A flax tax on "wealth" would be detrimental to farmers I know. I'd hardly call them "rich" even though they may have a lot of assets.
The "farmers" would probably end up paying less in taxes. You would value the land as a working asset, like a truck or a computer, not as "real estate" which is speculative.
Maybe a consumption tax would be fair That is the LEAST fair taxation. One can only consume so much. A poor person must consume a far large portion of their income to merely survive than a wealthy person living in overwhelming luxury.
how do you call a C++ class member function from C [or java]?" The question is an example of pure ignorance. How is this an example of pure ignorance? Sure, your co-worker could have googled a bit and found out about the Java Native Interface but sometimes it's just quicker to ask someone than read 10 pages of documentation on inlining native code into Java. I guess calling a C++ function from C makes little sense, but it's certainly possible. You're pretending this isn't all just assembly flying through the CPU and C++, C, and Java are all "different" somehow. It's complicated to mix languages, but sometimes necessary. You are sort of making my point for me. Knowing these things is part of the game.
I hate our tax code and would much rather see a flat tax that favors no one.
You are still taxing 'income" not wealth. To pick a name at random, Bill Gates, if he were to quit Microsoft, sell off all his stock, and get one lump sum of cash. He and 20,000 other people could lead a comfortable life and never pay a dime in taxes.
He would have the benefit of the army, national guard, police, trash pickup, etc. for free.
I would love a flat tax on wealth,.1% annually on all assets. Fair for everyone.
I earned everything I have by my own hard work. I don't owe you or anyone else a fucking thing because of my "position in life".
The arrogance of this statement is astounding.
I hope you have the good fortune in your life to maintain that attitude. I wouldn't wish the conditions by which the truth would become known to you on anyone.
I don't know how old you are, but with maturity comes the realization of the interdependency of everything and the value of those things we ignore. The worthless scum who leach resources are a negligible and unavoidable price to pay to ensure that ourselves, our children, and our loved ones are safe from the cruelty of random chance.
You are one of those chickens that have been convinced by the wolves that they, the wolves, being predators, are best suited to guard the hen house. Worse yet, you don't even realize you are not one of the wolves and that the hen house you disparage is the only safety you really have.
Good luck with your life. I have the suspicion you'll need it.
Is that your answer, "get over it" followed by a ridiculous statement you couldn't possibly know to be true,
When you look at the tax credits Exxon and Moble get compared to what we actually put into the health care system, you'll see that your government gives more of your money to exxon and moble than the poor. Its public information.
Do you not admit that there is the responsibility of a society to care for those who can not care for themselves? If you disagree, then I hope you never lose your job because of downsizing or outsourcing.
My mother has medicare, she paid into the system her whole life. We went to the emergency room because she couldn't breath. We were there for 6 hours. Her prescriptions cost over $110. My dad (RIP) fought in a war, mom and dad paid taxes their whole life. My mom can't afford the drug benefits, so I pay.
My mom and dad worked hard for decades. My dad was an iron worker, he built buildings that housed businesses that employ people who make more than he could have ever made, yet without the builders, the pavers, the trash collectors, the electrical wire men, you know, the common workers, those people who make so much (and I am one) would not be so enabled. We owe something for our position in life.
And taxation rates based on wealth does not pit one class against another?
One must ask themselves, what is the most fair way to balance the financial burden of the nation across its people.
For instance, "wages," the way "poor" people make money, is taxed at a higher rate than capital gains and investment income, the way the "rich" make money. Is that fair?
If I make $100,000 working for a living. It is taxed at a higher rate and more other taxes are taken from it, than if I were to make $100,000 from bank interest or stocks.
I agree, and when I'm doing my part, why should I have to do MORE for someone who does LESS?
Well, this is an interesting question and it goes to my statement about taxing "wealth" not "income." The top richest 1% of this nation own more property and have more money that the entire 90% of the other end of the spectrum.
