A class action lawsuit that is suing the developer for making a device that is vulnerable to the criminal actions of a third party? Does that mean we can get a class action lawsuit going for all bicycle manufacturers over the number of their bikes that are stolen? How about door manufacturers for all the people that break into houses?
No. We are nowhere near hard AI. We are nowhere near soft AI. We have expert systems, which are basically just a large database with a sort of dichotomous key on when to select different outcomes, that will likely be able to interact with natural language soon. This isn't even close to AI. Robots are a huge buzzword today, as is AI. You have every no name researcher out there trying to get noticed by inventing moral dilemmas involving AI then proposing solutions, which makes uninformed people start to think, oh, AI is right around the corner. It's not. We are a century away from hard AI, if ever.
So no, you cannot bully a robot. You cannot hurt a robot. You can damage someone's property, and that is all.
I wish Slashdot would stop with the whole AI story thing, but given the buzz and their need to incite dialog, it's easy to see why this is becoming more prevalent. I just feel kind of sad, though. This place used to be a real nerd hangout, by and for those who were technically enlightened, and most real nerds know better than to think real AI is upon us. This place has become more of a Big Bang Theory, nerdism for the masses, kind of spot. Sad.
There is some confusion as to what this is actually doing. Most filesystems have use special structures to store the name and location of your files on the drive. Directories, cluster bitmaps, etc etc. The reason why it's difficult at best to recover files from a hard drive when parts of the filesystem have been damaged is that it's difficult to identify where on your hard drive the files are. Besides the special filesystem directories, no where else stores information on what is stored where. If you lose the directory it's hard to tell one file's data from another on your hard drive.
That is where SBX comes in. What it does is make sure that every physical sector that stores data for a particular file is labelled with a number that identifies that file, and a sequence number so you can reconstruct what order that piece is in the original file. Really, for the amount of overhead, something like that should be embedded into every filesystem. Basically a distributed backup of all the filesystem metadata.
Some people are criticizing this that is solves non problems. I disagree. While it isn't the solution to global warming, it is both simple and clever (and will thus suffer from a lot of people who will disparage it out of a "well anyone could have thought of that" attitude). It won't save you from a full hardware crash. It won't save you from physically bad sectors in that file. What it will save you from is accidental deletion and from loss of the filesystem's metadata structures. How often does this happen? Twice to me from failures of a whole-disc-encryption system driver.
I wouldn't use this for every file, but for critical ones, sure. Why not. The problem is, where it is most useful, for very volatile files that change a lot (databases etc) between backups, is where it can't really be used until/unless different applications start supporting it. So it unfortunately has limited use in the places where it would really help the most. Like I said above, this sort of thing really needs to get rolled into a filesystem. The amount of overhead it costs is meaningless in today's storage environment.
Well, how about imagine this scenario. Let's say Apple's recyclers are allowed to recycle components. NAND flash chips from all sorts of devices are collected - how long before some very embarrassing, sensitive, or even damaging information thought deleted from someone's phone is recovered from one of those chips?
While I am no fan of Apple nor their business practices, their current recycling method represents the best they can do while taking the precautions they need to take to ensure safety. They can't allow any chips out, or else once that door is opened it's only a matter of time before the wrong chips get out. Shredding the devices and putting policies in place to ensure they are/all/ shredded represents the best they can hope for.
And yes, before a phone is turned in it/should/ be wiped of anything sensitive, but do/you/ know how to ensure every bit of data is cleaned off your phone at the flash level?
This is why I won't use any app where I don't own the data. It doesn't matter where the software lives or runs, as soon as it phones home with my data then I don't control anything.
I can't say it strongly enough, or often enough... say no to anyone else controlling your data. It is not a matter of if, but when that party decided to do something with it that impacts you negatively. Whether that's something to do with the data itself, or simply leveraging the fact that their servers are required to compel you to to do what they want (stop using an app, switch apps, upgrade, etc).
No, I'm saying that the comment "code ownership is so 1960's", which was obviously meant as a "get with the times grandpa" statement was improper. Good project management practices are timeless, and development strategies and disciplines from the past are not necessarily improperly applied to current projects. A certain amount of centralized command and control is necessary. Where that is applied depends on the technical and cultural aspects of a project. In projects with a strong central scope and well defined design, projects that have good change acceptance procedures and where developers are professional a more distributed and loose change creation process can be applied, a la Git. In projects where there is not a strong central change acceptance process and where the scope definition and design are loose, a much more rigid change creation process must be adhered to, like change management systems from the past (CVS, VSS). Like applying Gantt charts and other staging tools to the change scheduling process. Like anything except the "stick a bunch of developers together with a bunch of code together in a blender and set it to frappe" process that is being applied now.
