In the fine lines you can read from the latest labor report that most/all of the new jobs in the US have gone to foreigners (mostly low pay). I'm wondering if the tech narrative fits in with that.
I studied brain theory and AI at USC in post grad.
This is a really great question.
Neural networks do not exist in nature anywhere for any species in the sense of the left-to-right pipeline framework you describe.
As with any simulation, there isn't going to be 100% parity with the real thing. It simulates neural networks in the sense that they are adaptive and produce pavlovian results, associative chains, etc.
Can't comment on to what extent the layout you describe (i.e. a traditional neural network) relates to what IBM has set up here.
"The people who made those last 4 bars wouldn't get any more money."
You're talking about what Hershey's would do. Your earlier claim was lowering supply doesn't increase demand. The verification for that is if people would pay more. Not if Hershey's would charge more.
Glad we've established you're a smart guy:)
Saying they chose a profession with thievery is common (while true to some measure) doesn't diminish being a thief oneself.
Hmm... So you're saying that if there were only 4 Hershey bars in the whole world people wouldn't pay more for them than they currently do? Please elaborate.
You are right that buying a digital copy of GoT doesn't decrease the supply. In that case the artists, producers, 1%'ers etc are compensated directly. In the secondary sales market they are compensated by being able to charge higher prices. Either way, they profit. In the case where thieves bit torrent the content around they go uncompsenated.
You might spend 128 hours not working for money, but you've decided for the people making the content they should be compensated for less hours of their working time. Would you be okay letting other people decide to compensate you for less hours of your working time without your consent?
Listen... you're a smart guy. The problem is not that you're not smart enough. The problem is you've resigned yourself to living in a prickly, conflicted world of values. You would be upset if people did this to you. Rationality and nuance aren't going to make things more comfortable for you there. They can only obscure the mental wrestling match you fighting (against yourself).
Whatever distinction you're making there it has no meaning unless you are somehow suggesting that these people ought to somehow be working for free. That argument is morally viable if you are willing to work the schedules these guys do for free.
There's no such thing as induction in science, though, and there never was. If they had any evidence it would stand in the way of the grand standing, career raising, political goals they have. It would hidden under the pretext of being 'inconclusive', etc.
Content producers think, "Ah, I don't want to front something like this. People won't pay for it, so I'll get nothing back". Then he doesn't hire actors, writers, secretaries, etc.
So the job is gone. People don't get that work because the thieves stole it. They didn't pull out a gun. They didn't lop off any fingers. But the people who make the stuff people want don't get to choose that work because the thieves didn't give them that choice.
Well, hey, you know what? I say the thieves don't know any better. I say the people that want that content know better. I say the people who want jobs know better. I say the GoT thieves who high-five each other all day belong in jail so the rest of us can pay lower prices for a better selection of stuff.
I say it's time for the government to do what we're paying them to do and enforce the law!
You start out mentioning your own reservations, but... then... 'No! I'm responding to the religious nut jobs!'
What you are really conflicted about is relating this to your own brain being put in a jar. Your projections of religious people is just a way of demonizing your own feelings!
Let me point you to some relief: invent an opinion on this that you are SURE how you feel about it. Because look: you are free to have any opinion about it you want. You are CONDEMNED to be free, as one athiest put it (i.e. a non-religious nut).
But if you are free to have any opinion, you are also responsible for it.
Make an opinion you can own and live with. That way you can live with YOURSELF!
China and the EU have some of the most restrictions, but their standard of living is FAR below the US which has no child count restrictions or consumption regulations.
Slashdot Mirror
Herbert Hoover understood technology. He was our only engineer president.
... voters became less interested in engineers after his administration.
To make a long story short
Insightful. Wish I had some mod points. Almost sent that one to my boss.
How many of these positions are H1b?
In the fine lines you can read from the latest labor report that most/all of the new jobs in the US have gone to foreigners (mostly low pay). I'm wondering if the tech narrative fits in with that.
I wasn't trying to say I knew anything. That's why I asked it as a question.
Faith which knows something is defective faith. It is built on the abyss.
Your teleological adjustment of my question has the value of being more precise, but, perhaps less poetic.
Where did the hydrogen come from? Where did the singularity come from?
Most people think they'll be "smart investors", but 70% declare bankruptcy. Higher divorce rates, homicides, law suits, etc.
I studied brain theory and AI at USC in post grad.
This is a really great question.
Neural networks do not exist in nature anywhere for any species in the sense of the left-to-right pipeline framework you describe.
As with any simulation, there isn't going to be 100% parity with the real thing. It simulates neural networks in the sense that they are adaptive and produce pavlovian results, associative chains, etc.
