Let me paraphrase your post here, apologies if I'm off:
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim." -
Edsger Dijkstra
What tasks does this future "brain" need to accomplish? Real-time video processing, facial recognition, memory of who that face represents, what action to take, what tone of voice to use? We're well on our way. You want to control a spacecraft landing in real-time? We can do that. You want to simulate 3 billion spacecraft landings all at once? We can do that, too. This chase for a human brain on a chip is a wild goose chase.
I won't even go into the things you could do with just an atmega or 555 chip.
When we need a machine that can complete instructions in the gigahertz, that can store libraries of congress in its memory, that can recognize handwriting, that can see and recognize faces, that can speak, etc etc.- we already have that in a $500 laptop computer. There is no task that cannot be completed by a theoretically turing-complete processor. If you want the job done in this millennium, we have parallel/distributed computing. If you want to have a stimulating conversation? Call a friend.
>>There is no test for sentience. Without such a test it would be impossible to kow if you have succeeded in accurately modeling it.
It seems to me that ultimately we'll discover that if you want the advantages of a human brain, you need to *use* a real human brain. We have processors for all manner of tasks now, even programmable processors that can accomplish turing-complete style instructions. That race is won. Obviously we need more power from a radical new approach.
It reminds me of my buddy who got a bid on his concrete slab. The bid was $650. So he saved money and bought the concrete himself ($600), rented the mixer ($150) and then spend 3 days of his own time (vacation time) pouring concrete- instead of paying $650 for someone to drive a truck in, pour it, and be done in half an hour.
We should focus on creating interfaces with real human brains instead of what we're doing now.
I like Doug Stanhope's idea about drunk driving tests.
If you can pass the same scored driving test at.08 that a 16-year-old can pass sober, then hey- you can drive all the way up to.08. And so on for.10,.12, etc.
Just sayin'. I don't like this device because it tests levels of chemicals in your body instead of actual impairment. And (I honestly don't know) since when does cocaine impair driving?
In Iraq I worked out of hardened aircraft shelters that the yugoslavians built for saddam in the 80's. I have pics but none of the are online... OK here's one from google.
The round satellite dish on top is ~15 feet tall, for perspective. The entire structure is concrete reinforced (And I mean reinforced as in 2-inch steel bar set 2 inches apart in layers 12 inches apart, and all welded).
So on the inside you're looking up at 30-45 feet of armor depending on where you stand (the ceilings are vaulted). When we invaded, we dropped one penetrator per shelter, completely destroying everything inside (airplanes), and leaving a nice round ten-feet diameter hole through all that expensive armor.
A shelter could survive 200 feet underground from a air- or surface-burst nuke. That's why we build penetrators to take us down to 200 feet, and more specifically penetrators with conventional charges so we can test them without violating treaties. The people who build these things are very good at what they do.
>>I would imagine that the higher impact speed of the US bomb requires a much stronger casing, but I am surprised at the small ordinance load.
1. Ke=MV^2 2. The shape, proportions, materials, and thus payload are determined by the secant ogive of the penetrator nose. Small apparent differences could scale the weight beyond the limits of our bombers. 3. The kinetic energy released is a big part of the destructive power; the heavy casing, pound for pound, is more effective than an equal weight of explosives. 4. Modern explosives are more powerful in certain ways than WW2 explosives.
So in a nutshell what I mean is that something with enough KE to dig 200 feet underground will cause massive damage from the inert casing alone. And- A bomb with, say, 10,000 lbs explosive charge would require an obscenely heavy casing, and would not reach terminal velocity when dropped from our bombers' altitudes (thus the weight is wasted potential energy).
I have seen what our 90's-era bunker busters can do firsthand, and for better or worse I have great trust in the people designing new ones.
I had some really good pictures apropos this discussion but that website was taken down.
Their special ops units would be a PITA but are not enough in of themselves to be decisive. I would use them against American/ROK airbases if I was the North Koreans
Attention NK SpecOps teams: Do not attack Air Force bases. You will run in to a squadron of heavily armed, well-trained, and most importantly *bored* security forces airmen who have spent 9 hours a day for the last 4 years sitting in a truck on the flighline watching the tarmac and waiting... Just waiting... For the opportunity to do something more exciting than picking at the dashboard.
