Urban legends are very different from conspiracies. There may be certain similarities in how you go about dislodging them from people's minds, and that tendency may also affect the probability of a conspiracy being busted by a single leak.
Yes. It is aggregated data... You don't think they are really only accessing metadata do you? How cute!
Almost. The real meaning of the term is data about data. For files, it's the file name, size, extension, timestamps, and maybe the magic numbers could be called metadata (which is why I don't like magic numbers in files). For pictures, it's camera exposure settings, focus, GPS data, etc. For emails, body text is the "data", whereas email headers are "metadata". From, To, Subject, that sort of thing. You can then aggregate that to get a different kind of metadata (metametadata?), but in its un-aggregated state it's still metadata.
Clearly you've never watched it, if that's what you think! Or are all the direct attacks and the snide remarks and insinuations about the government just a smokescreen to hide the state control?
You are more than just a little retarded if you think that Japanese fishing vessels cause problems in the Atlantic ocean.
Well, I guess being ignorant is better than being retarded, but the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna is especially prized in Japanese cuisine, which accounts for about 80% of the market. I remember seeing many news stories that involve Japanese fishing fleets coming into conflict with European authorities, complaints that EU quotas were useless as they were not being applied to Japanese fishing fleets operating illegally in our waters, etc.
So don't ask a bystander to take a photo of you and your girlfriend in front of the Brandenburg Gate, because you can't post it on facebook when you come home because the bystander owns the copyright.
So how come Google is allowed to put adverts on it? Are they putting the ad revenue from that video into a jar so that they can hand it over to the trademark holders if they come asking for money?
Watching the "compilation of robots falling down" video was quite uncomfortable, because many of them reminded me of my father, who has Parkinson's Disease. I wonder if there is anything to be learned from the similarity. Probably not.
Since comptuers can only understand what they know, and not infer on new understandings, they cannot, and never will be able to, create real art.
That's an assertion ab nihilo. I could equally assert that they will be able to, and there we have a disagreement with neither of us presenting evidence to back ourselves up.
Example: A computer can recreate the Mona Lisa in a near infinite number of ways. It cannot, however, create the original Mona Lisa without there having been a Mona Lisa to create from.
Counterexample: A human can recreate the Mona Lisa in a near infinite number of ways. It cannot, however, create the original Mona Lisa without there having been a Mona Lisa to create from. See what I did there?
The same reason we tested inferior chess programs against grand masters.
I'm pretty sure that the first early attempts at chess programs were mostly tested against college or chess club players. I don't remember any "1k ZX Chess vs Kasparov" events.
It doesn't "misunderstand the turing test". It's a different test. No computer has yet passed the Turing Test, so doesn't it make sense to have other tests?
Let's assume that the Turing Test is a good test for AI. It's debatable, but let's accept the premise. We don't have good AI yet, so what is the point in testing what we have against a test for good AI? Doesn't it make sense to aim for something with a lower bar, achieve that, and then tackle the tougher problem? When I was at school, we didn't set the high jump at olympic champion levels. We set it at a level that was a stretch for us but still achievable.
I nearly cost my employer several million by fixing a bug.
The first task I was given in my new job was to look at an old system that printed labels to be put on containers of car parts. A message would come in on a serial cable saying what part was going to be needed within a few hours at a car assembly line, the parts were packed into stillages (a frame designed to hold a certain number of a certain part, like bonnets, bumpers, doors panels, etc.) and when a stillage was full, or when a certain amount of time had passed since the first part was picked, then a label was printed, applied to the stillage, and it was dispatched over the road to the factory.
Every time the serial number rolled over 9999 to 0001, the system would go wrong and stop working. This happened about once a month, and the help desk had a sheet of instructions on how to fix the problem. Some of the staff knew the fix off by heart.
I looked at the code, found a roll-over bug, and fixed it. Everything was fine, and a couple of years went by with no problems.
Then, at 3 in the morning, the help desk called me and said that it had happened again. They didn't have the sheet of paper any more, and no-one could remember how to fix it. I rubbed the sleep from my eyes, and tried to get my brain into gear and remember what to do. It took me about an hour talking with a couple of help desk people, and between us we figured out what the fix was, and they called the warehouse and talked them through it.
