They're as immune to facts as the anti-evolution movement.
That's modded as flamebait? Hilarious. As much as I try not to laugh at creationists *snicker*, at least admit you believe in it because it's in your Holy Book and it is right and so everything else is wrong. Oh wait now I get it, you're not against facts it's in the Bible so it is fact. I forget how fact and fiction works for religious people, my bad.
CBP: "That's right folks. Store your data in the cloud because that is where it is most secure." Well played but no thanks.
What would you rather want, a ruling that they can? Also, remember that "the cloud" is not a legal term - if they can legally access your Dropbox/Facebook account, they can also access your personal Linux server you saved the ssh password for. Besides this fully makes legal sense, border control has the right to search the data you are trying to bring into the country. Data on a remote server you may potentially never access from or bring to the US should obviously not be part of the border search. I know many people here don't like concept of an electronic search at the border at all, but if you want that limited to a physical search for contraband the law needs to change. Until then use one of the many obvious ways to not have your private data accessible at the border.
Well, the flip side of that is whether or not we're to ignore a known predictor because it's only a statistic. Say we're operating a security checkpoint, we know there's a there's a 80-20 indicator and we only have limited resources for spot checks. What success rate do we pick?:
a) 80*50% + 20*50% = 50%? b) 80*80% + 20*20% = 68%? c) 80*100% + 20*0% = 80%?
In the first one we're intentionally ignoring it, it's fair to all but not very effective. In the middle one we're doing proportional, but the perception is that there's a 64:4 = 16:1 difference when in reality there's only 4:1. And in the third alternative we just don't give a shit about fairness and just go for what's most efficient. Now add in the fact that being stopped is an inconvenience for everyone stopped who isn't doing anything wrong. Now change the percentages to like 0.8% and 0.2%. It's tough having to harass a lot of innocent people even though statistically, they're the ones you're after.
You can't simply say that one of these are "right" and the others "wrong", they're balancing different goals. And to add one more thing, just because society is creating a self-fulfilling truth doesn't make it false. That is to say, if you treat someone like shit and they're more likely to cause trouble because they've been treated like shit then the low risk option is continuing to treat them like shit by hiring someone else. It's some variation of tragedy of the commons, individually each one has reason to turn you down but for the whole it's a bad thing that everyone turns you down.
This has been a trend for quite some time. And the causes are the same: Lackluster jumps in performance in the last 10 years, and the rise of the Portable Personal Computer (PPC, Smartphone.)
I think it's more that the performance has mostly outpaced the need. Like you can now get 8/16 core CPUs at consumer-ish prices, NVMe-based PCIe cards that make normal SSDs look slow, 64-128GB RAM, but like... why? The only real killer product for consumers is the GPU and even there a single 1080Ti will play almost every game at 3840x2160 with Very High/Ultra quality at 60+ FPS. If you just want 1080p gaming with decent quality or play games that are more fun than GPU intensive like say Overwatch, DOTA, Rocket League, CS:GO etc. pretty much any graphics card will do. The performance jumps have been there, the applications haven't really found a way to use it to make a practical difference.
We (the USA) put exactly one dozen men on the moon. Would have been more if not for the Apollo 13 mishap and the cancellation of Apollo 18-20.
Whoops, read about Eugene Cernan as the "11th and last" man on the moon and thought I had it covered. Sorry Harrison Schmitt, 12th and second-to-last man on the moon.
Speaking from the company's perspective and not a user perspective it's more important for AMD to compete successfully in the areas that they do compete than to provide competition in areas where they wouldn't. AMD doesn't have the least power hungry chips, the highest performing server chips or the fastest single threaded gaming chips. Very often it's the extremes that make money, the "sweet spot" processors not so much. Particularly not if you have a 800lb gorilla in the room looking to snuff out your profit so you don't become a real danger.
So for AMD this is lot about picking battles where they think Intel won't go. Will Intel give you 8 cores for $499 or 16 cores for $999? No. Then that's a great product for AMD. Intel's client computing group sells for 7.4 billion/quarter, AMDs computing and graphics combined $600 million and if you leave dedicated graphics out of it maybe $400 million - that's just my guess. They don't need to sell to everybody to make those sales targets, the important thing is their inventory gets sold and isn't collecting dust on the shelf.
I agree that in the slightly longer perspective the server market is a place AMD should make money, but it's a long time since the Opterons were competitive and they've been out of the loop. The enterprise market is conservative, they want validation, stability and long term commitments. They won't be rushing out to buy the latest hotshot offering from AMD no matter what you do, it's got to mature a bit and AMD can't wait for those profits to roll in. As for the enterprise desktop the lack of IGP is not a big deal as long has supercheap graphics cards to go with them. The integration is much more important in laptops.
