I was going to suggest Kahlua and Coffee. After reading the RedBull and Vodka suggestion, I realize that Kahlua and Coffee is for old people. Or RedBull and Vodka is for young people, one or the other.
Upon reflection, I am realizing that I would not drink RedBull and Vodka, while I would drink Kahlua and Coffee. Therefore, I have just realized that I am old.
Thank you, Slashdot, for foisting this realization on me.
"Even worse are Anitvirus tools. I tried once to install several of them to have mre than one on-demand scanner at my disposal, and it was a mess."
Just so everyone knows - don't ever use more than one antivirus program at a time. Two is right out. They will always bump heads with one another, regardless of what brand(s) you use.
The Turing Test presumes that the tester is an adequate judge of what is a cognitive response. However, if the tester is an idiot, the threshhold for what qualifies as a cognitive response drops.
It's clear to me that the Turing Test, while interesting, can easily be more a reflection of the tester than anything. A good IQ test, for example, would be to construct an AI that was at a benchmark level of intelligence. A person taking this IQ test would interact with the AI and a "referee" would observe. It would be obvious in short order which of the two was smarter. A series of AIs at varying levels of intelligence would act as benchmarks on a scoring scale, so a battery of such IQ tests would produce a standard IQ score.
I've found that people (okay, me) who are addicted to one thing are easily addicted to others. When I find myself delving too deeply in my addiction du jour, I feel like "just one more thing, and I'll have some greater understanding than I had before. Just one more."
Of course, that understanding never comes.
This is a different feeling than that of searching for actual information, as described in a much earlier post. I am not currently addicted to the internet, but I have been. The time I spend online hasn't changed much, but the feeling I get from being online has.
My personal procedure is to never buy anything from an online ad. I don't buy things from telemarketers or junk postal mail, either. Until it's quick and easy for the average person to confirm whether an online ad is spam/scam/junk/etc, I don't see how online advertising can really work.
The reason online advertising can't reach that goal, however, is because it's near impossible to determine who actually posted the ad and the link behind it. TV advertising is moving in that direction as well, so how can we expect the lawless frontier of the internet to straighten up on its own?
For the most part, giant recording studios buy out the contracts of successful artists from small labels.
I don't think there will be any lack of investment. What will happen is that the small labels will continue to discover new acts, and the big studios will continue to try to buy contracts from the small labels. However, now the small labels have more incentive to hang onto their successful acts, and the big studios will have less and less capital to throw at performers. What'll end up happening is that small labels will see a greater return as their successful acts become more successful under their wings.
Put simply, there will be a shift of wealth distribution from the big companies to the small ones.
1. How is this different from cell phone companies giving massive rebates on the physical phone device to get you to sign up for a two-year contract?
2. How can we know wht Microsoft's cost per part is? I'm sure that a company that size can easily pull a Walmart and dictate to the suppliers how much they're going to pay for what quantity.
Oh, and I'm not saying you're not right - consumers will vote with their feet. What I'm saying is that somehow companies are so shortsighted that they do not recognize this. The end effect is that most companies are crap, leaving consumers with a choice between crap and other crap. So if you're already dealing with the crap you know, it may be a hassle to switch to the crap you don't know.
And when you're talking about a family that's forked over a relatively large amount of money for a new computer that they'll be using for the next seven years, they're pretty bound to the support they're getting. No reason for the company to make it any better, since the consumer doesn't have a choice.
I've heard that if you pee on your feet in the shower, you won't get athlete's foot. I know you're always looking for a new way to experiment with pee, so have at it.
I don't see that companies view the expense of good customer service as a requirement to keep customers. Bean counters say, "Hey, we can cut $n,000,000 from our budget this quarter if we outsource overseas and don't have to pay high labor costs.
Come on, how many of you in the tech field haven't spent a lot of time underpaid and overworked? The company will expect its employees to do everything it says for whatever pittance they want to pay, to be of the highest quality, and always smiling. That applies to any technical field in the US right now - since (so far as I know) there isn't a labor union for IT in the US, and overtime laws are written in such a way that IT people do not generally qualify for overtime pay in the US, even if they are non-management.
