Well China is currently working on it's own space station so I doubt earth will remain without any space stations. Plus US will have a hard time swallowing the fact that they will be without a space station to use while China has one. ISS is indeed aging and in my humble opinion has depleted most of it's usefulness. Not that we are out of stuff to do in LEO, far from that, just that this particular space station has mostly served it's purpose and its past time to start planning the next one.
Or more experienced doctors get more difficult cases. Or older people who are more likely to die off end up with older doctors. Thou shalt not mistake correlation with causality.
I think the basis was that there is no difference between moving through flat space following a curve and moving in a straight line through curved space. So no, in principle you can't tell the difference, for every acceleration felt and equivalent space distortion can be constructed. In practice planet does not produce equivalently shaped space distortion to acceleration of a centrifuge. One is spheroid other is cylindrical for starters. One causes forces towards a common center other causes forces away from common center. Moving up and down by a small amount produces barely measurable difference on a planet, but a very notable one in a centrifuge.
Completely irrelevant if you have been stupid enough to get business critical data locked up. If its a choice between bankruptcy and ponying up some money, what are you going to do? Well maybe if you are dumb enough to end up in a situation like that in the first place you are also dumb enough to sink your company by refusing a small payment due to your moral outrage.
Its one thing to loose your collection of cat pictures, its something else to loose data worth millions (yes it does happen, more often than you think).
I think his argument is he can dig tunnels cheaper than anyone. Can he, and by how much? I don't know. I think he is mostly just fishing around for next low hanging fruit. Not a bad strategy, when you have more money than you know what to do with.
Umm... possible? Not really, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are not powerful enough for manned moon missions, not without many orbital rendezvous and other trickery. Don't be fooled by the moon tourism flyby mission, its a free return flight, Dragon capsule will not enter lunar orbit let alone attempt landing, it doesn't have enough delta v for it.
ITS is in very early development stage and probably still couldn't do moon missions, despite having awesome lift mass the second stage relies on atmospheric breaking and onsite refueling, both impossible on the moon.
Smells of BS. I Highly doubt it would be practical. Then again they are known for burning money just because and nearly anything can be done provided enough money.
IQ measurement are generally poorly understood and its not easy to come by an accurate test. Greatest fallacy comes from the observation that most (there are rare exceptions) geniuses in fact perform very well on IQ tests, from that people conclude that anyone who performs exceptionally on an IQ test is an genius. That's obvious nonsense aptly demonstrated by organizations like Mensa. IQ tests are not completely without their uses, but most common use is to stroke peoples ego while you milk some money out of them.
Replicating human brain neuron by neuron is probably not how general AI will be built. Neural networks in fact are pretty terrible when it comes to computational efficiency. How many neurons does human brain use to remember what an "apple" is, or to execute a simple addition operation? A lot more that reasonable probably and it still makes mistakes every now and then, plus it operates at snail speed. Neural networks can however be trained to solve an arbitrary problem if we can't think of any reasonable algorithm to solve it, eg beating world go master in his own game. AI-s we need to be worried about are the type that can take parts of their own intelligence that are implemented in inefficient neural networks and replace them with magnitudes more efficient traditional algorithms. An AI capable of self development is a scary idea, us humans can't do it, we can't take our own inefficient wetware that fail at easy tasks like basic arithmetic and replace it with billion times more capable silicon. Beware an AI that can do software development, luckily we don't have any so far, but who is to say how far from tipping point the research is?
Where does the assumption come that driverless cars are not up to snuff, that they are incapable of going without a backup driver? They are not going without a driver because of legal reasons, not technical ones.
There are already court precedents for it, Tesla was pardoned on the count of their Autopilot already having caused demonstrable reduction of accidents.
It very much is possible to make them go totally without a driver. Not from a legal standpoint, but from technical standpoint no problemo, the car will drive on its own if told to do so. Safety of such a thing is questionable obviously, but how are we ever going to answer that question without experimentation? Is "it worked fine on test track" good enough answer to you? Its not sufficient imho, only real life statistics can give a satisfactory answer.
Traffic accidents are sort of an acceptable loss in today's society already, they are a fact of life we must accept anyway, so i think its not that big of a leap to accept a risk of testing driverless cars in the name of lowering traffic causalities in the future. Mind you the driverless cars being tested are probably already safer than human drivers or so the developers claim at least.
You don't get much of a control, you just get to brick 70% of the computation power, lots of unhappy customers to that company, but overall no significant impact to the bitcoin system itself. Block generation will happen at 30% speed until difficulty adjustment kicks in, that's about all that happens.
Oh the measurement is exactly as precise as scientists think it is, little doubt about that. However, sometimes what we think we measure is not quite the same as what we actually measure. Perhaps the mastodon ate something particularly rich in thorium, perhaps the animal froze in a glacier and was cut up hundred thousand years later as someone already suggested or what looked like work of humans wasn't really, plenty of ways to throw off the measurement. Normally you would just accept the measurement as valid, but this one is just way out of line with what is expected that more evidence is certainly needed to take it seriously.
