Step 1: Mine coal Step 2: After burning the coal, take the thorium from tailings Step 3: Use liquid fluoride thorium nuclear reactors to provide energy for a few thousand years Step 4: Profit...for everyone...
I'll one up you on that. One of the investors at a company I worked for introduced the mandatory prayer rule before meetings. This same investor came into my office one day and told me that you couldn't really understand code, or even basic logic, unless you were saved by Jesus Christ.
I just smiled and nodded.
But that wasn't the most interesting story about my employment there. The company finally folded because:
1) The CEO only wanted investment money from "good Christian men" 2) The potential investors had to be familiar to him from personal prophesy. Yes, they had to be ordained by god via his pastor. 3) The CEO eventually was tried and convicted in federal court of HUD loan fraud from business dealings at a previous company he founded. In the days before he was hauled off to federal prison he told me how this was persecution sent from god to test his faith.
Given all of that, it was a net plus for me. The work was really fun and interesting.:)
Overturning the Stevens conviction is a cover, but not for what you might think. THe big problem facing the Obama administration is that the Justice Department is radically broken. For the past eight years hiring of career Justice Department employees has been a partisan affair, with conservative political beliefs being the litmus test. Partly because of this a culture of corruption has spread.
So, how does the Stevens reversal play into this?
1) Reverse Stevens convictions, getting approval from Republicans, so when you
2) start overturning other political witch hunts you have cover, and then
3) use the overturned cases as a way to go after corrupt Justice Department officials, giving you concrete reasons to fire them.
This is the pattern I'm seeing: the Obama administration is continuing some of the more distasteful legal arguments of the Bush administration. But it seems to me that there are benefits to this that liberals may not see beyond their outrage: legal precedent. The Bush administration's worst arguments for indefinite detention are being crushed in the courts, mainly because they were eventually forced to defend them in court. By not dropping the Bush administration's arguments the Obama administration is allowing legal precedent to be set when the arguments are rejected in court.
I never see these studies that say they weed out child abuse.
But this study leads credence to links with child abuse. Cortisol is a stress hormone. Abuse is a stress inducer. Right there is a good place to start. Maybe a cause of Asperger is cortisol resistence (as opposed to a lack of cortisol) brought on by excessive stress, either chronic or at critical points in brain development.
Biological and behavioral causes are intertwined. Research is not a zero sum game. (Though research funding can seem to be at times.)
Sure, this is an April Fools joke, but if I had the resources and the time, "deploy them as agents and evolve them by running a set of evolutionary cascades within probabilistic Bayesian domains" is close to how I'd do it. I'd make it more of a "population of co-evolving rete networks cooperating and competing to satisfy a set of ever more complex objective functions" type system, but the idea is the same.
Language skills take decades to develop. Walking and balance take decades to develop.
Oh, it's far, far worse than that.:) It took millions of years to evolve an organism that can learn language skills in a decade.
Clone it. Then start selectively breeding those AIs which perform best.
Now you're talking.:) Though the selection should be natural in some way, such that the selection process itself can become more complex over time.
Current evolutionary computation is still primitive in this respect, but it's getting better. Personally I think evolving neural networks and other evolution of complex systems is the right direction to go in, but I'm a bit biased in that regard.:)
...but you can hijack a basic evolutionary mechanism...
Here's where you go astray. You assume there's an evolutionary pressure involved here, but that's just speculation.
An equally valid evolutionary argument is this: strong parent-child bonds have been selected for because toddlers are prone to get into trouble despite external pain stimulus. Only parents with persistent child protective behavior have been able to pass on their genes, also reinforcing the toddler behavior in future generations.
And, by "equally valid" I mean "equally unsubstantiated."
Yes, and like others have commented, 1) I'm sitting right there with her, 2) she's not coordinated enough to put the keys in the ignition, (though she comes close, and I'm damn proud of her for that) 3) she's not tall enough to reach the gas, and 4) not strong enough (nor does she know to) release the parking brake or shift out of park.
If you were actually concerned that I put my daughter in danger, you should have thought things through a bit first.
I second the motion. I'm learning more about AI by watching my daughter grow up than any academic experience. She's 19 months old now, and it's been a true education for me to see what is learned behavior and what is innate.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny you should mention that: linky
Step 1: Mine coal
Step 2: After burning the coal, take the thorium from tailings
Step 3: Use liquid fluoride thorium nuclear reactors to provide energy for a few thousand years
Step 4: Profit...for everyone...
me + ear wax == suspected terrorist?
You're kidding, right?
You know, I hear she killed Vince Foster with her thumbs.
I'll one up you on that. One of the investors at a company I worked for introduced the mandatory prayer rule before meetings. This same investor came into my office one day and told me that you couldn't really understand code, or even basic logic, unless you were saved by Jesus Christ.
