Sorry but I think that's exactly the wrong way to do it. Inviting via sharing will only work if there is G+ space/resources available (in the future perhaps). I received quite a few G+ 'shares' and it only took me to "Learn more about...".
To actually send an invite, you need to wait for "Invite people to join Google+" to appear in the right column just below "Get Google+ for your mobile device". If the "Send invites" does not appear, then 'sharing' will not work. Of course, if there isn't enough availability, even with an invite you will still see the "Learn more..." page but then it's just a matter of waiting a little while...with a valid invite. This is how I've been doing it anyway and it's been working so far. (Sometimes there's a delay between when I send the invite and when the person receives it; though not today.)
would be to have the ability to drop a circle into another. IOW, the ability to create friends, family, and then 'friends & family'. So, it still requires work.
I don't think that's necessary, mostly because if you want to share something with 'friends & family' then you share it with 'friends' & 'family' - which is simple enough; note the 2 circles.
What I would actually like is Circles* + Rating ("how well do you know..." or like) the way Orkut had it. Have ratings from 1 to 5**. In the sense of social circles, there are those you prefer more than others or rather, those you share more with than others. Example: Colleagues can know about work things but not ALL things about work. The downside of this is the initial effort to rate and circle-ize followed by maintaining it. My workaround for not having circles + rating, is to create separate circles which I've only done for friends - 'friends' & 'close friends'. I'm using 'acquaintances' as 'friends and colleagues I don't know so well'.
What G+ users should consider is how your profile/streams change to others as you move them move through your circles. A subtle area where "View profile as..." is even more useful.
* Circles behave like gmail labels since people can be in multiple circles, which I like. FB groups in your profile also behave that way but when you post from your mobile, the android FB app doesn't let you set the privacy for it. G+ Circles is central to privacy and sharing settings - you can't have a "friend" who's not in a circle unless you post publicly or just share via email, which is very spam-like. ** or just use 1 to 3 and 0 has a purpose.
But overall, I think that we are going to drop facebook (like anybody ever can) and simply switch to google plus.
That statement reads like it's missing a 'not' somewhere.
Good point. In which case my guess would be "triple counted" - home, work and phone. But that also applies to the Facebook visitors, assuming not all companies block it.
So does that mean only the MS sites were double counted...putting them on top of the "unique visitors" list? I feel dirty for pointing that out. I can only hope they stupidly included xbox connections, so also triple counted.
The next Ask Slashdot article should be "How do we get those ridiculous laptop stickers off our palm rests?" and even from some desktops. 5 at last count: brand/model, cpu, graphics card, windows os and one huge sticker with the CPU, RAM, HDD, OS specs...as if you stole a display piece./. covered how AMD hates them as much as we do but...what next?
Actually, the demo is about 5 minutes of Duke's attitude and then just action. Basically, the demo experience was pretty damn good. The real game was nothing like the demo.
They haven't specified if it will be a browser-specific tool or if they plan to have it auto-install plugins for IE, FF, Chrome. I also don't like the idea of them modifying a non-MS browser's functionality. Next news will be IE performance remains the same (read: not slower) but it's not optimized for other browsers.
I'd rather wait for someone else to come up with something similar. Personally, I don't mind if the tool provides more security for a slight loss in performance
But the researchers say that Zozzle has an extremely low overhead when deployed in a browser--on the order of 2-5 milliseconds per JavaScript file--and has a false-positive rate of less than one percent.
And false-negatives? Is that 2-5 ms including or after de-obfuscation? for which it depends on the browser:
We start by augmenting the JavaScript engine in a browser with a “deobfuscator” that extracts and collects individual fragments of JavaScript. ... Much of the novelty of ZOZZLE comes from its hooking into the JavaScript engine of a browser to get the final, expanded version of JavaScript code to address the issue of deobfuscation.
You mean they won't have a GOG.com games-client like Steam? I'm okay with that. Would be nice but not necessary.
On a side-note, the link above to the Downloader currently works. But the client can't login so games don't download. Guess I'll have to wait 13 hours to download the game I bought during their last weekend sale.
Single names: I've done data conversions on a project which covered multiple countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. A "new" thing I came across about African names was: Some people have just a single name. It's not their first name or their last name, it's just their name.Though, they're generally okay with it being considered their first name. However, most legal docs require a last name (well, maybe not in some African countries) so we had to use dummy text in the first name. (Almost covered in assumptions 19 & 20 but not quite.)
