Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Oblig xkcd (Score 4, Insightful) 159

by lennier (#43789639) Attached to: EPA Makes a Rad Decision

Unfortunately that chart doesn't work for any kind of ingested radioactive substance, and it's kind of disingenous for Randall to present it as if it's a meaningful comparison. There's plan radiation, and then there's radioactive contamination in dust, liquid or aerosol form, and the second one is the gift that keeps on giving.

IANAhealthphysicist, but I can read Wikipedia, and I'm pretty sure you get a lot more radiation damage to your cells if you eat or breathe in a radioactive particle than if you sit next to the same number of bequerels on the bench, because your body can incoporate the radioactive emitter directly into your cells for the entire rest of its (maximum of bioactive and radioactive) lifespan, and your skin won't screen out the alpha radiation like it does for an internal source. Iodine-equivalents are pretty nasty since although they have a half-life on the order of days, if they get inside you they dump all that radiation into your thyroid, which is not a good place to have it. Long-term, Radioactive strontium is the worst because it replaces calcium and so binds directly to your bone marrow, which is not good for leukemia. And potassium-equivalents are in the mid range, with a half-life on the order of months to years and they are bioavailable, but not permanently so. As far as we know.

Oh, and a lot of those last have been dumped into the ocean by Fukushima, and are now inside fish. Do they bioaccumulate up the food chain? We're not really sure, but we'll probably find out. It's a wonderful science experiment!

tldr: Don't eat, drink or breathe radioactive gunk. It's worse for you than it looks.

Comment: Re:24 yo? (Score 4, Interesting) 428

by lennier (#43746957) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Dealing With a Fear of Technological Change?

Using terminals and lynx and other stuff is completely valid

And don't forget that in the Microsoft enterprise-backend administration world (which appears to be following a tech trajectory diametrically opposed to the shiny-flashy-broken all-Surface-no-substance Windows 8 world), there is a very strong trend back toward the console, via Powershell.

Things go round and round and round again, but even on Windows, the command line endures and conquers.

By the way, Powershell does some things much, much better than any current command shell on Linux. When are we going to get a bash-alike that is based on piping arbitrary objects? (And Powershell objects are pretty neat, they're not just raw .NET objects - they're dynamically reconfigureable-at-runtime things much more in the old Smalltalk spirit than anything that came after C++). Ruby would probably do it, if someone could add piping support to it and hack up the libraries to make it interface with all the various incompatble object OS and object systems under the Linux/X hood.

Comment: Re:Moral objection (Score 1) 392

by lennier (#43738325) Attached to: Why We Should Build a Supercomputer Replica of the Human Brain

Someday we're going to have cybernetic life walking about. And I have to wonder -- how well will they treat us, when they find out how ethical we were in creating it?

About how well we treat each other, I suppose; hit and miss.

Well then, we'll just have to hope that they miss us more than they hit.

Comment: Re:Moral objection (Score 1) 392

by lennier (#43738271) Attached to: Why We Should Build a Supercomputer Replica of the Human Brain

We have established that the brain is the interface between person and physical reality, but that is it. And it is not complete.

Yes.

There's an interesting textbook called Irreducible Mind released in the last few years which details the multitude of evidence acquired over the last century and a half that something very interesting and strange is going on with the mind-brain interface, and that not only is it not established that the mind is the same thing as the brain, but that it's pretty well established that the mind, whatever it is, can exist decoupled from the brain, and can under some circumstances (and quite possibly a lot more commonly than that) access information that there is no physical model for the brain being able to access.

Also take a look at Extraordinary Knowing which documents much of the same material but in a more newbie-friendly way. Still scientific, just not as heavyweight.

Yes, this stuff is weird. Yes, it's often onsidered taboo to research. Yes, it's very hard to "scale up" and make behave in industrial settings. But it appears to be real, and it has a lot of implications for the computational and simulationist approaches to general artificial intelligence.

(Mainly, that it doesn't look like even simulating the physical structure of the brain will get any further toward simulating an actual human mind than modelling a person's house would get us close to simulating that person. If the brain is shaped by the mind, and not the other way around, then sure, you'll see correlations, you may even be able to infer behaviour from physical structure - as you would be able to guess my personality if you looked at my house. But that finite physical structure will not be the mind, because the mind/inhabitant is much larger than the brain/house and contains much unexpressed detail. Quite possibly an infinite amount of detail. We simply don't know what the mind is yet, but we are starting to get a picture of what the mind isn't.)

Comment: Re:One teensy detail (Score 1) 392

by lennier (#43738129) Attached to: Why We Should Build a Supercomputer Replica of the Human Brain

That unelected officials are prone to spending vast sums of other peoples money on boondoggles is practically a cliche at this point

How about those crazy Eurocrats, eh! All with their unelected science officials making science funding decisions and all! It's like a madhouse! With scienceing! A mad sciencehouse!

So, um. Completely unrelated question - which ballot is it that the project administrators with funding authoritiy over at DARPA, NASA, the National Institute of Standards, the Department of Energy, the Naval Research Laboratory, and the National Science Foundation, stand on again?

Comment: Re:And who's brain will it model? (Score 1) 392

by lennier (#43738079) Attached to: Why We Should Build a Supercomputer Replica of the Human Brain

If scientists persist in trying to play God with projects like this, they are going to unleash the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse:
War, Famine, Death, and Petulance.

Shan't play your pocklips! Shan't! It's smelly!

Mars pocklips has red snow! Venus has smulfic acid rain! Andromeda's parents bought her a whole glacksy to smash!
Your pocklips is a silly little wet, silly, smelly one, and, and and it smells!

Waaaaaa!

Comment: Re:I'm okay with that... (Score 1) 268

by lennier (#43705051) Attached to: DRM In HTML5 — Better Than the Alternative?

It defines no width for the text, allowing a single column to go right across the monitor for a maximized window.

That's a feature, not a bug.

Seriously, this is something I actually want. If I want text to be in a column, I can resize my browser window so it's smaller. I get really frustrated with today's website schemes which render all the text inside a tiny column on my huge landscape monitor. I have all that space for a reason - why does the website designer think their idea of a readable layout is better than mine? I'm the one who's actually reading it.

If you have nothing to do, don't do it here.

Working...