How would cryptanalysists be helpful here? You did read the article, right? About a way of making it impossible to tap communications without it being detectable immediately at the endpoints? Since the topic of the article has nothing do with encryption, I fail to see how having crypanalysists "pound" on it for years will help expose any problems...
I would be very surprised if the term "MP3 player" remains in use if they become terribly popular. It's only a term "everyone uses" as long as "everyone" is a small subset of the population. If a substantial majority of ordinary people start using them, the first shorter, easier, catchier alternative to come along will become the de facto standard name for them.
Is "podcast" trademarked? If not, then your analogy is rather poor, since that's the main reason for the push not to call photocopies "Xeroxes", inline skates "Rollorblades", etc.
Well, actually, we can create intelligences easily. Give me a willing lady and nine months and we'll get you one.
So the fact that humans can create intelligent things is a given. When we talk about AI, however, I'm assuming we're talking about a more interesting proposition: can we make computers intelligent. That is far from certain. Our brains operate very differently from digital systems. We don't know enough about how it all works to even know whether making intelligent computers is possible even in principle.
The fact that we have brains that work proves that intelligent systems can be created, but it tells us nothing about whether AI is possible in any respect other than simply creating brains that work exactly like ours do down to the atomic level, which, as I pointed out at the beginning, we've been able to do since prehistoric times.
There is nothing in science or engineering that places a insurmountable barrier to eventually producing a Turing Test passing AI. Not like there is for FTL travel.
Again, that's an interesting article of faith you have there, but it's nothing more than pure faith. Before Einstein, there was still an insurmountable barrier to producing FTL rockets, we just didn't know it because we didn't understand physics well enough. We currently don't understand the mind terribly well. There may or may not be an insurmountable barrier. To claim to know there either is or isn't one is to express an article of faith.
Not to mention, bandwidth cost is independent of the popularity of the data, it's merely dependent on the number of bytes. Shorter songs should cost less, not less popular ones.
As long as I can still get MPR, I couldn't care less what happens to the rest of the spectrum.
Perhaps the future of radio lies in the subscriber model anyhow, even broadcast radio. Broadcast to everyone, and at least a portion of those who listen will be willing to pay to support it, just to make sure it stays on the air.
Honestly, I don't think most current iPod customers, at least of the video-capable 5G iPods, are that concerned about it. Someone plunking down $400 on an MP3 player isn't exactly a penny-pincher. If higher resolutions are available later but additional purchases are required, so be it. If I want it, I'll pay for it. If I have to pay for it twice because I want it now and want it better then, I'll do so. It's not like I can't afford it. If cost were an issue, I'd have purchased a much cheaper player to begin with. It's a $1.99, for crying out loud. I pay more than that for a cup of coffee, not to mention a video rental for just a few days. If I have to do it twice when new, better versions are available, I'll do it twice. Gladly, for the improved quality and to support the service that is providing it to me.
Yes, that is precisely the correct attitude for war. It is precisely the incorrect attitude for court. The whole idea of a court system is to ennoble man by removing the whole dirty fighting thing.
This comment highlights the need for a <humor> tag. It's quite funny, but one is left wondering whether the original author intended it to be or not.;)
Indeed. The real catch is, oxygen tends to get consumed by other common geological and chemical processes. If all life on Earth died today, oxygen would become a trace element in the Earth's atmosphere within a few thousand years (i.e. practically instantaneously on a geological timescale). Whatever process was generating atmospheric O2 would have to be doing it currently and continuously and on a massive scale. Although alternatives are not impossible, so far, there is only one process in nature known to do fit this bill: life. Occam's Razor would suggest if such an atmosphere were discovered, this would be the best assumption to make, rather than proposing new entites (in this case, new, unprecedented plant-wide processes -- of course, astronomy books are full of a history of unprecedented discoveries).
Of course, we'd have more to go on than just O2. Life turns the whole atmosphere topsy-turvy, probability wise. Earth's atmosphere has numerous chemicals in it at levels that are wildly improbable for a world dominated by inorganic processes. If there are other worlds rich in life, the improbable O2 level would just be the tip of the iceberg. A truly living world should be pretty easy to identify with a spectroscope...
