Skip to main content

Home/ Advanced Concepts Team/ Group items tagged Quit

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
johannessimon81

Weather patterns on Exoplanet detected - 1 views

news.discovery.com/...chance-of-maelstrom-131001.htm

space science

shared by johannessimon81 on 02 Oct 13 - No Cached
  • Thijs Versloot on 02 Oct 13
     
    so it took us 70% of the time Earth is in the habitable zone to develop, would this be normal or could it be much faster? In other words, would all forms of life that started on a planet that originated at a 'similar' point in time like us, be equally far developed?
  • Paul N on 24 Oct 13
     
    That is actually quite tricky to estimate rly. If for no other reason than the fact that all of the mass extinctions we had over the Earth's history basically reset the evolutionary clock. Assuming 2 Earths identical in every way but one did not have the dinosaur wipe-out impact, that would've given non-impact Earth 60million years to evolve a potential dinosaur intelligent super race.
  • johannessimon81 on 25 Oct 13
     
    The opposite might be true - or might not be ;-). Since usually the rate of evolution increases after major extinction events the chance is higher to produce 'intelligent' organisms if these events happen quite frequently. Usually the time of rapid evolution is only a few million years - so Earth is going quite slow. Certainly extinction events don't reset the evolutionary clock - if they would never have happened Earth gene pool would probably be quite primitive. By the way: dinosaurs were a quite diverse group and large dinosaurs might well have had cognitive abilities that come close to whales or primates - the difference to us might be that we have hands to manipulate our environment and vocal cords to communicate in very diverse ways. Modern dinosaur (descendents), i.e. birds, contain some very intelligent species - especially with respect to their body size and weight.
Marcus Maertens

2045 Initiative - 1 views

2045.com

technology

shared by Marcus Maertens on 07 May 13 - No Cached
  • Marcus Maertens on 07 May 13
     
    Quite ambitious russian version of the future. Immortality is quite on the edge in the next 15 years! Don't miss the superheroic Youtube-video on that page! :)
pacome delva

Neural Networks Designed to 'See' are Quite Good at 'Hearing' As Well - 2 views

www.popsci.com/...ee-are-quite-good-hearing-well

ia neural_networks

shared by pacome delva on 08 Jun 10 - Cached
  • Neural networks -- collections of artificial neurons or nodes set up to behave like the neurons in the brain -- can be trained to carry out a variety of tasks, often having something to do with pattern or sequence recognition. As such, they have shown great promise in image recognition systems. Now, research coming out of the University of Hong Kong has shown that neural networks can hear as well as see. A neural network there has learned the features of sound, classifying songs into specific genres with 87 percent accuracy.
  • Similar networks based on auditory cortexes have been rewired for vision, so it would appear these kinds of neural networks are quite flexible in their functions. As such, it seems they could potentially be applied to all sorts of perceptual tasks in artificial intelligence systems, the possibilities of which have only begun to be explored.
Ma Ru

Euroscience Open Forum 2010 - 2 views

www.esof2010.org

science conference Europe

shared by Ma Ru on 24 Apr 09 - Cached
LeopoldS liked it
  • ESA ACT on 24 Apr 09
     
    A conference ACT should consider going to.
  • ...4 more comments...
  • Ma Ru on 23 Apr 10
     
    Perhaps some of ACTers will find this conference interesting... One of the talks: "Would Einstein be on Twitter? Exploring the potential and limits of Web 2.0 in science & science communication" [Edit] Oh, I see someone has already posted this link... a year ago. Anyway, if anyone of you plans to go, let me know - I'll be around ;-)
  • Ma Ru on 08 Jul 10
     
    Just came back from ESOF 2010... I was on look for ACT agents undercover, but either they were not there or the cover was good enough... Anyway here's a few remarks from me (I could write a nice report... if you paid): 1) In general, to say that ESA was underrepresented on the conference as a whole is not enough (I guess ESA just failed to notice the event taking place). For instance, on the GMES presentation, ESA as such was not mentioned at all... at some point I started to wonder if ESA is actually involved in the project, but now I checked the website and apparently it is. On the other hand, GMES presentation was crap anyway, as after 1:15 of talking, I didn't gain any knowledge of what GMES is and what its contributions to the EU community will be. 2) There was a lot of talk about LHC and particle research (well, at least among those that I attended). Some of them were very good, some of them rather crap... 3) "Would Einstein be on Twitter? Exploring the potential and limits of Web 2.0 in science & science communication" talk - quite interesting, but focusing mainly on Science-to-Wide Public and Science-to-Journalists communication. Not really on Science-to-Science (as in Ariadnet). There was quite an extensive discussion with the public. You may be interested that Nature is trying to stimulate Web 2.0 communication, running blog service, but also I think a kind of social network - perhaps you'd like to have a look. In general the conclusion was that Web 2.0 is not so useful for scientific communication because practising it requires TIME (blogs, etc.) and often some professional skills (podcasts/videocasts, etc.), and scientists have neither of these. This can be run on corporation level (like ESA does actually), but then it looses the "intimate" character. 4) "How much can robots learn?" talk... very nicely presented: understandable by the wide public, but conveying the message... which is something like "we can already make the robots do stuff absolutely imp
  • Ma Ru on 08 Jul 10
     
