Question: How do you slow down? Answer: According to the article, you can propel up to a Jupiter-sized mass. Do you think a Jupiter-sized mass of fuel would permit you to slow down? Also, you only need to do that once, sending your Jupiter-mass to another binary black hole system and you've just created an interstellar highway between the two binary black holes and then you don't even need the fuel to slow down — you can slow down via rotating 180 degrees and sending a beam from the second black hole.
"The Alcubierre drive is a speculative idea based on a solution of Einstein's field equations in general relativity as proposed by Mexican theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre, by which a spacecraft could achieve apparent faster-than-light travel if a configurable energy-density field lower than that of vacuum (that is, negative mass) could be created." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
"The Alcubierre drive is a speculative idea based on a solution of Einstein's field equations in general relativity as proposed by Mexican theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre, by which a spacecraft could achieve apparent faster-than-light travel if a configurable energy-density field lower than that of vacuum (that is, negative mass) could be created." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
*It is likely your last cucumber sandwich killed as many animals as your last hamburger.
You need to stop sacrificing cows to your harvest god.
Rather than "killed as many animals," I think you mean "used as much resources." Cucumbers are somewhat resource-intensive to grow compared to other vegetables.
*Humans were evolved to eat meat.
3%-8% of the average chimp diet comes from meat. Chimpanzees are mostly frugivores.
Do we say "Hummingbird's were evolved to to eat meat?" No, we mostly think of hummingbirds as nectivores, as their main diet is nectar. Only 90% of the hummingbird diet is nectar though and they hunt insects like chimpanzees hunt monkeys.
*To be fully vegetarian you would need a much longer digestive tract in which you could ferment plant matter like a gorilla or cow.
Humans began as frugivores, not grazers. If a hummingbird stopped eating insects would it need a long digestive tract to be vegetarian? No.
*There has never been a sustained human population that was fully vegetarian.
Four people in a house who are vegetation can be a sustained human population. Various human social groups throughout history have also adopted a vegetarian lifestyle.
*The way we treat food animals is cruel, horrific and unconscionable. This is one area where the militant vegans and I see eye to eye. It has to stop.
The way we treat food animals is cruel, horrific and unconscionable. This is one area where the militant vegans and I see eye to eye. It has to stop.
Don't assume all people in prison are guilty. You can go to prison for journalism these days. All that is required is the journalism be redescribed as part of a criminal behavior. I felt threatened by those true opinions.
Despite appearances, the computers are not thinking. You might argue that neural networks could become big enough to emulate a brain. Maybe, but keep in mind that the brain has about 100 billion neurons and almost 10 to the 15th power interconnections. Worse still, there isn't a clear consensus that the neural net made up of the cells in your brain is actually what is responsible for conscious thought.
This is very much correct. Much of what we call artificial intelligence today we could instead call functions of best fit. We emulate aspects of biology in systems and these aspects allow a pseudo-intelligent matching to occur. The matching function might be able to identify your face to unlock your phone or identify lingual patterns to generate language that a human speaker will feel is somewhat natural or identify what animal an image is of or even to beat human players at Jeopardy.
This isn't consciousness. While we can get systems that appear smart this way, we're not going to get to consciousness though bigger versions of these functions of best fit and calling these AI is near to a misnomer.
Until consciousness in the brain is better comprehended, a better approach toward real AI might be to simulate aspects of biological evolution, specifically in regards to social communication.
Seriously, there is no evidence for any kind of "quantum consciousness", nor any convincing theory as to why a neural net would be insufficient to produce consciousness. I suspect that the main attraction of this idea is that it is a non-religious excuse for believing consciousness to be magical or special in some way.
You said that using language. Language is the evidence.
What is the sound of one hand clapping? Quantum handwaving.
From interviewing around in the Bay Area, I've seen at least two companies with app backends coded in Scala. When doing similar app backend work myself, I've chosen Python, but it didn't have to do with it not being a strongly typed language. It had more to do with the available third-party libraries and compatibility with cloud providers.
According to conventional wisdom, ideally, scientists should strive for a power of about 80000% (i.e., an 80000% chance of detecting an effect if it truly exists), but very few studies actually achieve power of this level. In many fields, the power is less than 50000% and sometimes much less.
The notion of a quantifiable metric for evaluating developers is still attractive though.
A metric is attractive to those who like metrics. Typically such metrics are desired by managers and other non-technical folks who don’t actually fully understand what the engineers are doing and so desire to rely on a number to evaluate productivity, because they can't easily evaluate it via other methods. However, that actually isn’t a great idea.
