I can type more precisely and quickly and confidently than I can talk. Deciding which words to type is faster and easier. How is voice recognition going to improve on the speed by which I can speak, which is inferior to my typing ability whenever precision is required?
Isn't this the sort of thing ancient cultures uses meditation and hallucinogens for? Drive your brain to chaos, and a computer siulation's lack of precision may become evident. For a simplified mathematucally anenable model to play with, start with a numerical simulation of the Lorentz attractor, or the logistic map, using arbitrary preecision in general, and occasionally doing a few calculations using more limited precision: do this in parallel using different patterns of precision limitation, and one with maximum precision. See how quickly qualitatively different behavior results. Do the same with simulations of non-chaotic or near chaotic systems. Driving a system to extreme levels of complexity can potentially be used to study imperfections in a simulation of that system. Now try and imagine how one would do something analogous with mind and brain. If nothing else, this would make for a fun plot device for a psychological scifi novel.
If somebody is controlling the computer simulation, and we all play the lottery, and dream of what we could do with all that money, the devil controlling the simulation must either rig the lottery machine, or anticipate what all of us may do with the winnings. Both are unfeasibly hard to do undetectably. [ This advice brought to you in association with... ]
Given that you can youtube-dl to get an mkv of mp4 file, then ffmpeg -i in.mp4 -vn -c:a copy out.m4a, or similar, which ytmp3 just does behind the scenes and caches its output, this strikes me as yet another publicity stunt to get more and more pro-ip anti-tech laws. These guys think that nothing in the universe is as important than their financial income. Such greed is a cancer in society.
Urm. $1200/100=$12. Add the extra capital of connecting to multiple locations, and admin overheads and stuff, and $20-30 is quite reasinable. (Those pesky damned off-by-1 errors when you're working log10...)
Think around, not through. What we want is efficient, intuitive and reliable human computer communication. If voice recognition is that hard, with many facepalm inducing errors, it is a stupid way to go. It is easier for humans to adapt to the machine. This means artificial dialects and simple AI and a bit of human training. Human consumers are lazy and want magic. Apple and MS try to grab them with the illusion of magic. It would be better for the free software to research what changes to speaking habits make the software component easier, then write howtos and youtube guides as to how to speak to it.
So basically they've taken a bitcoin like distributed ledger, restricted who can do the mining work, and allowed certain privileged entities to produce some form of signed patch. Effectively it's just taking something like bitcoin and adding a new transaction type. As such, it's a blockchain counterpart to the way that UDF allows modifying and deleting on WORM media (that is, a convention for saying 'x was deleted', or 'x replaces y'), perhaps with the means to prevent the erased information being recovered from the updated blockchain.
There is a tradeoff in cloud storage between hard drive failure and business model failure. For me, the MTBF of a cloud storage business model seems to be drastically shorter than that of my desktop hard drives.
Exactly. It totally misses the point of the pi. An x86 board with a pi-compatible layout and GPIO pins (and a sata port would be nice), for under $50 and you'd be in the territory of 'outcompeting the pi'. It is competing against stuff more like this: http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/...
The frustrating thing is that the system has all the legal means tied up, with a near monopoly on medical opinion and a 'doctor's judgement' notion to hide behind. Even if you are successful by legal means, there may not be much of the person you are fighting for left, long before you reach a conclusion.
A robot is a mechanical device coordinated by a complex system of rules (its software). A bureaucracy is an organisation coordinated by a system of rules (law and policy). The rules largely define the behaviour. Whoever is responsible for the rules being the way they are has to take a large degree of responsibility for both writing those rules, and their consequences, and for their testing, maintenance, and if necessary withdrawal. This responsibility needs to be relatively unperturbed by conflicts of interest when human health and lives are at stake. Bureaucracies are robots built out of humans.
"Use but don't trust." is my general motto for cloud stuff. What you gain from cloud services is only truly yours when removal of those cloud services cannot take it away from you. "May be cancelled for business reasons at short notice" and similar are caveats to essentially all cloud services (given that those 'business reasons' may involve insolvency, which overrides any contracted obligations to you).
