"Simple hint: the houses and hence the roofs you are talking about are: private owned. The government has no simple way of "forcing" citizens to build solar plants on such roofs."
It has, in fact, the simplest of ways: legislation.
And, since you used "forcing" between quotes, you can also add tax benefits and grants as "forcing" tools.
" I suspect what really slowed down Go progress was that Chess was simply more popular Almost certainly this has never been true"
OK, let's rephrase it: I suspect what really slowed down Go progress was that Chess was simply more popular... among those that mattered.
While Go seems to stress different ways than Chess, and it's even acceptable to say it's more difficult to approach by a computer, it also seems true that chess was chosen because it was popular among those in computer sciences. Go may be played by more people, but those didn't hold doctorates on AI.
"I've been proselytising for Go since 13 years before I got a phone line, let alone dial-up internet access. What would I know?"
You don't even need to proselytize for something already popular, right?
"Either way, the experience of consciousness must be objective because what the thinker experiences IS the consciousness."
So can I observe that very consciousness and say "yes, that's the consciousness you described to me"? Because, lacking that, your definition of objectiveness is quite useless, both on its definition (objective implies verifiable, which can't be done if not repeatable by a third party) and its operative value (you can't inject -not even theoretically, consciousness into an object if you can't objectively set what's the thing).
"Without reading TFA, I have to point out that if Tyson tweeted that the rapper was "five centuries regressed in your reasoning" in order to indicate that five centuries ago people all thought that the earth was flat, then Tyson's statement is ironically also uninformed. There's a common myth that Columbus "discovered" that the earth was round."
Maybe Tyson was not referring to Columbus but Elcano, you know, the first guy that factually rounded the Earth about five centuries ago (1522), setting forever the question (if someone still had any doubt).
I'm not saying that there were not blackouts, but what their root cause was. I.e.: the 2003 report states that FirstEnergy "failed to assess and understand the inadequacies of FE's system, particularly with respect to voltage instability and the vulnerability of the Cleveland-Akron area, and FE did not operate its system with appropriate voltage criteria [...] did not recognize or understand the deteriorating condition of its system. [...] failed to manage adequately tree growth in its transmission rights-of-way [...] failure of the interconnected grid's reliability organizations to provide effective real-time diagnostic support."
And, despite of all that, FirstEnergy went out with a mere slap because legislation didn't enforce proper management.
Which part of all these was because the state of the art had its limit and which wan executives looking the other way?
"If private investors are not willing to pay for it, then that is a sure sign that it is not going to generate an acceptable ROI, and shouldn't be built."
Two ideas on why an investment wouldn't be done despite being beneficial for the involved parties: 1) Local optimum 2) Tragedy of the commons
And that means the headline is wrong. It says "Ransomware Hits Three Indian Banks, Causes Millions In Damages" when it should say instead "Incompetence Hits Three Indian Banks, Causes Millions in Damages".
When some amateurs from a different country can wreak havoc in three different financial institutions the cause is not whatever the amateurs have done but gross incompetence.
"if they are so far behind that they are only 50's tech, then what companies are ahead of them"
You already mentioned them: Boing, Airbus, BAE, Lockheed Martin...
"and how much lower costs are they?"
As long as what they do is looked after and they have no competitors they have no need to lower their costs a dime, so they don't. Maybe in the future SpaceX will change this, maybe not. Time will say.
"I really feel sorry for those locked in to that OS, every day it seems there is a new problem with their security, and maybe MS should break backwards compatibility and fix that shit."
If Microsoft did that, they would loose the lock on those people, so that won't happen.
"Anyway, it's not my problem I've been MS free for years"
Me too. I should add, anyway, that you can't get completely free from Microsoft as long as you interact with other people, be it "you really need to have a look at this business powerpoint presentation (I can and do miss the ones about pretty kitties)" or just something as stupid as most people top-posting their emails just because that's the way outlook taught them and even get to the point of blaming on you when you properly cite when answering them.
"Re: "... if Microsoft were to go out of their way to add an "update" to test for the new processor and refuse to boot"
Why would MS do that?"
In order to avoid the "XP issue" on corporate environments, of course. By "XP issue" I mean corporations (Microsoft's cash cow, you know) not willing to upgrade to new OS versions. This way, once the new processors are prevalent and their OS not booting up in them, corps will have to upgrade.
"it's unlikely just based upon the amount of ill-will it would generate for MS."
Microsoft traditionally hasn't basically given a damn as long as they can profit.
Again, I'm not saying Microsoft will do this, but that I wouldn't be surprised if they would.
"Whoever owns the copyright to the piece of code that's being violated can pursue legal action [...] you don't need the support of that organization to pursue legal action."
One day will come that you'll get out of your parents' basement and you will find that thingie called "real world".
"Github also has enterprise customers that pay money for github's services. 1300 people signed the letter. Why do you assume that none of them are paying customers?"
What I guess, contradicting the summary is that we are not talking here about "GitHub developers" but "GitHub users".