Seriously, you'd be better off storming the marines. These SF airmen desperately *want* you to attack so they'll have something to do.
Young men wanted war? Are you nuts? Read accounts of the civil war. Read about the effect Napoleon had on france during his little escapade. Read about the mexican-american war. And don't just read the winners' stories.
War is, and always has been, hell. I don't know if you simply played too much Civ 4 or what, but no one but leaders ever want war (at least, they don't want it bad enough to actually die for it in great numbers). Those guys who talk about war casually, as if it were no big thing? I go to veterans support groups with them and hold them as they cry over their broken lives. Maybe you haven't heard the reality because vets know you won't get it, you'll take it out of context because you weren't there. War ruins the lives of everyone it touches. You won't hear my stories because they define me, yet they mean shit to you.
Many families still tell the stories of their ancestors' terrible experiences in our civil war. It is a BIG DEAL to kill another person. There isn't a generation alive that hasn't dealt personally with war. War happens out of necessity- or perceived necessity- not because people WANT to go to war.
And I also disagree with your last sentence. There are more people here in the U.S. than at any other time willing to fight for their country. But there is a huge difference between being willing to fight and wanting to fight. I help defend the country, yes; I have done so willingly in the past. But I never *wanted* to go where I did, do what I did, see what I saw... But I would do it again. I believe in the bigger picture; I believe that my hardship is worth the gains to the people back home. I don't want to die for my country. That's stupid. But I want to go help so that other people *also* don't have to die.
I don't know if any of this made any sense to you. I hope it did. But your entire post was ass-backwards in every respect. I had to say something.
Exactly. It occurred to me that if cursive is so great, why aren't books printed in it? Why don't we type up papers in cursive fonts?
I keep hearing the argument that cursive writing is faster/easier on the hands, but 12 years of primary education experience would have me disagree.
Another thing is that two individual's cursive can be illegible to each other. Even the worst block lettering is still legible. I've had people make fun of my handwriting before, but no one has ever claimed to not understand it.
I'm 26 and I've struggled with poor handwriting my entire life. And that was not because my teachers didn't try. In my early years, handwriting was graded curriculum- Thus, despite straight A's for everything else, my performance always looked mediocre because of the C's and D's I'd get in the handwriting portion. I can still remember that wide-ruled shitty tan paper that tore if you used an eraser. Line after line of cursive A's and V's, then the next week O's and B's. And on and on, when I could have been learning something useful.
My handwriting now looks identical to my handwriting from at least as far back as 6th grade. And those were the days before we ever typed anything. In high school I hand-wrote papers and notes literally by the ream, and my writing never improved.
Interestingly, my handwriting is very close to my father's, and I saw very little of his writing as I was growing up. We do share some psychological issues which are almost certainly genetic (runs throughout his side of the family), but making a connection between handwriting->psyche issues would be dubious.
>>I don't understand the point? Is there any big product line I am missing, that people actually buy?
XBOX 360! Jesus H. Christ, there's got to be 200 comments about how kids are really gonna want to spend their b-day playing with zunes and bing. Did this story come out before everyone in the world had their morning coffee?
You do know that MS sells a very popular game console? A birthday party at the MS store would probably center on a few large screen TVs with multiplayer halo or CoD or something.
Jesus... So much anger over nothing. Chill out, man.
-b
Re:The Lightning is no replacement for the Raptor
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
Chambliss would be an obvious supporter as the F-22 airframe is made in Marietta, GA. The engines are made in Dodd's state, and he is looking out for the unions.
It might seems selfish or corrupt but on the other hand I've been personally screwed over by my congressmen NOT lobbying on my state's behalf. There are states with half our population and natural resources getting twice the federal programs that we do because, frankly, our legislators aren't very charismatic or experienced. Hint, Al Franken is our new junior senator. No I didn't vote for the guy even though I've read his books.
With the Open Skies treaty among others, the U.S. and other signatories are required to disclose the numbers of 'significant military assets', which would include artillery, fighters, bombers, tanks, etc.
Sometimes our aircraft have all been parked on the flightline at once in order to satisfy a preplanned flyover.