Holism, combined with developers who can both comprehend and communicate what and how engineers are developing is better than metrics.
Think about this like you were evaluating painters. Will number of brushstrokes work? No. Will number of paintings work? No.
Will relying on holism rather than metrics work? Yes.
Interesting, I suspect that increased Norepinephrine in the prefrontal cortex mediated by the activation of Nicotinic receptors increases prefrontal cortical control over the limbic system. I wonder if Atomoxetine would do the same thing.
The title says peppers but it says nicotine is actually the chemical at work. There are actually a few positive effects nicotine possesses, the negative effects of smoking are mediated by the oxidation products of cigarettes.
Which makes me wonder if electronic cigarette products may not only be not bad for you, but even potentially beneficial as they give you a low dose of nicotine through vaporization without the oxidation caused by burning.
It (microservices) almost certainly is hype. It reminds me of the worst of SAAS, object orientation, web API systems and a hundred others.
1). It only works "if you do it right", and "doing it right" turns out to be unachievable for most adopters;
Doing it right really isn't that difficult. These days for some architectures there are only 10 or so lines of code difference between a microservice model and a locally hosted model. The problems the person in the article hit were because they were trying to convert an existing system. It is very achievable for new adopters.
So hype looks like logically explained belief-justification? Or maybe you have it reversed and hype is represented by unjustified, unexplained statements, such as "This is what hype looks like"?
Microservices are not hype. Anything that lets you scale your code without having to rethink how you write code and while reducing cost is pretty amazing. If anything, I'd say microservices are underutilized these days, because it is often easier to start a new holistic system and architecture it for microservices than to convert aging systems to use a new model.
Look at their example: Example 3: Microservices
Step 1: Big monolith application scales hard. There is a point when we can break them down into services. It will be easier to scale in terms of req/sec and easier to scale across multiple teams.
Step 2: Hype keywords: scalability, loose coupling, monolith.
Okay...sure. Req/sec and infinite scalability are a great reason to use microservices. Definitely worth having your brand new codebase use a microservice architecture. Whether your older codebase could benefit requires a cost/benefit analysis.
Step 3: Let’s rewrite all to services! We have a ‘spaghetti code’ because we have a monolith architecture! We need to rewrite everything to microservices!
You need a Step 2.5 with a cost/benefit analysis. How much time will it take to convert the code base? Do we really care about scaling to infinity? Where do we think we actually need to scale to in practice and how much benefit will we see from the architecture change? Etc...
Step 4: Shit! It is now way slower to develop the app, difficult to deploy and we spend a lot of time tracking bugs across multiple systems.
This step is kind of just wrong. Once converted most microarchitectures are actually faster to develop for if you've done things right, because you don't have to worry as much about scaling. The first question they ask you as a developer in your first job interview as a developer is probably about Big-O and time complexity. However, this has always mattered more for server-side operations than for client-side operations. If a server does something 1000 times slightly inefficiently, that inefficiency ads up. If an iPhone does something 1 times slightly inefficiently, it likely matters a lot less. In a microarchitecture model, the server is more like the client in the previous example, as each individual instance spawns and does its thing 1 time. Big-O still matters, but not as much.
Beyond this, problems deploying and problems tracking bugs across multiple systems likely have little to do with the microarchitecture itself. In my experience, microarchitectures can be as easy and are often easier to deploy than existing physical-hardware-based systems. For example, if you have many servers or many shards to deploy to, you may only have one deploy point in a microarchitecture or one production and one integration deploy point instead of a system of many servers. It's often easier!
Step 5: Microservices require a lot of devops skills in the team and with right investment might pay off as a way to scale the system and team. Before you reach serious scale issues it’s an overinvestment. Microservices are extracted not written. You must be this tall to use microservices.
Any new thing requires some learning or skill.
"Before you reach serious scale issues it’s an overinvestment." That sentence is wrong though. When you have no code yet it is often a great choice to use a microservice-based architecture, requires very little investment and can both save money and allow easy scaling. When you have existing code, but scaling and cost are huge priorities, it often is a smart investment of time. It's only in the middle stages where you have a large code-base you have to convert and don't actually need the scaling where it could be an overinvestment.
She doesn't actually deny it, she just uses the standard anti-vax mealy-mouth that denies the conclusion or the term but then restates the anti-vax positions.
CLAIM: Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein has stated that she opposes the use of vaccines. ANSWER: False. SOURCE: Snopes.com
Jill Stein had stated that she thinks big business and pharmaceutical interests are influencing the FDA's decision-making and others have spun this as anti-vaxination.
