Your paranoia of rebooting your phone several times a day is an illness. Your advocation that this is necessary is ridiculous. Your assertion that when we buy expensive products we should all adopt sheep-like acceptance of low-quality and functional issues without even complaining is just downright insulting and retarded.
No but I seriously would like to know how/why people that screw over others and make such bad decisions cen even get the chance to be CEOs, and why apparently many if not most CEOs are like that.
>> you have no idea how machine learning actually works
I acutally do, since I did AI as a final-year elective in my CS degree and machine learning was a significant part of it, Perhaps what you actually mean is that your view of what it is doesn't agree with mine. So instead of just continually being a dick and insulting my knowledge, why don't you tone it down a bit and justify your own points more specifically? actually never mind I have nothing to prove here or learn from you.
...since apparently common sense, intelligence, sensitivity and interpersonal skills are not prerequisites for being a CEO of a global company anymore. Kinda makes me wonder what relevant skills she actually does have.
>> Pretty much any lawyer can choose to run for a post like County Attorney
Exactly. Do you REALLY think the type of people that become lawyers in the first place are also those that are naturally the least scheming and devious and most altruistic? I for one don't, yet as you say, those are the ones most well-placed to run.
>> by most accepted definitions of intelligence, there are no algorithms that exhibit signs of actually having it.
thats a very sweeping statement. Its also one that seems patently untrue given the bar for general intelligence seems actually pretty low. Look at Wikipedia's more general definition of intelligence for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... the ability to perceive and/or retain knowledge or information and apply it to itself or other instances of knowledge or information creating referable understanding models of any size, density, or complexity, due to any conscious or subconscious imposed will or instruction to do so.
It says nothing about interpreting or fundamentally understanding knowledge, merely perceiving and or retaining it. Imagine a chess program that works by storing a chess board and gets the next moev by building a simple game tree of all legal moves from the current position, then scores each branch according to some system of evaluation using weightings. As long as it also adjusts/refines its weightings over time based on the outcome of each completed game, it seems that would clearly qualify as "intelligent" according to the above definition.
>> There's nothing wrong with being excited about AI developments. It's just that historically, people like you who go around calling things AI that aren't
Well there is no and probably can be no solid definition of AI, at least partly because it depends on a consistent deifintion of what intelligience itself is. Some people believe that nothing other than humans even have the capability to be intelligent because it requires a soul or whatever, while, some people think a cellphone is at least partially intelligent, hence the name smartphone.
Thats why when you asked >> Where in the world are actual intelligent networks? it appeared to me to be a very ignorant question and was really my poiint in showing you lots of diverse links to differnet forms of what different smart people consider intelligence to be.
Regardless of what you clearly thing about neural nets, I still belive they demonstrate at least some level of basic intelligence, as does most any algorithm that evaluates and adapts and so improves its own behaviour in order to reach some goal without needing ongoing input at each iteration (i.e. programming) by a human. To me that algorithm is demostrating basic intelligence even though a human programmed it to be that way.
It seems to me that until someone can define "true" intellgience (whatever that means) there is no point in trying to diferentiate between it and apparent intelligence, since I think both are no more than an emergent side-effect of a self-improving (i.e. learning) system that has some objective. Much like how a bunch of robots all programmed with a few very simple rules can exhibit very complex emergent behaviour when operating/interacting/viewed as a swarm.
>> Where is the bot that can pass a Turing test reliably? Here's just one of the ones that have passed the turing test. http://www.theguardian.com/tec...
>> Where in the world are actual intelligent networks? >> Where is the machine that can learn complex tasks? >> where is there a machine that uses something other than a human designed tree search to do things? Many software applications based on neural networks and other self-evolving/learning AI alogirthms are already in everyday use not only learning complex tasks but also themselves coming up with new and better solutions to them.
>> I hear this crap about machine intelligence thrown out without any significant exemplars of said intelligence. >> Show me something smarter than Eliza. Uh how about you do your own looking? just try Googling stuff? Its not like this stuff isn't easily findable..
