Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Clickbait (Score 1) 129

by dinfinity (#48621385) Attached to: Research Highlights How AI Sees and How It Knows What It's Looking At

They tried that, but it didn't make a huge difference (the resulting network was still easily 'fooled' with similar images).

The big thing to realize here is that the algorithm that generates the fooling images specifically creates highly regular images ("images [that] look like modern, abstract art". The repeated patterns are very distracting to the human eye, whereas the DNN pretty much ignores them. See figure 10 in the paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.1897v1.pdf ). It is necessary to take into account that the training set almost exclusively contains images of entire objects, not of patterns on that object. Presented with the 'evolved' school bus image, a human would probably say 'bee' or 'wasp' before school bus if forced to make a guess. The DNN, however, has never seen a close-up of the backside of a bee. I'm 99% confident that if you'd add closeups of patterns found on the classes in the ImageNet database, the DNN would be far less easily fooled.

Also, when removing a number of the top and bottom repetitions in the school bus example, a human could very well guess 'school bus', given the following question:
"Out of these 1000 object classes, which one does this image show?"
1000 different classes is ridiculously far away from the number of different visual concepts a human can distinguish.

Comment: Re: Predictions (Score 1) 280

by dinfinity (#48580237) Attached to: Utilities Face Billions In Losses From Distributed Renewables

You are what's wrong with the world. You're effectively saying that effective intra-governmental oversight is impossible and that any government is only after its own financial gain.

If you'd open your indoctrinated eyes, you'd see that there is a plethora of well-functioning intra-(semi-)governmental oversight relations. Probably even in the US. Stop throwing away the baby with the bath water. Government isn't necessarily and inherently evil.

Finally: the notion that corporations 'keep an eye on the government' is fucking ridiculous and implies that corporations have a responsibility they shouldn't, can't and fucking don't have. Unless by 'keeping an eye on' you mean 'lobbying and bribing the fuck out of ~'.

Comment: Re: You're Doing It Wrong (Score 1) 567

by dinfinity (#48576387) Attached to: The Case For Flipping Your Monitor From Landscape to Portrait

True, and windows 10 actually improves on this by also supporting top-bottom splits and corner-splits (the omission of which in Windows 7, if you think about it, is actually pretty idiotic - especially considering the post XP-removal of the CTRL+click on taskbar entries & Tile vertically/horizontally).

Comment: Re: Justice (Score 1) 772

by dinfinity (#48567937) Attached to: CIA Lied Over Brutal Interrogations

If you had read closely, you would have seen that I didn't make any statements on the absolute amount of morality and justice in the US. It was a relative statement, which only put a lower bound on the amount of morality and justice in the US. Considering the US is currently at 'killing and torturing people is fine', we are talking about a pretty low bar, however. (is a statement on the absolute amount of morality and justice in the US)

Now you may be right (in a very generous sense) that I'm looking at history through rose-colored glasses, but it isn't exactly hopeful to be under the impression that the US was always at the level it is now and probably always will be. I remain under the impression that whether it be in business or politics, the nature of modern society has increased the rate at which the good guys are either thrown out of the system or corrupted by it.

Comment: Re: Predictions (Score 1) 280

by dinfinity (#48566917) Attached to: Utilities Face Billions In Losses From Distributed Renewables

Nice ad hominem.. Dickwad.
Starting off with a straw man doesn't make you look great either: I never said that free markets are killing us.

The highly regulated private entities 'solution' is a Frankenstein monster born out of compromise. It's what you do when nationalization of certain sectors is called communist but you are also very aware that leaving it purely to the market would lead to a very shitty and untenable situation.

If a private entity operates in a natural monopoly, you will be writing veritable books of regulation to 'hold them accountable' and prevent all the ways in which they can and will cut corners to profit from their monopoly (hate the game, not the playa). Tell me, have you factored in the cost of the government entities necessary to regulate these profitable and 'efficient' government regulated private entities? What if, as a society, we add that cost to what we have to pay these private entities for their services, then weigh that against the quality of the service they are providing and consider whether a nationalized variant would really be worse?

Open your eyes, man. Don't throw away centralized government.
Instead: Fix it. Make it awesome!

Comment: Re: Predictions (Score 5, Insightful) 280

by dinfinity (#48562703) Attached to: Utilities Face Billions In Losses From Distributed Renewables

Why the hell is that unfortunate? Utilities should be nationalized. Their existence and proper functioning is essential to society and shouldn't be subject to the whims of shareholders and career tigers or 'operating at a profit'. Even though I believe nationalized industries do not necessarily have to be less 'efficient' than private ones (the efforts to make them efficient have been meager and successes underreported), I'd rather have inefficient organizations operating at a net loss than ones that will fuck me over left and right to extract every penny they can and don't give a flying fuck about the service they should be there to provide.

This 'socialism bad, free market good'-crap really needs to stop.

Comment: Re:Justice (Score 2) 772

by dinfinity (#48560469) Attached to: CIA Lied Over Brutal Interrogations

The US has become a kleptocratic oligarchy.

Morality and justice slowly fade away in the process, as everybody clambers over each other to get as far away from the bottom as they can. I think this process has occurred countless times in history and that the ones at the bottom, the ones who constantly get boots in their face, the ones who feel they have nothing to lose are the ones that effect change.

Comment: Re:My main complaint about the Pro 2 (Score 1) 101

by dinfinity (#48496421) Attached to: Forbes Revisits the Surface Pro 3, Which May Face LG Competition

I don't want a cell phone on my computer so I use Win 7 which has 0 support after 100 dpi. Last I heard even Chrome had issues.

