Re: Excuse me, sir...
Downvoted for playing the race card because someone doesn't like Obama's policies.
1392 posts • joined 10 May 2011
Downvoted for playing the race card because someone doesn't like Obama's policies.
"So how did intelligence emerge in humans?"
Is it the ability to learn from and thus react to certain stimuli? In that case pretty much the entire animal kingdom could be classed as intelligent.
Is is the ability to communicate with other members of one's own species? Still most of the animal kingdom there. Communicate complex and abstract concepts? Now we're narrowing it down a bit, but we've still got primates and cetaceans to account for.
Permanently record information such that other members of one's species can retrieve it even after the individual originator of the information has died? Ah, now we might be talking Homo sapiens. Reading, writing, drawing and painting allow us to transcend death by passing on our knowledge to our successors. Wait a minute - ants can also do this with smell trails. Ant smell trails inform other ants not only of a path to food, but also what kind of food it is, how far it is and how much of it there is. And it persists long enough for other ants to make use of it even if you kill the ants that originally made it. So that's out, too.
Control and manipulate one's environment to benefit one's species and/or oneself? Yes, humans can do this, but it's just a question of extent; a termite mound with it's moisture, ventilation and light control mechanisms is just one example of another species doing this. So that doesn't uniquely define human intelligence either.
Self-awareness? Nope - dogs, dolphins, chimpanzees, orangutans and many other creatures have also clearly demonstrated a sense of identity, being able to recognise themselves in mirrors and behaving in ways that indicate the presence of self-awareness in a group context.
In the end, one is forced to the conclusion that intelligence didn't "emerge" spontaneously, so much is it has always been present in some degree as a function of life. Likewise, computer intelligence won't just "emerge", it's present now, has been since the invention of the pocket calculator, and will continue to develop, grow and change. Intelligence isn't a "yes/no" equation, it is a continuum of behaviour that has no effectively determinable thresholds.
"With the copper wire running above the tracks..."
Which will last all of 5 minutes before being nicked by copper thieves.
"Ohh how wotton of me to have a little joke at someone else's misfortune."
Ok, no problem mate, just make sure you laugh just as hard the next time someone cracks a joke about hide and seek champion of the year when some girl's violated corpse is found in a ditch with a broom handle shoved up her twat.
It's not the humour that's the problem, it's the double standards in applying it.
My first thought as well.
The first time some wanker stinks out my train carriage with one of these things, they're going to be eating it.
" I wouldn't put any money into makers of keyboards and mice, that's for sure..."
Really? Have you tried coding a 100,000 line application on a tablet with a touch screen keyboard lately?
It may well be that mice might disappear as touch screens become more prevalent, but I think the humble keyboard will be around for a while yet.
A good compromise from my perspective as a programmer, 3D modeller and graphic designer, who uses multiple monitors, would be a dual fondleslab workstation with two 24" slabs (the size of my monitors) with one sitting where the keyboard normally sits, at a 45 degree angle like an art desk, and one up in front acting as a monitor. In 3D modelling mode, the art-desk slab would be the tri-view modelling interface, and the monitor slab would be the render display; in programming mode, the desk slab would become a nice big keyboard and the monitor slab would be the IDE, and so forth.
That sort of thing I could work with, perhaps. But I don't see anything like that happening soon. And trying to do what I do with a desktop, on a pissy little 7" - 10" fondleslab, ain't gonna happen.
You praised Lewis Page. He has a certain notoriety in this community, usually involving his daring to question anthropogenic climate change, so you most likely got downvoted by our resident treehugging climate-change zealots who didn't appreciate you complimenting their oil-company-bought-and-paid-for nemesis.
It's not Eadon derailing threads, it's you (and now me) doing the derailing by posting responses to it, and cluttering up the comments section with same...
And another show from over 20 years ago promised to be able to hover-convert my old car for just $39,999.99 by 2015 but since that's less than 2 years away I can't see it happening either...
Besides, I don't have one cent shy of 40 grand burning a hole in my pocket so never mind the flying cars, I want my fracking hoverboard!