    Well, my comment was cut in half, and I don't feel like typing it again... the most important highlight from the rest is that the only presenter from ESA (ESTEC) did not show up on his talk because his department was undergoing some sort of audit on the same day :)
  • LeopoldS on 08 Jul 10
     
    Fantastic comment - or better report!! thanks very much Marek! Who was the supposed no-show speaker from ESA?
  • Ma Ru on 08 Jul 10
     
    Bernard Foing (he is actually one of the 8 ESA employees who have their own page on Wikipedia)...
  • LeopoldS on 08 Jul 10
     
    written almost entirely by a guy called a "quest for knowledge" ... who will this be????? :-)
LeopoldS

Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence - 2 views

www.aaai.org/home.html

AI

shared by LeopoldS on 18 Jan 13 - Cached
  • LeopoldS on 18 Jan 13
     
    does any of you know the value/standing of this association?
  • Juxi Leitner on 19 Jan 13
     
    quite well-reputed, they were founded as the American Association for AI (and only recently cahnged it to be more international). They are partly organizing IJCAI and the AAAI conferences (mostly in the US), which are quite good. Symposia around specific topics are also done and at those mostly professors and researchers with high impact are going.
  • LeopoldS on 19 Jan 13
     
    Thanks Juxi. was contacted by one of the organisers for the Berlin edition of it in 2 years. looking at your answer, it seems having the ACT associated to it is not a bad idea. will check with the team. Would you yourself be interested?
LeopoldS

Meteorite Crashes In Russia, Panic Spreads (Updating) - 5 views

gizmodo.com/...rashes-in-russia-panic-spreads

shared by LeopoldS on 15 Feb 13 - No Cached
  • Joris _ on 15 Feb 13
     
    Latest update: the European Space Agency says their experts "confirm there is no link between the meteor incidents in Russia and asteroid 2012DA14 flyby tonight". How did they find this? As they did not see this one coming, how could they come to that conclusion that early!
  • ...5 more comments...
  • johannessimon81 on 15 Feb 13
     
    As you can see from the videos of this meteorite it is coming in from an east to south-east direction (i.e. the direction of the sunrise, more or less). 2012DA14 is coming from due south as you can see here: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/02/how-to-watch-asteroid-2012-da14/ So the two objects seem to be coming from different directions - at least that would be my explanation.
  • Joris _ on 15 Feb 13
     
    My point is, that if you want to come to such a conclusion (that it is not rubble) you need to be able to construct back the orbits of both objects. 2012DA14 has been observed for one year only, but it is well enough. When the meteor has been observed for the first time, such that we knew its orbit? has it been observed before? if yes, why the impact has not been predicted?
  • johannessimon81 on 15 Feb 13
     
    If you can show that they come from different directions you know that they are not associated, even if you don't reconstruct their orbits.
  • Joris _ on 15 Feb 13
     
    I don't think so. If both objects were part of the same, they would be on different but intersecting orbits anyway, hence different directions. Anyway, I am not knowledgeable in atmospheric entry ... But, with so few information about the object, I am surprised they are 100% certain it is not related to DA14. I think science requires more cautions ... With only the direction they are 100% sure, while the probability of such event is itself extremely small, I am amazed... They can't even predict with 100% certainty where a space debris will fall... plus, nobody consider the object being part of a bigger one that broke up during early entry (which has not been observed) ... so many uncertainties and possible hypothesis... and i am not the only one :) http://www.infowars.com/russian-meteor-linked-to-da14-asteroid/
  • LeopoldS on 17 Feb 13
     
    was not that evident to me also but apparently with the right understanding it was quite clear; was amazed also how quickly NASA has published the likely trajectory of the russian object - have a look at it: quite evident that these are not coming from the same body
  • Joris _ on 17 Feb 13
     
    yes, now i get my 100% certainty with the reconstructed orbits nothing else (http://wiki.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Watch%20the%20Skies/posts/post_1361037562855.html) ... I still think that esa anouncemement was highly premature but with a high probability of being right...
  • Ma Ru on 26 Feb 13
     
    Some more results on the topic (link to an arxiv article inside): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21579422
LeopoldS

NASA - Multimedia - Video Gallery - 3 views

www.nasa.gov/...index.html

Mars NASA optical flow

shared by LeopoldS on 18 Aug 12 - No Cached
  • LeopoldS on 18 Aug 12
     
    Check the landing video from the onboard camera - Guido: how well would our optical flow algorithm cope with such images? Looks quite complicated to me....
  • Ma Ru on 20 Aug 12
     
