Now, it appears, that Russia is reentering the thinking that there is one world superpower, and that they must fight against it. I think the real issue during the cold war wasn't communism vs. capitalism, but rather who's the biggest kid on the block. I was skeptical about the proclaimed end of the Cold War, because that issue will never go away, and no country will willingly accept the loss of status that Russia did. It's hardly surprising that they would want back in the game.
Problem for them is, they may now be #3 rather than vying for #1.
The problem with that, of course, is that our propaganda is currently directed elsewhere. Which makes it an ideal time for them to play a weak hand.
Ah hell, lets smoke bong loads and let 'em all out. They are all innocent shepherds and shopkeepers anyway. They can live next door to me. I mean, it's pefectly legit to teach the Quran even if you can't read. And Tora Bora is just a vacation spot, never mind you carried an AK and some grenades instead of a camera. So how many of them are actually guilty of anything?
Oh, wait. They're not entitled to fair trials, so we'll never know.
Time is four-dimensional, so there are 7 dimensions! So sayeth the TimeCube! Wouldn't TimeCube theory predict three dimensions of time rather than four, just as the scientists discovered?
(I tried to look it up at the TimeCube page, but those who clicked the link will understand why I had trouble finding it.)
Jack Thompson has already gone on the major news networks predicting that the shooter's computer will have Counterstrike installed. How come nobody goes on the news to predict whether he owns a Bible.
might as well make the point right out of the gate that gun-control is NOT the answer to issues like this. How do you know that? Have we ever had stringent enough gun control to put the idea to the test?
Having used both neural networks and SVMs in real world problems (particle physics and micro-array data analysis) I can say that SVM performance is far better How well do they generalize? And what's your take on the previous post, which claimed (if I understood it correctly) that they require a big fraction of the possible examples for the training set?
at least when you employ a committee architecture. I'm pretty sure that provides an advantage for almost any type of classifier.
Heuristically, I've found SVMs much harder to over-train, which is the most common problem I've encountered with neural networks. Do you use a validation set when training ANNs? That's supposed to prevent overtraining, though I've never seen an explicit A/B test.
However, in the very specific field of machine learning, virtually all papers published are about support vector machines and similar methods Sorry, but that is simply wrong. No, laughably wrong.
Browse the ToCs of some recent journals and conference proceedings on ML, RL, EC, NN.
since then, neural networks have basically been made obsolete Someone needs to tell all those people who are still publishing journal articles about them.
Don't write off SCO so quick - I'm something of a UNIX insider, and I can tell you that SCO is on to something with its ownership of cfront - ever used a C++ compiler? Then you're going to be writing Darl a check. Funny, that's what they've been saying about Linux. And look where it got them.
Hypothetical Question: If there was an all powerful designer, and he wanted to create a T-Rex and a chicken, would they not necessarilly be similar, just as this data shows? After all, you are dealing with very similar constraints Since when do constraints apply to an all-powerful designer?
And why does that unevidenced designer use the same solution to similar problems sometimes, but very different solutions to similar problems at other times? Answer: "that's what he wanted to do". Any observation is compatible with the claim that an all-powerful Creator did it on a whim. Thus the claim is utterly useless as a way of understanding the nature of the universe.
To prove that one truly descended from the other, I think you need to see a descendency path will all the intermediate species. Science isn't in the business of providing proofs; it's in the business of providing explanations.
And experience shows that no amount of accumulated evidence will convince someone who is unwilling to give up on their ancient religious mythology.
After all, you can say Mars and the Earth are very similar, and indeed they are, but one didn't come from the other. And planets don't arise by descent with modification, so there's not any particular reason to suppose they did.
I am convinced that nothing could cause scientists to 'reexamine their findings'. That statement reveals your utter ignorance of the history of science.
Evolutionary scientists don't want to ever consider the possibility that the soft tissue found could be less than six thousand years old because then they have to consider the possibility that God exists What do you know about the motivations of evolutionary biologists? You're just making up a fantasy to explain why the experts don't believe your other fantasy.
