Re: AI is harder than Turing expected
Yes. You're so obsolete that you don't even know it yourself.
1404 posts • joined 10 Apr 2007
Yes. You're so obsolete that you don't even know it yourself.
Intriguing read about the "Halting Problem". But it goes to justify why my loosely held general belief that mathematicians should stay clear of programming still runs true.
I've had countless arguments with mathematicians pretending to be programmers... from those that claimed that "5g" languages would make programmers obsolete to those that can't grasp that while small parts of a typical application can be represented in a mathematical manner, it quickly becomes pointless trying to apply such an unsuitable technique to wider applications or algorithms. While it is of course possible, the dataset rapidly becomes a ludicrous set of multi-dimensional possibilities and while the analysis can be streamlined the sheer processing power requirements to model and validate the entire thing renders any attempt pointless. In the end the algorithm effectively degenerates into a simulation. In many ways this is similar to computer chess.
That's the problem with, in this case, a historical lack of understanding. The brain isn't a binary device and while any individual component doesn't run especially fast, they do run in parallel. The concept of a machine fooling a human in a blind test is still a clever device, even if the understanding and predictions were out.
This kind of historical take on something is often quite interesting, for example Asimov's robots could not speak but could understand. It was later advances in technology that lead to the "artificial voicebox" in his books. From a biological point of view it was correct - babies and toddlers can understand much more than they can speak, however from a technology point of view it's reversed as speech synthesis is simple compared to contextual comprehension.
Pretty close to the "reviews" many goods, services, holiday locations or restaurants receive. It's almost uncanny how many always include the same key points.
The difference between these looks to be the IP rating (no note of this on the ebay item, IP54 for the lacie) and I'd hope that the interior circuitry / connectors would be more rugged in the lacie than the ebay item.
Yes and no. Hence messy. For example, online file streams do not contain metadata.
All of the metadata (file streams) attached to an individual file would have to be verified to ensure consistent operation on the off chance that code within that module, or any other for that matter, checks the metadata and changes behaviour as a result.
The test is that the provided code must compile and be binary identical to the publicly available deployed files. This gets messy with code signing involved.
The vertical deployment of the drives looks sensible from the purely spatial point of view as it means all the non-drive space (power, data, cables and support) is put into one plane which should optimise the use of space. Vertical stacking would remove the need for cables in the same way that commercial removable external HDD units work (if you're in the business of swapping out HDDs, these kind of exposed external HDD "caddies" are invaluable).
I can't see any details from the picture, but if I were designing this I would combine the cooling and support elements into one form, a thin metal (e.g. thermally conductive) caddy that ensures that the drive sits true on the connectors and doesn't topple or otherwise shear or twist the connectors. It would effectively make the caddy a part of a monster heat pipe.
They will be a bugger to deal with though, particularly when you need to swap a drive in the top unit at the top of a 42U rack. Servers are annoying enough, any although these probably don't have a lid case on top to content with, the drives would have to be carefully removed to not interfere with the operation of adjacent drives.
EDIT: Just googled the SS88460 user guide and aside from the unit looking different to the datasheet model and the image here on El Reg, it has slots for pairs of drives and enclosed caddies for each HDD.
Exactly. How many wifi channels are there? How would this interact with private wifi which will operate on the same frequencies and standards.
With the shared wireless bandwidth where every additional connection reduces the overall available bandwidth due to the coordination required between them, 4G connections that are fine as long as you happen to have a good signal, i.e. you're not indoors, moving and don't have pesky bags of water standing in the way.
And then there's the network route from the mast wifi/4G to the Internet...
I saw or read about this or something very similar a few years ago where the facility was in the middle of a few fields and it also controlled access to these fields for field rotation purposes. It's a phenomenal setup, but I hadn't realised that it had gone any further and was in actual use, particularly given the likely cost.
The progressive ones use fax machines now? Wow. Most seem incapable of progressing beyond photocopies of photocopies and 2nd class stamps.
Why no legislation on burglary manuals? Or Murder manuals? Armed robbery manuals? (Maybe it's the programmer in me, but why not create an abstract law regarding the dissemination of criminal techniques in manuals and then have a concrete implementation for each crime?)
