Problem is, they're not feeding on each other; the feeding order is not circular, but rather pyramidal. The smart and resourceful ones get even richer through the bottom-feeders' "work".
Right, and as we all know, there is no difference between "I did not have sex with this woman, Monica Lewinkski" and "No, this document that might prove if officials from our government are involved in trading nuclear weapon technology secrets with the country the 9/11 hijackers were from does not exist", the latter of which chosen because it happened within everyone's attention span, or so I hope. Nope, lies are lies, and now back to whatever is on TV right now.
I only note this because the article mentioned "teaching" the "AI"; that's not very scientific, considering you're trying to see something learn, and should be maintaining scientific control over the learning process.
All machine learning methods can be controlled, that's not the problem. The learning models either have parameters that can be retained or changed at will between runs, or they don't have parameters, which means the conditions are always the same, which saves the same purpose. The outcome can be defined, measured, and compared to other runs. Somewhere in between, random stuff from the outside happens, and from the outcome over many runs you can draw conclusions, for example which parameter had the most influence on the final result. You need the (pseudo)random input somewhere, otherwise you would always get the exact same result in every run. So from a scientific method view, there seems to be problem with machine learning experiments.
The problem I do see with machine learning as described in TFA is that it operated on a defined set of rules only. It won out over humans by a small margin, which even left the possibility that 4 of the 5 humans were still better than the AI, and that small possible victory happened despite having fewer strategic rules than humans, implying it won by brute force. So whatI would like to see is an AI developing novel behaviour, developing new sets of rules that really show off the difference in computing speed for such problems between a computing machine and an organic brain.
That's true. The reason why we don't perceive it, however, is not that it's stationary, but that each eye fills in the missing info for the other (as stated in the 2nd paragraph as well). In other words, to make these lenses work, they would just have to provide the same image, slightly shifted so that the eyes couldn't help each other out. That's trivial to design; remember that image projecting eye glasses are nothing new in principle, just think of virtual reality gear that's been around for decades.
Damn it man, you closely dogded a 7-digit UID, and you DARE to try to talk some sense into a 4-digit UID? He knows almost 3 orders of magnitude more than you! I bet those scientists in question don't even HAVE an account on slashdot!
It's my understanding that human vision requires continuous eye motion to maintain visual perception. Try holding your eyeball still by (gently) applying finger pressure to it through your eyelid. You'll notice after a few seconds that your field vision slowly shrinks into nothing.
The effect you describe might also simply be the result of the very pressure you apply to your eyeball, making for a so-called "inadequate stimulus". You would cause the receptor cells in your eye to do something, but eyes were obviously not designed for sensing pressure, which makes the stimulus "inadequate".
If an image moves in perfect sync with your eyeball, isn't your brain likely to stop seeing it after a short time?
I don't think so, otherwise a scotoma would not be an issue, would it? The spot remains at the same place in the field of view, yet it doesn't go away, obviously, otherwise there would not be a scotoma. Furthermore, it seems to me that the existance of scotomae also shows that the eye and the brain are indeed able to resolve stimuli in arbitrary distance from the eye's receptor cells (in the scotoma's case, distance of 0). Remember that it's not the issue that a scotoma is the absence of receptor stimulation; the brain doesn't know or care whether your eyes' receptor cells work or not, it simply interprets any incoming information to make sense of them. And like in computing, a zero (no signal from a receptor/low voltage) is just as much information as a 1 (receptor cell firing/high voltage). Of course the info from a firing receptor cell is not binary, but the principle is the same.
Timothy, you have no idea how true that is. The headline even made me read the fucking summary! Well, just the first line anyway, but you get the point.
I'll graciously assume you want the same or better level of security. Another advantage of this proposal: Increased utilization of the airplane. Here you go.
The problem is distraction. If the page exists and is accessible, it has to be checked for relevance by each reader individually. A certain percentage p of all readers will decide that the time t it took them to scan the extra pages was a waste of time, so a total of p*t time has been wasted overall. If this p*t is larger than the gain for the (1-p) percentage of readers that found it useful, then it would indeed have been better to leave out the page completely.
Suppose you had a pet dog. Then your dog's name, race, and age would clearly be information, but does that alone make it worth being put up on wikipedia? Somewhere, you HAVE to draw a line, because if you never stop piling pieces of info on top of each other, eventually those pieces of info that are sufficiently useful for more than say 95% of readers will be buried and marginalized by the sheer amount of other info. Wikipedia should not be more than an introduction for any area of knowledge, with the possible exception of contemporary internet/pop culture. Even though much ridiculed, the "notability" and "no original research" policies exist for a reason and in my view they do more good than harm for the reason I presented above.
