Not really stupid, but consider - a half-adder is trivial; and an electronic half-adder is just a few wires that when electricity is applied produces the result you would expect from a half-adder.
Oh, and yes, a good AI would be perfect for this job. Unfortunately, we don't have one good enough for it yet. An AI can spot a known weapon, but not an unknown one. A human can spot an unknown weapon. If they are awake and aware.
I wouldn't think, if something doesn't look enough like a gun/bomb to trigger an AI, a human would fare any better.
I think that we don't use AIs for almost the opposite reason -- an AI may falsely report a hair dryer as a gun, and would probably do so often enough so the security folks quit paying attention to the alert.
In some ways this is a reaction to competing programs like Yahoo!'s new ad program and also to Chitika's eMiniMalls program. There's no doubt that these programs will benefit some AdSense publishers, but they'll certainly benefit Google itself the most. Even if they have to pay.
Don't forget - it also keeps up Firefox's userbase while Microsoft readies IE 7.0. If Google can push Firefox usage ahead of IE 7.0, then Google gets a significant amount of people using a browser that defaults to Google search and not MSN search.
Its called security by obscurity and is generally considered not cool.
Consider though; there's nothing obscure about a guard with a gun standing by a door, and most people would agree that that door is pretty secure. Imagine if behind that door was a key to unlock a vault someplace that contained a whole lot of money - the fact that the key shape is 'obscure' is secondary to the fact that to discover the key shape you're likely to risk being shot at.
My understanding was that the Navajo code talkers were all assigned a handler whos sole job was to keep them out of enemy hands. The Japanese, for example, knew how to break the code - just catch one of these code talkers and make them talk. The code worked because of the overt security measures in place to keep them from being captured.
I wouldn't call the code itself the security - any similar system would have worked in the place of the Navajo language - the fact that the method of breaking the code was tightly controlled by men with guns made it work.
Yeah. Sure. And cigarette companies don't want minors smoking. And liquor companies don't want minors drinking.
Somewhat flawed when you consider that you can buy liquor and cigarettes with cash, and porn on the internet tends to require a credit card. Porn operators don't want minors looking at their content because, by and large, they can't pay for it. Not thanks to any noble ideas they may have.
I think the.xxx goal is not to segregate porn from the Internet, but rather to make life easy for the operators of these porn sites and their customers.
Porn site owners don't want minors looking at their content - for the reason that it costs them bandwidth and the minor probably won't sign up anyway, if nothing else. Parents don't want minors looking at porn. So, it's a benefit to everyone involved for porn operators to have eaily filterable sites.
It also lends itself to self-regulation rather then segregation. Porn webmasters want.xxx for the reasons outlined above, and so I'm guessing that we'll see a migration to the new tld just as a result of market forces.
Hrm, probably a bad choice of words on my part - I mean to say that if Opera was a much better product. To me, Opera and FF have parity in all the features I use. FF is free. Opera is not. Therefore, FF wins.
But I, for one, will not pay for a browser that doesn't provide me with any features that can't be had for free in Firefox. I would probably buy a copy though, if it provided something significant that cannot be had in any of the other, cheaper, browsers.
If Opera was (in my eyes) a truly better product, it's be a no-brainer. But the only advantages I've heard of are few and marginal. Of course, if Firefox was worse, I'd probably be using Opera.
And that's why I don't use Opera. And why, for me, it's not worth the money. I suspect there are a lot of people that feel the same way.
I would wager that my English speaking background is as long or longer then yours.
Notice that I refered to 'copyright infringement' as 'piracy' in the phrase you quoted. Consider though, that the people you are calling pirates may have a legitimate reason to dislike the term and find it insulting. Imagine how most of the world would react if you started calling them 'gay' when they start acting cheerful.
And as soon as you can provide a reference to confirm your '400 years' theory, you may get some support for it.
The point is that throwing around emotionally loaded words like 'piracy' and 'theft' is insulting to some. And they have a legitimate point if they want you to call it 'copyright infringement'. Their raising the point is not always an excuse for piracy.
