This is a good point. The ex-Intel guy finally won his court case, arguing more or less that exact point. Intel were trying to stop him sending email to their employees.
According to your definition (no fake headers), I have no real problem with it, nor should spammers have any problem with anti-spam measures (there are some braindead cases of spammers trying to sue anti-spammers).
And I don't really care about using open relays. They should not exist, but if they do, people will use them.
However, I do have a problem with spammers brute-forcing my email address, which has happened. This cannot be construed as publishing an email address. It's like war-dialing for unlisted telephone numbers.
If I publish an email address, I expect to get contacted. Not much that I can do about that.
This is the only sane argument about this. Laws or court cases against deep linking are moronic. It is a public network. You have advertised an address, and you knew what that meant when you did it.
You are not being co-erced into putting content on the network, and the consequences of putting up content are obvious to all.
Perhaps only RSA uses prime numbers, but the problem of solving the factorisation of large numbers can be shown to be the equivilent of the Discrete Logarithm Problem, and is a issue for many other cryptosystems as well.
Actually, this is not quite true... if you can solve the discret log prob, then you can factor, but the reverse has not shown to be true.
Why are those sons of bitches in redmond so phenomenonaly successful then? Cos they are lazy fucks? I seriously doubt it.
They get the job done, good enough to please most people. Then they leverage that into the next market, and repeat the cycle.
Windows is bloatware cos it doesn't matter. Better to have the features now, and slowish, than in the never never land.
'Release early, Release often' is the mantra from that twat ESR's (*) 'cathedral and the bazaaar' thingy. Ha fucking ha ha. As if Redmond never did that...
* By God, he is a dickhead. Check this for example on his insane 'predictions' for W2k.
... because I would love it to be true, but it is impossible to tell from his bizarre logic.
It is about as definitive and factual as the average conspiracy theory.
Ummm... windows XP is not a server platform. He ignores people who install windows over linux (lots, actually), and most of his article is pure speculation.
It's also impossible to tell what he is talking about. Are the developers he mentions developing enterprise apps (seems likely), or desktop apps?
Petrely seems confused as to what he is going on about. If he is saying that linux on servers is big, and, surprise, surprise, developers are planning to support it, then why is this remotely interesting? Everyone knows this.
The desktop is the next battleground, and it is far from clear how that is going to pan out.
Carnival Booth: An Algorithm for Defeating the Computer-Assisted Passenger Screening System by Samidh Chakrabarti and Aaron Strauss.
To improve the efficiency of airport security screening, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) deployed the Computer Assisted Passenger Screening system (CAPS) in 1999. CAPS attempts to identify potential terrorists through the use of profiles so that security personnel can focus the bulk of their attention on high-risk individuals. In this paper, we show that since CAPS uses profiles to select passengers for increased scrutiny, it is actually less secure than systems that employ random searches. In particular, we present an algorithm called Carnival Booth that demonstrates how a terrorist cell can defeat the CAPS system. Using a combination of statistical analysis and computer simulation, we evaluate the efficacy of Carnival Booth and illustrate that CAPS is an ineffective security measure. Based on these findings, we argue that CAPS should not be legally permissible since it does not satisfy court-interpreted exemptions to the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment. Finally, based both on our analysis of CAPS and historical case studies, we provide policy recommendations on how to improve air security."
This is not what you said originally, and that is what I responded to.
In your original post you said, and I quote again: "Obviously they know which 5 are human". This is incorrect. They do not know "which 5 are human". The interrogator has no knowledge of what is in the other room.
The interrogator should never know how many agents are participating in the test, or any details regarding them. They have to infer all details from their questions.
In Turing's example, you are correct. However, how much validity do we give the 'test' in the case where the interrogator cannot guess the human? In the worst case, when the interrogator never gets it right, that is, never guesses the human, a computer passing the 'test' says nothing very much about its intelligence.
The imitation game is instructive, but will never be a 'test' of intelligence. Passing the 'test' may say more about the interrogator than the machine.
