how do you figure? It had learned to figure out if it was sunny, but in field tests, the sunniness and the presense of tanks had no correlation, so it failed at the tank ID
It's hard to defend morally, and it's hard to stomache, but forcing people out from the yoke of a tyrant doesn't work - the best you can do is convince them that they want to get out from under that yoke.
Almost (I say almost because I'm sure somebody will have a counter-example, but I can't think of any) every stable democracy resulted from an internal revolution. There may have been external pressures, but very rarely did the outsiders incite or run the revolution. (Lafayette, of course, trained American revolutionaries, but only after they asked.)
Until the majority of them want it enough to fight for it, forcing it upon them usually doesn't work - people are comfortable where they are.
I'm not really sure how "Learning 'rock, scissor, human'" became tantamount to "machines can spontaneously flow with free will and kill us all?"
It's just a statement about AI, that's why it's insightful - lots of AI systems have historically learned the wrong thing, though we thought they had got it right. Like the neural net designed to distinguish between camouflaged tanks among trees, and tank-free forests. It seemed to work, until it was in field tests - turns out the pictures w/ tanks were all taken on cloudy days (or maybe all taken on sunny days) - the system had figured out how to tell if it was sunny or not.
Have you ever actually been in a place where people have set up multiple wireless APs? 9/10 have no encryption, default passwd, default SSID and no MAC filtering, so what they "should" be using is pretty much immaterial.
Moreover, when you're sitting in an apartment and using it often, WEP security will last you at most a week, and maybe only a few minutes - it's really quite weak.
Finally, who does cdredit card or sensitive communications over an unencrypted channel, even when wired? Maybe his neighbors, but even most general public seem to know that credit cards, at least, should be used over SSL. In other words, he needn't worry about people trying to get his passwords and credit cards, as long as he's not stupid about where he enters them.
How did this become a top-level post? I mean, the news part is interesting, but teh editorializing is... not.
a.) Talking about dual core as if it was not already introduced, and people don't already know what it is. b.) I'm pretty sure most of the/. crowd are aware that two processor cores only help if you're running two threads/processes. c.) Who isn't running at least two processes these days? Are there really people still running DOS today?
I didn't. But unless I had checked various boards, there would be no way for me to *know* that there were problems with 2.6.8. And if I had been tracking kernel-image-2.6 in debian, I would have updated automagically. All I'm calling for is an easy way to differentiate untested and tested kernels.
Yeah, we see how well that worked out with 2.6.8's CD burning.
Not that I agree with the grandparent, but it ticks me off that there's no 2.7 branch, and i mean like awful. I'm all for developing the stable branch, but to your average user (like me!), you'd rather know your kernel is going to work.
How about instead of 2.7 being the groundwork for 2.8, why don't we put changes into 2.7, let the early adopters and kernel hackers use it, and when we find bugs like the Cd-burning problem, we can fix them before we release into 2.6
If you're supplying the source then it's not commercial dipshit.
Well, that's blatantly not true, since many companies sell the source to their product along with the product (or separately).
However, taking it in the spirit it was meant - that is, if you supply the source under the GPL, it cannot be commercial. This is also not true - it's just hard not to find competition. A lot of people, perfectly legally, sell GPL'd software - the only reason it's a problem is that unlike most software, you're implicitly giving your end user the right to redistribute. Except: you don't have to give them the right to redistribute the executable - you must give them the right to at their option access the source code, compile, it and redistribute their own binary, but that's less than convenient for the majority of people, particularly if the software is cheap.
In fact, the GPL has specific clauses that only apply to non-commercial applications of the license, implicitly allowing for the fact that it can be used in commercial settings.
I actually got the disstinction between expensive engagement diamonds and industrial dust - it's just that sometimes, one has to feign ignorance to make a bad joke.
There are lots of things that are difficult, if not impossible (some would say all things) to prevent the reverse engineering of.
A lot of time and effort is expended in the development of patentable inventions, and if somebody wants to benefit from it, why stop them?
