I fail to see how making that the default page helps them at all (and therefore why they would ever do it). It only uses more bandwidth and computing power, and offers them *no* revenue. They will never make money off the front page becuase if they ever start to put ads on their default front page people will flock away.
Yeah, but more computer manufacturers will begin installing linux or no OS at all on their computers (which is entirely legal) and then slip a cd-r of windows xp under the table. I have seen this happening in the US, and can only imagine how much easier it would be in India.
I completely agree that cellphones will one day take over. Every one carries a cellphone around, and Moore's Law is ensuring that we can fit more and more stuff on a phone. Within 5 years we will have decent cameras on phones, and we can aleady put a HD and an MP3 decoder in one. Imagine how great it would be to have a portable HD (perhaps even flash based), digital camera, phone, mp3 player and PDA all in a package the size of an IPOD. This *can* be done within 10 years given the current rate of advancement.
The only reason why we would not be able to do this is the battery. Current battery technology will simply not be sufficient. I think once the next battery technology comes out, a revolution will occur in mobile electronics. "Super-phones" will be the next big thing.
I think fuel cells hold a lot of promise. Once some hurdles are passed, they are quite ideal: they can be charged in seconds and can hold a decent charge.
Perhaps, or perhaps if Google changes its rankings enough, the SEOs' credibilities will be destroyed (they will be seen as a temporary and overpriced fixes)
I am very anti-creationist, but I actually like their definition more. It recognizies that there isn't always a "natural" answer to the problems that science faces given the current information. In fact, looking for natural answers can be very unscientific.
For example, the astronomers of yore tried to explain the planet movements with natural answers that were not based on good scientific methods. Same with the people who wrote the Bible. The new definition actually outlines the methods that are essential to science, such as experimentation and theories.
A. That won't fix the problem - 3 strikes are way too many. Assumming there are 100 people on the network who are problem causers, you will have up to 300 network issues until the problem is "fixed." And you will have 100 very pissed off kids. B. You will scare technophobes even more. Usually, avoiding viruses is not entirely intuitive until you have some experience with computers. C. You are punishing the wrong person. The student did not write the virus, nor did he put it on his computer on purpose.
How about writing this, in big letters, on the introduction pamphlet to the students: "for every virus you get, I shall kill you."
When I was 10 (12 years ago), if my parents told me I couldn't play Mortal Kombat (one of the most violent games of the time) I would play it behind their backs. Most kids I know would do something similar. My parents could have instead not bought me the game, but nowadays anyone can just download games off the internet.
I take it most of you have forgotten what being a child is like - children won't behave perfectly if you "talk with them." Parents cannot (and should not) watch their children 24/7.
This technology will allow strict parents, who know they can't control their kids through normal means, to easily enforce rules. I personlly would not use it, but I can see why many parents would.
I think you are confusing "out of context" with "an incomplete picture." Regardless, someone who scored 25% on pilot aptitude would not be the top choice for pilot. Especially in a position that would allow someone to avoid Vietnam.
And anyway, what does verbal aptitude have to do with flying planes?? That seems like the least relevant of the scores.
"Finally, he raises the question on whether corporations should get involved in social issues."
I think this is the best reason to back off. However much I support anti-discrimination, it bothers me that a company is trynig to sway the government one way or another. It has come to the point where I think politicians (from both parties) care more about what corporations think than the people. This is a very bad thing because corporations and politicians usually don't have the same interests that the people do.
There are plenty of copies of the magazine laying around - there is no reason to believe this guy has a fake copy or that he stole it. The magazine was valuable before Intel asked for it - it is clearly a collector's item.
BTW, I think I read last week that Intel announced it has gotten more than enough offers and the deal is done. They don't need to save 10,000 dollars and look like jerks (10,000 dollars is change to a company as big as they are).
I think this is an interesting idea. Sort of like the power supply in a computer - one central source does the work for all the LED lights (this could be wired into new homes in the near future, creating a new type of socket).