The whole idea of theorizing that similarity in structure implies descent or ancestry sounds fishy. Only to people whose religious mythology is in conflict with the facts.
Anyone who expresses such doubts is immediately branded some sort of Christian right wing nut. Do you know of anyone else expressing such doubts? (Other than Harun Yahya, the right wing Muslim nut.)
no, it isn't a right wing religious diatribe. it is a skeptical scientist that believes in macro-evolution who has the integrity to question what everyone so dearly wants to be true. No, it is by a scientist who long ago staked his career on BAND ("birds are not dinosaurs"), and now can't admit that he was wrong.
Back in '97 the case was still open, and Feduccia could hold that view without being labeled a kook. Things have changed in the past 10 years.
And BTW... what makes you think people "want" birds to be dinosaurs? Because it makes for good chicken jokes? I couldn't care less what the family tree looks like.
.... was dead and buried around 150 years ago, not by Darwin, but by geologists. Closer to 200. The *last* prominent holdout among geologists ran up the white flag in 1820.
And did it in a public speech, because that was back when creationism was a belief that honest people could give up when presented with contrary evidence. You won't find his kind today.
"If birds descended from dinosaurs, we would expect the same 1, 2 and 3 pattern," he said. Feduccia has long been the last hold-out in the Birds Are Not Dinosaurs (BAND) camp. Some people are starting to think of him as a kook. He's so vested in it now that he can't afford to admit that he's wrong.
To change soradically during evolution would be highly unlikely. AIUI, the fusion is developmental rather than "genetic" in the usual narrow conception of how evolution works. This sort of change does not require as much reprogramming as one might naively think.
Speaking as someone from the disenfranchised back of beyond:... The source of hatred is the underhanded, blood-stained, conscience-free, predatory behaviour of America's leaders with respect to the rest of the world. They play it like a huge game of monopoly, and where their gamepieces have been, you can tell by the trail of destabilisation, poverty and blood. As an American, that's my conclusion on the matter as well. I think our leaders have traditionally played the game to keep us as near the top of the heap as possible, tough shit for anyone who gets trodden underfoot.
For that matter, I suspect that every nation's leaders play it that way, to the extent that they can. And a certain fraction of the trodden try to get even however they can, tough shit for any innocents that get blown up for symbolic purposes.
Indeed it has scarcely been 100 years since moving away from racism and slavery and we STILL haven't moved away from racism and slavery, we're still at war with them both, corporations want to re-institute slavery under the guise of capitalism I would have said serfdom rather than slavery, though perhaps the point is moot.
I think you basically have it right. How well the Middle Class fares in absolute terms isn't relevant; if they're driven toward Marxism it will be due to a sense of unfairness and growing inequities between them and the people on top. They'll see on the news that their CEO got a multi-million dollar bonus and the shareholders got a dividend, and wonder why they had to give up their health and retirement benefits and live in constant fear of outsourcing, if there's so much money to go around for the people who need it the least.
It's about psychology and human nature, not some objective measure of how well people are doing.
That will reduce the amount of Marxists running around. Maybe so, but that "get rid of envy" is something religious leaders and moral philosophers have been trying to do since the dawn of recorded history, with no noticable progress. I think envy has deep evolutionary roots that aren't easily trained out.
Finally, I find it interesting that you consider facism a branch of socialism I think that's a new meme that has developed among the USA's right wingers in the past decade or so. You never used to hear such a confusion, but it's now nigh universal among people with a certain political orientation. You can hardly have a political discussion on the internet without it coming out, these days.
I suspect it's a result of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, so that the traditional Incarnate Evil had to be replaced with a More Generic Evil. (Of course, after the '30s the USSR was only a threat to us as a competitor on the world stage; their internal economic policies weren't the threat. But the Right has been taken over by pseudo-Libertarians who think anything that stands in the way of economic might-makes-right is pure evil, so the rhetoric is now directed against socialism.)
