But we need more trickle-down gravity until the sun bursts forth and spreads the wealth to the poor Kuiper ghettos, as the job creating nova the sun could be if not for the strangulating socialist regulation of the speed of light stuck at c.
We seem to be putting all our eggs into the Stealth Basket. The technique used should depend on the situation. If you expect the enemy only has traditional radar (smaller or 3rd-world countries), then stealth is very effective. However, for more modern militaries, the sacrifices in design given to stealth hobble you because the planes can be seen yet are slowed by their stealth design.
We may need a set of planes that lack stealth but are quick and nimble. Then again, perhaps that's the job of drones because they don't have to worry about human limits to G's and can potentially flip and roll like nobody's mother. (Just hope your radio signal is not jacked into.)
Doesn't the term 'artificial intelligence' seem derogatory towards the intelligent entities it applies to? [Emph. added]
What's a better term? Alternative intelligence? That still makes it sound like an oddball. Non-human intelligence? That makes it sound like humans are the standard reference point. Silicon intelligence? We don't say humans have "flesh intelligence".
Maybe we'll finally know that true AI has arrived when the AI itself gives us better suggestions. Or sues us for discrimination. To Sue is to Think!
The early comet images I see on space.com look pretty damned good, actually. I'm sure with time they'll get more images and process and stitch them together better and we'll get some really nice big detailed screen wall-paper images.
Distance, power, and the harsh radioactive conditions of space do put a lot of constraints on imaging. Movies require a lot of mostly redundant images, which tax-payers don't want to pay for. It's rational to spend the money to image new things in new places rather than spend it on 5,000 frames of the same object for coolness alone.
Another issue is that sometimes a probe has to rotate cameras out of range so a different instrument gets prime access to a target, creating time-gaps.
With some frame "betweening" software, maybe a hobbyist can take some existing space footage and create a high-frame-rate-like experience. The mission to Eros seems to have a good set of images for such processing where the rotation angle changes roughly 1 degree per frame.
Instead of complain about jittery movies, that poster should roll up their nerd sleeves and tweenify existing stock. You don't have to fly into space, just fly into software. Boldly tween what no man has tweened before so that we can all live long and mentally prosper.
If you throw enough indirection and meta-ability into your model, it becomes analogous to a Turing Machine that can "run" and match just about any conceivable universe. It's almost at the level of Creationism in that instead of: it's that way because "God did it", you have "because my meta model (language) can be re-programmed to match that too". I smell a cop-out.
Either that, old-fashioned parsimony perhaps should be downplayed and emergent-behavior explanations be considered. But "God did it" is then a valid candidate.
As somebody facing jail, you wouldn't want the option of surgery in exchange for a greatly reduced sentence? The alternative is to let people rot in jail 20 years.
Why can't they just remove the sexual areas of pedophile brains rather than jail them for 20 years (as an option)? Often they are otherwise normal people who abide by the law, show up to work on time, and pay taxes. Their craving is very specific such as to be relatively easy to "short circuit".
As a tax-payer, it would probably be cheaper to snip around in their brain than house them for 20 years.
a fundamental mistake: They assume that valuable science is limited to the "hard sciences."
Software engineering has a similar problem. Things that are objective to measure, such as code volume (lines of code) are often only part of the picture. The psychology of developers (perception, etc.), especially during maintenance, plays a big role, but is difficult and expensive to objectively measure.
Thus, arguments break out about whether to focus on parsimony or on "grokkability". Some will also argue that if your developers can't read parsimony-friendly code, they should be fired and replaced with those who can. This gets into tricky staffing issues as sometimes a developer is valued for their people skills or domain (industry) knowledge even if they are not so adept at "clever" code.
Thus, the "my code style can beat up your style" fights involve both easy-to-measure "solid" metrics and very difficult-to-measure factors about staffing, side knowledge, people skills, corporate politics, economics, etc.
What the industry really wants is desktop-like GUI's over Web/Internet protocols. The existing stack is ill-suited for that, creating spaghetti apps with 5 different languages mixed in: CSS, HTML, SQL, JavaScript, and a server-side application language, let alone multi-version/vendor headaches.
If we told somebody about this mess in the 80's, they'd laugh at us and take away our beer.
After almost 2 decades of trying, it's time to call it a failure and revamp browser language/protocol design.
Slashdot Mirror
They fell into Jerry Mander's Cave.
But we need more trickle-down gravity until the sun bursts forth and spreads the wealth to the poor Kuiper ghettos, as the job creating nova the sun could be if not for the strangulating socialist regulation of the speed of light stuck at c.
Let's nuke a timely comet to get an 1833-style show.
