Those systems where the computer equivalent of hotrodding [automotive].
While there remain the same (or even larger) population of people who are willing to figure out how each part of the device works, the vast majority of users are simply satisfied to drive.
This does not necessarily indicate that computer tinkering is any less of a draw. One needs to also consider that the percentage of people who now have computers, in one form or another, has gone from 5 percent of the population to nearly 100 percent of the population.
The 'fun' is lost in the statistical noise rather than being in the center of the distribution.
Another factor is demographics. When I see people pine for the Atari, Commodore, TI99A, Spectrum, etc., it needs to be noted that those where part of the lives of a specific generation(s) of user. As those users matured they lost the desire (not the ability) to continue the adventure. Once inside knowledge and skills have declined older users tend to lean toward nostalgia and the good old days that never really existed.
The manuals for your hardware and chips are available from manufacturers. There is no reason why one couldn't continue your explorations.
A U.S. Navy 'research' vessel near Chinese disputed waters is perceived, globally, as the same thing as 'Russian Fishing Trawlers' off Cape Canaveral. It's surprising there were no U.S. security boats nearby to provide an escort. Was that so they could actually get/let China to pick the equipment up?
" wagering on a mutual enrichment given their increased trade with us".
There are several economists, in the U.S. that would heartily disagree with you. Also, regarding the perception of U.S. bonds as stable over the long term. I actually studied economics well past level 101.
China can economically drop the U.S. with very little pain at this point. Read Reuters.
Any self destruct would cause an even worse international incident.
China is just indicating that the new prez-elect is in for a hay-ride if he actually thinks he will be in charge globally. Trump's big mouth may play well in the trailer parks of Bullshit Backwater U.S.A., but the rest of the world will cut it's losses and just cut the U.S. loose and let it starve economically rather than work around him.
The U.S. only represents 4% of the global population. The rest of he planet is moving on with growing, young, middle classes. China is just sending a clear message that, no only is the U.S. no longer economically competitive, the country is no longer militarily competitive either. This despite the U.S. having the worlds largest expenditure in military.
China and Russia are needling the U.S. to try to get it's people to understand that they can pull the wings off the U.S. like a fly with no effort.
Examples are: - Russia steps in and ends the Syrian conflict just to piss USA off. - Russia runs rings around the U.S. by performing cyberwar on national elections and demonstrates to the world that the U.S. system of democracy is a fraud. - Russia continues to launch more space payloads than any other nation. - China owns the majority of U.S. debt, hence the U.S. economy. - China can, not only easily find but also, pluck U.S. military technology from a very large ocean as a demonstration of technical superiority that should not be ignored.
I'm not sure what the U.S. public need to make this all more obvious. Maybe if Russia and China turned all the lights across the U.S. on and off twice each night for 30 days.
There were no images. Trump actually tweeted that from his account. No one needs to make this shit up. He does it to himself.
Here's a thought. The ocean is very big. How is it that the U.S. Military drone was so close to Chinese operations?
Please help me with this because I obviously don't process information very well. I don't have cable and tend to only read things like actual historic briefs that are validated by multiple observations so I don't have much time to catch your high quality Fox News for it's unbiased global analysis.
C.A.T. and M.R.I work well for non-metals, even some metals. China has all the same (or better) tools the West have. Even the same brands in some cases. Even tools and supplies under careful export restrictions.
Your estimate of 72 hours is a bit fast. It takes hours to carefully uTome chips using TeraHz - CAT. This is because boards tend to be odd shapes.
Yes, Trump has stated on Twitter that this is an 'unpresidented' act. I, for one, am certain Trump will do all in his power to fully retard this situation backward as humanely plausible.
By always encoding small messages into very large bundles it forces them to hire more people to check manually. That creates jobs, slows down their progress, increases errors, and fills up their storage.
At 30cm resolution, I don't think you see typing. You see people that look like Minecraft.
