|
Crime on earth:
Men: 73%
Women: 27%
Crime in space:
Men: 0%
Women: 100%
|
|
|
|
|
So the toilets in space gaols will have to be fitted with mirrors, but won't need urinals.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
The allegation isn't from space. The allegation is from Earth, and was made against someone that is currently in space.
Precision in speech is a lost art...
Here's another example from Fox News:
"Atlanta attorney allegedly killed man with Mercedes after golf ball hit his car, prosecutors say"
I'm confused. Who owned the Mercedes, the attorney, or the golfer. If it was the golfer, did the attorney kill the golfer simply because he had a Mercedes? Is Mercedes the attorney's wife, a prostitute (or both) that was with the golfer? So many questions, simply because of a poorly written headline...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
modified 26-Aug-19 15:30pm.
|
|
|
|
|
#realJSOP wrote: Precision is speech is a lost art...
Indeed, it is. 
#realJSOP wrote: The allegation isn't from space.
Right. It should probably have read "first allegation of a possible criminal act from [in?] space".
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
#realJSOP wrote: "Atlanta attorney allegedly killed man with Mercedes after golf ball hit his car, prosecutors say"
It seems so obvious. The lawyer picked up the Mercedes and hit the man in the head with it, killing the man instantly.
But I never wave bye bye
|
|
|
|
|
A novel system developed by MIT researchers automatically "learns" how to schedule data-processing operations across thousands of servers—a task traditionally reserved for imprecise, human-designed algorithms. Maybe we can cut down on hamster chow?
And on sysadmin chow?
|
|
|
|
|
Management: How does it work?
Devs: It does a statistical analysis.
Marketing: It's AI!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Woodbury wrote: Devs: It does a statistical analysis.
Marketing: It's AI!!!
I did a short AI introduction in Python and having worked in medical data analysis I had a little bit of familiarity with how data models work.
The introduction which claimed to be AI was simply statistical data modelling from what I could see.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: The introduction which claimed to be AI was simply statistical data modelling from what I could see.
It kind-of is; the difference being that the developer doesn't do the majority of the modelling, and will probably never know how it was done.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
That's a very good point!
The interesting part of the tutorial is that it guides you through first examining the 'shape' of the data(for wont of better words). Then based on that it guides you towards choosing an AI model that works best with this sort of data 'shape'.
Which is exactly what I saw clinicians and statisticians do when I was working in the field of medical data research.
As you point out the difference being that it took the statisticians months of hard work to come up with a model and prove it worked, while now you can pick a ready made model off the shelf and see if it works with your data.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: while now you can pick a ready made model off the shelf and see if it works with your data.
Partially because...
GuyThiebaut wrote: it took the statisticians months of hard work to come up with a model and prove it worked
People still (although I don't know for how long) are often necessary to develope something never done before... once it is done, it can probably be modelled and done faster by machines, but that's the second step
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: People still (although I don't know for how long) are often necessary to develope something never done before
That's one of the main reasons for AI: how long would it take to develop a working statistical model to operate over a complex system?
E.g. facial recognition -- where would you even start to write code that would recognise any face from different angles?
Fortunately, no-one will ever have to design or code it; AIs do all the detail work.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Gosh, What could go wrong ? I just hope they restrict its recreational browsing to the Disney Channel.
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
Newly registered domains (NRDs) are created at the astounding rate of about 200,000 every day and a recent report indicates that 70 percent of these are malicious or suspicious and used for a wide range of nefarious activities. You must be *this* old to open in browser
|
|
|
|
|
www.codeporject.com
And you are infected / scammed / hacked / pwnd 
If those people use their talent to improve things... 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Golly, if only we could come up with a way of automatically going through the content of web-sites, to see if they contain anything malicious.
We could call it, I don't know, a caterpillar, or a spider, or something.
And here's an idea!
Search engines could use such a tool, too, to help them get results for searches!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: automatically going through the content of web-sites, to see if they contain anything malicious.
I don't see how a machine could recognize malicious code any more than a machine could recognize hate speech.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
True.
Wow!
New idea!
How about we make a program that detects malware!
Golly-gosh!
Why did no-one ever think of that before?!?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
If you're referring to anti-virus software, then that's different.
With anti-virus software, it ultimately was a human who decided that certain code is malicious, and entered its signature into the detection database, no?
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey!
How about we find some way to link the caterpillar(TM) to an anti-virus or something like malwarebytes!
It might sound really, really impossible, but I'll bet some bright spark could do it!
I'm just full of incredibly original ideas, this week!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Uh...yeah.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
In case you weren't really paying attention, what I have been saying is that the technology for dealing with this is so commonplace that it's a trivial problem.
There is no good reason why a new malicious web-site should survive more than a few seconds, and there is no good reason why a web-site that is suddenly converted to being malicious should remain on-line more than a few minutes.
However, legal entities that have the budget and the remit to deal with such issues are too busy metaphorically driving around in fast cars and playing the hero to do anything about it, and tech firms and ISPs make too much profit from it to be willing to do anything about it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
On Wednesday, at the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in Geneva, a panel of government experts debated policy options regarding lethal autonomous weapons. And it will have a blue screen
And a really nice icon.
That changes every few months
|
|
|
|
|
I'd say Google (though I do own some Amazon stock so will I be let to live if it's Amazon?)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
