Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Absurd (Score 1) 18

by mark-t (#47421547) Attached to: The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI

The machine's designers must not be able to explain how their original code led to this new program

That is a flatly ludicrous requirement, far in excess of what we would ever even consider applying to determine if even a human being is intelligent or not. Hell, if you were to apply that standard to human beings, ironically, many extremely intelligent people would fail that metric, because in hindsight, you can very often identify precisely how a particular thought or idea came out of a person.

Comment: If you intellectually understand *how* memories... (Score 1) 76

by mark-t (#47420929) Attached to: A Brain Implant For Synthetic Memory
... are formed, then could you algorithmically synthesize that process with your own mind to help you remember things? Seems like this could present a foolproof way to bypass a lie detector if possible, since you could synthesize the memory of the event that you want to lie about, and form it in your brain as if it were a real memory so that you no longer can appear to be lying about it.

Comment: Re: more leisure time for humans! (Score 3, Interesting) 514

by mark-t (#47406901) Attached to: Foxconn Replacing Workers With Robots

Communism has been done correctly in the past, but never on a scale as large as a country.... at best, I think it has only been achieved at the scale of a modest community, and generally involving no more than a few thousand people or so.

Basically, when everyone in the community personally knows practically everyone else in it, there is a social obligation on everybody to conform to expected behavior on account of a complete lack of anonymity, and communism works. Individuals who do not fit in to such societies are unceremoniously kicked out and left to fend for themselves.

Comment: Re:In a watch, batteries should last a year or mor (Score 1) 129

by mark-t (#47404383) Attached to: Android Wear Is Here

I'm unsure why the part of your brain that figures I shower infrequently (evidently deduced from the weekly total that I cited) can't figure out that I usually only spend 4 or 5 minutes to take a shower in the first place.

I have a waterproof watch and it wouldn't be harmed by the shower, but if I wore it in the shower all the time, then I couldn't effectively wash my skin under the watchstrap. Since I don't tend to take my watch off otherwise, dead skin would build up underneath it, and it would get rather disgusting in short order.

Comment: This is hardly new... (Score 1) 656

by mark-t (#47399261) Attached to: TSA Prohibits Taking Discharged Electronic Devices Onto Planes

At the lineup going into the area where the gates are, you have to demonstrate that you can turn on any electronic devices so that they know it's not just a case containing something else. This has been in place for at least the past 10 years.

What I'm wondering, however, is if they charge people whose non-working electronics that they might confiscate any fees for proper disposal/recycling? If not, then a positive spin on this could be that someone could exploit this to utilize as a free electronics recycling facility.

Comment: Re:Why not limit them to one per customer? (Score 1) 131

by mark-t (#47396187) Attached to: Oculus Suspends Oculus Rift Dev Kit Sales In China
Actually, during the pre-release phase, they can and often will limit things to one per development shop until they have actually satisfied the other demand... only afterwards can a development shop make a request to get a second one. Also, in my experience, such development devices can differ in some significant way from the commercial product, and will thus remain property of the supplier... and the development studio has to return the device when they are no longer doing development for the product.

Comment: Re:Why not limit them to one per customer? (Score 1) 131

by mark-t (#47396101) Attached to: Oculus Suspends Oculus Rift Dev Kit Sales In China
As long as you know for sure that the person you are paying doesn't intend to just keep the thing that they bought for you.... which, since you paid them to scalp it for you, and scalping tends to be discourage by the law, you aren't terribly likely to succeed in any sort of legal claim for it. All you will have successfully done is subsidize their own purchase.

To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"

Working...