Special relativity, of course, forbids sending information faster than light.
Actually, you are slightly incorrect, and this mistake is made quite often. Special/General Relativity forbids the transfer of information as fast as the speedof light. More specifically, nothing can move as fast as light in a vacuum because as it approaches the speed of light its mass increases towards infinity, requiring infinite energy at the speed of light, thus, impossible. Yet surprisingly, Einstein's equations do NOT forbid FTL transfers. And if we could figure this out we could witness information paradoxes first hand. Some nutty physicists have predicted particles that ALWAYS travel FTL (tachyons), and, again, Einstein's equations allow this.
Council President Doug Shields told the students that they invited the tax man by sitting out local elections. "When you're out there for 2.3 percent voter turnout, guess who's on the target list? You." ...
Council has a hearing on taxes set for Nov. 30 and could vote to impose the tax next month. If passed, it would likely be challenged in court.
I have to completely disagree with the idea that students are a burden on the Pittsburgh economy. Would the Pgh economy be better off without students? Or would it be better off with 10X as many students? Ravenstahl is what I like to call a child politician. He won a popularity contest here (best looking candidate). He seems honest enough, which is good, but his naivety gets annoying. Pittsburgh should be giving students (or, rather, their parents) a TAX BREAK... something like... income put towards tuition is TAX FREE.
Pittsburgh has been shrinking, population wise. A tax free tuition would bring more people into the city to spend money and pay taxes. A tax on tuition is going to lower enrollment, and serve to help empty the city.
Tax violent crime, tax polluters, tax the *shit* out of national affiliates for televising pro games, tax cigarettes, tax alcohol, tax gas, but for Pete's sake don't tax tuition!
It's not the electronics. Japanese are a small people, small feet... it's poor design for big american feet. The pedals are too small and too close together. Every one of the people claming to be hitting the brakes hard were in fact, you guessed it, accellerating hard.
They have made a material which could if you designed a suitable... and figured out how to manufacture it at large scale, would let you....
The whoever wrote the article title should be embarrassed, as should timothy for propagating it.
Unless the article is a sham, they already have mass manufactured this memerrific material — and it's also comprised of some mimetic polyalloy that's already replaced them. Then won't you be embarrassed.
Consideringit's estimated that citizens of hispanic decent will be a majority in the US in 20 years (thanks, Catholic birth control methods!), Spanish is a reasonable choice.
I took a class in neural networks almost 20 years ago. One project was to get a small network to "learn" how to recugnize handwritten numbers. On a 486/33 running overnight it got to the point where it could recognize a number right over 90% of the time, just with a a few dozen neurons. However, it would probably be impossible to determine *why* that network was able to recognize the numbers.
Interesting. Though it's not clear (at least to me) why it's impossible to determine why the network was able to learn, or even if it was learning (I'll have to take your word for it). A computer can compare things with other things rapidly... I wouldn't call that learning. And its not at all clear that learning, or the ability to learn, is a prerequisite for consciousness.
Consciousness (however you want to define it) is almost certainly an emergent property,
I agree.
and if it can emerge in a toddler it should be able to emerge in a properly designed piece of hardware.
I disagree. And will continue to do so until you show me this properly designed piece of hardware.
And even you can you can do a core dump on that hardware, you'll *never* figure out why it's conscious.
Its relatively easy to guess, probably, why (most) humans are conscious... it gives us some evolutionary advantage. But your last statement intrigues me, as it reminds me of Dennett (paraphrasing: you can chop up the brain in any way you want, but you'll never find the mind). Also, even if it was conscious (which I still maintain it can't be), there is no way to know one way or the other. For all we know, trees, water, air and rocks have consciousness. We have no way to know. You have no way to know if I am really conscious, nor I you.
I find that much harder to believe than the idea that an AI with sufficient processing power will be 'self-aware'.
Ha ha ha LMAO. The unruly crowd screams at you, "Stone the hypocrite! For he is identical to the Christians in his irrational belief in the absolutely unattainable strong AI!"
If a recipe for a cake can never be self-aware, then neither can a computer program, for they are essentially the same: they are instructions.
My conculsions are drawn from a seminar of study of Philosophy of Mind, mostly drawn from the brilliant work of Searle and Dennett, independently.
