They should have multiple copies of their data, but that takes cash. That said, Canada seems an extremely silly location to pick for their only backup. It was probably picked because it was cheap to access.
Calling the paranoia unfounded is unjustifiable. It may not happen, as campaign promises often aren't kept. Unfortunately, it often happens that the campaign promises I most wish would be forgotten are the ones that are kept, and the ones I don't care about, or even approve of, are forgotten.
Yes, but that's a part of the consistent pattern. The Democrats use a need of the people to create enhanced government power. (Never mind whether it's a real need of the people, it just needs to be sold as one.) Then the Republicans take power and use that increased power for elitist ends. Then the Democrats take power and use a need of the people to create enhanced government power.....
At no point in the cycle is the government power decreased, despite the rhetoric sometimes used by the Republicans.
The trouble with a decentralized storage is finding the stuff. Search engines only help so much. And for this application you want to find the historical stuff, guarantee that it's not fake, and hide where it is coming from. Not an easy problem.
I was wondering about that too. I would have thought Denmark or Norway would be a better choice. Neither is going to be very interested in censoring English language stuff. Iceland would be still better, but there would be connection issues.
They also realize that only the wealthy are going to be able to afford to challenge the chain of evidence...and they leave them alone anyway.
Saying the police don't ask for this is not substantiated by past history, though those doing the asking tend to be from the very upper ranks of the police. Perhaps the rank feel differently.
You are overstating the case. Language is a component of Strong Social AI, but not the entire thing, or even most of it.
What I find most interesting about it is that this is, or rather could be developed into, a sort of maximal universal grammar, capable of expressing any thought that can be expressed in any (current) human language. It probably wouldn't need to be trained on all languages, but it would need, in addtion to English, Japanese, and Korean, various Eskimo dialects, the Koisan languages, Arabic, Iranian, Sanscrit, Latvian, Basque, Magyar, a few polynesian and melanesian languages, and probably several others I haven't happened to think of. And it would need to learn each of those languages well enough to master the poetic forms.
Yes, but this could be seen as a vindication of Chomsky, even if they haven't quite got the Universal Grammar yet. (They'd need to cross reference a lot more languages.) I wonder if it could be externalized as an actual language rather than as just a map of neural net weighings and activations. The basic universal human language.
It probably can't be externalized, but the idea that it MIGHT be possible is certainly an interesting one. It seems that every existing language has things that are difficult to say in it.
Satori is a very bad example work for translation. Its translation should really only be attempted by a Buddhist meditator, and they generally refuse to attempt to translate it, but only to describe it. It's less precise, but it's like trying to translate the word relativity in the context of physics. No simple translation is going to work, but that's not a linguistic problem.
That said, the basic premise has a lot going for it. Languages tend to contain a LOT of cultural short-hand and metaphors that aren't even noticed by native speakers, but which mean nothing to someone from a different linguistic background. Even words that have a precise sensory reference tend to have different bounds. Even colors.
So is it more like English to Scots English (I don't mean Scots Gaelic) or like English to Frisian? Or possibly Dutch to German? All of those cases pretty much match your description, but a couple of them are close enough that someone could pretty much switch from one to the other in a few weeks.
Depends on context. I *think* it would be more like "naah" in a context where it was clear that something particular was being avoided the doing of. Clearly the Icelandic "nenn" doesn't contain much context itself, so it must also rely on the context in which it is found for the interpretation.
That said, I know NO Icelandic at all. This is all inference. And "naah" would be an unlikely word to be nounified. So I've got a lot of uncertainty here.
Both sides were cheating in this election. I couldn't say which cheated worse. What I can say is that the Supreme Court wouldn't look favorably upon the challenge. It doesn't really matter that it's valid, what matters is that it's useless.
And based on the prior instance, after they rule, they'll seal the evidence so that nobody can see it for the next 50 years.
