Recently I've seen contracts where the purchaser demands that the code be placed in escrow with a third party. The code is released under a variety of scenarios including lack of upgrades.
We play with the abridged Merriam-Webster and disallow any word labelled as archaic.This means that real words like votive are allowed, and thus you have just enlarged your vocabulary, but nearly all of the useless two-letter crud from the scrabble dictionary is out.
It says that anything that can be computed, by any means, including quantum and biological computers such as the brain, can be computed by a Turing Machine and thus by extension by a modern computer given enough memory and time.
We have been searching for a device that breaks this thesis for over 80 years now, and have not yet found evidence of one. In fact every time we propose a radically new model, starting from a very different approach, such as quantum computing or lambda calculus, we land back exactly at the Turing machine model.
First of all, even if he opposed it that doesn't mean you get to accuse him of being a communist.
But in reality the situation was more complicated than that. Oppenheimer (and others) also opposed Teller's design because they thought it wouldn't work. Teller took it personally and set out to destroy them. But those others were right and in the end the H-bomb that Teller help built was based on a design of Ulam's.
During the Cold War we use to read this stories of people being sent to prison in the Soviet Union because they had used the "<fill item> of the people" for personal use and wonder how could people let a bureaucratic system run so amok that it wouldn't allow for this minor, victimless transgression of the rules.
It is in the latter sense. It is a very difficult problem in the sense that the average instance is difficult and even a reasonable partial optimization is costly.
Essentially it is NP complete to optimize the sequence of operations, and it is exponential in a really bad way. Most people couldn't write code that optimizes a sequence of more than four instructions without taking over a month to compile the program. Using state of the art techniques it is possible to optimize blocks of up to 9 or 10 instructions, which is still much below the actual numbers needed.
You are making the same argument that Luddites were making in England 200 hundred years ago. What happened in between is that the work week went down from 76 hours a week to 40 hrs a week. A similar move needs to happen now, but with increase in vacation time to about a total of two months a year.
Problem is that this would mean a modest drop in wages so you wouldn't be able to afford your McMansion and second SUV in the garage but we as a society just don't seem ready to give that up.
the general public don't follow the detail of arguments.
So far we agree.
If people are debating they just think it's something for which there isn't a correct answer, only opinions.
The message needs to be given that the there is no doubt that AGW is happening.
Consider the reverse scenario, if you walk away from the fight too early it gives the laymen the impression that you do not have strong arguments. They will never follow the arguments in detail, they neither have the time nor the expertise, but as you said, they make deductions from the overall tone of the discussion.
Certainly in the 1970s when I was a kid, we knew smoking caused cancer.
Were you a bicoastal middle class relatively educated kid or were you a NASCAR watching fan from middle America? You would be surprised at the things each of these groups takes for granted that are completely the reverse in the other.
Let me explain. I'm not criticizing that the early figures AIDS were pessimistic. Where the scientific fraud lies is that when the revised data from the field started streaming in, projections were barely adjusted.
The CDC kept predicting a million HIV Americans every year, in spite of the failed prediction of previous year, and more importantly, the clear models showing that such figure was not likely to be reached. Eventually it might** have been reached, not because of the consequence of an increase in the infection rate as the CDC was claiming, but because of a decrease in the mortality rates at the other end.
** I say might, since the number of diagnosed HIV positive in America is, today, about 680K.
The rest are just predicted future innovations that turned out to be harder to achieve and less useful than predicted.
Much of the GW debate is still in the prediction phase, so there is still a lot of room for big mispredictions. Let me be clear, GW is here and it is real, I'm talking debate about the shape of the growth curve only.
Moreover in the cases of the exaggerated benefits of Artificial Intelligence scientists were making statements as if this things would come to pass automatically, not possible, potential maybe-baby benefits in the future.
I'm not saying GW is a hoax, I'm just saying scientific fraud has happened, and if you believe that it takes "magic mushrooms" to see one (like the OP by gtall claimed) you are far, far too naive.
In my opinion we are still about ten years away from educating the general public, and the only way to educate the average joe is to drive the point home over and over with facts and even further evidence just like we did with tobacco carcinogens. The science was clearly in the 60s, the average populace came around only in the 80s.
