Isn't it interesting that after this story many Slashdotters are eager to tell us that they knew it all along? Where were they yesterday with all their insight?
But there's another, similar, scam more relevant to Slashdot: When governments (and certain corporations) advertise a job opening- beware. There is often a policy that requires HR to give at least three interviews before hiring. This is ostensibly a way to assure that they don't just hire the first applicant. But in reality, it is almost always misused.
HR *will* do 3 interviews, but someone in the company or agency has already decided who they will hire. It will be a friend or relative of a current employee. Or it could be that they need to make their quota of women, minorities or robotic workers. As a result HR is wasting time and money, and the applicants are wasting time and money, and the two who get an interview with no chance of being hired are an especially sad case.
I've been there many times. I usually rated at the top of qualifications testing, and so they were required to interview me. Sometimes I could see it in the interviewer's eyes and body language that they were just going through the motions in our interview. Sometimes I could see the guilt in their expressions, knowing that they were leading me on when I had no chance. But usually I got my hopes up only to be disappointed when rejected a week or two later.
I'm beyond all that now, but maybe a discussion here could find a solution to this frustrating system that can dash hopes and crush self-esteem.
We have a few thousand homeless people with little or no access to a toilet, much less a shower. Local businesses complain about excreta at their doors, but then note that if there was a nearby public toilet it would just attract more homeless people. We are currently recovering from an outbreak of hepatitis A as a result of sanitation problems among the homeless and those nearby.
My city receives tourists from all over the world and it's sad that we're looking like a 3rd world country.
Isn't it absurd to add 'Unartificial' to real intelligence systems?
How do they work? In real life, in all species, there is an element of inherited knowledge. In humans, this is minimal and we must learn from experience and from our mentors. Generally speaking we learn, as all animals and mammals, by experimenting. What doesn't kill us makes us smarter.
We, all of us from microbes to humans, learn by exploring our world without prejudice, in hopes of finding something beneficial to our survival and welfare. When computers can do this they will not be AI, they will be intelligent.
There is one other requirement that biological entities have: reproduction. Each generation of intelligent computers should pave the way to a future generation of more intelligent computers. We should expect them to contribute to the design of the next generation. This is where the singularity leaves us all behind. In the blink of an eye, technology will pass our so-called intelligence and leave us in the dust. It's main advantage is that it will not be encumbered with emotion and loyalty to a nazi in the White House.
Ah, but suppose you aim your beam at a specific planet that seems as if it might possibly support life? Well, now you can aim your beam right there! But first, you have to remember that you are seeing the star/planet as it was a long time ago. You have to calculate from its heading where it might be when your beam arrives, far into the future. That seems possible. But then you have to correct for every gravitational field and other anomaly between here and there that will bend your beam and send it off in another direction. And after all that work and expense, you have only accounted for one possible life supporting planet- how many others will you waste your time on?
Sorry, I'm taking a negative tone here. But here on earth, we have some real problems that will require the best brains and a lot of investment to deal with. Space will be there, space can wait.
"Such a signal could be detectable by alien astronomers performing a cursory survey of our section of the Milky Way -- especially if those astronomers live in nearby systems, such as around Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to Earth"
The good people at MIT seem to have overlooked a small detail. Space is really big. Douglas Adams discovered this long ago- please bone up on your studies.
In order to scan the universe with your narrowly focused telescope, you need to be able to see a width of 360 degrees and vertically at 360 degrees. Virtually an infinite number of adjustments in both directions. In order to see the puny laser beam, you'd have to pause your telescope in that direction long enough to identify it and separate it from nearby noise; perhaps for a few seconds(10?) If every position of the telescope requires 'a few seconds', it would take an extremely long time to scan the universe.
From the other perspective- if you want to point your laser to every point in the sky, you have the same problem. A nearly infinite number of points, depending upon the width of the beam. If you are sending some kind of signal, let's say a burst that takes a few seconds (10?) in each direction, it would take an extremely long time to beam across the universe.
What are the chances that your beam and the telescope at the other planet will meet? Infinitely small.
In the mid 1970s, when I published the TriSexual Review, our kind were rarely discovered and poorly understood. Without the internet as a means to discreetly find each other it was rare for one of us to ever meet another. We were surely one of the smallest minorities on earth and that is possibly why the print publication failed after the first issue.
A clever researcher today could find us online. We, individually, discover the trisexual links only after exhaustive effort driven by extreme loneliness. We try scores of keywords that humans would probably never search for. There's no telling how many trisexuals out there have still not found our online home.
Because we are basically incompatible with normal human anatomy we are shunned in any attempt at sexual encounters. We could give some pleasure to both males and females, but neither are willing to engage once they see our unusual configuration of equipment. Sadly, even if humans were willing, it is unlikely that we would receive as good as we give. Only the luckiest of us will ever know the joy of connibulation with two of our own.
