The people you need admining wiki are the occasional contributers who are socially well adjusted (which is why they are "occasional" contributers.. they spend time doing other things with real people). How you achieve this I do not know.. but I think it's the answer.
There's one fundamental thing I don't get... don't you *choose* who you interact with on Facebook? If you don't like what they say why can't you just unfriend them? Or not friend them in the first place?
A high number of potential navigation errors are not just inconvenient but fatal.
Then you have to factor in wear and tear and environmental effects on sensors that cars have, up to this point, never relied on before.
There are so many variables that we are not ready to account for. Is the test terrain truly representative of everything humans are going to see? A human can learn and adapt. AI's ability to do this is limited to the quality of the programming, and there is no way to test all of the possible scenarios without just throwing these cars onto the road and letting them drive around for decades. The beta testers will be risking their lives, and the lives of everyone they encounter on the road. Would you allow others to drive AI cars on your route to work?
I like his idea, but it needs some help. People could already be structuring their web pages and web browsers this way, but it doesn't come naturally, so they don't. It needs to start with a structured community that doesn't bother worrying about the underlying code or where to host stuff. Like Facebook, for instance. Create a new Geocities-type service where people can create original documents, easily add referenced chunks from other peoples' documents, and spawn additional branched documents on the fly, all in a suitable GUI (hopefully better than the demo). If you structure the GUI so that Xanadu-like user behavior becomes more natural than the typical CLICK HERE behavior we have, you might have a chance.
Stop going to movies with bad 3D and you might enjoy yourself. Almost everything I see in 3D I make a point to see at the local IMAX theater (the 80s variety, not the renovated multiplex theaters). Nearly every 3D movie I've seen there has blown me away by looking extremely great, and has created a permanent movie memory for me that I'll keep forever. Go see Born To Be Wild in IMAX 3D and then do your complaining. Other killer IMAX 3D experiences: U2 3D, Polar Express, A Christmas Carol, and just about anything with animals. Avatar and Tron looked nice in IMAX 3D, but their 3D doesn't hold a candle to the other movies I mentioned. It's all about the camera men.
When watching Born To Be Wild, I even purposely focused my eyes on the out-of-focus areas just to see what the fuss is all about it, and guess what? It looked FINE. Selective focus and shallow depth of field have existed since the early days of photography. If there's someone skilled behind the 3D camera it's no problem at all. In fact it's GORGEOUS.
But the more troubling underlying issue is that the Internet has devalued content nearly to the point where the business reason to create it is disappearing.
And you expect quality news to disappear? Really? There's more valuable content than ever right now, in spite of the fact that we've been hearing the same sob story for a decade now about how there's not enough money to be made from internet advertising.
They surgically removed the subtleties of the story not to save time but to make way for new content that intensifies the action and romance, as if the story itself did not contain enough meat to entertain audiences. Guillermo del Toro gave me hope that The Hobbit would be different, but now that he's gone I can already see the heavy hand of Peter Jackson at work.
Of course, I don't know how you'd solve the problem, either. It's not a solution to just say absolutely everything can be a wikipedia article. Every self-promoting jackhole is going to create their own entry, then and the quality of each article itself will drop.
You mean the quality of the articles that otherwise wouldn't exist?
If you want Wikipedia to work you have to take the good with the bad. That means misinformation. I don't know how disputes should be settled and all that, but deleting *anything* is a big mistake. At most it should be flagged as being inaccurate or something.
The point was to try and develop a system that could process a natural language question and extract an accurate answer. It does this amazingly well, better than anything before by leaps and bounds.
Don't you think it diminishes this point a bit when it appeared as though the buzzer timing was as big a factor as getting the question right? I think Watson's amazing too, which is why I want to see it tested the right way. Humans have natural imprecision when it comes to hitting the buzzer which, in the viewer's mind at least, seems to cancel itself out over the course of the match. But Watson's precision really exposes that weakness in the game.
