It puts a whole new perspective on going to Kentucky Fried if you realise that you are munching on a bucket of dinosaur drumsticks.
So it's probably yes, the answer to the age old question; do dinosaurs taste like chicken? Clearly my interpolation from watching flintsones cartoons is wrong here.
tl;dr : modeling climate, based on quantum mechanical systems, is like trying to run an emulator of IBMs Summit supercomputing system on a Galaxy S5. Your FPS is gonna suck.
Strong AI is at a minimum 20 years out, and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't happen in 50. Weak AI is already here, but is really more of a specific problem optimization than actual "sentience", it is cool and you can use it for lots of stuff.
We have had the electric motor technology and mechanical know how to make electric cars for over 100 years. It's just the battery tech that is holding things up. Even today the cost, power density, energy density, and design with sustainable materials are barely acceptable. Despite hearing about a new super battery every week, we haven't had a significant jump in tech since lithium rechargeables made thier debut around 2000, but rather slow incremental improvements.
If the NSA and other agencies would give up thier secret list of vulnerablities to the vendors it would help quite a bit. Instead of increasing defense by patching and hardening against known issues we purposely leave ourselves open to anyone able to use these exploits to use against these same "enemies" for the same reasons which makes no sense when we have more to lose. It only makes sense when those keeping the secrets don't care about the nation/people as a whole and want to get these gains despite the costs they don't directly pay - and that's if everything goes according to plan. I don't know how many times these exploits were turned into cyber weapons, then promptly "lost" somehow and used by just the people we didn't want to get hurt by before then finally being disclosed well after its too late to prevent a ton of damage.
Who said anything about removing anonominity? As I said, the paper ballot does not change in any way. We already have proof of voting, if you ever voted in the US you need to go to a registry table and be checked against a list, in some states even providing ID. The voting representative knows I voted, they handed me the ballot, often marked with a serial or identifying number, and watched me turn it in. In the same manner the voting machine takes in the ballot, sends the results to the distributed ledger, and the transaction key is printed by the machine on the ballot unseen by the voting party and thus ensures the anonymous transaction. A leak of the ballot key would only allow you to see that single ballot image which in no way identifies the individual. The order could be delayed somewhat and is distributed state or nation wide so you could not reconstruct the voters specific ballots from surveillance of a single location or even from a whole state at once. In fact, you could lose every key to hackers and everything would be viewable and yet nothing compromised. The reason this increases securiry is exactly as I outlined. An immutable ledger that is distributed state wide makes it far harder to rig just a location or two. Since the paper is compared to the immutable ledger every time, misreporting can be stomped out immediately as you have confidence in original submission authenticity. It's not a simple database or you could go back and hangs submissions, the nature of the manner of encryption ensures it can be verified it's unaltered and yet poses no risk if it is publicly available. It would be harder to fake this additional layer of protection to just paper integrity. Keys can be distributed as well so issues like votes being destroyed illegally simply would no longer be as easy as shredding papers and more like trying to delete a viral video off the web for good.
I'll answer but you are both framing the problem differently, this isn't about a public way to prove your voting, or about internet voting, it's simply a backup to paper ballots. As you can see with all the posts here there are numerous examples of actual ballots going missing, having a digital recovery method makes it that much more complicated to fake the actual paper and the database instead of just the paper or machine. With distributed processing facilities you would take away the ability to as easily rig the digital information locally beyond simply misreporting into a read only database. Paper would still be the primary method and each time the database is checked against the paper counts to ensure no misreporting took place, you can't alter the database after the fact but only add to it.
The key can be printed onto the ballot directly or it could be turned over to independent officials it dosent matter, and if an immutable ledger or similar is used, can be ensured that it was original and unmodified (unaltered after entry). The information includes the machines submitted selection for each office and a high resolution digital image of the paper ballot. Nothing is different about the paper ballot itself at all. If you wanted to show proof of voting, you could simply create a duplicate database side by side stripped of actual voting information to ensure the vote was there and the officials could verify this regularly. The immutable part of the ledger, the distributed nature of the database, and the fact it's checked against paper each election would allow anyone not reporting correctly to be found out right away.
4. That there is an electronic public anonymous immutable ledger that can be checked against 3 as a backup and against destruction or loss paper ballots.
This last point isn't something without value, even if it is not required.
