everyone wants a fighting robot league...it's like jetpacks, hover boards, and other stuff featured in sci fi depictions of "the future"
fighting robots are awesome...this is not in dispute...
here are the 3 most salient factors as to when we will have a fighting robots league:
1. technology...especially materials science...we've gotten to the point conceptually that we can model any form of robot, but it's making the materials stand the stress, and batteries to power it...those are our limitations now
2. $$$...fighting robots are expensive...a league needs money
3. competition > PR...they have to be the opposite of MLS or WWE...this has to be done right and not over marketed or over simplified (how it can go wrong: something like the random narrator voice in Mythbusters)
if i wanted to cripple an organization that fights crime, i'd put archane rules about hiring that ensures only Mormons who do what they are told always without question could get a job
nice...this way, the criminals only have to bribe the boss
everyone else will just do as they are told without question
list the GOP's recent policies on anything dealing with science or the application thereof and that is also a list of anti-science GOP policies...they are the same list
look, everyone knows you are trolling...i'm conversing with you for my own reasons...but it's this simple...**you** pick any policy that deals with science and i will explain why the GOP's policy, especially in congress, is anti-science
so you tell me a US policy issue that involves science and i'll take it from there
GOP'ers hate science...and work in lockstep to oppose it by policy
that's not in dispute here...anyone rational enough to understand how our system works and looks at policy rhetoric and votes can draw this conclusion from basic information
that's your problem, you're using rhetoric to support a position that is unsupportable
i'm not stereotyping 'GOP'ers'...here is a stereotype: "all asians are bad drivers"
stereotypes are unfairly categorizing a group of people based on non-relevant information
GOP'ers choose to support anti-science policies of their own free will, which makes them fair game
yes...for a laymen i understand it would seem that way, but for anyone who has been trained in IT or network engineering or telecommunication engineering would see this as just another day at work
are you saying that teleco's litterally do not know how to make a nation-wide network? b/c that's insane...it's workaday t-com engineering
it's not about lack of knowledge or money...it's about Verizon & Co wanting to keep their gravy train running at our expense
TFA asks the following question in the headline...
How Come My ISP Won't Increase Internet Speed and Lower My Bill, Like They Do in Sweden?
then asks later....
So why isn't America following the municipal path to high-speed bliss?... it's complicated
is it?
is ***profit*** for Verizon & other teleco's really that complicated?
they don't lower our rates or give us better service b/c they have a *monopoly* and no competition or incentive to give us anything other than the bare minimum ammount of service that we will tolerate!
i can point you to Systems Science research projects that are based on testing high level data analysis algorithms and the data set they need is immaterial...it just has to fit certain parameters
the data in TFA could be used for just such a task
in one example, a PhD researcher was developing a speech recognition algorithm improvement and he actually used the entire digital catelogue of some musician as his data set...it produced interesting results that were not part of testing his hypothesis at all...hard to explain w/o digging very deep in my note pile but it was like a pandora for speech recognition and the musician's catalogue was perfect to optimize upon for some reason
my point is, there is use for big random old data sets, potentially...
it takes a highly trained individual to carefully interpret the methods described in a journal article, and even then their success rate in reproducing the protocols won't be terrific.
i used to make my living doing just such a thing! and hope to again one day...
i was sort of an SPSS jockey and data interpreter for a geospatial HCI research project
the supervising professor set the parameters for the study, i came on b/c he had absolutely no idea what to do with all his data...it was 8 years of a study that changed formats 3 years through, and added/changed questions every year...that was on top of constant device usage monitoring data...as in we developed our own field monitoring/data recording device to have undergrad research assistants literally follow research subjects *all day* and record what they did on their phones...and computer...everything...not content of emails but they'd record the fact that they were emailing on a laptop...it was that in depth and undergrad students volunteered!!! it was kind of like being in a reality show for them...idk...but i had to collate/make sense of/explain to others all this data
it took me a long time...since i first started reading research journals as an undergrad in '97...but finally i have accepted that what you say that I've quoted above is true
i hate to admit it but you're right, and anyone in academia should take a long look in the mirror...it's been like this for awhile but now in these times of "pop science" where western culture has an infatuation with tech and TED Talk level scientific discourse the difference between good research and total shit is so abstract and up to the researcher's choice that they **must** make those decisions known and defend them in the literature as needed! it's really academic dishonesty!
your response is pure trolling...you just inverted my contentions and re-directed them against me with no context or relationship to falsifiablity for yourself
just try to have a rational discussion with a liberal about the heritability of intelligence, genetically modified crops, or the economics of light rail.
because supporting light rail is unscientific and irrational?
heritability of intelligence? we're not on that again are we?
the issues you picked do not support your contention...the conservative/GOP position is squarely against science, in lockstep across the issues
slashdot is home to GOP'er FUD...it's not a big problem, but it's a problem
imho, it goes to false equivalence...the idea that to be fair you have to give each side "equal time" by having 3 'liberal' and 3 'conservative' leaning major contributors...that's a guess but it appears that way when reading slashdot
rarely is it this blatant...but i still think slashdot is good and relevant even though sometimes we see stuff like this story
It's literally a matter of time before we see US cops wearing glass doing this same thing.
