Thats not to say there are analogous mechanisms, in fact there *must* be one (how else to explain the elasticity of inputs).
The neurons in a brain to a large extent use some form of hebbian learning. We know this for a fact because Hebb's Rule is proven to be a good predictor of neuron activations.
Why are you so certain that a neural network matches a human brain?
Maybe because a neural network, for a fact, matches the human brain.
This is well understood. What isnt well understood is the learning mechanism, but we do know for certain that it is to a large degree a timing-dependent hebbian learning process. To be quite specific, Hebb's Rule is a good predictor of neuron activation in brains. People did fucking science.
At least become casually acquainted with the subject before acting like a know-it-all. Clearly you don't know shit. What possesses people like you to act like you fucking know something when you know for certain that you don't is beyond me. Come on guy... you know you are wholly ignorant on the subject, so why are you acting like some fucking knowledgeable person about it? You do know that its wrong to do that, right? Its not just wrong, its dishonest. That makes you a dishonest fuck.
Neural networks are anything but resource-efficient.
Compared to how a tradition chess engine searches the game tree, neural networks are extremely resource efficient.
The top engines use an algorithm called PVS() (Principle Variation Search), which is just a variant of AlphaBeta() that includes a null-window aspiration search. They do some advanced stuff such as pruning and extensions, but in the end the core of it is still AlphaBeta(). These engines still have to search through literally billions of positions on each move in order to beat the top humans.
Searching through and evaluating billions of positions vs pushing values through a neural network. One of these is inefficient, yes. You've picked the wrong one.
Are you basically saying to make pixels by averaging the color of the adjacent ones?
No, he isn't.
If its surprising to you that its possible to do better prediction of the missing information between the pixels of images than various kinds of interpolations (such as bilinear (aka "averaging" for 2x), bicubic, etc..), then its because you are wholly ignorant on the subject. Amazing that you jumped in to discuss a subject that you are wholly ignorant on.
If it were purely random data then your from-ignorance consideration of the subject would have some weight, but it isn't arbitrary data. Nobody spends their time looking at images of random data. The images we capture with photographic equipment have high degrees of coherence between neighboring scales (because thats the way the universe is,) and that necessarily includes the scales just above the Nyquist frequency.
Nobody is suggesting red dwarfs "enhance!" is possible, but a bit of upscaling can be done a lot better than simple interpolations.
Except ships at sea. And the Cat 4 storms probably sank them before they could get the word out.
Ships at see tried really hard not to be close enough to any storm to get any sort of grasp of the wind speed within. The captain didnt say "That storm on the horizon doesn't look that bad from here. Lets sail towards it." That sort of captain gets thrown overboard.
Even today our largest military ships sail directly away from major storms.
Last night I had a conversation with someone about kitchen knives, and then just this afternoon I had ANOTHER conversation with a different person about kitchen knives. Two conversations on kitchen knives within 24 hours! That has never happened before. Sure climate change is to blame for it.
There was a report in 1850 about a man who had a conversation about kitchen knives. Clearly we have detailed records of kitchen knife conversations going back hundreds of years!
Bad assumption. There is storm data (and damn good data) going back to the 1850s.
Could be 2% of the storms. Could be 50% of the storms. Could be 98% of the storms.
Ok, now use your mighty math powers to compare storm frequency and intensity in 1850 with 2010.
You know what sailors did when there was a storm on the horizon in 1850? They sailed in the opposite fucking direction and sometimes outran the storm, and if they couldnt outrun the storm and it actually was a hurricane they fucking died right there in the ocean.
You know what sailors do today when there is a storm on the horizon in 2015? They still sail the opposite fucking direction.
No you ignorant twat, there really isnt fucking records. Scientists admit it. Why wont you?
We can easily compare frequencies and energy levels of events like storms to past measurements in order to see trends over time
80 years ago the only records for hurricanes was when they made landfall, and then only in the heavily populated areas of 1st world countries. If you were in a god damned ship you either sailed the opposite direction as the storm on the horizon or you fucking sank. "Captain, was it a hurricane?".. "I don't know. I sailed away from it. I'm not fucking retarded."
We only started getting a respectable count of these storms after we started sending satellites up, about 50 years in total, and we still only get detailed reports (wind speeds, etc) on the ones that might hit populated areas.
