Many desktops, Linux or not, are awful. Windows 10 makes me curse when it locks up, or due to the inability to find useful tools to configure it. The Mac makes me grumble due to annoying maximisation of windows just when I don't want it, plus other annoyances. Linux ones make me curse when the window manager dies, leaving the windows stranded, or messes up fonts. All have their compromises. At least with Linux I have a bit more choice and ability to customise, and the stability is almost as good. But I still haven't found the perfect desktop.
I'm typing this from the hated GNOME 3, but it's pretty reasonable for this style of desktop (heresy I know). The other main styles I would say are the dock-dominant style (e.g. Mac, Cario-Dock on Linux), the tile-based (Windows 8, Android), or the education types (e.g. Sugar). GNOME 3 is less strongly the traditional type than, say, MATE, of course, but I've added extensions to make it more like one.
The USA maintains contingency plans for invading Canada. It doesn't mean it intends to do so. Sometimes people just think of things and decide they are bad ideas.
This country was formed to prevent precisely this, and to favor individual liberty over the "collective good".
Actually the Constitution talks of having a balance between individual rights (the inalienable ones, although not universal), and the collective good, and that's entirely appropriate and sensible.
You do realise that the Republican Party under Lincoln, and later the in the 19th century was avowedly progressive, and that liberalism is what the USA was founded on? You can't just keep redefining words until they become the bogeyman you want them to be.
In terms of statistics, people like you are counted as homeless, where known about, and rightly so. Living on the street is another matter. You are right about no easy solutions.
Debate implies strong AI that can reason about itself, which we do not have. But TFS seems to be describing validation through a competitive pair of AIs, which does not seem novel
Where have you seen previous examples of this?
Using two differently designed systems on the same data and comparing them isn't new. Or ones that used appropriately constructed subsamples of a dataset that should have identical statistical properties for training.
The validation is an important point - the whole point in fact. When you've got data sets with millions of samples, many containing information in a form that's abstruse or even impossible for humans to understand, how do you validate whether the system actually produced the optimal solution, or the logic behind that choice?
That's a really difficult problem, which I don't think enough people are exploring given how quickly these systems are being deployed into very real scenarios.
I absolutely agree with you. Without rule extraction if the validation set is insufficiently complete, there is a risk of unexpected behaviour. The hope is to minimise it. Not that rule extraction helps unless the rules are very simple, so would not be a silver bullet
Debate implies strong AI that can reason about itself, which we do not have. But TFS seems to be describing validation through a competitive pair of AIs, which does not seem novel, and does not meet the criterion for debate, nor self-aware reasoning. The rule-extraction issue is problematic, especially for legal compliance, but I'm unconvinced this is a solution.
That all sounds more like issues of management rather than location. If the code required is boilerplate, for example, then you are going to get high turnover as people look for more interesting and better paid work, and that applies in the USA. If the code required is boilerplate, does the turnover matter?
So you are saying that you should be denied the right to a fair trial because preventing publication would be unreasonable? In reality a good lawyer could probably ensure you never faced a trialif there was adverse publicity, although that would not help poor people.
It is. But I don't expect you to have the mental capacity and technological insight to understand that, so go right on with your denial.
Eliza was pre-scripted, so akin to an expert system. This system learns from a training set, given a learning goal. Qualitatively, they are chalk and cheese.
I've worked professionally in this area. Have you?
AFAIK, partly from the simulated Mars in X-Plane, you can add more blades to any given prop.This helps reduce the supersonic tip issue with longer blades, which is especially true with a low density atmosphere. Consider the development of fighter aircraft props from two blades, up to five in 1945, and counter rotating, for six, and paddle blades.
Even if degraded then assuming there is space and maintenance costs are not too high the asset can be further sweated. Potentially, they could be offered to a remanufacturer to provide low cost storage for home PV.
Slashdot Mirror
I was tempted to reply to the original question with just "GNU".
Ubuntu for the Desktop, Centos for the server. ymmv.
Same split for me.
Many desktops, Linux or not, are awful. Windows 10 makes me curse when it locks up, or due to the inability to find useful tools to configure it. The Mac makes me grumble due to annoying maximisation of windows just when I don't want it, plus other annoyances. Linux ones make me curse when the window manager dies, leaving the windows stranded, or messes up fonts. All have their compromises. At least with Linux I have a bit more choice and ability to customise, and the stability is almost as good. But I still haven't found the perfect desktop.
