Inefficient for a computer, but very efficient for a person, who has significant dedicated hardware for language processing. That's why using combinations of words makes a good password for a human to remember, but hard for a computer program to crack. https://xkcd.com/936/
A ZX80 was functional without a cassette deck (although you couldn't save your programs to cassette tapes -- no big loss!), completely unlike a Raspberry Pi which is completely unusable out of the box.
Ah, you don't care about it so much that you're bitching about it on Slashdot. I see. Besides, why would you think you're telling someone they cannot make an edit? You're just stating your opinion and he's stating his. If you bowed out of the conflict, it's your own damn fault you lost. Whinging about it here and then turning around and claiming you don't care is just icing on the cake. I bet you're a real go-getter!
I've never understood the hype of the Raspberry Pi because the Pi is only a computer, not a full computer system. After you buy all the other components you need and piece them all together, you've spent way over $25! If you want a cheap, easy to learn computer system, make it a ZX80-type system with everything included but a monitor, then provide a TV connection. It would suck on an old low-definition TV, but on a typical TV these days it could look great.
One of my favorite wiki feebles is when they told Philip Roth he’s not “credible source” on book he wrote
Absolutely correct! People cannot be sources for Wikipedia. Previously published material is the only allowed source for Wikipedia. And you can't just write a web page yourself and use that for your source. Now if Philip Roth wrote an article about his life and published it in a reliable periodical, that article could be used as a source, just as if I wrote an article about Philip Roth and had it published that article could be used as a source, too.
...and then you just gave up. I totally see how it was that other guy's problem.
I've had similar experiences, but I don't give up. If you let asshats walk all over you without putting up a fight, expect asshats to walk all over you. Wikipedia has all sorts of policies for how to deal with this sort of conflict. And I'm sure that in most conflicts both parties think they are in the right. So whomever loses comes here and complains about how bad Wikipedia is because their "good" edit was reverted, so now they refuse to try to edit articles any more.
To me, a mouse click seems far more concrete than the idea of a counter variable. Anyone who uses a computer can tell you what a mouse click is! In what way is an event "highly abstract"?
I think we should be exposing middle and high school students to some coding. Every student who graduates high school should have the experience of writing a piece of code to perform some simple task and using it in some useful way.
I also think every student should have the experience of playing a simple song on some sort of instrument. It's not about turning everyone into a pianist, but to give everyone the experience of what it is like to play music.
It would be cheaper just to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. That's why we're trying to do that... it's the less expensive approach. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions also has all sorts of other benefits: ensuring we have plenty of energy while fossil fuel resources dwindle, reducing pollution, reducing ocean acidification, and reducing droughts. I don't understand why so many people are against doing it. I suspect that in their minds in means going back to an agrarian lifestyle. It's the exact opposite -- it's moving to 21st century high technology.
The way it happens is that sea level rises slowly, so slowly it's barely noticeable. Then, literally overnight, a storm causes specific sections of land to go underwater. It's very expensive, even if we plan for it. But we never do seem to plan for it adequately, do we?
CO2 emissions will go down as fossil fuels become harder to obtain and the cost of alternative energy decreases. It's inevitable to reduce CO2 emissions, because fossil fuels will simply be exhausted. All we can do is speed up that process by imposing a carbon tax. We came together to reduce CFC emissions and sulfur emissions to alleviate the ozone hold and acid rain, so why not CO2 emisisons?
I checked the video. He said "If this continues over centuries, we could get a runaway greenhouse effect." That's a huge "if", but yes, there is a non-zero chance of us putting so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that we could trigger a runaway greenhouse effect and the Earth could become similar to Venus. No one is seriously proposing that would actually happen. That's not what the concern about climate change is. Stop being alarmist.
Well, I suppose if you replace "civilization" with "the human species," and "be at risk" with "go extinct," you're correct. But read what he actually said. "Civilization would be at risk" not "The human species would go extinct." They're different statements.
Climate change is not a death sentence. There aren't any reputable scientists saying it is. I think you may have been listening to some sensationalist media stories, and possibly embellishing what they state. If you like, you can read some of the published effects of climate change, and "all life dying" is not one of them.
Individual action is not going to reduce carbon dioxide emissions much. We need to replace fossil fuels with alternative sources of energy, which is something individuals can't do on their own. We need to build new power plants. This is something we will need to do anyway, since fossil fuels will not last forever. The only option is how quickly we wean ourselves off fossil fuels, not whether or not we do it. And doing so more quickly has the added benefits of reducing pollution and ocean acidification.
Maybe the press reports on the people who are more famous (who tend not to be AI researchers). But Stuart Russell, UC Berkeley AI researcher and co-author of the best selling AI textbook of the last two decades, has concerns about the matter, too.
In any case, when you're close to the project you can tend to lose sight of the big picture. Probably few scientists at Los Alamos thought of the long-term consequences of the weapons they were designing.
Another thing to keep in mind is that hardly anyone believes that we're close to creating human-level artificial intelligence, particularly AI researchers.
There aren't four billion public IP addresses in use. The problem is that in the early days they handed out class A subnets like they were candy, wasting millions of IP addresses with every one. Most computers don't have their own public IP address -- they have a private IP address and access the Internet via NAT.
Slashdot Mirror
Inefficient for a computer, but very efficient for a person, who has significant dedicated hardware for language processing. That's why using combinations of words makes a good password for a human to remember, but hard for a computer program to crack. https://xkcd.com/936/
Oblig xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1102/
Oblig: Chinese Room by Daniel Dennett & Neil Cohn.
