I consider myself lucky that I live in a country where illegal activities are taxed. It is highly unfair to us tax paying citizens to have the mob running around untaxed (and of course killing us, but that is a whole different gripe).
Creating "biologically inspired" models of AI is by no means a new topic of research. From what I can tell, most of these algorithms work by stringing together specialized algorithms and mathematical functions that are, at best, loosely related to the way the brain works (at a high level). By contrast, the brain is a huge, complicated, connectionist network (neurons connected together).
That isn't my real problem with this algorithm and the 100s of similar ones that have come before it. What bothers me is that they don't really get at the *way* the brain works. It's a top-down approach, which looks at the *behavior* of the brain and then tries to emulate it. The problem with this technique is it may miss important details by glossing over anything that isn't immediately obvious in the specific problem being tackled (in this case vision). This system can analyze images, but can it also do sound? In a real brain, research indicates that you can remap sensory inputs to different parts of the brain and have the brain learn it.
I'm still interested in this algorithm and would like to play around with the code (if it's available), but I am skeptical of the approach in general.
Not likely in most of Europe. In fact, this stuff is popular exactly because of people's ages (note how many people were alive in 1945 - compare to USA)
Come on Slashdot people, stop modding up flamebait like this. This post: A. Missed the point of the gp post - the point of that post was that Windows just works for some people. B. Isn't even rational - the only big OS that you can get without a "tax" is Linux, which is off topic because this is a discussion about OS X and Windows. If anything, that argument should be used against Apple's hardware tax
Yeah, Windows tends to dominate the market, but it works for so many people because: -It's easier to use than Linux -It's runs on cheaper hardware than Mac -It has a virtual monopoly for a lot of software
I use all three Operating Systems. I use Windows more than the other three because it works for my needs. I know a lot of people who feel the same way.
Getting an invite has been pretty much trivial for about 2 years now. They know this, so they didn't even remember to remove the invites. I don't think anyone who wants gmail doesn't have it at this point.
"The two companies agreed to jointly sell their products and also develop technologies to make it easier for businesses to use Linux alongside Windows software."
Good point, feedback is always a good thing; I guess the important question is whether this is the correct way of doing it. Politicians are very busy, and don't like their time being wasted. If the system is not taken seriously, like a lot of other online petition sites, it will lose effectiveness and just waste time.
If this does take off, and becomes the main way for the people to bring up complaints, it will give more voice to people who are tech savvy - not exactly the ideal in a democratic republic (or whatever Britain is).
I like the idea though. I wish more American politicians embraced something like this.
You could get something somewhat similar with a DVR. Tell them what you want, and it'll record it. Then skip the commercials. It won't be quite as convenient, but it's something you can do today.
I mean no disrespect to your political opinions, and I agree that privacy is very important, but about your comment: "Not only would it sway my vote, but a positive stance on privacy would damn-near guarantee it."
IMO, voting on a single issue isn't too much better than voting on none. Hillary Clinton has a history of making racist and anti-semitic remarks [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clint on_controversies]. She has voted to censor video games to pander to certain voters, with no regard to the first amendment consequences. This indicates she may do so again (what's the point of privacy if you have no rights?) All in all, something bugs me about her in the same way I was bugged about Bush in 2000. The last thing we need is another weak/evil person who is in the white house solely due to his/her name and connections. I miss the days of her husband, Bill.
I'm really sorry, I didn't mean to reply in such an affront manner - don't know what I was thinking.
Anyway, I want to avoid this turning into a pointless argument. My evidence may be anecdotal, but it is not necessarily weak, and strongly indicates (to me) that doctors waste an incredible amount of money on paperwork. I actually learned about all this from my doctor friend when he approached me about building a very similar system to the one discussed in the article. A quick chat with some other doctors confirmed that they (and insurance companies, and therefore the common people) would save a lot of money and time from this. The current system leads to huge inefficiency.
Is this proof? Well, to me it is beyond my reasonable doubt. I don't expect people to blindly believe me (after all, this is a internet forum, no rational person should take facts solely from it).
