If Deep Blue were true AI, then it wouldn't be limited just to chess. It's an interesting experiment in computer chess, and an interesting experiment in tuning an algorithm working against a human, and in interesting experiment in making a computer chess opening book, but a huge leap forward in AI it isn't.
By "True AI" do you mean a man-made system that accurately simulates the complete neurological process of a human? Are Intelligent Agents not "True AI"? How much of what we call human intelligence does a system need to encompass before we should call it Artificial Intelligence?
I wonder.... Why is it that when a person is able to do complex calculations, or is able to do simple calculations quickly, or has exceptionally accurate or detailed memory, we say that they are "intelligent", but when a machine has the same qualities, we say that it is not?
Why we consider Gary Kasparov's chess skills an example of "intelligence" in spite of the fact that he doesn't appear to be able to apply his chess skills in any other area, whereas we consider Deep Blue "not intelligent" because it has the same limitation?
Before computers were strong at playing chess, it was believed that only "intelligent" things could win against an human champion. See for example how HAL (in 2001) is seen as sentient because "he"'s a rather good chess player.
But nowadays, everyone knows that playing chess is just what you say, numbers crunching.
And therefore, I conclude, Gary Kasparov's chess-playing is not an exercise of "intelligence", but only "numbers crunching".
Because MDI interfaces are an obscenity before god, and implementing one should be a corporal offense. Let window management be handled by the window manager.
Helloooo, tabbed interface?
Damn you, Firefox, Google Chrome, Internet Explorer, Safari, and unnumerable other applications with your ungodly tabbed interfaces! Why won't you just let the window manager do its job?
What the "tax the rich" crowd doesn't realize is that the tax bracket applies to -earnings-. You have to be -working-. Most ``rich'' (what I'd consider rich) folks don't really ``earn'' anything at all. For example, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and just about every other `rich' person who ``works'', makes exactly $100,000 per year. They'd actually benefit under most tax plans.
Warren Buffet jokes that he pays -less- taxes than his secretary!
Buffett was saying that secretaries are being taxed at an unfairly high rate compared to the effective tax rates on very rich people (such as himself).
Regarding the comment about more than $200k per year not making you "rich", that varies widely by where you live. Someone in San Francisco making $200k per year may be just scraping by in a middle class existence, whereas the same income in west Texas might make you a land baron. This makes discussion of what "rich" means very confusing.
I only scanned the article, but I don't understand how US pseudo-cops seizing US computers and servers is going to stop foreign copyright infringement. Unless these are somehow international cops, but I doubt that.
It may not stop foreign copyright infringement, but it may be a HUGE win for companies who provide off-site/virtual data storage.
So, if you are "R2.0" and your son is "R3.0", why do you need the one decimal point level of precision? Why not "R2" and R3"?
PLEASE tell me that you aren't tracking the ejaculations that do not result in conception as the "dot releases"...
Hmmm. The point releases must refer to the non-viable mutual activity of both partners which can only be meaningfully counted by periodic restarts of the female reproductive system.
This leaves the unfortunate possibility that the point releases might be described in somewhat unsavory terms.
Therefore, I second the proposal for the "R2" and "R3" terminology. R2.0, the Slashdot community has spoken; the ball is now in your court.
But wait...
Perhaps ".0" is the surname? Okay, please disregard the above.
Just like Slashdot what will happen is people will do what it will take to get the points. So say you got a point for each bug found. You find one bug, assume this bug is called from multiple spots. Call this bug on each spot and report it for every occurrence and rack up points. Vs. saying it is just one bug.
The same thing happens on Slashdot, if you want the points then you better make sure your post is Pro-Linux and GPL. Trying to show that Windows may be better in some circumstances or the GPL as many flaws and in some ways it contradicts its core values will not lead to points. Thus discouraged and reducing objectivity in an open forum.
My experience with a similar program generally contradicts this. Most people don't want to think too deeply about the bugs they submit; the just want to get get credit for finding the problem. I've seen a few folks get overzealous and submit questionable bugs, but most people are just interested in reporting the bug quickly and going about their business.
Of course, depending on how you do the point system, you could have folks who get really abuse the system, but if they are few, those can be fairly easily identified and/or reined in.
The complaint in the second case is pretty damning, if true, and it's too detailed to be all made up.
From this comment, I infer you have never read, like, a book. After you browse some of the made up stuff you can find here, you might reconsider whether it is possible to make up stuff that's extremely detailed.
