Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Stop throwing good money after bad. (Score 1) 364

by stealth_finger (#47423453) Attached to: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane To Nowhere

Yes, let's kept paying the crony capitalists lest we be left defenseless. So many people have been nonchalant about the economic damage this system has caused to our country, so I can only hope the security damage is more successful in grabbing their attention.

Even if this project met its goals, it would still be extremely underwhelming... especially on cost-benefit analysis. Starting over is the right choice.

If cost is what your concerned with the best bet is buying in, get some eurofighters or a mig/sukoi combo. Imagine how well that would go down.

Comment: Re:Recent allegations... (Score 1) 209

I'm just saying. Everything we know points to it being deliberately handicapped. The game actually runs better when you enable the settings that made it look gorgeous at E3. It runs better with better graphical fidelity.

The only excuse for disabling that is intentional malice or extreme incompetence. Ubisoft has a history of either of those in regards to PC gamers. If it were an isolated event, I'd go with incompetence, but this is no longer coincidence. I'm pretty sure it's malice due to it's repetition. l

It's PC so they get to use the 'ensuring optimum quality for all users' line as cover for the bullshots.

Comment: Re: AI is always "right around the corner". (Score 1) 564

Welcome to the http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...

Q: if there was a human dumb savant who could translate instantly between multiple languages, though without understanding how he did it (think Rainman), would you say he was not intelligent? Why? What is intelligence? We are inconsistent - we praise humans as intelligent when they can perform some complex algorithm well (chess), and yet as soon as a computer beats a human, or all humans, we denigrate the task as "not intelligence". Often the reason is "just an algorithm", but as a neuroscientist knows, that is a poor excuse - it's algorithms all the way down.

Not in the sense you're implying, he'd be a gifted idiot. Extremely good at one specific thing but not a lot else. Is a dog intelligent? You could argue both sides for forever and a day.

The guy in your Chinese room may be intelligent, but other than matching symbols he is not displaying or using it.

Comment: Re:AI is always (Score 1) 564

Nope, not following instructions. I think all of those were based in machine learning.

I guess Google's car is following instructions too, like "drive me to New York", but most would still count that as AI.

How is that AI? It looks up the route (no one would say a sat nav device is AI) combined with autonomous operation from sensor input (no one would say a UAV or plane on autopilot is AI).

Comment: Re:AI is always "right around the corner". (Score 1) 564

And AI is still, pardon my French, pretty fucking non-existent.

Except for the cell phone in your pocket, that can recognize your commands and search the internet for what you requested, or translate your statement into any of a dozen foreign languages, and has a camera that can recognize faces, and millions of objects, and can connect to expert systems that can, for instance, diagnose diseases better than all but the very best doctors. Oh, and your cellphone can also beat any grandmaster in the world at chess.

However, if you consider AI to be shorthand for "stuff computers can't do yet", then, yes, AI will always be "right around the corner".

Until I can have a genuine conversation with my phone that isn't just looking up responses based on my inputs and can actually understand what a conversation is about (i.e not a chatbot, not siri) then it's not AI.

Comment: Re:If they approve allowing calls on planes... (Score 0) 128

Several airlines now have in-flight WiFi and while the bandwidth is crappy, you could use it for VOIP. The two airlines I have flown on that have this (Lufthansa and United) both expressly forbid the use of Skype and voice apps for the very reason you state - it annoys other passengers.

Here's what Lufthansa has to say about it:

The option of making mobile phone calls has been disabled in response to the wishes of a majority of our customers. In addition, customers are advised that Internet telephony (VOIP) is likewise not permitted.

And United:

It is against United policy to allow videoconferencing or voice communications in flight. Live video and Internet streaming services are not supported.

I have the same concerns you do, but this is one thing the airlines so far have gotten right.

I never understood this, I can chat to the guy next to me, even over the aisle and no one gives a shit. Put it on a phone and everyone freaks out. Is it because you can only evesdrop and half my conversation than annoys you so much?

Who was the guy who said it interrupts him watching videos? Maybe we don't want to listen to what ever shit you happen to be watching, also that's what headphones are for fuckwit.

Comment: Re:T-Mobile's Reponse (Score 1) 110

For those not clicking links, this is what T-Mobile had to say about this:

Blah blah blah, unfounded allegations, blah blah blah, customer first, blah blah blah, we're totally innocent, blah blah blah release the lawyers, blah blah blah, join our network.

-- John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile USA

Comment: Re:One disturbing bit: (Score 1) 484

by stealth_finger (#47331355) Attached to: Supreme Court Rules Against Aereo Streaming Service

In America, there is a higher law governing the rule of law. The Supreme Court is the only court authorized to address that. Each State also has their own constitution, which provides their State Supreme Court the power to decide if a law is faulty and should be excepted or wholly stricken.

What is the point of being one country when all states act like their own countries, have their own laws and pretty much duplicate everything except change the word president to governor.

Comment: Re:Warriors, unite! (Score 1) 208

by stealth_finger (#47314391) Attached to: The Simultaneous Rise and Decline of <em>Battlefield</em>

Yes. It is called "Opportunity Cost". It is proven and valid.

Here is an extremely simple example: I earn $20 an hour. I can go work for 8 hours or play a game for 8 hours. If I work, I get $160. If I game, I don't get anything (In monetary measure anyway).

Therefore, by gaming I just lost $160 that I could of had.

So, to bring it to the issue at hand: EA's game costs $50. There are 1000 teenagers salivating to play it. If they all buy it: EA gets $50,000.

However, 500 pirated. Therefore EA got $25,000 instead. Thus piracy costs them $25,000 in opportunity cost.

So by not gaining, you do indeed lose something.

Maybe I should put in a claim for all the money I've not earned while playing games/listening to music/watching films then.

"You don't go out and kick a mad dog. If you have a mad dog with rabies, you take a gun and shoot him." -- Pat Robertson, TV Evangelist, about Muammar Kadhafy

Working...