Slashdot Mirror

None, you need Genuine Intel for a flawless Meltdown experience.

Almost. You can also get it with POWER, or ARM Cortex-A75.

Corn doesn't contain any notable nutrients so how exactly is it supposed to end a famine?

Corn/maize is a good source of many minerals and micronutrients, and even contains reasonable amounts of protein, although it is deficient in lysine. Famine victims can't survive indefinitely on a 100% corn diet, but it has plenty of calories, and when combined with pulses (beans and peas) or supplemented with meat, fish, eggs, or dairy, it is nutritious.

There is more than one type of famine. Kwashiorkor is a type of starvation resulting from a lack of nutrients and protein deficiency, even if calories are adequate. Marasmus is starvation caused by lack of calories. Corn/maize can relieve either.

Corn doesn't contain any notable nutrients so how exactly is it supposed to end a famine?

Corn/maize is a good source of many minerals and micronutrients, and even contains reasonable amounts of protein, although it is deficient in lysine. Famine victims can't survive indefinitely on a 100% corn diet, but it has plenty of calories, and when combined with pulses (beans and peas) or supplemented with meat, fish, eggs, or dairy, it is nutritious.

There is more than one type of famine. Kwashiorkor is a type of starvation resulting from a lack of nutrients and protein deficiency, even if calories are adequate. Marasmus is starvation caused by lack of calories. Corn/maize can relieve either.

The idea is that the gene passes on through male offspring and dooms only the female offspring.

The other part of the idea is that the gene copies itself into the matching diploid DNA, so it has twice the propagation rate of a normal gene.

Most likely there would be enclaves of surviving mosquitoes that would repopulate the species, so the mosquitoes with the gene drive would need to be periodically re-released. But we don't need to kill every one, we just need to reduce R0 to well below one for the mosquito borne diseases.

fox news

Literally liberal propaganda: liberals portraying conservative values in the dumbest way possible so as to discredit them.

• * Rupert Murdoch, a Republican owns Fox News Channel...
• * Roger Ailes, a Republican founded and presided over Fox News Channel...
• * All the anchors are either Republican or Independents on Fox News Channel...
• * Almost every guest is a Republican...
• * The audience is entirely Republican and Independents...

but despite all that, it is still somehow liberal propaganda?

Are you retarded?

fox news

Literally liberal propaganda: liberals portraying conservative values in the dumbest way possible so as to discredit them.

• * Rupert Murdoch, a Republican owns Fox News Channel...
• * Roger Ailes, a Republican founded and presided over Fox News Channel...
• * All the anchors are either Republican or Independents on Fox News Channel...
• * Almost every guest is a Republican...
• * The audience is entirely Republican and Independents...

but despite all that, it is still somehow liberal propaganda?

Are you retarded?

Remember that time when Trump illegally disclosed classified information to Russia that allowed them to identify one of the most valuable operatives in the ISIL controled area?

Apple's own CPUs are not strictly "ARM-based", as they do not have cores developed by ARM itself.
They have their own cores that are merely using ARM's ISA.

Apple's CPU designs are likely to have lineage to P.A. Semi which Apple acquired in 2008.
Before then, P.A. Semi had made processors running the PowerPC ISA. Apple had previously been interested in using those, but opted not to in favour of x86.

I can't wait until this technology is in cars!

Wait no longer. (Also side note, how old is your car that it doesn't have these systems? They've been standard in Mercedes for >20 years now).

And for some real fun you should check out how truck brakes are designed, whereby any failure, not just a computer bug would result in the brakes activating.

I can't wait until this technology is in cars!

Wait no longer. (Also side note, how old is your car that it doesn't have these systems? They've been standard in Mercedes for >20 years now).

And for some real fun you should check out how truck brakes are designed, whereby any failure, not just a computer bug would result in the brakes activating.

I can't wait until this technology is in cars!

Wait no longer. (Also side note, how old is your car that it doesn't have these systems? They've been standard in Mercedes for >20 years now).

And for some real fun you should check out how truck brakes are designed, whereby any failure, not just a computer bug would result in the brakes activating.

I am not saying he is correct, but last I checked neither Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, or Enrico Fermi has Phds. and/or were members of the Royal Society of Science. Not to mention the Royal Society enthusiastically fell for the Piltdown Man hoax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I'm sure everyone here knows what that means......

Of all the things that deserve a link, here ya go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

who was stupid enough to decide to put the brake controls though computer/software???

There is nothing inherently wrong with using computer controlled brakes. This is done in all sorts of industrial automation.

However, with that said the Safety integrity level (SIL) is a well known specification used to asses failure levels and the consequence of said failures. And in order to meet the higher levels, you have to have all sorts of fancy analysis that predicts the likelihood of a failure, and provides mechanisms to mitigate that failure.

