StuartHankins, the law doesn't work the way you think it does. It's not uncommon for parties to request certain types of emergency relief without notice.
Think of it this way. Let's say you live in an apartment and your absentee upstairs neighbor has left the bathwater running and leaking down into your place, onto your clothes, personal effects, and electrical appliances. You need that water off NOW. You can't wait for the neighbor to respond to legal proceedings because there may be irreparable harm to your belongings. The exigency of the situation trumps his right to advance notice.
Look up "ex-parte order." These kinds of interim requests are generally temporary in duration, and the other side always has the opportunity to challenge them after the fact. It would be wrong to characterize this a "short-cut." The system is designed this way.
delays in I/O processing - ostensibly due to heavy virtual memory activity as Windows compensates for insufficient RAM. (emphasis mine)
Ostensibly means "to all outward appearances." In other words, they're admitting they don't really know the inner workings, the true cause of the delays. They're just supposing it's due to RAM swapping, as opposed to increased networking activity, aero glass, more concurrent programs being run on average, or any other number of other wag'd reasons. Basically, they picked two measurements that are both higher in W7, and just said, "Well, it stands to reason that A causes B." What's that phrase that internet smarty-pantses use all the time about this?
some mixture of voice, the pen and a real keyboard - in other words a netbook - will be the mainstream on that
So in other words, Bill, all those years your company devoted to TabletPCs, up to and including baking tablet functionality into Windows 7, it was all just a big mistake? Is that the prevailing wisdom at Microsoft these days as well? Granted, most TabletPC's these days are convertibles anyway, but even so, I wonder how Fujitsu, HP and Microsoft's other tablet partners feel about producing a dead-end product?
That's like saying that if a thug violently raped a woman, and impregnated her, and then their offspring grew up to be a great author, that it sorta makes rape ok.
Anyway, what I find surprising about this story is that Axolotl Roadkill's publisher's have continued to print/distribute the book after knowing that it violates copyright.
You say that as some kind of established fact, in reality, the issue is very much up in the air. Here's, e.g. Larry Page opining that AI is going to be about "lots of computation"
And here is where we part ways. "Incremental improvements" at specific tasks will never lead to AI.
Really? Because, as far as we know, that's how real intelligence developed, through countless incremental changes in the evolution of networks of living cells.
In fact, in a healthy economy, while factory workers sometimes lost their jobs to automation, the factories that made the robots, and associated industries, more than made up for that in employment of their own. That's just change, not loss.
Now who's talking apples and oranges? Yes, in the past, we've been able to replace old jobs with new jobs. That doesn't mean this process will continue into the future. What happens when the factories that make the robots are staffed by robots? Rather than blithely assume as a central tenet of capitalist faith, that "new jobs will come along," let's as a thought experiement, try to imagine a future where any conceivable job, from drivers, to nurses, to ad copywriting, to prostitution, can be done more cheaply and better by a machine. What then? In reality we'll probably never get to that level but even 20-30% long-term unemployability could lead the end of the expectation of work as the inevitable result of diligence and schooling. All of this has been hashed out long ago in more serious discussions than this, and the bottom line is not that I'm right or you're right, it's that we really don't know, we can only guess at this point.
I do not know of a single major breakthrough that has been made in the last 20 years.
Computer controlled driverless cars have improved so much in the past 10 years that I would be surprised if they haven't displaced normal automobiles in a generation's time, and that eventually it will become illegal for human beings to operate motor vehicles at high velocity on public roads.
In general though, I would say that to expect AI "breakthroughs" is not the right idea. More likely there will be constant incremental improvements and a gradual hollowing out of the human's expertise as the computer assumes more and more of a primary role. Our intellectual dominance will end with a whimper and totally with our consent. Getting a surgical procedure with a hand-held scalpel, or controlling weapons systems through manual button presses, or putting together your own resume, will come to seem as anachronistic as using slide rule and telegraph.