This comment. On slashdot "news for nerds" everyone. I'd say "Fuck it, I'm out," but I'm more intrigued by the train wreck I'm witnessing. It's a nice distraction from the train wreck occurring at a national level being driven by the same types of douchebags.
Well, why do we want people on Mars? 1. Science - why not unmanned probes/rovers at 100x the current budget? 2. Colonization - Apollo proved man can live in a tin can in space, what's new? 3. Flag-planting - billions of dollars for chest-thumping, really?
I mean, look at the aftermath of the Apollo program. We put less than a dozen men on the moon, then we stopped for 45+ years and counting. The way NASA does Mars, if they managed to find the budget it'd probably be exactly the same. Bigger rocket, bigger rock, longer trip, been there done that, let's not do it again. I'm not sure if Musk is crazy or not. But I like the plans to actually bootstrap something on Mars, start a real outpost. NASA can't afford to even make dreams like that, because at their rates that would be a trillion dollar program. Which is why you end up with the SLS + an as-of-yet-unfunded chest thumping expedition. Which doesn't really contribute much of anything to anything, except people will feel Mars is checked off the bucket list.
Go ahead, Audi's saying, read your newspaper or just zone out while traffic creeps along. (...) If you want to buy the new A8, you'll have to check whether your jurisdiction will accept it as a Level 3 car.
Does any jurisdiction accept any car as level 3? Because if the law will put you in the slammer for manslaughter and the insurance company refuse to cover your gross recklessness it's not exactly a feature.
You're right... you'd have about 15 seconds of useful consciousness and death in a minute or two, and you're not going to get rescued in that minute or two, sorry.
Considering that you should have air for the entire journey in tanks I imagine you'd have oxygen masks dropping down like in airplanes, that should buy a little more time unless the cabin is cracked wide open. And I don't think emergency pressurization is such a big deal, more on that below.
But don't worry, this isn't a very likely scenario. Far more likely is the vacuum of the tube being compromised, in which case the on rush of air will hit you at approximately mach 1 and you'll likely be dead instantly as it is basically like getting hit by a bomb's shock wave. Worse case you survive long enough to realize you're now the bullet in a very large gun that is capped at either end... and then you die on impact.
There's a reason most bombs are surrounded by shrapnel, yes air has a weight of 101 kPa = 101 kN/m^2 = 10300 kg/m^2 at 1G. But it's also just air, it'll quickly rush around any obstacle and create a pressure on the other side. I saw the supposed "scientist" that "proved" this was impossible and it was a joke that wouldn't even pass for Mythbuster science. He literally made it like a bullet in a gun barrel.
The only thing you'd have to do to totally change the outcome of that experiment is to not let the pod fill the whole tube. There's no reason for that and that air rushing past would then have to accelerate many tons of train in the brief period there's a significant pressure differential. After that it'll just become air resistance helping the pod stop. Seriously, I laughed so hard at this "proof"...
For comparison a high speed rail line from LA to SanFran is projected to cost $42 billion (I suspect the real number is closer to $200 when you factor in all the other costs like moving utilities). Building a road the same distance would cost 1/100th that. I suspect a hyperloop track for the same distance would be 10x as much as the railroad.
Musk claimed $6 billion, though that's obviously a very early estimate and most think that's very optimistic. Though you got to think there's a reason he gave this one up instead of creating a company to do it, I'm sure he'd find the investor money to only take a relatively small risk himself. There are a lot of unknowns and unsolved issues and then a non-trivial construction period before this could possibly go into production.
If you have to "develop" AI for a specific task (play games) or whatever then in my view it's not AI. I think AI should learn to do what ever task you throw at it.
They're working on that but trying to create an intuition of what's a stepping stone in the right direction has proven hard. It's mostly not how humans learn either. Even if you took someone off the street that's never played football, they've probably seen football. Or they got some basic idea of how it could be played based on analogies from other games. The totally blind approach would be like handing a tribe of Amazon Indians that's been in no contact with civilization the rule book and ask them to figure out how to play. So we're training the AI, but it's not anything like coaching a team. It's more like an armchair quarterback training, here's how a bunch of teams have played football. It doesn't even have to be the best teams, it's more about pruning the near infinite space of everybody doing everything to things that "makes sense".