It's true that the patent system in the short term stifles innovation, and certainly slows innovation down in a direct sense. On the other hand, it gives financial incentive to do the inventing in the first place. (I know other incentives exist, but unless there's financial, most people can't afford to invent full time.) Additionally, the design of anything that's patented must be fully disclosed and on the public record, meaning that there is no secrecy involved on the part of the inventor, allowing others to improve the design, even while the patent is still valid, and license the improvement to the original inventor, license the rights to sell the original invention with the improvement, or to wait for the expiration of the first patent and then sell their improvement.
The difficulty in the patent system is not inherent, though certainly, one can admire men like Benjamin Franklin who did not patent his inventions. The problem with the patent system is that often inventions that should be considered "obvious", and therefore exempt from being patented, are not, and are patented. Of course, these can be contested, but it's arduous, and hardly worth the time against a megacorp.
Unfortunately, the resources do not exist for true experts to check every patent application thoroughly.
(My) Conclusion: the patent system is not inherently bad, it just has problems of Pragmatism.
It may surprise you to know that outside the US, many countries teach relatively advanced science, including physics, in what we call elementary school. (By relatively advanced, I mean they may know that the vertical position of a projectile t seconds after launch is y0+v0*t-(10 m/s/s)*t^2 though who knows - depending on the country, they may know a good deal more than that.)
For that matter, we do learn cheesy physics that young even here, but it tends to be in a very pop, sound-bitey way. For example, "electricity follows the past of least resistance" or Feynman's example of "energy makes it go!" neither of which are strictly true, but sound nicer than the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
Revolution != revolutionary war
n-time pads, then?
With n approaching infinity.
I can't tell if you're being snide or not - I don't really understand what you mean. Who's arrogant, and when did anyone say something was good?
how do you figure? It had learned to figure out if it was sunny, but in field tests, the sunniness and the presense of tanks had no correlation, so it failed at the tank ID
It's hard to defend morally, and it's hard to stomache, but forcing people out from the yoke of a tyrant doesn't work - the best you can do is convince them that they want to get out from under that yoke.
Almost (I say almost because I'm sure somebody will have a counter-example, but I can't think of any) every stable democracy resulted from an internal revolution. There may have been external pressures, but very rarely did the outsiders incite or run the revolution. (Lafayette, of course, trained American revolutionaries, but only after they asked.)
Until the majority of them want it enough to fight for it, forcing it upon them usually doesn't work - people are comfortable where they are.
it leaves the actually issue totally undressed
The issue screams: "Get out of here! I'm changing!"
I'm not really sure why you used an adverb...
I'm not really sure how "Learning 'rock, scissor, human'" became tantamount to "machines can spontaneously flow with free will and kill us all?"
It's just a statement about AI, that's why it's insightful - lots of AI systems have historically learned the wrong thing, though we thought they had got it right. Like the neural net designed to distinguish between camouflaged tanks among trees, and tank-free forests. It seemed to work, until it was in field tests - turns out the pictures w/ tanks were all taken on cloudy days (or maybe all taken on sunny days) - the system had figured out how to tell if it was sunny or not.
Wow - do you work for Best Buy?
Have you ever actually been in a place where people have set up multiple wireless APs? 9/10 have no encryption, default passwd, default SSID and no MAC filtering, so what they "should" be using is pretty much immaterial.
Moreover, when you're sitting in an apartment and using it often, WEP security will last you at most a week, and maybe only a few minutes - it's really quite weak.
Finally, who does cdredit card or sensitive communications over an unencrypted channel, even when wired? Maybe his neighbors, but even most general public seem to know that credit cards, at least, should be used over SSL. In other words, he needn't worry about people trying to get his passwords and credit cards, as long as he's not stupid about where he enters them.
How did this become a top-level post? I mean, the news part is interesting, but teh editorializing is... not.
/. crowd are aware that two processor cores only help if you're running two threads/processes.
a.) Talking about dual core as if it was not already introduced, and people don't already know what it is.
b.) I'm pretty sure most of the
c.) Who isn't running at least two processes these days? Are there really people still running DOS today?
I didn't. But unless I had checked various boards, there would be no way for me to *know* that there were problems with 2.6.8. And if I had been tracking kernel-image-2.6 in debian, I would have updated automagically. All I'm calling for is an easy way to differentiate untested and tested kernels.
