You can't blame Watson for humans being slow readers and having poor reaction time. I mean, there were many questions where Watson had the right answer but did not buzz in first, therefore he did not have some insurmountable advantage. Heck, he didn't even win by that much in the second game.
It's strange to say "It's not fair because the machine is better than me!" that's the whole point!
I think most of those things will take much less than 30 years. I'd guess that in less than 5 years this feat is as uninteresting as what Google does millions of times a day and will be just as cheap.
What do you mean by "understand"? I am frustrated sometimes because people who poo poo achievements in AI will often claim a given AI doesn't "understand" something, but never exactly explain what they mean by that in a measurable way. So, what do you mean?
Also, I might say, something people never seem to mention when they talk about cutting back science budgets is that what it means is that people are going to lose their jobs. Most of the costs in science, or anything really, is paychecks. When a lab or PI loses a grant, that means people get fired.
I suppose that could be ok. However I find it ironic that people who are leaking info because of the oppressive gov't and state controlled media might want to turn around and trust media to put out the story. The beauty of WL is that it cuts the media out of the equation, only giving them limited pre-access to the content before they give it all away anyways. This only exists as necessary evil of fundraising.
OL says explicitly it will not publish information only make it available to members. Only those they chose can be members. As in, you need permission to see this information, permission only they provide. They take information stolen from the elite, and transfer it to a different elite. Do you think the US gov't will get permission to be a member? How will OL decide who is good enough to see the information?
The difference I see is that OL wants to control who sees the info. WL gives it to everyone.
Which if of course just what Bush did when he cut us all a check for that budget surplus Clinton left us with. Thank god. I know that $300 really saved a lot of people from financial destruction.
A lot of people don't realize that when you cut research money, people get fired. In fact, the single largest cost to a research program is salaries. Most of the staff in a university research lab (grad students, undergrads, post-docs, and technicians) are on soft-money. This means when a grant goes away, they are all terminated. I'd guess these cuts result in the loss of a few hundred-thousand jobs.
The problem I have with OpenLeaks is that, as far as I can tell, they don't make information public. You leak them info, and put yourself at risk for doing it, and then they just give it to journalists. This process is not unambiguously indicated to be free. They do not guarantee an audience for your information. They don't make the information publicly available. They expect us to trust journalists to go through this information and report what we plebes need to know about it. The problem being of course that even with the Wikileaks documents received by the NYT, the journalists worked with the gov't to decide what they would report. Luckily though, WL lets us all see the original material, we need not trust the journalist more than we care to since we have access to the same information they do. OpenLeaks would not allow that. So I guess if you're going to risk your life or your livelyhood to leak information, you'd probably not want to give it to someone who can't guarantee that the information will be available to people.
So in the process this guy sabotaged, and likely stole, anonymous submission software from his competitor before going out and starting his own business. Which he seemingly did because he didn't like Assange. Assange being mean or asinine is a red-herring meant to deceive you.
I don't think rescuing the handful of people who die yearly due to this is going to cause your taxes to go up much.
Also, sometimes even smart prepared people get hurt and die int he wilderness. I don't think that when this happens to you or someone you love you will say "Oh well its good they died."
But if you think people who get stuck in bad situations and the children or grandmas they have with them deserve death, then thats your lot. Enjoy society.
GPS is marketed as a consumer device which will get you where you need to go. A good GPS will not lead you down a road you cannot pass. GPS mapmakers should quit using maps which include closed, impassible roads. Also, if a road is closed, it needs to have its entrances blocked or signage indicating how rough it is and what kind of vehicle is needed to traverse it.
I've also wondered, since I read the story about the CNET editor and his family who got stranded similarly and died. What would the cost be to install minimum-capability 911/sms-only cell towers in remote areas? If they have deaths every year in death valley, which could be alleviated by some very low-capability wireless infrastructure, then why not do it? How much would it cost?
I find Scientific American guy's moralizing immoral. The book is an explanation of the different kind of multiverse theories which are present in current theoretical physics. The guy seems to have a problem with the fact that Greene and the rest of us scientists should be obligated to spend our time solving humanities ills.
If he really thought that was so immoral to be thinking about and communicating true facts about possibilities which arise in theoretical physics rather than solving the Problems of Humanity, then surely it is also immoral to be thinking about and communicating opinions of the prior.