"The title is pretty honest: this is early evidence of war."
Maybe it is because English not being my first language but I don't see this as war. War is a long winding use of violence between two parties. A premeditated violent incident between two groups when only one party knows what's going to happen is an ambush; if both of them know it, it's a battle. You usually see ambushes and battles in war times, but neither ambushes nor battles are wars on their own.
"AWS, google compute engine, and azure are one catastrophic hypervisor compromise from a mass loss of confidence."
No, they aren't. If recent History (past 20 to 30 years) has taught us anything is that there's neither big enough shit nor big enough fan for joe sixpack to loss confidence in big players -in IT or anywhere.
Facebook and Google are in bigger danger. It's obvious Google knows it, that's why they are trying to find their next cash cow (self-driving cars? IoT?...) but Facebook acts like completely ignoring how easy can their "empire" fall.
"They may have had a lot of tech internally (clearly they did to enable creation of the platform), but they had not yet moved to build a business out of that."
Or maybe yes. I remember one of the first hiring announces from Bezos (not that I saw it at the time, but I've seen it later). It went more or less like this "I want the best Unix coders; I'll pay the best wages in compensation". It's my bet that from very early on it was in Bezo's brains that he wanted the best at any cost and probably already thought of selling out the "overcapacity". The overcapacity ended up being AWS but it might have been services or something like that.
Back when Amazon the shop was starting, it was not the only one all around the world. Most of them took their MBA lessons and said to themselves "we need to focus on our core competencies -i.e. selling books, not technology: we'll outsource that" while Bezos understood the technology's critical value for his vision and made it a strategic core. Now, where is it Amazon and where are all those wannabe competitors?
Slashdot Mirror
"Do you want small, efficient devices that can't be serviced or big, inefficient devices that are modular?"
In the case of smartphones it seems we are getting "the best of both worlds": big inefficient devices that can't be serviced.
"Simple hint: the houses and hence the roofs you are talking about are: private owned. The government has no simple way of "forcing" citizens to build solar plants on such roofs."
It has, in fact, the simplest of ways: legislation.
And, since you used "forcing" between quotes, you can also add tax benefits and grants as "forcing" tools.
"Linus and the kernel developers had been using Bitkeeper for free when there was a licensing problem."
There is a difference between "before" and "immediately before" you seem not to grasp.
Or you send patches by e-mail, just like Linus did himself before start coding git.
"There is no such thing as AI currently."
The fact that it's currently pretty stupid doesn't make it Artificial Intelligence any less.
" I suspect what really slowed down Go progress was that Chess was simply more popular
Almost certainly this has never been true"
OK, let's rephrase it: I suspect what really slowed down Go progress was that Chess was simply more popular... among those that mattered.
While Go seems to stress different ways than Chess, and it's even acceptable to say it's more difficult to approach by a computer, it also seems true that chess was chosen because it was popular among those in computer sciences. Go may be played by more people, but those didn't hold doctorates on AI.
"I've been proselytising for Go since 13 years before I got a phone line, let alone dial-up internet access. What would I know?"
You don't even need to proselytize for something already popular, right?
"Either way, the experience of consciousness must be objective because what the thinker experiences IS the consciousness."
So can I observe that very consciousness and say "yes, that's the consciousness you described to me"? Because, lacking that, your definition of objectiveness is quite useless, both on its definition (objective implies verifiable, which can't be done if not repeatable by a third party) and its operative value (you can't inject -not even theoretically, consciousness into an object if you can't objectively set what's the thing).
"Without reading TFA, I have to point out that if Tyson tweeted that the rapper was "five centuries regressed in your reasoning" in order to indicate that five centuries ago people all thought that the earth was flat, then Tyson's statement is ironically also uninformed. There's a common myth that Columbus "discovered" that the earth was round."
Maybe Tyson was not referring to Columbus but Elcano, you know, the first guy that factually rounded the Earth about five centuries ago (1522), setting forever the question (if someone still had any doubt).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"See that part about "doesn't show those huge blackouts"?
That's the part about you saying there are no blackouts they're talking about."
I don't think so. The 1965 and 2003 blackouts were in USA, not EU. I wouldn't consider 1965's anyway since it's too old.
"Actually, yes you did say that. You said it so directly that you could not have meant anything else."
Can you tell me, please how this:
-Interconnected grids led to blackouts
-Are you sure it was interconnected grid and not executives' greed?
Can in any way or form be understood as me saying there were no blackouts?
"In 2003 and 1965"
I'm not saying that there were not blackouts, but what their root cause was. I.e.: the 2003 report states that FirstEnergy "failed to assess and understand the inadequacies of FE's system, particularly with respect to voltage instability and the vulnerability of the Cleveland-Akron area, and FE did not operate its system with appropriate voltage criteria [...] did not recognize or understand the deteriorating condition of its system. [...] failed to manage adequately tree growth in its transmission rights-of-way [...] failure of the interconnected grid's reliability organizations to provide effective real-time diagnostic support."
