Slashdot is usually more skeptical than this, especially considering this was already very thoroughly debunked. Are the new editors trying to make a political statement? I don't like where this is going.
put in like ten of those fuel canisters in there, armor them up nice and heavy so one exploding won't set off the others, double the engine...serious roadtripmobile. Who cares about finding a refueling station in the next state over when you can make a 2000+ mile roundtrip to the station back home?
Reading other comments above (and checking their Wikipedia links), I was surprised to see that this really is dangerous revisionism. There were some very bad and very Poland-specific things going on after the war.
If only 5% of users have their CPU and data currently in use, then why wake up other phones? You don't need data from literally everyone who's running it, and it doesn't need to be going all the time. Besides, I bet a lot of phones wake in SOME way when they start moving.
The only useful signal is when a phone goes from "long-term stationary" to "moving": if someone is carrying their phone, actively using it, or riding a vehicle, data from them is worthless. Send one signal when the phone first starts moving after, oh, 2+ minutes of being at rest, and only alert if you see a large spike around a single cell tower within a five-second window. Data use would be very low.
If a conversational bot can get to the level of Aspergers (I know, I know, who the hell cares if it's in DSM-5) then I'll be awfully happy.
Though...if you're using it less for conversation, and more for fact scraping, I guess that makes things way more important. Trying to think of how people recognize sarcasm, and it seems to be "a person is stating--without expressing uncertainty or hedging--something that I have good reason to think they don't believe". It seems like every culture also has their own shorthand for sarcastically agreeing with someone, but the shorthand isn't always recognizable cross-culturally (Americans visiting England have a big problem here).
The big AI problem here is, you have to be able to model the writer's thoughts and guess what their opinions are. Ask your stereotypical left-winger and right-winger about gun control and they might both say "Oh, yeah, that's exactly what we need", but you need to be able to predict their actual opinions in order to know if there's dissonance or not. Makes it hard to detect sarcasm in people you don't know anything about, unless they're using shorthand ("yeah right", "great idea--let's discuss it later")
Who said anything about banning? This doesn't ban drones. This regulates where and how you can fly them and mandates registration...just like we have traffic laws and mandate car registration. I doubt the first cars had license plates either; now they do.
It's not like they're mandating drone pilot licenses, either.
Those restrictions sound 100% reasonable for all outdoor flight, period, without specific commercial licenses. The golden days of drones, where most users were hobbyists who cared about safety and were few in number, are over. As much as I'd like to keep flying a craft with totally automatic gps guidance outside of my line of sight--it's irresponsible these days. It only takes one collision between a couple of heavy craft over a crowd of people to cause a crackdown much worse than this.
Edit is such a terrible idea. Twitter is used for breaking news. The risk of people posting incorrect information is outweighed by the risk of the historical record being modified.
Usenet has had a signal/noise ratio of about 1% since the late 90s. Who the hell wants to maintain killfiles? It sure isn't most users, who keep spamming up groups with responses to trolls.
No, this system doesn't inject new stuff. It reorganizes people you already follow. If you use Twitter to follow a bajillion human rights or news feeds (like a big part of their userbase), it means you'll mostly see the stuff with a lot of likes up top, and junk tweets with no info probably won't spam you. If you don't follow them you won't see them, aside from the sponsored stuff, and everybody's gotta make a living.
Yes it'll be opt-out eventually, but (as someone who's definitely keeping this feature off) I'm not convinced that this isn't what a majority of users want. Vocal power-users who use it to keep close contact with friends, sure, but those aren't a majority. I'm pretty sure that important stories and world-news stories are going to keep getting enough likes to keep them on top.
It would be really nice if there was a feature to display all tweets from specific users, and only high ranked ones from other users...would cut down on spam a lot. As it is, it's really hard to follow lots of people because the signal to noise ratio is just that bad on any kind of social media.
MindRover: The Europa Project was actually pretty good! And I'm working on a...well, not clone of it right now, but directly inspired. You program it with transistors and stuff. It's not computer-newbie friendly like MindRover was, but it's kinda fun to implement super-tiny computers out of bare metal.
That already happens doesn't it? With a VAC ban, you can't connect to VAC servers, but nothing stops banned people from connecting to non-VAC servers. It's just assumed they're full of hackers, so nobody else goes there (except pirates).
I tweaked a ROM2.4 mud very mildly so that it exposed monster and item ID numbers (so bots wouldn't have to actually understand English), and had my bots go in without any knowledge of areas/monsters/items. The goal is that they would explore the world themselves, and learn their own fastest way to XP and gold at whatever level they were at, finding the correct weapons and the correct monsters and the right times to use them, cataloguing it for their second run through. Forming parties when appropriate would be the obvious expansion to that--especially if they were less efficient for grinding, but could be a way to get gear of higher level than you are intended to have at the time.