In this project (if it's actually a real project and not just another Slash-question carefully crafted to incite discourse), there is no viable command and control on the management end and there is none on the revision control end. Which leads to a project mired in anarchy as we see is the case. There are no tools that can help at this point. There is no substitute for a disciplined methodology. What was depicted in the question was completely unprofessional.
To answer your question, reverting to punch cards would be a step up for this project.
In the 1960's was when you wrote software by punching cards that someone else fed in and where it had to work the first time. Every time. That kind of discipline is sorely needed by the original question submitter.
The whole haphazard development model described in the question is absurd. First of all, what kind of single bug requires rifling through back end databases, business rules, web services and multiple front ends? That's not a bug in the software, that's a bug in the pre-design definitions phase. That is not a bug. Seriously... you can't just accept all the premises in the question without thought. That kind of change only happens when someone is is calling "the customer wants this feature changed" or "we misunderstood what the customer needed" a bug, which is wrong on its face.
Secondly, multiple people making changes of that scope simultaneously is just wrong, whatever the cause. Distributed revision control systems were made able to handle multiple simultaneous branches in order to break bottlenecks on people working on different areas of a common source file. They were designed to accommodate merges that had occasional and minor overlaps. What is described here is a completely inappropriate use of that kind of environment. So to answer the question directly, when asked what tools can help, the answer is no tools can help you. The process is wrong. You are far better off reverting to a revision control system that enforces a single checkout of a source file if this is what is going on. Better yet, correct your development strategy.
This can't be emphasized strongly or often enough. Code ownership is a good step forward in this scenario, but the only real fix for these problems is to completely refactor the way change is managed in this project. You wouldn't be wrong to Gantt chart these changes with their subsystem impacts so they can be scheduled on a non-interference basis. Better yet, if you are having to make multiple back-end through to UI changes, you need to go through a whole scope identification phase again.
Your change system is hopelessly broken. Fix that, then the correct use of existing tools to assist you will become readily apparent.
Concur. Starting classes at 11 will improve short-term learning, and complete the destruction (or, as I call it, the millenilization) of long term work ethic. As an employer, here is what I would suggest. I would suggest going to a university and finding out what courses in degree programs most suited to my business do have an 8am lecture. I would then go to that lecture three quarters of the way through that semester and immediately offer a job upon graduation to every person attending it. I wouldn't even care about their scores. Skills can be taught. Self-motivation can't be.
It's not the subscription service they are looking for. They are looking for control. They can't automatically push updates to older versions of windows, they can with Windows 10. The method of forcing people to pay is really irrelevant. Whether it's in discreet quantized chunks or miking over time, that doesn't matter. What really matters is that they have the ability to do what they want to any computer they want. End of service? No problem, push an updated that requires you to upgrade or your OS shuts down. They can't do that with older versions of Windows. The attempts at forcing the upgrade to Windows 10 through the windows update system shows that it's control, not a different funding model, they are really after.
Here is my prediction for Windows 10 EOL. In a year or two's time, when the next version of Windows is out and (air quote) stable (end air quote), a fatal security flaw will be found in Windows 10. It will be so fundamental that it can't be fixed through a normal windows update. Microsoft, in order to save the world from all the people who irresponsibly won't upgrade to Windows 11 (and thus are placing the world at risk of massive botnets) will force an update out that disables internet access to all Windows 10 machines.
I highly encourage everyone to use Windows Update Mini Tool to take control back of your Windows 10 update process.
It's not an AI. For an AI to be an AI it has to be I, and this isn't I any more than chess programs are.
The program won't know or care what the players gestures are. In the end it's about statistics, and cold hard statistics will always win over any efforts at "throwing your opponents off".
This doesn't impress me much. There will be a million things computer programs will do better than humans - it's been inevitable since the first chess program. There are no games of pure luck, and being able to calculate through every option to exhaustion will give a computer the advantage every time. Just like a hydraulic pump will always be able to exert more force than my bicep can. It's not much more impressive than that. However each time it happens it will be incorrectly touted as AI when really it's not much more than an expert system. It will generate loads of research money, and generate oohs and ahs from people who ought to know better.