Initials: Globally, there are ppl who have a single letter, or two, as their first or last name. These could be initials of their parents' names or based on something else. Point is, min. length requirement of 3 or even 2 does not work.
Implications of the article in general: 1. You can't do any validation on people's names. No programmer would consider this proper. 2. You can't use someone's nationality to create validation rules, since nationality/citizenship can change - and using 'country of birth' doesn't cover re-located/migrated families, assuming your application uses that field. 3. Most Importantly...and Obviously: Either ask the client/customer what allowances they want in the application. Or, clearly state your assumptions and have them review & refine it.
- Total contributed $1,133,822 - Number of contributions 123,924 - Average contribution $9.15 Win: $8.03 | Mac: $10.22 | Linux: $14.56 (was 14.55 ten minutes ago)
Worth noting that the average Linux contributor pay more than the avg Mac who also pays more than the avg Win - for games. Maybe, 1.) Game dev companies should take notice of that and 2.) That's the proportion of how desperate they are for games and hence, happy to pay up. Yes, the OS you contribute to is selectable by you but how many of the 123k+ contributors are faking it?
btw, the top contributors are: Anonymous - $3333.33; Anonymous - $1337.0; Anonymous - $1000.0
I'm really glad there was an "Open Source Extension" since I wasn't aware of this before - yes, that makes me a terrible/. member. Quite happy to support Indie game devs.
Really? A trademark on a small caps letter? like iSmall and SMALLi? then Google goes after gNames, MS goes after mORENames, etc.
[sarcasm]Luckily, IBM is IBM and not iBM[/sarcasm], and it was around first, etc. And ATI == ATi ? This article reminds me of madtv's iRack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw2nkoGLhrE
I wonder if, in the future, the Apple wikipedia page will get swapped out for the company's - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple and then it copyrights good health.
He obviously has tons of background daemons running and was in a situation of "some degree of peril" and physical change (the skin graft thing) which clearly would have triggered several others. A more useful, relevant, pertinent (and I predict...) reliable benchmark would be something like "thoughts per second" or "operations per thought" (since different thoughts would have different operations and a different number of operations). "Thought operations" (or "thoughts") could be a standard for thinking-speed.
So - how an AI thinks is more important than how fast it thinks since "operation speed" can changed via hardware. Thinking-speed is a result of underlying algorithms that actually make up the "I" in AI. Thinking-speed is also affected by the AIs own growth and ability to change itself. IQ of an AI would also result from that.
Which also implies that AIs can be distracted from a task - simply by causing it to a) spend more operations about input received or b) making it think about something else simultaneously. An AI being able to manage that/reduce the effect of the distraction, again, is dependent on design, self-growth and self-modification.
It would be have sounded even more worrying if in those 0.68 seconds, he had as many "thoughts" as an intelligent person would in a year...or two. (Endless loops, non-breaks, etc. adds to the worry.) Ofcourse, I do agree with your statement. It IS an eternity for any AI.
Sidenote with math-conjectures: 60 trillion OPS = 60 x 10^12 OPS (or in MIPS = 60 * 10^6 MIPS, since we are not assuming only-FLOPS) - and yes, many operations make up 1 instruction, so assume best case is 1 instruction = 2 operations. So 30 * 10^6 MIPS? An X9100 is 32472 MIPS ~= 32 * 10^3 MIPS. So only slightly-less-than 1000 times slower than Data.
If these bacteria are my 'sentinels' then who's my Mr. Smith? And what if the sentinels become like Mr. Smith and start/end up multiplying? I sure hope the technology isn't good enough to pass on their 'molecular circuits' to their copies. Does that make me the source or the matrix?
And there sure as hell better be a killswitch...that doesn't require a defib. You know...in case of those will-never-happen malfunctions.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry but I think that's exactly the wrong way to do it. Inviting via sharing will only work if there is G+ space/resources available (in the future perhaps). I received quite a few G+ 'shares' and it only took me to "Learn more about...".
To actually send an invite, you need to wait for "Invite people to join Google+" to appear in the right column just below "Get Google+ for your mobile device". If the "Send invites" does not appear, then 'sharing' will not work. Of course, if there isn't enough availability, even with an invite you will still see the "Learn more..." page but then it's just a matter of waiting a little while...with a valid invite.
