The internet allows us to know almost everything about anything instantly. It's not difficult, in any way, to know what a movie or book is about before you allow your kid to go to it/read it.
Ratings are a data summary method which is currently outmoded by cheap and abundant information. They now only serve as a tool for lazy parents to decide if they should allow their kid to see something based on what some else says without having to output any effort into the process.
There should be no ratings. Any rating system is imperfect and will not please everyone. Parents should either chose to decide or not to decide on what's appropriate on a case by case basis. This is fine since no book is going to permanently damage a kid. What's the worst that could happen?
Either a parent will decide a kid can download anything they want, or have to get permission for each. Amazon is not going to condone or prohibit specific books for specific ages. Doing so will only get them in trouble as the will inevitably offend one group or another. They should treat the Kindle store as a library.
I am however, one of those people who believe that unlimited knowledge for all ages is only a good thing.
A degree in CS is not prepping you to be a sys admin. CS is an academic discipline, not a vocation. Also, going to a University is not a vocational move. Universities do not teach you job skills. They disseminate and create knowledge.
If you think students should have the opportunity to learn IT skills, it should not be done in a CS dept at a University. It should be done in a vocational school.
It's not about whether its being stored. Its bad because my iPhone DIDN'T TELL ME. Why all the secrecy? Why take choice away from customers? It's because YOU are the product. The iPhone is just an ad-selling device, and you're sold to advertisers just like any other commodity.
You're missing the point. Its evil because my iPhone never told me it was going to be logging my location. If they want to do this fine, BUT I NEED TO KNOW.
"Faith" implies belief without evidence, or contrary to it. Science is not about believing something, its about what evidence exists for something. Whoever wrote this sounds like a sophomore philosophy student.
All of these questions and debates about science and religion are 100 years old. The topic is closed and has been for some time.
Same thing happened to me (I'm a botanist). I actually put a lot of work into my contribution, edited everything, spent time learning the markup language (etc.) it was all reverted almost instantly.
Scientists will contribute if their contributions become part of a rational debate, not just an instant veto by a random plebe.
I have contributed to and edited several articles pertaining to my field, and once put considerable work into it. I was quite proud with the result actually, felt like I wa contributing something to society. Almost immediately my edits were totally reverted back to their less complete, less true form by some wikiperson who had staked that article out as part of her or his exclusive domain. What's the point? Why should an "expert" contribute if their work can just be vetoed by plebes?
I think many scientists would love to contribute, but those who have just have their edits reversed anyway. Why bother?
Digging around in Apple's WebKit engine, which drives Safari, he spotted over 100 undocumented "OS-secrets-only-WebKit-knows"."
I'm not comparing speed. I am just saying, Apple seems to have a history of building performance hooks into its OS which can only be used by software that it makes. It would be like if everything but iTunes was slower at processing MP3's because iTunes could access a better encoder built into the OS.
Of course. The point was that Apple seems to have a history of locking developers out of some features so that their products have an advantage. This isn't surprising, but its not exactly above-board either. If you want to make something nice on the iPad, Apple wants you to make an App so they make money. Even iff the app is free, you gotta buy that $100 dev kit. They just want you in their garden.
Its not about the speed, but how Apple is putting itself against developers. I remember a few years ago Firefox (or some browser) being slower on OSX than Safari because Safari had access to some undocumented, locked-out resources in the OS.
Didn't Microsoft get sued for this?
Are they admitting that javascript performance is not "enhanced" universally in iOS? Makes the issue about full-screen webapp performance seem pretty legit doesn't it?
I agree with all of that I suppose. Though, at this level of play, all the players know all the answers almost immediately, I think its pretty much all buzzer skill. Naturally also, there is a book coming out about the whole process of creating Watson.
I didn't find it boring, thats just how the game works. I'd be equally as impressed if some human had such quick reaction times and knew all the answers. At this level of play, usually all the contestants all know the answer. It's all about buzzer technique, strategy, and accuracy at this level. The humans actually have an advantage though since they can anticipate when the buzzers will go live and they can buzz in while they are still thinking, before they are sure. Watson only buzzes in when he has relative certainty.