Then the AI starts doing variations on moves, counter movies, counter-counter moves and so on and refine it. Maybe it's not so glamorous for sci-fi, but at least for automation we're starting to see AIs that can take rather "fuzzy" tasks, look at what a bunch of humans are doing to solve it and start doing it to OCD-levels of perfection at the speed of a computer. That's a pretty big deal for a lot of trades where you essentially apply variations of a skill but where the particularities of the situation has kept it from being automated like an assembly line. As in, I think it will enable AIs to automate a lot of things people don't really think can be automated. And if you assemble lots of these little AIs you'll get more automated processes than looking at one in isolation.
No need to apologize just because you're all wrong...
Except for throwing the ball, running with the ball and scoring the most points by not kicking the ball it's a great name! It's also telling that it takes an entire evening to get through a hour of game time... pauseball would be a better name.
Having to manually specify soft-hyphens is insane. Hyphenation rules are standardized and should come for free. A very small developer tool in the browser would then allow the developer to see which words on the web page are not in the standard dictionary and provide hyphenations as a resource file for their site (or specify in their head element).
Actually doing it for hundreds of languages is non-trivial, mixed-language texts are a giant pain in the ass and you might want historical texts to use historical rules and for all copies to look exactly the same. This would require all clients to dynamically update language rules as they're adjusted to present a consistent final result, even offline renderers without online access or else the text would look different. In my opinion this should be done by the development tool/CMS/web server and the client only render the HTML text as-is, though I suppose you could have some meta tags as fallback. And from an efficiency standpoint that would only need to happen once instead of each time the page is rendered, if there are some odd rules about use in idioms or in different meanings of a word it could be more complicated than a simple dictionary lookup. I did not mean that you'd normally write them by hand, I agree that would be silly.
Often, it isn't. Harassment implies sustained pattern of behaviour, but the legal definition (at least in the UK) does not and the problem with this is that it often trivialises real problems.
Not necessarily. I can very easily imagine a teen gang roving around picking victims at random or harassing strangers wandering into their turf. Basically those who stop short of more serious crime like violence, robbery or sexual abuse. It's just a different form of harassment from the sustained bullying of a particular victim. I think for the law proving a single incident is enough, but that repeat offenders or harassment over long periods of time should be treated much more harshly. The alternative would be to not nip it in the bud and wait until is it a sustained pattern before you can take any criminal action.
This is actually the opposite of your example, all the extra code makes it more difficult to write, not easier, and it has the added issue of providing ZERO benefit, and often major drawbacks. For instance, if you just put raw HTML text on a page, it will format to every browser ever made, it will nicely fill the window, regardless of the size. But instead, developers put in all sorts of extraneous code to format it to specific window sizes, and the end result tends to be that it looks horrible on all of them
Bullshit. It will flow, but not "nicely". For example/. is all but unreadable at 100% on my 3840x2160 monitor, I have my web browser to 300% zoom, I could read it fine at 200% too but the lines just get uncomfortably long. There's a reason newspapers invented columns. Creating anything more complex than a single flow (like header, footer, columns for menus/other items) with tables or early CSS and mixing static/dynamic content like raster graphics with flowing text was total hell from the dawn of the web to the death of IE6.
And not because the web site designers were incompetent, I've gotten my share of gray hairs trying to make it work and it was like doing layout with oven mitts. For example, simple things like one fixed sized graphic or a single long word exceeding the dynamic column width and some browsers would go ballistic overflowing or re-flowing everything rather than clamp it. Hard-coding and testing was the only way you could make it work and even then I had mysterious deviations showing up not only in IE but Netscape/Firefox/Safari/Opera too.
I don't want to shit on what Tim Berners-Lee did because the concept of the web and hyperlinking is brilliant. But layout was never a topic in the initial design and the crude attempts to retrofit it later would have given those who did paper layout ulcers. And not even the big layout issues, simple things like soft hyphens where you write "hyper­linking" to say that hyperlinking is normally one word but hyper-<br>linking would be an acceptable way to do a line break were missing or broken until way into the 2000s.
With technology improving the way it is, you might soon be able to ditch the iWife and get an Android in your bed.
Ewwww, now I got a mental picture of Lt. Commander Data in my bed. Which I suppose is good analogy for Android, technically fully functional yet not at all what I want. YMMV.