The summary isn't incoherent. It's intended to be slightly inflammatory, as their intention is to draw people in to make comments. Slashdot isn't what it used to be, and they now routinely resort to headline misrepresentation in order to draw in and incite people to engage.
Bitcoin as a financial system is made impractical in the long term by the fact that it is limited in the total number that can be issued. After the last one is issued, the intent is for the value of them to simply go up. It was proposed as an in-built method to combat inflation, however what it really is is a way for the inventor to pad his own pockets by owning a significant fraction of the total number of bitcoins that can ever be produced. In a best-case scenario, this means he now owns a fraction of the world wealth (assuming the dystopian future where everyone uses bitcoins).
The fact that it is really a huge piece of social engineering is what disinclines most governments from being too terribly thrilled about its adoption. Ironically, this may be what the inventor was counting on to promote it's adoption, reasoning that the more that governments resisted it, the more that certain groups would promote it as a form of protest/defiance.
So, if you want to adopt bitcoins, by all means, be part of a piece of social engineering malware. Bitcoin transactions are not what you want for privacy anyway. If you want to maintain private money transactions, cash is always an option.
The OP has been modded down to oblivion, though it may have been satirical. But if it is a legitimate comment, then it begs a legitimate question: what is a robot? There aren't any self-aware computers, and likely won't be in our lifetimes. So what is a robot? Automation? Because a WW II ball bearing factory line would qualify. Is it a discreet device that creates a product in an automatic manner? Because if that is the case then everyone's home printer is a robot.
The point is, "robot' is a catch word, and is being used as a catch word purposefully. This word is being used because it elicits themes of android uprisings, when really what it is being used to describe is automation that has been around in some way or another for the better part of a century. Saying the "robot" economy is larger than Switzerland is just irresponsible reporting. There is absolutely no way to quantify it because there it no way to define it. It's simply good old fashioned automation.
People need to calm down and realize the sky isn't falling. Robots are not stealing jobs. The economy is becoming more efficient, and we are streamlining processes no one really wants to do by hand anyway. Do you want to rivet a quarter panel to a car frame for eight hours a day? I certainly don't. And if self driving cars take away taxi drivers, I won't cry either. Because once we start getting people's hands off the wheels, then maybe we can divorce them from the idea that every individual has to have their own hands-on motor vehicle, and then we can start building the public transportation system science fiction writers dream about.
Not only is this not a surprise, it's not news. It has been this way for a very long time. Generation X'ers were bemoaning how the boomers had it so easy. Millennials bemoan how we had it so easy. It's easy to look at a 40-something year old who is now stably employed, has acquired a car, equity on a home, and then ignore the struggle it was to get here. A university degree is only an advantage when it can distinguish you from the crowd. It is, and has been, the de facto baseline since before I got out of high school. If you want to distinguish yourself, you have to establish yourself above the baseline. Postgraduate education is today what an undergrad was 50 years ago. Volunteer work, starting your own open source project or contributing to one, some time in the military - these are all ways to give yourself both real and paper "experience". If you have your sights set on a particular place to work, target that place with your efforts. Find out what charities they support and volunteer at those places. You have to take the long approach. And you have to have confidence enough in your own abilities to believe you will get to your employment goal if you put in those efforts. That is the only thing that will get you through the uncertainty.
Do these things and you will rise above the crowd quickly. Try and take shortcuts, and you will look like just one more millennial with a degree and no attention span.
And above all, stop complaining that it's tough. The path of least resistance rarely takes you where you want to be, and it never, ever goes up hill.
Concur. File corruption due to "age" will not occur without hard read errors. Also, "ill-coloured photos" likely would not be ill-coloured in the case of actual data corruption, but would have whole blocks of hash in them. The user claims to have multiple terabyte sized hard drives - hard drives in this size category userd for archival storage are simply not old enough to be suffering data corruption due to age. The only hard drives suffering so are MFM hard drives that likely the poster wouldn't have a clue how to even interface into a current computer. Hard drives used for archival data storage will likely not age degrade before the interface standard they are based on becomes obsolete. Thus, a perfectly reasonable archival data storage strategy is to simply copy data from one hard drive to a newer (likely much larger and faster) drive when the next generation interface becomes standard, and before the previous generation is totally obsolete. For example, one can still get PATA + SATA USB adapters, SATA + M.2 adapters, etc.
