I don't see how you either option dictates the number of dead. If an armed man broke into my house and fearing for my life I could kill him by pressing a button on the security system, that'd be one dead. If I had to fight him in person, witnessing him die by my own actions, I'd probably get nightmares. One dead, either him or me. Conversely, if I had to take out an enemy base to defend my country, I'd prefer to launch a tomahawk then have to storm the place in person. Bunch of dead people either way.
So far, robots are pretty dumb. While I agree in our modern capitalist world 'bots will continue to chip away at a large number of jobs, these jobs are usually the ones that don't require an education. Get an education and plenty of doors will open up that robots can't touch. If you don't like that don't blame tech, blame capitalism. Your argument about lessening the horrors of war was made by (Mr?) Gatling back in the 1860's. Don't know if you noticed, but the horrible bloodshed his invention allowed didn't scare people away from war. War will happen anyways. A Commander in Chief who never sees the battlefield will be "desensitized" anyways, irrelevant of if he's sending in men with bayonets to kill each other face to face or ordering a tomahawk to be launched. While technology certainly plays a roll in war, it's not the one to blame. If you *had* to kill, wouldn't you prefer just pressing a button? Or would you prefer the PTSD?
I didn't think of a solid explanation until I've already clicked "post," so here goes: Boardgames are an excellent place to compare AI to actual, human intelligence. A roughly four thousand year old boardgame called "go" is my favorite example here. Brute-forcing your way through a go game is obscenely difficult, even for modern computers; the number of possible games is absolutely astronomical. See http://senseis.xmp.net/?PossibleNumberOfGoGames Humans don't need to read every possible move to play the game, but rather we use our excellent pattern recognition capabilities. Hence, for a computer to even try to undertake playing this game against a human it must find "shortcuts" for reading things out - or in other words, compression. One of the leading go programs, Gnu Go (), is based largely on referencing established working responses for certain situations on localized parts of the board ("joseki"). In this sense, Gnu Go's capability is based largely on compression.
Compression is based largely on pattern recognition. If you see a pattern, you can use a smaller piece of information to represent it. Pattern recognition is arguably where AI falls short compared to actual human intelligence. My favorite example is a pattern-recognition-based boardgame called "go." The best go programs out there are still comparable at best to amature human players. I can honestly say I'm better then any go program out there right now, and I'm not very good.
I'm content to see a gap in the Windows Tax. True, this probably is not sufficient to change Joe Average's purchase, but it'd definitely open options for those of us who don't have the time to build our own machine (or have had a horrible history doing so and want to play it safe with a warantee >.> )and refuse to pay the Windows Tax. My mother needs a new machine - for the first time I'm serious considering not building it myself. This is definitely making a difference, just not to the largest slice on the pie chart.
Stealth is still most definitely necessary, irrelevant of speed. Okay, so she won't get shot down even if she's spotted - the enemy will still know that it flew overhead and saw whatever was going on. Hell, what if it isn't technically an enemy being spied on? - the plane being seen is a good way to make them one.
From what I understand, most (not necessarily this one, I didn't cheat and RTFA) send-messages-into-the-past theories limit the amount of time the information can be sent back to when the first device for this is activated. So, if this works and he should likely get flooded with messages as soon as it's finished. And on the SETI thing - it *could* be that intelligent life is just waiting for us to break the speed of light and get basic warp technology before contacting us. While there's logic to what you're saying, I don't think your point is really definitive.
In this case the issue is not that they included the search feature, it's that they artificially made it more difficult for other parties to compete with their product. The question of whether this should be included in an OS isn't an issue here.
We've become accustom to allowing Microsoft to abuse their monopoly, thanks to plenty of previous examples that set a precedent. The fact that Microsoft was for the most part let off in their browser fiasco doesn't mean it was legally correct; it just means the DOJ is a joke. Yes, in theory, MS should not have been allowed to abuse its monopoly to grab the TCP/IP market if it had what otherwise would be competition therein.
It's news that this kind of fined was done so quickly. They holes found were most likely known ways to attack a web browser, in which case Apple should have caught it before release. Betas typically have more obscure, harder to find issues - the more obvious things should already be taken care of. Sounds like it should have been in Alpha.
Right, and because you personally don't want it, Google should "cram it." You even made it clear you realize other people want them - so why "F.U. Google"? It's not as though Google is going through this for your own machine, it's going through this for those who want it. I agree this isn't clear-cut in Google's favor, but you're comment is far from fair.