My medical records are extremely unsafe as it is, through no fault of my own. It exists in several different computer systems, at least 10 doctors' file cabinets, blah. This boils down to an "all your eggs in one basket" argument. I personally would feel safer with a central database with tough laws governing its access than having my medical records scattered all over the country. All I care about is my own file, not the other 300 million out there, and currently I KNOW it is not even remotely secure.
I'm sorry, but you are trying to use your intuitive sense to argue here. That simply does not work in a real debate. I understand you feel strongly about this, but *rational* arguments will further your opinions more.
"yet to be proven"
Did you go out and actually find this out? My friend has told me, and I have no reason to not believe him, that he spends 20-50% of his or his staff's time handling medical history. I am sure many doctors feel the same way.
"Sure... but so what. We are talking oodles and oodles of orders of magnitude difference here"
No, I am talking about the same exact thing. If someone wants YOUR record, hacking a database VS social engineering are comparable, if not orders of magnitude of difference in the opposite direction that you speak of.
Another advantage: a common standard will eliminate the need to fill out medical history every time you go to the doctor (or have the doctor get it himself). Besides being a huge time saver, it will reduce the chances of human error.
A friend of mine, a doctor, has claimed a standardized health history system that is easily retrievable would save him about 20-50% of the time he spends on a typical patient (depending on the type of patient). This would increase efficiency and reduce costs in the already over-priced health field.
Security is essential but, to the typical person, the benefits far out-way the off-chance that: A. someone cares about your medical history B. has some way of accessing it C. is willing to risk the likely punishment for doing so
Besides, social engineering (eg. calling a person's doctor and asking for medical history) is probably possible as it is.
This is from the economists' most recent article using the big mac [May 25th 2006]:
"The index was never intended to be a precise predictor of currency movements, simply a take-away guide to whether currencies are at their "correct" long-run level. Curiously, however, burgernomics has an impressive record in predicting exchange rates: currencies that show up as overvalued often tend to weaken in later years. But you must always remember the Big Mac's limitations. Burgers cannot sensibly be traded across borders and prices are distorted by differences in taxes and the cost of non-tradable inputs, such as rents."
Any PPP calculation will be flawed between different countries due to cultural differences (the french probably prefer croissants to bread), but IMO the economist was smart in using McDonald's research of what their product is worth in a given country to assess that country's currency. My guess is Apple's index means less because they fear arbitrage of their product (ie. people shipping cheaper ipods from third world countries to the USA)
You make a great point, but the problem is a clear majority of people don't know this or truly understand this. I think it should be Wikipedia's job to emphasize that it is not a reference like a traditional encyclopedia or dictionary; in a traditional reference, the user can take what he reads as fact. In Wikipedia, he should assume it is not until proven otherwise. This is far from obvious in the way Wikipedia presents *itself.*
I personally use Wikipedia to casually learn information - when it comes to actually researching a topic, I use the references in an article to find reputable sources.
It's a good idea for users of the internet who *require* it to be dependable, consistent, and quick.
Here are a few examples I can think of: 1. VOIP 2. Stock trading 3. Remote medical applications 4. Military 5. Games
The problem with the Slashdot mentality is that there is no solution for these people due to idealogical inflexibility. Corporations are bad so we need the government to force them to keep things neutral. The government is bad so we can't trust them to do it themselves. In my opinion, this limits the internet needlessly. It almost seems like a mix of socialist and libertarian reasoning, which is obviously a bit confusing.
And then you get proposed Slashdot solutions like "if you need something to be dependable, build it yourself" which is clearly illogical. I think the perfect solution is for people who really need a dependable internet to pay for it, which will allow better communication lines to be financed throughout the backbone of the internet, which will allow the common user to see some benefit too. FUD convinces people that this is impossible (which is clearly indicated in the parent post)
It seems to me that the only victim is the bank itself (at least if Swedish banks compete with each other, like in the USA). In that case, they are not "victims" because they gave up the money by choice, presumably to make their customers feel safer.
I entirely agree. Moore's law is about general ICs, not FPGAs.
But that does not mean this is insignificant. FPGAs are extremely useful in many applications, but cost and transistor count hold it back for a lot of applications. An increase in transistor density by 3 orders of magnitude is significant enough that it could make FPGAs a viable option for a lot more people.
