Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Gettin All Up In Yo Biznis (Score 2, Insightful) 417

by Zalbik (#47679789) Attached to: Swedish Dad Takes Gamer Kids To Warzone

If the US DoD were spending enormous amounts of money developing those comic books with the express purpose of making war look as glamorous and consequence-free as possible, then yes, I would still let my kids read them, because I disagree with intellectual censorship in any form, at any age. But you can bet I'd talk with them about what they were reading, who wrote it, and why they might have written it.

And what does this have to do with the article? As far as I can tell, the US DoD has nothing to do with the development of Call of Duty.

Comment: Re:So ... (Score 2) 213

by Zalbik (#47672491) Attached to: How to Maintain Lab Safety While Making Viruses Deadlier

There are experiments and research paths we do not follow because the intellectual benefit does not outweigh the very real possibilities for misuse.

And do you have evidence that the possibility of misuse in this case outweigh the benefits?

This research is specifically designed to gain an understanding of how viruses mutate in the wild. This is something we must know if we intend to continue on as a species. Mother nature (in her infinite wisdom), doesn't give a flying fig whether the viruses she is continually developing and improving are dangerously lethal to the human species. If we don't outrace her at this game, our time on this planet is limited.

TL;DR: This type of research is already going on all the time in nature. Unless we can understand how and why these changes occur, eventually one of them is going to kill a heck of a lot of us anyways.

Comment: Re:String theory is not science! (Score 1) 259

by Zalbik (#47609723) Attached to: The Man Who Invented the 26th Dimension

String theory is math. Math is not science. This should not be in the "science" section of /.

General Relativity is math. Math is not science. General relativity should not be in the "science" section of /.

Quantum Mechanics is math. Math is not science. Quantum Mechanics should not be in the "science" section of /.

Thermodynamics is math. Math is not science. Thermodynamics should not be in the "science" section of /.

See the problem?

Comment: Re:Limits of Measurement (Score 3, Interesting) 144

by Zalbik (#47569955) Attached to: More Quantum Strangeness: Particles Separated From Their Properties

Particles can't really be two places at once. But since we're knocking things around with our light beam, we can't say for sure where it is now -- so we instead talk in terms of probabilities of where the electron is, rather than saying matter-of-factly where it is. This is what quantum mechanics does, it calculates probabilities that the electron is in a certain place, probability it was going a certain speed, etc.

As others have mentioned, you are missing a couple of fundamental points of the double-slit experiement.

1) The pattern observed has nothing to do with the photons being hard to measure (classically photons are sent through the slits),
The pattern produced is exactly the interference pattern expected if light were actually a wave. The peaks and troughs of the two waves cancel each other out which results in the dark bands. Dual peaks or dual troughs reinforce each other, resulting in bright bands.

2) If this was a result of electric field build up and the "detector knocking particles around a bit", then it should also happen for a single slit (it doesn't). It also should not occur for photons (electrically neutral), but it does.

3) "when single particles are allowed thru, we see only single points on the detector"

This is incorrect, and the weirdest thing about the experiment. If two slits are opened, and particles are sent through one at a time, there is still the same interference pattern created. Individual particles behave as if they do not have a fixed location, but only a probability of existing at a specific location.

Heisenberg's principle is a result of quantum mechanics and wave-particle duality, not the cause.

Comment: Re:Thanks for the tip! (Score 1) 448

by Zalbik (#47306303) Attached to: $500k "Energy-Harvesting" Kickstarter Scam Unfolding Right Now

But, to say what they're claiming to be able to do is impossible? That's clearly wrong
...
Can they fit in something the size of a dog tag? I dunno, I'm not a miniaturization expert.

Your sentences need to have a little conversation with each other....

That's exactly one of the points. You can't fit a device that does what they claim in something the size of a dog tag. There's not enough space for the antenna. There's no way you fit an accelerometer, BT chip, speaker, magic energy harvester, magic battery and antenna in there. So yes, they are claiming to do the impossible.

There is not enough energy available to harvest to do what they are claiming.

There is no way they could fit all the different antennas they would require to harvest phone, television, wifi, radio, etc EM energy.

There is no way a BT antenna that size would operate at any orientation over the distances they claim.

There is no way this device could also have a speaker in it loud enough to hear from within the same room, never-mind throughout your house.