>> When a senator or house member sponsors and pushes through a bill that is found to be unconstitutional they lose their seat, right then, right there. Those that actually voted for the bill are fined a nice lump sum, 10K at least. If it is found that they sponsored or voted for a bill for personal gain, prison time.
Nice. When is the last time this actually happened? I'm genuinely asking, since it seems to me there's been a *lot* of bills/laws passed that are actually unconstituional, and apparently resulted in zero reprocussions.
>> You and your neighbours can decide to not vote for these people come next election.
Like that would make a differnece. Its not like we get a chance to vote for anyone who would actually be really better. Basically the current system ensures that to even get a chance to stand for election you already have to have sold out big time. Therefore the only choice voters ever get is clown A or clown B, and theres even significant evidence that votes don't actually count as much as you'd think to decide even that.
Actually I think it IS a big deal that the most powerful country in the world has a political system that literally requires the people running it to be blatantly corrupt.
Yep I agree that kit cars (obviously) wouldn't, and also that it seems US car brands are less likely to do it. I believe Cadillac and Ford do it on some newer/pricier models though.
Of course then there's Tesla. You can't even plug into the car's network without getting a nastygram from them, let alone switch out parts yourself.
>> Seriously - even if they did pull something stupid like GP insists
They absolutely do. On purpose. So you HAVE to go through the dealer and get ripped off.
Still don't believe me? prove me wrong by posting here the details of any aftermarket product that allows an individual to fit an alternative transmission (or even the correct replacement unit) in any recent Mercedes, BMW, Porsche, Jaguar or Land Rover without also having to pay a dealer or specialist through the nose.
Ugh, I think you need to stop talking down to people. As it happens I do "actually" work on cars and have done so for a long time.
>> Other high end (150+k) cars would have this even remotely possible.
Wrong. There are many brands that all have cars under $40k that do this. You can start with most if not all Euro brands, especially the premium brands.
>> Only the Nissan GTR has an engine mated and tuned directly to the transmission.....which has exactly nothing to do with what I was describing. Please if you're going to respond at least bother to read what I actually wrote.
>> The transmission your car can be replaced with any of the like car transmissions without being disabled.
Its already been like that for a while actually. Have you ever tried replacing a major component such as a transmission of a car yourself? in most cases the car does an audit of whats plugged in before it will even turn the engine over. If an installed part has a serial number that doesn't match the ECU's stored manifest, the car wont even try to start. To update the manifest you need a dealer-only tool.
>> So what's your problem then, hacker? Really? maintaining/repairing my own car is now hacking? Your stupid thinking exactly represents the problem not the solution.
>> replace the damned ECU a) there isnt one available for my car (Jaguar) b) even if there was, fitting it would break the warranty c) why should I have to pay an extra 3k just to be able to work on my own car?
Why did they remove the head? It seems to me the lack of a body is what's going to not get you unfrozen in the future, not the cancer. The cure for cancer is probably a whole lot morel likely lthan any time when we can sucessfully graft a head onto a whole new body, or cause the head to grow one.
Then of course there's the whole question of why anyone in the future would even want to go to the expense and effort of defrosting and curing you when there's already too many people in the world, and also a whole lot easier and more pleasurable ways of making more should you want to.
Judging by the bulk of games on steam, iTunes and the android play store, there must be a massive market for low quality unimaginative copycat games that take at most 2 or 3 weeks to hack together. its seems its just more evidence that you can never understimate the level of quality that many consumers will accept and pay for.
Consequently 'm wondering if real reason for 2k closing is that the whole model of fronting tens of millions to develop a AAA game is just no longer as viable/profitable as just chucking a few grand at a cheap coder to churn out yet another crap copycat mobile app that you can sell online in volume for $20+ a shot, especially if you also put some money into marketing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Your paranoia of rebooting your phone several times a day is an illness. Your advocation that this is necessary is ridiculous. Your assertion that when we buy expensive products we should all adopt sheep-like acceptance of low-quality and functional issues without even complaining is just downright insulting and retarded.
No but I seriously would like to know how/why people that screw over others and make such bad decisions cen even get the chance to be CEOs, and why apparently many if not most CEOs are like that.