Happy to carry on further discussion via email, if you so desire.
Ummm... man, you got it sooooooo wrong. This is not how the imitation game works at all. I am going to have to quote the man himself now (includes typo's):
"Computing machinery and intelligence"; A.M. Turing; 1950
"The new form of the problem can be describe in terms of a game which we call the 'imitation game'. It is played with thre people, a man (A), a woman (B) and interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The interrogator stays in a room apart from the other two. The object of the game is for the interrogator to determin which of the other two is the man and which is the woman.
We now ask to question, 'What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?' Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman'"
Turing is a little bit unclear here, you could assume he means that the machine should pretend to be a woman, but the examples he gives show that he means that it is just to pretend to be a human.
You have NO IDEA what is in the other room; male, female, machine, human, martian... whatever...
Good to see you feeding us trolls, here at/. I hope you go well with this years contest... perhaps *here* would be a good place to run the 'imitation game'. (I hates the term 'turing test', see previous posts this and other times).
You know, as you basically make the rules ("he who pays the piper calls the tune", as they say), what about a SlashBot competition? Set it up with a topic thread, and get the slash users to pick which posts they think come from the bots...
I myself would have fun pretending to be a lamearse bot, just to add some controls to the experiment, and to test my own thesis about the game.
Think about what it means when the 'tester' gets it wrong, and guesses that it is a computer, when it is actually a human (this has happened in the Loebner).
You end up comparing two unknowns. That is, you are comparing machine-intelligence to human-intelligence, but you don't know what HI is, that is, you cannot tell even when it *is* an actual human. The 'test' is flawed.
No, if you guess that an actual human is a computer, then you have no way to tell what is going on at all. All that you can say is that you have no idea what is on the other end. The 'test' is flawed, and can never be definitive. This does not mean it is not instructive, in certain circumstances.
The 'test' is supposed, one assumes, to tell computers from humans. But, it can't tell humans from humans. That is, it cannot reliably pick humans. How can you test an unknown (is it a computer?) against another unknown (it is supposed to be a human, but I don't really know how to reliably pick them either).
Essentially, it is scientifically useless, but O!, so interesting. It's like democracy; flawed, but the best we have at the moment.
'Permutation City' is damn weird, even for Greg Egan. 'Diaspora' is amazing, however. The time-scale of the book continued to blow me away as I read it. I was having to get up and walk around the room to sort of 'cool off' and get my bearings. Not many books can do that to you.
Did you know? Dow is responsible for the birth of the modern environmental movement. In 1962, Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring about the side-effects of a Dow product, DDT, on North American bird populations. Her work created a groundswell of concern, sparking the birth of many of today's environmental action groups. Another example of Dow's commitment to Living. Improved daily.
Slashdot Mirror
that was John Opel
I believe Bill's ma was on the board of United Way with the actual president of IBM, Jim Opel.
I think this was a big deal in the culture of IBM at the time, and Bill was handled with 'kid gloves'.
He was always snogging her on some neutral planet or whatever. A bit like kirk.
This is a good point. The ex-Intel guy finally won his court case, arguing more or less that exact point. Intel were trying to stop him sending email to their employees.
According to your definition (no fake headers), I have no real problem with it, nor should spammers have any problem with anti-spam measures (there are some braindead cases of spammers trying to sue anti-spammers).
And I don't really care about using open relays. They should not exist, but if they do, people will use them.
However, I do have a problem with spammers brute-forcing my email address, which has happened. This cannot be construed as publishing an email address. It's like war-dialing for unlisted telephone numbers.
If I publish an email address, I expect to get contacted. Not much that I can do about that.
This is the only sane argument about this. Laws or court cases against deep linking are moronic. It is a public network. You have advertised an address, and you knew what that meant when you did it.
You are not being co-erced into putting content on the network, and the consequences of putting up content are obvious to all.
She was on the board of United Way with the president of IBM.
