Let's not get hung up on efficiency in the first place. What really matters is cost-effectiveness. Until cheap solar becomes available (which seems to be soon), we'll continue to harvest the vast majority of solar energy at 0% efficiency.
It's the old receding horizon problem. One working definition of AI is that it's whatever we don't know how to do yet. Chess was the quintessential AI problem for decades. When superhuman chess performance was achieved, adherents of this definition said "oh, that's not AI, it's just search and table lookups." Well, maybe that's all there is. Search, regression, memory. If AI is understood to be "the magic part that only humans have" or "whatever isn't part of a more disciplined field" then eventually it will amount to nothing at all.
So... I'd say: less claims, fewer predictions, and more work. Let me know when you've got anything worthwhile to show.
Has it occurred to you that all of us already work, to some extent, at the direction of computers? Think of the tens of thousands of pilots and flight attendants... what city they sleep in, and who they work with, is dictated by a computer which makes computations which cannot fit inside the human mind. An airline could not long survive without automated scheduling.
Next consider the stock market. Many trades are now automated, meaning, computers are deciding which companies have how much money. That ultimately influences where you live and work, and the management culture of the company you work for.
We are already living well above the standard that could be maintained without computers to make decisions for us. Of course as humans we will always take the credit and say the machines are "just" doing what we told them, but the fact is we could not could not carry out these computations manually in time for them to be useful.
Please do not take this personally, but I don't think neuroscience is particularly important to AI. Yes, biology is horribly complex. But airplanes surpassed birds long ago, even though airplanes are much simpler and not particularly bio-inspired. Granted, birds still surpass airplanes in a few important ways (they forage for energy, procreate, and are self-healing... far beyond what we can fabricate in those respects) but airplanes sure are useful anyways. I don't think human-identical AI would have much use anyways, since it would have the same neuroses and demand all the same rights that make humans such a pain to work with.
Actually I don't even have a cellphone. My wife does have a tracfone which I ocassionally borrow. I just don't like talking on the phone all that much, and fortunately my job is not such that I need to be interruptible all the time.
We are also inexplicably allowing them to rob us blind of technology, a fact that causes much head-scratching - the Chinese would certainly not stand for that if the situation were reversed.
As if we were weren't trying to stop them, and as if we don't steal whatever secrets from other countries that we can. Irony is flying a spyplane over another country, then complaining about stealing of secrets when it crashes and they try to reverse-engineer it. (A second example, our rocket program is Nazi in origin). But that's OK, it's just how these things go.
Just to play devil's advocate here, but when was their last school shooting massacre? Those certainly have an impact on world perception of the United States.
(Granted, they still have school knife attacks in China, but we have those too, plus gun rampages; I believe their total body count is quite a bit lower).
I don't think the iPhone has attained the status that any new smartphone must be considered a competitor first and foremost to it. Especially when, as in this case, it's a completely different styling concept. I do see iPhones here and there, but by far most people still use other cellphones, so I do not think the iPhone merits a reference in the title of every story about cellphones.
Sony also bankrolled Blu-ray massively by putting them into the PS3 even though it was an immature technology that hurt availability, raised prices, and added to Sony's losses on the PS3. (None of which is to say Blu-Ray is immature now).
This is quite interesting; in the US I'm not aware of any such mania about "teens gone wild" over here. Having lived in England for a couple years in the early 90s, I do know that there seemed to be a lot of welfare moms without husbands whose kids were out of control. (Maybe the difference is because in the US we just throw anybody who gets out of line into jail forever). My main question, though: can parents in Britain be punished for spanking their kids? If so, how often is action taken against them? Or do people just do their spanking in private? I'm not going on a campaign for spanking here, it's somewhat controversial here in the US too, but I have one son who does not respond to pleading so I've started spanking when necessary and I actually think it has helped.
People have reasons for doing things certain ways. Forcing them to act randomly degrades their effectiveness. And that's under the unrealistic assumption that they think to randomize everything they should and then go to the effort of actually doing it.
PS, it's also what stock investors do. Of course in this case the "enemy" isn't actively trying to act randomly, but your competition is trying to find and exploit (and thus dissipate) patterns, just as you are. Thus the market as a whole amounts to a game where future returns are as random as your competition can make them.
Before you rush to judgement, I suggest you play a few rounds of rock, paper, scissors. There's nothing crazy about spending money trying to find patterns in the enemy's behavior, even if he's intentionally trying to be random... that's the entire field of cryptology!
