Oh yes, of course, they cannot attribute anything to anyone, because they are extremely stupid, and you know so much better. Luckily, hope is not yet lost, the current US comander-in-chief is constantly looking for people as brilliant as you...
Since I'm working on certain aspects of risk assessment and multi-attribute decision making under risk, could you briefly elaborate what they did and in which way their assessment was faulty? Just a rough description?
"screech", "nonsense", "magically", "enlightened dictator", "do-gooders", "always", "never", "their inability", "think shit through", "avoiding ALL personal responsibility", "Even a reasonably bright pre-teen can crok this"
What's the point of your post? Instill hatred and disagreement? Listen to yourself! Regardless of topic and political orientation, is it too much to ask to at least try to use a vocabulary that makes you sound like a reasonable person who wants to discuss the topic?
Being an old Usenet veteran, I don't claim that online discussion culture was ever very elaborate or valuable but it certainly has declined on Slashdot over the years. A lot...
You seem to merely express your personal opinion that strong AI is not possible without providing an argument or at least referring to one the bazillion existing arguments that have been discussed for decades. It's an old standpoint in a debate that's going on since the 60s. There are also plenty of people who believe that strong AI is possible.
As for the arguments pro and con, I have written articles about it, but I certainly won't bother to even address the arguments here on Slashdot. Consult your arbitrary 'philosophy of AI' compendium or website to get an overview.
ROTFL, apparently you and c6gunner are not much into news. Of course, Kim is perfectly rational. So far, he has shown no signs of delusion or irrationality at all. I wasn't attributing this analysis to NK alone at all, it's a commonplace explanation that political analysts all over the world consider realistic. The Trump administration has been looking for viable targets to bomb for quite a while now, Trump literally ordered the DoD to work out attack plans. This was reported all over the news based on credible sources and happened even before Bolton joined the team.
It's a bit similar to the situation before the Iraq war when Bush's advisers started to fabricate false evidence and spin the news to justify the war, although the reasons are different this time. The Bush administration had personal reasons, because the first Iraq war stopped short of removing Hussein. In this case, it's mainly Trump wanting to be the strong man and some in his entourage trying to prove their regime change concepts.
I'm not saying the Trump administration was literally planning a limited bombing campaign, only that it's a credible possibility and that Kim Jong Un was smart and well-informed enough to consider Trump to be capable of such an aggression.
Why? Torture is torture. People like George W.Bush, Dick Cheney and Gina Haspel should be in life-long prison for torture, yet are walking around freely. Haspel probably will become head of the CIA soon.
Also, what makes you think these assessments are new? Forgot about supporting dictators in Chile and Egypt? Napalm on children in Vietnam? Drone strikes killing entire wedding parties? Raping minors and shooting pregnant women in Iraq?
Besides, maybe in your book two wrongs make a right, but certainly not in the book of people with a moral compass. The US has been the country of double moral standards for the past 70 years.
It's the result of the way you dehumanize them in the prisons. There are plenty of examples of how to do it the right way, in Europe but also in the US. For a start, Americans could stop jokingly accepting prison rape as a means of punishment....
Deaths caused by terrorist events are also extremely rare, so rare that many people have suggested that inferential statistics is almost useless for predicting them. According to your rationale, it would also make no sense trying to understand terrorist events. Or airline accidents. Or very rare diseases. Or earthquakes - and so forth, you get the point.
However, the fact is that inferential statistics only works and makes sense if you are able to make at least some reasonable assumptions about an underlying analytical/causal model, otherwise you don't even know which probability distribution may be at play and will get garbage results.You better try to understand what's going on before you even try to make statistical inferences or predictions.
Don't worry, it's just part of their plan to make Windows more Linux-friendly, until one day they'll nuke all dual boot systems from the orbit "inadvertently" with a software upgrade, only to tell people they need not to worry, since they can continue to use Linux from their Windows partition.:-)
It did not touch Grub, but surely made my Linux installation unusable - it started to hang on system start. It does boot into recovery mode but returns to it whenever I try to full boot from it. I'm still trying to figure out the problem. (If somebody knows the cause, please reply!)
WTF? That's not new at all and has nothing to do with "cloud" computing! Multiple users on multi-user systems used to be the rule, and of course the users were running untrusted code from their user accounts. There used to be Unix and Linux boxes online everywhere.
It also used to be easier to pawn computers unless the sysadmin knew what he was doing.
I don't want to sound too picky, I understand what you're trying to say, but still this doesn't seem quite right. On the one hand, taxation in an "ideal" communist country would be 0%. On the other hand, income taxes in the former USSR were apparently around 13%, but higher for couples without families, and there was a turnover tax (like a VAT). Taxes were pretty much meaningless, though, since the government set the salaries levels and there were no (legal) free markets.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yes, of course, they cannot attribute anything to anyone, because they are extremely stupid, and you know so much better. Luckily, hope is not yet lost, the current US comander-in-chief is constantly looking for people as brilliant as you...
Composers who use large orchestral sample libraries, for instance.
This. Lossy compression techniques will become less and less important in the future.
Latency, kids lack money, and gamers hate EA anyway. It's not gonna happen, at least not with EA at the forefront. Maybe Valve can do it, but not EA.
My bank does that, but the problem is that the ROI is also very low, right?