Well, if you're wanting a fair and balanced source of radio, you might like FOX News Radio. In addition to their streaming/downloadable content, it looks as if there's information about how to find conventional radio stations that broadcast their stuff.
I contend that in the absence of copyright, software companies would be even more secretive about the code that controls their devices. From a corporate perspective, it would be inconceivable to operate without DRM of some sort for many companies.
Copyright, for all the difficulties that it brings, provides a similar service to what the patent service provides (I know, I know), namely, that it enables people to expose how their stuff works without fear that they won't be able to benefit financially from being the original inventor/creator.
Think about it: As a child, how often did you hear someone say "he stole my idea"? People grow up, but their feelings of ownership for the things they think of frequently remain.
Hmmm.... The royalty/residual model is also used in other industries (e.g. insurance), at least in the US. For example, Having sold an insurance policy that continues making money, the salesman may continue being paid for a number of years (depending on the company's compensation strategy).
Curiously, this real world ruggedized example using HDD storage doesn't really seem relevant to the question of whether SSDs are suitable from a reliability perspective.... This example is existing equipment that meets requirements, and probably very sensitive to price (as there are undoubtedly other vendors who compete for similar business).
Adding $200 or more to the cost of the device would likely price it out of most government bids if the reliability characteristics meet requirements.
No, you just lose your job for using the "N" word. No, you just lose your job for having a bible on your desk. Hell, you can lose your job for saying "Nappy Headed Ho's"
Censorship is censorship. It doesn't matter the "punishment" for it.
Hmmm. Basically, you're saying that if I fire you because you're an asshole, it's "censorship"? You are confused.
Censorship is when I delete your offensive language from what I broadcast on television. Firing you for being offensive is just removing the antisocial element from my workforce.
If Creationist are just a bunch of crack pot fundamentalist nuts, why do these scientist frequently seem preoccupied with creationist. FTFA:
Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen." Hmmm.... "These scientists"? I didn't see any mention of creationism by Lenski, who studied the phenomenon.
Creationists were mentioned by a commentator at another university.
In any case, I do agree with the suggestion that discussion of creationism is not appropriate in polite company.
I understand the sense of what you are saying; the military, by necessity, puts things into practice rather than engaging in what one might characterize as "academic research".
However, you have still not offered any specific evidence that the social or scientific benefits of the practical application of research by the military are greater than the practical applications of research by other government entities (except as a result of scale) or that the investment in academic research by other government entities does not produce substantial scientific or social results.
There are numerous other scientific and social areas in which the military advances society, with far more practical results than do-gooders in other government or public institutions. This makes no sense. I suppose there may be some truth to it depending on what you're talking about, but this unfounded blanket statement that the military's "results" are far more practical than that of the unnamed "other government or public institutions" is meaningless.
I am generally a supporter of the military institutions in the US, but I find the vague assertion that the military advances society more practically than other government institutions... unlikely. For example, consider the following questions:
Specifically regarding computing, how are the military's results mre practically beneficial to social or scientific areas than, say, the Department of Energy? How do the results of the military outstrip the results of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention? In what ways does the military advance science and society more than the National Science Foundation? What results does the military provide that are more practical than those of the Department of the Interior?
I just wanted to chip in and mention that I appreciated your post. Thank you; that may be the nicest thing I've read on Slashdot.
There's always room for a civil discussion, but there is rarely time. It's easier and faster to provide a harsh, emotional, or witty response than a well reasoned one. This leads to the quality of debate we tend to see both within and outside of the Internet.
... by tracking and controlling internet access of young children?
Okay, so they'll have elementary school children cowed into obedience. I'm sure that'll guarantee the dictators something something....
The Slate article is rambling and incoherent. Although there is a picture of an XO-1 Laptop and there are a couple lonely references to OLPC, the article doesn't address OLPC at all; the author mostly talks about his experiences with a Commodore PET (whose value as a learning tool he implies is greater than the XO-1 laptop) and a Romanian study about the problems with a program that provided vouchers to help parents get computers (non-OLPC-related, as far as I could tell).
In short, I'd be shocked if I didn't see this kind of stuff turn up here on Slashdot, so I could then express my indignation at how far this site has... hmmm....
And I bet some folks wondered how they'd fill the great void Jonathan Katz left at Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
If Deep Blue were true AI, then it wouldn't be limited just to chess. It's an interesting experiment in computer chess, and an interesting experiment in tuning an algorithm working against a human, and in interesting experiment in making a computer chess opening book, but a huge leap forward in AI it isn't.