"Since we try to avoid jumping ahead of the court process, we have kept our traps shut."
Rupert Murdoch and son, take note. This behaviour is what is known in the trade as "media integrity", and it is an example you would do well to follow.
And nothing of value was lost. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.
Actually Paramount have been fairly open with fan-created content relating to Star Trek. As long as you don't sell it or do pornographic or offensive shit with it, they've been quite supportive of their fan base. If the fans put in enough effort, the Star Trek mob even get behind them on their independent projects - just look at The New Voyages and Phase II, both fan-made amateur spinoffs which ended up getting the backing of George Takei and Walter Koenig among other Star Trek notables. And there's the thousands of fansites and tons of fanart and fanfic out there that Paramount has always encouraged and never had a problem with.
Now if Star Trek was owned by Disney on the other hand...
"...mounting it in something else (like the toe of some shoes/boots) should do the trick...."
Except that the first thing women look at when passing or assessing you is your shoes. For some arcane reason known only to the feminine mind, shoes maketh the man - or the woman. This is exactly why so many would-be toe-cam upskirters get busted.
Besides, if you want titty shots, your best bet would be a cam hidden in a baseball cap or other hat (Australian slouch hats are perfect for this! ;) ). Women rarely focus on the top of a man's head and the camera angle looking down from there is optimal for snapping cleavage!
It's not the cameras or people taking pictures of me in public places that I have a problem with. I accept that in any public place I may be photographed at any time and that goes with the territory. In fact I get very shitty with people who tell me I can't take pictures in a public place.
What I have a problem with is the face-recognition software Google and Facebook use behind the cameras. I have no say in the matter. My dear mother has plastered photos of me all over Facebook, including ones taken in my childhood that she's scanned in and posted, and so against my will and without my consent, Facebook has a complete record of my face from childhood to present day and can potentially recognise me every time I pass a camera connected to it.
With Google Glass, and Facebook/Google having that kind of information on people posted by third parties, every time I pass someone wearing these things, Google/Facebook's face recognition software kicks in and their system knows exactly where I am at that time. They can profile my movements and habits even without me posting anything of my own volition.
No, I have no problem with cameras and using them certainly shouldn't be made illegal. But use of face-recognition software without the express written consent of the person whose face is being analysed definitely should be.
like Firefox's offline mode, where you can view cached pages but, unlike Chrome, throws up a warning bar letting you know that you're viewing from cache?
Doesn't look like a bigger apostrophe to me, looks pretty normal-sized actually.
Das ist ein Lebensmittelladen Apostroph, obwohl.
I've had my beard since the mid-90s, ever since I overheard a feminist co-worker say she thought beards were a disgusting symbol of patriarchal oppression. So I grew it out to spite her and by extension all feminists and I've kept it ever since. So yeah, I suppose you could call mine a machine gun for my face!
I do keep it fairly short though, around 1 cm, because it gets annoying if I let it get too big. I end up chewing on my moustache and constantly twisting my chin hair with my fingers after a couple of weeks of no trim. Also, the part on my jawline either side of my chin seems to grow twice as thick and fast as anywhere else on my face, eventually resulting in the appearance of my chin looking wider than my forehead, which as you can imagine just looks daft. So I trim around once a week, which is a lot better than having to shave every day.
In my middle age, parts of it have gone grey, while the sideburns are vivid ginger, and the rest of it black. I've been compared to skunks and tortoiseshell cats more than once because of it!
Beer belly sicking out from under a t-shirt with can of lager in hand, definitely a nono.
Beer belly filling out an Armani suit with glass of Chateau d'Yquem in hand, not so much of a problem.
Eadon's really got you people balls-out fired-up hasn't he? Every time one of you idiots rants about him, he scores. He must be laughing his arse off about how he's rustled the Reg community's jimmies to the extent he has.
Well done, Eadon! You have my admiration sir. You've achieved in a few months what I've failed to pull in 7 years of trolling El Reg!