Gambling is a hobby, which people can waste huge amounts of time and money over with no "practical" benefit, just like any other hobby. The same mentality could be applied to, say, Star Wars, Magic (the card game), and collecting coins. It's just these things slipped through the [name of faith here] black list. I'm sure there's/.'ers who can relate to me in knowning someone (Nosce te ipsum) who's spent far, far too much time/money on some hobby along these lines.
I've got my fair share of complaints 'bout the US government, but it really should be noted that there's people in the government who, ya'know, disagree. Many have no problems with gambling simply for the reason you explained, while others are willing to lose funding to save our souls, etc. As you pointed out, it isn't consistent - the various opinions clash often. I agree with the general point of your post, but branding everyone takes the good ones out too.
Yes. There's a number of cases where people refused to accept Windows' EULA and managed to get a refund from Dell for ~$50. They had to go through a lot of bullshit to get it done, it was for principle far more than the $50, but it has been done.
Right, so long as it's technically illegal way can say we tried and just let it go. Bad things happen, just accept them and stop trying so goddamn much. I've heard pretty bad cases of apathy, but you take the cake.
That's the whole point of the frustration here. As you explained, this isn't really enough to help with a campaign seriously - why do you think they did it then? Especially in light of what you said, I have a hard time of coming up with a practical explanation other than bribery. This isn't being blown out of proportion at all. If anything, things like this aren't spending enough time in the public eye.
I'm a college student and see early-20-year-olds all the time. Yes, many of them are children. They act without considering the consequences to themselves or others. They are irresponsible and generally stupid, with a few exceptions.
Why? From my experience, these are the kids who had their parents locking down everything they could have access too. Once let free, they have no bloody idea what the hell actual limitations they should put on themselves. Honestly, age has very little to do with it. If the children are taught properly, and shown by their parents that these children understand whats best for themselves (through trust), when they are left to their own devices they may actually make an educated decision.
If you have NEVER been allowed to make a bad decision by constraints put on by your parents, how are you supposed to react once your parents aren't stopping you anymore?
Age has very little to do with it.
Perhaps it was a different model, but I've helped a number of friends install Ubuntu with (3D) Beryl on their integrated Intel graphics. These have been on Dell's, HP's, Apple's, amongst others. I wouldn't try the brand spank'n newest game that wouldn't run on a low-end ATi or nVidia anyways on an integrated Intel, but for things like Beryl Intel's always worked fine for me.
The beauty of open-source is that, even if they do add something like that, it wouldn't be too hard to take that out. I know the average joe couldn't do that themselves, but they could download and double-click on someone else's modified version.
That kind of nonsense only works in closed-source apps. Don't get me wrong, Opera is faster. It's just ads being put in an firefox/mozilla/seamonkey/whathaveyou isn't a valid point.
If the add-on is under the same control as fx itself is, I expect it'll have a similar QA. I'm asking Mozilla to make the spellcheck (for example) an optional add-on, not for them to drop it all together and use a spellcheck from someone who can made add-ons as poorly as I do. I see no reason for the QA to drop, considering its the same central team working on them both.
I don't, I've been using Ubuntu since Dapper, and Debian for a bit before that. I was simply taking the example to a bit of an extreme - if one doesn't care about the software being open source, its quite feasible for them to feel the same about an OS.
Opera is closed source. So long as there is a viable open-source option, I'll use it over anything closed source. Firefox has a number of mouse gesture plug-ins, which I have become sufficiently used to I've tried them in nautilus accidentally.
I know a lot of people don't care if a company hides things in the code which could cause them harm - but I'm a bit overly-cautious. Don't underestimate the zealously for open-source a lot of/.'ers have.
I do. Other people can use it - fine - but if I can't see the source, I don't know whats in it and I'm not very trusting. For all I know Opera is grabbing and selling information such as my web history. I know what fx does with the passwords it stores - I can see the code. How do I know Opera doesn't use it to log into my gmail account? I can watch whats going in and out of my ethernet and wireless card, but even so opera could be using some undocumented "feature" of a closed-source operating system to make sure I don't see it.
I'm not trying to convert others to F/OSS too actively, but I'm pretty dedicated to the idea. Firefox still has a long way to go before it falls enough for me to seriously consider a closed source browser.
Hopefully someone will fork fx and fix these issues - or if not I can. Because, you know, its open source.