I'm all for cheap energy, but if people start wasting it like that, just because it's cheap, maybe the cost for energy should include its true cost, which includes the cost of repairing the damage it cases.
The true cost should be the price in any case. Not counting externalities is like "sticking it to the man" when self employed, you can pretend they don't exist but society pays the price. The opportunity to make large amounts of money then leads a few, through economies of scale, to profit disproportionately while the costs are socialized. It's not clear to buyers what those external costs are, and most people don't think about it much. This leads to the current state of affairs where libertarian views are no longer on speaking terms with the environment.
I'd agree, it not binary yes/no but rather a spectrum as real life applications often are. Unfortunately for self driving cars it's not so simple as lane following or constant distance car following. Edge cases make it difficult to have a narrow AI back end learn it all, but rather you would need seperate processes for each edge case class and an executive function moderate them and seamlessly fuse behavior with core driving algorithms. Basically a way to do it would be have a variety of narrow AI modules and an executive AI module or module to oversee the system and we are still learning quite a bit about this approach.
I'd almost disagree in a sense as there are some executive functions analogous to humans that may be useful like curiosity - finding suspicious, weird, or other unexpected behaviors/events and devoting additional processing to it, perhaps centrally to help all vehicles perform better. Pretty much all animals including humans get curious so there may be an underlying reason why this or a version thereof is beneficial we aren't aware of.
Have you been living under a rock? AI is used in everything from fraud detection, natural language processing, self driving cars, customer service, customer retention, automated detection and classification, etc, etc, etc.
All of those cases are narrow/weak AI and not general purpose/strong AI. It's actually the distinction to help people understand we don't have working self driving cars today - the number of fringe edge cases and level of abstraction needed is beyond our current abilities. General purpose AI has an innate human/animal level common sense notion of the world and is self aware.
I always thought the chinese room/Turing argument against strong AI didn't frame the question properly. Following a set of operations is what human and animal brains do, on levels like molecular, electrical, and cellular. Imagine for simplicity some are joined to form these "rooms" and that some processes perform executive oversight, perhaps even somewhat recursively could be considered rooms. Saying understanding has to occur in a particular room is like saying an economy has to be found within a single business office in a city. The economy is a emergent property of tens of thousands of rooms within a city and many cities each linked together across nations or the world and so is wholly found in no rooms and yet has a part in each. Consciousness is likely similar in that is the emergent behavior once a critical number of rooms with the right contents are connected.
There's nothing less "hard" about correlating data in civics as physics, in fact the same rules apply. The only question is how much more complex the data is involving human behavior as opposed to particle/wave behavior.
If you discount any information out of hand because you think the result is "bad science" but you don't actually have a method of critique, you are not a scientist or operating in that field at all, just a tourist.
Field purity as opined by one of the finest, most respected, and authoritative sources on the internet./s
I'm guessing you don't have young children. Helium balloons these days last a week, easy. I think the material is mylar?
It's not the base polymer (PET) that is impermeable to gas, it's the metal coating that is vapor deposited over it. That has much smaller holes and acts to contain the helium.
The real dilemma is which action will incur the least losses to the manufacturer through lawsuits. This is what will be implemented, I've never seen a case of a company placing altruism over profits unless they can virtue signal the altruism to make more profits.
Yes, it's because of the dimensionality and the ratio between your initial size and final size by scaling them both linearity and invariantly is extremely important across geometry, physics and engineering. It's why small objects are extremely reactive (surface area affects reaction rate and the amount of reactant scales with volume) and large are not, why large objects cool very slowly (surface area dictates heat transfer rate while the volume affects mass) and small objects quickly. It has noting to do with a choice of units, that is arbitrary. Take your initial not understanding like and adult and move on.
The proportionality ratio is unitless. It dosent matter what units you use, if you double the distance between two fixed points for any closed shape the volume goes up 8x while the surface area goes up 4x. You divide both volumes and both areas so the units cancel. You just moved down to 5th grade. Please learn basic algebra before replying next time.
I wouldn't necessarily call them benign but yes being pointed makes it much worse including (all else being equal) more reactive in the general case as well.
