The people upstairs are working on a blacklist of people telemarketers can't call. How hard would it be to set up some database with all the sites that use annoying advertisements?
When a new site is added, it e-mails the webmasters, telling them about the database and why they've been blacklisted and what not. Browsers could then access the database and display a warning, those who are interested in fighting can decide based on the value of the site whether to view it or have the database send another e-mail saying you just lost another hit. Those who don't give a dern can just turn off the messages.
I'd assume there'd have to be some method of verification to prevent Joe Bob from blacklisting his ex's boyfriend and other such revenge. (This is assuming that upon discovering an annoying site, a person can make an addition/suggestion to the database people.) But I'm not sure of the best way to implement this.
One amazing sign of intelligence is the ability of the brain to develop automaticity. A reflex occurs when a stimulus is strong and instead of the spinal cord sending the info to the brain for processing, it sends the correct (usually) response back. These reflexes are built into the circuitry. The human brain is capable of forming this kind of automation. Yesterday, when you saw your wife, or good friend or whomever, did you spend time processing all the individual features, analyzing their orientation to each other, and then running them by a list of all the names and faces you've ever met in the world? Or did the face instantly pop up a name? Now granted, there must be some degree of processing, but then again the spinal cord must decide if the pan is hot enough to jerk the hand away or not (not the greatest analogy). One of the greatest examples of automatic processing is the Stroop Effect. You are not wasting any thought on semantic meaning, but you can't stop the brain from putting meaning into primary memory (= short term memory, for laymen).
In Regards to Chess, masters of the game don't even bring up rules into primary memory such as where and how pieces can move. Attention is limited (thus controversy over driving car and talking on cellphone), so the more rules/strategies/tricks that become automatic, the more moves a chess player can think into the future. IANAE (correct acronymn??) but talk to any cognitive psychologist first if you disagree.
So you ask, how does automaticity show intelligence vs. process? It skips the processing part and leads to, for the most part, instant input/output (I'd love to see someone hook a monitor up to where a GPU should be and expect a sensical image). If there was intelligence behind natural selection, then one day, when something happens, like drought, people or whatever is alive at that time would all become pecfectly accustomed to said event because anyone/thing not perfectly accustomed would instantly die before reproducing.
I'm probably wrong, but don't they have to have similar radii? The balls aren't sliding down the ramp but rolling which would involve suck some of the kinetic energy into rotation, so that they would travel at different speeds?
Slashdot Mirror
The people upstairs are working on a blacklist of people telemarketers can't call. How hard would it be to set up some database with all the sites that use annoying advertisements?
When a new site is added, it e-mails the webmasters, telling them about the database and why they've been blacklisted and what not. Browsers could then access the database and display a warning, those who are interested in fighting can decide based on the value of the site whether to view it or have the database send another e-mail saying you just lost another hit. Those who don't give a dern can just turn off the messages.
I'd assume there'd have to be some method of verification to prevent Joe Bob from blacklisting his ex's boyfriend and other such revenge. (This is assuming that upon discovering an annoying site, a person can make an addition/suggestion to the database people.) But I'm not sure of the best way to implement this.
Your thoughts?
One amazing sign of intelligence is the ability of the brain to develop automaticity. A reflex occurs when a stimulus is strong and instead of the spinal cord sending the info to the brain for processing, it sends the correct (usually) response back. These reflexes are built into the circuitry. The human brain is capable of forming this kind of automation. Yesterday, when you saw your wife, or good friend or whomever, did you spend time processing all the individual features, analyzing their orientation to each other, and then running them by a list of all the names and faces you've ever met in the world? Or did the face instantly pop up a name? Now granted, there must be some degree of processing, but then again the spinal cord must decide if the pan is hot enough to jerk the hand away or not (not the greatest analogy). One of the greatest examples of automatic processing is the Stroop Effect. You are not wasting any thought on semantic meaning, but you can't stop the brain from putting meaning into primary memory (= short term memory, for laymen).
In Regards to Chess, masters of the game don't even bring up rules into primary memory such as where and how pieces can move. Attention is limited (thus controversy over driving car and talking on cellphone), so the more rules/strategies/tricks that become automatic, the more moves a chess player can think into the future. IANAE (correct acronymn??) but talk to any cognitive psychologist first if you disagree.
So you ask, how does automaticity show intelligence vs. process? It skips the processing part and leads to, for the most part, instant input/output (I'd love to see someone hook a monitor up to where a GPU should be and expect a sensical image). If there was intelligence behind natural selection, then one day, when something happens, like drought, people or whatever is alive at that time would all become pecfectly accustomed to said event because anyone/thing not perfectly accustomed would instantly die before reproducing.
I'm probably wrong, but don't they have to have similar radii? The balls aren't sliding down the ramp but rolling which would involve suck some of the kinetic energy into rotation, so that they would travel at different speeds?