I could be perfectly capable of understanding your reasoning behind your consensus model of choice but;
a) I may disagree with your base assumptions
b) I may disagree with your interpretation of the observations
c) The problems unresolved by your theory are still begging.
Take the actual statement - "The universe began with a huge explosion"
What if you're a proponent of the 'Big Bounce' cyclic theory... then the universe exists before & after (in some form) of every periodic Big Bang... So remember cyclic theorists - just say No.
Unfortunately not all atheists are as peaceable as you might hope. Check out the Great Purge orchestrated by Stalin - check his wikipedia entry under religion. Feel free to dig further and then feel free to realise than humankind is full of agressors - regardless of religious beliefs.
Luke 9:29 While he was praying, his face changed its appearance, and his clothes became dazzling white.
And a similiar example from Judaism / Christianity where a prolonged encounter with God caused Moses to glow so bright the Israelites asked him to place a veil over his face...
Exodus 34:29 When Moses went down from Mount Sinai carrying the Ten Commandments, his face was shining because he had been speaking with the LORD; but he did not know it.
The implication is that he has to release his code because he licences the use of the binaries to his customers (otherwise he's contributing to a 'social problem'). It's regular (non-free) business practice. His code isn't GPL - and he's paying me to debug it and write more code (which is great - I'm gainfully employed) non of which is GPL - which is fine by me.
To clarify - I am talking about an employer that releases the binaries (not the code) to paying customers.
I just said that if you release it, then you should not obstruct those various freedoms
But what do you base this imperative upon? Where the customer agrees to a contract where he can have internal use of the binaries, but he doesn't get the code (whether or not it goes into escrow or some other arrangement is another matter) - I fail to see how the FSF can reasonably classify that a 'social problem'.
I can appreciate having open source has advantages to furthering collaboration and community involvement - and businesses are free to choose if they utilise such products - but to call the ability to release binaries without source 'a social problem' is where zealotry enters the scene.
But you're right in the sense that it's not communism - my mistake... but it is a form of socialism.
The social problem is when an individual or corporation decides to release its software in a manner that obstructs people from using, modifying, or sharing the software
Why pick on software (to release to the masses in an "unrestricted" fashion) - why not information in general? Isn't software just information really? And then post your bank account details to show you stand behind your principles.
I'm sorry - but I'm sure people like you have their head screwed on backwards. Just because it can be released to the world - doesn't mean it has to be or otherwise be regarded as a social problem.
For the free software movement, however, non-free software is a social problem, and moving to free software is the solution.
...the enemy is proprietary (non-free) software. But we want people to know we stand for freedom,...
Sounds like zealot speak to me.
By their reasoning - my employer - that pays me to write/debug their software, keeping me gainfully employed and feeding and educating my children - is causing a social problem by doing so? It's his software...he paid for it - why should he be made to release it for free? (And don't say the zealots wouldn't if they could - re-read the rhetoric above if you're thinking otherwise)
They want to push their brand of freedom onto the software industry. But recognise it for what it is...
AFAIK - The best explaination has always been rockets,
A theory completely supported by their first recorded observation being in 1885.
Jeepers! How does the parent get modded troll!?
He's responding to the GP's claim (& the slashdot summary) that the best explanation is rockets.
Let's go ahead and suppress the 'inconvenient' facts shall we?
& BTW - check out the photo in wikipedia. Given the height of said clouds - they're huge! I have trouble believing that's all rocket plume up there...
I agree - but so is running particle simulation software on today's architecture. Sure it would be better if we could have have a (parallel) processor per particle calculating all the forces impacting upon it down to planck length precision. But the point is with our limited multiprocessing power - we can achieve very good results in a more or less in a timely fashion.
My main point being - if we had the algorithm - it could be proven on today's architecture. After all - you can demonstrate a learning architecture with just matchboxes & Jelly beans and that's damned slow (but tasty!)
Take the person/picture problem and reduce the picture down to 50x50 32bit colour pixels... that's not really a lot of data to process to get a result. Training takes longer of course... but you can at least prove your algorithm within a reasonable timeframe (your PhD thesis perhaps);)
Probably nothing significant, seeing as you can emulate exactly what a digital memristor does with 6 transistors
Exactly right.
It's not a hardware breakthrough that'll create a true AI - it's an algorithm breakthrough that's required. Faster computers might be nice - but it'll always comes down to the algorithm.
And actually the sooner we create Skynet - the better the chance we have to beat it. Because if we wait too long - that super fast hardware it will be running will could make it too hard to beat.;)
Slashdot Mirror
I could be perfectly capable of understanding your reasoning behind your consensus model of choice but;
a) I may disagree with your base assumptions
b) I may disagree with your interpretation of the observations
c) The problems unresolved by your theory are still begging.
