You will have to patent it should your manager remain adamant (as a work for hire, it probably belongs to them already), but have you tried simply explaining your position to him/her without actually saying "I refuse to file"? If your manager disagrees, then you're no worse off than you'd otherwise be (i.e., you still have your job, but you still have to file), and if your manager agrees, then you've avoided the whole mess of giving an untenable ultimatum.
Also, is this your manager's final decision, or is it decided further up in the chain? You'd want to talk to whoever made the decision in the first place.
No, just as the Perl 5 model of OOP isn't inherently superior to the class-based approach (or, for that matter, just as OOP isn't inherently superior to other paradigms). They do employ different modes of thought, however, some of which could be easier to use in certain domains. The class-based method also tends to be the more familiar one, for what that's worth.
You're discarding the GP's assumption that Gore can't realize that carbon emission is dominated by natural processes - given the choice of fool or hypocrite that I outlined in my argument, you chose to call him a hypocrite. That's fine, but it doesn't save the GP's argument. I was also referring to the environmental impact of Gore's carbon neutrality in the first part of my argument (which should be clear from the antecedent, but my fault for not clarifying it further), which was why I also supplied the second to counter allegations of combined stupidity and hypocrisy when at most one could be the case.
I'm not trying to protect Gore's reputation, per se - he certainly doesn't need my help to cultivate a reputation. I'm taking a stand against any sort of libel based on faulty reasoning. Just as in Wikipedia, defamatory content should have a higher burden of proof than more innocuous statements because someone's reputation is at stake.
Your arguments are contradictory. I normally just shrug and move on at these sorts of arguments, but in this case, you are attacking another person - if you don't have solid reasoning to back your arguments up, then you are engaging in defamation.
If natural causes are the dominant producers of atmospheric CO2, any argument you make about Gore's carbon neutrality falls apart because it is ultimately insignificant.
Furthermore, you are required to assume that Gore espouses the position that anthropogenic carbon is environmentally significant because you treat his viewpoint as a failure to see otherwise (you used the phrase "can't seem to figure out"), yet you are required to assume that Gore does not truly espouse this position because you state that his motivation is to "cash in on the eco-craze". His motive cannot both be malicious and ignorant under your reasoning; choose which you would prefer to argue.
Yeah, my first thought was "this is not even remotely related to Alzheimer's, and even relating it to epilepsy is a stretch."
It's not about publicity, though; it's about funding.
This leads to a "tragedy of the commons", though, where athletes can no longer compete on their own merits without using (potentially harmful) performance enhancing drugs because everyone else is using them. I don't think we want to go down that road.
These guys have a few data points, they create a highly convoluted system that seems to account for their data points, then the moment they get more data, they start over. Again and again.
This unfortunately seems to be the status quo in science nowadays. You can get another paper published every time more data comes in, so who cares if your reasoning is valid or if it can generalize beyond the data you already have!?
It isn't the voters that need to be more educated about science; it's the representatives, senators, and other policymakers. Most ordinary people aren't making decisions that significantly affect the nation, save for who their representatives will be.
(Which means the voters need to vote for people who know enough about the issues they're considering to make good decisions, which has little to do with their direct knowledge of science and more to do with "common" sense).
Actually, you're pretty much correct. Intuition is something a successful AI (and a successful human Go player) will require, and while we can model it on a computer, most people haven't thought of doing so. Most systems are either based on symbolic logic, statistics, or reinforcement learning, all of which rely on deductive A->B style rules. You can build an intelligent system on that sort of reasoning, but not ONLY on that sort of reasoning (besides, that's not the way that humans normally think either).
I suspect that what we need is something more akin to "clustering" of concepts, in which retrieval of one concept invokes others that are nearby in "thought-space". The system should then try to merge the clusters of different concepts it thinks of, resulting in the sort of fusion of ideas that characterizes intuition (in other words, the clusters are constantly growing). Since there is such a thing as statistical clustering, that may form a good foundation. Couple it with deductive logic and you should actually get a very powerful system.
I also suspect that some of the recent manifold learning techniques, particularly those involving kernel PCA, may play a part, as they replicate the concept of abstraction, another component of intuition, fairly well using statistics. Unfortunately, they tend to be computationally intense.
There are many steps that would need to be involved, none of them trivial, but no one said AI was easy:
1. Sense data. 2. Collect that data in a manageable form (categorize it using an ontology, maybe?) 3. Retrieve the x most recently accessed clusters pertaining to other properties of the concept you are reasoning about, as well as the cluster corresponding to the property being reasoned about itself (remembering everything is intractable, so the agent will primarily consider what it has been "mulling over" recently). For example, if we are trying to figure out whether a strawberry is a fruit, we would need to pull in clusters corresponding to "red things" and "seeded things" as well as the cluster corresponding to "fruits". 4. Once a decision is made, grow the clusters. For example, if we decide that strawberries are fruits, we would look at other properties of strawberries and extend the "fruit" cluster to other things that have these properties. We might end up with the nonsymbolic equivalent of "all red objects with seeds are fruit" from doing that.