We've even been excluded from the LGBTQetc community; they think we are strange. It's not just that they already have a 'T' in their name; we don't have to use T, we would accept '3' for our part. No, they just don't like us crowding the ever growing list of letters or perhaps due to the fact that there are too few of us to contribute to their huge political action fund.
Which bathrooms do trisexuals use? Next time you meet someone who might be trisexual, engage in a thoughtful conversation. Demonstrate that you're not a hater, a bigot, a Trump supporter. If you seem like an open minded individual, it might answer the bathroom question for you.
Mr. Tim (creator of the WWW), how much money have you given your representatives in government? Is that amount equal or greater than what the monopolies have given?
Mr. Tim (inventor of the WWW), do you believe that you and all the Slashdotters and all the concerned citizens are going to contribute more to candidates' reelection funds than the monopoly powers?
Mr. Tim (god of the WWW), do you understand that government action is purchased by the highest bidder? Until you find a way to buy that action, your words are empty.
Not only will we come up with new species but we'll resurrect useful extinct animals, just as we have been doing with plants. We'll correct imbalances such as the predatory purple urchins that are destroying kelp forests. We'll create fantastic creatures inspired by Dr. Seuss to amuse the children. We're gonna have some serious fun populating what's left of the natural world.
Remember that most species, the most important ones, are too small for human eyes to see. The magnificent rhinos, giraffes, tigers... well they are pretty but have little to do with ecological balance. Try to get some perspective about what's really important.
But first - "Google Seeks To Grant $25 Million..." (?) 'Seeks to' makes it sound as though they are expecting it to be difficult. Look, if it turns out to be difficult, I'll be glad to help by accepting a few million.
Now here's a way that you or I could actually earn somadat. Crowd sourcing! No, not that kind. Here's the problem: Whenever there is a crowd, a crowd of demonstrators, a crowd of sports fans or people at an inaugural event, etc. The media always give an estimate of the number of people in the crowd. That estimate might be from a person who benefits from a large or small number.
That number becomes an evaluation of the popularity of the event. Fox news will tell you that millions came out to see Trump's inaugural event. CNN will give a much smaller number. It's all estimates so they can say what they want. But what if we had an AI that could give a far more accurate count by simply scanning a photo or video? Now you have a much more accurate estimate. You can compare the crowds at funerals, weddings, LGBT parades etc with confidence and draw your own conclusions / comparisons. Simple adjustments will allow this software to count penguins, herds of antelope or a Petri dish full of bacteria. This is a 'good' project because it helps reduce 'fake news' and promotes good science.
Simple task to create the software. Other software no doubt does something similar but you will have the important 'AI' label.
A computer or device screen is no more evil than a window in your home or car.
However, things can be seen via those windows that may be detrimental to a child. In the Age of Television, we could choose between cowboys and indians killing each other or Mr. Rogers. Sesame Street seemed a good choice for many parents.
We could make similar choices today. Unfortunately, given an internet connection and no supervision, we can assume many children will make challenging choices. Social media is extremely compelling to them. Frivolous (and violent) games can be tempting. Educational materials not so appealing. It's possible that 8 of 10 hours that children spend online are not beneficial to them.
Time is also an issue. 8 hours of daily screen time combined with 0 hours of physical activity is seriously out of balance.
It's not the screen, it's what's on it, what they do with it. It's the choices we and they make that can be harmful.
Armenia is a country. The headline clearly says that Armenia is doing this. The article clearly says that individual companies are doing it.
Some governments do invest in similar ways, such as Saudi Arabia and China. Armenia doesn't seem to be doing it here. Please read before posting stories.
Smalltalk is actually quite an elegant language. There are still some powerful systems that were created in Smalltalk, though they may not be used in Finland. Personally I preferred Forth but I never found anyone else interested in using it for practical purposes. Some interesting stuff was done with Lisp but the code still looked awful on the screen. Even in those days Pascal was being left behind. Everyone jumped on C after a while and forgot the interesting languages that came before.
"It should be highly emphasized many of these tests are of questionable utility in the real world. How to interpret the results is often not at all intuitive."
This is an understatement. According to today's Scientific American, "There are two potential issues arising from the question of their results' accuracy. The first is somewhat trivial: Has the sequencing been done well?" This is not a simple matter. Different labs will give different results. One lab failed to recognize that the DNA submitted was from a dog. False positives for disease are common in consumer lab results.
"Assuming the tests are done accurately, some discrepancies can still arise from differences in the companies' DNA databases. " These databases are limited and differ from each other.
The part of the article relevant to 'genetic counselors' is this: "If we assume the data generated is accurate, then the second question that arises is on the interpretation. And this is where it gets murky..." The counselor or analyst must deal almost entirely with probabilities. There is rarely a single gene that codes for an interesting trait; there may be many and not all of them have been located yet. An example given is that you may have two genes that are associated with blue eyes, and yet not have blue eyes.
