Art is a response from the artist, often provocative, that channels their consciousness into their creation.
It's all pointless word play (which is the norm for philosophy). If you define "art" as something that can only be made by a conscious being, then obviously current generation AI will never be able to produce art, as they are not conscious. On the other hand, if you define art as something that can be experienced by a conscious being, regardless who or what made it, then current generation AI will most definitely be able to produce it. I'm more inclined to the second definition, as art is in the eye of the beholder.
You can do the same word play with "artist". It can be defined as either a conscious entity creating something it considers artistic, or anyone/anything that creates something that other conscious beings find artistic.
In the end, the former definitions are basically examples of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, as they exclude everything except the proverbial Scotsman from the definition.
accretion disks DO NOT condense into discrete well-defined orbital bodies like planets (or in this case, moons)
Planetary rings are not accretion disks. So your statement is already wrong from the first two words. Even so, there is evidence that some of Saturn's moons were formed partially out of condensed ring material.
the Big Bang theory as a simple explanation of everything we see.
The Big Bang theory has little to do with ring mechanics. Maxwell already had a comprehensive model of how the rings worked (based on Newtonian physics) 70 years before Lemaitre posed the idea of a Big Bang.
or the episode where they run around inside the TARDIS and it turns out that it's powered by a freaking SUN. That was amazing, I wish I could remember which episode it was.
Obviously, that was exactly the point I was making. If you want to have conversations like "Please send me that in jiff format. You know, the JPEG one, not the CompuServe one.", be my guest. I'll avoid the homophones and call a GIF a giff...
I used to use NoScript for years, until it broke in the Great FireFox Plugin Breakage (it got mostly fixed a couple of weeks later). Then I started using uMatrix. It took some time to understand how to use it properly, but now I do, I don't look back. It's far superior to NoScript, except maybe for some of the click-jacking stuff that NoScript can block (although I got mostly false positives with that, so it was more annoying than useful).
One thing I really didn't like about NoScript, is that if I unblocked say "google.com" on one site, then it would be unblocked for all domains, and for all browser tabs that I left open.
With uMatrix, this unblocking is per site domain. And you get fine grained control over what to block or unblock (cookies, css, images, media, scripts, xhr, frames, websockets).
I've setup uMatrix to allow some basic things on the 1st party level (whitelist mode), meaning most sites will load. Then if a site needs extra domains/scripts/css/media/whatever, I can unblock the ones that make the site work again. If I visit the site frequently, I can save the "extra unblocks" to the whitelist with a simple click on a button.
It takes some getting used to, but uMatrix lets you take back control over your browsing experience. And it works had-in-hand with uBlock Origin, another must-have plugin from the same author.
Well except for the part where Saturn became Jupiter... (ie a major mismatch between the book and movie)...
Actually, the screenplay matched the book, but the special effects at the time couldn't get the rings of Saturn to look realistic, so they changed the plot to Jupiter at the last minute. By that time, the book had already gone to pre-print, so couldn't be fixed.
Both A and B were spinning clockwise from the time they were entangled, there is no "change" involved, just the fact that measuring the spin of A lets you also know the spin of B.
Actually, no. A key property of quantum particles is that their quantum states are undetermined until locked down by measurement.
So at the time of entanglement, A will have undetermined spin S and B will have undetermined spin S'. Once S and S' are measured, they will turn out to be strongly correlated. Measuring S will randomly determine its value (and that of S') within the probabilities set by the wave function of the entangled system (A, B). Because the wave function collapse is random, it's impossible to set a value at either side, and thus transmit information.
The summary neglects to mention that the strongest result of the one study was that the rats exposed to microwave radiation had SIGNIFICANTLY longer lifespans than the ones not exposed.
Indeed, and it is well known that longer lifespan strongly correlates with more cancer. The RF radiation probably slightly increases body temperature, which helps fight off infections, leading to longer life, leading to age-related cancer.
Although it is an elegant theory, I don't think anyone has developed a way to validate it yet and the Nobel committee generally isn't persuaded by elegant theories that may or may not turn out to be wrong...
Some researchers created an acoustic version of a black hole, that followed the same mathematical model, and exhibited Hawking radiation.
Not exactly the same thing, of course, but if our current modelling of black hole physics is correct, they should also exhibit Hawking radiation.
I think Web Assembly is a tremendous mistake. This will end up being nothing more than an insecure vector for people you don't know to run programs on your computer.
Not to spoil a good rant, but Web Assembly is just a more compact serialization (binary instead of text) of a subset of EcmaScript/JavaScript. Everything you can do with it, you could already do with normal scripts, and it was already very common to "minify"/obfuscate these scripts into an unreadable mess.
