neural nets are designed to simulate how the brain works, so it makes sense that they be trained the same way
Actually, neural nets don't simulate, they mimic at some crude level.
But just like mimicking what a bird does (ie tape feathers to your arms and flap) isn't going to get you off the ground, mimicking the human brain will probably only get us so far.
I believe the real breakthroughs will come more or less like it did in aeordynamics: when we understood the principles of flight and stopped mimicking birds, we could fly. When we understand the principles of intelligence and stop mimicking brains, we might be on to something.
If you ever ask a highly recognisable person for their view on a certian subject, most would lie just to keep their reputation....
Of course... it's all a conspiracy...
The scientists are anonymous... their answers aren't published, only the aggregate results... so what would they gain from lying exactly?
Do you think the 8% or so who professed belief in a god have lost their jobs or something?
Sometimes other people's criticial thinking skills make me wonder about the current state of education today...
Athiest and agnostic scientists are not the majority, they're just the loudest.
I grow so tired of defeating morons, but oh well...
http://www.gsreport.com/articles/art000068.html
A survey conducted in mid-1998, reported by Edward J. Larson of the University of Georgia in a letter to the journal Nature, indicates that very few senior scientists in the United States profess a belief in God or immortality
So, this is good news for string theorists, bad news for evolutionists
Huh? What does biology have to do with anything here? You're comparing apples and oranges.
After all, if you can't count on the 'constants' being the exact same value in the past, how can you actually date the age of the earth, fossils, the universe, etc. accurately?
IF the findings are true (remember, these are very preliminary findings), THEN it takes something like 12 billion years for very very very minute changes to occur. I think dating fossils that are less than 4 billion years old is not going to be affected much, if at all. And these results really don't have any significant implications for the age of the universe.
This article is talking about changes in something related to, but not exactly the same as, the speed of light.
Also the changes are much more minute than creationists claim.
But, given the history of creationist lies, it won't be long until we see this result being quoted out of context and being used to support completely unjustified conclusions.
Well, it wasn't listed in the "core features" in the press release, so I doubt it. Anyways...
I'm not at all sure why you believe DX8's approach is superior (if I may read between the lines).
The extensions are there and work... part of (core) OpenGL's attraction is its *careful* evolution. Contrast this to the DX approach, which is "cram in all the new features we can each cycle". Moving shaders into the "core" so quickly goes against the careful evolution strategy.
I prefer a stable API that has the ability to be extended (OpenGL), over an API that is constantly changing (DX).
All the talk of SSE and SSE2 was fairly interesting, but for us user space coders it's pretty useless since gcc doesn't properly align stack variables on x86 (see GNATS, problem report 3299, as well as this, this, and this.)
If any gcc hackers out there are reading, just le me know where to start poking and I'll try and implement a solution.
The one with the chick in the bikini has white "holes" near the top of her head where I had scrolled to the right and the image hadn't scrolled or wasn't updated with the rest of the page.
Also, I note that the build ID that you have in the title bar (2001-05-15-13) is _old_
Yep, and the problems I reported have since been solved. Mozilla rules.
I'm not an expert Perl programmer, so correct me if I'm wrong, but "use strict" requires programmers to be a little more careful to prevent errors.
This is certainly true, but having to do such thing all the time would be a drag... if I'm writing a PERL script that is going to be around for a while and maintained by others, I usually go with "use strict". If I'm just writing a quick one-off to do some specific data munging (or whatever), I can be as sloppy as I want. I suspect this CSS won't be as forgiving.
Anyways, maybe "not having to declare variables" was a bad example. Perhaps a better example would be more natural reg. exp. usage in Perl and Python, whereas this CSS seems to make use of a clumsy library, and other areas where Perl and Python have things "built in" that this CSS doesn't.
I dunno. I took a quick walk around the manual and checked out some of the examples, but it seems to me that C (or C-like languages) just aren't all that suitable for scripts. Good scripting languages (like Perl and Python) tend to be "looser" (e.g. not having to declare variables) than C, and for a reason: you don't want to be bothered with such things when trying to write a quick one-off script. Not to mention the fact that Perl and Python form some pretty stiff competition in this sort of arena.
Also, naming it CSS is pretty confusing, given that CSS already equals Cascade Style Sheets.
I guess the people responsible for the graphics rendering are having trouble duplicating what I'm seeing...
Which is why I always take
a screenshot or or two of graphics corruption and include them with the bug reports. The pr0n lib guys (or whatever the 'official' name is now:) ) seem to appreciate it.
When Qt was charging Windows users for something they can get both Free and "for free" on other platforms it reminded me of this from Larry Wall:
In particular, we really needed to have a commercially
packaged version of Perl for the Windows folks, because
many of them were (and still are) clueless about open source. It's almost like we're doing Windows users a favour
by charging them money for something they could get for
free, because they get confused otherwise.
Rogers deserves to rot for what I would call false advertising
I couldn't agree more. Ever since Shaw came to BC their cable service, and in particular my broadband service, has been top-notch. I actually talked to a tech support guy who knew what Linux was... what a change of pace from Rogers.
I'm writing a Windows application with Microsoft Visual C++ and I will be releasing it under the GPL. Is dynamically linking my program with the Visual C++ run-time library permitted under the GPL?
Yes, because that run-time library normally accompanies the compiler you are using
I'm a Canadian and a Libertarian. I have to agree with the original comment: the government should not be wasting our tax dollars like this.
providing a better standard of living the poor, potentially at the expense of the rich
Then they wonder why there is a "brain drain" in Canada... why the hell should I work my ass off only to be robbed by the government to help out "the poor"? I'm all for voluntary charity (I voluntarily give to several worhtwhile charities), but taking my money by force = robbery in every other context except taxation. Why is that?