>> you have no idea how machine learning actually works
I acutally do, since I did AI as a final-year elective in my CS degree and machine learning was a significant part of it, Perhaps what you actually mean is that your view of what it is doesn't agree with mine. So instead of just continually being a dick and insulting my knowledge, why don't you tone it down a bit and justify your own points more specifically? actually never mind I have nothing to prove here or learn from you.
...since apparently common sense, intelligence, sensitivity and interpersonal skills are not prerequisites for being a CEO of a global company anymore.
Kinda makes me wonder what relevant skills she actually does have.
>> Pretty much any lawyer can choose to run for a post like County Attorney
Exactly. Do you REALLY think the type of people that become lawyers in the first place are also those that are naturally the least scheming and devious and most altruistic? I for one don't, yet as you say, those are the ones most well-placed to run.
>> by most accepted definitions of intelligence, there are no algorithms that exhibit signs of actually having it.
thats a very sweeping statement. Its also one that seems patently untrue given the bar for general intelligence seems actually pretty low. Look at Wikipedia's more general definition of intelligence for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
the ability to perceive and/or retain knowledge or information and apply it to itself or other instances of knowledge or information creating referable understanding models of any size, density, or complexity, due to any conscious or subconscious imposed will or instruction to do so.
It says nothing about interpreting or fundamentally understanding knowledge, merely perceiving and or retaining it. Imagine a chess program that works by storing a chess board and gets the next moev by building a simple game tree of all legal moves from the current position, then scores each branch according to some system of evaluation using weightings. As long as it also adjusts/refines its weightings over time based on the outcome of each completed game, it seems that would clearly qualify as "intelligent" according to the above definition.
>> There's nothing wrong with being excited about AI developments. It's just that historically, people like you who go around calling things AI that aren't
Well there is no and probably can be no solid definition of AI, at least partly because it depends on a consistent deifintion of what intelligience itself is. Some people believe that nothing other than humans even have the capability to be intelligent because it requires a soul or whatever, while, some people think a cellphone is at least partially intelligent, hence the name smartphone.
Thats why when you asked
>> Where in the world are actual intelligent networks?
it appeared to me to be a very ignorant question and was really my poiint in showing you lots of diverse links to differnet forms of what different smart people consider intelligence to be.
Regardless of what you clearly thing about neural nets, I still belive they demonstrate at least some level of basic intelligence, as does most any algorithm that evaluates and adapts and so improves its own behaviour in order to reach some goal without needing ongoing input at each iteration (i.e. programming) by a human. To me that algorithm is demostrating basic intelligence even though a human programmed it to be that way.
It seems to me that until someone can define "true" intellgience (whatever that means) there is no point in trying to diferentiate between it and apparent intelligence, since I think both are no more than an emergent side-effect of a self-improving (i.e. learning) system that has some objective. Much like how a bunch of robots all programmed with a few very simple rules can exhibit very complex emergent behaviour when operating/interacting/viewed as a swarm.
>> Where is the bot that can pass a Turing test reliably?
Here's just one of the ones that have passed the turing test.
http://www.theguardian.com/tec...
>> Where in the world are actual intelligent networks?
>> Where is the machine that can learn complex tasks?
>> where is there a machine that uses something other than a human designed tree search to do things?
Many software applications based on neural networks and other self-evolving/learning AI alogirthms are already in everyday use not only learning complex tasks but also themselves coming up with new and better solutions to them.
>> I hear this crap about machine intelligence thrown out without any significant exemplars of said intelligence.
>> Show me something smarter than Eliza.
Uh how about you do your own looking? just try Googling stuff? Its not like this stuff isn't easily findable..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects...
http://www.extremetech.com/ext...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
>> When a senator or house member sponsors and pushes through a bill that is found to be unconstitutional they lose their seat, right then, right there. Those that actually voted for the bill are fined a nice lump sum, 10K at least. If it is found that they sponsored or voted for a bill for personal gain, prison time.
Nice. When is the last time this actually happened? I'm genuinely asking, since it seems to me there's been a *lot* of bills/laws passed that are actually unconstituional, and apparently resulted in zero reprocussions.
