There's a selection effect - the dogs that complete training and are demonstrated to be effective at their jobs are theoretically a preferable gene pool compated to a random population or even the population initially selected for training. Even better would be to focus on those dogs that excelled at the training or completed it faster than their peers.
With cloning, the dogs are not taken out of the workforce for breeding activities. Whether cloning technology is effective enough for it to be a better option is not clear.
Clippy was Microsoft's arrogance and condescension semi-personified. I suppose infantalization is humanizing in a sense, but certainly not in a good way.
I have to agree with the skeptics. Certainly, the right software could analyse text and make some kind of assessment about the potential for deception. I have no doubt that that can be done. Some people have a good intuition about other people's honesty. I do transcription professionally and have to listen to spoken word very carefully, and I can tell that people who are lying sound a bit different from people not lying.
But it's far from a reliable measure, and it's certainly not anything I could convince someone to accept as objective proof.
And that brings us to what's really dangerous about these kinds of computer-based assessments. Does saying something is probably (but not definitely) a lie tell you anything useful? You still don't know for sure. And is that partial insight valuable enough to outweigh all the false positives that you will inevitably get? Maybe sometimes incomplete information is not better than none at all.
What's a prison term for a corporation? How about fining them their *entire* profits for the previous period corresponding to the sentence. (You have to go into the past because if it's going forward they'll just cook the books.)
I think you're mixing two notions of 'bit', and squaring versus doubling (which are the same for 2 but no other number). Eight possibilities per genetic base-pair is twice as many as four. Equivalent representation in binary is another matter, but it would be a whole other coding step.
I see a lot of unanswered questions and potential limitations, but I like that someone is thinking about dealing with climate change in terms of solutions that are feasible technologically, economically, and politically.
My guess is that this would be at best part of the solution, but it's better than believing the only possibilities are to deny the existence of the problem or to naively hope people will casually give up their standard of living.
A lot of software reach a level of being essentially feature-complete and mostly bug-free, and then could only go downhill from there. Some software was at that point in the '80s, and most of the rest reached that level in the '90s.
If you have software that 1) works, and 2) physically cannot connect to the Internet (which seems to be the only way to genuinely guarantee something is secure) then replacing it would have costs risks that outweigh the benefits.
I'm probably missing something, but did they just re-invent fourth-generation programming languages? Or maybe they're just recycling the hype, because now "AI" which no-one can even define in the first place.
But there is *no* obstacle to having the classic (i.e. productive) UI as an option. That part of it is entirely Microsoft being cruel just to demonstrate that they have the power to get away with it.
Most jobs - office jobs anyway - are not a single thing. For example, 80% might be manipulating spreadsheets and could be replaced with some Perl scripts and 20% something difficult to automate. You now need access to a Perl expert occasionally, but the day-to-day work might be reduced to the point of being done by a small number of people, and that small number might be entirely, or perhaps partly, low-skill.
That might be an extreme example, but there will be lots of possibilities and management will find the cheapest one, maybe even making compromises in terms of quality or risk management.
Automation isn't necessarily all or nothing. Automation tools might allow a team of ten experienced and expensive workers to be replaced with a team of three uneducated minimum-wage workers. Those three will still need a bit of training.
By 'automation' they mean replacing one form of labour by another which is cheaper and more compliant. To management humans and machines are all the same.
Clippy went way beyond being irritating, it was the perfect symbol of Microsoft's condescension to its customers and its prioritizing showing off fancy UI features over user productivity. (Why does Microsoft's software call my documents "My Documents"? That's the way adults talk to two-year-olds.)
The hate was and still is well-deserved. A business card with Clippy will tell me everything I need to know about a person's judgment and attitude.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a selection effect - the dogs that complete training and are demonstrated to be effective at their jobs are theoretically a preferable gene pool compated to a random population or even the population initially selected for training. Even better would be to focus on those dogs that excelled at the training or completed it faster than their peers.
With cloning, the dogs are not taken out of the workforce for breeding activities. Whether cloning technology is effective enough for it to be a better option is not clear.
Maybe not a win exactly but if it didn't make it 20 years then we could say right away we needed a new idea, so either way we learned something.
well designed
I needed a good laugh.
You say that like fascism and socialism were incompatible. Fascists never pretended they were laissez-faire capitalists.
