Would a thousand copies of a change directory utility be one project or a thousand?
Would a thousand line tightly-written program that has a million users be considered equal to a thousand line badly-written program with five users including the programmer's mother?
Does a verbose language get counted the same way as a clean language?
Does a language that inspires errors and thus fixes count as being as active as a language that inspires trust?
How would you differentiate fixes from upgrades?
These are serious questions. You could develop an AI to examine language characteristics, type of use,and unique addresses of downloads, but I see no obvious way to use any such metric and no serious possibility of such a metric being accepted. You'd get just as many arguments.
We all look at metrics to tell us something profound. In truth, you're going to get a better answer from CowboyNeil.
No, treason is a specific charge. He was not tried on a charge of treason. And, as the Birmingham Six can testify, being found guilty isn't the same as being guilty.
His doctor classified him as such and prohibited deployment. This was published by the military at the time. Don't blame me if you don't follow events.
It is an accomplishment. We have a very short binary tree of experiments, each of which will subdivide the possible universe in half. Five tests means you end up identifying 31/32 potential realities as impossible.
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, is a set containing the truth.
I have no interest in being a persuadable. Reality is objective, so independent of any observer and any means, places, times and contexts of observing.
That reality may have strings, it might not. You do not find out by talking, you find out by looking. Science can benefit from maths and maths is a branch of philosophy. That does not make idle gossip science. And that is all "persuasion" ever is. Spare it for the unicorns.
Current whole brain simulators can manage a million neurons at 1/30000th speed.
Since we don't need the whole brain, just the region dealing in problem solving, a million neurons should be adequate. Nor do we need it to be accurate - if all we want is an abstract model that defines a group of problems different types of bird can solve, we need it to be no more accurate than necessary to classify problem solving structures. It doesn't need to reproduce them perfectly.
Yes, they do. People make junk commodities to sell in exchange for something they want. It's the basis of all trade that you exchange low value for high value. That is a use. Indirect, yes, but still a use.
Stop giving the kids money and they'll stop making the goods, because then the goods will indeed have no use.
Crows have no interest in anything you could supply. You don't speak crow, assuming they have language, so you can't barter.
Most animals do. Humans are pathetic, worse than chimpanzees in some regards.
Social skills are something that emerge when resources are plentiful, although you'd have plenty of resources more of the time with better social skills. As such, you'd expect social skills to be subject to evolutionary pressures. They aren't. Evolution doesn't function on emergent phenomena.
(Chimpanzees occasionally reach a true stone age, complete with cooked food. They lose the skills as easily as they acquire them.)
I don't differentiate you from the other bullies. Note "other". Verbal and textual abuse are never acceptable, and that includes the abuse in the post I'm referring to.
I doubt you, or any other troll, will read any of this, or care even if you do. Why should you? If nothing matters and nothing exists, then netiquette just means better quality nothing.
Australian magpies are anarchistic punks with an eye phobia. They'd be great CEOs.
They attack without mercy, they will murder baseball caps (although I have some sympathy there), but if you paint eyes on things, they'll run off.
The kea is nowhere near as vicious. It's more of a thief/highway robber, that will rip your car tyres apart unless you feed it.
Intelligence-wise, I suspect the kea is smarter. The kakapo is truly the dunce, as demonstrated when Stephen Fry remade Last Chance to See. They look great, they just don't have the nonce.
Of course, those two are from those volcanic bits over to the side.
In Australia, the palm cockatoo has a larger brain/body ratio than any primate but humans. I don't know what the ratio is when you exclude motor neurons, because that's a much more important figure. I suspect it'll remain comparable.
...have been observed to make original tools (ie: not derivative from prior direct or indirect experience or observation) for original problems not encountered in the wild.
This creates some interesting problems, not least for those people who insist all human creativity is derivative, never inventive. However, that's off topic.
We also know African Grey parrots can understand the concept of zero and basic mathematics.
