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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: What would inspire. (Score 0) 194

by v(*_*)vvvv (#49107209) Attached to: The Imitation Game Fails Test of Inspiring the Next Turings
The movie was great, but it was a romantic drama, if anything. Well made, but touche.

A more inspiring movie would have been one that would delve into universal computers and the underlying "code" that appears to dictate the real "computational" nature of the universe itself. All modern computers are Turing machines. But without the fundamental capacity of computation embedded within nature itself, computers would no be. Alan Turing didn't just crack the code of Enigma. He cracked the universe first. The machine he created tapped into the computational universe, just as those who split atoms tapped into the atomic universe.

Comment: Exits don't cure anything. (Score 1) 187

by v(*_*)vvvv (#49098317) Attached to: Why Sony Should Ditch Everything But the PlayStation
Sony just sucks right now. No matter what it does, it's failing. And when they fail, companies like to glorify their exits as some forward thinking strategic move, but it's all just spin. If they didn't suck, they'd be doing it. Sony already "exited" their Vaio business, and they also "exited" my neighborhood mall by closing the Sony store... When Sony was awesome, it "entered" the TV market, the computer market, the game console market... This is all just signs that the company sucks, and a company that can't stop bleeding money is forced to take it up a notch. It has to start cutting of its limbs.

IBM is a good US example. They spun off their hard drive business, their computer business... they had a bunch of commercials about what I could hardly tell, and now they are firing a bunch of people, whilst denying it of course, saying they're just "moving people around while dropping a few". But whatever. Companies that are successful hardly ever fire. Toyota keeps hiring. Google keeps hiring. All these stories written for shareholders are moot.

Comment: Secure communication is always available. (Score 1) 110

by v(*_*)vvvv (#48835701) Attached to: To Avoid Detection, Terrorists Made Messages Seem Like Spam
There are infinite ways of encoding communication or circumventing contaminated channels. So trying to regulate communication or spying on data pipes is absolutely pointless. The NSA is only good for catching idiots and careless mistakes, and is at serious risk of being manipulated by those who can fabricate evidence. That's a low bar considering their cost and their cost on human rights.

Comment: Re:Scientists are the minority (Score 1) 786

by v(*_*)vvvv (#48788669) Attached to: Michael Mann: Swiftboating Comes To Science

Exactly. This is the conversation that is relevant. Scientists repeating their finding like a broken record only reinforces the notion that what they say has little effect. Anyone even talking about the science at this point is offtopic.

The issue here is the science of money and of politics, and the true scientists of these fields wear suits and work as executives, as lobbyists, and as congressmen. And they're rich because they know what they're doing. Al Gore was our greatest weapon, but even with an Oscar winning documentary and all that exposure, he didn't do enough in Washington. He couldn't. He showed that Washington cannot be educating. It can only be bought.

Comment: Re:Scientists are the minority (Score 2) 786

by v(*_*)vvvv (#48788529) Attached to: Michael Mann: Swiftboating Comes To Science

By saying the models are out of range, you have already admitted the models are correct, just out of range.

Scientists have no incentive to be wrong or inaccurate, and given evidence, they will incorporate it into whatever it is they are working on. If you're holding on to evidence no one has, please share it. If you're repeating what you read somewhere, well, then we've all heard it before.

> Try arguing about evidence rather than your feelings.

Nothing I said was emotional, but if it moved you, then maybe your exposed buttons got pressed.

Tell me, are you a scientist?

Comment: Scientists are the minority (Score 5, Insightful) 786

by v(*_*)vvvv (#48783679) Attached to: Michael Mann: Swiftboating Comes To Science
Despite what we're led to believe, science is not a democracy. Science is a totalitarian, authoritarian, oppressive regime in which only nature has a say in anything. And nature only speaks through evidence.

Society is not governed by science. We've made it to democracy and capitalism in which vote count and bank account reign supreme. And in our society, science is still poor and a minority. The truth does not ultimately win in a democracy. "It's about votes, not truth, dumb ass." And it's easier to buy votes than to inspire them with education.

Scientists completely underestimate the opposition. And the worst part is, the science doesn't even matter. It matters to scientists of course, but it doesn't matter to the deniers. They are on a mission to make money and serve their cause. And all they really need is to buy time. That is all they want. As long as they can postpone action, the more money they make. So even if they believed in the inevitability of scientific conclusion and of actual global warming, they aren't even concerned about those outcomes until they happen. All they have in mind is immediate gratification. So they've already won, and they keep winning. The battle scientists are fighting over "minds" is moot. There are no minds to find. They need to fight the money.

True scientists only echo the voice of nature. Today, nature is our slave. And nature has no voice. Global warming is inevitable. It's nature's revenge. I'd invest in a post warm economy than any attempts in saving it. Science will never have enough money to win the war on global warming.

Comment: Re:Japan tried this with the 5th Generation Comput (Score 1) 67

by v(*_*)vvvv (#48342293) Attached to: Does Watson Have the Answer To Big Blue's Uncertain Future?
Exactly. To predict something you need to already know it. Science is unpredictable and only reliable once it is here. You cannot schedule a scientific breakthrough.

Get rid of the stocks of companies that decide to bank on research. Research makes a company cool, not profitable. It's where they gamble, for those who can afford it, but not where they succeed.

Comment: Intentions Trump All (Score 1) 201

by v(*_*)vvvv (#48005303) Attached to: The Secret Goldman Sachs Tapes
To get anything done, you have to be intentional. You need the person doing it to want to do it. And once they decide they need it bad enough, they won't need that many tools. Heck, they'll even make their own. Heck, they might even break the law to do it. Intentions trump all. Too bad not wanting to do something or not giving a fuck has never been a crime...

