The GP made it sound as if Einstein was the father of QM, like he was the father of special and general relativity. That's of course not true, and is the point I'm trying to get across.
You may want to read up on Einstein a bit more. Special relativity was published in 1905. General relativity in 1915. Einstein didn't develop quantum mechanics, he was actually an opponent of it (his famous "god does not play dice" quote is a direct criticism of QM in fact).
It did take quite a while for his theories to be accepted. But they certainly didn't take 20 years for him to develop. That's just flat out wrong.
When it was my job to install SSL certificates, understanding it, buying the right certificate and installing it was freakishly difficult.
I've done it on several different servers for many years. "Freakishly difficult" is more than a little bit of an exaggeration. For something I do once a year, it might take me 10-20 minutes to figure out how to do it again, but beyond that it's not THAT difficult. It could be easier, but how easy does something you do once a year per domain really have to be?
Buying the "right" certificate is all just marketing baloney. If you want to piss away money you can buy the expensive "extended validation" cert that maybe 1 person out of 1000 will ever care about. Beyond that it doesn't really matter.
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is in fact essential for the Earth's life cycle. Plants would not survive without it.
You don't seem to understand what a pollutant is. Anything can be a pollutant given sufficient quantities of it. High oxygen environments can cause explosive fires, even though oxygen is essential for animal life. So your argument falls flat on its face. Pollutants are all about quantity. It's not a specific quality that you can wave away through pointing out some beneficial aspect of it. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Any methane infrastructure will necessarily have emissions.
Pointing to a preliminary analysis, with no details, and the author has ALREADY found grave errors in isn't exactly a very convincing argument.
My (possibly quite wrong) knowledge of quantum computers says that a quantum computer can reduce some algorithms that would normally take exponential time in polynomial time. I'm making a wild-ass assumption that AES could also be broken in such a manner. Whether that's true or not is beside the point, but merely to point out that a quantum computer is fundamentally different than the exponential speed growth of conventional computing of the last 30+ years.
before they break 256-bit aes. Even if computer power somehow went up magnitudes the sun would go nova before they crack the encryption.
How about if a critical flaw is discovered in aes that produces an attack in 2^64 time?
How about if a critical flaw is is discovered in the implementation of aes that produces an attack in 2^32 time?
How about quantum computers advance to a usable level, and that 2^256 complexity is solvable in 256^6 time?
The first two are unlikely, since AES wasn't designed by fools, and has withstood much analysis. The 3rd possibility is the most intriguing.
The point being, the assumptions you're going on are that we know the same things we know now that we known is several years.
Right now we know computing power increases exponentially, so as you say that's out. But we also know that quantum computing is certainly possible, and has reportedly worked on very small scales. We also know that encryption algorithms and implementations of those algorithms sometimes fail catastrophically. The best we can say is that AES 256, with a good password can't be cracked with a conventional computer with our current level of knowledge about AES and its implementations.
It's about time someone stepped up to this so-called "free movement". Why can't people pay for everything? Nooo... These hippies have to be all co-operative and giving. Why, just a couple years ago one of my neighbors would blow out the sidewalk in front of my house, no charge! Frickin douche-bag. I'm supposed to PAY people for things like that, and he's giving it away for free! Doesn't he think about the snow removal industry when he does such things?
I even heard there's this whole organization that gives away free food to people in need! Douchebags! They're hurting the grocery stores when you do things like that! All you'll do is just encourage these people to think all food should just be free. Damn hippies and their Goodwill and Salvation Army thrift stores. Good red-blooded americans never give ANYTHING away. Me? I charge people a buck just to tell them what time it is. Directions cost them a fiver!
You're right. It's also vulnerable to flamethrowers, grenades, and the incredibly stupid who think it's a cheeseburger.
WTF? It's not supposed to be a solution to survive every conceivable and improbable disaster. It's just supposed to be reasonably reliable for archival purposes.
Every time I hear one of these "but.. but but nobody will have the technology to READ these things in 100 years!" all I hear is "everyone will be stupid in the future".
Someone recently created a device to read some crazy obscure technology produced by Edison to record sound on film, and that wasn't even all that valuable.
The real deal is, if the data is important enough someone will maintain the technology to read it, or re-create it.
Heh. So I guess my scenario was more accurate than I could even guess. With the exception of a few intermediate decay products, the wild-ass-guess was amazingly accurate.
