I'm suddenly reminded of that guy I used to play in starcraft who refused to make a single zealot because carriers are better in the late game. Or was it zerglings and ultralisks? I dunno, I've slept since then.
That guy lost every time.
Demonstrate (if you can't prove) that there is _good_ reason for concern before flying off the handle.
Demonstrate (if you can't prove) that there is _good_ reason to believe that this stuff is harmless?
See all those people walking around? The one's that aren't dead? Many of them own couches.
Besides which a "ban until proven safe" policy is unworkable because there are a lot of things that might be dangerous, but only a few that are, and throwing out the many until you locate the few will do more harm than good. We could avoid anything man-made and live with only pre-industrial revolution materials. Hope you don't catch polio, half the components of the vaccine and the iron lung haven't been proven safe yet.
given that statistically talent must spread across both sexes, it ain't.
Yes. Yes if we assume this assertion you have made without the slightest evidence to be true, and take also as gospel the implicit assumption that talent is the only possible difference on a level playing field, your conclusion immediately follows.
I can actually hear the detail in my recordings, not just "warmth" that may make me feel good but isn't there.
Isn't "There"? Dude, there's no music "there" at all. It's all a series of pits and ridges on a piece of vinyl, or a series of bright and dark spots on a piece of polycarbonate, and while it makes some sense to discuss the "true" sound with demos and calibration tracks, the concept is much fuzzier when discussing a piece of recorded music. Is it the sound you would have heard inside the musician's head? The sound you would have heard at a live performance (and remember genres which are likely to use speakers and amplifiers are almost certain to use "warm" ones), or the sound you'd hear if you were standing by the wall in the recording studio? Further confusing the issue is the fact that the recording has been produced by someone who specifically altered the recording from its "true" form.
Nobody really feels sorry for those little pricks. The issue is that the principal decided that seeing the guilty pay for the damage to his pride was more important than actually teaching.
Hans Reiser, an open source maven who murdered his wife in cold blood
He has been arrested, but he has yet to stand trial. Given that we are "very smart people, very intelligent", we should be able to distinguish between the two.
Also, Richard Stallman is chair of the Free Software Foundation, not the Free Stalin Foundation, and the BeOS developers do not wash dishes at the olive garden. It's almost like GP was making false statements on purpose, perhaps for the sake of humor or something.
WTF? Are you seriously suggesting that the machine is BSODing because of some psychic disafinnity with the user sitting at the console? Perhaps that the user clicks on stuff too erratically for the system to be expected to remain functional? Maybe you meant that machine wasn't crashing at all, the user was having a psychotic breakdown and mistaking it for a system reboot and data loss.
There is no such damned thing as an "unstable user." Unless the user is going out of his way to install unsigned drivers custom designed to let him play around in kernel memory space, or literally kicking the electronic components that make up the system, any system crash is a bug in the operating system, not user error.
Wouldn't it be great to just read a bunch of novels for college and get paid the same ammount as the person that racked their brain while trying to solve differential equations?
Yes, because literature is pointless.
Strawman. There's a big difference between "pointless" and "easier than differential equations."
They're not even measured on the same scale. Breathing is easier than the proverbial "falling off a log." Tell me which of those activities is pointless.
I think what you're trying to say is that people should be rewarded according to the market value of their work.
I don't. He made a point about the relative difficulty of different college degrees, I don't see where you found "market" in that.
[T]he guy who read all those novels can still turn around and write one himself. If it's a best-seller, he'll do better than the guy who hasn't solved a differential equation in 10 years.
Yeah, and the guy who founded Id Software will do better than the guy who hasn't cracked a book in 10 years. If you want to compare two populations, don't grab two outliers from opposite ends of the respective distributions.
So you're saying an alias has some way of figuring out whether a file is the same as the file you originally specified or not?
Hey, so does a symlink. It's called the damned path.
Now, there are lots of times when changing the path of a file doesn't mean to the user that it is no longer the same file, but there are lots of times when it does. What if my editor saved my old file as.bak and created a new one in its place? What if my logrotate script moved my old log to.0 and created a new log in its place? what if my sysadmin moved httpd.conf to httpd.conf~ before creating a new wildly different configuration? In all those situations, I'd be pretty pissed at an alias for going and digging up grandfather's old axe.
Create the DB itself (on a CPU and disk that are slower than your desktop / laptop) or
I really don't care. In terms of speed optimization, there are only 3 speeds for any operation: "instant," fast and slow.
Instant, of course, doesn't refer to no passage of time, it refers to a passage of time too small for the system (in this case, the human punching buttons) to measure
If the database is in place when I want to listen to music, it doesn't really matter if it was built by Deep Blue or a TRS-80
Besides, there's no reason whatsoever that iTunes can't helpfully build the database for the iPod if it's running.
go find me another FLASH player that offers 30GB+ before making that comment
I don't care if it's got FLASH inside it. I don't care if it's got 32k of core inside it. My iPod can store 30GB+ of music, I want my iPhone to as well.