Oh please, we have playboys and prostitutes that have had sex with hundreds if not thousands of sex partners so pregnancies and STDs is pretty much solved except for drunken unprotected sex and religious hang-ups that prevent abortion. Pretty much the only unsolved problem is supply/demand, which is what leads to commercialized/weaponized sex. If both sides felt they could get their sex needs solved with toys and the dating scene became about finding love/relationships and not about scoring/hoarding access to sex organs we'd see the negativity go away. Until then there'll still be all sorts of problems as men want sex and choose to get it in foul ways as well as women using sex as a tool for power/money. And then there's some very fucked up honor systems with different rules for men and women, but that's a much bigger social/civil rights issue.
Definitely found a fake song while looking for the real one. In one of my playlists I have a song called JK Pharrell which is an obvious cover of the Move That Dope single by Pharell and Pusha T. Except its not Pusha T nor Pharell on the track. I fully believe the article and hope I don't come across any other bad clones.
If your definition of "fake" is "cover", I got a pretty long list of fake songs from artists like:
The Beatles David Bowie Johnny Cash Eric Clapton Guns N' Roses Jimi Hendrix Elvis Presley Bruce Springsteen Stevie Wonder Neil Young
They should just ban obvious hacks like that from Spotify.;)
Seriously, if you're on this site you should be nerdy enough to be a well paid IT professional that could easily afford it, no need to go dumpster diving for phones. If you're not, maybe you should be soul searching a bit about why. Personally I never felt the need to get hacking on/from my phone, that's what my computer is for but if you want to go all CyanogenMod that's okay. But I got an iPhone SE and feel it was totally worth the money. That said, for $1200 it would have to do something new and amazing. But then again that's the premise, would you buy a $1200 phone if it did something revolutionary new and amazing. I'm surprised at the level of ludditism here where you don't know what it is, but you're damn sure you don't want it.
Same thing when RED announced their phone, it sounded like a producer of high end movie cameras with quite possibly the best sensor technology in the world was pulling a Kickstarter scam or something. Is it expensive? Is it possibly a ridiculously stupid business idea? Yes, but three cheers for the guy who wants to build a billion dollar rocket to fly to Mars because that's cool. No way the next great thing could be in your pocket. My biggest doubt though is that the phone is something I carry almost 24x7x365, it goes everywhere and it's not always treated nice. It gets battered and bruised so much it'll probably have to be replaced every so often no matter what so that $1200 dollars would have to get written off pretty quick. That's a tough sell, but I'm willing to hear the sales pitch. Taken with copious amounts of salt.
It's like 3D TV... an expensive and largely useless toy that really only irrationally exuberant developers and people with more money than common sense will buy.
I'd say 90% of my PC cost is to make it an "expensive and largely useless" gaming rig, so is a lot of other gimmicks and gadgets I have. I don't mind "wasting" money on fun, that's mostly what surplus cash is for. That said, I've tried a buddy's VR headset and while it was fun it also wasn't something I'd wear for long amounts of time. So in the end, how much mileage would it get, if I bought one myself? In any case, VR doesn't bother me because it's a world of its own. Now 3D movies annoy me, because my favorite cinema always show the 3D version as the "premium" experience and the 2D version on lesser screens, maybe once towards the end of the prime time they'll do 2D on the best screen. I really wish 3D would die at the cinema just like it did on home TV, that they'd just stop making them.
AMD is still on a downward trend on Steam, which you would think has a higher share of enthusiast CPUs than average. Of course those are accumulated figures, not new sales so changes will be smaller and depend on market share of retired processors but the rumors of AMDs recovery are a bit exaggerated. The Q2 guidance is 12% YoY growth but compared to their downhill slide they have a long climb back up to profitability.
The real question is going to be, how long before this becomes a requirement on new PC purchases for consumers with Windows pre-loaded? And will consumers cough up the 10 bucks a month or so in addition to the cost of the computer?
Requirement? No, I doubt that but I'm sure they'll eventually become like Xbox Live / Playstation Plus and make some key features paid subscription only. They just need to boil the frog a few more years, 50.33% of gamers are now on Win10 according to Steam. If you don't expect funny business from Microsoft when that goes up to 80-90% as Win7 support expires you're naive. And despite the number of games available for Linux the market share is trending down at 0.72% now. As Microsoft has the business market cornered too, I think YotLD is still on hold... people will pay because all the alternatives seem like too much change.
Is that before or after Futurama 3x04? Because I thought of this:
Farnsworth: "Shut up friends! My internet browser heard us saying the word Fry and it found a movie about Philip J. Fry for us. It also opened my calendar to Friday and ordered me some french fries."
Slashdot Mirror
They're as immune to facts as the anti-evolution movement.
