I would probably start with one that can from coherent sentence
Muphy's law strikes! Maybe intentional, but there seems to be a version of it that most of the time when someone complains about grammar here they fuck up their own in the process of doing so.
I do agree with the point entirely. It would be nice if there was something like the automatic poet out of Kandel's translation of Lem's Cyberiad (google for the Samson poem it does - hilarious) but it does not seem trivial to simulate human thought.
Lem's solution for an A.I. capable of writing? 1/ First simulate the universe...
The 3D animation? Well, it was cool but we had to make a compelling film on storyboards before we started using it. 3D animation alone doesn't hold the audience attention for long
Star Trek one - "the motionless picture", despite it's age, is still just about the gold standard of how throwing in a few minutes of special effects does not make a more watchable movie. I remember watching it and despite being a keen Trek fan my response was "they made an actress shave her head for something as worthless as this?" There are plenty of worse films but I'm putting it up as an example because just cutting those long, slow special effects sequences would have improved the film significantly. By trying to improve the film with effects they made it far worse. It was sort of a cargo cult "2001" without understanding that the effects were bridging bits and they needed solid stuff before and after to work.
When an AI can really tell a compelling story, it will have passed the test for strong AI.
Yes, but I'd add when it can do it with some repeatability. Enough generated scripts and the choice between portions of different random scripts and a human being can pick some meaning out like finding a single four leaf clover in a field. If it can get it right a lot then that's an effective script engine, but as for A.I., such a thing is expected to be more than a one trick pony as far as I've read. If a script engine is "thinking" you'd expect a little more.
I've read it all - there seem to be a few quotes there that you have pretended I wrote (about screwing rugs and donald trump - wtf?) and if it was not an error that's really disgusting new low point here, even more so than the creepy attempts to get info on me as ammo for an ad-hom attack or whatever that fishing was about.
I stand by what I've written - I believe you defended mythical wrongly accused rapists by giving multiple examples of "rape accusations" that turned out not to be what the police or anyone else here would call "rape accusations" and played the victim card to boot. If that was not your intention then what the hell are you trying to do here and what is the point of all that whining and jazzed up storytelling? It doesn't matter to me that stuff "just happened" to you since it turned out in the end to be far more trivial than what is being discussed, but still, why take so much offence when the obvious falsehood was pointed out as such?
I did, but it was mostly irrelevant. Serious criminal shit was being discussed here but you put up your trivial little jazzed up anecdote of bad relationship breakups or whatever as "proof" of false rape reports. Now while your account has you totally passive and stuff just happening to you with no input on your part, as unlikely and unrealistic as a confected letter to penthouse, that does not really matter because your example is so trivial compared with what was being discussed so blame does not matter in any way apart from directly between you and the other parties. It's none of my business. Putting up a storm in a teacup as "proof" to spread doubt about the guilt of convicted rapists, now that's something to take seriously.
Making sense yet?
I'll read the rest of your new post later, hopefully it's not a lot of irrelevant whining like the one a few posts above.
Fuck that's a LOT of whining. All that whining just because I'm calling you out as a piece of shit for backing up a comment about false rape reports to police but putting up your "enchanced" unlikely letter to penthouse as "proof"?
Sorry, your long post was completely wasted because all the really needs to be addressed is your first one.
Action replay time AC1:
WTF are you talking about? False rape reports are a tiny percent of rapes reported. And the number of actual rapes not reported is quite high as well.
AC2:
It's truly unfortunate and sad but actually there are a whole lot more false rape reports than you might think
Broscon:
This. I've had 3 women accuse me of rape
Then your letter to penthouse (yes, it is that unlikely, obviously "jazzed up" and unrealistic don't pretend I meant anything else by calling it that) in support of all those men behind bars falsely accused of rape follows - complete with playing the victim card!
My response to that was very mild but you just had to keep on whining didn't you?
If you can calm down and stop your whining, what do you say about all the "false reports" about Phil Spector, Bill Crosby and Jimmy Saville? Jimmy Saville alone had dozens reported to police in England, Scotland and Wales, handled by what turned out to be nine different police forces in the end - all of which are not looking so false now. It kind of makes the false accusation statistics look a little less accurate don't you think, especially since the number of things filed as false accusations is so low in the first place that those celebrities accounted for a major chunk.
