Ah, yes I was a bit unclear. My point was that there's no technical reason for propagating this bug into new documents. And why do you think anybody is doing that?
Ah, so it has to be large scale to be realistic? If it is to replace our current coal power plants and power our industry, yes, it has to.
So my topic was off topic but this one isn't, is that it? Do you understand how threaded discussions like those at Slashdot work? Each sub-thread can have its own topic.
How so? Both solar and wind power are more environmentally responsible. I was only counting the realistically large-scale ones.
Oh, but seeing as how TFA is about accidents in nuclear power plants, it is part of the topic. Accidents in these plants have health as well as environmental consequences. This sub-discussion is about how the free market is incapable of keeping nuclear power safe and in fact encourages unsafe nuclear power. It is more about free markets than nuclear power.
Because the output of the method is not a truly random number. It is a number with some amount of randomness and some amount of regularity. To fingerprint, you look for the regularity, and to make random numbers, you refine the randomness through some kind of hash function.
With the possible exception of mining, nuclear power is by far the most environmentally responsible kind of energy production right now. But that was not really the topic, now, was it?
If there are market pressures that favor self-regulation, But there aren't. And no, letting consumers choose their power company isn't going to change that, as they will just go with the cheapest, thus introducing even more market pressure to NOT self-regulate!
Common sense would tend to indicate that if we can built something at least as smart as we are, then it could do the same. It can do the same, quite probably. However, the singularity assumes that it can do more, and that every further iteration can do better with a constant factor. This is a huge and unsupported assumption.
Consider: You make an AI that is twice as smart as you. This AI can make an AI that is as smart as itself, sure, but can it make an even smarter one? The singularity argument assumes it, too, can make something twice as smart as itself. There is no reason for this to be true - making something even smarter could very well be a much, much harder task. Perhaps it can only make something that is 50% smarter. That one, in turn, might only manage 25%, and so on.
Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultra-intelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an 'intelligence explosion,' and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Only a person seriously deficient in both maths and common sense would believe this.
Once, again, read the summary. The question was about games that are free to play, yet you pay for in-game things with microtransactions. It's a whole different business model.
I know this is slashdot, and games slashdot of all things, but is it really so much to ask for that you people actually read the story summary so that you have some idea what is being talked about?
And there are places where the trees are full of squirrels, and that doesn't mean that introducing squirrels somewhere else is going to mean you'll get nibbled to death by them.
Yes; similarly, having only a physical law available to you, you cannot a priori determine whether it also counts as chemistry. No, you can. You can identify objects you name atoms, and you can similarly identify molecules. You can derive (in theory, once again, in practice it is nearly impossibly hard) how those molecules will interact. You can then create simplified laws of how reactions will take place.
This is different from the case with mathematics. With mathematics, there is an infinite amount of possible laws that can be identified and studied, with no guide as to which are meaningful and which are not. With physics, there are only a very limited number of complex, stable structures that can be created from the basic laws and principles, and the study of one of these leads directly to chemistry.
With physics, we must care that our axiom system in some way reflects reality: it is only in experimentation/observation of reality that physics as a discipline departs from doing something one would label today as mathematics. But reading of Saccheri's Euclides Vindicatus or the correspondence between Lambert and Kant illustrates just how hard it was to separate the two; today the pendulum has swung in the other direction, hence assertions such as your "you cannot derive physical laws from mathematical theorems" - which ignore that all but the most fundamental laws of physics are mathematical theorems, and as such can be derived from other mathematical theorems and/or axioms in the right axiom system. Yes, all physical laws are mathematical theorems. However, not all mathematical theorems are physical laws. Having only mathematics available to you, you cannot find which mathematical theorems are also physical laws. Thus, having only mathematics, you cannot derive physics. Or rather, you cannot know that what you have derived is physics.
Yes, those fields all build on each other, but the question here was a more specific one: Can the entirety of a particular field be derived from another field, at least in theory? Chemistry can be derived from pure physics. However, physics cannot be derived from pure maths. That is not saying that not to say that physics isn't largely built on maths and philosophy before that, but those alone cannot be used to create physics itself.
It is a result of a mental experiment construct. Yes, and you can make any number of mental experiments and end up with any number of "physical laws", but physics adds the requirement that you have to be representing reality. Mathematics alone cannot do that. You cannot through pure mathematics know which laws to choose and which to discard. Thus, physics is more than the sum of the mathematics it uses. This is not really the case with chemistry (in theory - in practice, we are not good enough at this yet to actually derive everything from the fundamental physics).
So in reality the chain is probably: philosophy, math, physics, chemistry and biology as the bottom feeder. I'd dispute not only the maths but also the philosophy is a bit iffy. Logic leads to maths, I'll buy that, but I am not entirely sure that strict logic would derive from philosophy. I might be wrong, though.
The chain doesn't stop there, either. Biology leads to neurology leads to psychology leads to sociology, &c &c. Of course, we are quite far from actualizing that chain as it is, so the fields are still largely independent.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot knows that far more than a tool to promote freedom, Tor is a tool to get around IP blocks when attacking websites.
Like too many others, you're focusing on the 1 BIG Thing, energy source in this case, when instead people need to think of it more as a puzzle.
Here is a puzzle piece for you: A couple aluminium smelting plants that draw several gigawatts of power to operate.
I can only assume you mean it's not very interesting because it is simply stating the obvious.
Because the output of the method is not a truly random number. It is a number with some amount of randomness and some amount of regularity. To fingerprint, you look for the regularity, and to make random numbers, you refine the randomness through some kind of hash function.
With the possible exception of mining, nuclear power is by far the most environmentally responsible kind of energy production right now. But that was not really the topic, now, was it?
Once again, what goddamn use is safe nuclear power if it's a niche market?
And have American cars taken over the entire US market? What about eco-friendly companies?
"Safe nuclear power" is not worth much if it's a fucking niche market.
You're expecting a SENATOR to be able to use TOR?
See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=292189&cid=205 30635.
Consider: You make an AI that is twice as smart as you. This AI can make an AI that is as smart as itself, sure, but can it make an even smarter one? The singularity argument assumes it, too, can make something twice as smart as itself. There is no reason for this to be true - making something even smarter could very well be a much, much harder task. Perhaps it can only make something that is 50% smarter. That one, in turn, might only manage 25%, and so on.
Stop trying to inject actual logic and maths into discussion about the singularity! This is the Nerd Rapture, and heresy will not be tolerated!
Why the hell would they care about de-anonymizing? No money in that.
Once, again, read the summary. The question was about games that are free to play, yet you pay for in-game things with microtransactions. It's a whole different business model.
I know this is slashdot, and games slashdot of all things, but is it really so much to ask for that you people actually read the story summary so that you have some idea what is being talked about?
And there are places where the trees are full of squirrels, and that doesn't mean that introducing squirrels somewhere else is going to mean you'll get nibbled to death by them.
What a goddamn useless argument.
This is different from the case with mathematics. With mathematics, there is an infinite amount of possible laws that can be identified and studied, with no guide as to which are meaningful and which are not. With physics, there are only a very limited number of complex, stable structures that can be created from the basic laws and principles, and the study of one of these leads directly to chemistry.
Yes, those fields all build on each other, but the question here was a more specific one: Can the entirety of a particular field be derived from another field, at least in theory? Chemistry can be derived from pure physics. However, physics cannot be derived from pure maths. That is not saying that not to say that physics isn't largely built on maths and philosophy before that, but those alone cannot be used to create physics itself.
The chain doesn't stop there, either. Biology leads to neurology leads to psychology leads to sociology, &c &c. Of course, we are quite far from actualizing that chain as it is, so the fields are still largely independent.