A classmate of mine spent 45min trying to debug a crash. Eventually he added some printfs here and there but they didn't trigger. So he added more and more. Still nothing. Then he tried to understand why a "shtoopid" printf didn't work... Eventually he figured out that he never actually saved the file in those 45min, that he had kept running the same binary over and over.
They can still itemize the full price if they want to point fingers.
To use the car analogy, when you get an estimate for a repair, they don't give you a base fixed price and then tack on extra in the end for parts and labors for the final cost. The estimate is supposed to be as close to the final cost as they can make it.
So here Comcast could do the same:
Service is $50 (includes a $6.50 retransmission fee and 10% CEO wallet padding fee).
If two out of three can be wrong, why can't two out of two be wrong? If you have a fail-safe, you should always do it if even one sensor is off, regardless of the majority
But if you don't have a fail-safe, or if the fail-safe is too costly, or if the sensors are not that reliable, with 3 sensors you have more chances to make the right decision by following the two sensors that agree. With with only two sensors, you'll have to follow one of them, i.e. you have a 50-50 chance of making the wrong choice.
To those saying that if a thief steal my phone, they would then have access to my password-less Google account, I reply: Ha! My phone is locked with a password! Take that you evil guy!
I assume that was reply to my comment, not calque's? If you can't read bold as emphasis, not my problem. Or if you don't understand why I put the emphasis... well, still not my problem.... and I'll change my doctor, his advise was not very constructive.
Nobody said the learning robot shouldn't have a vetting process (which may even be one of those meatbags called "humans").
For that matter, what you're talking about is applicable today but limited to robots of the same kind. So should we disable the save/restore functionality in current robots for the sake of security because a corrupted save from an infected robot could infect another robot?
And even if it was unsafe, researching how to do it is not a bad thing in and of itself. It could still be useful in some way. If researchers had to stop researching potentially unsafe topics, we would never have cars or planes or even the wheel (imagine someone voluntarily rolling a stone wheel down a hill into an innocent passerby, ugh!)
Indeed, schwit1 seems that have missed the point article, or at least didn't really explain clearly. The point of the is not about a robot teaching a other robot. That's just a save/restore.
And as you point out, it's not about the teaching part either, i.e. not about how the information is transferred from one robot to another, that's just simple shared database and a network connection.
It's about what is transferred from any robot to any other robot, and in particular, robots of different types, with different sensors and different actuators, so that the later robot can do the same job as the former.
In other words, the problem being solved is how to store the knowledge of one kind of robot so that it can be understood by another kind.
More than that, looking at the graph, the trend for most of languages is down. So it looks like developers are fleeing to something else than programming.
Saying the valley died can be verified with enough certainty.
Saying the valley died because of climate change cannot be verified without more corroborating evidence and thus on its own, that affirmation is anecdotal.
And then when someone calls 911 because of a real hostage situation or bomb threat, then people go all up in arms because SWAT was too slow, never mind that they were only checking if the call was legit.
What's scary is how people always overreact, no matter what, and require blood if the outcome doesn't please them, even if everything was done right otherwise.
What if the movie is an independent movie with a little to no budget? They are commercial but can't always afford the copyright license? How is school play not a derivative works but a broadway show is?
The real issue here is that we just don't want rich people for profiteering from others without fair compensation while helping less fortunate people to benefit from older works. We want the "assets" (money, copyrights, patents,...) to trickle down and not up. But how do we decide who is "up" and who is "down"?
Did you read that definition of yours? "Anonymity is the penultimate of privacy" implies that anonymity is a part of privacy, that privacy is a super-set of anonymity. It is not. You can have anonymity without privacy. That's what Tor is. It ensures that nobody can know *who* is doing something. It doesn't prevent one from knowing *what* is being done. One just needs to be the exit node or sit in front of the target server (or anywhere in between those two) to know that "what". If one wants privacy, one should use an end-to-end encryption like SSL.
So yes, I reconsidered my terminology and stand by what I said.
By strict definition, TOR doesn't ensure privacy. Your connection still ends up somewhere on the regular Internet and whatever you post in Slashdot will be visible by everybody. What TOR ensures is anonymity.
Without a reboot, you have only the basic mouse functionalities. I have a left-handed DeathAdder which has the mouse buttons reversed in hardware ("left-click" is on the right button). But I'm used to left-click with my major and right click with my index so I use the software to revert it. Without the reboot, the buttons are not reversed.