Sorry but I have to comment on this bit:
And I know you have this image of me sitting here crying over you, or throwing up fists of rage
Now that's just weird. I caught you out pushing a pretty disgusting agenda by "jazzing up" a story as "proof" and pretending one thing is a different thing but that's all that is going on here. If you get angry about a suggestion of taking responsibility for your own actions then that is your own problem.
The horror story you wrote in a thread about false rape reports to police. If you meant something entirely different to the post above yours you agreed to by saying "This" then you should have written something else should you not?
Instead you've written a huge number of posts whining and now pretending you wrote something other than what you did in something other than the context it was in.
You mean if you had read and understood my initial post for what it was, rather than making shit up
I did - I saw through the "enhancement" you applied that has since fallen apart under questioning - the bit where you pretended that slander was equivalent to laying false rape charges especially.
The way I was raised, if you're right you never back down
But you were not right were you? Things in your original unlikely letter to penthouse style post above didn't turn out to be true di they?
And that would be all fine and well if I were lying.
Indeed, which is why I took you to task. Pretending that heated words associated with a breakup or whatever are equivalent to staring at bars wondering about making bail is a bit much IMHO. Hiding behind the shield anecdote of that unrelated event that apparently happened to you when you were 17 just so that you can rail at a critic as being insensitive (as indeed I am - I do not give a shit since it has nothing to do with the "so many women are crying wolf" shit you are pushing), is a different story.
Either way the implication that a large number of rapists are only behind bars because women were liars is more than just a little bit sociopathic and not just something to leave unchallenged to poison the kiddies.
Unless they have seen the cameras everywhere and have worked out that the UK government is all for that much tracking and more. This issue is completely unrelated to Brexit for better or worse.
attacking someone for posting about some bad shit in their past
Attacking someone for LYING about some bad shit in their past to push a very nasty "they all cry wolf" agenda and then hiding behind rightous indignation when mildly rebuked.
I can assure you that me standing up and truthfully speaking about my experiences has nothing to do with it.
Only you inflated it into something other than truth to push an agenda about large numbers of rapists being falsely accused. If you were truthful you wouldn't have got my mild rebuke and if you hadn't kept digging this thread would not be here.
So you're the guy who lied to imply that there are a lot of rapists who shouldn't be locked up because of huge numbers of false reports and I'm the bad guy for calling you out on it? What's more I need to be threatened with a violent response (that puppy biting back shit). Good to know how it stands.
Is that really the person you wanted to grow up to be?
Well... I didn't have to look beyond your Slashdot posting history to see just how politically active you try to be
Geophones, Model T Ford and Nokia are political? Hello? Anybody in there? Hello? Give up on the boilerplate fucking insult you've used on someone else and act like a human being instead of a chatbot with an incredibly thin skin.
Don't try to weasel your way out. You wanted to pretend that you could have been one of those guys falsely convicted of rape as was being discussed so you wrote that letter to penthouse and put just enough truth in it so you could be rightously angry when someone called you out on your dishonesty. Pathetic and twisting the minds of the kiddies that don't know any better.
It shit like this that let Jimmie Saville, Bill Crosby, Phil Spector and many others be accused (to the police obviously) of rape many times and they could laugh it off as a false accusation. Don't just add to that shit because it is fashionable. Be a real man instead.
read my initial post, leading you to miss and confuse several key details.
You were dishonest in a story complaining about dishonesty and then couldn't stand my very mild rebuke so kept pushing for increasingly blunt rebukes.
Again, just how young do you think I am?
You told me when you went to high school remember, that's about when I was teaching engineering students. Old enough to know better but still acting like a stupid whiny kid with this pissweak gutless victim shit when you are anything but that. Maybe I was like that at your age now but I doubt it.
By the way, my wife says you're a cunt. I don't disagree with her.
Since I am basicly calling you a lying prick for inflating a sensitive personal story out of all proportion of course she does. There are no winners when you bare your dirty linen and pretend it is something bigger than it really is to try to push an agenda - I'm the guy kicking the puppy for peeing all over the floor. Please stop peeing all over the floor kid, this men's rights shit is poison.
Wasn't that dropped as well? Didn't you say that in between stuff about things on video?
