However, You're half right. "AI" is absolutely hopeless at quickly and intuitively categorising and identifying objects. AI at the moment has a hard job telling that a blue chair and a red stool are both for sitting on, and that a red table and red stool are two seperate objects with different purposes. Until AI can recognise and identify objects are quickly and effortlessly as humans do, it's going to be totally hopeless.
Mac App Store? I vaguely remember something like that from a few years ago. IIRC it was full of cheap games and crappy apps. I just turned off gatekeeper and forgot about it. Did they bring it back or something?
Posted from my Macbook Pro running macOS 10.14 Mohave
These are all flights that, without wreckage, the reason for its demise may never have been discovered. Of course, there's also a lot of aircraft that have been lost and never found, and the reason for their demise has never been found:
Also, if you ever use the word "bullshit" in an argument, at least have some fucking evidence to back it up. A simple "Bullshit." just makes you look like an arrogant idiot who has no interest in forming a coherent argument.
No, aeroplane manufacturers and the FAA have a problem with unexplained plane losses too. A fault or design flaw in an aircraft that, for example, manifests itself at high altitude with sudden decompression, can cause an aircraft to literally explode. Without pieces of the aircraft to analyse, this flaw could go undiagnosed for years, causing other accidents that could have been rectified much sooner.
Just because it has no proof to back it up, doesn't mean it's not true science. Until last year, Gravitational waves had no proof, but i wouldn't call them pseudoscience. Unless of course, you're saying that the Big Bang, gravitons, string theory, etc etc are all pseudoscience.
Just because there's no hard evidence to back up a theory doesn't make it pseudoscience.
It's hardly pseudoscience. Very little is known about the way the brain and consciousness operate, so pretty much any theory on its operation could be valid. I myself believe the brain works on the quantum level in some way. It's hard to persuade me otherwise, when we have pretty solid evidence that plants use a href="https://phys.org/news/2014-01-quantum-mechanics-efficiency-photosynthesis.html">quantum effects to create sugars. If plants use quantum effects, is it really that much of a stretch to believe a much more complicated organism also utilises quantum phenomena?
It doesn't matter if it's open source or closed source, monocultures are a bad thing. In fact, you don't even need to have a monopoly to have a monoculture. AMD and Intel have a duopoly on x86 processors, but that hasn't stopped the critical Spectre bug from affecting both companies, and many more.
An example of a critical bug in a piece of open source software is Heartbleed. OpenSSL was not only open-source, but also regarded as very secure. The news of Heartbleed totally destroyed that credibility. Sure, it's not a monoculture, but it's still used by a significant amount of projects.
However, the main concern with monocultures isn't security, traceability etc, it's standards compliance. Without competing renderers, there is literally zero reason to stay standards complaint. Standards are there as guidelines on how things should stay consistent between products. We have standards on plug designs so all electronics from all manufacturers are compatible with the sockets in our homes. The same is the case with web browsers. If there's only one rendering engine, there's no reason to stay standards compliant, because there's no competion to stay compatible with. This is the issue we had with IE6, and it's the issue we will find with Chromium too.
Don't think that because it's open source, it's immune to the issues of standards compliance
I know there's a lot of people going "Waheyyy!", because microsoft are axing Edge, but this isn't a positive thing in the grand scheme of things.
Back in the IE6 days, nearly every browser was IE6, with nearly 95% market share at it's height. Despite this incredible monopoly over browser share that microsoft had, we still had plenty of competing rendering engines. We had Firefox (Gecko), Safari (Webkit), Opera (Presto), as well as multiple smaller browsers with their own rendering engines, such as KHTML, NetPositive, etc .
Now we're in an era where there's a near monopoly on rendering engines. With Chrome being based on a fork of webkit (blink), Opera using a fork of blink, and Microsoft now also using Blink, we're in an era where there's really only 3 rendering engines now, and 2 of those (Webkit and blink) are nearly brothers. The only true non-related renderer is Firefox's Gecko.
So surely this is a good thing? If everyone uses the same renderer, the web will look much more consistent right? Yes, that's true. But consistency and standards compliance are not the same thing. In the age of IE6, the web was very consistent, as every website was written for the quirks in Trident, but now we're going to see an era where websites are designed for Chrome, because every browser uses the Blink/webkit rendering engine.
This change isn't a positive one, oh no. Quite the opposite
Slashdot Mirror
Only Virginians care about Virginian Democrats. The whole world cares what Google does though.
I think you're talking bollocks
However, You're half right. "AI" is absolutely hopeless at quickly and intuitively categorising and identifying objects. AI at the moment has a hard job telling that a blue chair and a red stool are both for sitting on, and that a red table and red stool are two seperate objects with different purposes. Until AI can recognise and identify objects are quickly and effortlessly as humans do, it's going to be totally hopeless.
The Titanic is still more reliable.