I don't dispute the legal definition, I have no idea. But logically, that makes no sense. If his employer agreed to pay him while doing it, and he agreed to do it while being payed, doesn't that make it ipso facto his job? Likewise clearly the employer is in business to create such works. They employed someone to do so.
That's not how that works. Keys are generated randomly. Knowing one doesn't tell you anything about any other, unless someone has made a very serious mistake.
Those from Qatar are Qatari. Plural is Qataris. "Qatarese", while sounding the same, would actually be the language of Qatar, if they did not speak Arabic and such a thing actually existed. This is a classic error made by someone who doesn't read much, or doesn't understand what he reads.
You're right, of course. This isn't a case of someone just not knowing a single obscure English word, it's a failure to intuit and apply a universal rule of the language. I mean, if there's one thing English has, it's simple, consistent rules. It clearly follows that they'd be called Qataris from the names of other peoples that everyone has heard of, like the Chinis, Japanis, Sudanis, Portugis, and Burmis.
but my own research has always led me to believe that the easiest way to make a machine more intelligent is to give it emotions and feelings.
You seem to be using a rather interesting definition of "easiest." No one's ever given a machine emotions and feelings.
Well, as far as we know. Actually, no one's ever devised a meaningful way to determine whether a machine has emotions or not.
for that matter, we do a pretty lousy job in general of determining whether or not a machine has intelligence, and if so, how much. There are several metrics, all of which yield different results and none of which is widely agreed upon.
Despite the open nature of the question "What is intelligence?" people have, arguably, succeeded in making machines more intelligent. Deep Blue, Dr. Sbaitso, Cyc, the computer in Starcraft, and Dragon Naturally Speaking all exhibit "intelligence" of some sort and to some degree.
not one of them exhibits any emotion whatsoever, as far as we can tell. The creators of none of them tried to imbue them with feelings so that they could think better.
Now, I don't claim that writing the MinMax utility function which could defeat a grandmaster was easy, but it was at least easy enough that it has been accomplished. That makes it far easier than giving a machine emotions and feelings, because that's never been done.
Sure, you can teach a limited number of rules to a program by sampling human inputs but the machine isn't really going to understand what it means unless it can feel.
What does it even mean to "understand?" How will you be able to tell whether or not a computer "understands?" For that matter, how can you tell with any certainty whether a human "understands" something or simply knows some facts about it?
While we're at it, explain why understanding something improves intelligence.
holy crap is that claim starting to get on my nerves. A lot of people can tell the difference between AAC 128kbps on high quality stereo equipment. There are few people who can tell the difference on a half-decent set of pc or home theater equipment. People who can tell the difference on a set of iPod headphones with even moderate environmental noise are rare as hen's teeth. And mind you, that's for the threshold of "noticeable", not "horrible".
Furthermore I absolutely don't believe you're one of the "chosen few". Whether or not that sort of "Golden Ear" princess-and-the-pea sensitivity is in fact desirable is of course a separate matter, but I think you would very much like to believe you have it. I claim that the artifacts that are ruining your listening experience aren't in the audio playback, they're in your head.
If you want to carry around all your music in lossless format, go ahead. Those gigabytes are yours to do with what you please, and "I want to" is a perfectly good reason. But this particular fetish of yours is no reason to drag out the old "lossless is great and anyone content with lossy compression is deaf or stupid or both" canard.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm suddenly reminded of that guy I used to play in starcraft who refused to make a single zealot because carriers are better in the late game. Or was it zerglings and ultralisks? I dunno, I've slept since then.
That guy lost every time.
Demonstrate (if you can't prove) that there is _good_ reason to believe that this stuff is harmless?
See all those people walking around? The one's that aren't dead? Many of them own couches.
Besides which a "ban until proven safe" policy is unworkable because there are a lot of things that might be dangerous, but only a few that are, and throwing out the many until you locate the few will do more harm than good. We could avoid anything man-made and live with only pre-industrial revolution materials. Hope you don't catch polio, half the components of the vaccine and the iron lung haven't been proven safe yet.
Yes. Yes if we assume this assertion you have made without the slightest evidence to be true, and take also as gospel the implicit assumption that talent is the only possible difference on a level playing field, your conclusion immediately follows.
I just got done fixing my piano. those metal strings kept distorting the sound of the little swinging hammers.
Nobody really feels sorry for those little pricks. The issue is that the principal decided that seeing the guilty pay for the damage to his pride was more important than actually teaching.
coming next fall, jet fuel powered servers
Also, Richard Stallman is chair of the Free Software Foundation, not the Free Stalin Foundation, and the BeOS developers do not wash dishes at the olive garden. It's almost like GP was making false statements on purpose, perhaps for the sake of humor or something.
