Well, because "Two million years ago something happened in the Andromeda galaxy, and we're only just finding out about it now" is a lame headline.
And in our frame of reference, it just happened. Or, apparently would have happened if it had actually happened, it just so happens that it didn't actually happen. Though, in the future something might happen. But nothing happened today in Andromeda. Even the thing which didn't happen. Because it would have happened a long time ago if it had happened. And if it happened today, we won't know about it for a very long time. When that happens, we'll know it happened, but we'll be debating if it just happened or if it happened already.
I have always found it strange how you Anglo Saxons see so much sanctity in feces. To us Germans it is a revolting substance but for you it is the focus of much religious reverence.
That's OK, we've never understood why your toilets have shelves so you can inspect your own feces.
If you don't care, you don't care. If you say you don't care, and animosity is bred, you are lying.
No, you're stupid.
I don't care that parenting is supposed to be awesome. I don't care to have children. I don't care if someone else has children.
But, if someone keeps acting like a self righteous asshole and telling me I'm wrong, and need to reconsider -- then I'm going to start to care. Animosity will be bred, and I might have to hurt them, or at least their feelings.
Have all the babies you want, but, please, don't bloody well tell me that it's something that I should do or that I'm mistaken in not wanting to do it myself.
And, yes, I have had people try to convince me of how awesome it is, and refuse to listen to me when I say that I will not ever have children.
At that point, you're just another zealot, and I have no time for you, and things will become unpleasant.
Great, wonderful, you found something that makes you happy.
But, please, don't assume that I'm interested in doing the same thing.
And the continued attempts at telling me how awesome it is and not understanding that I don't care -- well, that's gonna breed some animosity.
I've been firmly saying I'm not having children since I was 14, just because a parent is elated at having one doesn't mean their enthusiasm is going to change my long held stance on this.
We had some neighbors a few years back. They were nice before they had kids. Then after a few years, everything was about her child (which I do understand), and every third story involved the word penis, or involved some form of bodily function.
And I had to tell her in no uncertain terms, that I do not give a damn about any story involving her child's penis or bodily functions, just like she isn't interested in the big dump I took that morning. I don't find them cute stories, I find them to be something I have no interest in hearing about.
She'd lost all sense of social boundaries on the topic. Which, unfortunately, leads me to losing sense of a couple of other social boundaries.
Completely agree with you. A male choosing to be childless is too often equated with being irresponsible which based on current cost of living and depleting resources should i fact be considered as very responsible.
You should try it as a couple.
My wife and I have no interest in having children.
And an amazing amount of people act like if we'd only reconsider and see the One True Path of Parenting we'd do it.
I frequently have to restrain myself from throttling some idiot who thinks our choice to not have children is some kind of defect and that we should reconsider. In fact, I've had to threaten to a few of them with that possibility in a few cases to make them understand that I don't actually care about their belief that parenting is wonderful and for everyone, and have no desire to hear about it.
Any moron can have children. Go to a mall if you don't believe me.
Some of these old school building have inefficient boilers that are over 40 years old... they aren't exactly winning any efficiency awards. Moving students to a temporary location and then rehabilitating or replacing the old facility can be a net environmental gain.
Sure, that's one possibility.
But, allow me to offer another.
Where I live, schools seem to be going up quite fast. Without exception, within a few months of the school opening (if not before), they truck in the portables.
Brand new schools, with portables.
So, either school boards are uniformly stupid, and can't add. Or cities are failing to make the developers pay enough to build adequate schools for the amount of houses they build. Or school boards are so under funded, they start off designing a school they know will be outgrown before its even open.
In any case, from what I see, they're being used to compensate for short-sighted planning or too-small budgets on brand new schools more than they're being used for generating any net environmental gain due to remediating old heating systems.
But every single school near me, some built withing the last 3 years, most built in the last 10, has portables. And they more are less going to be there permanently.
OK, if you're going to nerd out on the force, you have to remember that Star Wars had faster than light travel.
If ships can travel faster than light, why not "the force"? More specifically, if humans can do it, how could they do something the force couldn't? That would be impossible, since the force is everything.
And, second, there are no "force-enabled" humans... it's fiction.;-)
Your use of the phrase 'sky wizard' shows that you have never taken the time or had the impetus to learn what our Lord and Savior Jesus H Christ died for on the cross and that you will be damned for all eternity in a blazing corona of flames. I hope that your smugness for the time your are here on earth in physical form provides adequate fodder to keep your mind occupied for your eternal damnation that is your future.
You're probably just a random troll, but in case you're not...
