The wealthy class spends billions on propaganda to convince YOU to work harder so that THEY can make profits. The productivity of USA workers is among the highest in the world and keeps going up in general, yet our wages have been flat.
That means we work our asses off and THEY get the benefits; and they want to keep it that way, for obvious reasons.
he's playing against it like it's a human opponent... [instead] he needs to play against it like he's a programmer
You mean download a dodgy API from the Web that allegedly does close to what the customer needs, shoe-horn it into the app, give it to the naive intern to debug, and leave early for the day?
I predict he indeed could learn to beat this particular machine with some experience with it, but ultimately it's a cat-and-mouse push/pull where each would or could learn the others' adjustments.
While it's reasonable to expect he could perhaps eventually master this particular machine with practice; in the end, game AI will only keep getting better with time, while humans will not, at least not significantly.
Humans are near their plateau, while AI is most likely not, being historically AI play has gotten better just about every year since the digital computer was invented by roughly the same rate.
Put another way, the human improvement curve is appox geometric while the AI curve is exponential, based on historical patterns. Thus, take a skill scoring system. The top humans may have added approximately say 5 points a year to the best score (by learning from past games), while AI gets say 2% better each year. If the current best score is 500, then in 10 years we expect the best human to score 550, while the AI will score about 610. We seem to be near the crossing point whereby AI started (much) lower, but has a steeper improvement curve that the humans can't keep up with.
Thus, I would NOT say this means "AI is better than humans at Go" right now, but I will conclude parity is either here or near, and the future looks dim for human players based on historical AI improvement pace. It's a "moral" victory for the AI; it's arrived.
All in jest. Your statement reminded me of Bill's (alleged) statement. Technically he may have been somewhat right, but vendors find ways to bloat things up out of sloth or corner cutting or goofy standards, such as including an entire library or driver even if you only need 3% of its functionality.
built on perfboard, and had 256B (yes, not a typo: 256 bytes) of static RAM memory...When you're writing everything in machine code, it's amazing how much you can get done.
TFA: from the book "Build Your Own Working Digital Computer" in 1968. The main program storage was an oatmeal container covered in foil...
One oatmeal container oughtta be enough for anyone. -Gill Bates
It's partly because they never had a choice, or didn't understand how unreliable typical drives are/were.
Selling a more reliable drive at a bit more cost will not be given much attention UNLESS one first knows how unreliable typical drives are. Most consumers don't know.
Note that I found RAID to often not be helpful, because if the OS gets hosed, which is common with Windows, the RAID won't work right either. Perhaps with enough expertise on configuring one can avoid that, but that's beyond the consumer level.
The system would probably have to split data from OS to do it right, but MS would resist that because it severs the dependence they want you to have on Windows and Windows conventions.
The retention policy is vague because at least one copy usually ends up on a gov't system anyhow via CC's etc, and some argue that fits the policy. The policy said nothing about convenience of querying or contiguousness.
Anyway, certain communications are classified by default
It could be indirect spillage. For example, any information from Agency X may be deemed classified by default.
But, let's say worker Y removed the fact the info came from Agency X and sent it to Mrs. H.
Mrs. H would not know where the info came from because that was removed before it was sent to her. But, technically that would still make the info itself classified by the existing rules, even though it would not be obvious to the receiver.
Thus, it could be a variation of the Game of Telephone.
It was highly convoluted to "script" last I checked. And the documentation was poor. (Perhaps they cleaned it up since I've tried, but I doubt they can clean that fast.)
Part of the problem is that the web UI stacks are so convoluted and version-sensitive and fad-chasing that a programmer/analyst has to spend all their time tweaking GUI's instead of business logic. The old tools simplified the GUI side so that one could focus on the biz logic, which is how it SHOULD be. I shouldn't have to be a DOM rocket scientist to get a normal internal CRUD app working, and end up micro-managing scroll bar bugs etc.
It's like mowing the lawn with tweezers.
For marketing-oriented glitz stuff you may need to chase fads, but daily-grind GUI/CRUD standards settled by late 80's. The CRUD GUI standards shouldn't be moving, yet they are, for no farking reason other than fad chasing.
They have to be sliding all over the place like buttered glass now, and shrinking and growing like a throbbing thumb.
K.I.S.S. is dead. Something is screwed up. I want my lawn back, your convolutinators!
If the Secretary of State can't identify classified information when she sees it
Why would we expect her to know all the possible source nuances and details of a given message? That's what staff is for. She's NOT a detective. There may be some obvious possible violations, but not all will or could be obvious.
if she gave specific orders to remove classification markings
That's being addressed in a nearby thread.
for it to be legal she should have submitted a copy of all communications
All communications? Also, if she sent or CC'd a gov't employee, then a copy would exist on a gov't system automatically. Her copy is redundant info. The rule said nothing about it being in a convenient or contiguous format.
Yes, beyond a doubt, yes. There is a specific secure system for discussing classified materials.
Beyond a doubt? You are drama-queening. It's possible OTHERS sent TO her the classified materials.
Slashdot Mirror
The wealthy class spends billions on propaganda to convince YOU to work harder so that THEY can make profits. The productivity of USA workers is among the highest in the world and keeps going up in general, yet our wages have been flat.
That means we work our asses off and THEY get the benefits; and they want to keep it that way, for obvious reasons.
Example?
You mean download a dodgy API from the Web that allegedly does close to what the customer needs, shoe-horn it into the app, give it to the naive intern to debug, and leave early for the day?