That's modded as flamebait? Hilarious. As much as I try not to laugh at creationists *snicker*, at least admit you believe in it because it's in your Holy Book and it is right and so everything else is wrong. Oh wait now I get it, you're not against facts it's in the Bible so it is fact. I forget how fact and fiction works for religious people, my bad.
CBP: "That's right folks. Store your data in the cloud because that is where it is most secure." Well played but no thanks.
What would you rather want, a ruling that they can? Also, remember that "the cloud" is not a legal term - if they can legally access your Dropbox/Facebook account, they can also access your personal Linux server you saved the ssh password for. Besides this fully makes legal sense, border control has the right to search the data you are trying to bring into the country. Data on a remote server you may potentially never access from or bring to the US should obviously not be part of the border search. I know many people here don't like concept of an electronic search at the border at all, but if you want that limited to a physical search for contraband the law needs to change. Until then use one of the many obvious ways to not have your private data accessible at the border.
This could be a big nail in the lid of the anti-vax movement.
They're as immune to facts as the anti-evolution movement.
Well, the flip side of that is whether or not we're to ignore a known predictor because it's only a statistic. Say we're operating a security checkpoint, we know there's a there's a 80-20 indicator and we only have limited resources for spot checks. What success rate do we pick?:
a) 80*50% + 20*50% = 50%?
b) 80*80% + 20*20% = 68%?
c) 80*100% + 20*0% = 80%?
In the first one we're intentionally ignoring it, it's fair to all but not very effective. In the middle one we're doing proportional, but the perception is that there's a 64:4 = 16:1 difference when in reality there's only 4:1. And in the third alternative we just don't give a shit about fairness and just go for what's most efficient. Now add in the fact that being stopped is an inconvenience for everyone stopped who isn't doing anything wrong. Now change the percentages to like 0.8% and 0.2%. It's tough having to harass a lot of innocent people even though statistically, they're the ones you're after.
You can't simply say that one of these are "right" and the others "wrong", they're balancing different goals. And to add one more thing, just because society is creating a self-fulfilling truth doesn't make it false. That is to say, if you treat someone like shit and they're more likely to cause trouble because they've been treated like shit then the low risk option is continuing to treat them like shit by hiring someone else. It's some variation of tragedy of the commons, individually each one has reason to turn you down but for the whole it's a bad thing that everyone turns you down.
This has been a trend for quite some time. And the causes are the same: Lackluster jumps in performance in the last 10 years, and the rise of the Portable Personal Computer (PPC, Smartphone.)
I think it's more that the performance has mostly outpaced the need. Like you can now get 8/16 core CPUs at consumer-ish prices, NVMe-based PCIe cards that make normal SSDs look slow, 64-128GB RAM, but like... why? The only real killer product for consumers is the GPU and even there a single 1080Ti will play almost every game at 3840x2160 with Very High/Ultra quality at 60+ FPS. If you just want 1080p gaming with decent quality or play games that are more fun than GPU intensive like say Overwatch, DOTA, Rocket League, CS:GO etc. pretty much any graphics card will do. The performance jumps have been there, the applications haven't really found a way to use it to make a practical difference.
We (the USA) put exactly one dozen men on the moon. Would have been more if not for the Apollo 13 mishap and the cancellation of Apollo 18-20.
Whoops, read about Eugene Cernan as the "11th and last" man on the moon and thought I had it covered. Sorry Harrison Schmitt, 12th and second-to-last man on the moon.
Speaking from the company's perspective and not a user perspective it's more important for AMD to compete successfully in the areas that they do compete than to provide competition in areas where they wouldn't. AMD doesn't have the least power hungry chips, the highest performing server chips or the fastest single threaded gaming chips. Very often it's the extremes that make money, the "sweet spot" processors not so much. Particularly not if you have a 800lb gorilla in the room looking to snuff out your profit so you don't become a real danger.
So for AMD this is lot about picking battles where they think Intel won't go. Will Intel give you 8 cores for $499 or 16 cores for $999? No. Then that's a great product for AMD. Intel's client computing group sells for 7.4 billion/quarter, AMDs computing and graphics combined $600 million and if you leave dedicated graphics out of it maybe $400 million - that's just my guess. They don't need to sell to everybody to make those sales targets, the important thing is their inventory gets sold and isn't collecting dust on the shelf.
I agree that in the slightly longer perspective the server market is a place AMD should make money, but it's a long time since the Opterons were competitive and they've been out of the loop. The enterprise market is conservative, they want validation, stability and long term commitments. They won't be rushing out to buy the latest hotshot offering from AMD no matter what you do, it's got to mature a bit and AMD can't wait for those profits to roll in. As for the enterprise desktop the lack of IGP is not a big deal as long has supercheap graphics cards to go with them. The integration is much more important in laptops.