Using your ignorant strategy, the spike in the number of hurricanes on record that began about 50 years ago is evidence of global warming instead of evidence of satellites.
Use your brain. Imagine it. 80 years ago most ships are still made of wood and are driven by sails. Even the largest ship ever built by that time was tiny by todays standards and would capsize in a hurricane with near certainty. And planes were still made of wood and driven by propellers. Even today our largest military warships, entire carrier battle groups, get the fuck out of the way of hurricanes because they dont want to fucking die. But seemingly in your fucking world detailed records of hurricanes go way back.
Actually we do and she is still doing it. She is a civilian in possession of classified material that she collected while she wasn't a civilian. End of the fucking discussion. She is still breaking the law.
The precision isnt even all that much greater either.
In a 3D model, 8x resolution is just 2x along each axis. The summary (and possibly the article) makes it seem like they used to be very block but now its ultra sharp when in reality if it used to be 1km resolution now its 0.46km resolution.
You largely misinterpret my words and you know that.
Maybe if you would say what you mean, instead of trying to leverage the dishonest ambiguity that only others of your kind keep insisting is normal, then people wouldnt "misinterpret" (as you call it) what you say so much.
Words have meaning.
What are your motives for ignoring the meaning of words? Are you just a lazy undisciplined communicator, or are you intentions less honest than being a lazy fuck?
An educated populace is a social good. It doesn't have infinite value but the value is much more than zero which is what you seem to be proposing.
The conservatives are insanely focused on the value of specific education (see this discussion, hell see ANY discussion.) It is the liberals that actively want to just cast the concerns of value aside, waving their hands insisting that somehow obviously the value is greater than whats already spent and not surprisingly no matter how large the increases in education spending by the State, it is still somehow obvious to them that they should continue to ignore costs completely.
You are doing it right now. You admit that the value of any education is not infinite, but thats so damaging to your method of argument that you accuse the other side that they believe the value of any education is zero as if your accusations are a logical argument, and yet you have continued to not actually discuss what the value of any specific education actually is.
Society cannot feel its way to prosperity.
If you have to generalize to make your argument because specifics always seem to hurt it, its because its full of feels rather than thinks.
Executing CPUID with EAX = 7 and ECX = 0 may return EBX with bits [3] and [8] set, incorrectly indicating the presence of BMI1 and BMI2 instruction set extensions.
Attempting to use instructions from the BMI1 or BMI2 instruction set extensions will result in a #UD exception.
and in the errata summary, its currently labeled NO FIX so they dont even have a fix that will trap the exception and emulate the instructions (which would perform terribly anyways... but hey, working is better than not working.)
I'm pretty free market, but I'm not sure policing is an area I really wanted to see taken over by competing corporations.
I think that maybe people should learn the history of policing.
This is an institution that started out "privatized." It was over 200 years before public money began to be used for the purpose when King George the 2nd began paying watchmen with public money. This move to using public money led directly to The Macdaniel Affair.
Private policing works. Public policing works. In both cases, government influence can ruin it.
The police forces do not want people with "high" IQs (125 in he case cited) they only want people that are about average IQ. They claim that this is "to reduce turnover."
I'm more inclined to think its the long game. If the bulk of the worlds smart people come to the United States, then how is the bad for the United States long-term?
I pointed the fact that I didn't use the fallacy you are accusing me of.
You did use the fallacy, and you did point out the "fact" that you didnt use it.
See the problem? You used a fallacy, and when that failed you then started lying. if you had some sort of valid argument anywhere you wouldnt need to do either of these things. But instead, you are just a fucking lying asshole that fails at logic.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats not to say there are analogous mechanisms, in fact there *must* be one (how else to explain the elasticity of inputs).
The neurons in a brain to a large extent use some form of hebbian learning. We know this for a fact because Hebb's Rule is proven to be a good predictor of neuron activations.
Why are you so certain that a neural network matches a human brain?
Maybe because a neural network, for a fact, matches the human brain.
This is well understood. What isnt well understood is the learning mechanism, but we do know for certain that it is to a large degree a timing-dependent hebbian learning process. To be quite specific, Hebb's Rule is a good predictor of neuron activation in brains. People did fucking science.
