Here's the question: are these people working on technologies to convert speech-to-text, or are they working on the next layer after that: parsing/understanding that text in a way to produce useful results. Given the state of the patent system, and the amount of IP Nuance owns, I'd be hesitant to even try to outcompete Nuance on the speech-to-text part. But there's still lots of work to do on what to do with the data that gets spit out by the speech-to-text processor. On the other hand, it's possible Apple is working on a "backup plan", but currently has no particular problem with Nuance's technology. Unlike with Google with the maps, Nuance is not a competitor to Apple at other levels, so I don't anticipate Apple is in a hurry to move away from Nuance as a supplier, the way they seem to have been with Google.
The Koreans had a series of problems (mostly in the 80s, IIRC) with preventable crashes that have been pretty definitively traced to deference to authority. Obviously, Asians do not have a monopoly on cultures that defer to authority. But in Korea there was certainly a confluence of culture/training that was causing types of accidents not seen in other culture/training regimes. Even Korean investigators conceded that their culture was playing a part, and that training had to be designed to overcome that culture.
The problem was not just deference within the cockpit. One of the crashes occured when a pilot failed to be firm enough with air traffic control in NYC about their low fuel status. The busy-sounding ATC guy asked "are you declaring an emergency?" and the Korean Air pilot said something non-committal like "not really", when he should have just said "yes, we have a fuel emergency." Plane ran out of fuel a few minutes later and crashed.
I agree. Human minds simply don't work as rationally/logically as the guy you quoted seems to believe. Maybe given plenty of time to think something through, a person would think "if I don't say something, then 200 people will die". But in the moment, that's not how our minds work. Frankly, in those types of spur-of-the-moment decisions, we tend to fall back on culture/training over rationality. I imagine this would especially be true because of the nature of what happens in the cockpit. By the time there is a situation that really is potentially fatal, I'm sure a co-pilot has many times seen things that seemed wrong but ended up working out just fine. Most times that you come in too slow, the pilot eventually notices, powers up, and maybe you just land a little short on the runway. So over time the co-pilot learns that even things that may seem wrong usually end up working out OK. Then the one time he really, really should have said something, he doesn't have the time (and/or presence of mind) to override the bad habit of keeping his mouth shut.
Near as I can tell a 48 port DSLAM is about a couple thousand more than 48 port Gigabit ethernet. If you can get 48 apartments rewired for Cat5 for just a couple thousand dollars, you'll have to let me know how, cause that's a pretty impressively cheap cost. Until you know how much this new technology costs, you're just spouting BS, so why don't you just stop embarrassing yourself.
Who said this needs the same kind of DSLAM that existing DSL uses? Isn't the reason DSLAMs are expensive because they sit at the central office and can serve hundreds/thousands of customers? You have no idea how expensive one that sits in an apartment building basement serving a hundred customers would cost.
Blindly believing new technologies cost the same as old technologies is... insane.
So you've got some kind of magic sauce that doesn't require new equipment on each side of those new wires you're pulling? That would be pretty impressive. If it's not one kind of new equipment, then its some other kind of new equipment, after all.
There's an arrest warrant out for him. So they can revoke his passport. Nothing illegal going on. Nothing that contradicts that document you linked to.
Including horizontal runs, 100 meters probably gets you coverage for most buildings up to 15 stories. Really wide buildings usually have multiple telephone risers and you'd put a converter at the base of every riser. Taller than that really depends on how the existing telephone lines lay out within the building. You could probably put an additional one of these on the 15th floor, within the riser, for many 30 story buildings and be covered up to 30 stories (getting a single fiber line up the riser is no problem). Once you're up to 30 stories, you've covered all but a handfull of apartment towers in the U.S. There will be some big buildings where the wiring layout doesn't really work for this, but it would be relatively rare.
Do you think that just because you used the word "proprietary"? I'm not really sure what maintenance cost you're talking about. There's replacing failed gear and... what am I missing? And why do we believe it will be any more maintenance intensive than fiber gear?