I have seen it happen *over and over* throughout the years...it goes like this:
"contractors" get ahold of technology X X has major privacy implications that prevent advanced nations from using it implement X in foreign countries then use w/e civil unrest happening at the moment to justify it's use profit
it's not "perfectly conceivable"...it's complete conjecture
like i said a few comments back, you've been watching too much sci-fi and have no concept of how this stuff is actually made
that's why i said, earlier, that i'd have to *literally* take you by the hand and have you talk to the Watson (or other ai) team, look at the codebase...because it seems that's the only way you can understand how complex this work is
here's your problem in a nutshell:
I suspect that we'll understand and be able to construct artificial intelligence before we can replicate a human brain, but I don't think either is more than 100 years away.
before what?
***we already understand "artificial intelligence" it's just code***
don't you see?
the notion that "artificial intelligence" is something that we can 100% "undesrtand" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what "artificial intelligence" actually is...it's just software running on hardware, all programed by humans
also, it burdens me greatly that you somehow don't think humans have free will...you want to inject religion or 'supernatural' stuff but that's not even relevant
I linked you to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...you should at least have a cursory undestanding of how civil rights works in the US...it's absolutely ridiculous that you think I need to proffer up some sort of link to prove humans have free will
here...if humans do not have free will and inherent civil rights then let me send you a Power of Attorney form and you can **prove** to me that you don't have free will or civil rights by signing them away to me
Slashdot Mirror
everyone wants a fighting robot league...it's like jetpacks, hover boards, and other stuff featured in sci fi depictions of "the future"
fighting robots are awesome...this is not in dispute...
here are the 3 most salient factors as to when we will have a fighting robots league:
1. technology...especially materials science...we've gotten to the point conceptually that we can model any form of robot, but it's making the materials stand the stress, and batteries to power it...those are our limitations now
2. $$$...fighting robots are expensive...a league needs money
3. competition > PR...they have to be the opposite of MLS or WWE...this has to be done right and not over marketed or over simplified (how it can go wrong: something like the random narrator voice in Mythbusters)
this is your formula for a robot fighting league
i don't think someone orchestrated the need for both parents to work as part of a way to alter the brain structure of a generation...
but there is no denying that people with low impulse control make better consumers...
an Amish would make a bad FBI agent...
which, IMHO, is the point....
if i wanted to cripple an organization that fights crime, i'd put archane rules about hiring that ensures only Mormons who do what they are told always without question could get a job
nice...this way, the criminals only have to bribe the boss
everyone else will just do as they are told without question
if any part of you was interested in productive conversation you would have listed a policy...
idk...
> pollution regulation
> "global warming"
> fracking
> NSF funding
> religion in school textbooks
any of those would have been fine...but you're just trolling, so you just highlighted and blockquoted me and continued your logic-offending rhetoric
again...you proved to be trolling by not even attempting to engage in rational discussion
list the GOP's recent policies on anything dealing with science or the application thereof and that is also a list of anti-science GOP policies...they are the same list
look, everyone knows you are trolling...i'm conversing with you for my own reasons...but it's this simple...**you** pick any policy that deals with science and i will explain why the GOP's policy, especially in congress, is anti-science
so you tell me a US policy issue that involves science and i'll take it from there
GOP'ers hate science...and work in lockstep to oppose it by policy
that's not in dispute here...anyone rational enough to understand how our system works and looks at policy rhetoric and votes can draw this conclusion from basic information
that's your problem, you're using rhetoric to support a position that is unsupportable
i'm not stereotyping 'GOP'ers'...here is a stereotype: "all asians are bad drivers"
stereotypes are unfairly categorizing a group of people based on non-relevant information
GOP'ers choose to support anti-science policies of their own free will, which makes them fair game
spying is spying
whether it's our Totalitarian Big Brother or our Capitalist Creepy Uncle
spying is spying
either way, the reason is that Verizon, AT&T etc have a guaranteed revenue stream w/ no regional competition...that's the point...
looking at what works/doesn't work and the evolution of their network is helpful but still an analogy
this is about Verizon, etc and how TFA just ignores the glaring obvious cause of it all
There is also a hell of a lot more involved.
yes...for a laymen i understand it would seem that way, but for anyone who has been trained in IT or network engineering or telecommunication engineering would see this as just another day at work
are you saying that teleco's litterally do not know how to make a nation-wide network? b/c that's insane...it's workaday t-com engineering
it's not about lack of knowledge or money...it's about Verizon & Co wanting to keep their gravy train running at our expense
arguing about definitions is a red herring...aka trolling...
TFA talks explicitly about how teleco's compete on the Fiber backbone
it is in no way the same as a "government monopoly" like AT&T had here in the US
whatever 'beef' you have with me state it now or begone with you
TFA asks the following question in the headline...
How Come My ISP Won't Increase Internet Speed and Lower My Bill, Like They Do in Sweden?
then asks later....