If the user who submitted this question is actually experiencing a problem at all, suggest that PEBCAK. Better explanation is the poster is not actually experiencing current problems at all, but is simply trying to sound important with inflated claims of reams of data and that Slashdot has been had.
Further, no person with Slashdot posting authority should have been ignorant of any of the issues in this question that make its legitimacy questionable at best, and certainly not Slashdot worthy in any circumstance.
No. I use RSS feeds into live bookmarks straight to my browser's bookmark toolbar. I have done this for years, it's a wonderful technology you can use with virtually all news sites, and you can then easily pick and choose the articles you want from updated drop down folders on your toolbar.
For Mozilla or (better yet) PaleMoon browsers you just click on the link above, then on the resultant page click Subscribe Now into Live Bookmarks. I suspect Chrome is similar. This will buy you automatically updated headlines from multiple respected news outlets with different viewpoints in dropdown menus. Why anyone would use Facebook for news is beyond me. If you ask me, anyone who does go to Facebook for news deserves what they get. Facebook is a sewer of trolls initiating social malware for the kick it gives them to see their garbage repeated. Go to news sources for news. Go to facebook to try and make yourself feel better about how well liked you are.
It's decisions like this that make me believe in God with an absolutely pure, inviolable faith. Divine intervention is the only explanation for this decision - it had to come straight from God, since no one on earth could have thought of it.
Actually, I haven't been able to fathom the decisions coming out of Mozilla for some time now. The current version number almost says it all. How can you get excited about a new Firefox release with any feature, when it's just another rapid release. It could have true hard AI and no one would notice any more. It would get lost in the staggeringly mediocre array of non-features nobody wants, forced UI changes, broken addons, ripped out plugins, and developers that decide they know more about what people want than the users do.
Firefox adopted Google's rapid release cycle on a project that it was neither technically nor culturally suited for. One has to actually admire their dogged persistence to holding this course in the face of what is an almost a completely unified chorus of "WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE?!?!?".
I recommend Palemoon. A fork of an earlier Firefox LTR, it has refused to add features unless they make sense, it is compatible with most addons, and has a growing body of its own native addon developers that are quite loyal to the project for the simple reason that the project remains loyal to them. That's not to say that it's a static browser. Just one that took the best of what Firefox was and decided to continue in the direction of sensible goals and not alienating its user base.
Storage is cheap. If you think that Dropbox ever deletes anything you store there, then you are naive.
In general, if anything is free, then you are in some way the product. If data storage is free, then your data is the product. I highly recommend Syncthing. People need to keep ownership of their data.
I hope so. Eight million people installed a listening device in their home that is by design intended to record and transmit everything that occurs. NSA doesn't have to even work any more - people will do it for them and pay for the privilege.
I don't think the OP thought that everyone who disagrees with him is a nazi. I suspect he simply realizes you just handed your presidency over to the biggest internet troll in history.
Trump is the president that 48% of Americans deserve. Unfortunately, 100% of Americans will (already are) feeling the effects. Racial and gender prejudices inflamed, fear mongering, and a total disregard for consequences.
Dear Mexico;
Let's not wait for Trump. Let's you and I build the walls ourselves. I'm pretty sure once we get started the rest of the world will chip in and help too. Maybe, just maybe, if we can build it in time we can contain this lunacy before it gets out.
The issue is, the 6502 is several orders of magnitude less complex than a brain. It could be likened to a massively parallel computer that is running thousands of programs all at once. So it is completely reasonable, on the scale of the brain, to suggest that damage to an area in a dozen people that affects their hearing to draw the conclusion that that part of the brain is responsible for hearing. Damaging a couple transistors in a 6502, a single processor, is akin to damaging a few neurons in each of a million different areas of the brain at once. The researchers correctly determined that a particular damage which caused Donkey Kong not to boot did not mean the part of the CPU which is responsible for Donkey Kong was damaged. That does not, however, say anything about the methods used to study the brain. It is, unfortunately, yet another reason why researchers need to stop making silly comparisons between computers and brains, and also need to stop "playing for the crowd", which really was what this seems to have been.
Slashdot Mirror
A class action lawsuit that is suing the developer for making a device that is vulnerable to the criminal actions of a third party? Does that mean we can get a class action lawsuit going for all bicycle manufacturers over the number of their bikes that are stolen? How about door manufacturers for all the people that break into houses?
