You're a bit confused. The Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many Worlds Interpretation are two different things. The former says that wave functions are collapsed by the act of observation, the latter says that there's no collapse, but that the Universe splits into a version for each possible outcome.
The Many Worlds idea was coined by Everett I believe, some time after the Copenhagen Interpretation was...
No it isn't. At my last house we said we weren't using our TV for watching TV programs, they said that was fine and they'd send someone round to double check it wasn't tuned in at some point - although they hadn't in the six months between then and when I moved out.
They do hide the fact that you can do this pretty well though.
Hehe, using USian steel as an example isn't a good one - just look at the massive subsidies that were in place to prop up their huge inefficiencies compared to their European competitors until the WTO ruled them illegal.
It's what kittens do with their mothers while they're learning to hunt. If you've formed a bond with your cat it will treat you almost as a parent and thus exhibit all kinds of behaviours that normally only happen between kitten and mother, such as letting you stroke its belly.
Actually domesticated cats have some of the most complex social networks of any animal. Each different area with cats in it forms a different type of social network dependent on the cats there - some areas are controlled by a single alpha male, some consist of several equal cats with their own territories and so on.
Your mistake is that dogs are pack animals and so behave in a very different way than cats do. With cats you are either their "parent" in a sense or not and it makes a lot of difference. There are plenty of true stories of cats travelling hundreds of miles to return to their owners, you can't automatically say that dogs are more loyal or social than cats. It's more that dogs are wired to be that way whereas cats need to be reared to be like that.
Waste and corruption will either be removed or at least completely reworked for Civ IV. Have a look at one of the designer's goals for Civ IV here (it's a PowerPoint presentation). It looks like it could be very good indeed.
Wow, with that reasoning everything in the whole Universe is fractal! After all things are made up of atoms acting according to rules, these things also interact according to rules, systems of these things act according to rules etc. etc. and I'm sure we could potentially model it all by exchange of information. Unfortunately just as microsystems and macrosystems work on different rules due to the limited scale of quantum effects, I think you're pushing the domain at which your analogy applies into areas where it doesn't.
Self-similar means that there at any scale an object has the same properties. Not that it is identical... where did I say that? Please go back and read my posts properly.
It turns out that I am a CI researcher (that is Computational Intelligence). Cognitive science is exactly my field. I could spend countless hours spraying you with data, game theory and whatnot. But why?
Marvellous for you. If you're so up on the field then I'm sure it wouldn't be at all difficult to dig out a link or two that explains what you mean, especially when you admit that the term "fractal intelligence" is nothing more than a not 100% acurrate term.
Who is talking about proof here? I've taken exception to your vague, back-tracking posts and you've fallen back on claiming superiority through knowledge without any clarification of what you mean?
If you're going to use vague terms, you should really expect people to object to them.
You are making an assertion here, and are presenting no evidence to back it up whatsoever. If you have some kind of proof of your theories then by all means let's hear them... after all it would make you famous as the person who finally cracked the nature of thought!
*waits*
No? So you are saying that because the components specialize they are not self-similar?
Your definition of self-similar is practically meaningless (and not the same as the actual mathematical sense at all). It would mean that anything made from the same components is "self-similar" - trivially true but contributing no real insight into the relationships between those things and their functions.
I'm not sure whether you're in fact trying to put across some kind of actual theory here or espouse some New Age pseduo-scientific theory involving vaguely understood concepts from maths.
Yes, I know all about fractals. However while there are local differences in various fractals they are still self-similar across a range of scales and positions. The brain has a range of unique sub-systems. There's no analogy there at all.
You're missing the point. If you take a lizard brain and then just add neurons and connections to it you don't end up with a human brain. To do that you have to add entirely new, hard-wired structures from those additional neurons. So it isn't just adding more stuff, it is a qualitative difference.
By your analogy to computers just increasing processing power isn't enough, you'd have to also come up with entirely new software that doesn't currently exist. That is the problem, not any future lack of processing power. And while if we ever do come up with such software it won't take millions of years, it's likely it'll be far more of a challenge than just supplying the raw horsepower to run it on.
Nonsense. The human brain has any number of different sub-systems in that lizards don't - for instance things like Broca's area that deals with understanding language. The entire cerebral cortex is something lizards don't possess. It might all just be "more neurons, more connections" but they're arranged in different, specific ways, many of which are unique to humans.