"It's about time we banned our politico's from owning shares or having any ties with commerce. "
I've been saying this for years. It should be constitutional law in every democracy: if you own shares in any company, you cannot stand for public office or be called to the bar (I also hold that for people who believe in religions as well, but that's another story). Sell your shares first (publicly at market value, NOT to family members etc either!), then you can stand for election or be appointed to the judiciary.
The blatant conflict of interest in being a member of the legislature or judiciary and owning shares in companies is so obvious, the fact that it's legal at all should be considered evidence of egregious corruption.
I would, for one.
"Ethernet ports will apparently be taped up in case users forget that their machine is no longer allowed to reach a network."
Only taped up? Fat lot of good that'll do, as if that'll do anything to stop the office idiots ripping the tape off and plugging in cables.
They should do to the Ethernet ports what I do to the USB ports on the office machines to stop people from plugging (malware-infested) USB sticks into them - fill the fucking things with superglue.
Iglethal puts the case very well, but to add my two bits I'll couch my comparison in car terms:
Suppose your large chunks of metal with a mass of several tons travelling at relative velocities of over a hundred miles an hour, were coming within 3 millimetres of each other? You wouldn't feel that was a bit of a close shave? That's the car equivalent of these satellites passing within 200 m of each other at orbital velocities.
How about a bottle rocket?
Just mount a pressurised canister of fluid (since water would likely freeze in orbit you might want to use ammonia or LN2 or some such) on the thing, with a valve you can crack to let some of the liquid out. Good old Sir Isaac takes care of the rest - no flammable liquids or barely-controlled explosions involved.
Post that info on 4chan.
The 10 year sentence was the maximum term the judge could hand down. I've no doubt that if he could have put the fucker away for life he would have.
Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your POV) the law prescribes maximum penalties which judges cannot exceed, however much they'd like to. So 10 years was as much as this guy could be put away for.
I wouldn't be surprised though, to see extradition proceedings initiated by Iraq and other countries once his release date approaches, though. Not to mention he's seriously pissed off some military forces who aren't exactly noted for their forbearance and mercy. I think 10 years of chokey will be the least of his troubles.
Are you admitting to being so amazingly primitive that you think digital watches are a pretty neat idea?
"Are Sweden saying that because you are Swedish we want you to abide by Swedish law, even in other countries?"
Depending on your country of origin, you may find certain of your country's laws do apply to you even if you are out of the country.
A well-known example is Australia's underage-sex laws, which apply to Australian citizens overseas. In Australia, the age of consent is 16 (except in Queensland where it's 18 and South Australia where it's 17). If an Australian citizen enters another country where the age of consent is lower (for example Estonia where the age is 14) and has sex with someone who under Australian law is underage, even if doing so is legal in the country in which the sexual encounter occurs, the person will be arrested and charged with molesting a minor upon their return to Australia. This was introduced to combat "child-sex tourism" where dirty old buggers would go to places like the Philippines for the express purpose of having sex with kids.
Similar overseas-enforced laws apply to money laundering and bribing officials - so if you're visiting some third-world country where bribing the police to facilitate passing checkpoints is de rigeur, if detected you will be arrested and charged with bribing a government official upon your return to Australia, regardless of whether doing so is legal or even expected in the country concerned. More than one unsuspecting Australian tourist travelling in African or South American countries has come a cropper because of this.
I think you'll find similar laws apply to US and UK citizens as well, although I'm not sure about Sweden.
Since you voluntarily accepted the "responsibilities" of being a fucking scumbag by choosing to work for these sorts of companies, how well do you sleep at night knowing your "responsibilities" are killing innocent people?
Sleep tight, scumbag. Sleep lightly.
"Good luck with that!"
"If she wears the 1960s Star Trek female uniform - that IS worth it. Am I right, guys?"
Oh, absolutely. There was a period of 60s-70s-80s sci-fi shows where such outfits were standard issue for female characters - Buck Rogers, Battlestar Galactica (original), Logan's Run (both movie and TV series), and the first season of Star Trek: TNG come to mind.
