I really hope they don't manage to get a patent covering the use of temporal information in neural networks as a whole - ordinarily, I'd assume they wouldn't, but given some recent patents, I tend to worry.
I'd be surprised, since the idea is not totally new. There was even talk about giving a course for PhD students at my university (Linköping) this spring on the topic (Temporal coding in ANN:s). Sadly, since we were only two people applying for the course, it was never given:-(
Japanese culture demands death before surrender. Ever heard of Iwo Jima? Not even japanese soil, and they would not surrender until the very end. Japan is just a bit larger than Iwo, wouldn't you say?
Enjoy your fake history all you want, there was no serious blackade plan. It was "Surrender, or be invaded", and the bomb let the Japanese surrender in the face of its might.
Even the Japanese leadership admitted they would not have surrendered, thus forcing a terrible land invasion, were it not for the Bomb.
Actually the Japanese emperor did attempt peace negotiations via the Russians, just weeks before Hiroshima. The Russians however, turned them down. Had an agreement with the Russians been made however, it is debatable wether the Japanese military (having much informal power, and being the ones who convinced the emperor to start the war in the first place) would have accepted. And the issue of the Japanese people is a totally different matter...
>Bacteria don't have a soul, neither do dogs, >cats, or anything else. Just us - and that theory >assumes, of course, that we aren't evolved from >apes. No. Only that God is involved in the creation of the soul of every human being. If you are capable of intellectual discrimination, you should be able to see that this is orthogonal to the question of evolution.
Sounds as if you are a dualist. What if your soul and your brain are equivalent (that is, spanning the same subspace;) )? Would they still be orthogonal?
When I was in college, I used to incorporate technical subjects in my papers for non-technical classes because I knew the professor, being unfamiliar with the subject, would have less opportunity for criticism. It worked pretty consistently. I think the same is true with most of Hofstadter's audience, especially those who awarded him a Pulitzer Prize.
I see your point. GEB is a book that you should like, just like the the emperors new clothes. Its a highly enjoyable book to read though, and your statement: Clarity and efficiency are the essence of good writing, and GEB has neither. sounds a bit too harsh to me. When I read it (as a teenager) I loved it, but I certainly did not understand all of it. It is certainly not a good way of presenting a theory, but as amusement it is great!
That Hofstadter now explains what the book is about is IMO to spoil things. Its like the case with the Koans in the book, once a koan is explained it just becomes a boring statement. A statement that, in this case even is based on outdated premises (see other postings here about the AI fallacy). The riddle is the essence of the story, because then you are not limited by the imagination of the author, but can fill the gaps with your own imagination. Same reason why people like X-Files I believe;)
The best things in GEB are citations and retellings of work by greater men than Douglas Hofstadter. True, but this does not necessarily belittle GEB as literature. Often the original sources are less interesting to read, and reading GEB would be a good way to get interested in these ideas.
P.S. Another example of a good book that's about 5 times as long as it needed to be is "Atlas Shrugged".:-) And just like GEB it is based on weird assumptions--objectivism doesn't hold any more than traditional AI;)
Yeah, isn't it! But hardly a new one. It's been in everyday use, at least at my University, for many years now. I suspect it's not long until it makes it as a dictionary entry: Automagic When something occurs automatically, as if by magic.
I couldn't agree with you more concerning the film. You final remark however...
So what's the sound of one hand clapping? Does a dog have a Buddha Nature? Who cares? I know why electrons have quantum states and how stellar distances are calculated beyond 100 light years. Go enough. I'd rather know than believe.
So, you can make a rigid distinction between knowing and believing? I assume you use the Hubble law to calculate the distances. And how do you know that this law is valid? Presumably because it seems to be in agreement with parallax methods for nearby stars. You have to make the assumption that it works the same way outside this range. That's what I would call believing;)
Understanding of Buddha nature is more similar to this than you might think, you could even view it as the metaphysical counterpart to science -- you find models for thought instead of for the physical universe. Please don't confuse Zen with pyramidology, scientology, psychoanalysis and the likes. Zen won't ask of you to believe, it's the other way round.
It's a pity that there are so few good films about science. I'm looking forward to Kubricks next project, A.I. The plot sounds promising...
Slashdot Mirror
I really hope they don't manage to get a patent covering the use of temporal information in neural networks as a whole - ordinarily, I'd assume they wouldn't, but given some recent patents, I tend to worry.