We now have a better understanding of which birds have which sorts of intelligence. It would seem logical, if it hasn't already been done, to use the 9.1T, 13T and next-gen MRI scanners to identify specific structures that might relate to such intelligence.
Currently, the "whole brain" simulators that exist can't simulate whole human brains. They could certainly simulate the relevant structures in an avian brain, though.
Once we know what those structures actually do, we can devise experiments via proper models. If the simulator says the brain can learn X with a level of difficulty of Y, you have an experiment. You can study a random assortment of crows or whatever and see if, on average, they do indeed learn X with a difficulty of Y.
In that case, your model is good enough to describe, define and parameterize non-human intelligence. Which means you can start to do useful things with animal intelligence studies.
Legally, Manning did not commit treason, nor was he ever accused of it. He'd have won the case if he had, because American military law protects him on many different points.
Snowden spoke of nothing he was not entitled to speak about, under American whistleblower laws.
The thing about honour is that some of us are concerned about the act rather than the spelling. It would be good if those who felt concerned understood what the it was.
Yes, but you can't compare apples and urang utangs.
If the assertion is that pound is not mass, I do not have to prove that every definition fits that. It's the difference between "for all" and "there exists". That's why pound the currency isn't a useful sense. If I can show a sense exists that is indeed a mass, not a weight, then the post I replied to is wrong because it denied such a sense existed.
Your post shows their sense also exists, but that doesn't matter because I never asserted an exclusive sense, only the presence of a sense. Do you see the difference?
The second is out of date. Caesium is a horribly outdated method of measuring time. Modern atomic clocks, using strontium quantum gasses, are roughly ten orders of magnitude better.
But because of how the second is defined, you can't use a more accurate clock. The errors in caesium clocks are part of the definition. Remove the error and you're not measuring seconds even if you're measuring more accurately.
It's probably better to use fundamental units as the starting point, or at least something close, rather than arbitrary objects in nature.
Ideally, it shouldn't matter if things get measured more accurately, you won't break anything.
If you can't do that, then the definitions should be aiming at the ten orders more accurate results that can be obtained.
As for constants, they should be justified geometrically, kept simple, or defined in terms of underlying physics.
Knowledge is best represented as a sphere contained inside a larger sphere representing the things we know we don't know. This, in turn, is inside an infinite hypercube of the things we don't know we don't know.
To double how much you understand requires more and more effort. The volume of knowledge needed to achieve a level of understanding goes up with the cube of the understanding, in this model.
This ignores the loss to the system caused by entropy, otherwise known as inflation. Things get more expensive because that's how life works.
So in order to maintain the same pace of development, you have to increase investment accordingly.
Up to a point. Whenever there's a major breakthrough, there's a massive deflation in costs.
A theory is just a model of a subset of reality, not reality itself.
You discover a theory by finding a hitherto unknown model that represents a well-defined subset of reality at a specific resolution. That representation is something you discovered. You found it.
As long as it isn't falsified, is the simplest known model for that subset, and is useful, it'll be credited to you.
As long as all that is true and it's the most expansive and/or highest resolution theory that includes that region, you'll be given recognition for it.
If that's true and it holds up for 10-20 years, unchallenged, as both the most expansive and the highest resolution, you'll be given a major prize for it.
Slashdot Mirror
There are many ways of measuring popularity.
Would a thousand copies of a change directory utility be one project or a thousand?
Would a thousand line tightly-written program that has a million users be considered equal to a thousand line badly-written program with five users including the programmer's mother?
Does a verbose language get counted the same way as a clean language?
Does a language that inspires errors and thus fixes count as being as active as a language that inspires trust?
How would you differentiate fixes from upgrades?
These are serious questions. You could develop an AI to examine language characteristics, type of use,and unique addresses of downloads, but I see no obvious way to use any such metric and no serious possibility of such a metric being accepted. You'd get just as many arguments.
We all look at metrics to tell us something profound. In truth, you're going to get a better answer from CowboyNeil.