There is no proof that she got him the deal, but I think ppl treated Bill with kid gloves around IBM because of the connection.
Perhaps only RSA uses prime numbers, but the problem of solving the factorisation of large numbers can be shown to be the equivilent of the Discrete Logarithm Problem, and is a issue for many other cryptosystems as well.
... if you can solve the discret log prob, then you can factor, but the reverse has not shown to be true.
Actually, this is not quite true
cf Applied Cryptography, Schneier, p262.
Why are those sons of bitches in redmond so phenomenonaly successful then? Cos they are lazy fucks? I seriously doubt it.
...
They get the job done, good enough to please most people. Then they leverage that into the next market, and repeat the cycle.
Windows is bloatware cos it doesn't matter. Better to have the features now, and slowish, than in the never never land.
'Release early, Release often' is the mantra from that twat ESR's (*) 'cathedral and the bazaaar' thingy. Ha fucking ha ha. As if Redmond never did that
* By God, he is a dickhead. Check this for example on his insane 'predictions' for W2k.
Copyleft is more like judo or aikido ... it uses the force of copyright against itself. That is, it relies totally on copyright to have legal force.
...
It's why you should snicker when you here comments like 'the GPL has never been tested in court'. Ha ha
It has been tested in court since copyright began.
... because I would love it to be true, but it is impossible to tell from his bizarre logic.
... windows XP is not a server platform. He ignores people who install windows over linux (lots, actually), and most of his article is pure speculation.
It is about as definitive and factual as the average conspiracy theory.
Ummm
It's also impossible to tell what he is talking about. Are the developers he mentions developing enterprise apps (seems likely), or desktop apps?
Petrely seems confused as to what he is going on about. If he is saying that linux on servers is big, and, surprise, surprise, developers are planning to support it, then why is this remotely interesting? Everyone knows this.
The desktop is the next battleground, and it is far from clear how that is going to pan out.
Because it leaks information, giving you an oracle you can test against.
b arti/
This article, http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7_10/chakra
demonstrates how:
"Abstract
Carnival Booth: An Algorithm for Defeating the Computer-Assisted Passenger Screening System by Samidh Chakrabarti and Aaron Strauss.
To improve the efficiency of airport security screening, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) deployed the Computer Assisted Passenger Screening system (CAPS) in 1999. CAPS attempts to identify potential terrorists through the use of profiles so that security personnel can focus the bulk of their attention on high-risk individuals. In this paper, we show that since CAPS uses profiles to select passengers for increased scrutiny, it is actually less secure than systems that employ random searches. In particular, we present an algorithm called Carnival Booth that demonstrates how a terrorist cell can defeat the CAPS system. Using a combination of statistical analysis and computer simulation, we evaluate the efficacy of Carnival Booth and illustrate that CAPS is an ineffective security measure. Based on these findings, we argue that CAPS should not be legally permissible since it does not satisfy court-interpreted exemptions to the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment. Finally, based both on our analysis of CAPS and historical case studies, we provide policy recommendations on how to improve air security."
This is not what you said originally, and that is what I responded to.
In your original post you said, and I quote again: "Obviously they know which 5 are human". This is incorrect. They do not know "which 5 are human". The interrogator has no knowledge of what is in the other room.
The interrogator should never know how many agents are participating in the test, or any details regarding them. They have to infer all details from their questions.
In Turing's example, you are correct. However, how much validity do we give the 'test' in the case where the interrogator cannot guess the human? In the worst case, when the interrogator never gets it right, that is, never guesses the human, a computer passing the 'test' says nothing very much about its intelligence.
The imitation game is instructive, but will never be a 'test' of intelligence. Passing the 'test' may say more about the interrogator than the machine.
Happy to carry on further discussion via email, if you so desire.
Obviously they know which 5 are human.
... man, you got it sooooooo wrong. This is not how the imitation game works at all. I am going to have to quote the man himself now (includes typo's):
... whatever ...
