I hadn't thought about this in a long time, but your post made me remember of a trick (and security hole) to get a dos prompt on a win95 (and 98?) computer! Just type "mode co80" and/or "cls" on the "It's now safe to turn off your computer screen", which seems to be running on top of a command.com shell hehe.
I would say more the opposite in fact. Microsoft's business is much broader and thus less risky. Not that I doubt Google will still be here in one year.
a) the people who actually do get ripped off by scams dont benifit from anti-scamming, unless you believe anti-scamming cuts down on the amount of scams in the first place
Of course it can help to reduce the number of scams quite a lot, it wastes the scammers time who would otherwise be searching for more victims.
Except that maybe the mouse will be smashed with a hammer later on the day:)
Well, not always, there's a girl living near me who has a big RAT in her apartment. Reason: She (the girl, the rat no longer) works at a laboratory, knew that they were going to kill the rat and decided to take it home instead so that it wouldn't happen, and also because "it's so cute". The only problem is the chewed cables and bed sheets...
Unfortunately I forgot to mention that, last I checked, the simulation competition of Robocup allowed communication but with a quite limited bandwidth. I don't know about the real-world competitions of Robocup.
And in 2001 we are all going to be jetting around space, living in colonies on the moon. Why does everyone persist in making rediculous time-conditional statements about technology?
Just because some predictions fail, it doesn't mean that all of them do.
These robots, however advanced by today's standards, are ridiculously rudimentary in relation to what would be needed to compete effectively against a human organism.
Which robots? The ones we have now? Of course, so what?
Coincidentally, the CAPTCHA for this post was 'automate'. That's what robots will be used for in 2050, because they'll be cheaper than sweatshops.
Wait, were you countering my statement or not? My statement was not about the robots if you read it, it was about the humans. Everyone pretty much assumes that robots will get better and better... What is your point, that robotics AI will stop being investigated?
In 2050, the question "Is a team of robots capable of beating a team of humans in football?" will be irrelevant (or at least very different from what it is now). What is a human? Do "cyborg-like" modifications to one's body allow him to be considered human? Etc etc...
It seems to me that the text you linked to makes a lot of assumptions. Too many assumptions are not good for security - you should assume the worst, and not assume that something can't be done because "it hasn't been proven that it can be done". Examples:
Due to the embedded positioning systems and extreme high densities of new drive technologies, it has yet to be proven if the same can be said for the latest high speed, high capacity disk drives
It has been suggested that an electron microscope could be used to read and interpret any patterns that were not fully overwritten by the process.
What about other machines other than electron microscopes?
Unfortunately, at best, this type of process could be accomplished at a rate of perhaps 1 bit per second.
Why? Any references for that claim? And again, this is assuming that the machine used is an electron microscope.
OK, the term Strong AI was not the most fortunate but the idea still stands and it's valid.
Moreover, compiler optimizations are a set of rule-driven alterations based on mathematical proof that things aren't changed; theoretical AI wouldn't actually help in any way.
There are many optimizations which currently, humans can do and computers can't. Do you know of any compiler which can use knowledge about Fermat's theorem to optimize a computer algorithm? That's the kind of optimizations I was talking about, high level transformations which require very advanced reasoning to perform. That's the kind of optimizations which are very hard to do when a program is transformed to a different language, since the high level concepts are there only implicitly and very hard to discern. Just because current compilers don't do those advanced optimizations it doesn't mean that they are impossible (unless you have a very narrow view).
You were probably thinking he was replying to this post, but in fact he was replying to this one. That usually happens because, by default, when a comment is at 0 score (which is the initial score for anonymous posts) you cannot see it unless you click the "1 reply beneath your current threshold".
Slashdot Mirror
I hadn't thought about this in a long time, but your post made me remember of a trick (and security hole) to get a dos prompt on a win95 (and 98?) computer! Just type "mode co80" and/or "cls" on the "It's now safe to turn off your computer screen", which seems to be running on top of a command.com shell hehe.
I would say more the opposite in fact. Microsoft's business is much broader and thus less risky. Not that I doubt Google will still be here in one year.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=190101&cid= 15644146
a) the people who actually do get ripped off by scams dont benifit from anti-scamming, unless you believe anti-scamming cuts down on the amount of scams in the first place
Of course it can help to reduce the number of scams quite a lot, it wastes the scammers time who would otherwise be searching for more victims.
No idea about that, I might ask her later though :)
If the car is burning and exploding, and I'm heading into it, yes I might consider running to the hills or something similar...