This comment. On slashdot "news for nerds" everyone. I'd say "Fuck it, I'm out," but I'm more intrigued by the train wreck I'm witnessing. It's a nice distraction from the train wreck occurring at a national level being driven by the same types of douchebags.
Well, why do we want people on Mars?
1. Science - why not unmanned probes/rovers at 100x the current budget?
2. Colonization - Apollo proved man can live in a tin can in space, what's new?
3. Flag-planting - billions of dollars for chest-thumping, really?
I mean, look at the aftermath of the Apollo program. We put less than a dozen men on the moon, then we stopped for 45+ years and counting. The way NASA does Mars, if they managed to find the budget it'd probably be exactly the same. Bigger rocket, bigger rock, longer trip, been there done that, let's not do it again. I'm not sure if Musk is crazy or not. But I like the plans to actually bootstrap something on Mars, start a real outpost. NASA can't afford to even make dreams like that, because at their rates that would be a trillion dollar program. Which is why you end up with the SLS + an as-of-yet-unfunded chest thumping expedition. Which doesn't really contribute much of anything to anything, except people will feel Mars is checked off the bucket list.
Go ahead, Audi's saying, read your newspaper or just zone out while traffic creeps along. (...) If you want to buy the new A8, you'll have to check whether your jurisdiction will accept it as a Level 3 car.
Does any jurisdiction accept any car as level 3? Because if the law will put you in the slammer for manslaughter and the insurance company refuse to cover your gross recklessness it's not exactly a feature.
You're right... you'd have about 15 seconds of useful consciousness and death in a minute or two, and you're not going to get rescued in that minute or two, sorry.
Considering that you should have air for the entire journey in tanks I imagine you'd have oxygen masks dropping down like in airplanes, that should buy a little more time unless the cabin is cracked wide open. And I don't think emergency pressurization is such a big deal, more on that below.
But don't worry, this isn't a very likely scenario. Far more likely is the vacuum of the tube being compromised, in which case the on rush of air will hit you at approximately mach 1 and you'll likely be dead instantly as it is basically like getting hit by a bomb's shock wave. Worse case you survive long enough to realize you're now the bullet in a very large gun that is capped at either end... and then you die on impact.
There's a reason most bombs are surrounded by shrapnel, yes air has a weight of 101 kPa = 101 kN/m^2 = 10300 kg/m^2 at 1G. But it's also just air, it'll quickly rush around any obstacle and create a pressure on the other side. I saw the supposed "scientist" that "proved" this was impossible and it was a joke that wouldn't even pass for Mythbuster science. He literally made it like a bullet in a gun barrel.
The only thing you'd have to do to totally change the outcome of that experiment is to not let the pod fill the whole tube. There's no reason for that and that air rushing past would then have to accelerate many tons of train in the brief period there's a significant pressure differential. After that it'll just become air resistance helping the pod stop. Seriously, I laughed so hard at this "proof"...
For comparison a high speed rail line from LA to SanFran is projected to cost $42 billion (I suspect the real number is closer to $200 when you factor in all the other costs like moving utilities). Building a road the same distance would cost 1/100th that. I suspect a hyperloop track for the same distance would be 10x as much as the railroad.
Musk claimed $6 billion, though that's obviously a very early estimate and most think that's very optimistic. Though you got to think there's a reason he gave this one up instead of creating a company to do it, I'm sure he'd find the investor money to only take a relatively small risk himself. There are a lot of unknowns and unsolved issues and then a non-trivial construction period before this could possibly go into production.
If you have to "develop" AI for a specific task (play games) or whatever then in my view it's not AI. I think AI should learn to do what ever task you throw at it.
They're working on that but trying to create an intuition of what's a stepping stone in the right direction has proven hard. It's mostly not how humans learn either. Even if you took someone off the street that's never played football, they've probably seen football. Or they got some basic idea of how it could be played based on analogies from other games. The totally blind approach would be like handing a tribe of Amazon Indians that's been in no contact with civilization the rule book and ask them to figure out how to play. So we're training the AI, but it's not anything like coaching a team. It's more like an armchair quarterback training, here's how a bunch of teams have played football. It doesn't even have to be the best teams, it's more about pruning the near infinite space of everybody doing everything to things that "makes sense".