I found it endlessly fascinating. The ability that a computer could answer any of those questions as they were posed was astounding, with careful observation you could also see it changing its strategies as it played.
I was rapt the whole time. The only thing I was bored was by all the IBM propaganda which kept interrupting the game. I could watch that computer answer questions all day.
New technologies will arise before the current ones fail. The limits on photolithography are real, but eventually we will start using better approaches with nanotechnology. Even if we cant make silicon based circuit elements smaller, theres still an entire 3rd dimension to exploit. With all the emerging tech though (carbon-based processing, quantum computing, optical computing, etc) I see no reason why computers won't continue to get faster and faster for a good long while.
I am confused by this argument. If I lost a footrace to Usain Bolt, would it be reasonable for me to complain that he is faster than me? When Ken Jennings was winning all those games were people complaining that it was unfair because he had better reaction times? Also, as you may have noticed, there were many instances where Watson arrived at the correct answer, but did not buzz in fast enough, so its not some unsurmountable obstacle anyway.
The point of this exercise is was to demonstrate that Watson is better than people at Jeopardy!. The game is a mix of strategy, speed, and knowledge. Watson won on all counts.
It seems a little silly to say the game was unfair because the computer can read faster and respond to a buzzer-unlocked signal faster than humans. Isn't that the point?
Would you make the same argument about how the players are not perfectly equidistant from the board, buzzer indicator, and Trebek? The speeds of light and sound are not infinite afterall, wouldn't that be an unfair advantage?
Slashdot Mirror
Also, I might add, that due largely to the internet, children are exposed to hardcore pornography at age 9 (on average).
If this is so damaging, I suppose we can expect a generation of psychopaths in our future.
The internet allows us to know almost everything about anything instantly. It's not difficult, in any way, to know what a movie or book is about before you allow your kid to go to it/read it.
Ratings are a data summary method which is currently outmoded by cheap and abundant information. They now only serve as a tool for lazy parents to decide if they should allow their kid to see something based on what some else says without having to output any effort into the process.
There should be no ratings. Any rating system is imperfect and will not please everyone. Parents should either chose to decide or not to decide on what's appropriate on a case by case basis. This is fine since no book is going to permanently damage a kid. What's the worst that could happen?
Either a parent will decide a kid can download anything they want, or have to get permission for each. Amazon is not going to condone or prohibit specific books for specific ages. Doing so will only get them in trouble as the will inevitably offend one group or another. They should treat the Kindle store as a library.
I am however, one of those people who believe that unlimited knowledge for all ages is only a good thing.
I agree completely.
A degree in CS is not prepping you to be a sys admin. CS is an academic discipline, not a vocation. Also, going to a University is not a vocational move. Universities do not teach you job skills. They disseminate and create knowledge.
If you think students should have the opportunity to learn IT skills, it should not be done in a CS dept at a University. It should be done in a vocational school.
microphone on one side, speaker on the other.
It's not about whether its being stored. Its bad because my iPhone DIDN'T TELL ME. Why all the secrecy? Why take choice away from customers? It's because YOU are the product. The iPhone is just an ad-selling device, and you're sold to advertisers just like any other commodity.
You're missing the point. Its evil because my iPhone never told me it was going to be logging my location. If they want to do this fine, BUT I NEED TO KNOW.
"Faith" implies belief without evidence, or contrary to it. Science is not about believing something, its about what evidence exists for something. Whoever wrote this sounds like a sophomore philosophy student.
All of these questions and debates about science and religion are 100 years old. The topic is closed and has been for some time.
Same thing happened to me (I'm a botanist). I actually put a lot of work into my contribution, edited everything, spent time learning the markup language (etc.) it was all reverted almost instantly.
Scientists will contribute if their contributions become part of a rational debate, not just an instant veto by a random plebe.