    Note that videos there are said to be "thumbnail" quality, so I think videos with higher resolution (and possibly frame rate) have been acquired, just that they were not downloaded yet.
LeopoldS

Cold storage - an Arctic solution to the data storage cooling problem | In-depth | The ... - 0 views

www.theengineer.co.uk/...1011201.article

IT

shared by LeopoldS on 19 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • LeopoldS on 19 Dec 11
     
    from Andrés (don't ask my why he is not putting it directly on diigo ....) quite an old issue, though still of high actuality ... and a nice summary in my view ...
Guido de Croon

Will robots be smarter than humans by 2029? - 2 views

robohub.org/be-smarter-than-humans-by-2029

AI

shared by Guido de Croon on 10 Mar 14 - No Cached
  • Guido de Croon on 10 Mar 14
     
    Nice discussion about the singularity. Made me think of drinking coffee with Luis... It raises some issues such as the necessity of embodiment, etc.
  • ...9 more comments...
  • Luís F. Simões on 12 Mar 14
     
    "Kurzweilians"... LOL. Still not sold on embodiment, btw.
  • Ma Ru on 12 Mar 14
     
    The biggest problem with embodiment is that, since the passive walkers (with which it all started), it hasn't delivered anything really interesting...
  • Paul N on 13 Mar 14
     
    The problem with embodiment is that it's done wrong. Embodiment needs to be treated like big data. More sensors, more data, more processing. Just putting a computer in a robot with a camera and microphone is not embodiment.
  • Marcus Maertens on 14 Mar 14
     
    I like how he attacks Moore's Law. It always looks a bit naive to me if people start to (ab)use it to make their point. No strong opinion about embodiment.
  • johannessimon81 on 14 Mar 14
     
    @Paul: How would embodiment be done RIGHT?
  • Guido de Croon on 16 Mar 14
     
    Embodiment has some obvious advantages. For example, in the vision domain many hard problems become easy when you have a body with which you can take actions (like looking at an object you don't immediately recognize from a different angle) - a point already made by researchers such as Aloimonos.and Ballard in the end 80s / beginning 90s. However, embodiment goes further than gathering information and "mental" recognition. In this respect, the evolutionary robotics work by for example Beer is interesting, where an agent discriminates between diamonds and circles by avoiding one and catching the other, without there being a clear "moment" in which the recognition takes place. "Recognition" is a behavioral property there, for which embodiment is obviously important. With embodiment the effort for recognizing an object behaviorally can be divided between the brain and the body, resulting in less computation for the brain. Also the article "Behavioural Categorisation: Behaviour makes up for bad vision" is interesting in this respect. In the field of embodied cognitive science, some say that recognition is constituted by the activation of sensorimotor correlations. I wonder to which extent this is true, and if it is valid for extremely simple creatures to more advanced ones, but it is an interesting idea nonetheless. This being said, if "embodiment" implies having a physical body, then I would argue that it is not a necessary requirement for intelligence. "Situatedness", being able to take (virtual or real) "actions" that influence the "inputs", may be.
  • Ma Ru on 17 Mar 14
     
    @Paul While I completely agree about the "embodiment done wrong" (or at least "not exactly correct") part, what you say goes exactly against one of the major claims which are connected with the notion of embodiment (google for "representational bottleneck"). The fact is your brain does *not* have resources to deal with big data. The idea therefore is that it is the body what helps to deal with what to a computer scientist appears like "big data". Understanding how this happens is key. Whether it is the problem of scale or of actually understanding what happens should be quite conclusively shown by the outcomes of the Blue Brain project.
  • johannessimon81 on 17 Mar 14
     
    Wouldn't one expect that to produce consciousness (even in a lower form) an approach resembling that of nature would be essential? All animals grow from a very simple initial state (just a few cells) and have only a very limited number of sensors AND processing units. This would allow for a fairly simple way to create simple neural networks and to start up stable neural excitation patterns. Over time as complexity of the body (sensors, processors, actuators) increases the system should be able to adapt in a continuous manner and increase its degree of self-awareness and consciousness. On the other hand, building a simulated brain that resembles (parts of) the human one in its final state seems to me like taking a person who is just dead and trying to restart the brain by means of electric shocks.
  • Paul N on 17 Mar 14
     
