Pirate Bay was brought into court on "making available" charges, which exist in Sweden but not other places, notably the US and UK. It was ironic, perhaps, among the lax laws they relied upon they got screwed with one which even a DMCA nation doesn't have.
Thank you. This is no more relevant than the number of piano tuners in Chicago, and saying something like "100 times better than meeting an alien" is a gross misrepresentation. Besides, I think comparing the number of men with girlfriends to the number of men who have met aliens shows pretty immediately that his logic is flawed as well.
You know, normally I'd lean toward the side of the MIT scientists, but here I'm with you. Sure, there are significant changes, but are allele frequencies changing? That's not there, and to conflate the two - differences and Evolution - is irresponsible.
Actually, the way you spin it, it could actually work in some people's favor. If a casino using this system kicked someone out on the pretense of card-counting, that individual could demand to see the tape and read the algorithm's output. Not that it would do much good, since they're still in the right, but theoretically it could provide some court-ordered oversight.
An old professor of mine once said in a History of Technology course that, to paraphrase, "New technology is always used in the way old technology was." Always stuck with me, but I feel it's relevant.
Well, doesn't this mean they get a second try? I mean, throwing it out is awesome, but it could still happen again, now that they know all that they do.
...including without limitation by using the internet or any online media distribution system to reproduce (i.e. download) any of Plaintiffs' Recordings, to distribute (i.e. upload) any of Plaintiffs', or to make any of Plaintiffs' Recordings available for distribution to the public, except pursuant to a lawful license or with the express authority of Plaintiffs.
In fact, relative to body weight these colourful birds have brain sizes that are on par with chimpanzees and orangutans.... "Humans have these really big brains, but guess what, parrots have really big brains too. In fact, if you overlay a graph of brain size to body mass for parrots on top of one for non-human primates, they sit in a perfect line"
Apologies for trying to simplify things and type less. There's no causal link between a sperm whale size and our brain function, but if you plug and chug those numbers into EQ, we end up smarter. Hence, hence.
We believe that we are smartest, so we looked for a plausible function that "happens" to make us win.
Well, I can't argue that because by that token any solution in which we are smarter fails simply because we want one. But the truth is that there's a reason that humans are smarter than all creatures, that primates are smarter than most, that dolphins and other cetaceans are highly intelligent, that fruit flies are dumb as shit. And whether it's EQ or the ln of the cubed-root of the number of post-synaptic membranes, there's some thing out there that indicates our increased intelligence; if there weren't, we wouldn't be.
Use your circular definition if you like, but it's hard to explain away graphs like this by what you are essentially saying is investigator bias.
And, I remain skeptical of that paper. The fact that the abstract is exceptionally vague leaves me suspicious. I can't read the full article, so I can't evaluate their methods and experimental design.
Here's another good read. EQ isn't the answer, but sheer size definitely isn't either. Clearly nothing fits the regression perfectly, and there will always be outliers, but their existence does not disprove the theory. More than that, though, it's simply nonacademic to dismiss it all as "circular."
Like anything in life or science, there are always exceptions. For a given population of large enough size, the distribution for mature adults fits linearly. A sperm whale has a brain mass of 7.8kg, about 6 times ours. They are, however, between 25 and 55 Mg, which is far greater than six times our own mass. Hence, we are smarter. With a larger body, you need a bigger brain to pull off the same feats. It's not that simple, but it holds for the most part.
With midgets, things fall apart. You can't use those data points because they just completely fall apart. People affected by dwarfism do not fit the regression that the rest of the population does. It is, as they say, the exception that prove the rule.
Getting the proper amount of people for anything scientific is hard. The number is "low" for a number of reasons (actually, I see it as pretty high):
- There's rigorous screening or information collection, which is a big deterrent. - It has to be voluntary to ally with ethical guidelines, hence everyone has to "opt in" and sign. - There is limited compensation since the money has to go to actual science. - There is limited compensation to deal with a huge number of resources. - That's a combination of only three countries - Germany, Italy, and Sweden.
Also, don't forget about population. By 2006, Germany had 24908 AIDS cases (13516 died), Italy had 57375 (35077 died), and Sweden had 2095, of which 1317 died.