Re:Must be why rsync over ssh is much faster
on
Multi-Threaded SSH/SCP
·
· Score: 2, Informative
tar cpzf - * | ssh user@host " cd/destination ; tar xpzf - "
You don't need a quoted pair of commands, just use tar's -C option
ssh user@host.com tar -C/remote/path -cpzf - remotefile1 remotefile2 | tar -C/local/path -xvzp -
scp isn't slow because of compression, it's slow because it has significant latency to initiate the transfer of each single file (even if you do it with a single command like scp -r), during which time the bandwidth goes unused. Using tar as stated above fixes this problem because it's one continuous stream of data. For a large number of small files, it's a big speedup.
If it's not defeated, watermarking does make it easier to find copies of your images. You only have to process each image on the web once to find your watermark. Without watermarking, you'd have to do a pairwise comparison between every image on the web and every image of your own.
Practically every post here raises one of a small handful of obvious concerns. Funny thing is they're answered within just two sentences of the article:
"Alternatively, by processing an acquired biological image into a personal authentication code and recording the code in the image of a subject, the amount of personal data serving as additional information may be reduced." In other words, no, an image of your iris cannot be recovered from the watermark.
"Alternatively, by embedding personal data which is biological information in the image of a subject as an electronic watermark, falsification can be prevented more robustly." In other words, no, the information won't just be easily removed tags in the metadata.
That's right, armchair experts, Canon isn't stupid enough to develop this entire application of watermarking without even knowing the first thing about it. Surprise!
How does your argument differ from the profession of a lock smith? They know how to get in your house, and you can pay them to get you into your house.
Go ahead and advertise a "locksmith" service to open the doors on anybody's home, without the owner's consent, for a fee. Then have fun in jail.
Here's a better analogy for a legal activity: auto makers who sell SUVs to whomever wants them, then tell the rest of us we need one to keep our families safe in the event of being hit by one. It's a classic arms race, the only real winner is the arms dealer.
One interesting consequence of allowing this type of behavior is that software vulnerabilities would carry a financial consequence for the software makers. It's a sort of liability they can't simply disclaim in the license.
A lot of the responses here claim it's capitalism and therefore must not be blackmail, as if that were a dichotomy - it's not.
Blackmail is capitalism, just as libel is speech. I really don't know whether Gleg's actions meet the legal definition of blackmail in Russia, or for that matter in the US. But that fact that Gleg can make money doing this is not, in itself, much of a defense against charges of blackmail.
IMHO this is not the semantic web. The primary representation is still (just) natural language. Anything in addition to that is really just search engine technology under a different banner. Is that a bad thing? No! I've always said the semantic web was bound to fail because people don't want to spend a lot of extra effort tagging their information so others can slice and dice it; instead, the evolution of natural language processing in search (rather than manual tagging) will solve the problem. Maybe the Reuters idea of exposing the "inferred" metadata will be useful (as opposed to normal searches like google who simply keep this metadata in their own indices), though as yet I don't see why.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's not get hung up on efficiency in the first place. What really matters is cost-effectiveness. Until cheap solar becomes available (which seems to be soon), we'll continue to harvest the vast majority of solar energy at 0% efficiency.
The $400M figure is the same, so I don't see any factual contradiction. The only contradiction is the direction of spin.
You put them where all the oil and coal came from.
It's the old receding horizon problem. One working definition of AI is that it's whatever we don't know how to do yet. Chess was the quintessential AI problem for decades. When superhuman chess performance was achieved, adherents of this definition said "oh, that's not AI, it's just search and table lookups." Well, maybe that's all there is. Search, regression, memory. If AI is understood to be "the magic part that only humans have" or "whatever isn't part of a more disciplined field" then eventually it will amount to nothing at all.
Next consider the stock market. Many trades are now automated, meaning, computers are deciding which companies have how much money. That ultimately influences where you live and work, and the management culture of the company you work for.
We are already living well above the standard that could be maintained without computers to make decisions for us. Of course as humans we will always take the credit and say the machines are "just" doing what we told them, but the fact is we could not could not carry out these computations manually in time for them to be useful.
Please do not take this personally, but I don't think neuroscience is particularly important to AI. Yes, biology is horribly complex. But airplanes surpassed birds long ago, even though airplanes are much simpler and not particularly bio-inspired. Granted, birds still surpass airplanes in a few important ways (they forage for energy, procreate, and are self-healing... far beyond what we can fabricate in those respects) but airplanes sure are useful anyways. I don't think human-identical AI would have much use anyways, since it would have the same neuroses and demand all the same rights that make humans such a pain to work with.