    Actually on a neuronal level all information gets processed. Not all of it makes it into "conscious" processing or attention. Whatever makes it into conscious processing is a highly reduced representation of the data you get. However that doesn't get lost. Basic, low processed data forms the basis of proprioception and reflexes. Every step you take is a macro command your brain issues to the intricate sensory-motor system that puts your legs in motion by actuating every muscle and correcting every step deviation from its desired trajectory using the complicated system of nerve endings and motor commands. Reflexes which were build over the years, as those massive amounts of data slowly get integrated into the nervous system and the the incipient parts of the brain. But without all those sensors scattered throughout the body, all the little inputs in massive amounts that slowly get filtered through, you would not be able to experience your body, and experience the world. Every concept that you conjure up from your mind is a sort of loose association of your sensorimotor input. How can a robot understand the concept of a strawberry if all it can perceive of it is its shape and color and maybe the sound that it makes as it gets squished? How can you understand the "abstract" notion of strawberry without the incredibly sensible tactile feel, without the act of ripping off the stem, without the motor action of taking it to our mouths, without its texture and taste? When we as humans summon the strawberry thought, all of these concepts and ideas converge (distributed throughout the neurons in our minds) to form this abstract concept formed out of all of these many many correlations. A robot with no touch, no taste, no delicate articulate motions, no "serious" way to interact with and perceive its environment, no massive flow of information from which to chose and and reduce, will never attain human level intelligence. That's point 1. Point 2 is that mere pattern recogn
  • Ma Ru on 18 Mar 14
     
    All information *that gets processed* gets processed but now we arrived at a tautology. The whole problem is ultimately nobody knows what gets processed (not to mention how). In fact an absolute statement "all information" gets processed is very easy to dismiss because the characteristics of our sensors are such that a lot of information is filtered out already at the input level (e.g. eyes). I'm not saying it's not a valid and even interesting assumption, but it's still just an assumption and the next step is to explore scientifically where it leads you. And until you show its superiority experimentally it's as good as all other alternative assumptions you can make. I only wanted to point out is that "more processing" is not exactly compatible with some of the fundamental assumptions of the embodiment. I recommend Wilson, 2002 as a crash course.
  • Paul N on 24 Mar 14
     
    These deal with different things in human intelligence. One is the depth of the intelligence (how much of the bigger picture can you see, how abstract can you form concept and ideas), another is the breadth of the intelligence (how well can you actually generalize, how encompassing those concepts are and what is the level of detail in which you perceive all the information you have) and another is the relevance of the information (this is where the embodiment comes in. What you do is to a purpose, tied into the environment and ultimately linked to survival). As far as I see it, these form the pillars of human intelligence, and of the intelligence of biological beings. They are quite contradictory to each other mainly due to physical constraints (such as for example energy usage, and training time). "More processing" is not exactly compatible with some aspects of embodiment, but it is important for human level intelligence. Embodiment is necessary for establishing an environmental context of actions, a constraint space if you will, failure of human minds (i.e. schizophrenia) is ultimately a failure of perceived embodiment. What we do know is that we perform a lot of compression and a lot of integration on a lot of data in an environmental coupling. Imo, take any of these parts out, and you cannot attain human+ intelligence. Vary the quantities and you'll obtain different manifestations of intelligence, from cockroach to cat to google to random quake bot. Increase them all beyond human levels and you're on your way towards the singularity.
LeopoldS

Peter Higgs: I wouldn't be productive enough for today's academic system | Science | Th... - 1 views

www.theguardian.com/...er-higgs-boson-academic-system

phy physics publications

shared by LeopoldS on 08 Dec 13 - No Cached
  • LeopoldS on 08 Dec 13
     
    what an interesting personality ... very symathetic Peter Higgs, the British physicist who gave his name to the Higgs boson, believes no university would employ him in today's academic system because he would not be considered "productive" enough.

    The emeritus professor at Edinburgh University, who says he has never sent an email, browsed the internet or even made a mobile phone call, published fewer than 10 papers after his groundbreaking work, which identified the mechanism by which subatomic material acquires mass, was published in 1964.

    He doubts a similar breakthrough could be achieved in today's academic culture, because of the expectations on academics to collaborate and keep churning out papers. He said: "It's difficult to imagine how I would ever have enough peace and quiet in the present sort of climate to do what I did in 1964."

    Speaking to the Guardian en route to Stockholm to receive the 2013 Nobel prize for science, Higgs, 84, said he would almost certainly have been sacked had he not been nominated for the Nobel in 1980.

    Edinburgh University's authorities then took the view, he later learned, that he "might get a Nobel prize - and if he doesn't we can always get rid of him".

    Higgs said he became "an embarrassment to the department when they did research assessment exercises". A message would go around the department saying: "Please give a list of your recent publications." Higgs said: "I would send back a statement: 'None.' "

    By the time he retired in 1996, he was uncomfortable with the new academic culture. "After I retired it was quite a long time before I went back to my department. I thought I was well out of it. It wasn't my way of doing things any more. Today I wouldn't get an academic job. It's as simple as that. I don't think I would be regarded as productive enough."