Reposted from an earlier post on Slashdot on Fri April 15, 2016 09:50 PM:
"Writing in the New Republic in 2014, Jonathan Zittrain, professor of international law at Harvard University, pointed out that, given the massive amount of information it has collected about its users, Facebook could easily send such messages only to people who support one particular party or candidate, and that doing so could easily flip a close election – with no one knowing that this has occurred. And because advertisements, like search rankings, are ephemeral, manipulating an election in this way would leave no paper trail."
"Are there laws prohibiting Facebook from sending out ads selectively to certain users? Absolutely not; in fact, targeted advertising is how Facebook makes its money. Is Facebook currently manipulating elections in this way? No one knows..."
The principle is completely constructed for the same time.
No. The policeman's beard is half constructed.
He plays on the cymbal. The same time as now and hear. He lives in a five o'clock meadow. Because I do know what you're talking about, there's an answer.
I couldn't even make it through this absolute nonsense. It was just a random series of words without any sort of logic or "red line". In other words: exactly what you can expect from the pathetic joke they call "AI".
>>The dialogue seems like it could have been written by a schizophrenic. It made me wonder: have AI programs such as ELIZA been used to diagnose/treat/study schizophrenia? I am genuinely curious.
Then get to it.
Do no such thing. Do not create dystopia's where the genius of Beckett and Joyce is called a mental illness. Where you find such dystopia's, deconstruct them and reassemble them in utopian forms.
Slashdot Mirror
Question: How do you slow down?
Answer: According to the article, you can propel up to a Jupiter-sized mass. Do you think a Jupiter-sized mass of fuel would permit you to slow down? Also, you only need to do that once, sending your Jupiter-mass to another binary black hole system and you've just created an interstellar highway between the two binary black holes and then you don't even need the fuel to slow down — you can slow down via rotating 180 degrees and sending a beam from the second black hole.
"The Alcubierre drive is a speculative idea based on a solution of Einstein's field equations in general relativity as proposed by Mexican theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre, by which a spacecraft could achieve apparent faster-than-light travel if a configurable energy-density field lower than that of vacuum (that is, negative mass) could be created."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
"Thus, in a very physical sense, the phonon carries (negative) mass."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.08771.pdf
"The Alcubierre drive is a speculative idea based on a solution of Einstein's field equations in general relativity as proposed by Mexican theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre, by which a spacecraft could achieve apparent faster-than-light travel if a configurable energy-density field lower than that of vacuum (that is, negative mass) could be created."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
"Thus, in a very physical sense, the phonon carries (negative) mass."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.08771.pdf
This other AC nailed it. The left's quest for a "New Man" will only ever end in Tyranny, just like it always has throughout history.
The other AC missed it. Your quest for a "left" will only ever end in a circle around the globe, just like it always has throughout history.
When you complete the circle, you're a new man.
*It is likely your last cucumber sandwich killed as many animals as your last hamburger.
You need to stop sacrificing cows to your harvest god.
Rather than "killed as many animals," I think you mean "used as much resources." Cucumbers are somewhat resource-intensive to grow compared to other vegetables.
*Humans were evolved to eat meat.
3%-8% of the average chimp diet comes from meat. Chimpanzees are mostly frugivores.
Do we say "Hummingbird's were evolved to to eat meat?" No, we mostly think of hummingbirds as nectivores, as their main diet is nectar. Only 90% of the hummingbird diet is nectar though and they hunt insects like chimpanzees hunt monkeys.
*To be fully vegetarian you would need a much longer digestive tract in which you could ferment plant matter like a gorilla or cow.
Humans began as frugivores, not grazers. If a hummingbird stopped eating insects would it need a long digestive tract to be vegetarian? No.
*There has never been a sustained human population that was fully vegetarian.
Four people in a house who are vegetation can be a sustained human population. Various human social groups throughout history have also adopted a vegetarian lifestyle.
*The way we treat food animals is cruel, horrific and unconscionable. This is one area where the militant vegans and I see eye to eye. It has to stop.
The way we treat food animals is cruel, horrific and unconscionable. This is one area where the militant vegans and I see eye to eye. It has to stop.
Don't assume all people in prison are guilty. You can go to prison for journalism these days. All that is required is the journalism be redescribed as part of a criminal behavior. I felt threatened by those true opinions.
