Pretty much, except for the last bit: memory page protection is administrative, not technical. The CPU says, "You can't write to address 0xC0004000" and you don't. If you write to 0xB0004000 and create electrical fields messing with 0xC0004000, that's physical and bypasses any code that says no you can't.
It's like approaching a hotel key card lock with dynamite.
Nobody seems to have a sense of humor, and some of the responses seem outright delusional. Not internally-inconsistent, but rather trying to connect one thing to another in ways that don't hold.
I wonder why only 30% keep their jobs. Do their coworkers just hate them, too? Are they getting fired because they're terrible at their jobs? Does the company misrepresent them?
This kind of bias can happen if the recognition software has trouble with darker skin tones (lower light information, less contrast? Who knows), or if there is some other external bias that causes poverty and a lack of social mobility to affect certain ethnic groups disproportionately and thus creates more crime among those groups (a societal issue).
It can also happen if your software has been tuned to recognize features of one ethnic group but not the variations in another, and then trained without further tuning, thus flattening the group out into broad categories instead of individuals.
Artificial neural networks are easy to apply to abstract problems. Each ANN provides a specific function; theoretically, you could model the different functions of the brain and produce some kind of human-like AI by interconnecting them, but that's a ways off due to the overall architecture being more-complex than just gluing the pieces together.
ANNs need to produce the same results at lower cost. That means they need to produce better results at a cost not achievable by current technologies, or they need to produce the same results at lower costs than brought by current technologies. In the former case, those costs need to fall within a reasonable cost--it might cost twice as much to get ten times the result, but can we afford to pay twice as much for any result? Can we subdivide the result into individually-saleable units and sell them at one-fifth the cost, or are we selling units that cost twice as much but pack in so very much more? If not, then people will buy the cheaper thing due to the concept of inferior goods (they can't afford the better thing in the first place).
AI software might not be saleable right now. Watson's general-purpose AI might do some impressive things, yet people need a more in-house solution. Video games could benefit from this kind of learning AI to create "natural difficulty": it's not hard and unfair, but rather the AI is smart and learns.
IBM should be looking into stuff like MIT's low-power, high-density ANN chip and producing hardware for general-purpose ANN. Give programmers the power to couple into acceleration at one layer per clock cycle. Let everyone else research the software.
Ehh, it's more-complex than that. Today's dialogue includes a lot of freaking out about people just giving Facebook all their information; it seems obvious we all enjoy the great benefits from this whole "you know everything about all of us and can bring us together and recommend new and exciting news we like" thing. The privacy problems are sort of the trade-off.
All technology is about investing less in production. Privacy is a cost--if it didn't create difficulties, it wouldn't matter--and so it stands to reason we want those nice things without losing control of our privacy. We don't want the risk of identity theft. We don't want people to find us on Spoke-o and Instant Checkmate and damage our reputations because of some private indiscretions. We don't want our personal lives torn apart because certain things which are irrelevant to certain parties are nonetheless uncomfortable and drive those parties to reject us (seriously? You donated to Planned Parenthood once? Now half your friends don't want to be friends anymore, and the other half are trying to drag you to political rallies you support but don't really want to attend).
Dealing with all those things is a lot of work.
So people want Facebook and Google to still be Facebook and Google, but also to keep their information private. Somehow. They also don't want Facebook and Google to independently discover new information about them by intuiting from their friends, unless that would actually be helpful to them.
See the trouble?
You also have the basic information problem: if someone can put all this information together to discover things about you, then those things are out in the open; the fact that nobody has added it to their secret file doesn't mean those who could do such discovery don't have a secret file, but rather that they need to wait slightly longer for their clerks to assemble the relevant dossiers.
People seeking to escape tend to have other issues not caused by their route of escape. For example: drug addicts tend to have social and financial issues which, while exacerbated by drug abuse, are nevertheless still there without the drugs. Addiction and compulsion on their own can be internally-manifested, and can consume a person with no other troubles in life; the diagnosis is different depending on whether it's internally or externally triggered.
Inherently we do live in an insane society bound by capitalism, where one persons capital worth is worth more than an infinite number of other people's lives (the police can kill one, or ten or one hundred, one thousand etc. people to stop them robbing a building with other people's money even when no lives are under threat).
That's not capitalism. Capitalism is just control of industry by private interests so as to allow operation for individual gain. This tends to produce good results when properly constrained, and bad results when unconstrained.
