Slashdot Mirror

Open search is a plus but I don't think the central issue. Since in my research fields, it's common to post the preprint of the work (either on the arXiv or on their own webpages) generally search engines find stuff and just searching for the article title gets a decent version of the work. Not all authors are good about this but even if people do put all their stuff where it can be found, it is still unhealthy for the research community to have overpriced journals by for-profit publishers as there are a number of bad outcomes that arise from publishers' economic incentives.

"The discovery of this phase was completely unexpected and not based on any prior theoretical prediction"

and yet for some reason they decided to build a detector specifically to look for these arrangements of electrons....

Actually, I think the original use of the detector was to developed a faster way to determine structure of crystal/electronic symmetries in solids (by measuring high-order non-linear harmonics and inferring the structure, not specifically looking for a particular arrangement). The interesting thing about this detector is that it doesn't involve moving the sample under test, so you can test samples that are under conditions that would be otherwise impractical to test using other techniques.

This latest result using this detector on Sr2IrO4 yielded a measurement that indicated a structure that didn't match the expected underlying crystal structure (thus unexpected). Furthermore, the presence of this unrelated structure seemed to be temperature dependent indicating a possible novel phase of matter that formed at a critical temperature.

Using optical second-harmonic generation, we report evidence of a hidden non-dipolar magnetic order in Sr2IrO4 that breaks both the spatial inversion and rotational symmetries of the underlying tetragonal lattice. Four distinct domain types corresponding to discrete 90-rotated orientations of a pseudovector order parameter are identified using nonlinear optical microscopy, which is expected from an electronic phase that possesses the symmetries of a magneto-electric loop-current order.

The fundamental premise that underlies the whole IPCC "science" is false. An atmospheric greenhouse does not exist, at least not in the way described by the greenhouse gas fear brigade. Yes, the science is clear and anyone taking the time to read it will see that the whole carbon reduction frenzy is nothing more than a circus for and of the bamboozled.

Dr Christopher Essex says: "I have been at this for more than 30 years. I got to madness as a conclusion long ago. But now I have accepted that humans are inherently limited...". He wrote about it 10 years ago in his book Taken by Storm. Now Joseph E. Postma has come to the same conclusion.

Why don't people open their eyes, read the material, and stop this ridiculous scam?

Look at the big brain on Brad.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with no free lunch... read the goddamn article if you want to know what the authors are actually saying. http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.0487...

It's an asymptotic speedup for certain classes of problems.

Marshal and HInton did some work on this. It's a good read. I'll find it for you.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1597...

An interesting quote in 1.1 would be:

Subsequently it was shown that the No Free Lunch theorem only holds if the set of objective functions under consideration is closed under permutation (c.u.p.).

It's worth a read. IIRC, it was cited later by Hinkley and further work has been done since then but, well, I'm kind of lazy at the moment. Either way, it's worth looking at if you're curious and have been out of academia for a while.

All planets close enough to be in a white dwarf's "habitable zone" would have been well inside the star during the star's red giant phase.

The planet could be a planet captured from another star.

The capture could be intentional as well. How long is the lifetime of a white dwarf star's habitable zone compared to a different star? Even buying another 10Gry is quite a long time. A very sentimental and advanced civilization could build a shkadov thruster and get their planet captured by a different star before the parent star got too far off the main sequence.

A black hole or active neutron star might not be so kind. A red dwarf is a safer bet with fusion lifetime measured in trillions of years. But a white dwarf might work in a pinch.

Then again the planet may just be re-coalesced dust from the original star or the core of an extinguished close-in gas giant.

MiHsC has no adjustable parameters, and predicts cosmic acceleration and galaxy rotation without dark matter.

Be warned, the author's blog "Physics from the edge" has some quite good reads:

• • An Introduction to MiHsC
  • Debate on the facts.
  • MiHsC vs 29 anomalies
  • Resisting the end of physics
  • ...

sensational. More like a reaction to LUX (no) results. http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8214

Proposed experiment: arXiv:1510.01696.
More detailed theory: arXiv:1510.01262.
See also blog post.