Clippy was Microsoft's arrogance and condescension semi-personified. I suppose infantalization is humanizing in a sense, but certainly not in a good way.
I'm so conflicted. Bringing Clippy back was wrong in so many ways, but if it was just to kill it again... almost but not quite justifies it.
I have to agree with the skeptics. Certainly, the right software could analyse text and make some kind of assessment about the potential for deception. I have no doubt that that can be done. Some people have a good intuition about other people's honesty. I do transcription professionally and have to listen to spoken word very carefully, and I can tell that people who are lying sound a bit different from people not lying.
But it's far from a reliable measure, and it's certainly not anything I could convince someone to accept as objective proof.
And that brings us to what's really dangerous about these kinds of computer-based assessments. Does saying something is probably (but not definitely) a lie tell you anything useful? You still don't know for sure. And is that partial insight valuable enough to outweigh all the false positives that you will inevitably get? Maybe sometimes incomplete information is not better than none at all.
A trial was never the goal. He would have been given a military show trial if not assassinated outright.
25 virtual machines spent 121 days not analysing protein folding or cures for cancer.
It's from Google so I imagine it's as reliable as Google's search engine.
It's been proven trascendental, so no chance it's constructable.
What's a prison term for a corporation? How about fining them their *entire* profits for the previous period corresponding to the sentence. (You have to go into the past because if it's going forward they'll just cook the books.)
I think you're mixing two notions of 'bit', and squaring versus doubling (which are the same for 2 but no other number). Eight possibilities per genetic base-pair is twice as many as four. Equivalent representation in binary is another matter, but it would be a whole other coding step.
With four nucleotides, each base pair encodes 2 bits. With eight pairs, it is 3 bits each. So this is only a 50% improvement in information density.
3 bits is twice as much information as 2 bits.
I see a lot of unanswered questions and potential limitations, but I like that someone is thinking about dealing with climate change in terms of solutions that are feasible technologically, economically, and politically.
My guess is that this would be at best part of the solution, but it's better than believing the only possibilities are to deny the existence of the problem or to naively hope people will casually give up their standard of living.
A lot of software reach a level of being essentially feature-complete and mostly bug-free, and then could only go downhill from there. Some software was at that point in the '80s, and most of the rest reached that level in the '90s.
If you have software that
1) works, and
2) physically cannot connect to the Internet (which seems to be the only way to genuinely guarantee something is secure)
then replacing it would have costs risks that outweigh the benefits.
I'm probably missing something, but did they just re-invent fourth-generation programming languages? Or maybe they're just recycling the hype, because now "AI" which no-one can even define in the first place.
A distinction should be made between easy to learn and easy to use.
Not always, but a lot of the time, these are contradictory goals.
But there is *no* obstacle to having the classic (i.e. productive) UI as an option. That part of it is entirely Microsoft being cruel just to demonstrate that they have the power to get away with it.
the government's case that the merger would result in higher consumer prices was "unpersuasive."
Strictly speaking "blatantly obvious" and "persuasive" aren't the same thing. It's not technically not persuasion if you already know it.
Like a stopped clock twice a day.
Sadly not that much different from regular politicians.
Most jobs - office jobs anyway - are not a single thing. For example, 80% might be manipulating spreadsheets and could be replaced with some Perl scripts and 20% something difficult to automate. You now need access to a Perl expert occasionally, but the day-to-day work might be reduced to the point of being done by a small number of people, and that small number might be entirely, or perhaps partly, low-skill.
That might be an extreme example, but there will be lots of possibilities and management will find the cheapest one, maybe even making compromises in terms of quality or risk management.
Automation isn't necessarily all or nothing. Automation tools might allow a team of ten experienced and expensive workers to be replaced with a team of three uneducated minimum-wage workers. Those three will still need a bit of training.
By 'automation' they mean replacing one form of labour by another which is cheaper and more compliant. To management humans and machines are all the same.
After 18 years, has it become retro chic?
No. No, it has not.
Clippy went way beyond being irritating, it was the perfect symbol of Microsoft's condescension to its customers and its prioritizing showing off fancy UI features over user productivity. (Why does Microsoft's software call my documents "My Documents"? That's the way adults talk to two-year-olds.)
The hate was and still is well-deserved. A business card with Clippy will tell me everything I need to know about a person's judgment and attitude.