However, single-bit errors are possible with faulty disk hardware.
I'm sure you're right, but in this case there's essentially no way a disk hardware failure is going to cause the same bit to fail the same way, but no other bits fail.
In this case, I'd expect it's a bit flip in the OS disk cache.
Billions of years in the ground, and only a few centuries on the roof and all of the radioactivity is gone! Wow!
The author needs to provide a reference, but there's a few ways I can think of that a processing stage, and a few centuries would produce something less radioactive than something produced more recently. I think all of them stem from the ore containing a source material that gets separated through the refining process, but the daughter products from the source don't. Here's one scenario:
Ore = Lead + radio-isotope a + radio-isotope B.
radio-isotope A decays to radio-isotope B
radio-isotope A: 4 billion year half-life. radio-isotope B: 20 year half life, decays to stable isotope C.
during refining, radio isotope A gets nearly completely refined out to parts per trillion. radio isotope B is similar to lead chemically, and remains at 1 parts per million (at time of refining).
200 years go by. (10 half lives of radio isotope B) radio isotope B is now at 1/2^10 concentration, or about 1 part per trillion. Significantly less than when it was first refined. The added radioactivity from radio-isotope A decaying into B is negligible due to the long half-life of A.
These numbers and process are obviously made up to show how it MIGHT work. It still remains to be seen if it's actually true or not.
Maybe. It just sounds like an urban legend to me. I was also able to find a 25 year old patent claiming that gold-tin solder assured both high reliability in chip making.
How did you verify it was actually on the disk, and not read from disk cache in memory?
Disk sectors have CRC checksums on them, so it's just extremely unlikely the bits flipped on the physical medium. It seems even less likely the bit got flipped somehow that caused a write to disk (and your file mod date would suggest this was unlikely as well).
Very old processed lead, such as that used for the roofs of some European cathedrals, has been used to build supercomputers since more of the radioactivity has decayed.
That sounds a bit fishy.
I _think_ I might be willing to believe the radioactivity of lead, presumably from contamination through some other source radioactive mineral in the ore that decays into radioactive lead. What I have a hard time believing though is that supercomputer makers wouldn't just use non-lead solder, which has been around for years and has actually been mandated for use in recent years in electronics.
My point was just to figure out roughly where you could guarantee that not even the videophiles would be unlikely to complain about the quality, and 120hz is generally well received by videophiles, and unfortunately you do have to multiply whatever rate you pick by 2 for stereo 3d implementations.
Being a videophile isn't about actual perception, it's about being superior. It's a dick measuring contest with specifications. Give them a maximum perceivable specification, and they'll imagine their way out it. You could give these people actual actors in their living room, and they'd complain about the quality of the air in the room and dust count obscuring their vision. "I think the images of the actors in the dust free room are being scattered a bit by the oxygen and nitrogen in the room. If we just had a pure vacuum that would be better. But don't interrupt the sound of course".
So basically, you've got nothing, and you expect me to try to hunt down your story for you. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You make the claim, you provide the proof. The links you provided say nothing about "liberal policies" or fears of being accused of racism or religious intolerance. So I guess I'm going with personal bias, and manufactured blame.
(Oh, and BTW the New York Daily News is just sliiightly different than the New York Times.)
The only thing that held those officers back, it seems, is the liberal feel-good policies that would have branded them as racists, and/or intolerant religious bigots.
Quite an accusation to make without anything to back it up. Care to reference at least an article or interview that substantiates your statements, or is this just your own personal theory based on personal bias?
In short, we haven't figured out how the human brain thinks. Redefining the word 'AI' doesn't get around that fact.
Do we need to understand how the human brain works to understand what intelligence is?
I do agree that a word definition doesn't change anything, but so what? I just think the discussion is rather meaningless, or at least a lot less meaningful than most people would care to admit.
I think it's more instructive to understand what computers can and can't do than it is to focus on some sort of "hard AI" vs "soft AI".
Anything mission-critical like printing a ticket should absolutely NOT use something that could cause the whole system to break down when a single trivial update happens. HTML wasn't designed for printing, and it never will be. The browser is just a band aid put on top of a fundamental disconnect in technology and application.
I'd even go so far as to say that unless you're outputting and printing from PDF or some other well defined and standardized print format, don't proceed any farther. You'll pay more for the problems down the road when the whole she-bang doesn't work for some dumb reason.