Too bad the article made no mention to the effect on cost;)
"The TV technology (plasma and LCD) is still unbelievably crappy and overpriced"
Uh, no. Good, relatively cheap solutions have existed for more than a year now. I bought a 720p projector (which projects onto a 110" screen) more than a year ago that retails for around 1200 dollars right now. My monitor can handle 1080p with its 1900x1200 resolution.
Your argument has been repeated ad nauseam for a long time now, but the inflection point has hit where it is no longer even remotely valid. My blockbuster already rents out about 40 HD movies. As I recall, DVD players became mainstream within a year of this occurring (about 8 years ago).
Yes, it does. I'm not going to respond to the part replaced with the... because you missed the entire point of my post. Reread the subject and the first sentence.
in a laptop case. Because that is all this is. I just bought an Ipaq with very similar specs for 120 dollars. The only thing the laptop has is a bigger (but lower quality) screen...
I agree that the OLPC is designed well and sounds really cool, but in practice I think most people in the developed world would be hard-pressed to find actual uses for it. Our youth shouldn't be trained on a specially-designed OS that has little relation to actual OS's when we can afford simple windows, linux, or OSX based desktops. Most adults wouldn't be caught outside using this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OLPC-XO_in_Colo r.jpg
Neither is targeted towards the consumer PC market. This is an important distinction.
I have found that one of the big cons of desktops is noise and heat. My laptop can do 99% of what my desktop can do, but somehow does it using a lot less power (and I consider myself a gamer, plus I use Matlab quite a bit for CPU and memory intensive applications). I support AMD in what they are doing, even though I think it is mostly a strategic move.
Slashdot Mirror
"Count yourself lucky, I guess"
I consider myself lucky that I live in a country where illegal activities are taxed. It is highly unfair to us tax paying citizens to have the mob running around untaxed (and of course killing us, but that is a whole different gripe).
Creating "biologically inspired" models of AI is by no means a new topic of research. From what I can tell, most of these algorithms work by stringing together specialized algorithms and mathematical functions that are, at best, loosely related to the way the brain works (at a high level). By contrast, the brain is a huge, complicated, connectionist network (neurons connected together).
That isn't my real problem with this algorithm and the 100s of similar ones that have come before it. What bothers me is that they don't really get at the *way* the brain works. It's a top-down approach, which looks at the *behavior* of the brain and then tries to emulate it. The problem with this technique is it may miss important details by glossing over anything that isn't immediately obvious in the specific problem being tackled (in this case vision). This system can analyze images, but can it also do sound? In a real brain, research indicates that you can remap sensory inputs to different parts of the brain and have the brain learn it.
I'm still interested in this algorithm and would like to play around with the code (if it's available), but I am skeptical of the approach in general.
Not likely in most of Europe. In fact, this stuff is popular exactly because of people's ages (note how many people were alive in 1945 - compare to USA)
a mid_Germany_Year_2000.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Population_Pyr
I don't know of any University where the IT department holds more sway than the professors, regardless of their tenure situation.
Come on Slashdot people, stop modding up flamebait like this. This post:
A. Missed the point of the gp post - the point of that post was that Windows just works for some people.
B. Isn't even rational - the only big OS that you can get without a "tax" is Linux, which is off topic because this is a discussion about OS X and Windows. If anything, that argument should be used against Apple's hardware tax
Yeah, Windows tends to dominate the market, but it works for so many people because:
-It's easier to use than Linux
-It's runs on cheaper hardware than Mac
-It has a virtual monopoly for a lot of software
I use all three Operating Systems. I use Windows more than the other three because it works for my needs. I know a lot of people who feel the same way.
Getting an invite has been pretty much trivial for about 2 years now. They know this, so they didn't even remember to remove the invites. I don't think anyone who wants gmail doesn't have it at this point.
Play unreal tournament 2004 - it has amazing gameplay (I have been playing it regularly for 3 years now). I predict UT 2007 will be about as good.
:)
Of course, those are better as PC games, so I still may agree with you for consoles
"The two companies agreed to jointly sell their products and also develop technologies to make it easier for businesses to use Linux alongside Windows software."
Why is that so bad?