The author concludes: "Genetics is a probabilistic science, and there are no genes "for" in particular. I have severe reservations about the utility of genetic tests that indicate one individual's propensity for certain conditions outside of a clinical setting; if you don't have a PhD in genetics, these results can be misleading or even troubling." https://www.scientificamerican...
The narrow column allowed for content at slashdot means that I have to Page Down 3 times to read some summaries on my 27 inch monitor. Why not provide a real summary instead of cutting and pasting entire articles?
I have lived with the nightmare of smart devices since the end of the ice box era. Yes, our first refrigerator was a modern miracle that put our ice man out of work. My parents were amazed at its ability to keep milk cold and fish frozen for days, weeks and months. I observed a dark side that older people never considered: the light inside. Oh, they said 'the light goes out when the door is closed', as if it were nothing; as if we could just trust Jesus that it was so. But how can we be sure? None of my efforts could confirm or deny the assertion. In my early youth, I had already been outwitted by a simple appliance.
There have been many struggles with smart devices since then. My dad gave me an old Stanley thermos bottle for Boy Scout campouts, etc. It was beat up and ugly, but I treasured it for a long time before I realized how intelligent it was. In an idle moment, camping in the North Woods, it dawned upon me that my thermos had the ability to keep things hot, and also to keep things cold. It could do either! This piece of metal having no moving parts save the removable top, could decide whether to keep something hot, or cold; all without any effort from me. How does it decide? Another mystery for which I have sought an answer from the best minds of my generation.
Now, with the benefit of 'AI', we can expect devices to ponder many variables and make decisions as in the Go championship games, that even the programmer cannot explain. This is necessary, for instance, for computers to diagnose x-rays and other dense patterns of data. They will do it better than doctors very soon and yet nobody will know exactly how the results are achieved. When this tech is applied to military weapons, as it will, we should all take notice.
Recently a wealth of photos and even video of SF from the time of the earthquake and fire became available on the 'web. Despite the devastation, there were signs of great prosperity and an active population forging their way into the future. Since the Gold Rush, San Francisco has attracted the ambitious and the creative people of every generation.
I lived there in 1963 along with Alan Ginsberg and the beats. Long before there were hippies, there were beats. They tended to be adults, educated, cultured, artistic, and they were travelers. They rode the rails, hitchhiked and explored from sea to shining sea.
Coffee houses were unlike your corner Starbucks. They had florescent lights, linoleum floors, Formica tables and even then they looked shabby. Coffee prices were outrageous at more than one dollar (when you could still get coffee for 25 cents in a proper restaurant). But someone would wander in and play guitar or recite poetry for tips. There would be a loud argument about Fidel Castro at the next table, or a scruffy beat with a guitar case covered in stickers from around the world. You went there to be with people who had a broad world view.
I spent much of my time at Cochran's Billiards, 1028 Market St. Hard core players from across the country, just like the movie The Hustler. My fortunes varied from poor to destitute so I walked the city rather than drive or use buses. Many people today never see the city from the sidewalk, the gutter, so to speak. Chinatown, Market street, everywhere it was dirty, noisy, grey and the weather was mild but unfriendly.
But the city was alive. People were on the move, hustling, scheming and dreaming and making things happen. This has been true since the beginning. It's what attracted Mark Twain and it's what attracts some of the most creative people on earth even now.
As a member of the Society for Technical Communication ( https://www.stc.org/ ), I created very technical documentation. My company made software for people who create circuit boards (up to 16 layers thick). Software written by engineers for engineers.
Our users had to convert circuit diagrams into printed circuits that actually worked. Even with our software and our manuals there was an element of magic (this was 20 years ago). For instance 'noise' from one circuit interfering with another. We were in a perpetual update mode and the documentation was always a bit behind, but without it the software would have been useless.
OTOH, I'm a Mac user and since 1984 I've never needed a manual cuz 'it just works'. Even third party software is usually designed with Mac principles and it just works. Exceptions are Adobe, math and CAD programs which still require study to use effectively. Even MS Office can get beginners to a good start without a manual. And Windows itself is almost understandable having copied Mac OS rather closely.
Smartphones can be confusing in this early part of their evolution, but very soon standards will arrive and users will be able to move from one to another without having to relearn from scratch. Some old timers may recall the Model T and other early autos which came with many different configurations, levers, switches, gauges, doodads, etc; all now standardized. You don't need a manual to drive a Chevy or a Suzuki car.
We have tested relativity for a long time. Can we say now that it is correct? We have major consensus that we are in a period of man-made global warming. Can we say that theory is correct? At what point can we sit back, light a cigar, and agree that a theory is correct?
