well, you can rent an internal combustion motor powered car for your trip with the savings on fuel if you like and still come out ahead...
While I agree with many of your points, I don't necessarily agree with that one. It's relative, but if you're in the market to buy a cheaper vehicle, the electric options are not very good (yet).
Although that's what keeps announcement about new and improved battery tech exciting. With 3x energy density and cheaper manufacturing, an electric vehicle with a 100 mile range could be significantly cheaper and lighter.
I don't think so. When a tree dies, even if it doesn't burn, it releases just about all of the carbon it had trapped as it decomposes. The micro-organisms that effectively eat it as it's rotting put out a lot of CO2. Even untouched forests have a life cycle of trees and other plants growing and dying (due to natural causes like changes in rainfall/temp, insects, disease, competition from other plants, etc.), putting an effective upper limit on how much carbon a forest can keep trapped. Sure some tiny amount will end up trapped in the dirt, but that mechanism happens way too slowly.
The upper limit on how quickly we can dig carbon out of the ground and burn it is astronomically higher. When we burn through millions of years of hydrocarbons in a hundred years, it is impossible to plant enough trees to offset even a tiny fraction of that. I'm not saying that planting trees wouldn't help at all, just that it would be an insignificant amount as long as we keep digging it up and burning it.
While I liked your post, I don't necessarily agree because that is one of those statements that can be made every single generation. It's common for every generation to think "things used to be better" at some point, but IMO it's one of the ways in which hind-sight is not 20/20. I live in Georgia and have read about some of the political history around here. For a long time in Georgia's history, the candidate that threw the most (and the best) public barbecues got the most votes. How's that for good old "yesteryear" critical thinking? How is it much different from today where the candidates with the most money to throw around have the best chances of winning?
Remember lynch mobs? What about the Salem witch hunts? Back then, it seemed that all it took was a bit of fake news (which in some cases could simply be shouted out by anyone in the street) to get someone strung up. IMO the mentality of Internet trolling is the same. The consequences are so much lighter, and it's easier to do it anonymously, so people with that type of personality are way more likely to act out on the Internet. It doesn't mean that people are worse today, just that we're hearing it more.
The second thought was... How did they come up with a number like "over 50%"? Seriously, how do you accurately measure the "desire" of violent antisocial people? Do you perform the treatment and then ask: "On a scale of 1 to 10, how much safer would it be for us to release you after this treatment?"
Forgive me if I misread your intent, but the way it's worded makes it sound like you are:
a) Certain that you're enlightening me with something new. Why do you think I mentioned that it "may be years before we know if this one will work for a significant percentage of cancer patients"?
b) Trying to refute my argument using one that is completely beside the point I was making. When it comes to computers, I was actually referring to a time before transistors were invented and computers were built by hand simply to prove the concept that computing machines could be built. Those had very high failure rates as well, but that is still a pointless fact that doesn't even come close to the point I was making.
My point was simply that new advancements/developments/tests like this are NOT worthless simply because it may take decades for the general public to see any benefit from them. Nothing more, nothing less. Are you arguing that they are worthless? That we shouldn't even try to cure cancer because it's too hard?
Oh, I agree 100% about the "Right to Try" legislation, and about the Democrats being no better than the Republicans when it comes to caring more about making the other side look bad than about... well, almost anything else. Both sides make me sick at times.
In addition to giving some patients a better chance (and more hope), it will also provide us with more significant statistics more quickly on new treatments earlier, which is a good thing.
While I agree to some extent, and I feel that some of the medical companies I've read about should have their CEO's and/or board members shot for treason (against the entire human race), I don't see this working much differently from other advanced technology research.
Take computer hardware for example. During the early stages of invention, computers were WAY too big and expensive for any but a select few to have access to one. It took a few decades for computer design and manufacturing to reach the point where we could have relatively cheap personal computers, laptops, cell phones, tablets, etc. Does that mean they aren't worth jack shit because almost no one had access to them back when scientists first started figuring out how to make them work? Because it took too many years for engineers to figure out how to make them smaller and easier to mass-produce?