What you might see sometimes where assets are covered would be to protect actual operational security/national security secrets. The shape of our nuclear sub props would qualify, for example. But the existence of the sub is not a secret.
You make some good points, and at this point I'm in over my head. However, as someone who regularly works on the air force's ACES II ejection seat, I have to maybe mention some pertinent data:
-Weight with average pilot: 300 lbs -Assumed airspeed of fighter aircraft: 500 mph -The rocket/catapult section weighs ~21 lbs (included in gross weight) -peak acceleration 12g's
I've had a long day and I'm too tired to scale up the math to Ares-proportions. However I'm pretty sure that the thrust-weight ratios and acceleration impulse caused by a scaled up 21 lb thruster won't come even close to what the crew pod would require. Please correct me if the air force and I are wrong (and lord knows the air force can be spectacularly wrong sometimes), but I don't think the ejection seat->crew capsule comparison holds water.
Honestly, at the end of the day, I trust the PhD's' opinions over random/. comments. I've flown enough air force aircraft and lived to have a pretty healthy respect for air force (read: contractor) science.
Your scenario would be like setting off a bottle rocket from the hood of a racecar. During the time window in question, the SRB is accelerating very quickly. The capsule would launch, and the SRB- pushing even less weight- would accelerate further, destroying the capsule. Arcing the capsule away wouldn't solve the problem because the SRB would be traveling fast enough to put the capsule directly into the path of the nozzle. You are talking about trying to move a heavy capsule's vector from the longitudinal axis of the SRB to a vector around 45 degrees from the l. axis; Nothing we have today could create that kind of delta-v without weighing too much or killing the crew (you would need to travel at least 200 feet from speed=0 in the time it takes the SRB to pass the capsule).
And like I mentioned before, weight is a primary factor here.
It comes down to weight. The capsule is already at its limit. And basically anything you try to use will be damaged by the burning SRB debris which burns at around 4000 degrees F.
I didn't join to die, and astronauts didn't join to die. We both joined because of our similar passions for our trade, our mission, and (dare I say it) our society. But being an astronaut, a soldier, a lumberjack, a trucker, etc- these jobs entail a great deal of risk. NASA's death toll is no secret and joining up with NASA is a very competitive, very rarified atmosphere. So are those other jobs, plus many, many more that you never hear about that kill many people.
The point of my post was that I wish that OTHER high-risk jobs had such high expectations of safety. I was saying that NASA's expectation of safety far outpaces their *record* of safety- and I wish the military had the same luxury. In the military lives are lost or saved because of $50 worth of medical supplies. NASA spends millions for a 50/50 chance at fiery death.
Really? This was modded troll? I've never really cared enough to ask about my moderations but this one bugs me. What is my motivation to post if it might get randomly modded troll and never see the light of day?
My first thought was, "I wish they spent this much time reducing risk for soldiers as they do for astronauts."
Yeah, I'm a soldier. This is kind of sickening in a way since I spent the entire day practicing, "If the first post-attack recon team doesn't report back within 5 minutes, we'll send the backup par team. If the backup par team doesn't report back within 5 minutes, we'll send..."
Our chem warfare training assumes at least a 50% casualty rate. This is not what I signed up for. Astronauts DID sign up for this.
You are forgetting that these are *voice* actors. Billy West can imitate voices so well that I, for one, can't tell the difference. A talented voice actor who isn't Billy West could probably pull of a Fry without you even knowing. Give the actors a little more credit.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me paraphrase your post here, apologies if I'm off:
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim."
-
Edsger Dijkstra
What tasks does this future "brain" need to accomplish? Real-time video processing, facial recognition, memory of who that face represents, what action to take, what tone of voice to use? We're well on our way. You want to control a spacecraft landing in real-time? We can do that. You want to simulate 3 billion spacecraft landings all at once? We can do that, too. This chase for a human brain on a chip is a wild goose chase.
I won't even go into the things you could do with just an atmega or 555 chip.