There may be exceptions, but generally speaking, only God can say whether a theory is correct. The best we can do is say that a theory is 'generally accepted' by those familiar with the details. Until then we must apply due diligence in the search for flaws.
Well OK, we've talked about automotive chassis strength, body strength and high carbon steel. Engineering involves a lot more than that. While American cars looked like bloated elephants, motorcycles and racing cars around the world were evolving much faster.
Motorcycle engineers experimented with different frame configurations to create a rigid frame that provides better handling, unlike the Harleys and Vincents whose flexy frame made them a road hazard. They analyzed the rake and trail of the front end for the best combination of stable steering plus acceptable quick handling, They considered specific designs for various uses such as battlefield, paved roads and extreme rough terrain.
Racing engineers did exhaustive studies of rubber compounds for tires and developed radial tires that were slow to reach the American market. They studied valve timing, fuel flow and combustion chamber design and analyzed the droplet size from injectors and carburetors for best power and efficiency. American cars were slow to benefit from this research. They did wind tunnel testing, which some American car makers did, but the race engineers gave more priority to efficiency.
The use of alloys and plastics are extensive today as a result of materials engineering. High carbon steel is laughable now as its usefulness is very limited compared to the broad spectrum of available materials.
So that's still in the range of automotive engineering. But likewise industrial engineering was slow to evolve. Factory machines were far more massive than necessary. Even a simple toaster or refrigerator was wasteful of materials. Thoughtful engineering would have reduced this waste at the cost of a little time and study. Much thought is given today to every screw used in a mechanical assembly such as a disk drive. A screw requires a screwdriver, but a robot assembler might better use a different fastener or an assembly that simply snaps together. Perhaps it is the accountants who insist on proper engineering these days.
The next challenge is to truly engineer a reliable and secure digital control system for autos. What we've seen is slapped together incoherently and not even up to current standards. In 100 more years I will point it out as a shameful point in automotive design history. (ha ha, I'm already close to 100 years myself)
"I've heard engineers often tout a 10x safety limit"
This is how American engineers worked for 100 years. From the first railroads and factories until the Japanese auto invasion. 'When in doubt, double the strength!' And there was always doubt because materials science in the US was poorly understood and often ignored.
Then the Japanese brought us thoughtfully engineered vehicles which were lighter, safer, more reliable and less expensive. Even today many US designed products are often built to satisfy the marketing department, not any engineering standards.
When an employer asks me for fingerprints or a background check or a drug test, I cheerfully say to the HR person "Sure, I'll be happy to take the same drug test that the CEO has taken! After all my position in the company isn't as sensitive to company security, but it's still worth some validation."
For some reason the HR department is unable to show me the test that the CEO has taken. Or the background check or the credit check or the fingerprints. The CEO seems to have no application on file or references listed or job history. The CEO seems to have been exempt from any employment requirements. Fortunately, this experience has already made clear that this is not a company that I want to be part of, so I move on.
Should a company executive, who is paid well, who has extensive benefits, and who has the ability to skim thousand$ from the company be exempt from the indignities that a minimum wage worker has to suffer?
Back around 1950 a major insurance company with an excellent reputation and very low premium rates set stringent requirements for its customers. Agents would fill in the forms with the usual information for clients; age, address, some medical background, etc. But potential clients had to qualify for the insurance policy. Like any company; older people would pay more for life insurance. People with accidents would pay more for auto insurance. But unlike other companies, many medium risk clients were simply not allowed to buy from this insurance company. At any price. And all approved clients got low premiums and were happy.
But they went beyond that. Agents had a secret checklist for every potential client. Things you might never guess could disqualify you for the money saving policy. One item that has stuck in my memory all this time is this: any potential client who enters the agent's office wearing boots is automatically disqualified.
Actuaries must have determined risk factors far beyond the norm. Perhaps they consulted psychologists and did unusual surveys to come up with odd criteria. Nevertheless, insurance companies take risks and need to protect themselves. If you want cheap insurance from a reliable company, expect to prove that you are worthy.
How much did taxpayers invest in the research at University of Colorado Boulder? How much can they expect in return? Will they be reimbursed by the IPO or do they have to wait until the profits roll in?
Research is typically paid for by you and I through our taxes. When a great discovery is made, all the profits go to private parties. When do we get reimbursed?
The Pareto principle (also known as the 80/20 rule) states that 80% of Slashdot readers like 20% of Slashdot stories. The lesser known Double Inverse Pareto suggests that 80% of Slashdot stories interest nobody worth bothering with. Proof of the Pareto principle has been hard to come by. Researchers who worked through hundreds of Slashdot articles and comments have been found to suffer from PTSD, and many committed suicide.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't it interesting that after this story many Slashdotters are eager to tell us that they knew it all along? Where were they yesterday with all their insight?