In a hypothetical (impossible) universe where you could actually prove that certain levels of encryption cost certain levels of lives in crime and terrorism, I wonder how many lives are worth protecting your emails...how many lives are worth transactional security...etc.
Though if you open things up too much I guess it goes the other way, since if people can't hide anything you wind up with a ton of political prisoners, and way more crimes of opportunity.
I used to make bots for my own use in Puzzle Pirates. Less directly competitive, but there were global ratings and you helped your crew by performing highly (without directly griefing other players). I found that writing them was a lot of fun--it was a challenge to see how optimized I could make them, and how realistically I could make them act as humans. Big 'oops' moment when my bot went to the top of the world rankings after it'd only been running for a couple days, and I think I got banned because my bot optimized for weird combos that humans are unable to predict very well; it would stand out blatantly if anyone ran those particular statistics, but at least it had delays and mistakes and weird mouse movements like a person. In any case I found the 'botting puzzle' to be much deeper than the 'bilging puzzle'. It would still be fun if it was single-player.
But, that's just me as a writer. I could see distributing it to friends as a kind of intellectual challenge in managing people, and getting ahead in the game to see more high-level content. In a one-shot game like CS:GI though, downloading someone else's bot is just pointless. There's no long term progression to gain from, and you don't get the challenge of writing the bot yourself. All you get is the meaningless short-lived internet points from seeing yourself on top of a scoreboard, and you won't even win fights in a way that earns respect from your enemies.
Now see, what I'd REALLY love is a game (fps, mmo, puzzle, mud, etc) that is populated by user-submitted bots only. Upload and then forbid human communication with bots while they're running. Your bot needs to adapt to the way other bots behave that season, maybe your bot even needs to be designed in a way that it can try to form alliances with other bots for common interest--I guess some kind of open spec for communication protocol within the game would be good there. Who's trustworthy, who's not, can you share information, can you trust information, and of course just basic ability at playing the game. THAT would be a serious intellectual challenge. Things like Corewars just aren't as in depth as I want.
This isn't software, though. Doubt there would be competition because nobody is going to confuse youtube videos for something you might put as a skill on a resume.
Slashdot Mirror
You realize this has nothing to do with electoral voting, right? The headline is a little vague.
At least it drives more traffic to the comments when every single person disagrees (and wants to make sure the rest of the choir knows).
Slashdot is usually more skeptical than this, especially considering this was already very thoroughly debunked. Are the new editors trying to make a political statement? I don't like where this is going.
put in like ten of those fuel canisters in there, armor them up nice and heavy so one exploding won't set off the others, double the engine...serious roadtripmobile. Who cares about finding a refueling station in the next state over when you can make a 2000+ mile roundtrip to the station back home?
So dump archive.org into it.
Reading other comments above (and checking their Wikipedia links), I was surprised to see that this really is dangerous revisionism. There were some very bad and very Poland-specific things going on after the war.
If only 5% of users have their CPU and data currently in use, then why wake up other phones? You don't need data from literally everyone who's running it, and it doesn't need to be going all the time. Besides, I bet a lot of phones wake in SOME way when they start moving.
The only useful signal is when a phone goes from "long-term stationary" to "moving": if someone is carrying their phone, actively using it, or riding a vehicle, data from them is worthless. Send one signal when the phone first starts moving after, oh, 2+ minutes of being at rest, and only alert if you see a large spike around a single cell tower within a five-second window. Data use would be very low.
Non-Google replacements, free or not, whatever.
If a conversational bot can get to the level of Aspergers (I know, I know, who the hell cares if it's in DSM-5) then I'll be awfully happy.
Though...if you're using it less for conversation, and more for fact scraping, I guess that makes things way more important. Trying to think of how people recognize sarcasm, and it seems to be "a person is stating--without expressing uncertainty or hedging--something that I have good reason to think they don't believe". It seems like every culture also has their own shorthand for sarcastically agreeing with someone, but the shorthand isn't always recognizable cross-culturally (Americans visiting England have a big problem here).
The big AI problem here is, you have to be able to model the writer's thoughts and guess what their opinions are. Ask your stereotypical left-winger and right-winger about gun control and they might both say "Oh, yeah, that's exactly what we need", but you need to be able to predict their actual opinions in order to know if there's dissonance or not. Makes it hard to detect sarcasm in people you don't know anything about, unless they're using shorthand ("yeah right", "great idea--let's discuss it later")
Who said anything about banning? This doesn't ban drones. This regulates where and how you can fly them and mandates registration...just like we have traffic laws and mandate car registration. I doubt the first cars had license plates either; now they do.
It's not like they're mandating drone pilot licenses, either.
