They seem to change the dashboard at least twice a year and it's getting tiresome now. The one we had about 9 months ago was pretty good, then they replaced it with a turd that was a massive retrograde step because you have to now press like 5 buttons to do something like quit a game that previously took two. Hopefully if nothing else they've simply reverted to the previous one that worked and was fine.
The UK started naming heavy storms that hit it's shores a few years ago, it doesn't have to be a hurricane or a cyclone under the UK's naming criteria, and I believe that's where the name has come from.
I know where you're coming from - I think that's probably precisely though because your instructor has had the time to properly scour the reef and learn what to look for, I didn't mean to suggest it's automatic, more that it's a skill and one you learn by taking your time, and that it's one that creates a completely different experience for you.
Part of the challenge is that it's not that instructors aren't seeing these things as they go by, they probably are, but that they don't see merit in stopping for them. I do still go on guided dives, especially when I'm orienting myself to a new area sometimes, but now that I've learnt to spot things like octopus it's amazing how many instructors or dive guides I see spot things like that and just keep on moving for various reasons ranging from them being hungover from the night before, to having no interest in things like that having seen a thousand, to being on a schedule, to being lumped with a lot of novices with poor buoyancy and just wanting to get them off the reef before they damage anything more.
So effectively the point I'm making is that it's worth taking time to learn that skill that that instructor you had has, so that once you've taken your time to pick it up, you'd have spotted exactly what your instructor did.
As a diver, and underwater photographer, this sort of thing is exactly what I've started to notice over the years. When I started diving you'd go down with a guide and they'd drag you round at their pace, and the pace of a bunch of other people in the group and you'd see these amazing reefs and amazing creatures, it was an absolute revelation about the amazing things that exist in our world.
But it was nothing compared to when I first went out by myself, and slowed right down to take my time to find smaller macro subjects, and started glancing at every inch of the reef to see what I could see, only to realise that when you slow down, and take your time to let your eyes spot exactly the type of out of place things you describe that you then spot the other 75% of the reef that you just never noticed before. The blennies that hid so fast when they saw you coming you never knew they were there, the tiny sea horses perfectly camouflaged in with whatever they're attached to, the frogfish that just look like common coral stuck to the rocks, the octopus that has disguised itself perfectly into some plant, rock or crevice, the flounders, rays, angel sharks and variety of other ambush predators buried in the sand.
There are massive proportions of the underwater ecosystem that we just do not even notice until we slow down, even stop, and take the time to notice the incredibly subtle out of place things you've spotted in this video, and that's when the ocean both on and off reef really begins to amaze you. If you've only done guided tours of reefs at typical tour speeds then you've only experienced a fraction of what the reef has to offer, if you've not even done a dive then you've not experienced what is far and away the most incredible and alien ecosystem on our planet.
But if you ever get the chance to do a dive, do it justice and find a partner, or pay the extra and hire a private dive master who is willing to let you take the time to really experience the reef, and really spot what's there. Deeper isn't always better, some of my favourite dives have been no less than 6 metres where I can stay down for 1 hour 30 mins on a single 12 litre tank and really take my time to spot the most amazing things - with environments this diverse you're sometimes even spotting species that aren't even formally known to science yet.
I can go one better and provide a couple of images that illustrate exactly this behaviour that I took personally. I have photographed a lot of octopuses, and whilst these aren't the best shots, they were taken literally seconds apart and highlight the rapid change.
As you can see (and as the video shows) they typically use more texture when they're hiding to obscure their shape, then they smooth themselves out to reduce drag in the water when they want to flee.
The problem is it's not just about tax breaks, it's about externalities as well. So dirty fuel producers and burners like coal mines and power plants are allow to offload the literal hundreds of billions in healthcare costs they cause onto Joe Public, but in contrast other power sources like nuclear aren't similarly allowed to just arbitrarily dump their waste - that is, they're not allowed to externalise the negative healthcare impacts of their leftovers.
So if you really want a free market approach you also have to force ALL companies to take responsibilities for full costs, not let some power sources like coal externalise billions in costs, whilst other industries like nuclear are forced to keep them internalised as that woefully distorts the market. Were coal not defacto subsidised by the tax payer to the tune of billions in healthcare costs it would be far and away the most expensive power source on the market. Nuclear would be astoundingly cheap in contrast, as would renewables. In the US alone you'd be looking at spreading anything from $300bn to $1.5tn depending on which end of the estimates you trust, but even at the very lowest end estimates, coal is far and away one of the most expensive common power sources.
They're lucky it happened now, maximum fine is £500,000.
Come May next year when GDPR comes into force they could've been charged 4% of global turnover.
There is legislation in the UK to allow individuals to be held responsible though, so it's possible Equifax's security chief, CTO, or CEO could be held personally responsible if there's sufficient evidence they mishandled it.