Judging from the amount of money thrown at the problem and results shown so far the driverless cars will be on the roads quite soon, pending local legislation etc, but this decade or early next decade looks very realistic. Will anyone scrap the existing fleets overnight? Obviously not, it will take more than a few years to switch over, nobody could even manufacture that many driverless cars/trucks in a short time, but it will still be a very big change happening relatively fast if the cost benefit plays out as expected.
That sounds very useful, finding mechanism where a finely tuned molecule happens to demolish a whole class of viruses could be a discovery on the level with antibiotics.
The movie was pretty damn terrible and unlike the real movies utterly forgettable. They copy pasted the least meaningful parts from the original trilogy and didn't create anything of value.
Not quite, exerting force does not require actually spending energy. My bottom exerts force to the couch with zero energy expenditure. There is stored potential energy, true, but you don't spend it if there is no work actually being done. Were I to fall off the couch I would spend a tiny fraction of that potential energy and have to do some work to get it back. Gravity and electromagnetism are quite different forces, but in this instance they can be viewed in a similar model I think.
Do you cross the road solely because you have the green light, never mind the speeding truck that is obviously not slowing down? No self driving car worth its salt would. Traffic signs are good and everything but you cannot rely on them 100%. A necessary sign could be missing, not visible, in the wrong place or other drivers might plain not respect traffic rules. Traffic signs are a guideline, not hitting anything and not getting hit by anything is the true golden rule and I*m certain every self driving car on the roads has been engineered with that in mind.
Knowing what soviet union was like I would say its probable that there were prior failures that were not talked about. Firstly, first attempts were definitely more likely to fail than succeed, secondly, there is no way soviet union would have admitted it if such a thing did happen. However, if prior failures did happen, nobody who knew about it has talked so far and probably never will, so its unlikely we will ever know for sure. Example of how things worked in soviet union - Nedelin catastrophe, they didn't own up for 29 years even tho the information about it was widely known outside cccp, had secrecy orders been successful or body count lesser its unlikely they ever would have owned up.
Slashdot Mirror
Well China is currently working on it's own space station so I doubt earth will remain without any space stations. Plus US will have a hard time swallowing the fact that they will be without a space station to use while China has one. ISS is indeed aging and in my humble opinion has depleted most of it's usefulness. Not that we are out of stuff to do in LEO, far from that, just that this particular space station has mostly served it's purpose and its past time to start planning the next one.
Or more experienced doctors get more difficult cases. Or older people who are more likely to die off end up with older doctors. Thou shalt not mistake correlation with causality.
I think the basis was that there is no difference between moving through flat space following a curve and moving in a straight line through curved space. So no, in principle you can't tell the difference, for every acceleration felt and equivalent space distortion can be constructed. In practice planet does not produce equivalently shaped space distortion to acceleration of a centrifuge. One is spheroid other is cylindrical for starters. One causes forces towards a common center other causes forces away from common center. Moving up and down by a small amount produces barely measurable difference on a planet, but a very notable one in a centrifuge.
Completely irrelevant if you have been stupid enough to get business critical data locked up. If its a choice between bankruptcy and ponying up some money, what are you going to do? Well maybe if you are dumb enough to end up in a situation like that in the first place you are also dumb enough to sink your company by refusing a small payment due to your moral outrage. Its one thing to loose your collection of cat pictures, its something else to loose data worth millions (yes it does happen, more often than you think).
I think his argument is he can dig tunnels cheaper than anyone. Can he, and by how much? I don't know. I think he is mostly just fishing around for next low hanging fruit. Not a bad strategy, when you have more money than you know what to do with.
Umm... possible? Not really, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are not powerful enough for manned moon missions, not without many orbital rendezvous and other trickery. Don't be fooled by the moon tourism flyby mission, its a free return flight, Dragon capsule will not enter lunar orbit let alone attempt landing, it doesn't have enough delta v for it. ITS is in very early development stage and probably still couldn't do moon missions, despite having awesome lift mass the second stage relies on atmospheric breaking and onsite refueling, both impossible on the moon.
Smells of BS. I Highly doubt it would be practical. Then again they are known for burning money just because and nearly anything can be done provided enough money.
IQ measurement are generally poorly understood and its not easy to come by an accurate test. Greatest fallacy comes from the observation that most (there are rare exceptions) geniuses in fact perform very well on IQ tests, from that people conclude that anyone who performs exceptionally on an IQ test is an genius. That's obvious nonsense aptly demonstrated by organizations like Mensa. IQ tests are not completely without their uses, but most common use is to stroke peoples ego while you milk some money out of them.