The basic idea is that intelligent systems are fractally self-similar in processing architecture and topology (e.g. lower-order systems network to combine higher-order systems which network to... ). This relationship governs the neural net as well as the human brain and the corporation. It governs clubs, teams, cities and governments.
That completely ignores the fact that the human brain is full of dozens of specialised areas that deal with different things. There are areas that deal with language, vision, memory, emotion etc. etc. If anything the brain is completely the opposite of fractally self-similar.
That's just the fascistic attitude the French take to their language... and look at how they insist on linguistic purity at the expense of being able to succinctly express new concepts...
There is a middle ground between "destroying your body to win" and "normal". Saying that shows that you've bought into the idea that there is no middle ground between abstinance and abuse.
Athletes that want a career rather than a single blaze of glory aren't going to kill themselves in their first race. The idea is enhancement, not death.
The body itself is full of "performance enhancing drugs" which we use whenever we are in a situation requiring above-normal abilities. Genetic differences will undoubtedly mean that different people will be able to utilise these chemicals to different amounts (and that's ignoring things like lung capacity and so on that are also genetic). So already certain people have a greater ability to compete in athletic events - there is no such thing as a truly level playing field!
So what are performance enhancing drugs if not an extension of this? If an athlete drinks isotonic energy drinks to help them train, why not let them take a chemical to allow them to go that little bit further whilst in action? Is there a difference? Only in the modern fascist paradigm in which drugs are somehow dirty and bad, rather than tools which we use to alter our minds and bodies.
The anti-drug stance of the IOC and other bodies is pure fascism, and doomed to failure. As long as there is competition people will take performance enhancing drugs.
This isn't really news
on
Spam's U.S. Roots
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Is this surprising? We've heard it before again and again after all. While certain Asian countries are a huge part of the spam problem they're not the source of it, just (often) willing accessories to Western entrapeneurs. After all as China moves towards a more free market economy then people are going to jump at the chance to make a few dollars providing this kind of service. And after all, spam is nothing if not a prime example of a free market run rampant.
Unfortunately the Chinese aren't the only ones interesting in making a quick buck from this, or so you'd think from the vast lack of any kind of serious response from our legislators. But then again the Government is quite fond of their own kind of spam where they're pushing themselves as the "product". Quite fitting that Bush and co. are much the same as fake penis enhancing products to be honest.
What happened to "Give me liberty, or give me death" ?
Like many other things that the Founders said, this was just a rhetorical device. If you really want to see what they meant and believed in you just need to look at the Constitution and what they thought was important enough to set into stone.
Why is the Second Amendment one that specifically gives us the security to defend ourself, if not to ensure freedom is preserved? The Founders knew that freedom and security were two sides of the same coin, and that sometimes we must decrease one to increase the other but that in the end it is all one and the same.
Slashdot Mirror
You're a bit confused. The Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many Worlds Interpretation are two different things. The former says that wave functions are collapsed by the act of observation, the latter says that there's no collapse, but that the Universe splits into a version for each possible outcome. The Many Worlds idea was coined by Everett I believe, some time after the Copenhagen Interpretation was...
Eh? Eugenics was massive in the US for ages. Where you do think the Germans got so many of their ideas from?
There was a similar headline in England which read "Ugley man marries Nasty woman" :)
No, because most common names are in there, and it also pulls names out of your phonebook. Oh, and you can add new words into the dictionary as well.
They do hide the fact that you can do this pretty well though.
Hehe, using USian steel as an example isn't a good one - just look at the massive subsidies that were in place to prop up their huge inefficiencies compared to their European competitors until the WTO ruled them illegal.
It's what kittens do with their mothers while they're learning to hunt. If you've formed a bond with your cat it will treat you almost as a parent and thus exhibit all kinds of behaviours that normally only happen between kitten and mother, such as letting you stroke its belly.
Your mistake is that dogs are pack animals and so behave in a very different way than cats do. With cats you are either their "parent" in a sense or not and it makes a lot of difference. There are plenty of true stories of cats travelling hundreds of miles to return to their owners, you can't automatically say that dogs are more loyal or social than cats. It's more that dogs are wired to be that way whereas cats need to be reared to be like that.