Social awkwardness, Aspergers, and so on have this nasty side to them. The natural desire and curiosity is there, the lack of social graces makes it hard to satisfy, the loneliness when others' social and sex lives work and yours dont can be excruciating, and the means to remedy the problems is often either taboo, niche, or unattainable. The pressure to enjoy spreading naughty videos is strong, and sensible alternatives non-existent. By seeing these people as 'akward herberts' to be sidelined, ignored and labelled away compounds the problem.
Modern society's attitudes to young women and sex are basically a fucked up mish mash of caveman reproductive instincts and simplistic religious bigotry. By making sex rarer, subject to various social conventions and expectations, you cultivate perverse fascinations, and inhibit maturity.
100 people trying to write rules to stop 100,000 people trying to share porn, whilst not stopping everybody else. How hard can it be? (I'll leave the question of whether a pun is intended to an internet poll.)
The should have had a terms of use thing saying that if access to porn sites were made, a warning would pop up, and if the user accepted, their use would be recorded and sent to an admin team who could check out what was being watched through the tablets. Then said team would have an excuse for looking at porn on the payroll.
There needs to be acceptable nudity policies. These should require users who upload photos with nudity to tag them as such, including whether sexual or non-sexual (the napalm girl is clearly non-sexual), and even pornographic (if there is a service that allows pornographic images). The rule then is that the uploader must tag certain tags if appropriate (e.g. non-sexual nudity), and so on. Then users have users settings on whether to block such tags, and if they see untagged images which should have been tagged, and would have been blocked given their settings, then there is the 'inappropriate image' system. When it comes to sexual nudity stuff, if present at all, there should be checks on users. Then AI can flag possible non-tagged images. This really ought to be well within what Facebook can do. In addition, with sensitive stuff (like the revenge porn stuff), there should be terms and conditions where blatant stuff like that european lawsuit is about can lead to details of uploaders being sent either to police or the victim's lawyers.
The problem is to try too hard to have an idiot-proof one-size-fits-all acceptable image policy.
With Twitter, I almost always try to have a tweet with correct English spelling, grammar and punctuation, and which takes up exactly 140 characters, using at most 3-4 hash tags. (Yes, I'm on the spectrum.)
What am I going to do now? I hope I don't get Twittagoraphobia with all the space it will shower me with.
Property rights aren't guaranteed by the laws of physics, but by social convention. Your taxes pay for the system which, in part, enforces that social convention. If you would rather not pay, your rights to own property, physical or intellectual, should disappear too. If Apple wants is IP to be treated as real, it should adhere to tax regulations.
There are seven disciplines medicine needs to learn much from: maths, stats, logic, computation, science, engineering, psychology.
Medical doctors can't be experts in all these, but the current climate requires them to be, or else fall prey to being persuaded by clever marketing. How one gets from a clinical trial to the 'one-on-one doctor-patient' scenario is a major case in point: how one adds back the significance of all salient features not selected for in the clinical trial is a matter which most doctors look blankly at when pointed out. (This is simple Bayesian statistics: what is the probability that treatment X works, or is most effective, given only that the patient has diagnostic label D? What if they have label D and are between ages of 20 and 40? What if they have diagnosis D and are between ages of 20 and 40 and are a Buddhist who meditates daily? What if they have label D and are between the ages of 20 and 40, are overweight, don't exercise, and eat junk food? and so on. What matters is how the 'best' decision changes as we limit towards a precise description of the patient in front of the clinician, and if that decision can change, the sensible clinician will realise they need more information to make a reliable decision.)
The hold 'sensible' in reserve, kind of like how we have nuclear warheads as a last resort to deter other competitors from doing 'sensible'. Mutually Assured Decency is this nightmate scenario where customers get stuff the can actually be happy with, and then the magic cash cow of dissatisfied customers willing to throw money at them for cavorting their shinyness is left a desolate wasteland. They hold 'sensible' in reserve to ensure competitors cannot gain strategic advantage from doing 'sensible', and thus all is grist to the crazy mill of free marketeering. (The more sane amongst you will recognise a Nash equilibrium in here somewhere.)
Slashdot Mirror
I can type more precisely and quickly and confidently than I can talk. Deciding which words to type is faster and easier. How is voice recognition going to improve on the speed by which I can speak, which is inferior to my typing ability whenever precision is required?