This industry is incredibly tightly regulated in the UK though, Equifax could lose it's license to practice as a CRA if there is evidence of severe negligence.
Ireland's economy is built on enticing tech by enabling tax evasion and avoidance.
So if they don't win this fight, there's no reason for tech to go to Ireland anymore - the only reason they get this tax money is because tech is there, so whilst they can get this windfall, tech will leave and there'll be no more money afterwards. Ireland is playing the long game.
But of course, it's also cheating at the game, so it's really a problem Ireland has created itself. Similarly Luxembourg and Switzerland are parasites in this way, rather than contribute something useful to the world just try to cheat to acquire wealth far beyond what their productivity dictates they should have at the expense of everyone else. However, for 10 years now everyone else has shown themselves sick of it, hence why parasite nations like Ireland, Luxembourg, and Switzerland now need to start figuring out how to pay their own way rather than steal the profits of the work of other nations.
A better example of the failure of the Nobel Peace Prize is Aung San Suu Kyi who has become an apologist for and enabler of ethnic cleansing, institutional rape, and mass murder.
If ever there was an undeserving person in the world who deserves to have it revoked due to her failure to live up to it's name then it's her.
You're right, in contrast, Juan Manuel Santos is one of the most deserving living people today.
Agreed, it seems like the obvious solution is to just do it. 60 million people without DNS is hardly a big deal compared to 5 billion facing potentially compromised DNS.
Just do it, and watch how quickly the ISPs sort it out when their phone lines are hammered because people's internet connections are "down". Lessons will be learned, and those ISPs will be on it next time around.
I can't think of any worse a solution than simply delaying in the hope that those ISPs will get their arses into gear next time around, let's face it, they wont, we'll still be waiting on them in a year's time.
It's not a given that they came from Wales for what it's worth, they could just as well have come from much closer.
One likely site is only 20 miles north, and it's not as though they didn't have oxen back then. The biggest stones could be pulled by 4 oxen, and it's pretty flat around there as the terrain consists of plains, and where there are hills there are shallow paths up them, with few obstacles like dense forests or rocks. The terrain is hardly difficult to traverse.
I think the stonehenge story is a bit overhyped. We seem to think that humans from back then weren't capable of basic tasks. I think the pyramids are a much bigger jump than stonehenge regardless of the river for transportation, because the pyramids required much greater architectural understanding to build, and they still had to move these giant stones onto boats and rafts capable of holding them. Once there were in position they still had to get them up and up and up. Stonehenge stones could literally have just been brute force dragged with only a handful of ox and you could similarly use ox to pull them upright into position - the pyramids took far more manpower, and far greater coordination of that manpower as well as a far greater skillset to get everything in position and built - even when built a lot of effort went into painting and carving images and hieroglyphics.
Stonehenge is a much smaller and massively overhyped feat, especially when you consider it was built incrementally over thousands of years - plenty enough time for someone to say "Oh doesn't it look cool when the sun comes through the stones, maybe we should shift them a bit so that it comes through on the solstice!".
"Sorry... you think a search engine is AI now ? Because you realize this is what those voice engines are doing, right ?"
Yes, many modern search engine techniques are the results of AI research - techniques that at first were proscribed to be intelligent until the mysticism faded away and we were all able to understand them, that's precisely my point..
"And if we had AI that was half as good as a dog (ie. A robo dog that didn't mostly suck in non sterile conditions) - none of is here would disagree that is AI."
But we have something even better, we have a device that can respond to way more commands, and answer way more questions, so in what way can we not replicate something more intelligent than a dog? The fact that those AIs can't move by themselves and relies on us to move it or simplistic machinery? If so, you're saying that Stephen Hawking isn't intelligent, which seems like a rather arrogant claim to make.
You're failing in the exact way I pointed out - you believe that if it doesn't look like magic then it's not intelligence, whilst missing the point that intelligence might not actually be magic because actual magic isn't real and is always a mere illusion. This is the exact same nonsense that leads humanity to assign acts of god to things they don't understand - you cannot have that mentality and understand what AI is, and what AI research seeks to do and achieves precisely because there's no room for magic in science.
"It is not my fault that I managed to get code into production that has no reported bugs..."
Thank you for climbing down and finally admitting that you haven't in fact released 100% bug free software as you previously claimed, merely that you have resolved all bugs you were aware of before you released it.
You have finally backed down and admitted you were wrong, thank you. That's all it took.
That's a bit like saying we don't have true physics because we've not yet invented FTL space travel.
The fact that something is understandable is neither here nor there, all AI requires is that something be sufficiently clever to be deemed a basic (even if entirely explainable) intelligence.