Probably not going to happen. I have recently (i.e. 2 weeks) played through HL2, ep1, ep2, and Portal, and a second time with commentary mode where applicable, and especially the commentaries gave me a pretty good idea of how HL game design works. GTA gameplay has its place in gaming, but I can't imagine it for the HL series, simply because HL means extensive, coherent story across installments, delievered by cinematic scenes that require timing and pacing. And for the story as well as character development it can mean a lot if you arrive at the next plotpoint within 10 minutes or 2 hours, and I for one would hate missing a finely crafted, story-turning (or simply plain funny) scene just because the level design enabled me to wholly skip it unconsciously. No, don't mess with that part at all.
Every living organism is a special case of chemistry, so if an organism secretes something, that something might also be broken down without help of an organism, so yes, it's possible, but not necessary. Furthermore, should the need arise, I'm sure stuff made from carbon nanotubes can be made resistant to consumption by organisms for its expected lifetime just as for example a wooden ship, or a sheet of paper, or food, or whatever, can.
As much as I would love to agree, I think a MechWarrior MMO would suffer the same basic problem as any StarWars MMO with the Jedi trait: Nearly everyone would play the game to become a Mech jockey, and people would (perhaps rightfully) cry foul if they were to pay for a MechWarrior game and be unable (or only after epic grinding) to pilot a Mech. What else is there? Elementals on the Clan side maybe, but other than that...
A Shadowrun MMO on the other hand would make perfect sense. The game offers classic magic as well as high-tech weapons, character customization out of the box (implants and magic buffs), a stronger focus on non-fighting professions than the BattleTech universe, different races, cyberspace and hacking, politics, etc. pp. ad infinitum. It's all there already, waiting to be implemented.
Then let me ask in a different way. Was invoking the DMCA the only tool to achieve the goal? If not, then it was at least not a bad choice tactically, because it got the job done. But then it was also a bad strategic choice, because it honored the tool merely by using it.
Slashdot Mirror
Problem is, they're not feeding on each other; the feeding order is not circular, but rather pyramidal. The smart and resourceful ones get even richer through the bottom-feeders' "work".
That must be the most useless analogy ever.
Right, and as we all know, there is no difference between "I did not have sex with this woman, Monica Lewinkski" and "No, this document that might prove if officials from our government are involved in trading nuclear weapon technology secrets with the country the 9/11 hijackers were from does not exist", the latter of which chosen because it happened within everyone's attention span, or so I hope. Nope, lies are lies, and now back to whatever is on TV right now.
I only note this because the article mentioned "teaching" the "AI"; that's not very scientific, considering you're trying to see something learn, and should be maintaining scientific control over the learning process.
All machine learning methods can be controlled, that's not the problem. The learning models either have parameters that can be retained or changed at will between runs, or they don't have parameters, which means the conditions are always the same, which saves the same purpose. The outcome can be defined, measured, and compared to other runs. Somewhere in between, random stuff from the outside happens, and from the outcome over many runs you can draw conclusions, for example which parameter had the most influence on the final result. You need the (pseudo)random input somewhere, otherwise you would always get the exact same result in every run. So from a scientific method view, there seems to be problem with machine learning experiments.
The problem I do see with machine learning as described in TFA is that it operated on a defined set of rules only. It won out over humans by a small margin, which even left the possibility that 4 of the 5 humans were still better than the AI, and that small possible victory happened despite having fewer strategic rules than humans, implying it won by brute force. So whatI would like to see is an AI developing novel behaviour, developing new sets of rules that really show off the difference in computing speed for such problems between a computing machine and an organic brain.
The good part is, computers are several orders of magnitude more efficient at wasting time than humans.
Actually, it was just resting. On its back.
That's true. The reason why we don't perceive it, however, is not that it's stationary, but that each eye fills in the missing info for the other (as stated in the 2nd paragraph as well). In other words, to make these lenses work, they would just have to provide the same image, slightly shifted so that the eyes couldn't help each other out. That's trivial to design; remember that image projecting eye glasses are nothing new in principle, just think of virtual reality gear that's been around for decades.
Sir, that would imply that CmdrTaco is a deity among men. I will not stand for such heresy!
DarkHelmet (120004)
And how would YOU know that? Better hope that Taco doesn't go Spanish-Inquisition on your butt!
Damn it man, you closely dogded a 7-digit UID, and you DARE to try to talk some sense into a 4-digit UID? He knows almost 3 orders of magnitude more than you! I bet those scientists in question don't even HAVE an account on slashdot!
It's my understanding that human vision requires continuous eye motion to maintain visual perception. Try holding your eyeball still by (gently) applying finger pressure to it through your eyelid. You'll notice after a few seconds that your field vision slowly shrinks into nothing.