Can't comment on to what extent the layout you describe (i.e. a traditional neural network) relates to what IBM has set up here.
"The people who made those last 4 bars wouldn't get any more money."
:)
You're talking about what Hershey's would do. Your earlier claim was lowering supply doesn't increase demand. The verification for that is if people would pay more. Not if Hershey's would charge more.
Glad we've established you're a smart guy
Saying they chose a profession with thievery is common (while true to some measure) doesn't diminish being a thief oneself.
... or everyone is hypocritical.
"Decreasing supply doesn't increase demand."
... So you're saying that if there were only 4 Hershey bars in the whole world people wouldn't pay more for them than they currently do? Please elaborate.
... you're a smart guy. The problem is not that you're not smart enough. The problem is you've resigned yourself to living in a prickly, conflicted world of values. You would be upset if people did this to you. Rationality and nuance aren't going to make things more comfortable for you there. They can only obscure the mental wrestling match you fighting (against yourself).
Hmm
You are right that buying a digital copy of GoT doesn't decrease the supply. In that case the artists, producers, 1%'ers etc are compensated directly. In the secondary sales market they are compensated by being able to charge higher prices. Either way, they profit. In the case where thieves bit torrent the content around they go uncompsenated.
You might spend 128 hours not working for money, but you've decided for the people making the content they should be compensated for less hours of their working time. Would you be okay letting other people decide to compensate you for less hours of your working time without your consent?
Listen
If you buy a second hand car, you've just decreased the supply and thereby increased the demand. Leading to more sales.
If you steal a season of GoT, you haven't decreased the supply and the demand stays the same.
You still haven't explained if you would be OK working for free.
These people had already checked out of life, and the suicide was just a follow through.
... but they got treated exactly they way they treated others. Secretly broken commitments ...
I do feel bad for them
You've taken away jobs and other opportunities.
Whatever distinction you're making there it has no meaning unless you are somehow suggesting that these people ought to somehow be working for free. That argument is morally viable if you are willing to work the schedules these guys do for free.
The headlines I've been seeing indicates Hollywood has been doing worse than ever.
Other than Frozen, I'm not sure what pinnacles you're referring to.
I sensed you intended as much.
There's no such thing as induction in science, though, and there never was. If they had any evidence it would stand in the way of the grand standing, career raising, political goals they have. It would hidden under the pretext of being 'inconclusive', etc.
Content producers think, "Ah, I don't want to front something like this. People won't pay for it, so I'll get nothing back". Then he doesn't hire actors, writers, secretaries, etc.
So the job is gone. People don't get that work because the thieves stole it. They didn't pull out a gun. They didn't lop off any fingers. But the people who make the stuff people want don't get to choose that work because the thieves didn't give them that choice.
Well, hey, you know what? I say the thieves don't know any better. I say the people that want that content know better. I say the people who want jobs know better. I say the GoT thieves who high-five each other all day belong in jail so the rest of us can pay lower prices for a better selection of stuff.
I say it's time for the government to do what we're paying them to do and enforce the law!
The real requirement is whether it can speak up for and defend itself.
Since it can't inconvenience anyone, the "experts" have determined it has no civil rights and we obligated to abuse and torment it.
The same perverted thinking people used on the poor, slaves, children, etc.
Gertrude, you protest too much.
... then ... 'No! I'm responding to the religious nut jobs!'
You start out mentioning your own reservations, but
What you are really conflicted about is relating this to your own brain being put in a jar. Your projections of religious people is just a way of demonizing your own feelings!
Let me point you to some relief: invent an opinion on this that you are SURE how you feel about it. Because look: you are free to have any opinion about it you want. You are CONDEMNED to be free, as one athiest put it (i.e. a non-religious nut).
But if you are free to have any opinion, you are also responsible for it.
Make an opinion you can own and live with. That way you can live with YOURSELF!
(Btw, cool SB quote)
Debating makes a presidential candidate look wishy-washy. Ask Ross Perot.
Trump understands branding -if nothing else.
Interesting! Thanks.
I'm not sure his DNC counterpart will differ much there. I'll stay tuned.
The "new depression" thing is gonna be a tough sell.
Obama, Coakley, Sanders: ordinary people don't see them as understanding commercial successes. Gore, maybe.
China and the EU have some of the most restrictions, but their standard of living is FAR below the US which has no child count restrictions or consumption regulations.
Maybe it's time for Scooter Libby to run for POTUS ?
Or Armitage?
This is no obstacle for those who are easily amused!
Hacking the Constitution for the citizens sounds like de-facto rule of mob.