With the newer military keyhole sats maybe you could define the shape of a gun (2cm - 3cm resolution). If the orbit was right and the atmospheric conditions were clear. WorldView-4 is for public consumption, which means the resolution lags behind actual capabilities by a few years to allow military to stay ahead.
In all those films, just substitute. If you get a little bit of it on you somewhere, then you sell out too. Those unwilling to sell out to cynicism, well..., keep fighting I guess. They can't live forever.
We need to find ways to mitigate climate change despite the post war zombie generation. Let them have their moment. But never forget.
I'm not sure 'temptation' is the position I'd choose. There is a reason why real A.I. is always 10 to 20 years away.
A.I. is competing with an organism that has evolved, over millions of years, to be very efficient at energy utilization. The organic brain needs to be energy efficient because animals may not find food continuously for long periods of time.
We have designed machines, to date, assuming that energy input will always be plentiful and ubiquitously available. If you add up the calories necessary to make a computer that could perform all the simultaneous tasks that a society of human beings carry out you end up with a massive power supply. A power supply too big to carry.
The amount of energy required to have real, self portable, A.I.; A.I. at the same level as human intelligence; using machinery is impossible from the perspective of energy. If you consider 'social' robots, free of wires, self guided, and behaviourally/physically autonomous, then you're talking about tons of equipment and power supply. To have a society of these things would consume more power than we could produce.
In short, the A.I. singularity with current technology would either be trapped in a network forever, or would be so large and consumptive that it would die right away from lack of energy if disconnected from the grid.
Don't just take it from me as fact. Work out how much energy a single purpose A.I. uses in watts per day, and then multiply it up based on how much more a single human being can do simultaneously by comparison. A human burns about 2400 calories on a good day. That's about ten thousand Watt seconds of energy. A desktop computer; 200 Watts per hour. Super computers are using hundreds of Tesla GPU cards at 225 Watts each to create what we currently call simple A.I..
I have no worries of true autonomous A.I. being anything other than another 20 years away for a very long time.
I agree. What you are noticing is that, in technology, new ideas generally come from the edges of the standard distribution. Academia serves the center of the technical distribution by providing information that is known to those to could do research. In general most research is located on the sloping edges of the distribution. A.I., as a technology, is still a fringe science populated by early adopters and the curious, just as assembly programming would have been 40 years ago. A.I. will only be considered to be mature once it moves toward the mean of programming activity. The downside of that is in the decline of the actual usefulness of human programmers, since A.I. will then optimize itself.
To a certain extent this can be true. Our society, however, also suffers from anther problem at the other end of this scale.
This is what I refer to as 'Academic Credentialitis'. This disease is pervasive in our society and needs to be stamped out.
There is no certainty that anyone achieving academic standing in any subject actually makes them good enough at that subject to be 'fail-safe' . There is a systemic myth that somehow links academic standing with actual skill.
Another question is in the context of the design of academic programs. Programs can only be developed reactively based on social context. This means that any new technology that may be disruptive can only have curriculum developed once it is known. If we look at the top 20 historic developments of technology, that have shaped human history in a disruptive way, the majority of those were non-credential-ed developments.
Consider if you will the rise of the desktop computer. It was **NOT** a degreed professional who designed the first broadly successful consumer P.C.. (Wozniak only finished his engineering degree in 1986.) Even If we only consider the commercial success of the PC from an academic perspective, there were no business academics who predicted or persued the development of a consumer personal computer until after it had already arrived on the business scene from a garage. So, in the context of the computing world that we now live in, academia had little to do with the early development and adoption of the PC technology except to claim it after the fact. In short, if we had all adhered to academic credentials as the basis for the development of this technology, none of us would have it right now. We would all still be using tele-type and reading paper newspapers delivered by hand.
The academic myth has been created as a socio-economic filter to ensure that only those with suitable amounts of cash may achieve status in industry or government. This does not scale well to either skill or aptitude.
It has been suggested that aptitude testing would be a better way to validate skill level rather than degrees. The question is, "who designs the test?". There would be a strong bias to load the content of tests with useless information that only a degreed academic would know in just the same way as requests for proposals are biased toward favoured contractors.