So, if there are security issues with WAsm, they're also present in plain JS, and were already present a couple of years ago. The only thing that changes is that your browser now doesn't need to download as much data for scripts, since the binary format acts as a compression.
No, it's not redundant. The search bar/URL address bar split permits some level of privacy as what's entered on the URL bar isn't sent to a search engine, and what's placed in the search bar is, in real time.
You can make it so (at least up to v55, not sure about v57). The way I've been using FF for years is: hide the search bar, disable search and suggestions in the URL bar, and then use keyword search to search from the URL bar (g for google, w for wikipedia, and so on).
As a FF user since v0.3 Phoenix, I'm willing to give v57 a fair try, but Mozilla is treading on very thin ice lately...
Great example of prof ego. Instead of deducing a few points for failing a hidden objective, you didn't get any points, even though you completed the main assignment. Then he convinced you he was right. Classic gaslighting.
This is a problem with education in general, with teachers expecting you to regurgitate only *their* solutions, instead of promoting independent thought and thinking outside of the box.
As for your last sentence, it depends. Sometimes you have to go with the flow, and sometimes you have to dig your own river bed and make the flow go where it needs to go. Managing programmers is not unlike herding cats...
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe its a Kia.
The kid was lucky it wasn't a Ford Pinto.
Art is a response from the artist, often provocative, that channels their consciousness into their creation.
It's all pointless word play (which is the norm for philosophy).
If you define "art" as something that can only be made by a conscious being, then obviously current generation AI will never be able to produce art, as they are not conscious.
On the other hand, if you define art as something that can be experienced by a conscious being, regardless who or what made it, then current generation AI will most definitely be able to produce it.
I'm more inclined to the second definition, as art is in the eye of the beholder.
You can do the same word play with "artist". It can be defined as either a conscious entity creating something it considers artistic, or anyone/anything that creates something that other conscious beings find artistic.
In the end, the former definitions are basically examples of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, as they exclude everything except the proverbial Scotsman from the definition.
I really wonder how many of the maladies of old age are actually deficiency disorders.
Interestingly enough, there's recent research that indicates some aging related ailments could be caused by too much accumulated iron.
accretion disks DO NOT condense into discrete well-defined orbital bodies like planets (or in this case, moons)
Planetary rings are not accretion disks. So your statement is already wrong from the first two words. Even so, there is evidence that some of Saturn's moons were formed partially out of condensed ring material.
the Big Bang theory as a simple explanation of everything we see.
The Big Bang theory has little to do with ring mechanics. Maxwell already had a comprehensive model of how the rings worked (based on Newtonian physics) 70 years before Lemaitre posed the idea of a Big Bang.
or the episode where they run around inside the TARDIS and it turns out that it's powered by a freaking SUN. That was amazing, I wish I could remember which episode it was.
Series 7 episode 10: Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS. It's called the Eye of Harmony.
It is important for it to give both in cases where both are equally valid.
I agree, but lets not make it so verbose. And don't forget neutral. So I propose:
s/h/it is going to hit the fan.
Compressed video...You get used to it, though. Your brain does the translating. I don't even see the code. All I see is blonde, brunette, redhead.
Wait a minute... Didn't we shoot you with a Tesla gun, more than 2 movies ago?
I do the opposite. I download thousands of illegal copies of Tom Cruise movies. Sooner or later Scientology will be ruined by extension!
Good grief man! If I calculate the monetary loss using the MPAA pirate rates (pi-rates?), you're costing them trillions! How are they still afloat??
Obviously, that was exactly the point I was making.
If you want to have conversations like "Please send me that in jiff format. You know, the JPEG one, not the CompuServe one.", be my guest.
I'll avoid the homophones and call a GIF a giff...
It's pronounced "Jiff," like the peanut butter more moms prefer.
If you pronounce GIF as "jiff", then how do you pronounce "JIF" (JPEG Interchange Format)?
I used to use NoScript for years, until it broke in the Great FireFox Plugin Breakage (it got mostly fixed a couple of weeks later).
Then I started using uMatrix. It took some time to understand how to use it properly, but now I do, I don't look back. It's far superior to NoScript, except maybe for some of the click-jacking stuff that NoScript can block (although I got mostly false positives with that, so it was more annoying than useful).
One thing I really didn't like about NoScript, is that if I unblocked say "google.com" on one site, then it would be unblocked for all domains, and for all browser tabs that I left open.
With uMatrix, this unblocking is per site domain. And you get fine grained control over what to block or unblock (cookies, css, images, media, scripts, xhr, frames, websockets).