On another note, isn't 3.0 a really low numbered release?
Uh... would it make you happy if they called it version 23.0? Other vendors increase version numbers like there is no tomorrow (makes managers happy, I think), so we should "catch up" to that silliness? What difference does it make?
just seems like more proof that the Open Source development model leads to slower release cycles
What are you smoking? Free software is in continuous release. How long has it been between versions of MS VC? Almost a year and a half now...
a never ending game of catchup
I think if you compare standards compliance, gcc ranks right up there with every other vendor.
I was going to just mod you down, but there is no "-1 duh" moderation.
Slashdot Mirror
But just like mimicking what a bird does (ie tape feathers to your arms and flap) isn't going to get you off the ground, mimicking the human brain will probably only get us so far.
I believe the real breakthroughs will come more or less like it did in aeordynamics: when we understood the principles of flight and stopped mimicking birds, we could fly. When we understand the principles of intelligence and stop mimicking brains, we might be on to something.
From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (13 Mar 01) [foldoc]:
Alan Turing
Alan M. Turing, 22/3? June 1912 - 7 June 1954.
Eniac was around during WWII, so yes, computers existed in Turing's lifetime.
There are RPMs or DEBs for sudo... the package name is (originally enough) "sudo".
sudo pacakges at RPM Find.
The scientists are anonymous... their answers aren't published, only the aggregate results... so what would they gain from lying exactly? Do you think the 8% or so who professed belief in a god have lost their jobs or something?
Sometimes other people's criticial thinking skills make me wonder about the current state of education today...
http://www.gsreport.com/articles/art000068.html
A survey conducted in mid-1998, reported by Edward J. Larson of the University of Georgia in a letter to the journal Nature, indicates that very few senior scientists in the United States profess a belief in God or immortality
So much for your assertion.
- http://talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html
- http://talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html
- http://talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
- http://talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html
- http://talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html
- ...
And so forth.This article is talking about changes in something related to, but not exactly the same as, the speed of light.
Also the changes are much more minute than creationists claim.
But, given the history of creationist lies, it won't be long until we see this result being quoted out of context and being used to support completely unjustified conclusions.
Well, it wasn't listed in the "core features" in the press release, so I doubt it. Anyways...
I'm not at all sure why you believe DX8's approach is superior (if I may read between the lines).
The extensions are there and work... part of (core) OpenGL's attraction is its *careful* evolution. Contrast this to the DX approach, which is "cram in all the new features we can each cycle". Moving shaders into the "core" so quickly goes against the careful evolution strategy.
I prefer a stable API that has the ability to be extended (OpenGL), over an API that is constantly changing (DX).
If any gcc hackers out there are reading, just le me know where to start poking and I'll try and implement a solution.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Uh... forgive me for sounding crass, but if that's the case, you probably have bigger battles to fight than env. variables vs. config files.
Ryan T. Sammartino
The one with the chick in the bikini has white "holes" near the top of her head where I had scrolled to the right and the image hadn't scrolled or wasn't updated with the rest of the page.
Also, I note that the build ID that you have in the title bar (2001-05-15-13) is _old_
Yep, and the problems I reported have since been solved. Mozilla rules.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Ryan T. Sammartino
Well, you can do template metaprogramming, but I believe it involves a little more than just the preprocessor. For example:
template < unsigned N > struct Fact
{
enum { Val = N * Fact < N - 1 >::Val };
};
template <> struct Fact < 1 >
{
enum { Val = 1 };
}
#define FactT( n) Fact < n >:: Val
Conforming compilers will reduce FactT(5) to a constant.
References:
* Chapter 1.2 of "Game Programming Gems" (that's where I got the example from)
* "Using C++ Template Metaprograms", C++ Report, May, 1995
Pretty whacky eh?
Ryan T. Sammartino
Ryan T. Sammartino
This is certainly true, but having to do such thing all the time would be a drag... if I'm writing a PERL script that is going to be around for a while and maintained by others, I usually go with "use strict". If I'm just writing a quick one-off to do some specific data munging (or whatever), I can be as sloppy as I want. I suspect this CSS won't be as forgiving.
Anyways, maybe "not having to declare variables" was a bad example. Perhaps a better example would be more natural reg. exp. usage in Perl and Python, whereas this CSS seems to make use of a clumsy library, and other areas where Perl and Python have things "built in" that this CSS doesn't.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Also, naming it CSS is pretty confusing, given that CSS already equals Cascade Style Sheets.
Anyways, how can I get my SourceForge project on the front page of /.? :)
Ryan T. Sammartino
Which is why I always take a screenshot or or two of graphics corruption and include them with the bug reports. The pr0n lib guys (or whatever the 'official' name is now :) ) seem to appreciate it.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Of course, I meant TrollTech... doh!
Ryan T. Sammartino
Ryan T. Sammartino
I couldn't agree more. Ever since Shaw came to BC their cable service, and in particular my broadband service, has been top-notch. I actually talked to a tech support guy who knew what Linux was... what a change of pace from Rogers.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Apparently RMS disagrees with you in at least one case:
Ryan T. Sammartino
Ryan T. Sammartino
Ryan T. Sammartino
Uh... would it make you happy if they called it version 23.0? Other vendors increase version numbers like there is no tomorrow (makes managers happy, I think), so we should "catch up" to that silliness? What difference does it make?
just seems like more proof that the Open Source development model leads to slower release cycles
What are you smoking? Free software is in continuous release. How long has it been between versions of MS VC? Almost a year and a half now...
a never ending game of catchup
I think if you compare standards compliance, gcc ranks right up there with every other vendor.
I was going to just mod you down, but there is no "-1 duh" moderation.
Ryan T. Sammartino