Copyright infringment is not the same crime as piracy or theft. They are different. Consider how you'd feel if you spent most of your life being a singer, and someone referred to you as a dancer.
I am not arguing that piracy is ok. But compared to actually stealing something? It's not the same thing. It's even worse when you call it 'piracy', because piracy is a much worse crime still.
Using the terms 'piracy' and 'theft' make it look as though you don't understand the issue. Their use makes it appear that you don't actually know what you're accusing these people of. Imagine, if you're arrested for breaking the speed limit, hauled into court and the judge starts handing down a sentence for manslaughter. Imagine if you start to say 'but I was only speeding' and he shouts you down with the 'but isn't it the same thing?' argument.
But I agree with the most of your post - it's not a defense to argue that the terms you are using are wrong; all it really just shows is that a) you don't truly understand the issue or b) you're not interested in using the language correctly.
Then some whiners came along and said 'The AI is only beating me because it's cheating!'
Imagine an FPS. Imagine a map with a long open space - long enough so that an opponent at the other end of the space is one pixel, total, on the screen. Now realise that a computer would be able to hit that opponent in the head every time. That's not going to be much fun to play against, even though the machine isn't 'cheating' per se.
Now, imagine an RTS game - a human player can only see a section of the map at one time. A human player has only his past experience to gauge troop movement speeds. A computer player could simply throw their troops at two different targets that are too far away for the player to watch both at once, the computer player could coordinate things so that the attacks happen at exactly the same time. This doesn't sound so bad, until you consider that the computer also knows exactly how many hit points of damage your troops have, how much damage its troops can inflict and can precisely gauge things so that the human player cannot win.
Why would people play games like this? They wouldn't. Simplistic AI like the above doesn't make games, it just isn't entertaining. And that's the reason AI is a tough subject today. Not because of any 'whiners'.
Just because you don't recognise the logic doesn't mean that grammar is illogical. In fact, the vast majority (in my experience) of people who claim grammar isn't logical make such claims because they haven't given the subject any thought. Grammatical rules tend to be fairly constant, there are exceptions but they are in the minority. It is a larger minority then something like math, but they are still exceptions.
"Its" belongs with "his", "hers" and "theirs". Perfectly consistant, perfectly logical. Why? Because it follows the rules for pronouns. Because it is a pronoun. Arguing that "it's" vs "its" is a result of grammar being illogical is about as well reasoned as if I claimed that math was illogical because 1 + 1 != 11.
I do agree that insulting people over their spelling and grammar is usually uncalled for. But people who find grammar "annoying and silly" tend to be people who are simply too lazy to think about it. And if someone is too lazy to correctly form a message, then they really can't care much about the content of the message or, by extention, the reader of the message. It's a subtle insult, and one a lot of people may just overlook, but it's an insult never the less. And it's much, much worse when people seem proud of their horrid grammatical ability. Just how would you feel if people started claiming you were being a contrary pedant because you insist that people's sums balance?
The law in most countries simply call this 'fraud'. No goods have been stolen (technically, taking something with the full intent to return it is not stealing, it's 'misappropriation' or somesuch), and the store willingly gave the refund based on a forged bit of paper. So, you neither stole the Rolex nor the money - you defrauded the store of the value of one Rolex.
Of course, this is a 'technical' analysis of the crime (my brother, who recently completed a law degree, is my primary source here). Most reasonable people would call this theft, but the crime you can charge the criminal with is fraud.
(This is true in Australia, I believe it is also true in the US.)
Maybe this is what the parent post was talking about?
Slashdot Mirror
Not a lawyer.
LAWYERS WRITE IN ALL CAPS.
(Additional text to skirt the lameness filter.)
DuckDuckGo is pretty much this - https://duckduckgo.com/
Not really stupid, but consider - a half-adder is trivial; and an electronic half-adder is just a few wires that when electricity is applied produces the result you would expect from a half-adder.
Rocket cars. He meant his kids would have rocket cars.
Um, I always thought drinking the koolaid refers to the cult mass suicide... ...because you believe in it, maybe?
Oh, and yes, a good AI would be perfect for this job. Unfortunately, we don't have one good enough for it yet. An AI can spot a known weapon, but not an unknown one. A human can spot an unknown weapon. If they are awake and aware.