I mainly like this idea because I think 120 V AC seems so old-fashioned. AC is neccesary to transfer energy across long distances, but it is hard to implement into electronics. Most solid state electronics run off ~5 V DC and lights will probably one day be able to. Most conventional (pre-silicon) electronics and appliances could be made to run on DC.
This will, of course, probably not happen any time soon because new standards are always difficult to change to.
I found your argument flawed. You make the assumption that the program penalizes creativity. I would assume creativity does not affect the grade either way. The professor still reads and grades the paper, and I am sure he takes it into account.
"How long before he's replaced entirely by his own program to cut down on staff costs?"
I would say a long time. A program that tries to understand natural language requires some sort of "intelligence," a quality that humans definetly possess and computers, up to now, definetly do not.
AI still mostly consists of certain hacks to trick other people into thinking the programs are intelligent - basically attempting to fool the Turing Test. This can often produce great results and can be very useful, but almost never replaces a human in complex tasks (such as natural language processing).
The difficulty arises because humans cannot easily (or perhaps possibly) comprehend their own intelligence. It seems so natural to read a sentence and make sense of it, but when it comes time to program a computer to do it, most people try to emulate the behavior of their own comprehension. This may trick some people, but the simple nature of the programs cannot possibly be as powerful as an actual human.
The best solution, in my opinion, is a closer study of neuroscience and how it can be applied to silicon (or how new technologies need to arise to emulate the complex neural structure of the brain).
I know that people are starting to use computers to grade standardized essays, but there (currently) must always be a human checking the results because of the small number of unforseen cases that the hacked algorithms cannot do a good job. After all, the programs do not "understand" anything that is written. That is why I postulate it will be a long, long time before computers can truly emulate humans.
Anyone realize today is gmail's first birthday? It was on April 1st, 2004 that the concept was put forward and tricked so many people into thinking it was a joke. Maybe this Google Gulp thing is for real too:)
Why are you modding this guy a troll? If anything, I found his comments insightful and on-topic. Sure, he dissed open source, but is what he said that untrue? Many major open sourced projects derive *a lot* or were created from products that are/were not open source.
Photoshop is a great program and has unquestionably paved the way for its competitors. It is still by far the best at what it does. I would love to see the day that a free program can be as good as it.
Agreed. I somehow miss all the original articles in these so-called dupes, and find many of them interesting. I agree that it is somewhat unprofessional of a website to have very common duplicates. Oh well, I'm not paying for it, so I can't complain!
And to some of you: If something is free, DON'T CONSTANTLY COMPLAIN ABOUT IT. If it's unbearable, don't use it. In this case, duplicates are easy to handle: read the next article, or go to another webpage. Duh.
This whole "no media player thing" makes no sense to me - if the video player bothers you so much, don't use it. The (EU) government forcing microcrap to not include its video player in this N version will take up man-hours to rewrite code and produce new packaging that could be used for something more useful.
I understand that it will save a few megabytes (which costs a fraction of a cent in harddrive space) but it will likely lead to bugs because parts of the OS will have to be rewritten - and we all know how easily msft screws things up like that.
BTW, I don't know much about this case so if I am missing something, please enlighten me.
Peer to peer has a lot of potential, but up to now it has largely been disorganized. There is no easy way to go through a list of all the music, and no way to know which of the 1% of the songs are legitimate.
This means that the chance someone will download some indie music off kazaa is close to 0. There needs to be a way for artists to advertise their own, legal music on these networks. There are already websites that allow this, like http://www.garageband.coc. I think free download websites like this are a much better way for indie artists to spread their name.
Slashdot Mirror
All he said is that he is tired of it. "Cool" is a concept that doesn't mean anything once you are about 25.
I fail to see how making that the default page helps them at all (and therefore why they would ever do it). It only uses more bandwidth and computing power, and offers them *no* revenue. They will never make money off the front page becuase if they ever start to put ads on their default front page people will flock away.
