If you're gonna factor in transmission line losses and charging loss, then you also have to factor in idling and drivetrain losses, which brings the fuel efficiency of an ICE down to about 15%. Not counting the energy required to actually make the fuel in the first place (which is also not zero). More importantly, though, electric cars are source-neutral: they don't give a shit if their electricity comes from coal, nuclear, or solar.
that finds it odd that we allow companies to sell a substance who's sole purpose is to be addictive?
If you think the sole purpose of nicotine is to be addictive, you are sorelymisinformed. People don't start smoking because it's addictive: they start smoking because it's enjoyable.
This included recursion, and we used the only reasonable example one can give a high school student. The Fibonacci series. I assume that everyone has coded this by the time they 18.
Which is why it's a terrible horrible no good choice for a test question. If they've already seen it, they know what it does, so you're not testing them to see if they understand the code conceptually, you're testing to see if they've seen a Fibonacci generator before.
Europe is composed of socialist countries and has been for about 60 years or so for the ones that weren't communist and the rest became socialist when the communist regime fell.
Believe it or not, governments are not black-and-white either/or systems. A government can have socialist systems without being primarily socialist. In the case of Europe, the means of production are still privately owned, mostly by rich capitalists or other individuals (shareholders) who have no direct connection to the government. That's the textbook definition of capitalism. To be socialist, the means of production would have to be mostly socialized (e.g. owned by a common group of some kind, such as the government, "the people", a central authority, etc), which they are not, in any of those governments. Not even remotely so.
Intelligence does not require "consciousness", any more than it requires a soul. Consciousness is a nebulous concept that has not even been defined in any objective falsifiable way. Intelligence is the ability to formulate an effective solution to novel problems. That is something that can tested and quantifie
Ah, so evolution is intelligent then? Because that's exactly what evolution does.
Intelligence is a property of behavior.
No, it is associated with a property of behavior. Something can behave intelligently without being intelligent. For example, insects often form extremely complex and intricate structures (in some cases optimally designed structures). They're decidedly not intelligent, however, as their behavior is strictly governed by instinct. Extremely complex instincts that appear at first glance to be intelligence, but only instinct. The same applies to computers, which of course is the entire crux of the problem with testing for AI. The difference between actual intelligence and sophisticated pre-programmed responses is only apparent when you involve more subtle tests, and those tests can in turn be overcome simply with more sophisticated programming (requiring more sophisticated tests, and so on and so forth).
No other country has this odd view, instead, money earned abroad is taxed abroad.
The problem is that quite often the money earned abroad isn't actually being taxed at all (or at an extremely low rate). Things like the Double Irish actually prevent anyone from taxing them (or taxing a small portion of the total income), using various legal loopholes, even if the income would normally be taxable. So you can have goods produced in one country, sold in another, and never be taxed anywhere (and in fact the company may well take a deduction on business expenses from production, or other such nonsense). That's the problem here: companies are using loopholes to earn money in countries and not pay taxes on it at all. It's legalized tax evasion.
Dual US/British citizen and earning money in Britain? Great, you'll be paying both UK and US income tax on that!
If and only if the British taxes are less than the taxes you'd be paying in the US, and then only up to the difference. Or you can take a $97,000 dollar exclusion on foreign income (so if you make less than that, you pay nothing). Really, the whole system is only intended to make sure that rich people and corporations that have the money and resources to take advantage of loopholes still pay what they owe (doesn't always work, of course, but thats the intent). Slashdot ought to be all over that.
No other mode of transportation has to carry its own reaction mass and throw it away. Not bicycles, cars, trains, ships, submarines, or airplanes.
Quite right. Because no other form of transportation takes place in a vacuum. Unless you know of some radical new physics, standard reaction-mass engines will be necessary for spaceflight for... well, forever, so, I'm not sure exactly what your point is. And yes, they've worked on the idea before with NERVA. We have, believe it or not, made a few technological and engineering breakthroughs since then (mind you: NERVA worked. It worked very well. It was canceled for political reasons, not practical ones).
Don't say that he's hypocritical,
Say rather that he's apolitical.
"once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.
--Tom Lehrer, "Wernher von Braun"
Ding ding ding ding! We've got a winner here! One Godwin'ed Slashdot thread! (ok, I'm not actually sure you won, but I didn't see anything up above).