The effect you describe might also simply be the result of the very pressure you apply to your eyeball, making for a so-called "inadequate stimulus". You would cause the receptor cells in your eye to do something, but eyes were obviously not designed for sensing pressure, which makes the stimulus "inadequate".
If an image moves in perfect sync with your eyeball, isn't your brain likely to stop seeing it after a short time?
I don't think so, otherwise a scotoma would not be an issue, would it? The spot remains at the same place in the field of view, yet it doesn't go away, obviously, otherwise there would not be a scotoma.
Furthermore, it seems to me that the existance of scotomae also shows that the eye and the brain are indeed able to resolve stimuli in arbitrary distance from the eye's receptor cells (in the scotoma's case, distance of 0). Remember that it's not the issue that a scotoma is the absence of receptor stimulation; the brain doesn't know or care whether your eyes' receptor cells work or not, it simply interprets any incoming information to make sense of them. And like in computing, a zero (no signal from a receptor/low voltage) is just as much information as a 1 (receptor cell firing/high voltage). Of course the info from a firing receptor cell is not binary, but the principle is the same.
It isn't pollution that's harming sperm. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it!
Lawyers are interested in law suits, otherwise they would be called Neuters, wouldn't they?
Timothy, you have no idea how true that is. The headline even made me read the fucking summary! Well, just the first line anyway, but you get the point.
I'll graciously assume you want the same or better level of security. Another advantage of this proposal: Increased utilization of the airplane. Here you go.
Depends. Is everyone around you wearing goatees?
A quick look and less desire for first post would have revealed the very same link at the end of the BB post.
Will this post be moderated +5, Funny?
So when Sony ever makes one, they don't explode, they turn into Grey Goo?
The problem is distraction. If the page exists and is accessible, it has to be checked for relevance by each reader individually. A certain percentage p of all readers will decide that the time t it took them to scan the extra pages was a waste of time, so a total of p*t time has been wasted overall. If this p*t is larger than the gain for the (1-p) percentage of readers that found it useful, then it would indeed have been better to leave out the page completely.
Suppose you had a pet dog. Then your dog's name, race, and age would clearly be information, but does that alone make it worth being put up on wikipedia? Somewhere, you HAVE to draw a line, because if you never stop piling pieces of info on top of each other, eventually those pieces of info that are sufficiently useful for more than say 95% of readers will be buried and marginalized by the sheer amount of other info. Wikipedia should not be more than an introduction for any area of knowledge, with the possible exception of contemporary internet/pop culture. Even though much ridiculed, the "notability" and "no original research" policies exist for a reason and in my view they do more good than harm for the reason I presented above.
Probably not going to happen. I have recently (i.e. 2 weeks) played through HL2, ep1, ep2, and Portal, and a second time with commentary mode where applicable, and especially the commentaries gave me a pretty good idea of how HL game design works. GTA gameplay has its place in gaming, but I can't imagine it for the HL series, simply because HL means extensive, coherent story across installments, delievered by cinematic scenes that require timing and pacing. And for the story as well as character development it can mean a lot if you arrive at the next plotpoint within 10 minutes or 2 hours, and I for one would hate missing a finely crafted, story-turning (or simply plain funny) scene just because the level design enabled me to wholly skip it unconsciously. No, don't mess with that part at all.
Every living organism is a special case of chemistry, so if an organism secretes something, that something might also be broken down without help of an organism, so yes, it's possible, but not necessary. Furthermore, should the need arise, I'm sure stuff made from carbon nanotubes can be made resistant to consumption by organisms for its expected lifetime just as for example a wooden ship, or a sheet of paper, or food, or whatever, can.
As much as I would love to agree, I think a MechWarrior MMO would suffer the same basic problem as any StarWars MMO with the Jedi trait: Nearly everyone would play the game to become a Mech jockey, and people would (perhaps rightfully) cry foul if they were to pay for a MechWarrior game and be unable (or only after epic grinding) to pilot a Mech. What else is there? Elementals on the Clan side maybe, but other than that...
A Shadowrun MMO on the other hand would make perfect sense. The game offers classic magic as well as high-tech weapons, character customization out of the box (implants and magic buffs), a stronger focus on non-fighting professions than the BattleTech universe, different races, cyberspace and hacking, politics, etc. pp. ad infinitum. It's all there already, waiting to be implemented.
Mr. President, we must not allow a mineshaft gap!
But seriously, why do US political rhetorics always seem to have that military touch?
Then let me ask in a different way. Was invoking the DMCA the only tool to achieve the goal? If not, then it was at least not a bad choice tactically, because it got the job done. But then it was also a bad strategic choice, because it honored the tool merely by using it.