So you're implying I'm making shit up
Not implying, I have pointed it out explictly. You have pretended that slander not reported to police is a "false rape report". You have made up the "false rape reports". As you kids say "not cool dude"
This "enhancement" is not an enhancement. It consists of having a computer guess
Obviously, but in what way with what degree of success?
There is no technology in this universe than can reconstruct data that is missing from the signal
Sometimes there doesn't have to be but a workaround can be useful. As an example a few years ago I attended a presentation on Transmission Electron Microscopy on some structures in teeth related to tooth growth right down to the atomic level. Calcium atoms could not be imaged - data was missing from the signal due to lack of resolution. However comparing computer models of defocused images of different structures could be matched with the real images with not enough resolution to be focused led to being able to derive the structure without actually being able to properly image it. That's an example of taking incomplete data and generating something that could have produced that incomplete data. If you can get a very large amount of the incomplete data, the missing signal is repetitive and you can model the degradation it's possible to model artificial data going through the same process and match it to the real data. I'd be interested to see what they are getting and how.
The important thing is that the low frequency noise is not always going to be the only clue and there can be some expectation as to what the original source is going to look like - eg. model of human speech and matching from running that through a filter matching the expected degradation. How the clues are put together could be interesting.
Which of your stories am I to believe? What you said before about the police dropping the entire thing or this new statement?
Again, who are you trying to convince
I am trying to convince you to stop misleading the actual kiddies for the sake of childishly pushing a fucking stupid "poor little oppressed men" agenda. It's probably time you acted your age.
Nokia was pushed. They were selling more phones than any other company on earth when Elop joined up. They had plenty of vision and a ridiculously large product range when Elop showed up. The "smartphone" focus, where for some reason they were seen as a failure despite being number two or three in that sector, is a distraction.
It was a very blatant corporate raid for the purpose of driving down Nokia's price as a prelude to MS buying it out for the bits they wanted. Elop did not have the track history to be seriously considered as CEO for a company the size of Nokia - he's sitting in a quiet little backwater in the middle of the org chart of Australia's Telstra today which more closely reflects where you would see an executive of his experience.
Nokia owned Trolltech of qt fame, so they had some very experienced heavy hitters on the software side, and the slow development time of Maemo and MeeGo makes perfect sense when you consider the small number of staff on those projects. As an example one fairly inexperienced guy did the X Windows port on his own! Nokia never took those things seriously as a mainstream option. If they had taken android (or Maemo or MeeGo) seriously they could have poured in the resources used on the "feature phones" into it and produced something as good or better than their lumia winphone (decent hardware crap interface).
Slashdot Mirror
Muphy's law strikes! Maybe intentional, but there seems to be a version of it that most of the time when someone complains about grammar here they fuck up their own in the process of doing so.
...
I do agree with the point entirely. It would be nice if there was something like the automatic poet out of Kandel's translation of Lem's Cyberiad (google for the Samson poem it does - hilarious) but it does not seem trivial to simulate human thought.
Lem's solution for an A.I. capable of writing?
1/ First simulate the universe
If that becomes skynet we're all well and truly fucked.
Star Trek one - "the motionless picture", despite it's age, is still just about the gold standard of how throwing in a few minutes of special effects does not make a more watchable movie. I remember watching it and despite being a keen Trek fan my response was "they made an actress shave her head for something as worthless as this?" There are plenty of worse films but I'm putting it up as an example because just cutting those long, slow special effects sequences would have improved the film significantly. By trying to improve the film with effects they made it far worse.
It was sort of a cargo cult "2001" without understanding that the effects were bridging bits and they needed solid stuff before and after to work.
Yes, but I'd add when it can do it with some repeatability. Enough generated scripts and the choice between portions of different random scripts and a human being can pick some meaning out like finding a single four leaf clover in a field. If it can get it right a lot then that's an effective script engine, but as for A.I., such a thing is expected to be more than a one trick pony as far as I've read. If a script engine is "thinking" you'd expect a little more.
I've read it all - there seem to be a few quotes there that you have pretended I wrote (about screwing rugs and donald trump - wtf?) and if it was not an error that's really disgusting new low point here, even more so than the creepy attempts to get info on me as ammo for an ad-hom attack or whatever that fishing was about.