The real battleground will be the future economy. How will wealth be distributed in a society where most people are just not smart enough to have a function? We're seeing the glimmerings of that now (Over 1/10 of Americans already receive SNAP "food stamps") but as more and more jobs are usurped, the right to sustenance will become a major issue. Fortunately our AI President will be on the case.
It's not merely a question of the dictionary not having the correct legal definition, it's that it's the role of the Judge to determine what the correct legal definition is in a particular case. Definitions vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so that "weapon" might mean something different (legally) in California than it does in Arizona. It might mean something different in a murder case than in a personal injury case. It might mean something different after 2009 than before. If the jury goes to a dictionary, even a legal one like "Black's Law Dictionary" and based upon the definition, deems that something is a "weapon" when that jurisdiction's statute or case law says differently, that could be grounds to overturn a conviction.
Game review websites and magazines ought to unite on this issue and give games failing scores if they do not allow for offline play when in self-contained single player mode.
This whole issue of Firefox dying because of a lack of H.264 doesn't exist. A freeware plugin could be just as ubiquitous as flash. It wouldn't even need to license anything. Windows and Mac both come out the box with H.264 codecs baked in, the plug-in would just have to link to those codecs.
No, he says it like it's a fait accompli. The point of this thread is that what GP says is equally true of the USA. Except unlike Norway, we don't even get the mitigating benefits of pre-prepared taxes.
Which means that healthy people who don't drive much and are long-ago graduates with no children pay to support people who want to freeload off the government.
That's how it looks if you only follow the chain back one link. But the underpinning of it is that if the roads are safer, then my neighbors are more productive and content, and can also buy more of my goods and services. If the education system does its job, then once again, citizens are more productive and content, and can also buy more of my goods and services. Same for hospitals, police, etc. Think of it in terms of herd immunity. If there is less poverty and society is more cohesive as a result, I benefit more than if I maintain my own wealth at the cost of social unrest. Or so the theory goes.
No, you've misunderstood. The astronomers weren't stunned to make the pictures, they were stunned BY the pictures.
Evidently Mr. Shah silk-screened his photos onto the blade of a cricket bat and used said instrument to whack a cluster of astronomers upside their noggins, whereupon, they saw stars!
You kind of misunderstand the phenomena. The reason all the things you listed are easy-to-take is that they don't even look remotely close to humans.
GP is saying he disagrees with uncanny valley theory, and you're saying that he's mistaken because UV-theory is true, he just doesn't get it. You may be right, but you're also engaging in circular reasoning. It would be better to say, "UV-theory contends that the reason all the things you listed are easy-to-take..."
Anyway, first of all, I would dispute that all of those things are "easy-to-take"... I never got into Farscape because I found it kind of...creepy. Perhaps I'm unique in that respect but nevertheless it seems to me that many people are creeped out by certain types of puppets (Chucky?) (Clown dolls?), by industrial robots, even by fake bugs and snakes.
Second, as we're putting up hypotheses, I would guess that the reason we like Muppets is because virtually every single person under the age of 40 has grown up with them since infancy, so they become part of the brain's notion of what is an acceptable deviation from the norm. I'd argue that the same also applies to traditional cartoons v GC. We grew up with traditional animation techniques as the default, so we quickly learned to accept Bugs Bunny et al. as acceptable. Yet I seem to recall being vaguely creeped the first few times I saw pre-WWII style animation with its weird puffing and undulating movements. I'd guess that a 21st century child is much less likely to find anything odd about CG animation than her parents do.