The credential is a problem, not a solution. We need to remove our social addiction to that particular social snake oil and get back to skills assessment instead.
First of all it's a programming language not a saw.
Secondly, almost all other languages are compiled using a 'C' compiler. If the 'C' language were a flawed language then producing code for all those other languages, using 'C' would make all of those languages inherently contain the same systemic flaws.
'C/C++' gets a bad rap from programmers because most programmers lack the skills necessary to make reusable patterns or program securely in any language let alone 'C'.
A better analogy would be that programming has become a lot like carpentry. All manner of people claim to be carpenters and joiners just because they own a hammer. In computing, all manner of people claim to be programmers because they own a computer, have a Comp. 150 or 250 course, became a Microsoft Certified Engineer (what ever that means), or downloaded a free compiler and read a manual once. Such is our culture.
It takes a great deal of experience to understand where problems can be produced in any programming language. Unfortunately the under-informed masses of under skilled programmers tend to be negative about the technologies they understand the least.
The industry needs job entrance tests to demonstrate efficacy in programming rather then simply accepting that people are 'qualified' because they dicked with code for 20 hours in high school.
I guess all those complaints about "Your Video Doesn't Work!!!" finally got to Reuters. Or they finally just noticed the years of complaints and sent an email off to ADB.
So, according to this ruling, all the U.S. needs to do to control global industry is declare businesses crimes. Then seize business assets whether there is an official finding of guilt or not. Keep in mind that this has been to actually been to trial yet. Under U.S. law the defendant s innocent until proven guilty by trial.
Any country doing business with the U.S. should be wary of this type of anticompetitive, legalistic, economic activity. If this can happen to Kim Dotcom it can also happen to Sony, Toyota, Samsung, etc..
If global corporations just sit silently and let this happen, even if they think the Dotcom is a sleaze, they are allowing an international precedent that will set the groundwork for further international asset seizures. All that is needed is an accusation.
Each 'drone pilot' can theoretically have numerous additional aircraft in reserve if one is destroyed. Military drones will become substantially less expensive to manufacture than manned aircraft in a very short period of time.
The insurance costs and long term support costs for personnel directly engaged in combat, not mention prior flight training costs in a cockpit, are eliminated by the use of drones.
'Brittle connection'? Nobody cares about that. The main focus is on total cost and strategic return. It always has been. That's why military forces all over the world moved ahead from muskets, swords, and horse back riding to automatic weapons and long range tactics.
'Full awareness' drones are more likely, where each drone will have multiple personnel monitoring individual systems. This essentially gives each drone the abilities of 10 to 100 pilots with 'eyes on' without the risk of losing them in combat and near instantaneous deployment turn around of those staff if a craft is lost. Having the seat outside the aircraft is not a problem since we can now have a very small and fast aircraft with 100 or more people on board (virtually).
You can't do that with manned aircraft. The on board personnel take up too much room, consume too much fuel, and are a long term insurance liability. The same will happen to ground combat forces in a very short period of time. One small robot that can be easily replaced with a room full of 'full awareness' operators.
This also means the era of companies selling manned field weapons systems, airborne or otherwise, is quickly drawing to a close. Product focus will shift to remotely tethered systems. In a couple decades anything with a human operator will be considered obsolete.
Slashdot Mirror
Those systems where the computer equivalent of hotrodding [automotive].
While there remain the same (or even larger) population of people who are willing to figure out how each part of the device works, the vast majority of users are simply satisfied to drive.
This does not necessarily indicate that computer tinkering is any less of a draw. One needs to also consider that the percentage of people who now have computers, in one form or another, has gone from 5 percent of the population to nearly 100 percent of the population.
The 'fun' is lost in the statistical noise rather than being in the center of the distribution.
Another factor is demographics. When I see people pine for the Atari, Commodore, TI99A, Spectrum, etc., it needs to be noted that those where part of the lives of a specific generation(s) of user. As those users matured they lost the desire (not the ability) to continue the adventure. Once inside knowledge and skills have declined older users tend to lean toward nostalgia and the good old days that never really existed.
