I don't know. Being mauled and then eaten while trekking through the wilderness sounds a better way to go than being poisoned and paralyzed before suffocating to death by something that might be in your house and then having your body rotting in the baking temperatures you get. Although, to be honest, I'm not sure I really care too much about what happens after the death part. Still, each to his own!;-)
I noticed that too but my own favourite was "soaring faster than the speed of sound" which for these satellites, is zero because they are in space. If there was enough atmosphere to transmit sound there would be a huge atmospheric drag.
Then have a look at a Surface Book - they have this ratio. I looked at getting one but ended up going with a Dell since they had not updated them for a while. With the new updated version, they look very good.
For the same reason, that ancient programming languages like Fortran have arrays that start with 1. Zero was a reasonably new concept that far back having only been invented around 4-5th century BC in India and using it would probably have confused most people.
What's the worth of living in a place where you can die of exposure (or get eaten by a moose*/bear/wolf)? Here I just stay out of the ocean and I'm safe from sharks. I stay out of rivers if they are north of the tropic and I'm safe from crocodiles. Kangaroos or emus may kill me but at least they won't eat me!
Ah yes, Australia. Well known for its completely safe wild life and environment. A place so popular to many of the early settlers only got to move there after fighting a court case.
That's why when people joke "Canada has two seasons, Winter and Summer." It isn't a joke, it's been 8 months of straight winter.
You clearly don't get it. The reason it's a joke is that really there is only one season. We had a _high_ of -11C the other day which is not bad given it's about the 109th January today.
You guys are like the froth on top of the beer... it's still beer!!
That's not froth it's snow and, since Canada is bigger than the US, if you have that much snow on top of your beer it is definitely not still beer although given typical US beers I can understand your confusion.
Actually, that does not help. The Solar System is a large place and the Earth is 150 million kilometres from the sun and very hard to see even from Jupiter or Mars. Your original point is still correct though but for a different reason: our propulsion technology is so limited that for the foreseeable future interplanetary flights will involve precise launch windows and months of coasting without thrust. This means that it is hard to get lost since gravity is determining where you go and, if you did somehow manage to get lost then there is almost no chance that you could ever get back...so all this tech will do is tell you precisely where you will be when you die which, scarily, may be months away if you have enough life support.
They all start out in a specific and known factory default.
...and then they are exposed to the world and, being powered by an AI learning algorithm, will gain different training and knowledge and so end up behaving in a way that their creator might never have expected. This is just the nature vs. nuture debate which applies equally well to biological creatures: how much of a robot's behaviour is pre-programmed nature and how much is due to what it has learnt?
And the way it works is that the person who sets them into motion and the person who owns them hold ultimate culpability
This is unreasonable though if the owner's control of the vehicle is limited. With a dog, you are generally not liable if your dog bites someone out of the blue for no reason at all. However, once it has done this you are then expected to keep it under far stricter control, wearing a muzzle etc. and you would be liable for a second bite. Hence liability is shared: the owner has some responsibilities and is not automatically liable for everything the dog does. The same should apply for a robot: the owner and manufacturer both have certain, different responsibilities but since the machine learns and will act on its own they should not be automatically liable for every action the robot makes although they might still be found liable given the appropriate circumstances.
We have probes at the farthest edges of the solar system.
Indeed we do but crucially those probes do not contain astronauts nor can they do much more than float through the void so even if they got lost there is nothing they can do about it. With our current technology manned spacecraft have large teams of people on Earth monitoring them and very limited propulsion so getting lost is extremely hard and, if it happens, there is probably nothing to be done anyway. Indeed, given that the furthest anyone has ever gone so far is the moon you can find out where Earth is by just using your eyes.
If you don't read an article every once in a while, or if you don't know how, you're just trusting that whoever sounds best is right.
It is actually worse than that because of predatory journals which have low to non-existent standards. Even people who read articles can easily get fooled if they read one of these so you not only need to read articles you need to know which journals to read and sometimes even which authors to trust.
We are a loooooong way from a mobile/portable AI computing system that can fit in a robot.