But there's another, similar, scam more relevant to Slashdot: When governments (and certain corporations) advertise a job opening- beware. There is often a policy that requires HR to give at least three interviews before hiring. This is ostensibly a way to assure that they don't just hire the first applicant. But in reality, it is almost always misused.
HR *will* do 3 interviews, but someone in the company or agency has already decided who they will hire. It will be a friend or relative of a current employee. Or it could be that they need to make their quota of women, minorities or robotic workers. As a result HR is wasting time and money, and the applicants are wasting time and money, and the two who get an interview with no chance of being hired are an especially sad case.
I've been there many times. I usually rated at the top of qualifications testing, and so they were required to interview me. Sometimes I could see it in the interviewer's eyes and body language that they were just going through the motions in our interview. Sometimes I could see the guilt in their expressions, knowing that they were leading me on when I had no chance. But usually I got my hopes up only to be disappointed when rejected a week or two later.
I'm beyond all that now, but maybe a discussion here could find a solution to this frustrating system that can dash hopes and crush self-esteem.
We have a few thousand homeless people with little or no access to a toilet, much less a shower. Local businesses complain about excreta at their doors, but then note that if there was a nearby public toilet it would just attract more homeless people. We are currently recovering from an outbreak of hepatitis A as a result of sanitation problems among the homeless and those nearby.
My city receives tourists from all over the world and it's sad that we're looking like a 3rd world country.
Isn't it absurd to add 'Unartificial' to real intelligence systems?
How do they work? In real life, in all species, there is an element of inherited knowledge. In humans, this is minimal and we must learn from experience and from our mentors. Generally speaking we learn, as all animals and mammals, by experimenting. What doesn't kill us makes us smarter.
We, all of us from microbes to humans, learn by exploring our world without prejudice, in hopes of finding something beneficial to our survival and welfare. When computers can do this they will not be AI, they will be intelligent.
There is one other requirement that biological entities have: reproduction. Each generation of intelligent computers should pave the way to a future generation of more intelligent computers. We should expect them to contribute to the design of the next generation. This is where the singularity leaves us all behind. In the blink of an eye, technology will pass our so-called intelligence and leave us in the dust. It's main advantage is that it will not be encumbered with emotion and loyalty to a nazi in the White House.
Ah, but suppose you aim your beam at a specific planet that seems as if it might possibly support life? Well, now you can aim your beam right there! But first, you have to remember that you are seeing the star/planet as it was a long time ago. You have to calculate from its heading where it might be when your beam arrives, far into the future. That seems possible. But then you have to correct for every gravitational field and other anomaly between here and there that will bend your beam and send it off in another direction. And after all that work and expense, you have only accounted for one possible life supporting planet- how many others will you waste your time on?
Sorry, I'm taking a negative tone here. But here on earth, we have some real problems that will require the best brains and a lot of investment to deal with. Space will be there, space can wait.
"Such a signal could be detectable by alien astronomers performing a cursory survey of our section of the Milky Way -- especially if those astronomers live in nearby systems, such as around Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to Earth"
The good people at MIT seem to have overlooked a small detail. Space is really big. Douglas Adams discovered this long ago- please bone up on your studies.
In order to scan the universe with your narrowly focused telescope, you need to be able to see a width of 360 degrees and vertically at 360 degrees. Virtually an infinite number of adjustments in both directions. In order to see the puny laser beam, you'd have to pause your telescope in that direction long enough to identify it and separate it from nearby noise; perhaps for a few seconds(10?) If every position of the telescope requires 'a few seconds', it would take an extremely long time to scan the universe.
From the other perspective- if you want to point your laser to every point in the sky, you have the same problem. A nearly infinite number of points, depending upon the width of the beam. If you are sending some kind of signal, let's say a burst that takes a few seconds (10?) in each direction, it would take an extremely long time to beam across the universe.
What are the chances that your beam and the telescope at the other planet will meet?
Infinitely small.
In the mid 1970s, when I published the TriSexual Review, our kind were rarely discovered and poorly understood. Without the internet as a means to discreetly find each other it was rare for one of us to ever meet another. We were surely one of the smallest minorities on earth and that is possibly why the print publication failed after the first issue.
A clever researcher today could find us online. We, individually, discover the trisexual links only after exhaustive effort driven by extreme loneliness. We try scores of keywords that humans would probably never search for. There's no telling how many trisexuals out there have still not found our online home.
Because we are basically incompatible with normal human anatomy we are shunned in any attempt at sexual encounters. We could give some pleasure to both males and females, but neither are willing to engage once they see our unusual configuration of equipment. Sadly, even if humans were willing, it is unlikely that we would receive as good as we give. Only the luckiest of us will ever know the joy of connibulation with two of our own.
