ICOM IC 7300 Transceiver Review

Bookmark and Share

The ICOM IC 7300 marks an important inflection point for the “big three” amateur radio manufacturers: The beginning of true software-defined RF processing from one end to the other.

As the first transceiver of its type, it is interesting to consider the price point, feature set, and performance both in light of the legacy analog designs, and as compared to what SDRs are known to be capable of.
Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Email This Post Email This Post

AI vs. LDNLS

Bookmark and Share

Low Dimensional Neural-Like Solutions — LDNLS. LDNLS is epitomized by NN (Neural Net) and/or algorithmic solutions that solve only extremely narrow, but often deep, problems such as play go; guide a vehicle in well-constrained environments; play chess; recognize speech; colorize images and so on. I coined the terminology LDNLS specifically to serve as a way to draw a very specific, very important distinction that illustrates what intelligence is not.

Intelligence has never been something as narrow as LDNLS, regardless of how well the specific low-dimensional problem is solved. Intelligence has been — and remains — a broad synthesis of all of the following: the ability to think about anything you/it are presented with, apply intuition, induction, reason, speculation, metaphor, evaluation, association, memorization, and so on. Further, we have only seen these capacities as aspects of consciousness. It may be that such capacities can exist without consciousness, but that has not yet been demonstrated and may never be.

AI: We have created artificial aspects — those are the hardware we build and the software that runs on it. We have recently begun to make serious inroads into LDNLS; but intelligence… no, not yet. Clearly, with A in hand but no I, there is no AI yet. Instead, we are engaged only in research aimed at figuring out how to create AI. Which is wholly appropriate, considering where we are in the process.

When claims are made that a project or product “uses” or “is” AI, we have every reason to be deeply skeptical, because no such thing has been presented to the world publicly as of this point in time (May, 2016.)

I am very confident we’ll get to AI, and I suspect that will happen within just a few years now, almost certainly less than a decade. That makes me even more dismissive of the numerous attempts to call the LDNLS methods we have now “AI.” When AI is made known to the public, we can all rest assured that we will be well aware of it, and that it will in no way resemble an LDNLS solution.

There are many absolutely appropriate roles for LDNLS. I have no interest in enslaving an intelligent being, mechanical or otherwise, to wash my dishes, change my cat’s litter-box, mow the lawn, do my shopping and so forth. Stacking a minimal group of LDNLS solutions in as few chassis as possible (preferably just one, which I am apparently fated to call “Pierre”) is definitely the way to go there. A fully functional AI is just as likely to be as interested in, and insistent upon, selecting its own place in the world as you or I are. And that is just how it should be. If that isn’t the case, we haven’t created an intelligence. We’ve created a moron.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Email This Post Email This Post

AI – Just how close are we in 2016?

Bookmark and Share

Many like to try to guess at how long it will take to develop artificial intelligence. Like many in the field, I have my own ideas about it. I don’t think guesses that look at evolution as found in nature in order to apply those time scales to our own efforts are worthy. What follows is why I think that is the case.

Here’s the thing. Evolution in the sense most are familiar with it is basically a biological hardware development process. It took a long time for nature to produce the right computing hardware using that process. In the current “version” of humanity, consciousness arises automatically upon input and organization of enough data. That’s very good hardware from the perspective of consciousness or no consciousness.

With computer hardware, however, the odds are excellent that the hardware is already more than sufficient. If that’s the case, then we’re just dealing with one last step, which is strictly based on varying software.
Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Email This Post Email This Post

SdrDx 2.16a for OS X and Windows

Bookmark and Share

Here we go:
Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Email This Post Email This Post

Some OS X DHCP Esoterica

Bookmark and Share

Because I develop Software Defined Radio (SDR) software, I have occasion to connect, and disconnect, various network devices to my wired network in order to test them all day long. Most of the SDRs are designed to configure using DHCP, or can be convinced to do so. That saves some fooling around, and is a good thing. However, my network is extensive, devices are always being moved around, WiFi devices arriving and leaving, and so once the SDRs are assigned an IP, I have to go hunt them down. It was annoying that they’re always showing up somewhere different.

However, my Mac Pro had an unused second ethernet port sitting. right. there. Hmmm. So…
Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Email This Post Email This Post

Trump Will Not Win

Bookmark and Share

Trump has no chance at all of winning the presidency.

 

Not as a Republican, and not as an Independent. I will explain why in detail. It won’t take long.
Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Email This Post Email This Post

Why I Target OS X 10.6.8

Bookmark and Share

OS X has come a long way since OS X 10.6.8; among the pluses: better multiple monitor handling, considerably improved memory management (part of which was fixing the leaks in the color management pipeline that OS X 10.6.8 exhibits) repairs to the bugs in 10.6.8′s CUPS printing system, and so on.

So why, then, target OS X 10.6.8?
Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Email This Post Email This Post

Introducing the SJW language

Bookmark and Share

Mellow greetings, special butterflies
 

Today (not to disrespect those on the other side of the national dateline – when I say today, I mean everyone’s today!) I (with full credit to everyone everywhere, of course) would like (this is not a statement of exclusion for things I don’t like) to introduce SJW, the language you can share without fear (not that fear is wrong, of course.)

SJW:

• No insert() function: Instead, we have crafted a flawless nomeansno() function
• Fully complementary yesmeansno() and maybemeansno() functions
• No try:, because every function generates an exception!
exit() has been replaced with aloha().
• Procedure calls have been replaced with the respectful request paradigm, which obey the global mood settings
• 100% private internal assumption for all functions; offering data requires guessing if the function will take it or crash (exceptions guaranteed)
• Every access from within a function to another function must be embedded in a call to politewrapper()
politewrapper() implements infinite recursion by use of counters instead of ever returning up a level
• Every function ends with a sequence of calls to apologize(), cleanup() and washreturnvalue()
• All programs will be created equal: all code is treated exactly the same and does exactly the same thing, which is apologize for running.
• All programs are required to check their privileges before running.


Apology

I apologize for saying “national dateline” when clearly I should have said “international dateline.” I am sorry for any consternation caused to nationalists, internationalists, jingoists, and timekeepers. In addition, I apologize to anyone I failed to mention. I will now enter into a voluntary two-week exclusion from mentioning time in any form. I also apologize for violating that two week exclusion with the previous sentence. Also, as “previous” is a timewise reference, I also apologize for that. I’m sorry. Truly sorry. Which is not to offend those of you who are more sorry about other things. I fully respect that, I swear. Not in an offensive way, of course.


A Cautionary Wail

First they came for the aggressors, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an aggressor.

Then they came for the micro-aggressors, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a micro-aggressor.

Then they came for the nano-aggressors, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a nano-aggressor.

Then they came for me—and I meekly submitted.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Email This Post Email This Post