"Stupid people do stupid things that cause them to die sooner."
And poor people are stupid?
The 'aim' of most of the people in the current semi free market system is the same as any business. Balance customer (patient) service against earning a living.
IOW, somebody's profits are more important than your life and health.
What's so strange and difficult about the fact that the health of the citizenry is one of a republic's most valuable assets?
Dude, your passage doesn't actually say anything about where the ocean and atmosphere came from. It just claims that God pushed some water around a bit.
If you're going to vest your credibility in a mythological text, you should at least read it carefully.
And how much productivity blown off today, as people try to figure out how to use it, then search it for projects they can complain about.
But here's the kicker:
"I talked to the CIO Council and saw the data change overnight," Kundra said. "It was cleaned up immediately when people realized it was going to be made public."
Wonder how much of the data changed in the "looks better now" direction.
Totally worth it. A bunch of my friends who had never read Watchmen, and really aren't the reading types, made it out to see the movie and we all had a long discussion about Rorschach and the Comedian, and how much we loved Dan Dreiberg.
Movie was good, Watchmen is good to make a movie about, end of story.
I couldn't disagree more.
An hour too long, dull and unsympathetic characters, suspension of belief overchallenged, lame ending. I don't see how anyone who wasn't already a fan could have possibly enjoyed it.
Maybe quantum phenomena appear to be random because the universe's stack has collided with its heap, and all the variables this far down into the recursion are full of garbage.
Mmmmm.... nerd theology. Some hero will come along and separate the stack from the heap with his sword, and the universe will begin anew.
This is an illuminating and interesting idea, and it may point directly to how we could measure both at the same time, which would make a lot more sense to some of us. Me included.
Whence the presumption that "makes sense" is a relevant criterion for evaluating hypotheses?
Our brains didn't evolve to operate on scales where quantum or cosmological phenomena are relevant. There's not the slightest reason to suppose that such phenomena, or their explanations, would "make sense" to us.
Did you have something in particular in mind? I ask because a lot of "limit the government" types have curious ideas about what the constitution authorizes and forbids.
What's a little less obvious is that reducing the complexity of the interaction interface too far makes things harder as well. Either it makes it hard to perform the tasks, or it reduces the number of tasks which can be performed.... ideally the interaction interface needs to be of an order of complexity that is coupled to the order of complexity of the number and type of possible tasks.
Which is why some of us don't buy the marketing notion that a GUI makes a computer easy to use.
Maybe if you only actually use it to do a few simple things, but if you want to harness the full power of a computer you need a command line... or a program language.
Secondly, Romans did NOT field any cavalry units. Cavalry fight from horseback, and cohesive military cavalry usage requires stirrups.
This has already been corrected, but I thought I'd add that if you look up Cataphract and Clibanarii on Wikipedia you can find images of ancient monuments showing heavy armored lancers going all the way back to the Hellenistic era.
These were the shock troops of several Near Eastern empires right up through the Byzantine period, including the Romans before the empire split. Generally both horse and rider were armored, sometimes all over, other times on the front side only, and the armor varied greatly in material by time and nation, from mail or lammenates to mere quilted cloth. They charged en masse, in closer formation than western European knights did. In many of the armies they were regulars, trained to fight in formations. In some they were also equipped with a bow for dual-purpose work.
The clibanarii were a specifically Roman variant. The name is derived from the term for a little iron oven, and is taken to indicate that they wore some kind of plate armor.
From what I gather from the other poster, and my extremely spotty knowledge of both military history and roman history, archers should have been an upgrade for another unit, rather than a separate unit.
The Romans did do that at times during their history (and similarly with cavalry), but they also fielded archers and cavalry as separate units.
Note that there may have been times when they didn't -- the Roman army evolved greatly over the ~1000 years before it disappeared in the west. See "Structural history of the roman military" on Wikipedia for a quick overview.
A nice casual-but-not-shallow introduction to ancient, classical, and medieval armies can be obtained from the army lists published for the old WRG miniatures rules. The authors obviously put some research into their work, and frequently cite authors or monuments to support contentious interpretations.
I don't know about 'regiments', but they most certainly did field units of archers during their history.
Secondly, Romans did NOT field any cavalry units.
Yes they did.