Proposed experiment: arXiv:1510.01696.
More detailed theory: arXiv:1510.01262.
See also blog post.

> From the article:

Which one? And which page is that on?

Because I'm not seeing that phrase in the PDF:

* http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.0362...

Nor in the main article:

* http://www.theatlantic.com/sci...

We generally look for cyclical, minute (1%) variations in star light to detect planets. But we found one that has a variation in starlight of over 20%.

[From TFA] There are dips in the light, but they aren't periodic. They can be very deep; one dropped the amount of starlight by 15 percent, and another by a whopping 22 percent!

All it would need to be is an irregular object with a spin. Think about it. If I put you in one spot, and an irregular, spinning object more-or-less between you and what you want to look at, what happens to your view of the object?

Your irregularly shaped object would still produce periodic variation, merely periodicity that is a combination of the period of orbit and the period of rotation.

More pointedly, explain how one obtains an irregularly shaped, larger-than-planet sized object. Because anything larger than about 300km in radius is going to become principally spherical due to self-gravity. And any object smaller than a planet should not dim the star by 20x more than a planet would.

interesting but irrelevant puzzles

Like "why does this lump of rock ruin my film?" and "as if we'd ever figure out how to stick two atoms together?"

If you want a practical application of neutrino detectors and their relevance today, you need look no further than Online Monitoring of the Osiris Reactor with the Nucifer Neutrino Detector which has direct applications in the field of nonproliferation. Here's a map of the world as a function of its antineutrino flux. It's a little low-res as of last month, but it looks really interesting - as in, it's a map of every nuclear reactor on earth - once you subtract out the background from decay of naturally-occurring elements in the crust.

Not only have we used knowledge of new fundamental particles to learn how to split and fuse the atom to release energies that would have been unimaginable to the Curies, we can use knowledge of newer, harder-to-detect, and "irrelevant" fundamental particles to detect bad actors trying to build bombs on the sly. If the fundamental particles underlying the first nuclear war are Nobel-worthy, surely the particles that are being measured in order to prevent history's second nuclear war, ought to be worthy of consideration, even if nobody's figured out how to make a bomb out of them.

I think Java is being used correctly (in the PDF/paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.0774... ) and the article linked, does not confuse the terms.

You're mistaken. They include the source. It's definitely javascript despite the article referencing it as a "Google Java Applet". Maybe he wrote the article in Yahoo Go on his Microsoft iPad.

I think Java is being used correctly (in the PDF/paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.0774... ) and the article linked, does not confuse the terms.

I saw something about this recently. Let me see ... here we are: http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.01509

It's a paper discussing the prospects for detecting neutrinos from aliens - not as a deliberate means of communications, but as waste emission from alien particle accelerators. If they want to build some sort of super version of the Large Hadron Collider to probe the Planck scale, possibly the highest-energy meaningful processes in the universe, we can work out in general terms how big it needs to be and how many neutrinos it would emit. We haven't seen that many neutrinos, so we can say that no such huge accelerator exists nearby.

The real question is, can a computer beat a human at a human game? Chess, yeah. Go, not so much.

Neural nets are rapidly gaining on old fashioned hand coded algorithms. Here is a Go playing NN, that can beat Gnu Go after only a few days of learning. Progress is rapid, and computers will overtake the best humans at Go within a few years.

If I remember correctly, the noise floor of the previous instrument was approximately the level of the signal they were looking for. A better detector may help.

Indeed. It's hard to overstate the sensitivity of these instruments, or the vulnerability of these instruments to noise. To take one example, here's an ArXiv preprint that calculates that the original LIGO detectors would need to be physically shielded from tumbleweeds, since the the impact of a wind-borne tumbleweed on the building exterior (100 feet from the detector) could produce a vibrational or gravitational transient sufficient to appear to be a spurious gravitational wave signal.

Things like Elliptic curve Diffie Helman are secure.

Absolutely not. Elliptic curve cryptography is vulnerable to a modified version of Shor's algorithm: Wiki, arXiv.