By "True AI" do you mean a man-made system that accurately simulates the complete neurological process of a human? Are Intelligent Agents not "True AI"? How much of what we call human intelligence does a system need to encompass before we should call it Artificial Intelligence?
I wonder.... Why is it that when a person is able to do complex calculations, or is able to do simple calculations quickly, or has exceptionally accurate or detailed memory, we say that they are "intelligent", but when a machine has the same qualities, we say that it is not?
Why we consider Gary Kasparov's chess skills an example of "intelligence" in spite of the fact that he doesn't appear to be able to apply his chess skills in any other area, whereas we consider Deep Blue "not intelligent" because it has the same limitation?
Before computers were strong at playing chess, it was believed that only "intelligent" things could win against an human champion. See for example how HAL (in 2001) is seen as sentient because "he"'s a rather good chess player.
But nowadays, everyone knows that playing chess is just what you say, numbers crunching.
And therefore, I conclude, Gary Kasparov's chess-playing is not an exercise of "intelligence", but only "numbers crunching".
Because MDI interfaces are an obscenity before god, and implementing one should be a corporal offense. Let window management be handled by the window manager.
Helloooo, tabbed interface?
Damn you, Firefox, Google Chrome, Internet Explorer, Safari, and unnumerable other applications with your ungodly tabbed interfaces! Why won't you just let the window manager do its job?
Where does he fit in? And what about the people who fear only Chuck?
A brilliant example. Perhaps the most conservative response of all to fear is to become the lethal weapon that is Chuck Norris.
Fear has nothing to fear, but Chuck Norris himself.
Oh, and EVERYONE fears Chuck Norris... Except for Mr. T, who pities the fool.
What is the Democrat Party?
What the "tax the rich" crowd doesn't realize is that the tax bracket applies to -earnings-. You have to be -working-. Most ``rich'' (what I'd consider rich) folks don't really ``earn'' anything at all. For example, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and just about every other `rich' person who ``works'', makes exactly $100,000 per year. They'd actually benefit under most tax plans.
Warren Buffet jokes that he pays -less- taxes than his secretary!
Okay, let's put Warren Buffet's quote in context.
Buffett was saying that secretaries are being taxed at an unfairly high rate compared to the effective tax rates on very rich people (such as himself).
Regarding the comment about more than $200k per year not making you "rich", that varies widely by where you live. Someone in San Francisco making $200k per year may be just scraping by in a middle class existence, whereas the same income in west Texas might make you a land baron. This makes discussion of what "rich" means very confusing.
I only scanned the article, but I don't understand how US pseudo-cops seizing US computers and servers is going to stop foreign copyright infringement. Unless these are somehow international cops, but I doubt that.
It may not stop foreign copyright infringement, but it may be a HUGE win for companies who provide off-site/virtual data storage.
So, if you are "R2.0" and your son is "R3.0", why do you need the one decimal point level of precision? Why not "R2" and R3"?
PLEASE tell me that you aren't tracking the ejaculations that do not result in conception as the "dot releases"...
Hmmm. The point releases must refer to the non-viable mutual activity of both partners which can only be meaningfully counted by periodic restarts of the female reproductive system.
This leaves the unfortunate possibility that the point releases might be described in somewhat unsavory terms.
Therefore, I second the proposal for the "R2" and "R3" terminology. R2.0, the Slashdot community has spoken; the ball is now in your court.
But wait...
Perhaps ".0" is the surname? Okay, please disregard the above.
I guess the difference is that a photographer creates the photograph, but how is this different to paying for, say, the Hitler Diaries?
It's much more like paying for Hitler Diaries 2, which was "created" by the filmmakers. The first one, at least, was based on the book.
Contrast with Sisterhood of the Traveling Boots, which was entirely based on the.... oh, never mind.
Just like Slashdot what will happen is people will do what it will take to get the points. So say you got a point for each bug found. You find one bug, assume this bug is called from multiple spots. Call this bug on each spot and report it for every occurrence and rack up points. Vs. saying it is just one bug.
The same thing happens on Slashdot, if you want the points then you better make sure your post is Pro-Linux and GPL. Trying to show that Windows may be better in some circumstances or the GPL as many flaws and in some ways it contradicts its core values will not lead to points. Thus discouraged and reducing objectivity in an open forum.
My experience with a similar program generally contradicts this. Most people don't want to think too deeply about the bugs they submit; the just want to get get credit for finding the problem. I've seen a few folks get overzealous and submit questionable bugs, but most people are just interested in reporting the bug quickly and going about their business.