Then the AI starts doing variations on moves, counter movies, counter-counter moves and so on and refine it. Maybe it's not so glamorous for sci-fi, but at least for automation we're starting to see AIs that can take rather "fuzzy" tasks, look at what a bunch of humans are doing to solve it and start doing it to OCD-levels of perfection at the speed of a computer. That's a pretty big deal for a lot of trades where you essentially apply variations of a skill but where the particularities of the situation has kept it from being automated like an assembly line. As in, I think it will enable AIs to automate a lot of things people don't really think can be automated. And if you assemble lots of these little AIs you'll get more automated processes than looking at one in isolation.
No need to apologize just because you're all wrong...
Except for throwing the ball, running with the ball and scoring the most points by not kicking the ball it's a great name! It's also telling that it takes an entire evening to get through a hour of game time... pauseball would be a better name.
if (nationality = 'Italian' && in_posession_of_ball && opposition_near) {
take_a_dive_but_pretend_you_were_fouled();
}
else
{
play_ball();
}
FTFY.
Having to manually specify soft-hyphens is insane. Hyphenation rules are standardized and should come for free. A very small developer tool in the browser would then allow the developer to see which words on the web page are not in the standard dictionary and provide hyphenations as a resource file for their site (or specify in their head element).
Actually doing it for hundreds of languages is non-trivial, mixed-language texts are a giant pain in the ass and you might want historical texts to use historical rules and for all copies to look exactly the same. This would require all clients to dynamically update language rules as they're adjusted to present a consistent final result, even offline renderers without online access or else the text would look different. In my opinion this should be done by the development tool/CMS/web server and the client only render the HTML text as-is, though I suppose you could have some meta tags as fallback. And from an efficiency standpoint that would only need to happen once instead of each time the page is rendered, if there are some odd rules about use in idioms or in different meanings of a word it could be more complicated than a simple dictionary lookup. I did not mean that you'd normally write them by hand, I agree that would be silly.
Often, it isn't. Harassment implies sustained pattern of behaviour, but the legal definition (at least in the UK) does not and the problem with this is that it often trivialises real problems.
Not necessarily. I can very easily imagine a teen gang roving around picking victims at random or harassing strangers wandering into their turf. Basically those who stop short of more serious crime like violence, robbery or sexual abuse. It's just a different form of harassment from the sustained bullying of a particular victim. I think for the law proving a single incident is enough, but that repeat offenders or harassment over long periods of time should be treated much more harshly. The alternative would be to not nip it in the bud and wait until is it a sustained pattern before you can take any criminal action.
This is actually the opposite of your example, all the extra code makes it more difficult to write, not easier, and it has the added issue of providing ZERO benefit, and often major drawbacks. For instance, if you just put raw HTML text on a page, it will format to every browser ever made, it will nicely fill the window, regardless of the size. But instead, developers put in all sorts of extraneous code to format it to specific window sizes, and the end result tends to be that it looks horrible on all of them
Bullshit. It will flow, but not "nicely". For example /. is all but unreadable at 100% on my 3840x2160 monitor, I have my web browser to 300% zoom, I could read it fine at 200% too but the lines just get uncomfortably long. There's a reason newspapers invented columns. Creating anything more complex than a single flow (like header, footer, columns for menus/other items) with tables or early CSS and mixing static/dynamic content like raster graphics with flowing text was total hell from the dawn of the web to the death of IE6.
And not because the web site designers were incompetent, I've gotten my share of gray hairs trying to make it work and it was like doing layout with oven mitts. For example, simple things like one fixed sized graphic or a single long word exceeding the dynamic column width and some browsers would go ballistic overflowing or re-flowing everything rather than clamp it. Hard-coding and testing was the only way you could make it work and even then I had mysterious deviations showing up not only in IE but Netscape/Firefox/Safari/Opera too.
I don't want to shit on what Tim Berners-Lee did because the concept of the web and hyperlinking is brilliant. But layout was never a topic in the initial design and the crude attempts to retrofit it later would have given those who did paper layout ulcers. And not even the big layout issues, simple things like soft hyphens where you write "hyper­linking" to say that hyperlinking is normally one word but hyper-<br>linking would be an acceptable way to do a line break were missing or broken until way into the 2000s.
With technology improving the way it is, you might soon be able to ditch the iWife and get an Android in your bed.
Ewwww, now I got a mental picture of Lt. Commander Data in my bed. Which I suppose is good analogy for Android, technically fully functional yet not at all what I want. YMMV.