A ZX80 was functional without a cassette deck (although you couldn't save your programs to cassette tapes -- no big loss!), completely unlike a Raspberry Pi which is completely unusable out of the box.
Ah, you don't care about it so much that you're bitching about it on Slashdot. I see. Besides, why would you think you're telling someone they cannot make an edit? You're just stating your opinion and he's stating his. If you bowed out of the conflict, it's your own damn fault you lost. Whinging about it here and then turning around and claiming you don't care is just icing on the cake. I bet you're a real go-getter!
I've never understood the hype of the Raspberry Pi because the Pi is only a computer, not a full computer system. After you buy all the other components you need and piece them all together, you've spent way over $25! If you want a cheap, easy to learn computer system, make it a ZX80-type system with everything included but a monitor, then provide a TV connection. It would suck on an old low-definition TV, but on a typical TV these days it could look great.
Absolutely correct! People cannot be sources for Wikipedia. Previously published material is the only allowed source for Wikipedia. And you can't just write a web page yourself and use that for your source. Now if Philip Roth wrote an article about his life and published it in a reliable periodical, that article could be used as a source, just as if I wrote an article about Philip Roth and had it published that article could be used as a source, too.
...and then you just gave up. I totally see how it was that other guy's problem.
I've had similar experiences, but I don't give up. If you let asshats walk all over you without putting up a fight, expect asshats to walk all over you. Wikipedia has all sorts of policies for how to deal with this sort of conflict. And I'm sure that in most conflicts both parties think they are in the right. So whomever loses comes here and complains about how bad Wikipedia is because their "good" edit was reverted, so now they refuse to try to edit articles any more.
If you have the misfortune of running a GUI, you can quickly get to a tty with Ctrl-Alt-F1. Who needs emulation?
To me, a mouse click seems far more concrete than the idea of a counter variable. Anyone who uses a computer can tell you what a mouse click is! In what way is an event "highly abstract"?
Ain't nobody got time for that!
I think we should be exposing middle and high school students to some coding. Every student who graduates high school should have the experience of writing a piece of code to perform some simple task and using it in some useful way.
I also think every student should have the experience of playing a simple song on some sort of instrument. It's not about turning everyone into a pianist, but to give everyone the experience of what it is like to play music.
Damn straight, just ask any Native American!
It would be cheaper just to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. That's why we're trying to do that... it's the less expensive approach. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions also has all sorts of other benefits: ensuring we have plenty of energy while fossil fuel resources dwindle, reducing pollution, reducing ocean acidification, and reducing droughts. I don't understand why so many people are against doing it. I suspect that in their minds in means going back to an agrarian lifestyle. It's the exact opposite -- it's moving to 21st century high technology.
The way it happens is that sea level rises slowly, so slowly it's barely noticeable. Then, literally overnight, a storm causes specific sections of land to go underwater. It's very expensive, even if we plan for it. But we never do seem to plan for it adequately, do we?
CO2 emissions will go down as fossil fuels become harder to obtain and the cost of alternative energy decreases. It's inevitable to reduce CO2 emissions, because fossil fuels will simply be exhausted. All we can do is speed up that process by imposing a carbon tax. We came together to reduce CFC emissions and sulfur emissions to alleviate the ozone hold and acid rain, so why not CO2 emisisons?
One foot of sea level rise is not a loss of one foot of beach, unless the beach has a 45-degree angle. A few feet of sea level rise is going to displace many millions of people.
I checked the video. He said "If this continues over centuries, we could get a runaway greenhouse effect." That's a huge "if", but yes, there is a non-zero chance of us putting so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that we could trigger a runaway greenhouse effect and the Earth could become similar to Venus. No one is seriously proposing that would actually happen. That's not what the concern about climate change is. Stop being alarmist.
Well, I suppose if you replace "civilization" with "the human species," and "be at risk" with "go extinct," you're correct. But read what he actually said. "Civilization would be at risk" not "The human species would go extinct." They're different statements.
Climate change is not a death sentence. There aren't any reputable scientists saying it is. I think you may have been listening to some sensationalist media stories, and possibly embellishing what they state. If you like, you can read some of the published effects of climate change, and "all life dying" is not one of them.
Individual action is not going to reduce carbon dioxide emissions much. We need to replace fossil fuels with alternative sources of energy, which is something individuals can't do on their own. We need to build new power plants. This is something we will need to do anyway, since fossil fuels will not last forever. The only option is how quickly we wean ourselves off fossil fuels, not whether or not we do it. And doing so more quickly has the added benefits of reducing pollution and ocean acidification.
So what does it mean that capitalism is founded on that very idea, that everyone will do what is in their own best interest?
Welcome to capitalism, baby. Greed, for lack of a better term, is good. You may want to look into alternative economic models.
Death is a necessary part of life. So if I kill you with my gun, there's no problem, right?
Maybe the press reports on the people who are more famous (who tend not to be AI researchers). But Stuart Russell, UC Berkeley AI researcher and co-author of the best selling AI textbook of the last two decades, has concerns about the matter, too.
In any case, when you're close to the project you can tend to lose sight of the big picture. Probably few scientists at Los Alamos thought of the long-term consequences of the weapons they were designing.
Another thing to keep in mind is that hardly anyone believes that we're close to creating human-level artificial intelligence, particularly AI researchers.
There aren't four billion public IP addresses in use. The problem is that in the early days they handed out class A subnets like they were candy, wasting millions of IP addresses with every one. Most computers don't have their own public IP address -- they have a private IP address and access the Internet via NAT.