And I bet that these clowns haven't even considered such a thing and are producing a device that could potentially kill someone (EG sudden braking flipping the rider into the path of a moving vehicle).

As an example I am working on automated cranes used in places where people could be killed if a software/hardware failure occurs. In order to reach our required SIL level we require a safety computer that is physically separate (and runs independently) from the main computer and can shut down operations when it detects certain conditions.

Apparently, this alternative is even more theoretical and difficult than the typical fusion approaches with steam-based electricity generation.

I think your post would have been more credible if you had shown any understanding that a trademark and copyright are not the same thing. In particular, you need to take active steps to defend against violations of a registered trademark or you may lose it.

I would guess the reason they were advised against registering "open source" as a trademark is that they would have had to be continually defending it when used incorrectly, plus they wanted the term to become a widely used term.

I think your post would have been more credible if you had shown any understanding that a trademark and copyright are not the same thing. In particular, you need to take active steps to defend against violations of a registered trademark or you may lose it.

I would guess the reason they were advised against registering "open source" as a trademark is that they would have had to be continually defending it when used incorrectly, plus they wanted the term to become a widely used term.

wiki says:

Typically, the decision to deploy an airbag in a frontal crash is made within 15 to 30 milliseconds after the onset of the crash, and both the driver and passenger airbags are fully inflated within approximately 60–80 milliseconds after the first moment of vehicle contact.

From TFS:

When the computers decide a crash is imminent and unavoidable, they deploy from the side sill, revealing the airbag. In no more than 100 milliseconds, inflators pump up the airbag to the height of a typical front bumper.

Notice one important difference: this begins the 100ms timer before the collision occurs. TFS doesn't tell us how long before the collision that occurs, but it only needs to occur 20-40ms before the collision for this to be comparable to the reaction+inflation time of a normal air bag.

Fwiw, 40 ms x 60 mph = 0.04 s * 26.8 m/s = 1.07 meters (~3.5 feet).

Obviously you haven't seen (or don't care about) recent the body cam video of a traffic stop in Vallejo California where the driver turned to "get his license" and got off two rounds before the another officer shot him.

Stuff like that is why the cop is supposed to stand behind the A-pillar, and if there are multiple suspects in the vehicle, they are supposed to get backup before approaching... and lots of other rules I don't know. There were literally video games about this back in the eighties, the first three (and especially the first two) of which focus on correct police procedure. You literally can't win the games without it. Instead of teaching correct procedure, apparently, police academies spend their time teaching that there is a war on cops — even though this is the safest time in history to be one.

Yes, a patent examiner must have a technical or scientific degree and almost always examines in that field. So a superconductor patent would most likely have an examiner with a background in physics or materials science.

You're talking crap. The Open Source Initiative (OSI) organisation has a specific definition for "Open Source" and has a trademark on the term.

No, they don't. They literally do not have a trademark on "Open Source". First they decided not to try to register it, and then they tried and were denied on the basis of lack of specificity. Their trademark is on "Open Source Initiative". Perhaps you're confused by their old logo, which put the (R) next to "Source" instead of "Initiative", in which case their nefarious graphics design worked brilliantly on your tiny little mind. The rest of your comment is therefore invalid, and there's no point in engaging you.

And FINES for FALSE TAKEDOWNs

Some legal systems have a tort called "defamation of title" or "slander of title". Recklessly claiming you own copyright in someone else's work looks like a case of defamation of title. Which EU member states' legal systems have this?

Wait, didn't I see this somewhere before?

Yeah, you're right :). Fundamentally, the distinction between fermions and bosons is about whether the wavefunction of two identical particles is an antisymmetric or symmetric function in their coordinates. Antisymmetric wave functions directly result in the Pauli exclusion principle, while symmetric wave functions allow for Bose-Einstein condensation.

In quantum field theory, the so-called spin-statistics theorem connects these properties of the wave function to the particle spins. But that theorem is only valid under certain constraints. This theorem not valid in e.g. condensed matter systems: not only can one have fermions with integral spins and bosons with half-integral spins (due to "flux attachment"), but you can have even more exotic anyons, which are neither bosons nor fermions. So these are some examples where the spin-statistics theorem breaks down, and you have to actually look at the symmetries of the wave function with respect to swapping particles to really figure out if you're dealing with fermions or bosons.

Yeah, you're right :). Fundamentally, the distinction between fermions and bosons is about whether the wavefunction of two identical particles is an antisymmetric or symmetric function in their coordinates. Antisymmetric wave functions directly result in the Pauli exclusion principle, while symmetric wave functions allow for Bose-Einstein condensation.