Donating to a settlement? Why would anyone do that?!? I'll donate if it will go to a legal fund, but not to hand over to the bad guys
.com instead of a .tv
ps. end it with a
Yeah, but more computer manufacturers will begin installing linux or no OS at all on their computers (which is entirely legal) and then slip a cd-r of windows xp under the table. I have seen this happening in the US, and can only imagine how much easier it would be in India.
I completely agree that cellphones will one day take over. Every one carries a cellphone around, and Moore's Law is ensuring that we can fit more and more stuff on a phone. Within 5 years we will have decent cameras on phones, and we can aleady put a HD and an MP3 decoder in one. Imagine how great it would be to have a portable HD (perhaps even flash based), digital camera, phone, mp3 player and PDA all in a package the size of an IPOD. This *can* be done within 10 years given the current rate of advancement.
The only reason why we would not be able to do this is the battery. Current battery technology will simply not be sufficient. I think once the next battery technology comes out, a revolution will occur in mobile electronics. "Super-phones" will be the next big thing.
I think fuel cells hold a lot of promise. Once some hurdles are passed, they are quite ideal: they can be charged in seconds and can hold a decent charge.
Perhaps, or perhaps if Google changes its rankings enough, the SEOs' credibilities will be destroyed (they will be seen as a temporary and overpriced fixes)
I am very anti-creationist, but I actually like their definition more. It recognizies that there isn't always a "natural" answer to the problems that science faces given the current information. In fact, looking for natural answers can be very unscientific.
For example, the astronomers of yore tried to explain the planet movements with natural answers that were not based on good scientific methods. Same with the people who wrote the Bible. The new definition actually outlines the methods that are essential to science, such as experimentation and theories.
A. That won't fix the problem - 3 strikes are way too many. Assumming there are 100 people on the network who are problem causers, you will have up to 300 network issues until the problem is "fixed." And you will have 100 very pissed off kids.
B. You will scare technophobes even more. Usually, avoiding viruses is not entirely intuitive until you have some experience with computers.
C. You are punishing the wrong person. The student did not write the virus, nor did he put it on his computer on purpose.
How about writing this, in big letters, on the introduction pamphlet to the students:
"for every virus you get, I shall kill you."
When I was 10 (12 years ago), if my parents told me I couldn't play Mortal Kombat (one of the most violent games of the time) I would play it behind their backs. Most kids I know would do something similar. My parents could have instead not bought me the game, but nowadays anyone can just download games off the internet.
I take it most of you have forgotten what being a child is like - children won't behave perfectly if you "talk with them." Parents cannot (and should not) watch their children 24/7.
This technology will allow strict parents, who know they can't control their kids through normal means, to easily enforce rules. I personlly would not use it, but I can see why many parents would.
I think you are confusing "out of context" with "an incomplete picture." Regardless, someone who scored 25% on pilot aptitude would not be the top choice for pilot. Especially in a position that would allow someone to avoid Vietnam.
And anyway, what does verbal aptitude have to do with flying planes?? That seems like the least relevant of the scores.
"Finally, he raises the question on whether corporations should get involved in social issues."
I think this is the best reason to back off. However much I support anti-discrimination, it bothers me that a company is trynig to sway the government one way or another. It has come to the point where I think politicians (from both parties) care more about what corporations think than the people. This is a very bad thing because corporations and politicians usually don't have the same interests that the people do.
There are plenty of copies of the magazine laying around - there is no reason to believe this guy has a fake copy or that he stole it. The magazine was valuable before Intel asked for it - it is clearly a collector's item.
BTW, I think I read last week that Intel announced it has gotten more than enough offers and the deal is done. They don't need to save 10,000 dollars and look like jerks (10,000 dollars is change to a company as big as they are).
"Who's watching the watchers?"
Well, according to the summary, the co-workers. RYOFS (Read Your Own F**** Summary)
I think this is an interesting idea. Sort of like the power supply in a computer - one central source does the work for all the LED lights (this could be wired into new homes in the near future, creating a new type of socket).