The "rich" do not get rich all by themselves. They mostly inherit it. The illegal aliens that take middle class jobs make the rich richer need health care. So, we should be taxing the rich to pay for the people they allow to work at slave wages to make them richer.
Your bitch is about why *you* should pay for someone else. Well, get over it. You give more money to Exxon and Mobile than you give to the poor.
Well, I believe that when I go to work, make a living, and adhere to certain societal norms that result in my ability to take of my health care needs being met, taking money from me at gunpoint against my will to meet the needs of people who fail to take care of their own health care needs is tyrannical.
Not tyrannical, not at all. We have a society, a community, and a nation. There is an amount of shared responsibility for the good of the society, community, and nation.
1st, not everyone can afford health care. 2nd, universal health care will raise your taxes but save you money. If you look at what you or your company pays for your health care, it will be reduced. Every nation with universal heath care pays less for care than we do and according to the UN have better care. 3rd, shared responsibility is the glue that makes society work. We no longer have the wild wild west. 4th, your neighbor's sickness or ill health cost you money. What are you going to do, let them die?
Both liberals and conservatives should hold up these amendments with an equal eye to each of them.
I support the bill of rights 100%. Every last one. I'm a member of the ACLU.
Read them, know them, live them:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
What gets me so pissed off is that most americans don't really have representation. We are presented with two candidates diametrically opposed in social issues, exploiting and amplifying what are really slight differences, in order to further similar corporate and economic policies that harm the average american.
Take gun control. Most americans agree that we should have the right to own guns, and that a law banning gun ownership is wrong. Most americans also agree that some regulation, like education and background checks, is important as well. Yet, rather than come up with a reasonable compromise, which this SCOTUS decision does, they play us like fools while Exxon, RIAA, MPIAA, et al take what they want.
There are so many social issues that are really "non-issues" that could be easily settled with a reasonable compromise. America is unwilling, unable, or too stupid to fix itself.
When I was reading your post, I thought for a moment I was reading something I had written. Then I realized that I would have mentioned something about well-armed sheep.
Franklin never said anything about an armed sheep. That was incorrectly attributed to him.
I am a liberal, let me correct that, a proud liberal.
I believe that health care for everyone is a responsibility of civilization.
I believe that taxes should be levied on "wealth" not "income." Everything else is just class warfare against the poor and middle class.
I believe in free speech. EVERY FUCKING WHERE, not, bullshit "free speech zones." The U.S.A. IS a free speech zone.
I believe that the 2nd amendment was a proud declaration of freedom. As Ben Franklin said: "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." The 2nd amendment is intended to protect the sheep.
I seriously disagree with this opinion as you discount engineering as sort of inferior to the science.
Engineering absolutely requires a scientist. If you're an engineer and don't understand the theories and science you use professionally, you are a poor engineer. Typically speaking, a scientist furthers the scientific theories and an engineer applies them. Some times there is overlap where engineers do further the theories and scientists do apply them. Nowhere would I say that engineering is a profession of "good enough." In fact, understanding what "good enough" would actually require a great deal of knowledge.
I have a problem with the google generation, sure, they can parrot facts and find things in an instant, as can any slashdotter I'm sure, but knowing something is not the same thing as understanding something.
I coworker asked me yesterday "how do you call a C++ class member function from C [or java]?" The question is an example of pure ignorance.
If they "understood" computer science, as a profession, this would be a trivial question, like how do I or can I declare a C function in C++. The second question is what google can help you with while having to ask the first question means you are screwed and need to ask someone who understands what you do not. Not understanding what you do for a living is a problem.
How programs get linked, how environments function, virtual machines vs pure binaries, etc. These are important parts of computer science, just as much as algorithms and structures. You have to have a WORKING knowledge of things, i.e. an understanding.
Google's ease of discovery eliminates a lot of the understanding learned from research. Now we can get the information we want, easily, without actually understanding it. IMHO this is a very dangerous thing.