I wish I could edit posts. In no way did I mean to imply that a camera would help things (the added latency would be insignificant). $50 says my response gets trashed by someone thinking I meant that.
It would have been easy enough to add another camera trained on the light, but why bother?
Because we aren't watching to see a computer spout answers, we are watching to see a computer beat a human. And for that to be interesting it has to be "fair". We aren't interested in Watson's superhuman reflexes, so perhaps they should have done more to minimize the buzzer factor. When Watson's certainty was above the threshold, it seemed rare that he would miss the buzz-in.
This is partly a limitation of the Jeopardy format. A better way to compete against Watson would be to have multiple buzzers valued 1-10. The higher the number you select, the more money you are risking. The contestant who chooses the highest number wins the right to respond. (Tie goes to the first to select the tying number.) At 5 you get 100% reward, and every number above that adds to the risk, but does not add to the reward. So for a $400 question if you choose 10 your potential reward is $400, but your potential loss is $800. This would discourage contestants from choosing 10 every time. Such a buzzer setup would place less emphasis on buzzer timing and more on critical thinking skills.
I had a "smart phone" (T-Mobile Sidekick) when owning one only meant a $20 add-on cost to your existing plan to get unlimited data. These days they cap you for that price, and with evolutionary higher data rates you hit that cap much faster.
Suspension of disbelief is much easier when you are young, impressionable, and don't totally understand computers. That said, if you're going to have an unrealistic plot, better not to skirt the boundaries of realism too much. Both Tron movies work better than garbage like The Net precisely because they abandon all pretense of being realistic and base it on supremely fantastical notions. For this reason an "old" guy like me (35) was able to enjoy Tron Legacy's premise and characters. But although the plot started out well enough it ended up in a confusing mess.
It has a few obnoxious scenes, but seeing The Polar Express in IMAX 3D was one of my favorite movie experiences. They really nailed the 3D aspect of it.
Isn't every new clever killing device fueling a never ending arms race with the rest of the world? You could argue that others would develop this stuff if we didn't, but isn't it also true that reverse engineering U.S. designs takes them to places they otherwise wouldn't have gone? And isn't this made easier as more and more of the technology gets pushed into software? I get the feeling this new gun will only help our troops for a decade or two, at which point they will find similar guns pointed right back at them.
You can't stop innovation, but you can stop funding it.
Some GREAT 3D experiences I've seen that wouldn't have been nearly as fun without the 3D:
Polar Express
A Christmas Carol
U2 3D
All of these were viewed in a true IMAX theater. (Note: I also saw Avatar here, and while the 3D was nice, it didn't add as much to Avatar as it did to these other films.) Just stop making crappy choices for which movies to see in 3D, and suddenly 3D won't seem so crappy.
I don't see Apple doing very well in this area. They succeeded with iPods because they took an existing product (buying music) and made it better. With Apple TV they are taking an existing product ("free" TV shows) and trying to monetize it in a way that doesn't make sense to consumers. Buying TV shows was already a bad value. Renting them is even worse.
Great response, thanks. And yes, you are a mean dad;)
I'm glad to know it was tried. Although what you say is true about the inherent limitations of fun pinball machines, I'd also point out that you could simply cap the ticket output, or have it taper off dramatically, or have a heavy element of luck (a random multiplier) that determines the ticket output, rather than tying it 1:1 with the score.
I just can't get rid of this nagging feeling that some things could have been done differently. For example, it wasn't the NES that pulled me away from arcades, it was the $0.50 price to play (yes, maybe I'm cheap). Do you know if they ever did good studies to justify the price doubling and tripling? Because it seemed ill-advised and greedy to me. (25 cents in 1985 would only just now be hitting 50 cents after 25 years of 3% inflation.)
The problem was the ticket dispensing machines. Pinballs (and standard video game cabinets) lost their popularity while ticket-dispensing games have endured. I understand the reluctance to add ticket dispensers to Pinballs, but they need it in order to have any shot at renewed popularity.
