So India started developing its own cryogenic technology. It was supposed to be ready by 1999. Now, 12 years later, it is still not completely ready...
So that would make this 2011 then? It's only been five years, which for kick starting an entire field of research isn't that long.
Okay, what is "Jepeopardy" and who is Ken? Seriously guys this is obviously a local thing I'm totally amazed it ended up on the front page. I mean, I'm guessing it's a US thing, and seriously, who cares?
If, by the hard problem, you mean a fully autonomous and highly intelligent machine (I am not talking about consciousness here), the entire solution (not just a part) will be neural networks, period...
That is certainly not true. Biological brains are neural nets. A brain is a neural cell assembly which consists of a number of integrated subassemblies each with its own function and principle of operation.
Err, your point being?
Just becaue the ANN experts have no clue as to the principles involved, it does not follow that we should abandon neural network research. Animals are proof that neural networks are the future of intelligence research.
You do realise that alot of neural net (computer science) people are also neuroscientists? Heck, a lot of AI people are doing interdiciplinary work in biology or genetics in general...
You did actually read the parent post, right?
I was discussing neural nets with another comp sci person, to a comp scientist a "neural net" is something very distinct from (for instance) cluster weighted models. Which are just effectively... neural nets.
Nobody is disputing that neural networks will form one of the stepping stones towards true (strong) AI, if such a thing is possible, and it's argueable that it's not. However how the artifical neurons themelves interact, how we should build elaborate enough networks that can self-learn. Well, that is very much open to question. Real neurons, the sort you have in your brain, carry out complicated weighting interactions that we don't fully understand.
This is why alot of people are now look at other things, the things to build these interactions. Neural networks were see as the solution to the hard AI problem, they aren't. If there is such a solution, then they are certainly part of it, if there is one...
...this "just" is the problem. In mean: put 100 simple things together and have them interact, and you end up with a system that is vastly more complex than just 100 unconnected simple things. We have no idea on how to learn the parameters of such a behemoth, let alone how to initialize it.
Which is why I'm interested in autonomous systems, emerging complexity and (lets add one final buzzword) genetic algorithims.
If you give a system goals, make it work towards those goals, and then try impose some external force, such as evolution towards a fitness function. Then you should be able to get something interesting out the other end. You don't have to understand the complex system itself, you just have to understand the mechanisims it used to get there, which should be simpler, mostly anyway. We don't have to learn how to make it, and we don't even have to learn how to initialise it.
If you assume autonomy things such as emerging social conventions between the (small, simple) autonomous agents can cause interesting things to happen in the system overall.
I do a Ph.D. in an AI-related field at the moment...
I also work in a related field, autonomous systems...
First, the "I" in AI really shouldn't be there. When people talk a difficult decision problem (e.g. some pattern recognition problem), there comes the point where somebody will say, with a solemn voice: "So, what if we use Neural Networks?"
I think there has been (was) a view that neural nets were the solution, that's obviously not the case, but they've been over used and there is a backlash in the community against them right now. Basically, they've gone out of fashion. However, they can come in very handy at times and I've solved several otherwise very complex problems by using them, that would have otherwise been computationally expensive.
If there is a hard AI solution, which of course is arguable, neural networks will be part of it.
When you put something in, you merely evaluate a rather simple nonlinear function. There is no intelligence involved!
Well that really depends on how you look at it, how did training take place? What is intelligence? You're vastly simplifying the arguements here, perhaps intentionally? I'm sure the hard AI faction would argue that we (human beings) are just a sum of a great number of simple nonlinear functions, out of which there is emerging complexity.
I don't know whether I agree, but the arguement can't simply be dismissed by waving you arms in the air and saying "non-linear functions". Which isn't to say I entirely disagree that this is a (possibly) effective counter-arguement, it's just (as it stands) intellectually weak. I think I'll track down my PhD student, it's almost morning coffee time, he's probably about by now, and see if he can argue his way out of this one to my satisfaction..
OK, so the BBC's output is heavily UK biased but that is understandable and expected.
The BBC comentators are certainly biased towards the UK competitors, and rightly so, I see no reason why they shouldn't be...
But, the BBC covered minority sports as well as the main ones. The coverage went out over two channels. There were hundreds of hours of LIVE coverage...
The coverage is certainly extensive. Today it was live on BBC1 and BBC2 (analogue) and there were two more live feeds and text content on BBCi (digital). Can't be bad...
Armadillo Aerospace has only spent about $1.5 million on their X-Prize craft. The only group which has spent more than $10 million is Scaled Composites...