Remember that people economize: they seek to obtain the most ends for the least means. That's capitalism: give less, get more. It's not a zero-sum game, either, as we can do more with less and so can have more while expending less. The main problem we see in developed societies is one of distribution: it's fine that some people have a lot and great that we have so much per person, but why do some people have so very little themselves?
Great capitalist nations include Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Strong, egalitarian social structures; powerful social safety nets; and an economic foundation which protects against disruption. Private ownership of the means of production with strong factor market regulation and little product market regulation bring worker's rights, excellent wages, and wealth-generating economic growth which actually reaches people--and they still have super-rich folk anyway.
This is basic conspiracy theory, but likely cultural. The world isn't run by a bunch of people initiated into a secret society to ensure more advertising is beamed into your eyeballs.
In psychiatry, a behavior isn't a disorder unless it causes harm. For example: you can have various forms of dementia and contain them with cognitive behavioral therapy. If you've responded to the minor hallucinations and odd thinking of a schizophrenia-spectrum disorder by no-selling it, it's not (negatively) affecting your life and your ability to thrive, so it's not a psychiatric disorder.
Using a consensus of a single discipline of experts from a single geographical area will get you cultural bias. Relevant expertise in various disciplines overlapping with the study of addictive behavior pathology provides valid input and, along with geographical spread, breaks discipline- and geography-based cultural fixations.
Bringing in a mechanical engineer for a psychology problem is irrelevant, however.
Pretty much yeah. Compulsive disorder can manifest as hoarding cats, reading books, or playing video games. Yes, people do stay up until 5am reading novels and destroy their lives because they can no longer function; compulsive reading disorders were well-recognized a few decades ago, before people decided reading was some kind of holy art.
Yes but the Inuit would probably be an uneducated barbarian who declares the circumference to be 22/7 times the diameter. You'd have to go to the Mediterranean to get civilized numbers.
Yeah, that's the thing: engineers make shit work. You find out that X moves this way and Y moves that way, and you connect X to Y and things happen.
Scientists figure out why X and Y move the way they do and how they interact to form the strange and unexpected output when combined. Then engineers use that new information to slap together a new machine.
We don't bother proving things. We just figure that wood expands, pressing water from wet wood is really hard, and water is apparently incompressible (it's not); then we jab wooden sticks into a crack in a rock, pour in some water, and wait for it to shear off. The scientists later provide an explanation of van der wahls force and capilary action, and computations to figure out how much stress this will apply, and analysis of materials, and we get engineers suggesting new composite materials to do this better than wood.
You obviously haven't seen how much power a 33MHz 486SX consumes. One would think these 8-core 2.1GHz monsters would kill the battery in your phone in 14 seconds, yet here we are sucking 1W at peak.
Not really. Parasites harm the host: they remove and do not give back. Amazon provides Seattle with income brought from outside, making Seattle a wealthy and powerful city able to support high standards-of-living and a great many jobs. The wages for those jobs come from selling a bunch of stuff to wealthy Seattle inhabitants, ultimately using money paid out in taxes to Seattle and in wages to Seattle residents by Amazon and its local employees. Seattle gives Amazon a favorable location with infrastructure and skilled labor.
Amazon can pick up and move, bringing its benefits to someone else. Seattle can no longer derive the benefit Amazon has provided if it does that.
You're trading with someone. You build tables and chairs, you give them to people who need tables and chairs, those people give you apples. You don't have the time to grow apples and build chairs; they don't have the time to do so either. While you could do both, you'll get more apples and more tables and chairs if you do one job and they do the other and you trade. That's beneficial to both parties.
It's also a fact that if you overcharge them and the next guy sells them tables and chairs cheaper, you won't get any food and then you will die.
If Seattle lets its infrastructure decay, stops producing a good skilled labor force, or raises taxes in some way Amazon doesn't need to deal with, Amazon can do the same: they can go somewhere else. If the Federal government does it, of course, Amazon is kind of stuck dealing with it. Amazon is getting a benefit from being in Seattle, and Seattle is getting a huge benefit from having Amazon; Amazon can move to another host city, and Seattle will have to attract a replacement or it will collapse. The worker bees decide they like the next meadow over and nothing pollinates.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much, except for the last bit: memory page protection is administrative, not technical. The CPU says, "You can't write to address 0xC0004000" and you don't. If you write to 0xB0004000 and create electrical fields messing with 0xC0004000, that's physical and bypasses any code that says no you can't.
It's like approaching a hotel key card lock with dynamite.
Yeah but not everybody needs to buy a lung. It's not like they could monopolize air...or lungs, for that matter.