How convenient! A theory about intelligence which means that we have actually already created AI!
Not paying attention. This isn't even anything approaching a theory. It's a critique of how people think about intelligence and what it is. A theory would have to entail a definition of what intelligence is. I'm saying we don't even have that, and that it's likely not something that's really possible.
To call anything running on a computer today "intelligent" is to undermine the word itself. You might as well call a rock an airplane.
I didn't realize "intelligent" had such a clear definition that you could really say anything meaningful about whether a machine was "intelligent" or not.
If we (erroneously) call what occurs today "intelligent", then if something ever really did become intelligent, what would we call it?
I don't know.. perhaps we'd make a bit of progress and realize that "intelligence" isn't some nice single concept to just nail down like mass that we can all agree on what is is and isn't. We might even come up with 10 very different words to describe something we might now use the word intelligence about, since we might actually have a better grasp on what it actually is. If you ask me, intelligence is more about human ego than any real hard definitions. In many peoples minds computers can never be intelligent because it would bring our self opinions down a notch or two. That's why many people were sooo upset about Kasparov getting schooled by Deep Blue 10+ years ago, and then made up a bunch of excuses why it wasn't fair.
Whether a machine "intelligently" plays Chess, or is "intelligent" is a stupid question. What's more interesting is how we might accomplish the same task in different ways than our brains might do so. 40 years ago nobody ever thought a computer could be programmed to play even a decent game of chess. These days it's surpassed us. I think that says more about what we think is "intelligent" than anything else.
Yes, there are cases where getting closer to perfect modeling of names is more important. I still maintain that no model or software is ever going to be perfect of something as complex and changeable as a name. If you think it is you're just not being creative enough.
The point though is NOT that there aren't cases where you need a better model. The point is that the author of the article is a crazy person who thinks EVERYTHING has to model names in some absolutely perfect manner. The truth is the vast majority of software doesn't have to go to the extremes the author is talking about. Models are imperfect. If they were perfect, they wouldn't be models, they'd be reality.
Slashdot Mirror
The GP made it sound as if Einstein was the father of QM, like he was the father of special and general relativity. That's of course not true, and is the point I'm trying to get across.
You may want to read up on Einstein a bit more. Special relativity was published in 1905. General relativity in 1915. Einstein didn't develop quantum mechanics, he was actually an opponent of it (his famous "god does not play dice" quote is a direct criticism of QM in fact).
It did take quite a while for his theories to be accepted. But they certainly didn't take 20 years for him to develop. That's just flat out wrong.
When it was my job to install SSL certificates, understanding it, buying the right certificate and installing it was freakishly difficult.
I've done it on several different servers for many years. "Freakishly difficult" is more than a little bit of an exaggeration. For something I do once a year, it might take me 10-20 minutes to figure out how to do it again, but beyond that it's not THAT difficult. It could be easier, but how easy does something you do once a year per domain really have to be?
Buying the "right" certificate is all just marketing baloney. If you want to piss away money you can buy the expensive "extended validation" cert that maybe 1 person out of 1000 will ever care about. Beyond that it doesn't really matter.
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is in fact essential for the Earth's life cycle. Plants would not survive without it.
You don't seem to understand what a pollutant is. Anything can be a pollutant given sufficient quantities of it. High oxygen environments can cause explosive fires, even though oxygen is essential for animal life. So your argument falls flat on its face. Pollutants are all about quantity. It's not a specific quality that you can wave away through pointing out some beneficial aspect of it.
Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Any methane infrastructure will necessarily have emissions.
Pointing to a preliminary analysis, with no details, and the author has ALREADY found grave errors in isn't exactly a very convincing argument.
My (possibly quite wrong) knowledge of quantum computers says that a quantum computer can reduce some algorithms that would normally take exponential time in polynomial time. I'm making a wild-ass assumption that AES could also be broken in such a manner. Whether that's true or not is beside the point, but merely to point out that a quantum computer is fundamentally different than the exponential speed growth of conventional computing of the last 30+ years.
before they break 256-bit aes. Even if computer power somehow went up magnitudes
the sun would go nova before they crack the encryption.
How about if a critical flaw is discovered in aes that produces an attack in 2^64 time?
How about if a critical flaw is is discovered in the implementation of aes that produces an attack in 2^32 time?
How about quantum computers advance to a usable level, and that 2^256 complexity is solvable in 256^6 time?