Good point, feedback is always a good thing; I guess the important question is whether this is the correct way of doing it. Politicians are very busy, and don't like their time being wasted. If the system is not taken seriously, like a lot of other online petition sites, it will lose effectiveness and just waste time.
If this does take off, and becomes the main way for the people to bring up complaints, it will give more voice to people who are tech savvy - not exactly the ideal in a democratic republic (or whatever Britain is).
I like the idea though. I wish more American politicians embraced something like this.
You could get something somewhat similar with a DVR. Tell them what you want, and it'll record it. Then skip the commercials. It won't be quite as convenient, but it's something you can do today.
t ack-automatically-download-your-favorite-tv-shows- 171992.php
Alternatively, I use RSS with bit torrent to automatically download all my shows (sans commercials). I got so disgusted with advertisements I canceled my cable and set up the torrents. http://lifehacker.com/software/bittorrent/hack-at
I mean no disrespect to your political opinions, and I agree that privacy is very important, but about your comment: "Not only would it sway my vote, but a positive stance on privacy would damn-near guarantee it."
t on_controversies]. She has voted to censor video games to pander to certain voters, with no regard to the first amendment consequences. This indicates she may do so again (what's the point of privacy if you have no rights?) All in all, something bugs me about her in the same way I was bugged about Bush in 2000. The last thing we need is another weak/evil person who is in the white house solely due to his/her name and connections. I miss the days of her husband, Bill.
IMO, voting on a single issue isn't too much better than voting on none. Hillary Clinton has a history of making racist and anti-semitic remarks [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clin
I'm really sorry, I didn't mean to reply in such an affront manner - don't know what I was thinking.
Anyway, I want to avoid this turning into a pointless argument. My evidence may be anecdotal, but it is not necessarily weak, and strongly indicates (to me) that doctors waste an incredible amount of money on paperwork. I actually learned about all this from my doctor friend when he approached me about building a very similar system to the one discussed in the article. A quick chat with some other doctors confirmed that they (and insurance companies, and therefore the common people) would save a lot of money and time from this. The current system leads to huge inefficiency.
Is this proof? Well, to me it is beyond my reasonable doubt. I don't expect people to blindly believe me (after all, this is a internet forum, no rational person should take facts solely from it).
My medical records are extremely unsafe as it is, through no fault of my own. It exists in several different computer systems, at least 10 doctors' file cabinets, blah. This boils down to an "all your eggs in one basket" argument. I personally would feel safer with a central database with tough laws governing its access than having my medical records scattered all over the country. All I care about is my own file, not the other 300 million out there, and currently I KNOW it is not even remotely secure.
I'm sorry, but you are trying to use your intuitive sense to argue here. That simply does not work in a real debate. I understand you feel strongly about this, but *rational* arguments will further your opinions more.
... but so what. We are talking oodles and oodles of orders of magnitude difference here"
"yet to be proven"
Did you go out and actually find this out? My friend has told me, and I have no reason to not believe him, that he spends 20-50% of his or his staff's time handling medical history. I am sure many doctors feel the same way.
"Sure
No, I am talking about the same exact thing. If someone wants YOUR record, hacking a database VS social engineering are comparable, if not orders of magnitude of difference in the opposite direction that you speak of.
Another advantage: a common standard will eliminate the need to fill out medical history every time you go to the doctor (or have the doctor get it himself). Besides being a huge time saver, it will reduce the chances of human error.
A friend of mine, a doctor, has claimed a standardized health history system that is easily retrievable would save him about 20-50% of the time he spends on a typical patient (depending on the type of patient). This would increase efficiency and reduce costs in the already over-priced health field.
Security is essential but, to the typical person, the benefits far out-way the off-chance that:
A. someone cares about your medical history
B. has some way of accessing it
C. is willing to risk the likely punishment for doing so
Besides, social engineering (eg. calling a person's doctor and asking for medical history) is probably possible as it is.
"It wouldn't surprise me at all if 99.5% of them were infected over there"
;)
Are you the one who came up with the 25% statistic in the article?