I'm typing this from the hated GNOME 3, but it's pretty reasonable for this style of desktop (heresy I know). The other main styles I would say are the dock-dominant style (e.g. Mac, Cario-Dock on Linux), the tile-based (Windows 8, Android), or the education types (e.g. Sugar). GNOME 3 is less strongly the traditional type than, say, MATE, of course, but I've added extensions to make it more like one.
The USA maintains contingency plans for invading Canada. It doesn't mean it intends to do so. Sometimes people just think of things and decide they are bad ideas.
This country was formed to prevent precisely this, and to favor individual liberty over the "collective good".
Actually the Constitution talks of having a balance between individual rights (the inalienable ones, although not universal), and the collective good, and that's entirely appropriate and sensible.
You do realise that the Republican Party under Lincoln, and later the in the 19th century was avowedly progressive, and that liberalism is what the USA was founded on? You can't just keep redefining words until they become the bogeyman you want them to be.
Cheaper houses, fewer jobs.
I've spoken to homeless people at length, and never experienced any making money like that. Mental health issues that most have would preclude it.
In terms of statistics, people like you are counted as homeless, where known about, and rightly so. Living on the street is another matter. You are right about no easy solutions.
Why is it important to continue human life elsewhere? Why not preserve earth?
Debate implies strong AI that can reason about itself, which we do not have. But TFS seems to be describing validation through a competitive pair of AIs, which does not seem novel
Where have you seen previous examples of this?
Using two differently designed systems on the same data and comparing them isn't new. Or ones that used appropriately constructed subsamples of a dataset that should have identical statistical properties for training.
The validation is an important point - the whole point in fact. When you've got data sets with millions of samples, many containing information in a form that's abstruse or even impossible for humans to understand, how do you validate whether the system actually produced the optimal solution, or the logic behind that choice?
That's a really difficult problem, which I don't think enough people are exploring given how quickly these systems are being deployed into very real scenarios.
I absolutely agree with you. Without rule extraction if the validation set is insufficiently complete, there is a risk of unexpected behaviour. The hope is to minimise it. Not that rule extraction helps unless the rules are very simple, so would not be a silver bullet
I cycle at times, but if there is a cyclist behind me when I'm walking on the pavement I make them wait. Many vulnerable people use the pavements.
It's Denmark.You wouldn't be fired for saying that.
Maybe it is backed up, but restoring it until you are sure there is no ongoing compromise seems unwise
I doubt what you propose is legal in Denmark.
Ginger with broccoli is great, as it's less obviously broccoli. It's like running cairodock on Linux, or GNU/Linux.
Is the answer
Debate implies strong AI that can reason about itself, which we do not have. But TFS seems to be describing validation through a competitive pair of AIs, which does not seem novel, and does not meet the criterion for debate, nor self-aware reasoning. The rule-extraction issue is problematic, especially for legal compliance, but I'm unconvinced this is a solution.
That all sounds more like issues of management rather than location. If the code required is boilerplate, for example, then you are going to get high turnover as people look for more interesting and better paid work, and that applies in the USA. If the code required is boilerplate, does the turnover matter?
Why would all foreign programmers be from China or India? I know several that currently are, or have been,so employed in the USA who are from the UK.
So you are saying that you should be denied the right to a fair trial because preventing publication would be unreasonable? In reality a good lawyer could probably ensure you never faced a trialif there was adverse publicity, although that would not help poor people.
The old media machine will die. It must. The internet has killed its power to enforce consensus.
It never had such a power, as there have always been opposing views in the MSM.
It is. But I don't expect you to have the mental capacity and technological insight to understand that, so go right on with your denial.
Eliza was pre-scripted, so akin to an expert system. This system learns from a training set, given a learning goal. Qualitatively, they are chalk and cheese.
I've worked professionally in this area. Have you?
AFAIK, partly from the simulated Mars in X-Plane, you can add more blades to any given prop.This helps reduce the supersonic tip issue with longer blades, which is especially true with a low density atmosphere. Consider the development of fighter aircraft props from two blades, up to five in 1945, and counter rotating, for six, and paddle blades.
Even if degraded then assuming there is space and maintenance costs are not too high the asset can be further sweated. Potentially, they could be offered to a remanufacturer to provide low cost storage for home PV.