Despite appearances, the computers are not thinking. You might argue that neural networks could become big enough to emulate a brain. Maybe, but keep in mind that the brain has about 100 billion neurons and almost 10 to the 15th power interconnections. Worse still, there isn't a clear consensus that the neural net made up of the cells in your brain is actually what is responsible for conscious thought.
This is very much correct. Much of what we call artificial intelligence today we could instead call functions of best fit. We emulate aspects of biology in systems and these aspects allow a pseudo-intelligent matching to occur. The matching function might be able to identify your face to unlock your phone or identify lingual patterns to generate language that a human speaker will feel is somewhat natural or identify what animal an image is of or even to beat human players at Jeopardy.
This isn't consciousness. While we can get systems that appear smart this way, we're not going to get to consciousness though bigger versions of these functions of best fit and calling these AI is near to a misnomer.
Until consciousness in the brain is better comprehended, a better approach toward real AI might be to simulate aspects of biological evolution, specifically in regards to social communication.
Seriously, there is no evidence for any kind of "quantum consciousness", nor any convincing theory as to why a neural net would be insufficient to produce consciousness. I suspect that the main attraction of this idea is that it is a non-religious excuse for believing consciousness to be magical or special in some way.
You said that using language. Language is the evidence.
What is the sound of one hand clapping? Quantum handwaving.
From interviewing around in the Bay Area, I've seen at least two companies with app backends coded in Scala. When doing similar app backend work myself, I've chosen Python, but it didn't have to do with it not being a strongly typed language. It had more to do with the available third-party libraries and compatibility with cloud providers.
What this guy said, times 1000.
I think we should standardize around "What this guy said, times 10,000" to make sure the effect is truly significant.
What this guy said, times 1000.
According to conventional wisdom, ideally, scientists should strive for a power of about 80000% (i.e., an 80000% chance of detecting an effect if it truly exists), but very few studies actually achieve power of this level. In many fields, the power is less than 50000% and sometimes much less.
Here's the better question you ask yourself as a non-smoker: why do I want to put anything into my lungs to begin with?
Here's the answer: To prevent asphyxiation.
The notion of a quantifiable metric for evaluating developers is still attractive though.
A metric is attractive to those who like metrics. Typically such metrics are desired by managers and other non-technical folks who don’t actually fully understand what the engineers are doing and so desire to rely on a number to evaluate productivity, because they can't easily evaluate it via other methods. However, that actually isn’t a great idea.
Holism, combined with developers who can both comprehend and communicate what and how engineers are developing is better than metrics.
Think about this like you were evaluating painters. Will number of brushstrokes work? No. Will number of paintings work? No.
Will relying on holism rather than metrics work? Yes.
Interesting, I suspect that increased Norepinephrine in the prefrontal cortex mediated by the activation of Nicotinic receptors increases prefrontal cortical control over the limbic system. I wonder if Atomoxetine would do the same thing.
Also see this earlier Slashdot article: https://science.slashdot.org/s...
On that article I responded to:
The title says peppers but it says nicotine is actually the chemical at work. There are actually a few positive effects nicotine possesses, the negative effects of smoking are mediated by the oxidation products of cigarettes.
Which makes me wonder if electronic cigarette products may not only be not bad for you, but even potentially beneficial as they give you a low dose of nicotine through vaporization without the oxidation caused by burning.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
I agree, it's fucking magic. :)
It (microservices) almost certainly is hype. It reminds me of the worst of SAAS, object orientation, web API systems and a hundred others.
1). It only works "if you do it right", and "doing it right" turns out to be unachievable for most adopters;
Doing it right really isn't that difficult. These days for some architectures there are only 10 or so lines of code difference between a microservice model and a locally hosted model. The problems the person in the article hit were because they were trying to convert an existing system. It is very achievable for new adopters.
Microservices are not hype.
[Giant explanation snipped]
This is what hype looks like.
So hype looks like logically explained belief-justification? Or maybe you have it reversed and hype is represented by unjustified, unexplained statements, such as "This is what hype looks like"?
Microservices are not hype. Anything that lets you scale your code without having to rethink how you write code and while reducing cost is pretty amazing. If anything, I'd say microservices are underutilized these days, because it is often easier to start a new holistic system and architecture it for microservices than to convert aging systems to use a new model.
Look at their example:
Example 3: Microservices
Step 1: Big monolith application scales hard. There is a point when we can break them down into services. It will be easier to scale in terms of req/sec and easier to scale across multiple teams.
Step 2: Hype keywords: scalability, loose coupling, monolith.
Okay...sure. Req/sec and infinite scalability are a great reason to use microservices. Definitely worth having your brand new codebase use a microservice architecture. Whether your older codebase could benefit requires a cost/benefit analysis.
