It's a reckless, amoral organization, that doesn't care who it hurts, doesn't care if it gets blood on its hand, and could care less about the fate of the people who supply its documents. What the world needs, and still has plenty of, are people of good moral character, who will fight for what's right, who will take stands, and who will take risks. I have way more respect for the three young women of Pussy Riot and what they have accomplished than anything Wikileaks has done.
These comments (and many others - I've been keeping track) have me wondering if Slashdot is infected with astroturfers.
In Malcolm Gladwell's book "The Tipping Point" he dissects the way in which public opinion arises - why certain memes "go viral" and become popular, while other apparently equally valid ideas do not.
In his model, certain people are "connectors". The best example of this is "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon", where Kevin is a connector because so many people are related to him by movie acting.
Along with connectors, there are mavens (people who are expert in a particular subject, usually a hobby or pastime - not job related) and salesmen (people who can convince others to try something). The other 97% of us are just regular people.
Slashdot is a magnet for mavens, and it's wide appeal (200,000 people per day?) would put it in front of many salesmen and connectors in society. Indeed, with all its viewers it probably eliminates the need for connectors outright.
The comment above is such a blatant example of propaganda, it makes me wonder whether special interest groups are paying people to post them. Controlling Slashdot would be instrumental in preventing the revolution of ideas which would disrupt the status-quo.
At the very least, certain ideas which are known to be false seem to rise up all the time and provide distractions to the discussion at large. The US can't have broadband because the land is thinly populated (belies other countries with similar density, and ignores lack of coverage in US population centers), the victim is to blame (it's his fault for wearing that T-shirt on a plane), and many others. Someone always posts one of these and the discussion goes careening off into a non-sequitur discussion of some tangential issue.
Are we being manipulated? Are people being paid to distract us from discussing the core issues?
I mean, the very first fax machines were expensive (around $2000), and the first person to get one had no one to send things to, and no one to receive from. Were fax machines ever really that unlikely to succeed?
There's lots of things that have value in proportion to the number of people who use it - it's called the network effect. In a few instances (fax machines, telephones, the internet) the value is zero if no (or very few) people are actually using it. That doesn't mean that telephones or fax machines or the internet didn't come into common, everyday usage.
Is this a valid concern? Should I, as an intelligent adult, claim that something will never be of value simply because no one uses it right now?
It 'kinda seems like there's a flaw in that reasoning. Wouldn't you be better off with a different argument?
This looks suspiciously like the Black Rock desert in Nevada. About a hundred miles North and a little East of Reno, near the town of Gerlach.
The place is the largest section of "flat" in the US. It's the remains of a prehistoric lake (Lahontan) that has dried up, leaving behind a perfectly flat dried mud surface.
It's where the land-speed records are set. It's where amateur rockets are launched. It's where Burning Man is held.
We need updates "over the air", without operator intervention! It's too inconvenient for owners to have to come into a dealer for updates, that's unreasonable!
And it won't allow us to do the updates as often as we like! We're always fixing bugs, so we need the ability to update the software every 6 hours... sometimes even less! Look at Firefox and Windows - how often do they update? It's an industry standard!
And encryption? That's haaaard! It takes time and effort to implement and it adds no value to the end product. We could better monitize our developer value by having them implement bells and whistles! More features is perceived as better value, making the left automatic window button work differently than the right one is seen as more valuable by the end user! Don't spend time on encryption, it's features all the way!
==============
Force the manufacturers to update once a year or less, this will help make sure that they get it right and only fix things that are needed.
Force the manufacturers to recall the vehicle for an update. Yes, it's inconvenient. Yes, it's necessary. Pro tip: Making it expensive to fix will encourage the manufacturer to get it right the first time.
Force the manufacturers to open the spec on the software, including the update channel. If a hacker can crack it, it's not secure enough.
This is not hard. Other products have figured this out already (for example, printer industry). When it's expensive to fix, it puts pressure on the manufacturer to get it right the first time.
I can't think of an example from something that everyone should know, but I'll attempt to answer this.
1) There are two tides each day, one when the moon is directly overhead, and one when the moon is directly underneath. Since the gravitational attraction of the moon causes tides, can you explain why there is a tide when the moon is directly underneath?
2) The fourier transform converts from time domain to frequency domain; ie - it takes an audio WAV file of amplitudes over time and converts it to a list of frequencies over time. To do this you multiply by a complex exponential and integrate. Can you explain why this works? In other words, why does multiplying by the exponential and integrating convert from time domain to frequency domain? (Don't look at the answer until you can explain it yourself.)
3) In economics it is well known that a little inflation is good, a lot of inflation is bad, and negative inflation is very bad. Can you tell me what the correct value is? Can you tell me how important it is to hit the correct value exactly (ie - is the good/bad measure relatively flat or sharply peaked)? Can you tell me how to measure inflation in such a way that all economists would agree?
A quick look at the linked paper shows that they have covered all the bases - temperature, pressure, background radiation, radon, and so on. Their analysis appears to be spot-on, but at the same time I hope that they continue the experiment in order to really pound the last nail in the coffin.
From that same article:
Some of the measurements and analysis conrm the existence of oscillations [6, 7] whereas others contradict this hypothesis [8, 9, 10].
Note that this paper is fairly recent (published at the end of March) and is only one such paper which notes the caveats mentioned in the quote above. If we are keeping score, then there are 2 papers which see correlations and 4 which do not.
I am now cautiously optimistic about the [lack of] results, but in light of the recent findings by Jere Jenkins et al and the fact that other studies appear to find similar correlations, it might be good to actually identify the source of systemic error.
If for no better reason than to document the source of the problem to allow for better measurements in the future.
There is no lack of people who would look into this, and to be sure many top people have...
And yet, not one of the people who looked into it actually took the time to collect evidence.
(Can you post a link to a paper which disproves this based on collected data?)