The cost of running fiber through an existing apartment building can be huge. In some cases, costs can be high enough that it almost doesn't matter what the ongoing maintenance costs are.
Why do so many comments in this thread assume everyone lives in a single-family home? In an apartment setting, it's huge cost savings to avoid having to rewire that last few hundred feet to the individual units.
Disagree. This is great for apartment buildings/complexes where running fiber to the buildings isn't the problem. It's running fiber within the buildings (to the individual units) that's expensive. Something like a third of Americans live in apartments, so a system that spans the last few hundred feet in apartments without needing to rewire buildings would definitely be a win.
But it doesn't matter what the times were for one specific run of the calculation. The question is how the two algorithms scale.
I saw a blog somewhere that the guy claimed the improved classical algorithm scales at the same rate as the quantum annealing algorith, meaning no gain for DWave. But there's wasn't any kind of proof in that post, just a claim.
Just like the cat is in a superposition of states before you measure, so is the particle in a superposition of states before you measure. The particle is not in a single classical-like state until disturbed by the measurement.
Not every piece of information that is claimed to be government classified material really is government classified material. If there was a general rule "if it gets out there, then we declassify it", then that would be the same as having a rule that said "we will always honestly confirm/deny the validity of supposed classified material". However you feel about this particular information, you have to agree that having such a rule in general would be ridiculous, don't you?
The Guardian is the one who has published the most amount of the material. The government has also told employees to avoid clicking into coverage of the topic from their work computers. Keep in mind that the concern is having an attacker find copies of the actual leaked information on government computers, not just copies of articles related to that information.
Finding copies of the actual information on government computers would give an attacker reason to assume the information is verified. Finding a copy of an article on government computers wouldn't provide any kind of verification.
If someone broke into a government computer, and found the leaked information on that computer, they might make the assumption that the leaked information is now confirmed (rather than just having been dowloaded from The Guardian). Whether that assumption would be correct or not is immaterial, you don't want to give an attacker any additional info about the leak by having them find the same information on a government computer.
It doesn't matter that everyone right now believes the information to be correct. The system is not set up (and really shouldn't be set up) to distinguish between different leaks in that manner. The government is simply too big to have nuanced decisions like that made on a case-by-case basis.
This only applies to the government computer. The employee can watch the news, read the newspaper, surf from his home computer, etc. It's not about keeping the information from reaching the employee. It's only about keeping the information off of the unclassified side of the government network. (The one exception is that if you use your home computer to attach to the government network -- e.g. you VPN in from your home computer -- then the same rules apply to that computer.)
LOL... the stupid is burning you because it's inside your head.
Doctors prescribe antibiotics for viral infections overwhelmingly because patients ask for it and it's easiest to just give people what they want. It's no secret among doctors and many will even admit it, as long as they aren't on the record.
Superbugs have nothing to do with cleanliness. You can certainly reduce their ability to spread by being more cleanly, but they evolved because of antibiotic use. You get right the reason that superbugs don't do well in the natural environment, so how come you don't understand that a hospital isn't a natural environment? In a hospital those non-armored organisms are now at a disadvantage, and the 30-ton tank has the advantage -- precisely because of antibiotic use, not because the hospital is dirty.
And hospitals are not at all dirty environments. They are very clean environments. They just happen to have a relatively high proportion of pathogens around, but that's because sick people tend to congregate there, not because they are dirty in-and-of themselves. High percentage of pathogens is not the same as dirty.
No. The strongest practical use case for Open Source in business is that the Open Source version is some combination of better/cheaper than alternate versions, with "better" including the fact that Open Source projects often get updated faster when security bugs (and sometimes other bugs) are found. The possibility of bringing development fully in-house is not a practical solution for 99.99% of businesses. (I'm exaggerating a little, but not much).
The materials they are using are not new. They just haven't been used heavily in civilian aviation before. There are other concerns with such composites (aluminum doesn't delaminate, for instance) but those concerns are generally well-understood.
Except that Airbus needs to sell way more A380s to pay back development cost than Boeing needs to sell of 747-8s.
