Lots of us said that for the SDMI contest we should say "yeah, I can crack that" but not release any details (even if we really could crack it). Let them sweat it out.
Now the industry is starting to get this treatment because of its own heavy-handedness. If some FUDster claims he can crack $ANTIPIRACYTECHNOLOGY but won't prove it, no one will will be able to call his bluff effectively.
Meanwhile, full-quality bootlegs continue to pour out of Taiwan. Society has nothing but reduced rights and privileges to show for all this.
> I read somewhere (can't find the reference right now, sorry) that some work was being done whereby the genetic programs were being evolved that could themselves create neural networks.
Maybe not exactly what you're talking about, but there's a well-established field called neuroevolution.
For the neuroevolution systems that I've seen, you don't actually use genetic programming; you use a genetic algorithm, which is a hand-coded program that does evolution on some representation of a neural network (e.g., a string of numbers representing the weights).
These programs iteratively gen up a population of neural networks, evaluate them on the problem you're trying to solve, score them on how well they solve the problem, and then repeat for another generation, using the "DNA" from the better scorers to generate the new population.
I would recommend re-thinking your division of AI into subfields. You are indescriminately mixing technologies and application areas.
For example, neural networks are a technology and NLP is an application area. I know people working in NLP that use Lisp, and I know others that use neural networks. In AI, technologies and application areas are (mostly) orthogonal.
Granted, there probably isn't a perfect breakdown of AI into subfields, but making the distinction above will help you and your readers get a grip on what AI is all about faster.
> In that incarnation, the two central CPUs ran only user applications, while the operating system, with all its interrupts, OS code, and device drivers, would reside nearby in the ten Peripheral CPUs (called PPUs) provided for this purpose.
When I heard a CS professor talk about putting multiple CPUs on a single chip, I suggested that one of the CPUs should be dedicated to the OS, which would mean that it wouldn't even need a FP unit. So for (say) 4 or 8 computers on a chip, one would be a "OS server" and the others would be "application servers". Ditching the FP on the "OS server" might allow an extra-high-performance design for it. And the others would only need context switches when the OS demanded it, rather than one for every stinking interrupt that came along.
You know, it occured to me over the weekend that the present spate of bad laws are based on the assumption that corporations have an entitlement to make a profit on distributing things digitally. And it's that sense of entitlement that results in laws that violate our constitutional rights.
Why don't we chuck out the sense of entitlement, and the laws trying to enforce it, and just tell businesses that if they want to be profitable in the cyberage, they need to come up with a business plan that actually works in the cyberage.
Re:Cost them $ with your mouse - it's easy:
on
Eliza for Spam
·
· Score: 2
> Click here, go down the list and open each link in a new window (rightclick, openinnewwindow then tally up the $ damage yourself.
Does it work if you open them in a new tab in Galeon? That way you don't even have to see them.
More generally, this looks like a scripting job. Even if they track IPs that have visited, people with dial-up connections could run the script every time they dialed up, with a low probability of duplicates. What would happen if one of the advertisers suddenly ran up a $3,000 bill? Or $30,000? Or $300,000?
And the astroturfers sang a new song.
on
Code Red III
·
· Score: 2
Last year the astroturfers' chorus was "Who do you sue when something goes dreadfully wrong?"
Well, something has gone dreadfully wrong. Where are all the lawsuits? Where are all the astroturfers gleefully pointing out that Microsoft's products are better than OSS products, because you can sue Microsoft for your troubles now?
SirCam just won't go away. Here are my daily counts, starting from 7/23:
3 1 6 2 0 1 3 0 2 3 0 1 1 2 2 1 5
I had thought the worst was over after the 25th, but the last 24 hours have been busy again. This must be absolutely ravaging the Windows world.
Also, I still haven't gotten a single one from anyone I know. Ten are explainable because they came over the Freeciv mailing list (showing that even Windows users like open-source software). It's incomprehensible why any of the others would have me in their address book.
Also, I had one stranger mail out a FixSir.com, asking everyone to run it. (Our standard joke about how to spread e-mail viruses under UNIX may not be as unrealistic as we like to think it is.) This one might have been innocent, put it probably points to a future trend: release a virus, wait until it hits the news, then release a second piggyback virus with a message promising to protect against the first one.
> If Europe is foolish enough to go along with the United State's efforts in "harmonizing" US and European patent law by essentially submitting to the American approach they will be handing the United States an unassailable advantage in the software marketplace.
My only remaining hope is that the USA's recently enhanced bad habit of telling the rest of the world that it isn't going to go along with the plan, will cause some backlash in other countries, which may then punt on software patents just as a way of telling the USA where to stick it.
Alas, I'm sure the home-grown robber-baron wannabes will outweigh any such anti-imperial sentiments.
> Personally, I think Aerons suck. I'm sitting in one now and my back is killing me--I can never get this damn chair adjusted right, or to get it to stay in a configuration close to comfortable for very long.
So... How many Aeron chairs did Slashdot buy with its IPO money?
