Pretty sure this is not the reason. Google's services on Android (including gmail) do not generate any ad revenue at all. Plenty of 3rd party apps have advertising, but none of the "google experience" ones do.
Where did you get netbook from? They were not mentioned in the summary nor in the article (NBR is mentioned - but that is device agnostic).
Pretty much everything smaller then a netbook runs ARM, and yes, many of them are considered "hot" items by real consumers, who don't seem to care about Windows in the slightest.
Nope, he said if you've got something to hide, don't do it on the internet. The difference is subtle but huge. Reasonable advice really, though it shouldn't be news to anybody with half a brain.
History? Any recent discussion about Microsoft vs. the EU brings 'em out of the woodwork. MS fanboys are hardly an endangered species (although you'd think selection pressure would wipe them out eventually).
At my company we often have things called a "bug in specification". There is even a ticket type.
The reason that these are ignored by developers is because the customer signed off on the specification - it is not the developers fault they delivered what was requested.
I know that was a flippant remark, but step back and look at it.
The statement is an accurate, yet deeply depressing indictment of the modern world. We should be focused on making thing better, not accepting things the way they are.
Heck an idiot tripping over the power cord to the server is technically a DoS if people loose access.
PRACTICALLY. That would practically be a DoS. Technically all you've got is a clumsy buffoon.
Anyway, nobody ever means "denial of service" when they say DoS. It is a "denial of service attack". Which def. does not include unplugging the server.
This kind of thinking is one of the major things standing in the way of AGI. The complex behaviors of the human mind are what leads to intelligence, they do not detract from it. Our ability to uncover the previously unknown workings of a system comes from our ability to abstract aspects of unrelated experiences and apply/attempt to apply them to the new situation. This can not be achieved by a single-minded number crunching machine, but instead evolves out of an adaptable human being as he goes about his daily life.
Perhaps. But maybe human behaviour isn't as complex as we think it is. We have made progress in AI by studying insects. It was found that despite very complex interactions, insects simply respond to stimuli in a predictable way. This research has brought us stuff like teams of soccer playing robots.
Now the average human is capable of much more complex interactions then an ant. You might argue that the human is infinitely more complex, but that sounds like "irreducible complexity" to me so doesn't fly. Despite notions of "specialness" we still just responding to stimuli - there is just more inputs, bandwith, and interconnects. What I'm getting at is complex human-level interactions could be implemented in relatively simple and maintainable software.
Finally, the assertion that an AGI would need to mask it's amazing intellect to pass as human is silly. When was the last time you read a particularly insightful comment and concluded that it was written by a computer? When did you notice that the spelling and punctuation in a comment was too perfect? People see that and they don't think anything of it.
That wasn't his point. He was saying that AI will never be like human intelligence because we would not implement some of the flaws.
Its more of a trope then a lesson - the audience already knows that bad guys shoot first. If you go breaking conventions like that you better have a damn good reason, or you're going to loose the audience.
Slashdot Mirror
What does that make Microsoft?
Increasingly irrelevant?
Pretty sure this is not the reason. Google's services on Android (including gmail) do not generate any ad revenue at all. Plenty of 3rd party apps have advertising, but none of the "google experience" ones do.
Huh? There are other routes to HD content then BR. Bittorrent comes to mind...
Where did you get netbook from? They were not mentioned in the summary nor in the article (NBR is mentioned - but that is device agnostic).
Pretty much everything smaller then a netbook runs ARM, and yes, many of them are considered "hot" items by real consumers, who don't seem to care about Windows in the slightest.
Anyone who can host a dedicated server? My ISP hosts a whole bunch of game servers for free use of its customers.
"breed" is a poor choice of word in this context. It taints your post with the air of eugenics (and notions of superiority).
I don't think was your intention but it is going to alienate readers from the outset.
Nope, he said if you've got something to hide, don't do it on the internet. The difference is subtle but huge. Reasonable advice really, though it shouldn't be news to anybody with half a brain.
History? Any recent discussion about Microsoft vs. the EU brings 'em out of the woodwork. MS fanboys are hardly an endangered species (although you'd think selection pressure would wipe them out eventually).
Agreed. We should be looking at the impact of real vulnerabilities and judge the OS as such, not playing thought experiments.
If you actually knew what you're talking about, you'd know that MS has a VERY GOOD reputation on security.
If you actually knew what you were talking about you would be ashamed of yourself.
At my company we often have things called a "bug in specification". There is even a ticket type.
The reason that these are ignored by developers is because the customer signed off on the specification - it is not the developers fault they delivered what was requested.
Tried. Debated. Demonstrably false.
I know that was a flippant remark, but step back and look at it.
The statement is an accurate, yet deeply depressing indictment of the modern world. We should be focused on making thing better, not accepting things the way they are.
C3PO was an android, R2D2 was an astromech. This explains everything.
Androids can never be more then imperfect imitations of people. Robots controlled by a strong AI are MUCH more interesting.
This - more insightful then funny.
It is a shame you posted AC, and I have no mod points.
"won't somebody think of the parents!"
Here is another hard bit of reality for you: No number of disabled kids or overworked parents makes compulsory internet filtering a good idea.
Heck an idiot tripping over the power cord to the server is technically a DoS if people loose access.
PRACTICALLY. That would practically be a DoS. Technically all you've got is a clumsy buffoon.
Anyway, nobody ever means "denial of service" when they say DoS. It is a "denial of service attack". Which def. does not include unplugging the server.
Exactly. The value of your product is whatever the market decides it is worth. Turns out that for streams of bits this value is "not much".
This kind of thinking is one of the major things standing in the way of AGI. The complex behaviors of the human mind are what leads to intelligence, they do not detract from it. Our ability to uncover the previously unknown workings of a system comes from our ability to abstract aspects of unrelated experiences and apply/attempt to apply them to the new situation. This can not be achieved by a single-minded number crunching machine, but instead evolves out of an adaptable human being as he goes about his daily life.
Perhaps. But maybe human behaviour isn't as complex as we think it is. We have made progress in AI by studying insects. It was found that despite very complex interactions, insects simply respond to stimuli in a predictable way. This research has brought us stuff like teams of soccer playing robots.
Now the average human is capable of much more complex interactions then an ant. You might argue that the human is infinitely more complex, but that sounds like "irreducible complexity" to me so doesn't fly. Despite notions of "specialness" we still just responding to stimuli - there is just more inputs, bandwith, and interconnects. What I'm getting at is complex human-level interactions could be implemented in relatively simple and maintainable software.
Finally, the assertion that an AGI would need to mask it's amazing intellect to pass as human is silly. When was the last time you read a particularly insightful comment and concluded that it was written by a computer? When did you notice that the spelling and punctuation in a comment was too perfect? People see that and they don't think anything of it.
That wasn't his point. He was saying that AI will never be like human intelligence because we would not implement some of the flaws.
I know its difficult when its written down, but you really didn't notice the slightest trace of sarcasm?
I'm not sure if your intention was to contradict or support my post, but yes, this is a perfect example of the trope.
This device is only effective because the audience knows that Bad Guys Shoot First, and is an example of a "damn good reason".
Many would recoil in horror at your definition of "open" here, but for the sake of argument I'll go along with it.
Maybe you would be so kind to outline what to you think to can do on a iPhone you can't do on Android? Besides fitting in I mean.
Nothing wrong with it at all, just ask Brandon Lee.
Its more of a trope then a lesson - the audience already knows that bad guys shoot first. If you go breaking conventions like that you better have a damn good reason, or you're going to loose the audience.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22" Yossarian observed. "It's the best there is" Doc Daneeka agreed.