When we need a machine that can complete instructions in the gigahertz, that can store libraries of congress in its memory, that can recognize handwriting, that can see and recognize faces, that can speak, etc etc.- we already have that in a $500 laptop computer. There is no task that cannot be completed by a theoretically turing-complete processor. If you want the job done in this millennium, we have parallel/distributed computing. If you want to have a stimulating conversation? Call a friend.
-b
>>There is no test for sentience. Without such a test it would be impossible to kow if you have succeeded in accurately modeling it.
It seems to me that ultimately we'll discover that if you want the advantages of a human brain, you need to *use* a real human brain. We have processors for all manner of tasks now, even programmable processors that can accomplish turing-complete style instructions. That race is won. Obviously we need more power from a radical new approach.
It reminds me of my buddy who got a bid on his concrete slab. The bid was $650. So he saved money and bought the concrete himself ($600), rented the mixer ($150) and then spend 3 days of his own time (vacation time) pouring concrete- instead of paying $650 for someone to drive a truck in, pour it, and be done in half an hour.
We should focus on creating interfaces with real human brains instead of what we're doing now.
-b
>>the morning thunder crew
Did you mean morning glory?
>>minds cannot be tied or chained
They *can* be chained to the toilet, vomiting for 6 hours because they tried eating morning glory...
-b
I like Doug Stanhope's idea about drunk driving tests.
If you can pass the same scored driving test at .08 that a 16-year-old can pass sober, then hey- you can drive all the way up to .08. And so on for .10, .12, etc.
Just sayin'. I don't like this device because it tests levels of chemicals in your body instead of actual impairment. And (I honestly don't know) since when does cocaine impair driving?
-b
LOL... Haven't seen too many bomb craters, huh?
In Iraq I worked out of hardened aircraft shelters that the yugoslavians built for saddam in the 80's. I have pics but none of the are online... OK here's one from google.
http://www.ausairpower.net/Balad-AFB-HAS-2S.jpg
The round satellite dish on top is ~15 feet tall, for perspective. The entire structure is concrete reinforced (And I mean reinforced as in 2-inch steel bar set 2 inches apart in layers 12 inches apart, and all welded).
So on the inside you're looking up at 30-45 feet of armor depending on where you stand (the ceilings are vaulted). When we invaded, we dropped one penetrator per shelter, completely destroying everything inside (airplanes), and leaving a nice round ten-feet diameter hole through all that expensive armor.
That was done with 2000 lb bombs. These bad boys right here:
http://www.centaf.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/011022-F-2034C-010.jpg
A shelter could survive 200 feet underground from a air- or surface-burst nuke. That's why we build penetrators to take us down to 200 feet, and more specifically penetrators with conventional charges so we can test them without violating treaties. The people who build these things are very good at what they do.
-b
>>I would imagine that the higher impact speed of the US bomb requires a much stronger casing, but I am surprised at the small ordinance load.
1. Ke=MV^2
2. The shape, proportions, materials, and thus payload are determined by the secant ogive of the penetrator nose. Small apparent differences could scale the weight beyond the limits of our bombers.
3. The kinetic energy released is a big part of the destructive power; the heavy casing, pound for pound, is more effective than an equal weight of explosives.
4. Modern explosives are more powerful in certain ways than WW2 explosives.
So in a nutshell what I mean is that something with enough KE to dig 200 feet underground will cause massive damage from the inert casing alone. And- A bomb with, say, 10,000 lbs explosive charge would require an obscenely heavy casing, and would not reach terminal velocity when dropped from our bombers' altitudes (thus the weight is wasted potential energy).
I have seen what our 90's-era bunker busters can do firsthand, and for better or worse I have great trust in the people designing new ones.
I had some really good pictures apropos this discussion but that website was taken down.
-b
Their special ops units would be a PITA but are not enough in of themselves to be decisive. I would use them against American/ROK airbases if I was the North Koreans
Attention NK SpecOps teams: Do not attack Air Force bases. You will run in to a squadron of heavily armed, well-trained, and most importantly *bored* security forces airmen who have spent 9 hours a day for the last 4 years sitting in a truck on the flighline watching the tarmac and waiting... Just waiting... For the opportunity to do something more exciting than picking at the dashboard.
Seriously, you'd be better off storming the marines. These SF airmen desperately *want* you to attack so they'll have something to do.