True, but we already have a legal framework for a very similar situation that should be easy to adapt: pets. These are semi-intelligent things which certainly do not have any sort of personhood under law, are not allowed to marry, own property etc.
The first robots are not likely to be as smart as a dog so why not just adapt the laws we have for them? The owner has certain responsibilities but, unless they directly encouraged criminal behaviour, is not usually criminally liable for the dog e.g. if the dog bites someone the owner may have to pay damages but cannot be prosecuted for assault unless they commanded the dog to attack or they knew the dog was likely to attack and did nothing to stop it.
Since robots are made you would need to establish some safety requirements like easily accessible emergy off-buttons, voice commands, remote controls etc. This should be good enough to cope with most robots for the foreseeable future since, as you note, it is going to be a long time before we have to worry about robots marrying or even expressing genuine emotions.
How long before MS considers mandating locked-down bootloaders on all Win 10 machines, even Intel?
Are you sure that they don't already require this because I have been copying and pasting to the WSL console for the past year. The only new thing that they seem to be adding is that you can do it with the usual windows keys instead of using the right mouse button for pasting from Windows->Linux or selecting with the mouse and Ctrl+C for pasting from Linux->Windows. Copy and paste is not a new feature.
Actually no, gravity does not or at least nobody has yet been able to come up with a consistent picture of quantum gravity so far. Then there are the things that we know exist, like Dark Matter and Dark Energy, but have no clue about their nature. They are probably explainable within our existing framework of QM but until we know what they are we cannot be certain.
No, it's correct and indeed you say as much in your reply! As you say maths is based on certain axioms which are held to be true and as long as you hold those axioms to be true mathematical proofs based on them are absolute. Whether those proofs are useful for describing the real world is a different question.
In this way maths is not a map to the real world it is a language we can use to describe it. A map is always required to describe accurately the world it is associated with but with a language we can describe completely abstract things or things which do not, and never have, existed. This is what makes maths so powerful - we can use it to postulate new physical laws and predict what we would observe if that law existed. The mathematical proof of what we would observe is correct (barring any errors in calculation!) regardless of whether the universe exhibits that law. Hence, mathematical proofs are more fundamental. The mathematical proof of what we would observe if a particular model of Supersymmetry exists is true even if, when we went and looked for the predicted particles, we saw nothing. If that were not the case and maths was less fundamental than physics then a non-observation would have us rewriting maths to make physics agree with observation instead of just throwing out that model of Supersymmetry.
The guy committed a crime. He served time, repaid his debt to society. Shouldn't he have, then, the right not to be marked as a criminal forever, in front of the world eyes?
It's one thing to forgive someone's mistakes in the past and look at who they are today. That's not at all the same as hiding those past mistakes and pretending that they do not exist.
However, this is really no different than other mathematical proofs.
No, it is very different from a mathematical proof. This proof relies on our understanding of quantum mechanics and photons. Mathematical proofs are far more fundamental in that they are true regardless of the properties of the universe you happen to be in at the time. That being said QM is one of the most accurately tested scientific laws there has ever been but, nevertheless, if an experiment tomorrow shows that it is wrong this "proof" might come crashing down.
In addition to this, there seem to be no checks of the hypothesis either. If people with disrupted circadian rhythms are more likely to die then the life expectancy of frequent flyers who regularly have to deal with jet lag should similarly be impacted and yet they did not seem bothered to check that. This study seems to be a good example of cargo cult science.
That sounds good to me - I can defend a position about why the beliefs expressed in hate speech are extremely wrong (real hate speech mind you, not the "I have managed to twist what you said until I found a way to be offended by it" variety). The point is that we should be engaging in discussion so that both sides get to make their arguments and we can try and correct each other's areas of ignorance and understand the issues better. Silencing someone just because you vehemently disagree with them is wrong and because it stops each side from understanding the other it ends up making things far worse in the end.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know. Being mauled and then eaten while trekking through the wilderness sounds a better way to go than being poisoned and paralyzed before suffocating to death by something that might be in your house and then having your body rotting in the baking temperatures you get. Although, to be honest, I'm not sure I really care too much about what happens after the death part. Still, each to his own! ;-)
I noticed that too but my own favourite was "soaring faster than the speed of sound" which for these satellites, is zero because they are in space. If there was enough atmosphere to transmit sound there would be a huge atmospheric drag.