Oh please, we have playboys and prostitutes that have had sex with hundreds if not thousands of sex partners so pregnancies and STDs is pretty much solved except for drunken unprotected sex and religious hang-ups that prevent abortion. Pretty much the only unsolved problem is supply/demand, which is what leads to commercialized/weaponized sex. If both sides felt they could get their sex needs solved with toys and the dating scene became about finding love/relationships and not about scoring/hoarding access to sex organs we'd see the negativity go away. Until then there'll still be all sorts of problems as men want sex and choose to get it in foul ways as well as women using sex as a tool for power/money. And then there's some very fucked up honor systems with different rules for men and women, but that's a much bigger social/civil rights issue.
Definitely found a fake song while looking for the real one. In one of my playlists I have a song called JK Pharrell which is an obvious cover of the Move That Dope single by Pharell and Pusha T. Except its not Pusha T nor Pharell on the track. I fully believe the article and hope I don't come across any other bad clones.
If your definition of "fake" is "cover", I got a pretty long list of fake songs from artists like:
The Beatles
David Bowie
Johnny Cash
Eric Clapton
Guns N' Roses
Jimi Hendrix
Elvis Presley
Bruce Springsteen
Stevie Wonder
Neil Young
They should just ban obvious hacks like that from Spotify. ;)
Seriously, if you're on this site you should be nerdy enough to be a well paid IT professional that could easily afford it, no need to go dumpster diving for phones. If you're not, maybe you should be soul searching a bit about why. Personally I never felt the need to get hacking on/from my phone, that's what my computer is for but if you want to go all CyanogenMod that's okay. But I got an iPhone SE and feel it was totally worth the money. That said, for $1200 it would have to do something new and amazing. But then again that's the premise, would you buy a $1200 phone if it did something revolutionary new and amazing. I'm surprised at the level of ludditism here where you don't know what it is, but you're damn sure you don't want it.
Same thing when RED announced their phone, it sounded like a producer of high end movie cameras with quite possibly the best sensor technology in the world was pulling a Kickstarter scam or something. Is it expensive? Is it possibly a ridiculously stupid business idea? Yes, but three cheers for the guy who wants to build a billion dollar rocket to fly to Mars because that's cool. No way the next great thing could be in your pocket. My biggest doubt though is that the phone is something I carry almost 24x7x365, it goes everywhere and it's not always treated nice. It gets battered and bruised so much it'll probably have to be replaced every so often no matter what so that $1200 dollars would have to get written off pretty quick. That's a tough sell, but I'm willing to hear the sales pitch. Taken with copious amounts of salt.
It's like 3D TV... an expensive and largely useless toy that really only irrationally exuberant developers and people with more money than common sense will buy.
I'd say 90% of my PC cost is to make it an "expensive and largely useless" gaming rig, so is a lot of other gimmicks and gadgets I have. I don't mind "wasting" money on fun, that's mostly what surplus cash is for. That said, I've tried a buddy's VR headset and while it was fun it also wasn't something I'd wear for long amounts of time. So in the end, how much mileage would it get, if I bought one myself? In any case, VR doesn't bother me because it's a world of its own. Now 3D movies annoy me, because my favorite cinema always show the 3D version as the "premium" experience and the 2D version on lesser screens, maybe once towards the end of the prime time they'll do 2D on the best screen. I really wish 3D would die at the cinema just like it did on home TV, that they'd just stop making them.
AMD is still on a downward trend on Steam, which you would think has a higher share of enthusiast CPUs than average. Of course those are accumulated figures, not new sales so changes will be smaller and depend on market share of retired processors but the rumors of AMDs recovery are a bit exaggerated. The Q2 guidance is 12% YoY growth but compared to their downhill slide they have a long climb back up to profitability.
The real question is going to be, how long before this becomes a requirement on new PC purchases for consumers with Windows pre-loaded? And will consumers cough up the 10 bucks a month or so in addition to the cost of the computer?
Requirement? No, I doubt that but I'm sure they'll eventually become like Xbox Live / Playstation Plus and make some key features paid subscription only. They just need to boil the frog a few more years, 50.33% of gamers are now on Win10 according to Steam. If you don't expect funny business from Microsoft when that goes up to 80-90% as Win7 support expires you're naive. And despite the number of games available for Linux the market share is trending down at 0.72% now. As Microsoft has the business market cornered too, I think YotLD is still on hold... people will pay because all the alternatives seem like too much change.
Is that before or after Futurama 3x04? Because I thought of this:
Farnsworth: "Shut up friends! My internet browser heard us saying the word Fry and it found a movie about Philip J. Fry for us. It also opened my calendar to Friday and ordered me some french fries."