Good luck with that.
No. We are nowhere near hard AI. We are nowhere near soft AI. We have expert systems, which are basically just a large database with a sort of dichotomous key on when to select different outcomes, that will likely be able to interact with natural language soon. This isn't even close to AI. Robots are a huge buzzword today, as is AI. You have every no name researcher out there trying to get noticed by inventing moral dilemmas involving AI then proposing solutions, which makes uninformed people start to think, oh, AI is right around the corner. It's not. We are a century away from hard AI, if ever.
So no, you cannot bully a robot. You cannot hurt a robot. You can damage someone's property, and that is all.
I wish Slashdot would stop with the whole AI story thing, but given the buzz and their need to incite dialog, it's easy to see why this is becoming more prevalent. I just feel kind of sad, though. This place used to be a real nerd hangout, by and for those who were technically enlightened, and most real nerds know better than to think real AI is upon us. This place has become more of a Big Bang Theory, nerdism for the masses, kind of spot. Sad.
There is some confusion as to what this is actually doing.
Most filesystems have use special structures to store the name and location of your files on the drive. Directories, cluster bitmaps, etc etc. The reason why it's difficult at best to recover files from a hard drive when parts of the filesystem have been damaged is that it's difficult to identify where on your hard drive the files are. Besides the special filesystem directories, no where else stores information on what is stored where. If you lose the directory it's hard to tell one file's data from another on your hard drive.
That is where SBX comes in. What it does is make sure that every physical sector that stores data for a particular file is labelled with a number that identifies that file, and a sequence number so you can reconstruct what order that piece is in the original file. Really, for the amount of overhead, something like that should be embedded into every filesystem. Basically a distributed backup of all the filesystem metadata.
Some people are criticizing this that is solves non problems. I disagree. While it isn't the solution to global warming, it is both simple and clever (and will thus suffer from a lot of people who will disparage it out of a "well anyone could have thought of that" attitude). It won't save you from a full hardware crash. It won't save you from physically bad sectors in that file. What it will save you from is accidental deletion and from loss of the filesystem's metadata structures. How often does this happen? Twice to me from failures of a whole-disc-encryption system driver.
I wouldn't use this for every file, but for critical ones, sure. Why not. The problem is, where it is most useful, for very volatile files that change a lot (databases etc) between backups, is where it can't really be used until/unless different applications start supporting it. So it unfortunately has limited use in the places where it would really help the most. Like I said above, this sort of thing really needs to get rolled into a filesystem. The amount of overhead it costs is meaningless in today's storage environment.
Well, how about imagine this scenario. Let's say Apple's recyclers are allowed to recycle components. NAND flash chips from all sorts of devices are collected - how long before some very embarrassing, sensitive, or even damaging information thought deleted from someone's phone is recovered from one of those chips?
While I am no fan of Apple nor their business practices, their current recycling method represents the best they can do while taking the precautions they need to take to ensure safety. They can't allow any chips out, or else once that door is opened it's only a matter of time before the wrong chips get out. Shredding the devices and putting policies in place to ensure they are /all/ shredded represents the best they can hope for.
And yes, before a phone is turned in it /should/ be wiped of anything sensitive, but do /you/ know how to ensure every bit of data is cleaned off your phone at the flash level?
This is why I won't use any app where I don't own the data. It doesn't matter where the software lives or runs, as soon as it phones home with my data then I don't control anything.
I can't say it strongly enough, or often enough... say no to anyone else controlling your data. It is not a matter of if, but when that party decided to do something with it that impacts you negatively. Whether that's something to do with the data itself, or simply leveraging the fact that their servers are required to compel you to to do what they want (stop using an app, switch apps, upgrade, etc).
No, I'm saying that the comment "code ownership is so 1960's", which was obviously meant as a "get with the times grandpa" statement was improper. Good project management practices are timeless, and development strategies and disciplines from the past are not necessarily improperly applied to current projects. A certain amount of centralized command and control is necessary. Where that is applied depends on the technical and cultural aspects of a project. In projects with a strong central scope and well defined design, projects that have good change acceptance procedures and where developers are professional a more distributed and loose change creation process can be applied, a la Git. In projects where there is not a strong central change acceptance process and where the scope definition and design are loose, a much more rigid change creation process must be adhered to, like change management systems from the past (CVS, VSS). Like applying Gantt charts and other staging tools to the change scheduling process. Like anything except the "stick a bunch of developers together with a bunch of code together in a blender and set it to frappe" process that is being applied now.
