is that none of these silly predictions are based on actual science. The scientific method is nowhere in sight, as the proponents of these chicken little theories will admit to no falsifiability criteria. Falsifiability is a requirement for any theory to be considered scientific. Without that, it's simply religion. The religion of some people needing to control all other people and willing to lie to do it.
"Carry On: It is recommended that you keep your belongings in sight during the screening process. If you are carrying or wearing an item that might alarm our officers, requiring additional screening, you may ask that your belongings be brought to you to keep your property in sight."
https://www.tsa.gov/blog/2016/...
The TSA's own rules say that you can keep your belongings in sight while they are being inspected. The ACLU said of one woman passenger searched in the security line: "The agents did not ask her to unlock the phones, but took them for at least 10 minutes out of her view, she said, adding that she quickly became distraught." She should have loudly and repeatedly demanded to regain sight of her property. I've done this and gotten them to comply.
No investigation can reveal what "Apple wants". That's tomfoolery. This totally non-expert, non-verified, non-peer-reviewed, non-scientific "investigation" just Makes Stuff Up. The only thing anyone can conclude from these highly suspect zip code conclusions is that Apple seems to locate its stores near its best customers.
He's confusing and visually abrasive, amateur, and relatively unfinished upon publication. His understanding of product design and business economics is an abomination, which rudely juts into the pages of the inter webs. The reality is that Topolsky is stuck in hate-quicksand, like, well, like nobody on earth.
Because neural networks are a fantasy. What AI researchers call neural networks are just a mathematical abstraction of somebody's idea of how neurons work and interact, on the theory that emulating this idea will somehow simulate intelligence. In fact, nobody knows how neurons actually work, how memories are formed, stored, and retrieved, and how intelligence uses reasoning and memories to perform useful tasks. Or any tasks.
Neural networks are right up their with Time Travel, Cold Fusion, and Perpetual Motion: no basis in fact.
The Gawker editor who said, in the movie, "If you're not pissing off a billionaire, what's the point?" identifies the problem. Journalism's point isn't to annoy rich people. That a Gawker editor thinks it is shows that Gawker was never legitimate journalism. Just tawdry gossip.
Which is what higher shipping prices would do. No conflict here: supply and demand handles this situation nicely. As long as petulant millennials can get over their feeling of entitlement to free shipping.:)
NOAA predicts Sun will rise in the east, set in the west.
IRS predicts people will cheat on their taxes.
Anyone predicts Slashdot will publish any old thing.
This is nothing new. On a trip to Montreal to speak at a conference a few years ago, I was detained by Canadian customs and quizzed about the conference -- from my own copy of the conference brochure that I had brought with me. They got the brochure because I thought it would be helpful to show the brochure with my name listed as a speaker, but that apparently opened a can of worms. (I know better now).
For all I know they called the conference organizers to verify my story. The questions to me ranged from what would be my topic (IPv6) and whether I would be paid (I wouldn't; it was an academic conference at a local university), to was I marketing my services to Canadian businesses (no). And many other questions in between that today I would have had the presence of mind to record, but not then. This was five or six years ago, long before the current immigration security flush.
Because the current crop of IoT programmers clearly don't know a thing about it, or just don't care, which is why IoTs are the largest DDoS attack army in history.
Is this what passes for intelligent discourse at Phys.org? So many errors, so little time. First, an algorithm is NOT involved when I pick a movie to stream on Netflix. I pick the movie, Netflix streams it. Unless you want to count the code necessary to display a web page and process a click. Second, algorithms are NOT "complex mathematical formulas." A formula is a specification for a single computational step (or a series of similar steps, in the case of calculus). An algorithm is a non-mathematical procedure, with memory, decision making, input and output from and to various sources and sinks, and, well, formulas. Algorithms contain formulas, but formulas don't contain algorithms.
And phys.org does not contain the sense God gave raisins.