Even if global warming was not happening at all (which it is), why discourage new technology that solves pollution problems? For example let's pretend that we are in global cooling and not global warming (which we aren't, but let's pretend: a hypothetical). This doesn't change the fact that there is pollution from gasoline causing toxic substances in the air. If we understood the climate more, we could battle global cooling, ice ages, global warming, we could even change the weather with the right technology by dumping heat into cold spots, and extracting heat (cooling) the hot spots to create the exact weather patterns we want. This sounds like a science fiction idea, and maybe a control freak who wants to literally control the weather so that it is always 20 degrees celsius outside and consistent (while skiiers want it to be -8 celsius in the mountains or so). But to just deny global warming because maybe warming means things will get better (which it won't, look at the melting ice) is naive.

Safe nuclear power (NIF National Ignition Facility) or second law violating devices would be a solution to the problem because with nuclear power that is safe (star power on earth) or with second law violating devices, one could literally control the temperature to what he wanted, any time he wants.

Since we are all going to die eventually due to heat death (equilibrium death) via the second law of thermodynamics, there really is no point in continuing life anyway. We consider ourselves significant, but we aren't. The only possible reason to continue living would be to violate the second law and save the universe, as in Isaac Asimov's The Last Question. Fighting global warming and pretending it's not of concern, is the same as fighting global cooling science because you think an ice age is of no concern. Believe me, they are both concerns. Global warming doesn't just warm the climate, it cools things drastically during the down stages - that's why you see more extreme weather patterns. But there is no point in living life, if the second law holds true 100 percent of the time, because we are doomed. Posting messages on slashdot is literally insignificant and pointless, unless the second law could be violated - then humans will be significant, because we would figure out how to control the universe and make it live instead of die in equilibrium.

Some articles on the subect:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.5056...

http://mdpi.org/entropy/papers...

http://olsonb.com/articles/hea...

ER=EPR is designed to avoid superluminal representations of the Poincare group (which is the symmetry group of Special Relativity, and which has "c" as its sole free parameter, corresponding to that of a massless particle; photons are expected to be massless).

Avoidance of non-locality even gets a explicit mention in section 3.1 of the Malcadena & Susskind paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0533

So, no, ER=EPR does not satisfy non-locality.

(It's mostly designed to try to preserve AdS/CFT in the face of the AMPS paradox, which strongly suggests that not all of AdS/CFT gauge/gravity, semiclassical gravity as an EFT outside the horizon, unitarity, or the "no drama" conjecture (and thus the strong Einstein Equivalence Principle) can be simultaneously valid. However, the introduction of a truly huge number of wormholes to a model of the universe is not calculationally attractive, and does not really help with intuiting the internal state of physical black holes any more than AdS/CFT has done so far. Additionally, it requires a modification of QFTs such as the Standard Model for at least some infallers (cf. p 36 at Polchinski's http://www.slideshare.net/joep... .))

The state change only becomes effective when the results from the two
labs are brought together and are jointly analyzed, which can happen
centuries later. Bohmians like Maudlin tend to confuse such changes in
distributions with a change in the world, because the notions of states
and wave functions are reified, and considered as some real thing out
there

Note here that locality is maintained by not having any appropriate change in the world until the two labs bring their results together! This is what I take Wiseman to be referring to when he talks about giving up on correlation. In the Nature article I linked earlier:

No, it's not. Werner is talking about the nonlocality of the wavefunction collapse, whereas Wiseman is talking about abandoning Reichenbach's common cause principle.

But one can go further, by recalling that local causality rests on two principles: Einstein’s principle of relativistic causality, and the principle of common cause. Thus Bell’s 1976 theorem can be restated as: either causal influences are not limited to the speed of light, or events can be correlated for no reason.

...

Those who hold Einstein’s principle to be inviolable (the localists) must conclude that some events are correlated for no reason. A challenge for them is: if correlations do not necessarily imply a cause, when should scientists look for causes, and why?

and from the arxiv.org paper,

In conclusion, for a proper appreciation of the foundational importance of Bell’s
theorem to physics, information science, and the philosophy of causation, one should be
familiar with both the 1964 Bell’s theorem and the 1976 Bell’s theorem, even though
they are logically equivalent. The former proves that quantum phenomena are either
nonlocal (in a “causation by agents” sense) or undetermined, while the latter proves
that quantum phenomena violate local causality (in a “common cause for correlations”
sense).

