Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:He wasn't thinking of Google... (Score 1) 124

Why not? I'm pretty sure it was my search engine of choice by some time in 1998. It was just better than Yahoo! (exclamation point is theirs, not mine). Not sure I ever remember liking Alta Vista. You couldn't trade shares in a company called Google, but something called Google was clearly gathering a lot of information and sorting it effectively.

Comment: Re:but that's the problem with the turing test... (Score 1) 309

I don't think a chat bot was what Turing had in mind in any case. A bot that was intelligent enough to be able to LEARN and SPEAK well enough that another human couldn't tell the difference between it and another human is the point.

That's why it will be very hard to pass. In the '80s the trick was to ask anything about current affairs because the computer had no real access to information about the world. Now that we have the web, the trick will presumably be to spot someone who is too well-informed. The computer will need to learn how to pretend to know less than it does in order to fit in, which might actually be an appropriate final test to identify intelligence. Unfortunately.

Everything we see now is trying to win the letter of the turing test and ignoring the spirit. Turing's point was that if we can make it able to reason as well as we can we no longer have the right to deny it as intelligent life. Scripts that skip the reasoning and learning part and just try to con the judges are just attempts to cheat at the test.

Thanks for saying it. +1 Insightful.

Comment: Re:Article doesn't go into details about quality (Score 1) 135

I think the general argument is that fusion shouldn't produce any dangerous waste at all. On that basis, I would expect the group you mention to be for it. I've heard that current test reactors produce byproducts that are dangerous, but that these are not strictly necessary for the power generation, so it might be possible to produce a reactor that emits only helium.

I guess that's part of the reason it needs further research.

Comment: Why? (Score 1) 1

by Another, completely (#46748369) Attached to: Heartbleed: Revenue Canada breached, 900 SINs leaked

From the article:

Based on our analysis to date, Social Insurance Numbers (SIN) of approximately 900 taxpayers were removed from CRA systems by someone exploiting the Heartbleed vulnerability.

What can you do with 900 Canadian SINs? Maybe use them to send convincing links to a false tax payment site, but anyone who clicks on an e-mail link to a payment site could probably have been fooled without the SIN.

+ - Heartbleed: Revenue Canada breached, 900 SINs leaked 1

Submitted by Walking The Walk
Walking The Walk (1003312) writes "The Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA) released a statement yesterday explaining that they had been notified of a breach of their system. The CRA attempted to avoid being compromised by halting online tax returns, taking down Netfile and other related websites affected by Heartbleed. The statement indicates that affected individuals and businesses will receive notification by registered mail, "to ensure that our communications are secure and cannot be exploited by fraudsters through phishing schemes.""

Comment: Re:So a fake pub with drinks and a place to sit (Score 1) 118

by Another, completely (#46283781) Attached to: Fake Pub Studies Drinking Habits

Also, psychologists will frown upon any research where the subjects do not know they are part of a research project.

I'm guessing it depends on the nature of the interaction.

Anyone can listen to nearby conversations and form opinions, but that's not the same as conducting a study. If someone associated with a university tries to publish results from a study without signed permission from all participants, the university ethics board will not just frown. Tenure might save you, but students and assistant professors are in trouble. This is taken very seriously.

"Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it." -- Alex Schure