Have you ever seen the classroom demonstration of glitter used to show how germs or fine particles spread? There are some pretty good videos of a single dose of contamination spreading everywhere during a single class. There is a reason glitter is called the herpes of art supplies. Do you know how smell works? Gases and particles must physically work thier way to the sensory organs inside your nose, so when that co-worker farts and you smell it, you are physically in contact with fecal particles as well as various gasses involved. Flush your toilet? Well then fecal particles go everywhere including all over your toothbrushes and house. It's just that the particles make up a very small percentage of the total mass around your house or items so they don't get noticed. The same is true for plastic dust particles. They are generated all the time, everywhere, and a kosher bakery or home grown vegetables are no exception. There will be particles all over them because, for example, they are present in the dirt in your yard as well as all over inside your house. Things like clothes dryers generate massive volumes of them. So realize that just because something appears "artisan" or "organic" dosent mean it's magically free of all contamination. The only real question is how much not if it's there or not.
Yes, unit conversion can be a pita. However let's look at it simply. There are 25.4 millimeters in a inch. So if you have one inch, multiply by 25.4 to get mm. Take 0.02 inches (20 thousandths) multiply 0.02 by 25.4 and it's 0.508mm. Somehow my.5 got autocorrected and I didn't see it so it was just a typo, that dosent affect anything substantial with respect to the argument of the danger of plastic particle toxicity.
More likely 5 micron. The other thing I would take issue with there is the "surface area to volume" being relevant. Surface area and volume have different units, and are thus not directly comparable. If we're talking spherical particles, they all have the same proportions.
This demonstrates an understanding below the 8th grade level. For any fixed shape, the volume scales as the diameter (or any fixed point to point in the shape) to the third power while the surface area scales to the second power. For example on a sphere the volume is 4/3 pi r^3 while the surface area is 4 pi r^2. Therefore the ratio is proportional to the size, tiny particles have massive surface area to volume while large ones do not. This is a fundamental property of mathematics and physics and affects everything from the fact large objects cool far slower than small ones of the same shape to complex things like why insects can't get larger than a certain size because they don't have lungs and rely essentially on diffusion.
Slashdot Mirror
It puts a whole new perspective on going to Kentucky Fried if you realise that you are munching on a bucket of dinosaur drumsticks.
So it's probably yes, the answer to the age old question; do dinosaurs taste like chicken? Clearly my interpolation from watching flintsones cartoons is wrong here.
tl;dr : modeling climate, based on quantum mechanical systems, is like trying to run an emulator of IBMs Summit supercomputing system on a Galaxy S5. Your FPS is gonna suck.
Strong AI is at a minimum 20 years out, and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't happen in 50. Weak AI is already here, but is really more of a specific problem optimization than actual "sentience", it is cool and you can use it for lots of stuff.
We have had the electric motor technology and mechanical know how to make electric cars for over 100 years. It's just the battery tech that is holding things up. Even today the cost, power density, energy density, and design with sustainable materials are barely acceptable. Despite hearing about a new super battery every week, we haven't had a significant jump in tech since lithium rechargeables made thier debut around 2000, but rather slow incremental improvements.
If the NSA and other agencies would give up thier secret list of vulnerablities to the vendors it would help quite a bit. Instead of increasing defense by patching and hardening against known issues we purposely leave ourselves open to anyone able to use these exploits to use against these same "enemies" for the same reasons which makes no sense when we have more to lose. It only makes sense when those keeping the secrets don't care about the nation/people as a whole and want to get these gains despite the costs they don't directly pay - and that's if everything goes according to plan. I don't know how many times these exploits were turned into cyber weapons, then promptly "lost" somehow and used by just the people we didn't want to get hurt by before then finally being disclosed well after its too late to prevent a ton of damage.
Yeah, but severed fingers and eyeballs tend to shrink after a while and carrying a flask of formalin around is very stinky and messy.
Sounds like a market need isn't being met. Let's get a kickstarter going, there is real money to be made here.