Since I'm working on certain aspects of risk assessment and multi-attribute decision making under risk, could you briefly elaborate what they did and in which way their assessment was faulty? Just a rough description?
"screech", "nonsense", "magically", "enlightened dictator", "do-gooders", "always", "never", "their inability", "think shit through", "avoiding ALL personal responsibility", "Even a reasonably bright pre-teen can crok this"
What's the point of your post? Instill hatred and disagreement? Listen to yourself! Regardless of topic and political orientation, is it too much to ask to at least try to use a vocabulary that makes you sound like a reasonable person who wants to discuss the topic?
Being an old Usenet veteran, I don't claim that online discussion culture was ever very elaborate or valuable but it certainly has declined on Slashdot over the years. A lot...
"certainly"
You seem to merely express your personal opinion that strong AI is not possible without providing an argument or at least referring to one the bazillion existing arguments that have been discussed for decades. It's an old standpoint in a debate that's going on since the 60s. There are also plenty of people who believe that strong AI is possible.
As for the arguments pro and con, I have written articles about it, but I certainly won't bother to even address the arguments here on Slashdot. Consult your arbitrary 'philosophy of AI' compendium or website to get an overview.
ROTFL, apparently you and c6gunner are not much into news. Of course, Kim is perfectly rational. So far, he has shown no signs of delusion or irrationality at all. I wasn't attributing this analysis to NK alone at all, it's a commonplace explanation that political analysts all over the world consider realistic. The Trump administration has been looking for viable targets to bomb for quite a while now, Trump literally ordered the DoD to work out attack plans. This was reported all over the news based on credible sources and happened even before Bolton joined the team.
It's a bit similar to the situation before the Iraq war when Bush's advisers started to fabricate false evidence and spin the news to justify the war, although the reasons are different this time. The Bush administration had personal reasons, because the first Iraq war stopped short of removing Hussein. In this case, it's mainly Trump wanting to be the strong man and some in his entourage trying to prove their regime change concepts.
I'm not saying the Trump administration was literally planning a limited bombing campaign, only that it's a credible possibility and that Kim Jong Un was smart and well-informed enough to consider Trump to be capable of such an aggression.
I predict that Trump will enter the annals of US history more or less as a fart in the wind.
It's not a very scientific prediction but nevertheless fairly accurate, and most educated Republican and Democratic experts wholeheartedly agree.
The media should report on whatever they think is newsworthy.
Why? Torture is torture. People like George W.Bush, Dick Cheney and Gina Haspel should be in life-long prison for torture, yet are walking around freely. Haspel probably will become head of the CIA soon.
Also, what makes you think these assessments are new? Forgot about supporting dictators in Chile and Egypt? Napalm on children in Vietnam? Drone strikes killing entire wedding parties? Raping minors and shooting pregnant women in Iraq?
Besides, maybe in your book two wrongs make a right, but certainly not in the book of people with a moral compass. The US has been the country of double moral standards for the past 70 years.
It's the result of the way you dehumanize them in the prisons. There are plenty of examples of how to do it the right way, in Europe but also in the US. For a start, Americans could stop jokingly accepting prison rape as a means of punishment....
GNU/Linux since Linux is only the kernel and GNU has provided most of the programs that are crucial for a working GNU/Linux system. Linux for short.
Deaths caused by terrorist events are also extremely rare, so rare that many people have suggested that inferential statistics is almost useless for predicting them. According to your rationale, it would also make no sense trying to understand terrorist events. Or airline accidents. Or very rare diseases. Or earthquakes - and so forth, you get the point.
However, the fact is that inferential statistics only works and makes sense if you are able to make at least some reasonable assumptions about an underlying analytical/causal model, otherwise you don't even know which probability distribution may be at play and will get garbage results.You better try to understand what's going on before you even try to make statistical inferences or predictions.
...make better games instead. But that wouldn't give them as much $$$
Don't worry, it's just part of their plan to make Windows more Linux-friendly, until one day they'll nuke all dual boot systems from the orbit "inadvertently" with a software upgrade, only to tell people they need not to worry, since they can continue to use Linux from their Windows partition. :-)
"good" is not subjective at all. The law is objectively good, as the example in the original story aptly illustrates.
It did not touch Grub, but surely made my Linux installation unusable - it started to hang on system start. It does boot into recovery mode but returns to it whenever I try to full boot from it. I'm still trying to figure out the problem. (If somebody knows the cause, please reply!)
WTF? That's not new at all and has nothing to do with "cloud" computing! Multiple users on multi-user systems used to be the rule, and of course the users were running untrusted code from their user accounts. There used to be Unix and Linux boxes online everywhere. It also used to be easier to pawn computers unless the sysadmin knew what he was doing.
Unfortunately...
It would be highly surprising if anything of any value whatsoever had ever been removed from Youtube. Go get a life and read some books.
> sit down and turn on the computer
You turn on the computer, but nothing happens.
There is a screwdriver and a blue pencil on the desk. You hear the distant noise of a floor cleaning machine outside the office.
Exits are N, NW, kitchen door, office door.
I don't want to sound too picky, I understand what you're trying to say, but still this doesn't seem quite right. On the one hand, taxation in an "ideal" communist country would be 0%. On the other hand, income taxes in the former USSR were apparently around 13%, but higher for couples without families, and there was a turnover tax (like a VAT). Taxes were pretty much meaningless, though, since the government set the salaries levels and there were no (legal) free markets.