There are too many laws, lawyers and it all takes way too much time.
Maybe it will make you feel better to know then, that if Thomas loses this case, there will be one fewer lawyers in DC. This is a trial for disbarment, not a criminal trial.
The point is to program a computer that thinks like a computer. The expectation is that once we discover AI, we will understand how humans think. There is a name for this: strong AI.
The first computers were very cool, and could calculate faster than people. We have a name for things that are cool, and do intellectual tasks faster than humans: it's weak AI.
In this case, the computer is still using the MonteCarlo approach to finding a move.....which is roughly "choose a bunch of moves at random and choose the best one." It's one way to prune the tree, and it is surprisingly effective in the case of Go. But it's not how humans think.
Set up an automated build machine task to sign the code on every commit. Then every time someone wants to check out the code, make sure it gets sent to them in an encrypted way (in other words, use git). Tell the managers that the code signatures will allow you to cryptographically verify the code.
The reality is, if an employee wants to steal your code, you will not be able to stop them.
how will you, personally, contribute to creating - the next $50 billion in value... value to society, value to the culture, value to your family, value to your friends and neighbors?
I really hope that some day I have to seriously consider this question.
Videos, pictures, and text advertisements are all referred to by the advertising industry as "creatives." Which makes sense in a way, because some artist or writer worked to make them.
Want to know something else? You, the reader and user of the website, are referred to as "supply." Websites try to build up supply so they can fill the "demands" of advertisers. No joke. This sort of stuff is why I left the advertising industry and am never working there again.
There's no such thing as an 'unfalse' analogy. Every analogy is false in some parts.
This analogy has truth though: blocking some types of speech from coming into your ears and eyes doesn't make you 'freedom hating.' There is no first amendment requirement that people listen to you.
Yes, and yes, when it comes to controversial topics (though Britannica isn't as up-to-date and has a different focus). You might add that the New York Times is better, too.
But then the lawyer goes on to image a hypothetical customer asking:.......How is it complying if it's supposed to be impossible to do so?
You are implying that the lawyers are making an illogical argument (of course, lawyers are always perfectly logical, right? um.....)
Imagine if the court case escalated and went to the supreme court, where the supreme court decided, "you must change your software to make this possible." That is the scenario the lawyers are trying to avoid.
The trick to understanding legal arguments is to remember they happen in context of the law, and are only vaguely related to reality.
Heck, go to the library and check out Peopleware as well. The library is even cheaper than ultra-cheap and a thoughtful read through that book will help him use his resources more effectively.
.True, but letting less thoughtful commentary go doesn't get the commentary ignored
I usually just make it a "teaching moment," and stop arguing their main point (which is going to be a silly point if they don't understand the fundamentals) and help them learn the basics of the situation. That usually deflates some of the air from their argument.
Note that I was replying to someone saying that all we need to do is sacrifice the top 100 to double wealth for everyone else. That was about wealth, not income. A slight bit offtopic from the article, but still.
This is like a tip-off of clueless people: if someone doesn't distinguish the difference between wealth and income in their conversation, then they haven't thought very deeply about the topic.
A move to Chrome OS for ultra-cheap laptop goodness would become realistic.
That sounds like a cruel thing to inflict on your developers. Especially since it prevents them from running a local backend server on their own machine. Annoying.
Slashdot Mirror
Our first order of business is to get rid of any malware and deceptive advertisements.
I will respond happily to that by not blocking ads on Slashdot.
Might I also suggest fixing the subscription system?
I don't know, in my experience, people still tend to hate lawyers after they need one. Sometimes they hate them more.
There are too many laws, lawyers and it all takes way too much time.
Maybe it will make you feel better to know then, that if Thomas loses this case, there will be one fewer lawyers in DC. This is a trial for disbarment, not a criminal trial.
What if we could develop a computer that thought like a dolphin? Would that not be AI?
That would be cool, too.
Right now humans and dolphins are closer to each other than computers.
