Whoa, that's kinda a big jump from the Franklin quote. Agreed, it does sound very usable in a gun debate, but it also sounds relevant to this discussion, wouldn't you say Fink?
I mean, the whole point (in this thread) is someone suggesting we not talk about things "because 'they' might come after us" (not quoting, improvising). But that would be giving up an essential liberty (free speech) for safety (so they won't go after us); the Franklin quote is making the claim that you should never compromise on your beliefs (very Kantian, actually).
Not sure I see what upset you so much in that suggestion.
- stevec
P.S. Dead white guy quote != irrelevant to discussion P.P.S. Perhaps you would prefer this quote? (a little less obviously relevant, but still sequitious to the discussion):
"Lions will be villians as long as the hunters right the histories" -- badly paraphrased African proverb
P.P.P.S. sequitious -- as in "not a non sequitor", hence a "sequitor", or "sequitious".
The big deal does not (IMNSHO) arise because of the putative content DVD's carry. In that, I agree with you -- I don't watch movies on my comptuer, nor do I intend to.
But does that mean -- if someone WANTS to do this? -- that we should allow the DVD CCA to trounce about proclaiming, "you can't do this, you can't do this!" even though, yes, in fact we can, legally?
That, my friend is the point -- DeCSS was written so that people could watch movies on their linux boxen. This lawsuit, and the reaction here, is about our freedoms.
I couldn't care less about the DeCSS (except to be impressed by a neat hacking job of a not-deserving-of-the-name encryption scheme), but I DO CARE, most fervently, about my rights.
Well, that's mostly true. But I think you guys are getting stuck in the details. There are a number of interesting ways to use NN's to simulate intelligence. An easily paralleizable (??) method is known (I believe) as voting: in this scenario, instead of having one large Net with many interconnections, you have many smaller nets, each of which comes to a decision on an output and "votes" on the total output. There's been some work done on this (can't find the references anywhere) and IIRC it seems that this works -- in general -- better at lower numbers of total nodes than a monolithic NN.
In any case, I just wanted to point out the an NN-like scheme can be devised that works well in a parallel environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Dope! Darn humor sensors went out on me again. Guess it's a problem of Y2k - 2Days (hey it rhymes!).
:)
Sorry for the irate response, fink.
oh, and kudos on the name. Me gusta mucho.
- stevec
Whoa, that's kinda a big jump from the Franklin quote. Agreed, it does sound very usable in a gun debate, but it also sounds relevant to this discussion, wouldn't you say Fink?
I mean, the whole point (in this thread) is someone suggesting we not talk about things "because 'they' might come after us" (not quoting, improvising). But that would be giving up an essential liberty (free speech) for safety (so they won't go after us); the Franklin quote is making the claim that you should never compromise on your beliefs (very Kantian, actually).
Not sure I see what upset you so much in that suggestion.
- stevec
P.S. Dead white guy quote != irrelevant to discussion
P.P.S. Perhaps you would prefer this quote? (a little less obviously relevant, but still sequitious to the discussion):
"Lions will be villians as long as the hunters right the histories" -- badly paraphrased African proverb
P.P.P.S. sequitious -- as in "not a non sequitor", hence a "sequitor", or "sequitious".
It made a difference to me. :)
-stevec
The big deal does not (IMNSHO) arise because of the putative content DVD's carry. In that, I agree with you -- I don't watch movies on my comptuer, nor do I intend to.
But does that mean -- if someone WANTS to do this? -- that we should allow the DVD CCA to trounce about proclaiming, "you can't do this, you can't do this!" even though, yes, in fact we can, legally?
That, my friend is the point -- DeCSS was written so that people could watch movies on their linux boxen. This lawsuit, and the reaction here, is about our freedoms.
I couldn't care less about the DeCSS (except to be impressed by a neat hacking job of a not-deserving-of-the-name encryption scheme), but I DO CARE, most fervently, about my rights.
- stevec
Well, that's mostly true. But I think you guys are getting stuck in the details. There are a number of interesting ways to use NN's to simulate intelligence. An easily paralleizable (??) method is known (I believe) as voting: in this scenario, instead of having one large Net with many interconnections, you have many smaller nets, each of which comes to a decision on an output and "votes" on the total output. There's been some work done on this (can't find the references anywhere) and IIRC it seems that this works -- in general -- better at lower numbers of total nodes than a monolithic NN.
In any case, I just wanted to point out the an NN-like scheme can be devised that works well in a parallel environment.
stevec