the other hand, Objective Morality is prone to Paradox. The Golden Rule is a good Objective Moral statement that you can use to derive a "Don't Kill People". You can even derive "Don't Let People be Killed". However, you can be in a situation where you cannot do both like in WWII would killing Hitler or Nazis help or achieve the "Don't Let People be Killed", and at the same time you'd be violating "Don't Kill People", and doing nothing would violate "Don't Let People be Killed". No one knows how to clearly define morals so attempting to force them onto a Strong AI would have unpredictable outcomes.
It helps in two ways. Best example is Pennsylvania. Romney's Campaign used a Land Line Methodology which is known to be blind to youth groups. They thought that with a little effort they'd be able to win by driving out the Republican vote a little more. Democrats knew that for them to do that it would take a lot more money, and with a little effort any attempt would be deflected. So after Romney spent a lot of money trying to flip Penn the Obama Campaign sent Clinton out for a few minor events, and undid everything Romney did. However, because Romney used the outmoded method his campaign was unaware that it was still solidly Blue, and thought they had a chance to take it all the way up to the election. In Politics bad methodologies cause you to spend money where you shouldn't be spending it. The second method to winning is that if you don't know what the youth group is thinking then long term you loose them to the side that at least can moderate to them. That allows you to continue to build and change politically instead of becoming Old and Out Dated as the Republicans has started to become where it practical excommunicates moderates and views that don't match their entire group. Result is youth keep their distance and look to Libertarians or Democrats. Republicans are aware of this but their are two group. The Tea Party Old Men who want to double down on the last strategy, and the Moderates who view that route as political suicide for the party.
That's because it's just a Libertarian or Republican anti-Obama Won because of tech argument. It's not even a question for Slashdot, but rather a Troll post to see how much flame or non-flame will be generated. From my position, since my job is in survey research, I'm happy that Obama's team has figured out how to poll the Youth and Young Adult groups. Those groups have always been hard, but because of trends over the last 10 years its become a big blind spot in research. Complaining that Obama won because they figured out how to measure 18-30 year old better is foolish.
Also since the Wii U is sold at a "Loss" that only need to sell 1 Game for each console to make up for that "Loss". Nintendo is thus still selling at a Profit which is what they've always done.
They don't know how to code for the newer chip designs. Nvidia and AMD are already looking at or arguing for lowering chip cycles and increasing cpu cores. The Wii U almost certainly utilizes eDram to simplify multicore programming and give you increased performance if you use it correctly. If you can't code for this newer design but everyone else ether does or knows they will have to then learn then get out of the market while you can.
Except Intel didn't implement AMD64 correctly 100%. You can read the US-CERT for yourself if you want. For that all you had to do was run a couple of commands and your code could be escalated to kernel level privileges, but only on Intel 64bit. It would be bad to assume that what works on one as an exploit would work the same way on the other. My concern is about this being a flaw in the CPU similar to what happened with Intel 64bit.
Slashdot Mirror
If women were really doing better then more of them would be in CS. It's improving, but their is still a huge gap. If they represent 60% of all Degrees but only represent 12% of CS Degrees then what Degrees are they being over represented in? They could easily be going into more fluff degrees which would make their quantity meaningless. Figure out why they avoid Math and Science before you go off saying they are doing better compared to Men. Until they do the same things that the Men are doing it's like comparing apples and oranges.
It's not about money ether. We originally voted in a 6 cent sales tax that was marketed as money that was supposed to go to our public schools. Once past, the legislature turned around and said the state constitution says ALL REVENUE goes into the general fund. Boise, the best school district in the state, passed it's own tax increase to counter all the budget cuts the State Legislature has put though.
This is being done because the Legislature thinks that Khan Academy can be used to rout the public school system. Nothing more, Nothing less. On the other had, Khan Academy is honestly trying to help, and if they can prove to be a benefit then they will be adopted.
The proposed methodology for petitions is flawed. You can't improve the reliability of a petition, and any attempt at using them for anything other than "Is their interest in said topic" is delusional. A petition should convince someone to do a broader, more scientifically accurate, and valid Poll. It's not that 4Chan and the NRA are manipulating your petitions. It's that you're using your petition for something it can never do, and deluding yourselves into believing you can fix it will not end well.
Something about them not having a lot of downloads from their site flagged it as possible phishing or malware.
In the message there were several sets of numbers. One set it probably the decryption setting like the information for the one time pad or something similar and the other sets are probably the "here" you're so stressed out about.
That's actually a part of the reason the FCC has taken so long to pass the regulation in the first place. However, that argument no long applies. The technical document describing it is here. That document describes the Normalization process the commercial should be sent though to make it in compliance. Someone could probably try to subvert it, but that's what the reporting is for. If there is a complaint then the FCC will go back and look to see if it was a problem with the Algorithm or if it was someone subverting it.
Would malware makers even bother with the stickers if people didn't use them?