Because that would be sensible and would not pander to the idiots / daily mail readers / voters (delete as applicable). A sane lawyer, yes, I couldn't believe one still existed, recently stated that having more and more specific laws was a bad thing. Unless you are a lawyer. And guess what's the background of a lot of the top MPs...
There were also some statistics about the number of new laws introduced recently compared to historically. The rise is phenomenal, and it's not because there are a great many new or novel crimes being committed. Creating new laws is very different to enforcing them.
There is an attachment to the idea of Outlook + Exchange + Public Folders that no force in the universe is ever going to dislodge.
Microsoft is working very hard on this.
1) They've been steadily depracating Public Folders with every release of Exchange and Outlook (including refusing to fix decade old bugs) in favour of... sharepoint.
2) It's cloud, cloud, cloud, cloud all the way. Or, more accurately, subscription services under Microsoft's control.
Luckily, Microsoft hasn't been entirely successful in killing off Public Folders yet.
Is the use of a Kindle in this way one of the accepted, licenced uses of the device, deviating from which invalidates the warranty?
It was created as a cost saving device, not a time saving device.
The cost of the effects of the ships, shuttle, and so on landing at each new location would have been prohibitive. However a static(*) scene overlaid reveal process (i.e. the teleport animation) was very cheap regardless of the setting.
* You'll notice that with very few exceptions that the scene the characters are leaving or arriving by teleport was always static, clever cuts and edits disguised this very well. Much more recent examples changed this of course.
I curse you, you vile carnivores..
I'll have you know that I'm an omnivore, not a carnivore. (Just like almost every non-vegetarian/vegan).
In general I wouldn't touch USA bacon with a shitty stick, nor anything else pork based, unless it's organic or similar. The last stuff you want to eat is any US mass produced pork.
It only took me three days to teach staff at a US hotel how to cook bacon properly, possibly prompted by my queries as to how many injury claims they receive regarding shards of US style cooked bacons shattering and exploding when prodded with a fork...
That's just the pace of modern progress isn't it? We used to use 3 1/2" floppy disks as mug mats and these days nothing less than a multi-Gb coaster will do the job.
Can discrimintation ever be positive....?
Occasionally, yes. For example, police "liaison officers" (or whatever they've been rebranded this week) need to have representatives for any of the isolationist communities that they need to deal with. On the other hand, you could put this as part of the job description role rather than the selection process.
If we're not careful, we'll have 78 year old male pole dancers... :)
Little boys are encouraged to be bold, girls are encouraged to be quiet and behave. Boys are considered to be better at rational problem-solving, women are presumed to be more empathetic, and so each type of behaviour is drilled into tiny brains until it 'takes'. It seems as if it must be Nature, doesn't it-- we are born this way. And society actively polices this.
Oh FFS. Males and females are different. We are genetically distinct, we generally have different body structures and shapes and our brains are generally wired up differently. This doesn't mean that there aren't exceptions to the rule and that there are crossovers on the physical or mental level, but that in general males and females are predisposed to certain activities. This doesn't make this wrong, just a recognition of the facts. Visit any human trash area or, more accurately, areas where it is common that parenting is considered something for somebody else to do, and you'll quickly notice that it's not a rule that boys are bold and girls are quiet.
Ask any woman (hi) who has walked into a male-only work environment. Or watch the dominant group (white, male, straight) gang up on the 'outsider' (woman, or gay male, or non-white.)
Here we have the usual racist, sexist response. This is very rarely a racist or sexist issue, it's a grouping, "gang", if you like, issue. It doesn't matter if you are black, brown, white, male, female, gay or straight, intrude into an area dominated by a distinct group of people and if you don't fit in, you will be isolated and, often, abused in some manner. This is, unfortunately, how such groups work and you can either adhere to the group's predispositions or work, socially, to break down barriers. I've personally seen an office of "brown" female co-workers mercilessly taunt and abuse a "white" male co-worker, a group of "brown" make workers abuse a sole "black" co-worker, a small group of mixed-sex "brown" co-workers isolate themselves from a larger group of mixed sex "white" co-workers and then cry discrimination when they weren't included in social events yet excluding the others from what they considered to be their "own" events.