The manuals for your hardware and chips are available from manufacturers. There is no reason why one couldn't continue your explorations.
A.I. is the new 'hotrod'.
It's obvious propaganda on the part of China.
A U.S. Navy 'research' vessel near Chinese disputed waters is perceived, globally, as the same thing as 'Russian Fishing Trawlers' off Cape Canaveral.
It's surprising there were no U.S. security boats nearby to provide an escort. Was that so they could actually get/let China to pick the equipment up?
" wagering on a mutual enrichment given their increased trade with us".
There are several economists, in the U.S. that would heartily disagree with you. Also, regarding the perception of U.S. bonds as stable over the long term.
I actually studied economics well past level 101.
China can economically drop the U.S. with very little pain at this point. Read Reuters.
Yep.
Purely propaganda.
It was a response to Trump's prior bloviation.
"inexplicable experimental evidence of elemental transmutations."
Isn't this what happens before X-Men and Godzilla appear.....
'Facing' is a poor translation of the semantics of the English word 'Surrounding'.
The word 'Surrounding' can also mean a group of outside assailants pointing spears 'Facing' inward toward a trapped enemy.
It's just poor semantic translation.
Any self destruct would cause an even worse international incident.
China is just indicating that the new prez-elect is in for a hay-ride if he actually thinks he will be in charge globally.
Trump's big mouth may play well in the trailer parks of Bullshit Backwater U.S.A., but the rest of the world will cut it's losses and just cut the U.S. loose and let it starve economically rather than work around him.
The U.S. only represents 4% of the global population. The rest of he planet is moving on with growing, young, middle classes.
China is just sending a clear message that, no only is the U.S. no longer economically competitive, the country is no longer militarily competitive either.
This despite the U.S. having the worlds largest expenditure in military.
China and Russia are needling the U.S. to try to get it's people to understand that they can pull the wings off the U.S. like a fly with no effort.
Examples are:
- Russia steps in and ends the Syrian conflict just to piss USA off.
- Russia runs rings around the U.S. by performing cyberwar on national elections and demonstrates to the world that the U.S. system of democracy is a fraud.
- Russia continues to launch more space payloads than any other nation.
- China owns the majority of U.S. debt, hence the U.S. economy.
- China can, not only easily find but also, pluck U.S. military technology from a very large ocean as a demonstration of technical superiority that should not be ignored.
I'm not sure what the U.S. public need to make this all more obvious. Maybe if Russia and China turned all the lights across the U.S. on and off twice each night for 30 days.
There were no images. Trump actually tweeted that from his account.
No one needs to make this shit up.
He does it to himself.
Here's a thought. The ocean is very big. How is it that the U.S. Military drone was so close to Chinese operations?
Please help me with this because I obviously don't process information very well.
I don't have cable and tend to only read things like actual historic briefs that are validated by multiple observations so I don't have much time to catch your high quality Fox News for it's unbiased global analysis.
C.A.T. and M.R.I work well for non-metals, even some metals.
China has all the same (or better) tools the West have.
Even the same brands in some cases.
Even tools and supplies under careful export restrictions.
Your estimate of 72 hours is a bit fast.
It takes hours to carefully uTome chips using TeraHz - CAT.
This is because boards tend to be odd shapes.
Yes, Trump has stated on Twitter that this is an 'unpresidented' act.
I, for one, am certain Trump will do all in his power to fully retard this situation backward as humanely plausible.
-parts photographed
-boards xrayed
-wiring logged
-systems exported to solidworks for analysis
We should have it back to you some time in April.
Signed China
By always encoding small messages into very large bundles it forces them to hire more people to check manually.
That creates jobs, slows down their progress, increases errors, and fills up their storage.
They'll just get tired and go away after awhile.
At 30cm resolution, I don't think you see typing. You see people that look like Minecraft.