We've even been excluded from the LGBTQetc community; they think we are strange. It's not just that they already have a 'T' in their name; we don't have to use T, we would accept '3' for our part. No, they just don't like us crowding the ever growing list of letters or perhaps due to the fact that there are too few of us to contribute to their huge political action fund.
Which bathrooms do trisexuals use? Next time you meet someone who might be trisexual, engage in a thoughtful conversation. Demonstrate that you're not a hater, a bigot, a Trump supporter. If you seem like an open minded individual, it might answer the bathroom question for you.
Mr. Tim (creator of the WWW), how much money have you given your representatives in government? Is that amount equal or greater than what the monopolies have given?
Mr. Tim (inventor of the WWW), do you believe that you and all the Slashdotters and all the concerned citizens are going to contribute more to candidates' reelection funds than the monopoly powers?
Mr. Tim (god of the WWW), do you understand that government action is purchased by the highest bidder? Until you find a way to buy that action, your words are empty.
Not only will we come up with new species but we'll resurrect useful extinct animals, just as we have been doing with plants. We'll correct imbalances such as the predatory purple urchins that are destroying kelp forests. We'll create fantastic creatures inspired by Dr. Seuss to amuse the children. We're gonna have some serious fun populating what's left of the natural world.
Remember that most species, the most important ones, are too small for human eyes to see. The magnificent rhinos, giraffes, tigers ... well they are pretty but have little to do with ecological balance. Try to get some perspective about what's really important.
But first - "Google Seeks To Grant $25 Million ..." (?) 'Seeks to' makes it sound as though they are expecting it to be difficult. Look, if it turns out to be difficult, I'll be glad to help by accepting a few million.
Now here's a way that you or I could actually earn somadat. Crowd sourcing! No, not that kind. Here's the problem: Whenever there is a crowd, a crowd of demonstrators, a crowd of sports fans or people at an inaugural event, etc. The media always give an estimate of the number of people in the crowd. That estimate might be from a person who benefits from a large or small number.
That number becomes an evaluation of the popularity of the event. Fox news will tell you that millions came out to see Trump's inaugural event. CNN will give a much smaller number. It's all estimates so they can say what they want. But what if we had an AI that could give a far more accurate count by simply scanning a photo or video? Now you have a much more accurate estimate. You can compare the crowds at funerals, weddings, LGBT parades etc with confidence and draw your own conclusions / comparisons. Simple adjustments will allow this software to count penguins, herds of antelope or a Petri dish full of bacteria. This is a 'good' project because it helps reduce 'fake news' and promotes good science.
Simple task to create the software. Other software no doubt does something similar but you will have the important 'AI' label.
A computer or device screen is no more evil than a window in your home or car.
However, things can be seen via those windows that may be detrimental to a child. In the Age of Television, we could choose between cowboys and indians killing each other or Mr. Rogers. Sesame Street seemed a good choice for many parents.
We could make similar choices today. Unfortunately, given an internet connection and no supervision, we can assume many children will make challenging choices. Social media is extremely compelling to them. Frivolous (and violent) games can be tempting. Educational materials not so appealing. It's possible that 8 of 10 hours that children spend online are not beneficial to them.
Time is also an issue. 8 hours of daily screen time combined with 0 hours of physical activity is seriously out of balance.
It's not the screen, it's what's on it, what they do with it.
It's the choices we and they make that can be harmful.
Armenia is a country. The headline clearly says that Armenia is doing this. The article clearly says that individual companies are doing it.
Some governments do invest in similar ways, such as Saudi Arabia and China. Armenia doesn't seem to be doing it here. Please read before posting stories.
Smalltalk is actually quite an elegant language. There are still some powerful systems that were created in Smalltalk, though they may not be used in Finland. Personally I preferred Forth but I never found anyone else interested in using it for practical purposes. Some interesting stuff was done with Lisp but the code still looked awful on the screen. Even in those days Pascal was being left behind. Everyone jumped on C after a while and forgot the interesting languages that came before.
"It should be highly emphasized many of these tests are of questionable utility in the real world. How to interpret the results is often not at all intuitive."
This is an understatement. According to today's Scientific American, "There are two potential issues arising from the question of their results' accuracy. The first is somewhat trivial: Has the sequencing been done well?" This is not a simple matter. Different labs will give different results. One lab failed to recognize that the DNA submitted was from a dog. False positives for disease are common in consumer lab results.
"Assuming the tests are done accurately, some discrepancies can still arise from differences in the companies' DNA databases. " These databases are limited and differ from each other.
The part of the article relevant to 'genetic counselors' is this: "If we assume the data generated is accurate, then the second question that arises is on the interpretation. And this is where it gets murky..." The counselor or analyst must deal almost entirely with probabilities. There is rarely a single gene that codes for an interesting trait; there may be many and not all of them have been located yet. An example given is that you may have two genes that are associated with blue eyes, and yet not have blue eyes.