Who said anything about removing anonominity? As I said, the paper ballot does not change in any way. We already have proof of voting, if you ever voted in the US you need to go to a registry table and be checked against a list, in some states even providing ID. The voting representative knows I voted, they handed me the ballot, often marked with a serial or identifying number, and watched me turn it in. In the same manner the voting machine takes in the ballot, sends the results to the distributed ledger, and the transaction key is printed by the machine on the ballot unseen by the voting party and thus ensures the anonymous transaction. A leak of the ballot key would only allow you to see that single ballot image which in no way identifies the individual. The order could be delayed somewhat and is distributed state or nation wide so you could not reconstruct the voters specific ballots from surveillance of a single location or even from a whole state at once. In fact, you could lose every key to hackers and everything would be viewable and yet nothing compromised. The reason this increases securiry is exactly as I outlined. An immutable ledger that is distributed state wide makes it far harder to rig just a location or two. Since the paper is compared to the immutable ledger every time, misreporting can be stomped out immediately as you have confidence in original submission authenticity. It's not a simple database or you could go back and hangs submissions, the nature of the manner of encryption ensures it can be verified it's unaltered and yet poses no risk if it is publicly available. It would be harder to fake this additional layer of protection to just paper integrity. Keys can be distributed as well so issues like votes being destroyed illegally simply would no longer be as easy as shredding papers and more like trying to delete a viral video off the web for good.
I'll answer but you are both framing the problem differently, this isn't about a public way to prove your voting, or about internet voting, it's simply a backup to paper ballots. As you can see with all the posts here there are numerous examples of actual ballots going missing, having a digital recovery method makes it that much more complicated to fake the actual paper and the database instead of just the paper or machine. With distributed processing facilities you would take away the ability to as easily rig the digital information locally beyond simply misreporting into a read only database. Paper would still be the primary method and each time the database is checked against the paper counts to ensure no misreporting took place, you can't alter the database after the fact but only add to it.
The key can be printed onto the ballot directly or it could be turned over to independent officials it dosent matter, and if an immutable ledger or similar is used, can be ensured that it was original and unmodified (unaltered after entry). The information includes the machines submitted selection for each office and a high resolution digital image of the paper ballot. Nothing is different about the paper ballot itself at all. If you wanted to show proof of voting, you could simply create a duplicate database side by side stripped of actual voting information to ensure the vote was there and the officials could verify this regularly. The immutable part of the ledger, the distributed nature of the database, and the fact it's checked against paper each election would allow anyone not reporting correctly to be found out right away.
4. That there is an electronic public anonymous immutable ledger that can be checked against 3 as a backup and against destruction or loss paper ballots. This last point isn't something without value, even if it is not required.
I'm all for cheap energy, but if people start wasting it like that, just because it's cheap, maybe the cost for energy should include its true cost, which includes the cost of repairing the damage it cases.
The true cost should be the price in any case. Not counting externalities is like "sticking it to the man" when self employed, you can pretend they don't exist but society pays the price. The opportunity to make large amounts of money then leads a few, through economies of scale, to profit disproportionately while the costs are socialized. It's not clear to buyers what those external costs are, and most people don't think about it much. This leads to the current state of affairs where libertarian views are no longer on speaking terms with the environment.
I'd agree, it not binary yes/no but rather a spectrum as real life applications often are. Unfortunately for self driving cars it's not so simple as lane following or constant distance car following. Edge cases make it difficult to have a narrow AI back end learn it all, but rather you would need seperate processes for each edge case class and an executive function moderate them and seamlessly fuse behavior with core driving algorithms. Basically a way to do it would be have a variety of narrow AI modules and an executive AI module or module to oversee the system and we are still learning quite a bit about this approach.
I'd almost disagree in a sense as there are some executive functions analogous to humans that may be useful like curiosity - finding suspicious, weird, or other unexpected behaviors/events and devoting additional processing to it, perhaps centrally to help all vehicles perform better. Pretty much all animals including humans get curious so there may be an underlying reason why this or a version thereof is beneficial we aren't aware of.
Have you been living under a rock? AI is used in everything from fraud detection, natural language processing, self driving cars, customer service, customer retention, automated detection and classification, etc, etc, etc.
All of those cases are narrow/weak AI and not general purpose/strong AI. It's actually the distinction to help people understand we don't have working self driving cars today - the number of fringe edge cases and level of abstraction needed is beyond our current abilities. General purpose AI has an innate human/animal level common sense notion of the world and is self aware.
I always thought the chinese room/Turing argument against strong AI didn't frame the question properly. Following a set of operations is what human and animal brains do, on levels like molecular, electrical, and cellular. Imagine for simplicity some are joined to form these "rooms" and that some processes perform executive oversight, perhaps even somewhat recursively could be considered rooms. Saying understanding has to occur in a particular room is like saying an economy has to be found within a single business office in a city. The economy is a emergent property of tens of thousands of rooms within a city and many cities each linked together across nations or the world and so is wholly found in no rooms and yet has a part in each. Consciousness is likely similar in that is the emergent behavior once a critical number of rooms with the right contents are connected.