Knowing that they will use "AI" to aim their cameras instead of just pointing them to a wide view, makes me feel good. The government and its fascist corporate accessories may be evil, but at least they are also incompetent.
Balloons with angry faces will distract the cameras while you walk down the street unobserved.
This is only their complaint, I'd like to hear Google's side before I make a judgment.
The issue here is how accurate is their side of the story. How much intentional "misunderstanding" is taking place.
I CAN'T believe Google wouldn't develop an outloook reader, and I can't believe that they couldn't. So, I can't believe these people when they say google had no intention. That does n ot make sense.
What did Google actually say about non-compete?
How much of the "working with google" was merely professional support?
Do they have anything in writing?
Sorry, I'm looking for reasons to hate google, but this doesn't seem like one of them.
While the article is slashdotted, this is not a hard problem. It has an expense involved, but it is not difficult.
So, as another poster implied, 18K per photo on average, so about 8Gig per second, peak.
So, assuming that the pictures are evenly distributed, you'd need a bunch of machines and a good number of "tubes" and a way of directing requests to the correct image server or server cluster.
So, what's the problem? Why would you think this is difficult? It's all off the shelf technology, just a bunch of it.
One needs to acquire facts. Now these "facts" can come from your own research or, in the age if the internet, someone else' data, but they still need to be collected and verified.
The *only* advantage that google provides is a more efficient way of sharing and finding facts. Not even all facts, those that are popular and topical are what you'll most likely find.
Historical information, from when newspapers only used dead trees, can be very difficult to find on the internet unless someone else did the research first.
They do not have the right to order you give your password. They may instruct you to do so, but you under no obligation to comply. This is an actual ruling from the supreme court of the U.S. siting the 5th amendment.
The 5th amendment is not about protecting guilty people, it is about protecting presumed innocent people from providing information that may be used to incriminate themselves. There can be no inferred presumption of guilt by law enforcement by merely invoking your 5th amendment rights.
One of the contemporary inspirations of the 5th amendment was the kind of government in Europe typified by Cardinal Richelieu's famous quote: "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged" The thinking was that there will always be laws that could be applied to coerce innocent people. The 5th amendment was a protection for basically lawful individuals from being trapped and imprisoned by politically motivated prosecution.
On U.S. soil there are constitutional rights. Now, whether or not boarder thugs understand these and policy is legal is another issue.
Upon coming in to this country, they insist that they have the right to inspect your person for contraband. This may or may not be legal, but for the sake of public safety we accept that it is a minimal invasion of privacy and acceptable.
They do not have the right to confiscate anything that you have with you that is legally within your possession. That's the 4th amendment. However, when an armed man insists that you hand over something, you hand it to them and fight for its return when you are in safer position. The border thugs can demand and get your laptop, but that does not make it legal. You can get it back in court.
They do not have the right to order you give your password. They may instruct you to do so, but you under no obligation to comply. This is an actual ruling from the supreme court of the U.S. siting the 5th amendment.
The 5th amendment is not about protecting guilty people, it is about protecting presumed innocent people from providing information that may be used to incriminate themselves. There can be no inferred presumption of guilt by law enforcement by merely invoking your 5th amendment rights.
One of the contemporary inspirations of the 5th amendment was the kind of government in Europe typified by Cardinal Richelieu's famous quote: "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged" The thinking was that there will always be laws that could be applied to coerce innocent people. The 5th amendment was a protection for basically lawful individuals from being trapped and imprisoned by politically motivated prosecution.
OTOH it's not at all obvious that a **behavioral** simulation of human brain is necessarily out of reach of modern computers. I strongly believe that we're very close to the point where that will be possible. Consider for example that we can do realtime speech recognition on a desktop PC even though doing it via a neuron level simulation of the auditory cortex would be computationally impossible. I think the same thing likely applies of the neocortex that's responsible for cognition - neuron level is impossible, but I think we understand the struture well enough to simlate it at a FAR higher and more efficient level
The point you are missing is that, this is yet another example of a "hard coded" intelligent "process." The speech recognition thing did not grow of its own necessity through trial/error and goal seeking. No, it was designed to process speech. The gulf between the two astronomical and, really, the crux of this whole discussion.