For me, those little miniskirts or shifts are the hottest outfit a woman can wear - they turn me on way more than things like hot pants, daisy dukes, bikinis, g-strings or even nudity!
Unfortunately women's lib turned into feminism, and the admiration of the female form, which in the 60s and 70s was seen as "empowering", was transmuted into "objectification" or whatever the PC crowd call natural human desires these days.
You can observe this transformation in Star Trek: TNG - in Season 1, you see loads of the female characters walking around in those iconic Trek minis, but somewhere in Season 2, they were replaced by businesslike long slacks. And in every sci-fi show since, they've invariably dressed women in baggy, sexless clothing for the most part, with only the occasional "sexy outfit" for a specific character once in a blue moon.
A notable exception was Cleopatra 2525, but in that they used thigh straps and fishnets and punk makeup, which merely made the women look more like cheap whores than sexy godesses. And the complete lack of characterisation made it more a porno in a sci-fi setting than anything resembling actual sci-fi. It felt almost like it was done to spite fans of the old sci-fi shows rather than pander to them.
This was made even worse with the "U.S.-militarization" of sci-fi, starting with Stargate and reaching its head in the reboot of Battlestar Galactica. Military-style uniforms became the order of the day, and it seems that portraying female characters in an even slightly sexy context has become declasse. These days a sexy outfit means putting the woman in baggy pants and a tank top or singlet revealing her (gasp!) bare shoulders! But Heaven forbid displaying a decent length of leg or anything else for that matter.
I wonder if we'll ever see the like of those old Star Trek/Buck Rogers outfits again?
If I heard a female friend laughing about stringing guys along with the intention of milking free drinks or a meal, she wouldn't be a friend of mine for very long.
The few female friends I do have are friends because they are decent people who respect others, thus they earn my respect.
Also, given that nurses are medically trained experts with a comprehensive knowledge of human anatomy, they would naturally know exactly where all the "g-spots" are...
"This computer should NOT be used to surf the web or do anything but tweet, which definitely overestimates the IT resources available to most news outlets in the digital age."
If you can't afford even one cheap $50 second-hand PC with nothing more than an OS and browser, set up exclusively for Twitter/Facebook use, you can't afford to run a bloody news outlet, mate.
If that were true, then the Wayback machine would itself be the first website in existence, no?
Remember, a time machine cannot travel back before the time it was created and all that...
Remember the old childrens' nursery rhyme?
Pease porridge hot
Pease porridge cold
Pease porridge in the pot
Nine days old.
What Lester has cooked up here is essentially "pease porridge". It doesn't go off as long as you keep it on the slow boil at least some of the time. It might start getting a bit manky after nine days, but it would still be edible if not palatable!
"Meantime, we need to change our laws such that any information obtained in violation of reasonable expectations of privacy is not usable."
I agree with your post in principle, and absolutely support your views concerning privacy, but to play devil's advocate in relation to this quote, would you still say that if a man who raped your daughter walked away scot-free on a technicality because the video catching him in the act was declared inadmissible due to "surveillance without judicial oversight?"
Many lambast the courts and justice system for just this kind of scenario; a criminal walking free because of legal technicalities is exactly the kind of thing that gets normally reasonable people screaming about judges slapping wrists and howling for lynch mobs and vigilante justice.
The internet combined with cheap plentiful digital cameras and the kind of data aggregation provided by companies like Google, has opened a Pandora's box full of very frightening possibilities. At what point do our freedoms and rights of privacy trump the ability of the justice system to put thugs behind bars? At what point does the ability of the justice system to impose the rule of law trump our rights and freedoms?
Now any regulars on this forum who have seen my posts know my stance on the importance of freedom and privacy and my often vitriolic defence of them. I absolutely agree with the points you made in your post, yet the issues I've raised here must also be addressed if we are to have any hope of actually retaining the freedom and privacy we both value so highly.
I don't pretend to have a solution. But whatever solution we come up with must somehow encompass accountability and responsibility as well as freedom and privacy.
You think that's bad?
