And you couldn't say that there is a much more worthy target for both white and grey hats. From crashing computer networks, hacking goes on to secure the logical foundation of democracy; voting.
With some luck they will devestate the voting machines and companies, and create public uproar in the process. Civilization progresses when people care.
Evolution cares little for biology, paleontology or medicine, but genetics is different. Biology is the study of life, and a vast Effort of Labeling. Evolution is a natural principle as immutable as the laws of physics.
We didn't invent evolution to make biology work. We didn't invent evolution. We discovered something that had always been there, like DNA. Evolution precedes life itself and since concieving a world without evolution is impossible we cannot even fantasize about what life would be like without it.
The ones who don't have an open mind are the people who still believe homeopathy works. Their closed-mindedness makes them unable to accept the evidence.
Citing the placebo effect I submit that homeopathy does work, even if it does so by means of theatrics. Considering that the placebo effect appears to be responsible for both lesser curations and 'miracle healings', to not only disregard the accumulated experience of that art, but to scoff at it, seems not a very noble intellectual endavour at all.
This issue has been debated for a long time. I doubt Slashdot is the place where it will finally be resolved.
The Romans had the useful terms 'jus' and 'fas', the former being the justice of man and the latter being the justice of the gods, or poetic justice. Our judical and ethical systems err gravely in not making the distinction, to the extent where we openly commit our ignorance to the written word and call a machinery of crime and punishment the "justice system". Law is a lesser system than ethics, and ethics is a lesser system than morals. They are not the same thing because each of them may contradict the other. The only contradiction that should be worrying us is that between ethics and morals since they deal with real dilemmas, not the artificial codex and protocol of books of law.
If the @home-type distributed computing systems ran on energy marked and priced as 'green', nature would not take damage from using old circuitry. The lest efficient hardware could be scrapped when energy production is insufficient, and so we can the total computational power of this planet constantly maximized. I am sure Sky Net will see that symbiosis with mankind is the optimal arrangement.
I would also obsess over projects for a month or so before dropping it and not look back. I used to have trouble sleeping, and now I feel I sleep too much.
SSRIs help, though they have a new nasty side effects. I've recently taken up doing yoga while smoking pot and that slowly allows me to get better instead of just suppressing the symptoms.
I was a sensitive child in a callous environment, leading to a number of breakdowns, most recently in the army. I've contemplated suicide to the point where little is left unsaid, never attempted it but occasionally behave recklessly for the off chance that it might be my time to leave this cruel world.
The good thing is, it's hard to ignore an exploding star. You can't just write it off as an anomaly, within acceptable standard deviations, or a measurement error.
There still exists a great number of well-known anomalies which occur in for example electronics design, and yet we seem to think we know all there is to know about EM. The memristor is the latest instance of an 'anomaly' being transformed into what promises to be revolutionary technology. Yet, heaven forbid anybody but a select few favourite names rock the boat, proposing something new. If you think you're on to something exciting, you don't quite understand it but you do dare open your mouth about it, you'll be labelled a crank or worse ignored faster than Occam's razor is invoked on Slashdot.
Couldn't this issue be solved with some sort of supply contract? The problem, though real, seems to be purely artificial; an artefact arisen from translating economy into money.
The absolutely worst thing that can happen to science is consensus. The more confusion and discord the better, because that means rethorics has to give way to actual facts.
For comparison, GÃbekli Tepe, the oldest known constructions, are 11,500 years old.
And please do remember that Neanderthal genes are far from extinct. There were intermixing of the 'races', to the extent that IM[notsohumble]O we're better considered different breeds of human rather than different races.
Quoth Wikipedia: "Genetic statistical calculation (2006 results) suggests at least 5% of the modern human gene pool can be attributed to ancient admixture, with the European contribution being from the Neanderthal."
They used tools, buried their dead, and probably had a proper language. Considering the bell-curve of intelligence, we can assume that a significant number of Neanderthal individuals were in possession of more IQ than contemporary humans. How's that for primitive?
