Replace DVD with VHS in your post, and Blu-Ray with DVD (and minus the part 'bout the comp) and go back ten years and it would be just as true (or untrue rather).
Blu-ray "isn't catching on" because the players are still damn expensive, like DVD players were 10 years ago. 10 years from now DVD will be just as replaced as VHS (if not sooner). However it may well not be by Blu-Ray.
The reality is that HD is little more than novelty (sure, it is a sharper image, but so what? So is the view out my window), and once the novelty wears off the inconveniences of the 13cm plastic disc become obvious--especially compared to on demand internet service.
After Biden's Hollywood Speech, I doubt it. More likely this is a circuitious maneuver to benefit the MAFIAA in the long run by surrendering tactical ground now.
Then whoever wrote that is a moron. It's the equivalent of saying that psychology is not a science because Freud made shit up. There are certainly psychologists who are as full of shit as Freud (likewise with economists) but that does not make psychology not a science.
A subject does not fall into science or not science. Methodology employed is what defines science. Some work in economics is science, and some is not, the same as in psychology.
This problem has largely been solved, but it isn't cheap. The problem, as always, is greed. While these systems would be incomparably better drivers than most humans, they (statistically speaking) can't avoid all accidents, and no company is willing to face the liability of a robotic car that crashes, even once.
Though, even if they were, the car companies are run by such backwards utter morons that it might not make any difference anyway.
The federal government committed to the IHS as a military defense project. The idea was to be able to move troops more quickly in case of invasion. Same reason the Romans built their roads.
The question is whether 1709 Bostonian would prefer 2009 Boston, or 1709 Somali would prefer 2009 Mogadishu.
Even then the latter question is moot, since the GP was referring to the progress born of technology. That modern technology has not taken root in Somalia rather makes the comparison irrelevant. As for war zones, I have no doubt that a veteran of a colonial war in 1709 would vastly prefer his odds of survival in a modern war zone. A Baghdad Iraqi civilian has a hell of a lot better chance of surviving than say, a Pequot civilian did.
Aside from the moral issue of literally stealing the life's savings of millions of chinese peasants? I mean, I know non-white people aren't important, but even that seems a little harsh. That funding from china comes from their trade surplus, which means they have been lending us their savings.
Rare earth elements are incorporated into many modern technological devices, including superconductors, miniaturized magnets, electronic polishers, refining catalysts and hybrid car components.[4] Rare earth ions are used as the active ions in luminescent materials used in optoelectronics applications, most notably the Nd:YAG laser. Phosphors with rare earth dopants are also widely used in cathode ray tube technology such as television sets
If you've never played with neodymium magnets you should turn in your geek card.
Actually, brute-forcing a game of chess IS trivial. Computationally intensive, but it is not a complicated algorithm.
The computer considers a move (Say, Knight pawn e5)
The computer computes all possible states of the board X moves after the move it is considering (upperbound 16^x, should usually be around 10^x or less).
Assign each of these possible states a desirability value. This can be computed based on any set of strategic criteria. The simplest is material value, more complicated ones will consider control of the center, pins, forks, open files, etc.
Average the values together.
Repeat for each of the computer's possible moves.
Choose the move with the highest value.
Most immediate way to improve this is to add a dynamic weighting to the average as the computer moves down the tree of possible moves. Some moves an opponent is just not likely to make, so outcomes proceeding from those moves should be weighted less (this is just an expansion of the rule-awareness of the computer, for example the computer should be assigning zero weight to any moves that cause the opponent to put their own king in check, capture their own pieces, etc.--basically this is adding soft-rules, not likely in addition to impossible).
Computer chess AI was only noteworthy back in the day because of the power needed to do it, not because programming the AI is an inherently difficult task. Building the computers that could do all the calculations in a timely fashion was the real problem of a chess computer. Sure, Babbage's machine could have done it, but you would have died of old age waiting for the computer to respond to your spanish opening.
If you were using NSA level encryption devices on both ends of the line the NSA would get suspicious. They don't have those backrooms at the telephone company for nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, exactly half DO fall under the mean IQ, by definition. Whether that is also representative of mean intelligence is another issue.
So, you're saying that regulation gives people more time to decide weather a large debt is feasable or not. But isnt regulation a bad thing(TM).
Making people jump through hoops IS generally a bad thing.
Forcing them to do their homework is not.
Regulation is like all socio-economic arrangements, it is a trade-off with costs and benefits. It is neither intrinsically good or bad.
Who modded this informative? Really? You didn't know that we don't have hyper-intelligent, omniscient, perfectly altruistic robot overlords? Really?
Replace DVD with VHS in your post, and Blu-Ray with DVD (and minus the part 'bout the comp) and go back ten years and it would be just as true (or untrue rather).