And so do digital movies and 3D movies. Yet the movie industry did it. Are those two "improvements" worthier of the expense then increasing the frame rate that supposedly 90% of the population notices?
Moreover, unlike convenience stores, the movie industry isn't fighting to reduce the cost to the consumer as the trend on ticket sale price show. Quite the contrary, they are quite happy to add a gimmick and increases the price as necesary, especially if that gimmick is not available easily on TV making movies more attractive, as again the digital and 3D movies show.
If they shot at high speed and didn't add the motion blur when reducing the frame rate, then they got the same effect as in video games.
I haven't seen the studies so maybe I'm talking out of my ass but I follow the news about video games, especially the technical side and from the way people talk about frame rate, while I can believe that 50% of the people can tell the difference between 60 and 70fps in games, I don't think it's much more than that and it would have to be if 50% can tell the differences in movies that have motion blur.
I don't have links handy but they aren't terribly hard to find. Most of the population (more than 90%) can tell the difference between 24 and 48. Most (over 50%) can tell the difference on any 10fps jump (i.e. 60fps to 70 fps) up to 80 fps IIRC. Beyond that it starts to dwindle, but there's still a substantial chunk (20ish%) that can tell a 10fps difference at 120fps. By 240fps you reach the point where basically no one can tell the difference between that and anything faster, no matter how much faster (e.g. 240 vs 480 fps benefits basically no one).
We are talking about movies here, not video games. In video games, one notices the framerate because of the lack of motion blur. In movies, with the motion blur, the frame rate is a lot less noticeable. If 90% of the population could distinguish between 24 and 48 fps, the TV and movie industries would have increase that rate a long time ago.
If Bic gave you the pen for free, and included with it a bunch of their pre-designed templates for your use (plot outline, prewritten characters, whatever), your analogy would be a bit closer to the mark.
The pen comes with one pre-designed template which sets the color and line width of your text.
Slashdot Mirror
"Cake" would be another good test.
A classmate of mine spent 45min trying to debug a crash. Eventually he added some printfs here and there but they didn't trigger. So he added more and more. Still nothing. Then he tried to understand why a "shtoopid" printf didn't work... Eventually he figured out that he never actually saved the file in those 45min, that he had kept running the same binary over and over.
students will be banned from using mobile phones
...
a legal "right to disconnect"
Being forced to do something isn't a "right", unless you live in Oceania
They do have their own binary diff format. They use it to update Chrome:
https://www.chromium.org/devel...
They can still itemize the full price if they want to point fingers.
To use the car analogy, when you get an estimate for a repair, they don't give you a base fixed price and then tack on extra in the end for parts and labors for the final cost. The estimate is supposed to be as close to the final cost as they can make it.
So here Comcast could do the same:
Service is $50 (includes a $6.50 retransmission fee and 10% CEO wallet padding fee).
If two out of three can be wrong, why can't two out of two be wrong? If you have a fail-safe, you should always do it if even one sensor is off, regardless of the majority
But if you don't have a fail-safe, or if the fail-safe is too costly, or if the sensors are not that reliable, with 3 sensors you have more chances to make the right decision by following the two sensors that agree. With with only two sensors, you'll have to follow one of them, i.e. you have a 50-50 chance of making the wrong choice.
To those saying that if a thief steal my phone, they would then have access to my password-less Google account, I reply: Ha! My phone is locked with a password! Take that you evil guy!
I assume that was reply to my comment, not calque's? If you can't read bold as emphasis, not my problem. Or if you don't understand why I put the emphasis... well, still not my problem. ... and I'll change my doctor, his advise was not very constructive.
Nobody said the learning robot shouldn't have a vetting process (which may even be one of those meatbags called "humans").
For that matter, what you're talking about is applicable today but limited to robots of the same kind. So should we disable the save/restore functionality in current robots for the sake of security because a corrupted save from an infected robot could infect another robot?
And even if it was unsafe, researching how to do it is not a bad thing in and of itself. It could still be useful in some way. If researchers had to stop researching potentially unsafe topics, we would never have cars or planes or even the wheel (imagine someone voluntarily rolling a stone wheel down a hill into an innocent passerby, ugh!)
Indeed, schwit1 seems that have missed the point article, or at least didn't really explain clearly. The point of the is not about a robot teaching a other robot. That's just a save/restore.
And as you point out, it's not about the teaching part either, i.e. not about how the information is transferred from one robot to another, that's just simple shared database and a network connection.