More simply, 7680=8000 to one significant figure.
Now all we need is some 8K porn to watch on it.
Isn't this the sort of thing ancient cultures uses meditation and hallucinogens for? Drive your brain to chaos, and a computer siulation's lack of precision may become evident. For a simplified mathematucally anenable model to play with, start with a numerical simulation of the Lorentz attractor, or the logistic map, using arbitrary preecision in general, and occasionally doing a few calculations using more limited precision: do this in parallel using different patterns of precision limitation, and one with maximum precision. See how quickly qualitatively different behavior results. Do the same with simulations of non-chaotic or near chaotic systems. Driving a system to extreme levels of complexity can potentially be used to study imperfections in a simulation of that system. Now try and imagine how one would do something analogous with mind and brain. If nothing else, this would make for a fun plot device for a psychological scifi novel.
If somebody is controlling the computer simulation, and we all play the lottery, and dream of what we could do with all that money, the devil controlling the simulation must either rig the lottery machine, or anticipate what all of us may do with the winnings. Both are unfeasibly hard to do undetectably. [ This advice brought to you in association with... ]
Given that you can youtube-dl to get an mkv of mp4 file, then ffmpeg -i in.mp4 -vn -c:a copy out.m4a, or similar, which ytmp3 just does behind the scenes and caches its output, this strikes me as yet another publicity stunt to get more and more pro-ip anti-tech laws. These guys think that nothing in the universe is as important than their financial income. Such greed is a cancer in society.
Urm. $1200/100=$12. Add the extra capital of connecting to multiple locations, and admin overheads and stuff, and $20-30 is quite reasinable. (Those pesky damned off-by-1 errors when you're working log10...)
Think around, not through. What we want is efficient, intuitive and reliable human computer communication. If voice recognition is that hard, with many facepalm inducing errors, it is a stupid way to go. It is easier for humans to adapt to the machine. This means artificial dialects and simple AI and a bit of human training. Human consumers are lazy and want magic. Apple and MS try to grab them with the illusion of magic. It would be better for the free software to research what changes to speaking habits make the software component easier, then write howtos and youtube guides as to how to speak to it.
So basically they've taken a bitcoin like distributed ledger, restricted who can do the mining work, and allowed certain privileged entities to produce some form of signed patch. Effectively it's just taking something like bitcoin and adding a new transaction type. As such, it's a blockchain counterpart to the way that UDF allows modifying and deleting on WORM media (that is, a convention for saying 'x was deleted', or 'x replaces y'), perhaps with the means to prevent the erased information being recovered from the updated blockchain.
There is a tradeoff in cloud storage between hard drive failure and business model failure. For me, the MTBF of a cloud storage business model seems to be drastically shorter than that of my desktop hard drives.
And that is basically what a var in javascript is: a javascript object or null. Null in Javascript is similar to None in python.
Exactly. It totally misses the point of the pi. An x86 board with a pi-compatible layout and GPIO pins (and a sata port would be nice), for under $50 and you'd be in the territory of 'outcompeting the pi'. It is competing against stuff more like this: http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/...
The frustrating thing is that the system has all the legal means tied up, with a near monopoly on medical opinion and a 'doctor's judgement' notion to hide behind. Even if you are successful by legal means, there may not be much of the person you are fighting for left, long before you reach a conclusion.
A robot is a mechanical device coordinated by a complex system of rules (its software). A bureaucracy is an organisation coordinated by a system of rules (law and policy). The rules largely define the behaviour. Whoever is responsible for the rules being the way they are has to take a large degree of responsibility for both writing those rules, and their consequences, and for their testing, maintenance, and if necessary withdrawal. This responsibility needs to be relatively unperturbed by conflicts of interest when human health and lives are at stake. Bureaucracies are robots built out of humans.
"Use but don't trust." is my general motto for cloud stuff. What you gain from cloud services is only truly yours when removal of those cloud services cannot take it away from you. "May be cancelled for business reasons at short notice" and similar are caveats to essentially all cloud services (given that those 'business reasons' may involve insolvency, which overrides any contracted obligations to you).