Waste and corruption will either be removed or at least completely reworked for Civ IV. Have a look at one of the designer's goals for Civ IV here (it's a PowerPoint presentation). It looks like it could be very good indeed.
Try help(strftime). Or use the excellent library reference instead :)
It's called "IE View" :)
Wow, with that reasoning everything in the whole Universe is fractal! After all things are made up of atoms acting according to rules, these things also interact according to rules, systems of these things act according to rules etc. etc. and I'm sure we could potentially model it all by exchange of information. Unfortunately just as microsystems and macrosystems work on different rules due to the limited scale of quantum effects, I think you're pushing the domain at which your analogy applies into areas where it doesn't.
Self-similar means that there at any scale an object has the same properties. Not that it is identical... where did I say that? Please go back and read my posts properly.
Marvellous for you. If you're so up on the field then I'm sure it wouldn't be at all difficult to dig out a link or two that explains what you mean, especially when you admit that the term "fractal intelligence" is nothing more than a not 100% acurrate term.
Who is talking about proof here? I've taken exception to your vague, back-tracking posts and you've fallen back on claiming superiority through knowledge without any clarification of what you mean?
If you're going to use vague terms, you should really expect people to object to them.
You are making an assertion here, and are presenting no evidence to back it up whatsoever. If you have some kind of proof of your theories then by all means let's hear them... after all it would make you famous as the person who finally cracked the nature of thought!
*waits*
No? So you are saying that because the components specialize they are not self-similar?
Your definition of self-similar is practically meaningless (and not the same as the actual mathematical sense at all). It would mean that anything made from the same components is "self-similar" - trivially true but contributing no real insight into the relationships between those things and their functions.
I'm not sure whether you're in fact trying to put across some kind of actual theory here or espouse some New Age pseduo-scientific theory involving vaguely understood concepts from maths.
Yes, I know all about fractals. However while there are local differences in various fractals they are still self-similar across a range of scales and positions. The brain has a range of unique sub-systems. There's no analogy there at all.
By your analogy to computers just increasing processing power isn't enough, you'd have to also come up with entirely new software that doesn't currently exist. That is the problem, not any future lack of processing power. And while if we ever do come up with such software it won't take millions of years, it's likely it'll be far more of a challenge than just supplying the raw horsepower to run it on.
Nonsense. The human brain has any number of different sub-systems in that lizards don't - for instance things like Broca's area that deals with understanding language. The entire cerebral cortex is something lizards don't possess. It might all just be "more neurons, more connections" but they're arranged in different, specific ways, many of which are unique to humans.
That completely ignores the fact that the human brain is full of dozens of specialised areas that deal with different things. There are areas that deal with language, vision, memory, emotion etc. etc. If anything the brain is completely the opposite of fractally self-similar.
That's just the fascistic attitude the French take to their language... and look at how they insist on linguistic purity at the expense of being able to succinctly express new concepts...
Athletes that want a career rather than a single blaze of glory aren't going to kill themselves in their first race. The idea is enhancement, not death.
Yes, thank you for your pedantry, very helpful indeed. Let's ignore the fact that the term has a commonly used alternative definition shall we?
So what are performance enhancing drugs if not an extension of this? If an athlete drinks isotonic energy drinks to help them train, why not let them take a chemical to allow them to go that little bit further whilst in action? Is there a difference? Only in the modern fascist paradigm in which drugs are somehow dirty and bad, rather than tools which we use to alter our minds and bodies.
The anti-drug stance of the IOC and other bodies is pure fascism, and doomed to failure. As long as there is competition people will take performance enhancing drugs.
Unfortunately the Chinese aren't the only ones interesting in making a quick buck from this, or so you'd think from the vast lack of any kind of serious response from our legislators. But then again the Government is quite fond of their own kind of spam where they're pushing themselves as the "product". Quite fitting that Bush and co. are much the same as fake penis enhancing products to be honest.
Like many other things that the Founders said, this was just a rhetorical device. If you really want to see what they meant and believed in you just need to look at the Constitution and what they thought was important enough to set into stone.
Why is the Second Amendment one that specifically gives us the security to defend ourself, if not to ensure freedom is preserved? The Founders knew that freedom and security were two sides of the same coin, and that sometimes we must decrease one to increase the other but that in the end it is all one and the same.