Let me clarify what they are talking about: Bell's theorem follows from local causality. Local causality itself can be derived either from the conjunction of determinism and locality, or from the conjunction of Reichenbach's common cause principle and locality. So, if you want to keep locality, you have to give up determinism (as shown by Bell's first theorem) and Reichenbach's common cause principle (as shown by Bell's second theorem, in a more modern reading). Maybe reading this paper of Wiseman will make things clearer.

While Wiseman, Werner, and Maudlin may be all saying subtly different things, their understanding seems to me largely the same. Maudlin shows (as Bell did), that embracing indeterminism isn't enough. What Wiseman points out is that the choice isn't between locality and indeterminism, but between locality and correlation. What Werner says is that the correlation comes from entirely local events, presumably late occuring: when the labs bringing their results together. You have given up on indeterminism, but that isn't one of the options on the table.

As I said before, if indeterminism is the price to pay for keeping lcality, then we're much better off ditching locality. The same goes if one is referring to giving up on correlation of events. But keep in mind the kind of correlation here one needs to give up: it's the correlation we find in the kind of experiment given in this slashdot article. These are very *strong* correlations. How crazy does a view have to be before we give up locality?

Come on, Werner and Wiseman largely agree, but they are talking about different things. Maudlin is in violent disagreement with everybody else. But I'm repeating myself here. What I'd like to point out is what exactly is meant by "giving up on correlation of events". What one needs to give

What? No, come on, this doesn't make any sense! The theorems of 1964 and 1976 are the same! In 1976 Bell chose to conflate both assumptions into one that he calls "local causality", but local causality is exactly the same as the conjunction of determinism and locality. Wiseman does not agree with Maudlin at all, he is just charitably explaining where Maudlin made a trivial mistake.

Come on, In my previous reply I thought you had an interesting point about the locality of quantum mechanics, but now this is just an uninteresting wordplay.

Maudlin is wrong, and trivially so. Moreover, he is alone. To see how fringe are his views, please read this paper of Werner, which is a comment on the paper "What Bell did".

Maudlin shows in the book I referenced how local indeterministic theories also violate Bell's inequality. But it's not just Maudlin: Bell himself proved what Maudlin claims. Howard Wiseman thinks that the confusion comes about for the reason that Bell had two papers. The first paper in 1964 argued from the twin premises of locality and determinism, leaving the impression that one could give up just one of these. In his 1976 paper, Bell made it clear that the problem derives from locality alone. Wiseman writes:

In 1976, Bell proved that his new concept of local causality (based implicitly on the principle of common cause), was ruled out by Bell correlations. In this 1976 theorem there was no second option, as there had been in the 1964 theorem, of giving up hidden variables. Nature violates local causality.

Maudlin is not mistaken, and is not alone. A more detailed paper by Wiseman: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.0351v2.pdf.

In related news on quantum computing 6-photon boson sampling has also been performed (incidentally also by researchers at Bristol with some overap between the two groups). See http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2435 for details and discussion. Boson sampling is an important idea which involves estimating the probability distribution of non-intersecting photons. Crucially, boson sampling may be substantially easier to construct since they don't require nearly as much in the way of complicated machinery and error correction as full-power quantum computers, but there are also strong reasons to believe that boson sampling cannot be done efficiently on a conventional computer. That paper is http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.01182 (which also has some other very cool results - they've made essentially reconfigurable chips for this rather than having to make new ones for any specific photon sampling procedure). The original paper which proposed boson sampling is http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/optics.pdf.

This was also a 'good' one:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.0737...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/br...

Maybe because I'm so aware of what is possible I've kind of given up ?

Anyway, the most likely use case for the DNS-lookup/TCP-connect and tracking would be webmail, a lot of webmail I know doesn't even have real links. They use redirects.