Kiddo you are much to young. Neural networks first saw the light of day as perceptrons by Rosenblatt in 1958 when it was argued they were actual models of the brain and about to lead to sentient machines. This view pretty much held until the Minsky and Papert tempered their claims in 1969. The term neural networks became the prefered name only in 1975 after Werbos introduced backpropagation.
do you have something solid outside of the "flying cars" articles?
This is no secret kiddo. There in fact even a wikipedia article on it.
I read about it in the original articles. The claims were made by the AI founders, not "flying car" popular writers. Here's an example.
First off, I think that you've kinda proven my point
You didn't even read what I said. Yes, it was doctors and physicists and paleontologists who decades after the respective theories were proposed (and initially opposed) eventually verified them.
It's always people from within the discipline that overturn consensus, not outsiders
Incorrect, the meteorite theory was proposed by Walter Alvarez who is a geologist and Luis Alvarez, a physicist. They got a lot of push back from paleontologists for the first ten years or so before the paleontologists started turning around. You will still find plenty of skeptics among the old timers by the way.
When did it begin to be widely accepted by climate scientists? The late 1950s!
In what parallel universe did that happen? GW was up in the air until sometime in the 90s. Before we didn't even have enough data to make a proper determination.
If someone starts proclaiming creationism or flat-earthism, then it's pointless debating them.
If someone argues that cows fly, indeed you are correct. You are better off ignoring them.
However with a brand new theory (in terms of relative scientific age) such as GW it is too early to give up on the public debate. In fact you were so quick to dismiss the OP that you missed the fact that the dude was pro-GW.
Sorry, but your examples are not very good. Many years had to pass before people within the field turned around and starting supporting the plate tectonics hypothesis. Same holds for the bacterial hypothesis for ulcers, the meteorite theory of dinosaur extinction, or even quantum mechanics within physics. In fact Kuhn famously observed in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" that acceptance of quantum mechanics was more or less proportional to the rate of retirement of old authorities.
what do you think would happen if you found real, solid evidence that global warming is not happening?
You would be considered a crank for the first 15 years, after which the field will slowly start turning around.
You really don't get this point-counterpoint thing about proper scientific argumentation do you?
If the WSJ arguments are invalid (which I would assume they are, given the source) the way to address them is to list chapter and verse of the opposing evidence, not to accuse someone who is not anti-GW to begin with of being an idiot.
However you must admit that if a field has gone astray one would hardly expect people from within the field to stand up and criticize it. For example, several disciplines within the humanities (mainly literary criticism and philosophy) seem to have settled on a presentation style that obfuscates rather than clarifies what is being presented.
However, you would be hard pressed to find a philosopher or literary critic of renown who would state this. For one, people are trained and selected on the basis of how well they conform to this improper standard, for another, they would have to poo-poo the work of all of its colleagues which would be a bad career move.
I'm not a GW skeptic by the way. I'm just pointing out that if it were a hoax it is precisely people like those above who we would expect to come out and expose it.
Our reward system would make any of us fabulously rich if only we could conclusively prove man-made warming is wrong. It hasn't happened.
But there have been scientific "hoaxes" before such as the predicted rate of increase of AIDS, the exaggerated benefits of Artificial Intelligence, nanotechnology and sequencing the gene.
I don't know about GW, but certainly at the time the AI hoax was full on it was career suicide to expose the fraud, and a full fifteen years after the scheme had been exposed it was still considered bad form to talk about it.
Sorry, but it is not. In fact, events by now have thoroughly refuted it. The woman was an agent and she was traded for, the two guys were innocent patsies and they had to earn their release through standard channels. The OP is right: the original story strained credulity all along and in the end it was proven false. Only in American would people not raise an eyebrow when told about this.
Slashdot Mirror
Recently I've seen contracts where the purchaser demands that the code be placed in escrow with a third party. The code is released under a variety of scenarios including lack of upgrades.
We play with the abridged Merriam-Webster and disallow any word labelled as archaic.This means that real words like votive are allowed, and thus you have just enlarged your vocabulary, but nearly all of the useless two-letter crud from the scrabble dictionary is out.
It says that anything that can be computed, by any means, including quantum and biological computers such as the brain, can be computed by a Turing Machine and thus by extension by a modern computer given enough memory and time.