You think that a Red Dwarf solar system is statistically important? It's funny that the article would even consider this solar system to be anything like our own given one of the important parts is radically different. It's nice we're getting to the point where we can see details like the article is pointing out, but we're still a ways away from having anything that would sway the Fermi Paradox to one conclusion or the other.
Is Julian really that much of an idiot, or is he just trying to play the Paranoia Violin. "Entire Nations are Intercepted" is a pretty bold paranoia claim. Now if he's just just over blowing the fact that every nation spys on each others international traffic then he should read a history book. The NSA has been in the business of trying to intercept international communications for a while now. I highly doubt the US can copy all of Russias Traffic or any others traffic. However, international communications are a different story, and any country or person thinking those kind of things haven't been business as usual is foolish.
People have held grudges for far less. However, his deliberate miss interpretation of the jury instructions is almost certainly rooted in his past legal battles.
I like this word Supposedly. Supposedly a 1 TerraHertz processor is possible. The Wii U's processor needs a real bench mark. Devs saying it's "too slow" and then no numbers to back up their claim isn't good enough. Devs should be able to write a bench mark and Prove the GFLOPS so that no one would even consider using the word Supposedly in conjunction with their description.
I'm not sure if I buy into the logic of the argument. I've been able to get dollar coins form a vending machine at work. However, because the transition never really happened when I'd try to use them people were always confused. I put a coin into the bus and the driver stat their dumbfounded until he figured out the machine was registering a dollar. Then New version of the coins wouldn't work at all. Their little lets put a different president on each run really made vending machines hit or miss with them. If I used them with a clerk they would think I only game them a quarter. Too much of that, and yea I'll just be putting them in jars till I have enough to put in a coin machine and get cash for coin.
Just because it's smaller than the ram doesn't mean it doesn't reduce the cache trashing. If Intel or AMD offered a processor with 32MB of eDRAM I'd consider it. And the Wii U has 2 GB of ram not 1. 1 Gig for the OS and 1 Gig for games. What ever that means. I always assume that the amount of Memory an OS needs is variable, but they are stating it as if it's static. Maybe they don't want to put the expectation to programmers that they can eat into the extra gig.
More like clock frequencies no longer equate to horsepower. At least this article mentioned the eDRAM which changes how many OPS you can get from the processor. The latest CPUs have been so radically different that saying one is better than the other is difficult. The eDRAM is a big deal for the WiiU chip, but does 32 MB address the cache thrashing? I think it should, and clearly Nintendo did since they opted for cheaper slower memory, but put in a quantity I didn't think Nintendo would consider. I thought they would only go up to 1 Gig Max, if that.
Subjective morality, or as it's more commonly referred to in scientific circles, moral relativism, does not define that "no one can be morally right or wrong." Rather, it is recognition and acceptance of the absolute fact that morality, in general, is a subjective concept, and that the judgement of what is or is not a moral act is based not on any sort of metric, but rather personal interpretation of the topic at hand.
Wrong.
Wiki
Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.
Free Dictionary
the belief that morality is relative to the society where it exists and that its criticism and evaluation are irrelevant.
freerepublic.com
Situational Ethics. The essential equity between opposing moral and legal paradigms. Ethics are just an opinion, no one person can tell any other what's right or wrong.
So are you arguing Descriptive, Meta-ethical, or Normative? None of them give you the leverage that you want to make a statement that we shouldn't program morals into a machine because it's Immoral. All of them actually stat that you cannot make that kind of a judgement with Moral Relativism, and that ones that allow it don't allow for you to do anything about it. Pick your poison. You're probably basing your logic on Sam Harris who makes an argument for an currently unknown Objective Morality, and until we know that unknown we only have Moral Relativism. I suspect his basis is rooted only in anti-religious views, and has found out that you can't make good moral statements without an Objective Moral basis.
Nice cop out, but this is because you don't understand what Subjective Morality is. Subjective Morality is where no one can be morally right, and no one can be morally wrong because everyone can have different morals. Your argument is that "Forcing the public at large to follow a single person's idea of morality is, at the most basic level, an immoral act in itself". Under Subjective Morality that isn't possible, and is an Objective Moral stance. Only Objective Morality allows for absolute rules like "It is immoral to imposes my beliefs on others". Under Subjective Morality it might not be moral to you, but could be moral for someone else. Admitting it's Subjective, as you have, means you know your position has no moral meaning, or you don't know what Subjective Morality really is. If your statement of Immorality is subjective then it falls to the "Says who?" challenge. Garry Marcus, clearly, believes that is it a moral duty to make moral machine, and that it would be immoral not to. He is even using the "Greater Good" argument. The problem with Subjective Morality is that it can be used to justify ANY moral position you want, and who is to say, other than yourself, that position is always correct.