The goal of these kinds of security measures isn't to prevent people with malicious intent from breaking them. That is, obviously, impossible. It is to make sure people without malicious intent don't engage in activities which are indistinguishable from malicious activity. That in turn means that if you see people engaging in apparent malicious activity, you can safely assume they are, and operate accordingly (i.e. shoot them, arrest them, etc.)
You might be able to: my Logitech Mx518 (at least with the software I have installed) doesn't seem to allow rebinding the two primary buttons, though, so it's not a sure thing. The OP can do what you suggest, or just ask around (on Reddit, user reviews, even send a message to Logitech).
Aside from the fact that that wouldn't work anyways (intent to link to the illegal material would be required, and that certainly wouldn't meet that qualification), the hyperlinking charges were dropped. Yeah, the Slashdot summary is a bit deceptive (absolutely shocking, I know).
> What's more, there is an energy associated with any given volume of the universe. If that volume increases, the inescapable conclusion is that the energy must increase as well. So much for conservation of energy.
???
Why cant the energy just be less dense?
The FLRW metric (which is what the equation that governs the cosmological expansion of spacetime) has a cosmological constant term in it, initially placed there by Einstein to maintain a steady state universe, but which we now know drives an accelerating expansion of the universe. This constant term is exactly that: a constant (negative) energy per volume of space. More space means more total energy.
However, TFS and TFA (I've only scanned the referenced paper, but that looks much more reasonable) are absolutely wrong about why this is a problem. It is a problem, but only in the sense of figuring out where it comes from (i.e. what exact mechanism drives the creation of this energy). The fact that energy is not conserved violates no law of physics: in fact, general relativity doesn't conserve energy anyways, and the expansion of the universe certainly does not (even without the non-conservative nature of gravity).
See, the conservation of energy is a result of Noether's theorem, which states that for any differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system, there is a corresponding paired conservation law. For time symmetry, this is the conservation of energy. However, time on the scales of the universe is not symmetric. There was a beginning to the universe (which alone breaks the symmetry: you can't shift backwards in time more than ~13 billion years), and the universe as it is now looks nothing like it did 10 billion years ago. So we don't expect energy to be conserved in the universe as a whole (even if it is on local scales).
you think it's absolutely impossible that could be achieved in say the next 500 years, considering what humans have accomplished in the last 100?
Absolutely impossible? No. But the problem is that we don't even know where to begin creating a true AI, which means we also know nothing about what threats it may or may not pose... so we also have no actual way to address those threats. All we have right now is pure, 100% complete speculation (no different from speculating about what would happen if we had FTL travel, or psykers, or met aliens). There are plenty of actual threats to humanity that really exist right now (or could be created with our current knowledge and technology), which makes worrying about something we know literally nothing about kind of silly.
Fuel injection and spark events only occur at the 10s of Hz scale (topping out at around 60 each per second). Even if you handle cam phasing and MAF sampling at 100 times that interval, you're still within the computational work load of a couple dozen MHz of instructions.
Aye. Now try controlling the engine and fuel injection system, and achieving combustion, without using a spark plug. Because that's what the story is actually about. They're using compression-based ignition (like a diesel engine) rather than spark based ignition (like a conventional gasoline engine), which requires a detailed knowledge of the state of the engine at each cycle.
The research is only interesting because they are taking advantage of way overspecced processing power to approach combustion more granularly per event and trying to learn from each one and control the next. It only got press here because they used Linux (anything production grade would use QNX or similar).
Nah, it's interesting because it's an application of machine learning algorithms applied to an actual physical problem that might have real-world practical use (the whole Rasberry Pi/Linux angle is a side note in the paper just to show that the algorithm is fast enough for real-world application). A possible 30% fuel efficiency increase in all/some new cars? Car makers would certainly be interested.
It's not okay, but it wouldn't be murder either. It would be manslaughter.
That depends. If you should have known the gun would have a significant chance of hitting someone, you could well be facing a full murder charge. Randomly shooting a gun in a field in the country? Probably manslaughter. Doing the same in a crowded shopping mall? Yep, that'd be murder. Likewise this bot was shopping randomly on a darknet that has a lot of illegal stuff for sale, and the creator would (absolutely should have, anyways) have known that, which means he would be legally liable for the purchases (if the government decided to press the issue).
