Unclear which, but there are no pics of the radar itself. There are pics of boxes with the two LED packages. There is the picture of a box for a supposedly 10 GHz radar but with no obvious antenna or power supply. The packages shown could house one or more half wavelength antennae... but since there are no dimensions, it's a guess. The packages shown could not house a power supply that would give the kind of ranges they are talking about, or if they can, perhaps there should be some technical specs to illustrate the radar's capabilities, not least of which might be beamwidth and power out.
24 GHz with a range of 100 yds, resolving multiple targets in something easily mounted on a bike... really?! If you follow radar literature at all, you'll know that that is not trivial.
If you believe in this product, based on the info provided (and $26,000 worth of people apparently do), then you also bought sea monkeys and a time machine. How did those work out for you? There's one born every minute.
You don't mention any problem with paper and yet you wish to spend what will be a considerable sum up front (and in follow-on support) to become 'paperless'.
Is the reflective of your healthcare 'vision'? Is healthcare to you simply the provision of services without regard to effectiveness, efficiency, or cost? Maybe you should get in to fashion design instead?
So an individual in a publicly traded company, was the subject of a public article, and now Google now has to overlook it for "certain searches", while other searches will find the article about the article not being available in "certain searches".
Did the people who ruled on the 'right to be forgotten' even use the internet and Google?
Did Mr O'Neal do this as a publicity stunt to enhance his 'bad boy' image, a kind of reverse psychology thing?
It just sounds like nuclear waste programs, capture and store.... sure, but sooner or later you still have to come to grips with the amount of waste whether in raw form or captured form. It just seems like doing something simply for a short term gain, to be seen as doing something. Yet the real problem seems to be the inefficiencies of the processes producing the CO2 in the first place.
It's like flooding in a ship, you don't try to stop the flooding, you seek to slow the flooding to a manageable rate. The CO2 will be produced, the best you can hope is to slow the rate at which you're producing it.
In my city, there is a ~3 second difference between end of walk countdown and light going red, and light going green. Put another way, there is a time period for every light change where _all_ the lights at the crossing are red. Result: the yahoos trying to beat the red light are usually cleared through before a green light lets anyone else in to the intersection. (People run reds, but nobody appears to 'jump' green lights.)
1) Your problem statement is absent. The only thing you have is a worry that the current language is 'ossifying'. That means 'not changing' as opposed to 'not working'. Conclusion: no problem.
2) You don't want 'buzzy' implying that you want something stable, long-lasting.... 'ossified'? Conclusion: You've got that already.
Therefore: you've got what you need. Quit whining and work with it.
Note: you clearly don't have what you think you want... but if you're asking the question here in \., you really don't know what you want. Therefore: you've got what you need. Quit whining and work with it.
A Promise: when your current software stops meeting your needs, you will able to identify the problems, and then what you need will become apparent.
Really? That's it? You could save that many without the mass surveillance, just by increasing hospital staff and ERT numbers. Make it millions and you'll have my attention. Tens of millions and you'll have my whole hearted support and participation.
Germany like Ontario (to a much lesser extent) invested in wind farms and solar. In Ontario, all wind farms have to be installed with back-up generators, gas-turbines for the most part. Why? On hot, windless days of summer, when demand peaks for air conditioning, the back-ups kick-in for the useless wind turbines. In winter, when the skies are mostly grey, the solar is mostly useless to meet the demand peak caused by electric heating. When the wind does blow in winter, the speeds are usually above the wind turbine limits. Renewables in Ontario, mostly a feel-good but large waste of money. Maybe it's the same in Germany. Either way, ways to store hydro power would help stabilise things and bring costs down... and maybe make renewables viable.
A province that, because it has little storage capability, has a rigid hydro system geared to meet peak demand and 'dump' power during low demand periods. It's a province that has paid others to take its surplus power.
A solution to both Germany's and Ontario's problem is creating storage capability, and that needs innovative research world-wide. Sadly, the focus is mostly on new ways to _produce_ power. Go figure.
what it means is we need better ways to spread resources. If Germany could export that power to places that have a lack of power generation capabiity, that would be ideal, no? Same applies for crop surpluses, etc.
We need a better global infrastructure not more taxes that, like all taxes, will not benefit who they are supposed to.
It is a simple observational practice with no first principles and a singular assumption: animals are mindless automatons. With that one assumption, biologists are consistently surprised by what they observe. Given enough time/resources/interest, they may observe enough to get true understanding. Unfortunately, they will never ever have enough time/resources/interest.
