Welcome to TV Lavin News Space – where intelligence meets curiosity! This is not your average news channel. Here, we explore bold, unconventional stories that challenge the status quo, provoke thought, and spark innovative conversations. If you’re someone who seeks knowledge beyond the headlines, with a thirst for the extraordinary, you’ve found your new home. Join us for deep dives into the most intriguing, out-of-the-box news tailored for sharp minds like yours!
On the radio, your favorite band may include a bunch of scruffy musicians. But on your wireless network, your band is full of channels. Your choice of band and the channels it contains can have a big impact on the network’s performance.
What is a wireless band, anyway? Radio signals are electromagnetic waves, part of the same electromagnetic spectrum that includes light and x-rays. All waves vibrate at a particular speed or “frequency,” measured in Hertz (Hz); a billion Hertz equals one GigaHertz (GHz). Radio waves are defined as a specific part of the slow end of this spectrum, called the “radio band.” To avoid interference between different uses of the radio band — broadcast radio, broadcast TV, GPS, emergency communications — the U.S. government divides it into smaller divisions, also known as bands.
Most consumer devices that emit a radio signal — wireless routers, cordless phones, cell phones, garage door openers — operate in the ISM band, short for industrial, scientific, and medical. This band was cordoned off decades ago because such devices don’t need to broadcast very far and therefore (theoretically) won’t interfere with one another, and thus don’t need to be licensed and confined to a specific frequency, like a radio or TV station. The ISM band extends from 2.401GHz to 2.473GHz, but people call it the 2.4GHz band for short.
Today, tons of devices operate in the 2.4GHz band and, as a result, cause lots of interference with nearby ISM-type devices. In an effort to prevent this from occurring, the 2.4GHz spectrum is split into 11 “channels” (small bands), each 22MHz apart. In theory, these channels provide three frequency ranges whose signals never overlap. Or, to put it another way, three 2.4GHz devices using three different channels should never interfere with one another.
Fortunately, there’s another option: a different band known as the Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) band, called 5GHz for short. Dual-band wireless networking equipment supports both 2.4GHz and 5GHz operation. Devices that support the Wireless AC (802.11ac) standard can move up to the higher-frequency band to take advantage of additional channels that are less prone to interference than 2.4GHz.
Be aware that there is a trade-off for minimizing interference. Because they operate at a higher frequency, 5GHz signals have a shorter range than their 2.4GHz counterparts.
But don’t let that deter you from testing out 5GHz. If your router supports Dual Band, or even Tri Band, you can create multiple independent wireless networks at the same time, one on the 2.4GHz band for the increased range and compatibility with legacy devices, the other on the 5GHz band, with shorter range but less interference. Perfect for those seeking to maximize performance within a home networking setup.
- See more at: http://blog.dlink.com/2-4ghz-versus-5ghz/?spMailingID=8230371&spUserID=MTA2OTA5Mzk5NDk2S0&spJobID=800632290&spReportId=ODAwNjMyMjkwS0#sthash.XTe8jgqf.dpuf
ELIZA has almost no intelligence whatsoever, only tricks like string substitution and canned responses based on keywords. Yet when the original ELIZA first appeared in the 60's, some people actually mistook her for human. The illusion of intelligence works best, however, if you limit your conversation to talking about yourself and your life.
This javascript version of ELIZA was originally written by Michal Wallace and significantly enhanced by George Dunlop.
Note: Eliza is dumb! This is common knowledge. Please don't write to me telling me she's dumb, or how to fix it. If you don't like the way she works, you can change the code yourself. Just view source on this page to see the javascript, and save it to your hard drive. Then do a search for javascript documenation, and you should be able to make Eliza act any way you want. :)
Carol Kaelson/Jeopardy Productions Inc., via Associated
Press
Two “Jeopardy!” champions, Ken Jennings, left, and Brad
Rutter, competed against a computer named Watson, which proved adept at buzzing
in quickly.
By JOHN MARKOFF
Published: February 16, 2011
Two “Jeopardy!” champions, Ken Jennings, left, and Brad
Rutter, competed against a computer named Watson, which proved adept at buzzing
in quickly.