Slashdot Mirror
Term limits?
There's one fundamental thing I don't get... don't you *choose* who you interact with on Facebook? If you don't like what they say why can't you just unfriend them? Or not friend them in the first place?
With today's widescreen monitors you need all the vertical space you can get. What's the big deal of introducing this as an option? I would love it.
A high number of potential navigation errors are not just inconvenient but fatal.
Then you have to factor in wear and tear and environmental effects on sensors that cars have, up to this point, never relied on before.
There are so many variables that we are not ready to account for. Is the test terrain truly representative of everything humans are going to see? A human can learn and adapt. AI's ability to do this is limited to the quality of the programming, and there is no way to test all of the possible scenarios without just throwing these cars onto the road and letting them drive around for decades. The beta testers will be risking their lives, and the lives of everyone they encounter on the road. Would you allow others to drive AI cars on your route to work?
I like his idea, but it needs some help. People could already be structuring their web pages and web browsers this way, but it doesn't come naturally, so they don't. It needs to start with a structured community that doesn't bother worrying about the underlying code or where to host stuff. Like Facebook, for instance. Create a new Geocities-type service where people can create original documents, easily add referenced chunks from other peoples' documents, and spawn additional branched documents on the fly, all in a suitable GUI (hopefully better than the demo). If you structure the GUI so that Xanadu-like user behavior becomes more natural than the typical CLICK HERE behavior we have, you might have a chance.
Thank you for saying this, as I somewhat agree. I'm surprised you weren't modded down with extreme prejudice. Apparently LOTR is the new Star Wars.
Stop going to movies with bad 3D and you might enjoy yourself. Almost everything I see in 3D I make a point to see at the local IMAX theater (the 80s variety, not the renovated multiplex theaters). Nearly every 3D movie I've seen there has blown me away by looking extremely great, and has created a permanent movie memory for me that I'll keep forever. Go see Born To Be Wild in IMAX 3D and then do your complaining. Other killer IMAX 3D experiences: U2 3D, Polar Express, A Christmas Carol, and just about anything with animals. Avatar and Tron looked nice in IMAX 3D, but their 3D doesn't hold a candle to the other movies I mentioned. It's all about the camera men.
When watching Born To Be Wild, I even purposely focused my eyes on the out-of-focus areas just to see what the fuss is all about it, and guess what? It looked FINE. Selective focus and shallow depth of field have existed since the early days of photography. If there's someone skilled behind the 3D camera it's no problem at all. In fact it's GORGEOUS.
And you expect quality news to disappear? Really? There's more valuable content than ever right now, in spite of the fact that we've been hearing the same sob story for a decade now about how there's not enough money to be made from internet advertising.
They surgically removed the subtleties of the story not to save time but to make way for new content that intensifies the action and romance, as if the story itself did not contain enough meat to entertain audiences. Guillermo del Toro gave me hope that The Hobbit would be different, but now that he's gone I can already see the heavy hand of Peter Jackson at work.
Video games are like polka. Art to some, perhaps, but a bit silly to most.
You mean the quality of the articles that otherwise wouldn't exist?
If you want Wikipedia to work you have to take the good with the bad. That means misinformation. I don't know how disputes should be settled and all that, but deleting *anything* is a big mistake. At most it should be flagged as being inaccurate or something.
Don't you think it diminishes this point a bit when it appeared as though the buzzer timing was as big a factor as getting the question right? I think Watson's amazing too, which is why I want to see it tested the right way. Humans have natural imprecision when it comes to hitting the buzzer which, in the viewer's mind at least, seems to cancel itself out over the course of the match. But Watson's precision really exposes that weakness in the game.
I wish I could edit posts. In no way did I mean to imply that a camera would help things (the added latency would be insignificant). $50 says my response gets trashed by someone thinking I meant that.