I stand by what I've written - I believe you defended mythical wrongly accused rapists by giving multiple examples of "rape accusations" that turned out not to be what the police or anyone else here would call "rape accusations" and played the victim card to boot.
If that was not your intention then what the hell are you trying to do here and what is the point of all that whining and jazzed up storytelling? It doesn't matter to me that stuff "just happened" to you since it turned out in the end to be far more trivial than what is being discussed, but still, why take so much offence when the obvious falsehood was pointed out as such?
I did, but it was mostly irrelevant.
Serious criminal shit was being discussed here but you put up your trivial little jazzed up anecdote of bad relationship breakups or whatever as "proof" of false rape reports.
Now while your account has you totally passive and stuff just happening to you with no input on your part, as unlikely and unrealistic as a confected letter to penthouse, that does not really matter because your example is so trivial compared with what was being discussed so blame does not matter in any way apart from directly between you and the other parties. It's none of my business. Putting up a storm in a teacup as "proof" to spread doubt about the guilt of convicted rapists, now that's something to take seriously.
Making sense yet?
I'll read the rest of your new post later, hopefully it's not a lot of irrelevant whining like the one a few posts above.
All that whining just because I'm calling you out as a piece of shit for backing up a comment about false rape reports to police but putting up your "enchanced" unlikely letter to penthouse as "proof"?
Sorry, your long post was completely wasted because all the really needs to be addressed is your first one.
Action replay time
AC1:
AC2:
Broscon:
Then your letter to penthouse (yes, it is that unlikely, obviously "jazzed up" and unrealistic don't pretend I meant anything else by calling it that) in support of all those men behind bars falsely accused of rape follows - complete with playing the victim card!
My response to that was very mild but you just had to keep on whining didn't you?
If you can calm down and stop your whining, what do you say about all the "false reports" about Phil Spector, Bill Crosby and Jimmy Saville? Jimmy Saville alone had dozens reported to police in England, Scotland and Wales, handled by what turned out to be nine different police forces in the end - all of which are not looking so false now. It kind of makes the false accusation statistics look a little less accurate don't you think, especially since the number of things filed as false accusations is so low in the first place that those celebrities accounted for a major chunk.
Sorry but I have to comment on this bit:
Now that's just weird. I caught you out pushing a pretty disgusting agenda by "jazzing up" a story as "proof" and pretending one thing is a different thing but that's all that is going on here. If you get angry about a suggestion of taking responsibility for your own actions then that is your own problem.
The horror story you wrote in a thread about false rape reports to police. If you meant something entirely different to the post above yours you agreed to by saying "This" then you should have written something else should you not?
Instead you've written a huge number of posts whining and now pretending you wrote something other than what you did in something other than the context it was in.
Bad puppy.
I did - I saw through the "enhancement" you applied that has since fallen apart under questioning - the bit where you pretended that slander was equivalent to laying false rape charges especially.
But you were not right were you? Things in your original unlikely letter to penthouse style post above didn't turn out to be true di they?
Indeed, which is why I took you to task.
Pretending that heated words associated with a breakup or whatever are equivalent to staring at bars wondering about making bail is a bit much IMHO.
Hiding behind the shield anecdote of that unrelated event that apparently happened to you when you were 17 just so that you can rail at a critic as being insensitive (as indeed I am - I do not give a shit since it has nothing to do with the "so many women are crying wolf" shit you are pushing), is a different story.
Either way the implication that a large number of rapists are only behind bars because women were liars is more than just a little bit sociopathic and not just something to leave unchallenged to poison the kiddies.
Unless they have seen the cameras everywhere and have worked out that the UK government is all for that much tracking and more.
This issue is completely unrelated to Brexit for better or worse.
Attacking someone for LYING about some bad shit in their past to push a very nasty "they all cry wolf" agenda and then hiding behind rightous indignation when mildly rebuked.
I don't have to convince someone who already knows what they did. I'm calling you to account.
Using falsehoods to complain about dishonesty would be hilarious in a different context. Using to excuse rapists however, not so funny.
Only you inflated it into something other than truth to push an agenda about large numbers of rapists being falsely accused.
If you were truthful you wouldn't have got my mild rebuke and if you hadn't kept digging this thread would not be here.
So you're the guy who lied to imply that there are a lot of rapists who shouldn't be locked up because of huge numbers of false reports and I'm the bad guy for calling you out on it? What's more I need to be threatened with a violent response (that puppy biting back shit).