New medical treatments have a lot of hurdles to jump through to be approved by governments, insurance companies, etc. It may be years before we know if this one will work for a significant percentage of cancer patients, to run the clinical trials and get it approved, whether it's worth mass-producing parts of it to reduce the cost of administering it, etc. Yes, it may be quite some time before it's available to most of us. It will get there eventually, so it is still worth quite a bit.
Sure you can, you just can't trademark the name to prevent others from doing so. It's like when Warner Brothers tried to stop others from using the name "Casablanca". They got egg on their face. If the poster you replied to is correct, this asshat tried to trademark the name "France" in France, which you have to admit is pretty stupid. If so, it may be the only reason they even bothered to notice him.
"The courts have a lot of power, but their authority is not unlimited."
True.
"and are not in a position to define what it means"
Are you kidding? That is what courts are for. Legislators craft and pass the written word of law, which is generally too vague to cover many real-world scenarios, and judges (plural, not singular) define precisely what those words mean in actual court cases. They resolve any ambiguities, they decide where any overlapping laws take precedence, etc.
"Yes, via the "third-party doctrine", another long-standing injustice."
Are we debating the way things should be or the way they are? Because it sounds like you are debating one while I am debating the other. The term "long-standing" implies that is is still standing, and that my point is still valid. I worry about what "should" be legal when I decide where to cast my votes. The rest of the time, I worry about the reality we have to live in.
Your points aren't wrong, but they don't make sense if they were intended to refute mine.
"There are a few hard requirements besides the courts' determination that the violation is "reasonable""
Yes, but who nailed down those legal clarifications/distinctions/requirements surrounding that amendment? If your answer has the word "Court" in it (whether it has the word "Supreme" in it or not), then it backs up my point. I didn't say "a court", I said "the courts".
"it does not entitle them to compel the author"
What led you to make that tangential/misdirecting argument? I didn't suggest compelling an individual to implicate himself, and I didn't see anyone else suggest it either. This discussion is about compelling companies to give up information on individuals, which is completely different. Law enforcement and courts have long had the ability to compel phone companies, banks, and other companies to give up information regarding suspects under investigation. Yes, they have been plagued by questions about how far is "too far", but again the decisions end up being made by the courts.
Yeah, I have to agree with tsa and the AC on this one. It's like the meaning of the word "unreasonable" in that sentence went completely over your head. People and courts can argue about precisely what that word means in that sentence until the end of time (or until a new amendment is passed to override it), but the way US law stands right now, if the courts find it reasonable, law enforcement officials have the right to violate your privacy. Feel free to complain about it all you like, it's not likely to change how our legal system works.
Yes, but the same is true every time someone on Star Trek used a teleporter. Their current body got disintegrated, and an exact copy of them got created elsewhere. And to be honest, Star Trek doesn't really sound much more fictional than what this company is promising.
Star Trek aside, the target demographic for this is someone obscenely rich, obscenely narcissistic, and terminally ill. It also helps if they are not devoutly religious, and if they are a complete sucker.
The article doesn't just mention screen time, it mentions EXCESSIVE screen time, which is just as bad as EXCESSIVE anything else.
The logical connection is crystal clear. If a child does too much of ANY activity that doesn't practice fine hand motor skills, that child is likely to have this problem. It doesn't matter what activity that is. A child could become addicted to playing soccer, and as far as hand-writing is concerned, the result would be the same.
The only question left to answer to complete the logical connection is this: What is it in today's society that grabs kids attention the most? What activity is it that most kids will choose over almost any other? What do today's kids spend more time doing than anything else if their parents let them? (Hint: It's not soccer.)
Almost every point you made could be applied right back to your own post.
"Doctors and scientists making a claim that seems ridiculous on it's face"
Well, you may not actually be a doctor or scientist, but which sounds more ridiculous on its face?
A) Toddlers who play more with touch-screens have a harder time learning to write than toddlers who play more with physical things (which for most kids involve plenty of crayons and markers).
B) That seems like complete, made-up bullshit. I can't see any way that playing with things like crayons and markers could possibly improve hand-writing skills.