Yeah, we see how well that worked out with 2.6.8's CD burning.
Not that I agree with the grandparent, but it ticks me off that there's no 2.7 branch, and i mean like awful. I'm all for developing the stable branch, but to your average user (like me!), you'd rather know your kernel is going to work.
How about instead of 2.7 being the groundwork for 2.8, why don't we put changes into 2.7, let the early adopters and kernel hackers use it, and when we find bugs like the Cd-burning problem, we can fix them before we release into 2.6
Good point I didn't think about that.
;)
Somebody mod parent up! He admitted on slashdot that somebody else was right... he should get a medal or something.
+5 reasonable, +5 rare, and +5 soft target
If you're supplying the source then it's not commercial dipshit.
Well, that's blatantly not true, since many companies sell the source to their product along with the product (or separately).
However, taking it in the spirit it was meant - that is, if you supply the source under the GPL, it cannot be commercial. This is also not true - it's just hard not to find competition. A lot of people, perfectly legally, sell GPL'd software - the only reason it's a problem is that unlike most software, you're implicitly giving your end user the right to redistribute. Except: you don't have to give them the right to redistribute the executable - you must give them the right to at their option access the source code, compile, it and redistribute their own binary, but that's less than convenient for the majority of people, particularly if the software is cheap.
In fact, the GPL has specific clauses that only apply to non-commercial applications of the license, implicitly allowing for the fact that it can be used in commercial settings.
I actually got the disstinction between expensive engagement diamonds and industrial dust - it's just that sometimes, one has to feign ignorance to make a bad joke.
I know what you mean, but maybe you should have linked an image that actually showed the test or context - after all, Shiva's a name of a Hindu god.
Does it say something about the cost of electronics when it makes it cheaper to make them out of diamond dust?
I'm trying to figure out where the parent poster said he thought they were the same?
Netscape uses the same engine as Firefox - any "platform" changes on Firefox quickly find their way into Netscape.
Opera, maybe?
There are lots of things that are difficult, if not impossible (some would say all things) to prevent the reverse engineering of.
A lot of time and effort is expended in the development of patentable inventions, and if somebody wants to benefit from it, why stop them?
It's true that the patent system in the short term stifles innovation, and certainly slows innovation down in a direct sense. On the other hand, it gives financial incentive to do the inventing in the first place. (I know other incentives exist, but unless there's financial, most people can't afford to invent full time.) Additionally, the design of anything that's patented must be fully disclosed and on the public record, meaning that there is no secrecy involved on the part of the inventor, allowing others to improve the design, even while the patent is still valid, and license the improvement to the original inventor, license the rights to sell the original invention with the improvement, or to wait for the expiration of the first patent and then sell their improvement.
The difficulty in the patent system is not inherent, though certainly, one can admire men like Benjamin Franklin who did not patent his inventions. The problem with the patent system is that often inventions that should be considered "obvious", and therefore exempt from being patented, are not, and are patented. Of course, these can be contested, but it's arduous, and hardly worth the time against a megacorp.
Unfortunately, the resources do not exist for true experts to check every patent application thoroughly.
(My) Conclusion: the patent system is not inherently bad, it just has problems of Pragmatism.
What in the world is Dolby 2.0 and how does it differ from PCM stereo?
I'm also dissapointed that nobody realized that I'm an idiot, and it should be y0+v0*t-(10 m/s/s)*t^2/2
It may surprise you to know that outside the US, many countries teach relatively advanced science, including physics, in what we call elementary school. (By relatively advanced, I mean they may know that the vertical position of a projectile t seconds after launch is y0+v0*t-(10 m/s/s)*t^2 though who knows - depending on the country, they may know a good deal more than that.)
For that matter, we do learn cheesy physics that young even here, but it tends to be in a very pop, sound-bitey way. For example, "electricity follows the past of least resistance" or Feynman's example of "energy makes it go!" neither of which are strictly true, but sound nicer than the truth.
> (The amusing part about that statement is that the Russian language has no 'W' sound!)
That's actually why they'd say wessel - they don't distinguish the two sounds, and their "v" sound is between our w and v.
I'd love one.