Ditto for almost any office job that doesn't require any special physical capabilities.
You are talking about a HUGE leap in technology. AI will not be to the point where it could come even close to that sort of reasoning. When you think about the amount of processing power an organic brain has in its size compared to computer chips, you'd know that we'd need the biggest super computer in existence to emulate the brain of a hamster... maybe.
We are not even close to that point yet.
To further paraphrase Werner Von Braun's arguments, humans are cheap, expendable, and can be produced by unskilled labor.
Piloting a space ship is exactly the sort of application where using an AI makes sense! It doesn't eat, breath or crap, doesn't need to sleep, doesn't care if it's sent on a 10yr one-way mission, etc, etc.
Again a navigational system is on the model of a recommendations system, it is an application that embodies an intelligent process, but it is not typically AI.
Your whole argument against a human-emulation AI is that it would be fallible therefore useless.
That's not the point I have been making at all. "AI" has some very interesting qualities and in at least on post in this branch I have said that "AI" can produce something useful.
At issue is what is appropriate for AI and what isn't?
A true learning system makes mistakes and can be seen as less predictable than a deterministic device.
In the 80s I worked at Denning Mobile Robotics. Our goal was to make a robotic security guard for factories and such. Trying to sell it was embarrassing. It cost more than the stuff it would be guarding. It represented a capital investment instead of personnel. If it got destryed (or stolen) by a robber, it would cost more than a minimum wage employee. In short, it really didn't make sense to use a computer to replace a piece of minimum wage meat.
AI is a cool concept, but Werner Von Braun said it best, when he said people are cheaper than computers.
You could spend billions building an AI system capable of learning and adapting and piloting a space ship. Or, you could pay a few million dollars to get a human volunteer.
Slashdot Mirror
A flax tax on "wealth" would be detrimental to farmers I know. I'd hardly call them "rich" even though they may have a lot of assets.
The "farmers" would probably end up paying less in taxes. You would value the land as a working asset, like a truck or a computer, not as "real estate" which is speculative.
Maybe a consumption tax would be fair
That is the LEAST fair taxation. One can only consume so much. A poor person must consume a far large portion of their income to merely survive than a wealthy person living in overwhelming luxury.
I hate our tax code and would much rather see a flat tax that favors no one.
You are still taxing 'income" not wealth. To pick a name at random, Bill Gates, if he were to quit Microsoft, sell off all his stock, and get one lump sum of cash. He and 20,000 other people could lead a comfortable life and never pay a dime in taxes.
He would have the benefit of the army, national guard, police, trash pickup, etc. for free.
I would love a flat tax on wealth, .1% annually on all assets. Fair for everyone.
I earned everything I have by my own hard work. I don't owe you or anyone else a fucking thing because of my "position in life".
The arrogance of this statement is astounding.
I hope you have the good fortune in your life to maintain that attitude. I wouldn't wish the conditions by which the truth would become known to you on anyone.
I don't know how old you are, but with maturity comes the realization of the interdependency of everything and the value of those things we ignore. The worthless scum who leach resources are a negligible and unavoidable price to pay to ensure that ourselves, our children, and our loved ones are safe from the cruelty of random chance.
You are one of those chickens that have been convinced by the wolves that they, the wolves, being predators, are best suited to guard the hen house. Worse yet, you don't even realize you are not one of the wolves and that the hen house you disparage is the only safety you really have.
Good luck with your life. I have the suspicion you'll need it.
Is that your answer, "get over it" followed by a ridiculous statement you couldn't possibly know to be true,
When you look at the tax credits Exxon and Moble get compared to what we actually put into the health care system, you'll see that your government gives more of your money to exxon and moble than the poor. Its public information.