These employment numbers are an anomaly. If they were actual sustainable job, they would be the most inefficient energy jobs on earth. Coal and natural gas account for most of US electricity, with nuclear and hydro falling in 3rd and 4th respectively. Renewables (not including hydro) account for 7% of total generation, with solar at just 0.6%. So more solar workers than coal workers sweat away open a boondoggle: producing just.6% of the power America consumes.
They just aren't. They are not conscious, and have no ability to think. They are simply engineered automation using the same information processing strategies -- pattern recognition and data repositories -- computer science has always used. But the hyperbolic "AI community' has so over-promised and under-delivered that they had to dumb-down the term, into "strong" (real) and "weak" (fake) AAI. So now when they call drones "AI" (meaning weak AI), we are deceived into ascribing have the dangers of autonomous drones with weapons, which are very real, to AI as a category, which is science fiction.
So let's just leave AI out of it. Any weapon that can fly around, select human targets, and destroy them, autonomously is hugely dangerous. So dangerous as to be a war crime. For the very reason that strong AI is a complete fantasy: these machines do not think, cannot make anything like rational judgements, or weigh the consequences of their actions. Nothing but a human can do that. All autonomous drones have at their disposal is pattern matching and information repositories, programmed by humans who have never once written a bug-free non-trivial program.
Newer flight data recorders include integrated digital cockpit voice recording capabilities. The idea is that treating voice as just another data stream enables better overall shared protection of the complete data set, while saving money, complexity, and weight in the process.
There is no available mobile technology that can distinguish between a passenger operating a phone and the driver. So this lawyer is just looking for an easy settlement.
Then anyone can run the tests CR refuses to re-run. If they're that confidently of their results, they should be happy to provide the detailed equipment and steps, along with corresponding results, to the public. This is the way science is done: if you make an assertion, then you have to provide the raw data to let someone else try to reproduce your results.
Slashdot Mirror
"Some men set themselves up as an example to others. I set myself up as a warning."
- attributed to Mark Twain
I think 58% of studies are frauds. And 100% of this study is a fraud. And an imposter.
is that none of these silly predictions are based on actual science. The scientific method is nowhere in sight, as the proponents of these chicken little theories will admit to no falsifiability criteria. Falsifiability is a requirement for any theory to be considered scientific. Without that, it's simply religion. The religion of some people needing to control all other people and willing to lie to do it.
"Carry On: It is recommended that you keep your belongings in sight during the screening process. If you are carrying or wearing an item that might alarm our officers, requiring additional screening, you may ask that your belongings be brought to you to keep your property in sight." https://www.tsa.gov/blog/2016/...
The TSA's own rules say that you can keep your belongings in sight while they are being inspected. The ACLU said of one woman passenger searched in the security line: "The agents did not ask her to unlock the phones, but took them for at least 10 minutes out of her view, she said, adding that she quickly became distraught." She should have loudly and repeatedly demanded to regain sight of her property. I've done this and gotten them to comply.
This statement is more accurate than the silly one Andrew Staltz made.
No investigation can reveal what "Apple wants". That's tomfoolery. This totally non-expert, non-verified, non-peer-reviewed, non-scientific "investigation" just Makes Stuff Up. The only thing anyone can conclude from these highly suspect zip code conclusions is that Apple seems to locate its stores near its best customers.
Google is a raging hypocrite. Well, tens of thousands of raging hypocrites.
He's confusing and visually abrasive, amateur, and relatively unfinished upon publication. His understanding of product design and business economics is an abomination, which rudely juts into the pages of the inter webs. The reality is that Topolsky is stuck in hate-quicksand, like, well, like nobody on earth.
Because neural networks are a fantasy. What AI researchers call neural networks are just a mathematical abstraction of somebody's idea of how neurons work and interact, on the theory that emulating this idea will somehow simulate intelligence. In fact, nobody knows how neurons actually work, how memories are formed, stored, and retrieved, and how intelligence uses reasoning and memories to perform useful tasks. Or any tasks. Neural networks are right up their with Time Travel, Cold Fusion, and Perpetual Motion: no basis in fact.