Third, (this is a criticism of UV-theory as a whole) I don't know that it makes sense to place the revulsion behind a poorly designed CG model under the same umbrella as one's potential revulsion over actual metal-and-silicone robots. CG is fake, an illusion, and while we may allow our disbelieve to be suspended, we still know that the animated character is safely detached from reality. On the other hand, a robot, a realistic one such as CB2, seems to (or perhaps does) possess the quality of agency. It interacts with the real world and can engage in unpredictable behaviour. So it might potentially get OUT! OF! CONTROL!, and harm us, and there's something possibly off-putting about that. Or, until I've accustomed myself to its movements and its failure modes, my limbic system will tell me that that huge industrial assembly line robot might malfunction and squish me like a bug, Whether it's "uncanny" looking or not. Or my future attack-dog-droid might mistakenly view me as a target, and make short work of me without the slightest twinge of remorse. That's a much more visceral concern to me than whether or not the attack dog's skin is too close in texture to real dog skin.
So I guess I agree with TFA, that UV doesn't really matter, at least when it comes to real bots.
Even if one were to concede that Microsoft is deliberately sabotaging the credibility of its own search engine through such a ham-fisted method, the end result of all of that makes no sense. The link given is in no way favorable to Microsoft. The questioner vehemently disses Microsoft, asks the question in a way which is not hostile to Apple, and the answerer gives a reasonable, non fanboi-ish pro-Apple explanation. In other words, this allegedly deliberately crafted by Microsoft link fails to make Apple look bad in any way.
I understand the desire of some people to construct an anti-Microsoft narrative for every situation, but in this case, it doesn't scan.
I think it is fair to blame it on Google. Look at the status bar. Hovering over the link shows the actual link. But as soon as you press right-click, regardless of whether you actually copy anything, the link changes to a referrer. If I had to guess, I'd say it was done as part of the collaboration between Google and Firefox. Firefox is paid for by Google, and so this is simply another way for the browser to make itself valuable to its benefactor.
I'm still not buying it. I think it's just a kind of naturally reified Googlebomb/Bingbomb. At this point, all you have to do is start typing "Why is" into EITHER search engine and that entire question will appear as an autocomplete, so clearly, you're not getting unadulterated results in either case.
Yet, if I enter "Why is Microsoft Windows so awesome?" as my question, the second result, ON BING, leads to a page explaining why Linux is better than Windows. Google actually gives more favorable results toward Windows.
In any event, part of the issue is that we have become trained to think of the way that Google ranks things as the standard, and anything divergent from that ideal as skewed and purposefully deviant.
First of all the original handbrake.fr article says nothing specifically about DivX. It talks about XviD and OGM. I guess OGM wasn't "controversial" enough for the editors so they ignored that and focused on DivX.
But the real issue is: Big deal, DivX themselves are moving to H.264/mkv with all deliberate speed. Even they realize there's no point in anyone holding on to codecs and containers which are inferior in every respect. So, since mkv is a legitimate container in DivX7, the writeup is in fact erroneous. Surprise.
If the FF install was 450MB of RAM, that wold be bloat. The fact that when open and running, Firefox might occupy a 450MB footprint isn't necessarily bloat, but either poor programming (if the RAM usage slows the system down) GOOD programming (if the RAM usage speeds the system up -- there's no point in having 4/8GB of RAM in your system if the applications never use it) or just a necessary reality (if you have 50 tabs open, with youtube clips and huge modern pages inside, they're gonna take up memory, no matter what.)
5x the amount of time loading pages as what? As 10 years ago when pages were all simple html/css? As chrome? FF isn't ~5x slower loading pages, it's ~5x slower running javascript. And that's not due to "bloat" but to the failure to keep up with advances in jvm efficiency.
If people really think Firefox has become bloated, they should try loading up version 1.0 and seeing if it really seems faster. But don't forget to run the current version without addons so they're on the same footing.
Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for
on
Monkeys With Syntax
·
· Score: 1
I think the article is engaging in a bit of unfortunate hyperbole by using the term "entirely different." It seems to me that it is NOT entirely different, that in fact the key point is quite the opposite, although articulated in a muddled fashion. It seems to me that the main claim is that "krak" is a generalized term for danger or warning, and that by either duplicating it or adding "-oo" or sticking the whole thing in another phrase, you get different specific warnings.
I noticed the other day when I went to the YouTube homepage that the recommendations it gave me were videos that closely conformed with my actual interests. Except I hadn't "logged in" yet.