At least become casually acquainted with the subject before acting like a know-it-all. Clearly you don't know shit. What possesses people like you to act like you fucking know something when you know for certain that you don't is beyond me. Come on guy... you know you are wholly ignorant on the subject, so why are you acting like some fucking knowledgeable person about it? You do know that its wrong to do that, right? Its not just wrong, its dishonest. That makes you a dishonest fuck.
Neural networks are anything but resource-efficient.
Compared to how a tradition chess engine searches the game tree, neural networks are extremely resource efficient.
The top engines use an algorithm called PVS() (Principle Variation Search), which is just a variant of AlphaBeta() that includes a null-window aspiration search. They do some advanced stuff such as pruning and extensions, but in the end the core of it is still AlphaBeta(). These engines still have to search through literally billions of positions on each move in order to beat the top humans.
Searching through and evaluating billions of positions vs pushing values through a neural network. One of these is inefficient, yes. You've picked the wrong one.
its not technobabble, and your question is evidence that you dont understand even a tiny little bit of it.
Are you basically saying to make pixels by averaging the color of the adjacent ones?
No, he isn't.
If its surprising to you that its possible to do better prediction of the missing information between the pixels of images than various kinds of interpolations (such as bilinear (aka "averaging" for 2x), bicubic, etc..), then its because you are wholly ignorant on the subject. Amazing that you jumped in to discuss a subject that you are wholly ignorant on.
If it were purely random data then your from-ignorance consideration of the subject would have some weight, but it isn't arbitrary data. Nobody spends their time looking at images of random data. The images we capture with photographic equipment have high degrees of coherence between neighboring scales (because thats the way the universe is,) and that necessarily includes the scales just above the Nyquist frequency.
Nobody is suggesting red dwarfs "enhance!" is possible, but a bit of upscaling can be done a lot better than simple interpolations.
Except ships at sea. And the Cat 4 storms probably sank them before they could get the word out.
Ships at see tried really hard not to be close enough to any storm to get any sort of grasp of the wind speed within. The captain didnt say "That storm on the horizon doesn't look that bad from here. Lets sail towards it." That sort of captain gets thrown overboard.
Even today our largest military ships sail directly away from major storms.
Last night I had a conversation with someone about kitchen knives, and then just this afternoon I had ANOTHER conversation with a different person about kitchen knives. Two conversations on kitchen knives within 24 hours! That has never happened before. Sure climate change is to blame for it.
There was a report in 1850 about a man who had a conversation about kitchen knives. Clearly we have detailed records of kitchen knife conversations going back hundreds of years!
Bad assumption. There is storm data (and damn good data) going back to the 1850s.
Could be 2% of the storms. Could be 50% of the storms. Could be 98% of the storms.
Ok, now use your mighty math powers to compare storm frequency and intensity in 1850 with 2010.
You know what sailors did when there was a storm on the horizon in 1850? They sailed in the opposite fucking direction and sometimes outran the storm, and if they couldnt outrun the storm and it actually was a hurricane they fucking died right there in the ocean.
You know what sailors do today when there is a storm on the horizon in 2015? They still sail the opposite fucking direction.
No you ignorant twat, there really isnt fucking records. Scientists admit it. Why wont you?
We can easily compare frequencies and energy levels of events like storms to past measurements in order to see trends over time
80 years ago the only records for hurricanes was when they made landfall, and then only in the heavily populated areas of 1st world countries. If you were in a god damned ship you either sailed the opposite direction as the storm on the horizon or you fucking sank. "Captain, was it a hurricane?" .. "I don't know. I sailed away from it. I'm not fucking retarded."
We only started getting a respectable count of these storms after we started sending satellites up, about 50 years in total, and we still only get detailed reports (wind speeds, etc) on the ones that might hit populated areas.
Using your ignorant strategy, the spike in the number of hurricanes on record that began about 50 years ago is evidence of global warming instead of evidence of satellites.
Use your brain. Imagine it. 80 years ago most ships are still made of wood and are driven by sails. Even the largest ship ever built by that time was tiny by todays standards and would capsize in a hurricane with near certainty. And planes were still made of wood and driven by propellers. Even today our largest military warships, entire carrier battle groups, get the fuck out of the way of hurricanes because they dont want to fucking die. But seemingly in your fucking world detailed records of hurricanes go way back.