Which, barring a major upset, is probably who is going to win. I guess the old "You get what you pay for..." holds true to some extent.
The submitter DID NOT read the article AT ALL, and apparenty neither did the editors.
Unfortunately you're wrong, the article on the BBC site has been "updated" since the story was initally posted. The BBC have a tendency to update their articles to correct factual errors, without actually telling you they've done it, or archiving the original (unmodified) article. If you think about it, it's actually quite scary...
I can't find anything about this in the main stream media, the only story Google News finds (at least at the moment) is this which is talking about NASA and a recent on-the-ground test deployment.
Anyone actually got any more hard facts about this one?
I'm a Brit, and I knew about this, I'd even heard the story of the minister and his wife and kids before...
so here it probably isn't a known fact
Known? Yes? Well known? No, not particularly. But then it's not exactly the Battle of Midway, or Pearl Harbour. There is lots of (wierd, interesting) stuff like this that went on during WWII that, if you go looking, you can find out. Although I think I actually first read about this one as a footnote in a text book on jet stream dynamics. Odd huh?
You may or may not have been noticed, but NASA does not have the capability of putting humans on orbit in 2004. Its doubtful that they will have this capability in 2005.
Okay, if you really want to be pedantic. They have the capability, they aren't willing to use it...
If they make this work then in short order they could have a station with more inhabitable volume than ISS for a fraction of the cost.
That's great, but how are you going to get people to your new station?
To put people into space you have to send them up on a man rated launcher. The only people with those right now are NASA, RKA (Russia) and CNSA (China). There are no private launchers capable of putting people into orbit and won't be for a considerable amount of time.
Yes, UV light does damage the retina. But since the filter we're talking about is optically opaque and IR transparent, the iris doesn't contract so you get excess IR onto the retina. Basically, you cook the eyeball.
I think you are talking about the transparency of the plastics material. The useful absorbance is of course due to the metallized layer in the CD (or layers if more than one CD is used), no-one suggests that the plastics material in itself is a useful filter.
Nope, this "CD's are safe to use as solar filters" rumour has been going round the houses since the started to appear. They're not safe, the "metallized layer" is mostly transparent to IR.
I just tried a glimpse with various CDs. I find that a single unlacquered CD thickness leaves too much brightness, but 2 CD thicknesses (silver/recorded sides towards the sun) might be ok. (Care now!! Don't blame me if it's too bright for you!)
Congratulations, it's possible you've just done a great deal of damage to your eye. While CD's are (mostly) opaque to visible wavelengths, they're totally transparent to the infra-red. CD's, floppy disks and other media are not safe solar filters.
Do not use make shift filters for direct solar viewing, unless you know the transmission coefficients of the material.
But when they get to talking about it, you soon understand that they still mostly just want it to keep their lives in order. It's interesting that even many one-percenters on/. seem to be the same way. I love new tech just like anyone else, but it's a lot cheaper for me to play with the neat gizmos seperately, and not have my mishaps affect my PDA. Any other thoughts?
My PDA is totally critical, I've got everything in there. While I backup regularly and use iSync to keep everything synchronised with my Mac Powerbook, I don't carry the Powerbook everywhere. The PDA I carry everywhere. I don't want a PDA that's flaky, adding "stuff" like camera's and do-das makes the OS flaky (look at any recent Nokia phone and compare it's stability to the older models). I want something to keep my calenda and my address book in, and work out my milage and expenses. I don't want something to play MP3's...
Even if you make a tiny modification, you have to make the authors aware that such a modification exists.
No. If you modify a piece of GPL code you are under no obligation to make the authors aware of it. You are also not under any obligation to distribute the changed source code unless you release your modified version of the program. You are still under no obligation to inform the original authors that you have made changes (and released) a version of their code, so long as you release the changed source code with your binaries.
The only obligation you have under the GPL in this respect is that if you release it, and it's GPL'd, you have to release the source code with it.
Slashdot Mirror
There aren't any comments on the story yet, and the site is already totally slashdotted, oh well!
Al.So India started developing its own cryogenic technology. It was supposed to be ready by 1999. Now, 12 years later, it is still not completely ready...
So that would make this 2011 then? It's only been five years, which for kick starting an entire field of research isn't that long.
Al.Okay, what is "Jepeopardy" and who is Ken? Seriously guys this is obviously a local thing I'm totally amazed it ended up on the front page. I mean, I'm guessing it's a US thing, and seriously, who cares?
Al.If there was a $7/gallon tax on gasoline...
I think the UK government has effectively proved that taxing petrol doesn't discourage usage, it just make people complain more.