By JOHN MARKOFF
Published: February 16, 2011
YORKTOWN HEIGHTS, N.Y. — In the end, the humans on
“Jeopardy!” surrendered meekly.
Facing certain defeat at the hands of a room-size I.B.M.
computer on Wednesday evening, Ken Jennings, famous for winning 74 games in a
row on the TV quiz show, acknowledged the obvious. “I, for one, welcome our new
computer overlords,” he wrote on his video screen, borrowing a line from a
“Simpsons” episode.
From now on, if the answer is “the computer champion on
“Jeopardy!,” the question will be, “What is Watson?”
For I.B.M., the showdown was not merely a well-publicized
stunt and a $1 million prize, but proof that the company has taken a big step
toward a world in which intelligent machines will understand and respond to
humans, and perhaps inevitably, replace some of them.
Watson, specifically, is a “question answering machine” of a
type that artificial intelligence researchers have struggled with for decades —
a computer akin to the one on “Star Trek” that can understand questions posed
in natural language and answer them.
Watson showed itself to be imperfect, but researchers at
I.B.M. and other companies are already developing uses for Watson’s
technologies that could have a significant impact on the way doctors practice
and consumers buy products.
“Cast your mind back 20 years and who would have thought
this was possible?” said Edward Feigenbaum, aStanford University computer
scientist and a pioneer in the field.
In its “Jeopardy!” project, I.B.M. researchers were tackling
a game that requires not only encyclopedic recall, but also the ability to
untangle convoluted and often opaque statements, a modicum of luck, and quick,
strategic button pressing.
The contest, which was taped in January here at the
company’s T. J. Watson Research Laboratory before an audience of I.B.M. executives
and company clients, played out in three televised episodes concluding
Wednesday. At the end of the first day, Watson was in a tie with Brad Rutter,
another ace human player, at $5,000 each, with Mr. Jennings trailing with
$2,000.
But on the second day, Watson went on a tear. By night’s
end, Watson had a commanding lead with a total of $35,734, compared with Mr.
Rutter’s $10,400 and Mr. Jennings’s $4,800.
Victory was not cemented until late in the third match, when
Watson was in Nonfiction. “Same category for $1,200,” it said in a manufactured
tenor, and lucked into a Daily Double. Mr. Jennings grimaced.
Even later in the match, however, had Mr. Jennings won
another key Daily Double it might have come down to Final Jeopardy, I.B.M.
researchers acknowledged.
The final tally was $77,147 to Mr. Jennings’s $24,000 and
Mr. Rutter’s $21,600.
More than anything, the contest was a vindication for the
academic field of artificial intelligence, which began with great promise in
the 1960s with the vision of creating a thinking machine and which became the
laughingstock of Silicon Valley in the 1980s, when a series of heavily financed
start-up companies went bankrupt.
Despite its intellectual prowess, Watson was by no means
omniscient. On Tuesday evening during Final Jeopardy, the category was U.S.
Cities and the clue was: “Its largest airport is named for a World War II hero;
its second largest for a World War II battle.”
Watson drew guffaws from many in the television audience
when it responded “What is Toronto?????”
The string of question marks indicated that the system had
very low confidence in its response, I.B.M. researchers said, but because it
was Final Jeopardy, it was forced to give a response. The machine did not
suffer much damage. It had wagered just $947 on its result. (The correct answer
is, "What is Chicago?")
“We failed to deeply understand what was going on there,”
said David Ferrucci, an I.B.M. researcher who led the development of Watson.
“The reality is that there’s lots of data where the title is U.S. cities and
the answers are countries, European cities, people, mayors. Even though it says
U.S. cities, we had very little confidence that that’s the distinguishing
feature.”
The researchers also acknowledged that the machine had
benefited from the “buzzer factor.”
Both Mr. Jennings and Mr. Rutter are accomplished at
anticipating the light that signals it is possible to “buzz in,” and can
sometimes get in with virtually zero lag time. The danger is to buzz too early,
in which case the contestant is penalized and “locked out” for roughly a
quarter of a second.
Watson, on the other hand, does not anticipate the light,
but has a weighted scheme that allows it, when it is highly confident, to hit
the buzzer in as little as 10 milliseconds, making it very hard for humans to
beat. When it was less confident, it took longer to buzz in. In the second round, Watson beat the
others to the buzzer in 24 out of 30 Double Jeopardy questions.