Biology isn't pointless, but don't call it a science.
Just an aside about the statement ending ".... that, until recently, astronomers could not explain."
There's a lot of stuff like that in science. There are even things that we don't know that we don't know about.
That should give a person pause for thought the next time they hear some scientist or engineer speaking definitively about some proposed solution to disease, the economy, and especially climate change.
The more grandiose and definitive the idea, the more likely it is vulnerable to what isn't yet known or explained.
There was an article here in/. just a week or two ago saying that the Antarctic Sheet is perplexing to climatologists because it is _increasing_, not decreasing. So a glacier sloughs off, why would it alone contribute to sea level rises, while the rest of the sheet is growing? Show me your models, tell me its assumptions and approximations, demonstrate its predictions when there are deviations from those assumptions and approximations, and you will likely be apologising or rationalising the results so that they agree or can be seen to align is some way with whatever desired results you had in mind when you built it.
You know what? It isn't even worth looking up. Clearly there is FUD on this issue from all sides. Who cares? We humans will do what we do best: adapt.
Not sure that the use case is very compelling. Usually things made strong, say fiber reinforced plastic, are meant to be durable. Furthermore, if the cellulose fibers don't degrade uniformly, you would end up with very unpredictable failure modes.
Every 3000 km you need to change the battery AND every month you need to refill the battery with tap water. Well here is some news:
a) one new battery a year... and hope delivery infrastructure is in place and not everyone is rushing at the last minute to get it done like say, what happens with snow tires; and
b) tap water isn't free. It makes a noticeable dent in the family utility bill in my area of the country; and finally
c) tap water in -20 C is a challenge. Even my garage is too cold in winter, the water is cut to all external faucets when the temps start dipping to -5 C.
Actually a lot of those 'idiots' are simply looking at the models, the stats, the actual _knowledge_ science has about the Earth and it's climate processes, and the _long_ view of history. If you do that, there is a lot of reason to doubt and question.
The real idiots are those who would buy wholesale what the media promotes or who trust to their own observation (which the long history of 'eyewitness' testimony in the courts will tell you is likely very very flawed).
Best Regards, An Idiot (who took the time to read the papers, look at the models, and study the stats)
Conclusion: it's all _theory_ on both sides of the climate debate. There are enough examples and counter-examples on both sides that leads to the conclusion that no one knows for sure, and both sides have a vested monetary interest in being seen as 'right'.
Action Required: stay the course, keep doing what we're doing, and adapt when we _have_ to.
It will be much easier for the Chinese government to monitor households with the 'blackboxes' that are game consoles. Expect audio video, and motion detect to be always 'on' and remotely accessible through government mandated backdoors. Expect government sanctioned games to monitor behaviour and in the cleverer versions, to modify behaviour and opinions in subtle ways eg. evil game characters bearing a resemblance to persons condemned by the state, such as foreign leaders, human rights activists, etc.
But buy more shares in MS and Sony if you want to make some money.
Really... a "scientist" to whom it never occured that the ocean's currents (and winds) might carry the stuff to the Antarctic? The presence of the plastic was the least surprising part of the article. BTW, it's also in the air and likely at high altitude, if anyone cares to look. Don't know that for sure but it would simply make sense. Also, look for it at the very bottom of the ocean; no it didn't sink, it was carried there by currents.
The TFA isn't talking about next year or even next decade. This year alone we've heard global warming is accelerating and decelerating. I suppose it depends on the time frame. The climate continually surprises us because we _do not_ understand it completely, yet we are asked to consider letting someone actually try to _alter_ the climate with no thought given to the repercussions. All the while we are told that this warming is the cause of the apparently 'extreme' weather events we are apparently observing because it is a 'complex system'. And yet, complexity apparently tells us that the flapping of butterfly wings in China can cause a thunderstorm in New York.
ALL THIS TELLS ME: all climate predictions are pretty much low quality guesses and assume _nothing_ about possible unforeseen events that could completely change the outcome. The climate will do what it will do, and the best we can do is adapt, and that's what we do best.