AI is really just the branch of computer science aimed at producing algorithms that result in an outcome that is intelligent in appearance. Yes, the end goal is a real, actual consciousness that's as intelligent or more so than a human, but just as physics as a subject hasn't failed because we don't yet have a grand unified theory of everything that allows us to bend the entirety of existence at will, AI hasn't failed just because it hasn't reached it's end game either.
There's a certain mysticism applied to AI that isn't applied to everything else - if we treated physics with the same standards that we treat AI we'd be saying that Newton's laws aren't physics, they're just a bunch of mathematical algorithms - that kind of reductionism is unhelpful when we seek a term to describe an area of particular research and advancement. The fact is that AI has been astoundingly fruitful in giving us everything from spell check, to better online search, to speech recognition, to better fraud detection and prevention, to intelligent routing protocols, to many other things.
People need to understand that intelligence isn't any more a form of magic than aeroplanes, evolution, or any other scientific concept, the fact that beginning to understand the designs and algorithms behind basic intelligence takes away that magic doesn't make it not intelligence - it just highlights how quick humanity is to assign mysticism to things they don't automatically understand.
Consider this, the voice activated assistants that you're trying to declare as not AI, because they're not "magic" enough are capable of answering more complex questions, and responding to far more terms than your average child, or dog, yet no one would declare a dog capable of answering even a fraction of the questions Alexa can as being devoid of intelligence, on the contrary, we'd call it disturbingly and profoundly intelligent. In fact, if a 3 year old child could read the weather, do maths, and answer questions as well as Alexa could then it'd positively be the most intelligent child in history at that age.
So what it really comes down to is this, you're saying that because AI isn't as smart as you - a fully functioning adult human, that it doesn't count as intelligence. As I've highlighted, that's clearly nonsensical as you, like most people, would I suspect, happily attribute intelligence to much lesser things. What I suspect you're really seeking is artificial consciousness, and yes, we've still got a long way to go on that, given that we don't yet even know what defines natural conciousness in humans, much less be able to reproduce it artificially, but I suspect that when we figure out and understand the algorithm that creates that, you'll equally be disappointed too that it's just another mere algorithm.
Actually that's EXACTLY what you said. You said you have always written 100% bug free software, and use reported bugs as a metric. That still leaves open the possibility of their being bugs, and, given your naivety and arrogance, that's basically a certainty at this point.
"As I said before, I'm a computer scientist."
No you're not. Labelling yourself something just to make yourself feel like you matter doesn't actually make you that thing. To be a computer scientist you'd need to either practice computer science, but you're arguing that you're effectively the absolute anti-thesis of that. You do not even understand the most basic concepts of computer science, and therefore by definition, cannot be a computer science. It's like declaring yourself a astro-physicist without having the slightest clue about physics.
The very fact you even label yourself as a computer scientist is in itself laughable - you claim to write software professionally, but no one hires computer scientist to write software, computer science is quite a distinctly different practice. Computer science is research oriented and algorithmic with a strong understanding of mathematics, at best you've shown yourself to be a bottom of the pile HTML developer or something pathetic like that.
"Funny, because slander would mean I said something that isn't true"
I'd like to remind you about what I said - accusing me of theft when I have never committed any such crime is slander. You're now saying again that what you said is true, that is, you're re-affirming your claim that I have stolen something despite me alerting you that's not the case. This means you are wilfully engaging in slander once more. In many countries it's possible to argue that you aren't guilty of slander if you can show that you could have made an honest mistake in a claim, but as you're instead continuing to commit slander in the face of clarification that I have never committed the act of theft simply because you believe copyright infringement should be equated to theft even though it's legally not then you are, again, flagrantly committing slander.
You seem more than happy to commit an illegal act, whilst claiming spuriously others are doing the same as if it's the end of the world when you think they may have committed a crime, but okay when you do genuinely actually commit a crime. You really should stop being so hypocritical if you want to be taken seriously. You can hardly preach about morality when you're committing an illegal act.
I'm not the one making fundamentally flawed arguments that if you consume something without paying for it then you have deprived anyone else of access to it.
You've really just proved my point - displaying at a free exhibition is not a problem because multiple people can see the product and enjoy it, and in fact, it doesn't matter how many people come and see it, it's still there - no one has "stolen" it for themselves by looking at it, it's still there for the creator to take home or show to others at the end of the day.
Which is precisely the point, piracy is not theft because the item is still available to the artist, nothing is lost, just like when people go to view art at a free art exhibition - it doesn't just vanish from the wall when someone looks at it and takes their own mental picture, even if they take a photo it still doesn't disappear off the wall. The definition of theft is that someone has to be deprived of the item that has been stolen - when you copy digital content no one is deprived of the original precisely because you're just making a copy.