Comment: Only as smart as the smartest programmer. (Score 1, Insightful) 165

by v(*_*)vvvv (#47919727) Attached to: Developing the First Law of Robotics
Bottom-line. We can't program general intelligence and all these systems are following hard coded rules of conduct. So if the robot lacks intelligence, all that is is a reflection of the lack of intelligence in the coder. A program is only as smart as the smartest programmer, because with today's tools and technology, the programmer is the only source of intelligence.

So either the robot was stuck in a moral dilemma and was regretting its failures, or the guy who built the thing has no idea what he's doing. I wonder which is more probable? Well, he admits it, so it's obvious.

Winfield admits he once thought it was not possible for a robot to make ethical choices for itself. Today, he says, "my answer is: I have no idea".

But I will give the Mr. Winfield the benefit of the doubt and assert partial blame on the journalist who sensationalized the story and his research. The truth here is so boring, it would have never made it to press.

Comment: Re:Science is unpredictable and unprofitable (Score 1) 203

by v(*_*)vvvv (#47839351) Attached to: Is There a Creativity Deficit In Science?

Right. Because good hunches are the fundamentally sound foundations of modern science

They're sounder than the original circular assertion that scientific knowledge is unknowable until you know it.

There are no degrees in soundness here. Hunches are not scientific, period. And "unknown until you know" is not circular reasoning. It's a tautology, not reasoning. Unknown == State before you know. There is nothing circular. It's two ways of saying the same thing.

But they are only permitted to venture into where the light somewhat shines already.

Nobody forces them to use other peoples' money with other peoples' strings attached. A huge part of the problem here is that the people getting the funding aren't actually the exhilarating risk takers you make them out to be.

They need money, but have no money, hence they have no choice if they want to do science. That's what this whole topic is about. Money is only given to those who play it safe or those that lie. And if they didn't have to play it safe, more would be willing to take greater chances. And if they didn't have to lie, there wouldn't be less fake science.

Comment: Re:Science is unpredictable and unprofitable (Score 1) 203

by v(*_*)vvvv (#47838443) Attached to: Is There a Creativity Deficit In Science?
Right. Because good hunches are the fundamentally sound foundations of modern science.

They promised blood pressure medication and got a boner pill. That is science. The evidence backs the statement that science is unpredictable. If we could predict science, we could predict the future. We can do neither. But that is precisely why science is so exciting. The hunch is exhilarating and it's worth enough to pursue it even at great risk. The original article here is talking precisely why those risks are becoming harder to accept, and how we have systematically discouraged courageous science. I'm not referring to crackpots. Real scientists who know what they're doing want to go on long journeys into the unknown. But they are only permitted to venture into where the light somewhat shines already. The personal and scientific rewards here are mediocre. You only get the occasional wow when you find your pill just cured ED.

Comment: Science is unpredictable and unprofitable (Score 4, Insightful) 203

by v(*_*)vvvv (#47832725) Attached to: Is There a Creativity Deficit In Science?
You cannot predict what you do not know, and to measure how long something takes, it turns out you need to know it pretty darn well. So if anyone claiming to be a scientist claims they need x dollars to get you something amazing in y days, they are talking straight out of their ass. All they have is their curiosity and a hunch. The journey is unknown, and so are the results. To know you will succeed, you have had to have succeeded already. This isn't to be confused with engineering. Engineering is different because you already know the technology and have the tools. You can simulate what you're building before you build it. But the science that gives way to technology no one can predict. If anyone should admit to this, it should be the scientists. The only reason they can't is for political and financial reasons.

Comment: Re:So misleading. (Score 1) 161

by v(*_*)vvvv (#47674247) Attached to: New Watson-Style AI Called Viv Seeks To Be the First 'Global Brain'

You can create programs that write rules or code or draw or make music. You can create them so their output is random or unpredictable or based on something other than explicit programmer or use input. Set the input to data and you can call it Machine Learning. Big whoop.

But how this is done must still be explicitly defined and coded. That is what is meant by "go an abstraction layer higher". You can create code that writes code, but that isn't a breakthrough, and that isn't where the breakthrough will lie.

If we fully understood the nature of general intelligence, we would be able to code it, or at least know why we can't. And if we do code it, anyone could read that code and understand the nature of general intelligence.

If someone finds a way to randomly generate code and test it until the produced code is general intelligence, then wow, that'd be amazing. But given the code, it will tell us the answer. Just because our bodies are the product of evolution it doesn't mean we can't understand it. We understand how our eyes work, our ears work, etc... We have yet to understand how our brain works, or how intelligence works. But only armed with understanding, would we be able to engineer it intentionally. And if armed with understanding, we would be able to engineer it intentionally.

Comment: So misleading. (Score 3, Insightful) 161

by v(*_*)vvvv (#47659587) Attached to: New Watson-Style AI Called Viv Seeks To Be the First 'Global Brain'

Like Siri, it can’t do anything that coders haven’t explicitly programmed it to do. Viv breaks through those constraints by generating its own code on the fly, no programmers required.

This is so misleading. No program can do anything outside what it is explicitly programmed to do. Viv is programmed to generate code only because it has been explicitly programmed to do so, and can only do so as explicitly laid out in its code. Sure, the code may go an abstraction layer higher, but the constraints these programs can't break through is the same. No one knows how to program general intelligence.

Show me a man who is a good loser and I'll show you a man who is playing golf with his boss.