Good to know how it stands.
Is that really the person you wanted to grow up to be?
Geophones, Model T Ford and Nokia are political?
Hello? Anybody in there? Hello?
Give up on the boilerplate fucking insult you've used on someone else and act like a human being instead of a chatbot with an incredibly thin skin.
I'm wearing pants so obviously I am hiding something. Idiot.
Then obviously what I have written stands.
Don't try to weasel your way out. You wanted to pretend that you could have been one of those guys falsely convicted of rape as was being discussed so you wrote that letter to penthouse and put just enough truth in it so you could be rightously angry when someone called you out on your dishonesty.
Pathetic and twisting the minds of the kiddies that don't know any better.
It shit like this that let Jimmie Saville, Bill Crosby, Phil Spector and many others be accused (to the police obviously) of rape many times and they could laugh it off as a false accusation. Don't just add to that shit because it is fashionable. Be a real man instead.
You were dishonest in a story complaining about dishonesty and then couldn't stand my very mild rebuke so kept pushing for increasingly blunt rebukes.
You told me when you went to high school remember, that's about when I was teaching engineering students. Old enough to know better but still acting like a stupid whiny kid with this pissweak gutless victim shit when you are anything but that. Maybe I was like that at your age now but I doubt it.
Since I am basicly calling you a lying prick for inflating a sensitive personal story out of all proportion of course she does. There are no winners when you bare your dirty linen and pretend it is something bigger than it really is to try to push an agenda - I'm the guy kicking the puppy for peeing all over the floor. Please stop peeing all over the floor kid, this men's rights shit is poison.
Wasn't that dropped as well? Didn't you say that in between stuff about things on video?
Not implying, I have pointed it out explictly. You have pretended that slander not reported to police is a "false rape report". You have made up the "false rape reports". As you kids say "not cool dude"
Obviously, but in what way with what degree of success?
Sometimes there doesn't have to be but a workaround can be useful. As an example a few years ago I attended a presentation on Transmission Electron Microscopy on some structures in teeth related to tooth growth right down to the atomic level. Calcium atoms could not be imaged - data was missing from the signal due to lack of resolution. However comparing computer models of defocused images of different structures could be matched with the real images with not enough resolution to be focused led to being able to derive the structure without actually being able to properly image it.
That's an example of taking incomplete data and generating something that could have produced that incomplete data. If you can get a very large amount of the incomplete data, the missing signal is repetitive and you can model the degradation it's possible to model artificial data going through the same process and match it to the real data. I'd be interested to see what they are getting and how.
The important thing is that the low frequency noise is not always going to be the only clue and there can be some expectation as to what the original source is going to look like - eg. model of human speech and matching from running that through a filter matching the expected degradation. How the clues are put together could be interesting.
Which of your stories am I to believe? What you said before about the police dropping the entire thing or this new statement?
I am trying to convince you to stop misleading the actual kiddies for the sake of childishly pushing a fucking stupid "poor little oppressed men" agenda. It's probably time you acted your age.
Which is why I still have a Nokia N900. Using ssh on a virtual keyboard on a touch screen is a pain.
Nokia was pushed.
They were selling more phones than any other company on earth when Elop joined up. They had plenty of vision and a ridiculously large product range when Elop showed up.
The "smartphone" focus, where for some reason they were seen as a failure despite being number two or three in that sector, is a distraction.
It was a very blatant corporate raid for the purpose of driving down Nokia's price as a prelude to MS buying it out for the bits they wanted. Elop did not have the track history to be seriously considered as CEO for a company the size of Nokia - he's sitting in a quiet little backwater in the middle of the org chart of Australia's Telstra today which more closely reflects where you would see an executive of his experience.
Nokia owned Trolltech of qt fame, so they had some very experienced heavy hitters on the software side, and the slow development time of Maemo and MeeGo makes perfect sense when you consider the small number of staff on those projects. As an example one fairly inexperienced guy did the X Windows port on his own! Nokia never took those things seriously as a mainstream option. If they had taken android (or Maemo or MeeGo) seriously they could have poured in the resources used on the "feature phones" into it and produced something as good or better than their lumia winphone (decent hardware crap interface).