It's truly amazing the number of high cost non-useful weapons systems/platforms the US has been buying recently. I don't know whether the problem is bleeding edge or that the contractor gets paid even if it doesn't work.
Given a specific selection of searches a putatively unbiased panel said the results were biased. Some of the serches were: "Minimum wage"... liberal bias "does gun control reduce crime"... conservative bias "financial regulation"... non-partisan "federal reserve"... non-partisan Why do I feel accurate reporting of web pages would produce a that kind of bias? This seems to be a non-story tricked up to try to appear shocking.
Well, Snopes doesn't seem to me a good place to look for truth. Their tests often make unwarranted assumptions that they don't test. I got the feel when I read their reports that they had decided what the answer would be before they ran their tests.
OTOH, perhaps I looked at a sample that just happened to be biased.
Journalistic integrity, where it existed, was ruined by the wave of media mergers that began to be really pushed during the 1960's. Now even the local papers tend to be owned by a chain that determines what news they push. Editors have basically lost control of content, and are often limited to style and positioning. This is also happening in book publishing, but that is countered a bit (not much) by things like Lulu, and because the consolidation is a lot slower, and because since the books don't carry rapidly changing information, they give less immediate leverage.
Journalistic integrity was always rare, but in the 1960's anyone with sense could generally tell what the story was, as the news was rarely lies, but merely slanted accurate news. Some news was suppressed entirely, however, and that happens less now.
It's not that everyone that racist is bad at math, but that they don't apply it properly in certain contexts. I would go so far as to say that unconscious emotional biases widely keep people from noticing evidence contradicting their emotional biases.
When I say unconscious, what I mean is emotional biases that you really aren't aware of. I had this brutally forced to my attention in the early twenties when I was considering marrying a black woman. Irrational fear welled up, which justified itself in patently irrational reasons. I had not previously been aware that I was at all racist, but since then I've never been able to doubt it. I can often look at particular fears I have (usually in retrospect) and say "that was irrational, and due to emotional bias", but knowing that the fear is foolish and irrational doesn't usually help that much. Of course, if I had a strong reason to do something, that might overcome the fear, but it doesn't make it go away.
I'm sorry, but you should more properly have said: The extremist controlled media (and yes, I mean extremist in the most derogatory sense) has for years cherry picked content to frame arguments and poison the well. This has been done to promote the extremist agenda, which is completely anti-American. They do so with culture as much as politics. Those two tactics of Sophistry that have been around for at least 2500 years but are very effective w...
It would have been just as true. And it wouldn't have falsely implied that only one side was doing it.
For some reason I feel compelled to note that the parent comment was written by an anonymous coward, and to wonder if the stories about "fake news" is inspiring more of it. There's no way to check the story, there's no author. It just appeared. Why believe it? Why doubt it?
Perhaps the parent post is a capsule summary of why people fall for fake news. It appears just as if it were real, and there's no way to check it. If you don't trust the official media, there's no way to refute that story. That that story itself casts aspersion on the media tends to make people who already doubt the media more likely to believe it, but it adds nothing to it's factuality. It could be true, or it could be a total fabrication...and many people find uncertainty a painful state to be in.
It depends on social context. In some areas it's possible to have lots of people sharing ideas that end up better than any single one of them would be...but you've got to be able to test the ideas, and you've got to test them. So, e.g., programmers can share ideas widely and their ideas about programming improve. Actors and share ideas, and their ideas about acting MAY improve. (The tests aren't as good.) Commentators can share their ideas, and the ideas get worse, because there's no reasonable test.
OK, but 1) They haven't done the experiment yet, and 2) I'd reverse that, if it changed the orbit, it generated thrust...so next we would need to figure out HOW it generated thrust. (I don't think the current theory will stand up to close examination, but I'm certainly not the expert to trust.)
Slashdot Mirror
They should have multiple copies of their data, but that takes cash. That said, Canada seems an extremely silly location to pick for their only backup. It was probably picked because it was cheap to access.
