Unfortunately, you're the one with the blinders on. The assertion is correct. Members of the International Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming (oops, I mean Climate Change) started using the word denier specifically because it is negatively linked to the Holocost.
You know, I started using it before I heard anyone else use it. Are you telling me that you know more than I do about my motivations?
AC for moderation's sake. My immediate retort would have been to ask if the quality of art is really determined in any factor by how commercially successful it is. I'm pretty sure that fails most "avant-garde" art critic tests. That is, it's popular and mainstream, thus it can't be "good" art.
But everyone here hates it, so maybe it *is* avant-garde art.
The problem is, I'm not a climate scientist or even a weather scientist. Nor do I work in a field closely related to them. Frankly I'm unqualified to survey the literature myself. Normally for something like this I would listen to what knowledgeable people say who have read the literature, but in this case knowledgeable people are divided.
You can't know everything, so IMO the sensible thing to do is to defer to the experts. If I wanted to know about star formation, I'd defer to an astronomer, or better yet an astrophysicist, but wouldn't care a fig what a newscaster or successful CEO thinks.
Regarding "divided", for a while the American Association of Petroleum Geologists was the only professional society that rejected global warming, and even they caved in in 2007.
Many because they've resorted to name-calling and insults instead of reasoned arguments. Case in point...
For better or worse, most people only have limited tolerance for fools.
So basically you're saying that what you believe to be true is a "well established fact" which frees you up to call anyone who disagrees with you a "denier" which, as I noted before, first gained notoriety as a term describing holocaust deniers. So is it true then that anyone who disagrees with you is the moral equivalent of a holocaust denier.
No, we're calling anyone who disagrees with what the overwhelming majority of qualified scientists say is a well established fact deniers, just as we would for anyone who denies the expanding universe, the atomic theory of matter, the geocentric solar system, etc.
And cut the crap on holocaust denailism. I have a dictionary from 1972 that has an entry for "denier", no mention of holocaust or Nazis. You're the one who's godwining the thread.
Why is it that all the Republicans on the House Committee of Science, Space and Technology; Deny Science {Evolution,Global Warming, etc.}, don't understand Technology {The Internet is a "series of tubes"} and are just a waste of Space?!?
Politics. They deny global warming because their $$$ sponsors expect them to, and they deny evolution because the people who vote in their districts expect them to.
The candidate (Lamar Smith) is not there to represent science, so he doesn't really need to be qualified for that. He's not there to represent NASA, EPA, DOE, NSF, NOAA, and the USGS. He's there to represent the people who elected him, and more broadly all of the people of the US. Just playing devil's advocate here. Not everyone in the US agrees with all things science.
"The people" elected him to represent their district. A political machine made him chair of the committee.
I'm an agnostic. I don't know if or how much global warming is occurring; and given the hyper-partisan rhetoric, name-calling, and various logical fallacies coming from both sides I don't think I'll know for a very long time.
So skip the partisans and see what qualified people have to say: scientists.
The term you use, "denier", is a perfect example and is in fact a Godwin. The term was well known for Holocaust denier and once it became appropriately stained people started using it to label skeptics of their pet ideas when they didn't want to have to actually convince anyone.
Bullshit. If someone denies a well established fact, they're a denier. The only common bond they have with people who deny other well established facts is that they reject facts established by mountains of evidence.
I am sorry to say but it's folks like you that are responsible for the USA's [finacial] woes it finds itself in at this time.
The USA doesn't have any financial woes. When a Democrat is president everyone wrings their hands about public debt, but when a Republican is president everyone wants to cut taxes and go on a spending spree. Even now, nothing is as important as balancing the budget -- except prolonging the Bush tax cuts. Letting those expire would go a long way toward fixing the "problem", but the deficit hawks won't even consider it.
This is just disaster capitalism brought home to roost. Squeeze the middle and working classes, because... well, because you can.
This would be US courts who only have jurisdiction over acts on US soil affecting US citizens would it?
The constitution is an odd thing in that as written it applies to everybody with particular emphasis for US citizens. As such it is not only a base for how law and rights are appled in US but is also meant to be the template for how US treats anybody as an extension and espousal of fundamental rights to all; you have the right to free speech and are obligated to extend that freedom to everybody else. Why should you have that right yet deny it to others?
Yes, it really irks/alarms me that many of the people who profess to be the most patriotic don't actually subscribe to the principles the country was founded on.
How so? The math of thermodynamics uses real numbers and does not need any "tricks" to make it work.
I think there is a theoretical minimal entropy production for any computation, so there's a limit to the amount of computation you could do if you used the entire observable universe.
Of course, you can't have the infinite tape required by a TM either.
It appears that your horizons might be expanded by visiting the New American Century site. www.newamericancentury.org/
I thought "New American Century" referred to the neocons who think they can fix all the world's problems by invading other countries and setting them straight.
