It never was truly open - there was always a strict and sort of ill-defined hierarchy in place (in other words, There Is a Wikipedia Cabal). I endured it for a while, but ultimately, it became too much to deal with and I stopped actively contributing.
But who says the unconscious decision process isn't an exercise of free will? The big assumption in the article is that free will cannot exist in the subconscious. I think that free will is a property of the whole mind, and all they're doing is demonstrating that they can predict decisions by reading the choices already made within the brain.
Oh, and since this is a binary classification problem (left/right), 50% accuracy means you're not doing any better than guessing - 60% isn't very good in that light.
Non-profits can have employees and pay out salaries. They can even engage in most forms of traditional business, so long as the business forwards the purpose of the organization. What they cannot do is allow any of the funds to inure to the owners (beyond fair compensation for services rendered).
They can always work here for a while, then head back home and live very well on what we would consider low pay. Not saying they would; it's just an option that domestic graduates do not have.
Of course, inflation is making this sort of thing more and more difficult.
You can go 5-10 miles above the speed limit and people will still do that. They tailgate, they weave in and out of traffic, they start doing funny things with their lights, all just to avoid doing *only* 10 mph above the speed limit... it's quite dangerous.
I like #cbcbcb on #0c0c0c. Not quite white on not quite black. Enough contrast to read without giving you eye-strain. And it looks nice, too:)
Since you're inverting (light text on dark bg), you should probably increase the line height around 20% beyond its normal value for further readability. Remember that color isn't everything when it comes to creating readable typography.
Creating complex music (not 1-4-5 stuff) is actually rather hard. Deceptively so, in fact, because it doesn't always sound hard until you actually try to write it and you realize that nothing sounds the way you thought it would.
You do not want to mess around with introverts when portions of your consciousness are stored on a computer network. They can give us a swirly. We can give them a lobotomy:)
(With apologies to the extroverted geeks. Yes, I know you exist.)
They asked me how Google's services could be improved. It wasn't a demand, it was a suggestion, and one that seems to have turned out to be a good one.
I had the opportunity to speak with some people on the Maps team when I interviewed with Google and mentioned that they need to address the privacy issues of street view before someone sued them, whether it was technically illegal or not. They didn't listen, and I can't say I'm surprised by the result.
And nonlinear dimensionality reduction is just nonconvex trace optimization coupled with kernel principal component analysis (fine, call it "singular value decomposition") using Mercer's theorem to map the resulting dot product through a kernel function (usually represented as a Hermitian positive semidefinite Gram matrix), yielding an inner product space of higher (possibly infinite) dimensionality in which the original problem is linearly separable.
Now take this description and write an algorithm that performs it efficiently. And you use PageRank as an example, so let's call "efficient" "performs as well as Google on the entire web's worth of data".
If you can't do this, perhaps you should reconsider your view of computer scientists. There's no reason whatsoever to play up the boundaries between two very related fields. Arbitrary boundaries in knowledge are already bad enough; they need to be knocked down, not reinforced.
The Eigenface people have been doing this stuff for years. I don't see any significant advance in AI, either; it sounds like they're just doing regression, possibly coupled with feature extraction.
Not everyone approaches relationships in the same way. I was looking for a relationship that had emotional and intellectual depth, which required a very rare sort of woman. It took me nearly a decade, but now that I've found her, I can't imagine being with anyone else.
Or we can just wait until after the Mayan calendar ends. If Quetzalcoatl returns beforehand, we have bigger things to worry about than the LHC anyway:)
(I know, that's the Aztec religion, but Gukumatz doesn't have quite the same name recognition).
I always held the light speed limit coupled with the vast size of the universe to be a more probable reason why we haven't run into ET yet, but perhaps they could also destroy themselves before we'd notice. In general, the more energy you manipulate, the greater the risk.
I am not a physicist, but I would hope that physicists would take a good look at the theory and reach consensus that the LHC did not pose such a risk to our existence before trying it out, just as I would hope that people in my own field would be careful before throwing the switch on AI. There are certain things you cannot afford to be wrong about.
I noticed that this article was hyping TV much in the same way that Asimov's first few Foundation novels hyped atomic power. I suppose back then, people were just starting to seriously explore the possibilities of the medium and found them boundless and fascinating - much like the Internet during the late 90s, perhaps. Another possibility is that "TV" in this article actually means "screen" in general, which suddenly makes it much more accurate.
It's fun to read these not only to judge actual progress against the predictions, but also to see how cultural attitudes and general outlook have shifted. And there's a good chance that it never occurred to the authors that us folks in 2008 might actually read their predictions:)
Slashdot Mirror
It never was truly open - there was always a strict and sort of ill-defined hierarchy in place (in other words, There Is a Wikipedia Cabal). I endured it for a while, but ultimately, it became too much to deal with and I stopped actively contributing.