Interesting how calling a data set "non replicable" is seen as good science, while replicating the data (which is what the current paper purports to do) is "not really good science".
This has to be either a systematic or a fluke. The only thing that could conceivably have an influence on nuclear decay rates is...
Okay, wait.
This guy has evidence which your model doesn't account for. You're saying that the evidence can't be right because it isn't accounted for by your model?
That's not science, that's politics.
If he's got evidence, either counter with your own evidence or show that his evidence is fabricated.
Try actually being a scientist, instead of pretending to act like one.
I've been following this topic for a couple of years. Variation of radioactive decay has been noticed and reported by Jere Jenkins et al before.
In all cases, the results have been panned by the physics community as unlikely, not fitting with the current model, or failing to match with other measurements. The overall conclusion in each of these papers has been: "it can't be correct because it doesn't fit within our model".
The theory was disproved by analysis, not disproved by abundance of data.
Measuring radioactive decay is simple, and it would have taken an undergrad about a week to set up a logging system sensitive enough to gather evidence which would corroborate or disprove the theory.
No one thought to do this, Jere and friends were dismissed as cranks and crackpots.
I'm glad to see this finally reach the light of day. None of the criticisms of his work was based on evidence, and dismissing evidence is not real science.
Coding is like chess. it's easy to learn, but takes a lifetime to master.
You can learn the rules of chess in a day, and you can play your first three matches on that same day. It takes a lifetime of study to be any good at chess, to be better than others at chess, or to compete in any way at chess.
Another way to put it is like guitar, or piano.
How long does it take to earn money playing guitar? Basic guitar takes about a week of practice, but how long will it take to earn money from playing it?
As with anything, there are basics as well as subtle, underlying principles. Coding, chess, guitar, piano, or any other refined action takes years of practice, experimentation, and learning to master. About 10,000 hours all told.
Then ask: "How many hours does it take to become a manager?"
"Intelligence" has two separate and distinct meanings in colloquial English. It can mean the ease and speed of comprehension, or it can mean the total amount of knowledge a person has.
Working the brain will cause it to make more connections, and some of these connections translate in an abstract way to other topics. Thus, a Chemistry major might be able to pick up cooking more easily, or a farmer's son might make a better cartographer.
In some sense, the brain learns "patterns", and there are only so many patterns in the world. For example: once you get a deep understanting of exponential functions, you start to see them in the real world. Compound interest is an exponential function, for example.
Hence, gaining more connections can translate into an increase in faster understanding and comprehension of other things - they are "similar" to other things you've seen.
The other side of the question has to do with learning original patterns. This is based on fundamental processes in the brain and is all balled up with information and complexity theory, as well as motivation and perceived value.
There are at least 2 genes known to confer a general increase in intelligence, so it seems likely that the fundamental processes are more or less efficient depending on the genetic makeup.
There is also abundant evidence that the environment plays an overwhelming role in the brain's development at the current time, and in the current culture. The 2 genes mentioned are predictors of success and intelligence, but there are better predictors based on parental choices (how the child was raised) and random luck (being in the right place at the right time).
So even if you don't happen to have those 2 genes, you can become highly intelligent by working harder.
So back to your question: working the brain causes more connections, and by one mechanism these connections will be perceived as an increase in intelligence. Without exposure to information or variation in environment, there will be fewer connections.
OTOH, there is a genetic component which will cause more connections and a higher intelligence from the same data, all else being equal.
The subjects taught at school are chosen by... drum roll please... medieval custom.
That is to say, we study the subjects we do not because they are essential or useful, but because they are part of a "classical" education and we've always taught that way.
Algebra is the foundation of all the rest of mathematics, so in a sense it's the first thing one would teach outside of basic arithmetic (add, subtract, multiply, divide).
Rather than algebra, let's consider trigonometry.
No one would argue that trigonometry isn't important, but wouldn't probability be more useful? The ability to judge the likelihood of something, or the potential payout?
No one would argue that geometry isn't important, but how about [personal] economics, or statistics? The ability to read and understand the results of a scientific study, or a political speech, or just to understand whether maxing out your credit card is a good idea.
There's lots of things we *should* be teaching children, but instead we load them up with esoteric subjects simply because that's the way we've always done it - for over 600 years.
... I fail to see how anonymous is the one to root for here.
Well then, let me explain it.
Government is doing bad things. Specifically, it is always doing things which are against the interests of the people, or society as a whole.
All attempts at changing this behaviour have failed.
Anonymous is trying new tactics. By making the data public, it's making the population aware of the dangers of this legislation. In effect, they are illustrating the danger by hurting the privacy of a large number of individuals. With enough popular support, maybe possibly the law will get changed.
Now, as I said, this is a new tactic. The damage to the public is minimal, and would be otherwise dwarfed by any real data breach by real hackers. In that case, the information would be used for criminal purposes so the damage would be much greater, and the company would naturally deny that a breach had happened.
Now, you might not see this as an effective strategy, and indeed it may not be.
But this brings us back to the first point, which is that government is doing bad things and is unresponsive to the needs of the people. Since all other avenues of influence have failed, what remains would appear to be armed revolt.
When the system gets bad enough to piss off a large portion of the population, that's what will happen.
So you can pooh-pooh the attempts by Anonymous to try alternate means, but with no alternative you're effectively saying that revolt is the only option.
I, for one, applaud their efforts. I hope they come up with many more creative ways to make the people's voice heard in the halls of government, before we have to use armed rebellion.
This is a good example of "cost based" business versus "value based" business.
The "cost based" carriers see a stolen phone as more income - the thief will use it to make calls on the owner's account, and the carrier will see this as more money. So long as stonewalling/ignoring is more lucrative than the effort it takes to fix the subscriber's problem, that's what the carrier will do.
(cf Cramming, which is another "cost based" practice.)
In a "value based" model, being able to disable a phone, or tell the owner where it is, or even working with law enforcement to recover lost phones would be a value and a benefit to the customer. Unfortunately, this would require work on the part of the carrier with no obvious gain in revenue.