We seem to be putting all our eggs into the Stealth Basket. The technique used should depend on the situation. If you expect the enemy only has traditional radar (smaller or 3rd-world countries), then stealth is very effective. However, for more modern militaries, the sacrifices in design given to stealth hobble you because the planes can be seen yet are slowed by their stealth design.
We may need a set of planes that lack stealth but are quick and nimble. Then again, perhaps that's the job of drones because they don't have to worry about human limits to G's and can potentially flip and roll like nobody's mother. (Just hope your radio signal is not jacked into.)
Ellison and Putin, two peas in a pod.
#27, lack of dates
We already know about it; it's called Congress.
Tell that to my bot's face.
What's a better term? Alternative intelligence? That still makes it sound like an oddball. Non-human intelligence? That makes it sound like humans are the standard reference point. Silicon intelligence? We don't say humans have "flesh intelligence".
Maybe we'll finally know that true AI has arrived when the AI itself gives us better suggestions. Or sues us for discrimination. To Sue is to Think!
"Call us Borg"......Oh sh8t!
The early comet images I see on space.com look pretty damned good, actually. I'm sure with time they'll get more images and process and stitch them together better and we'll get some really nice big detailed screen wall-paper images.
Distance, power, and the harsh radioactive conditions of space do put a lot of constraints on imaging. Movies require a lot of mostly redundant images, which tax-payers don't want to pay for. It's rational to spend the money to image new things in new places rather than spend it on 5,000 frames of the same object for coolness alone.
Another issue is that sometimes a probe has to rotate cameras out of range so a different instrument gets prime access to a target, creating time-gaps.
With some frame "betweening" software, maybe a hobbyist can take some existing space footage and create a high-frame-rate-like experience. The mission to Eros seems to have a good set of images for such processing where the rotation angle changes roughly 1 degree per frame.
Instead of complain about jittery movies, that poster should roll up their nerd sleeves and tweenify existing stock. You don't have to fly into space, just fly into software. Boldly tween what no man has tweened before so that we can all live long and mentally prosper.
[Error: cliche rate exceeded threshold]
Big Bank Theory
If you throw enough indirection and meta-ability into your model, it becomes analogous to a Turing Machine that can "run" and match just about any conceivable universe. It's almost at the level of Creationism in that instead of: it's that way because "God did it", you have "because my meta model (language) can be re-programmed to match that too". I smell a cop-out.
Either that, old-fashioned parsimony perhaps should be downplayed and emergent-behavior explanations be considered. But "God did it" is then a valid candidate.
Comcast makes everything seem like the 80's
Is that a common problem in your work-place? You must work for head-hunters. I've heard about them; one even owns slashd^# '~ & j [NO CARRIER]
I didn't mean snip out all of the arousal areas of the brain, only those that connect it to youth.
The conservatives were right, Sharia law has infested IT!
That seems a slippery-slope claim.
As somebody facing jail, you wouldn't want the option of surgery in exchange for a greatly reduced sentence? The alternative is to let people rot in jail 20 years.
Why go thru all that trouble, they're not going to remember it anyhow :-)
http://i.imgur.com/Tkhwh.jpg
Why can't they just remove the sexual areas of pedophile brains rather than jail them for 20 years (as an option)? Often they are otherwise normal people who abide by the law, show up to work on time, and pay taxes. Their craving is very specific such as to be relatively easy to "short circuit".
As a tax-payer, it would probably be cheaper to snip around in their brain than house them for 20 years.
Perhaps they need some therapy :-)
Software engineering has a similar problem. Things that are objective to measure, such as code volume (lines of code) are often only part of the picture. The psychology of developers (perception, etc.), especially during maintenance, plays a big role, but is difficult and expensive to objectively measure.
Thus, arguments break out about whether to focus on parsimony or on "grokkability". Some will also argue that if your developers can't read parsimony-friendly code, they should be fired and replaced with those who can. This gets into tricky staffing issues as sometimes a developer is valued for their people skills or domain (industry) knowledge even if they are not so adept at "clever" code.
Thus, the "my code style can beat up your style" fights involve both easy-to-measure "solid" metrics and very difficult-to-measure factors about staffing, side knowledge, people skills, corporate politics, economics, etc.
By the time they graduate, robots will write the programs.
What the industry really wants is desktop-like GUI's over Web/Internet protocols. The existing stack is ill-suited for that, creating spaghetti apps with 5 different languages mixed in: CSS, HTML, SQL, JavaScript, and a server-side application language, let alone multi-version/vendor headaches.
If we told somebody about this mess in the 80's, they'd laugh at us and take away our beer.
After almost 2 decades of trying, it's time to call it a failure and revamp browser language/protocol design.
Uh, you are not helping your case
Splains a lot