The clues are in the definition of what a computer is. It is a tool. It can calculate and process, it can even fool you into believing it understands, but it can never understand. No understanding, no chance of self-awareness... it's as simple as that. All a computer ever does, all it ever will do, is follow its algorthm, its instruction. A computer can no more be self-aware than a set up of dominoes, or a Rube Goldberg machine.
Nah. Slashes are fine, but Microsoft should be sorry about backslashes!
Thanks for using the proper terminology. There are slashes, and there are backslashes. There are NO 'forward' slashes. And though Microsoft is cupable, I blame Windows users for unnecessarily complicating the language in a vain attempt to sound like they know what they are talking about. Those extra seven letters are superfluous. It's like saying "CPU processor" or "DNS server." If I see it used again, I'm really going to forwardflip out!
What makes great science fiction great is precisely that which makes all great literature great. It's a retelling of the story about who we are. It's mythology.
My favorite impossibility from the series is Data. As a philosopher, I know that a computer will never be self-aware. And I make fun of the AI-believers like they make fun of Christians. Don't get me wrong, though... I love the series, and it's important that AI research continues. But these brilliant computer scientists should not fool themselves into believing the impossible is attainable.
Sure... per cell. How many wireless users can we cram into one cell? If a cell area in Manhatten gets saturated, how would this affect a cell in Long Island? I don't see this as an approaching unsolvable problem. There are going to be peak usage times, and for many the network will be down in a saturated cell, just like it happens already all the time in various overpopulated areas. This is absolutely a "sky is falling" non-issue. Nothing to see here.
I bet most run-of-the-mill users don't know they have the infection
Coincidentally, an infected PC is fine for most users, covers all their needs.. Shouldn't be too long before PC makers just ship them out pre-infected, so the consumer doesn't have to go through all that hodgepodge of going online for 10 mins. before they can gain infection.
Little do malware authors and zombie rustlers know that the most popular operating system on the planet, the OS itself and every installation of it, is actually a honey pot -- keeps the bad guys busy so that those serious about security can use just about any other OS and get work done.
why is Microsoft interested in something like this?
Appears Microsoft is up to their old tricks again. First, they patent binary, next, patent all the elements, so even if Windows gets the death it so richly deserves, PC makers, including Apple, will forever have to pay them for the silicon, gallium, silver, gold, et al. licensing.
Not RTFA.
TFS fails to use them, so I must ask,
What are the units of entropy? Can they be useful at a macroscopic level... like in describing how much entropy your bedroom contains (before it simply must be cleaned)?
Everything is relative. Perhaps these solar shingles take a few extra steps beyond regular shingles, but have you seen what a pain in the ass the nuclear reactor shingles are to install? You need a friggin' nuclear engineering degree! Sure, the effeciency is through the roof, but at what cost? As unlikely as China Syndrome is, it's an insurance nightmare. And personally, I don't want my great great grandchildren toiling to replace a spent uranium ceiling. Solar it is!
This liability excuse sounds like bullshit. Who is liable for a zombie? Let's do a little metaphor:
Rob Zombiemaster is robbing a bank. During the robbery, in a failed attempt to stop it, a guard shoots and misses Zombiemaster and hits the bank president in the head, killing him instantly, but also causing him to drop his cigarette into some flammable solvent someone was working with in the vicinity. The bank goes up in flames and burns down the whole block, killing everyone except Rob Zombiemaster and the guard. Zombiemaster escapes clean, with the money, and never killed anyone. The guard tells the authorities the tragic truth about his actions.
With whom does the liability for this catastrophe lay? With the guard? He did kill his boss and everyone on the block except the robber, so that's a reasonable assumption, though wrong. The liability for the deaths and property destruction still rests squarely on the shoulders of the wily Rob Zombiemaster, who, upon capture, will promptly be charged with multiple counts of murder long before he's charged with mere bank robbery. The guard gets off scott free.
Those lawyers sound more like lazy CIO's, but with no law degree, and less balls.
What if that vulnerable system was responsible for something critical and hadn't been patched because the patch broke the application, for instance?
Ah, I've seen you've read the Admin Handbook: "Even if your critical system has been compromized and is a zombie in some malicious botnet, do not patch the vulnerability if the patch might compromise your critical system."
/sarcasm
yes, if it's not broken, don't fix it... then again, your definition of broken appears to be broken
Slashdot Mirror
Special relativity, of course, forbids sending information faster than light.