You seem content calling other people stupid, but you're incapable of even understanding the most basic of concepts. You really should learn to comprehend the kind of ideas even a 6 year old is capable of comprehending before calling others stupid, it just makes you look desperate, and when you flail about looking desperate like that you're basically just telling people "I've lost the argument so I'm going to cry like a whiny little bitch instead.".
"I'm pretty sure they give a random idiot access to the Jira and the source code repository to browse if he can find a bug that can be attributed to angel'o'sphere or the team he is part of. Good luck."
Yes, exactly, you know they won't and probably haven't even heard of "angel'o'sphere", which is what makes it so obvious that you're lying. As I said, source code access or you're lying.
"Just because you can not find a bug in a piece of software, you know there is a bug, hidden somewhere?"
Nope, but just because you think there aren't bugs doesn't mean that there aren't, and in fact, for any moderately complex piece of software history shows that there always are. The fact you think otherwise means you're not fit to be a professional developer because it means you're not protecting against the inevitable.
"Please stop showing to the internet that you are a complete idiot."
Yep, you really might want to stop doing exactly that as I've suggested already. You're embarassing yourself with your profound ignorance of the topic, you're a joke on Slashdot for exactly this reason.
"In fact, some people believe that the reason why some people claim to be susceptible to wireless networking is because it causes a ringing like tinnitus. Of course like Tinnitus (which I recently began suffering... Merry Christmas 2016) it's not possible to diagnose properly."
They can believe it all they want but it's been disproven in double blind tests.
The fact is people claiming to suffer from this have never been able to accurately state when the test access points were on or off, even though in some cases the exact same physical access points were being used as they were claiming were harming them at home, at work etc.
So the whole wireless gives me headaches thing was demonstrably bullshit, as no one has been able to show that they can actually tell when one is on or off as they claim - tests typically only sat around 50% accuracy, which is the exact same chance as guessing when there's a 50% chance of being right or wrong. If people could actually tell when wireless signals were on because it was causing them an audible effect, a pain effect, or some other, then the accuracy rate would be way above 50/50, you'd expect to be able to achieve a 95%+ accuracy rate, but even if they could consistently at least achieve 70%+ it would be something.
So what you're telling me is that each time you've visited a free art gallery or exhibition, you have, by your own definition, "stolen" the paintings each time by looking at them?
"legally you can not watch a movie without paying (actually paying or for example through watching it on regular tv)."
Legally you can't speed either, wanna take a guess at how many people do it every single day without anyone giving a shit? Are you also going to stupidly argue each time someone speeds someone dies because of it?
"So you watched it and therefore it's an incomeloss for them"
Nope, still not. There'd still have to be a chance of them getting the income in the first place, if there isn't because the person wouldn't have paid or it wasn't available then there is zero income loss. It's a bit embarrassing for you that you're too dumb to comprehend this simple fact, even a 6 year old could grasp a concept like this.
"as you should have paid for it but you're a f-ing moron and just 'stole' it."
I've never stolen anything. You realise it's slander claiming otherwise right?
"The fact you're a software developer yourself doesn't make it better. Movies costs millions to make, and the profits of one movie has to pay for the loss of another (studio system)."
Then don't make loss making movies you fucking idiot. If I make loss making software I go bankrupt and out of business - I don't expect Microsoft to subsidise me if I make loss making software. You're really proving my point - you think you have a right to fail and still be paid. You don't.
"(but then again, I wonder how you would feel if one customer buys it, and gives your work to the rest and no one will buy it, so you'll loose all the money you've invested."
Given that that never ever happens then I guess I'll place that fear alongside alien invasion and zombie uprising.
"But ok, so you don't mind if people will steal your car or whatever, hee they don't have money to buy it so they'll take yours.."
Well they can, but it's a criminal offence so they should expect jail time. Copyright infringement isn't, precisely because it's not stealing, precisely because no one has been deprived of a tangible product. But you keep conflating the two if you enjoy looking like a confused angry self-entitled failure.
"If enough people won't watch it, then they'll have to figure out another way to make money"
There's a novel idea, maybe they could like, license their content to Netflix or something, *gasp*, wouldn't that be something?
"but now you're just stealing their income.."
Nope, again, you're slandering me here. I've never stolen anything. Becareful what you say because you're actually breaking the law here.
Slashdot Mirror
If only they'd listened to you APK, NSA could've stopped this leak if only they'd just black holed Kaspersky's servers with hosts file :(
They seem to change the dashboard at least twice a year and it's getting tiresome now. The one we had about 9 months ago was pretty good, then they replaced it with a turd that was a massive retrograde step because you have to now press like 5 buttons to do something like quit a game that previously took two. Hopefully if nothing else they've simply reverted to the previous one that worked and was fine.