Cavalry fight from horseback, and cohesive military cavalry usage requires stirrups. Romans DID use mounted infantry though, and this could also perhaps harass enemy skirmish flankers. Stirrups wasn't invented until approximately the 7th or 8th Century.
So... Alexander's famous cavalry charges were actually infantry charges?
Also, the Roman social hierarchy included a "knight" class. This is not to be interpreted anachronistically as of a kind with the medieval knights, it simply means a social status above Plebeian but beneath the Patrician strata eligible for election to Senate.
Though the Equites were not mounted soldiers during the historical period, it is thought that the designation is a survival from the early period when citizens equipped themselves for war, and the richer ones were the only ones who could support a horse.
Please learn a bit about history before posting dogmatic dismissals.
My advice to you is to spend time coming to terms with the abstract nature of intelligence rather than coding up elaborate projects. This link is a philosophical discussion on directed behaviour which I found quite interesting (if a bit vague, which is the mark of philosophy).
I wouldn't recommend for anyone to waste their time reading philosophers' opinions about AI research. Might as well read a used car salesman's treatise on automotive design.
At least used car salesmen actually have cars to sell...
There is a very big difference between AI - which is based on guesses about how "intelligence" works, and studies of brain function. I'm going to make a totally unjustified sweeping generalisation and suggest that one reason that AI has generally been a failure is because we have had quite wrong ideas about how the brain actually works. That's to say, the focus has been on how the brain seems to be like a distributed computer (neurons and the axons that relay their output) because up till now nobody has really understood how the brain stores and organises memory in parallel- which seems to be the key to it all, and is all about the software.
A lot of the brain's function is architectural, rather than merely a matter of 'software'.
I don't know if you can say "AI has generally been a failure", but traditional AI has actually been guided by the non-biological notion of a "physical symbol system" rather than by conceptions about how the brain actually works. And even in the biologically inspired side of the field, only the most ignorant would think that artificial neural networks have much in common with the brain.
The field of AI, with few execptions, has given up - or at least indefinitely postponed - attempts to create a HAL 9000 style intelligence. With few exceptions, everyone works on methods applicable to a single problem, or at best a very narrow range of problems. It's not possible to draw clean line between the fields of AI and algorithms.
So my feeling is that the first people really to get anywhere with AI will either work for Google or be the neurobiologists who finally crack what is actually going on in there.
We do have some very accurate cortical simulators. AFAIK, they still only model a very small chunk of the cortex, and not the whole brain at all. I'm not aware that they're telling us much about "intelligence" yet either.
If I wasn't close to retirement, and wanted to build a career in AI, I'd be looking at how mapreduce works, and the work being done building on that, rather than robotics. I'd also be looking as seriously parallel processing.
Here the reader begins to wonder whether you know anything about what you're talking about.
I think 'neural gas' is the area of neural networks research inspired by statistical physics. Don't know if there are any books about it, but you may find a chapter in an ANN textbook, and can certainly find papers vial Google.
Contrary to what others are suggesting, you probably aren't looking for the Russell & Norvig book, which is in fact good and almost qualifies as "the standard AI textbook". I counterrecommend it only because it's about Good Old Fashioned AI, which is interesting stuff, but completely different from what you are asking about.
Read up on neural gas, or pickup a textbook on neural networks. Be forewarned that few ANN reseachers are trying to build brains... like almost everyone else in AI, most ANN researchers are trying to build intelligent solutions to narrow problem sets, rather than trying to build general purpose intelligences.
You can find books on pattern recognition too, though ANN is only one of many approaches in that field.
Slashdot Mirror
Simplify to this:
"Stupid people do stupid things that cause them to die sooner."
And poor people are stupid?
The 'aim' of most of the people in the current semi free market system is the same as any business. Balance customer (patient) service against earning a living.
IOW, somebody's profits are more important than your life and health.
What's so strange and difficult about the fact that the health of the citizenry is one of a republic's most valuable assets?
the PCI Express 3.0 specification called for the spec itself to be released this year
Now we know how time loops are accidentally created.
The correct word is "whet."
Maybe it's a deliberately bad trailer, designed to dampen people's appetites.
Dude, your passage doesn't actually say anything about where the ocean and atmosphere came from. It just claims that God pushed some water around a bit.