(One would also expect that having the location of stolen goods and probable cause to enter and look around would be of enormous social value, but for some reason police don't see it that way. Few police will bother to recover a stolen phone, even if they know where it is.)
In times past the primary purpose of a business was "get and keep a customer". Nowadays it's "make money in any way possible".
The Austrian school predicted the dot-com bubble would crash, which is did during Clinton's final year. Then they predicted another bubble based on housing before it happened, and while it was going-on they predicted it would burst and crash the economy. They got all three things right.
They also predicted the TARP bailouts and stimulus and QE1 would create another bubble, which did indeed happen (the derivatives are leveraged at a higher rate in 2012 than they were in 2007), and now they are saying that bubble will burst too.
Great! Glad to hear it.
Just a couple of questions:
1) When will the next bubble burst?
2) Why don't all economists subscribe to the Austrian school of thought?
Anxiously awaiting your reply. I enjoy gaining new insights into complex subjects.
There's no such thing as "motivated reasoning", there's only "reasoning", and it's not a good way to make policy.
Science is based on observation, and as a result we get "evidence-based" decisions. Knowing the likely result because you've done it before makes for good decisions.
When you have a lot of observations, you can sometimes discover underlying laws, rules, and insight into the mechanisms of outcome. This results in "analysis-based" decisions.
"Analysis-based" decisions are only valid when the rules and insight are properly applied. In any situation, you have to correctly identify that the rules you use is valid, and you *also* have to know that no other rules apply. No one does this perfectly and at all times, and so "analysis-based" decisions are less likely to be correct.
For an example, consider predicting the behaviour of an electrical circuit. The rules and insight for electronics are straightforward, but consider how often a real-life circuit fails to work as predicted. The same is true for software: setting aside bugs and misunderstanding of requirements, how often does a piece of software exhibit unpredicted behaviour?
And finally, there's "story-based" reasoning. That's where you make predictions based on gut feel and experience using insights from other disciplines, and then make decisions based on that. Economics is reasoning based on stories, as is Intelligent design.
For this example, in economics it's well known that a little inflation is good, a lot of inflation is bad, and negative inflation is very bad. What is the optimal value? Is the value exact, or can it be a little off (ie - is the plot of good/bad sharply peaked, or relatively flat)? How does one even *calculate* inflation?
Economics is all opinions and "schools of thought" with no predictive power. It explains why something happened, but it never seems to tell us what will happen next.
We need to get away from "story-based" decisions and rely more on evidence. Civilization is at a point where we now have unprecedented levels of information and data which could be mined for evidence and used to make decisions, so long as we ask the right questions.
For questions for which we have no readily available evidence, we should be gathering it. In cases where the risk/reward equation yields a high risk, such as permanently damaging the water supply over a wide swath of the country, it might be prudent to hold off until proper evidence has been gathered.
I don't know if anyone has been keeping track, but there's this thing called the internet where you can get a really good education for free. Tablets will give children access to this internet.
We currently have four major players in this arena:
Khan academy, for high-school up through 1st year college
This is in addition to all the universities which are putting lecture videos online, along with course materials and (in a few cases) the textbook content. Oh, and youtube videos of lectures, and the zillion-and-one websites explaining whichever subject you're interested in. Google "relativity" or "tensors" sometime - see if you can find an explanation that works for you.
An experiment in India has shown that when you give uneducated, poor children access to an internet-connected computer they figure things out on their own. Complex, interesting, and difficult things that you might not expect an ignorant user to manage. (Such as typing a thank-you note without access to a keyboard.)
This is all you need, kids will figure things out for themselves. Having a teacher to nudge them in the right direction, or help them over a difficult part is just gravy.
Kids are voracious learners, and have always been. Abe Lincoln used to sit at home practicing his "ciphering" (arithmetic) by drawing numbers on a shovel with charcoal. Over and over, until he got comfortable with the math. All kids do this - it's in the nature of growing up.
Just giving kids access to material will be a huge leap over the current situation. Schools and teachers are extra.
Magnetic fields can stimulate nerves in the brain, using straightforward mechanisms of action.
Hebbian Theory tells us that neuronal activity induces nerve growth. Nerves which fire at the same time tend to make connections.
If Hebbian theory is correct, then the likely mechanism of action is excess neurotransmitters in the inter-cellular fluid - a slight loss of neurotransmitter in synapses from firing makes its way into the fluid between cells, which acts as a growth stimulator for nearby cells.
(It's easy to imagine an evolutionary path for this - in effect, the cells are recognizing the neurotransmitter as a food source and will grow towards areas of higher density. Modify the food source over time to get a specialized cell that processes specific molecules as a growth signalling mechanism. Anyway...)
Simple experiments indicate that this neural plasticity is quite fast and pliable. Wear glasses which flip the visual image upside down and the brain will rewire itself to compensate in a couple of days. In other words, the brain will completely rewire the ordering of the input visual layer in about three days.
So it's not at all unreasonable to expect that magnetic stimulation would cause increased neuronal activity, or that such activity would enhance neuronal growth. Whether this induces the growth of new neurons or merely an increase of connections is an area for further research. Whether this works on all types of neurons (there are several types, each with a different function and using a different neurotransmitter) is an area for further research.
Furthermore, this is an area of research which could conceivably be carried out at the hobbyist level.
Yes, that's a bold statement and I can back that up. Medical science has largely stagnated for various reasons, and it would appear that good science will increasingly come from the Hobbyist arena rather than peer-reviewed, government-funded studies which cannot be reproduced.
Magnetic field stimulation is easily within the capability of an average hacker, is relatively safe, and if you have someone who otherwise cannot be helped by conventional medicine and is aware of the dangers, there's nothing wrong with it.