"A bogeyman"
You calling out doctors for announcing concerns is calling out your own bogeymen. As a parent, when pediatricians spot worrying trends, I want to know about it BEFORE my kids have left the nest (which usually requires announcing it BEFORE official studies have been completed). Yes, I'm aware that doctors don't know everything, but that doesn't mean I don't want to at least hear about potential advice/concerns/trends.
"No actual scientific study mentioned"
You have even less evidence to back up your claims than they do. Sorry, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that pediatricians and the "vice-chair of the National Handwriting Association who runs a research clinic at Brunel University London" have access to just a little bit more information than either of us on this subject. Again, they don't know everything, but in this case they just have to know more than some random guy on the Internet.
"An audience ready to believe"
No more than your Slashdot audience. The people already letting their kids play with electronics will automatically rule it out like you did, the people already attempting to shame others for letting their kids play with electronics will feel justified, and the rest will consider it and decide what they want to do about it.
Of course not. However, if they have it run a genetic algorithm to let it find the "quickest and most reliable strategy" to get through the door while a human actively tries to stop it, it may eventually figure out that popping the human in the nuts with that fifth arm before going for the door handle works best.
It's not like AI is advanced enough to know right from wrong. Specific constraints have to be added to prevent it from trying things like that. It has a hard enough time figuring out where the door handle is and how to get around obstacles (usually without even recognizing what those obstacles are).
You should say "middle-age people". I was born in 72, but my wife and most of her siblings/cousins were born in the 60's, and they act like my parents (or even my grandparents) when it comes to computers. My grandparents are still alive on one side of the family, which makes it difficult for me to feel really old despite what my kids like to tell me.;-)
JMZero is right. Quite a few very simple algorithms fall under the term "AI" in Computer Science. The first AI algorithms taught to CS majors at Georgia Tech were simple path-finding algorithms similar to the ones that a GPS would use to find the best route to get you from point A to point B. After that, we learned a bit about the "more advanced" algorithms like expert systems, Bayesian classification, neural nets, and genetic algorithms. You can disagree with the definition of AI as much as you want, but it doesn't make you correct.
In short, if an algorithm can be used to help control an AI bot in a game or an actual robot IRL, it falls under the AI umbrella. It doesn't matter how smart you try to make the computer-controlled opponents in a strategy or FPS game if the basic path-finding algorithm used by the game is crap. Without good path-finding, opponents will get stuck on obstacles, go in loops, take the longest path to reach you, etc. In short, they will appear "dumb as a post", and winning against them would be a joke. So while a simple path-finding algorithm doesn't make the bots "intelligent" by itself, it is still a crucial part of the AI package.
Would you seem intelligent if your brain had NOTHING but its image processing part? No, and in the same way a self-driving car would need more than TFA's computer vision algorithm. OTOH, while you would still be considered intelligent without the image processing part of your brain, you wouldn't be able to drive a car safely, and a self-driving car would be pretty pointless without the best computer vision we can come up with.
Also, this algorithm is nothing like: "this is a picture of a cat". It is simultaneously recognizing and tracking dozens of objects moving around in video in real-time. The picture in TFA shows it recognizing and tracking people walking on a beach, people in the water (partially submerged), kites flying in the air, etc. While that isn't necessarily new, this counts as a new method to try to find ways to do it more quickly and accurately. Yes it is a very small incremental improvement, and it is too early to answer the most important question, which is whether they can continue to improve it. If not, it will fizzle and we will never hear about it again. However, it could take off and become a real breakthrough. It's easy to be pessimistic considering the glacial pace of real AI breakthroughs, though.
Slashdot Mirror
well, you can rent an internal combustion motor powered car for your trip with the savings on fuel if you like and still come out ahead...
While I agree with many of your points, I don't necessarily agree with that one. It's relative, but if you're in the market to buy a cheaper vehicle, the electric options are not very good (yet).
Although that's what keeps announcement about new and improved battery tech exciting. With 3x energy density and cheaper manufacturing, an electric vehicle with a 100 mile range could be significantly cheaper and lighter.