And, despite of all that, FirstEnergy went out with a mere slap because legislation didn't enforce proper management.
Which part of all these was because the state of the art had its limit and which wan executives looking the other way?
"If private investors are not willing to pay for it, then that is a sure sign that it is not going to generate an acceptable ROI, and shouldn't be built."
Two ideas on why an investment wouldn't be done despite being beneficial for the involved parties:
1) Local optimum
2) Tragedy of the commons
"Interconnected grids led to blackouts over huge parts of the US in the past and presumably leaves that possibility open in the future."
Are you sure it was interconnected grid and not executives' greed?
Europe has an interconnected grid and doesn't show those huge blackouts. How can it be?
"Amateur Russians."
And that means the headline is wrong. It says "Ransomware Hits Three Indian Banks, Causes Millions In Damages" when it should say instead "Incompetence Hits Three Indian Banks, Causes Millions in Damages".
When some amateurs from a different country can wreak havoc in three different financial institutions the cause is not whatever the amateurs have done but gross incompetence.
"if they are so far behind that they are only 50's tech, then what companies are ahead of them"
You already mentioned them: Boing, Airbus, BAE, Lockheed Martin...
"and how much lower costs are they?"
As long as what they do is looked after and they have no competitors they have no need to lower their costs a dime, so they don't. Maybe in the future SpaceX will change this, maybe not. Time will say.
"I really feel sorry for those locked in to that OS, every day it seems there is a new problem with their security, and maybe MS should break backwards compatibility and fix that shit."
If Microsoft did that, they would loose the lock on those people, so that won't happen.
"Anyway, it's not my problem I've been MS free for years"
Me too. I should add, anyway, that you can't get completely free from Microsoft as long as you interact with other people, be it "you really need to have a look at this business powerpoint presentation (I can and do miss the ones about pretty kitties)" or just something as stupid as most people top-posting their emails just because that's the way outlook taught them and even get to the point of blaming on you when you properly cite when answering them.
"Someone has to make the final decision."
And that "someone" in any civilized country is a justice court.
"They get what they want: cheap land, cheap electricity (coal), low or no taxes (incentives), cheap labor."
And hurricanes?
!Let's talk about the fucking X-files reboot instead!"
Yes!
For instance, why is a public institution expending its resources making the marketing campaign for a private company?
"Re: "... if Microsoft were to go out of their way to add an "update" to test for the new processor and refuse to boot"
Why would MS do that?"
In order to avoid the "XP issue" on corporate environments, of course. By "XP issue" I mean corporations (Microsoft's cash cow, you know) not willing to upgrade to new OS versions. This way, once the new processors are prevalent and their OS not booting up in them, corps will have to upgrade.
"it's unlikely just based upon the amount of ill-will it would generate for MS."
Microsoft traditionally hasn't basically given a damn as long as they can profit.
Again, I'm not saying Microsoft will do this, but that I wouldn't be surprised if they would.
"Whoever owns the copyright to the piece of code that's being violated can pursue legal action [...] you don't need the support of that organization to pursue legal action."
One day will come that you'll get out of your parents' basement and you will find that thingie called "real world".
"Github also has enterprise customers that pay money for github's services. 1300 people signed the letter. Why do you assume that none of them are paying customers?"
What I guess, contradicting the summary is that we are not talking here about "GitHub developers" but "GitHub users".
"The title is pretty honest: this is early evidence of war."
Maybe it is because English not being my first language but I don't see this as war. War is a long winding use of violence between two parties. A premeditated violent incident between two groups when only one party knows what's going to happen is an ambush; if both of them know it, it's a battle. You usually see ambushes and battles in war times, but neither ambushes nor battles are wars on their own.
"AWS, google compute engine, and azure are one catastrophic hypervisor compromise from a mass loss of confidence."
No, they aren't. If recent History (past 20 to 30 years) has taught us anything is that there's neither big enough shit nor big enough fan for joe sixpack to loss confidence in big players -in IT or anywhere.
Facebook and Google are in bigger danger. It's obvious Google knows it, that's why they are trying to find their next cash cow (self-driving cars? IoT?...) but Facebook acts like completely ignoring how easy can their "empire" fall.
"They may have had a lot of tech internally (clearly they did to enable creation of the platform), but they had not yet moved to build a business out of that."
Or maybe yes. I remember one of the first hiring announces from Bezos (not that I saw it at the time, but I've seen it later). It went more or less like this "I want the best Unix coders; I'll pay the best wages in compensation". It's my bet that from very early on it was in Bezo's brains that he wanted the best at any cost and probably already thought of selling out the "overcapacity". The overcapacity ended up being AWS but it might have been services or something like that.
Back when Amazon the shop was starting, it was not the only one all around the world. Most of them took their MBA lessons and said to themselves "we need to focus on our core competencies -i.e. selling books, not technology: we'll outsource that" while Bezos understood the technology's critical value for his vision and made it a strategic core. Now, where is it Amazon and where are all those wannabe competitors?