>> You and your neighbours can decide to not vote for these people come next election.
Like that would make a differnece. Its not like we get a chance to vote for anyone who would actually be really better. Basically the current system ensures that to even get a chance to stand for election you already have to have sold out big time. Therefore the only choice voters ever get is clown A or clown B, and theres even significant evidence that votes don't actually count as much as you'd think to decide even that.
Why did this get to be a post on slashdot?
>> Big deal.
Actually I think it IS a big deal that the most powerful country in the world has a political system that literally requires the people running it to be blatantly corrupt.
Yep I agree that kit cars (obviously) wouldn't, and also that it seems US car brands are less likely to do it. I believe Cadillac and Ford do it on some newer/pricier models though.
Of course then there's Tesla. You can't even plug into the car's network without getting a nastygram from them, let alone switch out parts yourself.
>> you have failed to provide nay sources your self.
Did you not even read the thread before you responded? I challenged him to find a third-party solution that could get around the problem.
You just found somewhere that sells transmissions.
How does that address what I actually said?
>> Step 1: find out what car companies are behind this
Pretty much all of them one way or another.
>> Seriously - even if they did pull something stupid like GP insists
They absolutely do. On purpose. So you HAVE to go through the dealer and get ripped off.
Still don't believe me? prove me wrong by posting here the details of any aftermarket product that allows an individual to fit an alternative transmission (or even the correct replacement unit) in any recent Mercedes, BMW, Porsche, Jaguar or Land Rover without also having to pay a dealer or specialist through the nose.
Ugh, I think you need to stop talking down to people. As it happens I do "actually" work on cars and have done so for a long time.
>> Other high end (150+k) cars would have this even remotely possible.
Wrong. There are many brands that all have cars under $40k that do this. You can start with most if not all Euro brands, especially the premium brands.
>> Only the Nissan GTR has an engine mated and tuned directly to the transmission. ....which has exactly nothing to do with what I was describing. Please if you're going to respond at least bother to read what I actually wrote.
>> The transmission your car can be replaced with any of the like car transmissions without being disabled.
Wrong again.
Its already been like that for a while actually.
Have you ever tried replacing a major component such as a transmission of a car yourself? in most cases the car does an audit of whats plugged in before it will even turn the engine over. If an installed part has a serial number that doesn't match the ECU's stored manifest, the car wont even try to start. To update the manifest you need a dealer-only tool.
In that are, 892k IS low-income.
>> So what's your problem then, hacker?
Really? maintaining/repairing my own car is now hacking? Your stupid thinking exactly represents the problem not the solution.
>> replace the damned ECU
a) there isnt one available for my car (Jaguar)
b) even if there was, fitting it would break the warranty
c) why should I have to pay an extra 3k just to be able to work on my own car?
Why did they remove the head? It seems to me the lack of a body is what's going to not get you unfrozen in the future, not the cancer. The cure for cancer is probably a whole lot morel likely lthan any time when we can sucessfully graft a head onto a whole new body, or cause the head to grow one.
Then of course there's the whole question of why anyone in the future would even want to go to the expense and effort of defrosting and curing you when there's already too many people in the world, and also a whole lot easier and more pleasurable ways of making more should you want to.
Yep I'm 100% with you. The moment Microsoft crapware starts appearing on my phone its goodbye CyanogenMod.
Judging by the bulk of games on steam, iTunes and the android play store, there must be a massive market for low quality unimaginative copycat games that take at most 2 or 3 weeks to hack together. its seems its just more evidence that you can never understimate the level of quality that many consumers will accept and pay for.
Consequently 'm wondering if real reason for 2k closing is that the whole model of fronting tens of millions to develop a AAA game is just no longer as viable/profitable as just chucking a few grand at a cheap coder to churn out yet another crap copycat mobile app that you can sell online in volume for $20+ a shot, especially if you also put some money into marketing it.
>> allow a male TSA employee to fondle the genital areas of attractive male passengers."
I don't know if I'd be more offended by being groped, or by being passed over.