The UK started naming heavy storms that hit it's shores a few years ago, it doesn't have to be a hurricane or a cyclone under the UK's naming criteria, and I believe that's where the name has come from.
I know where you're coming from - I think that's probably precisely though because your instructor has had the time to properly scour the reef and learn what to look for, I didn't mean to suggest it's automatic, more that it's a skill and one you learn by taking your time, and that it's one that creates a completely different experience for you.
Part of the challenge is that it's not that instructors aren't seeing these things as they go by, they probably are, but that they don't see merit in stopping for them. I do still go on guided dives, especially when I'm orienting myself to a new area sometimes, but now that I've learnt to spot things like octopus it's amazing how many instructors or dive guides I see spot things like that and just keep on moving for various reasons ranging from them being hungover from the night before, to having no interest in things like that having seen a thousand, to being on a schedule, to being lumped with a lot of novices with poor buoyancy and just wanting to get them off the reef before they damage anything more.
So effectively the point I'm making is that it's worth taking time to learn that skill that that instructor you had has, so that once you've taken your time to pick it up, you'd have spotted exactly what your instructor did.
As a diver, and underwater photographer, this sort of thing is exactly what I've started to notice over the years. When I started diving you'd go down with a guide and they'd drag you round at their pace, and the pace of a bunch of other people in the group and you'd see these amazing reefs and amazing creatures, it was an absolute revelation about the amazing things that exist in our world.
But it was nothing compared to when I first went out by myself, and slowed right down to take my time to find smaller macro subjects, and started glancing at every inch of the reef to see what I could see, only to realise that when you slow down, and take your time to let your eyes spot exactly the type of out of place things you describe that you then spot the other 75% of the reef that you just never noticed before. The blennies that hid so fast when they saw you coming you never knew they were there, the tiny sea horses perfectly camouflaged in with whatever they're attached to, the frogfish that just look like common coral stuck to the rocks, the octopus that has disguised itself perfectly into some plant, rock or crevice, the flounders, rays, angel sharks and variety of other ambush predators buried in the sand.
There are massive proportions of the underwater ecosystem that we just do not even notice until we slow down, even stop, and take the time to notice the incredibly subtle out of place things you've spotted in this video, and that's when the ocean both on and off reef really begins to amaze you. If you've only done guided tours of reefs at typical tour speeds then you've only experienced a fraction of what the reef has to offer, if you've not even done a dive then you've not experienced what is far and away the most incredible and alien ecosystem on our planet.
But if you ever get the chance to do a dive, do it justice and find a partner, or pay the extra and hire a private dive master who is willing to let you take the time to really experience the reef, and really spot what's there. Deeper isn't always better, some of my favourite dives have been no less than 6 metres where I can stay down for 1 hour 30 mins on a single 12 litre tank and really take my time to spot the most amazing things - with environments this diverse you're sometimes even spotting species that aren't even formally known to science yet.
I can go one better and provide a couple of images that illustrate exactly this behaviour that I took personally. I have photographed a lot of octopuses, and whilst these aren't the best shots, they were taken literally seconds apart and highlight the rapid change.
https://ibb.co/ctiTAb
https://ibb.co/fFyjiw
As you can see (and as the video shows) they typically use more texture when they're hiding to obscure their shape, then they smooth themselves out to reduce drag in the water when they want to flee.
Take it from a diver who has photographed many octopus over the years, yes they absolutely do change their skin texture and not simply their colour.
The problem is it's not just about tax breaks, it's about externalities as well. So dirty fuel producers and burners like coal mines and power plants are allow to offload the literal hundreds of billions in healthcare costs they cause onto Joe Public, but in contrast other power sources like nuclear aren't similarly allowed to just arbitrarily dump their waste - that is, they're not allowed to externalise the negative healthcare impacts of their leftovers.
So if you really want a free market approach you also have to force ALL companies to take responsibilities for full costs, not let some power sources like coal externalise billions in costs, whilst other industries like nuclear are forced to keep them internalised as that woefully distorts the market. Were coal not defacto subsidised by the tax payer to the tune of billions in healthcare costs it would be far and away the most expensive power source on the market. Nuclear would be astoundingly cheap in contrast, as would renewables. In the US alone you'd be looking at spreading anything from $300bn to $1.5tn depending on which end of the estimates you trust, but even at the very lowest end estimates, coal is far and away one of the most expensive common power sources.
They're lucky it happened now, maximum fine is £500,000.
Come May next year when GDPR comes into force they could've been charged 4% of global turnover.
There is legislation in the UK to allow individuals to be held responsible though, so it's possible Equifax's security chief, CTO, or CEO could be held personally responsible if there's sufficient evidence they mishandled it.