In this project (if it's actually a real project and not just another Slash-question carefully crafted to incite discourse), there is no viable command and control on the management end and there is none on the revision control end. Which leads to a project mired in anarchy as we see is the case. There are no tools that can help at this point. There is no substitute for a disciplined methodology. What was depicted in the question was completely unprofessional.
To answer your question, reverting to punch cards would be a step up for this project.
In the 1960's was when you wrote software by punching cards that someone else fed in and where it had to work the first time. Every time. That kind of discipline is sorely needed by the original question submitter.
The whole haphazard development model described in the question is absurd. First of all, what kind of single bug requires rifling through back end databases, business rules, web services and multiple front ends? That's not a bug in the software, that's a bug in the pre-design definitions phase. That is not a bug. Seriously... you can't just accept all the premises in the question without thought. That kind of change only happens when someone is is calling "the customer wants this feature changed" or "we misunderstood what the customer needed" a bug, which is wrong on its face.
Secondly, multiple people making changes of that scope simultaneously is just wrong, whatever the cause. Distributed revision control systems were made able to handle multiple simultaneous branches in order to break bottlenecks on people working on different areas of a common source file. They were designed to accommodate merges that had occasional and minor overlaps. What is described here is a completely inappropriate use of that kind of environment. So to answer the question directly, when asked what tools can help, the answer is no tools can help you. The process is wrong. You are far better off reverting to a revision control system that enforces a single checkout of a source file if this is what is going on. Better yet, correct your development strategy.
This can't be emphasized strongly or often enough. Code ownership is a good step forward in this scenario, but the only real fix for these problems is to completely refactor the way change is managed in this project. You wouldn't be wrong to Gantt chart these changes with their subsystem impacts so they can be scheduled on a non-interference basis. Better yet, if you are having to make multiple back-end through to UI changes, you need to go through a whole scope identification phase again.
Your change system is hopelessly broken. Fix that, then the correct use of existing tools to assist you will become readily apparent.
Concur. Starting classes at 11 will improve short-term learning, and complete the destruction (or, as I call it, the millenilization) of long term work ethic. As an employer, here is what I would suggest. I would suggest going to a university and finding out what courses in degree programs most suited to my business do have an 8am lecture. I would then go to that lecture three quarters of the way through that semester and immediately offer a job upon graduation to every person attending it. I wouldn't even care about their scores. Skills can be taught. Self-motivation can't be.
It's not the subscription service they are looking for. They are looking for control. They can't automatically push updates to older versions of windows, they can with Windows 10. The method of forcing people to pay is really irrelevant. Whether it's in discreet quantized chunks or miking over time, that doesn't matter. What really matters is that they have the ability to do what they want to any computer they want. End of service? No problem, push an updated that requires you to upgrade or your OS shuts down. They can't do that with older versions of Windows. The attempts at forcing the upgrade to Windows 10 through the windows update system shows that it's control, not a different funding model, they are really after.
Here is my prediction for Windows 10 EOL. In a year or two's time, when the next version of Windows is out and (air quote) stable (end air quote), a fatal security flaw will be found in Windows 10. It will be so fundamental that it can't be fixed through a normal windows update. Microsoft, in order to save the world from all the people who irresponsibly won't upgrade to Windows 11 (and thus are placing the world at risk of massive botnets) will force an update out that disables internet access to all Windows 10 machines.
I highly encourage everyone to use Windows Update Mini Tool to take control back of your Windows 10 update process.
It's not an AI. For an AI to be an AI it has to be I, and this isn't I any more than chess programs are.
The program won't know or care what the players gestures are. In the end it's about statistics, and cold hard statistics will always win over any efforts at "throwing your opponents off".
This doesn't impress me much. There will be a million things computer programs will do better than humans - it's been inevitable since the first chess program. There are no games of pure luck, and being able to calculate through every option to exhaustion will give a computer the advantage every time. Just like a hydraulic pump will always be able to exert more force than my bicep can. It's not much more impressive than that. However each time it happens it will be incorrectly touted as AI when really it's not much more than an expert system. It will generate loads of research money, and generate oohs and ahs from people who ought to know better.
