Evolution can only reach feasible outcomes. It's also clear that a
brain with perfect memory is physically impossible (at best memories
represent a sampling of sensory inputs, so full reconstruction of
reality is certainly impossible). So it's obvious that we cannot evolve
perfect memories, but it may well be that the trend is *towards* perfection nevertheless, since the benefits are substantial.
Search is completely impossible to not have a bias.
That is neither relevant nor interesting. A more interesting question is
whether the bias is deliberate and targeted or not.
Here's a target practice analogy: When you shoot darts at a target, you won't get all darts in the bullseye. You might even find that your darts land more often in the lower half of the board. That's bias, and it's not deliberate.
Now suppose that a champion throws some darts, and his darts all land in the upper left corner of the board. That's bias too, but it's clearly deliberate and targeted. If moreover there's money riding on the game, and the champion was expected to win, then there's a case for cheating.
In both cases, it's completely impossible to not have bias, ie to hit the bullseye every single time always.
That's idiotic. The reason Google can't be trusted is because they are Big Brother, whereas Visa and Mastercard aren't. Google's business model is to profile everybody and everything, then sell that information. Visa's business model is merely to lend people money at high interest rates.
If a corporation is to be an independent legal person/entity, then it should pay its taxes independently of the effect on shareholders. Otherwise let's radically cut corp rights down.
What you're suggesting is that it's all right for two neighbours to pay only half of their tax bill each, because together the sum amounts to about one full tax contribution.
The double taxation argument is bogus. Let's properly separate the treatment of shareholders and their companies.
So you're saying we could have gotten a "DVD + commentary track" version of Tom Sawyer, but Congress scuttled that new version by extending copyright by another 14 years? How did the *public* win from not getting this new material? How did the art community win from not exploring new literary combinations?
Short answer: It doesn't work that way. Programs can only be split over
multiple cores if they are designed to use those cores. Most programs aren't
because it's harder to write, maintain, and the extra processing power often
isn't necessary.
Short reply: Most programs call system services and libraries to do specialized work. The internals of those system calls and library calls do not matter to the programmer, only their interface does. If the tasks they perform is sufficiently high level, then the parallelism can be inbuilt and transparent.
Facebook grew by word-of-mouth, just like Google's search engine incidentally. Why is it that we believe that a big media blitz can beat that?
If Edison had hyped to death his first or second try at a light bulb, we'd be using candles today.
If Google want to build a better social networking site, maybe they should spend less on marketing, throw together lots of alternative sites, and see what sticks on the wall (pun intended). It's not like they can't afford it.
It would be no different than the world of today, but with twice the number of "people". Basic economics implies we'd have more resource shortages, and more competition amongst ourselves and our robot clones. We'd have fewer social safety nets for humans and much cheaper labour (both human and robotic combined) overall.
What the hell is different about these two
scenarios? I've pretty much given up the fight...
Science is about knowledge. Man made global warming is about politics.
When scientists step off the Search for Truth to play politics, they're no longer scientists and are treated as just another politician in the public arena. And since their calling is science, they're not very good at politics, certainly not as good as their opponents whose first calling is politics.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying scientists shouldn't try to do politics - if they feel strongly about it of course they should do and say what they think like anyone. But their puny PhD skills won't protect them from being metaphorically beaten to a bloody pulp, and if they expect otherwise they're naive fools.
Anyone who insists that biblical days are metaphorical ignores the fact that the Bible is a work of fiction. Those who realize this fact don't care about the "metaphors" it presents.
Let's not confuse plagiarism and the detection of plagiarism. You're quite right that a student who acts as you propose in your first paragraph is not committing plagiarism... trivially, in fact.
However, the detection of plagiarism by a computer program cannot make use of any of this knowledge about the student. There is no function that can check if the student took notes in his own words, and no function that can check if a particular source that was physically used is in fact valid. There are merely statistics, such as the frequency of words in the final document.
What this means is that the ideal situation you describe does not apply to prevent false positives. It is quite legitimate to worry about being 'caught' while also being innocent of plagiarism. Doubly so if the exact classification algorithm is proprietary and undisclosed.
You shouldn't have to spend $5 for this "service", it should be free to you.
The reason is that if Turnitin flags you as a cheater and yet you haven't cheated (that's called a false positive), then they've harmed you. So you're paying them $5 protection money to ensure that their system doesn't produce a false positive that involves you.
In other words, you're paying them to not fuck up a service they are providing to somebody else (your professor). Conversely, if they didn't provide this service to your professor, then you wouldn't be paying them or have anything to do with them in the first place.
The failure mode is theirs - you didn't program their classification system - and if you do happen to get flagged then their system is actually slandering you.
You're mean. It's just an arbitrage opportunity to help find the fair price of plagiarism. Also, it adds liquidity to enable instructors and plagiarizers to better optimize their preferences.
All of that can be done with central planning. Just have two or three teams of central planners developing competing computer subsystems to control the economy.
You can't have it both ways: either algorithmic trading is superior to human decision making, in which case this proves that algorithmic economics can also be superior (and therefore we should switch to central planning and optimize that), or else algorithmic trading is inferior to human decision making, in which case there's no harm in regulating/penalizing/outlawing various trading algorithms on policy grounds.
It would be pretty damn cool to have
a model of your own skull.