(sigh) You're doing it wrong - that link you gave is the wrong one . The article the summary links to has a link to the correct (and non-paywalled) article at arXiv.org. Have a nice day:-)
The link the GP gave is to the paper linked directly to by the summary (the direct link to the abstract), so some confusion is understandable. In the future, maybe make submissions discuss one and only one paper (or make it obvious they're two papers)?
It looks like the slowest paths of the transcendental functions were improved by a lot. But how often do these paths get used? The article doesn't say so the performance benefits may be insignificant.
From TFA, it sounds like the functions in question (pow() and exp()) work by first looking at a look-up table/polynomial approximation technique to see if the function can use that to get an accurate-enough value, then running through a series of multiplications to calculate the result if the table/approximation method wouldn't be accurate enough. Since this work improved the actual calculation part, my guess is that it will improve quite a few cases. TFA does say the lookup table method works in the "majority of cases", though it doesn't say exactly how big a majority, so it's hard to say exactly.
The nature of the workload required for most workstations is non-uniform processing of large quantities of discreet, irregular tasks. For this, parallelism (as Torvald's correctly notes) is likely not the most efficient approach. To pretend that in some magical future, our processing needs can be homogenized into tasks for which parallel computing is superior is to make a faith-based prediction on how our use of computers will evolve. I would say that the evidence is quite the opposite: That tasks will become more discrete and unique.
Right, but we want to continue the "Moore's Law" speedup of processing year over year. And that simply can't happen with single core processing: clock speed is already near the physical limit (as in we would need to start violating the speed of light to increase it much further), and manufacturing process size can't continue shrinking indefinitely either, no matter how close we are to the actual physical limits there. So unless we invent entirely new computing systems (e.g. quantum computers), the only speed gains in the future will inevitably be from parallelization, and there are (for many cases) still massive speed gains to be made in that field, simply because the software was never designed for any parallelization at all. Granted, that'll hit a wall where you can't split tasks up anymore as well, but in many cases this process hasn't even started.
You're quite right about the graphics, though: the long-term future of graphics technology is probably ray-tracing, and that takes absolutely massive amounts of completely parallel CPU power.
Yeah. Physicists. The term "physics" in fact literally means "knowledge of nature", i.e. knowledge of those things in the natural world (this is an old definition, of course, from back when physics was considered a philosophical discipline, but while the methods used in physics have changed the subject matter has not). As opposed to supernatural objects, which would fall under the purview of metaphysics and/or theology.
Science doesn't require that the phenomenon it studies be "natural." Only that they be observable and consistent.
Believe it or not, "observable and consistent" and "natural" mean almost literally the same thing (using the term "natural" to refer to "things in nature", not to natural vs. artificial: in any case, all artificial objects are at some level made up of natural stuff anyways). All natural objects are observable in some way (i.e. have observable properties: mass, volume, location, etc... something that can be quantified, in other words), and the word "nature" in one of it's oldest definitions in physics means "how something acts always or for the most part", i.e. it acts in a consistent fashion (not sure most modern physicists would even bother giving a definition of "nature", but when we speak of the "nature of an object", that definition is essentially what we mean). Supernatural objects, by definition, lack both (actually, having one generally (always?) means you have the other as well).
Who published this "study" and how was it peer reviewed?
I'd guess Snake Oil Monthly, peer reviewed by "homeopathic scientists". Obviously. Or (since Rossi is a tiny bit subtler than that... though only a tiny bit) the """Journal of Nuclear Physics"""*, which (in a startling coincidence) is "published" by Rossi himself (if posting something to a blog counts as published). It may well have been peer reviewed, but of course since Rossi is a fraudster, not a scientist, the peers in this case... well, lets just say they probably have more of a theoretical degree in physics than a degree in theoretical physics.
*As a side note, this is a good example of why simply because something was "published" in a respected-sounding journal does not mean it's actually trustworthy. I could form the American Journal of Renowned Physics Breakthroughs tomorrow and publish the flimsiest of flim-flam in it. Anyone could.
All ships of that class have been decommissioned/scrapped already, so any details of the interior are irrelevant, as it's no longer a design in service. Knowing where to hit to sink a ship that isn't being used anymore isn't exactly useful military knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
Not in the US, and not in Britain (I think) since they changed the laws. The liability shift is to the merchants if they don't support EMV.