If you're going to vest your credibility in a mythological text, you should at least read it carefully.
And how much productivity blown off today, as people try to figure out how to use it, then search it for projects they can complain about.
But here's the kicker:
"I talked to the CIO Council and saw the data change overnight," Kundra said. "It was cleaned up immediately when people realized it was going to be made public."
Wonder how much of the data changed in the "looks better now" direction.
This is ridiculous when a private company is stifling competition.
The benefits of competition are only of interest to companies as a mantra for getting government regulations eliminated. No company actually wants it.
we told them to go fornicate with goat and our lawyers
How rude!
we told them to go fornicate with goat[,] and our lawyers took care of it.
Oh. I liked the first one better.
Totally worth it. A bunch of my friends who had never read Watchmen, and really aren't the reading types, made it out to see the movie and we all had a long discussion about Rorschach and the Comedian, and how much we loved Dan Dreiberg.
Movie was good, Watchmen is good to make a movie about, end of story.
I couldn't disagree more.
An hour too long, dull and unsympathetic characters, suspension of belief overchallenged, lame ending. I don't see how anyone who wasn't already a fan could have possibly enjoyed it.
or he's going to have to figure out someway to make both the fractal understanding and Bell's true.
Kind of like measuring position and velocity at the same time? Now he needs a fractal unifying meta-theory, I guess.
And then a fractal unifying meta-meta-theory, and then a ...
OK, maybe he has the right idea.
My user number is probably lower than yours.
Yes, probably.
Maybe quantum phenomena appear to be random because the universe's stack has collided with its heap, and all the variables this far down into the recursion are full of garbage.
Mmmmm.... nerd theology. Some hero will come along and separate the stack from the heap with his sword, and the universe will begin anew.
And it'll help sell tee-shirts.
Sorry, but a fractal tee-shirt won't fit unless you've got a fractal body plan.
This is an illuminating and interesting idea, and it may point directly to how we could measure both at the same time, which would make a lot more sense to some of us. Me included.
Whence the presumption that "makes sense" is a relevant criterion for evaluating hypotheses?
Our brains didn't evolve to operate on scales where quantum or cosmological phenomena are relevant. There's not the slightest reason to suppose that such phenomena, or their explanations, would "make sense" to us.
Did you have something in particular in mind? I ask because a lot of "limit the government" types have curious ideas about what the constitution authorizes and forbids.
Otherwise, he's a party to discarding the rule of law.
What's a little less obvious is that reducing the complexity of the interaction interface too far makes things harder as well. Either it makes it hard to perform the tasks, or it reduces the number of tasks which can be performed. ... ideally the interaction interface needs to be of an order of complexity that is coupled to the order of complexity of the number and type of possible tasks.
Which is why some of us don't buy the marketing notion that a GUI makes a computer easy to use.
Maybe if you only actually use it to do a few simple things, but if you want to harness the full power of a computer you need a command line... or a program language.
Suddenly the economy doesn't sound like such a big problem after all.
Secondly, Romans did NOT field any cavalry units. Cavalry fight from horseback, and cohesive military cavalry usage requires stirrups.
This has already been corrected, but I thought I'd add that if you look up Cataphract and Clibanarii on Wikipedia you can find images of ancient monuments showing heavy armored lancers going all the way back to the Hellenistic era.
These were the shock troops of several Near Eastern empires right up through the Byzantine period, including the Romans before the empire split. Generally both horse and rider were armored, sometimes all over, other times on the front side only, and the armor varied greatly in material by time and nation, from mail or lammenates to mere quilted cloth. They charged en masse, in closer formation than western European knights did. In many of the armies they were regulars, trained to fight in formations. In some they were also equipped with a bow for dual-purpose work.
The clibanarii were a specifically Roman variant. The name is derived from the term for a little iron oven, and is taken to indicate that they wore some kind of plate armor.
From what I gather from the other poster, and my extremely spotty knowledge of both military history and roman history, archers should have been an upgrade for another unit, rather than a separate unit.
The Romans did do that at times during their history (and similarly with cavalry), but they also fielded archers and cavalry as separate units.
Note that there may have been times when they didn't -- the Roman army evolved greatly over the ~1000 years before it disappeared in the west. See "Structural history of the roman military" on Wikipedia for a quick overview.