Isn't weather forecasting just solving PDEs?

...in four dimensions, with complex boundary conditions.

It would be hard even if partial differential equations were not chaotic.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.0910

Host it yourself, if you fear band-width, host only between universities.

Hosting isn't the problem. The major problem is researchers have to publish to important journals - publish or perish. These journals usually demand the rights to publish your work, so while you can host it yourself you'd be breaching the agreement (depending on your country's law) and asking for a very nasty letter from a lawyer. Remember that guy who killed himself after they caught him trying to host the whole archive himself? They don't kid around when you fuck with their market.
It's a very difficult fight, but not impossible. arxiv.org for instance is pretty successful.

That's not correct. *Control* of multinationals is by a core of banks and investment houses ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.5728 ), which for shorthand we can call "Wall Street". A number of them are based outside the U.S., but pretty much all have an office in the Wall Street area. *Ownership* is distributed more widely. For example, I used to work for Boeing, and I'm vested in their retirement fund. Theoretically the fund holds the assets in trust for the retirees, who are the beneficial owners. The control of the funds, however, is in the hands of whatever fund manager Boeing has hired, which is typically one of the big Wall Street companies. Since the fund assets are over $20 billion, the fund manager has a lot of influence with the various companies whose shares they hold. I have none.

The separation of ownership and control is the trick by which Wall Street exerts undue influence. And they don't even have to collude to get their way. Everyone on Wall Street has the same goal: maximize profits at all costs. So they all use their influence in the same direction to get their way, whether lowering the capital gains tax, extending copyright, etc.

That is the question plaguing Neuroscience, Biology, Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience (including AI work). We don't know how brain states generate the affective sensations that we experience (and I assume all animals with a sufficiently complex CNS experience, which probably includes fish, who have a very nicely complicated CNS). Right now "artificial life" researchers are struggling to come up with even a proto-bacterium-like entity from scratch. And simply putting the enzymes and transporters into a membrane-bound container doesn't make it start to act "alive".

The thing that most non-biologists don't think about is that all cells only come from other living cells. Thank Pasteur. This is not a trivial point. Except for one time we can infer, life only comes from life. Abiogenesis may have been a one time deal, or maybe just a few times as far as we know now. So clearly something unusual and interesting is involved, and we are not entirely sure what that is.

Some researchers have proposed that living systems selected metabolites based on them naturally being in a state of quantum criticality. See here for example:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.0688...

Whether claims like this turn out to be true or not remains to be seen. But clearly, scientists are struggling to even define the basics of what makes living organisms unique.

They do not the pdf any better. Have a look at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.0346...

u73a4" \ldots\ldots\ldots "%u33bf%u3d8d%ud66e%ua735%u416e");

I doubt, the \ldots should look like this.

Links that work pls thx.

The links are recursive (they point at /.) so they'd be fuck all use at providing more information - and nothing to do with the crappy summary (SecurityWeek reports). Thanks for nothing Timothy.

Articles from the last week of SecurityWeek about HTML5 and malware 4 security flaws in MSIE, a stupid "story" about old flaws long patched,

This one - paper it's based on is here tl;dr If you don't use stupid (Silverlight, Java, Adobe, Flash) it won't matter.

Here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.03467v1.pdf

Because 1) these geniuses don't know how to do a hyperlink, and 2) the article is completely worthless aside from a link to a page that links to the PDF.

All observations with the Parkes telescope, at least, are already public-access: the astronomers who gathered the data get a proprietary period of 18 months, but after that it's free for anyone to download. See here. You can search the archive here. The software used for processing the data is open-source, too: for example, this package. (There's a SourceForge page too, though I wouldn't be surprised to find that bundled with malware nowadays.) A paper with a detailed description of the algorithms behind it is also freely available online.

I agree that, as you say, too much science is pay-walled and locked up behind restricted access - but radio astronomy is a great example of a field which *doesn't* do this.

Nah they just told folks at Parkes to stop opening the microwave door before the timer went off.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.0216...