1%?! No. We frequently find gas giants many times larger than Jupiter that are in no danger of becoming stars. Jupiter would have needed to be about 80 times larger than it is to initiate fusion.
Showing that things are not random can show causality.
Actually, nothing can show causality. It is always infered from insufficient evidence. The trick is to always keep your leaps of faith as small as possible...
3) Servers should be able to withstand the/. this time... You brought JPL to it's knees last time.
Cool. Just to be nice, though, I'd encourage all/. users to do what I'm doing -- leaving my BitTorrent client running all day (even though I should be done downloading in 43 minutes according to the estimate).
A skill based game would be a game where it requires more thought that simply clicking on the enemy to attack.
That sounds like GuildWars, alright...
At least make you AIM the arrows or something. Then a skilled player could outshoot an unskilled player.
Not that, however. GuildWars rewards skill as in strategy and tactics, ala Chess or (perhaps more appropriately) Magic: the Gathering (indeed, there's two different levels of skill, constructing your deck or build, carefully choosing what to bring and what to leave out, and then the skill of actually playing it correctly, knowing how to best use the cards/skills you have). It's not a game that rewards hand-eye coordination, that's not the kind of "skill" this game requires.
I can buy into the idea that these are 'real' quotes from these kids by the way... but not ALL they had to say - they just seem to have prompted and kept a few of the choice statements, imo.
You mean exactly how reports do it almost any time they interview anyone? Hmmm. Maybe...
Then there's the Adventure crack about ducks. Clearly ripped from Homestar Runner.
Err, how young are you? Cracks about the "ducks" in Adventure predate Homestar Runner by a couple of decades...
In fact, it amazes me that (AFAIK) none of the megacorps has yet tried to assimilate AnyGPL'd code on the basis that the licence under which it was distributed was GPL version 19,754, as defined by MegaCorp, Inc., and they therefore have full rights (and no-one else has any).
Most likely, their lawyers have a better understanding of the law than you do.
If you're going to invoke a myth, you should at least get the right one. The particular urban legend you're referencing is about a WWI battle near the Falkland Islands, not something that occured during the Falkland War, and it's about artilary sights, not missles.
Slashdot Mirror
How would cryptanalysists be helpful here? You did read the article, right? About a way of making it impossible to tap communications without it being detectable immediately at the endpoints? Since the topic of the article has nothing do with encryption, I fail to see how having crypanalysists "pound" on it for years will help expose any problems...
I would be very surprised if the term "MP3 player" remains in use if they become terribly popular. It's only a term "everyone uses" as long as "everyone" is a small subset of the population. If a substantial majority of ordinary people start using them, the first shorter, easier, catchier alternative to come along will become the de facto standard name for them.
Is "podcast" trademarked? If not, then your analogy is rather poor, since that's the main reason for the push not to call photocopies "Xeroxes", inline skates "Rollorblades", etc.
So the fact that humans can create intelligent things is a given. When we talk about AI, however, I'm assuming we're talking about a more interesting proposition: can we make computers intelligent. That is far from certain. Our brains operate very differently from digital systems. We don't know enough about how it all works to even know whether making intelligent computers is possible even in principle.
The fact that we have brains that work proves that intelligent systems can be created, but it tells us nothing about whether AI is possible in any respect other than simply creating brains that work exactly like ours do down to the atomic level, which, as I pointed out at the beginning, we've been able to do since prehistoric times.
There is nothing in science or engineering that places a insurmountable barrier to eventually producing a Turing Test passing AI. Not like there is for FTL travel.
Again, that's an interesting article of faith you have there, but it's nothing more than pure faith. Before Einstein, there was still an insurmountable barrier to producing FTL rockets, we just didn't know it because we didn't understand physics well enough. We currently don't understand the mind terribly well. There may or may not be an insurmountable barrier. To claim to know there either is or isn't one is to express an article of faith.