I came across a download the other day whose installer had checkboxes for "Please install SomeSpywareToolbar" and "Make my default homepage SomeSpamSearchSite" - and the checkboxes were ticked and greyed out so you couldn't untick them. I mean, WTF? Why even bother to put checkboxes there at all?
Needless to say, the install was aborted at that point, the originating site added to my blacklist, and my search for a tool to do the job I needed continued.
You could say that.
Please forgive me. It's Monday morning here, and my sleep-in yesterday was rudely interrupted by some unwelcome peddlers of "the good news", so religion is pretty high on my hate-list at the moment!
should extend as far as: If you profess belief in any organised religion, you cannot stand for or be elected to public office or called to the bar. It has been made clear many, many times throughout history that those who believe in invisible men in the sky are not competent to direct the affairs of civilisation.
Bugger "freedom of religion." It should be "freedom from religion." Along with the already-recognised freedoms from want, war, oppression and fear, at least three of which have religion as a primary cause.
I mean, imagine if people went around claiming "freedom of oppression" or "freedom of war?" It would be a fucking joke.
"I don't care what the naysayers, pessimists, Luddites or anyone else who poo-poos this device say, I want one."
As do I. The potential of this technology to enhance our lives is incredible. It's exactly the kind of sci-fi invention I used to fantasise about as a kid. I would love to have the ability to record every moment of my life and be able to use it as a marvellous adjunct to my all-too-fallible memory.
However, I want to do so on my own terms. Those terms include retaining control of the imagery and recordings and experiences taken with the device. I, and I alone, get to choose who sees what, and what is done with it. I cannot and will not tolerate having some faceless American corporation, or equally faceless police-state bureaucracy, constantly looking over my shoulder, narrowly analysing and studying my every act, for the express purpose of exploiting and manipulating me into buying things, or of controlling my life and behaviour for their benefit.
So as it stands, Google Glass is not for me, and will never be unless and until I can guarantee that I, only I, have access to and control of the data that it creates. Hacking the device is a great start towards this end, I grant, and it opens a world of possibilities. But I'll want to be sure before I let that shit anywhere near me.
I'm not a Luddite, so much as I subscribe to the now seemingly-outdated notion that my life is my own, and that my experiences and memories belong to me. I do not consider this notion to be unreasonable.
used back in the 90s by Unisys with gif and Fraunhofer with mp3:
1. Patent an algorithm, protocol or format.
2. Let it leak into the wider world and let people start using it.
3. Wait in the shadows until the entire world has adopted it as a standard.
4. Suddenly leap out of the shadows and claim "oh BTW, we own that so all you people we've been letting use it for free now have to pay up or else"
This practice is deceptive, immoral and should be made illegal. Patents should be treated the same as trademarks; if you don't defend them right from the get-go, you lose them.
I hope the greedy bastards that do this shit die in a fucking fire.
Of which an essential ingredient was helium if I remember the story aright!
It's been called "dead reckoning" for as long as I can remember and quite some time before that. I recall reading about pilots using it in VFR, about offsetting the nose of the aircraft from the destination to compensate for crosswinds, in a book about aircraft I had as a kid back in the 70s. And Melville also uses the term in Moby Dick, when he describes in some detail the "log and line" method of navigating: You heave a log tied to a line overboard and count how long the ship takes to sail past it. Melville's protagonist even points out how this method is unreliable and inaccurate compared to the quadrant, which Ahab had destroyed during one of his psychotic episodes the day before.
So "dead reckoning" goes back close to a couple of centuries at least.
Ha ha ha, my first computer was also a ZX81, given to me for my 16th birthday in 1982. Except that in my case, in the struggle of computers vs. girls, computers won...!
Are you really happy that your kids are working 60+ hours a week for a pittance while the CEO of the company they work for waxes fat and rich on their labours, because this Thatcher whose boots you lick destroyed all the hard-fought rights of workers to decent pay and working conditions?
I also remember the 70s: a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, a 38-hour week, and only Dad had to work to pay the house off (Mum started working in the 80s so they could get their 25 year mortgage down to 10.) You try and find that lifestyle anywhere now, thanks to people like you supporting Thatcher and her ilk.