This is from the economists' most recent article using the big mac [May 25th 2006]:
"The index was never intended to be a precise predictor of currency movements, simply a take-away guide to whether currencies are at their "correct" long-run level. Curiously, however, burgernomics has an impressive record in predicting exchange rates: currencies that show up as overvalued often tend to weaken in later years. But you must always remember the Big Mac's limitations. Burgers cannot sensibly be traded across borders and prices are distorted by differences in taxes and the cost of non-tradable inputs, such as rents."
Any PPP calculation will be flawed between different countries due to cultural differences (the french probably prefer croissants to bread), but IMO the economist was smart in using McDonald's research of what their product is worth in a given country to assess that country's currency. My guess is Apple's index means less because they fear arbitrage of their product (ie. people shipping cheaper ipods from third world countries to the USA)
You make a great point, but the problem is a clear majority of people don't know this or truly understand this. I think it should be Wikipedia's job to emphasize that it is not a reference like a traditional encyclopedia or dictionary; in a traditional reference, the user can take what he reads as fact. In Wikipedia, he should assume it is not until proven otherwise. This is far from obvious in the way Wikipedia presents *itself.*
I personally use Wikipedia to casually learn information - when it comes to actually researching a topic, I use the references in an article to find reputable sources.
It's a good idea for users of the internet who *require* it to be dependable, consistent, and quick.
Here are a few examples I can think of:
1. VOIP
2. Stock trading
3. Remote medical applications
4. Military
5. Games
The problem with the Slashdot mentality is that there is no solution for these people due to idealogical inflexibility. Corporations are bad so we need the government to force them to keep things neutral. The government is bad so we can't trust them to do it themselves. In my opinion, this limits the internet needlessly. It almost seems like a mix of socialist and libertarian reasoning, which is obviously a bit confusing.
And then you get proposed Slashdot solutions like "if you need something to be dependable, build it yourself" which is clearly illogical. I think the perfect solution is for people who really need a dependable internet to pay for it, which will allow better communication lines to be financed throughout the backbone of the internet, which will allow the common user to see some benefit too. FUD convinces people that this is impossible (which is clearly indicated in the parent post)
It seems to me that the only victim is the bank itself (at least if Swedish banks compete with each other, like in the USA). In that case, they are not "victims" because they gave up the money by choice, presumably to make their customers feel safer.
I entirely agree. Moore's law is about general ICs, not FPGAs.
;)
But that does not mean this is insignificant. FPGAs are extremely useful in many applications, but cost and transistor count hold it back for a lot of applications. An increase in transistor density by 3 orders of magnitude is significant enough that it could make FPGAs a viable option for a lot more people.
Too bad the article made no mention to the effect on cost
In Germany you can be convicted for sharing the shareware version of wolfenstein 3d with your friends. In the USA we think that is stupid.
"The TV technology (plasma and LCD) is still unbelievably crappy and overpriced"
Uh, no. Good, relatively cheap solutions have existed for more than a year now. I bought a 720p projector (which projects onto a 110" screen) more than a year ago that retails for around 1200 dollars right now. My monitor can handle 1080p with its 1900x1200 resolution.
Your argument has been repeated ad nauseam for a long time now, but the inflection point has hit where it is no longer even remotely valid. My blockbuster already rents out about 40 HD movies. As I recall, DVD players became mainstream within a year of this occurring (about 8 years ago).
"The iPaq has ... handwriting recognition?"
... because you missed the entire point of my post. Reread the subject and the first sentence.
Yes, it does. I'm not going to respond to the part replaced with the
in a laptop case. Because that is all this is. I just bought an Ipaq with very similar specs for 120 dollars. The only thing the laptop has is a bigger (but lower quality) screen...
o r.jpg
I agree that the OLPC is designed well and sounds really cool, but in practice I think most people in the developed world would be hard-pressed to find actual uses for it. Our youth shouldn't be trained on a specially-designed OS that has little relation to actual OS's when we can afford simple windows, linux, or OSX based desktops. Most adults wouldn't be caught outside using this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OLPC-XO_in_Col
Neither is targeted towards the consumer PC market. This is an important distinction.
I have found that one of the big cons of desktops is noise and heat. My laptop can do 99% of what my desktop can do, but somehow does it using a lot less power (and I consider myself a gamer, plus I use Matlab quite a bit for CPU and memory intensive applications). I support AMD in what they are doing, even though I think it is mostly a strategic move.