Ignorant fuck.
They are in bed with corporations to screw us.
Those are called Democrats.
So, as a human driver, you wouldn't stop for a person standing in the road in front of you?
As a human pedestrian, I do not test the brakes of random vehicles that are traveling down the road by standing in front of them.
No we don't know if she violated any laws yet
Actually we do and she is still doing it. She is a civilian in possession of classified material that she collected while she wasn't a civilian. End of the fucking discussion. She is still breaking the law.
The precision isnt even all that much greater either.
In a 3D model, 8x resolution is just 2x along each axis. The summary (and possibly the article) makes it seem like they used to be very block but now its ultra sharp when in reality if it used to be 1km resolution now its 0.46km resolution.
I'll pay a professor very well if they are 1) rare and 2) can be fired for a bad year in the classroom.
Don't forget 3) demonstrably worth it by bring in far more money than they get paid.
You largely misinterpret my words and you know that.
Maybe if you would say what you mean, instead of trying to leverage the dishonest ambiguity that only others of your kind keep insisting is normal, then people wouldnt "misinterpret" (as you call it) what you say so much.
Words have meaning.
What are your motives for ignoring the meaning of words? Are you just a lazy undisciplined communicator, or are you intentions less honest than being a lazy fuck?
An educated populace is a social good. It doesn't have infinite value but the value is much more than zero which is what you seem to be proposing.
The conservatives are insanely focused on the value of specific education (see this discussion, hell see ANY discussion.) It is the liberals that actively want to just cast the concerns of value aside, waving their hands insisting that somehow obviously the value is greater than whats already spent and not surprisingly no matter how large the increases in education spending by the State, it is still somehow obvious to them that they should continue to ignore costs completely.
You are doing it right now. You admit that the value of any education is not infinite, but thats so damaging to your method of argument that you accuse the other side that they believe the value of any education is zero as if your accusations are a logical argument, and yet you have continued to not actually discuss what the value of any specific education actually is.
Society cannot feel its way to prosperity.
If you have to generalize to make your argument because specifics always seem to hurt it, its because its full of feels rather than thinks.
Sure looks like it
From the errata:
Executing CPUID with EAX = 7 and ECX = 0 may return EBX with bits [3] and [8] set, incorrectly indicating the presence of BMI1 and BMI2 instruction set extensions.
Attempting to use instructions from the BMI1 or BMI2 instruction set extensions will result in a #UD exception.
and in the errata summary, its currently labeled NO FIX so they dont even have a fix that will trap the exception and emulate the instructions (which would perform terribly anyways... but hey, working is better than not working.)
I wonder if this Skylake can be considered an upgrade path..
That would violate Intels strategy, which is never allow a realistic upgrade path.
..and the current police force isnt basically a military?
I'm pretty free market, but I'm not sure policing is an area I really wanted to see taken over by competing corporations.
I think that maybe people should learn the history of policing.
This is an institution that started out "privatized." It was over 200 years before public money began to be used for the purpose when King George the 2nd began paying watchmen with public money. This move to using public money led directly to The Macdaniel Affair.
Private policing works. Public policing works. In both cases, government influence can ruin it.
Many folks will think that you are making up this lack of IQ claim.
So here it a citation. Hiring discrimination as a matter of policy.
The police forces do not want people with "high" IQs (125 in he case cited) they only want people that are about average IQ. They claim that this is "to reduce turnover."
I'm more inclined to think its the long game. If the bulk of the worlds smart people come to the United States, then how is the bad for the United States long-term?
maybe he just hovered over the link and his firefox failed to connect
We support, manage, process and analyse data irrespective of whether or not it paints a pretty picture.
Yeah but in business its usually a bad idea to manipulate the data to create a specific picture... however in academia...
I pointed the fact that I didn't use the fallacy you are accusing me of.
You did use the fallacy, and you did point out the "fact" that you didnt use it.
See the problem? You used a fallacy, and when that failed you then started lying. if you had some sort of valid argument anywhere you wouldnt need to do either of these things. But instead, you are just a fucking lying asshole that fails at logic.