I predict he indeed could learn to beat this particular machine with some experience with it, but ultimately it's a cat-and-mouse push/pull where each would or could learn the others' adjustments.
While it's reasonable to expect he could perhaps eventually master this particular machine with practice; in the end, game AI will only keep getting better with time, while humans will not, at least not significantly.
Humans are near their plateau, while AI is most likely not, being historically AI play has gotten better just about every year since the digital computer was invented by roughly the same rate.
Put another way, the human improvement curve is appox geometric while the AI curve is exponential, based on historical patterns. Thus, take a skill scoring system. The top humans may have added approximately say 5 points a year to the best score (by learning from past games), while AI gets say 2% better each year. If the current best score is 500, then in 10 years we expect the best human to score 550, while the AI will score about 610. We seem to be near the crossing point whereby AI started (much) lower, but has a steeper improvement curve that the humans can't keep up with.
Thus, I would NOT say this means "AI is better than humans at Go" right now, but I will conclude parity is either here or near, and the future looks dim for human players based on historical AI improvement pace. It's a "moral" victory for the AI; it's arrived.
All in jest. Your statement reminded me of Bill's (alleged) statement. Technically he may have been somewhat right, but vendors find ways to bloat things up out of sloth or corner cutting or goofy standards, such as including an entire library or driver even if you only need 3% of its functionality.
Washington DC
One oatmeal container oughtta be enough for anyone. -Gill Bates
The Mercury Delay unit is certainly visually impressive. You can really impress and/or scare somebody with a gizmo like that on or near your desk.
It's partly because they never had a choice, or didn't understand how unreliable typical drives are/were.
Selling a more reliable drive at a bit more cost will not be given much attention UNLESS one first knows how unreliable typical drives are. Most consumers don't know.
Note that I found RAID to often not be helpful, because if the OS gets hosed, which is common with Windows, the RAID won't work right either. Perhaps with enough expertise on configuring one can avoid that, but that's beyond the consumer level.
The system would probably have to split data from OS to do it right, but MS would resist that because it severs the dependence they want you to have on Windows and Windows conventions.
That's redundant ;-)
So, sliced bread is the greatest thing since sliced bread, eh?
I'll generally take reliability over volume. I wish they'd work on that more.
The retention policy is vague because at least one copy usually ends up on a gov't system anyhow via CC's etc, and some argue that fits the policy. The policy said nothing about convenience of querying or contiguousness.
Do you have a link? Anything concrete, or just pundits bloviating?
Friendly? I'm a jerk; does that mean I get replaced soon?
Sorry, Bum-A-Matic 9000(tm) already does that*.
* Urinating in stairwell feature is $200 extra.
It seems to me being outsourced/offshored would be a much bigger and more immediate worry. I've already lost my job to visa workers before.
It's a 100% certainty that it already happened from my perspective, while AI replacing devs is pie-in-the-sky Jetson stuff.
Existing AI is pretty good at making savants, but lacks common sense, office politics skills, and the ability to deal with unexpected situations.
It's like fearing meteors more than climate change.
It could be indirect spillage. For example, any information from Agency X may be deemed classified by default.
But, let's say worker Y removed the fact the info came from Agency X and sent it to Mrs. H.
Mrs. H would not know where the info came from because that was removed before it was sent to her. But, technically that would still make the info itself classified by the existing rules, even though it would not be obvious to the receiver.
Thus, it could be a variation of the Game of Telephone.
I had a Dumbwatch, I flunked all my exams.
Normally it's "innocent until proven guilty", not the other way around.
Then again, in politics it may be the other way around if you have enough money to rub it in.
It was highly convoluted to "script" last I checked. And the documentation was poor. (Perhaps they cleaned it up since I've tried, but I doubt they can clean that fast.)
Part of the problem is that the web UI stacks are so convoluted and version-sensitive and fad-chasing that a programmer/analyst has to spend all their time tweaking GUI's instead of business logic. The old tools simplified the GUI side so that one could focus on the biz logic, which is how it SHOULD be. I shouldn't have to be a DOM rocket scientist to get a normal internal CRUD app working, and end up micro-managing scroll bar bugs etc.
It's like mowing the lawn with tweezers.
For marketing-oriented glitz stuff you may need to chase fads, but daily-grind GUI/CRUD standards settled by late 80's. The CRUD GUI standards shouldn't be moving, yet they are, for no farking reason other than fad chasing.
They have to be sliding all over the place like buttered glass now, and shrinking and growing like a throbbing thumb.
K.I.S.S. is dead. Something is screwed up. I want my lawn back, your convolutinators!
Why would we expect her to know all the possible source nuances and details of a given message? That's what staff is for. She's NOT a detective. There may be some obvious possible violations, but not all will or could be obvious.
That's being addressed in a nearby thread.
All communications? Also, if she sent or CC'd a gov't employee, then a copy would exist on a gov't system automatically. Her copy is redundant info. The rule said nothing about it being in a convenient or contiguous format.
Beyond a doubt? You are drama-queening. It's possible OTHERS sent TO her the classified materials.
That article is misleading. We've been over that on another /. story. Dailymail has not proven to be a reliable source.
Just because some people abuse a tool is not a reason to kill the existence of the tool.
Plus, user-built software often helps test ideas that a formal analyst can later clean up. You learn domain-side issues by studying such.