Trump senses a disturbance of the force. It felt as if millions of bots cried out in terror, and then were silenced.
I don't think so. When a tree dies, even if it doesn't burn, it releases just about all of the carbon it had trapped as it decomposes. The micro-organisms that effectively eat it as it's rotting put out a lot of CO2. Even untouched forests have a life cycle of trees and other plants growing and dying (due to natural causes like changes in rainfall/temp, insects, disease, competition from other plants, etc.), putting an effective upper limit on how much carbon a forest can keep trapped. Sure some tiny amount will end up trapped in the dirt, but that mechanism happens way too slowly.
The upper limit on how quickly we can dig carbon out of the ground and burn it is astronomically higher. When we burn through millions of years of hydrocarbons in a hundred years, it is impossible to plant enough trees to offset even a tiny fraction of that. I'm not saying that planting trees wouldn't help at all, just that it would be an insignificant amount as long as we keep digging it up and burning it.
While I liked your post, I don't necessarily agree because that is one of those statements that can be made every single generation. It's common for every generation to think "things used to be better" at some point, but IMO it's one of the ways in which hind-sight is not 20/20. I live in Georgia and have read about some of the political history around here. For a long time in Georgia's history, the candidate that threw the most (and the best) public barbecues got the most votes. How's that for good old "yesteryear" critical thinking? How is it much different from today where the candidates with the most money to throw around have the best chances of winning?
Remember lynch mobs? What about the Salem witch hunts? Back then, it seemed that all it took was a bit of fake news (which in some cases could simply be shouted out by anyone in the street) to get someone strung up. IMO the mentality of Internet trolling is the same. The consequences are so much lighter, and it's easier to do it anonymously, so people with that type of personality are way more likely to act out on the Internet. It doesn't mean that people are worse today, just that we're hearing it more.
Starting? I think that boat sailed (and probably sank) years ago.
It uses an "Undo" feature to reverse the reactions until it gets back to its base components.
That was the first thought that came to me, too.
The second thought was ... How did they come up with a number like "over 50%"? Seriously, how do you accurately measure the "desire" of violent antisocial people? Do you perform the treatment and then ask: "On a scale of 1 to 10, how much safer would it be for us to release you after this treatment?"
Mint Sim is only $15 per month for the same 2GB.
Forgive me if I misread your intent, but the way it's worded makes it sound like you are:
a) Certain that you're enlightening me with something new. Why do you think I mentioned that it "may be years before we know if this one will work for a significant percentage of cancer patients"?
b) Trying to refute my argument using one that is completely beside the point I was making. When it comes to computers, I was actually referring to a time before transistors were invented and computers were built by hand simply to prove the concept that computing machines could be built. Those had very high failure rates as well, but that is still a pointless fact that doesn't even come close to the point I was making.
My point was simply that new advancements/developments/tests like this are NOT worthless simply because it may take decades for the general public to see any benefit from them. Nothing more, nothing less. Are you arguing that they are worthless? That we shouldn't even try to cure cancer because it's too hard?
Oh, I agree 100% about the "Right to Try" legislation, and about the Democrats being no better than the Republicans when it comes to caring more about making the other side look bad than about... well, almost anything else. Both sides make me sick at times.
In addition to giving some patients a better chance (and more hope), it will also provide us with more significant statistics more quickly on new treatments earlier, which is a good thing.
While I agree to some extent, and I feel that some of the medical companies I've read about should have their CEO's and/or board members shot for treason (against the entire human race), I don't see this working much differently from other advanced technology research.
Take computer hardware for example. During the early stages of invention, computers were WAY too big and expensive for any but a select few to have access to one. It took a few decades for computer design and manufacturing to reach the point where we could have relatively cheap personal computers, laptops, cell phones, tablets, etc. Does that mean they aren't worth jack shit because almost no one had access to them back when scientists first started figuring out how to make them work? Because it took too many years for engineers to figure out how to make them smaller and easier to mass-produce?
