The last time I had to worry about QT was many years ago. Hell, I didn't even know it was still being used anywhere.
As much as I dislike Flash movie containers, I will secretly love them forever because they pretty much killed QuickTime single-handedly.
Today, if I were to stumble onto a QT file somewhere out there that mplayer couldn't play, I would simply search for it on Youtube and probably find it ten times over, along with ample techno-remixes of the sought content.
Ever compared the size of Japan with that of the US? If Verizon only had to cover the size of, say a single state, I'd like to think it would be a fair bit cheaper and we'd already have it.
Not to mention the population density difference...
'The long-term [question] is, how do we get out of this having to have an ever-increasing security apparatus because of terrorists and a terrorist attack?' says Napolitano. 'I think having a better understanding of what causes someone to become a terrorist will be helpful.'
Was I the only one that picked up on this part of it and immediately thought of "thought crimes"?
There has to be some way that I can fly to visit family without getting a cavity search. Also, there has to be some way that people who might not like the way the government is doing things (but doesn't intend on killing a plane-full of innocents) can do the same.
An armed guard on the plane is probably a lot more effective than all the invasive security procedures. Won't help against explosives of course, so add sniffer dogs at the airport. That's all the security you'll need.
And what happens the first time one of these mandatory guards turns out to be a terrorist? Not only that, but this guy would be an obvious first target for anybody wanting to take over a plane. Also, dogs can't sniff out everything.
Something in that reminds me of the "nobody needs guns, just let the police handle it" argument.
Sorry, just playing devils advocate today, I guess.
Agreed, my anecdotal evidence says otherwise. When I was a kid, my dog learned to open the latch on the kennel door. Of course my dad didn't believe me... until he saw it himself a day later.
Intelligence isn't the ability to acquire knowledge and skills, it's the ability to use knowledge and skills to achieve a goal or to solve a problem...
Is typing "when A do B" very different than demonstrating to a dog that "when you do A, B happens", then crediting the dog for doing A to produce B? It is a different method of input, but it's still 'programming' (or 'conditioning' if you like). It's true that computers don't do it out of a desire for a reward or fear of punishment (I wonder how that would look!), but the principle is the same.
I believe it's that leap that the point lies. Dogs have the capacity to understand that a pattern exists. Computers have to be programmed to even look for a pattern, and what the possible parameters of that pattern could be.
Perhaps another example- could a computer do your job (without knowing what job you may have; I'll assume IT related)? If your boss came to you right now and said, "I want you to figure out how to give me a report on access times on the new backend" would a computer be able to understand the request, learn the new system, and give your boss the report (and of course, not the report he asked for, but the report he actually wanted)? I'd say no.
You don't train a computer, you program it to do extremely specific commands.
You are doing the same thing with a dog, you are programming behavior by wiring actions basically "burnt" into a dogs mental circuitry with treats. It's like programming an FPGA.
How many dogs learn to sit just by watching other dogs sit? Now that would be impressive.
I'm not sure if I equate "blowing an eeprom" with "learning" but that's semantics I suppose. I can easily see how that can be called learning in a sense. However, it's the applying part that gets me- you can fill a hard drive to the brim with data, but without instructions that a human provides, it's meaningless. The computer will never learn how to apply the knowledge it has. So really, a human provides the intelligence, just like any other tool.
Humans, dogs, and cats all have different levels of intelligence- both averaged across the entire species, and specific to the individual. This can be measured a variety of ways, and this article did exactly that, although I don't know if I particularly agree with its method of assigning intelligence.
If a dog watched another dog perform a trick and then get rewarded, and this is repeated enough times, I could see the dog learning the trick. I have no idea, but I bet there have been studies on this. Might make for interesting reading.
But your fallacy is that you presume intelligence is the only factor in trainability. If I "trained" two people how to jump off a cliff ("you need to get a really good running start, like this..."), and one of them did it but the other refused, is the one who jumped more intelligent?
Maybe cats can't be trained because they don't find it in their best interest. (And I say this as a dog lover who can't stand cats.)
First off, I based my argument off of the definition of the word intelligence from a dictionary. We have to start somewhere, afterall. Perhaps you have a better definition we can argue over?
What I said was that intelligence was the ability to acquire knowledge and skills. In your example, you trained two people how to jump off a cliff. Might I suggest giving them a test to see what they learned instead of asking them to show it in the real world? Or maybe jump into a ditch? Point is, there is more than one way to test if the knowledge or skills were acquired.
Furthermore, you fail to take into account the previous things those two people learned. For example, the one that didn't jump has likely acquired the knowledge that falling from a cliff can be fatal, and thus doesn't jump. The person that did jump either didn't have the knowledge or failed to apply it. So, your question back at you: which one is more intelligent?
