### Twitter Bots Drown Out Anti-Kremlin Tweets

Re:Astroturfing (125 comments)

From now on the POCAT

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Re:Astroturfing (125 comments)

From now on the POCAT

Heavily cited too (254 comments)

Even philosophers have been citing this work (eg Jesse Prinz), this is fracking huge. Somehow big journals need to start publishing replications of published work electronically and linking the original (in electronic form) to the attempted replications - and end the "We're too important to publish replications" nonsense. Peer review can only spot bad methods, and citations only really track relevance to what the citee is doing, There needs to be a quick an easy way to track replication - rather than trawling through minor journals that might have published a replication attempt. The topics of these papers were really important and the guy has single handedly fucked over sociology just when it really needs funding and support.

Re:Mr Motti: (459 comments)

I came to make exactly this erudite statement

Re:Error in measuring distance perhaps ? (1088 comments)

I was thinking curvature of the earth - but if they missed that it'd be 1.004 times too fast instead of 1.00002 times.

Curvature of the earth (1088 comments)

Stupid question - but did they account for the curvature of the earth?

The GPS, and Radio signals would give a surface distance between the two points

but presumably the neutrinos went as the crow flies - through the crust, 732 km is well over the horizon.

Yeah Right... (261 comments)

Hand the disk to a 3 year old kid to play with for an hour. Bet it won't work then. - Marketing BS IMO.

Crystal clear. (80 comments)

Zed: A receiver must be like a transmitter. I think you're a crystal - in fact this one! This diamond! In here, there is infinite storage space for refracted light patterns. Yes or no? The Tabernacle: You have me in the palm of your hand! From Zardoz.

Re:Common Sense (122 comments)

Most important thing the cars need to do is tell when their sensors etc are in a state where the car is not in a fit state to drive.

It needs to give itself a drunk test before every trip.

Off with their heads (111 comments)

If the other companies using valador have any sense they will fire them immediately and have nothing more to do with them.

Re:The inner experience (729 comments)

If consciousness was some complex emergent phenomenon, wouldn't it take a complicated molecule to go into the brain and find out exactly what neurons to affect so as to leave the vital functions intact while retaining consciousness?

No.

Re:Barking up the wrong tree. (729 comments)

oops

Godels theorm shows that no Finite algorithm could self-consistently prove all the truths of arithmetic

I meant to say: Godels theorm shows that no finite algorithm could self-consistently Find/List all the truths of arithmetic

sorry

Barking up the wrong tree. (729 comments)

I also think he's barking up the wrong tree.

I think that a mathematician could prove that he is (without us having to wait 20 years or more for full general AI. (IANA mathematician).

TL:DR - A mathematical proof that no Finite Quantum agorithm could self-consistently prove all of the truths of arithmetic.

His argument rests on Godel's theorm, and unfounded metaphysical speculation about how stupendously clever mathematicians are.

Godels theorm shows that no Finite algorithm could self-consistently prove all the truths of arithmetic (by a form of diagonal slash). His unfounded metaphysical speculation is that humans could self-consistently prove all of the truths of arithmetic, given infinite time. He "bases" that [speculation] on the fact that we can detect (toy) instances where a mathematical statement is a self referential Godel statement, which leads him to assume that that means we could detect all of them.

I would contend that there are mathematical statements in arithmetic that are so complex and subtle, that you couldn't even write them down using all the atoms of the universe, such a statement could not be could not be understood by a human being, and a human being could not

a) read it in a lifetime.

b) understand it even given infinite time.

c) and therefore wouldn't be able to see that it is a self referential Godel statement.

but I digress.

Penrose, as I said, thinks (unreasonably IMO) that mathematicians are transcendentally clever, and that the magic of quantum mechanics makes them so. To show this is a lost cause all that needs to happen is for a mathematician to rejig Godel's proof for quantum computers...

And don't get me started on his opinion that evolution couldn't explain mathematicians cleverness, sigh...

vice verca (179 comments)

Like reverse osmosis - in reverse

Re:Twitter will never catch on (428 comments)

Now, now - no need to be sarky.

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

- b
- i
- p
- br
- a
- ol

- ul
- li
- dl
- dt
- dd
- em

- strong
- tt
- blockquote
- div
- quote
- ecode

`<ecode> while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>`