New medical treatments have a lot of hurdles to jump through to be approved by governments, insurance companies, etc. It may be years before we know if this one will work for a significant percentage of cancer patients, to run the clinical trials and get it approved, whether it's worth mass-producing parts of it to reduce the cost of administering it, etc. Yes, it may be quite some time before it's available to most of us. It will get there eventually, so it is still worth quite a bit.
If you go that direction, my vote would be for the P.T. Barnum tax.
Sure you can, you just can't trademark the name to prevent others from doing so. It's like when Warner Brothers tried to stop others from using the name "Casablanca". They got egg on their face. If the poster you replied to is correct, this asshat tried to trademark the name "France" in France, which you have to admit is pretty stupid. If so, it may be the only reason they even bothered to notice him.
He knows if you've been naughty or nice. Maybe Xi is really Santa in disguise.
"The courts have a lot of power, but their authority is not unlimited."
True.
"and are not in a position to define what it means"
Are you kidding? That is what courts are for. Legislators craft and pass the written word of law, which is generally too vague to cover many real-world scenarios, and judges (plural, not singular) define precisely what those words mean in actual court cases. They resolve any ambiguities, they decide where any overlapping laws take precedence, etc.
"Yes, via the "third-party doctrine", another long-standing injustice."
Are we debating the way things should be or the way they are? Because it sounds like you are debating one while I am debating the other. The term "long-standing" implies that is is still standing, and that my point is still valid. I worry about what "should" be legal when I decide where to cast my votes. The rest of the time, I worry about the reality we have to live in.
Your points aren't wrong, but they don't make sense if they were intended to refute mine.
"There are a few hard requirements besides the courts' determination that the violation is "reasonable""
Yes, but who nailed down those legal clarifications/distinctions/requirements surrounding that amendment? If your answer has the word "Court" in it (whether it has the word "Supreme" in it or not), then it backs up my point. I didn't say "a court", I said "the courts".
"it does not entitle them to compel the author"
What led you to make that tangential/misdirecting argument? I didn't suggest compelling an individual to implicate himself, and I didn't see anyone else suggest it either. This discussion is about compelling companies to give up information on individuals, which is completely different. Law enforcement and courts have long had the ability to compel phone companies, banks, and other companies to give up information regarding suspects under investigation. Yes, they have been plagued by questions about how far is "too far", but again the decisions end up being made by the courts.
Yeah, I have to agree with tsa and the AC on this one. It's like the meaning of the word "unreasonable" in that sentence went completely over your head. People and courts can argue about precisely what that word means in that sentence until the end of time (or until a new amendment is passed to override it), but the way US law stands right now, if the courts find it reasonable, law enforcement officials have the right to violate your privacy. Feel free to complain about it all you like, it's not likely to change how our legal system works.
It's like REM said... Standing on the shoulders of giants leaves me cold.
We're all standing on giants who were standing on giants who were standing on giants, and so on back to the stone age.
The question is pretty pointless. They may as well have just asked: "How much older do you feel today than you felt 30 years ago?"
Yes, but the same is true every time someone on Star Trek used a teleporter. Their current body got disintegrated, and an exact copy of them got created elsewhere. And to be honest, Star Trek doesn't really sound much more fictional than what this company is promising.
Star Trek aside, the target demographic for this is someone obscenely rich, obscenely narcissistic, and terminally ill. It also helps if they are not devoutly religious, and if they are a complete sucker.
I for one welcome our new clones of Bob overlords...
http://bobiverse.wikia.com/wik...
The article doesn't just mention screen time, it mentions EXCESSIVE screen time, which is just as bad as EXCESSIVE anything else.
The logical connection is crystal clear. If a child does too much of ANY activity that doesn't practice fine hand motor skills, that child is likely to have this problem. It doesn't matter what activity that is. A child could become addicted to playing soccer, and as far as hand-writing is concerned, the result would be the same.
The only question left to answer to complete the logical connection is this: What is it in today's society that grabs kids attention the most? What activity is it that most kids will choose over almost any other? What do today's kids spend more time doing than anything else if their parents let them? (Hint: It's not soccer.)