Previous poster stated that getting an MRI reduced Alzheimers symptoms for half a day. What's the risk/reward equation for someone diagnosed with Alzheimers trying some magnetic stimulation, versus doing nothing?
Anyhow...
Magnetic fields causing increased neuronal growth is entirely consistent with current theory of how the brain works.
-free TV via an antenna. Attached to all the rooms in the house. Both an old VCR and DVR that I use to tape stuff while I'm sleeping. - supplemented by Hulu.com over PC or roku - supplemented by DVD purchases of shows not on hulu (like Games of Thrones). Supplemented by uTorrent if the DVD has not been released yet. - I also read a lot of mystery or sci-fi magazines online if nothing's on.
Just out of curiosity, would you have any interest in doing something more rewarding? Either for yourself or society in general?
It's your time and you can spend it however you like. I was just wondering how happy you are with all these distractions in your life.
Have you considered taking up a hobby?
Writing can be enjoyable and possibly bring in some income if you're good at it. Having your first poem published can be an emotionally rewarding experience - more so than you would get from your typical TV show.
How about taking college courses, either online or at the local university? Learning about something can be a lot of fun and improve your mind at the same time. Enough credits can improve your paycheck, and more money can make your life a lot more pleasant.
There's a hacker revolution going on at the moment, and some of them are doing actual science. Being able to build things is interesting and useful in its own right. Being able to repair things can be quite valuable.
Lots of open source projects are in need of assistance. Some of them have quite a community built up, being a part of one can be rewarding.
I'm sure that recording TV shows while you sleep and watching them later can be pleasant, but is it really what you want to do with your life? Is there enough value in it?
I'm just curious. I never was able to understand how people choose to spend their life by being entertained.
This whole thing about immigration (legal or not) is simply ridiculous.
Like most industrialized nations, the rate of population growth of the US is declining. We would be under replacement rate already were it not for immigration.
The population growth rate is in decline even with the current rate of immigration, which is at historically unprecedented levels (about twice as many as the early 1920's).
Illegals make up a disproportionally large segment of the prison population, but overall, violent crime is way down. (Blacks also have a disproportionally large prison population.)
Thinking that the country cannot sustain the influx, or that these people will somehow reduce our standard of living by requiring more services, or increase the crime rate is simply not supported by the evidence.
Then there's the innovation. Jobs come not from existing businesses, but from starting new businesses, and from new-ish businesses growing large. Immigrants tend to make the most of their opportunities by inventing new things, starting new businesses, and encouraging their children get educated and become successful (source).
Then there's the infrastructure. Illegal immigrants don't contribute to the infrastructure by paying taxes (as much), but at the same time they become a burden on the infrastructure by avoidance. They avoid the hospitals until something becomes an emergency, they don't alert the police to minor situations before they get out of hand, and so on.
Then there's the exploitation. Illegal immigrants have no recourse when their employer abuses them.
It would almost seem, from a completely neutral viewpoint, that just allowing illegals to become citizens would be a win all around.
I'm not entirely sure what the problem is.
Perhaps someone can craft a reasonable sounding "what if" scenario that outlines the sophistry for me? I'm not having any luck identifying any evidence-based reasons.
...a project led by Google's Dr Jeff Dean which used a "16,000 processor array to create a brain-style 'neural network' with more than a billion connections."
Hey, Dr. Dean. can you answer a few questions about your project?
In your project, what is the correct number of hidden layers to use? What algorithm or rule can I use to choose the right number of layers in my project?
Which connection scheme are you using? In a topological sense, meaning the rules that determine which nodes are connected to other nodes. Is there a way to determine the correct topology using some method?
There are over 180 different types of artificial neurons. Which ones are you using? What rule indicates that these are the correct ones to use in your application?
Neural nets in the human brain have more back-propagation circuits than forward. This would appear to be a major feature of the human brain. Does your system have this feature?
I'm a little confused on the whole AI bit. I've researched all over the literature and net, but still haven't found a constructive definition for intelligence. Help me out here - what definition of "intelligence" are you using, so that you can relate your project to the field of AI?
Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks in advance.
I don't really see what all this whining is about. My dad did not become a US citizen until after I graduated from high school and he had a resident alien card in his wallet next to his driver's license. His citizenship was delayed for a long time due to processing backlog. In that interim period though it didn't seem to be a big deal. Why is this hard?
Oh, well then. Let me explain it to you.
You see, there's this famous expression "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" which means, essentially, sometimes actions which are well intentioned have negative consequences.
If you look narrowly at, well, just about anything you can spin it as a good thing. It's sometimes difficult to see the effects that something has on the global population, or society at large.
You see, even though the law is aimed at illegal immigrants, and only applies to illegal immigrants, it's pretty certain that a lot of legal citizens will have their rights violated because of this law.
Rights which we have enjoyed and held dear for many years.
If you take the trouble to see what effect this law will have on everyone, you realize (as does every other "whiner" on this thread), that the supreme court has just thrown out one of our most cherished rights, and hastened this country into the decay of fascism.
I assure you, this is something worth whining about.
Many states have implemented "must identify" laws, which state that you must identity yourself (correctly) to a policeman when asked. Depending on the state, you're also required to correctly answer other questions, such as "what you are doing there, where did you come from, where you are going".
These laws were brought to the attention of the supreme court, which stated flatly that these laws were constitutional so long as no proof of identity was required. Short of an arrest, police cannot demand proof of ID just for being in an area. (I don't believe that proof of license to drive a car on the highway has been addressed directly.)
With this new ruling, states can pass laws that allow police to detain anyone who cannot prove their identity, on the theory that they *might* be illegal immigrants.
The "must identify" laws effectively did away with anonymous meetings and anonymous protest. The police can simply wait outside any meeting and ask the participants their names as they leave.
Now they can demand proof of ID as well.
The right to peaceably assemble anonymously, the right to be in public anonymously, the right to protest anonymously is gone.