    Higgs revealed that his career had also been jeopardised by his disagreements in the 1960s and 7
  • Thijs Versloot on 10 Dec 13
     
    And the follow up by Nobel prize winner Randy Schekman http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals
  • LeopoldS on 12 Dec 13
     
    interesting one - Luzi will like it :-)
Nicholas Lan

Kerbal Space Program | Media - 2 views

kerbalspaceprogram.com/media.php

fun space education

shared by Nicholas Lan on 24 Apr 14 - No Cached
  • Nicholas Lan on 24 Apr 14
     
    what seems to be an impressively detailed space game
  • ...4 more comments...
  • Ma Ru on 27 Apr 14
     
    Yeah... 2011 called with the greetings. However, there was quite an interesting news about KSP recently... Perhaps it's been ACT's small failure to spot this opportunity? Considering we wrote space missions games ourselves...
  • johannessimon81 on 27 Apr 14
     
    This guy actually makes very detailed video tutorials about how to master the orbital dynamics in Kerbal. I think the level of detail (and sometimes realism) is quite impressive: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxzC4EngIsMrPmbm6Nxvb-A
  • Thijs Versloot on 28 Apr 14
     
    I will have to try this definitely, looks like a lot of fun.. I also saw some crazy 'Insane Rocket Division' videos.. :)
  • Dario Izzo on 02 May 14
     
    @Marek: true, old news. But "opportunity"? For what? The games we write are always games with a scientific purpose (not training not educational) Kerbal Space programme is cool, but it is a game just like Microsoft Flight Simulator (but less accurate). Having ESA mission simulated in it is also cool but is it what we should or could do? Even more is it want we want to do? My personal opinion: No-No-No
  • Ma Ru on 07 May 14
     
    > The games we write are always games with a scientific purpose (not training not educational) I'd say investigating how to get the crowd may be an important part of "science of crowdsourcing". So, an obvious example would be comparing how many participants the original ACT space mission game attracted versus a variant implemented in Kerbal and why. Easily made and easily publishable I think. But that's just an obvious example I can give on the spot. I think there is more potential than that, so would not dismiss the idea so definitively. But then, correct me if I'm wrong, social sciences are still not represented in the ACT... Perhaps an idea to revive during the upcoming retreat? ;-)
  • Nicholas Lan on 08 May 14
     
    it's on sale on steam til tomorrow by the way if anyone's interested
Alexander Wittig

Picture This: NVIDIA GPUs Sort Through Tens of Millions of Flickr Photos - 2 views

blogs.nvidia.com/...flickr

AI

shared by Alexander Wittig on 21 Jul 15 - No Cached
LeopoldS liked it
  • Alexander Wittig on 21 Jul 15
     
    Strange and exotic cityscapes. Desolate wilderness areas. Dogs that look like wookies. Flickr, one of the world's largest photo sharing services, sees it all. And, now, Flickr's image recognition technology can categorize more than 11 billion photos like these. And it does it automatically. It's called "Magic View." Magical deep learning! Buzzword attack!
  • ...4 more comments...
  • LeopoldS on 21 Jul 15
     
    and here comes my standard question: how can we use this for space? fast detection of natural disasters onboard?
  • Alexander Wittig on 22 Jul 15
     
    Even on ground. You could for example teach it what nuclear reactors or missiles or other weapons you don't want look like on satellite pictures and automatically scan the world for them (basically replacing intelligence analysts).
  • Alexander Wittig on 23 Jul 15
     
    In fact, I think this could make a nice ACT project: counting seals from satellite imagery is an actual (and quite recent) thing: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0092613 In this publication they did it manually from a GeoEye 1 b/w image, which sounds quite tedious. Maybe one can train one of those image recognition algorithms to do it automatically. Or maybe it's a bit easier to count larger things, like elephants (also a thing).
  • jcunha on 23 Jul 15
     
    In HiPEAC (High Performance, embedded architecture and computation) conference I attended in the beginning of this year there was a big trend of CUDA GPU vs FPGA for hardware accelerated image processing. Most of it orbitting around discussing who was faster and cheaper with people from NVIDIA in one side and people from Xilinx and Intel in the other. I remember of talking with an IBM scientist working on hardware accelerated data processing working together with the Radio telescope institute in Netherlands about the solution where they working on (GPU CUDA). I gathered that NVIDIA GPU suits best in applications that somehow do not rely in hardware, having the advantage of being programmed in a 'easy' way accessible to a scientist. FPGA's are highly reliable components with the advantage of being available in radhard versions, but requiring specific knowledge of physical circuit design and tailored 'harsh' programming languages. I don't know what is the level of rad hardness in NVIDIA's GPUs... Therefore FPGAs are indeed the standard choice for image processing in space missions (a talk with the microelectronics department guys could expand on this), whereas GPUs are currently used in some ground based (radio astronomy or other types of telescopes). I think that on for a specific purpose as the one you mentioned, this FPGA vs GPU should be assessed first before going further.
  • Paul N on 29 Jul 15
     