No, treason is a specific charge. He was not tried on a charge of treason. And, as the Birmingham Six can testify, being found guilty isn't the same as being guilty.
His doctor classified him as such and prohibited deployment. This was published by the military at the time. Don't blame me if you don't follow events.
You are conflating many different definitions and assuming a grandiose revelation.
All you reveal is that you're an idiot.
The definition of psi is pound-force, not pound-mass.
These are not, repeat not, the same thing although both called a pound.
I have no further time to waste on your ignorance of imperial units. Or, indeed, your ignorance in general.
It is an accomplishment. We have a very short binary tree of experiments, each of which will subdivide the possible universe in half. Five tests means you end up identifying 31/32 potential realities as impossible.
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, is a set containing the truth.
I have no interest in being a persuadable. Reality is objective, so independent of any observer and any means, places, times and contexts of observing.
That reality may have strings, it might not. You do not find out by talking, you find out by looking. Science can benefit from maths and maths is a branch of philosophy. That does not make idle gossip science. And that is all "persuasion" ever is. Spare it for the unicorns.
Current whole brain simulators can manage a million neurons at 1/30000th speed.
Since we don't need the whole brain, just the region dealing in problem solving, a million neurons should be adequate. Nor do we need it to be accurate - if all we want is an abstract model that defines a group of problems different types of bird can solve, we need it to be no more accurate than necessary to classify problem solving structures. It doesn't need to reproduce them perfectly.
Yes, they do. People make junk commodities to sell in exchange for something they want. It's the basis of all trade that you exchange low value for high value. That is a use. Indirect, yes, but still a use.
Stop giving the kids money and they'll stop making the goods, because then the goods will indeed have no use.
Crows have no interest in anything you could supply. You don't speak crow, assuming they have language, so you can't barter.
Jealousy will get you nowhere. Unless you're in politics.
Why would they want to make one?
They have no use for laser printers. And they probably wouldn't be interested in making anything for someone who was insulting them.
Birds have a sense of magnetic fields. You're much more likely to see them invent an extension to their natural navigation system.
Most animals do. Humans are pathetic, worse than chimpanzees in some regards.
Social skills are something that emerge when resources are plentiful, although you'd have plenty of resources more of the time with better social skills. As such, you'd expect social skills to be subject to evolutionary pressures. They aren't. Evolution doesn't function on emergent phenomena.
(Chimpanzees occasionally reach a true stone age, complete with cooked food. They lose the skills as easily as they acquire them.)
Interesting comparison. Some birds do divide labour. They're called the successful species. Some don't, they're called extinct.
Stalin didn't divide labour, quite the opposite. His entire philosophy was about eliminating the divisions. Division is a capitalist idea.
Division of labor started about 12,000-14,000 years earlier.
I don't differentiate you from the other bullies. Note "other". Verbal and textual abuse are never acceptable, and that includes the abuse in the post I'm referring to.
Things to do:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf...
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/games...
(B1 applies to all Internet posts)
Things not to do:
https://groups.google.com/foru...
I doubt you, or any other troll, will read any of this, or care even if you do. Why should you? If nothing matters and nothing exists, then netiquette just means better quality nothing.
Australian magpies are anarchistic punks with an eye phobia. They'd be great CEOs.
They attack without mercy, they will murder baseball caps (although I have some sympathy there), but if you paint eyes on things, they'll run off.
The kea is nowhere near as vicious. It's more of a thief/highway robber, that will rip your car tyres apart unless you feed it.
Intelligence-wise, I suspect the kea is smarter. The kakapo is truly the dunce, as demonstrated when Stephen Fry remade Last Chance to See. They look great, they just don't have the nonce.
Of course, those two are from those volcanic bits over to the side.
In Australia, the palm cockatoo has a larger brain/body ratio than any primate but humans. I don't know what the ratio is when you exclude motor neurons, because that's a much more important figure. I suspect it'll remain comparable.