Replicating human brain neuron by neuron is probably not how general AI will be built. Neural networks in fact are pretty terrible when it comes to computational efficiency. How many neurons does human brain use to remember what an "apple" is, or to execute a simple addition operation? A lot more that reasonable probably and it still makes mistakes every now and then, plus it operates at snail speed. Neural networks can however be trained to solve an arbitrary problem if we can't think of any reasonable algorithm to solve it, eg beating world go master in his own game. AI-s we need to be worried about are the type that can take parts of their own intelligence that are implemented in inefficient neural networks and replace them with magnitudes more efficient traditional algorithms. An AI capable of self development is a scary idea, us humans can't do it, we can't take our own inefficient wetware that fail at easy tasks like basic arithmetic and replace it with billion times more capable silicon. Beware an AI that can do software development, luckily we don't have any so far, but who is to say how far from tipping point the research is?
Where does the assumption come that driverless cars are not up to snuff, that they are incapable of going without a backup driver? They are not going without a driver because of legal reasons, not technical ones.
There are already court precedents for it, Tesla was pardoned on the count of their Autopilot already having caused demonstrable reduction of accidents.
It very much is possible to make them go totally without a driver. Not from a legal standpoint, but from technical standpoint no problemo, the car will drive on its own if told to do so. Safety of such a thing is questionable obviously, but how are we ever going to answer that question without experimentation? Is "it worked fine on test track" good enough answer to you? Its not sufficient imho, only real life statistics can give a satisfactory answer. Traffic accidents are sort of an acceptable loss in today's society already, they are a fact of life we must accept anyway, so i think its not that big of a leap to accept a risk of testing driverless cars in the name of lowering traffic causalities in the future. Mind you the driverless cars being tested are probably already safer than human drivers or so the developers claim at least.
You don't get much of a control, you just get to brick 70% of the computation power, lots of unhappy customers to that company, but overall no significant impact to the bitcoin system itself. Block generation will happen at 30% speed until difficulty adjustment kicks in, that's about all that happens.
NASA specifically is not playing with China, its an official policy, that was caused by China nicking quite a bit of defense related know-how.
Oh the measurement is exactly as precise as scientists think it is, little doubt about that. However, sometimes what we think we measure is not quite the same as what we actually measure. Perhaps the mastodon ate something particularly rich in thorium, perhaps the animal froze in a glacier and was cut up hundred thousand years later as someone already suggested or what looked like work of humans wasn't really, plenty of ways to throw off the measurement. Normally you would just accept the measurement as valid, but this one is just way out of line with what is expected that more evidence is certainly needed to take it seriously.
Most of the time 21th century feels just like 20th, just with more internet, but every now and then something like this comes along.
Judging from the amount of money thrown at the problem and results shown so far the driverless cars will be on the roads quite soon, pending local legislation etc, but this decade or early next decade looks very realistic. Will anyone scrap the existing fleets overnight? Obviously not, it will take more than a few years to switch over, nobody could even manufacture that many driverless cars/trucks in a short time, but it will still be a very big change happening relatively fast if the cost benefit plays out as expected.
If gravity is not considered a force I don't know what "force" means anymore, unless that is you meant that in star wars sense.
Yes, exactly exactly my point, this kind of discovery has the potential to do the same with viruses that antibiotics did with bacterial infections.
That sounds very useful, finding mechanism where a finely tuned molecule happens to demolish a whole class of viruses could be a discovery on the level with antibiotics.
Newsflash, labor is China is not cheap anymore. Hasn't been for over a decade.
The movie was pretty damn terrible and unlike the real movies utterly forgettable. They copy pasted the least meaningful parts from the original trilogy and didn't create anything of value.
Not quite, exerting force does not require actually spending energy. My bottom exerts force to the couch with zero energy expenditure. There is stored potential energy, true, but you don't spend it if there is no work actually being done. Were I to fall off the couch I would spend a tiny fraction of that potential energy and have to do some work to get it back. Gravity and electromagnetism are quite different forces, but in this instance they can be viewed in a similar model I think.
Do you cross the road solely because you have the green light, never mind the speeding truck that is obviously not slowing down? No self driving car worth its salt would. Traffic signs are good and everything but you cannot rely on them 100%. A necessary sign could be missing, not visible, in the wrong place or other drivers might plain not respect traffic rules. Traffic signs are a guideline, not hitting anything and not getting hit by anything is the true golden rule and I*m certain every self driving car on the roads has been engineered with that in mind.
Knowing what soviet union was like I would say its probable that there were prior failures that were not talked about. Firstly, first attempts were definitely more likely to fail than succeed, secondly, there is no way soviet union would have admitted it if such a thing did happen. However, if prior failures did happen, nobody who knew about it has talked so far and probably never will, so its unlikely we will ever know for sure. Example of how things worked in soviet union - Nedelin catastrophe, they didn't own up for 29 years even tho the information about it was widely known outside cccp, had secrecy orders been successful or body count lesser its unlikely they ever would have owned up.