It's a crude generalisation, but some of the most racist people I know are "minorities" who have appalling views on the "majorities" and mountain sized chips on their shoulders to match. The worst case was some trash on twitter who claimed that "it wasn't possible to be racist to a majority."
(and in case anybody cares, the use of black, brown or white here is just descriptive and it's a hell of a lot easier than recording "Irish, Welsh, Cornish, English, Brittany French, Scandinavian, Andalusian, Spanish, and every other national / identity grouping that you care to think of).
There are a few choice European locations that I'd like to see them handle... the Arc' De Triomphe roundabout being one, along with pretty much anywhere in Rome.
Further afield, the mountain roads of Poland where it's considered normal to a) park on a blind corner and b) overtake on a blind corner, and that's just one example of perpetual lunacy on the road.
Google maps (navigation) knows about tunnels and handles them appropriately, not whining about a lack of satellites and even switches the display to night mode. The sensors do get confused if you stop in the the tunnel but will pick up again when you regain a satnav signal.
And if you've ever my my mother-in-law on the road, she's even worse than white van drivers... she ignores cyclists and pretends that they're not there and therefore drives past giving them no space. She also believes that "it's ok to drink drive if you're a local".
She's ideal google car material.
The only interesting thing with gartner "reports" is guessing who paid for the report. Sometimes even this isn't very interesting as it's too obvious.
Gartner: Telling you want you want to hear since 1979.
or more accurately:
Gartner: Telling your prospective customers what you want them to hear since 1979
Pictures or it didn't happen. Or at the very least a playmobil reconstruction.
Sometimes I wonder if the journalistic quality of the esteemed El Reg is slipping...
The trend will be to use an "online personal assistant" to perform the search. That's the next big thing therefore they will be pushed heavily and we'll all get to enjoy the product placement and unfeasible search results and accuracy demonstrated.
Agreed. Microsoft really need Bing. Ignoring the stupid name and poor search results (although they are much better than they used to be), having a large, backed competitor for Internet Search is important for the industry. "Google It" is already a generic term for Internet Search, it's important that there are genuine alternatives as otherwise a company in a monopoly position will not improve and will instead exploit the situation. Microsoft should know this...
At least the xbox/halo Cortana has a vaguely realistic human body shape. Reading up on it (like you do), apparently the latest version was designed by a female designer which may go some way to explaining why there's a hint of reality there.
Now if MS were to redesign the windows phone Cortana to be red and perhaps give it a theme song. Something appropriate like "Daisy, daisy..."...
And add a contextual language filter to messaging on the device as well. That way certain words, phrases or message meanings could be avoided being sent to friends, colleague, boss, wife, mistress, mother-in-law and so on.
Desk phones that don't require a forgettable training a course to use despite having a millionth of the functionality of a smartphone requiring no training
Hahaha.. so very true. I'm looking at one now and I'm in IT so ought to be able to figure out how to use it but between button icons that are largely meaningless even when you know what they do, side of screen buttons that don't line up with the screen and an interface menu scheme that just makes no sense at all I just don't bother.
Hmmm... where to begin?
* Super capacitors - on the power infrastructure side a big problem we have is the mismatch between the generation of electricity and demand, particularly for renewables. Smaller super capacitors would also help massively when it comes to electric cars and mobile devices.
* Efficient Operating Systems / Software. You know, ones that don't spend 99% of their time not doing anything useful and instead getting in the way. It's frustrating when you know that the sheer increase of processing power and capacity over the recent years hasn't resulted in systems that respond consistently and efficiently, instead we get massive hang ups and freezes and systems where it's considered "acceptable" that they take 2-5 minutes to be fully ready to use. That's use, not just at a login prompt or showing a desktop while another 10 applications slowly load. Couple this with common software that at every release is somehow 50% larger and 200% slower than the one before. Optimisation <> Newer, faster hardware.
* Sealed keyboards that are still good to type on. Tip your keyboard upside down, tap a few times, admire the pile of dirt that has accumulated and the amount that is still left in the keyboard...