(Only half joking ;)
-b (not SF, thank god)
BS. I'm sorry, but as a veteran I have to say BS.
Young men wanted war? Are you nuts? Read accounts of the civil war. Read about the effect Napoleon had on france during his little escapade. Read about the mexican-american war. And don't just read the winners' stories.
War is, and always has been, hell. I don't know if you simply played too much Civ 4 or what, but no one but leaders ever want war (at least, they don't want it bad enough to actually die for it in great numbers). Those guys who talk about war casually, as if it were no big thing? I go to veterans support groups with them and hold them as they cry over their broken lives. Maybe you haven't heard the reality because vets know you won't get it, you'll take it out of context because you weren't there. War ruins the lives of everyone it touches. You won't hear my stories because they define me, yet they mean shit to you.
Many families still tell the stories of their ancestors' terrible experiences in our civil war. It is a BIG DEAL to kill another person. There isn't a generation alive that hasn't dealt personally with war. War happens out of necessity- or perceived necessity- not because people WANT to go to war.
And I also disagree with your last sentence. There are more people here in the U.S. than at any other time willing to fight for their country. But there is a huge difference between being willing to fight and wanting to fight. I help defend the country, yes; I have done so willingly in the past. But I never *wanted* to go where I did, do what I did, see what I saw... But I would do it again. I believe in the bigger picture; I believe that my hardship is worth the gains to the people back home. I don't want to die for my country. That's stupid. But I want to go help so that other people *also* don't have to die.
I don't know if any of this made any sense to you. I hope it did. But your entire post was ass-backwards in every respect. I had to say something.
-b
>>Why do we need cursive writing to begin with?
Exactly. It occurred to me that if cursive is so great, why aren't books printed in it? Why don't we type up papers in cursive fonts?
I keep hearing the argument that cursive writing is faster/easier on the hands, but 12 years of primary education experience would have me disagree.
Another thing is that two individual's cursive can be illegible to each other. Even the worst block lettering is still legible. I've had people make fun of my handwriting before, but no one has ever claimed to not understand it.
-b
I'm 26 and I've struggled with poor handwriting my entire life. And that was not because my teachers didn't try. In my early years, handwriting was graded curriculum- Thus, despite straight A's for everything else, my performance always looked mediocre because of the C's and D's I'd get in the handwriting portion. I can still remember that wide-ruled shitty tan paper that tore if you used an eraser. Line after line of cursive A's and V's, then the next week O's and B's. And on and on, when I could have been learning something useful.
My handwriting now looks identical to my handwriting from at least as far back as 6th grade. And those were the days before we ever typed anything. In high school I hand-wrote papers and notes literally by the ream, and my writing never improved.
Interestingly, my handwriting is very close to my father's, and I saw very little of his writing as I was growing up. We do share some psychological issues which are almost certainly genetic (runs throughout his side of the family), but making a connection between handwriting->psyche issues would be dubious.
-b
Anything 720×480 or higher is considered HD.
Although on the other hand he never specified the *size* of his, er, screen.
-b
>>I don't understand the point? Is there any big product line I am missing, that people actually buy?
XBOX 360! Jesus H. Christ, there's got to be 200 comments about how kids are really gonna want to spend their b-day playing with zunes and bing. Did this story come out before everyone in the world had their morning coffee?
XBOX! MS sells the XBOX! Kids love it!
-b
You do know that MS sells a very popular game console? A birthday party at the MS store would probably center on a few large screen TVs with multiplayer halo or CoD or something.
Jesus... So much anger over nothing. Chill out, man.
-b
Chambliss would be an obvious supporter as the F-22 airframe is made in Marietta, GA. The engines are made in Dodd's state, and he is looking out for the unions.
It might seems selfish or corrupt but on the other hand I've been personally screwed over by my congressmen NOT lobbying on my state's behalf. There are states with half our population and natural resources getting twice the federal programs that we do because, frankly, our legislators aren't very charismatic or experienced. Hint, Al Franken is our new junior senator. No I didn't vote for the guy even though I've read his books.
-b
The F-22 cannot be exported, period, according to congress. So yes, the U.S. is paying the entire bill.
