In the mechanical system, what happens when the error margin is such that the cameras are unable to prove unambiguously what happened? Do you fall back on a judge? If so, then your mechanical specification is incomplete.
No you could simply use whatever the system says which may be equivalent to just flipping a coin. That says nothing about it being less accurate than a human judge because in the same situation a human judge would also be essentially flipping a coin (or worse). There may be certain cases, as I said my post, where a human does better than the machine and those cases may be known. In that case combining the two systems (computer and human) knowing where each works best would produce even better accuracy than either alone. That doesn't mean that on average or overall the systems can't be compared but simply that neither one dominates the other (this is done all the time by combining computer systems). That people trust other people more than machines even when the machine is shown to be a better choice is a separate issue.
So I can kill a twin because the other has the same DNA so it doesn't matter? I can't kill cancer because it has slightly different DNA than the host? If I clone someone I can kill the clone at will because they're not a person (same DNA as they were cloned from)?
My sperm has different DNA than me (mutations and other stuff) so I can't ever masturbate? What about a woman's eggs?
A child has the same DNA as both it's parents (or rather the parents have almost all of the child's dna between them) so can we say it's not a person because it has almost no "unique" DNA?
Just because an umpire is the final word doesn't mean that a system can't do better than him, That is because the umpire is in fact he trying to measure something with a right/wrong answer. Specifically the umpire is the person who decides if event X happened or not which means that the goal is to see if X happened or not (not to see if the umpire thought X happened or not). The umpire isn't an inherent part of the rules but simply a judge to determine if something specified in a certain rule happened or not. As a result it's a perfectly valid problem to predict this event X in a method that is better (ie: lower misclassification) than the umpire. Finding the winner in a horse raise is one example of where technology is more accurate despite the rules likely having a person originally be the final judge.
One problem is that sometimes one can't measure the true answer in some way so there is no way to truly measure accuracy for a problem. That is a valid problem however I have no clue if that or something else is the actual problem you're so concerned about (your posts are as clear as black mud). In this case there probably are more accurate systems of measuring the truth although these take excessive money, time or preparation. One could for example cover the ground around the line with wet paint (or some such) and then check for breakages, or simply cover the ground with pressure sensors. The article implies they can measure the accuracy of the system compared to the true impact point which means that one can devise experiments in which one can measure the truth of where the ball lands.
You're missing the point. Accuracy makes no sense unless you include the error criterion. Any estimation algorithm has an arbitrary error criterion, as do humans. Neither is more accurate than the other, they're just different estimation procedures.
No, talking about the size of the error makes no sense if you haven't specified a regularization criterion. Now choosing the criterion is essentially equivalent to choosing what the theoretical answer should be, so it's circular reasoning to claim that the resulting error would be smaller.
That's a silly argument because it basically says "nothing is better than a human because a human is no optimized for the problem" or "we can never determine what is better because we need to first determine what better is and there is more than one possibility." You can I'm assuming create a system that is in fact more accurate across all error criteria but that's a separate point. There already is an error criteria in place since human judges must somehow be chosen and evaluated. The computer system in fact uses a different error criteria as a stepping stone because the true measure is not as easy to write in an algorithm.
No it's not. If it were, there would be no issue. The issue is that these systems converge to some estimate, but the estimate need not be meaningful.
This system is designed in the end to determine if a ball is on one side of a white line or the other. THAT is the error criteria and everything else is irrelevant or just a step to that end goal or an easier to measure version of that end goal. Interestingly enough the comparison isn't versus humans but rather versus humans using the existing computer system.
For example, do you want to minimize the Euclidean distance of the estimated position against the true position, or do you want to minimize the error in a single coordinate only, or maybe you want to minimize the roughness of the trajectory of the ball over some time interval, or....
This is irrelevant to using over determination since the problem probably also exists with even 3 cameras. I'd guess that their placement or design parameters can easily lead to different error measures being optimized.
A system such as Hawkeye CANNOT BE MORE ACCURATE than humans.
Of course it can be, humans are not 100% accurate and even human eyes aren't 100% accurate.
From the link in the article, the Hawkeye system uses 5 cameras to compute the 3D position of the ball. That's an overdetermined system of equations, which cannot have a unique solution due to observation errors in the camera views.
That it's overdetermined doesn't matter since in the end the error of those combined non-unique solutions is still less than that of a non-overdetermined system of the same cameras.