It appears that people have forgotten that most of the phone tech support positions require very little, if any, technical skill. All you need is the ability to follow a laminated flowchart, look up error messages in a catalog, and tell people how to do an in-place upgrade of Windows.
Don't go thinking your tech support experience is going to be so much better just because the person on the other end of the line is in Tulsa instead of Bombay. And the fact is that American companies will always do what costs them least in the short term, or make them the most money in the short term, with no regard for the longer term (read: next year).
When it costs less to operate, train and pay someone in rural America than it does to do the same offshore, then companies will do it. No sooner.
I'd better get one of those life insurance policies with the robot clause, then. I need to protect my family from financial obligation when the robots come for me.
I emailed the guy a while back to find out how much the materials cost. $300US for a carbureted engine, more for injected. Injected requires some additional stuff, akin to converting a gasoline engine to natural gas.
Plans are $20. I'm broke. Someone with some spare time on their hands, please give it a try and report back kthx.
There really needs to be a third category, else none of this makes sense:
3. Those who put other people in jail (also, 'those who should be in jail instead').
Generally speaking, a system that is most easy to use is least secure, and a system that is least easy to use is most secure.
Examples:
An 'easiest' system is where you instantly get what output you desire, no matter where you are relative to the system, without having to provide any input (including identification). Such a system is infinitely easy to use. And since so identification is required, any user can get output from the system, making it not at all secure.
A 'most secure' system is where no matter what inputs you provide, including identification, you cannot gain the output you desire. This system is not easy to use - to the point of uselessness - but infinitely secure.
Slashdot Mirror
I was going to suggest Kahlua and Coffee. After reading the RedBull and Vodka suggestion, I realize that Kahlua and Coffee is for old people. Or RedBull and Vodka is for young people, one or the other.
Upon reflection, I am realizing that I would not drink RedBull and Vodka, while I would drink Kahlua and Coffee. Therefore, I have just realized that I am old.
Thank you, Slashdot, for foisting this realization on me.
"Even worse are Anitvirus tools. I tried once to install several of them to have mre than one on-demand scanner at my disposal, and it was a mess."
Just so everyone knows - don't ever use more than one antivirus program at a time. Two is right out. They will always bump heads with one another, regardless of what brand(s) you use.
The Turing Test presumes that the tester is an adequate judge of what is a cognitive response. However, if the tester is an idiot, the threshhold for what qualifies as a cognitive response drops.
It's clear to me that the Turing Test, while interesting, can easily be more a reflection of the tester than anything. A good IQ test, for example, would be to construct an AI that was at a benchmark level of intelligence. A person taking this IQ test would interact with the AI and a "referee" would observe. It would be obvious in short order which of the two was smarter. A series of AIs at varying levels of intelligence would act as benchmarks on a scoring scale, so a battery of such IQ tests would produce a standard IQ score.
... and they want their sniglets back.
... I thought he had a volume of Perl scripts he wrote.
I've found that people (okay, me) who are addicted to one thing are easily addicted to others. When I find myself delving too deeply in my addiction du jour, I feel like "just one more thing, and I'll have some greater understanding than I had before. Just one more."
Of course, that understanding never comes.
This is a different feeling than that of searching for actual information, as described in a much earlier post. I am not currently addicted to the internet, but I have been. The time I spend online hasn't changed much, but the feeling I get from being online has.
My personal procedure is to never buy anything from an online ad. I don't buy things from telemarketers or junk postal mail, either. Until it's quick and easy for the average person to confirm whether an online ad is spam/scam/junk/etc, I don't see how online advertising can really work.
The reason online advertising can't reach that goal, however, is because it's near impossible to determine who actually posted the ad and the link behind it. TV advertising is moving in that direction as well, so how can we expect the lawless frontier of the internet to straighten up on its own?