Would love 3:2.
Then have a look at a Surface Book - they have this ratio. I looked at getting one but ended up going with a Dell since they had not updated them for a while. With the new updated version, they look very good.
First modern laptop to have a different aspect ratio gets my money without question. They don't exist!
Yes, they do: the MS Surface Book has a 3:2 aspect ratio but they are not cheap (unless you compare them to a mac!).
Why can there be no year zero?
For the same reason, that ancient programming languages like Fortran have arrays that start with 1. Zero was a reasonably new concept that far back having only been invented around 4-5th century BC in India and using it would probably have confused most people.
What's the worth of living in a place where you can die of exposure (or get eaten by a moose*/bear/wolf)? Here I just stay out of the ocean and I'm safe from sharks. I stay out of rivers if they are north of the tropic and I'm safe from crocodiles. Kangaroos or emus may kill me but at least they won't eat me!
Ah yes, Australia. Well known for its completely safe wild life and environment. A place so popular to many of the early settlers only got to move there after fighting a court case.
That's why when people joke "Canada has two seasons, Winter and Summer." It isn't a joke, it's been 8 months of straight winter.
You clearly don't get it. The reason it's a joke is that really there is only one season. We had a _high_ of -11C the other day which is not bad given it's about the 109th January today.
You guys are like the froth on top of the beer... it's still beer!!
That's not froth it's snow and, since Canada is bigger than the US, if you have that much snow on top of your beer it is definitely not still beer although given typical US beers I can understand your confusion.
With the lack of personnel I'd bet insurance rates go down in case of piracy
They need to add lots of DRM to protect themselves from pirates.
Actually, that does not help. The Solar System is a large place and the Earth is 150 million kilometres from the sun and very hard to see even from Jupiter or Mars. Your original point is still correct though but for a different reason: our propulsion technology is so limited that for the foreseeable future interplanetary flights will involve precise launch windows and months of coasting without thrust. This means that it is hard to get lost since gravity is determining where you go and, if you did somehow manage to get lost then there is almost no chance that you could ever get back...so all this tech will do is tell you precisely where you will be when you die which, scarily, may be months away if you have enough life support.
They all start out in a specific and known factory default.
And the way it works is that the person who sets them into motion and the person who owns them hold ultimate culpability
This is unreasonable though if the owner's control of the vehicle is limited. With a dog, you are generally not liable if your dog bites someone out of the blue for no reason at all. However, once it has done this you are then expected to keep it under far stricter control, wearing a muzzle etc. and you would be liable for a second bite. Hence liability is shared: the owner has some responsibilities and is not automatically liable for everything the dog does. The same should apply for a robot: the owner and manufacturer both have certain, different responsibilities but since the machine learns and will act on its own they should not be automatically liable for every action the robot makes although they might still be found liable given the appropriate circumstances.
We have probes at the farthest edges of the solar system.
Indeed we do but crucially those probes do not contain astronauts nor can they do much more than float through the void so even if they got lost there is nothing they can do about it. With our current technology manned spacecraft have large teams of people on Earth monitoring them and very limited propulsion so getting lost is extremely hard and, if it happens, there is probably nothing to be done anyway. Indeed, given that the furthest anyone has ever gone so far is the moon you can find out where Earth is by just using your eyes.
If you don't read an article every once in a while, or if you don't know how, you're just trusting that whoever sounds best is right.
It is actually worse than that because of predatory journals which have low to non-existent standards. Even people who read articles can easily get fooled if they read one of these so you not only need to read articles you need to know which journals to read and sometimes even which authors to trust.
We are a loooooong way from a mobile/portable AI computing system that can fit in a robot.
True, but we already have a legal framework for a very similar situation that should be easy to adapt: pets. These are semi-intelligent things which certainly do not have any sort of personhood under law, are not allowed to marry, own property etc.