We're very far from any computer program that looks like a human
To respond to Dijkstra, some people are interested in the question of whether computers can think, even if he isn't.
That's because AI has a real definition: "computers that think like humans."
If you use a trick to solve the problem, then good job, but it's not AI.
Sadly, the electric car mod was something Doc Brown did not do to his DeLorean.
How can you possibly know what is powering this?
We don't know that.
That is exactly the problem.
The point is to program a computer that thinks like a computer. The expectation is that once we discover AI, we will understand how humans think. There is a name for this: strong AI.
The first computers were very cool, and could calculate faster than people. We have a name for things that are cool, and do intellectual tasks faster than humans: it's weak AI.
In this case, the computer is still using the MonteCarlo approach to finding a move.....which is roughly "choose a bunch of moves at random and choose the best one." It's one way to prune the tree, and it is surprisingly effective in the case of Go. But it's not how humans think.
Yeah, and that didn't stop the classified documents from getting stolen, did it?
Set up an automated build machine task to sign the code on every commit. Then every time someone wants to check out the code, make sure it gets sent to them in an encrypted way (in other words, use git). Tell the managers that the code signatures will allow you to cryptographically verify the code.
The reality is, if an employee wants to steal your code, you will not be able to stop them.
how will you, personally, contribute to creating - the next $50 billion in value... value to society, value to the culture, value to your family, value to your friends and neighbors?
I really hope that some day I have to seriously consider this question.
Or how about this:
"Czar Hates Communists"
Videos, pictures, and text advertisements are all referred to by the advertising industry as "creatives." Which makes sense in a way, because some artist or writer worked to make them.
Want to know something else? You, the reader and user of the website, are referred to as "supply." Websites try to build up supply so they can fill the "demands" of advertisers. No joke. This sort of stuff is why I left the advertising industry and am never working there again.
There's no such thing as an 'unfalse' analogy. Every analogy is false in some parts.
This analogy has truth though: blocking some types of speech from coming into your ears and eyes doesn't make you 'freedom hating.' There is no first amendment requirement that people listen to you.
If you are thinking of storing illegal things this way, remember that the FBI can take over the server, keep it running, and then track it back to you.
Is Britannica better? Wall Street Journal?
Yes, and yes, when it comes to controversial topics (though Britannica isn't as up-to-date and has a different focus). You might add that the New York Times is better, too.
But then the lawyer goes on to image a hypothetical customer asking:.......How is it complying if it's supposed to be impossible to do so?
You are implying that the lawyers are making an illogical argument (of course, lawyers are always perfectly logical, right? um.....)
Imagine if the court case escalated and went to the supreme court, where the supreme court decided, "you must change your software to make this possible." That is the scenario the lawyers are trying to avoid.
The trick to understanding legal arguments is to remember they happen in context of the law, and are only vaguely related to reality.
Heck, go to the library and check out Peopleware as well. The library is even cheaper than ultra-cheap and a thoughtful read through that book will help him use his resources more effectively.
And the OP is nothing if not cheap.
.True, but letting less thoughtful commentary go doesn't get the commentary ignored
I usually just make it a "teaching moment," and stop arguing their main point (which is going to be a silly point if they don't understand the fundamentals) and help them learn the basics of the situation. That usually deflates some of the air from their argument.
In reality, 1% of the world's population holds approximately half of the world's net wealth.
People who argue with you about that on the internet are probably already in the global 1%
Note that I was replying to someone saying that all we need to do is sacrifice the top 100 to double wealth for everyone else. That was about wealth, not income. A slight bit offtopic from the article, but still.
This is like a tip-off of clueless people: if someone doesn't distinguish the difference between wealth and income in their conversation, then they haven't thought very deeply about the topic.
Well said.
A move to Chrome OS for ultra-cheap laptop goodness would become realistic.
That sounds like a cruel thing to inflict on your developers. Especially since it prevents them from running a local backend server on their own machine. Annoying.