Nobody seems to have a sense of humor, and some of the responses seem outright delusional. Not internally-inconsistent, but rather trying to connect one thing to another in ways that don't hold.
How long before we have to beg for lungs and mortgage our homes just to breathe?
PIR sensors don't look for absolute IR; they look for a change in IR image. If you move, it sees you.
Maybe they're just experimenting.
I wonder why only 30% keep their jobs. Do their coworkers just hate them, too? Are they getting fired because they're terrible at their jobs? Does the company misrepresent them?
It all sounds very strange.
This kind of bias can happen if the recognition software has trouble with darker skin tones (lower light information, less contrast? Who knows), or if there is some other external bias that causes poverty and a lack of social mobility to affect certain ethnic groups disproportionately and thus creates more crime among those groups (a societal issue).
It can also happen if your software has been tuned to recognize features of one ethnic group but not the variations in another, and then trained without further tuning, thus flattening the group out into broad categories instead of individuals.
Remember when a dozen digital music providers were selling digital music and not making any money? Then Apple sold digital music and made billions.
You describe blockchain more than AI.
Artificial neural networks are easy to apply to abstract problems. Each ANN provides a specific function; theoretically, you could model the different functions of the brain and produce some kind of human-like AI by interconnecting them, but that's a ways off due to the overall architecture being more-complex than just gluing the pieces together.
ANNs need to produce the same results at lower cost. That means they need to produce better results at a cost not achievable by current technologies, or they need to produce the same results at lower costs than brought by current technologies. In the former case, those costs need to fall within a reasonable cost--it might cost twice as much to get ten times the result, but can we afford to pay twice as much for any result? Can we subdivide the result into individually-saleable units and sell them at one-fifth the cost, or are we selling units that cost twice as much but pack in so very much more? If not, then people will buy the cheaper thing due to the concept of inferior goods (they can't afford the better thing in the first place).
AI software might not be saleable right now. Watson's general-purpose AI might do some impressive things, yet people need a more in-house solution. Video games could benefit from this kind of learning AI to create "natural difficulty": it's not hard and unfair, but rather the AI is smart and learns.
IBM should be looking into stuff like MIT's low-power, high-density ANN chip and producing hardware for general-purpose ANN. Give programmers the power to couple into acceleration at one layer per clock cycle. Let everyone else research the software.
Ehh, it's more-complex than that. Today's dialogue includes a lot of freaking out about people just giving Facebook all their information; it seems obvious we all enjoy the great benefits from this whole "you know everything about all of us and can bring us together and recommend new and exciting news we like" thing. The privacy problems are sort of the trade-off.
All technology is about investing less in production. Privacy is a cost--if it didn't create difficulties, it wouldn't matter--and so it stands to reason we want those nice things without losing control of our privacy. We don't want the risk of identity theft. We don't want people to find us on Spoke-o and Instant Checkmate and damage our reputations because of some private indiscretions. We don't want our personal lives torn apart because certain things which are irrelevant to certain parties are nonetheless uncomfortable and drive those parties to reject us (seriously? You donated to Planned Parenthood once? Now half your friends don't want to be friends anymore, and the other half are trying to drag you to political rallies you support but don't really want to attend).
Dealing with all those things is a lot of work.
So people want Facebook and Google to still be Facebook and Google, but also to keep their information private. Somehow. They also don't want Facebook and Google to independently discover new information about them by intuiting from their friends, unless that would actually be helpful to them.
See the trouble?
You also have the basic information problem: if someone can put all this information together to discover things about you, then those things are out in the open; the fact that nobody has added it to their secret file doesn't mean those who could do such discovery don't have a secret file, but rather that they need to wait slightly longer for their clerks to assemble the relevant dossiers.
By invitation only.
People seeking to escape tend to have other issues not caused by their route of escape. For example: drug addicts tend to have social and financial issues which, while exacerbated by drug abuse, are nevertheless still there without the drugs. Addiction and compulsion on their own can be internally-manifested, and can consume a person with no other troubles in life; the diagnosis is different depending on whether it's internally or externally triggered.
Inherently we do live in an insane society bound by capitalism, where one persons capital worth is worth more than an infinite number of other people's lives (the police can kill one, or ten or one hundred, one thousand etc. people to stop them robbing a building with other people's money even when no lives are under threat).
That's not capitalism. Capitalism is just control of industry by private interests so as to allow operation for individual gain. This tends to produce good results when properly constrained, and bad results when unconstrained.