The summary isn't incoherent. It's intended to be slightly inflammatory, as their intention is to draw people in to make comments. Slashdot isn't what it used to be, and they now routinely resort to headline misrepresentation in order to draw in and incite people to engage.
Or pick , door #3.
Everyone needs to be sure to tighten one's safety safety belt before approaching the cliff.
Gender neutral and grammatically correct. Problem solved.
Concur.
Bitcoin as a financial system is made impractical in the long term by the fact that it is limited in the total number that can be issued. After the last one is issued, the intent is for the value of them to simply go up. It was proposed as an in-built method to combat inflation, however what it really is is a way for the inventor to pad his own pockets by owning a significant fraction of the total number of bitcoins that can ever be produced. In a best-case scenario, this means he now owns a fraction of the world wealth (assuming the dystopian future where everyone uses bitcoins).
The fact that it is really a huge piece of social engineering is what disinclines most governments from being too terribly thrilled about its adoption. Ironically, this may be what the inventor was counting on to promote it's adoption, reasoning that the more that governments resisted it, the more that certain groups would promote it as a form of protest/defiance.
So, if you want to adopt bitcoins, by all means, be part of a piece of social engineering malware. Bitcoin transactions are not what you want for privacy anyway. If you want to maintain private money transactions, cash is always an option.
The OP has been modded down to oblivion, though it may have been satirical. But if it is a legitimate comment, then it begs a legitimate question: what is a robot? There aren't any self-aware computers, and likely won't be in our lifetimes. So what is a robot? Automation? Because a WW II ball bearing factory line would qualify. Is it a discreet device that creates a product in an automatic manner? Because if that is the case then everyone's home printer is a robot.
The point is, "robot' is a catch word, and is being used as a catch word purposefully. This word is being used because it elicits themes of android uprisings, when really what it is being used to describe is automation that has been around in some way or another for the better part of a century. Saying the "robot" economy is larger than Switzerland is just irresponsible reporting. There is absolutely no way to quantify it because there it no way to define it. It's simply good old fashioned automation.
People need to calm down and realize the sky isn't falling. Robots are not stealing jobs. The economy is becoming more efficient, and we are streamlining processes no one really wants to do by hand anyway. Do you want to rivet a quarter panel to a car frame for eight hours a day? I certainly don't. And if self driving cars take away taxi drivers, I won't cry either. Because once we start getting people's hands off the wheels, then maybe we can divorce them from the idea that every individual has to have their own hands-on motor vehicle, and then we can start building the public transportation system science fiction writers dream about.
Not only is this not a surprise, it's not news. It has been this way for a very long time. Generation X'ers were bemoaning how the boomers had it so easy. Millennials bemoan how we had it so easy. It's easy to look at a 40-something year old who is now stably employed, has acquired a car, equity on a home, and then ignore the struggle it was to get here. A university degree is only an advantage when it can distinguish you from the crowd. It is, and has been, the de facto baseline since before I got out of high school. If you want to distinguish yourself, you have to establish yourself above the baseline. Postgraduate education is today what an undergrad was 50 years ago. Volunteer work, starting your own open source project or contributing to one, some time in the military - these are all ways to give yourself both real and paper "experience". If you have your sights set on a particular place to work, target that place with your efforts. Find out what charities they support and volunteer at those places. You have to take the long approach. And you have to have confidence enough in your own abilities to believe you will get to your employment goal if you put in those efforts. That is the only thing that will get you through the uncertainty.
Do these things and you will rise above the crowd quickly. Try and take shortcuts, and you will look like just one more millennial with a degree and no attention span.
And above all, stop complaining that it's tough. The path of least resistance rarely takes you where you want to be, and it never, ever goes up hill.
What he's really asking is "How do I make a millenial not".
Once you find the answer to that, my friend, please come back and tell the rest of us.
Concur. File corruption due to "age" will not occur without hard read errors. Also, "ill-coloured photos" likely would not be ill-coloured in the case of actual data corruption, but would have whole blocks of hash in them. The user claims to have multiple terabyte sized hard drives - hard drives in this size category userd for archival storage are simply not old enough to be suffering data corruption due to age. The only hard drives suffering so are MFM hard drives that likely the poster wouldn't have a clue how to even interface into a current computer. Hard drives used for archival data storage will likely not age degrade before the interface standard they are based on becomes obsolete. Thus, a perfectly reasonable archival data storage strategy is to simply copy data from one hard drive to a newer (likely much larger and faster) drive when the next generation interface becomes standard, and before the previous generation is totally obsolete. For example, one can still get PATA + SATA USB adapters, SATA + M.2 adapters, etc.