I have contributed to and edited several articles pertaining to my field, and once put considerable work into it. I was quite proud with the result actually, felt like I wa contributing something to society. Almost immediately my edits were totally reverted back to their less complete, less true form by some wikiperson who had staked that article out as part of her or his exclusive domain. What's the point? Why should an "expert" contribute if their work can just be vetoed by plebes?
I think many scientists would love to contribute, but those who have just have their edits reversed anyway. Why bother?
Here's the link:
http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/general/172902/firefox-uncovers-hidden-speed-boost-for-safari
"Vladimir Vukievi was attempting to find out why the performance of Firefox 3 builds was hitting a plateau, when he noticed that Safari was happily drawing pages at twice the frame rate.
Digging around in Apple's WebKit engine, which drives Safari, he spotted over 100 undocumented "OS-secrets-only-WebKit-knows"."
I'm not comparing speed. I am just saying, Apple seems to have a history of building performance hooks into its OS which can only be used by software that it makes. It would be like if everything but iTunes was slower at processing MP3's because iTunes could access a better encoder built into the OS.
Of course. The point was that Apple seems to have a history of locking developers out of some features so that their products have an advantage. This isn't surprising, but its not exactly above-board either. If you want to make something nice on the iPad, Apple wants you to make an App so they make money. Even iff the app is free, you gotta buy that $100 dev kit. They just want you in their garden.
Its not about the speed, but how Apple is putting itself against developers. I remember a few years ago Firefox (or some browser) being slower on OSX than Safari because Safari had access to some undocumented, locked-out resources in the OS. Didn't Microsoft get sued for this?
Are they admitting that javascript performance is not "enhanced" universally in iOS? Makes the issue about full-screen webapp performance seem pretty legit doesn't it?
A degree in biochemistry doesn't make you a biochemist.
So 330 crimes on a site used by 50 million people? If craigslist were a city it would be the safest on earth.
The law requires a neutral third-party observer to use interceptors without the knowledge of the implantee.
I agree with all of that I suppose. Though, at this level of play, all the players know all the answers almost immediately, I think its pretty much all buzzer skill. Naturally also, there is a book coming out about the whole process of creating Watson.
I didn't find it boring, thats just how the game works. I'd be equally as impressed if some human had such quick reaction times and knew all the answers. At this level of play, usually all the contestants all know the answer. It's all about buzzer technique, strategy, and accuracy at this level. The humans actually have an advantage though since they can anticipate when the buzzers will go live and they can buzz in while they are still thinking, before they are sure. Watson only buzzes in when he has relative certainty.
I found it endlessly fascinating. The ability that a computer could answer any of those questions as they were posed was astounding, with careful observation you could also see it changing its strategies as it played. I was rapt the whole time. The only thing I was bored was by all the IBM propaganda which kept interrupting the game. I could watch that computer answer questions all day.
New technologies will arise before the current ones fail. The limits on photolithography are real, but eventually we will start using better approaches with nanotechnology. Even if we cant make silicon based circuit elements smaller, theres still an entire 3rd dimension to exploit. With all the emerging tech though (carbon-based processing, quantum computing, optical computing, etc) I see no reason why computers won't continue to get faster and faster for a good long while.
I am confused by this argument. If I lost a footrace to Usain Bolt, would it be reasonable for me to complain that he is faster than me? When Ken Jennings was winning all those games were people complaining that it was unfair because he had better reaction times? Also, as you may have noticed, there were many instances where Watson arrived at the correct answer, but did not buzz in fast enough, so its not some unsurmountable obstacle anyway. The point of this exercise is was to demonstrate that Watson is better than people at Jeopardy!. The game is a mix of strategy, speed, and knowledge. Watson won on all counts.
It seems a little silly to say the game was unfair because the computer can read faster and respond to a buzzer-unlocked signal faster than humans. Isn't that the point? Would you make the same argument about how the players are not perfectly equidistant from the board, buzzer indicator, and Trebek? The speeds of light and sound are not infinite afterall, wouldn't that be an unfair advantage?
What leads you to think we are running into a wall?