Best. Christian. Ever.
They must have had to renew their four year registration on x.org with NetSol.
For the most part, giant recording studios buy out the contracts of successful artists from small labels.
I don't think there will be any lack of investment. What will happen is that the small labels will continue to discover new acts, and the big studios will continue to try to buy contracts from the small labels. However, now the small labels have more incentive to hang onto their successful acts, and the big studios will have less and less capital to throw at performers. What'll end up happening is that small labels will see a greater return as their successful acts become more successful under their wings.
Put simply, there will be a shift of wealth distribution from the big companies to the small ones.
1. How is this different from cell phone companies giving massive rebates on the physical phone device to get you to sign up for a two-year contract?
2. How can we know wht Microsoft's cost per part is? I'm sure that a company that size can easily pull a Walmart and dictate to the suppliers how much they're going to pay for what quantity.
Oh, and I'm not saying you're not right - consumers will vote with their feet. What I'm saying is that somehow companies are so shortsighted that they do not recognize this. The end effect is that most companies are crap, leaving consumers with a choice between crap and other crap. So if you're already dealing with the crap you know, it may be a hassle to switch to the crap you don't know.
And when you're talking about a family that's forked over a relatively large amount of money for a new computer that they'll be using for the next seven years, they're pretty bound to the support they're getting. No reason for the company to make it any better, since the consumer doesn't have a choice.
I've heard that if you pee on your feet in the shower, you won't get athlete's foot. I know you're always looking for a new way to experiment with pee, so have at it.
I don't see that companies view the expense of good customer service as a requirement to keep customers. Bean counters say, "Hey, we can cut $n,000,000 from our budget this quarter if we outsource overseas and don't have to pay high labor costs.
Come on, how many of you in the tech field haven't spent a lot of time underpaid and overworked? The company will expect its employees to do everything it says for whatever pittance they want to pay, to be of the highest quality, and always smiling. That applies to any technical field in the US right now - since (so far as I know) there isn't a labor union for IT in the US, and overtime laws are written in such a way that IT people do not generally qualify for overtime pay in the US, even if they are non-management.
It appears that people have forgotten that most of the phone tech support positions require very little, if any, technical skill. All you need is the ability to follow a laminated flowchart, look up error messages in a catalog, and tell people how to do an in-place upgrade of Windows.
Don't go thinking your tech support experience is going to be so much better just because the person on the other end of the line is in Tulsa instead of Bombay. And the fact is that American companies will always do what costs them least in the short term, or make them the most money in the short term, with no regard for the longer term (read: next year).
When it costs less to operate, train and pay someone in rural America than it does to do the same offshore, then companies will do it. No sooner.
I'd better get one of those life insurance policies with the robot clause, then. I need to protect my family from financial obligation when the robots come for me.
68% of Windows admins are morons.
81% of Linux admins are elitist.
77% of Mac users know nothing but the Mac interface.
64% of the people reading this want to kick my ass.
The other 36% want to watch.
http://www.h20car.org/
I emailed the guy a while back to find out how much the materials cost. $300US for a carbureted engine, more for injected. Injected requires some additional stuff, akin to converting a gasoline engine to natural gas.
Plans are $20. I'm broke. Someone with some spare time on their hands, please give it a try and report back kthx.
There really needs to be a third category, else none of this makes sense: 3. Those who put other people in jail (also, 'those who should be in jail instead').
Generally speaking, a system that is most easy to use is least secure, and a system that is least easy to use is most secure.
Examples:
An 'easiest' system is where you instantly get what output you desire, no matter where you are relative to the system, without having to provide any input (including identification). Such a system is infinitely easy to use. And since so identification is required, any user can get output from the system, making it not at all secure.
A 'most secure' system is where no matter what inputs you provide, including identification, you cannot gain the output you desire. This system is not easy to use - to the point of uselessness - but infinitely secure.
You don't *have* to have streaming video in front of your face all the time. You could enjoy a quiet lunch in the park.