Slashdot Mirror
These comments (and many others - I've been keeping track) have me wondering if Slashdot is infected with astroturfers.
In Malcolm Gladwell's book "The Tipping Point" he dissects the way in which public opinion arises - why certain memes "go viral" and become popular, while other apparently equally valid ideas do not.
In his model, certain people are "connectors". The best example of this is "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon", where Kevin is a connector because so many people are related to him by movie acting.
Along with connectors, there are mavens (people who are expert in a particular subject, usually a hobby or pastime - not job related) and salesmen (people who can convince others to try something). The other 97% of us are just regular people.
Slashdot is a magnet for mavens, and it's wide appeal (200,000 people per day?) would put it in front of many salesmen and connectors in society. Indeed, with all its viewers it probably eliminates the need for connectors outright.
The comment above is such a blatant example of propaganda, it makes me wonder whether special interest groups are paying people to post them. Controlling Slashdot would be instrumental in preventing the revolution of ideas which would disrupt the status-quo.
At the very least, certain ideas which are known to be false seem to rise up all the time and provide distractions to the discussion at large. The US can't have broadband because the land is thinly populated (belies other countries with similar density, and ignores lack of coverage in US population centers), the victim is to blame (it's his fault for wearing that T-shirt on a plane), and many others. Someone always posts one of these and the discussion goes careening off into a non-sequitur discussion of some tangential issue.
Are we being manipulated? Are people being paid to distract us from discussing the core issues?
Posts like this sometimes make me wonder.
Who bought the first fax machine?
I mean, the very first fax machines were expensive (around $2000), and the first person to get one had no one to send things to, and no one to receive from. Were fax machines ever really that unlikely to succeed?
There's lots of things that have value in proportion to the number of people who use it - it's called the network effect. In a few instances (fax machines, telephones, the internet) the value is zero if no (or very few) people are actually using it. That doesn't mean that telephones or fax machines or the internet didn't come into common, everyday usage.
Is this a valid concern? Should I, as an intelligent adult, claim that something will never be of value simply because no one uses it right now?
It 'kinda seems like there's a flaw in that reasoning. Wouldn't you be better off with a different argument?
This looks suspiciously like the Black Rock desert in Nevada. About a hundred miles North and a little East of Reno, near the town of Gerlach.
The place is the largest section of "flat" in the US. It's the remains of a prehistoric lake (Lahontan) that has dried up, leaving behind a perfectly flat dried mud surface.
It's where the land-speed records are set. It's where amateur rockets are launched. It's where Burning Man is held.
We need updates "over the air", without operator intervention! It's too inconvenient for owners to have to come into a dealer for updates, that's unreasonable!
And it won't allow us to do the updates as often as we like! We're always fixing bugs, so we need the ability to update the software every 6 hours... sometimes even less! Look at Firefox and Windows - how often do they update? It's an industry standard!
And encryption? That's haaaard! It takes time and effort to implement and it adds no value to the end product. We could better monitize our developer value by having them implement bells and whistles! More features is perceived as better value, making the left automatic window button work differently than the right one is seen as more valuable by the end user! Don't spend time on encryption, it's features all the way!
==============
Force the manufacturers to update once a year or less, this will help make sure that they get it right and only fix things that are needed.
Force the manufacturers to recall the vehicle for an update. Yes, it's inconvenient. Yes, it's necessary. Pro tip: Making it expensive to fix will encourage the manufacturer to get it right the first time.
Force the manufacturers to open the spec on the software, including the update channel. If a hacker can crack it, it's not secure enough.
This is not hard. Other products have figured this out already (for example, printer industry). When it's expensive to fix, it puts pressure on the manufacturer to get it right the first time.
I can't think of an example from something that everyone should know, but I'll attempt to answer this.
1) There are two tides each day, one when the moon is directly overhead, and one when the moon is directly underneath. Since the gravitational attraction of the moon causes tides, can you explain why there is a tide when the moon is directly underneath?
2) The fourier transform converts from time domain to frequency domain; ie - it takes an audio WAV file of amplitudes over time and converts it to a list of frequencies over time. To do this you multiply by a complex exponential and integrate. Can you explain why this works? In other words, why does multiplying by the exponential and integrating convert from time domain to frequency domain? (Don't look at the answer until you can explain it yourself.)
3) In economics it is well known that a little inflation is good, a lot of inflation is bad, and negative inflation is very bad. Can you tell me what the correct value is? Can you tell me how important it is to hit the correct value exactly (ie - is the good/bad measure relatively flat or sharply peaked)? Can you tell me how to measure inflation in such a way that all economists would agree?
Indeed I can.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269312002341...
Thank you! That's an excellent counter-argument.
A quick look at the linked paper shows that they have covered all the bases - temperature, pressure, background radiation, radon, and so on. Their analysis appears to be spot-on, but at the same time I hope that they continue the experiment in order to really pound the last nail in the coffin.
From that same article:
Some of the measurements and analysis conrm the existence of oscillations [6, 7] whereas others contradict this hypothesis [8, 9, 10].
Note that this paper is fairly recent (published at the end of March) and is only one such paper which notes the caveats mentioned in the quote above. If we are keeping score, then there are 2 papers which see correlations and 4 which do not.
I am now cautiously optimistic about the [lack of] results, but in light of the recent findings by Jere Jenkins et al and the fact that other studies appear to find similar correlations, it might be good to actually identify the source of systemic error.
If for no better reason than to document the source of the problem to allow for better measurements in the future.
There is no lack of people who would look into this, and to be sure many top people have...
And yet, not one of the people who looked into it actually took the time to collect evidence.
(Can you post a link to a paper which disproves this based on collected data?)
Interesting how calling a data set "non replicable" is seen as good science, while replicating the data (which is what the current paper purports to do) is "not really good science".
This has to be either a systematic or a fluke. The only thing that could conceivably have an influence on nuclear decay rates is...
Okay, wait.