The next day I talked with my colleagues, and found out that we had come within a few minutes of triggering a penalty clause for halting the production line that could have run into millions of pounds. This was back in the '90s when millions of pounds were a lot of money!
I looked back over the code, and found that there were actually two very similar bugs in the code, one of which happened fairly regularly, and one which only happend much more infrequently, but the same fix worked for both of them.
Back when I first started working in IT, my boss told me, "One day, you will probably make your million pound mistake. In our business, we build systems that, over the course of our careers, will save millions of pounds in lots of small ways. Eventually you will make a mistake, and one of those systems will go wrong, and it might cost millions. Your employer will bear the cost of it, which is why we don't earn those millions ourselves. You have to be prepared for that eventuality. If it happens while you're working for me then I will kick your arse, and maybe I will fire you, but I'd be wrong to do so, that's just the nature of the business that we are in."
And they should stop all the calling. Not telephone calling, but when the TV news people "call" an election for a particular candidate. We don't have that over here in the UK, and I think we're better off for it.
That's a great way to encourage investment. This company has spent tens of millions developing this technology. Sure, that pales into nothing compared to billions, but it's still a lot of money, and denying them any return from it is ridiculous. Also, the ISS is not the USSS. If the ISSP gets some of the money from this company, then great, and they probably have already paid them a chunk of cash.
The ISS goes around the earth at something like 20 times the rate of the Earth's rotatiuon, so you couldn't really show the Earth rotating from the ISS, the natural rotation would be swamped. Someone else does that kind of thing, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Urban legends are very different from conspiracies. There may be certain similarities in how you go about dislodging them from people's minds, and that tendency may also affect the probability of a conspiracy being busted by a single leak.
http://daraint.org/climate-vul... Listing the extra lives lost who would not have died without climate change is, of course, impossible.
I'm just correcting the AC on what THC and CBD mean. I'm realy not commenting on the issue.
Cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) are different thngs. THC is psychoactive, CBD is not.
Yes. It is aggregated data... You don't think they are really only accessing metadata do you? How cute!
Almost. The real meaning of the term is data about data. For files, it's the file name, size, extension, timestamps, and maybe the magic numbers could be called metadata (which is why I don't like magic numbers in files). For pictures, it's camera exposure settings, focus, GPS data, etc. For emails, body text is the "data", whereas email headers are "metadata". From, To, Subject, that sort of thing. You can then aggregate that to get a different kind of metadata (metametadata?), but in its un-aggregated state it's still metadata.
I'm So Meta, Even This Acronym.
... state owned propagandist bbc...
Clearly you've never watched it, if that's what you think! Or are all the direct attacks and the snide remarks and insinuations about the government just a smokescreen to hide the state control?
Ascension has no indigenous population. It was first settled by the British 200 years ago.
You are more than just a little retarded if you think that Japanese fishing vessels cause problems in the Atlantic ocean.
Well, I guess being ignorant is better than being retarded, but the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna is especially prized in Japanese cuisine, which accounts for about 80% of the market. I remember seeing many news stories that involve Japanese fishing fleets coming into conflict with European authorities, complaints that EU quotas were useless as they were not being applied to Japanese fishing fleets operating illegally in our waters, etc.
I believe Nutria is due an apology.
We fired the engineers who weren't prepared to cheat, and the remaining guys cheated. It's the engineers' fault for cheating.
So don't ask a bystander to take a photo of you and your girlfriend in front of the Brandenburg Gate, because you can't post it on facebook when you come home because the bystander owns the copyright.
This is insane! What's next? Being sued by an architect for a photo of a building?
Yep.
So how come Google is allowed to put adverts on it? Are they putting the ad revenue from that video into a jar so that they can hand it over to the trademark holders if they come asking for money?
Watching the "compilation of robots falling down" video was quite uncomfortable, because many of them reminded me of my father, who has Parkinson's Disease. I wonder if there is anything to be learned from the similarity. Probably not.
Since comptuers can only understand what they know, and not infer on new understandings, they cannot, and never will be able to, create real art.
