I don't understand what my computer is supposed to DO once it has determined what my emotion is. The only everyday application I can see for this is marketing. I am sure marketers would like to register your reaction when you see something. I don't see how that helps ME. I mean, if the computer sees that I'm angry or surprised or whatever, what is it supposed to DO?
The best explaniation for this rapid growth is that life didn't actually have to start here, but came from meteorites.
Are you sure this is what you meant to say? If you're saying the ingredients for life came from meteorites (as the article states) then okay. But, if you're saying that fully-formed life itself came from meteorites, then it begs the question, "where did that life originate?
Do I want to talk to a computer? The answer is yes and no. Yes, there are times when talking to a computer would be very handy. I do wish that I had a computer like those depicted in old sci fi shows, where I could be doing something around the house and just say, "Computer: what is the current relative humidity?" and it would just audibly respond with the answer.
In an office setting, or in public, however, I would definitely NOT want to be talking to the computer. Nor would I want to hear everyone else babbling to their computer. In those pre-texting days of a few years ago I used to despise cell phones because of having to listen to all the yammering. It really sucks to be standing in line waiting on your food order, while some insensitive twit is talking about aunt Sheila getting her boil lanced. Now that people text more than talk on their phones, it is quieter and less annoying.
I will agree that it is a sort of reasoning, but it is not reasoning the way I think of it. I just watched the first Jeopardy show. Besides being a 30 minute informercial for IBM, it was pretty interesting. Still, since they display the answers that Watson is considering, even for the questions it does not buzz in for, you can see that it is just a search engine. A very sophisticated search engine, and one that would be very valuable, but still just a search engine. It can only give answers based on the data that it has been given. It cannot think beyond that data. It cannot reason outside of it's "box".
No, you misunderstand. I am saying, wire ME up to a search engine, and I could beat Watson handily. What I saw on the NOVA program, was a machine that used statistical algorithms coupled with a search engine to give answers. It was right very often, but when it was wrong, it gave answers that not even the stupidest human would give. I also read the Information Week article on the machine, and even the IBM engineers say it is not artificial intelligence:
"Watson is not that smart, but it's very powerful," Baker explains. "It can't make decisions, it doesn't really understand, and it doesn't really think, but it can read through ridiculous amounts of data and come up with possible answers with a known degree of confidence."
Human brains are not mere machines. Humans can imagine things that do not exist and cannot be measured with any instrument. Things like justice and mercy, and what it was like before the big bang. Humans can think outside of the box. Machines never will.
I watched the NOVA special on IBM's Jeopardy-playing machine. Essentially, it's a huge search engine coupled with algorithms for choosing answers. It is able to answer 90% of the questions asked, which looks impressive at first. The 10% of wrong answers it gives, however, are pretty bloody stupid. Obviously, there is really no reasoning involved here. Give me access to a massive search engine, and a computer-fast method of accessing it, and I will get 90% of the Jeopardy answers right too. Probably more than that.
Which is not to say the project is a complete waste of time. They've learned a lot by building and tweaking Watson. It's just not artificial intelligence.
Most people just want to send text messages and make phone calls. A phone doesn't have to be too bloody smart to do that. Smart phones are expensive and break easily. My daughter has gone through two smart phones in the last year. After mine stopped working (the touch screen doesn't work), I went back to an older model. Maybe, someday, if they start getting reliable, and if the monthly cost comes down, I might consider a smart phone, but right now I think smart phones are really dumb.
It doesn't matter, because long before oil peaks, there will be a revolution in Saudi Arabia, and those in power are not going to sell us any of that oil anyway. Get used to walking.
"Consultants at US defense contractors Palantir Technologies, Berico Technologies and HBGary proposed to lawyers for a desperate Bank of America an alliance that would work to discredit the whistleblowers' website using a divide and conquer approach."
I had to read this sentence several times before it made any sense. The first few times it sounded like the defense contractor consultants asked some lawyers to marry them in order to obtain the Bank of America, who was inexplicably desperate -- all of which would discredit Wikileaks.
I think what was attempting to be conveyed was the following:
"Consultants at US defense contractors Palantir Technologies, Berico Technologies and HBGary proposed an alliance with a desperate Bank of America which would work to discredit the whistleblowers' website using a divide and conquer approach."
So, federal law prevents them from dumping the "contaminated" snow in the Charles river, or the harbor. What I would like to know is this: where do they think all that snow is going to go if it melts on its own?
I don't know whether LibreOffice is a good application or not, but it is one of the worst names for a product I've ever seen. Why not just name it "AwkwardStiltedOffice"?
Although the reactors can be self-sustaining so that the input can be turned off, the scientists say that the reactors work better with a constant input.
Hmmm. I'll bet. So does my toaster oven. I wonder if these guys also make "Amish" space heaters.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a 7G phone. I just took out a sharpie and wrote 7 G's on it. You may now bow to my 7G superiority.
BTW, the volume on my stereo goes to 11.
Now, if you will excuse me I need to return to surfing on my "50meg" hi-speed internet connection.
Couldn't resist.
I don't understand what my computer is supposed to DO once it has determined what my emotion is. The only everyday application I can see for this is marketing. I am sure marketers would like to register your reaction when you see something. I don't see how that helps ME. I mean, if the computer sees that I'm angry or surprised or whatever, what is it supposed to DO?
The best explaniation for this rapid growth is that life didn't actually have to start here, but came from meteorites.
Are you sure this is what you meant to say? If you're saying the ingredients for life came from meteorites (as the article states) then okay. But, if you're saying that fully-formed life itself came from meteorites, then it begs the question, "where did that life originate?