That's 84378 total cases. Assuming both living and dead patients are eligible for the database, then 18,000 is 21.33% of everyone who has AIDS in those countries. That's unbelievable. If that success was applied to a worldwide database, we'd have a database of over 7 Million individuals.
I doubt it would get put to use for drugs - that's just an example given. I think it's more likely for something like explosives - nitroglycerin is not your average household chemical. Given that every bomb, especially your homemade ones, have a specific chemical identity, it should be pretty easy to link you if there's a strong enough sample; kind of like gunshot residue.
That's like calling saying "Don Quixote rode her ass" and not expecting people to be thinking he just did the nasty with some windmill operator's daughter. We're filthy, immature creatures who never grew out of chuckling when you hear homo erectus. Take the classic riddle: What's a four-letter word for a woman ending in "unt?"
Actually it's the ratio of brain to body mass that really matters. Neaderthals may have had a slightly higher range of brain mass (not much) but they were much more massive creatures. And Neanderthals DEFINITELY had fires, and probably even rudimentary religious or spiritual beliefs. That does not a civilization make, but they are within our same species most agree.
I think they mean "last" as in last point in time. My brother and I have a common ancestor in my maternal grandfather, for example, but our "last shared" common ancestor would be our mother (or father).
As someone once said, "I don't think we should kill all the dumb people - let's just take all the warning labels off things and let it work itself out."
What he should have done was implant some sort of GPS locator/tracking device in the app. If he had done that, we'd currently have a list of the eight dumbest English speaking people alive.
Having such an absurdly powerful machine let's you do *anything* with your program. It's useful for testing and thinking about theory if you can largely ignore the "processing power" variable.
Slashdot Mirror
Pirate Bay was brought into court on "making available" charges, which exist in Sweden but not other places, notably the US and UK. It was ironic, perhaps, among the lax laws they relied upon they got screwed with one which even a DMCA nation doesn't have.
Just guessing, but maybe because that was the better part of half a century ago?
Thank you. This is no more relevant than the number of piano tuners in Chicago, and saying something like "100 times better than meeting an alien" is a gross misrepresentation. Besides, I think comparing the number of men with girlfriends to the number of men who have met aliens shows pretty immediately that his logic is flawed as well.
You know, normally I'd lean toward the side of the MIT scientists, but here I'm with you. Sure, there are significant changes, but are allele frequencies changing? That's not there, and to conflate the two - differences and Evolution - is irresponsible.
Actually, the way you spin it, it could actually work in some people's favor. If a casino using this system kicked someone out on the pretense of card-counting, that individual could demand to see the tape and read the algorithm's output. Not that it would do much good, since they're still in the right, but theoretically it could provide some court-ordered oversight.
So what you're saying is that a lot of Slashdot readers also edit Wikipedia?
That's only one specific kind of penguin (Emperor), not all of them.
give it away free, later a client they will be.
So... Do we get to see that paper?
No, only winning move is not to play....
Zugzwang - A relevant theory, methinks.
An old professor of mine once said in a History of Technology course that, to paraphrase, "New technology is always used in the way old technology was." Always stuck with me, but I feel it's relevant.
Well, doesn't this mean they get a second try? I mean, throwing it out is awesome, but it could still happen again, now that they know all that they do.
Read the whole thing:
...including without limitation by using the internet or any online media distribution system to reproduce (i.e. download) any of Plaintiffs' Recordings, to distribute (i.e. upload) any of Plaintiffs', or to make any of Plaintiffs' Recordings available for distribution to the public, except pursuant to a lawful license or with the express authority of Plaintiffs.
Emphasis mine.
Actually,
In fact, relative to body weight these colourful birds have brain sizes that are on par with chimpanzees and orangutans.... "Humans have these really big brains, but guess what, parrots have really big brains too. In fact, if you overlay a graph of brain size to body mass for parrots on top of one for non-human primates, they sit in a perfect line"
Source
Search for "midget" on that page. It's not much, but it speaks almost directly to what I speaking about. g is the General Intelligence Factor.