What I've described is an attempt to model what Jung calls "extroverted intuition" - intuition concerned with external concepts. Attempting to model introverted intuition - intuition concerned with internal models and ideas - is much harder, as it would require clustering the properties of the model itself, forming a "relation between relations" - a way that ideas are connected in the agent's mental model.
But that's for general AI, which I'm still not completely we're ready for anyway. If you just want a stronger Go player, wait just a bit longer and it'll be brute forced.
The majority of people don't need to care. Only the ones who actually keep the Internet running do. Do you think that the people considering these laws have the ability to run the network themselves? I can't see them ever acquiring that sort of skill.
And without the basic systems upon which they are built, things like MySpace, Facebook, and eBay do not exist. The public would notice.
The veracity of your comment depends entirely on what teachers are "supposed to" be teaching... and that is something that is going to vary by student.
Yes, the American system is better, but it is still very badly flawed in the same manner of which you speak. The difference is one of degree, not type. I've experienced similar problems firsthand when attempting to do something as trivial as study the subfield of my choice when going for my Ph. D. - and the problems I ran into were systemic, not unique to my situation.
For what it's worth, I'm trying my hardest to correct the problem.
something in our society destroys their curiosity and they cease to be self-motivated
And whatever it is, it strikes around adolescence. I bet it's peer-pressure, which could be why the smartest kids tend to be among the least popular. The ones who actually go on to become intellectual leaders either ignore the peer pressure or snap back out of it later on. When it becomes popular to be smart at 13 rather than 23 (coincidentally when everyone suddenly starts to realize that you're making more than twice their salaries), this trend may change.
A lot of smart people I knew also balked when they finally encountered a real challenge. I'm not sure why; the challenges help us grow the most.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot has officially jumped the shark.
Papers always suggest more work. I've not once in my life seen a paper that said "Nope, that's it, we're done here" :)
You will have to patent it should your manager remain adamant (as a work for hire, it probably belongs to them already), but have you tried simply explaining your position to him/her without actually saying "I refuse to file"? If your manager disagrees, then you're no worse off than you'd otherwise be (i.e., you still have your job, but you still have to file), and if your manager agrees, then you've avoided the whole mess of giving an untenable ultimatum.
Also, is this your manager's final decision, or is it decided further up in the chain? You'd want to talk to whoever made the decision in the first place.
I try to avoid politics whenever possible... but that Gore is a politician is outside of the universe of discourse :)
No, just as the Perl 5 model of OOP isn't inherently superior to the class-based approach (or, for that matter, just as OOP isn't inherently superior to other paradigms). They do employ different modes of thought, however, some of which could be easier to use in certain domains. The class-based method also tends to be the more familiar one, for what that's worth.
You're discarding the GP's assumption that Gore can't realize that carbon emission is dominated by natural processes - given the choice of fool or hypocrite that I outlined in my argument, you chose to call him a hypocrite. That's fine, but it doesn't save the GP's argument. I was also referring to the environmental impact of Gore's carbon neutrality in the first part of my argument (which should be clear from the antecedent, but my fault for not clarifying it further), which was why I also supplied the second to counter allegations of combined stupidity and hypocrisy when at most one could be the case.
I'm not trying to protect Gore's reputation, per se - he certainly doesn't need my help to cultivate a reputation. I'm taking a stand against any sort of libel based on faulty reasoning. Just as in Wikipedia, defamatory content should have a higher burden of proof than more innocuous statements because someone's reputation is at stake.
Your arguments are contradictory. I normally just shrug and move on at these sorts of arguments, but in this case, you are attacking another person - if you don't have solid reasoning to back your arguments up, then you are engaging in defamation.
If natural causes are the dominant producers of atmospheric CO2, any argument you make about Gore's carbon neutrality falls apart because it is ultimately insignificant.
Furthermore, you are required to assume that Gore espouses the position that anthropogenic carbon is environmentally significant because you treat his viewpoint as a failure to see otherwise (you used the phrase "can't seem to figure out"), yet you are required to assume that Gore does not truly espouse this position because you state that his motivation is to "cash in on the eco-craze". His motive cannot both be malicious and ignorant under your reasoning; choose which you would prefer to argue.
It's a nice language overall, but OOP in Javascript is a real pain in the neck. I wouldn't mind a more traditional class structure.
Yeah, my first thought was "this is not even remotely related to Alzheimer's, and even relating it to epilepsy is a stretch." It's not about publicity, though; it's about funding.