* The complete removal of EA from the face of the planet. This way there may be some "new" games that aren't sequels of existing games that were sequels of the ones before... and, more hopefully, the severe culling of piss-taking in-app purchases.
* Fast refresh / state change (as necessary), high tonal range, full colour reflective displays.
* Vertical stacked camera sensors (current camera sensors waste a majority of the available photons, killing low light performance). I know these are on their way, but can't remember the search term...
From what I remember the chief current problem with Gallium Arsenide chips is that they are currently very expensive compared to Silicon chips, the manufacturing processes are not up to scratch yet, and then there's the marketing "problem" with the word "Arsenide". From the technical point I seem to remember that there were some chemical / thermal stability issues to overcome as well.
That's true, but it's probably more accurate now that the technology for it is getting closer. Or more accurately, the technology for a reasonable experience is getting closer. The more research and effort put into it, the more fine details there are that need to be resolved.
The eyeball tracking for the small point of focus and depth perception (generally regarded as only truly accurate within roughly arms reach, beyond that it's a guess involving visual clues in the environment).
The "lean problem" e.g. navigate through a VR environment, approach a wall and lean closer to get a better look at it - what happens when you lean further and effectively pass through the surface?
The other "security" function is that these dumb sites force you to record a memorable place, date and name. All in the interest of security of course. Anybody sane in security (can't be many left) knows that this usually leads to a less secure system than a more secure one.
And as for "Verified by Visa" (or the equivalent for MC), I have never, ever, entered my password correctly on that. Every time I click "Forgotten Password", enter some trivial details, enter another junk password that I'll never remember and that's it. Does this aid security in any way? No
I'd rather that there was a box labelled "none of the above".
At least this way the politicians won't decide that with a majority of returned results in a voting area, that they have a mandate to do whatever they feel like and screw the entire electorate. Given that a winner may have only 40% of the votes and only 40% of the people in an area might vote, that means that only 16% of the voters in the area approve of them.
So mandatory voting and a box labelled "none of the above" please. We shouldn't have to vote for the one that we least dislike.
"Back when I was picking coffee beans in Guatamala..."
Is there anything that WonderJake can't do?
Be truthful? :)
I just find it entertaining...
Sci-Fi is a setting - in general the more it is treated like this, and not an effects-laden crutch for poor script, dialogue and ideas, the better the film is.
The first Star Wars film (ep:IV) succeeded because it took commonly used story elements and a relatively standard plot line and set these elements using a Sci-Fi setting. The effects weren't cheap for their time, therefore they didn't detract from the plot. Likewise the effects weren't the focus of the film either.
The second film (ep:V, The Empire Strikes Back), continued more or less along the same lines and while there was greater emphasis on the technology and effects, they generally didn't feel like they were shoved in just because they could be, and a plot was fitted around them afterwards.
The third film (ep:VI, The Return of the Jedi), showed a bit of promise but on the marketing (merchandising) success of the previous two, piled in with merchandising features often to the detriment of the film. It still worked as it wasn't too grossly overdone, but it did detract from the film.
The recent films (ep:I, II & III) were built from working out what (and who) to merchandise, fitting special effects around them and then trying to shoe-horn any form of plot but only only if there was space available.
The "Star Trek" relaunch was very much similar, but more from the point of starting with pointless special effects, incompetent plots and then throwing in a few "popular" actors and topping it off with a few nods to the original to keep some "spirit" of the originals in there.
The entire concept of films and where they come from is often lost, for example Impossible Mission was all about a team of people working together, not one single "super character" (played by a famous actor) where it became a more effects driven copy of any James Bond film.
While you have a point regarding the "last mile" bandwidth, it's getting the data from the Content Delivery Network (CDN) that is the problem.
In principle there should be no problem streaming 17 HD films down your 70Mb link itself. However those 17 HD films have to get to you from the content provider's network. If 1000 people in your city are also concurrently streaming 17 HD files, then that's 17000 HD films that need to be delivered concurrently, with no or minimal loss of packets and no pauses (buffering during playback); a short amount of buffering is always in place with streaming and this happens as you start the video. That's a hell of a strain on an infrastructure to deliver that.