    You're forgetting power usage. GPUs need 1000 hamster wheels worth of power while FPGAs can run on a potato. Since space applications are highly power limited, putting any kind of GPU monster in orbit or on a rover is failed idea from the start. Also in FPGAs if a gate burns out from radiation you can just reprogram around it. Looking for seals offline in high res images is indeed definitely a GPU task.... for now.
  • jcunha on 31 Jul 15
     
    The discussion of how to make FPGA hardware acceleration solutions easier to use for the 'layman' is starting btw http://reconfigurablecomputing4themasses.net/.
Luzi Bergamin

You know you have been in Finland too long, when... - 4 views

www.hs.fi/toolong

fun humor

shared by Luzi Bergamin on 23 Jun 10 - Cached
  • Luzi Bergamin on 23 Jun 10
     
    How you know you have been to long in xy. The Finnish version. My favorite is 33. You accept that 80°C in a sauna is chilly, but 20°C outside is freaking hot. Quite a lot of them are outdated, esp. about opening hours of shops, and one is definitely missing. Your normal mealtime has shifted to 11am for lunch and 5pm for dinner. But don't worry, it's a really comfy place here, isnt' it Jose??
  • ...4 more comments...
  • Juxi Leitner on 23 Jun 10
     
    well somethings you get used to in a year (like salmiakki or koskenkorva) others don't (seriously, lunch at 11?!?!)
  • Ma Ru on 23 Jun 10
     
    But what stage are you in already, Luzi?
  • Luzi Bergamin on 24 Jun 10
     
    I would say a 50% Finn. I do have lunch at 11am, every working day, an 80 degrees sauna indeed is just a warm room. But I will never get used to salmiakki (which is just literally eating a cleaning agent!!) and you can imagine that "silence is fun" is not really MY motto...
  • LeopoldS on 24 Jun 10
     
    True?? 22. You understand why the Finnish language has no future tense. No, I don't think I ever will understand that one... Finns are quite future-oriented at two particular times of the year. On the day after Midsummer (see above), they say "Well, it's all downhill from now on" and prepare feverishly for winter, and similarly after December 21st they perk up and start thinking about Midsummer - ignoring the fact that they still have to get through January, February and March before the place becomes inhabitable again...
  • Juxi Leitner on 24 Jun 10
     
    ... Finnish language has no future tense. That's true
  • LeopoldS on 25 Jun 10
     
    everything expressed with "tomorrow I go to " or "in one year" etc? what about the distinction between to future events, one conditional on the other?
Joris _

Airbus Concept Has Weird Wings, Morphing Seats | Autopia | Wired.com - 6 views

www.wired.com/...airbus-concept-plane-2050

MAD technology concept

shared by Joris _ on 21 Jul 10 - Cached
LeopoldS liked it
  • it reflects what experts in aircraft materials, aerodynamics, cabin design and engines came up with after considering what air transport might look like in 2050
  • Seems safe to say there are some within Airbus who truly are allowed to imagine something beyond normal aircraft interiors.
  • Joris _ on 21 Jul 10
     
    what a ACT's exercise should look like...
  • ...1 more comment...
  • LeopoldS on 21 Jul 10
     
    honestly, if this is all they can imagine for 2050 then this is quite boring .... "Here we are stretching our imagination and thinking beyond our usual boundaries," they are probably not having enough of imagination yet ....
  • Joris _ on 21 Jul 10
     
    Maybe, you should propose this exercise to the team. You'll see there is not much imagination, unless, you consider imagination equals craziness (bullshit things ... and the too common blah blah in the act). I think this concept is an imaginative credible concept. "anything we might ever see" explains it well.
  • pacome delva on 21 Jul 10
     
    well, the article is not very detailed so it can be only "du vent" ! did they actually try if such an airplane can fly ??? what about the engine ??? i find the solar impulse (see post below) much more eco-friendly !!! I agree with Leopold that it's quite boring and stays in the mainstream of the production. I'm sure we can do much better !!! What about some really useful things like pills against the flight sickness, and some really good food in the plane ? haha not soon to happen with all the cost reduction. The future of air transport will be a plane without seats, stewards and perhaps even without pilot !!!
Luís F. Simões

NASA Goddard to Auction off Patents for Automated Software Code Generation - 0 views

www.spaceref.com/...viewpr.html

nasa patents software fault-tolerance design swarm

shared by Luís F. Simões on 04 Nov 10 - No Cached
  • The technology was originally developed to handle coding of control code for spacecraft swarms, but it is broadly applicable to any commercial application where rule-based systems development is used.
  • Luís F. Simões on 04 Nov 10
     