So Hawkeye has to complement the equations with an ARBITRARY rule, eg least squares, and this arbitrariness makes the Hawkeye estimate neither more accurate nor less accurate than humans, just different. FYI, there are plenty of other arbitrary rules that work, eg least absolute errors, maximum entropy, etc.
That it uses an arbitrary rule says NOTHING about it being capable of more accuracy than a human. Accuracy is easy to determine (via experimentation if you wish) and claiming that we somehow magically can't measure it is idiotic. For example a checkers program plays the game differently than a human but one can still claim the program is better than a human (since no human can beat the best checkers program from what I remember). It may be possible that neither humans nor this system are better in every case but that still doesn't mean one can't inherently be better (ie: if the cameras are accurate enough). In fact even if one doesn't dominate the other one can still uses some measure to determine which is more accurate (on average, etc.).
Evolution requires long time scale and it doesn't choose the fittest by our standards of fittest. It chooses the ones whose genes are able to best propagate which is oddly enough not the people we'd normally consider the fittest (ie: the affluent and intelligent reproduce less than average).
We've been changing the game so often that no large scale evolution can happen. What was fittest 50 years ago is different than today and different than 300 years ago. That's fittest in both what society considers fittest and who gets their genes spread the most.
Evolution can not 'go wrong'.
Sure it can, it's a greedy short term method that can very well work itself into a dead end. It also functions on the very principle of often enough creating creatures that are horribly unfit or deformed. Thats mutation and random gene selection for you and in general modern society doesn't like the results much. Also I said biology creates things that are wrong which pretty much describes unfavorable mutations.
Granted historically and in all other species such mutations are not allowed to reproduce but modern society is compassionate. We don't let the poor people starve, the sick die of disease, the deformed die of their problems, the retarded die off and so on. In that sense we've short-circuited evolution directly and our biology did not evolve for a society that behaves that way. What we'd do with genetic selection is very close to what evolution would do without the need to kill of individuals because they got a bad mutation.
I never said modern science is perfectly reliable, I said that we've fucked with evolution for the last x thousand years as it is. That said science works because it does better than the alternatives. It's often wrong but often that doesn't really matter because it's not like there were any better solutions.
As for it going wrong... have you bloody seen all the different types of genetic disorders there are? Have you? Things already ARE going wrong and all this does is select from among existing possibilities. Worst case is that we choose an embryo that good old fashion biology (well science given this is in vitro) already fucked over.
Maybe you should also go tell certain Jewish people that they'd be better off having kids with horrible disorders rather than using genetics to select mates.
If you don't think we're smart enough to choose then I recommend you find some nice jungle tribe to live with. Science and technology is humans ignoring and outpassing evolution and we've pretty much ignored it for thousands of years now. The guy with a weak immune system gets antibiotics for pneumonia, the guy with a childhood genetically induced cancer gets chemo, the tribe in a droubt can build irrigation and so on. Evolution is slow and by the time it does anything it's a moot point.
Not everyone makes minimum wage and as a result it's impact on the price of goods is going to be less than the increase in it. The point of minimum wage is to decrease the gap in income between groups not to somehow magically make everyone rich.
The thing is that you can say anything and 99.9% of the stuff that is said by crackpots is rubbish. Sometimes by pure bloody chance one of them gets it right but that means absolutely nothing. It's like three people saying that a coin flip will be heads or tails or land perfectly on it's side. Sure one of those three people will be correct but that doesn't make his "prediction" any less useless.
Science as a result is based around evidence, theories, experiments and so on. You don't claim X is true simply because you say it is but rather you need to prove or show that X is true. Sure science is wrong quite often but any other approach would be wrong even more often.
There are plenty of companies that don't add DRM despite being able to and they do quite well. Bean books doesn't and I believe they're one of the more profitable ebook publishers. Sins of a Solar Empire has no drm and it is doing quite well. I personally, for example, have refused to purchase tons of things because of the drm and copy protections in them. I don't pirate them either because in the end I have more self control than a 2 year old and don't jump at every shinny thing shoved in front of me.
The store, shocked and appalled at how brazen thieves are becoming, puts locks on the cabinets and asks that people contact an employee, who is nearby and ready to help at any time, to get wine out of the case. No the analogy is that the store puts locks on the cabinets and clients sometimes wait 20 minutes because the employees are busy. Thieves on the other hand have copies of the key to the cabinet the next day and don't much care about the locks.
Mars has gravity, lower than Earth but it's there. Going there would be more problamatic but people already stay in space for months at a time (I think the record is a year or so).
