+1 funny. Also like how you sneaked "expiration" in there! This whole research filed has expired indeed and most in it should be fired and found some jobs they can actually do, like flipping burgers or sweeping trash.
Indeed, The ever-repeated empty argument of the utterly clueless. Like Marvin "the idiot" Minsky liked to to claim that once computers have more transistors than humans have brain-cells, they will magically become intelligent. Well, that point has been passed a while ago and absolutely nothing happened. And nobody with a clue is the least bit surprised by that.
Very true. Also, calling an utterly dumb statistical classificator "AI" does not make it intelligent. I like the old terminology better where pattern recognition, planning algorithms, fuzzy database searches, etc. were just called "automation" an it was amply clear that they are not intelligent in any way. As to what is today called "strong AI", I fully agree that at this time we do not even know that it can be done and all available evidence pretty clearly indicates that it probably cannot be done.
This just shows that most of the published "results" are based on wishful thinking or outright lies. Happens always when people of mediocre skills become highly enthusiastic about a subject.
It would have been massively more interesting if this had been a massive "everybody is confused and everybody is trying to shoot everybody" situation, instead of a plain old, low-casualty one-shooter snoozefest. So I am all for arming everybody, and best also put some mines and some auto-guns on hair-triggers in schools. Honor students could be rewarded with a few grenades (give them WP for extra fun, frags are so boring) or maybe even a flame-thrower. Kids deserve some excitement in their lives!
In other news, there is not much more ignorance, arrogance and general stupidity to be found in the gun-nuts that actually believe there would be real-world situations where carrying a gun would give them a real advantage. I don't mind the ones that just like to shoot their pieces for fun, gun tech is pretty nice. But thinking that carrying a gun gives you actual power is a very dangerous (and seductive) thing indeed.
That is unfortunately a fact. The only sure protection against cancer is being dead.
Also, this much more reads like "too much sugar and salt is linked to cancer". Personally, I cannot, for example, buy sweet baked goods (far too much sugar for my taste) and lots of processed foods have too much salt for my taste. Yet these high levels seem to be what people want.
That is BS. I read email via mutt, and I just recently had to implement a html2txt converter because of a tiny number of html-only emails. All others are text or at least text + html.
Here is a hint: Technology does not "remap the fabric of society" or anything like that. Technology is a minor factor in human stupidity and that is still the same old "Stupid 1.0" that has been around for millennia.
And if you believe that, then you have not done any research ion the subject at all. Hint: Grossly simplified "information" in the media usually paints an incomplete picture.
Does not look like that to me. Does more look like people stubbornly voting for the one that promises the most, no matter how little gets delivered. They then will claim that they actually got what they wanted (despite strong evidence to the contrary) and continue with the self-destruction. It is called confirmation bias and it destroys societies. History is full of examples.
Slashdot Mirror
I do not think the want to give you that choice.
Everything must be accessible to the government, nothing can be private. There is a term for people like that: It is "Fascist".
There are just some people that insist on continuing to be stupid. As they are high-level government employees, that is not surprising.
I fully agree. "Cyber"-morons are welcome to use stupid terms, but it would be nice to have some signs of intelligent life here.
And fail. You have no clue what you are talking about.
You seem to have no clue what this research area deals with. It is not intelligence, despite the misleading name. It is automation.
It was never really much better. Look as some famous assholes of science, like a guy called "Newton" or a fraudster called "Edison", for example.
Indeed.
+1 funny. Also like how you sneaked "expiration" in there! This whole research filed has expired indeed and most in it should be fired and found some jobs they can actually do, like flipping burgers or sweeping trash.
Indeed, The ever-repeated empty argument of the utterly clueless. Like Marvin "the idiot" Minsky liked to to claim that once computers have more transistors than humans have brain-cells, they will magically become intelligent. Well, that point has been passed a while ago and absolutely nothing happened. And nobody with a clue is the least bit surprised by that.
Very true. Also, calling an utterly dumb statistical classificator "AI" does not make it intelligent. I like the old terminology better where pattern recognition, planning algorithms, fuzzy database searches, etc. were just called "automation" an it was amply clear that they are not intelligent in any way. As to what is today called "strong AI", I fully agree that at this time we do not even know that it can be done and all available evidence pretty clearly indicates that it probably cannot be done.
I think they have mostly optimized away the results today, probably using some "advanced AI algorithms".
This just shows that most of the published "results" are based on wishful thinking or outright lies. Happens always when people of mediocre skills become highly enthusiastic about a subject.
The problem, I think, is the selling of these disks. If he had just given them away, this may have been gray area or even legal.
Pretty much as useful and no hassles with copyright. Probably also runs a lot better on old hardware.
It would have been massively more interesting if this had been a massive "everybody is confused and everybody is trying to shoot everybody" situation, instead of a plain old, low-casualty one-shooter snoozefest. So I am all for arming everybody, and best also put some mines and some auto-guns on hair-triggers in schools. Honor students could be rewarded with a few grenades (give them WP for extra fun, frags are so boring) or maybe even a flame-thrower. Kids deserve some excitement in their lives!
In other news, there is not much more ignorance, arrogance and general stupidity to be found in the gun-nuts that actually believe there would be real-world situations where carrying a gun would give them a real advantage. I don't mind the ones that just like to shoot their pieces for fun, gun tech is pretty nice. But thinking that carrying a gun gives you actual power is a very dangerous (and seductive) thing indeed.
It is showing nothing like that. That is what the headlines want you to believe. Fail. You fell for an obvious conspiracy theory.
That is unfortunately a fact. The only sure protection against cancer is being dead.
Also, this much more reads like "too much sugar and salt is linked to cancer". Personally, I cannot, for example, buy sweet baked goods (far too much sugar for my taste) and lots of processed foods have too much salt for my taste. Yet these high levels seem to be what people want.
"We cannot spy on you as easily if you use Chinese Phones".
That is BS. I read email via mutt, and I just recently had to implement a html2txt converter because of a tiny number of html-only emails. All others are text or at least text + html.
Ah, yes. Idiots always think it cannot have been their fault. Here is news for you: It usually is.
100% on the voters, since it is them that have shaped this political landscape. This is just the last stage if their dysfunctionality.
Here is a hint: Technology does not "remap the fabric of society" or anything like that. Technology is a minor factor in human stupidity and that is still the same old "Stupid 1.0" that has been around for millennia.
And if you believe that, then you have not done any research ion the subject at all. Hint: Grossly simplified "information" in the media usually paints an incomplete picture.
Does not look like that to me. Does more look like people stubbornly voting for the one that promises the most, no matter how little gets delivered. They then will claim that they actually got what they wanted (despite strong evidence to the contrary) and continue with the self-destruction. It is called confirmation bias and it destroys societies. History is full of examples.