I wouldn't think, if something doesn't look enough like a gun/bomb to trigger an AI, a human would fare any better.
I think that we don't use AIs for almost the opposite reason -- an AI may falsely report a hair dryer as a gun, and would probably do so often enough so the security folks quit paying attention to the alert.
[1]: they are customers, even if they aren't paying.
Are you sure?
Users, definitely, but a customer is, by most definitions 'One that buys goods or services'.
In some ways this is a reaction to competing programs like Yahoo!'s new ad program and also to Chitika's eMiniMalls program. There's no doubt that these programs will benefit some AdSense publishers, but they'll certainly benefit Google itself the most. Even if they have to pay.
Don't forget - it also keeps up Firefox's userbase while Microsoft readies IE 7.0. If Google can push Firefox usage ahead of IE 7.0, then Google gets a significant amount of people using a browser that defaults to Google search and not MSN search.
Oh. I was under the impression you meant it was a Firefox thing, and I was using Firefox.
chrome://navigator/content/navigator.xul didn't do anything for me - what's it supposed to show?
Also works if you just tick the 'Use SSL' box, without having to install qca-tls.
Commit everything to memory, keep a cyanide pill close by and hope like hell that that crazy guy with the tinfoil hat is wrong.
You do know he's wearing that hat so people can't read his mind right? Maybe your memory isn't the safest place to store things.
Its called security by obscurity and is generally considered not cool.
Consider though; there's nothing obscure about a guard with a gun standing by a door, and most people would agree that that door is pretty secure. Imagine if behind that door was a key to unlock a vault someplace that contained a whole lot of money - the fact that the key shape is 'obscure' is secondary to the fact that to discover the key shape you're likely to risk being shot at.
My understanding was that the Navajo code talkers were all assigned a handler whos sole job was to keep them out of enemy hands. The Japanese, for example, knew how to break the code - just catch one of these code talkers and make them talk. The code worked because of the overt security measures in place to keep them from being captured.
I wouldn't call the code itself the security - any similar system would have worked in the place of the Navajo language - the fact that the method of breaking the code was tightly controlled by men with guns made it work.
That's why I recommend Telstra Broadband.
(apologies to whoever I, uhhh, borrowed that from)
Yeah. Sure. And cigarette companies don't want minors smoking. And liquor companies don't want minors drinking.
Somewhat flawed when you consider that you can buy liquor and cigarettes with cash, and porn on the internet tends to require a credit card. Porn operators don't want minors looking at their content because, by and large, they can't pay for it. Not thanks to any noble ideas they may have.
I think the .xxx goal is not to segregate porn from the Internet, but rather to make life easy for the operators of these porn sites and their customers.
.xxx for the reasons outlined above, and so I'm guessing that we'll see a migration to the new tld just as a result of market forces.
Porn site owners don't want minors looking at their content - for the reason that it costs them bandwidth and the minor probably won't sign up anyway, if nothing else. Parents don't want minors looking at porn. So, it's a benefit to everyone involved for porn operators to have eaily filterable sites.
It also lends itself to self-regulation rather then segregation. Porn webmasters want
Hrm, probably a bad choice of words on my part - I mean to say that if Opera was a much better product. To me, Opera and FF have parity in all the features I use. FF is free. Opera is not. Therefore, FF wins.
Whatever you say.
But I, for one, will not pay for a browser that doesn't provide me with any features that can't be had for free in Firefox. I would probably buy a copy though, if it provided something significant that cannot be had in any of the other, cheaper, browsers.
If Opera was (in my eyes) a truly better product, it's be a no-brainer. But the only advantages I've heard of are few and marginal. Of course, if Firefox was worse, I'd probably be using Opera.
And that's why I don't use Opera. And why, for me, it's not worth the money. I suspect there are a lot of people that feel the same way.
I would wager that my English speaking background is as long or longer then yours.
Notice that I refered to 'copyright infringement' as 'piracy' in the phrase you quoted. Consider though, that the people you are calling pirates may have a legitimate reason to dislike the term and find it insulting. Imagine how most of the world would react if you started calling them 'gay' when they start acting cheerful.