Well unlike the UK the US hasn't killed off every animal larger than a squirrel. Not many natural predators when you've already hunted every perceivable threat to extinction.
Modern cars are designed with crumple zones, in other words they're designed so the energy of an impact crushes something other than the passengers compartment.
Yeah I've gotten quite a few books from Baen. I actually avoid most other ebook sellers because of their idiotic inability to not stuff some sort of DRM onto their books. Well that and their inane desire to charge as much for an ebook as for a paper version.
I've seen some lovely torrents filled with thousands of OCRed versions of paper books. All you need I'm assuming is an auto-feed scanner, some nice paper cutting equipment and decent OCR software.
In other words if your book is popular it will be pirated without too much difficult no matter what format it's in. If it's not popular than likely no one will care enough to pirate it no matter what format it's in. On the other hand if I can't easily get an non-pirated copy of you book then well the pirated version will be tempting simply because its more convenient.
As a percentage of passengers, Shuttle is actually lower than Soyuz. Don't complain about false statistics then use your own. The Shuttle has flown 830 people and lost 14. Soyuz has launched 242 people and lost 4. The shuttle fatality rate is by a very tiny fraction higher than the Soyuz one. The Soyuz LOCV is either 1% or 2% (the vehicle did land fine that one time, granted the crew didn't) while the shuttle is 1.67%.
For example: Soyuz has, four times in it's history, failed to properly jettision it's Service Module - including both of the last two flights!. (Which means they start reentry nose first - leading to significant damage to the Reentry Module. This hasn't killed anyone - yet.) It's probably been put into the design and over engineered for a lot by this point so it's unlikely to ever kill anyone, they apparently only badly injure the unlucky crew now instead permanently damaging their innards.
It's actually frightening that despite how much effort and money goes into the Shuttles (and their safety) they're not at all safer than the Soyuz flown by the Russians.
Now, I know someone will bring up the old saw "but the Soyuz hasn't killed anyone in decades". So what? No matter where you arbitrarily set the line between what flights you will and won't count - you run into the same problem, an ongoing series of significant accidents and incidents. Limiting it to the same time frame for both isn't exactly arbitrary and we can include the Apollo missions for NASA if we want to for the other route.
Who do you sue when things go wrong? Cry because that's about all you can do, you've already agreed when buying the software that you do not hold the maker liable for anything.
You may not like the movie, but to say it's "just a movie" is like saying "the Bible is just a book"--perhaps in some literal sense it's "a book," but it's one that has shaped the course of human history. The bible is just a book, it's Christianity and Judaism that did all the shaping with the bible being more or less a documentation of the early days of those religions. The bible was written afterwards (ie: it documented events and didn't cause them) and was exactly widespread until the printing press a couple hundred years ago (and translations into local languages). In addition Christianity itself actually had a message and a reason behind it's existence (ie: it was I believe a counterpoint against those who wanted violent opposition to the Romans) which Star Wars effectively does not have (ie: it's popular entertainment, little else).
Slashdot Mirror
If that's pre-break up money than that $15 is $30 to $70 (depending on if you mean pre-breakup as in 1984 or 1974) thanks to inflation alone.
In the mechanical system, what happens when the error margin is such that the cameras are unable to prove unambiguously what happened? Do you fall back on a judge? If so, then your mechanical specification is incomplete.
No you could simply use whatever the system says which may be equivalent to just flipping a coin. That says nothing about it being less accurate than a human judge because in the same situation a human judge would also be essentially flipping a coin (or worse). There may be certain cases, as I said my post, where a human does better than the machine and those cases may be known. In that case combining the two systems (computer and human) knowing where each works best would produce even better accuracy than either alone. That doesn't mean that on average or overall the systems can't be compared but simply that neither one dominates the other (this is done all the time by combining computer systems). That people trust other people more than machines even when the machine is shown to be a better choice is a separate issue.
So I can kill a twin because the other has the same DNA so it doesn't matter? I can't kill cancer because it has slightly different DNA than the host? If I clone someone I can kill the clone at will because they're not a person (same DNA as they were cloned from)?
My sperm has different DNA than me (mutations and other stuff) so I can't ever masturbate? What about a woman's eggs?
A child has the same DNA as both it's parents (or rather the parents have almost all of the child's dna between them) so can we say it's not a person because it has almost no "unique" DNA?
Where do you draw the line?