Also, your post indicates that the $700 wasted on the chairs is only a small part of the TCO. It's the time employes waste adjusting the chairs instead of surfing the Web that's sending the.coms to the big internet in the sky.
> Reading it closely makes me feel as if AMD is trying to curry favor with Intel for some odd reason while at the same time promoting their own technology.... They do overlap in a few areas, but I am curious if their support for the new PCI 3.0 standard will make it harder for them to sell HT as they will have to work to differentiate it.
Maybe they're hoping to saddle Intel with a standard that can't compete with their own proprietary solution?
> If this new bugging critter from the FBI is not a violation of our constitutional rights, then they should be able to describe it to the judge in such a manner that they will be able to keep using it.
Maybe the judge should just have one installed at the FBI HQ, so he can see for himself what the FBI are saying about it.
I don't have a citable source, but have heard from a psychologist who studies reading, that "speed reading" is just a euphemism for "skimming". Experiments with "professional readers", such as editors and grad students, have (the psychologist claims) shown that comprehension is more or less proportional to the time spent reading. I.e., if you give a grad student an article and say "skim this; you have one minute", that student's comprehension will be exactly the comprehension of a speed reader who spent one minute on it.
I don't mind skimming computer documentation to find out whether I need to read it carefully, but if I do need to read it carefully, I want enough time to do it right.
And as for skimming literature... why bother? Would a one-page summary of your favorite novel make a satisfying substitute?
[Alan, oh, Alan! Where are those <rant> tags you called for?]
Slashdot Mirror
> This is one of those misleading statistics, like "Half of all marriages end in divorce".
Yes. Without exception, divorce applies to both parties to the marriage.
> do you really think, though, that an omnipotent
God couldn't create this physical evidence that has you totally snowed?
Yeah, and I hear that He postdates His checks, too.
Lots of us said that for the SDMI contest we should say "yeah, I can crack that" but not release any details (even if we really could crack it). Let them sweat it out.
Now the industry is starting to get this treatment because of its own heavy-handedness. If some FUDster claims he can crack $ANTIPIRACYTECHNOLOGY but won't prove it, no one will will be able to call his bluff effectively.
Meanwhile, full-quality bootlegs continue to pour out of Taiwan. Society has nothing but reduced rights and privileges to show for all this.
> I read somewhere (can't find the reference right now, sorry) that some work was being done whereby the genetic programs were being evolved that could themselves create neural networks.
Maybe not exactly what you're talking about, but there's a well-established field called neuroevolution.
For the neuroevolution systems that I've seen, you don't actually use genetic programming; you use a genetic algorithm, which is a hand-coded program that does evolution on some representation of a neural network (e.g., a string of numbers representing the weights).
These programs iteratively gen up a population of neural networks, evaluate them on the problem you're trying to solve, score them on how well they solve the problem, and then repeat for another generation, using the "DNA" from the better scorers to generate the new population.
I would recommend re-thinking your division of AI into subfields. You are indescriminately mixing technologies and application areas.
For example, neural networks are a technology and NLP is an application area. I know people working in NLP that use Lisp, and I know others that use neural networks. In AI, technologies and application areas are (mostly) orthogonal.
Granted, there probably isn't a perfect breakdown of AI into subfields, but making the distinction above will help you and your readers get a grip on what AI is all about faster.
> To which all of Saladin's wives were heard to mutter, "men!"
I think the story you told was the euphemized version of what really happened, and it wasn't their swords that they were bragging about.
There's a new moderation option:
> In that incarnation, the two central CPUs ran only user applications, while the operating system, with all its interrupts, OS code, and device drivers, would reside nearby in the ten Peripheral CPUs (called PPUs) provided for this purpose.
When I heard a CS professor talk about putting multiple CPUs on a single chip, I suggested that one of the CPUs should be dedicated to the OS, which would mean that it wouldn't even need a FP unit. So for (say) 4 or 8 computers on a chip, one would be a "OS server" and the others would be "application servers". Ditching the FP on the "OS server" might allow an extra-high-performance design for it. And the others would only need context switches when the OS demanded it, rather than one for every stinking interrupt that came along.
> If you were plowing a field, which would you rather use? Two strong oxen or 1024 chickens?
Either one makes for a fine bar-b-que, once the plowin's done.
You know, it occured to me over the weekend that the present spate of bad laws are based on the assumption that corporations have an entitlement to make a profit on distributing things digitally. And it's that sense of entitlement that results in laws that violate our constitutional rights.
Why don't we chuck out the sense of entitlement, and the laws trying to enforce it, and just tell businesses that if they want to be profitable in the cyberage, they need to come up with a business plan that actually works in the cyberage.
> Click here, go down the list and open each link in a new window (rightclick, openinnewwindow then tally up the $ damage yourself.
Does it work if you open them in a new tab in Galeon? That way you don't even have to see them.