That is an exaggeration. There are definitely some issues in Win 7 (no independent dpi settings for different monitors), but after a bit of tweaking it is absolutely fine.

People yack about 4k being the second coming of Christ but you need a $1000 video card to play games with half the settings off and compatibility problems.

This is an exaggeration too.
1. You can always set the resolution to 1920x1080 or 2560x1440 (at the dpis common for 4k monitors, scaling artifacts are hardly noticeable)
2. AA is not really required at 4k on typical monitor sizes (which saves a lot of processing power)
3. Most games aren't that demanding, considering a lot of them are console ports or built to be in line with console quality.

I have 2 AMD 7950s, but for a lot of games I don't even bother turning Crossfire on, as it is unnecessary.

Finally: Forget gaming; 4k is the second coming for productivity tasks (if you have good eyes). The amount of information on the screen is obviously not going to be 4x as much as on a 1080p screen, but it is pretty damn close.

Comment: Re:Consciousness versus Intelligence (Score 1) 455

Fuck Searle and his Chinese Room. Seriously.

The Chinese Room thought experiment causes so much lack of understanding it should be banned. Take your Chinese Room and ask it this:
"How many fingers was I holding up ten seconds ago?" (your single-state basic lookup table is not going to work, baby)

Such questions require ever more hacks and additions to the original thought experiment to the point where the most apt analogy for the guy in the Chinese Room is that of a hand. Determining that hands don't "know" anything is hardly ground-breaking.

And don't get me started on the extremely vaguely defined notion of what it means to 'know' or to 'understand'. The fact that humans attribute those things with an almost mystical quality is a testament to the (quite effective) arrogance instilled in us by evolution. Is it really that hard to accept that we're not the deliberate, free-willed agents we think we are?

Comment: Re:Flawed Premise (Score 1) 454

by dinfinity (#48443577) Attached to: In a Self-Driving Future, We May Not Even Want To Own Cars

Although I agree with you, technically autonomously driving vehicles can take away some of the logistic issues in car sharing and car rental services. Being able to drive anywhere, then get out and have the car return to the place the renting agency needs it to be would greatly increase the attractiveness of occasionally renting a car.

Comment: Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids (Score 1) 252

by dinfinity (#48442391) Attached to: Doubling Saturated Fat In Diet Does Not Increase It In Blood

So beans and rice is bad?

Maybe. Sometimes. It depends.

Your question is like asking "So, is water bad?"
The worst thing in dietary advice is trying to shove individual types of food into some ill-conceived set of two boxes labeled 'bad' and 'good'. It really destroys the discussion.

I think the whole obesity and diabetes epidemic stems from a sedentary lifestyle

1. Depends on what you mean with sedentary life style. IIRC, 30 minutes of daily mild exercise (walking) is enough to let almost all the increased risk of being (reasonably) overweight disappear (it is enough to move the caches of visceral fat to the more external fat storage locations). Link: http://news.aces.illinois.edu/...

2. Diabetes is a disruption of insulin response that is brought about by insulin spikes. Insulin spikes are generally caused by food with a high insulin index (generally proportional to the glycemic index, with dairy as a clear exception to the rule). Although this depends in part on whether your blood sugar is low before eating (and a number of other factors). See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

3. I believe the prevalence of engineered foods is higher in the US than in other developed countries, simply because people in other countries tend to be chauvinistic about (the purity of) their traditional food. Engineered foods are bound to elicit effects in the body that are driven by outdated but powerful mechanisms in our bodies ('engineered' means getting you to want more of it, either right then and there or the next time you're buying food). As it happens, sugar and carbs in general are one of the if not the most physically rewarding things to ingest. Just try to do a little bit of your own food engineering: it doesn't always work, but 9/10 times you can make pretty much anything self-prepared taste better by adding sugar. There's a reason pretty much every sauce in existence has a very high sugar content (20+% for ketchup and Sriracha).

Comment: Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids (Score 1) 252

by dinfinity (#48442285) Attached to: Doubling Saturated Fat In Diet Does Not Increase It In Blood

I'm not sure medical science understands (well enough) the relationship between carbs/blood sugar/cholesterol and cardiovascular disease

Sadly, medical science has, for decades, had a better understanding than you seem to think. The problems arise from advisory organs (from the individual dietitian to the WHO) having to justify their existence by coming up with some kind of advice.

"In general, we're not really sure about a lot of things, but it is pretty obvious that nutrition raises your blood sugar levels, with the speed of the increase related to the glycemic index of the food and that both very high and very low blood sugar levels have negative effects on your body, so you should manage your nutritional intake based on your blood sugar levels. Oh yes, and don't forget the buffering effects of glycogen storage in your muscles and liver" makes for great but very unmarketable advice.

"Fat is bad, mmkay" and "High cholesterol will kill you" are a lot more palatable.
Who cares about scientific accuracy nowadays? Most 'journalists' don't. Most politicians don't. The average Joe certainly doesn't (at this point he doesn't even trust those scientist fuckers, always 'saying' different things in the papers).

Take it from me: the science is out there and has been for a while. Believe nothing you read about the subject of dietary advice, unless it is actual research or the stating of hard facts:
(note the years of publication)

"'Tis true, 'tis pity, and pity 'tis 'tis true." -- Poloniouius, in Willie the Shake's _Hamlet, Prince of Darkness_