I find ironic the possibility that some of those who would object to this data mining, routinely share their musical preferences with the world via nuclear-powered subwoofers at 2:00am.
Wow, are they're going to be really confused...
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
We use iTunes to stream music to the whole family via a single server. That program is going to be REALLY confused about what music to suggest.
I'm impressed that they've gotten so far along with this. Nanotechnolgy is intriguing.
Still, my inner child giggles at the phrase, "...A separate blinded and randomized study in 52 rats showed that...". I picture all those little rats with blindfolds on...
In fact, accuracy is not really so much the problem as objectivity. With a non controversial topic, such as the scientific topics mentioned, Wikipedia's accuracy is quite good (it would be hard to "spin" gallium, say). And the level of detail you can get with a Wikipedia article can sometimes be overwhelming.
OTOH, when you get into topics that are controversial, most of the people who are driven to write about it feel passionately about the topic one way or another. In this way, objectivity flies out the window, and it is possible for inaccuracies to abound.
It is wrong to make blanket statements concerning Wikipedia's accuracy. Like information on the WWW in general, sometimes it is very accurate, sometimes it is not. Either way, you have to be amazed at how exhaustive it can be... something Britannica will never achieve.
In our current zeitgeist of moral relativism I am surprised that so many people are up in arms over the accuracy of Wikipedia articles.
I've decided to finally place my patent on a "device which presents the user with a selection of paper sheets, arranged in logical order, upon which words and/or pictures are imprinted". Everyone who manufactures, sells, or reads a book owes me money. My intellectual property must be respected!
I think the ultimate AI test would be for the machine to interact with a three-year-old. As the three-year-old continually deconstructs any discussion with a constant barrage of "why"'s, we will know that true AI has been attained when the machine finally screams back in desperation, "Because I said so!"
I agree. I contribute to Wikipedia from time to time, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to keep their contributions entirely anonymous unless they had some sort of malicious intent. Hell, if I were to post any kind of information on Wikipedia, erroneous or otherwise, I would welcome corrections and comments.
I thought they jumped the shark with the "tsunami" episode (David Caruso was getting pretty tedious even before that). This sounds like another incredibly unlikely storyline.
It's generally a waste of time to argue with fools. In his book, "Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences," Random House,1996, Dr. Edward Tenner quotes Thomas Edison as using the term "bugs" as early as 1878, for flaws in a system. Tenner states the word was already a common "shop" term in Edison's time for unexpected systems faults. The carryover to computers (certainly complex systems) is almost unavoidable.
Of course, I'm sure you prefer your urban legend version to true etymological research.
Another big reason for raised floors is to handle wiring. I know companies where it was installed only for this reason. Cooling wasn't even on their minds.
I'm no expert, but it would seem logical that the ability to slow light down would be useful in replicating some of the functions now performed electronically with semiconductors.
These do not conflict, and no one need study them together to benefit from either.
Correct. One is science, and the other is philosophy. Putting them at odds with each other is like having a war between mathematics and art -- it just doesn't make sense.
Slashdot Mirror
I find ironic the possibility that some of those who would object to this data mining, routinely share their musical preferences with the world via nuclear-powered subwoofers at 2:00am.
We use iTunes to stream music to the whole family via a single server. That program is going to be REALLY confused about what music to suggest.
Stop trying to mix science and philosophy!
I'm impressed that they've gotten so far along with this. Nanotechnolgy is intriguing.
Still, my inner child giggles at the phrase, "...A separate blinded and randomized study in 52 rats showed that...". I picture all those little rats with blindfolds on...
Ahem,.. back to work.
In fact, accuracy is not really so much the problem as objectivity. With a non controversial topic, such as the scientific topics mentioned, Wikipedia's accuracy is quite good (it would be hard to "spin" gallium, say). And the level of detail you can get with a Wikipedia article can sometimes be overwhelming.
OTOH, when you get into topics that are controversial, most of the people who are driven to write about it feel passionately about the topic one way or another. In this way, objectivity flies out the window, and it is possible for inaccuracies to abound.
It is wrong to make blanket statements concerning Wikipedia's accuracy. Like information on the WWW in general, sometimes it is very accurate, sometimes it is not. Either way, you have to be amazed at how exhaustive it can be... something Britannica will never achieve.
In our current zeitgeist of moral relativism I am surprised that so many people are up in arms over the accuracy of Wikipedia articles.
A spaceport already exists today in Oklahoma.
(I am not making this up)
The email is down.
Storm clouds are gathering and
You're a lightning rod.
A bit pasty, a bit zaftig, yes, but you have to admit, Naomi is pretty hot for a feminist.
If they lose it they can always claim it was attacked by a giant moth.
Naomi Wolf could be in her own video game!
I've decided to finally place my patent on a "device which presents the user with a selection of paper sheets, arranged in logical order, upon which words and/or pictures are imprinted". Everyone who manufactures, sells, or reads a book owes me money. My intellectual property must be respected!
I think the ultimate AI test would be for the machine to interact with a three-year-old. As the three-year-old continually deconstructs any discussion with a constant barrage of "why"'s, we will know that true AI has been attained when the machine finally screams back in desperation, "Because I said so!"
I agree. I contribute to Wikipedia from time to time, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to keep their contributions entirely anonymous unless they had some sort of malicious intent. Hell, if I were to post any kind of information on Wikipedia, erroneous or otherwise, I would welcome corrections and comments.
Opening line:
No, Jenny, I can tell you the game is _not_ over. In fact, the game.... is just starting.
Closing line, after capturing the bad guys:
Where you're going... the only scoring... will be on you.
That's pretty accurate. Are you sure you don't write for them?
I thought they jumped the shark with the "tsunami" episode (David Caruso was getting pretty tedious even before that). This sounds like another incredibly unlikely storyline.
Anyone else old enough to remember it? It would be on my top ten. Certainly ahead of any Star Trek movie.
Actually, I would think fearless mice would be siginificantly more mortal.
Another quality argument. Jesus.
It's generally a waste of time to argue with fools. In his book, "Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences," Random House,1996, Dr. Edward Tenner quotes Thomas Edison as using the term "bugs" as early as 1878, for flaws in a system. Tenner states the word was already a common "shop" term in Edison's time for unexpected systems faults. The carryover to computers (certainly complex systems) is almost unavoidable.
Of course, I'm sure you prefer your urban legend version to true etymological research.
That may be true, however it doesn't explain why the term is associated with computing.
Er, yes, it does.
I'm surprised that Wired put that one in there.
I'm not. Some of those people at Wired think computers work on magic crystals.
Not a lot of people know that.
That's because it's not true. The term "bug" originated in the nineteenth century to mean a mechanical defect, and predates electricity.
Another big reason for raised floors is to handle wiring. I know companies where it was installed only for this reason. Cooling wasn't even on their minds.
I'm no expert, but it would seem logical that the ability to slow light down would be useful in replicating some of the functions now performed electronically with semiconductors.
Now if we could just figure out how to turn this into some sort of weapon...
These do not conflict, and no one need study them together to benefit from either.
Correct. One is science, and the other is philosophy. Putting them at odds with each other is like having a war between mathematics and art -- it just doesn't make sense.
I am Eastern Orthodox, FWIW.