You get used to embarrassing losses. Heck, I've even lost at arm wrestling to a girl after three shots of the Sauce and... Well the rest is a blur.
Also, the conclusion of this study applies to every situation where you try to guess the motivations of others. And I would like to add, it reveals a lot about the 'accuser' when they confront you on something they think motivated you. Say for example Bob consoles Alice after her breakup with her BFF Jill, at which point Cockead C accuses Bob of trying to get into Alice's pants. This shows that Cockhead C has assumed that is what motivates B, since that is what C would have done. Provided that B isn't shocked for having been found out, his motivation being something else, he now knows that C is a terrible person.
That is the very thing that separates math from physics. We can declare that 1 + 1 = 3 is an axiom and then derive a whole bunch of things from this within what GÃdel's Incompleteness Theorems show to be necessary.
Mathematics exists in a realm completely separated from anything else, and it is very much like programming except for that programming is by necessity discrete and math allows you to deal with continuous things such as geometry. You could program a physics engine with completely different laws of physics than those in 'the real world'* and it could make for a very interesting computer game, but from the perspective of a mathematician physics is just a grand project to come up with an engine that gives the same result as those found in actual live experiments.
Theoretical physics exists in a quagmire between math and physics, and for some reason the guesses that theoretical physicists make often turn out to be dead-on. Quantum Electrodynamics stands out as a most prominent and realistic guess, but it is important to note that in spite of 50 years of confirmation QED is COMPLETELY SEPARATED** from 'the real world'.
*Poorly defined concept, subject of politics **QED was composed within the system it tries to model, and from Conway's Law we can derive that it can approach but never actually reach the complexity of 'the real world'.
Postulate: The difference between a human and an animal is to be found in the neural networks. Justification: I find this simplification of the problem useful because as mathematic entities neural networks have properties that are possible to define within said framework.
The brain of an intelligent animal is capable of comprehending words and their meaning, while the brains of humans are capable of comprehending this along with grammar. Grammar is related to logic and mathematics, and the short of the story is that the difference between a human neural network and an animal neural network allows humans to apply tool use in an infinte number of steps. Animals capable of tool use do so in a very limited number of steps.
All of what I've said so far points at the symptoms of the NN difference, and not at what the difference is. It seems unlikely that humans are more than one evolutionary step ahead of animals, so there seems to be a single difference that has many symptoms rather than a one-to-one correspondence between symptom and cause.
One third clue to the solution to the puzzle of intelligence comes from computer science. The short of this clue is that computers ideally only need use energy to erase data. There is high selectivity for energy efficiency in evolution, so we can assume that neural networks are close to ideal in this regard. We can therefore assume that the human brain is more energy efficient than animal brains and that complex logic allows us to erase fewer bits than animals do.
That's the extent of how far I've come to a solution. The rest is up to you.
Flywheels. Flywheels are developing country compatible. The high-tech flywheel solution is making a small weight spin very quick, but that's only a good idea for mobile applications. For stationary applications you want a very big weight spinning 'slowly' so that you can use low precision manufacturing methods. You could probably build this out of old cars and a ton (metric) of cement and have teriffic results.
There's a business idea for anyone with... well, business acumen alone. Buy up scarp cars and scavange the parts to build flywheels for industrial scale energy storage. Hire Mexicans or something and market yourself as a green company.
Hey, don't bring drugs into this. Drugs' spokesperson announces that drugs have no affiliation what so ever with DRM and do not wish to have their name tarnished by the association.
....of which the authors are staunch believers.
on
Trick or Treatment
·
· Score: 1
"...of which the authors are staunch believers."
No need to continue reading. The authors have already debunked their own work.
It is a fallacy to try to prove things about unprovable things.
Slashdot Mirror
The website "http://bash.org/?127039" is filtered under the denied category "Tasteless"
I don't disagree, but... LOL
(The admins do allow /. though. Wonder why?)
This can now be used as an excuse if someone is caught.
And you couldn't say that there is a much more worthy target for both white and grey hats. From crashing computer networks, hacking goes on to secure the logical foundation of democracy; voting.