It's about what is transferred from any robot to any other robot, and in particular, robots of different types, with different sensors and different actuators, so that the later robot can do the same job as the former.
In other words, the problem being solved is how to store the knowledge of one kind of robot so that it can be understood by another kind.
More than that, looking at the graph, the trend for most of languages is down. So it looks like developers are fleeing to something else than programming.
Saying the valley died can be verified with enough certainty.
Saying the valley died because of climate change cannot be verified without more corroborating evidence and thus on its own, that affirmation is anecdotal.
And your character can kill people with mostly impunity, how come?
We don't want a "realistic" game, there is "real life" for that! "Realistic" should only go so far as to improve the game, not hinder it.
And then when someone calls 911 because of a real hostage situation or bomb threat, then people go all up in arms because SWAT was too slow, never mind that they were only checking if the call was legit.
What's scary is how people always overreact, no matter what, and require blood if the outcome doesn't please them, even if everything was done right otherwise.
What if the movie is an independent movie with a little to no budget? They are commercial but can't always afford the copyright license? How is school play not a derivative works but a broadway show is?
The real issue here is that we just don't want rich people for profiteering from others without fair compensation while helping less fortunate people to benefit from older works. We want the "assets" (money, copyrights, patents, ...) to trickle down and not up. But how do we decide who is "up" and who is "down"?
Did you read that definition of yours? "Anonymity is the penultimate of privacy" implies that anonymity is a part of privacy, that privacy is a super-set of anonymity. It is not. You can have anonymity without privacy. That's what Tor is. It ensures that nobody can know *who* is doing something. It doesn't prevent one from knowing *what* is being done. One just needs to be the exit node or sit in front of the target server (or anywhere in between those two) to know that "what". If one wants privacy, one should use an end-to-end encryption like SSL.
So yes, I reconsidered my terminology and stand by what I said.
There is a lot of overlap between anonymity and privacy but neither is a subset of the other.
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2007/09/security_matters_0920
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/01/privacy-vs-security-vs-anonymity.html
By strict definition, TOR doesn't ensure privacy. Your connection still ends up somewhere on the regular Internet and whatever you post in Slashdot will be visible by everybody. What TOR ensures is anonymity.
How much time would one person waste reading all the EULAs (s)he has to agree to?
Without a reboot, you have only the basic mouse functionalities.
I have a left-handed DeathAdder which has the mouse buttons reversed in hardware ("left-click" is on the right button). But I'm used to left-click with my major and right click with my index so I use the software to revert it. Without the reboot, the buttons are not reversed.
And so do digital movies and 3D movies. Yet the movie industry did it. Are those two "improvements" worthier of the expense then increasing the frame rate that supposedly 90% of the population notices?
Moreover, unlike convenience stores, the movie industry isn't fighting to reduce the cost to the consumer as the trend on ticket sale price show. Quite the contrary, they are quite happy to add a gimmick and increases the price as necesary, especially if that gimmick is not available easily on TV making movies more attractive, as again the digital and 3D movies show.
If they shot at high speed and didn't add the motion blur when reducing the frame rate, then they got the same effect as in video games.
I haven't seen the studies so maybe I'm talking out of my ass but I follow the news about video games, especially the technical side and from the way people talk about frame rate, while I can believe that 50% of the people can tell the difference between 60 and 70fps in games, I don't think it's much more than that and it would have to be if 50% can tell the differences in movies that have motion blur.
I don't have links handy but they aren't terribly hard to find. Most of the population (more than 90%) can tell the difference between 24 and 48. Most (over 50%) can tell the difference on any 10fps jump (i.e. 60fps to 70 fps) up to 80 fps IIRC. Beyond that it starts to dwindle, but there's still a substantial chunk (20ish%) that can tell a 10fps difference at 120fps. By 240fps you reach the point where basically no one can tell the difference between that and anything faster, no matter how much faster (e.g. 240 vs 480 fps benefits basically no one).
We are talking about movies here, not video games. In video games, one notices the framerate because of the lack of motion blur. In movies, with the motion blur, the frame rate is a lot less noticeable. If 90% of the population could distinguish between 24 and 48 fps, the TV and movie industries would have increase that rate a long time ago.
If Bic gave you the pen for free, and included with it a bunch of their pre-designed templates for your use (plot outline, prewritten characters, whatever), your analogy would be a bit closer to the mark.
The pen comes with one pre-designed template which sets the color and line width of your text.
I hope they will pass a similar law for movies so one could hear the actors without getting deaf from the sound effects and soundtrack.