Do you not admit that there is the responsibility of a society to care for those who can not care for themselves? If you disagree, then I hope you never lose your job because of downsizing or outsourcing.
My mother has medicare, she paid into the system her whole life. We went to the emergency room because she couldn't breath. We were there for 6 hours. Her prescriptions cost over $110. My dad (RIP) fought in a war, mom and dad paid taxes their whole life. My mom can't afford the drug benefits, so I pay.
My mom and dad worked hard for decades. My dad was an iron worker, he built buildings that housed businesses that employ people who make more than he could have ever made, yet without the builders, the pavers, the trash collectors, the electrical wire men, you know, the common workers, those people who make so much (and I am one) would not be so enabled. We owe something for our position in life.
And taxation rates based on wealth does not pit one class against another?
One must ask themselves, what is the most fair way to balance the financial burden of the nation across its people.
For instance, "wages," the way "poor" people make money, is taxed at a higher rate than capital gains and investment income, the way the "rich" make money. Is that fair?
If I make $100,000 working for a living. It is taxed at a higher rate and more other taxes are taken from it, than if I were to make $100,000 from bank interest or stocks.
That's not fair, is it?
I agree, and when I'm doing my part, why should I have to do MORE for someone who does LESS?
Well, this is an interesting question and it goes to my statement about taxing "wealth" not "income." The top richest 1% of this nation own more property and have more money that the entire 90% of the other end of the spectrum.
The "rich" do not get rich all by themselves. They mostly inherit it. The illegal aliens that take middle class jobs make the rich richer need health care. So, we should be taxing the rich to pay for the people they allow to work at slave wages to make them richer.
Your bitch is about why *you* should pay for someone else. Well, get over it. You give more money to Exxon and Mobile than you give to the poor.
Well, I believe that when I go to work, make a living, and adhere to certain societal norms that result in my ability to take of my health care needs being met, taking money from me at gunpoint against my will to meet the needs of people who fail to take care of their own health care needs is tyrannical.
Not tyrannical, not at all. We have a society, a community, and a nation. There is an amount of shared responsibility for the good of the society, community, and nation.
1st, not everyone can afford health care.
2nd, universal health care will raise your taxes but save you money. If you look at what you or your company pays for your health care, it will be reduced. Every nation with universal heath care pays less for care than we do and according to the UN have better care.
3rd, shared responsibility is the glue that makes society work. We no longer have the wild wild west.
4th, your neighbor's sickness or ill health cost you money. What are you going to do, let them die?
Both liberals and conservatives should hold up these amendments with an equal eye to each of them.
I support the bill of rights 100%. Every last one. I'm a member of the ACLU.
Read them, know them, live them:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
What gets me so pissed off is that most americans don't really have representation. We are presented with two candidates diametrically opposed in social issues, exploiting and amplifying what are really slight differences, in order to further similar corporate and economic policies that harm the average american.
Take gun control. Most americans agree that we should have the right to own guns, and that a law banning gun ownership is wrong. Most americans also agree that some regulation, like education and background checks, is important as well. Yet, rather than come up with a reasonable compromise, which this SCOTUS decision does, they play us like fools while Exxon, RIAA, MPIAA, et al take what they want.
There are so many social issues that are really "non-issues" that could be easily settled with a reasonable compromise. America is unwilling, unable, or too stupid to fix itself.
Pisses me off.
When I was reading your post, I thought for a moment I was reading something I had written. Then I realized that I would have mentioned something about well-armed sheep.
Franklin never said anything about an armed sheep. That was incorrectly attributed to him.
http://slash.dot?
I am a liberal, let me correct that, a proud liberal.
I believe that health care for everyone is a responsibility of civilization.
I believe that taxes should be levied on "wealth" not "income." Everything else is just class warfare against the poor and middle class.
I believe in free speech. EVERY FUCKING WHERE, not, bullshit "free speech zones." The U.S.A. IS a free speech zone.