The argument for compression describes essentially Kolmogorov Complexity. The idea is that the K.C. of something (and everything can be reduced to a binary string) is the length of the shortest program (if you look at it algorithmically) that can describe that object (reproduce that binary string) and stops. In TFA, the example is reducing the description of an infinite sequence of numbers to a finite program that calculates the odd primes and adds one to each. The number pi is infinite in length and random, but not complex since there are small programs that caculate it; an infinte truly random string of numbers would have infinite K.C. because the shortest program would be "print -infinite string". The K.C. of an object is not computable (it's related to the Halting Problem), essentially you never know if you have the shortest program to describe an object.
So here are some observations
a) the whole premise rests on the assumption that the brain is a Turing complete computer ie. the brain is a computer too. So if the brain is a computer, why couldn't other Turing complete computers mimic it? In fact, K.C. theory uses the idea that there is a Universal Turing Machine that can mimic all other Turing machines. If the brain is not a Turing machine then you can't really make any comments about it's compression abilities, etc. because algorithmic theory is grounded on the Turing assumption; b) the TFA implies that compression is lossy. Well, not all compression is lossy and the example provided (prime plus 1) is not lossy at all, it's perfect. So what is the point of that example except to suggest that memory must be perfect compression?... it just seems like a pointless example; BUT c) the assumption that memory is/must be perfect compression seems extremely flawed. Memory is not perfect and most memory seems to degrade over time (see witness reports, personal experience, etc.)
So... the whole paper seems riddled with discontinuities or inaccuracies. Really it seems like it would have been better to say:
"The brain compresses information in a lossy fashion. We don't know how. Assuming a Turing process is occuring, then the brain is looking for the best compression it can but it can never know if it has the best or not. A computer will be in the same boat." BUT
THE FEAR
Basically the article is making (a flawed?) claim "Machines can never be conscious." The argument plays very well to a religious and research oriented crowd. First: machines can never be made in the image of man. We are not gods. Second: There is no requirement to consider ethics in AI. No matter what the AI seems, it is not, _can't be_, conscious. Therefore, should you create a robot that walks, talks, acts, and feels like a human... well, it isn't conscious, so do with it as you will.
Slashdot Mirror
Unclear which, but there are no pics of the radar itself. ... but since there are no dimensions, it's a guess.
There are pics of boxes with the two LED packages. There is the picture of a box for a supposedly 10 GHz radar but with no obvious antenna or power supply.
The packages shown could house one or more half wavelength antennae
The packages shown could not house a power supply that would give the kind of ranges they are talking about, or if they can, perhaps there should be some technical specs to illustrate the radar's capabilities, not least of which might be beamwidth and power out.
24 GHz with a range of 100 yds, resolving multiple targets in something easily mounted on a bike ... really?! If you follow radar literature at all, you'll know that that is not trivial.
If you believe in this product, based on the info provided (and $26,000 worth of people apparently do), then you also bought sea monkeys and a time machine. How did those work out for you? There's one born every minute.
Why is the answer always assumed to be binary? Both processes could have been occuring simultaneously.
You don't mention any problem with paper and yet you wish to spend what will be a considerable sum up front (and in follow-on support) to become 'paperless'.
Is the reflective of your healthcare 'vision'? Is healthcare to you simply the provision of services without regard to effectiveness, efficiency, or cost? Maybe you should get in to fashion design instead?
So an individual in a publicly traded company, was the subject of a public article, and now Google now has to overlook it for "certain searches", while other searches will find the article about the article not being available in "certain searches".
Did the people who ruled on the 'right to be forgotten' even use the internet and Google?
Did Mr O'Neal do this as a publicity stunt to enhance his 'bad boy' image, a kind of reverse psychology thing?
It just sounds like nuclear waste programs, capture and store .... sure, but sooner or later you still have to come to grips with the amount of waste whether in raw form or captured form. It just seems like doing something simply for a short term gain, to be seen as doing something. Yet the real problem seems to be the inefficiencies of the processes producing the CO2 in the first place.
It's like flooding in a ship, you don't try to stop the flooding, you seek to slow the flooding to a manageable rate. The CO2 will be produced, the best you can hope is to slow the rate at which you're producing it.
In my city, there is a ~3 second difference between end of walk countdown and light going red, and light going green.
Put another way, there is a time period for every light change where _all_ the lights at the crossing are red.
Result: the yahoos trying to beat the red light are usually cleared through before a green light lets anyone else in to the intersection. (People run reds, but nobody appears to 'jump' green lights.)