Actually, you are slightly incorrect, and this mistake is made quite often. Special/General Relativity forbids the transfer of information as fast as the speedof light. More specifically, nothing can move as fast as light in a vacuum because as it approaches the speed of light its mass increases towards infinity, requiring infinite energy at the speed of light, thus, impossible. Yet surprisingly, Einstein's equations do NOT forbid FTL transfers. And if we could figure this out we could witness information paradoxes first hand. Some nutty physicists have predicted particles that ALWAYS travel FTL (tachyons), and, again, Einstein's equations allow this.
Any emission is an emission.
Including those of the nocturnal and manual variety... slashdotters, I'm directing this at you. Your body is NOT an amusement park.
Council President Doug Shields told the students that they invited the tax man by sitting out local elections. "When you're out there for 2.3 percent voter turnout, guess who's on the target list? You."
...
Council has a hearing on taxes set for Nov. 30 and could vote to impose the tax next month. If passed, it would likely be challenged in court.
Pittsburgh has been shrinking, population wise. A tax free tuition would bring more people into the city to spend money and pay taxes. A tax on tuition is going to lower enrollment, and serve to help empty the city.
Tax violent crime, tax polluters, tax the *shit* out of national affiliates for televising pro games, tax cigarettes, tax alcohol, tax gas, but for Pete's sake don't tax tuition!
It's not the electronics. Japanese are a small people, small feet... it's poor design for big american feet. The pedals are too small and too close together. Every one of the people claming to be hitting the brakes hard were in fact, you guessed it, accellerating hard.
They have made a material which could if you designed a suitable... and figured out how to manufacture it at large scale, would let you....
The whoever wrote the article title should be embarrassed, as should timothy for propagating it.
Unless the article is a sham, they already have mass manufactured this memerrific material — and it's also comprised of some mimetic polyalloy that's already replaced them. Then won't you be embarrassed.
and I sure the hell wouldn't do anything in OpenSolaris right now
Why the hell not?
Consideringit's estimated that citizens of hispanic decent will be a majority in the US in 20 years (thanks, Catholic birth control methods!), Spanish is a reasonable choice.
my t-mobile wing has wi-fi and i can use it to tether my laptop to it
Wow. But can you tether your laptop to a wifi router, too?
'tethering' implies either bluetooth or cable. If you're 'tethering' with wifi, it's really just 'connecting' to an access point.
/pedant
Well, if there is so much as one magnetic monopole in existance
Look no further! I've got one right here in my kitchen (driving my microwave oven).
Apparently, they miscalculated the odds that two people could have identical dna profiles.
I took a class in neural networks almost 20 years ago. One project was to get a small network to "learn" how to recugnize handwritten numbers. On a 486/33 running overnight it got to the point where it could recognize a number right over 90% of the time, just with a a few dozen neurons. However, it would probably be impossible to determine *why* that network was able to recognize the numbers.
Interesting. Though it's not clear (at least to me) why it's impossible to determine why the network was able to learn, or even if it was learning (I'll have to take your word for it). A computer can compare things with other things rapidly... I wouldn't call that learning. And its not at all clear that learning, or the ability to learn, is a prerequisite for consciousness.
Consciousness (however you want to define it) is almost certainly an emergent property,
I agree.
and if it can emerge in a toddler it should be able to emerge in a properly designed piece of hardware.
I disagree. And will continue to do so until you show me this properly designed piece of hardware.
And even you can you can do a core dump on that hardware, you'll *never* figure out why it's conscious.
Its relatively easy to guess, probably, why (most) humans are conscious... it gives us some evolutionary advantage. But your last statement intrigues me, as it reminds me of Dennett (paraphrasing: you can chop up the brain in any way you want, but you'll never find the mind). Also, even if it was conscious (which I still maintain it can't be), there is no way to know one way or the other. For all we know, trees, water, air and rocks have consciousness. We have no way to know. You have no way to know if I am really conscious, nor I you.
I find that much harder to believe than the idea that an AI with sufficient processing power will be 'self-aware'.
Ha ha ha LMAO. The unruly crowd screams at you, "Stone the hypocrite! For he is identical to the Christians in his irrational belief in the absolutely unattainable strong AI!"
If a recipe for a cake can never be self-aware, then neither can a computer program, for they are essentially the same: they are instructions.
But how do you know that?
My conculsions are drawn from a seminar of study of Philosophy of Mind, mostly drawn from the brilliant work of Searle and Dennett, independently.