I consider it a branch of corporatism, which is essentially capitalism run amok, and as such is squarely at odds with socialism. Yes, that's my tentative conclusion as well, though I haven't looked into formal definitions. People may be surprised to learn that German arms manufacturers were still producing tanks according to a USA-style system of product competitions between corporations as late as the second half of 1944, when Speer could see perfectly well that the war was lost.
Slashdot Mirror
50% of news must be dupes.
Problem for them is, they may now be #3 rather than vying for #1. The problem with that, of course, is that our propaganda is currently directed elsewhere. Which makes it an ideal time for them to play a weak hand.
Oh, wait. They're not entitled to fair trials, so we'll never know.
That's probably how many they would have sold in the USA by now, if OEMs weren't putting it on machines.
Where I work, people are scratching it off their new machines and installing XP.
(I tried to look it up at the TimeCube page, but those who clicked the link will understand why I had trouble finding it.)
Browse the ToCs of some recent journals and conference proceedings on ML, RL, EC, NN.
Now are you going to tell me I haven't "really" considered it?
And why does that unevidenced designer use the same solution to similar problems sometimes, but very different solutions to similar problems at other times? Answer: "that's what he wanted to do". Any observation is compatible with the claim that an all-powerful Creator did it on a whim. Thus the claim is utterly useless as a way of understanding the nature of the universe. To prove that one truly descended from the other, I think you need to see a descendency path will all the intermediate species. Science isn't in the business of providing proofs; it's in the business of providing explanations.
And experience shows that no amount of accumulated evidence will convince someone who is unwilling to give up on their ancient religious mythology. After all, you can say Mars and the Earth are very similar, and indeed they are, but one didn't come from the other. And planets don't arise by descent with modification, so there's not any particular reason to suppose they did.
http://research.unc.edu/endeavors/spr97/bird.html
no, it isn't a right wing religious diatribe. it is a skeptical scientist that believes in macro-evolution who has the integrity to question what everyone so dearly wants to be true. No, it is by a scientist who long ago staked his career on BAND ("birds are not dinosaurs"), and now can't admit that he was wrong.
Back in '97 the case was still open, and Feduccia could hold that view without being labeled a kook. Things have changed in the past 10 years.
And BTW... what makes you think people "want" birds to be dinosaurs? Because it makes for good chicken jokes? I couldn't care less what the family tree looks like.
.... was dead and buried around 150 years ago, not by Darwin, but by geologists. Closer to 200. The *last* prominent holdout among geologists ran up the white flag in 1820.And did it in a public speech, because that was back when creationism was a belief that honest people could give up when presented with contrary evidence. You won't find his kind today.
For that matter, I suspect that every nation's leaders play it that way, to the extent that they can. And a certain fraction of the trodden try to get even however they can, tough shit for any innocents that get blown up for symbolic purposes.
I think you basically have it right. How well the Middle Class fares in absolute terms isn't relevant; if they're driven toward Marxism it will be due to a sense of unfairness and growing inequities between them and the people on top. They'll see on the news that their CEO got a multi-million dollar bonus and the shareholders got a dividend, and wonder why they had to give up their health and retirement benefits and live in constant fear of outsourcing, if there's so much money to go around for the people who need it the least.
It's about psychology and human nature, not some objective measure of how well people are doing.
I suspect it's a result of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, so that the traditional Incarnate Evil had to be replaced with a More Generic Evil. (Of course, after the '30s the USSR was only a threat to us as a competitor on the world stage; their internal economic policies weren't the threat. But the Right has been taken over by pseudo-Libertarians who think anything that stands in the way of economic might-makes-right is pure evil, so the rhetoric is now directed against socialism.) I consider it a branch of corporatism, which is essentially capitalism run amok, and as such is squarely at odds with socialism. Yes, that's my tentative conclusion as well, though I haven't looked into formal definitions. People may be surprised to learn that German arms manufacturers were still producing tanks according to a USA-style system of product competitions between corporations as late as the second half of 1944, when Speer could see perfectly well that the war was lost.