    This is related to the "Verified Software" item in NewScientist's list of ideas that will change science. At the link below you'll find the text of the patents being auctioned: http://icapoceantomo.com/item-for-sale/exclusive-license-related-improved-methodology-formally-developing-control-systems :) Patent #7,627,538 ("Swarm autonomic agents with self-destruct capability") makes for quite an interesting read: "This invention relates generally to artificial intelligence and, more particularly, to architecture for collective interactions between autonomous entities." "In some embodiments, an evolvable synthetic neural system is operably coupled to one or more evolvable synthetic neural systems in a hierarchy." "In yet another aspect, an autonomous nanotechnology swarm may comprise a plurality of workers composed of self-similar autonomic components that are arranged to perform individual tasks in furtherance of a desired objective." "In still yet another aspect, a process to construct an environment to satisfy increasingly demanding external requirements may include instantiating an embryonic evolvable neural interface and evolving the embryonic evolvable neural interface towards complex complete connectivity." "In some embodiments, NBF 500 also includes genetic algorithms (GA) 504 at each interface between autonomic components. The GAs 504 may modify the intra-ENI 202 to satisfy requirements of the SALs 502 during learning, task execution or impairment of other subsystems."
LeopoldS

Meet The Man Who Paid A Record $335,000 For Virtual Property - Oliver Chiang - SelectSt... - 7 views

blogs.forbes.com/...rd-335000-for-virtual-property

fun INF

shared by LeopoldS on 30 Nov 10 - No Cached
  • LeopoldS on 30 Nov 10
     
    does he also have to pay property tax?
  • ...4 more comments...
  • LeopoldS on 30 Nov 10
     
    "He says he made the purchase partly because he wants to be able to spend more time in the virtual world. Before, he was averaging 10 to 20 hours per week. He wants to be able to spend about 40 to 60 hours a week now, basically making running the virtual asteroid a full-time job. (He'll also be cutting back on the time he spends developing software in real life.)"
  • andreiaries on 30 Nov 10
     
    From what I remember when I visited the developer/producer company HQ, he wouldn't have to pay any taxes. If he has a virtual business he might have to pay them a license fee. If you want to start a virtual bank, you would need to buy a banking license. The money thing is quite regulated in this enviroment, so probably that's why property prices can be quite high.
  • Joris _ on 30 Nov 10
  • LeopoldS on 01 Dec 10
     
    Remember the study but have completely zapped that this was with this company ... GSP rules :-)
  • LeopoldS on 01 Dec 10
     
    so how does that state get his money from this type of economy? where is the VAT in there?
  • andreiaries on 01 Dec 10
     
    Last time I checked the "state" was still loosing money. But their main income is the sale of resources. Mostly new land, but I believe at some point they wanted to sell their initial planet too.
pacome delva

Supernovae put dark matter in the right place - 3 views

physicsworld.com/...41399

phy astrophysics dark_matter supernovae

shared by pacome delva on 14 Jan 10 - Cached
  • “one of the best papers I have ever seen”
  • pacome delva on 14 Jan 10
     
    Well, with these huge numerical simulation you're never sure of anything... Anyway the idea sounds quite convincing and simple.
  • Francesco Biscani on 14 Jan 10
     
    Whops, sorry for the duplicate bookmark above :)
LeopoldS

Solar Plant in Space Gets Go-Ahead - Green Inc. Blog - NYTimes.com - 2 views

greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/...r-plant-in-space-gets-go-ahead

SPS NRG solar power

shared by LeopoldS on 06 Dec 09 - Cached
  • LeopoldS on 06 Dec 09
     
    here we go - a quite significant step in getting SPS off the ground !!
Francesco Biscani

The End Of Gravity As a Fundamental Force - 6 views

science.slashdot.org/...Gravity-As-a-Fundamental-Force

phy

shared by Francesco Biscani on 11 Jan 10 - Cached
LeopoldS liked it
  • Francesco Biscani on 11 Jan 10
     
    "At a symposium at the Dutch Spinoza-instituut on 8 December, 2009, string theorist Erik Verlinde introduced a theory that derives Newton's classical mechanics. In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings. He does not consider gravity as fundamental, but as an emergent phenomenon that arises from a deeper microscropic reality. A relativistic extension of his argument leads directly to Einstein's equations."
  • ...8 more comments...
  • Dario Izzo on 12 Jan 10
     
    Diffcult for me to fully understand / believe in the holographic principle at macroscopical scales ... potentially it looks though as a revolutionary idea.....
  • pacome delva on 13 Jan 10
     
    never heard about it... seems interesting. At first sight it seems that it is based on fundamental principle that could lead to a new phenomenology, so that could be tested. Perhaps Luzi knows more about this ? Did we ever work on this concept ?
  • Luzi Bergamin on 13 Jan 10
     