The author concludes: "Genetics is a probabilistic science, and there are no genes "for" in particular. I have severe reservations about the utility of genetic tests that indicate one individual's propensity for certain conditions outside of a clinical setting; if you don't have a PhD in genetics, these results can be misleading or even troubling."
https://www.scientificamerican...
Do you really expect me to read all this?
The narrow column allowed for content at slashdot means that I have to Page Down 3 times to read some summaries on my 27 inch monitor. Why not provide a real summary instead of cutting and pasting entire articles?
I have lived with the nightmare of smart devices since the end of the ice box era. Yes, our first refrigerator was a modern miracle that put our ice man out of work. My parents were amazed at its ability to keep milk cold and fish frozen for days, weeks and months. I observed a dark side that older people never considered: the light inside. Oh, they said 'the light goes out when the door is closed', as if it were nothing; as if we could just trust Jesus that it was so. But how can we be sure? None of my efforts could confirm or deny the assertion. In my early youth, I had already been outwitted by a simple appliance.
There have been many struggles with smart devices since then. My dad gave me an old Stanley thermos bottle for Boy Scout campouts, etc. It was beat up and ugly, but I treasured it for a long time before I realized how intelligent it was. In an idle moment, camping in the North Woods, it dawned upon me that my thermos had the ability to keep things hot, and also to keep things cold. It could do either! This piece of metal having no moving parts save the removable top, could decide whether to keep something hot, or cold; all without any effort from me. How does it decide? Another mystery for which I have sought an answer from the best minds of my generation.
Now, with the benefit of 'AI', we can expect devices to ponder many variables and make decisions as in the Go championship games, that even the programmer cannot explain. This is necessary, for instance, for computers to diagnose x-rays and other dense patterns of data. They will do it better than doctors very soon and yet nobody will know exactly how the results are achieved. When this tech is applied to military weapons, as it will, we should all take notice.
Recently a wealth of photos and even video of SF from the time of the earthquake and fire became available on the 'web. Despite the devastation, there were signs of great prosperity and an active population forging their way into the future. Since the Gold Rush, San Francisco has attracted the ambitious and the creative people of every generation.
I lived there in 1963 along with Alan Ginsberg and the beats. Long before there were hippies, there were beats. They tended to be adults, educated, cultured, artistic, and they were travelers. They rode the rails, hitchhiked and explored from sea to shining sea.
Coffee houses were unlike your corner Starbucks. They had florescent lights, linoleum floors, Formica tables and even then they looked shabby. Coffee prices were outrageous at more than one dollar (when you could still get coffee for 25 cents in a proper restaurant). But someone would wander in and play guitar or recite poetry for tips. There would be a loud argument about Fidel Castro at the next table, or a scruffy beat with a guitar case covered in stickers from around the world. You went there to be with people who had a broad world view.
I spent much of my time at Cochran's Billiards, 1028 Market St. Hard core players from across the country, just like the movie The Hustler. My fortunes varied from poor to destitute so I walked the city rather than drive or use buses. Many people today never see the city from the sidewalk, the gutter, so to speak. Chinatown, Market street, everywhere it was dirty, noisy, grey and the weather was mild but unfriendly.
But the city was alive. People were on the move, hustling, scheming and dreaming and making things happen. This has been true since the beginning. It's what attracted Mark Twain and it's what attracts some of the most creative people on earth even now.
[Nice reminiscence of Cochran's Billiards: https://forums.azbilliards.com... ]
If your heart is still beating it is not a serious fall.
As a member of the Society for Technical Communication ( https://www.stc.org/ ), I created very technical documentation. My company made software for people who create circuit boards (up to 16 layers thick). Software written by engineers for engineers.
Our users had to convert circuit diagrams into printed circuits that actually worked. Even with our software and our manuals there was an element of magic (this was 20 years ago). For instance 'noise' from one circuit interfering with another. We were in a perpetual update mode and the documentation was always a bit behind, but without it the software would have been useless.
OTOH, I'm a Mac user and since 1984 I've never needed a manual cuz 'it just works'. Even third party software is usually designed with Mac principles and it just works. Exceptions are Adobe, math and CAD programs which still require study to use effectively. Even MS Office can get beginners to a good start without a manual. And Windows itself is almost understandable having copied Mac OS rather closely.
Smartphones can be confusing in this early part of their evolution, but very soon standards will arrive and users will be able to move from one to another without having to relearn from scratch. Some old timers may recall the Model T and other early autos which came with many different configurations, levers, switches, gauges, doodads, etc; all now standardized. You don't need a manual to drive a Chevy or a Suzuki car.
" 1. A theory was correct and was investigated. "
When is a theory correct?
We have tested relativity for a long time. Can we say now that it is correct? We have major consensus that we are in a period of man-made global warming. Can we say that theory is correct? At what point can we sit back, light a cigar, and agree that a theory is correct?
