Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:AI researcher here (Score 1) 375

by jd (#48452791) Attached to: Alva Noe: Don't Worry About the Singularity, We Can't Even Copy an Amoeba

"the human brain is ultimately nothing more than a gigantic conglomerate of gates itself"

Which is sufficient evidence, as far as I'm concerned that you didn't read my post and replied to what you thought I should have written according to what you think I should believe.

Guess what. You're wrong.

Comment: Hmmm ... (Score 1) 124

So either this lady went through a lot of steps to create a profile, or this company is lying and actually created it for her.

I'm far more likely to believe the combination of Facebook and whatever this Zoosk thing is are the culprits.

That's pretty slimy as far as I'm concerned.

Comment: Re:If the FCC actually did its job (Score 1) 60

You seem to be suggesting a solution in which someone will both cooperatively pass laws spanning multiple nations, and which could be construed as limiting the "free speech" and commercial activities of corporations.

I predict the chance of that happening to be practically non-existent.

Someone with deep pockets will claim that preventing a commercial entity from cold calling you is unfair. And they'll throw a lot of money at this to ensure those laws are watered down so far as to be useless.

Just like the last time.

Those laws are ineffective because people paid to make them that way.

Comment: Right mind? (Score 1) 82

by gstoddart (#48450313) Attached to: Nuclear Weapons Create Their Own Security Codes With Radiation

No one in their right mind wants to use one, but if they're to act as a deterrent, they need to be accessible.

See, the problem with this is that it assumes the people you're trying to have these things act as a deterrent are, in fact, in their right minds.

And many of the people we seem to be having conflict with these days ... they're very much of the opinion of "our way or death to all".

So, what do you do if the people you're concerned about aren't in their right minds, and nothing you do will act as a deterrent?

Assuming a rational adversary is not necessarily a reasonable thing any more.

Comment: Re:If the FCC actually did its job (Score 1) 60

Well, there's several reasons for that ...

1) Lobbyists for the people who claim to be "legitimate" telemarketers had provisions in the law gutted so they could continue to call us even if we didn't want them to.

2) Since it's so trivial to spoof caller ID (in part for these exact same companies), knowing who is actually calling is almost impossible

3) Many of those callers are calling from another country entirely (again, because those companies who lobbied for exemptions wanted to use offshore call centers) ... so what is the FCC going to do?

You have a toothless legislation, designed to give loopholes to telemarketers and politicians (and who knows what else), which has been set up to allow 3rd party contractors to call on your behalf and spoof the caller ID, and people in another country who are doing the calling.

Many of us believe the people doing the fraudulent calls are the exact same offshore call centers used by the "legitimate" organizations.

The law was so crippled to protect commercial interests there's really nothing to enforce.

Comment: Re:AIDS is bad (Score 2) 94

by hairyfeet (#48449181) Attached to: Apple To Donate Profit Portion From Black Friday For AIDS Fight

You can always try what my family is doing which is skipping the whole damned mess. I mean for the love of FSM now everybody is doing it on Thanksgiving day? DaFuq? I sat my family down and asked them a very simple question.....do we REALLY need more electronic crap? They took stock of all the TVs and laptops and desktops and tablets and phones we have and decided nope, not really.

So the only electronic thing being gotten this year is the youngest is getting an octocore because his quad has been getting unstable (and he hates having less than me and his big bro who both have X6), but since it was getting unstable I done let him have his early, got it for $109 3 weeks ago on a pre BF sale. The rest decided they'd rather have non BF stuff, books for mom, 10 pounds of Hazelnuts and Brazil nuts for dad ("They never put enough ^%*&^%*& decent nuts in the damned can!") and for the oldest? Dining gift cards so he can take one of the various women he dates out to eat.

So no more stupid Black Friday bullshit for us, the sock drawers are loaded full of electronics as it is!

Comment: Re:Same as Columbus (Score 1) 63

by gstoddart (#48448995) Attached to: Multi-National Crew Reaches Space Station

But since when are profitable short-term goals the only worthwhile ones?

Since the stock market decided that quarterly numbers was the only meaningful metric and corporations stopped having any longer-term goals?

Seriously, for the last decade it seems like long-term thinking is out the window, because people who run corporations only give a damn about the next quarter.

And when the management team gets swapped out, they cancel anything which had been on-going in favor of new short-term measures.

Or, at least, that's how it has seemed to many of us for years now.

Comment: Re:fight it out in court (Score 1) 393

by gstoddart (#48448745) Attached to: Cops 101: NYC High School Teaches How To Behave During Stop-and-Frisk

Well, while I agree the tone can change things ... I'm still hopeful a court will uphold the fact that the 4th amendment exists, and that a stop/search with no probable cause it illegal. Because that's the actual problem here.

Police officers getting paid leave and no actual consequences for ignoring the law has to stop.

Instead, the blue wall circles around when a cop does something illegal, and until the video surfaces, they concoct their own version of events and stick with it until they get proven lying.