So why isn't America following the municipal path to high-speed bliss? ... it's complicated
is it?
is ***profit*** for Verizon & other teleco's really that complicated?
they don't lower our rates or give us better service b/c they have a *monopoly* and no competition or incentive to give us anything other than the bare minimum ammount of service that we will tolerate!
i can point you to Systems Science research projects that are based on testing high level data analysis algorithms and the data set they need is immaterial...it just has to fit certain parameters
the data in TFA could be used for just such a task
in one example, a PhD researcher was developing a speech recognition algorithm improvement and he actually used the entire digital catelogue of some musician as his data set...it produced interesting results that were not part of testing his hypothesis at all...hard to explain w/o digging very deep in my note pile but it was like a pandora for speech recognition and the musician's catalogue was perfect to optimize upon for some reason
my point is, there is use for big random old data sets, potentially...
i used to make my living doing just such a thing! and hope to again one day...
i was sort of an SPSS jockey and data interpreter for a geospatial HCI research project
the supervising professor set the parameters for the study, i came on b/c he had absolutely no idea what to do with all his data...it was 8 years of a study that changed formats 3 years through, and added/changed questions every year...that was on top of constant device usage monitoring data...as in we developed our own field monitoring/data recording device to have undergrad research assistants literally follow research subjects *all day* and record what they did on their phones...and computer...everything...not content of emails but they'd record the fact that they were emailing on a laptop...it was that in depth and undergrad students volunteered!!! it was kind of like being in a reality show for them...idk...but i had to collate/make sense of/explain to others all this data
it took me a long time...since i first started reading research journals as an undergrad in '97...but finally i have accepted that what you say that I've quoted above is true
i hate to admit it but you're right, and anyone in academia should take a long look in the mirror...it's been like this for awhile but now in these times of "pop science" where western culture has an infatuation with tech and TED Talk level scientific discourse the difference between good research and total shit is so abstract and up to the researcher's choice that they **must** make those decisions known and defend them in the literature as needed! it's really academic dishonesty!
i dont have time for sock puppets or friends!
good explanation, thanks!
i understand the concepts, IMHO, but i don't have the background to explain it as well
Conservatives need to just stop being stupid and anti-science
the evidence is everywhere you look at GOP policy
just how you say this shows you are not honest in this discussion:
I don't deny climate change, the weather is a constant state of change.
...
we're done here, troll
your response is pure trolling...you just inverted my contentions and re-directed them against me with no context or relationship to falsifiablity for yourself
unless it is *non-local* then this is just clever re-arrangement of non-teleported light wave (aka photon)
this research is not what it purports to be...it's not like a "transporter" in Star Trek at all
here's more on non-locality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
just try to have a rational discussion with a liberal about the heritability of intelligence, genetically modified crops, or the economics of light rail.
because supporting light rail is unscientific and irrational?
heritability of intelligence? we're not on that again are we?
the issues you picked do not support your contention...the conservative/GOP position is squarely against science, in lockstep across the issues
slashdot is home to GOP'er FUD...it's not a big problem, but it's a problem
imho, it goes to false equivalence...the idea that to be fair you have to give each side "equal time" by having 3 'liberal' and 3 'conservative' leaning major contributors...that's a guess but it appears that way when reading slashdot
rarely is it this blatant...but i still think slashdot is good and relevant even though sometimes we see stuff like this story
It's literally a matter of time before we see US cops wearing glass doing this same thing.
I have seen it happen *over and over* throughout the years...it goes like this:
"contractors" get ahold of technology X
X has major privacy implications that prevent advanced nations from using it
implement X in foreign countries then use w/e civil unrest happening at the moment to justify it's use
profit
also, wanted to say that this is "fun" chatting with you, and I appreciate the experience you bring to the conversation...
i just disagree and have strong feelings on the subject
the notion that our brains are deterministic machines
you're already a "true believer" arent' you?
the idea that the *thing that created machines* (human brain) is nothing more than a machine is ridiculous
machines are tools for humans...that's all...
our brains can be compared to machines (anything can be compared to anything else), but that doesn't mean that our brains function like machines
it's a false ontology...and it's based on your **personal beliefs** not rationality or logic
it's not "perfectly conceivable"...it's complete conjecture
like i said a few comments back, you've been watching too much sci-fi and have no concept of how this stuff is actually made
that's why i said, earlier, that i'd have to *literally* take you by the hand and have you talk to the Watson (or other ai) team, look at the codebase...because it seems that's the only way you can understand how complex this work is
here's your problem in a nutshell:
I suspect that we'll understand and be able to construct artificial intelligence before we can replicate a human brain, but I don't think either is more than 100 years away.
before what?
***we already understand "artificial intelligence" it's just code***
don't you see?
the notion that "artificial intelligence" is something that we can 100% "undesrtand" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what "artificial intelligence" actually is...it's just software running on hardware, all programed by humans
also, it burdens me greatly that you somehow don't think humans have free will...you want to inject religion or 'supernatural' stuff but that's not even relevant
I linked you to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...you should at least have a cursory undestanding of how civil rights works in the US...it's absolutely ridiculous that you think I need to proffer up some sort of link to prove humans have free will
here...if humans do not have free will and inherent civil rights then let me send you a Power of Attorney form and you can **prove** to me that you don't have free will or civil rights by signing them away to me