Because we aren't watching to see a computer spout answers, we are watching to see a computer beat a human. And for that to be interesting it has to be "fair". We aren't interested in Watson's superhuman reflexes, so perhaps they should have done more to minimize the buzzer factor. When Watson's certainty was above the threshold, it seemed rare that he would miss the buzz-in.
This is partly a limitation of the Jeopardy format. A better way to compete against Watson would be to have multiple buzzers valued 1-10. The higher the number you select, the more money you are risking. The contestant who chooses the highest number wins the right to respond. (Tie goes to the first to select the tying number.) At 5 you get 100% reward, and every number above that adds to the risk, but does not add to the reward. So for a $400 question if you choose 10 your potential reward is $400, but your potential loss is $800. This would discourage contestants from choosing 10 every time. Such a buzzer setup would place less emphasis on buzzer timing and more on critical thinking skills.
I had a "smart phone" (T-Mobile Sidekick) when owning one only meant a $20 add-on cost to your existing plan to get unlimited data. These days they cap you for that price, and with evolutionary higher data rates you hit that cap much faster.
I can finally figure out what the parent posts are without clicking a hyperlink!
Suspension of disbelief is much easier when you are young, impressionable, and don't totally understand computers. That said, if you're going to have an unrealistic plot, better not to skirt the boundaries of realism too much. Both Tron movies work better than garbage like The Net precisely because they abandon all pretense of being realistic and base it on supremely fantastical notions. For this reason an "old" guy like me (35) was able to enjoy Tron Legacy's premise and characters. But although the plot started out well enough it ended up in a confusing mess.
It has a few obnoxious scenes, but seeing The Polar Express in IMAX 3D was one of my favorite movie experiences. They really nailed the 3D aspect of it.
Isn't every new clever killing device fueling a never ending arms race with the rest of the world? You could argue that others would develop this stuff if we didn't, but isn't it also true that reverse engineering U.S. designs takes them to places they otherwise wouldn't have gone? And isn't this made easier as more and more of the technology gets pushed into software? I get the feeling this new gun will only help our troops for a decade or two, at which point they will find similar guns pointed right back at them. You can't stop innovation, but you can stop funding it.
Some GREAT 3D experiences I've seen that wouldn't have been nearly as fun without the 3D:
Polar Express
A Christmas Carol
U2 3D
All of these were viewed in a true IMAX theater. (Note: I also saw Avatar here, and while the 3D was nice, it didn't add as much to Avatar as it did to these other films.) Just stop making crappy choices for which movies to see in 3D, and suddenly 3D won't seem so crappy.
I don't see Apple doing very well in this area. They succeeded with iPods because they took an existing product (buying music) and made it better. With Apple TV they are taking an existing product ("free" TV shows) and trying to monetize it in a way that doesn't make sense to consumers. Buying TV shows was already a bad value. Renting them is even worse.
Of course, as you know, there are plenty of viruses still floating around on floppy disks.
To be fair, a lot of these places become wealthy enclaves precisely because they are far away from the waste water treatment plants, etc.
Great response, thanks. And yes, you are a mean dad ;)
I'm glad to know it was tried. Although what you say is true about the inherent limitations of fun pinball machines, I'd also point out that you could simply cap the ticket output, or have it taper off dramatically, or have a heavy element of luck (a random multiplier) that determines the ticket output, rather than tying it 1:1 with the score.
I just can't get rid of this nagging feeling that some things could have been done differently. For example, it wasn't the NES that pulled me away from arcades, it was the $0.50 price to play (yes, maybe I'm cheap). Do you know if they ever did good studies to justify the price doubling and tripling? Because it seemed ill-advised and greedy to me. (25 cents in 1985 would only just now be hitting 50 cents after 25 years of 3% inflation.)
The problem was the ticket dispensing machines. Pinballs (and standard video game cabinets) lost their popularity while ticket-dispensing games have endured. I understand the reluctance to add ticket dispensers to Pinballs, but they need it in order to have any shot at renewed popularity.