If the user who submitted this question is actually experiencing a problem at all, suggest that PEBCAK. Better explanation is the poster is not actually experiencing current problems at all, but is simply trying to sound important with inflated claims of reams of data and that Slashdot has been had.
Further, no person with Slashdot posting authority should have been ignorant of any of the issues in this question that make its legitimacy questionable at best, and certainly not Slashdot worthy in any circumstance.
No. I use RSS feeds into live bookmarks straight to my browser's bookmark toolbar. I have done this for years, it's a wonderful technology you can use with virtually all news sites, and you can then easily pick and choose the articles you want from updated drop down folders on your toolbar.
For Mozilla or (better yet) PaleMoon browsers you just click on the link above, then on the resultant page click Subscribe Now into Live Bookmarks. I suspect Chrome is similar. This will buy you automatically updated headlines from multiple respected news outlets with different viewpoints in dropdown menus. Why anyone would use Facebook for news is beyond me. If you ask me, anyone who does go to Facebook for news deserves what they get. Facebook is a sewer of trolls initiating social malware for the kick it gives them to see their garbage repeated. Go to news sources for news. Go to facebook to try and make yourself feel better about how well liked you are.
It's decisions like this that make me believe in God with an absolutely pure, inviolable faith. Divine intervention is the only explanation for this decision - it had to come straight from God, since no one on earth could have thought of it.
Actually, I haven't been able to fathom the decisions coming out of Mozilla for some time now. The current version number almost says it all. How can you get excited about a new Firefox release with any feature, when it's just another rapid release. It could have true hard AI and no one would notice any more. It would get lost in the staggeringly mediocre array of non-features nobody wants, forced UI changes, broken addons, ripped out plugins, and developers that decide they know more about what people want than the users do.
Firefox adopted Google's rapid release cycle on a project that it was neither technically nor culturally suited for. One has to actually admire their dogged persistence to holding this course in the face of what is an almost a completely unified chorus of "WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE?!?!?".
I recommend Palemoon. A fork of an earlier Firefox LTR, it has refused to add features unless they make sense, it is compatible with most addons, and has a growing body of its own native addon developers that are quite loyal to the project for the simple reason that the project remains loyal to them. That's not to say that it's a static browser. Just one that took the best of what Firefox was and decided to continue in the direction of sensible goals and not alienating its user base.
Storage is cheap. If you think that Dropbox ever deletes anything you store there, then you are naive.
In general, if anything is free, then you are in some way the product. If data storage is free, then your data is the product. I highly recommend Syncthing. People need to keep ownership of their data.
Damned auto corral
I hope so. Eight million people installed a listening device in their home that is by design intended to record and transmit everything that occurs. NSA doesn't have to even work any more - people will do it for them and pay for the privilege.
I don't think the OP thought that everyone who disagrees with him is a nazi. I suspect he simply realizes you just handed your presidency over to the biggest internet troll in history.
Trump is the president that 48% of Americans deserve. Unfortunately, 100% of Americans will (already are) feeling the effects. Racial and gender prejudices inflamed, fear mongering, and a total disregard for consequences.
Dear Mexico;
Let's not wait for Trump. Let's you and I build the walls ourselves. I'm pretty sure once we get started the rest of the world will chip in and help too. Maybe, just maybe, if we can build it in time we can contain this lunacy before it gets out.
Sincerely,
Canada.
...a 6502 is not a brain.
The issue is, the 6502 is several orders of magnitude less complex than a brain. It could be likened to a massively parallel computer that is running thousands of programs all at once. So it is completely reasonable, on the scale of the brain, to suggest that damage to an area in a dozen people that affects their hearing to draw the conclusion that that part of the brain is responsible for hearing. Damaging a couple transistors in a 6502, a single processor, is akin to damaging a few neurons in each of a million different areas of the brain at once. The researchers correctly determined that a particular damage which caused Donkey Kong not to boot did not mean the part of the CPU which is responsible for Donkey Kong was damaged. That does not, however, say anything about the methods used to study the brain. It is, unfortunately, yet another reason why researchers need to stop making silly comparisons between computers and brains, and also need to stop "playing for the crowd", which really was what this seems to have been.