Not to mention, bandwidth cost is independent of the popularity of the data, it's merely dependent on the number of bytes. Shorter songs should cost less, not less popular ones.
Don't give them any ideas!
As long as I can still get MPR, I couldn't care less what happens to the rest of the spectrum. Perhaps the future of radio lies in the subscriber model anyhow, even broadcast radio. Broadcast to everyone, and at least a portion of those who listen will be willing to pay to support it, just to make sure it stays on the air.
But it's much more fun to complain about government than it is to engage in it!
Honestly, I don't think most current iPod customers, at least of the video-capable 5G iPods, are that concerned about it. Someone plunking down $400 on an MP3 player isn't exactly a penny-pincher. If higher resolutions are available later but additional purchases are required, so be it. If I want it, I'll pay for it. If I have to pay for it twice because I want it now and want it better then, I'll do so. It's not like I can't afford it. If cost were an issue, I'd have purchased a much cheaper player to begin with. It's a $1.99, for crying out loud. I pay more than that for a cup of coffee, not to mention a video rental for just a few days. If I have to do it twice when new, better versions are available, I'll do it twice. Gladly, for the improved quality and to support the service that is providing it to me.
This comment highlights the need for a <humor> tag. It's quite funny, but one is left wondering whether the original author intended it to be or not. ;)
That's an interesting article of faith, but not one universally agreed upon, and certainly very far away from being scientifically justified...
Indeed. The real catch is, oxygen tends to get consumed by other common geological and chemical processes. If all life on Earth died today, oxygen would become a trace element in the Earth's atmosphere within a few thousand years (i.e. practically instantaneously on a geological timescale). Whatever process was generating atmospheric O2 would have to be doing it currently and continuously and on a massive scale. Although alternatives are not impossible, so far, there is only one process in nature known to do fit this bill: life. Occam's Razor would suggest if such an atmosphere were discovered, this would be the best assumption to make, rather than proposing new entites (in this case, new, unprecedented plant-wide processes -- of course, astronomy books are full of a history of unprecedented discoveries).
Of course, we'd have more to go on than just O2. Life turns the whole atmosphere topsy-turvy, probability wise. Earth's atmosphere has numerous chemicals in it at levels that are wildly improbable for a world dominated by inorganic processes. If there are other worlds rich in life, the improbable O2 level would just be the tip of the iceberg. A truly living world should be pretty easy to identify with a spectroscope...
1%?! No. We frequently find gas giants many times larger than Jupiter that are in no danger of becoming stars. Jupiter would have needed to be about 80 times larger than it is to initiate fusion.
If you want to get really technical, planets emit light too, they just do it in really really small amounts, and in the infrared...
Actually, nothing can show causality. It is always infered from insufficient evidence. The trick is to always keep your leaps of faith as small as possible...
Indeed, there are places that I reeeally don't want to spill hot coffee.
Technically, though, that's more of an injury than an illness...
Cool. Just to be nice, though, I'd encourage all /. users to do what I'm doing -- leaving my BitTorrent client running all day (even though I should be done downloading in 43 minutes according to the estimate).
That sounds like GuildWars, alright...
At least make you AIM the arrows or something. Then a skilled player could outshoot an unskilled player.
Not that, however. GuildWars rewards skill as in strategy and tactics, ala Chess or (perhaps more appropriately) Magic: the Gathering (indeed, there's two different levels of skill, constructing your deck or build, carefully choosing what to bring and what to leave out, and then the skill of actually playing it correctly, knowing how to best use the cards/skills you have). It's not a game that rewards hand-eye coordination, that's not the kind of "skill" this game requires.
Ahem...
You mean exactly how reports do it almost any time they interview anyone? Hmmm. Maybe...
Then there's the Adventure crack about ducks. Clearly ripped from Homestar Runner. Err, how young are you? Cracks about the "ducks" in Adventure predate Homestar Runner by a couple of decades...
"Nuts." -- Gen. McAuliffe
I've had the same sort of virtual host problems with PHP, except under Apache 1.3.
Most likely, their lawyers have a better understanding of the law than you do.
Click here for more info.