I just smiled and nodded.
But that wasn't the most interesting story about my employment there. The company finally folded because:
1) The CEO only wanted investment money from "good Christian men"
2) The potential investors had to be familiar to him from personal prophesy. Yes, they had to be ordained by god via his pastor.
3) The CEO eventually was tried and convicted in federal court of HUD loan fraud from business dealings at a previous company he founded. In the days before he was hauled off to federal prison he told me how this was persecution sent from god to test his faith.
Given all of that, it was a net plus for me. The work was really fun and interesting. :)
There are, as usual, more possibilities:
I'm kind of hoping for the second one, but you never know.
Sure there is.
Overturning the Stevens conviction is a cover, but not for what you might think. THe big problem facing the Obama administration is that the Justice Department is radically broken. For the past eight years hiring of career Justice Department employees has been a partisan affair, with conservative political beliefs being the litmus test. Partly because of this a culture of corruption has spread.
So, how does the Stevens reversal play into this?
1) Reverse Stevens convictions, getting approval from Republicans, so when you
2) start overturning other political witch hunts you have cover, and then
3) use the overturned cases as a way to go after corrupt Justice Department officials, giving you concrete reasons to fire them.
So, this is just the beginning. Wait and watch.
This is the pattern I'm seeing: the Obama administration is continuing some of the more distasteful legal arguments of the Bush administration. But it seems to me that there are benefits to this that liberals may not see beyond their outrage: legal precedent. The Bush administration's worst arguments for indefinite detention are being crushed in the courts, mainly because they were eventually forced to defend them in court. By not dropping the Bush administration's arguments the Obama administration is allowing legal precedent to be set when the arguments are rejected in court.
"My God, it's full of stars!"
If by "tea leaves" you mean "recorded radon emissions from seismically active areas in the city" then I'm outta here...
Are you saying science and technology is nothing more than tea leaves? The computer you typed your post on...is it made of tea leaves?
Everyone knows you can't predict earthquakes!
And global warming too!
So, hah!
Our current supply of thorium could generate our current demand for A THOUSAND YEARS.
Probably more.
Read all about it
But this study leads credence to links with child abuse. Cortisol is a stress hormone. Abuse is a stress inducer. Right there is a good place to start. Maybe a cause of Asperger is cortisol resistence (as opposed to a lack of cortisol) brought on by excessive stress, either chronic or at critical points in brain development.
Biological and behavioral causes are intertwined. Research is not a zero sum game. (Though research funding can seem to be at times.)
You mean a picture of Prince Philip?
Methinks you've mistaken me for someone else. I ain't no professor of nuthin'.
Sure, this is an April Fools joke, but if I had the resources and the time, "deploy them as agents and evolve them by running a set of evolutionary cascades within probabilistic Bayesian domains" is close to how I'd do it. I'd make it more of a "population of co-evolving rete networks cooperating and competing to satisfy a set of ever more complex objective functions" type system, but the idea is the same.
Palmer and Stephen Wolfram should talk.
Our brains didn't evolve in the sky, and yet we make machines that fly, and it sure "makes sense" to a whole lot of people.
From TFA:
"the invariant set of the universe"
Ain't that a nifty idea?
Read this and this
Oh, it's far, far worse than that. :) It took millions of years to evolve an organism that can learn language skills in a decade.
Now you're talking. :) Though the selection should be natural in some way, such that the selection process itself can become more complex over time.
Current evolutionary computation is still primitive in this respect, but it's getting better. Personally I think evolving neural networks and other evolution of complex systems is the right direction to go in, but I'm a bit biased in that regard. :)
Here's where you go astray. You assume there's an evolutionary pressure involved here, but that's just speculation.
An equally valid evolutionary argument is this: strong parent-child bonds have been selected for because toddlers are prone to get into trouble despite external pain stimulus. Only parents with persistent child protective behavior have been able to pass on their genes, also reinforcing the toddler behavior in future generations.
And, by "equally valid" I mean "equally unsubstantiated."
Yes, and like others have commented, 1) I'm sitting right there with her, 2) she's not coordinated enough to put the keys in the ignition, (though she comes close, and I'm damn proud of her for that) 3) she's not tall enough to reach the gas, and 4) not strong enough (nor does she know to) release the parking brake or shift out of park.
If you were actually concerned that I put my daughter in danger, you should have thought things through a bit first.
I second the motion. I'm learning more about AI by watching my daughter grow up than any academic experience. She's 19 months old now, and it's been a true education for me to see what is learned behavior and what is innate.
This has apparently been debunked, so the story summary on the front page is not true. The editors need to update the summary.