Re: Malice not necessary
So what's missing in machines that makes humans better able to work outside the box?
16605 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
"This is precisely why you don't want a "self-driving" car, by the way. Not that you can't make a self-driving car. But one that tries to be human to self-drive is a dangerous and unreliable beast."
The problem with this example is that the HUMAN is a PROVEN dangerous and unreliable beast, given the spate of traffic accidents reported in the news everyday. Not to mention the human fallibilities of fatigue, drug inducement, anger, etc. and you've just set a very low bar.
"Train a human to recognise something like a banana and they can tell you they are looking for a particular shape, size, colouration, orientation and apply those criteria using their learned knowledge of the object to identify zipped, unzipped, facing the camera or away, broken, twisted, ripe, unripe, etc. bananas."
And then you trick them with a plantain...or a carefully-sticked-back banana with something else within. We can fool humans. Machines don't stand a chance.
"This kind of "throw data at something AI" stuff is really doomed to failure, except where it really doesn't matter at all and where a human would be cheaper to employ anyway (e.g. a banana factory)."
Not necessarily. Remember that humans have continual costs and limited working hours. Why else do you think machines are replacing humans elsewhere?
Do that and you can still confuse the system by making things that look like more or fewer items than they really are or should really be seen as a collective rather than individual items. Worse still, this kind of trickery can work on humans (think the old attached-by-transparent-thread prank), so good luck getting a machine to work out this kind of trickery.
"You wouldn't have a computer system with a single Sysadmin password; would give different people different levels of access that can be revoked whenever that is required. What's so wrong in principle with doing the same for access to your front door?"
Simple, there will ALWAYS be a single point of failure: the root user or other ultimate user you need as a last resort in case an account gets locked out with no other way to access it (say the only user who knew the credentials suddenly died).
"This is true. But you give people unattended access to your house very rarely. These sorts of things are useful in hotels, but if I saw one on a residential property then I would assume the owner is (illegally) using it as an AirBnB place. And replacing the lock is cheap compared with the cost of this, so you can afford to do that several times."
Besides, companies like Kwikset already made locks you can easily re-key, meaning you can assign temporary keys that you set to when you leave and then change back when you return.
As I understand it, Bitcoin has long reached the point where you need dedicated ASICs to turn a mining profit these days, and the newer e-coins use proof-of-work algorithms that aren't GPU-friendly, meaning it's better done on the CPU instead, specifically to control this kind of exploitation.
Point is, people want stuff that costs money to make yet aren't willing to pay, and they vastly out vote you. You lack the say. Even if all the smarties defected, it's not like any of them are really going to miss us. You want to make Mozilla pay attention? Offer a big fat check or threaten their sponsors.
"On the open road you have less such risks (though as your speed is higher if something goes wrong...) So limiting the speed below highway speeds won't necessarily help anyone."
Thing is, when you need it on the highway (such as a median-jumper or something falling onto the road), YOU NEED IT!
"They're no bother at all to replace. Seriously."
No, NOT serioiusly. No bother should mean "no tools necessary". You know, as in pop the lid where indicated, replace the battery, and close again. Like on my Note 4 and S5 (the latter which, BTW, also has waterproofing AND a replaceable cover, so the waterproofing argument is BS).
Yes, you should, because WHEN (not IF) that one-in-a-million device (and remember, they ACTUALLY occur nine times out of ten) goes up, there WILL be a recall notice meaning you should be turning it in for one done right for a change.
The threat of a lawsuit, recall notice, and bad press should be enough to encourage good design, but it seems cheaper these days to settle. Sounds like the penalties need changing...
"Replacing the battery on a 5S is a piece of piss. Replacing the battery in my son's RC car remote is harder."
I'd like to see the picture of such a remote given every RC remote I've seen has a slide-off door you can access without tools. Even the car itself usually has a no-tools door.
OK, back to BASIC basics. Rememeber, ALWAYS think in terms of the Stupid User. HE IS NOT YOU.
"If I take ALL the alcohol out I will have 2 solutions. 1 of 96% abv ethanol and another at 0% abv (the solutions are ethanol and water). If I then distill the remaining alcohol again, will it become stronger??"
No, but that's because you've hit the azeotrope: IOW the exception to the rule. Meaning 96% alcohol boils at the same temperature as 4% water. Distillation only goes so far, which is why we learn of such things. Most things have their limit, but as long as you're not at the azeotrope, distillation WILL produce a stronger solution of ethanol.
"A still increases the AMOUNT of alcohol NOT its strength."
Increasing the amount of alcohol while reducing its volume (the remnant still in the original container), by definition, makes the solution more concentrated: IOW, STRONGER. A solution of 80% ethanol is by definition stronger than an equal solution of 40% alcohol. It's Chemistry 150 for goodness sakes (and I took it and passed with flying colors, thank you). If this ain't research, WHAT IS?!