[...] using real numbers (real, not floating-point) would give a trans-Turing capability.
Given that almost every real number encodes an uncountable number of bits of information, I guess this isn't especially surprising in retrospect. The result though should make us suspicious of the assumption that the physical constants and properties in our physical theories can indeed take any real number value.
My intuition is that the difference between the TM's finite set of discrete symbols and the infinite/continuous nature of real numbers is exactly the reason.
I'm not aware of any theory of continuous-state computing along the lines of the Chomsky hierarchy, but maybe there's one out there.
All we can ever make is better things to follow our instructions.
What is the basis for that claim?
In 50 years when we can simulate a brain to any arbitrary level of detail, or build a wet-brain one neuron at a time, why wouldn't it be able to do what naturally occurring intelligence can?
Is there some Special Ingredient that cannot be simulated, even in principle? Or that cannot be understood well enough to try?
I completely agree that you've justified the use of the adjective "deep" in regard to "deep architectures" (and I got that before writing my post). I still don't get how this "deep" has much to do with "learning," though, in the broader world... and even if we equate the jargony connotations of "machine learning" with "learning," it still seems a stretch to use "deep" as an adjective directly applied to that... but perhaps it's just me.
I have a bigger issue with "learning" than with "deep", since with very few exceptions ANNs don't learn anything autonomously, but rather are adjusted by an external algorithm to to perform well on a given problem. "Deep training" would make sense for "deep architectures".
Because the "deep learning" technologies use artificial neural networks with many more layers than traditionally, making them "deep architectures".
It's widely accepted that the first hidden layer of an ANN serves as a feature detector (possibly sub-symoblic features that you can't put a name to), and each successive layer serves as a detector for higher-order features. Thus the deep architectures can be expected to have some utility for any problem that depends on feature analysis.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I love it that they use a device called a "DUFF which "is a sort of lab bench nuclear reactor". ;-)
Hopefully none of the researchers will get caught sitting on their DUFF.
Unfortunately, you're the one with the blinders on. The assertion is correct. Members of the International Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming (oops, I mean Climate Change) started using the word denier specifically because it is negatively linked to the Holocost.
You know, I started using it before I heard anyone else use it. Are you telling me that you know more than I do about my motivations?
AC for moderation's sake. My immediate retort would have been to ask if the quality of art is really determined in any factor by how commercially successful it is. I'm pretty sure that fails most "avant-garde" art critic tests. That is, it's popular and mainstream, thus it can't be "good" art.
But everyone here hates it, so maybe it *is* avant-garde art.
Maybe she defines "our generation" as "people who were 5 when the movie came out, and still think like 5-year-olds".
Srsly, how do I troll?
You post a long, superficially well reasoned argument that she's right.
Hack Like Me
The problem is, I'm not a climate scientist or even a weather scientist. Nor do I work in a field closely related to them. Frankly I'm unqualified to survey the literature myself. Normally for something like this I would listen to what knowledgeable people say who have read the literature, but in this case knowledgeable people are divided.
You can't know everything, so IMO the sensible thing to do is to defer to the experts. If I wanted to know about star formation, I'd defer to an astronomer, or better yet an astrophysicist, but wouldn't care a fig what a newscaster or successful CEO thinks.
Regarding "divided", for a while the American Association of Petroleum Geologists was the only professional society that rejected global warming, and even they caved in in 2007.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_organizations for more.
Many because they've resorted to name-calling and insults instead of reasoned arguments. Case in point...
For better or worse, most people only have limited tolerance for fools.
So basically you're saying that what you believe to be true is a "well established fact" which frees you up to call anyone who disagrees with you a "denier" which, as I noted before, first gained notoriety as a term describing holocaust deniers. So is it true then that anyone who disagrees with you is the moral equivalent of a holocaust denier.
No, we're calling anyone who disagrees with what the overwhelming majority of qualified scientists say is a well established fact deniers, just as we would for anyone who denies the expanding universe, the atomic theory of matter, the geocentric solar system, etc.
And cut the crap on holocaust denailism. I have a dictionary from 1972 that has an entry for "denier", no mention of holocaust or Nazis. You're the one who's godwining the thread.
Why is it that all the Republicans on the House Committee of Science, Space and Technology; Deny Science {Evolution,Global Warming, etc.}, don't understand Technology {The Internet is a "series of tubes"} and are just a waste of Space?!?
Politics. They deny global warming because their $$$ sponsors expect them to, and they deny evolution because the people who vote in their districts expect them to.
The candidate (Lamar Smith) is not there to represent science, so he doesn't really need to be qualified for that. He's not there to represent NASA, EPA, DOE, NSF, NOAA, and the USGS. He's there to represent the people who elected him, and more broadly all of the people of the US. Just playing devil's advocate here. Not everyone in the US agrees with all things science.
"The people" elected him to represent their district. A political machine made him chair of the committee.