This is how I've been doing it anyway and it's been working so far. (Sometimes there's a delay between when I send the invite and when the person receives it; though not today.)
:-) I agree!
Best I managed was a 4 digit UID: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2318682&cid=36734870 (see it's parent)
Sent to (#36734776)
Sent to (#36734746)
Was about to send an invite but I see you already have a G+ acct.
Sent to (#36734782)
(I hope the 3 i's in your id was not a typo.)
Sent to (#36734716)
Sent to (#36734484)
Sent to (#36734446)
Sent to (#36734334)
Sent to (#36734328)
would be to have the ability to drop a circle into another. IOW, the ability to create friends, family, and then 'friends & family'. So, it still requires work.
I don't think that's necessary, mostly because if you want to share something with 'friends & family' then you share it with 'friends' & 'family' - which is simple enough; note the 2 circles.
What I would actually like is Circles* + Rating ("how well do you know..." or like) the way Orkut had it. Have ratings from 1 to 5**. In the sense of social circles, there are those you prefer more than others or rather, those you share more with than others. Example: Colleagues can know about work things but not ALL things about work. The downside of this is the initial effort to rate and circle-ize followed by maintaining it.
My workaround for not having circles + rating, is to create separate circles which I've only done for friends - 'friends' & 'close friends'. I'm using 'acquaintances' as 'friends and colleagues I don't know so well'.
What G+ users should consider is how your profile/streams change to others as you move them move through your circles. A subtle area where "View profile as..." is even more useful.
* Circles behave like gmail labels since people can be in multiple circles, which I like. FB groups in your profile also behave that way but when you post from your mobile, the android FB app doesn't let you set the privacy for it. G+ Circles is central to privacy and sharing settings - you can't have a "friend" who's not in a circle unless you post publicly or just share via email, which is very spam-like.
** or just use 1 to 3 and 0 has a purpose.
But overall, I think that we are going to drop facebook (like anybody ever can) and simply switch to google plus.
That statement reads like it's missing a 'not' somewhere.
Good point. In which case my guess would be "triple counted" - home, work and phone. But that also applies to the Facebook visitors, assuming not all companies block it.
So does that mean only the MS sites were double counted...putting them on top of the "unique visitors" list? I feel dirty for pointing that out. I can only hope they stupidly included xbox connections, so also triple counted.
The next Ask Slashdot article should be "How do we get those ridiculous laptop stickers off our palm rests?" and even from some desktops. 5 at last count: brand/model, cpu, graphics card, windows os and one huge sticker with the CPU, RAM, HDD, OS specs...as if you stole a display piece. /. covered how AMD hates them as much as we do but...what next?
'festooned' is a popular word in articles on /..
Actually, the demo is about 5 minutes of Duke's attitude and then just action. Basically, the demo experience was pretty damn good. The real game was nothing like the demo.
They haven't specified if it will be a browser-specific tool or if they plan to have it auto-install plugins for IE, FF, Chrome. I also don't like the idea of them modifying a non-MS browser's functionality. Next news will be IE performance remains the same (read: not slower) but it's not optimized for other browsers.
I'd rather wait for someone else to come up with something similar. Personally, I don't mind if the tool provides more security for a slight loss in performance
But the researchers say that Zozzle has an extremely low overhead when deployed in a browser--on the order of 2-5 milliseconds per JavaScript file--and has a false-positive rate of less than one percent.
And false-negatives? Is that 2-5 ms including or after de-obfuscation? for which it depends on the browser:
We start by augmenting the JavaScript engine in a browser with a “deobfuscator” that extracts and collects individual fragments
...
of JavaScript.
Much of the novelty of ZOZZLE comes from its hooking into the JavaScript engine of a browser to get the final, expanded version of JavaScript code to address the issue of deobfuscation.
and the researchers behind it stress that it works best on de-obfuscated code.
...because all sites infecting visitor's machines with malware through javascript have js code in clear, reading-friendly syntax.
Apart from the fact that the idea is silly, by giving them school-issued pencils it's also pointless.
They do have a download client. The GOG.com Downloader.
You mean they won't have a GOG.com games-client like Steam? I'm okay with that. Would be nice but not necessary.
On a side-note, the link above to the Downloader currently works. But the client can't login so games don't download. Guess I'll have to wait 13 hours to download the game I bought during their last weekend sale.