Remember that people economize: they seek to obtain the most ends for the least means. That's capitalism: give less, get more. It's not a zero-sum game, either, as we can do more with less and so can have more while expending less. The main problem we see in developed societies is one of distribution: it's fine that some people have a lot and great that we have so much per person, but why do some people have so very little themselves?
Great capitalist nations include Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Strong, egalitarian social structures; powerful social safety nets; and an economic foundation which protects against disruption. Private ownership of the means of production with strong factor market regulation and little product market regulation bring worker's rights, excellent wages, and wealth-generating economic growth which actually reaches people--and they still have super-rich folk anyway.
This is basic conspiracy theory, but likely cultural. The world isn't run by a bunch of people initiated into a secret society to ensure more advertising is beamed into your eyeballs.
In psychiatry, a behavior isn't a disorder unless it causes harm. For example: you can have various forms of dementia and contain them with cognitive behavioral therapy. If you've responded to the minor hallucinations and odd thinking of a schizophrenia-spectrum disorder by no-selling it, it's not (negatively) affecting your life and your ability to thrive, so it's not a psychiatric disorder.
Using a consensus of a single discipline of experts from a single geographical area will get you cultural bias. Relevant expertise in various disciplines overlapping with the study of addictive behavior pathology provides valid input and, along with geographical spread, breaks discipline- and geography-based cultural fixations.
Bringing in a mechanical engineer for a psychology problem is irrelevant, however.
Pretty much yeah. Compulsive disorder can manifest as hoarding cats, reading books, or playing video games. Yes, people do stay up until 5am reading novels and destroy their lives because they can no longer function; compulsive reading disorders were well-recognized a few decades ago, before people decided reading was some kind of holy art.
Yes but the Inuit would probably be an uneducated barbarian who declares the circumference to be 22/7 times the diameter. You'd have to go to the Mediterranean to get civilized numbers.
None of this is on Wikipedia.
Yeah, that's the thing: engineers make shit work. You find out that X moves this way and Y moves that way, and you connect X to Y and things happen.
Scientists figure out why X and Y move the way they do and how they interact to form the strange and unexpected output when combined. Then engineers use that new information to slap together a new machine.
We don't bother proving things. We just figure that wood expands, pressing water from wet wood is really hard, and water is apparently incompressible (it's not); then we jab wooden sticks into a crack in a rock, pour in some water, and wait for it to shear off. The scientists later provide an explanation of van der wahls force and capilary action, and computations to figure out how much stress this will apply, and analysis of materials, and we get engineers suggesting new composite materials to do this better than wood.
It's just a derivation of the law of cosines.
You obviously haven't seen how much power a 33MHz 486SX consumes. One would think these 8-core 2.1GHz monsters would kill the battery in your phone in 14 seconds, yet here we are sucking 1W at peak.
It appears to have a "longer battery life" than the P51, which has a 9-hour battery life.
why even call something like this a Laptop?
It's a typographical error. They meant "cell phones".
Not really. Parasites harm the host: they remove and do not give back. Amazon provides Seattle with income brought from outside, making Seattle a wealthy and powerful city able to support high standards-of-living and a great many jobs. The wages for those jobs come from selling a bunch of stuff to wealthy Seattle inhabitants, ultimately using money paid out in taxes to Seattle and in wages to Seattle residents by Amazon and its local employees. Seattle gives Amazon a favorable location with infrastructure and skilled labor.
Amazon can pick up and move, bringing its benefits to someone else. Seattle can no longer derive the benefit Amazon has provided if it does that.
You're trading with someone. You build tables and chairs, you give them to people who need tables and chairs, those people give you apples. You don't have the time to grow apples and build chairs; they don't have the time to do so either. While you could do both, you'll get more apples and more tables and chairs if you do one job and they do the other and you trade. That's beneficial to both parties.
It's also a fact that if you overcharge them and the next guy sells them tables and chairs cheaper, you won't get any food and then you will die.
If Seattle lets its infrastructure decay, stops producing a good skilled labor force, or raises taxes in some way Amazon doesn't need to deal with, Amazon can do the same: they can go somewhere else. If the Federal government does it, of course, Amazon is kind of stuck dealing with it. Amazon is getting a benefit from being in Seattle, and Seattle is getting a huge benefit from having Amazon; Amazon can move to another host city, and Seattle will have to attract a replacement or it will collapse. The worker bees decide they like the next meadow over and nothing pollinates.
Sure, why not? Everything else was boring.