While the principle that a company, certainly one that is the originator of a lot of content, can, or should, pay more for better delivery of their content, is fair, it's potentially problematic.
Any company can arrange for a high speed link to the Internet. Throw more money at it and you will get better a better link - lower latency, higher throughput, burst capacity provisions and so on. If a business relies on getting content onto the Internet, then it should have a high level of redundancy internally and should also have redundant (physical) Internet connections, therefore multiple arrangements would be made with different ISPs. This redundancy could be used a a fail-over or even to load balance content, or anything in between.
Few would argue that the above is a bad thing: The company is paying more to provide the amount of content it delivers, which is fair.
In order to improve efficiency, a company can pay even more money to get closer to the core of an ISP's networking setup. Cutting out a few network hops here and there may not seem that important however every network hop adds latency and slows things down overall and when you talk about a high volume of content, this adds to a lot of potential loss of overall speed and a customer's perception of quality is often dictated by speed, or more accurately the lack of (which makes it outstanding that many set top box manufacturer's still push cruddy, low spec, badly programmed kit). An additional point in favour of this arrangement is that by bypassing network hops that the content provider shares with other companies, it will help to optimise throughput and should improve the experience for these other companies.
Again, few would argue that the above is a bad thing. The company is paying even more for its connection and optimising the route is sensible on a lot of fronts.
All this is wonderful if you happen to be a customer that uses the same ISP, or one of the ISPs as the content provider. The delivery of content is optimal and the customer gets a great service. However there are many ISPs and if you're not with one that the content provider uses then you will get a worse service than the content provider would like to deliver.
A natural solution to improve this situation is to enhance the peering infrastructure that ISPs already have between each other, and it's at this point where it starts to get murky and less than ideal. ISPs are not equal, in size or capacities and the choice of ISP is usually constrained by physical location. On the one hand, it is arguably good that a heavy content delivery company would pay for additional peering from their core ISPs to other ISPs - after all they are using a huge amount of bandwidth. On the other hand, this starts to get into the problem of selecting the ISPs to peer with, which will usually disfavour the smaller or regional ISPs, and the actual implementation of the additional peering... if the content provider pays for additional peering bandwidth, then there are few that would argue that this is bad, however if the content provider starts taking a higher share (or priority) of existing bandwidth then there are definite downsides.
In the end, it's all down to implementation and control. I believe that a company should be able to pay for better delivery of their services but that it should be in a controlled and regulated manner, should not disfavour smaller or regional network providers and should not impact other content provider's share of existing bandwidth.
The phrase "Bing it on my Zune" still raises a smile from me. It just sums up perfectly the quality of Microsoftness, like the kid who is trying so very hard to be cool.
Or more like the politician who's trying so very to be cool, or down with the masses, or whoever they're targetting today who isn't a political donor.
I managed to head off a supplier of ours from switching to silverlight when, a couple of years ago, they announced at an event that they were going to start using it. A choice: HTML (enhanced with HTML5 tech) or silverlight? It's a no brainer.
I'm getting by without Flash on my personal PCs as well as no Silverlight. Usually it's OK but I still come across fucknut websites that are "written in flash" rather than "enhanced by flash" but the number is reducing. Apple can take some credit for this. Now if the BBC were to ditch flash as well...
Java is also blocked from running on my browsers as well. This has had less of an impact than not installing Flash as you'd imagine. Java is still installed for applications that require it, just no browser plugins.
Competition! It should be good for us consumers.
Interesting trends seeing this and Moto-E removing the front facing camera and having "not very good" main cameras, no flash, etc that are OK for quick snaps in good daylight, not great for much else. However a huge chunk of the market don't care for these features (or removable batteries or storage, which will doubtless be screamed about by the usual fanatics) so why should a budget phone have them? Want better or more features... buy a different, or non-budget phone.
Wouldn't say that I specialise in this kind of thing, buy over the years I have more than a passing professional and personal interest...
I've been through all the pain of many solutions, including a PC based file server, which while quick and easy to get going chews through 'leccy like no business. Most of the kit doesn't have to be expensive, however if you aren't careful it will get expensive very quickly.