I saw how crows were tested for intelligence when they put food at the end of a string hanging from a stick, it had to figure out how to lift the string, hold it with it's foot while reaching down further and repeating. Many other types of birds couldn't figure it out.
I think it was also modded troll because it is a fallacy.
You don't train a computer, you program it to do extremely specific commands. It is not *learning* anything. Even AI programs where you supposedly "train" the computer to do what you want is still not quite accurate in my eyes.
According to the dictionary I just looked up, intelligence is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." This does not apply to your computer because it isn't acquiring or applying anything. Otherwise, you could say a rollercoaster is intelligent because it follows the set of instructions (rails) unerringly.
I was only replying to the parent. The GP was indeed wrong and obviously didn't read the article before jumping to conclusions.
But in his/her defense, it was a first post in an article about linux, by an AC, and didn't contain anything about a 'frosty piss'. It's still a definite improvement.
A summary should be as factual as possible. A cut and paste job from the article, aka, an excerpt, is just fine. It's just like the 'breaks' that many blogs use, and just like the 'Continued on page A3' that newspapers have used for decades- you give a summary of the story up front, and if the reader feels like they would benefit from reading the rest, they do so.
This is opposed to what you describe, which is in my opinion bad journalism. Taken to the extreme it's like seeing a summary in a newspaper that reads 'FREE BOOBIES, continued on A4' and then turning to find an article totally unrelated.
The reason we pay per kilowatt hour is because electricity is a good. An electron is a material thing that is consumed. Despite the somewhat unique delivery method, that power has to come from somewhere, and there is only so much of it. Just like buying a loaf of bread that was created with amounts of grain, electricity is created with amounts of fuel. The 'bandwidth' or capacity of electricity delivery methods are hardly ever brought up because that isn't the limiting factor for a regular consumer.
Contrast this with internet, where the 'good' is the byte, a packet of infomation. Something that is (notwithstanding the cost of electricity, etc) freely created and destroyed on a whim. Hence why the bandwidth is more important than the amount of bytes used.
So, even though the delivery methods may seem similar, they are a world apart.
When I originally said "CEO's yacht fund" it was just a sarcastic way of saying the ISP should be paying for it.
But it's all pretty much the same thing if you trace it far enough. Stock options and bonuses are usually tied to the company's profit margins. In that case, lowering profits is roughly the same, right?
Here is the problem. They want to MAXIMIZE profit from the bandwidth. Not get a good profit or healthy profit, but MAXIMIZE it in any way possible. Comcast does it by intentionally not upgrading their downstream paths. Even 10 years ago Comcast was capable of 10BaseT speeds Up and Down over cable modems to the headends for ALL the people in the area that headend serves. The problem is that headend is connected via fiber to a larger headend. That larger headend has another 5-10 connect to it, and a Single OC3 feeds 5+ cities if you are lucky for it to have an OC3. The area I worked in was selling 5Mbit service and I knew that the backend was nothing more than 2 bonded t3's that way too little bandwidth for the number of subs on that POP.
This is all true.
ISP's are screwing the pooch in increasing their backbone connection speeds. Until they get a LOT of complaints, they will continue to major oversell the available bandwidth. it's now well past the 100 to 1 ratio at most.
Thankfully, I can think of nothing else that will get the average American more in a tiff than their chosen source of entertainment suddenly not working.
I think all ISPs realize that bandwidth needs to increase. Looking at a bandwidth graph over the last three decades would make that plainly obvious.
However, how will this be paid for? They say it should be the Googles and the Netflixes, I say it should come out of their CEO's new yacht fund. That, I think, is where the point of contention lies.
Many people want to see video games called art, placed on the same pedestal that movies are placed at the very least.
One consequence of that want is that you want your game's superbly written story line with all its drama and emotion to be accessible. If critics (or the general populace, for that matter) can't get past level two, they're going to have a hard time saying how it's on par with last month's blockbuster.
I'm guessing you'd have a hard time finding somebody to put that in orbit for you. Things that explode when tampered with usually have to have hair triggers by definition, and reaching escape velocity looks to be a shaky affair.
Yeah, I suppose you could rig it not not arm until reaching space, but if it was your company sending it into space would you trust that?
Slashdot Mirror
And how is the customer going to see this website if the website itself is blocked?
Just curious.
The last time I had to worry about QT was many years ago. Hell, I didn't even know it was still being used anywhere.
As much as I dislike Flash movie containers, I will secretly love them forever because they pretty much killed QuickTime single-handedly.