Fast radio bursts: the observational case for a Galactic
origin

Further, we re-analyze the probability that two FRBs recently discovered 3 years apart within the same radio be am are unrelated. Contrary to other claims, we conclude with 99% confidence that the
two events are from the same repeating source.

Crunch all you want, we'll make more. Sounds artificially intelligent.

I am not sure if their strategy will work. Training a neural net requires massive compute resources, usually in the form of GPUs. But once the NN is trained, it doesn't require much computing to use it. For instance, a Go playing NN took 5 days to train, running on high end GPUs, but once trained, could consistently beat Gnu Go (which can consistently beat me) while using far less computing time.

First, Scott does not mention, that most dangerous asteroids are found

>95% of 1 km size asteroids
>90% for 500 m size asteroids
~60-70% 300 m size asteroids

so yes, we know 1% of asteroids, but still - the danger now for a person to be killed by asteroid is more than 100 times less, than it was two decades ago

another problem with his video, that he omits to mention, that inner asteroids are either harmless, or if they intersect earth orbit - they could be tracked at dusk/dawn ( just like venus is visible - and venus is quite far from being able to hit earth, so closer asteroids and relatively big asteroids are easier to find )

then about finding inner asteroids with space crafts - it is not just B612 foundation, which deals with that , but there are other proposals

http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.0794... - which is really cheap ( though idea requires some more development )
or http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1501.0... neocam - the paper has a proof that it is somewhat more realistic than B612 proposal and is not less efficient.

Yes, the WSJ article is hyped.

On the other hand, this comment by the poster is not accurate, either: "At best, Google is programming (not teaching) a computer to mimic the conversation of humans under highly constrained circumstances. And the methods used have nothing to do with true cognition. "

Google didn't program the AI. Rather, they took one meta-level step back and used a very simple training algorithm that did the "programming" for them, using training data (the program is encoded as an LSTM neural net that processes word-vector encodings of tokens) . Based on direct tests, it looks as though the model learned (or, use scare-quotes, if you must -- "learned") things like:

1. The "rules" of discourse;
2. How to leverage context;
3. How to do some amount commonsense reasoning.

All these things are extremely hard to program into a computer using rules-based methods; but, as the authors show, a purely data-driven approach, instead, works fairly well.

And just to be clear, what they applied is not datamining; it is machine learning. Basically, machine learning is where you feed in a bunch of training data, and from that, an algrorithm builds a program -- see, for instance, this lecture by John Platt (former Microsoft machine learning scientist, now at Google) on the difference between AI, machine learning, and datamining:

John Platt Gigaom lecture

Using machine learning, it is possible to get a computer to "learn" a subset of the Python programming language, for example, such that you can feed into the model a little program + input, and it will produce for you the corresponding output. See:

Learning to Execute

What the authors of the conversation-generation paper wondered was whether they could get the computer to "learn" a whole dialog system (or "chatbot") from just conversation logs; and based on experiments, it looks like they succeeded (it's better than Cleverbot on the conversations they tested with) . They note in the paper:

We find it encouraging that the model can remember facts, understand contexts, perform common sense reasoning without the complexity in traditional pipelines. What surprises us is that the model does so without any explicit knowledge representation component except for the parameters in the word vectors. Perhaps most practically significant is the fact that the model can generalize to new questions. In other words, it does not simply look up for an answer by matching the question with the existing database. In fact, most of the questions presented above, except for the first conversation, do not appear in the training set.

This is not simply doing phrase-substitution, or some simple statistical tricks; it is more complicated than that... but, yes, it's not "true AI". In addition to that article on "Learning to Execute", see this blog posting by Yoav Goldberg, and skip down to where it says "So why am I impressed with RNNs after all?":

The unreasonable effectiveness of Character-level Language Models

The WSJ article links a paper from some researchers at Google:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.0586...
The WSJ article isn't particularly good either; they misunderstand what's actually going on in the research, which seems to be about conversational modeling (a "weak AI" type of research, the "understanding" being very shallow). They point out a few applications of this kind of work though, and that seems pretty solid/useful. (It doesn't approach the goals of "strong AI", those being actually modeling semantics and deeper reasoning)

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.0586...