Surely we should all be studying cancer.
Also, the guy really mentions Karl Popper, which goes to show how much he has thought about the philosophy of science.
I agree especially about the guitar playing. I am friends with a lot of musicians, people who study music seriously and academically and have degrees in performance. They are always annoyed by frat-types who can play 5 chords and call themselves "musicians."
Likewise, someone who plays games it not a "gamer." Just like not everyone who swims is a swimmer, sings is a singer, etc. If everyone who played games WAS a gamer, then the first gaming revolution was with solitaire. Just look at all those gamers there in those cubicals!
Me? I'm a gamer. I play it all, solitaire, minesweeper, little farmville, I even go low-tech with some sudoku ever now and then. I am all 'bout that!
I've always thought some kids would whip up a real-life version. Hack a car gps onto some random address generator, start a timer, and race across town! The device could calculate how long it should take you to get there, and give you points for getting there sooner. Drivers could compete for points online.
Killing peds is of course, extra!
That when it comes to electronic voting technology, incompetence seems to be the rule? Poor UI design, failure to properly user-test, poor or no encryption, lack of audit trails, etc.
Why are we/they so bad at this?
I understand the malice vs incompetence argument, though I find it overly optimistic in many cases, but these scenarios lead me to believe its malice disguised as incompetence.
As a grad student, I can tell you that most PhD students are more than qualified to teach undergrad courses. Some are qualified to teach more than just a lab section and could handle the whole lecture. To boot, many of them are better teacher's anyway. They are usually much more involved in the course anyway.
And I guess, doctor's have to have a "95%" to get their degree, but grade inflation is rampant. A friend at Columbia Med School jokes that "no one goes to class, the lectures are available as podcasts (?!) and the tests come directly from them."
Having TA'd classes though I am biased as the pre-med kids are invariably the most annoying/dumbest.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't blame Watson for humans being slow readers and having poor reaction time. I mean, there were many questions where Watson had the right answer but did not buzz in first, therefore he did not have some insurmountable advantage. Heck, he didn't even win by that much in the second game. It's strange to say "It's not fair because the machine is better than me!" that's the whole point!
I think most of those things will take much less than 30 years. I'd guess that in less than 5 years this feat is as uninteresting as what Google does millions of times a day and will be just as cheap.
What do you mean by "understand"? I am frustrated sometimes because people who poo poo achievements in AI will often claim a given AI doesn't "understand" something, but never exactly explain what they mean by that in a measurable way. So, what do you mean?
Also, I might say, something people never seem to mention when they talk about cutting back science budgets is that what it means is that people are going to lose their jobs. Most of the costs in science, or anything really, is paychecks. When a lab or PI loses a grant, that means people get fired.
I suppose that could be ok. However I find it ironic that people who are leaking info because of the oppressive gov't and state controlled media might want to turn around and trust media to put out the story. The beauty of WL is that it cuts the media out of the equation, only giving them limited pre-access to the content before they give it all away anyways. This only exists as necessary evil of fundraising.
OL says explicitly it will not publish information only make it available to members. Only those they chose can be members. As in, you need permission to see this information, permission only they provide. They take information stolen from the elite, and transfer it to a different elite. Do you think the US gov't will get permission to be a member? How will OL decide who is good enough to see the information? The difference I see is that OL wants to control who sees the info. WL gives it to everyone.
OL says they don't publish info. So when they say "public" do they mean they will put it online, or allow any of their members to see it?
Yes, you are all tired of the innovations scientists give you. You hate the creation of knowledge.
Which if of course just what Bush did when he cut us all a check for that budget surplus Clinton left us with. Thank god. I know that $300 really saved a lot of people from financial destruction.
A lot of people don't realize that when you cut research money, people get fired. In fact, the single largest cost to a research program is salaries. Most of the staff in a university research lab (grad students, undergrads, post-docs, and technicians) are on soft-money. This means when a grant goes away, they are all terminated. I'd guess these cuts result in the loss of a few hundred-thousand jobs.