Ummm
"Computing machinery and intelligence"; A.M. Turing; 1950
"The new form of the problem can be describe in terms of a game which we call the 'imitation game'. It is played with thre people, a man (A), a woman (B) and interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The interrogator stays in a room apart from the other two. The object of the game is for the interrogator to determin which of the other two is the man and which is the woman.
We now ask to question, 'What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?' Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman'"
Turing is a little bit unclear here, you could assume he means that the machine should pretend to be a woman, but the examples he gives show that he means that it is just to pretend to be a human.
You have NO IDEA what is in the other room; male, female, machine, human, martian
Mr Loebner,
/. I hope you go well with this years contest ... perhaps *here* would be a good place to run the 'imitation game'. (I hates the term 'turing test', see previous posts this and other times).
...
Good to see you feeding us trolls, here at
You know, as you basically make the rules ("he who pays the piper calls the tune", as they say), what about a SlashBot competition? Set it up with a topic thread, and get the slash users to pick which posts they think come from the bots
I myself would have fun pretending to be a lamearse bot, just to add some controls to the experiment, and to test my own thesis about the game.
The problem is that the 'test' has no 'knowns'.
Think about what it means when the 'tester' gets it wrong, and guesses that it is a computer, when it is actually a human (this has happened in the Loebner).
You end up comparing two unknowns. That is, you are comparing machine-intelligence to human-intelligence, but you don't know what HI is, that is, you cannot tell even when it *is* an actual human. The 'test' is flawed.
No, if you guess that an actual human is a computer, then you have no way to tell what is going on at all. All that you can say is that you have no idea what is on the other end. The 'test' is flawed, and can never be definitive. This does not mean it is not instructive, in certain circumstances.
The 'test' is supposed, one assumes, to tell computers from humans. But, it can't tell humans from humans. That is, it cannot reliably pick humans. How can you test an unknown (is it a computer?) against another unknown (it is supposed to be a human, but I don't really know how to reliably pick them either).
Essentially, it is scientifically useless, but O!, so interesting. It's like democracy; flawed, but the best we have at the moment.
You post is marked "Score:5 Funny", but I would mark it "Insightful".
That testers can believe that humans are computers is why it will never be a 'test'. Turing himself only ever called it the 'Imitation Game'.
If there is no way to tell humans from computers, how can you ever tell the computers from the humans?
We likes the 'turing test' not because it is scientific, but because, like intelligence itself, it is ill defined and imperfect.
I love the Loebner quote: "My reaction to intelligence is the same as my reaction to pornography, I can't define it but I like it when I see it."
Well, I found it:
http://www.chessbase.com/games/2003/x3d1.htm
A quite few of the chess guys I know play Go. Mainly for a change. And they are pretty good.
The guy that taught me Go is basically a drunk in Fremantle, but was once an IM in chess. I can't beat him at either game.
Anyone know where I can get the game, sans browser plugin etc. You know, in good old ascii?
hrrrm ...
http://www.boat-people.org
'Permutation City' is damn weird, even for Greg Egan. 'Diaspora' is amazing, however. The time-scale of the book continued to blow me away as I read it. I was having to get up and walk around the room to sort of 'cool off' and get my bearings. Not many books can do that to you.
Btw, Greg is an all-round good guy. Check out: http:\\www.boat-people.org.
At one point, you could go to the site, and send your mailing address, and Greg would send you a 'We are all boat people' T-Shirt. I have one.
http://www.dowethics.com/r/Homepage/index.html
Did you know?
Dow is responsible for the birth of the modern environmental movement. In 1962, Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring about the side-effects of a Dow product, DDT, on North American bird populations. Her work created a groundswell of concern, sparking the birth of many of today's environmental action groups. Another example of Dow's commitment to Living. Improved daily.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2083960,00. html
Two seconds with google would have verified the veracity or otherwise of my assertation.
As it is, it appears at the time of writing that Sony's 'gaming division' accounts for more than 50% of profit.
On the pda thing however, you are right, I was thinking of the sharp Zaurus.