This industry is incredibly tightly regulated in the UK though, Equifax could lose it's license to practice as a CRA if there is evidence of severe negligence.
Ireland's economy is built on enticing tech by enabling tax evasion and avoidance.
So if they don't win this fight, there's no reason for tech to go to Ireland anymore - the only reason they get this tax money is because tech is there, so whilst they can get this windfall, tech will leave and there'll be no more money afterwards. Ireland is playing the long game.
But of course, it's also cheating at the game, so it's really a problem Ireland has created itself. Similarly Luxembourg and Switzerland are parasites in this way, rather than contribute something useful to the world just try to cheat to acquire wealth far beyond what their productivity dictates they should have at the expense of everyone else. However, for 10 years now everyone else has shown themselves sick of it, hence why parasite nations like Ireland, Luxembourg, and Switzerland now need to start figuring out how to pay their own way rather than steal the profits of the work of other nations.
A better example of the failure of the Nobel Peace Prize is Aung San Suu Kyi who has become an apologist for and enabler of ethnic cleansing, institutional rape, and mass murder.
If ever there was an undeserving person in the world who deserves to have it revoked due to her failure to live up to it's name then it's her.
You're right, in contrast, Juan Manuel Santos is one of the most deserving living people today.
Agreed, it seems like the obvious solution is to just do it. 60 million people without DNS is hardly a big deal compared to 5 billion facing potentially compromised DNS.
Just do it, and watch how quickly the ISPs sort it out when their phone lines are hammered because people's internet connections are "down". Lessons will be learned, and those ISPs will be on it next time around.
I can't think of any worse a solution than simply delaying in the hope that those ISPs will get their arses into gear next time around, let's face it, they wont, we'll still be waiting on them in a year's time.
It's not a given that they came from Wales for what it's worth, they could just as well have come from much closer.
One likely site is only 20 miles north, and it's not as though they didn't have oxen back then. The biggest stones could be pulled by 4 oxen, and it's pretty flat around there as the terrain consists of plains, and where there are hills there are shallow paths up them, with few obstacles like dense forests or rocks. The terrain is hardly difficult to traverse.
I think the stonehenge story is a bit overhyped. We seem to think that humans from back then weren't capable of basic tasks. I think the pyramids are a much bigger jump than stonehenge regardless of the river for transportation, because the pyramids required much greater architectural understanding to build, and they still had to move these giant stones onto boats and rafts capable of holding them. Once there were in position they still had to get them up and up and up. Stonehenge stones could literally have just been brute force dragged with only a handful of ox and you could similarly use ox to pull them upright into position - the pyramids took far more manpower, and far greater coordination of that manpower as well as a far greater skillset to get everything in position and built - even when built a lot of effort went into painting and carving images and hieroglyphics.
Stonehenge is a much smaller and massively overhyped feat, especially when you consider it was built incrementally over thousands of years - plenty enough time for someone to say "Oh doesn't it look cool when the sun comes through the stones, maybe we should shift them a bit so that it comes through on the solstice!".
"Sorry ... you think a search engine is AI now ? Because you realize this is what those voice engines are doing, right ?"
Yes, many modern search engine techniques are the results of AI research - techniques that at first were proscribed to be intelligent until the mysticism faded away and we were all able to understand them, that's precisely my point..
"And if we had AI that was half as good as a dog (ie. A robo dog that didn't mostly suck in non sterile conditions) - none of is here would disagree that is AI."
But we have something even better, we have a device that can respond to way more commands, and answer way more questions, so in what way can we not replicate something more intelligent than a dog? The fact that those AIs can't move by themselves and relies on us to move it or simplistic machinery? If so, you're saying that Stephen Hawking isn't intelligent, which seems like a rather arrogant claim to make.
You're failing in the exact way I pointed out - you believe that if it doesn't look like magic then it's not intelligence, whilst missing the point that intelligence might not actually be magic because actual magic isn't real and is always a mere illusion. This is the exact same nonsense that leads humanity to assign acts of god to things they don't understand - you cannot have that mentality and understand what AI is, and what AI research seeks to do and achieves precisely because there's no room for magic in science.
"It is not my fault that I managed to get code into production that has no reported bugs ..."
Thank you for climbing down and finally admitting that you haven't in fact released 100% bug free software as you previously claimed, merely that you have resolved all bugs you were aware of before you released it.
You have finally backed down and admitted you were wrong, thank you. That's all it took.
"You have a reading problem. Hint: just "scroll back" and read my previous posts."
Yep, I did. Perhaps you're confused about what you're saying because you're not conversing in your native language? It's pretty clear what you said:
"But what I know 100% for sure: I never had a bug made by me or my team escape into production."
I guess you probably need to learn how to converse in English better, because you're clearly saying things you don't actually mean.