If people want to bloat up their browser, I don't see how thats your problem. Now, when the browser comes bloated so that you can't slim it down without spending a good bit of time cutting chunks out of the code, it becomes a problem. If they took things like spellcheck out - slimming the base fx - and allow me to chose if I want it in or not, that'd be nice. But what do you care if I want to put a bigjillion plugins on?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how you either option dictates the number of dead. If an armed man broke into my house and fearing for my life I could kill him by pressing a button on the security system, that'd be one dead. If I had to fight him in person, witnessing him die by my own actions, I'd probably get nightmares. One dead, either him or me. Conversely, if I had to take out an enemy base to defend my country, I'd prefer to launch a tomahawk then have to storm the place in person. Bunch of dead people either way.
So far, robots are pretty dumb. While I agree in our modern capitalist world 'bots will continue to chip away at a large number of jobs, these jobs are usually the ones that don't require an education. Get an education and plenty of doors will open up that robots can't touch. If you don't like that don't blame tech, blame capitalism. Your argument about lessening the horrors of war was made by (Mr?) Gatling back in the 1860's. Don't know if you noticed, but the horrible bloodshed his invention allowed didn't scare people away from war. War will happen anyways. A Commander in Chief who never sees the battlefield will be "desensitized" anyways, irrelevant of if he's sending in men with bayonets to kill each other face to face or ordering a tomahawk to be launched. While technology certainly plays a roll in war, it's not the one to blame. If you *had* to kill, wouldn't you prefer just pressing a button? Or would you prefer the PTSD?
I didn't think of a solid explanation until I've already clicked "post," so here goes: Boardgames are an excellent place to compare AI to actual, human intelligence. A roughly four thousand year old boardgame called "go" is my favorite example here. Brute-forcing your way through a go game is obscenely difficult, even for modern computers; the number of possible games is absolutely astronomical. See http://senseis.xmp.net/?PossibleNumberOfGoGames Humans don't need to read every possible move to play the game, but rather we use our excellent pattern recognition capabilities. Hence, for a computer to even try to undertake playing this game against a human it must find "shortcuts" for reading things out - or in other words, compression. One of the leading go programs, Gnu Go (), is based largely on referencing established working responses for certain situations on localized parts of the board ("joseki"). In this sense, Gnu Go's capability is based largely on compression.
Compression is based largely on pattern recognition. If you see a pattern, you can use a smaller piece of information to represent it. Pattern recognition is arguably where AI falls short compared to actual human intelligence. My favorite example is a pattern-recognition-based boardgame called "go." The best go programs out there are still comparable at best to amature human players. I can honestly say I'm better then any go program out there right now, and I'm not very good.
I'm content to see a gap in the Windows Tax. True, this probably is not sufficient to change Joe Average's purchase, but it'd definitely open options for those of us who don't have the time to build our own machine (or have had a horrible history doing so and want to play it safe with a warantee >.> )and refuse to pay the Windows Tax. My mother needs a new machine - for the first time I'm serious considering not building it myself. This is definitely making a difference, just not to the largest slice on the pie chart.
Stealth is still most definitely necessary, irrelevant of speed. Okay, so she won't get shot down even if she's spotted - the enemy will still know that it flew overhead and saw whatever was going on. Hell, what if it isn't technically an enemy being spied on? - the plane being seen is a good way to make them one.
From what I understand, most (not necessarily this one, I didn't cheat and RTFA) send-messages-into-the-past theories limit the amount of time the information can be sent back to when the first device for this is activated. So, if this works and he should likely get flooded with messages as soon as it's finished. And on the SETI thing - it *could* be that intelligent life is just waiting for us to break the speed of light and get basic warp technology before contacting us. While there's logic to what you're saying, I don't think your point is really definitive.
In this case the issue is not that they included the search feature, it's that they artificially made it more difficult for other parties to compete with their product. The question of whether this should be included in an OS isn't an issue here.
We've become accustom to allowing Microsoft to abuse their monopoly, thanks to plenty of previous examples that set a precedent. The fact that Microsoft was for the most part let off in their browser fiasco doesn't mean it was legally correct; it just means the DOJ is a joke. Yes, in theory, MS should not have been allowed to abuse its monopoly to grab the TCP/IP market if it had what otherwise would be competition therein.
It's news that this kind of fined was done so quickly. They holes found were most likely known ways to attack a web browser, in which case Apple should have caught it before release. Betas typically have more obscure, harder to find issues - the more obvious things should already be taken care of. Sounds like it should have been in Alpha.
Right, and because you personally don't want it, Google should "cram it." You even made it clear you realize other people want them - so why "F.U. Google"? It's not as though Google is going through this for your own machine, it's going through this for those who want it. I agree this isn't clear-cut in Google's favor, but you're comment is far from fair.