This guy has evidence which your model doesn't account for. You're saying that the evidence can't be right because it isn't accounted for by your model?
That's not science, that's politics.
If he's got evidence, either counter with your own evidence or show that his evidence is fabricated.
Try actually being a scientist, instead of pretending to act like one.
I've been following this topic for a couple of years. Variation of radioactive decay has been noticed and reported by Jere Jenkins et al before.
In all cases, the results have been panned by the physics community as unlikely, not fitting with the current model, or failing to match with other measurements. The overall conclusion in each of these papers has been: "it can't be correct because it doesn't fit within our model".
The theory was disproved by analysis, not disproved by abundance of data.
Measuring radioactive decay is simple, and it would have taken an undergrad about a week to set up a logging system sensitive enough to gather evidence which would corroborate or disprove the theory.
No one thought to do this, Jere and friends were dismissed as cranks and crackpots.
I'm glad to see this finally reach the light of day. None of the criticisms of his work was based on evidence, and dismissing evidence is not real science.
Response to your boss:
Coding is like chess. it's easy to learn, but takes a lifetime to master.
You can learn the rules of chess in a day, and you can play your first three matches on that same day. It takes a lifetime of study to be any good at chess, to be better than others at chess, or to compete in any way at chess.
Another way to put it is like guitar, or piano.
How long does it take to earn money playing guitar? Basic guitar takes about a week of practice, but how long will it take to earn money from playing it?
As with anything, there are basics as well as subtle, underlying principles. Coding, chess, guitar, piano, or any other refined action takes years of practice, experimentation, and learning to master. About 10,000 hours all told.
Then ask: "How many hours does it take to become a manager?"
I don't know much about coconut-laden swallows, but an unladen swallow flies along at roughly 10 meters per second (9.9 mps, per rough calculation).
Where did you get the thing about coconut-laden swallow anyway? Was that a line from a movie or something?
The answer to your question is: it depends.
"Intelligence" has two separate and distinct meanings in colloquial English. It can mean the ease and speed of comprehension, or it can mean the total amount of knowledge a person has.
Working the brain will cause it to make more connections, and some of these connections translate in an abstract way to other topics. Thus, a Chemistry major might be able to pick up cooking more easily, or a farmer's son might make a better cartographer.
In some sense, the brain learns "patterns", and there are only so many patterns in the world. For example: once you get a deep understanting of exponential functions, you start to see them in the real world. Compound interest is an exponential function, for example.
Hence, gaining more connections can translate into an increase in faster understanding and comprehension of other things - they are "similar" to other things you've seen.
The other side of the question has to do with learning original patterns. This is based on fundamental processes in the brain and is all balled up with information and complexity theory, as well as motivation and perceived value.
There are at least 2 genes known to confer a general increase in intelligence, so it seems likely that the fundamental processes are more or less efficient depending on the genetic makeup.
There is also abundant evidence that the environment plays an overwhelming role in the brain's development at the current time, and in the current culture. The 2 genes mentioned are predictors of success and intelligence, but there are better predictors based on parental choices (how the child was raised) and random luck (being in the right place at the right time).
So even if you don't happen to have those 2 genes, you can become highly intelligent by working harder.
So back to your question: working the brain causes more connections, and by one mechanism these connections will be perceived as an increase in intelligence. Without exposure to information or variation in environment, there will be fewer connections.
OTOH, there is a genetic component which will cause more connections and a higher intelligence from the same data, all else being equal.
The subjects taught at school are chosen by... drum roll please... medieval custom.
That is to say, we study the subjects we do not because they are essential or useful, but because they are part of a "classical" education and we've always taught that way.
Algebra is the foundation of all the rest of mathematics, so in a sense it's the first thing one would teach outside of basic arithmetic (add, subtract, multiply, divide).
Rather than algebra, let's consider trigonometry.
No one would argue that trigonometry isn't important, but wouldn't probability be more useful? The ability to judge the likelihood of something, or the potential payout?
No one would argue that geometry isn't important, but how about [personal] economics, or statistics? The ability to read and understand the results of a scientific study, or a political speech, or just to understand whether maxing out your credit card is a good idea.
There's lots of things we *should* be teaching children, but instead we load them up with esoteric subjects simply because that's the way we've always done it - for over 600 years.
... I fail to see how anonymous is the one to root for here.
Well then, let me explain it.
Government is doing bad things. Specifically, it is always doing things which are against the interests of the people, or society as a whole.
All attempts at changing this behaviour have failed.
Anonymous is trying new tactics. By making the data public, it's making the population aware of the dangers of this legislation. In effect, they are illustrating the danger by hurting the privacy of a large number of individuals. With enough popular support, maybe possibly the law will get changed.
Now, as I said, this is a new tactic. The damage to the public is minimal, and would be otherwise dwarfed by any real data breach by real hackers. In that case, the information would be used for criminal purposes so the damage would be much greater, and the company would naturally deny that a breach had happened.
Now, you might not see this as an effective strategy, and indeed it may not be.
But this brings us back to the first point, which is that government is doing bad things and is unresponsive to the needs of the people. Since all other avenues of influence have failed, what remains would appear to be armed revolt.
When the system gets bad enough to piss off a large portion of the population, that's what will happen.
So you can pooh-pooh the attempts by Anonymous to try alternate means, but with no alternative you're effectively saying that revolt is the only option.
I, for one, applaud their efforts. I hope they come up with many more creative ways to make the people's voice heard in the halls of government, before we have to use armed rebellion.
This is a good example of "cost based" business versus "value based" business.
The "cost based" carriers see a stolen phone as more income - the thief will use it to make calls on the owner's account, and the carrier will see this as more money. So long as stonewalling/ignoring is more lucrative than the effort it takes to fix the subscriber's problem, that's what the carrier will do.
(cf Cramming, which is another "cost based" practice.)
