I remember using an external 3.5 floppy on the tablet version of the thinkpad in the early nineties, they were rare as hen's teeth back then. Laplink and similar tools were SOP for moving files on/off mobile devices.

So will you take my word as a computational physicist that climate models--which are nothing but computational physics done by climate scientists rather than computational physicists--are far too uncertain to be robust guides to public policy?

Because that is my professional opinion, and it happens that my profession is the one that matters when judging computational physics, whether it's done by climate scientists, Freeman Dyson, or anyone else.

I've read climate modelling papers. I've looked at climate modelling codes and there documentation (mostly AR4, which is somewhat out of date now.) I was appalled by what I saw: it's all a good attempt to work things out, there's nothing wrong with it as science at all, but I'd rather use Wall Street financial models to guide public spending policy than climate models to guide climate policy. They have a much greater chance of being accurate.

This is not to say that climate models aren't useful inputs to the policy debate, but their accuracy if fantastically over-estimated by policymakers. GCMs have gotten Arctic warming badly wrong (the Arctic has warmed much faster than anyone anticipated) and missed the current--likely temporary--flattening of "global average temperature" increase. This is no surprise you a) look at the models and b) have the professional competency of a computational physicist to judge them. They just don't do the things that accurate models integrated over long timescales have to do, like conserve mass and energy natively.

Models before around 2005 were especially bad with energy conservation, fixing it up by redistributing energy across cells after each time step. Climate scientists were apparently OK with that, because they didn't know enough computational physics. Anyone who has spent a career building models that eventually get checked against reality knows that that is a virtual guarantee that the result will be unphysical nonsense. This is not a political statement: it is simply a fact.

So by all means dis Dyson for not being a climate scientist. But since GCMs are computational physics, you must take my word as a computational physicist over climate scientists, or admit you really don't care who is saying what so long as they say what you agree with.

> "We needed a plan to make it easy for Web developers to build compatible sites regardless of which browser they develop first for."

Can you even IMAGINE Microsoft saying that 15 years ago? 10 years ago? So is it because they are a better company now before... or is it just because they have no choice but to cooperate (since people left IE in droves for Firefox, Opera, and Chrome)?

>" They also explain how they decided against using WebKit so they wouldn't contribute to "a monoculture on the Web."

Oh right.... because Microsoft would never want to support a monoculture... Hmm... I need to go find some Twilight Zone episodes to watch, now.

What a coincidence! I've heard managers say the same thing about their staff.

Both of you are wrong, keep it up and whatever project/task you're working on will be unpleasant, and at best limp to the finish line. Just about everyone has a manager, a professional in any field will get their manager's respect by learning and solving their manager's problems with minimal fuss. If after 12 months or so, that doesn't work, find a new job/manager. If your manager doesn't have problems it's probably because you're both about to be put out to pasture on the next payroll cycle.

At 55, I've been on both sides of the managerial fence and I've hired and fired programmers. I rejected the project managers job when my current employer offered it to me 4-5yrs years ago, having "been there before" I decided to keep my more interesting and less stressful role as the resident CVS Nazi. My overall goal has always been to automate my way out of whatever tedious task confronts me, I've been lucky enough to work with several professional managers who ensured I never ran out of tedious, annoying, tasks.

Skimmed the article, conspiratorial themes aside, it seems like a good general history of neural nets.

To answer what I see as the main question in TFA - Here's the difference "this time around".

I've been interested in AI and automata since the early 80's, sporadically following closely over the years. Life distracted me from this interest for most of the noughties. The first time I watched IBM's Jeopardy stunt with Watson I was blown away, the missus shrugged and said "It's impressive but what's the big deal, it's just looking up the answers, like google with talking, right?" I tried to explain why my jaw was on the floor, but all I got was a blank look and a change of subject.

Far from being overhyped I think the general public simply don't comprehend the significance of these developments. They see it as 'hype' because like my missus they simply don't comprehend the problem and tend to grossly underestimate the difficulty of solving it. IMO the Watson stunt is one of the most significant technological feats I've witnessed since the moon landings, and possibly the start of a new Apollo style arms race based on the same old fears. That doesn't mean I think all the problems in AI have been solved, but machines like Watson are very strong evidence that we have recently cleared a significant hurdle (that few in the general public have even noticed).

To me, this period in AI is very reminiscent of where digital comms were in the early 90's. Most of the bits for the comms revolution existed but rarely talked to each other; pagers, email, mobile phones, computers, printers, fax, GPS, fibre optics, etc. Just a few years later everyone was talking about "convergence", "as foretold" pretty much all of those things and more have now converged into the ubiquitous smart phone. In 1990, virtually nobody on the planet saw the internet coming (including me), I was at Uni, mature age CS/Math student, 88-91. I was perfectly placed in space and time to see it born but didn't notice it.

I first heard about HTML and Mosaic at Uni, one of our CS lectures was very impressed and went on a tangential rant about it one day in a networking lecture. Still, nobody in his hijacked audience I talked to afterwards could figure out why he was so impressed. "What's wrong with zmodem?" was a typical comment that I would have agreed with then.

I think we are more or less at that "1990" point where everyone will soon start talking more and more about "convergence" in AI. The Watson that won Jeopardy in 2011(?) required 20 tons of air-conditioning alone, today an instance of Watson fits on a "pizza box" server and you can try out your own Watson instance for free with a web based developer's API (google it). Their goal is to squeeze Watson into a smart phone.