...have been observed to make original tools (ie: not derivative from prior direct or indirect experience or observation) for original problems not encountered in the wild.
This creates some interesting problems, not least for those people who insist all human creativity is derivative, never inventive. However, that's off topic.
We also know African Grey parrots can understand the concept of zero and basic mathematics.
We now have a better understanding of which birds have which sorts of intelligence. It would seem logical, if it hasn't already been done, to use the 9.1T, 13T and next-gen MRI scanners to identify specific structures that might relate to such intelligence.
Currently, the "whole brain" simulators that exist can't simulate whole human brains. They could certainly simulate the relevant structures in an avian brain, though.
Once we know what those structures actually do, we can devise experiments via proper models. If the simulator says the brain can learn X with a level of difficulty of Y, you have an experiment. You can study a random assortment of crows or whatever and see if, on average, they do indeed learn X with a difficulty of Y.
In that case, your model is good enough to describe, define and parameterize non-human intelligence. Which means you can start to do useful things with animal intelligence studies.
And UBI isn't free money. Professor Hawking explained it all.
They were using Opportunity to align their death ray.
Legally, Manning did not commit treason, nor was he ever accused of it. He'd have won the case if he had, because American military law protects him on many different points.
Snowden spoke of nothing he was not entitled to speak about, under American whistleblower laws.
The thing about honour is that some of us are concerned about the act rather than the spelling. It would be good if those who felt concerned understood what the it was.
No, they really didn't, and no, they really don't.
Proof by assertion isn't a useful technique.
Yes, but you can't compare apples and urang utangs.
If the assertion is that pound is not mass, I do not have to prove that every definition fits that. It's the difference between "for all" and "there exists". That's why pound the currency isn't a useful sense. If I can show a sense exists that is indeed a mass, not a weight, then the post I replied to is wrong because it denied such a sense existed.
Your post shows their sense also exists, but that doesn't matter because I never asserted an exclusive sense, only the presence of a sense. Do you see the difference?
Your sig? Agreed.
My post? It's fine, which is why you're limited to harassing people who hold different politics, via fallacy by assertion.
The second is out of date. Caesium is a horribly outdated method of measuring time. Modern atomic clocks, using strontium quantum gasses, are roughly ten orders of magnitude better.
But because of how the second is defined, you can't use a more accurate clock. The errors in caesium clocks are part of the definition. Remove the error and you're not measuring seconds even if you're measuring more accurately.
It's probably better to use fundamental units as the starting point, or at least something close, rather than arbitrary objects in nature.
Ideally, it shouldn't matter if things get measured more accurately, you won't break anything.
If you can't do that, then the definitions should be aiming at the ten orders more accurate results that can be obtained.
As for constants, they should be justified geometrically, kept simple, or defined in terms of underlying physics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
It is exactly 0.45359237 kilograms
A moment is defined as kg.m^2
The new definition is thus a unitary moment per unit area.
Knowledge is best represented as a sphere contained inside a larger sphere representing the things we know we don't know. This, in turn, is inside an infinite hypercube of the things we don't know we don't know.
To double how much you understand requires more and more effort. The volume of knowledge needed to achieve a level of understanding goes up with the cube of the understanding, in this model.
This ignores the loss to the system caused by entropy, otherwise known as inflation. Things get more expensive because that's how life works.
So in order to maintain the same pace of development, you have to increase investment accordingly.
Up to a point. Whenever there's a major breakthrough, there's a massive deflation in costs.
A theory is just a model of a subset of reality, not reality itself.
You discover a theory by finding a hitherto unknown model that represents a well-defined subset of reality at a specific resolution. That representation is something you discovered. You found it.
As long as it isn't falsified, is the simplest known model for that subset, and is useful, it'll be credited to you.
As long as all that is true and it's the most expansive and/or highest resolution theory that includes that region, you'll be given recognition for it.
If that's true and it holds up for 10-20 years, unchallenged, as both the most expansive and the highest resolution, you'll be given a major prize for it.