I'm from the Midwest where sharp cheddar counts as spicy food. Is this study still valid?
You have several sadistic traits, please don't stop drinking black coffee or slashdot will be that much more boring.
There's nothing less "hard" about correlating data in civics as physics, in fact the same rules apply. The only question is how much more complex the data is involving human behavior as opposed to particle/wave behavior.
If you discount any information out of hand because you think the result is "bad science" but you don't actually have a method of critique, you are not a scientist or operating in that field at all, just a tourist.
Field purity as opined by one of the finest, most respected, and authoritative sources on the internet. /s
I'm guessing you don't have young children. Helium balloons these days last a week, easy. I think the material is mylar?
It's not the base polymer (PET) that is impermeable to gas, it's the metal coating that is vapor deposited over it. That has much smaller holes and acts to contain the helium.
The real dilemma is which action will incur the least losses to the manufacturer through lawsuits. This is what will be implemented, I've never seen a case of a company placing altruism over profits unless they can virtue signal the altruism to make more profits.
Yes, it's because of the dimensionality and the ratio between your initial size and final size by scaling them both linearity and invariantly is extremely important across geometry, physics and engineering. It's why small objects are extremely reactive (surface area affects reaction rate and the amount of reactant scales with volume) and large are not, why large objects cool very slowly (surface area dictates heat transfer rate while the volume affects mass) and small objects quickly. It has noting to do with a choice of units, that is arbitrary. Take your initial not understanding like and adult and move on.
The proportionality ratio is unitless. It dosent matter what units you use, if you double the distance between two fixed points for any closed shape the volume goes up 8x while the surface area goes up 4x. You divide both volumes and both areas so the units cancel. You just moved down to 5th grade. Please learn basic algebra before replying next time.
I wouldn't necessarily call them benign but yes being pointed makes it much worse including (all else being equal) more reactive in the general case as well.
Have you ever seen the classroom demonstration of glitter used to show how germs or fine particles spread? There are some pretty good videos of a single dose of contamination spreading everywhere during a single class. There is a reason glitter is called the herpes of art supplies. Do you know how smell works? Gases and particles must physically work thier way to the sensory organs inside your nose, so when that co-worker farts and you smell it, you are physically in contact with fecal particles as well as various gasses involved. Flush your toilet? Well then fecal particles go everywhere including all over your toothbrushes and house. It's just that the particles make up a very small percentage of the total mass around your house or items so they don't get noticed. The same is true for plastic dust particles. They are generated all the time, everywhere, and a kosher bakery or home grown vegetables are no exception. There will be particles all over them because, for example, they are present in the dirt in your yard as well as all over inside your house. Things like clothes dryers generate massive volumes of them. So realize that just because something appears "artisan" or "organic" dosent mean it's magically free of all contamination. The only real question is how much not if it's there or not.
Which suggests that either the editors are idiots, or that they don't bother to read what they type....
Why can't it be both?
Unless you make a habit of eating the eggshells, that's not going to be an issue.
Would that be true if small plastic particles worked their way into the bloodstream of the hen?
Yes, unit conversion can be a pita. However let's look at it simply. There are 25.4 millimeters in a inch. So if you have one inch, multiply by 25.4 to get mm. Take 0.02 inches (20 thousandths) multiply 0.02 by 25.4 and it's 0.508mm. Somehow my .5 got autocorrected and I didn't see it so it was just a typo, that dosent affect anything substantial with respect to the argument of the danger of plastic particle toxicity.
More likely 5 micron. The other thing I would take issue with there is the "surface area to volume" being relevant. Surface area and volume have different units, and are thus not directly comparable. If we're talking spherical particles, they all have the same proportions.
This demonstrates an understanding below the 8th grade level. For any fixed shape, the volume scales as the diameter (or any fixed point to point in the shape) to the third power while the surface area scales to the second power. For example on a sphere the volume is 4/3 pi r^3 while the surface area is 4 pi r^2. Therefore the ratio is proportional to the size, tiny particles have massive surface area to volume while large ones do not. This is a fundamental property of mathematics and physics and affects everything from the fact large objects cool far slower than small ones of the same shape to complex things like why insects can't get larger than a certain size because they don't have lungs and rely essentially on diffusion.