Apologies for trying to simplify things and type less. There's no causal link between a sperm whale size and our brain function, but if you plug and chug those numbers into EQ, we end up smarter. Hence, hence.
We believe that we are smartest, so we looked for a plausible function that "happens" to make us win.
Well, I can't argue that because by that token any solution in which we are smarter fails simply because we want one. But the truth is that there's a reason that humans are smarter than all creatures, that primates are smarter than most, that dolphins and other cetaceans are highly intelligent, that fruit flies are dumb as shit. And whether it's EQ or the ln of the cubed-root of the number of post-synaptic membranes, there's some thing out there that indicates our increased intelligence; if there weren't, we wouldn't be.
Use your circular definition if you like, but it's hard to explain away graphs like this by what you are essentially saying is investigator bias.
And, I remain skeptical of that paper. The fact that the abstract is exceptionally vague leaves me suspicious. I can't read the full article, so I can't evaluate their methods and experimental design.
Here's another good read. EQ isn't the answer, but sheer size definitely isn't either. Clearly nothing fits the regression perfectly, and there will always be outliers, but their existence does not disprove the theory. More than that, though, it's simply nonacademic to dismiss it all as "circular."
Like anything in life or science, there are always exceptions. For a given population of large enough size, the distribution for mature adults fits linearly. A sperm whale has a brain mass of 7.8kg, about 6 times ours. They are, however, between 25 and 55 Mg, which is far greater than six times our own mass. Hence, we are smarter. With a larger body, you need a bigger brain to pull off the same feats. It's not that simple, but it holds for the most part.
With midgets, things fall apart. You can't use those data points because they just completely fall apart. People affected by dwarfism do not fit the regression that the rest of the population does. It is, as they say, the exception that prove the rule.
Getting the proper amount of people for anything scientific is hard. The number is "low" for a number of reasons (actually, I see it as pretty high):
- There's rigorous screening or information collection, which is a big deterrent.
- It has to be voluntary to ally with ethical guidelines, hence everyone has to "opt in" and sign.
- There is limited compensation since the money has to go to actual science.
- There is limited compensation to deal with a huge number of resources.
- That's a combination of only three countries - Germany, Italy, and Sweden.
Also, don't forget about population. By 2006, Germany had 24908 AIDS cases (13516 died), Italy had 57375 (35077 died), and Sweden had 2095, of which 1317 died.
That's 84378 total cases. Assuming both living and dead patients are eligible for the database, then 18,000 is 21.33% of everyone who has AIDS in those countries. That's unbelievable. If that success was applied to a worldwide database, we'd have a database of over 7 Million individuals.
I doubt it would get put to use for drugs - that's just an example given. I think it's more likely for something like explosives - nitroglycerin is not your average household chemical. Given that every bomb, especially your homemade ones, have a specific chemical identity, it should be pretty easy to link you if there's a strong enough sample; kind of like gunshot residue.
I've actually used a GCMS to test ones, fives, and tens - they've all got it.
That's like calling saying "Don Quixote rode her ass" and not expecting people to be thinking he just did the nasty with some windmill operator's daughter. We're filthy, immature creatures who never grew out of chuckling when you hear homo erectus. Take the classic riddle: What's a four-letter word for a woman ending in "unt?"
Protip: It begins with "A."
Actually it's the ratio of brain to body mass that really matters. Neaderthals may have had a slightly higher range of brain mass (not much) but they were much more massive creatures. And Neanderthals DEFINITELY had fires, and probably even rudimentary religious or spiritual beliefs. That does not a civilization make, but they are within our same species most agree.
I think they mean "last" as in last point in time. My brother and I have a common ancestor in my maternal grandfather, for example, but our "last shared" common ancestor would be our mother (or father).
As someone once said, "I don't think we should kill all the dumb people - let's just take all the warning labels off things and let it work itself out."
What he should have done was implant some sort of GPS locator/tracking device in the app. If he had done that, we'd currently have a list of the eight dumbest English speaking people alive.
And that's a start.
Well... only if our military has a 9-stone handicap.
Having such an absurdly powerful machine let's you do *anything* with your program. It's useful for testing and thinking about theory if you can largely ignore the "processing power" variable.