Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re: This is stupid (Score 1) 161

Have you ever driven? If 80% of the drives in front pulled over, the 20% who didn't would pull into the open space and floor it. I've seen lots of people cut off or tailgate emergency services. I've pulled over, completely off the road, and stopped before an intersection, so I left it clear for the approaching fire truck. The person behind me pulled in behind me, but failed to stop completely, and hit me. He saw the truck, pulled over, and slowed, but missed the car in front, and managed to hit me.

Perhaps you drive on different roads, where drivers are polite and attentive. But that's not the roads I've driven. And yes, I've driven in Europe, though not Sweden.

Comment Re:Buttons would be nice !!! (Score 1) 186

In China (a few years before the Olympics) the bathrooms near the area were installing western toilets. The rooms would have a line of "local" stalls, and one (or more, but usually one) tourist toilet. The locals never used the tourist toilet. Seems dirty to sit, rather than squat, for the locals. Local toilets had no flushes. Some were outhouse style, others had a trough below that had a slow steady stream to wash into the sewer. I have no idea if the areas below had any regular cleaning.

Comment Re: This is stupid (Score 1) 161

Lots of people are exceptions. The mechanism given only works if the radio is on and tuned to FM. By a strict reading of the mechanism, AM (popular in the US) would prevent operation of RDS. As well as the growing number of people who play music from devices without using FM.

That I'm only one example doesn't mean I'm special. I see around 1% of drivers in the morning with headphones on. One would assume they aren't using their car's FM radio with headphones.

Comment Re: This is stupid (Score 1) 161

And should we make it illegal to listen to anything that isn't RDS compliant? Will we start making phones RDS complaint, so if someone is using a phone (legally hands-free, or illegally hands-on) the calls will be interrupted as well?

How about people like me that don't even hook up the FM antenna? My "radio" is used primarily as a display for the rear camera, and secondarily for music for long trips, through bluetooth or USB. Am I now an illegal? Does it matter that I drive a special-edition car that has no soundproofing, and thinnner window glass, making the inside about as transparent to outside sounds as a "regular" car with the windows down? (noise being why I never use the radio in town, it's just so hard to hear)

Comment Re:Extrapolation? (Score 1) 158

No, that's the opposite of what a quant does, as those terms are normally used.

Try to change the subject all you like, but the history of Quant goes back to 1900. Are you going to tell me they were useing PCs in 1900 to do quantitative analysis of stocks?

In practice, it's using a few simple equations to find stocks of interest. Separate is analysis of a particular stock. At a trading house, they do quants regularly, and those are identifying "interesting" stocks based on value vs performance metrics. This is low-movement, slow, long-term process that is used by Warren Buffet and others to get consistent long-term gains. The "quant" you are talking about is looking for short-term patterns and exploiting them. They are used by HFT to exploit short-term and tiny swings. The original definition (from the invention of the practice in 1900) was about the long-term version only. Recently the term was adopted by the short-term speculators to give "short term speculation" a term to make it sound more respectable. It still isn't respectable.

Comment Re:Extrapolation? (Score 1) 158

Quants have made billions predicting changes in valuations.

Quants have been making those analysies since before computers existed. Running an analysis on 100% of the trading stock every 10 minutes required a computer.

That stuff you're calling "non-AI" is what AI researchers call "AI".

Like I said, to keep it sexy and keep the money flowing, AI researchers have changed the definition of AI to include "anything hard, done on a computer." Then AI, is everything, including the stuff people actually want.

As an aside, you do know that "quants" don't "predict" anything, right? There's a (or many) formula(e) that determine whether a stock is "undervalued". Finding a currently undervalued stock, based on P/E, market cap and past performance (or whatever is in the formula being used) isn't predictive. That it correlates strongly with future growth doesn't make it predictive. "Apple announced they are adding more RAM to the MBP, I'd better buy stock before it comes out, because it'll be a hot seller" is predictive. "AI" doesn't even attempt that.

In 1950, AI meant "strong AI" and nothing else. After lots of work in the '60s and into the '70s, they determined that they couldn't solve it, so "AI" changed definitions. To where today, "AI" means anything, and anyone who questions the overly-permissive definition isn't met with a clear definition, but insults and accusations.

Comment Re:Extrapolation? (Score 3, Interesting) 158

So Deep AI is the same as Deep Learning? Deep Learning isn't AI, though those that like it call it that. When Deep Learning can predict a future trend, then it will be useful. Identifying the start of a trend because something does what something else once did isn't the same.

When Deep Learning can look at the economy and predict the valuation curve of a house as it goes up and down over 20 years, that'd be something interesting. "Bob lives in ZIP 90210 and has previously bought blue boat shoes, his firstborn is likely gay." Is simple probabilities using more data than a human can sift through conveniently, and has no "intelligence" at all, and is not a path to anything that would have been called AI 20 years ago.

AI will exist only when we've finally shifted the definition far enough to allow non-AI to be classified as AI.

Comment Re:Extrapolation? (Score 0) 158

Extrapolation using Big Data is AI. Extrapolation using small data is extrapolation. Didn't they teach you this in AI school? The AIs that "learn", don't. They just cull wasted CPU when the requests fit patterns. If something is outside the pattern, it's as dumb as the first time it was run. Data tends to group into a normal curve (or something like it) and "AI" as they describe, groups things into similar bundles.

If a smart programmer were to spend years with BI/BAs and work out the value of the parameters, the AI would be 100% useless. AI (in this context, which isn't an actual AI) doesn't do anything other than look at past trends and apply them to new data. Being human, we assume it's doing it the way we would, which would be actual intelligence. But it does so in a computer-like itterative manner than has no "insight" into the patterns, and could *never* predict a pattern, but counts simple numbers.

Doing lots of math fast looks like AI. So call it AI and claim your AI is the best AI, and nobody does it like you. Smoke and mirrors.

Slashdot Top Deals

"You can have my Unix system when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers." -- Cal Keegan