Except that maybe the mouse will be smashed with a hammer later on the day :)
Well, not always, there's a girl living near me who has a big RAT in her apartment. Reason: She (the girl, the rat no longer) works at a laboratory, knew that they were going to kill the rat and decided to take it home instead so that it wouldn't happen, and also because "it's so cute". The only problem is the chewed cables and bed sheets...
Yeah, and I have a small term for people who read this post:
YOU AGREE TO DONATE ME YOUR FIRST BORN SON.
(Not that I agree with this stupid lawsuit)
Do you know C or C++?
You know you're a true geek when you read the parent post and think he's typing numbers in hexadecimal... Yeah, it happened to me.
They had bad luck with the score.
Sorry but, from what I saw in the second part, they were quite bad even at catching the passed balls.
Funny, this article was posted after the game was over, 2-0 for Brazil. So there's the result of your "test".
Unfortunately I forgot to mention that, last I checked, the simulation competition of Robocup allowed communication but with a quite limited bandwidth. I don't know about the real-world competitions of Robocup.
Football players communicate, and Robocup also allows communication (or at least it used to allow it a few years ago).
I wonder if in team sports it is prohibited to use radios to communicate with the team members?)
In football I think so, at the very least because it's equipment which can harm the player or other players (yes, there's a rule for that).
Don't want to be a nag, but it's still a bit weird to call football to a sport played mostly with the hands...
In the worst case, we can always build bigger/faster biological brains... Now, the question is - could that be considered a robot or not?
And in 2001 we are all going to be jetting around space, living in colonies on the moon. Why does everyone persist in making rediculous time-conditional statements about technology?
Just because some predictions fail, it doesn't mean that all of them do.
These robots, however advanced by today's standards, are ridiculously rudimentary in relation to what would be needed to compete effectively against a human organism.
Which robots? The ones we have now? Of course, so what?
Coincidentally, the CAPTCHA for this post was 'automate'. That's what robots will be used for in 2050, because they'll be cheaper than sweatshops.
Wait, were you countering my statement or not? My statement was not about the robots if you read it, it was about the humans. Everyone pretty much assumes that robots will get better and better... What is your point, that robotics AI will stop being investigated?
Good point, but the point still stands - I think that that question will be either irrelevant or will have a very different meaning in 2050...
In 2050, the question "Is a team of robots capable of beating a team of humans in football?" will be irrelevant (or at least very different from what it is now). What is a human? Do "cyborg-like" modifications to one's body allow him to be considered human? Etc etc...
It seems to me that the text you linked to makes a lot of assumptions. Too many assumptions are not good for security - you should assume the worst, and not assume that something can't be done because "it hasn't been proven that it can be done". Examples:
Due to the embedded positioning systems and extreme high densities of new drive technologies, it has yet to be proven if the same can be said for the latest high speed, high capacity disk drives
It has been suggested that an electron microscope could be used to read and interpret any patterns that were not fully overwritten by the process.
What about other machines other than electron microscopes?
Unfortunately, at best, this type of process could be accomplished at a rate of perhaps 1 bit per second.
Why? Any references for that claim? And again, this is assuming that the machine used is an electron microscope.
you have nothing to fear from your own government - you are being watched by your fellow citizens
Fantastic. So if have nothing to fear from your fellow citizens why exactly do we need those drones? Ah, for the foreign terrorists, of course.
OK, the term Strong AI was not the most fortunate but the idea still stands and it's valid.
Moreover, compiler optimizations are a set of rule-driven alterations based on mathematical proof that things aren't changed; theoretical AI wouldn't actually help in any way.
There are many optimizations which currently, humans can do and computers can't. Do you know of any compiler which can use knowledge about Fermat's theorem to optimize a computer algorithm? That's the kind of optimizations I was talking about, high level transformations which require very advanced reasoning to perform. That's the kind of optimizations which are very hard to do when a program is transformed to a different language, since the high level concepts are there only implicitly and very hard to discern. Just because current compilers don't do those advanced optimizations it doesn't mean that they are impossible (unless you have a very narrow view).
You were probably thinking he was replying to this post, but in fact he was replying to this one. That usually happens because, by default, when a comment is at 0 score (which is the initial score for anonymous posts) you cannot see it unless you click the "1 reply beneath your current threshold".
I don't see her face, how do you know she's beautiful?
No, the PS3 had it first! Oh wait...