Gambling is a hobby, which people can waste huge amounts of time and money over with no "practical" benefit, just like any other hobby. The same mentality could be applied to, say, Star Wars, Magic (the card game), and collecting coins. It's just these things slipped through the [name of faith here] black list. I'm sure there's /.'ers who can relate to me in knowning someone (Nosce te ipsum) who's spent far, far too much time/money on some hobby along these lines.
I've got my fair share of complaints 'bout the US government, but it really should be noted that there's people in the government who, ya'know, disagree. Many have no problems with gambling simply for the reason you explained, while others are willing to lose funding to save our souls, etc. As you pointed out, it isn't consistent - the various opinions clash often. I agree with the general point of your post, but branding everyone takes the good ones out too.
Yes. There's a number of cases where people refused to accept Windows' EULA and managed to get a refund from Dell for ~$50. They had to go through a lot of bullshit to get it done, it was for principle far more than the $50, but it has been done.
Right, so long as it's technically illegal way can say we tried and just let it go. Bad things happen, just accept them and stop trying so goddamn much. I've heard pretty bad cases of apathy, but you take the cake.
That's the whole point of the frustration here. As you explained, this isn't really enough to help with a campaign seriously - why do you think they did it then? Especially in light of what you said, I have a hard time of coming up with a practical explanation other than bribery. This isn't being blown out of proportion at all. If anything, things like this aren't spending enough time in the public eye.
I'm a college student and see early-20-year-olds all the time. Yes, many of them are children. They act without considering the consequences to themselves or others. They are irresponsible and generally stupid, with a few exceptions. Why? From my experience, these are the kids who had their parents locking down everything they could have access too. Once let free, they have no bloody idea what the hell actual limitations they should put on themselves. Honestly, age has very little to do with it. If the children are taught properly, and shown by their parents that these children understand whats best for themselves (through trust), when they are left to their own devices they may actually make an educated decision. If you have NEVER been allowed to make a bad decision by constraints put on by your parents, how are you supposed to react once your parents aren't stopping you anymore? Age has very little to do with it.
Perhaps it was a different model, but I've helped a number of friends install Ubuntu with (3D) Beryl on their integrated Intel graphics. These have been on Dell's, HP's, Apple's, amongst others. I wouldn't try the brand spank'n newest game that wouldn't run on a low-end ATi or nVidia anyways on an integrated Intel, but for things like Beryl Intel's always worked fine for me.
The beauty of open-source is that, even if they do add something like that, it wouldn't be too hard to take that out. I know the average joe couldn't do that themselves, but they could download and double-click on someone else's modified version. That kind of nonsense only works in closed-source apps. Don't get me wrong, Opera is faster. It's just ads being put in an firefox/mozilla/seamonkey/whathaveyou isn't a valid point.
Sex sells (advertisements).
If the add-on is under the same control as fx itself is, I expect it'll have a similar QA. I'm asking Mozilla to make the spellcheck (for example) an optional add-on, not for them to drop it all together and use a spellcheck from someone who can made add-ons as poorly as I do. I see no reason for the QA to drop, considering its the same central team working on them both.
I don't, I've been using Ubuntu since Dapper, and Debian for a bit before that. I was simply taking the example to a bit of an extreme - if one doesn't care about the software being open source, its quite feasible for them to feel the same about an OS.
Opera is closed source. So long as there is a viable open-source option, I'll use it over anything closed source. Firefox has a number of mouse gesture plug-ins, which I have become sufficiently used to I've tried them in nautilus accidentally. I know a lot of people don't care if a company hides things in the code which could cause them harm - but I'm a bit overly-cautious. Don't underestimate the zealously for open-source a lot of /.'ers have.
I do. Other people can use it - fine - but if I can't see the source, I don't know whats in it and I'm not very trusting. For all I know Opera is grabbing and selling information such as my web history. I know what fx does with the passwords it stores - I can see the code. How do I know Opera doesn't use it to log into my gmail account? I can watch whats going in and out of my ethernet and wireless card, but even so opera could be using some undocumented "feature" of a closed-source operating system to make sure I don't see it. I'm not trying to convert others to F/OSS too actively, but I'm pretty dedicated to the idea. Firefox still has a long way to go before it falls enough for me to seriously consider a closed source browser. Hopefully someone will fork fx and fix these issues - or if not I can. Because, you know, its open source.
If people want to bloat up their browser, I don't see how thats your problem. Now, when the browser comes bloated so that you can't slim it down without spending a good bit of time cutting chunks out of the code, it becomes a problem. If they took things like spellcheck out - slimming the base fx - and allow me to chose if I want it in or not, that'd be nice. But what do you care if I want to put a bigjillion plugins on?