I also make the effort to read articles and comments by those whose politics I don't share; there's no point in trying to argue with someone if you don't understand why they think the way they do, or you'll just end up crossing wires and neither of you will get anywhere. As a result, my political stance encompasses elements of of both leftist and rightist thinking. You need some kind of minimum standard of living and welfare for those who need assistance to maintain it, but you also need some leeway for business to be able to grow and survive in a competitive world. So it's important to understand both sides of the issues.
My biggest problem though, comes when dealing with those whose political views involve the use of words like "racist", "sexist", "misogynist", "homophobic", "xenophobic", "heteronormative", and "(white/male) privilege" - which generally leaves me wanting to blow their sanctimonious heads off. I find it ironic that the worst offenders in that camp are often white and/or male themselves. Methinks they doth protest too much?
I also have to agree with Vladimir on this one.
I have a very broad taste in music: glancing through my collection, I have folders for classical (Baroque such as Handel, Vivaldi and Bach; Romantic such as Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms; Bohemian such as Tchaikovsky and Sibelius), opera (ranging from Rossini and Verdi to Wagner), movie soundtracks (such as Mancini, Williams, Goldsmith, Horner and Zimmer), pop chart music from 50s to pretty much present day, 70s and 80s hair metal (from Hendrix and Deep Purple through Sabbath and Dio up to Metallica and G'n'R), emo metal (Evanescence, Nightwish), synth (Jarre, Vangelis, Eno), ambient (Kitaro, Genest, Enya etc), easy listening (Yanni, J. Galway), 8-bit c64 chip/SID tunes (Rob Hubbard, Martin Galway, Jeroen Tel), techno/trance (Oakenfold, Kai Tracid, DJ Tiesto etc), traditional folk tunes (from Europe, Middle East, Asia and Native American like Konalien and Eddy Omonte) and even military marches (Sousa and co, played by the Coldstream and Grenadier Guards bands, mostly.)
My music collection contains works by all these and more, and I cycle through pretty much all of it regularly.
So you can see from that lot that I have a much wider taste in music than most people. But I agree with Vladimir that rap is not music. I've tried to listen to it, I really have - I'm always eager for different music, as my wide range above shows. But it just does nothing for me. It doesn't engage my soul the way all those other genres do. Listening to some homeboy rhythmically ranting over boom-tisha-boom-erk-erk-erk, about gettin' down with ma homies, killin' da pigs, and smackin' ma muthafukkin bitch up yo muthafukka yo, isn't what I call music. Not even remotely.
if they're encoded at a decent bitrate (>= 256 kbps).
I'm 46, so I know my hearing probably isn't quite what it was in my yoof, but aside from a bit of tinnitus in a silent room I can hear even quiet sounds distinctly enough, and a hearing test last year put my frequency range on the order of 17 Hz - 18.2 kHz. Not much wrong with my ears mate.
Despite this, I honestly cannot hear any difference between a CD, a FLAC and a 256 kbps mp3 on my stereo system*. So anything higher (e.g. 320 kbps) is simply a waste of space. I can hear some high-end aliasing noise in 128 kbps mp3s, especially if the piece is classical or movie soundtrack instrumental, and I can just about pick it with a 192 kbps mp3. So I encode classical and instrumental music at 320 kbps just to be sure, and rock and pop at 256, and it all sounds sweet to me.
So unless you FLAC afficionados have ears like fruit bats, I just don't get this "mp3 sounds lousy" thing. Yes, a 32, 64 or 96 kbps mp3 sounds like shit (96 is the bottom end of tolerability if there's no other alternative), but anything 256 or over is indistinguishable from uncompressed to my ears.
*Technics SU-Z780 Class A amp circa 1986, 80W rms per channel, still sounds as sweet as the day I got it, and 2 custom built 140W rms speaker boxes of same vintage with two 16" woofers, 4 midrange drivers, 2 tweeters, 1 piezo super-tweeter and bass reflex duct per box, connected with oxygen-free copper monster cable.