The Gawker editor who said, in the movie, "If you're not pissing off a billionaire, what's the point?" identifies the problem. Journalism's point isn't to annoy rich people. That a Gawker editor thinks it is shows that Gawker was never legitimate journalism. Just tawdry gossip.
The above comment, inadvertently directed to SSD, was intended for slashdice. Thanks for no editing, slashdot :)
SSD, Linux source code has always been available freel, always, and freely. Always. Only a moron doesn't know this.
Which is what higher shipping prices would do. No conflict here: supply and demand handles this situation nicely. As long as petulant millennials can get over their feeling of entitlement to free shipping. :)
NOAA predicts Sun will rise in the east, set in the west. IRS predicts people will cheat on their taxes. Anyone predicts Slashdot will publish any old thing.
...and structural engineering is easy for someone competent in the discipline. This post presumes a problem where none exists.
For all I know they called the conference organizers to verify my story. The questions to me ranged from what would be my topic (IPv6) and whether I would be paid (I wouldn't; it was an academic conference at a local university), to was I marketing my services to Canadian businesses (no). And many other questions in between that today I would have had the presence of mind to record, but not then. This was five or six years ago, long before the current immigration security flush.
Because the current crop of IoT programmers clearly don't know a thing about it, or just don't care, which is why IoTs are the largest DDoS attack army in history.
Is this what passes for intelligent discourse at Phys.org? So many errors, so little time. First, an algorithm is NOT involved when I pick a movie to stream on Netflix. I pick the movie, Netflix streams it. Unless you want to count the code necessary to display a web page and process a click. Second, algorithms are NOT "complex mathematical formulas." A formula is a specification for a single computational step (or a series of similar steps, in the case of calculus). An algorithm is a non-mathematical procedure, with memory, decision making, input and output from and to various sources and sinks, and, well, formulas. Algorithms contain formulas, but formulas don't contain algorithms. And phys.org does not contain the sense God gave raisins.
Such as this vaccuous story.
These employment numbers are an anomaly. If they were actual sustainable job, they would be the most inefficient energy jobs on earth. Coal and natural gas account for most of US electricity, with nuclear and hydro falling in 3rd and 4th respectively. Renewables (not including hydro) account for 7% of total generation, with solar at just 0.6%. So more solar workers than coal workers sweat away open a boondoggle: producing just .6% of the power America consumes.
They just aren't. They are not conscious, and have no ability to think. They are simply engineered automation using the same information processing strategies -- pattern recognition and data repositories -- computer science has always used. But the hyperbolic "AI community' has so over-promised and under-delivered that they had to dumb-down the term, into "strong" (real) and "weak" (fake) AAI. So now when they call drones "AI" (meaning weak AI), we are deceived into ascribing have the dangers of autonomous drones with weapons, which are very real, to AI as a category, which is science fiction.
So let's just leave AI out of it. Any weapon that can fly around, select human targets, and destroy them, autonomously is hugely dangerous. So dangerous as to be a war crime. For the very reason that strong AI is a complete fantasy: these machines do not think, cannot make anything like rational judgements, or weigh the consequences of their actions. Nothing but a human can do that. All autonomous drones have at their disposal is pattern matching and information repositories, programmed by humans who have never once written a bug-free non-trivial program.
Newer flight data recorders include integrated digital cockpit voice recording capabilities. The idea is that treating voice as just another data stream enables better overall shared protection of the complete data set, while saving money, complexity, and weight in the process.
There is no available mobile technology that can distinguish between a passenger operating a phone and the driver. So this lawyer is just looking for an easy settlement.
Then anyone can run the tests CR refuses to re-run. If they're that confidently of their results, they should be happy to provide the detailed equipment and steps, along with corresponding results, to the public. This is the way science is done: if you make an assertion, then you have to provide the raw data to let someone else try to reproduce your results.
Anything less is unscientific anecdotal evidence.