The first two are unlikely, since AES wasn't designed by fools, and has withstood much analysis. The 3rd possibility is the most intriguing.
The point being, the assumptions you're going on are that we know the same things we know now that we known is several years.
Right now we know computing power increases exponentially, so as you say that's out. But we also know that quantum computing is certainly possible, and has reportedly worked on very small scales. We also know that encryption algorithms and implementations of those algorithms sometimes fail catastrophically. The best we can say is that AES 256, with a good password can't be cracked with a conventional computer with our current level of knowledge about AES and its implementations.
It's about time someone stepped up to this so-called "free movement". Why can't people pay for everything? Nooo... These hippies have to be all co-operative and giving. Why, just a couple years ago one of my neighbors would blow out the sidewalk in front of my house, no charge! Frickin douche-bag. I'm supposed to PAY people for things like that, and he's giving it away for free! Doesn't he think about the snow removal industry when he does such things?
I even heard there's this whole organization that gives away free food to people in need! Douchebags! They're hurting the grocery stores when you do things like that! All you'll do is just encourage these people to think all food should just be free. Damn hippies and their Goodwill and Salvation Army thrift stores. Good red-blooded americans never give ANYTHING away. Me? I charge people a buck just to tell them what time it is. Directions cost them a fiver!
You're right. It's also vulnerable to flamethrowers, grenades, and the incredibly stupid who think it's a cheeseburger.
WTF? It's not supposed to be a solution to survive every conceivable and improbable disaster. It's just supposed to be reasonably reliable for archival purposes.
Every time I hear one of these "but.. but but nobody will have the technology to READ these things in 100 years!" all I hear is "everyone will be stupid in the future".
Someone recently created a device to read some crazy obscure technology produced by Edison to record sound on film, and that wasn't even all that valuable.
The real deal is, if the data is important enough someone will maintain the technology to read it, or re-create it.
Heh. So I guess my scenario was more accurate than I could even guess. With the exception of a few intermediate decay products, the wild-ass-guess was amazingly accurate.
However, single-bit errors are possible with faulty disk hardware.
I'm sure you're right, but in this case there's essentially no way a disk hardware failure is going to cause the same bit to fail the same way, but no other bits fail.
In this case, I'd expect it's a bit flip in the OS disk cache.
Billions of years in the ground, and only a few centuries on the roof and all of the radioactivity is gone! Wow!
The author needs to provide a reference, but there's a few ways I can think of that a processing stage, and a few centuries would produce something less radioactive than something produced more recently. I think all of them stem from the ore containing a source material that gets separated through the refining process, but the daughter products from the source don't. Here's one scenario:
Ore = Lead + radio-isotope a + radio-isotope B.
radio-isotope A decays to radio-isotope B
radio-isotope A: 4 billion year half-life.
radio-isotope B: 20 year half life, decays to stable isotope C.
during refining, radio isotope A gets nearly completely refined out to parts per trillion. radio isotope B is similar to lead chemically, and remains at 1 parts per million (at time of refining).
200 years go by. (10 half lives of radio isotope B)
radio isotope B is now at 1/2^10 concentration, or about 1 part per trillion. Significantly less than when it was first refined. The added radioactivity from radio-isotope A decaying into B is negligible due to the long half-life of A.
These numbers and process are obviously made up to show how it MIGHT work. It still remains to be seen if it's actually true or not.
Maybe. It just sounds like an urban legend to me. I was also able to find a 25 year old patent claiming that gold-tin solder assured both high reliability in chip making.
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=MZY1AAAAEBAJ&dq=4512950
How did you verify it was actually on the disk, and not read from disk cache in memory?
Disk sectors have CRC checksums on them, so it's just extremely unlikely the bits flipped on the physical medium. It seems even less likely the bit got flipped somehow that caused a write to disk (and your file mod date would suggest this was unlikely as well).
Very old processed lead, such as that used for the roofs of some European cathedrals, has been used to build supercomputers since more of the radioactivity has decayed.
That sounds a bit fishy.
I _think_ I might be willing to believe the radioactivity of lead, presumably from contamination through some other source radioactive mineral in the ore that decays into radioactive lead. What I have a hard time believing though is that supercomputer makers wouldn't just use non-lead solder, which has been around for years and has actually been mandated for use in recent years in electronics.