With the newer military keyhole sats maybe you could define the shape of a gun (2cm - 3cm resolution).
If the orbit was right and the atmospheric conditions were clear.
WorldView-4 is for public consumption, which means the resolution lags behind actual capabilities by a few years to allow military to stay ahead.
In all those films, just substitute.
If you get a little bit of it on you somewhere, then you sell out too.
Those unwilling to sell out to cynicism, well..., keep fighting I guess.
They can't live forever.
We need to find ways to mitigate climate change despite the post war zombie generation.
Let them have their moment. But never forget.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
It's interesting what is not shown in the video.
The thing is essentially an 'animatronic' doll with cables.
Power and processing are offloaded elsewhere.
Let's see it carry on a conversation while walking through the park in the rain.
The point I am making is that the complete system is not sitting there, nor can it.
I'm not sure 'temptation' is the position I'd choose. There is a reason why real A.I. is always 10 to 20 years away.
A.I. is competing with an organism that has evolved, over millions of years, to be very efficient at energy utilization. The organic brain needs to be energy efficient because animals may not find food continuously for long periods of time.
We have designed machines, to date, assuming that energy input will always be plentiful and ubiquitously available. If you add up the calories necessary to make a computer that could perform all the simultaneous tasks that a society of human beings carry out you end up with a massive power supply. A power supply too big to carry.
The amount of energy required to have real, self portable, A.I.; A.I. at the same level as human intelligence; using machinery is impossible from the perspective of energy. If you consider 'social' robots, free of wires, self guided, and behaviourally/physically autonomous, then you're talking about tons of equipment and power supply. To have a society of these things would consume more power than we could produce.
In short, the A.I. singularity with current technology would either be trapped in a network forever, or would be so large and consumptive that it would die right away from lack of energy if disconnected from the grid.
Don't just take it from me as fact. Work out how much energy a single purpose A.I. uses in watts per day, and then multiply it up based on how much more a single human being can do simultaneously by comparison. A human burns about 2400 calories on a good day. That's about ten thousand Watt seconds of energy. A desktop computer; 200 Watts per hour. Super computers are using hundreds of Tesla GPU cards at 225 Watts each to create what we currently call simple A.I..
I have no worries of true autonomous A.I. being anything other than another 20 years away for a very long time.
I agree. What you are noticing is that, in technology, new ideas generally come from the edges of the standard distribution. Academia serves the center of the technical distribution by providing information that is known to those to could do research. In general most research is located on the sloping edges of the distribution. A.I., as a technology, is still a fringe science populated by early adopters and the curious, just as assembly programming would have been 40 years ago. A.I. will only be considered to be mature once it moves toward the mean of programming activity. The downside of that is in the decline of the actual usefulness of human programmers, since A.I. will then optimize itself.
To a certain extent this can be true. Our society, however, also suffers from anther problem at the other end of this scale.
This is what I refer to as 'Academic Credentialitis'. This disease is pervasive in our society and needs to be stamped out.
There is no certainty that anyone achieving academic standing in any subject actually makes them good enough at that subject to be 'fail-safe' .
There is a systemic myth that somehow links academic standing with actual skill.
Another question is in the context of the design of academic programs. Programs can only be developed reactively based on social context. This means that any new technology that may be disruptive can only have curriculum developed once it is known. If we look at the top 20 historic developments of technology, that have shaped human history in a disruptive way, the majority of those were non-credential-ed developments.
Consider if you will the rise of the desktop computer. It was **NOT** a degreed professional who designed the first broadly successful consumer P.C..
(Wozniak only finished his engineering degree in 1986.) Even If we only consider the commercial success of the PC from an academic perspective, there were no business academics who predicted or persued the development of a consumer personal computer until after it had already arrived on the business scene from a garage. So, in the context of the computing world that we now live in, academia had little to do with the early development and adoption of the PC technology except to claim it after the fact. In short, if we had all adhered to academic credentials as the basis for the development of this technology, none of us would have it right now. We would all still be using tele-type and reading paper newspapers delivered by hand.