Comment: Re:surprised? (Score 2) 284

by Zalbik (#47255705) Attached to: Bill Gates To Stanford Grads: Don't (Only) Focus On Profit

But one day he also realized that he'll go down in history as a sleazebag.

Only on Slashdot. The thing that most extremist geek types don't get is that the public as a whole doesn't really care about tech infighting. Nobody but geeks care how Gates got his fortune.

Things people care about / will remember:
- Gates was the richest man in the world.
- He was a geek
- He was a college drop out
- He founded a huge charity
- He gave a bunch of his money to charity.

How Microsoft made money under Gates will be entirely ignored, or a footnote at best. It has nothing to do with his whitewashing....just really nobody else cares.

Comment: Re:but that's the problem with the turing test... (Score 1) 309

by Zalbik (#47206691) Attached to: Was Turing Test Legitimately Beaten, Or Just Cleverly Tricked?

Simply put: without non-verbal intelligent behaviour we would not even know that other humans are intelligent

BS. Are you saying that we cannot tell that other people on forums / chat rooms / etc are not intelligent?

Alternately, if let's say, a famous physicist had a degenerative disease that limited all of of his communication to non-verbal, we wouldn't be able to tell he was intelligent?

Think about that for a second. Concluding, "If a computer can convince a judge it is the human more than 50% of the time we can say that it is 'really' intelligent" implies "If a woman can convince a judge she is male more than 50% of the time we can say she is 'really' a dude."

Nonsense. It doesn't imply that at all. The woman/man setup was simply an example Turing used in order to explain the parameters of the test.

Your argument is the equivalent of:

Concluding:
"If a person can convince a judge they can speak Chinese more than 50% of the time, we can say they can really speak Chinese"
implies:
"If a person can convince a judge that they are really a child more than 50% of the time, we can conclude they are really a child"

You have changed the individual taking the test, the criteria for passing the test, AND the attribute being tested. You cannot make any logical conclusion from one statement to the other.

Comment: Re:A pretty low requirement (Score 1) 432

by Zalbik (#47206493) Attached to: Turing Test Passed

I'd say we keep raising the bar.

"If a computer can play chess better than a human, it's intelligent."
"No, that's just a chess program."

"If a computer can fly a plane better than a human, it's intelligent."
"No, that's just an application of control theory."

"If a computer can solve a useful subset of the knapsack problem, it's intelligent."
"No, that's just a shipping center expert system."

"If a computer can understand the spoken word, it's intelligent."
"No, that's just a big pattern matching program."

"If a computer can beat top players at Jeopardy, it's intelligent."
"No, it's just a big fast database."

Who is this we you refer to? No serious AI researchers have ever used those criteria as a definition of intelligence.

Comment: Re:Searl missed the point. (Score 1) 432

by Zalbik (#47206455) Attached to: Turing Test Passed

Simple. A "large" number of humans would fail it. Many "Turing tests" are set up so that a phrase generator could pass the test, not a phrase response generator, but a simple list of sentences, played in order.

For sufficiently small values of "large", maybe. IMO, the Turing test has great value when used with scientific rigor.

1) There should be no silly restrictions. No 13 year old children, no foreign language constraints. No script restrictions.
2) It should be (as Turing originally proposed) a conversation involving 3 people. The examiner, a human and a computer. This way the examiner can compare in real time the responses of the human to the reponses of the computer.
3) The examiner should be well-versed in computers.

I suspect there are no existing chatbots that could pass a test described as above.

My simple definition of AI is any program capable of making something smarter than it. Humans fit that definition,

Then humans do not fit that definition. We don't create our children....children happen spontaneously as a result of (enjoyable) biological acts that we instigate. We have no control / input into their development prior to birth, at which point they are already pre-designed for AI. Put another way: are those people incapable of having children still intelligent?

But understanding isn't AI.

I disagree. Understanding is one of the central points of AI, and the point we have so far struggled with. What Searle (somewhat intentionally) misses in his argument is that although the individual doesn't understand Chinese, the system understands Chinese. His argument is similar to saying that an amputee with artificial limbs can't walk cause the person isn't doing the walking.

The number of arguments is unimportant unless some of them are correct. -- Ralph Hartley

Working...