Calling the paranoia unfounded is unjustifiable. It may not happen, as campaign promises often aren't kept. Unfortunately, it often happens that the campaign promises I most wish would be forgotten are the ones that are kept, and the ones I don't care about, or even approve of, are forgotten.
Yes, but that's a part of the consistent pattern. The Democrats use a need of the people to create enhanced government power. (Never mind whether it's a real need of the people, it just needs to be sold as one.) Then the Republicans take power and use that increased power for elitist ends. Then the Democrats take power and use a need of the people to create enhanced government power.....
At no point in the cycle is the government power decreased, despite the rhetoric sometimes used by the Republicans.
The trouble with a decentralized storage is finding the stuff. Search engines only help so much. And for this application you want to find the historical stuff, guarantee that it's not fake, and hide where it is coming from. Not an easy problem.
I was wondering about that too. I would have thought Denmark or Norway would be a better choice. Neither is going to be very interested in censoring English language stuff. Iceland would be still better, but there would be connection issues.
3rd or 4th, but more extensively. That was enabled by cellphones.
They also realize that only the wealthy are going to be able to afford to challenge the chain of evidence...and they leave them alone anyway.
Saying the police don't ask for this is not substantiated by past history, though those doing the asking tend to be from the very upper ranks of the police. Perhaps the rank feel differently.
Don't worry, if 48 organizations already have access, anyone will be able to get access.
Isn't this the place that arrested its systems administrator because he wanted to keep the system password secret?
You are overstating the case. Language is a component of Strong Social AI, but not the entire thing, or even most of it.
What I find most interesting about it is that this is, or rather could be developed into, a sort of maximal universal grammar, capable of expressing any thought that can be expressed in any (current) human language. It probably wouldn't need to be trained on all languages, but it would need, in addtion to English, Japanese, and Korean, various Eskimo dialects, the Koisan languages, Arabic, Iranian, Sanscrit, Latvian, Basque, Magyar, a few polynesian and melanesian languages, and probably several others I haven't happened to think of. And it would need to learn each of those languages well enough to master the poetic forms.
But the thing to notice is the rate at which machine translation is improving. A few years ago it was a joke.
Yes, but this could be seen as a vindication of Chomsky, even if they haven't quite got the Universal Grammar yet. (They'd need to cross reference a lot more languages.) I wonder if it could be externalized as an actual language rather than as just a map of neural net weighings and activations. The basic universal human language.
It probably can't be externalized, but the idea that it MIGHT be possible is certainly an interesting one. It seems that every existing language has things that are difficult to say in it.
Satori is a very bad example work for translation. Its translation should really only be attempted by a Buddhist meditator, and they generally refuse to attempt to translate it, but only to describe it. It's less precise, but it's like trying to translate the word relativity in the context of physics. No simple translation is going to work, but that's not a linguistic problem.
That said, the basic premise has a lot going for it. Languages tend to contain a LOT of cultural short-hand and metaphors that aren't even noticed by native speakers, but which mean nothing to someone from a different linguistic background. Even words that have a precise sensory reference tend to have different bounds. Even colors.
So is it more like English to Scots English (I don't mean Scots Gaelic) or like English to Frisian? Or possibly Dutch to German? All of those cases pretty much match your description, but a couple of them are close enough that someone could pretty much switch from one to the other in a few weeks.
Depends on context. I *think* it would be more like "naah" in a context where it was clear that something particular was being avoided the doing of. Clearly the Icelandic "nenn" doesn't contain much context itself, so it must also rely on the context in which it is found for the interpretation.
That said, I know NO Icelandic at all. This is all inference. And "naah" would be an unlikely word to be nounified. So I've got a lot of uncertainty here.
Both sides were cheating in this election. I couldn't say which cheated worse. What I can say is that the Supreme Court wouldn't look favorably upon the challenge. It doesn't really matter that it's valid, what matters is that it's useless.