Just because an umpire is the final word doesn't mean that a system can't do better than him, That is because the umpire is in fact he trying to measure something with a right/wrong answer. Specifically the umpire is the person who decides if event X happened or not which means that the goal is to see if X happened or not (not to see if the umpire thought X happened or not). The umpire isn't an inherent part of the rules but simply a judge to determine if something specified in a certain rule happened or not. As a result it's a perfectly valid problem to predict this event X in a method that is better (ie: lower misclassification) than the umpire. Finding the winner in a horse raise is one example of where technology is more accurate despite the rules likely having a person originally be the final judge.
One problem is that sometimes one can't measure the true answer in some way so there is no way to truly measure accuracy for a problem. That is a valid problem however I have no clue if that or something else is the actual problem you're so concerned about (your posts are as clear as black mud). In this case there probably are more accurate systems of measuring the truth although these take excessive money, time or preparation. One could for example cover the ground around the line with wet paint (or some such) and then check for breakages, or simply cover the ground with pressure sensors. The article implies they can measure the accuracy of the system compared to the true impact point which means that one can devise experiments in which one can measure the truth of where the ball lands.
You're missing the point. Accuracy makes no sense unless you include the error criterion. Any estimation algorithm has an arbitrary error criterion, as do humans. Neither is more accurate than the other, they're just different estimation procedures.
No, talking about the size of the error makes no sense if you haven't specified a regularization criterion. Now choosing the criterion is essentially equivalent to choosing what the theoretical answer should be, so it's circular reasoning to claim that the resulting error would be smaller.
That's a silly argument because it basically says "nothing is better than a human because a human is no optimized for the problem" or "we can never determine what is better because we need to first determine what better is and there is more than one possibility." You can I'm assuming create a system that is in fact more accurate across all error criteria but that's a separate point. There already is an error criteria in place since human judges must somehow be chosen and evaluated. The computer system in fact uses a different error criteria as a stepping stone because the true measure is not as easy to write in an algorithm.
No it's not. If it were, there would be no issue. The issue is that these systems converge to some estimate, but the estimate need not be meaningful.
This system is designed in the end to determine if a ball is on one side of a white line or the other. THAT is the error criteria and everything else is irrelevant or just a step to that end goal or an easier to measure version of that end goal. Interestingly enough the comparison isn't versus humans but rather versus humans using the existing computer system.
For example, do you want to minimize the Euclidean distance of the estimated position against the true position, or do you want to minimize the error in a single coordinate only, or maybe you want to minimize the roughness of the trajectory of the ball over some time interval, or ....
This is irrelevant to using over determination since the problem probably also exists with even 3 cameras. I'd guess that their placement or design parameters can easily lead to different error measures being optimized.
A system such as Hawkeye CANNOT BE MORE ACCURATE than humans.
Of course it can be, humans are not 100% accurate and even human eyes aren't 100% accurate.
From the link in the article, the Hawkeye system uses 5 cameras to compute the 3D position of the ball. That's an overdetermined system of equations, which cannot have a unique solution due to observation errors in the camera views.
That it's overdetermined doesn't matter since in the end the error of those combined non-unique solutions is still less than that of a non-overdetermined system of the same cameras.
So Hawkeye has to complement the equations with an ARBITRARY rule, eg least squares, and this arbitrariness makes the Hawkeye estimate neither more accurate nor less accurate than humans, just different. FYI, there are plenty of other arbitrary rules that work, eg least absolute errors, maximum entropy, etc.
That it uses an arbitrary rule says NOTHING about it being capable of more accuracy than a human. Accuracy is easy to determine (via experimentation if you wish) and claiming that we somehow magically can't measure it is idiotic. For example a checkers program plays the game differently than a human but one can still claim the program is better than a human (since no human can beat the best checkers program from what I remember). It may be possible that neither humans nor this system are better in every case but that still doesn't mean one can't inherently be better (ie: if the cameras are accurate enough). In fact even if one doesn't dominate the other one can still uses some measure to determine which is more accurate (on average, etc.).
Evolution requires long time scale and it doesn't choose the fittest by our standards of fittest. It chooses the ones whose genes are able to best propagate which is oddly enough not the people we'd normally consider the fittest (ie: the affluent and intelligent reproduce less than average).
We've been changing the game so often that no large scale evolution can happen. What was fittest 50 years ago is different than today and different than 300 years ago. That's fittest in both what society considers fittest and who gets their genes spread the most.
Evolution can not 'go wrong'.
Sure it can, it's a greedy short term method that can very well work itself into a dead end. It also functions on the very principle of often enough creating creatures that are horribly unfit or deformed. Thats mutation and random gene selection for you and in general modern society doesn't like the results much. Also I said biology creates things that are wrong which pretty much describes unfavorable mutations.