Twelve years after starting sales, Airbus still hasn't broken even on the A380. According to estimates, they need to sell 420 planes to break even. They have orders for 262. Based on recent order history, they are 5-10 years away from hitting that number of orders. But they are 10 years away from delivering that many planes. Basically, it will have taken them well over 20 years just to break even on the plane.
(Note that Airbus talks about reaching break-even in 2015/2016. But that just represents when they will stop losing money on a current basis on the program. After that point, they still need to pay back all the R&D and negative cash flow incurred to that point.)
If you read any of the industry news, you'll see that pretty much no one expects Airbus to ever end up with a positive total return on the investment. By the time the design is 20 years old, they'll have to start thinking about investing in modernized upgrades. It won't cost anywhere near as much as the new airframe did, but it'll further push back when they could possibly end up positive on a total return basis.
Boeing hasn't talked about how many units they need to sell of 747-8 to break even. But that airframe's sales have only been 30% lower per year than A380s. And it was an upgrade, not a completely new design, so development costs were significantly cheaper. No one at Boeing is jumping up and down over those sales. But 747-8 probably has a pretty good chance of providing a positive total return over its lifetime (although maybe only modestly), especially considering its popularity as a freighter. There is no freighter version of the A380.
Are we ever going to get tired of comparing the actual sentence that one person was given with the maximum possible that another person may be facing? Not everyone gets the maximum sentence, and there are guidelines that describe the situations in which the maximum (or some lesser sentence) should be applied. Yet we always seem to be reading these stories about "OMG, he's facing UP TO ___ years". I can't remember the last time we saw one of these lame, over-reactions and then that person was actually sentenced to that maximum sentence.
Yeah, what could we possibly lose if common citizens no longer want to interact with police officers because they don't want to be recorded. I can't imagine what we could lose.
(Is the sarcasm apparent, or do I have to spell it out?)
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the question: are these people working on technologies to convert speech-to-text, or are they working on the next layer after that: parsing/understanding that text in a way to produce useful results. Given the state of the patent system, and the amount of IP Nuance owns, I'd be hesitant to even try to outcompete Nuance on the speech-to-text part. But there's still lots of work to do on what to do with the data that gets spit out by the speech-to-text processor. On the other hand, it's possible Apple is working on a "backup plan", but currently has no particular problem with Nuance's technology. Unlike with Google with the maps, Nuance is not a competitor to Apple at other levels, so I don't anticipate Apple is in a hurry to move away from Nuance as a supplier, the way they seem to have been with Google.
The Koreans had a series of problems (mostly in the 80s, IIRC) with preventable crashes that have been pretty definitively traced to deference to authority. Obviously, Asians do not have a monopoly on cultures that defer to authority. But in Korea there was certainly a confluence of culture/training that was causing types of accidents not seen in other culture/training regimes. Even Korean investigators conceded that their culture was playing a part, and that training had to be designed to overcome that culture.
The problem was not just deference within the cockpit. One of the crashes occured when a pilot failed to be firm enough with air traffic control in NYC about their low fuel status. The busy-sounding ATC guy asked "are you declaring an emergency?" and the Korean Air pilot said something non-committal like "not really", when he should have just said "yes, we have a fuel emergency." Plane ran out of fuel a few minutes later and crashed.
I agree. Human minds simply don't work as rationally/logically as the guy you quoted seems to believe. Maybe given plenty of time to think something through, a person would think "if I don't say something, then 200 people will die". But in the moment, that's not how our minds work. Frankly, in those types of spur-of-the-moment decisions, we tend to fall back on culture/training over rationality. I imagine this would especially be true because of the nature of what happens in the cockpit. By the time there is a situation that really is potentially fatal, I'm sure a co-pilot has many times seen things that seemed wrong but ended up working out just fine. Most times that you come in too slow, the pilot eventually notices, powers up, and maybe you just land a little short on the runway. So over time the co-pilot learns that even things that may seem wrong usually end up working out OK. Then the one time he really, really should have said something, he doesn't have the time (and/or presence of mind) to override the bad habit of keeping his mouth shut.