I'm an agnostic. I don't know if or how much global warming is occurring; and given the hyper-partisan rhetoric, name-calling, and various logical fallacies coming from both sides I don't think I'll know for a very long time.
So skip the partisans and see what qualified people have to say: scientists.
The term you use, "denier", is a perfect example and is in fact a Godwin. The term was well known for Holocaust denier and once it became appropriately stained people started using it to label skeptics of their pet ideas when they didn't want to have to actually convince anyone.
Bullshit. If someone denies a well established fact, they're a denier. The only common bond they have with people who deny other well established facts is that they reject facts established by mountains of evidence.
Texas may be slowly warming up to the idea
No pun intended, I'm sure.
How could a government possibly turn down a chance to offshore a major chunk of its IT operations?
Apparently some governments have better sense than some businesses.
I am sorry to say but it's folks like you that are responsible for the USA's [finacial] woes it finds itself in at this time.
The USA doesn't have any financial woes. When a Democrat is president everyone wrings their hands about public debt, but when a Republican is president everyone wants to cut taxes and go on a spending spree. Even now, nothing is as important as balancing the budget -- except prolonging the Bush tax cuts. Letting those expire would go a long way toward fixing the "problem", but the deficit hawks won't even consider it.
This is just disaster capitalism brought home to roost. Squeeze the middle and working classes, because... well, because you can.
Hamas was elected to govern Gaza.
We're big fans of democracy... so long as we get to say who gets elected.
Because of evangelicals. They believe a holy war will preceed the second coming of christ, and so they do everything in their power to start one.
'Cause, you know, God can't do it without their help.
I agree that it's mostly the religious right. Contrary to popular opinion, the Elders of Zion don't actually run the USA.
Terrorism has been refined to mean 'anyone who opposes the US government'
Rather, "opposes anything the US government does".
This would be US courts who only have jurisdiction over acts on US soil affecting US citizens would it?
The constitution is an odd thing in that as written it applies to everybody with particular emphasis for US citizens. As such it is not only a base for how law and rights are appled in US but is also meant to be the template for how US treats anybody as an extension and espousal of fundamental rights to all; you have the right to free speech and are obligated to extend that freedom to everybody else. Why should you have that right yet deny it to others?
Yes, it really irks/alarms me that many of the people who profess to be the most patriotic don't actually subscribe to the principles the country was founded on.
I'm wondering what an Israeli perspective on this is.
I'm sure Israelis have as wide a variety of views on their nation's troubles as any other nation's population does.
How so? The math of thermodynamics uses real numbers and does not need any "tricks" to make it work.
I think there is a theoretical minimal entropy production for any computation, so there's a limit to the amount of computation you could do if you used the entire observable universe.
Of course, you can't have the infinite tape required by a TM either.
It appears that your horizons might be expanded by visiting the New American Century site. www.newamericancentury.org/
I thought "New American Century" referred to the neocons who think they can fix all the world's problems by invading other countries and setting them straight.
Given that almost every real number encodes an uncountable number of bits of information, I guess this isn't especially surprising in retrospect. The result though should make us suspicious of the assumption that the physical constants and properties in our physical theories can indeed take any real number value.
My intuition is that the difference between the TM's finite set of discrete symbols and the infinite/continuous nature of real numbers is exactly the reason.
I'm not aware of any theory of continuous-state computing along the lines of the Chomsky hierarchy, but maybe there's one out there.
All we can ever make is better things to follow our instructions.
What is the basis for that claim?
In 50 years when we can simulate a brain to any arbitrary level of detail, or build a wet-brain one neuron at a time, why wouldn't it be able to do what naturally occurring intelligence can?
Is there some Special Ingredient that cannot be simulated, even in principle? Or that cannot be understood well enough to try?
I completely agree that you've justified the use of the adjective "deep" in regard to "deep architectures" (and I got that before writing my post). I still don't get how this "deep" has much to do with "learning," though, in the broader world... and even if we equate the jargony connotations of "machine learning" with "learning," it still seems a stretch to use "deep" as an adjective directly applied to that... but perhaps it's just me.
I have a bigger issue with "learning" than with "deep", since with very few exceptions ANNs don't learn anything autonomously, but rather are adjusted by an external algorithm to to perform well on a given problem. "Deep training" would make sense for "deep architectures".
using real numbers (real, not floating-point) would give a trans-Turing capability.
What on earth is trans-Turing capability?
Can compute things that a TM can't.
I think the paper was controversial when it first came out, but I'm not aware that anyone has ever refuted their proof.
Why do we need the adjective "deep"?
Because the "deep learning" technologies use artificial neural networks with many more layers than traditionally, making them "deep architectures".
It's widely accepted that the first hidden layer of an ANN serves as a feature detector (possibly sub-symoblic features that you can't put a name to), and each successive layer serves as a detector for higher-order features. Thus the deep architectures can be expected to have some utility for any problem that depends on feature analysis.