Super Bowl 53 has come and gone and, for me at least, there was one clear highlight. This Microsoft commercial.
I guess the game of Handegg was pretty uninspiring then.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/...
*insert sarcmark here*
Mac App Store? I vaguely remember something like that from a few years ago. IIRC it was full of cheap games and crappy apps. I just turned off gatekeeper and forgot about it. Did they bring it back or something?
Posted from my Macbook Pro running macOS 10.14 Mohave
Is that the latest racing game from Blizzard?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
These are all flights that, without wreckage, the reason for its demise may never have been discovered. Of course, there's also a lot of aircraft that have been lost and never found, and the reason for their demise has never been found:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Also, if you ever use the word "bullshit" in an argument, at least have some fucking evidence to back it up. A simple "Bullshit." just makes you look like an arrogant idiot who has no interest in forming a coherent argument.
No, aeroplane manufacturers and the FAA have a problem with unexplained plane losses too. A fault or design flaw in an aircraft that, for example, manifests itself at high altitude with sudden decompression, can cause an aircraft to literally explode. Without pieces of the aircraft to analyse, this flaw could go undiagnosed for years, causing other accidents that could have been rectified much sooner.
Why is this not a thing already?
It's not idle speculation. There has been real scientific papers written about this. https://plato.stanford.edu/ent...
Just because it has no proof to back it up, doesn't mean it's not true science. Until last year, Gravitational waves had no proof, but i wouldn't call them pseudoscience. Unless of course, you're saying that the Big Bang, gravitons, string theory, etc etc are all pseudoscience.
Just because there's no hard evidence to back up a theory doesn't make it pseudoscience.
It's hardly pseudoscience. Very little is known about the way the brain and consciousness operate, so pretty much any theory on its operation could be valid. I myself believe the brain works on the quantum level in some way. It's hard to persuade me otherwise, when we have pretty solid evidence that plants use a href="https://phys.org/news/2014-01-quantum-mechanics-efficiency-photosynthesis.html">quantum effects to create sugars. If plants use quantum effects, is it really that much of a stretch to believe a much more complicated organism also utilises quantum phenomena?
Will people stop thinking it's PC's. The military run PDP11's and VAXen. There's not an 8086 anywhere near, and the only intel chips are RAM chips
https://slashdot.org/comments....
https://slashdot.org/comments....
It's DEC VAXen
Nah, it's DEC VAX's
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.c...
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That's so funny i can't even be bothered to construct a reasonable argument.
It doesn't matter if it's open source or closed source, monocultures are a bad thing. In fact, you don't even need to have a monopoly to have a monoculture. AMD and Intel have a duopoly on x86 processors, but that hasn't stopped the critical Spectre bug from affecting both companies, and many more.
An example of a critical bug in a piece of open source software is Heartbleed. OpenSSL was not only open-source, but also regarded as very secure. The news of Heartbleed totally destroyed that credibility. Sure, it's not a monoculture, but it's still used by a significant amount of projects.
However, the main concern with monocultures isn't security, traceability etc, it's standards compliance. Without competing renderers, there is literally zero reason to stay standards complaint. Standards are there as guidelines on how things should stay consistent between products. We have standards on plug designs so all electronics from all manufacturers are compatible with the sockets in our homes. The same is the case with web browsers. If there's only one rendering engine, there's no reason to stay standards compliant, because there's no competion to stay compatible with. This is the issue we had with IE6, and it's the issue we will find with Chromium too.
Don't think that because it's open source, it's immune to the issues of standards compliance
They do.
https://www.statista.com/stati...
Get rid of your filthy animal.
I know there's a lot of people going "Waheyyy!", because microsoft are axing Edge, but this isn't a positive thing in the grand scheme of things.
Back in the IE6 days, nearly every browser was IE6, with nearly 95% market share at it's height. Despite this incredible monopoly over browser share that microsoft had, we still had plenty of competing rendering engines. We had Firefox (Gecko), Safari (Webkit), Opera (Presto), as well as multiple smaller browsers with their own rendering engines, such as KHTML, NetPositive, etc .
Now we're in an era where there's a near monopoly on rendering engines. With Chrome being based on a fork of webkit (blink), Opera using a fork of blink, and Microsoft now also using Blink, we're in an era where there's really only 3 rendering engines now, and 2 of those (Webkit and blink) are nearly brothers. The only true non-related renderer is Firefox's Gecko.
So surely this is a good thing? If everyone uses the same renderer, the web will look much more consistent right? Yes, that's true. But consistency and standards compliance are not the same thing. In the age of IE6, the web was very consistent, as every website was written for the quirks in Trident, but now we're going to see an era where websites are designed for Chrome, because every browser uses the Blink/webkit rendering engine.
This change isn't a positive one, oh no. Quite the opposite
Source? Proof? Pretty much all datacenters are cleaner than the average house