Social awkwardness, Aspergers, and so on have this nasty side to them. The natural desire and curiosity is there, the lack of social graces makes it hard to satisfy, the loneliness when others' social and sex lives work and yours dont can be excruciating, and the means to remedy the problems is often either taboo, niche, or unattainable. The pressure to enjoy spreading naughty videos is strong, and sensible alternatives non-existent. By seeing these people as 'akward herberts' to be sidelined, ignored and labelled away compounds the problem.
Modern society's attitudes to young women and sex are basically a fucked up mish mash of caveman reproductive instincts and simplistic religious bigotry. By making sex rarer, subject to various social conventions and expectations, you cultivate perverse fascinations, and inhibit maturity.
100 people trying to write rules to stop 100,000 people trying to share porn, whilst not stopping everybody else. How hard can it be? (I'll leave the question of whether a pun is intended to an internet poll.)
The should have had a terms of use thing saying that if access to porn sites were made, a warning would pop up, and if the user accepted, their use would be recorded and sent to an admin team who could check out what was being watched through the tablets. Then said team would have an excuse for looking at porn on the payroll.
Torrenting a few porn movies is worse than rape. At some point ideas like 'fair', and 'proportional' were euphemised and defined out of the window.
There needs to be acceptable nudity policies. These should require users who upload photos with nudity to tag them as such, including whether sexual or non-sexual (the napalm girl is clearly non-sexual), and even pornographic (if there is a service that allows pornographic images). The rule then is that the uploader must tag certain tags if appropriate (e.g. non-sexual nudity), and so on. Then users have users settings on whether to block such tags, and if they see untagged images which should have been tagged, and would have been blocked given their settings, then there is the 'inappropriate image' system. When it comes to sexual nudity stuff, if present at all, there should be checks on users. Then AI can flag possible non-tagged images. This really ought to be well within what Facebook can do. In addition, with sensitive stuff (like the revenge porn stuff), there should be terms and conditions where blatant stuff like that european lawsuit is about can lead to details of uploaders being sent either to police or the victim's lawyers.
The problem is to try too hard to have an idiot-proof one-size-fits-all acceptable image policy.
With Twitter, I almost always try to have a tweet with correct English spelling, grammar and punctuation, and which takes up exactly 140 characters, using at most 3-4 hash tags. (Yes, I'm on the spectrum.)
What am I going to do now? I hope I don't get Twittagoraphobia with all the space it will shower me with.
Property rights aren't guaranteed by the laws of physics, but by social convention. Your taxes pay for the system which, in part, enforces that social convention. If you would rather not pay, your rights to own property, physical or intellectual, should disappear too. If Apple wants is IP to be treated as real, it should adhere to tax regulations.
There are seven disciplines medicine needs to learn much from: maths, stats, logic, computation, science, engineering, psychology.
Medical doctors can't be experts in all these, but the current climate requires them to be, or else fall prey to being persuaded by clever marketing. How one gets from a clinical trial to the 'one-on-one doctor-patient' scenario is a major case in point: how one adds back the significance of all salient features not selected for in the clinical trial is a matter which most doctors look blankly at when pointed out. (This is simple Bayesian statistics: what is the probability that treatment X works, or is most effective, given only that the patient has diagnostic label D? What if they have label D and are between ages of 20 and 40? What if they have diagnosis D and are between ages of 20 and 40 and are a Buddhist who meditates daily? What if they have label D and are between the ages of 20 and 40, are overweight, don't exercise, and eat junk food? and so on. What matters is how the 'best' decision changes as we limit towards a precise description of the patient in front of the clinician, and if that decision can change, the sensible clinician will realise they need more information to make a reliable decision.)
The hold 'sensible' in reserve, kind of like how we have nuclear warheads as a last resort to deter other competitors from doing 'sensible'. Mutually Assured Decency is this nightmate scenario where customers get stuff the can actually be happy with, and then the magic cash cow of dissatisfied customers willing to throw money at them for cavorting their shinyness is left a desolate wasteland. They hold 'sensible' in reserve to ensure competitors cannot gain strategic advantage from doing 'sensible', and thus all is grist to the crazy mill of free marketeering. (The more sane amongst you will recognise a Nash equilibrium in here somewhere.)