In a "value based" model, being able to disable a phone, or tell the owner where it is, or even working with law enforcement to recover lost phones would be a value and a benefit to the customer. Unfortunately, this would require work on the part of the carrier with no obvious gain in revenue.
(One would also expect that having the location of stolen goods and probable cause to enter and look around would be of enormous social value, but for some reason police don't see it that way. Few police will bother to recover a stolen phone, even if they know where it is.)
In times past the primary purpose of a business was "get and keep a customer". Nowadays it's "make money in any way possible".
The Austrian school predicted the dot-com bubble would crash, which is did during Clinton's final year. Then they predicted another bubble based on housing before it happened, and while it was going-on they predicted it would burst and crash the economy. They got all three things right.
They also predicted the TARP bailouts and stimulus and QE1 would create another bubble, which did indeed happen (the derivatives are leveraged at a higher rate in 2012 than they were in 2007), and now they are saying that bubble will burst too.
Great! Glad to hear it.
Just a couple of questions:
1) When will the next bubble burst?
2) Why don't all economists subscribe to the Austrian school of thought?
Anxiously awaiting your reply. I enjoy gaining new insights into complex subjects.
There's no such thing as "motivated reasoning", there's only "reasoning", and it's not a good way to make policy.
Science is based on observation, and as a result we get "evidence-based" decisions. Knowing the likely result because you've done it before makes for good decisions.
When you have a lot of observations, you can sometimes discover underlying laws, rules, and insight into the mechanisms of outcome. This results in "analysis-based" decisions.
"Analysis-based" decisions are only valid when the rules and insight are properly applied. In any situation, you have to correctly identify that the rules you use is valid, and you *also* have to know that no other rules apply. No one does this perfectly and at all times, and so "analysis-based" decisions are less likely to be correct.
For an example, consider predicting the behaviour of an electrical circuit. The rules and insight for electronics are straightforward, but consider how often a real-life circuit fails to work as predicted. The same is true for software: setting aside bugs and misunderstanding of requirements, how often does a piece of software exhibit unpredicted behaviour?
And finally, there's "story-based" reasoning. That's where you make predictions based on gut feel and experience using insights from other disciplines, and then make decisions based on that. Economics is reasoning based on stories, as is Intelligent design.
For this example, in economics it's well known that a little inflation is good, a lot of inflation is bad, and negative inflation is very bad. What is the optimal value? Is the value exact, or can it be a little off (ie - is the plot of good/bad sharply peaked, or relatively flat)? How does one even *calculate* inflation?
Economics is all opinions and "schools of thought" with no predictive power. It explains why something happened, but it never seems to tell us what will happen next.
We need to get away from "story-based" decisions and rely more on evidence. Civilization is at a point where we now have unprecedented levels of information and data which could be mined for evidence and used to make decisions, so long as we ask the right questions.
For questions for which we have no readily available evidence, we should be gathering it. In cases where the risk/reward equation yields a high risk, such as permanently damaging the water supply over a wide swath of the country, it might be prudent to hold off until proper evidence has been gathered.
I don't know if anyone has been keeping track, but there's this thing called the internet where you can get a really good education for free. Tablets will give children access to this internet.
We currently have four major players in this arena:
This is in addition to all the universities which are putting lecture videos online, along with course materials and (in a few cases) the textbook content. Oh, and youtube videos of lectures, and the zillion-and-one websites explaining whichever subject you're interested in. Google "relativity" or "tensors" sometime - see if you can find an explanation that works for you.
An experiment in India has shown that when you give uneducated, poor children access to an internet-connected computer they figure things out on their own. Complex, interesting, and difficult things that you might not expect an ignorant user to manage. (Such as typing a thank-you note without access to a keyboard.)
This is all you need, kids will figure things out for themselves. Having a teacher to nudge them in the right direction, or help them over a difficult part is just gravy.
Kids are voracious learners, and have always been. Abe Lincoln used to sit at home practicing his "ciphering" (arithmetic) by drawing numbers on a shovel with charcoal. Over and over, until he got comfortable with the math. All kids do this - it's in the nature of growing up.
Just giving kids access to material will be a huge leap over the current situation. Schools and teachers are extra.
Brilliant response. Thank you for that.
This is why I read slashdot: different points of view, supported by fact and logic (and occasionally experience).
Magnetic fields can stimulate nerves in the brain, using straightforward mechanisms of action.
Hebbian Theory tells us that neuronal activity induces nerve growth. Nerves which fire at the same time tend to make connections.
If Hebbian theory is correct, then the likely mechanism of action is excess neurotransmitters in the inter-cellular fluid - a slight loss of neurotransmitter in synapses from firing makes its way into the fluid between cells, which acts as a growth stimulator for nearby cells.
(It's easy to imagine an evolutionary path for this - in effect, the cells are recognizing the neurotransmitter as a food source and will grow towards areas of higher density. Modify the food source over time to get a specialized cell that processes specific molecules as a growth signalling mechanism. Anyway...)
Simple experiments indicate that this neural plasticity is quite fast and pliable. Wear glasses which flip the visual image upside down and the brain will rewire itself to compensate in a couple of days. In other words, the brain will completely rewire the ordering of the input visual layer in about three days.
So it's not at all unreasonable to expect that magnetic stimulation would cause increased neuronal activity, or that such activity would enhance neuronal growth. Whether this induces the growth of new neurons or merely an increase of connections is an area for further research. Whether this works on all types of neurons (there are several types, each with a different function and using a different neurotransmitter) is an area for further research.
Furthermore, this is an area of research which could conceivably be carried out at the hobbyist level.
Yes, that's a bold statement and I can back that up. Medical science has largely stagnated for various reasons, and it would appear that good science will increasingly come from the Hobbyist arena rather than peer-reviewed, government-funded studies which cannot be reproduced.
Magnetic field stimulation is easily within the capability of an average hacker, is relatively safe, and if you have someone who otherwise cannot be helped by conventional medicine and is aware of the dangers, there's nothing wrong with it.