This leads to a "tragedy of the commons", though, where athletes can no longer compete on their own merits without using (potentially harmful) performance enhancing drugs because everyone else is using them. I don't think we want to go down that road.
This unfortunately seems to be the status quo in science nowadays. You can get another paper published every time more data comes in, so who cares if your reasoning is valid or if it can generalize beyond the data you already have!?
It isn't the voters that need to be more educated about science; it's the representatives, senators, and other policymakers. Most ordinary people aren't making decisions that significantly affect the nation, save for who their representatives will be.
(Which means the voters need to vote for people who know enough about the issues they're considering to make good decisions, which has little to do with their direct knowledge of science and more to do with "common" sense).
3. AI takes over the world? :)
Actually, you're pretty much correct. Intuition is something a successful AI (and a successful human Go player) will require, and while we can model it on a computer, most people haven't thought of doing so. Most systems are either based on symbolic logic, statistics, or reinforcement learning, all of which rely on deductive A->B style rules. You can build an intelligent system on that sort of reasoning, but not ONLY on that sort of reasoning (besides, that's not the way that humans normally think either).
I suspect that what we need is something more akin to "clustering" of concepts, in which retrieval of one concept invokes others that are nearby in "thought-space". The system should then try to merge the clusters of different concepts it thinks of, resulting in the sort of fusion of ideas that characterizes intuition (in other words, the clusters are constantly growing). Since there is such a thing as statistical clustering, that may form a good foundation. Couple it with deductive logic and you should actually get a very powerful system.
I also suspect that some of the recent manifold learning techniques, particularly those involving kernel PCA, may play a part, as they replicate the concept of abstraction, another component of intuition, fairly well using statistics. Unfortunately, they tend to be computationally intense.
There are many steps that would need to be involved, none of them trivial, but no one said AI was easy:
1. Sense data.
2. Collect that data in a manageable form (categorize it using an ontology, maybe?)
3. Retrieve the x most recently accessed clusters pertaining to other properties of the concept you are reasoning about, as well as the cluster corresponding to the property being reasoned about itself (remembering everything is intractable, so the agent will primarily consider what it has been "mulling over" recently). For example, if we are trying to figure out whether a strawberry is a fruit, we would need to pull in clusters corresponding to "red things" and "seeded things" as well as the cluster corresponding to "fruits".
4. Once a decision is made, grow the clusters. For example, if we decide that strawberries are fruits, we would look at other properties of strawberries and extend the "fruit" cluster to other things that have these properties. We might end up with the nonsymbolic equivalent of "all red objects with seeds are fruit" from doing that.
What I've described is an attempt to model what Jung calls "extroverted intuition" - intuition concerned with external concepts. Attempting to model introverted intuition - intuition concerned with internal models and ideas - is much harder, as it would require clustering the properties of the model itself, forming a "relation between relations" - a way that ideas are connected in the agent's mental model.
But that's for general AI, which I'm still not completely we're ready for anyway. If you just want a stronger Go player, wait just a bit longer and it'll be brute forced.
Perl, properly coded, is not difficult to read. In fact, once you see enough of them, neither are most regexps.
The majority of people don't need to care. Only the ones who actually keep the Internet running do. Do you think that the people considering these laws have the ability to run the network themselves? I can't see them ever acquiring that sort of skill.
And without the basic systems upon which they are built, things like MySpace, Facebook, and eBay do not exist. The public would notice.
I just hope it never comes down to that.
Forget capitalism; I was going to ask what it had to do with creativity :)
That's exactly why they're so long.
This is Microsoft we're talking about.
The Wikipedia article says he likely died of a heart attack due to coronary artery disease. Where did you hear he killed himself?
IMO, the equation editor in Word 2007 was a huge improvement over the previous versions.
The veracity of your comment depends entirely on what teachers are "supposed to" be teaching... and that is something that is going to vary by student.
Yes, the American system is better, but it is still very badly flawed in the same manner of which you speak. The difference is one of degree, not type. I've experienced similar problems firsthand when attempting to do something as trivial as study the subfield of my choice when going for my Ph. D. - and the problems I ran into were systemic, not unique to my situation.
For what it's worth, I'm trying my hardest to correct the problem.
And whatever it is, it strikes around adolescence. I bet it's peer-pressure, which could be why the smartest kids tend to be among the least popular. The ones who actually go on to become intellectual leaders either ignore the peer pressure or snap back out of it later on. When it becomes popular to be smart at 13 rather than 23 (coincidentally when everyone suddenly starts to realize that you're making more than twice their salaries), this trend may change.
A lot of smart people I knew also balked when they finally encountered a real challenge. I'm not sure why; the challenges help us grow the most.
The same reasoning applies to classical computers as well, and yet they're ubiquitous these days.