Any entity which can create the vast, complex and wondrous universe that I see around me and live in is not going to be some petty, childish idiot bent on vengeance and scaring me with bed time stories, and demanding blind obeisance to metaphor and mis-interpretation by puny humans.
If such a god exists, he/she/it/they will be capable of much broader thinking than those who claim to represent him/her/it/they.
What if your explanation is "a wizard did it", and science is merely the exploration of how it was done?
Lacking evidence to suggest the existence of a wizard, if science is exploring how a wizard did it, it has ceased to be science.
For the same reason that science doesn't start with the explanation that 16 drunken squirrels salsa dancing in yellow thong bikinis were the cause of the universe, and then try to explain how the hell that happened.
Science doesn't start with a premise that something external and unknown and for which there is no evidence exists and work backwards from there.
When science was new that was the case, Newton was a Christian, but nowadays, if you're assuming the wizard, you're stepping outside of what is properly called science.
If you do, well, there's just as much evidence for my 16 drunken squirrels salsa dancing in yellow thong bikinis as your wizard.
The large number of people who collectively believe in the wizard is not evidence for the existence of said wizard, no more than the number of people who believed the Earth was flat or the center of the universe was evidence for either of those things.
Which is sad because the country has quite a bit of history, and from everything I've heard the residents are actually a friendly and cordial people
I've known many people over the years who identify themselves as 'Persian'.
They've been exceedingly nice, smart people for the most part. But, even they try very hard to distance themselves from Iran, the land of the batshit crazy.
And, I'm sorry, but the present-day country called Iran is no place I'd ever want to go. The historical Persia which had art, and science, and philosophy (and tolerance), and lots of cool things... that I'd love to see.
But don't ever forget there's a difference between the historical entity, and the present one. And the present one is ruled by crazy idiots.
In this case however, it should be noted that the humans are ALSO in error. They see both images as the same, when the images are in fact not the same.
Ah, but here's a question for you: Are the humans in error, or have the humans applied a better threshold for "same enough"? Possibly one with some evolutionary advantage?
Say I set my camera to continuously take pictures while holding the shutter button, and I take 10 frames of something.
The delta between those frames could be very small, or very large depending on a bunch of things. Given a small enough delta, what do we define as the point where they cease to be the "same"? It's clearly a different image in that it was taken at a slightly different time... but if nothing else changes, how would you tell?
From the article:
To be clear, the adversarial examples looked to a human like the original, but the network misclassified them. You can have two photos that look not only like a cat but the same cat, indeed the same photo, to a human, but the machine gets one right and the other wrong.
So, maybe we humans are far better than the machines as categorizing what we see? And maybe that's because we're looking at entirely different aspects of the image than the neural net does.
I don't think the humans are in error at all, I think the humans are making a much broader assessment and saying "yup, still the same", and maybe not quite focusing on specific details as much. Same enough to not get eaten by a grue, and beyond that... irrelevant.
To me, this is kinda like magic tricks... keep the eye focusing on the bits which are not changing, and you conceal the bits which are changing right under your nose.
What happens when your insurance carrier demands Samsung hand over this information?
Sorry, but, there comes a point where I think having your phone have more and more of this information is going to become more of a problem than a benefit.
If a deep neural network is biologically inspired we can ask the question, does the same result apply to biological networks? Put more bluntly, 'Does the human brain have similar built-in errors?
Aren't optical illusions pretty much something like this?
And, my second question, just because deep neural networks are biologically inspired, can we infer from this kind of issue in computer programs that there is likely to be a biological equivalent? Or has everyone made the same mistake and/or we're seeing a limitation in the technology?
Maybe the problem isn't with the biology, but the technology?
Or are we so confident in neural networks that we deem them infallible? (Which, obviously, they aren't.)
Ceiling fans are very nice, automated curtains actually have a noticeable change in heating/cooling bills.
But, and be honest now... given what you've spent on the connected home, is a little energy savings ever going to help you recoup your costs?
Or is this one of those things where you've spent $40K on automation, and have just saved $50 on your heating/cooling?
I'm afraid I will pretty much remain someone who sees the connected home as a cool demonstration piece of technology, but not something I'd ever care to spend the money on.
OH come on - just because something is easy to do automatically makes it legal. Is that your argument?
No, my argument is "which keys are legal to update and which aren't?"
Are they enumerated in advance? Is it only certain values? Does it change on a whim? What if I do it by accident?
So, if I push 6 into a registry key it's legal, but if I push 9 I've committed a crime? But if I touch another registry key it's completely illegal?
If your life is so special and precious, it shouldn't be something I can so trivially extinguish with this here handgun. Oops - And I told myself I wasn't going to use analogies, which inevitably end up driving the conversation in the direction of whether or not the analogy holds.