Actually I don't even have a cellphone. My wife does have a tracfone which I ocassionally borrow. I just don't like talking on the phone all that much, and fortunately my job is not such that I need to be interruptible all the time.
(Granted, they still have school knife attacks in China, but we have those too, plus gun rampages; I believe their total body count is quite a bit lower).
I don't think the iPhone has attained the status that any new smartphone must be considered a competitor first and foremost to it. Especially when, as in this case, it's a completely different styling concept. I do see iPhones here and there, but by far most people still use other cellphones, so I do not think the iPhone merits a reference in the title of every story about cellphones.
Sony also bankrolled Blu-ray massively by putting them into the PS3 even though it was an immature technology that hurt availability, raised prices, and added to Sony's losses on the PS3. (None of which is to say Blu-Ray is immature now).
And even after Clinton was summoned to testify under oath, why didn't he just stonewall and blow it off with a claim of executive privilege?
So use a bluetooth headset, leaving the more powerful cellphone transceiver further from your head. It's not the end of the world.
This is quite interesting; in the US I'm not aware of any such mania about "teens gone wild" over here. Having lived in England for a couple years in the early 90s, I do know that there seemed to be a lot of welfare moms without husbands whose kids were out of control. (Maybe the difference is because in the US we just throw anybody who gets out of line into jail forever). My main question, though: can parents in Britain be punished for spanking their kids? If so, how often is action taken against them? Or do people just do their spanking in private? I'm not going on a campaign for spanking here, it's somewhat controversial here in the US too, but I have one son who does not respond to pleading so I've started spanking when necessary and I actually think it has helped.
People have reasons for doing things certain ways. Forcing them to act randomly degrades their effectiveness. And that's under the unrealistic assumption that they think to randomize everything they should and then go to the effort of actually doing it.
PS, it's also what stock investors do. Of course in this case the "enemy" isn't actively trying to act randomly, but your competition is trying to find and exploit (and thus dissipate) patterns, just as you are. Thus the market as a whole amounts to a game where future returns are as random as your competition can make them.
Before you rush to judgement, I suggest you play a few rounds of rock, paper, scissors. There's nothing crazy about spending money trying to find patterns in the enemy's behavior, even if he's intentionally trying to be random... that's the entire field of cryptology!
ssh user@host.com tar -C /remote/path -cpzf - remotefile1 remotefile2 | tar -C /local/path -xvzp -
scp isn't slow because of compression, it's slow because it has significant latency to initiate the transfer of each single file (even if you do it with a single command like scp -r), during which time the bandwidth goes unused. Using tar as stated above fixes this problem because it's one continuous stream of data. For a large number of small files, it's a big speedup.
If it's not defeated, watermarking does make it easier to find copies of your images. You only have to process each image on the web once to find your watermark. Without watermarking, you'd have to do a pairwise comparison between every image on the web and every image of your own.
"Alternatively, by processing an acquired biological image into a personal authentication code and recording the code in the image of a subject, the amount of personal data serving as additional information may be reduced." In other words, no, an image of your iris cannot be recovered from the watermark.
"Alternatively, by embedding personal data which is biological information in the image of a subject as an electronic watermark, falsification can be prevented more robustly." In other words, no, the information won't just be easily removed tags in the metadata.
That's right, armchair experts, Canon isn't stupid enough to develop this entire application of watermarking without even knowing the first thing about it. Surprise!
Here's a better analogy for a legal activity: auto makers who sell SUVs to whomever wants them, then tell the rest of us we need one to keep our families safe in the event of being hit by one. It's a classic arms race, the only real winner is the arms dealer.
One interesting consequence of allowing this type of behavior is that software vulnerabilities would carry a financial consequence for the software makers. It's a sort of liability they can't simply disclaim in the license.
A lot of the responses here claim it's capitalism and therefore must not be blackmail, as if that were a dichotomy - it's not. Blackmail is capitalism, just as libel is speech. I really don't know whether Gleg's actions meet the legal definition of blackmail in Russia, or for that matter in the US. But that fact that Gleg can make money doing this is not, in itself, much of a defense against charges of blackmail.
IMHO this is not the semantic web. The primary representation is still (just) natural language. Anything in addition to that is really just search engine technology under a different banner. Is that a bad thing? No! I've always said the semantic web was bound to fail because people don't want to spend a lot of extra effort tagging their information so others can slice and dice it; instead, the evolution of natural language processing in search (rather than manual tagging) will solve the problem. Maybe the Reuters idea of exposing the "inferred" metadata will be useful (as opposed to normal searches like google who simply keep this metadata in their own indices), though as yet I don't see why.