“It sort of wants to get beaten when it doesn’t have high
confidence,” Dr. Ferrucci said. “It doesn’t want to look stupid.”
Both human players said that Watson’s button pushing skill
was not necessarily an unfair advantage. “I beat Watson a couple of times,” Mr.
Rutter said.
When Watson did buzz in, it made the most of it. Showing the
ability to parse language, it responded to, “A recent best seller by Muriel
Barbery is called ‘This of the Hedgehog,’ ” with “What is Elegance?”
It showed its facility with medical diagnosis. With the
answer: “You just need a nap. You don’t have this sleep disorder that can make
sufferers nod off while standing up,” Watson replied, “What is narcolepsy?”
The coup de grâce came with the answer, “William Wilkenson’s
‘An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia’ inspired this
author’s most famous novel.” Mr. Jennings wrote, correctly, Bram Stoker, but
realized that he could not catch up with Watson’s winnings and wrote out his
surrender.
Both players took the contest and its outcome
philosophically.
“I had a great time and I would do it again in a heartbeat,”
said Mr. Jennings. “It’s not about the results; this is about being part of the
future.”
For I.B.M., the future will happen very quickly, company
executives said. On Thursday it plans to announce that it will collaborate with
Columbia University and the University of Maryland to create a physician’s
assistant service that will allow doctors to query a cybernetic assistant. The
company also plans to work with Nuance Communications Inc.to add voice
recognition to the physician’s assistant, possibly making the service available
in as little as 18 months.
“I have been in medical education for 40 years and we’re
still a very memory-based curriculum,” said Dr. Herbert Chase, a professor of
clinical medicine at Columbia University who is working with I.B.M. on the
physician’s assistant. “The power of Watson- like tools will cause us to
reconsider what it is we want students to do.”
I.B.M. executives also said they are in discussions with a
major consumer electronics retailer to develop a version of Watson, named after
I.B.M.’s founder, Thomas J. Watson, that would be able to interact with
consumers on a variety of subjects like buying decisions and technical support.
Dr. Ferrucci sees none of the fears that have been expressed
by theorists and science fiction writers about the potential of computers to
usurp humans.
“People ask me if this is HAL,” he said, referring to the
computer in “2001: A Space Odyssey.” “HAL’s not the focus; the focus is on the
computer on ‘Star Trek,’ where you have this intelligent information seek
dialogue, where you can ask follow-up questions and the computer can look at
all the evidence and tries to ask follow-up questions. That’s very cool.”
This article has been revised to reflect the following
correction:
Correction: February 24, 2011
An article last Thursday about the I.B.M. computer Watson
misidentified the academic field vindicated by Watson’s besting of two human
opponents on “Jeopardy!” It is artificial intelligence — not computer science,
a broader field that includes artificial intelligence.
I am 100% with what mr trump said,the situation would be much difficult for those bastard terrorist ,and this president in USA wants us to be disarmed , Is he crazy or is conspiracy to destroy US too by disarming the people
Donald Trump, speaking at a rally on Saturday in Beaumont, Texas, suggested that fewer people would have been killed had more civilians been armed.
“When you look at Paris, toughest gun laws in the world, nobody had guns but the bad guys,” he said. “Nobody had guns. And they were just shooting them one by one, and then they broke in and had a big shootout and ultimately killed the terrorists. And I will tell you what — you can say what you want, if they had guns, if our people had guns, if they were allowed to carry, it would have been a much, much different situation.”
Trump’s comments echoed one he made following the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in January, when he tweeted, “Isn’t it interesting that the tragedy in Paris took place in one of the toughest gun control countries in the world?” That tweet gained new attention on Friday when many thought it had been sent out on Friday night, even though it had been sent in January. Gerard Araud, the French Ambassador to the United States, tweeted out a response to Trump’s tweet, calling it “repugnant in its lack of any human decency.”
Trump also criticized President Obama for saying, in an interview on Friday before the attacks, that ISIL “continues to shrink.” “He is just so bad! CHANGE!” Trump said on Twitte