Slashdot Mirror
StuartHankins, the law doesn't work the way you think it does. It's not uncommon for parties to request certain types of emergency relief without notice.
Think of it this way. Let's say you live in an apartment and your absentee upstairs neighbor has left the bathwater running and leaking down into your place, onto your clothes, personal effects, and electrical appliances. You need that water off NOW. You can't wait for the neighbor to respond to legal proceedings because there may be irreparable harm to your belongings. The exigency of the situation trumps his right to advance notice.
Look up "ex-parte order." These kinds of interim requests are generally temporary in duration, and the other side always has the opportunity to challenge them after the fact. It would be wrong to characterize this a "short-cut." The system is designed this way.
You missed the most important emphasis:
Ostensibly means "to all outward appearances." In other words, they're admitting they don't really know the inner workings, the true cause of the delays. They're just supposing it's due to RAM swapping, as opposed to increased networking activity, aero glass, more concurrent programs being run on average, or any other number of other wag'd reasons. Basically, they picked two measurements that are both higher in W7, and just said, "Well, it stands to reason that A causes B." What's that phrase that internet smarty-pantses use all the time about this?
So in other words, Bill, all those years your company devoted to TabletPCs, up to and including baking tablet functionality into Windows 7, it was all just a big mistake? Is that the prevailing wisdom at Microsoft these days as well? Granted, most TabletPC's these days are convertibles anyway, but even so, I wonder how Fujitsu, HP and Microsoft's other tablet partners feel about producing a dead-end product?
I should hope so, one would hate to be redundant, wouldn't one?
That's like saying that if a thug violently raped a woman, and impregnated her, and then their offspring grew up to be a great author, that it sorta makes rape ok.
Anyway, what I find surprising about this story is that Axolotl Roadkill's publisher's have continued to print/distribute the book after knowing that it violates copyright.
You say that as some kind of established fact, in reality, the issue is very much up in the air. Here's, e.g. Larry Page opining that AI is going to be about "lots of computation"
Really? Because, as far as we know, that's how real intelligence developed, through countless incremental changes in the evolution of networks of living cells.
Now who's talking apples and oranges? Yes, in the past, we've been able to replace old jobs with new jobs. That doesn't mean this process will continue into the future. What happens when the factories that make the robots are staffed by robots? Rather than blithely assume as a central tenet of capitalist faith, that "new jobs will come along," let's as a thought experiement, try to imagine a future where any conceivable job, from drivers, to nurses, to ad copywriting, to prostitution, can be done more cheaply and better by a machine. What then? In reality we'll probably never get to that level but even 20-30% long-term unemployability could lead the end of the expectation of work as the inevitable result of diligence and schooling. All of this has been hashed out long ago in more serious discussions than this, and the bottom line is not that I'm right or you're right, it's that we really don't know, we can only guess at this point.
Computer controlled driverless cars have improved so much in the past 10 years that I would be surprised if they haven't displaced normal automobiles in a generation's time, and that eventually it will become illegal for human beings to operate motor vehicles at high velocity on public roads.
In general though, I would say that to expect AI "breakthroughs" is not the right idea. More likely there will be constant incremental improvements and a gradual hollowing out of the human's expertise as the computer assumes more and more of a primary role. Our intellectual dominance will end with a whimper and totally with our consent. Getting a surgical procedure with a hand-held scalpel, or controlling weapons systems through manual button presses, or putting together your own resume, will come to seem as anachronistic as using slide rule and telegraph.
The real battleground will be the future economy. How will wealth be distributed in a society where most people are just not smart enough to have a function? We're seeing the glimmerings of that now (Over 1/10 of Americans already receive SNAP "food stamps") but as more and more jobs are usurped, the right to sustenance will become a major issue. Fortunately our AI President will be on the case.