I believe that the 2nd amendment was a proud declaration of freedom. As Ben Franklin said: "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." The 2nd amendment is intended to protect the sheep.
I seriously disagree with this opinion as you discount engineering as sort of inferior to the science.
Engineering absolutely requires a scientist. If you're an engineer and don't understand the theories and science you use professionally, you are a poor engineer. Typically speaking, a scientist furthers the scientific theories and an engineer applies them. Some times there is overlap where engineers do further the theories and scientists do apply them. Nowhere would I say that engineering is a profession of "good enough." In fact, understanding what "good enough" would actually require a great deal of knowledge.
I have a problem with the google generation, sure, they can parrot facts and find things in an instant, as can any slashdotter I'm sure, but knowing something is not the same thing as understanding something.
I coworker asked me yesterday "how do you call a C++ class member function from C [or java]?" The question is an example of pure ignorance.
If they "understood" computer science, as a profession, this would be a trivial question, like how do I or can I declare a C function in C++. The second question is what google can help you with while having to ask the first question means you are screwed and need to ask someone who understands what you do not. Not understanding what you do for a living is a problem.
How programs get linked, how environments function, virtual machines vs pure binaries, etc. These are important parts of computer science, just as much as algorithms and structures. You have to have a WORKING knowledge of things, i.e. an understanding.
Google's ease of discovery eliminates a lot of the understanding learned from research. Now we can get the information we want, easily, without actually understanding it. IMHO this is a very dangerous thing.
Knowing that they will use "AI" to aim their cameras instead of just pointing them to a wide view, makes me feel good. The government and its fascist corporate accessories may be evil, but at least they are also incompetent.
Balloons with angry faces will distract the cameras while you walk down the street unobserved.
Limits, like: Netap filers max out at 16Tb (raw) per volume,
Then use more than one.
Use multiple IP addresses and pipes. Balance the images based on popularity. Use redundant storage, hell even use rsync to keep images redundant.
None of this stuff is rocket science. It is all just an erector set.
I do this stuff for a living and there are much harder problems than this.
Now, if you were transcoding the images on the fly, that might be more fun.
This is only their complaint, I'd like to hear Google's side before I make a judgment.
The issue here is how accurate is their side of the story. How much intentional "misunderstanding" is taking place.
I CAN'T believe Google wouldn't develop an outloook reader, and I can't believe that they couldn't. So, I can't believe these people when they say google had no intention. That does n ot make sense.
What did Google actually say about non-compete?
How much of the "working with google" was merely professional support?
Do they have anything in writing?
Sorry, I'm looking for reasons to hate google, but this doesn't seem like one of them.
While the article is slashdotted, this is not a hard problem. It has an expense involved, but it is not difficult.
So, as another poster implied, 18K per photo on average, so about 8Gig per second, peak.
So, assuming that the pictures are evenly distributed, you'd need a bunch of machines and a good number of "tubes" and a way of directing requests to the correct image server or server cluster.
So, what's the problem? Why would you think this is difficult? It's all off the shelf technology, just a bunch of it.
This is nonsense pure and simple.
One needs to acquire facts. Now these "facts" can come from your own research or, in the age if the internet, someone else' data, but they still need to be collected and verified.
The *only* advantage that google provides is a more efficient way of sharing and finding facts. Not even all facts, those that are popular and topical are what you'll most likely find.
Historical information, from when newspapers only used dead trees, can be very difficult to find on the internet unless someone else did the research first.
May prompt them to force you to reveal the key
They do not have the right to order you give your password. They may instruct you to do so, but you under no obligation to comply. This is an actual ruling from the supreme court of the U.S. siting the 5th amendment.
The 5th amendment is not about protecting guilty people, it is about protecting presumed innocent people from providing information that may be used to incriminate themselves. There can be no inferred presumption of guilt by law enforcement by merely invoking your 5th amendment rights.