That kind of shit need to lead to criminal charges.

Comment: Re:I'm surprised... (Score 1) 72

by Greyfox (#48448635) Attached to: Study: Space Rock Impacts Not Random
That's true, but the celestial spheres are an orderly place. The math to predict an orbit is fairly straightfroward. (Castor is a better link if you want more than a quick overview.) Watching it go around the body it's orbiting is like watching the hands on a clock. So I don't find it particularly strange that if there's a bunch of loose junk on an orbit that intersects us, that we'd run through it on a regular basis. I'd be more surprised if it was just random.

Comment: Re:fight it out in court (Score 2) 393

by gstoddart (#48448583) Attached to: Cops 101: NYC High School Teaches How To Behave During Stop-and-Frisk

Advice I got from a cop: Most cops are great guys and a few are psychopaths with guns. The best place to fight it out is in court where they won't be able to shoot you and get away with it ;)

So, the suggestion is that we should allow the police to illegally stop and search us until we can be in a safer environment to tell them they're doing something illegal?

No, sorry.

I propose something else: all police wear cameras and audio recording 100% of the time, and a zero tolerance for police who do not adhere to the law, and dismissal/criminal charges are the outcome. Any police officer who turned off his recording stuff is presumed to be lying.

How about we weed out the assholes and the ones who don't know what the law says instead of making the citizens all act like scared, compliant sheep?

By the time they've dragged your ass into court, they've already fabricated their evidence and come up with the lies they'll all tell.

It really is time to stop giving police the benefit of the doubt, because it's more than a "few" police officers who do this stuff.

The reality is, an increasing number of police either don't know or don't care what the law says. They just do whatever they want because they have the guns and badges.

It's time to fix that.

Comment: Re:Philosophy -- graveyard of fact (Score 2) 375

by jd (#48447337) Attached to: Alva Noe: Don't Worry About the Singularity, We Can't Even Copy an Amoeba

Not true. The Scientific Method is itself a philosophy, as is mathematics. (Mathematics is not a science, it is a humanity and specifically a philosophy.) Mathematics is the core of all science.

Your understanding of philosophy clearly needs some refreshing. I suggest you start with Bertrand Russel's formalization of logic and progress to John Patrick Day's excellent textbook on mathematical philosophy. It's clear you do not know what serious (as opposed to populist) philosophers are concerned with. This is no better than judging physics by Fleich and Pons' Cold Fusion work, or judging biology by examining 1960s American perversions of brain surgery.

You've got to look at the real work. And the odds are that there's more in your computer that was developed by a philosopher than ever came close to a "non-philosophical" scientist (whatever those might be).

Comment: Re:AI researcher here (Score 2) 375

by jd (#48447321) Attached to: Alva Noe: Don't Worry About the Singularity, We Can't Even Copy an Amoeba

Expert systems are not intelligent. They're nothing more than a fancy version of Animals. If/then/else isn't even weak AI and a binary search of an index is just a search. It doesn't mimic an expert, because experts only start with simple diagnostic tools like that. That's the beginning, not the end. Experts know when answers are off and know how to recover from it - when it's unimportant and when it's absolutely critical. Experts also know how to handle cases never encountered before, because they don't just know a bunch of checklist questions, they know how information relates and they know the patterns that are generic across all cases, known and unknown. You can't program an Expert System Shell with Category Theory maps, Prolog isn't going to know what to do with meta-abstraction.

Neural Networks are debatable. Fundamentally, a Neural Network is a very large set of multi-input gates. Nothing more. If it's trained, then all you've done is simplified the derivation of the gates. You've not added any intelligence. Self-organizing networks are another beast entirely. These can be argued to be "intelligent", since the human brain is ultimately nothing more than a gigantic conglomerate of gates itself. The only reason you have the illusion of intelligence is that there's self-organizing involved. However, no self-organizing neural net on any computer yet built is so powerful that it can simulate the functioning of a nematode's brain. Strong AI, which is what most non-CS people think of as AI, cannot yet even be described. We have no comprehension of what it is, therefore cannot build it.

What the professor is really talking about though, as indicated by the reference to cellular biology, is not AI but ALife. Nothing currently in existence can be called true artificial life, although the Bugs program from Scientific American is a good start. Artificial Life is many orders of magnitude harder than Strong AI. It's not enough to emulate the properties of intelligence, you have to emulate the reason for there needing to be intelligence in the first place. Even those working on Strong AI aren't tackling such self-consistency issues, far too complex for them.

(It's clear that most AI work is incompatible with a self-consistent Strong AI, so I'm inclined to believe Singularity isn't going to be here for a while. Progress is, as others have noted, somewhere between non-linear and exponential, but even if we assume exponential, it'll be between 75-150 years before Strong Artificial Life is within reach, where Strong ALife is Strong AI and Artificial Life and self-consistency.)

... when fits of creativity run strong, more than one programmer or writer has been known to abandon the desktop for the more spacious floor. -- Fred Brooks

Working...