The actual paper isn't about AI much at all as it is about making neural conversational models, basically, having the computer chat-back at you in a prompt and natural way. The conversations are less about the computer responding cognitively and more about responding human-like based on the speech patterns fed into it.

The researchers tested two types of datasets, an IT Help Chat Scenario fed with data from what I'm guessing are chat databases, and the second set was fed with conversations from movies as found from OpenSubtitles dataset (not sure if this is a relation to open subtitles.org).

The machine took this vocabulary and then pumped out conversations, and the researchers just looked to see how the new sorting method worked.

I don't understand the linguistic terminology nor the modeling at all, but it seems to me that this is less about AI research and more about just getting bot to sound a lot more natural when they generate responses. I guess this eventually has AI implications, but the research paper itself never even mentions AI, nor does it seem like that's their focus. They're just working on speech, and the statements the machine regurgitated were tested not for cognizance or sentience but coherence. The machine spitting out something relatively snappy isn't the machine getting an attitude, it's the machine finding something relevant to the input that the reader takes as snappy. Such an event has no more significance than when people trained Cleverbot to respond to questions about Hitler with "Hitler did nothing wrong". This bot is no more snappy than Cleverbot is a neo-nazi.

That has nothing to do with publish or perish. You can look at the original paper and find no references to the terminology in it, where it uses the "re-heated." Publish or perish is just about having enough journal papers to justify your ability to get research done. Stuff like this is typically done by PR types. Sometimes it is the direct result of suggestions by the scientists, but my colleagues and I've had plenty of times where a PR release used headlines that the scientists never saw until it was published, or disagreed with but not enough to put a lot of time and effort into raising a stink. Other times, the PR piece writers will go to great lengths to convince the researcher that they need catchy headlines to make the news piece get noticed (which actually is true, I've seen plenty of great pieces on important work go virtually unnoticed because it looked to boring).

So no, to re-iterate, it is not publish or perish giving this. It is people trying to compete with clickbait headlines, with or without the researcher's blessing.

Also, your comparison to stale bread is kind of pointless, as people don't determine the staleness of bread by temperature, so duh, changing the temperature is not going to going to magically make it permanently not stale. But when planets mainly age by cooling off, changing the temperature will make long lasting changes to the main component of their aging.

Microfluidic channels are fairly easy to produce using traditional lithography, and a simple water pump produces all of the motion necessary. It's difficult to see how this really improves upon that model.

You have a valid point, but I thought it was an interesting approach(*).

In his paper, Dr. PraKash notes that microfluidics requires pumps, valves, and other controlling hardware to route the chemicals to the required places.

His system moves microsamples around using magnetic fields, eliminating the need for pumps and valves.

Check out his dancing droplets video on YouTube. There's really a lot going on at the atomic level with these micro droplets.

(*) I submitted the article

More and more physics seems to be relying on simulations. In a case in which a theory has been discarded because it can't account for certain observed phenomena there can be a benefit in show that the theory can't be discarded. However it seems like there are more cases in which a simulation seems to be used as evidence that a theory is correct. http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.0481...

String theory has been somewhat predictive and new experiments in particle physics can be compared to expectation with string theory without needing to modify the theory.

However a lot of theories do not seem to be very testable or have any likelihood of being testable. Here is some "evidence" I came up with for the theory that we are living in a simulation. I use minecraft to illustrate. Probably others have provided the same evidence, I am just not aware of them. It has the same problem of some of theories coming out, it does not seem to be predictive and testable.

1) Quantum mechanics/uncertainty principle.
Assume that any construct must have limited resources.It would require substantially less "memory" and "cpu power" to estimate particles and groups of particles using equations rather than track the particulars of every particle and its interaction. Only when a query for the state of a specific particle occurred would the value be determined. Once the actually value were determined, the behavior would no longer match the shorthand equations that governed undetermined particles.
Minecraft analogy: Minecraft is an unlimited world in which each "block" [piece of earth or other material] can be manipulated. So unlike most game there are no walls or objects that can't be destroyed or moved, etc. Blocks objects are not instantiated until someone interacts with it. In this way many properties are not fully determined until the interaction occurs.