    The paper is quite long and I don't have the time right now to read it in detail. Just a few comments: * We (ACT) definitely never did anything in this direction? But: is there a new phenomenology? I'm not sure, if the aim is just to get Einstein's theory as emergent theory, then GR should not change (or only change in extreme conditions.) * Emergent gravity is not new, also Erik admits that. The claim to have found a solution appears quite frequently, but most proposals actually are not emergent at all. At least, I have the impression that Erik is aware of the relevant steps to be performed. * It's very difficult to judge from a short glance at the paper, up to which point the claims are serious and where it just starts to be advertisments. Section 6 is pretty much a collection of self-praise. * Most importantly: I don't understand how exactly space and time should be emergent. I think it's not new to observe that space is related to special canonical variables in thermodynamics. If anybody can see anything "emergent" in the first paragraphs of section 3, then please explain me. For me, this is not emergent space, but space introduced with a "sledge hammer." Time anyway seems to be a precondition, else there is nothing like energy and nothing like dynamics. * Finally, holography appears to be a precondition, to my knowledge no proof exists that normal (non-supersymmetric, non-stringy, non-whatever) GR has a holographic dual.
  • Luzi Bergamin on 13 Jan 10
     
    Update: meanwhile I understood roughly what this should be about. It's well known that BH physics follow the laws of theormodynamics, suggesting the existence of underlying microstates. But if this is true, shouldn't the gravitational force then be emergent from these microstates in the same way as any theromdynamical effect is emergent from the behavior of its constituents (e.g. a gas)? If this can be prooven, then indeed gravity is emergent. Problem: one has to proof that *any* configuration in GR may be interpreted as thermodynamical, not just BHs. That's probably where holography comes into the play. To me this smells pretty much like N=4 SYM vs. QCD. The former is not QCD, but can be solved, so all stringy people study just that one and claim to learn something about QCD. Here, we look at holographic models, GR is not holographic, but who cares... Engineering problems...
  • LeopoldS on 13 Jan 10
     
    is there any experimental or observational evidence that points to this "solution"?
  • Luzi Bergamin on 13 Jan 10
     
    Are you joking??? :D
  • pacome delva on 14 Jan 10
     
    I was a bit fast to say it could be tested... apparently we don't even know a theory that is holographic, perhaps a string theory (see http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9409089v2). So very far from any test...
  • LeopoldS on 14 Jan 10
     
    Luzi, I miss you!!!
  • Luzi Bergamin on 14 Jan 10
     
    Leo, do you mean you liked my comment on your question more than Pacome's? Well, the ACT has to evolve and fledge, so no bullshitting anymore, but serious and calculating answers... :-) Sorry Pacome, nothing against you!! I just LOVE this Diigo because it gives me the opportunity for a happy revival of my ACT mood.
  • pacome delva on 14 Jan 10
     
    haha, today would have been great to show your mood... we had a talk on the connection between mind and matter !!
LeopoldS

Human Brain Project - Goals - 3 views

www.humanbrainproject.eu/goals.html

AI bio technology science

shared by LeopoldS on 20 May 11 - No Cached
  • LeopoldS on 20 May 11
     
    can we contribute in any way to this - or alternatively benefit from this research already now?
  • ...4 more comments...
  • Luzi Bergamin on 20 May 11
     
    Watch out!! I read quite a lot about the contribution by EPFL (apparently coordinator) and their boss, Henry Markram. From what I read, this is not really science, but mainly a PR campaign. The main motor in this project is attracting a lot of money and the main aim to do so is promising a lot of stuff that nobody will be able to deliver. Accordingly, Markram is a very controversial person in the business...
  • Luzi Bergamin on 20 May 11
     
    Oups, sorry! Of course I meant, "the main MEAN to do so...", but the aim justifies the means. Well, that's exactly Markram's motto, I guess.
  • LeopoldS on 21 May 11
     
    interesting info indeed ... I though still think that the overall goal of this project, even if too ambitious for the time being is interesting, no?
  • Luzi Bergamin on 22 May 11
     
    It's not about interesting or not, it's about serious science or not. Also the goal of a fortune-teller is interesting, isn't it? Any description of a good science project is too ambitious, that's normal and not necessarily PR. But personally I think there is a certain limit where a science project becomes a bad SciFi thriller. This one here is a dime novel, I think. But the too ambitious is not the only point I became very doubtful. I have seen quite a number of scientists and engineers from different fields; what I read about the character and attitude of this guy just hints towards the worst case scenario. It's presumptive evidence, I know...
  • LeopoldS on 22 May 11
     
    that bad! wow ....
  • Luzi Bergamin on 22 May 11
     
    You know me, I'm the bullshitter... You remember Kurzweil and his Singularity-nonsense. In a way this was very similar. Though I think Kurzweil and Markram are very different characters (The Singularity essentially is a religion, I can't see anything like that in Markram's claims) they seem to share an important point: they are both complete nerds that apparently never spent a single thought on the limits of science (in its English meaning) in general nor of their particular research field in specific. One may find this excusable, I don't. But even then, they make claims that the nerdest nerd must know that they are completely unrealistic and thus I just have to assume that they claim their nonsense on purpose. The reason in Markram's case clearly seems to be money. But all this does not mean that these nerds cannot produce valuable results.
1 - 20 of 144 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page