We have been searching for a device that breaks this thesis for over 80 years now, and have not yet found evidence of one. In fact every time we propose a radically new model, starting from a very different approach, such as quantum computing or lambda calculus, we land back exactly at the Turing machine model.
I don't know where you got the idea that I was challenging that.
Because recently there have been a series of pseudo-academic publications doing this, but so far there is nothing behind their claims.
I thought you were going along those lines.
No there isn't. So far the Church-Turing hypothesis remains unchallenged, in spite of some crackpot claims to the contrary.
First of all, even if he opposed it that doesn't mean you get to accuse him of being a communist.
But in reality the situation was more complicated than that. Oppenheimer (and others) also opposed Teller's design because they thought it wouldn't work. Teller took it personally and set out to destroy them. But those others were right and in the end the H-bomb that Teller help built was based on a design of Ulam's.
During the Cold War we use to read this stories of people being sent to prison in the Soviet Union because they had used the "<fill item> of the people" for personal use and wonder how could people let a bureaucratic system run so amok that it wouldn't allow for this minor, victimless transgression of the rules.
Yet, here we are...
I've heard theyâ(TM)re including an additional 21 seconds of previously unseen footage. It will be almost like watching a whole new series!
It is in the latter sense. It is a very difficult problem in the sense that the average instance is difficult and even a reasonable partial optimization is costly.
Essentially it is NP complete to optimize the sequence of operations, and it is exponential in a really bad way. Most people couldn't write code that optimizes a sequence of more than four instructions without taking over a month to compile the program. Using state of the art techniques it is possible to optimize blocks of up to 9 or 10 instructions, which is still much below the actual numbers needed.
From reality. The median square footage of urban houses sold in the US is 2203. This means 50% of all houses sold are larger than that.
Yeah we bitch about it, and I hate it too, but 40 hours really isn't difficult.
Which is why I said: "A similar move needs to happen now, but with increase in vacation time to about a total of two months a year."
Today if we slack off, we end up no better than some random crummy place
We'll end up about average. I claim average is about OECD level, you think is about one of the poorest countries in the world, like Phillipines.
You are making the same argument that Luddites were making in England 200 hundred years ago. What happened in between is that the work week went down from 76 hours a week to 40 hrs a week. A similar move needs to happen now, but with increase in vacation time to about a total of two months a year.
Problem is that this would mean a modest drop in wages so you wouldn't be able to afford your McMansion and second SUV in the garage but we as a society just don't seem ready to give that up.
There's no way that the parent post is a Troll. He might be wrong, but he's stating a valid opinion.
Then the reply which has "wrong" to everything and is quite comparable to the OP is modded insightful.
Finally the counterpoint from dorpus which of the three posts is the only one with actual references sits at 1.
This is why the /. moderation system sucks so much.
the general public don't follow the detail of arguments.
So far we agree.
If people are debating they just think it's something for which there isn't a correct answer, only opinions.
The message needs to be given that the there is no doubt that AGW is happening.
Consider the reverse scenario, if you walk away from the fight too early it gives the laymen the impression that you do not have strong arguments. They will never follow the arguments in detail, they neither have the time nor the expertise, but as you said, they make deductions from the overall tone of the discussion.
Certainly in the 1970s when I was a kid, we knew smoking caused cancer.
Were you a bicoastal middle class relatively educated kid or were you a NASCAR watching fan from middle America? You would be surprised at the things each of these groups takes for granted that are completely the reverse in the other.
Let me explain. I'm not criticizing that the early figures AIDS were pessimistic. Where the scientific fraud lies is that when the revised data from the field started streaming in, projections were barely adjusted.
The CDC kept predicting a million HIV Americans every year, in spite of the failed prediction of previous year, and more importantly, the clear models showing that such figure was not likely to be reached. Eventually it might** have been reached, not because of the consequence of an increase in the infection rate as the CDC was claiming, but because of a decrease in the mortality rates at the other end.
** I say might, since the number of diagnosed HIV positive in America is, today, about 680K.
The rest are just predicted future innovations that turned out to be harder to achieve and less useful than predicted.
Much of the GW debate is still in the prediction phase, so there is still a lot of room for big mispredictions. Let me be clear, GW is here and it is real, I'm talking debate about the shape of the growth curve only.