Those restrictions sound 100% reasonable for all outdoor flight, period, without specific commercial licenses. The golden days of drones, where most users were hobbyists who cared about safety and were few in number, are over. As much as I'd like to keep flying a craft with totally automatic gps guidance outside of my line of sight--it's irresponsible these days. It only takes one collision between a couple of heavy craft over a crowd of people to cause a crackdown much worse than this.
Edit is such a terrible idea. Twitter is used for breaking news. The risk of people posting incorrect information is outweighed by the risk of the historical record being modified.
Usenet has had a signal/noise ratio of about 1% since the late 90s. Who the hell wants to maintain killfiles? It sure isn't most users, who keep spamming up groups with responses to trolls.
I like Twitter as a way to follow friends/family news that forces them to ramble less.
No, this system doesn't inject new stuff. It reorganizes people you already follow. If you use Twitter to follow a bajillion human rights or news feeds (like a big part of their userbase), it means you'll mostly see the stuff with a lot of likes up top, and junk tweets with no info probably won't spam you. If you don't follow them you won't see them, aside from the sponsored stuff, and everybody's gotta make a living.
Yes it'll be opt-out eventually, but (as someone who's definitely keeping this feature off) I'm not convinced that this isn't what a majority of users want. Vocal power-users who use it to keep close contact with friends, sure, but those aren't a majority. I'm pretty sure that important stories and world-news stories are going to keep getting enough likes to keep them on top.
It would be really nice if there was a feature to display all tweets from specific users, and only high ranked ones from other users...would cut down on spam a lot. As it is, it's really hard to follow lots of people because the signal to noise ratio is just that bad on any kind of social media.
MindRover: The Europa Project was actually pretty good! And I'm working on a...well, not clone of it right now, but directly inspired. You program it with transistors and stuff. It's not computer-newbie friendly like MindRover was, but it's kinda fun to implement super-tiny computers out of bare metal.
That already happens doesn't it? With a VAC ban, you can't connect to VAC servers, but nothing stops banned people from connecting to non-VAC servers. It's just assumed they're full of hackers, so nobody else goes there (except pirates).
E D24 7F FF.
I tweaked a ROM2.4 mud very mildly so that it exposed monster and item ID numbers (so bots wouldn't have to actually understand English), and had my bots go in without any knowledge of areas/monsters/items. The goal is that they would explore the world themselves, and learn their own fastest way to XP and gold at whatever level they were at, finding the correct weapons and the correct monsters and the right times to use them, cataloguing it for their second run through. Forming parties when appropriate would be the obvious expansion to that--especially if they were less efficient for grinding, but could be a way to get gear of higher level than you are intended to have at the time.
Yeah I miss that project.
In a hypothetical (impossible) universe where you could actually prove that certain levels of encryption cost certain levels of lives in crime and terrorism, I wonder how many lives are worth protecting your emails...how many lives are worth transactional security...etc.
Though if you open things up too much I guess it goes the other way, since if people can't hide anything you wind up with a ton of political prisoners, and way more crimes of opportunity.
props for 1.3, back when the AWP was the AWP instead of the AWM or whatever.
This looks absolutely amazing. Thank you so much for the link, I think I'm going to kill a LOT of hours here.
I used to make bots for my own use in Puzzle Pirates. Less directly competitive, but there were global ratings and you helped your crew by performing highly (without directly griefing other players). I found that writing them was a lot of fun--it was a challenge to see how optimized I could make them, and how realistically I could make them act as humans. Big 'oops' moment when my bot went to the top of the world rankings after it'd only been running for a couple days, and I think I got banned because my bot optimized for weird combos that humans are unable to predict very well; it would stand out blatantly if anyone ran those particular statistics, but at least it had delays and mistakes and weird mouse movements like a person. In any case I found the 'botting puzzle' to be much deeper than the 'bilging puzzle'. It would still be fun if it was single-player.
But, that's just me as a writer. I could see distributing it to friends as a kind of intellectual challenge in managing people, and getting ahead in the game to see more high-level content. In a one-shot game like CS:GI though, downloading someone else's bot is just pointless. There's no long term progression to gain from, and you don't get the challenge of writing the bot yourself. All you get is the meaningless short-lived internet points from seeing yourself on top of a scoreboard, and you won't even win fights in a way that earns respect from your enemies.
Now see, what I'd REALLY love is a game (fps, mmo, puzzle, mud, etc) that is populated by user-submitted bots only. Upload and then forbid human communication with bots while they're running. Your bot needs to adapt to the way other bots behave that season, maybe your bot even needs to be designed in a way that it can try to form alliances with other bots for common interest--I guess some kind of open spec for communication protocol within the game would be good there. Who's trustworthy, who's not, can you share information, can you trust information, and of course just basic ability at playing the game. THAT would be a serious intellectual challenge. Things like Corewars just aren't as in depth as I want.
This isn't software, though. Doubt there would be competition because nobody is going to confuse youtube videos for something you might put as a skill on a resume.