If you're gonna factor in transmission line losses and charging loss, then you also have to factor in idling and drivetrain losses, which brings the fuel efficiency of an ICE down to about 15%. Not counting the energy required to actually make the fuel in the first place (which is also not zero). More importantly, though, electric cars are source-neutral: they don't give a shit if their electricity comes from coal, nuclear, or solar.
that finds it odd that we allow companies to sell a substance who's sole purpose is to be addictive?
If you think the sole purpose of nicotine is to be addictive, you are sorely misinformed. People don't start smoking because it's addictive: they start smoking because it's enjoyable.
This included recursion, and we used the only reasonable example one can give a high school student. The Fibonacci series. I assume that everyone has coded this by the time they 18.
Which is why it's a terrible horrible no good choice for a test question. If they've already seen it, they know what it does, so you're not testing them to see if they understand the code conceptually, you're testing to see if they've seen a Fibonacci generator before.
Europe is composed of socialist countries and has been for about 60 years or so for the ones that weren't communist and the rest became socialist when the communist regime fell.
Believe it or not, governments are not black-and-white either/or systems. A government can have socialist systems without being primarily socialist. In the case of Europe, the means of production are still privately owned, mostly by rich capitalists or other individuals (shareholders) who have no direct connection to the government. That's the textbook definition of capitalism. To be socialist, the means of production would have to be mostly socialized (e.g. owned by a common group of some kind, such as the government, "the people", a central authority, etc), which they are not, in any of those governments. Not even remotely so.
Intelligence does not require "consciousness", any more than it requires a soul. Consciousness is a nebulous concept that has not even been defined in any objective falsifiable way. Intelligence is the ability to formulate an effective solution to novel problems. That is something that can tested and quantifie
Ah, so evolution is intelligent then? Because that's exactly what evolution does.
Intelligence is a property of behavior.
No, it is associated with a property of behavior. Something can behave intelligently without being intelligent. For example, insects often form extremely complex and intricate structures (in some cases optimally designed structures). They're decidedly not intelligent, however, as their behavior is strictly governed by instinct. Extremely complex instincts that appear at first glance to be intelligence, but only instinct. The same applies to computers, which of course is the entire crux of the problem with testing for AI. The difference between actual intelligence and sophisticated pre-programmed responses is only apparent when you involve more subtle tests, and those tests can in turn be overcome simply with more sophisticated programming (requiring more sophisticated tests, and so on and so forth).
No other country has this odd view, instead, money earned abroad is taxed abroad.
The problem is that quite often the money earned abroad isn't actually being taxed at all (or at an extremely low rate). Things like the Double Irish actually prevent anyone from taxing them (or taxing a small portion of the total income), using various legal loopholes, even if the income would normally be taxable. So you can have goods produced in one country, sold in another, and never be taxed anywhere (and in fact the company may well take a deduction on business expenses from production, or other such nonsense). That's the problem here: companies are using loopholes to earn money in countries and not pay taxes on it at all. It's legalized tax evasion.
Dual US/British citizen and earning money in Britain? Great, you'll be paying both UK and US income tax on that!
If and only if the British taxes are less than the taxes you'd be paying in the US, and then only up to the difference. Or you can take a $97,000 dollar exclusion on foreign income (so if you make less than that, you pay nothing). Really, the whole system is only intended to make sure that rich people and corporations that have the money and resources to take advantage of loopholes still pay what they owe (doesn't always work, of course, but thats the intent). Slashdot ought to be all over that.
No other mode of transportation has to carry its own reaction mass and throw it away. Not bicycles, cars, trains, ships, submarines, or airplanes.
Quite right. Because no other form of transportation takes place in a vacuum. Unless you know of some radical new physics, standard reaction-mass engines will be necessary for spaceflight for... well, forever, so, I'm not sure exactly what your point is. And yes, they've worked on the idea before with NERVA. We have, believe it or not, made a few technological and engineering breakthroughs since then (mind you: NERVA worked. It worked very well. It was canceled for political reasons, not practical ones).
--Tom Lehrer, "Wernher von Braun"
Ding ding ding ding! We've got a winner here! One Godwin'ed Slashdot thread! (ok, I'm not actually sure you won, but I didn't see anything up above).
The goal of these kinds of security measures isn't to prevent people with malicious intent from breaking them. That is, obviously, impossible. It is to make sure people without malicious intent don't engage in activities which are indistinguishable from malicious activity. That in turn means that if you see people engaging in apparent malicious activity, you can safely assume they are, and operate accordingly (i.e. shoot them, arrest them, etc.)