1) Your problem statement is absent. The only thing you have is a worry that the current language is 'ossifying'. That means 'not changing' as opposed to 'not working'. Conclusion: no problem.
2) You don't want 'buzzy' implying that you want something stable, long-lasting .... 'ossified'? Conclusion: You've got that already.
Therefore: you've got what you need. Quit whining and work with it.
Note: you clearly don't have what you think you want ... but if you're asking the question here in \., you really don't know what you want. Therefore: you've got what you need. Quit whining and work with it.
A Promise: when your current software stops meeting your needs, you will able to identify the problems, and then what you need will become apparent.
Really? That's it?
You could save that many without the mass surveillance, just by increasing hospital staff and ERT numbers.
Make it millions and you'll have my attention.
Tens of millions and you'll have my whole hearted support and participation.
Germany like Ontario (to a much lesser extent) invested in wind farms and solar. ... and maybe make renewables viable.
In Ontario, all wind farms have to be installed with back-up generators, gas-turbines for the most part.
Why?
On hot, windless days of summer, when demand peaks for air conditioning, the back-ups kick-in for the useless wind turbines.
In winter, when the skies are mostly grey, the solar is mostly useless to meet the demand peak caused by electric heating. When the wind does blow in winter, the speeds are usually above the wind turbine limits.
Renewables in Ontario, mostly a feel-good but large waste of money. Maybe it's the same in Germany. Either way, ways to store hydro power would help stabilise things and bring costs down
A province that, because it has little storage capability, has a rigid hydro system geared to meet peak demand and 'dump' power during low demand periods. It's a province that has paid others to take its surplus power.
A solution to both Germany's and Ontario's problem is creating storage capability, and that needs innovative research world-wide. Sadly, the focus is mostly on new ways to _produce_ power. Go figure.
what it means is we need better ways to spread resources. If Germany could export that power to places that have a lack of power generation capabiity, that would be ideal, no? Same applies for crop surpluses, etc.
We need a better global infrastructure not more taxes that, like all taxes, will not benefit who they are supposed to.
It is a simple observational practice with no first principles and a singular assumption: animals are mindless automatons.
With that one assumption, biologists are consistently surprised by what they observe.
Given enough time/resources/interest, they may observe enough to get true understanding.
Unfortunately, they will never ever have enough time/resources/interest.
Biology isn't pointless, but don't call it a science.
Tinfoil with radar? You'll light up like a firework on every radar screen within miles ... including the airport.
... tl:dr - google Thomas Gold Deep Hot Biosphere.
Kind of nice to know momma earth is a good place to be.
Just an aside about the statement ending " .... that, until recently, astronomers could not explain."
There's a lot of stuff like that in science. There are even things that we don't know that we don't know about.
That should give a person pause for thought the next time they hear some scientist or engineer speaking definitively about some proposed solution to disease, the economy, and especially climate change.
The more grandiose and definitive the idea, the more likely it is vulnerable to what isn't yet known or explained.
There was an article here in /. just a week or two ago saying that the Antarctic Sheet is perplexing to climatologists because it is _increasing_, not decreasing. So a glacier sloughs off, why would it alone contribute to sea level rises, while the rest of the sheet is growing? Show me your models, tell me its assumptions and approximations, demonstrate its predictions when there are deviations from those assumptions and approximations, and you will likely be apologising or rationalising the results so that they agree or can be seen to align is some way with whatever desired results you had in mind when you built it.
You know what? It isn't even worth looking up. Clearly there is FUD on this issue from all sides. Who cares? We humans will do what we do best: adapt.
Not sure that the use case is very compelling. Usually things made strong, say fiber reinforced plastic, are meant to be durable. Furthermore, if the cellulose fibers don't degrade uniformly, you would end up with very unpredictable failure modes.
Every 3000 km you need to change the battery AND every month you need to refill the battery with tap water. Well here is some news:
a) one new battery a year ... and hope delivery infrastructure is in place and not everyone is rushing at the last minute to get it done like say, what happens with snow tires; and
b) tap water isn't free. It makes a noticeable dent in the family utility bill in my area of the country; and finally
c) tap water in -20 C is a challenge. Even my garage is too cold in winter, the water is cut to all external faucets when the temps start dipping to -5 C.
So nice idea but not for the average family.
Actually a lot of those 'idiots' are simply looking at the models, the stats, the actual _knowledge_ science has about the Earth and it's climate processes, and the _long_ view of history. If you do that, there is a lot of reason to doubt and question.
