Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment As should be (Score 0, Troll) 365

This is common sense. All the self driving car moral bullshit have simply been some philosophy student trying to prove themself not obsolete by injecting their retarded trolley experiment into reality.

They should make the car use facial recognition on the driver, if you're found to be a philosopher it instantly self destructs to save some victim from having to listen to your ethics moral bullshit memes.

Comment Re:There had to be a first case... (Score 1) 379

"How safe are driverless cars going to be if Roombas don't even work right yet? "

How safe are nuclear pressure vessels if a PET bottle with water in it will explode when heated in a microwave? Clearly we're using alien zero point technology and not water boilers for power production.

Comment Re:Scientist? You mean activist (Score 3, Informative) 618

He is an activist, he's been arrested when participating in protests.

Depending on your definition of charlatan he qualifies for that too, he also earns A LOT of money as a doomspeaker at various climate events(and did so during his NASA career even though he wasn't allowed to under the public employment contract but I digress).

During his time at GISS he also set the wonderful standard of retroactively editing their own climate record through sweeping changes in adjustment methodology which have pretty much all their press release announcements of past years completely invalid. If they say "Nth warmest year on record " this year they'll have it readjusted 5 years down the line to be "Nth-10 warmest year on record", because they goal is to perpetually keep the current year as hot as possible and the past be damned. If he was a historician then Donald Trump would have started the Iraq war during his last presidency. It's all ideologically oriented fiction and no fact nowadays.

Feel free to check their press release archives yourself, the at-release graphs are included in them. But I'm sure you have some mental gymnastics ready to explain why the data is reliable despite changing appearance through statistical retconning every third year on average.

You disproved nothing.

Comment Re:Too soon (Score 2, Interesting) 130

The LINEAR part is wrong because intracellular coping mechanisms(DNA repair, mopping up reactive oxygen species(which is one of the damage modes of ionizing radiation)) have a range in which they function optimally. Asssuming a fully linear relationship there could no repair or maintenance done at all which is a ridiculous suggestion.

The NO THRESHOLD part doesn't hold up either as there's no detectable cancer rate curve among radiation worker that correlates to their doses inside the allowed intervals.

  If we compare a radiation worker that only does administrative work and accumulates 1mSv to one that works in a hotlab and accumulates 16mSv we should see a 16 times increase in radiation related cancer according to the LNT, but that's not what we see in the real world.

Comment Re:Already there (Score 1) 421

The focus on consciousness as a guiding beacon and the insistence that consciousness is a indivisible unity is something philosophers made up because they needed something to debate endlessly with no chance of every getting anywhere.

If we define any umbrella term to be indivisible we can have the same pointless masturbation over its unattainable special snowflakeyness.

We acknowledge that a Nation or Computer or Corporation is something consisting of components that can be identified and described with some degree of precision but when it comes to consciousness there's suddenly a refusal to accept that it could be broken down to components only, there have to be some core that's pure consciousness to it despite the fact that we can enumerate components that if removed from a human would reduce him to something that pretty much everyone would agree on is something not conscious. Or do you think a person with no sense of touch, smell, vision, hearing, emotions, no language or object recognition, no motor control, no memory, no planning and executive capability would still be a magical conscious being?
If you do, please tell me what precisely he still have left that is consciousness, and oh, if you name a component that I forgot to remove that's of course not an argument for magical consciousness, it's an argument for my list of subcomponents being incomplete.

And with that out of the way, how come that artificially implementing a component of what we refer to as consciousness isn't actually a step towards artificial consciousness?

Slashdot Top Deals

I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos. -- Albert Einstein, on the randomness of quantum mechanics