Of course, depending on how you do the point system, you could have folks who get really abuse the system, but if they are few, those can be fairly easily identified and/or reined in.
"Exercisers learn faster, remember more, think clearer and bounce back more easily from brain injuries such as a stroke."
Hmmm.... Think "more clearly", perhaps?
I must infer that the author is a non-exerciser.
The complaint in the second case is pretty damning, if true, and it's too detailed to be all made up.
From this comment, I infer you have never read, like, a book. After you browse some of the made up stuff you can find here, you might reconsider whether it is possible to make up stuff that's extremely detailed.
Hmmm.... According to RIAA Radar, "In Rainbows" was released on Ato Records / Red.
In any case, Ato Records / Red is a RIAA label, so I think your point stands.
Well, if you're wanting a fair and balanced source of radio, you might like FOX News Radio. In addition to their streaming/downloadable content, it looks as if there's information about how to find conventional radio stations that broadcast their stuff.
If you're into that kind of thing.
I contend that in the absence of copyright, software companies would be even more secretive about the code that controls their devices. From a corporate perspective, it would be inconceivable to operate without DRM of some sort for many companies.
Copyright, for all the difficulties that it brings, provides a similar service to what the patent service provides (I know, I know), namely, that it enables people to expose how their stuff works without fear that they won't be able to benefit financially from being the original inventor/creator.
Think about it: As a child, how often did you hear someone say "he stole my idea"? People grow up, but their feelings of ownership for the things they think of frequently remain.
Hmmm.... The royalty/residual model is also used in other industries (e.g. insurance), at least in the US. For example, Having sold an insurance policy that continues making money, the salesman may continue being paid for a number of years (depending on the company's compensation strategy).
Curiously, this real world ruggedized example using HDD storage doesn't really seem relevant to the question of whether SSDs are suitable from a reliability perspective.... This example is existing equipment that meets requirements, and probably very sensitive to price (as there are undoubtedly other vendors who compete for similar business).
Adding $200 or more to the cost of the device would likely price it out of most government bids if the reliability characteristics meet requirements.
As opposed to wasting it reading a review of a movie you didn't like and then posting comments in the discussion?
Dude, the time he spends posting on Slashdot at work is not "free" time; he was getting paid for that.
There is enough clean water for everyone. There is enough food for everyone....
Hmmm.... What is the basis for your assertion that there is enough clean water and food for everyone in the world?Censorship is censorship. It doesn't matter the "punishment" for it.
Hmmm. Basically, you're saying that if I fire you because you're an asshole, it's "censorship"? You are confused.Censorship is when I delete your offensive language from what I broadcast on television. Firing you for being offensive is just removing the antisocial element from my workforce.
Creationists were mentioned by a commentator at another university.
In any case, I do agree with the suggestion that discussion of creationism is not appropriate in polite company.
I understand the sense of what you are saying; the military, by necessity, puts things into practice rather than engaging in what one might characterize as "academic research".
However, you have still not offered any specific evidence that the social or scientific benefits of the practical application of research by the military are greater than the practical applications of research by other government entities (except as a result of scale) or that the investment in academic research by other government entities does not produce substantial scientific or social results.
I am generally a supporter of the military institutions in the US, but I find the vague assertion that the military advances society more practically than other government institutions
Specifically regarding computing, how are the military's results mre practically beneficial to social or scientific areas than, say, the Department of Energy? How do the results of the military outstrip the results of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention? In what ways does the military advance science and society more than the National Science Foundation? What results does the military provide that are more practical than those of the Department of the Interior?
There's always room for a civil discussion, but there is rarely time. It's easier and faster to provide a harsh, emotional, or witty response than a well reasoned one. This leads to the quality of debate we tend to see both within and outside of the Internet.
... by tracking and controlling internet access of young children?
Okay, so they'll have elementary school children cowed into obedience. I'm sure that'll guarantee the dictators something something....
The Slate article is rambling and incoherent. Although there is a picture of an XO-1 Laptop and there are a couple lonely references to OLPC, the article doesn't address OLPC at all; the author mostly talks about his experiences with a Commodore PET (whose value as a learning tool he implies is greater than the XO-1 laptop) and a Romanian study about the problems with a program that provided vouchers to help parents get computers (non-OLPC-related, as far as I could tell).
In short, I'd be shocked if I didn't see this kind of stuff turn up here on Slashdot, so I could then express my indignation at how far this site has... hmmm....
And I bet some folks wondered how they'd fill the great void Jonathan Katz left at Slashdot.