Al.#1. Change the cockpit doors so the terrorists can't get into them.
#2. Rotate the first 2 seats in the plane to face the rest of the passengers.
#3. An air marshal with a pistol or uzi and rubber bullets (no hull penetration) sits here, facing the passengers.
At which point I'd never fly again in protest, as I'm sure would many other people.
Al.If, by the hard problem, you mean a fully autonomous and highly intelligent machine (I am not talking about consciousness here), the entire solution (not just a part) will be neural networks, period...
Err, no. That proves not to be the case.
Al.That is certainly not true. Biological brains are neural nets. A brain is a neural cell assembly which consists of a number of integrated subassemblies each with its own function and principle of operation.
Err, your point being?
Just becaue the ANN experts have no clue as to the principles involved, it does not follow that we should abandon neural network research. Animals are proof that neural networks are the future of intelligence research.
You do realise that alot of neural net (computer science) people are also neuroscientists? Heck, a lot of AI people are doing interdiciplinary work in biology or genetics in general...
You did actually read the parent post, right?
I was discussing neural nets with another comp sci person, to a comp scientist a "neural net" is something very distinct from (for instance) cluster weighted models. Which are just effectively... neural nets.
Nobody is disputing that neural networks will form one of the stepping stones towards true (strong) AI, if such a thing is possible, and it's argueable that it's not. However how the artifical neurons themelves interact, how we should build elaborate enough networks that can self-learn. Well, that is very much open to question. Real neurons, the sort you have in your brain, carry out complicated weighting interactions that we don't fully understand.
This is why alot of people are now look at other things, the things to build these interactions. Neural networks were see as the solution to the hard AI problem, they aren't. If there is such a solution, then they are certainly part of it, if there is one...
Al.Which is why I'm interested in autonomous systems, emerging complexity and (lets add one final buzzword) genetic algorithims.
If you give a system goals, make it work towards those goals, and then try impose some external force, such as evolution towards a fitness function. Then you should be able to get something interesting out the other end. You don't have to understand the complex system itself, you just have to understand the mechanisims it used to get there, which should be simpler, mostly anyway. We don't have to learn how to make it, and we don't even have to learn how to initialise it.
If you assume autonomy things such as emerging social conventions between the (small, simple) autonomous agents can cause interesting things to happen in the system overall.
Of course now I'm simpilfiying things...
Al.Is there at least a recognized subfield of machine learning now that deals in the study of emergence?
Sure, in fact emerging complexity is now the thing that's all the rage. It's jsuit not very, well, complex yet...
Al.I do a Ph.D. in an AI-related field at the moment...
I also work in a related field, autonomous systems...
First, the "I" in AI really shouldn't be there. When people talk a difficult decision problem (e.g. some pattern recognition problem), there comes the point where somebody will say, with a solemn voice: "So, what if we use Neural Networks?"
I think there has been (was) a view that neural nets were the solution, that's obviously not the case, but they've been over used and there is a backlash in the community against them right now. Basically, they've gone out of fashion. However, they can come in very handy at times and I've solved several otherwise very complex problems by using them, that would have otherwise been computationally expensive.
If there is a hard AI solution, which of course is arguable, neural networks will be part of it.
When you put something in, you merely evaluate a rather simple nonlinear function. There is no intelligence involved!
Well that really depends on how you look at it, how did training take place? What is intelligence? You're vastly simplifying the arguements here, perhaps intentionally? I'm sure the hard AI faction would argue that we (human beings) are just a sum of a great number of simple nonlinear functions, out of which there is emerging complexity.
I don't know whether I agree, but the arguement can't simply be dismissed by waving you arms in the air and saying "non-linear functions". Which isn't to say I entirely disagree that this is a (possibly) effective counter-arguement, it's just (as it stands) intellectually weak. I think I'll track down my PhD student, it's almost morning coffee time, he's probably about by now, and see if he can argue his way out of this one to my satisfaction..
Al.OK, so the BBC's output is heavily UK biased but that is understandable and expected.
The BBC comentators are certainly biased towards the UK competitors, and rightly so, I see no reason why they shouldn't be...
But, the BBC covered minority sports as well as the main ones. The coverage went out over two channels. There were hundreds of hours of LIVE coverage...
The coverage is certainly extensive. Today it was live on BBC1 and BBC2 (analogue) and there were two more live feeds and text content on BBCi (digital). Can't be bad...
Al.Armadillo Aerospace has only spent about $1.5 million on their X-Prize craft. The only group which has spent more than $10 million is Scaled Composites...
