Forgot your password?

Comment: Obligatory painful comment (Score 5, Insightful) 84

I guess every story has at least one.

So, the cop saw someone breaking the law, gave chase, and then they're the bad guys because the suspect tried to ram them?

No, you twit. They're bad guys for lying about it.

No drone, or "remotely piloted aircraft" in DoD newspeak, should be flown over a populated area.

Charge them for what they did do, not make shit up about what they didn't do. This isn't hard.

+ - Stigmatized nuclear workers quit Japan utility->

Submitted by mdsolar
mdsolar (1045926) writes "Stigma, pay cuts, and risk of radiation exposure are among the reasons why 3,000 employees have left the utility at the center of Japan's 2011 nuclear disaster. Now there's an additional factor: better paying jobs in the feel good solar energy industry.

Engineers and other employees at TEPCO, or Tokyo Electric Power Co., were once typical of Japan's corporate culture that is famous for prizing loyalty to a single company and lifetime employment with it. But the March 2011 tsunami that swamped the coastal Fukushima Dai-ichi plant, sending three reactors into meltdown, changed that.

TEPCO was widely criticized for being inadequately prepared for a tsunami despite Japan's long history of being hit by giant waves and for its confused response to the disaster. The public turned hostile toward the nuclear industry and TEPCO, or "Toh-den," as the Japanese say it, became a dirty word.

Only 134 people quit TEPCO the year before the disaster. The departures ballooned to 465 in 2011, another 712 in 2012 and 488 last year. Seventy percent of those leaving were younger than 40. When the company offered voluntary retirement for the first time earlier this year, some 1,151 workers applied for the 1,000 available redundancy packages."

Link to Original Source

+ - Sand-Based Anode Triples Lithium-Ion Battery Performance->

Submitted by Zothecula
Zothecula (1870348) writes "Conventional lithium-ion batteries rely on anodes made of graphite, but it is widely believed that the performance of this material has reached its zenith, prompting researchers to look at possible replacements. Much of the focus has been on nanoscale silicon, but it remains difficult to produce in large quantities and usually degrades quickly. Researchers at the University of California, Riverside have overcome these problems by developing a lithium-ion battery anode using sand."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:The relevant part (Score 1) 556

by Uberbah (#47422447) Attached to: Mass. Supreme Court Says Defendant Can Be Compelled To Decrypt Data

They had proof he hid money. He had no proof he lost the money he hid. So, to the court's satisfaction, he had committed fraud, and the contempt charge was to compel a confession.

Yes, they were demanding that he prove a negative, which is of course impossible to do. If the government couldn't prove that he still had the money, the government had no business holding him.

Comment: Re:Forcing some of the costs on others (Score 1) 301

by dbIII (#47422403) Attached to: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane To Nowhere
Personally I think it's like the Sea Sprite (and tank with too short a range to be useful to Australia, and torpedoes that are not made any more and don't fit) rushed deal all over again. A new and naive bunch that see US representatives as rock stars are swallowing whatever deal is shoved down their throats without listening to their own experts.

Comment: Re:Most humans couldn't pass that test (Score 1) 258

by TapeCutter (#47422363) Attached to: The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI
You and I are constantly having original thoughts while walking and chewing gum at the same time, thing is they not impressive enough to be called "original". The test in TFA just extends the psychologically comforting idea that intelligence is something unique to higher life forms, yet when I was at school in the 60's intelligence was generally considered to be unique to humans, animals were generally considered to be instinctual automata, which likely explains why Turing defined AI as the ability to hold a human conversation.

Comment: Re:Turing test not passed. (Score 3, Interesting) 258

by TapeCutter (#47422323) Attached to: The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI
I think Watson would be able to give it's real age by finding the information rather than recalling it, although it might get confused by progressive versions. AI can also produce a picture of a generic rabbit, or cat as the case may be.

The thing that Watson (and AI in general) has difficulty with is imagination, it has no experience of the real world so if you asked it something like what would happen if you ran down the street with a bucket of water, it would be stuck. Humans who have never run with a bucket of water will automatically visualise the situation and give the right answer, just as everyone who read the question have just done so in their mind. OTOH a graphics engine can easily show you what would happen to the bucket of water because it does have a limited knowledge of the physical world.

This is the problem with putting AI in a box labeled "Turing test", it (arrogantly) assumes that human conversation is the only definition of intelligence. I'm pretty sure Turing himself would vigorously dispute that assumption if he were alive today.

Comment: Re:Turing test not passed. (Score 1) 258

by TapeCutter (#47422207) Attached to: The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI

explain to my poor retard self how it has not passed

By definition, one in three means it failed to convince the average layman, when it gets better that one in two I will give it a pass.

Personally I think it's achievable today but as much as I admire Turing it's entirely irrelevant to the question of intelligence. It's mostly philosophical masterbation by people who misunderstand the modern definition of intelligent behaviour. For example I can't get a sensible reply when asking an octopus about it's garden but there is no denying it's a remarkably intelligent creature.

Comment: Re:Turing test not passed. (Score 1) 258

by TapeCutter (#47422149) Attached to: The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI

So now anything we understand is not intelligence?

I heard a great anecdote about this from an MIT proffessor on youtube. Back in the 80's the professor developed an AI program that could translate equations into the handful of standard forms required by calculus and solve them. A student heard about this and went calling to see the program in action. The professor spent an hour explaining the algorithm, when the student finally understood he exclaimed, "That's not intelligent, it's doing calculus the same way I do".

It could be argued that neither the student nor the computer were intelligent since they were simply following rules, but if that's the case the only those handful of mathematicians who discovered the standard form are intelligent. It should also be noted that since that time computers routinely discover previously unknown mathematical truths by brute force extrapolation of the basic axioms of mathematics, however none of them have been particularly useful for humans.

When people dispute the existence of AI what they are really disputing is the existence of artificial consciousness, we simply don't know if a computer operating a complex algorithm is conscious and quite frankly it's irrelevant to the question of intelligence. For example most people who have studied ants agree an ants nest displays highly intelligent behaviour, they have evolved a more efficient and generally better optimised solution to the travelling salesman problem than human mathematics (or intuition) can provide, yet few (if any) people would argue that an ant or it's nest is a conscious being.

Comment: Re:Goal Post: Mysticism (Score 1) 258

by dbIII (#47422141) Attached to: The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI

This is like looking at obscurity and declaring it a soul

That's the undergraduate view of AI that gets repeated at times in this place.

The measure of intelligence is that we can't understand it?

Not just yet, so instead of waiting until years of work is done understanding the physical basis of thought the impatient want some sort of measure now.

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes. -- Dr. Warren Jackson, Director, UTCS