:-(
I'd be surprised, since the idea is not totally new. There was even talk about giving a course for PhD students at my university (Linköping) this spring on the topic (Temporal coding in ANN:s). Sadly, since we were only two people applying for the course, it was never given
Japanese culture demands death before surrender. Ever heard of Iwo Jima? Not even japanese soil, and they would not surrender until the very end. Japan is just a bit larger than Iwo, wouldn't you say?
Enjoy your fake history all you want, there was no serious blackade plan. It was "Surrender, or be invaded", and the bomb let the Japanese surrender in the face of its might.
Even the Japanese leadership admitted they would not have surrendered, thus forcing a terrible land invasion, were it not for the Bomb.
Actually the Japanese emperor did attempt peace negotiations via the Russians, just weeks before Hiroshima. The Russians however, turned them down. Had an agreement with the Russians been made however, it is debatable wether the Japanese military (having much informal power, and being the ones who convinced the emperor to start the war in the first place) would have accepted. And the issue of the Japanese people is a totally different matter...
>Bacteria don't have a soul, neither do dogs, >cats, or anything else. Just us - and that theory >assumes, of course, that we aren't evolved from >apes. No. Only that God is involved in the creation of the soul of every human being. If you are capable of intellectual discrimination, you should be able to see that this is orthogonal to the question of evolution.
;) )? Would they still be orthogonal?
Sounds as if you are a dualist. What if your soul and your brain are equivalent (that is, spanning the same subspace
When I was in college, I used to incorporate technical subjects in my papers for non-technical classes because I knew the professor, being unfamiliar with the subject, would have less opportunity for criticism. It worked pretty consistently. I think the same is true with most of Hofstadter's audience, especially those who awarded him a Pulitzer Prize.
;)
:-) ;)
I see your point. GEB is a book that you should like, just like the the emperors new clothes. Its a highly enjoyable book to read though, and your statement: Clarity and efficiency are the essence of good writing, and GEB has neither. sounds a bit too harsh to me. When I read it (as a teenager) I loved it, but I certainly did not understand all of it. It is certainly not a good way of presenting a theory, but as amusement it is great!
That Hofstadter now explains what the book is about is IMO to spoil things. Its like the case with the Koans in the book, once a koan is explained it just becomes a boring statement.
A statement that, in this case even is based on outdated premises (see other postings here about the AI fallacy).
The riddle is the essence of the story, because then you are not limited by the imagination of
the author, but can fill the gaps with your own imagination. Same reason why people like X-Files I believe
The best things in GEB are citations and retellings of work by greater men than Douglas Hofstadter.
True, but this does not necessarily belittle GEB as literature. Often the original sources are less interesting to read, and reading GEB would be a good way to get interested in these ideas.
P.S. Another example of a good book that's about 5 times as long as it needed to be is "Atlas Shrugged".
And just like GEB it is based on weird assumptions--objectivism doesn't hold any more than traditional AI
WIRED had this article about the subject this morning.
Funny, and really really impressive of anyone to pull of a stunt like that on impulse!
I admit HURD is an interesting project, but their web page hasn't been very active lately. Does anyone have any news on HURD?
Nothing that's not on their site :-(
For those who want to know what it's all about, here is a link to the official page about the HURD project
A bit far fetched perhaps, but here is another connection between HURD and Windows:
http://www.hurd.com
;-)
Yeah, isn't it! But hardly a new one. It's been in everyday use, at least at my University, for many years now. I suspect it's not long until it makes it as a dictionary entry:
Automagic When something occurs
automatically, as if by magic.
:-)
Why not ignore both degree and background/experience,
and look at the content of the message instead?
On /. I treat all messages the same way -- I doubt them ;)
I couldn't agree with you more concerning the film. You final remark however...
So what's the sound of one hand clapping? Does a dog have a Buddha Nature? Who cares? I know why electrons have quantum states and how stellar distances are calculated beyond 100 light years. Go enough. I'd rather know than believe.
So, you can make a rigid distinction between knowing and believing? I assume you use the Hubble law to calculate the distances. And how do you know that this law is valid? Presumably because it seems to be in agreement with parallax methods for nearby stars. You have to make the assumption that it works the same way outside this range. That's what I would call believing ;)
Understanding of Buddha nature is more similar to this than you might think, you could even view it as the metaphysical counterpart to science -- you find models for thought instead of for the physical universe. Please don't confuse Zen with pyramidology, scientology, psychoanalysis and the likes. Zen won't ask of you to believe, it's the other way round.
It's a pity that there are so few good films about science. I'm looking forward to Kubricks next project, A.I. The plot sounds promising...