There's a difference between opinion, and manufacturing facts. You've most certainly done the latter to form the former.
My point was just to figure out roughly where you could guarantee that not even the videophiles would be unlikely to complain about the quality, and 120hz is generally well received by videophiles, and unfortunately you do have to multiply whatever rate you pick by 2 for stereo 3d implementations.
Being a videophile isn't about actual perception, it's about being superior. It's a dick measuring contest with specifications. Give them a maximum perceivable specification, and they'll imagine their way out it. You could give these people actual actors in their living room, and they'd complain about the quality of the air in the room and dust count obscuring their vision. "I think the images of the actors in the dust free room are being scattered a bit by the oxygen and nitrogen in the room. If we just had a pure vacuum that would be better. But don't interrupt the sound of course".
uncompressed video? 240 frames/second?
I'll assume you're joking and making fun of the crazy videophiles who think something like this is necessary. So well played, good sir.
So basically, you've got nothing, and you expect me to try to hunt down your story for you. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You make the claim, you provide the proof. The links you provided say nothing about "liberal policies" or fears of being accused of racism or religious intolerance. So I guess I'm going with personal bias, and manufactured blame.
(Oh, and BTW the New York Daily News is just sliiightly different than the New York Times.)
The only thing that held those officers back, it seems, is the liberal feel-good policies that would have branded them as racists, and/or intolerant religious bigots.
Quite an accusation to make without anything to back it up. Care to reference at least an article or interview that substantiates your statements, or is this just your own personal theory based on personal bias?
In short, we haven't figured out how the human brain thinks. Redefining the word 'AI' doesn't get around that fact.
Do we need to understand how the human brain works to understand what intelligence is?
I do agree that a word definition doesn't change anything, but so what? I just think the discussion is rather meaningless, or at least a lot less meaningful than most people would care to admit.
I think it's more instructive to understand what computers can and can't do than it is to focus on some sort of "hard AI" vs "soft AI".
Absolutely agreed.
Anything mission-critical like printing a ticket should absolutely NOT use something that could cause the whole system to break down when a single trivial update happens. HTML wasn't designed for printing, and it never will be. The browser is just a band aid put on top of a fundamental disconnect in technology and application.
I'd even go so far as to say that unless you're outputting and printing from PDF or some other well defined and standardized print format, don't proceed any farther. You'll pay more for the problems down the road when the whole she-bang doesn't work for some dumb reason.
How convenient! A theory about intelligence which means that we have actually already created AI!
Not paying attention. This isn't even anything approaching a theory. It's a critique of how people think about intelligence and what it is. A theory would have to entail a definition of what intelligence is. I'm saying we don't even have that, and that it's likely not something that's really possible.
To call anything running on a computer today "intelligent" is to undermine the word itself. You might as well call a rock an airplane.
I didn't realize "intelligent" had such a clear definition that you could really say anything meaningful about whether a machine was "intelligent" or not.
If we (erroneously) call what occurs today "intelligent", then if something ever really did become intelligent, what would we call it?
I don't know.. perhaps we'd make a bit of progress and realize that "intelligence" isn't some nice single concept to just nail down like mass that we can all agree on what is is and isn't. We might even come up with 10 very different words to describe something we might now use the word intelligence about, since we might actually have a better grasp on what it actually is. If you ask me, intelligence is more about human ego than any real hard definitions. In many peoples minds computers can never be intelligent because it would bring our self opinions down a notch or two. That's why many people were sooo upset about Kasparov getting schooled by Deep Blue 10+ years ago, and then made up a bunch of excuses why it wasn't fair.
Whether a machine "intelligently" plays Chess, or is "intelligent" is a stupid question. What's more interesting is how we might accomplish the same task in different ways than our brains might do so. 40 years ago nobody ever thought a computer could be programmed to play even a decent game of chess. These days it's surpassed us. I think that says more about what we think is "intelligent" than anything else.
Yes, there are cases where getting closer to perfect modeling of names is more important. I still maintain that no model or software is ever going to be perfect of something as complex and changeable as a name. If you think it is you're just not being creative enough.
The point though is NOT that there aren't cases where you need a better model. The point is that the author of the article is a crazy person who thinks EVERYTHING has to model names in some absolutely perfect manner. The truth is the vast majority of software doesn't have to go to the extremes the author is talking about. Models are imperfect. If they were perfect, they wouldn't be models, they'd be reality.