The academic myth has been created as a socio-economic filter to ensure that only those with suitable amounts of cash may achieve status in industry or government. This does not scale well to either skill or aptitude.
It has been suggested that aptitude testing would be a better way to validate skill level rather than degrees. The question is, "who designs the test?". There would be a strong bias to load the content of tests with useless information that only a degreed academic would know in just the same way as requests for proposals are biased toward favoured contractors.
The credential is a problem, not a solution. We need to remove our social addiction to that particular social snake oil and get back to skills assessment instead.
First of all it's a programming language not a saw.
Secondly, almost all other languages are compiled using a 'C' compiler.
If the 'C' language were a flawed language then producing code for all those other languages, using 'C' would make all of those languages inherently contain the same systemic flaws.
'C/C++' gets a bad rap from programmers because most programmers lack the skills necessary to make reusable patterns or program securely in any language let alone 'C'.
A better analogy would be that programming has become a lot like carpentry. All manner of people claim to be carpenters and joiners just because they own a hammer. In computing, all manner of people claim to be programmers because they own a computer, have a Comp. 150 or 250 course, became a Microsoft Certified Engineer (what ever that means), or downloaded a free compiler and read a manual once. Such is our culture.
It takes a great deal of experience to understand where problems can be produced in any programming language. Unfortunately the under-informed masses of under skilled programmers tend to be negative about the technologies they understand the least.
The industry needs job entrance tests to demonstrate efficacy in programming rather then simply accepting that people are 'qualified' because they dicked with code for 20 hours in high school.
I guess all those complaints about "Your Video Doesn't Work!!!" finally got to Reuters.
Or they finally just noticed the years of complaints and sent an email off to ADB.
If you really need your phone, spend the cash and FedEx it to yourself each direction.
Otherwise, get a prepaid phone at your destination and discard it before you leave.
...One Dollar!
and Matlab ....ffffffFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUU..........!
enough said.
So, according to this ruling, all the U.S. needs to do to control global industry is declare businesses crimes. Then seize business assets whether there is an official finding of guilt or not. Keep in mind that this has been to actually been to trial yet. Under U.S. law the defendant s innocent until proven guilty by trial.
Any country doing business with the U.S. should be wary of this type of anticompetitive, legalistic, economic activity. If this can happen to Kim Dotcom it can also happen to Sony, Toyota, Samsung, etc..
If global corporations just sit silently and let this happen, even if they think the Dotcom is a sleaze, they are allowing an international precedent that will set the groundwork for further international asset seizures. All that is needed is an accusation.
Dotcom should take this to the Hague.
It's not about capability. It never was.
Each 'drone pilot' can theoretically have numerous additional aircraft in reserve if one is destroyed.
Military drones will become substantially less expensive to manufacture than manned aircraft in a very short period of time.
The insurance costs and long term support costs for personnel directly engaged in combat, not mention prior flight training costs in a cockpit, are eliminated by the use of drones.
'Brittle connection'? Nobody cares about that. The main focus is on total cost and strategic return. It always has been. That's why military forces all over the world moved ahead from muskets, swords, and horse back riding to automatic weapons and long range tactics.
'Full awareness' drones are more likely, where each drone will have multiple personnel monitoring individual systems. This essentially gives each drone the abilities of 10 to 100 pilots with 'eyes on' without the risk of losing them in combat and near instantaneous deployment turn around of those staff if a craft is lost. Having the seat outside the aircraft is not a problem since we can now have a very small and fast aircraft with 100 or more people on board (virtually).
You can't do that with manned aircraft. The on board personnel take up too much room, consume too much fuel, and are a long term insurance liability.
The same will happen to ground combat forces in a very short period of time. One small robot that can be easily replaced with a room full of 'full awareness' operators.
This also means the era of companies selling manned field weapons systems, airborne or otherwise, is quickly drawing to a close. Product focus will shift to remotely tethered systems. In a couple decades anything with a human operator will be considered obsolete.