While your story does sound reasonable, I don't think that is what happens. For example, fluxbox is just now 1.0, and is still starts in around.5 seconds, and is really minimalistic. As is ratpoison, ion3, all the rest. I think the reason for them is that it's an itch that a lot of geeky OSS types like to scratch. A lot of people think GNOME/KDE are too slow, and people are very *very* particular about their window manager. If it doesn't fit exactly the way you want, then they write a new one. That's my feeling, anyway.
Actually, what you describe is exactly what Reinforcement Learning (RL) is. RL can be considered a subbranch of AI. In RL, an agent starts by knowing nothing about the environment. It explores the environment by taking available actions, in this domain, the actions would be exactly the actions available to the human players. It also has a reward signal R, which is used to train the agent to do the correct thing. Completing the level will probably give a high reward, encountering a ghost will give a negative reward. What a RL algorithm will do is give approximations for the future value of being in any state in the environment. What the researches will do is train the agent on the domain for a large number of steps (perhaps millions of games played in simulation) and the agent will learn to play the game well. Note this require *no* domain knowledge, i.e. the programmer doesn't but any heuristics, strategies, or high level tricks to have the agent complete the game, which I believe is what you think is being done here.
So what the technique used in this paper is doing exactly what you would consider "real" AI. Full disclosure, I am a Master's student who has done a good amount of work in RL, and I have not read the paper, so what I describe above is not going to be exactly right, but is probably the general idea.
If you loved HL2, then you will love Episode 1. Same kind of stuff, probably even more polished than the HL2 was. Unfortunately, as you said, it is short, almost too short.
As you may have noticed from the site, it's all priced in Canadian dollars. These are all Canadian artists. I assume you (and the great-grandparent post) aren't from Canada and/or havnt been exposed to Canadian artists. A lot of these bands are pretty big names in Canadian bands. So don't assume that if you haven't heard the band that no one is interested in them.
I'm not sure how putting the 'elephant' page and a couple other pages under semi-protection means that "Wikipedia practically had to shut itself down".
Wikipedia is a bit larger than that, and is quite a bit hardier than you imagine.
Err.... PNG is a compressed image format. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Png.
It *is* losslessly compressed. There is a difference.
Plus, lossless audio compressesion is very good at high quality. If you do at high quality, the information they throw away is pretty unhearable by human hearing, due to masking effects.
All true. Unfortunately, as soon as amazon decided to stop selling a book, or for whatever reason, the listing will be gone. Personally, I'd rather a book database be not owned by a commerical entity that can list whatever it wants.
One thing that should have been listed is Wikipedia, you'd be impressed with how many books there are. I tend to check Wikipedia on information on books before Amazon, althought it is still not nearly as comprehensive.
Well, you say they will have different IR signatures.. of course they will. But what kind of differences? I mean, if you encounter 10 different objects with 10 different signatures, how do you tell which are real. You can't just say they differ by IR, and claim that they can be discrimiated against.Remember, you don't know what they will look like compared to the real one(s).
Also, of course decoys are deployed outside of the atmosphere. What do you suggest, use low trajectory shots? You do relize how fast these things are going right? If the defence waits until the bombs have reentered atmosphere, then the range that a given station can stop is small. Even the US doesn't have enough money to build that many stations.
Of course, the missle shield never worked anyway, for a simple reason, decoy missles.
The idea is that the missle defence 'kill vehicle' will launch after it has been confirmed a rogue nation has launched a missle against the US (or North America), and will hunt down and intercept it. The difficult is *not* actually hitting the target, which has been accomplished, but knowing which one the real target is. Obviously, any nation sending nukes against the states would send decoy ones as well. As Theodore Postol (an expert on missle defence) recently said in a speech at McGill, not sending nukes would be like making a tank without armor, assuming the enemy doesn't have anti-tank weapons.
Even the most up to date missle defence technology really doesn't have a good way of differentiating nukes from fakes, if we don't know what the fake would look like in advance.
More info here: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0902-03.ht m
This has been gone over several times now. This will be used to bridge the gap between no protection at all and total lockage (i.e. only an administrator can lock it).
In fact, I expect this will promote more freedom, since pages which would have been put to administrator-only locking will now be under this type of protection, where most users can still edit the page.
You are mostly correct, but I would argue that the Turing Test is a evaluation of a weak AI, a very difficult one, but weak none the less. It is extrodinarily difficult to evaluate if we have created a Strong AI agent.
One way, (I got this from an AI professor) would be to take a human, and slowly replace his/her brain with articifial parts, until it was fully artificial. Then see if AI exists. This can actually only prove it for the person the experiment happened to, in the same way philosophers have argued that you can only 'know' your own existance.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably not so anonymous anymore!
I miss the ponies
Yes, the Beatles are pretty unpopular with today's youth. Oh, wait, actual data and not random anecdotes:
http://www.last.fm/charts
And I seriously hope no one tries to argue that enough baby boomers are on last.fm to skew the data.
While your story does sound reasonable, I don't think that is what happens. For example, fluxbox is just now 1.0, and is still starts in around .5 seconds, and is really minimalistic. As is ratpoison, ion3, all the rest. I think the reason for them is that it's an itch that a lot of geeky OSS types like to scratch. A lot of people think GNOME/KDE are too slow, and people are very *very* particular about their window manager. If it doesn't fit exactly the way you want, then they write a new one. That's my feeling, anyway.
For some reason, they don't use that nickname that you're using for Convert LIT the official site.... I really can't imagine why.