Near as I can tell a 48 port DSLAM is about a couple thousand more than 48 port Gigabit ethernet. If you can get 48 apartments rewired for Cat5 for just a couple thousand dollars, you'll have to let me know how, cause that's a pretty impressively cheap cost. Until you know how much this new technology costs, you're just spouting BS, so why don't you just stop embarrassing yourself.
Who said this needs the same kind of DSLAM that existing DSL uses? Isn't the reason DSLAMs are expensive because they sit at the central office and can serve hundreds/thousands of customers? You have no idea how expensive one that sits in an apartment building basement serving a hundred customers would cost.
Blindly believing new technologies cost the same as old technologies is... insane.
You'd want to wait until the climax of the episode before you reverse the output polarity. It's more dramatic that way.
So you've got some kind of magic sauce that doesn't require new equipment on each side of those new wires you're pulling? That would be pretty impressive. If it's not one kind of new equipment, then its some other kind of new equipment, after all.
I don't get it.
There's an arrest warrant out for him. So they can revoke his passport. Nothing illegal going on. Nothing that contradicts that document you linked to.
Including horizontal runs, 100 meters probably gets you coverage for most buildings up to 15 stories. Really wide buildings usually have multiple telephone risers and you'd put a converter at the base of every riser. Taller than that really depends on how the existing telephone lines lay out within the building. You could probably put an additional one of these on the 15th floor, within the riser, for many 30 story buildings and be covered up to 30 stories (getting a single fiber line up the riser is no problem). Once you're up to 30 stories, you've covered all but a handfull of apartment towers in the U.S. There will be some big buildings where the wiring layout doesn't really work for this, but it would be relatively rare.
Do you think that just because you used the word "proprietary"? I'm not really sure what maintenance cost you're talking about. There's replacing failed gear and... what am I missing? And why do we believe it will be any more maintenance intensive than fiber gear?
The cost of running fiber through an existing apartment building can be huge. In some cases, costs can be high enough that it almost doesn't matter what the ongoing maintenance costs are.
But that document doesn't say that.
Can we please not randomly make stuff up?
There's nothing about the passport revocation procedure that requires the suspect be in the U.S. when revocation occurs.
Why do so many comments in this thread assume everyone lives in a single-family home? In an apartment setting, it's huge cost savings to avoid having to rewire that last few hundred feet to the individual units.
Disagree. This is great for apartment buildings/complexes where running fiber to the buildings isn't the problem. It's running fiber within the buildings (to the individual units) that's expensive. Something like a third of Americans live in apartments, so a system that spans the last few hundred feet in apartments without needing to rewire buildings would definitely be a win.
But it doesn't matter what the times were for one specific run of the calculation. The question is how the two algorithms scale.
I saw a blog somewhere that the guy claimed the improved classical algorithm scales at the same rate as the quantum annealing algorith, meaning no gain for DWave. But there's wasn't any kind of proof in that post, just a claim.
Schrodinger and his cat disagree with you.
Just like the cat is in a superposition of states before you measure, so is the particle in a superposition of states before you measure. The particle is not in a single classical-like state until disturbed by the measurement.
Not every piece of information that is claimed to be government classified material really is government classified material. If there was a general rule "if it gets out there, then we declassify it", then that would be the same as having a rule that said "we will always honestly confirm/deny the validity of supposed classified material". However you feel about this particular information, you have to agree that having such a rule in general would be ridiculous, don't you?
The Guardian is the one who has published the most amount of the material. The government has also told employees to avoid clicking into coverage of the topic from their work computers. Keep in mind that the concern is having an attacker find copies of the actual leaked information on government computers, not just copies of articles related to that information.
Finding copies of the actual information on government computers would give an attacker reason to assume the information is verified. Finding a copy of an article on government computers wouldn't provide any kind of verification.
Here's the logic:
The government has not confirmed the information.
If someone broke into a government computer, and found the leaked information on that computer, they might make the assumption that the leaked information is now confirmed (rather than just having been dowloaded from The Guardian). Whether that assumption would be correct or not is immaterial, you don't want to give an attacker any additional info about the leak by having them find the same information on a government computer.