You're arguing for Universal Morality witch is Objective Morality not Subjective Morality. That is the core fault of Subjective Morality. You're entire argument is to establish an Objective Moral position, but claim that Morals are Subjective. Your entire position is only true if you can derive Objective Morals, but you're claiming that Morals are Subjective. As for your argument about Slavery you should look up and reread the entire history of Civil Rights. Many Older Black in the hayday of the Civil rights movement viewed it as "Not Their Place" to demand equal rights. In essnse their position was that their lack of right was ok with them. Objective Morality can be used to say that Jim Crow Laws were always wrong. Subjective morality allows you to say It's ok as long as you get away with it.
Forcing the public at large to follow a single person's idea of morality is, at the most basic level, an immoral act in itself.
Says Who?
Because you've concluded that "Morality is subjective" it is only Immoral to you. Who are you to make that claim for everyone? From your logic I could easily conclude that is it Immoral for you to impose your view that it is immoral for me to program a moral machine. Subjective morality may or may-not be real, but it sure is a bitch if you use it.
You're statement of Immorality is only meaningful as an Objective Moral Statement, and as a Subjective Moral Statement it is meaningless.
The AI we currently use cannot have Morals and Ethics programmed in. Weak AI as we have today is the picture perfect tool, but as a Tool it can't know or understand the world in a way it could make a Moral or Ethical choice. Weak AI can only ever Do what it was intended to Do and Nothing more. Lets take Watson as an example. It's being used in medicine now. Lets say a patient asked it a question about what they were dying of, but lets say that if the patient knows too much they will sink into a depression and die faster than if a Doctor broke it down for them gently. Watson would just blut out whatever answer it thought was correct consequences be dammed. Strong AI is what would be able to have Morals and Ethics, but can you have Strong AI, and can you properly define ethics? Lets say you can have a Strong AI, for the sake of argument. The philosophy of morals and ethics is tricky. Subjective Morality is bad because it can be used to justify anything you want to justify. On the other hand, Objective Morality is prone to Paradox. The Golden Rule is a good Objective Moral statement that you can use to derive a "Don't Kill People". You can even derive "Don't Let People be Killed". However, you can be in a situation where you cannot do both like in WWII would killing Hitler or Nazis help or achieve the "Don't Let People be Killed", and at the same time you'd be violating "Don't Kill People", and doing nothing would violate "Don't Let People be Killed". No one knows how to clearly define morals so attempting to force them onto a Strong AI would have unpredictable outcomes.
It helps in two ways. Best example is Pennsylvania. Romney's Campaign used a Land Line Methodology which is known to be blind to youth groups. They thought that with a little effort they'd be able to win by driving out the Republican vote a little more. Democrats knew that for them to do that it would take a lot more money, and with a little effort any attempt would be deflected. So after Romney spent a lot of money trying to flip Penn the Obama Campaign sent Clinton out for a few minor events, and undid everything Romney did. However, because Romney used the outmoded method his campaign was unaware that it was still solidly Blue, and thought they had a chance to take it all the way up to the election. In Politics bad methodologies cause you to spend money where you shouldn't be spending it. The second method to winning is that if you don't know what the youth group is thinking then long term you loose them to the side that at least can moderate to them. That allows you to continue to build and change politically instead of becoming Old and Out Dated as the Republicans has started to become where it practical excommunicates moderates and views that don't match their entire group. Result is youth keep their distance and look to Libertarians or Democrats. Republicans are aware of this but their are two group. The Tea Party Old Men who want to double down on the last strategy, and the Moderates who view that route as political suicide for the party.
Don't make the realists brain explode presenting an instrumentalist argument. It's not nice.
That's because it's just a Libertarian or Republican anti-Obama Won because of tech argument. It's not even a question for Slashdot, but rather a Troll post to see how much flame or non-flame will be generated. From my position, since my job is in survey research, I'm happy that Obama's team has figured out how to poll the Youth and Young Adult groups. Those groups have always been hard, but because of trends over the last 10 years its become a big blind spot in research. Complaining that Obama won because they figured out how to measure 18-30 year old better is foolish.
Also since the Wii U is sold at a "Loss" that only need to sell 1 Game for each console to make up for that "Loss". Nintendo is thus still selling at a Profit which is what they've always done.
They don't know how to code for the newer chip designs. Nvidia and AMD are already looking at or arguing for lowering chip cycles and increasing cpu cores. The Wii U almost certainly utilizes eDram to simplify multicore programming and give you increased performance if you use it correctly. If you can't code for this newer design but everyone else ether does or knows they will have to then learn then get out of the market while you can.
Except Intel didn't implement AMD64 correctly 100%. You can read the US-CERT for yourself if you want. For that all you had to do was run a couple of commands and your code could be escalated to kernel level privileges, but only on Intel 64bit. It would be bad to assume that what works on one as an exploit would work the same way on the other. My concern is about this being a flaw in the CPU similar to what happened with Intel 64bit.