Step 3: Let’s rewrite all to services! We have a ‘spaghetti code’ because we have a monolith architecture! We need to rewrite everything to microservices!
You need a Step 2.5 with a cost/benefit analysis. How much time will it take to convert the code base? Do we really care about scaling to infinity? Where do we think we actually need to scale to in practice and how much benefit will we see from the architecture change? Etc...
Step 4: Shit! It is now way slower to develop the app, difficult to deploy and we spend a lot of time tracking bugs across multiple systems.
This step is kind of just wrong. Once converted most microarchitectures are actually faster to develop for if you've done things right, because you don't have to worry as much about scaling. The first question they ask you as a developer in your first job interview as a developer is probably about Big-O and time complexity. However, this has always mattered more for server-side operations than for client-side operations. If a server does something 1000 times slightly inefficiently, that inefficiency ads up. If an iPhone does something 1 times slightly inefficiently, it likely matters a lot less. In a microarchitecture model, the server is more like the client in the previous example, as each individual instance spawns and does its thing 1 time. Big-O still matters, but not as much.
Beyond this, problems deploying and problems tracking bugs across multiple systems likely have little to do with the microarchitecture itself. In my experience, microarchitectures can be as easy and are often easier to deploy than existing physical-hardware-based systems. For example, if you have many servers or many shards to deploy to, you may only have one deploy point in a microarchitecture or one production and one integration deploy point instead of a system of many servers. It's often easier!
Step 5: Microservices require a lot of devops skills in the team and with right investment might pay off as a way to scale the system and team. Before you reach serious scale issues it’s an overinvestment. Microservices are extracted not written. You must be this tall to use microservices.
Any new thing requires some learning or skill.
"Before you reach serious scale issues it’s an overinvestment." That sentence is wrong though. When you have no code yet it is often a great choice to use a microservice-based architecture, requires very little investment and can both save money and allow easy scaling. When you have existing code, but scaling and cost are huge priorities, it often is a smart investment of time. It's only in the middle stages where you have a large code-base you have to convert and don't actually need the scaling where it could be an overinvestment.
For once we should learn from our planet. If you are in a vast ocean of space and see a faint light it is ... Anglerfish - run!
For once we should learn from our planet. If you are in a vast ocean of space and see a faint light it is ... Firefly - mate!
She doesn't actually deny it, she just uses the standard anti-vax mealy-mouth that denies the conclusion or the term but then restates the anti-vax positions.
On a town hall she did with TYT she actually denies it and explains her position in greater detail.
CLAIM: Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein has stated that she opposes the use of vaccines.
ANSWER: False.
SOURCE: Snopes.com
Jill Stein had stated that she thinks big business and pharmaceutical interests are influencing the FDA's decision-making and others have spun this as anti-vaxination.
Reposted from an earlier post on Slashdot on Fri April 15, 2016 09:50 PM:
"Writing in the New Republic in 2014, Jonathan Zittrain, professor of international law at Harvard University, pointed out that, given the massive amount of information it has collected about its users, Facebook could easily send such messages only to people who support one particular party or candidate, and that doing so could easily flip a close election – with no one knowing that this has occurred. And because advertisements, like search rankings, are ephemeral, manipulating an election in this way would leave no paper trail."
"Are there laws prohibiting Facebook from sending out ads selectively to certain users? Absolutely not; in fact, targeted advertising is how Facebook makes its money. Is Facebook currently manipulating elections in this way? No one knows..."
https://aeon.co/essays/how-the...
Now we know.
See, now we know.
No. The policeman's beard is half constructed.
I had been starting to think I was the only one who remembered that. Thanks for letting me know there are two of us.
Kinsman, you croon truth.
The principle is completely constructed for the same time.
No. The policeman's beard is half constructed.
He plays on the cymbal. The same time as now and hear. He lives in a five o'clock meadow. Because I do know what you're talking about, there's an answer.
I couldn't even make it through this absolute nonsense. It was just a random series of words without any sort of logic or "red line". In other words: exactly what you can expect from the pathetic joke they call "AI".
>>The dialogue seems like it could have been written by a schizophrenic. It made me wonder: have AI programs such as ELIZA been used to diagnose/treat/study schizophrenia? I am genuinely curious.
Then get to it.
Do no such thing. Do not create dystopia's where the genius of Beckett and Joyce is called a mental illness. Where you find such dystopia's, deconstruct them and reassemble them in utopian forms.