2) Speed of light
The speed of light limits the amount of interaction. It is extremely computationally intensive to have everything interact with everything else simultaneously. With the speed of light, interaction is limited to a single direction from source to object. While two objects might interact together, say by reflecting each other on their surfaces, the reflection is actually showing the other object from a point early in time that was "computed" on the prior "cycle". Aggregates can be used for distance objects. For example the light of a distance galaxy would not need to be computed with every individual particle.
Minecraft analogy: There is a render distance. Based on the graphical and network power the user can adjust the render distance. Objects beyond that distance are not visible and the display does not need to account for them.
Interestingly the speed of light indicates, to some extent, the type of construct. In a typical simulation of a reality, all values are computed simultaneously and then the next time cycle is calculated. This is used when attempting to model of a "real" system in which accuracy is more important than performance.

3) Planck time
This is the equivalent of CPU cycle or a singe "tick" in Minecraft

4) Unusual physics at "extreme" values
Strange things happen and "extreme" values like Bose-Einstein condensates, singularities and perhaps plasma. A construct of a system would be more concerned about behaviors within a "sweet spot" of interest.
Minecraft analogy: Minecraft uses double precision values for everything, including coordinates which are based on an integer number of blocks. There is a place in minecraft called "the far lands". If you travel far enough from your point of origin when the game is created, doubles no longer accurately represent integers. So blocks no longer form a continuous surface and there are occasional missing blocks and the player can get stuck between blocks or fall through "holes" in solid earth.
[Interesting aside: people can get to "the far lands" with mods etc. However once the creator announced the existence of "the far lands

Analytical event horizons of merging black holes

The Geometry of Black Hole singularities

Wrong, the horizon is not eternally expanding! As you asymptotically approach de Sitter space, the horizon becomes purely a function of the cosmological constant (because it's a function of the curvature, which is determined by the cosmological constant in de Sitter space). You can see the equation, and some even tighter bounds in http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/00...

Proton decay is a really minor point, because it doesn't affect any of the more fundamental barriers (tunneling, quantum fluctuations, the Bekenstein bound). If all baryons decayed, and that was the only problem, life could potentially still exist in some other form, until larger timescales when the other problems take over.

By the way, even if protons don't decay in the usual manner, there are alternate ways in which protons might eventually be destroyed, involving virtual black holes and other processes. A number of these are noted in section "IV.F. Higher order proton decay" in http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/...

Tachyons in one theory are not the only possible definition of tachyon, just like the electron in classical electrodynamics is not the electron in QED is not the electron in SM.

To a relativist a tachyon is any object freely falling along a spacelike geodesic, or equivalently, any object whose causal cone is wider than that of light's.

Any spacetime described by the Einstein tensor admits a democracy of causal cones, not just the light cone. For historical and practical reasons we focus on solutions to the Einstein Field Equations where the light cone is the causal cone; there's no *strong* reason to do so, and we probably could not continue to do so if we found, for example, superluminal neutrinos.

In fact, even spacetimes described by the Minkowski tensor can probably cope with superluminal causal cones, as Geroch notes in section 3 of http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.1614

Tachyons in that sense will have varying solutions that *may* require some sort of negative mass-energy (e.g. under the FLRW cosmology) or may not (e.g., under the inside Kerr metric). The mathematical solutions for tachyons can even be straightforward and obvious, which most people take to mean that the metric is probably unphysical because pretty much everyone agrees with you about expecting the Spanish Inquisition.

These speculations are useful intellectual exercises, but should not be taken very seriously. Intelligent life may or may not last for 10^100 years, but the chances of any detailed theory of the long term future of the universe surviving 100 years is basically nil, and even 10 years is no sure thing.

For myself, I'd bet on a "big rip", except that I don't know how to collect on such a bet.

My understanding is that the walk at R'lyeh would be normal, but the view of the distant surroundings highly skewed, and possibly take exponential time:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.8144