Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Google: Select jurors who understand stats. (Score 1) 321

by topology (#49545333) Attached to: Median Age At Google Is 29, Says Age Discrimination Lawsuit

People apparently stay at work so long that they need a dedicated toothbrush.

That or they just like to brush after every meal, trust their fellow bathroom users not to scrub the toilets with their brush, and can afford to keep duplicates of their hygiene utilities at the place they spend around half their waking hours. ... Neurotic I tell you, they're all neurotic.

Comment: Re:De Facto Political Prisoner (Score 1) 189

by topology (#49511247) Attached to: Assange Talk Spurs UK Judges To Boycott Legal Conference
loyalty is an antiquated concept. Loyalty implies a sacrifice of autonomy and critical thinking. A loyal dog will protect its master regardless of whether or not the master is truly worth protecting. Loyalty is a component of social or group-identity. Often loyalty is part of a pyramidal power structure. Those at the top demand loyalty from those at the bottom in order to maintain their control over the bottom. Loyalty is already a divisive and conflict oriented mentality. An independent rational critical thinker has no need for loyalty. They will form alliances with those who share the same values, but the "loyalty" is to the values, not to the persons they are in alliance with.

Think of all the uses of loyalty. Knights are loyal to their king, employees loyal to the company they work for, sons and daughters loyal to their parents, and relatives loyal to the family. In all these cases, that which is "loyal" is placing blind trust in something they do not really know to be trust worthy. They have to turn off their critical scrutiny in order to be loyal...

Comment: Re:Dynasties (Score 1) 676

by topology (#49463211) Attached to: Hillary Clinton Declares 2016 Democratic Presidential Bid
Does the genetic component matter as much as the memetic component? It's about the ideologies. And the question then is how is Hilary different ideologically from Bill. Given that they weathered a sex scandal and still together, I'd say their ideologies are in alignment enough to create a very strong attraction to each other.

Comment: Re:But not to Nestle. (Score 1) 332

by topology (#49458415) Attached to: California Looks To the Sea For a Drink of Water

Let's just take this at face value, and let's falsely pretend that the water shortages aren't also causing cutbacks by residential consumers. Then that's 40% of the state's water to provide a fraction of 2% of the GDP, in drought conditions.

Personally? I think you're a moron for using GDP as a valid way to allocate water resources. Seriously? Where did that idea even come from?......When a residential consumer drinks water, they are producing 0% of GDP.....You need to think a little more before responding.

*scratches head* Um.... a person needs to drink water to live. A person needs to live in order to work... GDP requires human work.... So we could take the average of GDP generated per person in the population and then average GDP per drink of water per person in the population and come up with a more legitimate value of GDP / drink of water than 0$. Perhaps you are the person needing to think a little more? Even taking into account the distribution of GDP across all the other necessities, food, housing, etc. the GDP per glass of water is still not $0. 0 Glasses of water per person for 7 days, and GDP will be at 0 from there on out.

Comment: Re:I'm pretty sure Jesus said not to do this (Score 1) 1168

Single doctor serving a small town denying service to someone who is hurt leaves them hurt. Bigotry can definitely cause harm in the denial of essential goods and services. Photography is a luxury and non-essential, but when the only grocery store in town refuses to sell to someone, there is no other grocery store to take their business to.

Comment: Re:I'm pretty sure Jesus said not to do this (Score 1) 1168

Photography is something anyone can do, but if there is a single service provider in a region for a service which must be certified, then allowing that service provider to discriminate is no good. For example, the only doctor in a small town refuses to see patients that are gay. Said gay patient must get a doc prescrip for life saving medication. Should they be forced to relocate to the next small town with its own single bigoted doctor?

Its clear that occupations which provide a necessary service should not be allowed to discriminate at all. Where should the line be drawn on occupations between those allowed to discriminate and those not allowed?

Comment: For Fucks Sake ... (Score 1) 129

by topology (#49337329) Attached to: Do Robots Need Behavioral 'Laws' For Interacting With Other Robots?
The laws that robots follow look NOTHING like the "3 laws". You don't tell a robot in English how to behave. An abstract principle like "Do not harm a human" has to be coded per situation, and there are thousands of systems which need to have their own tailored variant.