A nice casual-but-not-shallow introduction to ancient, classical, and medieval armies can be obtained from the army lists published for the old WRG miniatures rules. The authors obviously put some research into their work, and frequently cite authors or monuments to support contentious interpretations.
First, Romans did NOT field regiments of archers.
I don't know about 'regiments', but they most certainly did field units of archers during their history.
Secondly, Romans did NOT field any cavalry units.
Yes they did.
Cavalry fight from horseback, and cohesive military cavalry usage requires stirrups. Romans DID use mounted infantry though, and this could also perhaps harass enemy skirmish flankers. Stirrups wasn't invented until approximately the 7th or 8th Century.
So... Alexander's famous cavalry charges were actually infantry charges?
Also, the Roman social hierarchy included a "knight" class. This is not to be interpreted anachronistically as of a kind with the medieval knights, it simply means a social status above Plebeian but beneath the Patrician strata eligible for election to Senate.
Though the Equites were not mounted soldiers during the historical period, it is thought that the designation is a survival from the early period when citizens equipped themselves for war, and the richer ones were the only ones who could support a horse.
Please learn a bit about history before posting dogmatic dismissals.
We seem to be reading a lot of Skynet related posts these days.
What else do you think Skynet would post about?
In that case, why would the markets react to their giving a label to a set of phenomena that were already present(and thus presumably reacted to)?
That was my first thought too. These people didn't know the economy was in the tank until they heard this pronouncement?
My advice to you is to spend time coming to terms with the abstract nature of intelligence rather than coding up elaborate projects. This link is a philosophical discussion on directed behaviour which I found quite interesting (if a bit vague, which is the mark of philosophy).
I wouldn't recommend for anyone to waste their time reading philosophers' opinions about AI research. Might as well read a used car salesman's treatise on automotive design.
At least used car salesmen actually have cars to sell...
There is a very big difference between AI - which is based on guesses about how "intelligence" works, and studies of brain function. I'm going to make a totally unjustified sweeping generalisation and suggest that one reason that AI has generally been a failure is because we have had quite wrong ideas about how the brain actually works. That's to say, the focus has been on how the brain seems to be like a distributed computer (neurons and the axons that relay their output) because up till now nobody has really understood how the brain stores and organises memory in parallel- which seems to be the key to it all, and is all about the software.
A lot of the brain's function is architectural, rather than merely a matter of 'software'.
I don't know if you can say "AI has generally been a failure", but traditional AI has actually been guided by the non-biological notion of a "physical symbol system" rather than by conceptions about how the brain actually works. And even in the biologically inspired side of the field, only the most ignorant would think that artificial neural networks have much in common with the brain.
The field of AI, with few execptions, has given up - or at least indefinitely postponed - attempts to create a HAL 9000 style intelligence. With few exceptions, everyone works on methods applicable to a single problem, or at best a very narrow range of problems. It's not possible to draw clean line between the fields of AI and algorithms.
So my feeling is that the first people really to get anywhere with AI will either work for Google or be the neurobiologists who finally crack what is actually going on in there.
We do have some very accurate cortical simulators. AFAIK, they still only model a very small chunk of the cortex, and not the whole brain at all. I'm not aware that they're telling us much about "intelligence" yet either.
If I wasn't close to retirement, and wanted to build a career in AI, I'd be looking at how mapreduce works, and the work being done building on that, rather than robotics. I'd also be looking as seriously parallel processing.
Here the reader begins to wonder whether you know anything about what you're talking about.
I think 'neural gas' is the area of neural networks research inspired by statistical physics. Don't know if there are any books about it, but you may find a chapter in an ANN textbook, and can certainly find papers vial Google.
Contrary to what others are suggesting, you probably aren't looking for the Russell & Norvig book, which is in fact good and almost qualifies as "the standard AI textbook". I counterrecommend it only because it's about Good Old Fashioned AI, which is interesting stuff, but completely different from what you are asking about.
Read up on neural gas, or pickup a textbook on neural networks. Be forewarned that few ANN reseachers are trying to build brains... like almost everyone else in AI, most ANN researchers are trying to build intelligent solutions to narrow problem sets, rather than trying to build general purpose intelligences.
You can find books on pattern recognition too, though ANN is only one of many approaches in that field.