That's a bit like saying we don't have true physics because we've not yet invented FTL space travel.
The fact that something is understandable is neither here nor there, all AI requires is that something be sufficiently clever to be deemed a basic (even if entirely explainable) intelligence.
AI is really just the branch of computer science aimed at producing algorithms that result in an outcome that is intelligent in appearance. Yes, the end goal is a real, actual consciousness that's as intelligent or more so than a human, but just as physics as a subject hasn't failed because we don't yet have a grand unified theory of everything that allows us to bend the entirety of existence at will, AI hasn't failed just because it hasn't reached it's end game either.
There's a certain mysticism applied to AI that isn't applied to everything else - if we treated physics with the same standards that we treat AI we'd be saying that Newton's laws aren't physics, they're just a bunch of mathematical algorithms - that kind of reductionism is unhelpful when we seek a term to describe an area of particular research and advancement. The fact is that AI has been astoundingly fruitful in giving us everything from spell check, to better online search, to speech recognition, to better fraud detection and prevention, to intelligent routing protocols, to many other things.
People need to understand that intelligence isn't any more a form of magic than aeroplanes, evolution, or any other scientific concept, the fact that beginning to understand the designs and algorithms behind basic intelligence takes away that magic doesn't make it not intelligence - it just highlights how quick humanity is to assign mysticism to things they don't automatically understand.
Consider this, the voice activated assistants that you're trying to declare as not AI, because they're not "magic" enough are capable of answering more complex questions, and responding to far more terms than your average child, or dog, yet no one would declare a dog capable of answering even a fraction of the questions Alexa can as being devoid of intelligence, on the contrary, we'd call it disturbingly and profoundly intelligent. In fact, if a 3 year old child could read the weather, do maths, and answer questions as well as Alexa could then it'd positively be the most intelligent child in history at that age.
So what it really comes down to is this, you're saying that because AI isn't as smart as you - a fully functioning adult human, that it doesn't count as intelligence. As I've highlighted, that's clearly nonsensical as you, like most people, would I suspect, happily attribute intelligence to much lesser things. What I suspect you're really seeking is artificial consciousness, and yes, we've still got a long way to go on that, given that we don't yet even know what defines natural conciousness in humans, much less be able to reproduce it artificially, but I suspect that when we figure out and understand the algorithm that creates that, you'll equally be disappointed too that it's just another mere algorithm.
"I never said that."
Actually that's EXACTLY what you said. You said you have always written 100% bug free software, and use reported bugs as a metric. That still leaves open the possibility of their being bugs, and, given your naivety and arrogance, that's basically a certainty at this point.
"As I said before, I'm a computer scientist."
No you're not. Labelling yourself something just to make yourself feel like you matter doesn't actually make you that thing. To be a computer scientist you'd need to either practice computer science, but you're arguing that you're effectively the absolute anti-thesis of that. You do not even understand the most basic concepts of computer science, and therefore by definition, cannot be a computer science. It's like declaring yourself a astro-physicist without having the slightest clue about physics.
The very fact you even label yourself as a computer scientist is in itself laughable - you claim to write software professionally, but no one hires computer scientist to write software, computer science is quite a distinctly different practice. Computer science is research oriented and algorithmic with a strong understanding of mathematics, at best you've shown yourself to be a bottom of the pile HTML developer or something pathetic like that.
"Funny, because slander would mean I said something that isn't true"
I'd like to remind you about what I said - accusing me of theft when I have never committed any such crime is slander. You're now saying again that what you said is true, that is, you're re-affirming your claim that I have stolen something despite me alerting you that's not the case. This means you are wilfully engaging in slander once more. In many countries it's possible to argue that you aren't guilty of slander if you can show that you could have made an honest mistake in a claim, but as you're instead continuing to commit slander in the face of clarification that I have never committed the act of theft simply because you believe copyright infringement should be equated to theft even though it's legally not then you are, again, flagrantly committing slander.
You seem more than happy to commit an illegal act, whilst claiming spuriously others are doing the same as if it's the end of the world when you think they may have committed a crime, but okay when you do genuinely actually commit a crime. You really should stop being so hypocritical if you want to be taken seriously. You can hardly preach about morality when you're committing an illegal act.
I'm not the one making fundamentally flawed arguments that if you consume something without paying for it then you have deprived anyone else of access to it.
You've really just proved my point - displaying at a free exhibition is not a problem because multiple people can see the product and enjoy it, and in fact, it doesn't matter how many people come and see it, it's still there - no one has "stolen" it for themselves by looking at it, it's still there for the creator to take home or show to others at the end of the day.