Today, if I were to stumble onto a QT file somewhere out there that mplayer couldn't play, I would simply search for it on Youtube and probably find it ten times over, along with ample techno-remixes of the sought content.
Ever compared the size of Japan with that of the US? If Verizon only had to cover the size of, say a single state, I'd like to think it would be a fair bit cheaper and we'd already have it.
Not to mention the population density difference...
'The long-term [question] is, how do we get out of this having to have an ever-increasing security apparatus because of terrorists and a terrorist attack?' says Napolitano. 'I think having a better understanding of what causes someone to become a terrorist will be helpful.'
Was I the only one that picked up on this part of it and immediately thought of "thought crimes"?
There has to be some way that I can fly to visit family without getting a cavity search. Also, there has to be some way that people who might not like the way the government is doing things (but doesn't intend on killing a plane-full of innocents) can do the same.
An armed guard on the plane is probably a lot more effective than all the invasive security procedures. Won't help against explosives of course, so add sniffer dogs at the airport. That's all the security you'll need.
And what happens the first time one of these mandatory guards turns out to be a terrorist? Not only that, but this guy would be an obvious first target for anybody wanting to take over a plane. Also, dogs can't sniff out everything.
Something in that reminds me of the "nobody needs guns, just let the police handle it" argument.
Sorry, just playing devils advocate today, I guess.
According to the dictionary I just looked up, intelligence is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills."
Emphasis mine. Go back and check on me if you are still a non-believer. ;-)
Agreed, my anecdotal evidence says otherwise. When I was a kid, my dog learned to open the latch on the kennel door. Of course my dad didn't believe me... until he saw it himself a day later.
Intelligence isn't the ability to acquire knowledge and skills, it's the ability to use knowledge and skills to achieve a goal or to solve a problem...
That would be the "apply" part in my definition.
Is typing "when A do B" very different than demonstrating to a dog that "when you do A, B happens", then crediting the dog for doing A to produce B? It is a different method of input, but it's still 'programming' (or 'conditioning' if you like). It's true that computers don't do it out of a desire for a reward or fear of punishment (I wonder how that would look!), but the principle is the same.
I believe it's that leap that the point lies. Dogs have the capacity to understand that a pattern exists. Computers have to be programmed to even look for a pattern, and what the possible parameters of that pattern could be.
Perhaps another example- could a computer do your job (without knowing what job you may have; I'll assume IT related)? If your boss came to you right now and said, "I want you to figure out how to give me a report on access times on the new backend" would a computer be able to understand the request, learn the new system, and give your boss the report (and of course, not the report he asked for, but the report he actually wanted)? I'd say no.
Ironically, neither could a dog.
You don't train a computer, you program it to do extremely specific commands.
You are doing the same thing with a dog, you are programming behavior by wiring actions basically "burnt" into a dogs mental circuitry with treats. It's like programming an FPGA.
How many dogs learn to sit just by watching other dogs sit? Now that would be impressive.
I'm not sure if I equate "blowing an eeprom" with "learning" but that's semantics I suppose. I can easily see how that can be called learning in a sense. However, it's the applying part that gets me- you can fill a hard drive to the brim with data, but without instructions that a human provides, it's meaningless. The computer will never learn how to apply the knowledge it has. So really, a human provides the intelligence, just like any other tool.
Humans, dogs, and cats all have different levels of intelligence- both averaged across the entire species, and specific to the individual. This can be measured a variety of ways, and this article did exactly that, although I don't know if I particularly agree with its method of assigning intelligence.
If a dog watched another dog perform a trick and then get rewarded, and this is repeated enough times, I could see the dog learning the trick. I have no idea, but I bet there have been studies on this. Might make for interesting reading.
But your fallacy is that you presume intelligence is the only factor in trainability. If I "trained" two people how to jump off a cliff ("you need to get a really good running start, like this..."), and one of them did it but the other refused, is the one who jumped more intelligent?
Maybe cats can't be trained because they don't find it in their best interest. (And I say this as a dog lover who can't stand cats.)
First off, I based my argument off of the definition of the word intelligence from a dictionary. We have to start somewhere, afterall. Perhaps you have a better definition we can argue over?
What I said was that intelligence was the ability to acquire knowledge and skills. In your example, you trained two people how to jump off a cliff. Might I suggest giving them a test to see what they learned instead of asking them to show it in the real world? Or maybe jump into a ditch? Point is, there is more than one way to test if the knowledge or skills were acquired.
Furthermore, you fail to take into account the previous things those two people learned. For example, the one that didn't jump has likely acquired the knowledge that falling from a cliff can be fatal, and thus doesn't jump. The person that did jump either didn't have the knowledge or failed to apply it. So, your question back at you: which one is more intelligent?