Granted historically and in all other species such mutations are not allowed to reproduce but modern society is compassionate. We don't let the poor people starve, the sick die of disease, the deformed die of their problems, the retarded die off and so on. In that sense we've short-circuited evolution directly and our biology did not evolve for a society that behaves that way. What we'd do with genetic selection is very close to what evolution would do without the need to kill of individuals because they got a bad mutation.
I never said modern science is perfectly reliable, I said that we've fucked with evolution for the last x thousand years as it is. That said science works because it does better than the alternatives. It's often wrong but often that doesn't really matter because it's not like there were any better solutions.
As for it going wrong... have you bloody seen all the different types of genetic disorders there are? Have you? Things already ARE going wrong and all this does is select from among existing possibilities. Worst case is that we choose an embryo that good old fashion biology (well science given this is in vitro) already fucked over.
Maybe you should also go tell certain Jewish people that they'd be better off having kids with horrible disorders rather than using genetics to select mates.
If you don't think we're smart enough to choose then I recommend you find some nice jungle tribe to live with. Science and technology is humans ignoring and outpassing evolution and we've pretty much ignored it for thousands of years now. The guy with a weak immune system gets antibiotics for pneumonia, the guy with a childhood genetically induced cancer gets chemo, the tribe in a droubt can build irrigation and so on. Evolution is slow and by the time it does anything it's a moot point.
Not everyone makes minimum wage and as a result it's impact on the price of goods is going to be less than the increase in it. The point of minimum wage is to decrease the gap in income between groups not to somehow magically make everyone rich.
The thing is that you can say anything and 99.9% of the stuff that is said by crackpots is rubbish. Sometimes by pure bloody chance one of them gets it right but that means absolutely nothing. It's like three people saying that a coin flip will be heads or tails or land perfectly on it's side. Sure one of those three people will be correct but that doesn't make his "prediction" any less useless.
Science as a result is based around evidence, theories, experiments and so on. You don't claim X is true simply because you say it is but rather you need to prove or show that X is true. Sure science is wrong quite often but any other approach would be wrong even more often.
It doesn't have any, unless you count their website not letting you download updates without a serial which isn't really drm.
There are plenty of companies that don't add DRM despite being able to and they do quite well. Bean books doesn't and I believe they're one of the more profitable ebook publishers. Sins of a Solar Empire has no drm and it is doing quite well. I personally, for example, have refused to purchase tons of things because of the drm and copy protections in them. I don't pirate them either because in the end I have more self control than a 2 year old and don't jump at every shinny thing shoved in front of me.
Mars has gravity, lower than Earth but it's there. Going there would be more problamatic but people already stay in space for months at a time (I think the record is a year or so).
That wasn't an IT mistake, that was IT following their client's request perfectly. Mistake implies something did not have the desired result.
Well unlike the UK the US hasn't killed off every animal larger than a squirrel. Not many natural predators when you've already hunted every perceivable threat to extinction.
You do however have to use them to startup again and get back up to speed.
Note that I never said you have to STOP with you legs but that you have to PUSH (ie: power) it with your legs.
Modern cars are designed with crumple zones, in other words they're designed so the energy of an impact crushes something other than the passengers compartment.
When you have to push that 4000lb car with your own legs then come back and talk.
Yeah I've gotten quite a few books from Baen. I actually avoid most other ebook sellers because of their idiotic inability to not stuff some sort of DRM onto their books. Well that and their inane desire to charge as much for an ebook as for a paper version.
I've seen some lovely torrents filled with thousands of OCRed versions of paper books. All you need I'm assuming is an auto-feed scanner, some nice paper cutting equipment and decent OCR software.
In other words if your book is popular it will be pirated without too much difficult no matter what format it's in. If it's not popular than likely no one will care enough to pirate it no matter what format it's in. On the other hand if I can't easily get an non-pirated copy of you book then well the pirated version will be tempting simply because its more convenient.
It's actually frightening that despite how much effort and money goes into the Shuttles (and their safety) they're not at all safer than the Soyuz flown by the Russians. Now, I know someone will bring up the old saw "but the Soyuz hasn't killed anyone in decades". So what? No matter where you arbitrarily set the line between what flights you will and won't count - you run into the same problem, an ongoing series of significant accidents and incidents. Limiting it to the same time frame for both isn't exactly arbitrary and we can include the Apollo missions for NASA if we want to for the other route.