Even better to play Shakespeare while holding your own skull in your hand.
Alas, poor me! I knew myself, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy; I hath borne me on my back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination I am!
Who knew it would only take a 3d printer to hack a Shakespeare play?
Slashdot Mirror
Evolution can only reach feasible outcomes. It's also clear that a brain with perfect memory is physically impossible (at best memories represent a sampling of sensory inputs, so full reconstruction of reality is certainly impossible). So it's obvious that we cannot evolve perfect memories, but it may well be that the trend is *towards* perfection nevertheless, since the benefits are substantial.
My point is that bias is like ice-cream. It comes in many flavours.
That is neither relevant nor interesting. A more interesting question is whether the bias is deliberate and targeted or not.
Here's a target practice analogy: When you shoot darts at a target, you won't get all darts in the bullseye. You might even find that your darts land more often in the lower half of the board. That's bias, and it's not deliberate.
Now suppose that a champion throws some darts, and his darts all land in the upper left corner of the board. That's bias too, but it's clearly deliberate and targeted. If moreover there's money riding on the game, and the champion was expected to win, then there's a case for cheating.
In both cases, it's completely impossible to not have bias, ie to hit the bullseye every single time always.
Say it ain't so! Can't Obama just make a phone call and have the Indians extradited to America?
What? Somebody else wears them? Tell me who!!!1
That's idiotic. The reason Google can't be trusted is because they are Big Brother, whereas Visa and Mastercard aren't. Google's business model is to profile everybody and everything, then sell that information. Visa's business model is merely to lend people money at high interest rates.
What you're suggesting is that it's all right for two neighbours to pay only half of their tax bill each, because together the sum amounts to about one full tax contribution.
The double taxation argument is bogus. Let's properly separate the treatment of shareholders and their companies.
So you're saying we could have gotten a "DVD + commentary track" version of Tom Sawyer, but Congress scuttled that new version by extending copyright by another 14 years? How did the *public* win from not getting this new material? How did the art community win from not exploring new literary combinations?
Heh, I've only been to cities with red lights...
Chinese auto-immune hacking disease?
Short reply: Most programs call system services and libraries to do specialized work. The internals of those system calls and library calls do not matter to the programmer, only their interface does. If the tasks they perform is sufficiently high level, then the parallelism can be inbuilt and transparent.
If Google want to build a better social networking site, maybe they should spend less on marketing, throw together lots of alternative sites, and see what sticks on the wall (pun intended). It's not like they can't afford it.
It would be no different than the world of today, but with twice the number of "people". Basic economics implies we'd have more resource shortages, and more competition amongst ourselves and our robot clones. We'd have fewer social safety nets for humans and much cheaper labour (both human and robotic combined) overall.
His automake script is broken.
Science is about knowledge. Man made global warming is about politics. When scientists step off the Search for Truth to play politics, they're no longer scientists and are treated as just another politician in the public arena. And since their calling is science, they're not very good at politics, certainly not as good as their opponents whose first calling is politics.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying scientists shouldn't try to do politics - if they feel strongly about it of course they should do and say what they think like anyone. But their puny PhD skills won't protect them from being metaphorically beaten to a bloody pulp, and if they expect otherwise they're naive fools.
Hell no. It's not as fast as... Ludicrous Speed!!1!!
Anyone who insists that biblical days are metaphorical ignores the fact that the Bible is a work of fiction. Those who realize this fact don't care about the "metaphors" it presents.
Oh shut up, Wesley!
However, the detection of plagiarism by a computer program cannot make use of any of this knowledge about the student. There is no function that can check if the student took notes in his own words, and no function that can check if a particular source that was physically used is in fact valid. There are merely statistics, such as the frequency of words in the final document.
What this means is that the ideal situation you describe does not apply to prevent false positives. It is quite legitimate to worry about being 'caught' while also being innocent of plagiarism. Doubly so if the exact classification algorithm is proprietary and undisclosed.
The right thing to do is to ask for clarification from the OP, if his professors actually use or encourage him to use the service.
The reason is that if Turnitin flags you as a cheater and yet you haven't cheated (that's called a false positive), then they've harmed you. So you're paying them $5 protection money to ensure that their system doesn't produce a false positive that involves you.
In other words, you're paying them to not fuck up a service they are providing to somebody else (your professor). Conversely, if they didn't provide this service to your professor, then you wouldn't be paying them or have anything to do with them in the first place.
The failure mode is theirs - you didn't program their classification system - and if you do happen to get flagged then their system is actually slandering you.
You're mean. It's just an arbitrage opportunity to help find the fair price of plagiarism. Also, it adds liquidity to enable instructors and plagiarizers to better optimize their preferences.
You can't have it both ways: either algorithmic trading is superior to human decision making, in which case this proves that algorithmic economics can also be superior (and therefore we should switch to central planning and optimize that), or else algorithmic trading is inferior to human decision making, in which case there's no harm in regulating/penalizing/outlawing various trading algorithms on policy grounds.
What he's proposing is that algorithmic trading should not be accepted as a substitute for human decision making.
Even better to play Shakespeare while holding your own skull in your hand.
Alas, poor me! I knew myself, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy; I hath borne me on my back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination I am!
Who knew it would only take a 3d printer to hack a Shakespeare play?