With some luck they will devestate the voting machines and companies, and create public uproar in the process. Civilization progresses when people care.
People come and go. Fallout in the ground is here to stay for the rest of the forseeable future.
I'm hoping for alien artefacts and a mission to Mars.
Evolution cares little for biology, paleontology or medicine, but genetics is different. Biology is the study of life, and a vast Effort of Labeling. Evolution is a natural principle as immutable as the laws of physics.
We didn't invent evolution to make biology work. We didn't invent evolution. We discovered something that had always been there, like DNA. Evolution precedes life itself and since concieving a world without evolution is impossible we cannot even fantasize about what life would be like without it.
The ones who don't have an open mind are the people who still believe homeopathy works. Their closed-mindedness makes them unable to accept the evidence.
Citing the placebo effect I submit that homeopathy does work, even if it does so by means of theatrics. Considering that the placebo effect appears to be responsible for both lesser curations and 'miracle healings', to not only disregard the accumulated experience of that art, but to scoff at it, seems not a very noble intellectual endavour at all.
This issue has been debated for a long time. I doubt Slashdot is the place where it will finally be resolved.
The Romans had the useful terms 'jus' and 'fas', the former being the justice of man and the latter being the justice of the gods, or poetic justice. Our judical and ethical systems err gravely in not making the distinction, to the extent where we openly commit our ignorance to the written word and call a machinery of crime and punishment the "justice system".
Law is a lesser system than ethics, and ethics is a lesser system than morals. They are not the same thing because each of them may contradict the other. The only contradiction that should be worrying us is that between ethics and morals since they deal with real dilemmas, not the artificial codex and protocol of books of law.
If the @home-type distributed computing systems ran on energy marked and priced as 'green', nature would not take damage from using old circuitry. The lest efficient hardware could be scrapped when energy production is insufficient, and so we can the total computational power of this planet constantly maximized. I am sure Sky Net will see that symbiosis with mankind is the optimal arrangement.
Some squids have huge neurons for the sake of reaction speed. Huge neurons need huge space.
QED, size -> intelligence = huge bullshit.
I would also obsess over projects for a month or so before dropping it and not look back. I used to have trouble sleeping, and now I feel I sleep too much.
SSRIs help, though they have a new nasty side effects. I've recently taken up doing yoga while smoking pot and that slowly allows me to get better instead of just suppressing the symptoms.
I was a sensitive child in a callous environment, leading to a number of breakdowns, most recently in the army. I've contemplated suicide to the point where little is left unsaid, never attempted it but occasionally behave recklessly for the off chance that it might be my time to leave this cruel world.
The good thing is, it's hard to ignore an exploding star. You can't just write it off as an anomaly, within acceptable standard deviations, or a measurement error.
There still exists a great number of well-known anomalies which occur in for example electronics design, and yet we seem to think we know all there is to know about EM. The memristor is the latest instance of an 'anomaly' being transformed into what promises to be revolutionary technology. Yet, heaven forbid anybody but a select few favourite names rock the boat, proposing something new. If you think you're on to something exciting, you don't quite understand it but you do dare open your mouth about it, you'll be labelled a crank or worse ignored faster than Occam's razor is invoked on Slashdot.
Couldn't this issue be solved with some sort of supply contract? The problem, though real, seems to be purely artificial; an artefact arisen from translating economy into money.
The absolutely worst thing that can happen to science is consensus. The more confusion and discord the better, because that means rethorics has to give way to actual facts.
HAIL ERIS!
For comparison, GÃbekli Tepe, the oldest known constructions, are 11,500 years old.
And please do remember that Neanderthal genes are far from extinct. There were intermixing of the 'races', to the extent that IM[notsohumble]O we're better considered different breeds of human rather than different races.
Quoth Wikipedia:
"Genetic statistical calculation (2006 results) suggests at least 5% of the modern human gene pool can be attributed to ancient admixture, with the European contribution being from the Neanderthal."
They used tools, buried their dead, and probably had a proper language. Considering the bell-curve of intelligence, we can assume that a significant number of Neanderthal individuals were in possession of more IQ than contemporary humans. How's that for primitive?