More generally, this looks like a scripting job. Even if they track IPs that have visited, people with dial-up connections could run the script every time they dialed up, with a low probability of duplicates. What would happen if one of the advertisers suddenly ran up a $3,000 bill? Or $30,000? Or $300,000?
> Can anyone explain the very bright zone off of the southern tip of South America?
...?
* The Falkland Islands / Malvinas catching fire?
* Atlantis alive and kicking
* A bug sitting on the satellite sensor
*
Cthulhu rising?
> If Microsoft can't even patch their own servers then how can anyone expect others to do it properly?
The Register is reporting that the worm is now ravaging Micorsoft's internal network, because some foo brought in an infected laptop and plugged it in behind the firewall.
Last year the astroturfers' chorus was "Who do you sue when something goes dreadfully wrong?"
Well, something has gone dreadfully wrong. Where are all the lawsuits? Where are all the astroturfers gleefully pointing out that Microsoft's products are better than OSS products, because you can sue Microsoft for your troubles now?
SirCam just won't go away. Here are my daily counts, starting from 7/23:
3 1 6 2 0 1 3 0 2 3 0 1 1 2 2 1 5
I had thought the worst was over after the 25th, but the last 24 hours have been busy again. This must be absolutely ravaging the Windows world.
Also, I still haven't gotten a single one from anyone I know. Ten are explainable because they came over the Freeciv mailing list (showing that even Windows users like open-source software). It's incomprehensible why any of the others would have me in their address book.
Also, I had one stranger mail out a FixSir.com, asking everyone to run it. (Our standard joke about how to spread e-mail viruses under UNIX may not be as unrealistic as we like to think it is.) This one might have been innocent, put it probably points to a future trend: release a virus, wait until it hits the news, then release a second piggyback virus with a message promising to protect against the first one.
> Kinda like being sent one of those "You may already be a winner!" envelopes; you didn't ask for it to happen, but it happened, and so be it.
No, that's what it would be like if they mistook you for a gorgeous babe's husband and dragged you kicking and screaming home to her.
> If Europe is foolish enough to go along with the United State's efforts in "harmonizing" US and European patent law by essentially submitting to the American approach they will be handing the United States an unassailable advantage in the software marketplace.
My only remaining hope is that the USA's recently enhanced bad habit of telling the rest of the world that it isn't going to go along with the plan, will cause some backlash in other countries, which may then punt on software patents just as a way of telling the USA where to stick it.
Alas, I'm sure the home-grown robber-baron wannabes will outweigh any such anti-imperial sentiments.
> So will all the names being used be apologzing?
[LMAO]
No, a simple "I and all my socks" will suffice.
> Plus it contains grammatical mistakes, which looks kind of bad when your job title includes "editor".
Nod a nissue, far Linux-friendly geek cites.
> Who even needs a way to execute scripts OF ANY KIND in a .pdf file?!
Don't jump to conclusions, man. I'm writing a new UNIX clone in PDF, so you can port your favorite UNIX apps to your favorite document viewer.
I expect to have gv running under PDFIX by this weekend.
> Personally, I think Aerons suck. I'm sitting in one now and my back is killing me--I can never get this damn chair adjusted right, or to get it to stay in a configuration close to comfortable for very long.
.coms to the big internet in the sky.
So... How many Aeron chairs did Slashdot buy with its IPO money?
Also, your post indicates that the $700 wasted on the chairs is only a small part of the TCO. It's the time employes waste adjusting the chairs instead of surfing the Web that's sending the
> Reading it closely makes me feel as if AMD is trying to curry favor with Intel for some odd reason while at the same time promoting their own technology.... They do overlap in a few areas, but I am curious if their support for the new PCI 3.0 standard will make it harder for them to sell HT as they will have to work to differentiate it.
Maybe they're hoping to saddle Intel with a standard that can't compete with their own proprietary solution?
> I remember when I was a kid, seeing some article on Usenet circa 1990 about how it was impossible for any computer to do 30 FPS in 24-bit
If you drop it from high enough, any computer will do 30 fps before it hits the ground, without regard to its bitness.
> If this new bugging critter from the FBI is not a violation of our constitutional rights, then they should be able to describe it to the judge in such a manner that they will be able to keep using it.
Maybe the judge should just have one installed at the FBI HQ, so he can see for himself what the FBI are saying about it.
> [Good argument] for learning to speed read.
I don't have a citable source, but have heard from a psychologist who studies reading, that "speed reading" is just a euphemism for "skimming". Experiments with "professional readers", such as editors and grad students, have (the psychologist claims) shown that comprehension is more or less proportional to the time spent reading. I.e., if you give a grad student an article and say "skim this; you have one minute", that student's comprehension will be exactly the comprehension of a speed reader who spent one minute on it.
I don't mind skimming computer documentation to find out whether I need to read it carefully, but if I do need to read it carefully, I want enough time to do it right.
And as for skimming literature... why bother? Would a one-page summary of your favorite novel make a satisfying substitute?
[Alan, oh, Alan! Where are those <rant> tags you called for?]