There may be exceptions, but generally speaking, only God can say whether a theory is correct. The best we can do is say that a theory is 'generally accepted' by those familiar with the details. Until then we must apply due diligence in the search for flaws.
2+2=5 (for large values of 2)
Well OK, we've talked about automotive chassis strength, body strength and high carbon steel. Engineering involves a lot more than that. While American cars looked like bloated elephants, motorcycles and racing cars around the world were evolving much faster.
Motorcycle engineers experimented with different frame configurations to create a rigid frame that provides better handling, unlike the Harleys and Vincents whose flexy frame made them a road hazard. They analyzed the rake and trail of the front end for the best combination of stable steering plus acceptable quick handling, They considered specific designs for various uses such as battlefield, paved roads and extreme rough terrain.
Racing engineers did exhaustive studies of rubber compounds for tires and developed radial tires that were slow to reach the American market. They studied valve timing, fuel flow and combustion chamber design and analyzed the droplet size from injectors and carburetors for best power and efficiency. American cars were slow to benefit from this research. They did wind tunnel testing, which some American car makers did, but the race engineers gave more priority to efficiency.
The use of alloys and plastics are extensive today as a result of materials engineering. High carbon steel is laughable now as its usefulness is very limited compared to the broad spectrum of available materials.
So that's still in the range of automotive engineering. But likewise industrial engineering was slow to evolve. Factory machines were far more massive than necessary. Even a simple toaster or refrigerator was wasteful of materials. Thoughtful engineering would have reduced this waste at the cost of a little time and study. Much thought is given today to every screw used in a mechanical assembly such as a disk drive. A screw requires a screwdriver, but a robot assembler might better use a different fastener or an assembly that simply snaps together. Perhaps it is the accountants who insist on proper engineering these days.
The next challenge is to truly engineer a reliable and secure digital control system for autos. What we've seen is slapped together incoherently and not even up to current standards. In 100 more years I will point it out as a shameful point in automotive design history. (ha ha, I'm already close to 100 years myself)
"I've heard engineers often tout a 10x safety limit"
This is how American engineers worked for 100 years. From the first railroads and factories until the Japanese auto invasion. 'When in doubt, double the strength!' And there was always doubt because materials science in the US was poorly understood and often ignored.
Then the Japanese brought us thoughtfully engineered vehicles which were lighter, safer, more reliable and less expensive. Even today many US designed products are often built to satisfy the marketing department, not any engineering standards.
When an employer asks me for fingerprints or a background check or a drug test, I cheerfully say to the HR person "Sure, I'll be happy to take the same drug test that the CEO has taken! After all my position in the company isn't as sensitive to company security, but it's still worth some validation."
For some reason the HR department is unable to show me the test that the CEO has taken. Or the background check or the credit check or the fingerprints. The CEO seems to have no application on file or references listed or job history. The CEO seems to have been exempt from any employment requirements. Fortunately, this experience has already made clear that this is not a company that I want to be part of, so I move on.
Should a company executive, who is paid well, who has extensive benefits, and who has the ability to skim thousand$ from the company be exempt from the indignities that a minimum wage worker has to suffer?
Back around 1950 a major insurance company with an excellent reputation and very low premium rates set stringent requirements for its customers. Agents would fill in the forms with the usual information for clients; age, address, some medical background, etc. But potential clients had to qualify for the insurance policy. Like any company; older people would pay more for life insurance. People with accidents would pay more for auto insurance. But unlike other companies, many medium risk clients were simply not allowed to buy from this insurance company. At any price. And all approved clients got low premiums and were happy.
But they went beyond that. Agents had a secret checklist for every potential client. Things you might never guess could disqualify you for the money saving policy. One item that has stuck in my memory all this time is this: any potential client who enters the agent's office wearing boots is automatically disqualified.
Actuaries must have determined risk factors far beyond the norm. Perhaps they consulted psychologists and did unusual surveys to come up with odd criteria. Nevertheless, insurance companies take risks and need to protect themselves. If you want cheap insurance from a reliable company, expect to prove that you are worthy.
How much did taxpayers invest in the research at University of Colorado Boulder? How much can they expect in return? Will they be reimbursed by the IPO or do they have to wait until the profits roll in?
Research is typically paid for by you and I through our taxes. When a great discovery is made, all the profits go to private parties. When do we get reimbursed?
The Pareto principle (also known as the 80/20 rule) states that 80% of Slashdot readers like 20% of Slashdot stories. The lesser known Double Inverse Pareto suggests that 80% of Slashdot stories interest nobody worth bothering with. Proof of the Pareto principle has been hard to come by. Researchers who worked through hundreds of Slashdot articles and comments have been found to suffer from PTSD, and many committed suicide.