Just asking for clarification.
Do I want to talk to a computer? The answer is yes and no. Yes, there are times when talking to a computer would be very handy. I do wish that I had a computer like those depicted in old sci fi shows, where I could be doing something around the house and just say, "Computer: what is the current relative humidity?" and it would just audibly respond with the answer.
In an office setting, or in public, however, I would definitely NOT want to be talking to the computer. Nor would I want to hear everyone else babbling to their computer. In those pre-texting days of a few years ago I used to despise cell phones because of having to listen to all the yammering. It really sucks to be standing in line waiting on your food order, while some insensitive twit is talking about aunt Sheila getting her boil lanced. Now that people text more than talk on their phones, it is quieter and less annoying.
partook of their usual button-pounding pastimes
Perhaps arcades are no longer what I thought they were.
I was afraid the headline was from an East Texas CraigsList ad.
Of course they can always get the data off. Everyone knows that. They do it all the time on CSI. Sheesh!
Gasp! It looks eerily like a population map of the United States! Amazing!
No, I don't consider merely looking things up in an encyclopedia particularly intelligent.
I will agree that it is a sort of reasoning, but it is not reasoning the way I think of it. I just watched the first Jeopardy show. Besides being a 30 minute informercial for IBM, it was pretty interesting. Still, since they display the answers that Watson is considering, even for the questions it does not buzz in for, you can see that it is just a search engine. A very sophisticated search engine, and one that would be very valuable, but still just a search engine. It can only give answers based on the data that it has been given. It cannot think beyond that data. It cannot reason outside of it's "box".
No, you misunderstand. I am saying, wire ME up to a search engine, and I could beat Watson handily. What I saw on the NOVA program, was a machine that used statistical algorithms coupled with a search engine to give answers. It was right very often, but when it was wrong, it gave answers that not even the stupidest human would give. I also read the Information Week article on the machine, and even the IBM engineers say it is not artificial intelligence:
"Watson is not that smart, but it's very powerful," Baker explains. "It can't make decisions, it doesn't really understand, and it doesn't really think, but it can read through ridiculous amounts of data and come up with possible answers with a known degree of confidence."
Human brains are not mere machines. Humans can imagine things that do not exist and cannot be measured with any instrument. Things like justice and mercy, and what it was like before the big bang. Humans can think outside of the box. Machines never will.
I watched the NOVA special on IBM's Jeopardy-playing machine. Essentially, it's a huge search engine coupled with algorithms for choosing answers. It is able to answer 90% of the questions asked, which looks impressive at first. The 10% of wrong answers it gives, however, are pretty bloody stupid. Obviously, there is really no reasoning involved here. Give me access to a massive search engine, and a computer-fast method of accessing it, and I will get 90% of the Jeopardy answers right too. Probably more than that.
Which is not to say the project is a complete waste of time. They've learned a lot by building and tweaking Watson. It's just not artificial intelligence.
Most people just want to send text messages and make phone calls. A phone doesn't have to be too bloody smart to do that. Smart phones are expensive and break easily. My daughter has gone through two smart phones in the last year. After mine stopped working (the touch screen doesn't work), I went back to an older model. Maybe, someday, if they start getting reliable, and if the monthly cost comes down, I might consider a smart phone, but right now I think smart phones are really dumb.
It doesn't matter, because long before oil peaks, there will be a revolution in Saudi Arabia, and those in power are not going to sell us any of that oil anyway. Get used to walking.
To CareerBuilder.com: "FUCKING CHIMPANZEES CAN'T DRIVE!"
To ETrade: "FUCKING BABIES CAN'T TALK LIKE THAT, LET ALONE DAY-TRADE!"
To Frito Lay: "FUCKING DORITOS CAN'T BRING PEOPLE BACK FROM THE DEAD!"
"Consultants at US defense contractors Palantir Technologies, Berico Technologies and HBGary proposed to lawyers for a desperate Bank of America an alliance that would work to discredit the whistleblowers' website using a divide and conquer approach."
I had to read this sentence several times before it made any sense. The first few times it sounded like the defense contractor consultants asked some lawyers to marry them in order to obtain the Bank of America, who was inexplicably desperate -- all of which would discredit Wikileaks.
I think what was attempting to be conveyed was the following:
"Consultants at US defense contractors Palantir Technologies, Berico Technologies and HBGary proposed an alliance with a desperate Bank of America which would work to discredit the whistleblowers' website using a divide and conquer approach."
So, federal law prevents them from dumping the "contaminated" snow in the Charles river, or the harbor. What I would like to know is this: where do they think all that snow is going to go if it melts on its own?
I still have a POTS modem. Unfortunately I got rid of my land line. I no longer have a POTS to PPP in.
That's okay if you like it. I'm sure the Edsel was popular with some people in its day also.
It just doesn't roll off the tongue. In English, it's an awkward combination of syllables.
I don't know whether LibreOffice is a good application or not, but it is one of the worst names for a product I've ever seen. Why not just name it "AwkwardStiltedOffice"?
No, I'm talking about one of these:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/garden/12amish.html
Which is actually no better than any other $20 space heater, but claims to lower your energy costs.
Although the reactors can be self-sustaining so that the input can be turned off, the scientists say that the reactors work better with a constant input.
Hmmm. I'll bet. So does my toaster oven. I wonder if these guys also make "Amish" space heaters.
What's the big deal? We had these things in the Navy -- 30 years ago. It's not like nobody makes the screwdrivers for these things.
Awesome!