WTF? Are you seriously suggesting that the machine is BSODing because of some psychic disafinnity with the user sitting at the console? Perhaps that the user clicks on stuff too erratically for the system to be expected to remain functional? Maybe you meant that machine wasn't crashing at all, the user was having a psychotic breakdown and mistaking it for a system reboot and data loss.
There is no such damned thing as an "unstable user." Unless the user is going out of his way to install unsigned drivers custom designed to let him play around in kernel memory space, or literally kicking the electronic components that make up the system, any system crash is a bug in the operating system, not user error.
Because one of the "good guys" finally found it and reported it. The "bad guys" weren't ever going to squeal.
It'd be hard not to best the previous protocol with 50 years of advancements in technology at your disposal.
Strawman. There's a big difference between "pointless" and "easier than differential equations."
They're not even measured on the same scale. Breathing is easier than the proverbial "falling off a log." Tell me which of those activities is pointless.
I don't. He made a point about the relative difficulty of different college degrees, I don't see where you found "market" in that.
Yeah, and the guy who founded Id Software will do better than the guy who hasn't cracked a book in 10 years. If you want to compare two populations, don't grab two outliers from opposite ends of the respective distributions.
So you made a false statement and you managed to foresee that someone would correct you? You must be psychic. What are tomorrow's lottery numbers?
So you're saying an alias has some way of figuring out whether a file is the same as the file you originally specified or not? .bak and created a new one in its place? What if my logrotate script moved my old log to .0 and created a new log in its place? what if my sysadmin moved httpd.conf to httpd.conf~ before creating a new wildly different configuration? In all those situations, I'd be pretty pissed at an alias for going and digging up grandfather's old axe.
Hey, so does a symlink. It's called the damned path.
Now, there are lots of times when changing the path of a file doesn't mean to the user that it is no longer the same file, but there are lots of times when it does. What if my editor saved my old file as
I really don't care. In terms of speed optimization, there are only 3 speeds for any operation: "instant," fast and slow.
Instant, of course, doesn't refer to no passage of time, it refers to a passage of time too small for the system (in this case, the human punching buttons) to measure
If the database is in place when I want to listen to music, it doesn't really matter if it was built by Deep Blue or a TRS-80
Besides, there's no reason whatsoever that iTunes can't helpfully build the database for the iPod if it's running.
I don't dispute the legal definition, I have no idea. But logically, that makes no sense. If his employer agreed to pay him while doing it, and he agreed to do it while being payed, doesn't that make it ipso facto his job? Likewise clearly the employer is in business to create such works. They employed someone to do so.
That's not how that works. Keys are generated randomly. Knowing one doesn't tell you anything about any other, unless someone has made a very serious mistake.
Shame there's no "+1 Flamebait"
You seem to be using a rather interesting definition of "easiest." No one's ever given a machine emotions and feelings.
Well, as far as we know. Actually, no one's ever devised a meaningful way to determine whether a machine has emotions or not.
for that matter, we do a pretty lousy job in general of determining whether or not a machine has intelligence, and if so, how much. There are several metrics, all of which yield different results and none of which is widely agreed upon.
Despite the open nature of the question "What is intelligence?" people have, arguably, succeeded in making machines more intelligent. Deep Blue, Dr. Sbaitso, Cyc, the computer in Starcraft, and Dragon Naturally Speaking all exhibit "intelligence" of some sort and to some degree.
not one of them exhibits any emotion whatsoever, as far as we can tell. The creators of none of them tried to imbue them with feelings so that they could think better.
Now, I don't claim that writing the MinMax utility function which could defeat a grandmaster was easy, but it was at least easy enough that it has been accomplished. That makes it far easier than giving a machine emotions and feelings, because that's never been done.
What does it even mean to "understand?" How will you be able to tell whether or not a computer "understands?" For that matter, how can you tell with any certainty whether a human "understands" something or simply knows some facts about it?
While we're at it, explain why understanding something improves intelligence.
holy crap is that claim starting to get on my nerves. A lot of people can tell the difference between AAC 128kbps on high quality stereo equipment. There are few people who can tell the difference on a half-decent set of pc or home theater equipment. People who can tell the difference on a set of iPod headphones with even moderate environmental noise are rare as hen's teeth. And mind you, that's for the threshold of "noticeable", not "horrible".
Furthermore I absolutely don't believe you're one of the "chosen few". Whether or not that sort of "Golden Ear" princess-and-the-pea sensitivity is in fact desirable is of course a separate matter, but I think you would very much like to believe you have it. I claim that the artifacts that are ruining your listening experience aren't in the audio playback, they're in your head.
If you want to carry around all your music in lossless format, go ahead. Those gigabytes are yours to do with what you please, and "I want to" is a perfectly good reason. But this particular fetish of yours is no reason to drag out the old "lossless is great and anyone content with lossy compression is deaf or stupid or both" canard.