I saw how crows were tested for intelligence when they put food at the end of a string hanging from a stick, it had to figure out how to lift the string, hold it with it's foot while reaching down further and repeating. Many other types of birds couldn't figure it out.
Stupid bird, doesn't it know it can FLY?
I think it was also modded troll because it is a fallacy.
You don't train a computer, you program it to do extremely specific commands. It is not *learning* anything. Even AI programs where you supposedly "train" the computer to do what you want is still not quite accurate in my eyes.
According to the dictionary I just looked up, intelligence is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." This does not apply to your computer because it isn't acquiring or applying anything. Otherwise, you could say a rollercoaster is intelligent because it follows the set of instructions (rails) unerringly.
I was only replying to the parent. The GP was indeed wrong and obviously didn't read the article before jumping to conclusions.
But in his/her defense, it was a first post in an article about linux, by an AC, and didn't contain anything about a 'frosty piss'. It's still a definite improvement.
A summary should be as factual as possible. A cut and paste job from the article, aka, an excerpt, is just fine. It's just like the 'breaks' that many blogs use, and just like the 'Continued on page A3' that newspapers have used for decades- you give a summary of the story up front, and if the reader feels like they would benefit from reading the rest, they do so.
This is opposed to what you describe, which is in my opinion bad journalism. Taken to the extreme it's like seeing a summary in a newspaper that reads 'FREE BOOBIES, continued on A4' and then turning to find an article totally unrelated.
The reason we pay per kilowatt hour is because electricity is a good. An electron is a material thing that is consumed. Despite the somewhat unique delivery method, that power has to come from somewhere, and there is only so much of it. Just like buying a loaf of bread that was created with amounts of grain, electricity is created with amounts of fuel. The 'bandwidth' or capacity of electricity delivery methods are hardly ever brought up because that isn't the limiting factor for a regular consumer.
Contrast this with internet, where the 'good' is the byte, a packet of infomation. Something that is (notwithstanding the cost of electricity, etc) freely created and destroyed on a whim. Hence why the bandwidth is more important than the amount of bytes used.
So, even though the delivery methods may seem similar, they are a world apart.
Depends on how you look at it.
When I originally said "CEO's yacht fund" it was just a sarcastic way of saying the ISP should be paying for it.
But it's all pretty much the same thing if you trace it far enough. Stock options and bonuses are usually tied to the company's profit margins. In that case, lowering profits is roughly the same, right?
Perhaps I should not have been quite so cynical in my post above, but yes, I totally agree that the ISP should be paying for this.
Here is the problem. They want to MAXIMIZE profit from the bandwidth. Not get a good profit or healthy profit, but MAXIMIZE it in any way possible. Comcast does it by intentionally not upgrading their downstream paths. Even 10 years ago Comcast was capable of 10BaseT speeds Up and Down over cable modems to the headends for ALL the people in the area that headend serves. The problem is that headend is connected via fiber to a larger headend. That larger headend has another 5-10 connect to it, and a Single OC3 feeds 5+ cities if you are lucky for it to have an OC3. The area I worked in was selling 5Mbit service and I knew that the backend was nothing more than 2 bonded t3's that way too little bandwidth for the number of subs on that POP.
This is all true.
ISP's are screwing the pooch in increasing their backbone connection speeds. Until they get a LOT of complaints, they will continue to major oversell the available bandwidth. it's now well past the 100 to 1 ratio at most.
Thankfully, I can think of nothing else that will get the average American more in a tiff than their chosen source of entertainment suddenly not working.
You just ruined my day. :(
Is this FRESH AIR bottled on Druidia?
I think all ISPs realize that bandwidth needs to increase. Looking at a bandwidth graph over the last three decades would make that plainly obvious.
However, how will this be paid for? They say it should be the Googles and the Netflixes, I say it should come out of their CEO's new yacht fund. That, I think, is where the point of contention lies.
Many people want to see video games called art, placed on the same pedestal that movies are placed at the very least.
One consequence of that want is that you want your game's superbly written story line with all its drama and emotion to be accessible. If critics (or the general populace, for that matter) can't get past level two, they're going to have a hard time saying how it's on par with last month's blockbuster.
I'm guessing you'd have a hard time finding somebody to put that in orbit for you. Things that explode when tampered with usually have to have hair triggers by definition, and reaching escape velocity looks to be a shaky affair.
Yeah, I suppose you could rig it not not arm until reaching space, but if it was your company sending it into space would you trust that?
Or wives....WE have grlfrnds.
Is that who stole your vowels?