Actually, what you describe is exactly what Reinforcement Learning (RL) is. RL can be considered a subbranch of AI. In RL, an agent starts by knowing nothing about the environment. It explores the environment by taking available actions, in this domain, the actions would be exactly the actions available to the human players. It also has a reward signal R, which is used to train the agent to do the correct thing. Completing the level will probably give a high reward, encountering a ghost will give a negative reward. What a RL algorithm will do is give approximations for the future value of being in any state in the environment. What the researches will do is train the agent on the domain for a large number of steps (perhaps millions of games played in simulation) and the agent will learn to play the game well. Note this require *no* domain knowledge, i.e. the programmer doesn't but any heuristics, strategies, or high level tricks to have the agent complete the game, which I believe is what you think is being done here.
So what the technique used in this paper is doing exactly what you would consider "real" AI. Full disclosure, I am a Master's student who has done a good amount of work in RL, and I have not read the paper, so what I describe above is not going to be exactly right, but is probably the general idea.
This one wasn't. I was curious, so I looked it up.
u be-comprises-10-of-all-internet-traffic
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/06/19/yout
If you loved HL2, then you will love Episode 1. Same kind of stuff, probably even more polished than the HL2 was. Unfortunately, as you said, it is short, almost too short.
As you may have noticed from the site, it's all priced in Canadian dollars. These are all Canadian artists. I assume you (and the great-grandparent post) aren't from Canada and/or havnt been exposed to Canadian artists. A lot of these bands are pretty big names in Canadian bands. So don't assume that if you haven't heard the band that no one is interested in them.
Did anyone else assume Shuttleworth was just getting tired of more ubuntu porn?
Well, your point would be a little more effective if the quote you gave was actually from Shatner, rather than a Saterday Night Live skit.
The website you gave *was* http://snltranscripts.jt.org/
Wikipedia is a bit larger than that, and is quite a bit hardier than you imagine.
They're just the RIAA/CRIA's buttmonkey!
You *do* know thay Jimmy Wales is the founder of the project, right?
VNC? The best is to ssh and use bittorent-curses with screen. Detach and reattach when neccessary.
Err.... PNG is a compressed image format. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Png.
i ng_effects. Most lossy audio formats take advantage of this.
It *is* losslessly compressed. There is a difference.
Plus, lossless audio compressesion is very good at high quality. If you do at high quality, the information they throw away is pretty unhearable by human hearing, due to masking effects.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics#Mask
All true. Unfortunately, as soon as amazon decided to stop selling a book, or for whatever reason, the listing will be gone. Personally, I'd rather a book database be not owned by a commerical entity that can list whatever it wants.
One thing that should have been listed is Wikipedia, you'd be impressed with how many books there are. I tend to check Wikipedia on information on books before Amazon, althought it is still not nearly as comprehensive.
No, the obvious scientific mindset is to assume it doesn't help until given overwhelming proof that it does.
A couple that come to mind:
Nothing DNS related? I would think that bind would quality as a network changing piece of software.
Mabye it is a bit early, but I think Bit Torrent is going to be as revolutionary as Napster, althought I think time will tell.
Well, you say they will have different IR signatures.. of course they will. But what kind of differences? I mean, if you encounter 10 different objects with 10 different signatures, how do you tell which are real. You can't just say they differ by IR, and claim that they can be discrimiated against.Remember, you don't know what they will look like compared to the real one(s).
r e-css.html
Also, of course decoys are deployed outside of the atmosphere. What do you suggest, use low trajectory shots? You do relize how fast these things are going right? If the defence waits until the bombs have reentered atmosphere, then the range that a given station can stop is small. Even the US doesn't have enough money to build that many stations.
I will admit I don't have personal knowledge of this, this is from attending a lecture Postol gave, who has serious credentials in ballistics: http://web.mit.edu/sts/faculty/info/Postol_Theodo
He also seemed to have turned out to be largely correct in the scud affair, so I don't think you can really write him off as a lunatic.
Of course, the missle shield never worked anyway, for a simple reason, decoy missles.
t m
The idea is that the missle defence 'kill vehicle' will launch after it has been confirmed a rogue nation has launched a missle against the US (or North America), and will hunt down and intercept it. The difficult is *not* actually hitting the target, which has been accomplished, but knowing which one the real target is.
Obviously, any nation sending nukes against the states would send decoy ones as well. As Theodore Postol (an expert on missle defence) recently said in a speech at McGill, not sending nukes would be like making a tank without armor, assuming the enemy doesn't have anti-tank weapons.
Even the most up to date missle defence technology really doesn't have a good way of differentiating nukes from fakes, if we don't know what the fake would look like in advance.
More info here: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0902-03.h
I think ethanol is the answer to everything!
No.
This has been gone over several times now. This will be used to bridge the gap between no protection at all and total lockage (i.e. only an administrator can lock it).
In fact, I expect this will promote more freedom, since pages which would have been put to administrator-only locking will now be under this type of protection, where most users can still edit the page.
I thought the rational was *buying* the hardware gives them the right to crack it (i.e. use it they way they want to).
You are mostly correct, but I would argue that the Turing Test is a evaluation of a weak AI, a very difficult one, but weak none the less. It is extrodinarily difficult to evaluate if we have created a Strong AI agent.
One way, (I got this from an AI professor) would be to take a human, and slowly replace his/her brain with articifial parts, until it was fully artificial. Then see if AI exists. This can actually only prove it for the person the experiment happened to, in the same way philosophers have argued that you can only 'know' your own existance.