You don't need gigabit ethernet for streaming, and as noted above, most of the kit just doesn't do it anyway. Wifi is a waste of time for streaming, while the headline speeds may seem good, the real speeds are never close and as soon as you get multiple devices connected (or neighbours with wifi) the performance rapidly drops below useful levels.
NAS: Currently I'm using a ZyXEL unit of some form, with pretty much most features turned off. Stick to the basics, ignore the "value added" functions and most commodity NAS devices will do the job. I chose this ZyXEL device because of its support for Linux and Windows sharing, and the reviews reported success with both (and it powers down to low power usage). It's a single 2Tb drive, while RAID of some measure might sound like a good idea, it's not usually useful and adds needless complications and power problems (it's not that I'm not a fan of RAID, just sometimes it's not always useful). Redundancy, backup? Easy? Buy a second NAS and that's your backup. If you're careful and upgrade regularly you can buy a new NAS device with extra capacity, copy the old content onto it and have an instant backup of when you last had the content. Unless you throw your devices about and are willing to replace a HDD drive every couple of years, you are considerably more likely to lose content through accidental deletion than HDD failure. If you're particularly paranoid, power the NAS through a reasonable UPS so you get both power level smoothing and a few minutes of battery backed up power (I do).
Playback: It's generally best to have a single playback system for each screen. This gives you maximum redundancy but also keeps the cabling and communications sane. While you could have a super playback system playing four independent streams, you will quickly suffer internal bandwidth issues but more importantly you have to both stream the video and audio content from this one box to each screen and feed IR remote control signals back the same distance. The further the distance the nastier both of these become. I'm currently using an Acer Revo box with a Microsoft media centre IR controller connected for each screen. These PCs are cheap (£200-£250), small and are pretty low power particularly if you fit an SSD or low power HDD to them. Many are effectively silent or fanless as well. On the software front I get the cheaper Revo devices that don't have Windows on them, wipe the junk they do come with and install a build of XBMC on them. In the past I've had annoyances with audio playback but these days the drivers are all just there and the Linux audio layers have matured sensibly.
Security: Fit everything into your own wired network. You can add usernames and passwords for sharing files and for a home system you really shouldn't need much more. XBMC supports content levels so you can protect minors from inappropriate content.
Maybe they've upgraded the notice from a post-it note to one applied using tape?
The interesting thing about arsenic is that we need some, in the correct form, in our diet. The not so great thing about arsenic is that even a little too much is very unpleasant. While it has to be in the correct form, the same can be said for Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Iron and so on.
arsenic is the 20th most common element in the Earth’s crust and the 12th most common element in the human body
I'm unable to find a clear attribution of this statement, however we do have arsenic in appreciable quantities in our bodies which would indicate that it's required. I have seen peer reviewed articles reporting this however can't find them due to the expected "arsenic news" noise in Internet searches...
The pictures in the article clearly show an open reservoir. Adding human pee to that would hardly contaminate it compared to everything that is in it already.
Pharmacies will never be perfectly stocked all of the time, there's upwards of 3500 commonly prescribed drugs / doses - there's no way that your local pharmacy will have all of them to hand and definitely not the less common ones.
The concept of the electronic prescription service is that electronic prescriptions can either be sent to a specific pharmacy or the patient can be given a printed identifier which any pharmacy can use to retrieve a prescription. A pharmacy's dispensing and drug management system is required to support this functionality and the messaging is carried by the N3 network (direct or tunnelled), which for those that don't know is the largest private internet there is.
The advantage of sending a prescription to a pharmacy is that the pharmacy can use this to get the prescription ready for you to pick up which reduces your potential wait time It also allows them to smooth out the pharmacy assistants' picking process and to better use their dispensing pharmacist's time because they must double check every prescription before it is handed over.
The electronic prescription is also designed to remove the step where a paper prescription must be confirmed by a pharmacy with the prescribing doctor prior to picking and hand over. This is an obvious check to have in place as a prescription is nothing more than an easily forgable pre-printed slip of paper and this check does add quite a lot of burden to the process.
As I understand it, this is to dissuade pharmacies from cherry picking the supply of drugs, whether for stocking, financial or other considerations.