Which is precisely the point, piracy is not theft because the item is still available to the artist, nothing is lost, just like when people go to view art at a free art exhibition - it doesn't just vanish from the wall when someone looks at it and takes their own mental picture, even if they take a photo it still doesn't disappear off the wall. The definition of theft is that someone has to be deprived of the item that has been stolen - when you copy digital content no one is deprived of the original precisely because you're just making a copy.
You seem content calling other people stupid, but you're incapable of even understanding the most basic of concepts. You really should learn to comprehend the kind of ideas even a 6 year old is capable of comprehending before calling others stupid, it just makes you look desperate, and when you flail about looking desperate like that you're basically just telling people "I've lost the argument so I'm going to cry like a whiny little bitch instead.".
"I'm pretty sure they give a random idiot access to the Jira and the source code repository to browse if he can find a bug that can be attributed to angel'o'sphere or the team he is part of. Good luck."
Yes, exactly, you know they won't and probably haven't even heard of "angel'o'sphere", which is what makes it so obvious that you're lying. As I said, source code access or you're lying.
"Just because you can not find a bug in a piece of software, you know there is a bug, hidden somewhere?"
Nope, but just because you think there aren't bugs doesn't mean that there aren't, and in fact, for any moderately complex piece of software history shows that there always are. The fact you think otherwise means you're not fit to be a professional developer because it means you're not protecting against the inevitable.
"Please stop showing to the internet that you are a complete idiot."
Yep, you really might want to stop doing exactly that as I've suggested already. You're embarassing yourself with your profound ignorance of the topic, you're a joke on Slashdot for exactly this reason.
"In fact, some people believe that the reason why some people claim to be susceptible to wireless networking is because it causes a ringing like tinnitus. Of course like Tinnitus (which I recently began suffering... Merry Christmas 2016) it's not possible to diagnose properly."
They can believe it all they want but it's been disproven in double blind tests.
The fact is people claiming to suffer from this have never been able to accurately state when the test access points were on or off, even though in some cases the exact same physical access points were being used as they were claiming were harming them at home, at work etc.
So the whole wireless gives me headaches thing was demonstrably bullshit, as no one has been able to show that they can actually tell when one is on or off as they claim - tests typically only sat around 50% accuracy, which is the exact same chance as guessing when there's a 50% chance of being right or wrong. If people could actually tell when wireless signals were on because it was causing them an audible effect, a pain effect, or some other, then the accuracy rate would be way above 50/50, you'd expect to be able to achieve a 95%+ accuracy rate, but even if they could consistently at least achieve 70%+ it would be something.
So what you're telling me is that each time you've visited a free art gallery or exhibition, you have, by your own definition, "stolen" the paintings each time by looking at them?
You're really not very smart are you?
"At least I have a proven track record of software in production that has so far no bug reports, from customers or users. How about you?"
Provide me access to the software please to verify, or stop lying. Can't have it both ways.
"legally you can not watch a movie without paying (actually paying or for example through watching it on regular tv)."
Legally you can't speed either, wanna take a guess at how many people do it every single day without anyone giving a shit? Are you also going to stupidly argue each time someone speeds someone dies because of it?
"So you watched it and therefore it's an incomeloss for them"
Nope, still not. There'd still have to be a chance of them getting the income in the first place, if there isn't because the person wouldn't have paid or it wasn't available then there is zero income loss. It's a bit embarrassing for you that you're too dumb to comprehend this simple fact, even a 6 year old could grasp a concept like this.
"as you should have paid for it but you're a f-ing moron and just 'stole' it."
I've never stolen anything. You realise it's slander claiming otherwise right?
"The fact you're a software developer yourself doesn't make it better. Movies costs millions to make, and the profits of one movie has to pay for the loss of another (studio system)."
Then don't make loss making movies you fucking idiot. If I make loss making software I go bankrupt and out of business - I don't expect Microsoft to subsidise me if I make loss making software. You're really proving my point - you think you have a right to fail and still be paid. You don't.
"(but then again, I wonder how you would feel if one customer buys it, and gives your work to the rest and no one will buy it, so you'll loose all the money you've invested."
Given that that never ever happens then I guess I'll place that fear alongside alien invasion and zombie uprising.
"But ok, so you don't mind if people will steal your car or whatever, hee they don't have money to buy it so they'll take yours.."
Well they can, but it's a criminal offence so they should expect jail time. Copyright infringement isn't, precisely because it's not stealing, precisely because no one has been deprived of a tangible product. But you keep conflating the two if you enjoy looking like a confused angry self-entitled failure.
"If enough people won't watch it, then they'll have to figure out another way to make money"
There's a novel idea, maybe they could like, license their content to Netflix or something, *gasp*, wouldn't that be something?
"but now you're just stealing their income.."
Nope, again, you're slandering me here. I've never stolen anything. Becareful what you say because you're actually breaking the law here.