It doesn't matter that everyone right now believes the information to be correct. The system is not set up (and really shouldn't be set up) to distinguish between different leaks in that manner. The government is simply too big to have nuanced decisions like that made on a case-by-case basis.
This only applies to the government computer. The employee can watch the news, read the newspaper, surf from his home computer, etc. It's not about keeping the information from reaching the employee. It's only about keeping the information off of the unclassified side of the government network. (The one exception is that if you use your home computer to attach to the government network -- e.g. you VPN in from your home computer -- then the same rules apply to that computer.)
LOL... the stupid is burning you because it's inside your head.
Doctors prescribe antibiotics for viral infections overwhelmingly because patients ask for it and it's easiest to just give people what they want. It's no secret among doctors and many will even admit it, as long as they aren't on the record.
Superbugs have nothing to do with cleanliness. You can certainly reduce their ability to spread by being more cleanly, but they evolved because of antibiotic use. You get right the reason that superbugs don't do well in the natural environment, so how come you don't understand that a hospital isn't a natural environment? In a hospital those non-armored organisms are now at a disadvantage, and the 30-ton tank has the advantage -- precisely because of antibiotic use, not because the hospital is dirty.
And hospitals are not at all dirty environments. They are very clean environments. They just happen to have a relatively high proportion of pathogens around, but that's because sick people tend to congregate there, not because they are dirty in-and-of themselves. High percentage of pathogens is not the same as dirty.
No. The strongest practical use case for Open Source in business is that the Open Source version is some combination of better/cheaper than alternate versions, with "better" including the fact that Open Source projects often get updated faster when security bugs (and sometimes other bugs) are found. The possibility of bringing development fully in-house is not a practical solution for 99.99% of businesses. (I'm exaggerating a little, but not much).
The materials they are using are not new. They just haven't been used heavily in civilian aviation before. There are other concerns with such composites (aluminum doesn't delaminate, for instance) but those concerns are generally well-understood.
Except that Airbus needs to sell way more A380s to pay back development cost than Boeing needs to sell of 747-8s.
Twelve years after starting sales, Airbus still hasn't broken even on the A380. According to estimates, they need to sell 420 planes to break even. They have orders for 262. Based on recent order history, they are 5-10 years away from hitting that number of orders. But they are 10 years away from delivering that many planes. Basically, it will have taken them well over 20 years just to break even on the plane.
(Note that Airbus talks about reaching break-even in 2015/2016. But that just represents when they will stop losing money on a current basis on the program. After that point, they still need to pay back all the R&D and negative cash flow incurred to that point.)
If you read any of the industry news, you'll see that pretty much no one expects Airbus to ever end up with a positive total return on the investment. By the time the design is 20 years old, they'll have to start thinking about investing in modernized upgrades. It won't cost anywhere near as much as the new airframe did, but it'll further push back when they could possibly end up positive on a total return basis.
Boeing hasn't talked about how many units they need to sell of 747-8 to break even. But that airframe's sales have only been 30% lower per year than A380s. And it was an upgrade, not a completely new design, so development costs were significantly cheaper. No one at Boeing is jumping up and down over those sales. But 747-8 probably has a pretty good chance of providing a positive total return over its lifetime (although maybe only modestly), especially considering its popularity as a freighter. There is no freighter version of the A380.
Are we ever going to get tired of comparing the actual sentence that one person was given with the maximum possible that another person may be facing? Not everyone gets the maximum sentence, and there are guidelines that describe the situations in which the maximum (or some lesser sentence) should be applied. Yet we always seem to be reading these stories about "OMG, he's facing UP TO ___ years". I can't remember the last time we saw one of these lame, over-reactions and then that person was actually sentenced to that maximum sentence.
Yeah, what could we possibly lose if common citizens no longer want to interact with police officers because they don't want to be recorded. I can't imagine what we could lose.
(Is the sarcasm apparent, or do I have to spell it out?)