Take the actual statement - "The universe began with a huge explosion"
What if you're a proponent of the 'Big Bounce' cyclic theory... then the universe exists before & after (in some form) of every periodic Big Bang... So remember cyclic theorists - just say No.
Unfortunately not all atheists are as peaceable as you might hope. Check out the Great Purge orchestrated by Stalin - check his wikipedia entry under religion. Feel free to dig further and then feel free to realise than humankind is full of agressors - regardless of religious beliefs.
The Transfiguration of Jesus
Luke 9:29 While he was praying, his face changed its appearance, and his clothes became dazzling white.
And a similiar example from Judaism / Christianity where a prolonged encounter with God caused Moses to glow so bright the Israelites asked him to place a veil over his face...
Exodus 34:29 When Moses went down from Mount Sinai carrying the Ten Commandments, his face was shining because he had been speaking with the LORD; but he did not know it.
And interestingly - Humans actually do emit light.
science is not in the bussiness of proof
So what is it in the business of?
Excluding mathematics, science is generally in the business of disproof.
Just don't do it near any air pockets unless you want it shaken, not stirred.
The implication is that he has to release his code because he licences the use of the binaries to his customers (otherwise he's contributing to a 'social problem'). It's regular (non-free) business practice. His code isn't GPL - and he's paying me to debug it and write more code (which is great - I'm gainfully employed) non of which is GPL - which is fine by me.
I just said that if you release it, then you should not obstruct those various freedoms
But what do you base this imperative upon? Where the customer agrees to a contract where he can have internal use of the binaries, but he doesn't get the code (whether or not it goes into escrow or some other arrangement is another matter) - I fail to see how the FSF can reasonably classify that a 'social problem'.
I can appreciate having open source has advantages to furthering collaboration and community involvement - and businesses are free to choose if they utilise such products - but to call the ability to release binaries without source 'a social problem' is where zealotry enters the scene.
The social problem is when an individual or corporation decides to release its software in a manner that obstructs people from using, modifying, or sharing the software
Why pick on software (to release to the masses in an "unrestricted" fashion) - why not information in general? Isn't software just information really? And then post your bank account details to show you stand behind your principles.
I'm sorry - but I'm sure people like you have their head screwed on backwards. Just because it can be released to the world - doesn't mean it has to be or otherwise be regarded as a social problem.
Seriously, ad hominem attacks are fine when you are 12 and do not know any better; oh wait, this is slashdot, you probably are 12.
So I guess I know your age then ;)
From FSF
For the free software movement, however, non-free software is a social problem, and moving to free software is the solution.
Sounds like zealot speak to me.
By their reasoning - my employer - that pays me to write/debug their software, keeping me gainfully employed and feeding and educating my children - is causing a social problem by doing so? It's his software...he paid for it - why should he be made to release it for free? (And don't say the zealots wouldn't if they could - re-read the rhetoric above if you're thinking otherwise)
They want to push their brand of freedom onto the software industry. But recognise it for what it is...
It's not freedom - it's communism.
A theory completely supported by their first recorded observation being in 1885.
Jeepers! How does the parent get modded troll!? He's responding to the GP's claim (& the slashdot summary) that the best explanation is rockets. Let's go ahead and suppress the 'inconvenient' facts shall we? & BTW - check out the photo in wikipedia. Given the height of said clouds - they're huge! I have trouble believing that's all rocket plume up there...
it's like trying to fit a square into a circle.
I agree - but so is running particle simulation software on today's architecture. Sure it would be better if we could have have a (parallel) processor per particle calculating all the forces impacting upon it down to planck length precision. But the point is with our limited multiprocessing power - we can achieve very good results in a more or less in a timely fashion.
;)
My main point being - if we had the algorithm - it could be proven on today's architecture. After all - you can demonstrate a learning architecture with just matchboxes & Jelly beans and that's damned slow (but tasty!)
Take the person/picture problem and reduce the picture down to 50x50 32bit colour pixels... that's not really a lot of data to process to get a result. Training takes longer of course... but you can at least prove your algorithm within a reasonable timeframe (your PhD thesis perhaps)
Probably nothing significant, seeing as you can emulate exactly what a digital memristor does with 6 transistors
Exactly right.
;)
It's not a hardware breakthrough that'll create a true AI - it's an algorithm breakthrough that's required. Faster computers might be nice - but it'll always comes down to the algorithm.
And actually the sooner we create Skynet - the better the chance we have to beat it. Because if we wait too long - that super fast hardware it will be running will could make it too hard to beat.