You're right, in this case the direction is "are you always such a fucking childish asshole, or just one Slashdot?" and "did the bad man touch you?".
Slashdot Mirror
Well, because "Two million years ago something happened in the Andromeda galaxy, and we're only just finding out about it now" is a lame headline.
And in our frame of reference, it just happened. Or, apparently would have happened if it had actually happened, it just so happens that it didn't actually happen. Though, in the future something might happen. But nothing happened today in Andromeda. Even the thing which didn't happen. Because it would have happened a long time ago if it had happened. And if it happened today, we won't know about it for a very long time. When that happens, we'll know it happened, but we'll be debating if it just happened or if it happened already.
And that is why we use the present tense. ;-)
Oh, and the Saxons were German.
That's OK, we've never understood why your toilets have shelves so you can inspect your own feces.
So, whose the one obsessed with poo?
You know what else is an advantage before mass market adoption? Specs which will lead to mass market adoption.
These aint it.
No, you're stupid.
I don't care that parenting is supposed to be awesome. I don't care to have children. I don't care if someone else has children.
But, if someone keeps acting like a self righteous asshole and telling me I'm wrong, and need to reconsider -- then I'm going to start to care. Animosity will be bred, and I might have to hurt them, or at least their feelings.
Have all the babies you want, but, please, don't bloody well tell me that it's something that I should do or that I'm mistaken in not wanting to do it myself.
And, yes, I have had people try to convince me of how awesome it is, and refuse to listen to me when I say that I will not ever have children.
At that point, you're just another zealot, and I have no time for you, and things will become unpleasant.
They're called tablets. :-P
Dude, did you even read the article?
This has nothing to do with the US.
But, it's kind of like finding religion.
Great, wonderful, you found something that makes you happy.
But, please, don't assume that I'm interested in doing the same thing.
And the continued attempts at telling me how awesome it is and not understanding that I don't care -- well, that's gonna breed some animosity.
I've been firmly saying I'm not having children since I was 14, just because a parent is elated at having one doesn't mean their enthusiasm is going to change my long held stance on this.
We had some neighbors a few years back. They were nice before they had kids. Then after a few years, everything was about her child (which I do understand), and every third story involved the word penis, or involved some form of bodily function.
And I had to tell her in no uncertain terms, that I do not give a damn about any story involving her child's penis or bodily functions, just like she isn't interested in the big dump I took that morning. I don't find them cute stories, I find them to be something I have no interest in hearing about.
She'd lost all sense of social boundaries on the topic. Which, unfortunately, leads me to losing sense of a couple of other social boundaries.
You should try it as a couple.
My wife and I have no interest in having children.
And an amazing amount of people act like if we'd only reconsider and see the One True Path of Parenting we'd do it.
I frequently have to restrain myself from throttling some idiot who thinks our choice to not have children is some kind of defect and that we should reconsider. In fact, I've had to threaten to a few of them with that possibility in a few cases to make them understand that I don't actually care about their belief that parenting is wonderful and for everyone, and have no desire to hear about it.
Any moron can have children. Go to a mall if you don't believe me.
Sure, that's one possibility.
But, allow me to offer another.
Where I live, schools seem to be going up quite fast. Without exception, within a few months of the school opening (if not before), they truck in the portables.
Brand new schools, with portables.
So, either school boards are uniformly stupid, and can't add. Or cities are failing to make the developers pay enough to build adequate schools for the amount of houses they build. Or school boards are so under funded, they start off designing a school they know will be outgrown before its even open.
In any case, from what I see, they're being used to compensate for short-sighted planning or too-small budgets on brand new schools more than they're being used for generating any net environmental gain due to remediating old heating systems.
But every single school near me, some built withing the last 3 years, most built in the last 10, has portables. And they more are less going to be there permanently.
OK, if you're going to nerd out on the force, you have to remember that Star Wars had faster than light travel.
If ships can travel faster than light, why not "the force"? More specifically, if humans can do it, how could they do something the force couldn't? That would be impossible, since the force is everything.
And, second, there are no "force-enabled" humans ... it's fiction. ;-)
You're probably just a random troll, but in case you're not ...
Any entity which can create the vast, complex and wondrous universe that I see around me and live in is not going to be some petty, childish idiot bent on vengeance and scaring me with bed time stories, and demanding blind obeisance to metaphor and mis-interpretation by puny humans.
If such a god exists, he/she/it/they will be capable of much broader thinking than those who claim to represent him/her/it/they.
If not, to hell with him.
Now, go put away your childish things.