And based on the prior instance, after they rule, they'll seal the evidence so that nobody can see it for the next 50 years.
It's truly amazing the number of high cost non-useful weapons systems/platforms the US has been buying recently. I don't know whether the problem is bleeding edge or that the contractor gets paid even if it doesn't work.
Given a specific selection of searches a putatively unbiased panel said the results were biased. Some of the serches were: ... liberal bias ... conservative bias ... non-partisan ... non-partisan
"Minimum wage"
"does gun control reduce crime"
"financial regulation"
"federal reserve"
Why do I feel accurate reporting of web pages would produce a that kind of bias? This seems to be a non-story tricked up to try to appear shocking.
Well, Snopes doesn't seem to me a good place to look for truth. Their tests often make unwarranted assumptions that they don't test. I got the feel when I read their reports that they had decided what the answer would be before they ran their tests.
OTOH, perhaps I looked at a sample that just happened to be biased.
Journalistic integrity, where it existed, was ruined by the wave of media mergers that began to be really pushed during the 1960's. Now even the local papers tend to be owned by a chain that determines what news they push. Editors have basically lost control of content, and are often limited to style and positioning. This is also happening in book publishing, but that is countered a bit (not much) by things like Lulu, and because the consolidation is a lot slower, and because since the books don't carry rapidly changing information, they give less immediate leverage.
Journalistic integrity was always rare, but in the 1960's anyone with sense could generally tell what the story was, as the news was rarely lies, but merely slanted accurate news. Some news was suppressed entirely, however, and that happens less now.
It's not that everyone that racist is bad at math, but that they don't apply it properly in certain contexts. I would go so far as to say that unconscious emotional biases widely keep people from noticing evidence contradicting their emotional biases.
When I say unconscious, what I mean is emotional biases that you really aren't aware of. I had this brutally forced to my attention in the early twenties when I was considering marrying a black woman. Irrational fear welled up, which justified itself in patently irrational reasons. I had not previously been aware that I was at all racist, but since then I've never been able to doubt it. I can often look at particular fears I have (usually in retrospect) and say "that was irrational, and due to emotional bias", but knowing that the fear is foolish and irrational doesn't usually help that much. Of course, if I had a strong reason to do something, that might overcome the fear, but it doesn't make it go away.
I'm sorry, but you should more properly have said:
The extremist controlled media (and yes, I mean extremist in the most derogatory sense) has for years cherry picked content to frame arguments and poison the well. This has been done to promote the extremist agenda, which is completely anti-American. They do so with culture as much as politics. Those two tactics of Sophistry that have been around for at least 2500 years but are very effective w...
It would have been just as true. And it wouldn't have falsely implied that only one side was doing it.
For some reason I feel compelled to note that the parent comment was written by an anonymous coward, and to wonder if the stories about "fake news" is inspiring more of it. There's no way to check the story, there's no author. It just appeared. Why believe it? Why doubt it?
Perhaps the parent post is a capsule summary of why people fall for fake news. It appears just as if it were real, and there's no way to check it. If you don't trust the official media, there's no way to refute that story. That that story itself casts aspersion on the media tends to make people who already doubt the media more likely to believe it, but it adds nothing to it's factuality. It could be true, or it could be a total fabrication...and many people find uncertainty a painful state to be in.
It depends on social context. In some areas it's possible to have lots of people sharing ideas that end up better than any single one of them would be...but you've got to be able to test the ideas, and you've got to test them. So, e.g., programmers can share ideas widely and their ideas about programming improve. Actors and share ideas, and their ideas about acting MAY improve. (The tests aren't as good.) Commentators can share their ideas, and the ideas get worse, because there's no reasonable test.
OK, but
1) They haven't done the experiment yet, and
2) I'd reverse that, if it changed the orbit, it generated thrust...so next we would need to figure out HOW it generated thrust. (I don't think the current theory will stand up to close examination, but I'm certainly not the expert to trust.)