Moreover in the cases of the exaggerated benefits of Artificial Intelligence scientists were making statements as if this things would come to pass automatically, not possible, potential maybe-baby benefits in the future.
I'm not saying GW is a hoax, I'm just saying scientific fraud has happened, and if you believe that it takes "magic mushrooms" to see one (like the OP by gtall claimed) you are far, far too naive.
In my opinion we are still about ten years away from educating the general public, and the only way to educate the average joe is to drive the point home over and over with facts and even further evidence just like we did with tobacco carcinogens. The science was clearly in the 60s, the average populace came around only in the 80s.
Kiddo you are much to young. Neural networks first saw the light of day as perceptrons by Rosenblatt in 1958 when it was argued they were actual models of the brain and about to lead to sentient machines. This view pretty much held until the Minsky and Papert tempered their claims in 1969. The term neural networks became the prefered name only in 1975 after Werbos introduced backpropagation.
do you have something solid outside of the "flying cars" articles?
This is no secret kiddo. There in fact even a wikipedia article on it.
I read about it in the original articles. The claims were made by the AI founders, not "flying car" popular writers. Here's an example.
First off, I think that you've kinda proven my point
You didn't even read what I said. Yes, it was doctors and physicists and paleontologists who decades after the respective theories were proposed (and initially opposed) eventually verified them.
It's always people from within the discipline that overturn consensus, not outsiders
Incorrect, the meteorite theory was proposed by Walter Alvarez who is a geologist and Luis Alvarez, a physicist. They got a lot of push back from paleontologists for the first ten years or so before the paleontologists started turning around. You will still find plenty of skeptics among the old timers by the way.
When did it begin to be widely accepted by climate scientists? The late 1950s!
In what parallel universe did that happen? GW was up in the air until sometime in the 90s. Before we didn't even have enough data to make a proper determination.
If someone starts proclaiming creationism or flat-earthism, then it's pointless debating them.
If someone argues that cows fly, indeed you are correct. You are better off ignoring them.
However with a brand new theory (in terms of relative scientific age) such as GW it is too early to give up on the public debate. In fact you were so quick to dismiss the OP that you missed the fact that the dude was pro-GW.
Sorry, but your examples are not very good. Many years had to pass before people within the field turned around and starting supporting the plate tectonics hypothesis. Same holds for the bacterial hypothesis for ulcers, the meteorite theory of dinosaur extinction, or even quantum mechanics within physics. In fact Kuhn famously observed in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" that acceptance of quantum mechanics was more or less proportional to the rate of retirement of old authorities.
what do you think would happen if you found real, solid evidence that global warming is not happening?
You would be considered a crank for the first 15 years, after which the field will slowly start turning around.
You really don't get this point-counterpoint thing about proper scientific argumentation do you?
If the WSJ arguments are invalid (which I would assume they are, given the source) the way to address them is to list chapter and verse of the opposing evidence, not to accuse someone who is not anti-GW to begin with of being an idiot.
However you must admit that if a field has gone astray one would hardly expect people from within the field to stand up and criticize it. For example, several disciplines within the humanities (mainly literary criticism and philosophy) seem to have settled on a presentation style that obfuscates rather than clarifies what is being presented.
However, you would be hard pressed to find a philosopher or literary critic of renown who would state this. For one, people are trained and selected on the basis of how well they conform to this improper standard, for another, they would have to poo-poo the work of all of its colleagues which would be a bad career move.
I'm not a GW skeptic by the way. I'm just pointing out that if it were a hoax it is precisely people like those above who we would expect to come out and expose it.
Our reward system would make any of us fabulously rich if only we could conclusively prove man-made warming is wrong. It hasn't happened.
But there have been scientific "hoaxes" before such as the predicted rate of increase of AIDS, the exaggerated benefits of Artificial Intelligence, nanotechnology and sequencing the gene.
I don't know about GW, but certainly at the time the AI hoax was full on it was career suicide to expose the fraud, and a full fifteen years after the scheme had been exposed it was still considered bad form to talk about it.
Sorry, but it is not. In fact, events by now have thoroughly refuted it. The woman was an agent and she was traded for, the two guys were innocent patsies and they had to earn their release through standard channels. The OP is right: the original story strained credulity all along and in the end it was proven false. Only in American would people not raise an eyebrow when told about this.