And as soon as you can provide a reference to confirm your '400 years' theory, you may get some support for it.
The point is that throwing around emotionally loaded words like 'piracy' and 'theft' is insulting to some. And they have a legitimate point if they want you to call it 'copyright infringement'. Their raising the point is not always an excuse for piracy.
I hope this helps.
Copyright infringment is not the same crime as piracy or theft. They are different. Consider how you'd feel if you spent most of your life being a singer, and someone referred to you as a dancer.
I am not arguing that piracy is ok. But compared to actually stealing something? It's not the same thing. It's even worse when you call it 'piracy', because piracy is a much worse crime still.
Using the terms 'piracy' and 'theft' make it look as though you don't understand the issue. Their use makes it appear that you don't actually know what you're accusing these people of. Imagine, if you're arrested for breaking the speed limit, hauled into court and the judge starts handing down a sentence for manslaughter. Imagine if you start to say 'but I was only speeding' and he shouts you down with the 'but isn't it the same thing?' argument.
But I agree with the most of your post - it's not a defense to argue that the terms you are using are wrong; all it really just shows is that a) you don't truly understand the issue or b) you're not interested in using the language correctly.
Then some whiners came along and said 'The AI is only beating me because it's cheating!'
Imagine an FPS. Imagine a map with a long open space - long enough so that an opponent at the other end of the space is one pixel, total, on the screen. Now realise that a computer would be able to hit that opponent in the head every time . That's not going to be much fun to play against, even though the machine isn't 'cheating' per se.
Now, imagine an RTS game - a human player can only see a section of the map at one time. A human player has only his past experience to gauge troop movement speeds. A computer player could simply throw their troops at two different targets that are too far away for the player to watch both at once, the computer player could coordinate things so that the attacks happen at exactly the same time. This doesn't sound so bad, until you consider that the computer also knows exactly how many hit points of damage your troops have, how much damage its troops can inflict and can precisely gauge things so that the human player cannot win.
Why would people play games like this? They wouldn't. Simplistic AI like the above doesn't make games, it just isn't entertaining. And that's the reason AI is a tough subject today. Not because of any 'whiners'.
Could be Neil. Just maybe.
And well done on spotting the parent's joke.
Grammar is not logical
Just because you don't recognise the logic doesn't mean that grammar is illogical. In fact, the vast majority (in my experience) of people who claim grammar isn't logical make such claims because they haven't given the subject any thought. Grammatical rules tend to be fairly constant, there are exceptions but they are in the minority. It is a larger minority then something like math, but they are still exceptions.
"Its" belongs with "his", "hers" and "theirs". Perfectly consistant, perfectly logical. Why? Because it follows the rules for pronouns. Because it is a pronoun. Arguing that "it's" vs "its" is a result of grammar being illogical is about as well reasoned as if I claimed that math was illogical because 1 + 1 != 11.
I do agree that insulting people over their spelling and grammar is usually uncalled for. But people who find grammar "annoying and silly" tend to be people who are simply too lazy to think about it. And if someone is too lazy to correctly form a message, then they really can't care much about the content of the message or, by extention, the reader of the message. It's a subtle insult, and one a lot of people may just overlook, but it's an insult never the less. And it's much, much worse when people seem proud of their horrid grammatical ability. Just how would you feel if people started claiming you were being a contrary pedant because you insist that people's sums balance?
The law in most countries simply call this 'fraud'. No goods have been stolen (technically, taking something with the full intent to return it is not stealing, it's 'misappropriation' or somesuch), and the store willingly gave the refund based on a forged bit of paper. So, you neither stole the Rolex nor the money - you defrauded the store of the value of one Rolex.
Of course, this is a 'technical' analysis of the crime (my brother, who recently completed a law degree, is my primary source here). Most reasonable people would call this theft, but the crime you can charge the criminal with is fraud.
(This is true in Australia, I believe it is also true in the US.)
Maybe this is what the parent post was talking about?
They say Intel on them, and Macs are Intel now. Duh.