Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:well of course (Score 1) 38

You've been misled by the completely bogus headline to this piece, not to mention the pathetically inflammatory prose. TWTelecom has nothing at all to do with TimeWarner Cable. It's a completely separate publicly traded corporation with no staff, management or facilities in common with the "hated" TimeWarner Cable. This is like saying "Hated British Monarchy sells American Colonies to Canada" in the 20th century.

Hopefully some sleepy-headed slashdot editor will pick her head up off the table long enough to use the "hated" Google search engine, learn about the true history, value and structure of the "hated" telecom industry and correct the article headline and completely misleading content.

Or not. Slashdot might continue its slide to sloppiness and become one of the most "hated" pretend-nonprofits in history.

Comment The Turing Test Itself is a Load of Crap (Score 1) 309

It's the Turing Test itself that is meaningless. In a possibly apocryphal account of an AI conference in the early 2000's, a learned panel of AI experts elaborated on the Turing test to explain that passing the test didn't just mean a minimal level of intelligence, but intelligence as advanced as humanity's itself, since it was able to fool a human. An undergraduate attendee asked the panel, "So, if I can write a program that can fool a dog into thinking it's interacting with another dog, the program is as intelligent as a dog?"

The room fell silent.

Since then, nobody has proposed a reasonable alternative for what Turing meant by "intelligence" as the target in his test.

Myself, I think AI is Computer Science's biggest Ponzi scheme. We are not one iota closer to actual artificial intelligence than we were in the 1950s. Yet the public's expectation, and the impression given by AI researchers, is that we've been making steady progress. So every new AI "advance" must be more spectacular than the last, with lots of hand waving explaining how this moves us closer to the goal of sentient computing. It started back in the 1960s with natural language processing, which was really just elaborate table lookup. Then it advanced to the 1970s, with Chess-playing machines -- also just elaborate table lookup. The 1980s brought expert systems and neural networks, otherwise known as elaborate table lookup. Today we have computer navigation, plain-language database queries, and speech processing such as Siri. AI? No. Table lookup, elaborate.

We can't even define what intelligence is or how it works in even the simplest organism, let alone explain it in humans. Until we can do that, we can't have an artificial version of it.

Turing was a con man.

Comment Start recording her facial movements immediately (Score 5, Insightful) 552

I'm not a medical expert, but work in computer forensics. I think it's wise to begin recording her facial movements immediately to establish a baseline of activity and determine when improvements or declines occur. This seems like something easily accomplished with today's off-the-shelf technology, such as GoPro style digital cameras.

Comment The Emperor Has No Data (Score 0) 433

All of the dire predictions in this new report come from computer simulations, not actual data. The simulations have proven to be worthless at predicting current climate (for example, no simulation predicted the current stalling of temperature increases). Simulations are not data. And the absence of data is not data. The truth is that we lack the computational ability to simulate climate change at all. Maybe someday, but we currently LACK EVEN THE DATA needed to identify all the variables and interactions that create climate. So even if computation capacity were to increase several orders of magnitude, we lack the foundation for the computations.

It's the a Emperor all over again.

Comment Re:Scientists "know"? (Score 1) 75

For what it's worth, current models do predict brief periods of cooling between increasing warmer periods.

My biochemist son has a phrase that I think fits here: "The absence of data is not data." Models are not data, and none of the models have done an even remotely viable job of predicting climate. But even if they had, simulation is not empirical science. Just because a model occasionally agrees with experiment in no way means the model is correct. There is plenty of mathematical research indicating that climate simulation is an intractable problem, due primarily to chaos.

You might want to shift gears and change the name of the game to "climate change", but the public policy debate is specifically over global warming caused my humans, hence AGW. And when you say "With enough data, that can be disproved", you beg the question. Neither the IPCC nor any scientist proponents of AGW will admit to any data that would falsify their theory. They won't even entertain the possibility. That's not science. That's religion, fanatical.

Comment Re:Scientists "know"? (Score 1) 75

The conclusion that primordial heat is half the heat coming from the interior is pure speculation, since we don't have any workable models of planetary genesis. And no planetary scientist I talk to believes there is any way to account for the current heat of the core -- it's widely accepted that the current status contradicts the age of the earth. Hence the mystery.

Comment Re:Scientists "know"? (Score -1) 75

By dead cold I mean that no lunar-thermal heat reaches the surface. Mere compression brings the moon's core to 2,000F or so, but that's much lower than the Earth's peak of about 10,000F. The lunar surface is dead cold at -300F in darkness.

Care to cite a source for your claim of "half the heat"? I have an observable example in the moon for my position, with many measurements, which is presumed younger than the earth if you accept the collision theory of the moon's formation. Why is the earth so much hotter internally than the moon? It's a fair question that has no obvious answer.

Comment Re:Source of heat inside the earth (Score 1, Insightful) 75

When you survey the literature on geothermal heating, you find that friction is indeed _the_ major component of core heat. Especially tidal friction due to lunar gravity, which is far more significant that even meteor strikes, because it's a continuously varying force. But the physics of friction are well understood, and basic calculations show that friction is still not nearly a large enough source for measured temperatures and theoretical time spans.

In fact, radioactive heating was originally postulated as a source to make up for the inadequacies of frictional heating. But the magnitude of radioactive heating is orders of magnitude less than even frictional. As mathematicians would say, it may be "necessary, but not sufficient."

Comment Re:Scientists "know"? (Score -1, Troll) 75

But we don't have a reasonable window. We literally have no data supporting the radioactive sustenance of the Earth's core temperature. Simple calculations demonstrate that radioactive decay is not adequate for the current age of the earth. Something has to give in a major way: either the earth is far less than even a million years old, or there is some other engine heating the Earth's core. Hell, for example ;)

Comment Re:Scientists "know"? (Score -1, Troll) 75

When even scientists call it a mystery, that is pretty definitive that they don't know. Nobody calls solar fusion a mystery, because we can directly observe the process and there is no controverting data. It's a theory, to be sure, but valid until dis-proven.

But you can't say "scientists have a pretty good idea" about planetary formation. They have ideas. None has been shown to be even remotely "pretty good". In fact, they're all pretty bad, because they can be countered with mere calculation. A true scientist does due diligence on his own theories before publishing, but that process has gone by the wayside in recent years. Planetary accretion doesn't work because the kinetic energy of collisions is many times too great to permit particle coalescence as a function of gravitational attraction. That's undergraduate astronomy mathematics.

On the other hand, I could posit that planets are made on the Magrathea Factory Floor, and have as much evidence going for me as any other theory.

Slashdot Top Deals

And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones

Working...