It's not merely a question of the dictionary not having the correct legal definition, it's that it's the role of the Judge to determine what the correct legal definition is in a particular case. Definitions vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so that "weapon" might mean something different (legally) in California than it does in Arizona. It might mean something different in a murder case than in a personal injury case. It might mean something different after 2009 than before. If the jury goes to a dictionary, even a legal one like "Black's Law Dictionary" and based upon the definition, deems that something is a "weapon" when that jurisdiction's statute or case law says differently, that could be grounds to overturn a conviction.
Game review websites and magazines ought to unite on this issue and give games failing scores if they do not allow for offline play when in self-contained single player mode.
Exactly. My. Point.
This whole issue of Firefox dying because of a lack of H.264 doesn't exist. A freeware plugin could be just as ubiquitous as flash. It wouldn't even need to license anything. Windows and Mac both come out the box with H.264 codecs baked in, the plug-in would just have to link to those codecs.
No, he says it like it's a fait accompli. The point of this thread is that what GP says is equally true of the USA. Except unlike Norway, we don't even get the mitigating benefits of pre-prepared taxes.
Which means that healthy people who don't drive much and are long-ago graduates with no children pay to support people who want to freeload off the government.
That's how it looks if you only follow the chain back one link. But the underpinning of it is that if the roads are safer, then my neighbors are more productive and content, and can also buy more of my goods and services. If the education system does its job, then once again, citizens are more productive and content, and can also buy more of my goods and services. Same for hospitals, police, etc. Think of it in terms of herd immunity. If there is less poverty and society is more cohesive as a result, I benefit more than if I maintain my own wealth at the cost of social unrest. Or so the theory goes.
But I can play flash from within FF.
And if flash is H.264, then I can play H.264 from within FF.
But this is impossible.
Therefore you are lying.
No, you've misunderstood. The astronomers weren't stunned to make the pictures, they were stunned BY the pictures.
Evidently Mr. Shah silk-screened his photos onto the blade of a cricket bat and used said instrument to whack a cluster of astronomers upside their noggins, whereupon, they saw stars!
Not true.
http://www.livescribe.com/
GP is saying he disagrees with uncanny valley theory, and you're saying that he's mistaken because UV-theory is true, he just doesn't get it. You may be right, but you're also engaging in circular reasoning. It would be better to say, "UV-theory contends that the reason all the things you listed are easy-to-take..."
Anyway, first of all, I would dispute that all of those things are "easy-to-take"... I never got into Farscape because I found it kind of...creepy. Perhaps I'm unique in that respect but nevertheless it seems to me that many people are creeped out by certain types of puppets (Chucky?) (Clown dolls?), by industrial robots, even by fake bugs and snakes.
Second, as we're putting up hypotheses, I would guess that the reason we like Muppets is because virtually every single person under the age of 40 has grown up with them since infancy, so they become part of the brain's notion of what is an acceptable deviation from the norm. I'd argue that the same also applies to traditional cartoons v GC. We grew up with traditional animation techniques as the default, so we quickly learned to accept Bugs Bunny et al. as acceptable. Yet I seem to recall being vaguely creeped the first few times I saw pre-WWII style animation with its weird puffing and undulating movements. I'd guess that a 21st century child is much less likely to find anything odd about CG animation than her parents do.
Third, (this is a criticism of UV-theory as a whole) I don't know that it makes sense to place the revulsion behind a poorly designed CG model under the same umbrella as one's potential revulsion over actual metal-and-silicone robots. CG is fake, an illusion, and while we may allow our disbelieve to be suspended, we still know that the animated character is safely detached from reality. On the other hand, a robot, a realistic one such as CB2, seems to (or perhaps does) possess the quality of agency. It interacts with the real world and can engage in unpredictable behaviour. So it might potentially get OUT! OF! CONTROL!, and harm us, and there's something possibly off-putting about that. Or, until I've accustomed myself to its movements and its failure modes, my limbic system will tell me that that huge industrial assembly line robot might malfunction and squish me like a bug, Whether it's "uncanny" looking or not. Or my future attack-dog-droid might mistakenly view me as a target, and make short work of me without the slightest twinge of remorse. That's a much more visceral concern to me than whether or not the attack dog's skin is too close in texture to real dog skin.