The first robots are not likely to be as smart as a dog so why not just adapt the laws we have for them? The owner has certain responsibilities but, unless they directly encouraged criminal behaviour, is not usually criminally liable for the dog e.g. if the dog bites someone the owner may have to pay damages but cannot be prosecuted for assault unless they commanded the dog to attack or they knew the dog was likely to attack and did nothing to stop it.
Since robots are made you would need to establish some safety requirements like easily accessible emergy off-buttons, voice commands, remote controls etc. This should be good enough to cope with most robots for the foreseeable future since, as you note, it is going to be a long time before we have to worry about robots marrying or even expressing genuine emotions.
Shouldn't that be: "Dodging accountability for 2,000 million, Alexa"?
How long before MS considers mandating locked-down bootloaders on all Win 10 machines, even Intel?
Are you sure that they don't already require this because I have been copying and pasting to the WSL console for the past year. The only new thing that they seem to be adding is that you can do it with the usual windows keys instead of using the right mouse button for pasting from Windows->Linux or selecting with the mouse and Ctrl+C for pasting from Linux->Windows. Copy and paste is not a new feature.
Doesn't everything use Quantum Mechanics?
Actually no, gravity does not or at least nobody has yet been able to come up with a consistent picture of quantum gravity so far. Then there are the things that we know exist, like Dark Matter and Dark Energy, but have no clue about their nature. They are probably explainable within our existing framework of QM but until we know what they are we cannot be certain.
This is deeply wrong.
No, it's correct and indeed you say as much in your reply! As you say maths is based on certain axioms which are held to be true and as long as you hold those axioms to be true mathematical proofs based on them are absolute. Whether those proofs are useful for describing the real world is a different question.
In this way maths is not a map to the real world it is a language we can use to describe it. A map is always required to describe accurately the world it is associated with but with a language we can describe completely abstract things or things which do not, and never have, existed. This is what makes maths so powerful - we can use it to postulate new physical laws and predict what we would observe if that law existed. The mathematical proof of what we would observe is correct (barring any errors in calculation!) regardless of whether the universe exhibits that law. Hence, mathematical proofs are more fundamental. The mathematical proof of what we would observe if a particular model of Supersymmetry exists is true even if, when we went and looked for the predicted particles, we saw nothing. If that were not the case and maths was less fundamental than physics then a non-observation would have us rewriting maths to make physics agree with observation instead of just throwing out that model of Supersymmetry.
The guy committed a crime. He served time, repaid his debt to society. Shouldn't he have, then, the right not to be marked as a criminal forever, in front of the world eyes?
It's one thing to forgive someone's mistakes in the past and look at who they are today. That's not at all the same as hiding those past mistakes and pretending that they do not exist.
However, this is really no different than other mathematical proofs.
No, it is very different from a mathematical proof. This proof relies on our understanding of quantum mechanics and photons. Mathematical proofs are far more fundamental in that they are true regardless of the properties of the universe you happen to be in at the time. That being said QM is one of the most accurately tested scientific laws there has ever been but, nevertheless, if an experiment tomorrow shows that it is wrong this "proof" might come crashing down.
In addition to this, there seem to be no checks of the hypothesis either. If people with disrupted circadian rhythms are more likely to die then the life expectancy of frequent flyers who regularly have to deal with jet lag should similarly be impacted and yet they did not seem bothered to check that. This study seems to be a good example of cargo cult science.
Either infinite or not. If not infinite, then not "semi-infinite" either. As physical and real, not infinite.
Ah, but according to Slashdot, they found two semi-infinite troves. So technically that's just one infinite trove!
That sounds good to me - I can defend a position about why the beliefs expressed in hate speech are extremely wrong (real hate speech mind you, not the "I have managed to twist what you said until I found a way to be offended by it" variety). The point is that we should be engaging in discussion so that both sides get to make their arguments and we can try and correct each other's areas of ignorance and understand the issues better. Silencing someone just because you vehemently disagree with them is wrong and because it stops each side from understanding the other it ends up making things far worse in the end.