That's an assertion ab nihilo. I could equally assert that they will be able to, and there we have a disagreement with neither of us presenting evidence to back ourselves up.
Example: A computer can recreate the Mona Lisa in a near infinite number of ways. It cannot, however, create the original Mona Lisa without there having been a Mona Lisa to create from.
Counterexample: A human can recreate the Mona Lisa in a near infinite number of ways. It cannot, however, create the original Mona Lisa without there having been a Mona Lisa to create from.
See what I did there?
The same reason we tested inferior chess programs against grand masters.
I'm pretty sure that the first early attempts at chess programs were mostly tested against college or chess club players. I don't remember any "1k ZX Chess vs Kasparov" events.
It doesn't "misunderstand the turing test". It's a different test. No computer has yet passed the Turing Test, so doesn't it make sense to have other tests?
Let's assume that the Turing Test is a good test for AI. It's debatable, but let's accept the premise. We don't have good AI yet, so what is the point in testing what we have against a test for good AI? Doesn't it make sense to aim for something with a lower bar, achieve that, and then tackle the tougher problem? When I was at school, we didn't set the high jump at olympic champion levels. We set it at a level that was a stretch for us but still achievable.
I nearly cost my employer several million by fixing a bug.
The first task I was given in my new job was to look at an old system that printed labels to be put on containers of car parts. A message would come in on a serial cable saying what part was going to be needed within a few hours at a car assembly line, the parts were packed into stillages (a frame designed to hold a certain number of a certain part, like bonnets, bumpers, doors panels, etc.) and when a stillage was full, or when a certain amount of time had passed since the first part was picked, then a label was printed, applied to the stillage, and it was dispatched over the road to the factory.
Every time the serial number rolled over 9999 to 0001, the system would go wrong and stop working. This happened about once a month, and the help desk had a sheet of instructions on how to fix the problem. Some of the staff knew the fix off by heart.
I looked at the code, found a roll-over bug, and fixed it. Everything was fine, and a couple of years went by with no problems.
Then, at 3 in the morning, the help desk called me and said that it had happened again. They didn't have the sheet of paper any more, and no-one could remember how to fix it. I rubbed the sleep from my eyes, and tried to get my brain into gear and remember what to do. It took me about an hour talking with a couple of help desk people, and between us we figured out what the fix was, and they called the warehouse and talked them through it.
The next day I talked with my colleagues, and found out that we had come within a few minutes of triggering a penalty clause for halting the production line that could have run into millions of pounds. This was back in the '90s when millions of pounds were a lot of money!
I looked back over the code, and found that there were actually two very similar bugs in the code, one of which happened fairly regularly, and one which only happend much more infrequently, but the same fix worked for both of them.
Back when I first started working in IT, my boss told me, "One day, you will probably make your million pound mistake. In our business, we build systems that, over the course of our careers, will save millions of pounds in lots of small ways. Eventually you will make a mistake, and one of those systems will go wrong, and it might cost millions. Your employer will bear the cost of it, which is why we don't earn those millions ourselves. You have to be prepared for that eventuality. If it happens while you're working for me then I will kick your arse, and maybe I will fire you, but I'd be wrong to do so, that's just the nature of the business that we are in."
A judge. They's what the word means. They make judgements, it's their job.
or the show's off.
And they should stop all the calling. Not telephone calling, but when the TV news people "call" an election for a particular candidate. We don't have that over here in the UK, and I think we're better off for it.
That's a great way to encourage investment. This company has spent tens of millions developing this technology. Sure, that pales into nothing compared to billions, but it's still a lot of money, and denying them any return from it is ridiculous. Also, the ISS is not the USSS. If the ISSP gets some of the money from this company, then great, and they probably have already paid them a chunk of cash.
...and this.
The ISS goes around the earth at something like 20 times the rate of the Earth's rotatiuon, so you couldn't really show the Earth rotating from the ISS, the natural rotation would be swamped. Someone else does that kind of thing, anyway.
You can particularly see it in the shape of the London Eye, the big wheel at the top of the London video.
Too lazy, didn't run. What's the conclusion? Does this mean that nuclear power is awesome or awful?