Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Fails to grasp the core concept (Score 1) 196 196

by Oligonicella (#50008081) Attached to: WSJ Overstates the Case Of the Testy A.I.

(or at a more advanced level, are programming a computer to learn how to learn things)

That is pure hope as well as circular. I don't think he's dismissing the concept so much as dismissing the current field operatives as being anywhere near as far along as they promote themselves to be. He's doing it with a heavy dollop of derision, but I'm seeing that from the opposite side as well. .

Comment: Re:"No idea how... the brain works" (Score 1) 196 196

by Oligonicella (#50007943) Attached to: WSJ Overstates the Case Of the Testy A.I.
Might you then explain to us how a neuron weighs the incoming signals and decides which axons to direct its outgoing signals to?

I know you gave yourself a caveat with "large scale", but those large scales don't really cut it for understanding how the brain fundamentally works, and in order to replicate its functioning in code (develop actual artificial intelligence), we will need to understand that. Add in how the effects of the various chemical baths it is subjected to modify cellular functioning and the prospect is even muddier. (That 'testy' lashing out allusion.)

We don't simply need to know what areas do what and a vague knowledge of how they interact, we need to understand in enough detail what it is they are doing at all levels for us to translate that into a hairily complex software system . A system quite a bit more hairy than one using a movie script database would or could be.

I'd put money on the programmers having coded in a limit (possible variable) on the number of times a specific line of inquiry could be asked before that rather canned response was generated.

Comment: Re: How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1053 1053

by cpt kangarooski (#50004865) Attached to: Supreme Court Ruling Supports Same-Sex Marriage

Sure. Perhaps you've heard of bigamy? Alice can't marry Carol because Bob already has a vested marital interest with Alice. For example, if Alice marries Carol and dies, Carol is entitled to 100% of her assets as spouse. But so is Bob.

That's not the policy rationale for the prohibition on bigamy, and while it is perhaps a little better of a reason than administrative convenience, it boils down to the same thing, since the question of marital property is one of the issues that legislatures will have to address when the ban is overturned as it inevitably will be.

On the contrary, tradition is absolutely relevant as to whether something is a fundamental right. Marriage is a fundamental right because it's enshrined in our traditions and collective conscience. ...
Polygamy does not have such a place in our traditions or collective conscience, and therefore is not a fundamental right.

Yep, that's the bullshit argument that people were rolling out against same sex marriage all right. That because it wasn't traditional, it wasn't fundamental.

The core mistake with that argument, whether in the context of same sex marriage or marriage among persons already married, or in larger numbers than two, is that what's fundamental is not opposite sex marriage, or same sex marriage, or polygamous marriage, but simply marriage, without qualification of any kind.

Issues like gender, race, consanguinity, marital status, and number of spouses are all restrictions on that singular fundamental right. Whether they stand hinges on whether they can be justified. Two of them, it transpires, cannot be. Ultimately I think the only restriction that will hold up will be consent, and perhaps consanguinity will have to be reframed in terms of consent if it's to be salvaged.

Comment: Re: How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1053 1053

by cpt kangarooski (#49997065) Attached to: Supreme Court Ruling Supports Same-Sex Marriage

because, as noted earlier, 3>2. Equal protection is an issue where two groups that are equally situated are treated differently. For marriage, there is no difference between a gay couple and a heterosexual couple. There is a difference between a couple and a larger group, however.

The litigant needn't be the entire group. Marriage is a fundamental right, subject to various restrictions, such as consent and consanguinity. Yesterday, one of the restrictions, at least in some places, was that the genders of two of the spouses couldn't be the same. Today, it's fine nationwide if they're the same.

The restriction to look at now is whether the marital status of each spouse in the marriage at hand is single. Today it has to be. But there's not a good reason for it. (As already mentioned, administrative convenience is not a good reason). So why can't Alice, who is married to Bob, now also marry Carol? Bob isn't marrying Carol; the A-C marriage would be between two people only. You're treating Alice differently merely because she is already married.

It's also not a fundamental right, as polygamy is not part of the traditions and collective conscience of society, except for Mormons.

Marriage is a fundamental right and is extremely broad. Restrictions on marriage, such as requiring the spouses to be of opposite genders, or of the same race, or of the same religion, or of compatible castes, etc. are not inherently part of marriage and are certainly not part of the fundamental right of marriage.

Also, today's events make it clear that tradition is irrelevant; polygamy is practiced today among many groups, and has a long history back into antiquity. Same sex marriage was known in the past but was far more rare.

Comment: Re: How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1053 1053

by cpt kangarooski (#49996705) Attached to: Supreme Court Ruling Supports Same-Sex Marriage

It will certainly be a massive pain in the ass. But administrative inconvenience is not an adequate justification for denying people their fundamental rights or equal protection of the law. It'll take a while, but just as this took a while, but in time polyamororous marriages will be legally recognized.

Comment: Re:What if I told you... (Score 1) 89 89

Writing software which was then mostly run in house on data stored in house. Smarter banks had teams that did the installation and maintenance in house as well. In the banks I spent those same decades you mention contracting for, they rented their wire transfer software (which I worked on) and we had complete access to the source code and managed the compilations and never once did the financial data leave bank systems for storage. Even the backup machinery was bank owned. Hell, when it was still being used, even the microfiching was in house.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (4) How many times do we have to tell you, "No prior art!"