Almost every point you made could be applied right back to your own post.
"Doctors and scientists making a claim that seems ridiculous on it's face"
Well, you may not actually be a doctor or scientist, but which sounds more ridiculous on its face?
A) Toddlers who play more with touch-screens have a harder time learning to write than toddlers who play more with physical things (which for most kids involve plenty of crayons and markers).
B) That seems like complete, made-up bullshit. I can't see any way that playing with things like crayons and markers could possibly improve hand-writing skills.
"A bogeyman"
You calling out doctors for announcing concerns is calling out your own bogeymen. As a parent, when pediatricians spot worrying trends, I want to know about it BEFORE my kids have left the nest (which usually requires announcing it BEFORE official studies have been completed). Yes, I'm aware that doctors don't know everything, but that doesn't mean I don't want to at least hear about potential advice/concerns/trends.
"No actual scientific study mentioned"
You have even less evidence to back up your claims than they do. Sorry, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that pediatricians and the "vice-chair of the National Handwriting Association who runs a research clinic at Brunel University London" have access to just a little bit more information than either of us on this subject. Again, they don't know everything, but in this case they just have to know more than some random guy on the Internet.
"An audience ready to believe"
No more than your Slashdot audience. The people already letting their kids play with electronics will automatically rule it out like you did, the people already attempting to shame others for letting their kids play with electronics will feel justified, and the rest will consider it and decide what they want to do about it.
Of course not. However, if they have it run a genetic algorithm to let it find the "quickest and most reliable strategy" to get through the door while a human actively tries to stop it, it may eventually figure out that popping the human in the nuts with that fifth arm before going for the door handle works best.
It's not like AI is advanced enough to know right from wrong. Specific constraints have to be added to prevent it from trying things like that. It has a hard enough time figuring out where the door handle is and how to get around obstacles (usually without even recognizing what those obstacles are).
You should say "middle-age people". I was born in 72, but my wife and most of her siblings/cousins were born in the 60's, and they act like my parents (or even my grandparents) when it comes to computers. My grandparents are still alive on one side of the family, which makes it difficult for me to feel really old despite what my kids like to tell me. ;-)
JMZero is right. Quite a few very simple algorithms fall under the term "AI" in Computer Science. The first AI algorithms taught to CS majors at Georgia Tech were simple path-finding algorithms similar to the ones that a GPS would use to find the best route to get you from point A to point B. After that, we learned a bit about the "more advanced" algorithms like expert systems, Bayesian classification, neural nets, and genetic algorithms. You can disagree with the definition of AI as much as you want, but it doesn't make you correct.
In short, if an algorithm can be used to help control an AI bot in a game or an actual robot IRL, it falls under the AI umbrella. It doesn't matter how smart you try to make the computer-controlled opponents in a strategy or FPS game if the basic path-finding algorithm used by the game is crap. Without good path-finding, opponents will get stuck on obstacles, go in loops, take the longest path to reach you, etc. In short, they will appear "dumb as a post", and winning against them would be a joke. So while a simple path-finding algorithm doesn't make the bots "intelligent" by itself, it is still a crucial part of the AI package.
Would you seem intelligent if your brain had NOTHING but its image processing part? No, and in the same way a self-driving car would need more than TFA's computer vision algorithm. OTOH, while you would still be considered intelligent without the image processing part of your brain, you wouldn't be able to drive a car safely, and a self-driving car would be pretty pointless without the best computer vision we can come up with.
Also, this algorithm is nothing like: "this is a picture of a cat". It is simultaneously recognizing and tracking dozens of objects moving around in video in real-time. The picture in TFA shows it recognizing and tracking people walking on a beach, people in the water (partially submerged), kites flying in the air, etc. While that isn't necessarily new, this counts as a new method to try to find ways to do it more quickly and accurately. Yes it is a very small incremental improvement, and it is too early to answer the most important question, which is whether they can continue to improve it. If not, it will fizzle and we will never hear about it again. However, it could take off and become a real breakthrough. It's easy to be pessimistic considering the glacial pace of real AI breakthroughs, though.