Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Mostly done by 1985... (Score 1) 227

by ceoyoyo (#47533471) Attached to: Black Holes Not Black After All, Theorize Physicists

From the perspective of someone falling in, the outside universe experiences an infinite amount of time. So if it's going to end, it's going to end before the infalling observer has even the very short period of time required to cross the event horizon.

If the universe doesn't end, it will have infinite time to cool off and the black to hole to evaporate from Hawking radiation. To conserve energy that means the infalling observer must observe a greater and greater amount of Hawking radiation the closer he gets to the event horizon, and the horizon will always recede from him as the hole shrinks. When he eventually reaches the centre he'll discover that there's no black hole left.

Comment: Re:Mostly done by 1985... (Score 4, Interesting) 227

by ceoyoyo (#47524651) Attached to: Black Holes Not Black After All, Theorize Physicists

Physicists originally called black holes "frozen stars" because the flow of time stops at the event horizon. Nothing can fall past an event horizon in outside time because that would take an infinitely long time to happen. It also can't happen from the perspective of an observer falling in, provided the outside universe has a finite lifetime. So you can never get a singularity.

I'm not really sure why that idea doesn't get more attention from today's physicists.

Comment: Re:Ridiculous! (Score 3, Informative) 590

by ceoyoyo (#47460727) Attached to: Marvel's New Thor Will Be a Woman

Not the original poster, but I agree. I think it's great to have strong female main characters, on an equal footing with strong male main characters. But this ain't it. They're taking a character who is male, both in mythology and in their own storyline, and changing him into a woman. Why? Because they can't write female leads so they'll just take a male one and give him boobs? Because a female main character can't be successful without all the momentum gathered by that character being male for a thousand years?

Ridiculous seems like a reasonable summary.

Comment: Re:What do these systems cost without monetizing? (Score 1) 150

by ceoyoyo (#47408163) Attached to: Coddled, Surveilled, and Monetized: How Modern Houses Can Watch You

Nest thermostats don't seem the least bit inexpensive to me. Knowing how to actually build one, they seem to cost right about what the hardware and back end infrastructure would run, plus some boutique-level profit. You could make one for a quarter of the cost without the cloud stuff.

Comment: Re:He definitely never has been on monkey class... (Score 2) 128

by ceoyoyo (#47373483) Attached to: FAA's Ruling On Smartphones During Takeoff Has Had Little Impact

Learn to sleep on planes. It changes your life.

I pretty much automatically fall asleep when I sit down now. Usually open my eyes for the takeoff, then fall asleep again well before cruising altitude.

It's actually a challenge staying awake part of the flight while flying west to prevent jet lag.

Comment: Re:This is rediculous (Score 1) 113

And there are laws specifically against recording unencrypted signals emanating from someone's house (the wiretap laws in question). What's your point? The taking pictures through your window analogy is pretty much exactly what happened.

Google didn't just scan SSIDs like a regular war driver would, they connected to the APs and recorded traffic. That's not just "oopsie, it was an accident."

Comment: Re:Democrats voted (Score 1) 932

by ceoyoyo (#47217897) Attached to: House Majority Leader Defeated In Primary

I'm going to cherry pick a bit on your absentee list. Domestic spying? Your republic will boldly march on. Wait, you don't like the idea of being spied upon in America, land of the free? Is it really that different to propose laws (from an extreme religious motivation) that control women's fertility and ban stem cell research? Or the biggest one of all, put a discriminatory, rights-removing amendment in the constitution of the United States itself?

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

by ceoyoyo (#47217273) Attached to: Was Turing Test Legitimately Beaten, Or Just Cleverly Tricked?

Sure, nobody actually runs a Turing test. It's too hard. If a real Turing test were ever passed there wouldn't be any dispute. They're ALL restricted versions where the judges go easy on the computers.

The 13 year old gambit isn't the problem though (it's the judges). In fact, it suggests all sorts of strategies for the judges to trip up the computer. I just had a quick conversation with Eugene where I told him a story about a pretty girl asking a guy to go to the movies, and the two of them sitting right at the back. He changed the subject. Obviously not a 13 year old boy.

I agree with you, a proper Turing test is the best, possibly the only way we currently have to assess an AI. But if you have a computer that you think is at the level of a five year old, for example, find some child psychologists and let them talk to it and some real five year olds. Or thirteen year olds. Or adults. Age doesn't matter.

"A mind is a terrible thing to have leaking out your ears." -- The League of Sadistic Telepaths