Lacking evidence to suggest the existence of a wizard, if science is exploring how a wizard did it, it has ceased to be science.
For the same reason that science doesn't start with the explanation that 16 drunken squirrels salsa dancing in yellow thong bikinis were the cause of the universe, and then try to explain how the hell that happened.
Science doesn't start with a premise that something external and unknown and for which there is no evidence exists and work backwards from there.
When science was new that was the case, Newton was a Christian, but nowadays, if you're assuming the wizard, you're stepping outside of what is properly called science.
If you do, well, there's just as much evidence for my 16 drunken squirrels salsa dancing in yellow thong bikinis as your wizard.
The large number of people who collectively believe in the wizard is not evidence for the existence of said wizard, no more than the number of people who believed the Earth was flat or the center of the universe was evidence for either of those things.
You can believe that evolution happened, or that we were all made by the magical sky wizard.
Just because you believe evolution is real and actually happened, you may or may not know a damn about science.
Some people do not believe evolution is a real thing or that it happened.
What part are you missing?
Hmmm ... do all names ending in 'berg' imply being of Jewish descent?
I thought that was a myth. Isn't it ultimately Germanic, and 'berg' means "from this city"?
I neither know nor care about Zuckerberg's religious background, but I've never assumed that 'berg' implied that.
No more than I assume that names ending in "ski" or "owitz" are anything more than likely Polish or Ukrainian.
LOL, how sweet.
My alternative explanation: the tin-foil hat response is my natural first response, because that's how I roll bitches.
And, that is a perfectly valid reason to do pretty much anything. :-P
I've known many people over the years who identify themselves as 'Persian'.
They've been exceedingly nice, smart people for the most part. But, even they try very hard to distance themselves from Iran, the land of the batshit crazy.
And, I'm sorry, but the present-day country called Iran is no place I'd ever want to go. The historical Persia which had art, and science, and philosophy (and tolerance), and lots of cool things ... that I'd love to see.
But don't ever forget there's a difference between the historical entity, and the present one. And the present one is ruled by crazy idiots.
Ah, but here's a question for you: Are the humans in error, or have the humans applied a better threshold for "same enough"? Possibly one with some evolutionary advantage?
Say I set my camera to continuously take pictures while holding the shutter button, and I take 10 frames of something.
The delta between those frames could be very small, or very large depending on a bunch of things. Given a small enough delta, what do we define as the point where they cease to be the "same"? It's clearly a different image in that it was taken at a slightly different time ... but if nothing else changes, how would you tell?
From the article:
So, maybe we humans are far better than the machines as categorizing what we see? And maybe that's because we're looking at entirely different aspects of the image than the neural net does.
I don't think the humans are in error at all, I think the humans are making a much broader assessment and saying "yup, still the same", and maybe not quite focusing on specific details as much. Same enough to not get eaten by a grue, and beyond that ... irrelevant.
To me, this is kinda like magic tricks ... keep the eye focusing on the bits which are not changing, and you conceal the bits which are changing right under your nose.
Regardless of ... well, pretty much anything, I wouldn't go anywhere near Iran.
Or will Samsung try to monetize it?
What happens when your insurance carrier demands Samsung hand over this information?
Sorry, but, there comes a point where I think having your phone have more and more of this information is going to become more of a problem than a benefit.
And this is one of them.
No, I'm saying "why would be assume a similar flaw in a biological system because computer simulations have a flaw".
I think jumping to the possibility that biological systems share the same weaknesses as computer programs is a bit of a stretch.
Aren't optical illusions pretty much something like this?
And, my second question, just because deep neural networks are biologically inspired, can we infer from this kind of issue in computer programs that there is likely to be a biological equivalent? Or has everyone made the same mistake and/or we're seeing a limitation in the technology?
Maybe the problem isn't with the biology, but the technology?
Or are we so confident in neural networks that we deem them infallible? (Which, obviously, they aren't.)
But, and be honest now ... given what you've spent on the connected home, is a little energy savings ever going to help you recoup your costs?
Or is this one of those things where you've spent $40K on automation, and have just saved $50 on your heating/cooling?
I'm afraid I will pretty much remain someone who sees the connected home as a cool demonstration piece of technology, but not something I'd ever care to spend the money on.
No, my argument is "which keys are legal to update and which aren't?"
Are they enumerated in advance? Is it only certain values? Does it change on a whim? What if I do it by accident?
So, if I push 6 into a registry key it's legal, but if I push 9 I've committed a crime? But if I touch another registry key it's completely illegal?
You're right, in this case the direction is "are you always such a fucking childish asshole, or just one Slashdot?" and "did the bad man touch you?".
Seriously, go back to screwing your sister.