You might be able to: my Logitech Mx518 (at least with the software I have installed) doesn't seem to allow rebinding the two primary buttons, though, so it's not a sure thing. The OP can do what you suggest, or just ask around (on Reddit, user reviews, even send a message to Logitech).
Aside from the fact that that wouldn't work anyways (intent to link to the illegal material would be required, and that certainly wouldn't meet that qualification), the hyperlinking charges were dropped. Yeah, the Slashdot summary is a bit deceptive (absolutely shocking, I know).
> What's more, there is an energy associated with any given volume of the universe. If that volume increases, the inescapable conclusion is that the energy must increase as well. So much for conservation of energy.
??? Why cant the energy just be less dense?
The FLRW metric (which is what the equation that governs the cosmological expansion of spacetime) has a cosmological constant term in it, initially placed there by Einstein to maintain a steady state universe, but which we now know drives an accelerating expansion of the universe. This constant term is exactly that: a constant (negative) energy per volume of space. More space means more total energy.
However, TFS and TFA (I've only scanned the referenced paper, but that looks much more reasonable) are absolutely wrong about why this is a problem. It is a problem, but only in the sense of figuring out where it comes from (i.e. what exact mechanism drives the creation of this energy). The fact that energy is not conserved violates no law of physics: in fact, general relativity doesn't conserve energy anyways, and the expansion of the universe certainly does not (even without the non-conservative nature of gravity).
See, the conservation of energy is a result of Noether's theorem, which states that for any differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system, there is a corresponding paired conservation law. For time symmetry, this is the conservation of energy. However, time on the scales of the universe is not symmetric. There was a beginning to the universe (which alone breaks the symmetry: you can't shift backwards in time more than ~13 billion years), and the universe as it is now looks nothing like it did 10 billion years ago. So we don't expect energy to be conserved in the universe as a whole (even if it is on local scales).
Dunno what cables you're using, the HDMI cable hooked up to my monitor is only slightly thicker and stiffer than my mouse cable.
you think it's absolutely impossible that could be achieved in say the next 500 years, considering what humans have accomplished in the last 100?
Absolutely impossible? No. But the problem is that we don't even know where to begin creating a true AI, which means we also know nothing about what threats it may or may not pose... so we also have no actual way to address those threats. All we have right now is pure, 100% complete speculation (no different from speculating about what would happen if we had FTL travel, or psykers, or met aliens). There are plenty of actual threats to humanity that really exist right now (or could be created with our current knowledge and technology), which makes worrying about something we know literally nothing about kind of silly.
Fuel injection and spark events only occur at the 10s of Hz scale (topping out at around 60 each per second). Even if you handle cam phasing and MAF sampling at 100 times that interval, you're still within the computational work load of a couple dozen MHz of instructions.
Aye. Now try controlling the engine and fuel injection system, and achieving combustion, without using a spark plug. Because that's what the story is actually about. They're using compression-based ignition (like a diesel engine) rather than spark based ignition (like a conventional gasoline engine), which requires a detailed knowledge of the state of the engine at each cycle.
The research is only interesting because they are taking advantage of way overspecced processing power to approach combustion more granularly per event and trying to learn from each one and control the next. It only got press here because they used Linux (anything production grade would use QNX or similar).
Nah, it's interesting because it's an application of machine learning algorithms applied to an actual physical problem that might have real-world practical use (the whole Rasberry Pi/Linux angle is a side note in the paper just to show that the algorithm is fast enough for real-world application). A possible 30% fuel efficiency increase in all/some new cars? Car makers would certainly be interested.
It's not okay, but it wouldn't be murder either. It would be manslaughter.
That depends. If you should have known the gun would have a significant chance of hitting someone, you could well be facing a full murder charge. Randomly shooting a gun in a field in the country? Probably manslaughter. Doing the same in a crowded shopping mall? Yep, that'd be murder. Likewise this bot was shopping randomly on a darknet that has a lot of illegal stuff for sale, and the creator would (absolutely should have, anyways) have known that, which means he would be legally liable for the purchases (if the government decided to press the issue).