A couple of things that a Watson style AI may "converge" with aside from phones are, "Big Dog" which has pretty much solved the autonomous movement/balance problem, and face recognition software which has also made big strides in the past few years. What the end result will be when it all converges and evolves, or even when it will converge, I have no idea, but a dystopian SkyNet style future is no longer purely fiction. From a less pessimistic POV, AI could serve as a "check and balance" in a democracy full of bullshitters, a tool to fact check the waffle and make evidence based, transparent, recommendations on public policy free from partisan politics, in other words "speak truth to power", like the public service in a democracy is supposed to be doing now.

Disclaimer: The "missus" is far from dumb, she has a Phd in Business and Marketing, she lectures to several hundred students at a time. I sometimes fail to see why she is interested/impressed by some obscure event in the Business News and politely change the subject :)

That is not a real smart watch. There is no matrix display, no text, graphics, no apps. I wouldn't be able to see my appointments, no notifications, no weather info, no Email, no voice response, no wikipedia lookup, just time.

Agree, what good is a robot maid that won't fetch a beer? - However if we follow your logic to the extreme, you see a drunk fall overboard on a party cruise and you do nothing because it's his own damned fault?

Take 5min to read this short essay by Asimov, you won't be dissapointed. Asimov was more than just the guy who wrote about fictional robot laws, for example, he was also well known skeptic. Not the modern anti-science kind, a real skeptic, spelt the old fashioned way!

None of it is about robot ethics, it's a metaphor about the folly of thinking that a list of rules, such as the ten commandments, could ever encapsulate all the vagaries of human morality.

Yeah, because that's how we buy cars and fridges, right?

Sounds like Kryton from Red Dwarf.

I put mantraps on my lawn, why is it my fault if a pregnant woman steps on one?

The three laws demonstrates that morality cannot be codified, it's a critique of the 10 commandments and other such lists of rules that attempt to do the same thing for humans.

As for TFA, what good is a robot that won't fetch a beer? - Might as well get a cat.

>Waiting for a 2+ year battery life which is what I expect of my watches.

I assume you are joking? A "dumb" watch battery life can't be compared to a smart watch. And if you are seriously waiting for a year year battery life, you will be waiting decades (or longer). Of course, if all you want is time/date and maybe an alarm or stopwatch, then you should be fine with a traditional watch.

Meanwhile, I have been VERY happy with my Moto 360 and its 2-day battery life. As long as I can reliably get 24 hours, which is extremely easy on the 360, I (and most people) are set.

The e-ink (and now color e-ink) in the Pebble is what makes it neat and interesting, not the [claimed 1 week] battery life. But I will still choose the 360 over it every time (speed, style, functionality, compatibility, etc).

If you can remember going to school with polio victims we must be in the same age bracket, there's no plague but I did meet a 5yo in the 80's who had mild retardation due to an allergy to cows milk, never met a child that was allergic to nuts. A child gets all the antibodies it's going to get in the first few feeds from mum, after that it's just food. These days too many nurses subscribe to the dogma that if you stop breastfeeding at 3-6 months you're a bad mother, because..???

Rather than berating young mums about choosing not to have their nipples chewed off, it would be more helpful if nurses simply gave common-sense advice about the transition, ie: dilute it with expressed milk, experiment with different formula, do it gradually, and watch out for adverse reactions. I felt sorry for that 5yo boy in the same way one feels sorry for a polio victim but making his mother feel responsible for a freak medical condition is not helping. Sooner or later the kid would have taken a big swig of fresh cows milk anyway.

Never heard the one about honey and botulism mentioned in the comments above, surising but I'm assuming that is also very rare. "Surprising" because honey is a natural antibacterial preservative and who doesn't dip their baby's dummy in honey when a new tooth is on the way? - Yeah, I know, dummies are evil too. Rare as it may be, I don't see anything wrong with informing people to go easy on honey and advising jam instead (my kids had "Bongella" when teething, I don't think you can buy it anymore, it was basically alcoholic jelly, worked wonders).

To me the allergy plague is motivated by the same irrational fear the anti-vaxers have - what if that one in a billion is my child? Problem is, that's the only question they ask. Also there's big money in selling household anti-bacterial gels/sprays, not that long ago obsessing about hand washing and germs was considered a serious mental disorder, hard to pinpoint the change but for the last couple of decades(?) we have been bombarded with adverts telling us that obsessing about hand washing and germs is a "healthy" and desirable middle-class behaviour, and of course every second ad has cartoon characters and a cute kid with a sparkling toilet shoved in their face.

Doesn't matter. What matters is why the officers understand they've been dispatched to the scene, and what they believe they're seeing when they arrive.

Obviously you're able to tell a real gun from a replica at a distance while someone waving it around, but most people can't, including cops, until they have it in hand, personally. You might be comfortable risking other people's lives by making them assume that all guns are toys until they've been shot at, but people who actually do have, as a feature of their daily job, other people assaulting and trying to kill them, probably wouldn't want you armchairing on their behalf.

The solution? Actual thinking parents not sending their kid out into public to act stupid with a replica gun. To teach a kid that when they see a cop car rolling up, to perhaps consider not looking crazy and waiving said replica gun around. This is a 100% lapse on the part of parents and a completely crappy position for the cops to have been put in. I know that you would be safe, because you would omnipotent and know, from a distance, that the replica gun wasn't real, and that if it was real, the universe's special karma system would protect you from the laws of physics because you are A Better Person Than Cops Are, and bullets wouldn't be able to hurt you.