Decisions can be automated in the form of "Every time X happens, do Y." however somebody needs to know that Y must be done to respond to X in order for the system to be setup. It's easy to automate things like "Do this the same way every time." but some human has to solve the puzzle for the first time for that to work.
My point is, the chain of knowledge must start with a human somewhere. If computers rewrite the press release, the press release is coming from a human. Also, the right to reprocess news has to come from somewhere, you can't use an automated or human process to steal somebody else's news.
If you can do that you can automate balls and strikes and fair and foul, but you still can't automate the official scorer's determination whether the ball was "catchable" or not.
No, I'm serious. there are somethings computers can do and some they can't. You can't tell a computer to watch news come in and output a newscast.
Ananova was an automated presenter, but needed and would still need today a human-written script.
Digg isn't automated, it's crowdsourced. It relies on users to make the judgements.
Google News measures how many trustworthy media outlets are reporting the same story, but it requires human help at each of the media outlets to decide which stories they'll run and which stories they won't.
A computer can find the first paragraph for every story on the AP Wire and then post a discussion forum to go with it, but a computer can't analyze the story or write and moderate comments that are any good. AI just isn't there. yet. There's a lot to news that still requires people.
Editors like the kind on Slashdot are hard to automate. You could rely on the +/- buttons in the firehose to pick stories, butt that's not automation, that's crowdsourcing. Aditionally, you can't automate the submitters without Slashdot looking like Digg where every RSS feed that wants in participates. Automation tools can make Slashdot easier to write, but can't fully replace the man-in-the-machine concept.
Using baseball as an example, it's possible to automate the box score creation, but only if a user inputs the pitch-by-pitch scoring information for what was thrown, how the batter reacted, and where the ball went among other things.You can't make a computer make the decision whether the play was a hit by the batter or an error by the fielder yet.
Bottom line, it's totals that a computer can come up with, but the atomic facts still need to be gathered by a human.
Slashdot Mirror
Decisions can be automated in the form of "Every time X happens, do Y." however somebody needs to know that Y must be done to respond to X in order for the system to be setup. It's easy to automate things like "Do this the same way every time." but some human has to solve the puzzle for the first time for that to work.
My point is, the chain of knowledge must start with a human somewhere. If computers rewrite the press release, the press release is coming from a human. Also, the right to reprocess news has to come from somewhere, you can't use an automated or human process to steal somebody else's news.
Sometimes the security people are the terrorists, spreading threats they make up to justify their own existing.
I agree, sporting events to me are much more fun to watch on TV.
The word "administration" is a variable, not a part of the constant strings?
You can automate first post, but you can't automate first post modded to 5.
If you can do that you can automate balls and strikes and fair and foul, but you still can't automate the official scorer's determination whether the ball was "catchable" or not.
No, I'm serious. there are somethings computers can do and some they can't. You can't tell a computer to watch news come in and output a newscast. Ananova was an automated presenter, but needed and would still need today a human-written script. Digg isn't automated, it's crowdsourced. It relies on users to make the judgements. Google News measures how many trustworthy media outlets are reporting the same story, but it requires human help at each of the media outlets to decide which stories they'll run and which stories they won't.
A computer can find the first paragraph for every story on the AP Wire and then post a discussion forum to go with it, but a computer can't analyze the story or write and moderate comments that are any good. AI just isn't there. yet. There's a lot to news that still requires people.
Editors like the kind on Slashdot are hard to automate. You could rely on the +/- buttons in the firehose to pick stories, butt that's not automation, that's crowdsourcing. Aditionally, you can't automate the submitters without Slashdot looking like Digg where every RSS feed that wants in participates. Automation tools can make Slashdot easier to write, but can't fully replace the man-in-the-machine concept.
Using baseball as an example, it's possible to automate the box score creation, but only if a user inputs the pitch-by-pitch scoring information for what was thrown, how the batter reacted, and where the ball went among other things.You can't make a computer make the decision whether the play was a hit by the batter or an error by the fielder yet. Bottom line, it's totals that a computer can come up with, but the atomic facts still need to be gathered by a human.
As long as the tax isn't more than what you earn, the tax should be paid. The governments need to get money from somewhere.
Just so we can have him covered, what are some of the benefits of US Citizenship>
If Facebook makes him money, why can't he just pay the taxes and be done with it?
Nah, brains will be optimized for IPv6!
The 'net is a lot like television. Watching smart shows makes you smarted, watching dumb shows entertains you but makes you stupider.
If brains become web browsers, does that mean we'll need antivirus injections, javascript bandages, and be careful what cookies we eat?