Science is based in a belief that scepticism will reveal a fallacy,
Wrong. Science is based on the fact that scepticism is the only way of revealing a fallacy. The fact that you are even considering that there may be a fallacy present, automatically makes you a skeptic.
Scepticism, in its essence is nothing more than the consistent use of the phrase "No, I won't take your word for it".
What I don't understand is why the suspect doesn't just say "Sorry, I don't remember the password". If it is a high-strength password, that certainly is possible. Besides, how could they prove that he does remember it?
Every noticed that all these positive reviews of driverless cars come from the companies that are promoting them? When NHTSA or Consumer Reports give them a positive review, then I'll be impressed.
Randomly stopping someone and planting evidence doesn't happen. Targeting people and planting evidence probably does happen.
As if "targeting" were somehow better than "random". What the fuck difference does it make? People are being arrested for crimes that the police know they didn't commit. That's all that matters.
Ultimately, only the CEO can say "yes, this is right approach. Go ahead and code it". Besides, Ballmer's lieutenants are all yes-men who would never question his judgement.
Only if it has a sufficiently long runway for it to get up to its minimum takeoff speed. And a normal treadmill, being only a little longer than the plane, would not be anywhere near long enough. Try putting a Cessna on a 30 foot long treadmill, and then mount the treadmill on the back of a ship. Throttle up, the plane moves forward, and falls right in the drink. Every time. The mythbusters totally misunderstood this.
That's because they totally misunderstood the "airplane on a treadmill" myth. The original myth was about using a treadmill in place of a runway, not in addition to it. The original myth was about a guy attempting to fly by putting a treadmill on the roof of his apartment building. He knows the minimum takeoff speed of his plane is 100 mph, so he starts up the treadmill, and when it gets to 100 mph, he throttles up his engine, moves forward, and... falls off the roof to his death. Why? Because the treadmill speed represents ground speed whereas the minimum takeoff speed of a plane is expressed as airspeed.
No. When tacking, the boat is travelling in the direction it is pointing (its heading) at faster than the wind speed because this is the hypotenuse of the vector. The component of the vector that points in the direction of the wind is still less than the wind speed.
As the cart approaches the speed of the wind, it stops using the push, or drag force, offered by the wind and starts using the lift imparted on the airfoil. You're no longer using the "push" of the wind, so it makes no sense to worry about the relative direction of the wind changing.
If you were to drop a large black box over such a sailboat then you would not be able to see the actual motion of the boat, but you would see a black box going directly downwind faster than the wind.
No, it would be going in the direction of its heading faster than the wind speed, but would still be going slower than the wind in the direction of the wind.
the wind-over-ground is a true and existing source of energy.
The wind speed relative to the ground provides power to the ground (as in a dust storm) but not to the cart. It's the changing angle of the prop relative to the wind that provides the power to keep going after the cart reaches wind speed.
I'm very skeptical of this "blame the hackers" excuse. Good way to cover up sloppy security in general. Not to mention compromised executives, politicians, and contractors.
Another one would be: Epistemological Intelligence: "the ability to know what you don't know, and formulate a plan to remedy that deficiency". This is what research is all about.
Reading this, I can't help wondering how old you are. This is exactly the kind of baseless certitude that has given AI such a bad name over the last 50 years.
"I think we're pretty close to being there" is an article of faith. It has nothing to do with science.
Slashdot Mirror
And there never will be until someone comes up with a definition of "strong AI" that we can all (or at least most of us) agree on.
I remind myself that I am in a thin-walled aluminum tube hurtling through the air 10,000 meters above the ground. Then I get drunk.
Wrong.
Science is based on the fact that scepticism is the only way of revealing a fallacy.
The fact that you are even considering that there may be a fallacy present, automatically makes you a skeptic.
Scepticism, in its essence is nothing more than the consistent use of the phrase "No, I won't take your word for it".
That aint science. Not even close.
What I don't understand is why the suspect doesn't just say "Sorry, I don't remember the password". If it is a high-strength password, that certainly is possible.
Besides, how could they prove that he does remember it?
Every noticed that all these positive reviews of driverless cars come from the companies that are promoting them? When NHTSA or Consumer Reports give them a positive review, then I'll be impressed.
As if "targeting" were somehow better than "random". What the fuck difference does it make? People are being arrested for crimes that the police know they didn't commit. That's all that matters.
Ultimately, only the CEO can say "yes, this is right approach. Go ahead and code it". Besides, Ballmer's lieutenants are all yes-men who would never question his judgement.
Only if it has a sufficiently long runway for it to get up to its minimum takeoff speed.
And a normal treadmill, being only a little longer than the plane, would not be anywhere near long enough.
Try putting a Cessna on a 30 foot long treadmill, and then mount the treadmill on the back of a ship. Throttle up, the plane moves forward, and falls right in the drink. Every time.
The mythbusters totally misunderstood this.
Well said!
That's because they totally misunderstood the "airplane on a treadmill" myth. The original myth was about using a treadmill in place of a runway, not in addition to it. ...
The original myth was about a guy attempting to fly by putting a treadmill on the roof of his apartment building.
He knows the minimum takeoff speed of his plane is 100 mph, so he starts up the treadmill, and when it gets to 100 mph, he throttles up his engine, moves forward, and
falls off the roof to his death.
Why? Because the treadmill speed represents ground speed whereas the minimum takeoff speed of a plane is expressed as airspeed.
No. When tacking, the boat is travelling in the direction it is pointing (its heading) at faster than the wind speed because this is the hypotenuse of the vector. The component of the vector that points in the direction of the wind is still less than the wind speed.
Exactly.
No, it would be going in the direction of its heading faster than the wind speed, but would still be going slower than the wind in the direction of the wind.
Which spins the propeller, which spins the wheels, ...
It's turtles all the way down.
The wind speed relative to the ground provides power to the ground (as in a dust storm) but not to the cart.
It's the changing angle of the prop relative to the wind that provides the power to keep going after the cart reaches wind speed.
No, I don't.
Fuck you, Roblimo.
Exactly.
Blame those hackers! It's all their fault!
Bingo. And there is basically nothing that you can do about that.
I'm very skeptical of this "blame the hackers" excuse. Good way to cover up sloppy security in general. Not to mention compromised executives, politicians, and contractors.
Yes, she did something stupid. Stupid enough to warrant a detention.
WTF? Who are you talking to?
Followed by mass slaughter of the "losers". You can appeal to the better nature of a human soldier - not so with a robot soldier.
Another one would be:
Epistemological Intelligence: "the ability to know what you don't know, and formulate a plan to remedy that deficiency". This is what research is all about.
Reading this, I can't help wondering how old you are. This is exactly the kind of baseless certitude that has given AI such a bad name over the last 50 years.
"I think we're pretty close to being there" is an article of faith. It has nothing to do with science.