In quantum field theory, the so-called spin-statistics theorem connects these properties of the wave function to the particle spins. But that theorem is only valid under certain constraints. This theorem not valid in e.g. condensed matter systems: not only can one have fermions with integral spins and bosons with half-integral spins (due to "flux attachment"), but you can have even more exotic anyons, which are neither bosons nor fermions. So these are some examples where the spin-statistics theorem breaks down, and you have to actually look at the symmetries of the wave function with respect to swapping particles to really figure out if you're dealing with fermions or bosons.

Yeah, you're right :). Fundamentally, the distinction between fermions and bosons is about whether the wavefunction of two identical particles is an antisymmetric or symmetric function in their coordinates. Antisymmetric wave functions directly result in the Pauli exclusion principle, while symmetric wave functions allow for Bose-Einstein condensation.

In quantum field theory, the so-called spin-statistics theorem connects these properties of the wave function to the particle spins. But that theorem is only valid under certain constraints. This theorem not valid in e.g. condensed matter systems: not only can one have fermions with integral spins and bosons with half-integral spins (due to "flux attachment"), but you can have even more exotic anyons, which are neither bosons nor fermions. So these are some examples where the spin-statistics theorem breaks down, and you have to actually look at the symmetries of the wave function with respect to swapping particles to really figure out if you're dealing with fermions or bosons.

Actually, it went all the way to the Supreme Court that police in USA's job is not to protect the people. It's to prosecute crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales/

That's fucked up.

What are Prosecutors for, if the cops are for prosecuting?

The speed of sound is not a constant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The speed of sound is not a constant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Just discovered this one on Wikipedia, the oldest citation yet: Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, cited as using the term all the way back in 1985 . (Try at about 13 minutes and 50 seconds.) Thanks, NJB!

Amazon doesn't operate the flights. They contract that out to Atlas and two others. The plane was likely dedicated to Amazon Air flights and had an Amazon Air livery painted on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

But somehow, the cops get it wrong again and again, with the result that they shoot innocent people again and again. Why are the cops held to a lower standard than the rest of us, when they have such a higher level of power and authority? That's ass-backwards.

As the years pass and crime rates continue to drop, the percentage of people who remember ever having a positive interaction with police will dwindle to a very few. Couple this with the fact that everyone carries a video camera with them at all times, plus all the other cameras everywhere, to catch every police misdeed and publish it to the world instantly.

These trends should eventually lead voters to enact reforms — maybe in the late 2020s or early 2030s.

You can see it starting already. (I won't take the Portland extremists' side in this, but I won't take the police side either. If police refuse to reform themselves then they should be disbanded and replaced with a new force organized to actually protect and serve the people.)

Shit you're right. Good thing there aren't any methods for separating U-238 from U-235

Oh wait, there seems to be six or more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Actually, it went all the way to the Supreme Court that police in USA's job is not to protect the people. It's to prosecute crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales/

I think the kid's name is Dexter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

You just know that someone is going to die because they get pulled over due to a false positive and some trigger happy brown shirt over reacts when the detained person sneezes and starts shooting?

Then the rest of the Police force will close ranks and defend it as a "justified" action and the worst the officer gets is some paid leave while it blows over while the victim's family gets nothing.

You know it is only a mater of time,

Per capita countries like Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, SA kind of don't count, due to the nebulous and small population count. If 3/4 of the people there are not citizens but rather immigrants (read slave labor), the numbers might be a bit skewed.

By country, Union of Concerned Scientists puts China at #1. https://www.ucsusa.org/global-...
Leaving out the Araby, USA comes in #2 per capita for CO2, behind Australia, according to Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Look up what a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is. How could that be weaponized as a weapon of mass destruction?
But who am I asking? That comment makes you look pretty dumb.

Lene Hau wasn't as cool, but what she did was astoning, and if she were a man, she would have won a Noble. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Do you have some citation for China's per capita CO2 emissions?
While your right about all those Chinese adding up to number 1 in total, the figures I find put the US about #12 with twice the per capita emissions of China. Places like Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are top per capita producers.
Most of what I find is a bit old, such as Wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... only going to 2011 though I don't think the US has dropped much since. This, https://knoema.com/atlas/China... claims 7.45 tonnes per capita for China while the latest for the US from Wiki, says about 16 tonnes per capita for the US

The device in question is a fusor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor which does involve actual nuclear fusion. They aren't easy to build but they do engage in actual fusion. They are used for a bunch of practical purposes, including as neutron generators. Hobbyists have built them before. Still, a 12 year old doing it is pretty impressive.