(sigh) You're doing it wrong - that link you gave is the wrong one . The article the summary links to has a link to the correct (and non-paywalled) article at arXiv.org. Have a nice day :-)
The link the GP gave is to the paper linked directly to by the summary (the direct link to the abstract), so some confusion is understandable. In the future, maybe make submissions discuss one and only one paper (or make it obvious they're two papers)?
It looks like the slowest paths of the transcendental functions were improved by a lot. But how often do these paths get used? The article doesn't say so the performance benefits may be insignificant.
From TFA, it sounds like the functions in question (pow() and exp()) work by first looking at a look-up table/polynomial approximation technique to see if the function can use that to get an accurate-enough value, then running through a series of multiplications to calculate the result if the table/approximation method wouldn't be accurate enough. Since this work improved the actual calculation part, my guess is that it will improve quite a few cases. TFA does say the lookup table method works in the "majority of cases", though it doesn't say exactly how big a majority, so it's hard to say exactly.
The nature of the workload required for most workstations is non-uniform processing of large quantities of discreet, irregular tasks. For this, parallelism (as Torvald's correctly notes) is likely not the most efficient approach. To pretend that in some magical future, our processing needs can be homogenized into tasks for which parallel computing is superior is to make a faith-based prediction on how our use of computers will evolve. I would say that the evidence is quite the opposite: That tasks will become more discrete and unique.
Right, but we want to continue the "Moore's Law" speedup of processing year over year. And that simply can't happen with single core processing: clock speed is already near the physical limit (as in we would need to start violating the speed of light to increase it much further), and manufacturing process size can't continue shrinking indefinitely either, no matter how close we are to the actual physical limits there. So unless we invent entirely new computing systems (e.g. quantum computers), the only speed gains in the future will inevitably be from parallelization, and there are (for many cases) still massive speed gains to be made in that field, simply because the software was never designed for any parallelization at all. Granted, that'll hit a wall where you can't split tasks up anymore as well, but in many cases this process hasn't even started.
You're quite right about the graphics, though: the long-term future of graphics technology is probably ray-tracing, and that takes absolutely massive amounts of completely parallel CPU power.
How on earth would you Godwin this? Comparing the Nazis to the Nazis is a bit redundant.
That's just the kind of thing Hitler would have said!
Someone made up that supernatural/natural thing.
Yeah. Physicists. The term "physics" in fact literally means "knowledge of nature", i.e. knowledge of those things in the natural world (this is an old definition, of course, from back when physics was considered a philosophical discipline, but while the methods used in physics have changed the subject matter has not). As opposed to supernatural objects, which would fall under the purview of metaphysics and/or theology.
Science doesn't require that the phenomenon it studies be "natural." Only that they be observable and consistent.
Believe it or not, "observable and consistent" and "natural" mean almost literally the same thing (using the term "natural" to refer to "things in nature", not to natural vs. artificial: in any case, all artificial objects are at some level made up of natural stuff anyways). All natural objects are observable in some way (i.e. have observable properties: mass, volume, location, etc... something that can be quantified, in other words), and the word "nature" in one of it's oldest definitions in physics means "how something acts always or for the most part", i.e. it acts in a consistent fashion (not sure most modern physicists would even bother giving a definition of "nature", but when we speak of the "nature of an object", that definition is essentially what we mean). Supernatural objects, by definition, lack both (actually, having one generally (always?) means you have the other as well).
Make sense. I had to use Vim once, and it felt like I was in Hell.
Who published this "study" and how was it peer reviewed?
I'd guess Snake Oil Monthly, peer reviewed by "homeopathic scientists". Obviously. Or (since Rossi is a tiny bit subtler than that... though only a tiny bit) the """Journal of Nuclear Physics"""*, which (in a startling coincidence) is "published" by Rossi himself (if posting something to a blog counts as published). It may well have been peer reviewed, but of course since Rossi is a fraudster, not a scientist, the peers in this case... well, lets just say they probably have more of a theoretical degree in physics than a degree in theoretical physics.
*As a side note, this is a good example of why simply because something was "published" in a respected-sounding journal does not mean it's actually trustworthy. I could form the American Journal of Renowned Physics Breakthroughs tomorrow and publish the flimsiest of flim-flam in it. Anyone could.
All ships of that class have been decommissioned/scrapped already, so any details of the interior are irrelevant, as it's no longer a design in service. Knowing where to hit to sink a ship that isn't being used anymore isn't exactly useful military knowledge.