But who says the unconscious decision process isn't an exercise of free will? The big assumption in the article is that free will cannot exist in the subconscious. I think that free will is a property of the whole mind, and all they're doing is demonstrating that they can predict decisions by reading the choices already made within the brain.
Oh, and since this is a binary classification problem (left/right), 50% accuracy means you're not doing any better than guessing - 60% isn't very good in that light.
Non-profits can have employees and pay out salaries. They can even engage in most forms of traditional business, so long as the business forwards the purpose of the organization. What they cannot do is allow any of the funds to inure to the owners (beyond fair compensation for services rendered).
They can always work here for a while, then head back home and live very well on what we would consider low pay. Not saying they would; it's just an option that domestic graduates do not have.
Of course, inflation is making this sort of thing more and more difficult.
You can go 5-10 miles above the speed limit and people will still do that. They tailgate, they weave in and out of traffic, they start doing funny things with their lights, all just to avoid doing *only* 10 mph above the speed limit... it's quite dangerous.
But then again, I live in New Jersey. YMMV :)
I like #cbcbcb on #0c0c0c. Not quite white on not quite black. Enough contrast to read without giving you eye-strain. And it looks nice, too :)
Since you're inverting (light text on dark bg), you should probably increase the line height around 20% beyond its normal value for further readability. Remember that color isn't everything when it comes to creating readable typography.
With the glasses, your vision should still work properly, though - assuming it's just a visual acuity problem, at least.
:)
I have an old TV because I just don't watch much TV
I don't see any point in using it for pre-generated sound, because, as you said, the audio has already been mangled.
What I find a high-end soundcard indispensable for, however, is recording audio.
Creating complex music (not 1-4-5 stuff) is actually rather hard. Deceptively so, in fact, because it doesn't always sound hard until you actually try to write it and you realize that nothing sounds the way you thought it would.
(With apologies to the extroverted geeks. Yes, I know you exist.)
There's a difference: the primary purpose of a website is to attract viewers. I don't walk outside so people can take photos of me.
They asked me how Google's services could be improved. It wasn't a demand, it was a suggestion, and one that seems to have turned out to be a good one.
I had the opportunity to speak with some people on the Maps team when I interviewed with Google and mentioned that they need to address the privacy issues of street view before someone sued them, whether it was technically illegal or not. They didn't listen, and I can't say I'm surprised by the result.
Don't forget about those of us who just keep their important work checked into a remote version control system.
It goes beyond just needing each other. We're fundamentally doing the same thing, just focusing on different applications of it.
And nonlinear dimensionality reduction is just nonconvex trace optimization coupled with kernel principal component analysis (fine, call it "singular value decomposition") using Mercer's theorem to map the resulting dot product through a kernel function (usually represented as a Hermitian positive semidefinite Gram matrix), yielding an inner product space of higher (possibly infinite) dimensionality in which the original problem is linearly separable.
Now take this description and write an algorithm that performs it efficiently. And you use PageRank as an example, so let's call "efficient" "performs as well as Google on the entire web's worth of data".
If you can't do this, perhaps you should reconsider your view of computer scientists. There's no reason whatsoever to play up the boundaries between two very related fields. Arbitrary boundaries in knowledge are already bad enough; they need to be knocked down, not reinforced.
It's better than the OMG PONIES I was expecting to see today :)
The Eigenface people have been doing this stuff for years. I don't see any significant advance in AI, either; it sounds like they're just doing regression, possibly coupled with feature extraction.
Not everyone approaches relationships in the same way. I was looking for a relationship that had emotional and intellectual depth, which required a very rare sort of woman. It took me nearly a decade, but now that I've found her, I can't imagine being with anyone else.
"No longer practicing" != "Can't practice".
Or we can just wait until after the Mayan calendar ends. If Quetzalcoatl returns beforehand, we have bigger things to worry about than the LHC anyway :)
(I know, that's the Aztec religion, but Gukumatz doesn't have quite the same name recognition).
I always held the light speed limit coupled with the vast size of the universe to be a more probable reason why we haven't run into ET yet, but perhaps they could also destroy themselves before we'd notice. In general, the more energy you manipulate, the greater the risk.
I am not a physicist, but I would hope that physicists would take a good look at the theory and reach consensus that the LHC did not pose such a risk to our existence before trying it out, just as I would hope that people in my own field would be careful before throwing the switch on AI. There are certain things you cannot afford to be wrong about.
So then it's not ok to build grassroots support on the Internet :)
I noticed that this article was hyping TV much in the same way that Asimov's first few Foundation novels hyped atomic power. I suppose back then, people were just starting to seriously explore the possibilities of the medium and found them boundless and fascinating - much like the Internet during the late 90s, perhaps. Another possibility is that "TV" in this article actually means "screen" in general, which suddenly makes it much more accurate.
It's fun to read these not only to judge actual progress against the predictions, but also to see how cultural attitudes and general outlook have shifted. And there's a good chance that it never occurred to the authors that us folks in 2008 might actually read their predictions :)