The clues are in the definition of what a computer is. It is a tool. It can calculate and process, it can even fool you into believing it understands, but it can never understand. No understanding, no chance of self-awareness... it's as simple as that. All a computer ever does, all it ever will do, is follow its algorthm, its instruction. A computer can no more be self-aware than a set up of dominoes, or a Rube Goldberg machine.
As a logician, I know that statements like the above are meaningless without evidence.
Who said there's no evidence? You're gonna love this.
Nah. Slashes are fine, but Microsoft should be sorry about backslashes!
Thanks for using the proper terminology. There are slashes, and there are backslashes. There are NO 'forward' slashes. And though Microsoft is cupable, I blame Windows users for unnecessarily complicating the language in a vain attempt to sound like they know what they are talking about. Those extra seven letters are superfluous. It's like saying "CPU processor" or "DNS server." If I see it used again, I'm really going to forwardflip out!
What makes great science fiction great is precisely that which makes all great literature great. It's a retelling of the story about who we are. It's mythology.
My favorite impossibility from the series is Data. As a philosopher, I know that a computer will never be self-aware. And I make fun of the AI-believers like they make fun of Christians. Don't get me wrong, though... I love the series, and it's important that AI research continues. But these brilliant computer scientists should not fool themselves into believing the impossible is attainable.
There is only so much spectrum available.
Sure... per cell. How many wireless users can we cram into one cell? If a cell area in Manhatten gets saturated, how would this affect a cell in Long Island? I don't see this as an approaching unsolvable problem. There are going to be peak usage times, and for many the network will be down in a saturated cell, just like it happens already all the time in various overpopulated areas. This is absolutely a "sky is falling" non-issue. Nothing to see here.
I bet most run-of-the-mill users don't know they have the infection
Coincidentally, an infected PC is fine for most users, covers all their needs.. Shouldn't be too long before PC makers just ship them out pre-infected, so the consumer doesn't have to go through all that hodgepodge of going online for 10 mins. before they can gain infection.
Little do malware authors and zombie rustlers know that the most popular operating system on the planet, the OS itself and every installation of it, is actually a honey pot -- keeps the bad guys busy so that those serious about security can use just about any other OS and get work done.
why is Microsoft interested in something like this?
Appears Microsoft is up to their old tricks again. First, they patent binary, next, patent all the elements, so even if Windows gets the death it so richly deserves, PC makers, including Apple, will forever have to pay them for the silicon, gallium, silver, gold, et al. licensing.
Not RTFA.
TFS fails to use them, so I must ask,
What are the units of entropy? Can they be useful at a macroscopic level... like in describing how much entropy your bedroom contains (before it simply must be cleaned)?
Everything is relative. Perhaps these solar shingles take a few extra steps beyond regular shingles, but have you seen what a pain in the ass the nuclear reactor shingles are to install? You need a friggin' nuclear engineering degree! Sure, the effeciency is through the roof, but at what cost? As unlikely as China Syndrome is, it's an insurance nightmare. And personally, I don't want my great great grandchildren toiling to replace a spent uranium ceiling. Solar it is!
This liability excuse sounds like bullshit. Who is liable for a zombie? Let's do a little metaphor:
Rob Zombiemaster is robbing a bank. During the robbery, in a failed attempt to stop it, a guard shoots and misses Zombiemaster and hits the bank president in the head, killing him instantly, but also causing him to drop his cigarette into some flammable solvent someone was working with in the vicinity. The bank goes up in flames and burns down the whole block, killing everyone except Rob Zombiemaster and the guard. Zombiemaster escapes clean, with the money, and never killed anyone. The guard tells the authorities the tragic truth about his actions.
With whom does the liability for this catastrophe lay? With the guard? He did kill his boss and everyone on the block except the robber, so that's a reasonable assumption, though wrong. The liability for the deaths and property destruction still rests squarely on the shoulders of the wily Rob Zombiemaster, who, upon capture, will promptly be charged with multiple counts of murder long before he's charged with mere bank robbery. The guard gets off scott free.
Those lawyers sound more like lazy CIO's, but with no law degree, and less balls.
What if that vulnerable system was responsible for something critical and hadn't been patched because the patch broke the application, for instance?
Ah, I've seen you've read the Admin Handbook: "Even if your critical system has been compromized and is a zombie in some malicious botnet, do not patch the vulnerability if the patch might compromise your critical system."
/sarcasm
yes, if it's not broken, don't fix it... then again, your definition of broken appears to be broken