Which, barring a major upset, is probably who is going to win. I guess the old "You get what you pay for..." holds true to some extent.
Al.In other news, rain is found to be "wet"...
Al.The submitter DID NOT read the article AT ALL, and apparenty neither did the editors.
Unfortunately you're wrong, the article on the BBC site has been "updated" since the story was initally posted. The BBC have a tendency to update their articles to correct factual errors, without actually telling you they've done it, or archiving the original (unmodified) article. If you think about it, it's actually quite scary...
Al.I can't find anything about this in the main stream media, the only story Google News finds (at least at the moment) is this which is talking about NASA and a recent on-the-ground test deployment.
Anyone actually got any more hard facts about this one?
Al.Odeon has just exposed itself to an ADA class action lawsuit from any handicapped customer who feels inconvenienced by Odeon's non-compliant website.
Which part of "Odeon Cinemas, a British theater chain..." didn't you understand?
Al.well I'm in Europe and never heard about this..
I'm a Brit, and I knew about this, I'd even heard the story of the minister and his wife and kids before...
so here it probably isn't a known fact
Known? Yes? Well known? No, not particularly. But then it's not exactly the Battle of Midway, or Pearl Harbour. There is lots of (wierd, interesting) stuff like this that went on during WWII that, if you go looking, you can find out. Although I think I actually first read about this one as a footnote in a text book on jet stream dynamics. Odd huh?
Al.You may or may not have been noticed, but NASA does not have the capability of putting humans on orbit in 2004. Its doubtful that they will have this capability in 2005.
Okay, if you really want to be pedantic. They have the capability, they aren't willing to use it...
Al.If they make this work then in short order they could have a station with more inhabitable volume than ISS for a fraction of the cost.
That's great, but how are you going to get people to your new station?
To put people into space you have to send them up on a man rated launcher. The only people with those right now are NASA, RKA (Russia) and CNSA (China). There are no private launchers capable of putting people into orbit and won't be for a considerable amount of time.
Al.It's UV light that damages the retina, not IR.
Yes, UV light does damage the retina. But since the filter we're talking about is optically opaque and IR transparent, the iris doesn't contract so you get excess IR onto the retina. Basically, you cook the eyeball.
Al.I think you are talking about the transparency of the plastics material. The useful absorbance is of course due to the metallized layer in the CD (or layers if more than one CD is used), no-one suggests that the plastics material in itself is a useful filter.
Nope, this "CD's are safe to use as solar filters" rumour has been going round the houses since the started to appear. They're not safe, the "metallized layer" is mostly transparent to IR.
Al.I just tried a glimpse with various CDs. I find that a single unlacquered CD thickness leaves too much brightness, but 2 CD thicknesses (silver/recorded sides towards the sun) might be ok. (Care now!! Don't blame me if it's too bright for you!)
Congratulations, it's possible you've just done a great deal of damage to your eye. While CD's are (mostly) opaque to visible wavelengths, they're totally transparent to the infra-red. CD's, floppy disks and other media are not safe solar filters.
Do not use make shift filters for direct solar viewing, unless you know the transmission coefficients of the material.
Al.But when they get to talking about it, you soon understand that they still mostly just want it to keep their lives in order. It's interesting that even many one-percenters on /. seem to be the same way. I love new tech just like anyone else, but it's a lot cheaper for me to play with the neat gizmos seperately, and not have my mishaps affect my PDA. Any other thoughts?
My PDA is totally critical, I've got everything in there. While I backup regularly and use iSync to keep everything synchronised with my Mac Powerbook, I don't carry the Powerbook everywhere. The PDA I carry everywhere. I don't want a PDA that's flaky, adding "stuff" like camera's and do-das makes the OS flaky (look at any recent Nokia phone and compare it's stability to the older models). I want something to keep my calenda and my address book in, and work out my milage and expenses. I don't want something to play MP3's...
Al.Even if you make a tiny modification, you have to make the authors aware that such a modification exists.
No. If you modify a piece of GPL code you are under no obligation to make the authors aware of it. You are also not under any obligation to distribute the changed source code unless you release your modified version of the program. You are still under no obligation to inform the original authors that you have made changes (and released) a version of their code, so long as you release the changed source code with your binaries.
The only obligation you have under the GPL in this respect is that if you release it, and it's GPL'd, you have to release the source code with it.
Al.For example, Southwest has the fastest turn around time in the industry (20 minutes)...
I presume you're talking about the US airline industry here? EasyJet does turn arounds in 8 minutes.
Al.