-b
With the Open Skies treaty among others, the U.S. and other signatories are required to disclose the numbers of 'significant military assets', which would include artillery, fighters, bombers, tanks, etc.
Sometimes our aircraft have all been parked on the flightline at once in order to satisfy a preplanned flyover.
What you might see sometimes where assets are covered would be to protect actual operational security/national security secrets. The shape of our nuclear sub props would qualify, for example. But the existence of the sub is not a secret.
-b
>>such as TEST for a certain condition
That's exactly what Prometheus is patenting.
-b
You make some good points, and at this point I'm in over my head. However, as someone who regularly works on the air force's ACES II ejection seat, I have to maybe mention some pertinent data:
-Weight with average pilot: 300 lbs
-Assumed airspeed of fighter aircraft: 500 mph
-The rocket/catapult section weighs ~21 lbs (included in gross weight)
-peak acceleration 12g's
I've had a long day and I'm too tired to scale up the math to Ares-proportions. However I'm pretty sure that the thrust-weight ratios and acceleration impulse caused by a scaled up 21 lb thruster won't come even close to what the crew pod would require. Please correct me if the air force and I are wrong (and lord knows the air force can be spectacularly wrong sometimes), but I don't think the ejection seat->crew capsule comparison holds water.
Honestly, at the end of the day, I trust the PhD's' opinions over random /. comments. I've flown enough air force aircraft and lived to have a pretty healthy respect for air force (read: contractor) science.
-b
Your scenario would be like setting off a bottle rocket from the hood of a racecar. During the time window in question, the SRB is accelerating very quickly. The capsule would launch, and the SRB- pushing even less weight- would accelerate further, destroying the capsule. Arcing the capsule away wouldn't solve the problem because the SRB would be traveling fast enough to put the capsule directly into the path of the nozzle. You are talking about trying to move a heavy capsule's vector from the longitudinal axis of the SRB to a vector around 45 degrees from the l. axis; Nothing we have today could create that kind of delta-v without weighing too much or killing the crew (you would need to travel at least 200 feet from speed=0 in the time it takes the SRB to pass the capsule).
And like I mentioned before, weight is a primary factor here.
-b
ps- here's a good report in case you haven't already read it: http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009/fratricide.report.pdf
It comes down to weight. The capsule is already at its limit. And basically anything you try to use will be damaged by the burning SRB debris which burns at around 4000 degrees F.
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009/fratricide.report.pdf
-b
This is a NASA report that covers your exact question.
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009/fratricide.report.pdf
Very good visual aid to understand the ideas.
-b
I didn't join to die, and astronauts didn't join to die. We both joined because of our similar passions for our trade, our mission, and (dare I say it) our society. But being an astronaut, a soldier, a lumberjack, a trucker, etc- these jobs entail a great deal of risk. NASA's death toll is no secret and joining up with NASA is a very competitive, very rarified atmosphere. So are those other jobs, plus many, many more that you never hear about that kill many people.
The point of my post was that I wish that OTHER high-risk jobs had such high expectations of safety. I was saying that NASA's expectation of safety far outpaces their *record* of safety- and I wish the military had the same luxury. In the military lives are lost or saved because of $50 worth of medical supplies. NASA spends millions for a 50/50 chance at fiery death.
-
Really? This was modded troll? I've never really cared enough to ask about my moderations but this one bugs me. What is my motivation to post if it might get randomly modded troll and never see the light of day?
Sorry I'm just tired after a long day.
-b
My first thought was, "I wish they spent this much time reducing risk for soldiers as they do for astronauts."
Yeah, I'm a soldier. This is kind of sickening in a way since I spent the entire day practicing, "If the first post-attack recon team doesn't report back within 5 minutes, we'll send the backup par team. If the backup par team doesn't report back within 5 minutes, we'll send..."
Our chem warfare training assumes at least a 50% casualty rate. This is not what I signed up for. Astronauts DID sign up for this.
-b
You are forgetting that these are *voice* actors. Billy West can imitate voices so well that I, for one, can't tell the difference. A talented voice actor who isn't Billy West could probably pull of a Fry without you even knowing. Give the actors a little more credit.
-b