I've setup uMatrix to allow some basic things on the 1st party level (whitelist mode), meaning most sites will load. Then if a site needs extra domains/scripts/css/media/whatever, I can unblock the ones that make the site work again. If I visit the site frequently, I can save the "extra unblocks" to the whitelist with a simple click on a button.
It takes some getting used to, but uMatrix lets you take back control over your browsing experience. And it works had-in-hand with uBlock Origin, another must-have plugin from the same author.
Well except for the part where Saturn became Jupiter... (ie a major mismatch between the book and movie)...
Actually, the screenplay matched the book, but the special effects at the time couldn't get the rings of Saturn to look realistic, so they changed the plot to Jupiter at the last minute. By that time, the book had already gone to pre-print, so couldn't be fixed.
Maybe invent a box that people can just stick their hands in for thirty seconds, emerging perfectly washed.
Done.
Both A and B were spinning clockwise from the time they were entangled, there is no "change" involved, just the fact that measuring the spin of A lets you also know the spin of B.
Actually, no. A key property of quantum particles is that their quantum states are undetermined until locked down by measurement.
So at the time of entanglement, A will have undetermined spin S and B will have undetermined spin S'. Once S and S' are measured, they will turn out to be strongly correlated. Measuring S will randomly determine its value (and that of S') within the probabilities set by the wave function of the entangled system (A, B). Because the wave function collapse is random, it's impossible to set a value at either side, and thus transmit information.
What is the schedule for shutting down FDL?
Once the replacement FTL is ready, yesterday.
The summary neglects to mention that the strongest result of the one study was that the rats exposed to microwave radiation had SIGNIFICANTLY longer lifespans than the ones not exposed.
Indeed, and it is well known that longer lifespan strongly correlates with more cancer.
The RF radiation probably slightly increases body temperature, which helps fight off infections, leading to longer life, leading to age-related cancer.
Also, dupe, by the same guy.
They should put warning labels on research as well. It has been proven that scientific research causes cancer in rats.
Well, the causation is still unclear on that one. It may also be that cancer causes rats, or rats cause research. Who can tell?
Although it is an elegant theory, I don't think anyone has developed a way to validate it yet and the Nobel committee generally isn't persuaded by elegant theories that may or may not turn out to be wrong...
Some researchers created an acoustic version of a black hole, that followed the same mathematical model, and exhibited Hawking radiation.
Not exactly the same thing, of course, but if our current modelling of black hole physics is correct, they should also exhibit Hawking radiation.
Essentially, they can't explain how consciousness arises from physics, so they claim all the constituent parts 'have consciousness'.
A few thousand years ago, people could not explain fire, so they imagined it contained elemental particles of fire. Who needs modern physics anyway?
They can recognize traffic patterns in TLS streams, created by malware on IP connected devices.
They can't detect the malware itself in the stream.
I think Web Assembly is a tremendous mistake. This will end up being nothing more than an insecure vector for people you don't know to run programs on your computer.
Not to spoil a good rant, but Web Assembly is just a more compact serialization (binary instead of text) of a subset of EcmaScript/JavaScript.
Everything you can do with it, you could already do with normal scripts, and it was already very common to "minify"/obfuscate these scripts into an unreadable mess.
So, if there are security issues with WAsm, they're also present in plain JS, and were already present a couple of years ago.
The only thing that changes is that your browser now doesn't need to download as much data for scripts, since the binary format acts as a compression.
640B ought to be enough for anyone.
I've been told the judge once created a GUI in Visual Basic to track down a killer's IP address.
No, it's not redundant. The search bar/URL address bar split permits some level of privacy as what's entered on the URL bar isn't sent to a search engine, and what's placed in the search bar is, in real time.
You can make it so (at least up to v55, not sure about v57). The way I've been using FF for years is: hide the search bar, disable search and suggestions in the URL bar, and then use keyword search to search from the URL bar (g for google, w for wikipedia, and so on).
As a FF user since v0.3 Phoenix, I'm willing to give v57 a fair try, but Mozilla is treading on very thin ice lately...
Great example of prof ego. Instead of deducing a few points for failing a hidden objective, you didn't get any points, even though you completed the main assignment. Then he convinced you he was right. Classic gaslighting.
This is a problem with education in general, with teachers expecting you to regurgitate only *their* solutions, instead of promoting independent thought and thinking outside of the box.
As for your last sentence, it depends. Sometimes you have to go with the flow, and sometimes you have to dig your own river bed and make the flow go where it needs to go. Managing programmers is not unlike herding cats...