The real idiots are those who would buy wholesale what the media promotes or who trust to their own observation (which the long history of 'eyewitness' testimony in the courts will tell you is likely very very flawed).
Best Regards,
An Idiot (who took the time to read the papers, look at the models, and study the stats)
Within the past 3 months we've heard both.
Conclusion: it's all _theory_ on both sides of the climate debate. There are enough examples and counter-examples on both sides that leads to the conclusion that no one knows for sure, and both sides have a vested monetary interest in being seen as 'right'.
Action Required: stay the course, keep doing what we're doing, and adapt when we _have_ to.
It will be much easier for the Chinese government to monitor households with the 'blackboxes' that are game consoles. Expect audio video, and motion detect to be always 'on' and remotely accessible through government mandated backdoors. Expect government sanctioned games to monitor behaviour and in the cleverer versions, to modify behaviour and opinions in subtle ways eg. evil game characters bearing a resemblance to persons condemned by the state, such as foreign leaders, human rights activists, etc.
But buy more shares in MS and Sony if you want to make some money.
Really ... a "scientist" to whom it never occured that the ocean's currents (and winds) might carry the stuff to the Antarctic? The presence of the plastic was the least surprising part of the article. BTW, it's also in the air and likely at high altitude, if anyone cares to look. Don't know that for sure but it would simply make sense. Also, look for it at the very bottom of the ocean; no it didn't sink, it was carried there by currents.
The TFA isn't talking about next year or even next decade.
This year alone we've heard global warming is accelerating and decelerating. I suppose it depends on the time frame.
The climate continually surprises us because we _do not_ understand it completely, yet we are asked to consider letting someone actually try to _alter_ the climate with no thought given to the repercussions.
All the while we are told that this warming is the cause of the apparently 'extreme' weather events we are apparently observing because it is a 'complex system'.
And yet, complexity apparently tells us that the flapping of butterfly wings in China can cause a thunderstorm in New York.
ALL THIS TELLS ME: all climate predictions are pretty much low quality guesses and assume _nothing_ about possible unforeseen events that could completely change the outcome. The climate will do what it will do, and the best we can do is adapt, and that's what we do best.
There is no cure.
The argument for compression describes essentially Kolmogorov Complexity. The idea is that the K.C. of something (and everything can be reduced to a binary string) is the length of the shortest program (if you look at it algorithmically) that can describe that object (reproduce that binary string) and stops. In TFA, the example is reducing the description of an infinite sequence of numbers to a finite program that calculates the odd primes and adds one to each. The number pi is infinite in length and random, but not complex since there are small programs that caculate it; an infinte truly random string of numbers would have infinite K.C. because the shortest program would be "print -infinite string". The K.C. of an object is not computable (it's related to the Halting Problem), essentially you never know if you have the shortest program to describe an object.
So here are some observations
a) the whole premise rests on the assumption that the brain is a Turing complete computer ie. the brain is a computer too. So if the brain is a computer, why couldn't other Turing complete computers mimic it? In fact, K.C. theory uses the idea that there is a Universal Turing Machine that can mimic all other Turing machines. If the brain is not a Turing machine then you can't really make any comments about it's compression abilities, etc. because algorithmic theory is grounded on the Turing assumption; ... it just seems like a pointless example; BUT
b) the TFA implies that compression is lossy. Well, not all compression is lossy and the example provided (prime plus 1) is not lossy at all, it's perfect. So what is the point of that example except to suggest that memory must be perfect compression?
c) the assumption that memory is/must be perfect compression seems extremely flawed. Memory is not perfect and most memory seems to degrade over time (see witness reports, personal experience, etc.)
So ... the whole paper seems riddled with discontinuities or inaccuracies. Really it seems like it would have been better to say:
"The brain compresses information in a lossy fashion. We don't know how. Assuming a Turing process is occuring, then the brain is looking for the best compression it can but it can never know if it has the best or not. A computer will be in the same boat." BUT
THE FEAR
Basically the article is making (a flawed?) claim "Machines can never be conscious." The argument plays very well to a religious and research oriented crowd. First: machines can never be made in the image of man. We are not gods. Second: There is no requirement to consider ethics in AI . No matter what the AI seems, it is not, _can't be_, conscious. Therefore, should you create a robot that walks, talks, acts, and feels like a human ... well, it isn't conscious, so do with it as you will.