I mainly like this idea because I think 120 V AC seems so old-fashioned. AC is neccesary to transfer energy across long distances, but it is hard to implement into electronics. Most solid state electronics run off ~5 V DC and lights will probably one day be able to. Most conventional (pre-silicon) electronics and appliances could be made to run on DC.
This will, of course, probably not happen any time soon because new standards are always difficult to change to.
I found your argument flawed. You make the assumption that the program penalizes creativity. I would assume creativity does not affect the grade either way. The professor still reads and grades the paper, and I am sure he takes it into account.
"How long before he's replaced entirely by his own program to cut down on staff costs?"
I would say a long time. A program that tries to understand natural language requires some sort of "intelligence," a quality that humans definetly possess and computers, up to now, definetly do not.
AI still mostly consists of certain hacks to trick other people into thinking the programs are intelligent - basically attempting to fool the Turing Test. This can often produce great results and can be very useful, but almost never replaces a human in complex tasks (such as natural language processing).
The difficulty arises because humans cannot easily (or perhaps possibly) comprehend their own intelligence. It seems so natural to read a sentence and make sense of it, but when it comes time to program a computer to do it, most people try to emulate the behavior of their own comprehension. This may trick some people, but the simple nature of the programs cannot possibly be as powerful as an actual human.
The best solution, in my opinion, is a closer study of neuroscience and how it can be applied to silicon (or how new technologies need to arise to emulate the complex neural structure of the brain).
I know that people are starting to use computers to grade standardized essays, but there (currently) must always be a human checking the results because of the small number of unforseen cases that the hacked algorithms cannot do a good job. After all, the programs do not "understand" anything that is written. That is why I postulate it will be a long, long time before computers can truly emulate humans.
If there is no wind on the moon, and people are living indoors, this dust does not seem like a huge deal.
The only potential problem would be during outdoor activities and construction, but I am sure simple solutions can be found.
This was practically the plot of independence day
Anyone realize today is gmail's first birthday? It was on April 1st, 2004 that the concept was put forward and tricked so many people into thinking it was a joke. Maybe this Google Gulp thing is for real too :)
Why are you modding this guy a troll? If anything, I found his comments insightful and on-topic. Sure, he dissed open source, but is what he said that untrue? Many major open sourced projects derive *a lot* or were created from products that are/were not open source.
Photoshop is a great program and has unquestionably paved the way for its competitors. It is still by far the best at what it does. I would love to see the day that a free program can be as good as it.
She changed her professor's passwords? Of course she'll get caught! She's an idiot (oh wait, this was already established when she failed 3 classes).
Agreed. I somehow miss all the original articles in these so-called dupes, and find many of them interesting. I agree that it is somewhat unprofessional of a website to have very common duplicates. Oh well, I'm not paying for it, so I can't complain!
And to some of you:
If something is free, DON'T CONSTANTLY COMPLAIN ABOUT IT. If it's unbearable, don't use it. In this case, duplicates are easy to handle: read the next article, or go to another webpage. Duh.
This whole "no media player thing" makes no sense to me - if the video player bothers you so much, don't use it. The (EU) government forcing microcrap to not include its video player in this N version will take up man-hours to rewrite code and produce new packaging that could be used for something more useful.
I understand that it will save a few megabytes (which costs a fraction of a cent in harddrive space) but it will likely lead to bugs because parts of the OS will have to be rewritten - and we all know how easily msft screws things up like that.
BTW, I don't know much about this case so if I am missing something, please enlighten me.
Peer to peer has a lot of potential, but up to now it has largely been disorganized. There is no easy way to go through a list of all the music, and no way to know which of the 1% of the songs are legitimate.
This means that the chance someone will download some indie music off kazaa is close to 0. There needs to be a way for artists to advertise their own, legal music on these networks. There are already websites that allow this, like http://www.garageband.coc. I think free download websites like this are a much better way for indie artists to spread their name.
Yes, I believe that is mostly correct according to current accepted theory.