Single names: I've done data conversions on a project which covered multiple countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. A "new" thing I came across about African names was: Some people have just a single name. It's not their first name or their last name, it's just their name.Though, they're generally okay with it being considered their first name. However, most legal docs require a last name (well, maybe not in some African countries) so we had to use dummy text in the first name.
(Almost covered in assumptions 19 & 20 but not quite.)
Initials: Globally, there are ppl who have a single letter, or two, as their first or last name. These could be initials of their parents' names or based on something else. Point is, min. length requirement of 3 or even 2 does not work.
Implications of the article in general:
1. You can't do any validation on people's names. No programmer would consider this proper.
2. You can't use someone's nationality to create validation rules, since nationality/citizenship can change - and using 'country of birth' doesn't cover re-located/migrated families, assuming your application uses that field.
3. Most Importantly...and Obviously: Either ask the client/customer what allowances they want in the application. Or, clearly state your assumptions and have them review & refine it.
Also, I'd prefer if the "key" was not in the link. Can obviously be picked up by non-contributors. Very easy for sys admins too.
Just bought the bundle. The stats right now are:
- Total contributed $1,133,822
- Number of contributions 123,924
- Average contribution $9.15
Win: $8.03 | Mac: $10.22 | Linux: $14.56 (was 14.55 ten minutes ago)
Worth noting that the average Linux contributor pay more than the avg Mac who also pays more than the avg Win - for games. Maybe, 1.) Game dev companies should take notice of that and 2.) That's the proportion of how desperate they are for games and hence, happy to pay up. Yes, the OS you contribute to is selectable by you but how many of the 123k+ contributors are faking it?
btw, the top contributors are: Anonymous - $3333.33; Anonymous - $1337.0; Anonymous - $1000.0
I'm really glad there was an "Open Source Extension" since I wasn't aware of this before - yes, that makes me a terrible /. member. Quite happy to support Indie game devs.
Really? A trademark on a small caps letter? like iSmall and SMALLi? then Google goes after gNames, MS goes after mORENames, etc.
[sarcasm]Luckily, IBM is IBM and not iBM[/sarcasm], and it was around first, etc. And ATI == ATi ? This article reminds me of madtv's iRack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw2nkoGLhrE
I wonder if, in the future, the Apple wikipedia page will get swapped out for the company's - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple and then it copyrights good health.
Full attention != Full processing capacity
He obviously has tons of background daemons running and was in a situation of "some degree of peril" and physical change (the skin graft thing) which clearly would have triggered several others. A more useful, relevant, pertinent (and I predict...) reliable benchmark would be something like "thoughts per second" or "operations per thought" (since different thoughts would have different operations and a different number of operations). "Thought operations" (or "thoughts") could be a standard for thinking-speed.
So - how an AI thinks is more important than how fast it thinks since "operation speed" can changed via hardware. Thinking-speed is a result of underlying algorithms that actually make up the "I" in AI. Thinking-speed is also affected by the AIs own growth and ability to change itself. IQ of an AI would also result from that.
Which also implies that AIs can be distracted from a task - simply by causing it to a) spend more operations about input received or b) making it think about something else simultaneously. An AI being able to manage that/reduce the effect of the distraction, again, is dependent on design, self-growth and self-modification.
It would be have sounded even more worrying if in those 0.68 seconds, he had as many "thoughts" as an intelligent person would in a year...or two. (Endless loops, non-breaks, etc. adds to the worry.)
Ofcourse, I do agree with your statement. It IS an eternity for any AI.
Sidenote with math-conjectures:
60 trillion OPS = 60 x 10^12 OPS (or in MIPS = 60 * 10^6 MIPS, since we are not assuming only-FLOPS) - and yes, many operations make up 1 instruction, so assume best case is 1 instruction = 2 operations. So 30 * 10^6 MIPS? An X9100 is 32472 MIPS ~= 32 * 10^3 MIPS. So only slightly-less-than 1000 times slower than Data.
If these bacteria are my 'sentinels' then who's my Mr. Smith? And what if the sentinels become like Mr. Smith and start/end up multiplying? I sure hope the technology isn't good enough to pass on their 'molecular circuits' to their copies. Does that make me the source or the matrix?
And there sure as hell better be a killswitch...that doesn't require a defib. You know...in case of those will-never-happen malfunctions.