No military in the history of the world has done as much to prevent collateral damage (i.e. the killing of innocent bystanders) as the U.S. military. That is just a fact.

Historically, that's obviously untrue. In modern times, it is, at best, disputed. Many militaries have done far worse, of course. But starting in the 90s and continuing through the second Iraq war, the U.S. (not to mention its allies) has by many accounts expended less effort at protecting civilians than they had in former wars, not out of malice, but likely in an effort to instead minimize American soldier deaths at any cost and maintain public support for the war in the U.S. And of course, the safest soldier is one that's not on the ground where people are dying.

The shocker was how people were dying. For the first time, in any of his [war mortality] surveys, the leading cause of death wasn't disease. It was bombs and bullets. [...] And the biggest number [...] were killed by the American-led coalition.

"I should mention that only three of them involved guys with guns. All the rest were helicopter gunships, and bombs from planes. [...] There's no evidence here of soldiers running amok. There's evidence here of a style of engagement that probably has relied very heavily on air power that has resulted in a lot, a lot of civilian deaths. [...] A Pentagon spokesperson said that they've dropped about 50,000 bombs in Iraq. 50,000 bombs. Very, very small fraction of them would need to miss their target or be based on bad information to explain 100,000 civilian deaths."

– Les Roberts talking about the first Lancet Iraq War mortality study (covering the first two years of the war, and before sectarian violence began dominating mortality) on This American Life.

As the same story later goes in to, the Pentagon soft limit for acceptable number of civilian deaths was 30 per airstrike. (By that standard, I guess they were really careful, given that we didn't have 1.5 million civilian deaths from those 50,000 bombs...)

This is actually accurate. All "subatomic components" (protons, neutrons, and electrons) are fermions. Put an odd number of fermions together, and you get a composite fermion. Put an even number of fermions together, and you create a composite boson. So whether the atom is a fermion or boson can be established by counting the subatomic building blocks in the atom. Since atoms have one electron per proton if they're not ionized, you can alternatively say that an odd vs. even number of neutrons decides whether the atom is a fermion or boson (so e.g. He-3 is a fermion, while He-4 is a boson).

This is important to cold atomic gases because the Pauli exclusion principle only applies to fermions. This means that fermions usually repel each other, while boson gases do this.

Only the first PowerPC (601) implemented the full POWER instruction set, and Macs at the time didn't support POSIX like AIX does, so that doesn't seem as if it ever could have been very relevant.

The ANS runs AIX on PPC 604/e. That at least supported POSIX, so did any remaining Macs still running A/UX from years earlier, but I have no idea about the included instruction sets, nor if this pedantic comment has any relevance to the conversation.

Only the first PowerPC (601) implemented the full POWER instruction set, and Macs at the time didn't support POSIX like AIX does, so that doesn't seem as if it ever could have been very relevant.

The ANS runs AIX on PPC 604/e. That at least supported POSIX, so did any remaining Macs still running A/UX from years earlier, but I have no idea about the included instruction sets, nor if this pedantic comment has any relevance to the conversation.

Did you mean "ask Eliza" ? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

You're giving IBM's upper management far more credit than they deserve; when I think of Armonk, I think of Mike the Headless Chicken.

They aren't. Federal Court Judges are paid strict salaries that are set by law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

this fundamentally boils down to free will and thinking we have some magical divine spark inside us, instead of us just being unimaginably complex meat computers. the jury's still out on that one.

Or both. It's also possible that we are unimaginably complex meat computers with a magical divine spark... but that the same spark exists in elementary particles and the meat computer serves to amplify that weak spark into something visible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem

As to the core question, whether an AI can be an artist, I think there are a couple of problems with Kelly's argument. The first is that he implicitly assumes that only a human can "be responsive to social necessity", which is tantamount to assuming that no AI can ever understand human social context to the same degree that a human can. I think humans don't understand our social context particularly well, so I don't think it's that much of a stretch to think that an AI could do it as well. Especially since subtle errors in understanding the context may just provoke the strongest reactions from viewers of the art.

The second is the common assumption -- which I think is a mistake -- that artists understand / intend the meaning of their own work. They do to some degree, but I think most of the social contextualization that lends meaning to art happens in the eye / mind of the observer not the artist. Especially among avant-garde artists, I think there are a fair number whose real talent is that their nearly-random acts of creation just happen to touch something in the psyches of many people, and especially in the right kind of people, those who are well-positioned to make the artist famous.

I looked up Sanctuary City on Wikipedia, and the movement appears to primarily be non-cooperation with Federal authorities and non-enforcement of Federal law. Since local authorities have wide discretion on how to enforce the law, I'm not sure what's illegal about it.

Marijuana is a much better example of states being more lenient than the Feds.