The problem I have with OpenLeaks is that, as far as I can tell, they don't make information public. You leak them info, and put yourself at risk for doing it, and then they just give it to journalists. This process is not unambiguously indicated to be free. They do not guarantee an audience for your information. They don't make the information publicly available. They expect us to trust journalists to go through this information and report what we plebes need to know about it. The problem being of course that even with the Wikileaks documents received by the NYT, the journalists worked with the gov't to decide what they would report. Luckily though, WL lets us all see the original material, we need not trust the journalist more than we care to since we have access to the same information they do. OpenLeaks would not allow that. So I guess if you're going to risk your life or your livelyhood to leak information, you'd probably not want to give it to someone who can't guarantee that the information will be available to people. So in the process this guy sabotaged, and likely stole, anonymous submission software from his competitor before going out and starting his own business. Which he seemingly did because he didn't like Assange. Assange being mean or asinine is a red-herring meant to deceive you.
Who cares? As long as NASA gets some pretty hardcore, iron-clad, liability waivers I think its a great idea.
Ok I see your point. I am a search consumer. What do I care?
I don't think rescuing the handful of people who die yearly due to this is going to cause your taxes to go up much. Also, sometimes even smart prepared people get hurt and die int he wilderness. I don't think that when this happens to you or someone you love you will say "Oh well its good they died." But if you think people who get stuck in bad situations and the children or grandmas they have with them deserve death, then thats your lot. Enjoy society.
GPS is marketed as a consumer device which will get you where you need to go. A good GPS will not lead you down a road you cannot pass. GPS mapmakers should quit using maps which include closed, impassible roads. Also, if a road is closed, it needs to have its entrances blocked or signage indicating how rough it is and what kind of vehicle is needed to traverse it. I've also wondered, since I read the story about the CNET editor and his family who got stranded similarly and died. What would the cost be to install minimum-capability 911/sms-only cell towers in remote areas? If they have deaths every year in death valley, which could be alleviated by some very low-capability wireless infrastructure, then why not do it? How much would it cost?
I didn't know there were strict-constructionists when it came to the Nobel.
I find Scientific American guy's moralizing immoral. The book is an explanation of the different kind of multiverse theories which are present in current theoretical physics. The guy seems to have a problem with the fact that Greene and the rest of us scientists should be obligated to spend our time solving humanities ills. If he really thought that was so immoral to be thinking about and communicating true facts about possibilities which arise in theoretical physics rather than solving the Problems of Humanity, then surely it is also immoral to be thinking about and communicating opinions of the prior. Surely we should all be studying cancer. Also, the guy really mentions Karl Popper, which goes to show how much he has thought about the philosophy of science.
I think the possibilities of cutting the last wire go far beyond the inconvenience of loud fans.
I agree especially about the guitar playing. I am friends with a lot of musicians, people who study music seriously and academically and have degrees in performance. They are always annoyed by frat-types who can play 5 chords and call themselves "musicians."
Exactly! Gaming is serious business.
Likewise, someone who plays games it not a "gamer." Just like not everyone who swims is a swimmer, sings is a singer, etc. If everyone who played games WAS a gamer, then the first gaming revolution was with solitaire. Just look at all those gamers there in those cubicals! Me? I'm a gamer. I play it all, solitaire, minesweeper, little farmville, I even go low-tech with some sudoku ever now and then. I am all 'bout that!
Earth's water came from outer-space because earth came from outer-space.
I've always thought some kids would whip up a real-life version. Hack a car gps onto some random address generator, start a timer, and race across town! The device could calculate how long it should take you to get there, and give you points for getting there sooner. Drivers could compete for points online. Killing peds is of course, extra!
That when it comes to electronic voting technology, incompetence seems to be the rule? Poor UI design, failure to properly user-test, poor or no encryption, lack of audit trails, etc. Why are we/they so bad at this? I understand the malice vs incompetence argument, though I find it overly optimistic in many cases, but these scenarios lead me to believe its malice disguised as incompetence.
As a grad student, I can tell you that most PhD students are more than qualified to teach undergrad courses. Some are qualified to teach more than just a lab section and could handle the whole lecture. To boot, many of them are better teacher's anyway. They are usually much more involved in the course anyway. And I guess, doctor's have to have a "95%" to get their degree, but grade inflation is rampant. A friend at Columbia Med School jokes that "no one goes to class, the lectures are available as podcasts (?!) and the tests come directly from them." Having TA'd classes though I am biased as the pre-med kids are invariably the most annoying/dumbest.