So I guess I agree with TFA, that UV doesn't really matter, at least when it comes to real bots.
Even if one were to concede that Microsoft is deliberately sabotaging the credibility of its own search engine through such a ham-fisted method, the end result of all of that makes no sense. The link given is in no way favorable to Microsoft. The questioner vehemently disses Microsoft, asks the question in a way which is not hostile to Apple, and the answerer gives a reasonable, non fanboi-ish pro-Apple explanation. In other words, this allegedly deliberately crafted by Microsoft link fails to make Apple look bad in any way.
I understand the desire of some people to construct an anti-Microsoft narrative for every situation, but in this case, it doesn't scan.
I think it is fair to blame it on Google. Look at the status bar. Hovering over the link shows the actual link. But as soon as you press right-click, regardless of whether you actually copy anything, the link changes to a referrer. If I had to guess, I'd say it was done as part of the collaboration between Google and Firefox. Firefox is paid for by Google, and so this is simply another way for the browser to make itself valuable to its benefactor.
I'm still not buying it. I think it's just a kind of naturally reified Googlebomb/Bingbomb. At this point, all you have to do is start typing "Why is" into EITHER search engine and that entire question will appear as an autocomplete, so clearly, you're not getting unadulterated results in either case.
Yet, if I enter "Why is Microsoft Windows so awesome?" as my question, the second result, ON BING, leads to a page explaining why Linux is better than Windows. Google actually gives more favorable results toward Windows.
In any event, part of the issue is that we have become trained to think of the way that Google ranks things as the standard, and anything divergent from that ideal as skewed and purposefully deviant.
You realize your header and message contradict each other? If you have to use MKV to output Theora and Vorbis, then they did drop Ogg.
Ogg being the container format that they no longer support.
First of all the original handbrake.fr article says nothing specifically about DivX. It talks about XviD and OGM. I guess OGM wasn't "controversial" enough for the editors so they ignored that and focused on DivX.
But the real issue is: Big deal, DivX themselves are moving to H.264/mkv with all deliberate speed. Even they realize there's no point in anyone holding on to codecs and containers which are inferior in every respect. So, since mkv is a legitimate container in DivX7, the writeup is in fact erroneous. Surprise.
AFAIK, the criminal law only applies to being busted downloading >= $1,000 "worth" of stuff in a six month period.
If the FF install was 450MB of RAM, that wold be bloat. The fact that when open and running, Firefox might occupy a 450MB footprint isn't necessarily bloat, but either poor programming (if the RAM usage slows the system down) GOOD programming (if the RAM usage speeds the system up -- there's no point in having 4/8GB of RAM in your system if the applications never use it) or just a necessary reality (if you have 50 tabs open, with youtube clips and huge modern pages inside, they're gonna take up memory, no matter what.)
5x the amount of time loading pages as what? As 10 years ago when pages were all simple html/css? As chrome? FF isn't ~5x slower loading pages, it's ~5x slower running javascript. And that's not due to "bloat" but to the failure to keep up with advances in jvm efficiency.
If people really think Firefox has become bloated, they should try loading up version 1.0 and seeing if it really seems faster. But don't forget to run the current version without addons so they're on the same footing.
I think the article is engaging in a bit of unfortunate hyperbole by using the term "entirely different." It seems to me that it is NOT entirely different, that in fact the key point is quite the opposite, although articulated in a muddled fashion. It seems to me that the main claim is that "krak" is a generalized term for danger or warning, and that by either duplicating it or adding "-oo" or sticking the whole thing in another phrase, you get different specific warnings.
I noticed the other day when I went to the YouTube homepage that the recommendations it gave me were videos that closely conformed with my actual interests. Except I hadn't "logged in" yet.