Previous poster stated that getting an MRI reduced Alzheimers symptoms for half a day. What's the risk/reward equation for someone diagnosed with Alzheimers trying some magnetic stimulation, versus doing nothing?
Anyhow...
Magnetic fields causing increased neuronal growth is entirely consistent with current theory of how the brain works.
-free TV via an antenna. Attached to all the rooms in the house. Both an old VCR and DVR that I use to tape stuff while I'm sleeping.
- supplemented by Hulu.com over PC or roku
- supplemented by DVD purchases of shows not on hulu (like Games of Thrones). Supplemented by uTorrent if the DVD has not been released yet.
- I also read a lot of mystery or sci-fi magazines online if nothing's on.
Just out of curiosity, would you have any interest in doing something more rewarding? Either for yourself or society in general?
It's your time and you can spend it however you like. I was just wondering how happy you are with all these distractions in your life.
Have you considered taking up a hobby?
Writing can be enjoyable and possibly bring in some income if you're good at it. Having your first poem published can be an emotionally rewarding experience - more so than you would get from your typical TV show.
How about taking college courses, either online or at the local university? Learning about something can be a lot of fun and improve your mind at the same time. Enough credits can improve your paycheck, and more money can make your life a lot more pleasant.
There's a hacker revolution going on at the moment, and some of them are doing actual science. Being able to build things is interesting and useful in its own right. Being able to repair things can be quite valuable.
Lots of open source projects are in need of assistance. Some of them have quite a community built up, being a part of one can be rewarding.
I'm sure that recording TV shows while you sleep and watching them later can be pleasant, but is it really what you want to do with your life? Is there enough value in it?
I'm just curious. I never was able to understand how people choose to spend their life by being entertained.
This doesn't bother you at all?
This whole thing about immigration (legal or not) is simply ridiculous.
Like most industrialized nations, the rate of population growth of the US is declining. We would be under replacement rate already were it not for immigration.
The population growth rate is in decline even with the current rate of immigration, which is at historically unprecedented levels (about twice as many as the early 1920's).
Illegals make up a disproportionally large segment of the prison population, but overall, violent crime is way down. (Blacks also have a disproportionally large prison population.)
Thinking that the country cannot sustain the influx, or that these people will somehow reduce our standard of living by requiring more services, or increase the crime rate is simply not supported by the evidence.
Then there's the innovation. Jobs come not from existing businesses, but from starting new businesses, and from new-ish businesses growing large. Immigrants tend to make the most of their opportunities by inventing new things, starting new businesses, and encouraging their children get educated and become successful (source).
Then there's the infrastructure. Illegal immigrants don't contribute to the infrastructure by paying taxes (as much), but at the same time they become a burden on the infrastructure by avoidance. They avoid the hospitals until something becomes an emergency, they don't alert the police to minor situations before they get out of hand, and so on.
Then there's the exploitation. Illegal immigrants have no recourse when their employer abuses them.
It would almost seem, from a completely neutral viewpoint, that just allowing illegals to become citizens would be a win all around.
I'm not entirely sure what the problem is.
Perhaps someone can craft a reasonable sounding "what if" scenario that outlines the sophistry for me? I'm not having any luck identifying any evidence-based reasons.
Hey, Dr. Dean. can you answer a few questions about your project?
In your project, what is the correct number of hidden layers to use? What algorithm or rule can I use to choose the right number of layers in my project?
Which connection scheme are you using? In a topological sense, meaning the rules that determine which nodes are connected to other nodes. Is there a way to determine the correct topology using some method?
There are over 180 different types of artificial neurons. Which ones are you using? What rule indicates that these are the correct ones to use in your application?
Neural nets in the human brain have more back-propagation circuits than forward. This would appear to be a major feature of the human brain. Does your system have this feature?
I'm a little confused on the whole AI bit. I've researched all over the literature and net, but still haven't found a constructive definition for intelligence. Help me out here - what definition of "intelligence" are you using, so that you can relate your project to the field of AI?
Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks in advance.
(An AI researcher)
I don't really see what all this whining is about. My dad did not become a US citizen until after I graduated from high school and he had a resident alien card in his wallet next to his driver's license. His citizenship was delayed for a long time due to processing backlog. In that interim period though it didn't seem to be a big deal. Why is this hard?
Oh, well then. Let me explain it to you.
You see, there's this famous expression "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" which means, essentially, sometimes actions which are well intentioned have negative consequences.
If you look narrowly at, well, just about anything you can spin it as a good thing. It's sometimes difficult to see the effects that something has on the global population, or society at large.
You see, even though the law is aimed at illegal immigrants, and only applies to illegal immigrants, it's pretty certain that a lot of legal citizens will have their rights violated because of this law.
Rights which we have enjoyed and held dear for many years.
If you take the trouble to see what effect this law will have on everyone, you realize (as does every other "whiner" on this thread), that the supreme court has just thrown out one of our most cherished rights, and hastened this country into the decay of fascism.
I assure you, this is something worth whining about.
Many states have implemented "must identify" laws, which state that you must identity yourself (correctly) to a policeman when asked. Depending on the state, you're also required to correctly answer other questions, such as "what you are doing there, where did you come from, where you are going".
These laws were brought to the attention of the supreme court, which stated flatly that these laws were constitutional so long as no proof of identity was required. Short of an arrest, police cannot demand proof of ID just for being in an area. (I don't believe that proof of license to drive a car on the highway has been addressed directly.)
With this new ruling, states can pass laws that allow police to detain anyone who cannot prove their identity, on the theory that they *might* be illegal immigrants.
The "must identify" laws effectively did away with anonymous meetings and anonymous protest. The police can simply wait outside any meeting and ask the participants their names as they leave.
Now they can demand proof of ID as well.
The right to peaceably assemble anonymously, the right to be in public anonymously, the right to protest anonymously is gone.