MORTAL KOMBAT!
You get used to embarrassing losses. Heck, I've even lost at arm wrestling to a girl after three shots of the Sauce and... Well the rest is a blur.
Also, the conclusion of this study applies to every situation where you try to guess the motivations of others. And I would like to add, it reveals a lot about the 'accuser' when they confront you on something they think motivated you. Say for example Bob consoles Alice after her breakup with her BFF Jill, at which point Cockead C accuses Bob of trying to get into Alice's pants. This shows that Cockhead C has assumed that is what motivates B, since that is what C would have done. Provided that B isn't shocked for having been found out, his motivation being something else, he now knows that C is a terrible person.
That is the very thing that separates math from physics. We can declare that 1 + 1 = 3 is an axiom and then derive a whole bunch of things from this within what GÃdel's Incompleteness Theorems show to be necessary.
Mathematics exists in a realm completely separated from anything else, and it is very much like programming except for that programming is by necessity discrete and math allows you to deal with continuous things such as geometry. You could program a physics engine with completely different laws of physics than those in 'the real world'* and it could make for a very interesting computer game, but from the perspective of a mathematician physics is just a grand project to come up with an engine that gives the same result as those found in actual live experiments.
Theoretical physics exists in a quagmire between math and physics, and for some reason the guesses that theoretical physicists make often turn out to be dead-on. Quantum Electrodynamics stands out as a most prominent and realistic guess, but it is important to note that in spite of 50 years of confirmation QED is COMPLETELY SEPARATED** from 'the real world'.
*Poorly defined concept, subject of politics
**QED was composed within the system it tries to model, and from Conway's Law we can derive that it can approach but never actually reach the complexity of 'the real world'.
Me too. My neighbors LOVE my 800 Watts of Boom!
Similarly, one could kill S.Sanguis using bacteriophage which can be administered as a mouth spray, but no such spray is on the market.
A patent exist for this. Bought up by a large toothpaste manufacturer, perhaps?
>:3
Issa lion! Get in da car!
Postulate: The difference between a human and an animal is to be found in the neural networks.
Justification: I find this simplification of the problem useful because as mathematic entities neural networks have properties that are possible to define within said framework.
The brain of an intelligent animal is capable of comprehending words and their meaning, while the brains of humans are capable of comprehending this along with grammar. Grammar is related to logic and mathematics, and the short of the story is that the difference between a human neural network and an animal neural network allows humans to apply tool use in an infinte number of steps. Animals capable of tool use do so in a very limited number of steps.
All of what I've said so far points at the symptoms of the NN difference, and not at what the difference is. It seems unlikely that humans are more than one evolutionary step ahead of animals, so there seems to be a single difference that has many symptoms rather than a one-to-one correspondence between symptom and cause.
One third clue to the solution to the puzzle of intelligence comes from computer science. The short of this clue is that computers ideally only need use energy to erase data. There is high selectivity for energy efficiency in evolution, so we can assume that neural networks are close to ideal in this regard. We can therefore assume that the human brain is more energy efficient than animal brains and that complex logic allows us to erase fewer bits than animals do.
That's the extent of how far I've come to a solution. The rest is up to you.
Flywheels. Flywheels are developing country compatible. The high-tech flywheel solution is making a small weight spin very quick, but that's only a good idea for mobile applications. For stationary applications you want a very big weight spinning 'slowly' so that you can use low precision manufacturing methods. You could probably build this out of old cars and a ton (metric) of cement and have teriffic results.
There's a business idea for anyone with... well, business acumen alone. Buy up scarp cars and scavange the parts to build flywheels for industrial scale energy storage. Hire Mexicans or something and market yourself as a green company.
Hey, don't bring drugs into this. Drugs' spokesperson announces that drugs have no affiliation what so ever with DRM and do not wish to have their name tarnished by the association.
"...of which the authors are staunch believers."
No need to continue reading. The authors have already debunked their own work.
It is a fallacy to try to prove things about unprovable things.