Blu-ray "isn't catching on" because the players are still damn expensive, like DVD players were 10 years ago. 10 years from now DVD will be just as replaced as VHS (if not sooner). However it may well not be by Blu-Ray.
The reality is that HD is little more than novelty (sure, it is a sharper image, but so what? So is the view out my window), and once the novelty wears off the inconveniences of the 13cm plastic disc become obvious--especially compared to on demand internet service.
After Biden's Hollywood Speech, I doubt it. More likely this is a circuitious maneuver to benefit the MAFIAA in the long run by surrendering tactical ground now.
Then whoever wrote that is a moron. It's the equivalent of saying that psychology is not a science because Freud made shit up. There are certainly psychologists who are as full of shit as Freud (likewise with economists) but that does not make psychology not a science.
A subject does not fall into science or not science. Methodology employed is what defines science. Some work in economics is science, and some is not, the same as in psychology.
This problem has largely been solved, but it isn't cheap. The problem, as always, is greed. While these systems would be incomparably better drivers than most humans, they (statistically speaking) can't avoid all accidents, and no company is willing to face the liability of a robotic car that crashes, even once.
Though, even if they were, the car companies are run by such backwards utter morons that it might not make any difference anyway.
The federal government committed to the IHS as a military defense project. The idea was to be able to move troops more quickly in case of invasion. Same reason the Romans built their roads.
A+ for the logical fallacy.
The question is whether 1709 Bostonian would prefer 2009 Boston, or 1709 Somali would prefer 2009 Mogadishu.
Even then the latter question is moot, since the GP was referring to the progress born of technology. That modern technology has not taken root in Somalia rather makes the comparison irrelevant. As for war zones, I have no doubt that a veteran of a colonial war in 1709 would vastly prefer his odds of survival in a modern war zone. A Baghdad Iraqi civilian has a hell of a lot better chance of surviving than say, a Pequot civilian did.
So what is an expert with a crowd full of people chained to the floor in front of him, but sticking their fingers in their ears?
You must be new to the internets.
Aside from the moral issue of literally stealing the life's savings of millions of chinese peasants? I mean, I know non-white people aren't important, but even that seems a little harsh. That funding from china comes from their trade surplus, which means they have been lending us their savings.
As for what would happen to us, well... http://www.amazon.com/Liberation-Adventures-Collapse-United-America/dp/0765320460
No, but he might respond with the "Year Births" page that Wikipedia has for ever year. Such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1968_births
And you might learn how to scroll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_metals#Technological_applications
If you've never played with neodymium magnets you should turn in your geek card.
They do, but there's still more outside of China than inside.
Try 1868. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_Restoration
Is it really flamebait when the post is so absurd that no one can take it as anything other than a joke?
They played them for 2000 years, and THEN just figured it out? Doubtful. Especially since the Jonas Brothers still records.
Actually, brute-forcing a game of chess IS trivial. Computationally intensive, but it is not a complicated algorithm.
The computer considers a move (Say, Knight pawn e5)
The computer computes all possible states of the board X moves after the move it is considering (upperbound 16^x, should usually be around 10^x or less).
Assign each of these possible states a desirability value. This can be computed based on any set of strategic criteria. The simplest is material value, more complicated ones will consider control of the center, pins, forks, open files, etc.
Average the values together.
Repeat for each of the computer's possible moves.
Choose the move with the highest value.
Most immediate way to improve this is to add a dynamic weighting to the average as the computer moves down the tree of possible moves. Some moves an opponent is just not likely to make, so outcomes proceeding from those moves should be weighted less (this is just an expansion of the rule-awareness of the computer, for example the computer should be assigning zero weight to any moves that cause the opponent to put their own king in check, capture their own pieces, etc.--basically this is adding soft-rules, not likely in addition to impossible).
Computer chess AI was only noteworthy back in the day because of the power needed to do it, not because programming the AI is an inherently difficult task. Building the computers that could do all the calculations in a timely fashion was the real problem of a chess computer. Sure, Babbage's machine could have done it, but you would have died of old age waiting for the computer to respond to your spanish opening.
KDE Boot splash?
Then Microsoft has been fucking up for decades with that loading screen.
You sir, are a moron.
You may not care about the kernel, but many of us do. Which is why we run Linux (or BSD as the case may be).
The OS is NOT the UI, that's why they are two different terms with COMPLETELY different definitions.
Darwin and Aqua, then yeah, that's OS X. Why you would put just Darwin is beyond me. It's a terrible Unix system.
Took me a while to figure out your were impersonating schizophrenia.
If you were using NSA level encryption devices on both ends of the line the NSA would get suspicious. They don't have those backrooms at the telephone company for nothing.
At least 50% of them still suck at that.