A robotic hand has to have pressure sensors to know when to stop squeezing an object that might be human so as not to cause damage. Nowhere in those device drivers are you going to see a statement that looks remotely like "do not harm a human". You'll see something like "if pressure sensors encounter resistance equivalent to soft squishy tissue, stop contracting the actuators and release until pressure = X". No concept of human, just a focus on an attribute that a human might have.

mobile robots will have to be told how to recognize potentially human objects through patterns of sensor readings and then each dimension of action will have to have its own specialized restrictions when the sensors read those patterns, or the internal model of the outside world tracks a "human" object.

A "3 laws" style rule might as well be a very abstract function or directive which has no indication of how that would manifest on the hardware of a robot. Our robotics coding right now is at the level of assembly language directives, not high level language built-in function calls. . We're still hacking the hardware, learning how to piece things together. It's going to be a few decades before we have a declarative language to express abstract rules which can be automatically compiled down into processing sensor readings to determine executability conditions for actions.

One robot to another is just another object in the world unless the robots have been explicitly coded to either learn about each other and attempt to communicate and coordinate through that learning, or they are intentionally coded to communicate with each other through various protocols ahead of time.

Statements like the 3 laws are only understood by humans. Proving that some hacked together assembly language level robotic behavior upholds the 3 laws is non-trivial. In all likelyhood it will require specialized domain specific languages to describe robotic behavior which then get compiled down to the hardware of the robot. At the level of the DSL the laws can be verified, and a formal translation from the DSL to hardware can be verified in order to guarantee the proof. Without such an integrated system, you're relying on sub-systems which are developed independently of each other to automagically cooperate together in such a way that the abstract laws are preserved as invariants.

Comment: Re:Java Code (Score 1) 486

by topology (#49336663) Attached to: No, It's Not Always Quicker To Do Things In Memory
Which ultimately should be optimized away by a good compiler. If the string is never read in the context of the loop, leave it in the StringBuilder until the loop is exited or until the StringBuilder content is passed in a function call, then render a String from it.

Ultimately this is a failure on the part of the compiler writers to not handle a very obvious optimization. (obvious to those versed in optimizing loop code as a compiler writer should be).

Comment: Re:Check their work or check the summary? (Score 1) 486

by topology (#49336179) Attached to: No, It's Not Always Quicker To Do Things In Memory
More than likely its employing concurrency between computation and buffered writes to disc. This is really just a special case, a specific exception to a good principle.

You have 2 processes. The first process is a bit-generator which generates a bit at a time for as long as needed. The second process is a buffered writer to disc.

All I got out of the summary was that it is faster to stream the output of the bit generator to the buffered disc writer than to collect all the output of the bit-generater to an in memory storage and then stream the in memory storage to the buffered disc writer. WELL DUH. No mystery there. Stream processing 101.

Comment: Re:Chemical, electrical, topological (Score 1) 294

by topology (#49335971) Attached to: Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk

That's all definitely interesting speculation, but the point remains: As far as quantum effects go, it is all speculation. Nothing like what you suggest has been discovered; further, no effect has been detected that cannot be attributed to one or more of the chemical, electrical or topological mechanisms we're already aware of.

I will kindly refer you to this type of phenomena:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magnetic_stimulation

These are alterations of the magnetic fields from sources outside the cranium and outside the myelin sheath which impact the neural processing. Would this not be indicative of quantum influences in neural processing?

Given that these effects are sourced outside the cranium, it would seem plausible then that the current generated as a signal propegates down the axon of neuron A would have an impact on parallel neuron B firing due to the magnetic field generated from A's firing. These generated magnetic fields are strong enough to be detected outside the cranium and are the basis of some FMRI techniques.

http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/meg/pdfs/Xiong%20et%20al%202003.pdf

Taking into account the inverse square law, the noise coming off a neuron firing is MUCH LOUDER one parallel neuron over than for a sensor located outside the cranium.

There are actual articles on inter-neuronal communication via electromagnetic waves: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110202132617.htm and Neural and Brain Modeling by Rondald MacGregor

Ultimately what this points to is that our mathematical models of neural networks and dynamic bayesian networds are not exactly what is happening inside the brain. At best its a discrete approximation to a continuous space which exists in a feedback loop with itself. Kinda like a Summation approximation for the Integral of a function.

The topological graph structure of the nueron connections through dendrite and axons is dominant, but it is not dominant enough to eliminate the influence of the fluctuations in the ambient electromagnetic fields. The above articles provide evidence of this. It's not just speculation.

There are no data that cannot be plotted on a straight line if the axis are chosen correctly.

Working...