One of the contemporary inspirations of the 5th amendment was the kind of government in Europe typified by Cardinal Richelieu's famous quote: "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged" The thinking was that there will always be laws that could be applied to coerce innocent people. The 5th amendment was a protection for basically lawful individuals from being trapped and imprisoned by politically motivated prosecution.
On U.S. soil there are constitutional rights. Now, whether or not boarder thugs understand these and policy is legal is another issue.
Upon coming in to this country, they insist that they have the right to inspect your person for contraband. This may or may not be legal, but for the sake of public safety we accept that it is a minimal invasion of privacy and acceptable.
They do not have the right to confiscate anything that you have with you that is legally within your possession. That's the 4th amendment. However, when an armed man insists that you hand over something, you hand it to them and fight for its return when you are in safer position. The border thugs can demand and get your laptop, but that does not make it legal. You can get it back in court.
They do not have the right to order you give your password. They may instruct you to do so, but you under no obligation to comply. This is an actual ruling from the supreme court of the U.S. siting the 5th amendment.
The 5th amendment is not about protecting guilty people, it is about protecting presumed innocent people from providing information that may be used to incriminate themselves. There can be no inferred presumption of guilt by law enforcement by merely invoking your 5th amendment rights.
One of the contemporary inspirations of the 5th amendment was the kind of government in Europe typified by Cardinal Richelieu's famous quote: "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged" The thinking was that there will always be laws that could be applied to coerce innocent people. The 5th amendment was a protection for basically lawful individuals from being trapped and imprisoned by politically motivated prosecution.
OTOH it's not at all obvious that a **behavioral** simulation of human brain is necessarily out of reach of modern computers. I strongly believe that we're very close to the point where that will be possible. Consider for example that we can do realtime speech recognition on a desktop PC even though doing it via a neuron level simulation of the auditory cortex would be computationally impossible. I think the same thing likely applies of the neocortex that's responsible for cognition - neuron level is impossible, but I think we understand the struture well enough to simlate it at a FAR higher and more efficient level
The point you are missing is that, this is yet another example of a "hard coded" intelligent "process." The speech recognition thing did not grow of its own necessity through trial/error and goal seeking. No, it was designed to process speech. The gulf between the two astronomical and, really, the crux of this whole discussion.
Ditto for almost any office job that doesn't require any special physical capabilities.
You are talking about a HUGE leap in technology. AI will not be to the point where it could come even close to that sort of reasoning. When you think about the amount of processing power an organic brain has in its size compared to computer chips, you'd know that we'd need the biggest super computer in existence to emulate the brain of a hamster... maybe.
We are not even close to that point yet.
To further paraphrase Werner Von Braun's arguments, humans are cheap, expendable, and can be produced by unskilled labor.
Piloting a space ship is exactly the sort of application where using an AI makes sense! It doesn't eat, breath or crap, doesn't need to sleep, doesn't care if it's sent on a 10yr one-way mission, etc, etc.
Again a navigational system is on the model of a recommendations system, it is an application that embodies an intelligent process, but it is not typically AI.
Your whole argument against a human-emulation AI is that it would be fallible therefore useless.
That's not the point I have been making at all. "AI" has some very interesting qualities and in at least on post in this branch I have said that "AI" can produce something useful.
At issue is what is appropriate for AI and what isn't?
A true learning system makes mistakes and can be seen as less predictable than a deterministic device.
In the 80s I worked at Denning Mobile Robotics. Our goal was to make a robotic security guard for factories and such. Trying to sell it was embarrassing. It cost more than the stuff it would be guarding. It represented a capital investment instead of personnel. If it got destryed (or stolen) by a robber, it would cost more than a minimum wage employee. In short, it really didn't make sense to use a computer to replace a piece of minimum wage meat.
AI is a cool concept, but Werner Von Braun said it best, when he said people are cheaper than computers.
You could spend billions building an AI system capable of learning and adapting and piloting a space ship. Or, you could pay a few million dollars to get a human volunteer.