Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Is quantum mechanics a theory? (Score 1) 201

"No, if you want "why" or "truth" look into the philosophy department."

Thats a bit defeatist. Science has always been about explaining the "why". Why is the sky blue, why do the planets going around the sun etc.

"Quantum mechanics describes a fucking ton of things"

It doesn't really explain anything. Its a convenient probabilistic bucket to put stuff in that we don't really understand but like to give it a name anyway.

"What" is for engineers. Physicists should always be aiming to answer the "why". Anyone can use equations, explaining why they work and where they come from is should be theoretical physics main goal, even if ultimately there's a level of reality we can't understand or progress beyond. No hand waving philosphers should be required.

Comment Is quantum mechanics a theory? (Score 0, Troll) 201

A theory is supposed to explain something. Quantum mechanics doesn't explain anything, its more a mathematical description of *what* happens, not *why* it happens. As far as I'm aware the "why" still eludes us as much as it did 100 years ago when Einstein and Bohr were arguing it out.

Comment Re:Its easier now (Score 1) 108

"I think it's like saying that making a text editor is now easy"

Sure, if you just use the default widgets. Now try and implement something NOT included with them. Syntax highlighting for ANOther language. Oh dear, that means you'll have to write your own lexical analyser and integrate it. Not so easy now is it?

Comment Re:The problem with neural networks (Score 1) 44

"Fortunately we can understand the processes within real people that lead to their actions. "

Since when? Psychiatrics have been claiming that for years but I see little evidence for it beyond simple actions. Sometimes even the person themselves doesn't understand why they do something if it was subconsious.

Comment Re:The problem with neural networks (Score 1) 44

But then one day the neural net has a "senior moment" and drives the car off a cliff. And no one can figure out why. At least with a program you'll eventually figure out where the failure is. But I take your point about pre-programmed responses and you're right. I'm not really sure what the solution is - maybe use a neural network but have a normal program acting as a watchdog?

Comment The problem with neural networks (Score 2) 44

Is that *in theory* you could understand why they come to a particular result, but in practice it could be potentially very hard with a large network for any person to get their head around the processes leading up to the output. This means that unless safety rules are changed we won't be seeing these things driving cars or flying aircraft anytime soon since the software needs to be verifiable and neural networks are not.

Comment Re:They are charging money for this (Score 1) 193

"As for being "grateful", they are charging a lot of money to use this tech. If they were providing it for free you might have an argument but they aren't"

No one is forcing you to pay for it. TBH if you can't go a single flight without net access then you probably need therapy.

Comment Re:Sensitive? (Score 1) 76

I took it as sentitivity in general. The Z direction is a pretty minor piece of functionality. X,Y is far more important to most people.

"If you want it to be more sensitive in x and y, you have to poke at it with something with a finer tip than your finger."

Even that won't work a lot of the time because the granularity of the pad is less than that of the screen.

Work is the crab grass in the lawn of life. -- Schulz