"10 pints of 4% abv lager contains the SAME amount of alcohol as 1 pint of 40% abv spirit / rum / brandy / whisky."
But the former is more dilute, IOW, weaker. Same alcohol, but in a larger volume.
It IS so stronger, as the alchohol normally refers to the SOLUTION, not the actual chemical which is scientifically termed ethanol, and solutions CAN get stronger.
And yes, we normally refer to products by solution, not by chemical, which is why we normally buy a bottle of hydrogen peroxide and NOT H2O2 3% USP.
It DOES SO strengthen alcohol as the process gives you a stronger (more concentrated) alcohol (which almost universally refers to the solution rather than the actual ethanol chemical) then you had when you started. That's why some distillers do it more than once: each time gets you a higher concentration.
And yes, you can only distill to about 96% as you end up at what's called the azeotrope. Basically, the boiling point of 4% water is the same at that of 96% alcohol so you can't separate them that way anymore. It's relatively easy to obtain azeotropic alcohol. Getting pure 100% alcohol takes more complicated processes.
I thought the R stood for "recognition" as it can apply to a non-repair situation as well.
I can think of a couple myself:
- HARM (Halted Action--Restricted by Management)
- SUPER (Supervisory User--Proceed with Extreme Reluctance, for those situations where labeling someone over your head any of the above is a threat to your job security).
- ICU (Instructed to Chase Unicorns, for when you know there's no solution, but you're told by supes to find one anyway or else).
"When Sega tried to use a cut-down, mobile orientated Windows CE as their Dreamcast OS to try and pull in more developers, it broke them as a mass-manufacturer of hardware and nearly killed the company leaving them to transform into a software-only and IP licensing company to try and survive."
It wasn't the OS that killed the Dreamcast. First, they were previously reeling from the Saturn (which suffered from atypical 3D hardware and a clunky SDK). Second, they used CD-based media which lacks space. Because of the first, and also due to lack of media connections, they couldn't blaze the trail like Sony did and use DVDs. Technically, the Dreamcast actually had a better GPU unit than the PS2 (seen when you compared each platform's DOA2 offering and titles like Skies of Arcadia and Shenmue were really something), but all that space AND the ability to play DVD movies right at the point when they were maturing on the market meant the PS2 featured a killer twofer. Finally, a recession in Japan meant Sega lacked the wiggle room to stay in hardware.
"Other than that, the only games console that doesn't use open-source UNIX-based software appears to be Microsoft's own XBox, which is hardly a great endorsement from the gaming industry."
When it comes to consoles, the OS doesn't really matter. Otherwise, the Xbox would've been long gone, but it's still around thanks to its DirectX support. Meanwhile, like I said, the Taito Type X series is still alive and kicking in arcades and full of headliners...and still using Windows as the underlying OS.
Except you CAN'T download it from Google if you're using Windows 10 S, which is part of the problem. In 10 S, apps can ONLY come from the Store, which means if Chrome can't get on the Store, they're SOL. Which STILL begs the question. How come Google is willing to use Apple's web engine to get on iOS devices but is not willing to use the Edge engine to get on Microsoft's store? Why the different stances in two similar situations?
"It's a scandal that enormous firms like Matsushita (Lumix), Samsung and Apple refuse to police their brand names, to the detriment of their customers."
It's not that. It's that it's impossible for them to police their brand names due to the knock-offs being made in hostile nations. Really, is Samsung really going to have the ability to tell a country like China to knock it off?
Put it this way. If everything you say were true, where's the independent verification of those facts? Heck, SOMEONE would've likely cammed the demonstration camera wearing the supposed stuff if so. Plus, if it already existed, why hasn't anyone bought it? Given its hype value, SOMEONE'S bound to have presented a blank check (or some other "offer you can't refuse") for that first prototype, meaning it would've leaked out eventually. At least we know Hololens is a work in progress. Where's Magic Leap's answer?
Then perhaps you should start taking the Apple route, at least partially, and say only such and such hardware can be certain to work and the rest are just CE-YOYO. If you can't test everything, say so and say so VERY CLEARLY so they either get it or get classed as Darwin Award candidates.
Memory can be hacked, and most drums don't have enough circumference to electrically store an entire page. Plus it's essentially a black box since you can't actually see this in action (the drum is photo-sensitive so can't be exposed to ambient light when in use).
As I recall, most secure laser printers aren't intended for copying but to produce legally-significant documents and things like checks which require special materials to protect against forgery.
But now you're into a sovereignty issue, and sovereignty by definition entails self-determination. So legalities turn gray here as the vote involves an move towards self-rule. Therefore, whether or not the government is legal or not may not be possible to conclusively say. Remember, the United States declared its own independence unilaterally and was resisted by the "legal" government of the time (the UK), yet ultimately the US gained its sovereignty. IOW, it's not a black-and-white issue here.