Not disputing the evolutionary signifigance of technology but when you compare the complexity of the cell colony (complex organisim) to the complexity within the cells, the organanisim may be the simpler of the two levels.
Do such leaps happen in such evolutionary algorithms ? - Yes, the 'leaps' concept is called punctuated equilibrium.
Ignore the ML evolving part, it's a population of polygons, the picture created by the polygons might not be evolving BUT...
The resulting picture could be compared to an ants nest where all the individual ants/polygons in a poulation work together to create something more than a pile of ants/polygons. Each of the million pictures in the program is analogous to an individual nest built by exactly one generation of polygons (a nest usually has one queen and dies when she does).
The overall structure and behaviour of the nests that ants build definitely changes over a long period of time in order to compete with other nests built and stocked with different ants. The populations of polygons competed with each other to fit their target environment. The question is: Is a single ants nest (the final Mona Lisa) analogous to an individual in an evolving population? If the answer is no, then why is it accepted that human culture evolves?
"it's simulated annealing"
As far as I can tell the Universe is some sort of (in)finite state machine, how anyone labels the progression and configuration of those states is kinda arbritrary but understandable with enough practice. I agree the concept of evolution may has a strict definition in biology but the concept of evolution also directly applies, or is useful in explaining, a wide range of systems that seem to be more than just the sum of their parts.
Dare I suggest that the concept of evolution has evolved since Darwin's time?
"So anything that 'fuels the demand' for child porn is illegal."
Apparently, this case was also an appeal against the original decision. The law is an ass and so is the first judge, however the law has probably been interpreted correctly in the literal sense and that's why it failed.
What I as an Aussie want to know is why the hell was he arrested and charged in the first place? People don't get accidently arrested and charged, who is behind this bullshit and why?
Rather than dismissing "uneducated" critcisim you could try some simplistic cross-checking of Tenpenny's feeble publication list with just one reputable mountain of evidence, it will demonstrate how "out there" this woman is.
BTW: It's not compulsory to be educated to be a skeptic but it is cumpulsory to be skeptical to be properly educated.
You have done all that research and point to Sherri Tenpenny as an authorative voice, you must be farking joking!!! Tenpenny's cherry-picked data is worse than anecdotal data since it implies Tenpenny has an agenda other than intellectual curiosity.
You are not doing your kid or anyone else a favour by re-negotiating the schedule to suit the rantings of Tenpenny, unless you can point to peer-reviewed epidemiological studies that show otherwise please either join the Tom Cruise fan club or STFU.
To put the OP's measles quote in a better perspective. Without immunization 1 in every 1000 cases of measles will result in hospitalization.
"Why are so many Americans so certain that everything their government does is an attempt to oppress them?" "Why are so many Canadians so certain that everything their government does is an attempt to oppress them?" "Why are so many Brits so certain that everything their government does is an attempt to oppress them?" "Why are so many Aussies so certain that everything their government does is an attempt to oppress them?" "Why are so many...."
Because they swap data, personally that hardly makes me certain they are out to oppress me but it is a valid concern.
"did people in your generation think that their parents/grandparents had never thought about some kind of joke or expression?"
Most parents acted so prudish we really belived they only had sex to procreate. My HS was co-ed but sexually segregated, seperate play areas, seperate rows in clas, etc. Being an Aussie slang is a national hobby, it's not that hard to work out new slang when your own kids come out with it.
BTW: Your species idea is a good one, Richard Dawkins compares what he calls memes in a population to a lifeform that evoles over time.
"Yeah, and get the sack because you hung up on 90% of your callers. People treat tech support like shit."
But they only get away with it when YOU let them. Have you ever thought about why you get 90% abuse? Do you work for scammers? Is it becuase the abusers keep ringing and everyone else but you hangs up? Is it because you are ineffective in 90% of calls?
Disclaimer: No flame intended, just that introspection is preferable to feeling like shit. It's a given that most helpdesk people are paid like shit but that is no reason to allow yourself or others to treat you like shit. If your boss would rather have you constantly abused than stand up to a few bulling, blowhard customers then getting the sack is a blessing.
Wonderfull! BTW: I thought about putting +1Albert because amoung the many words I can't spell is his last name, sure I could look it up but I am too lazy to swivel my chair and look at the biography sitting on the bookshelf.
Moore's 'law' is not a 'law' but rather an insightfull observation about the rate of evolution in processor technology. Processors have now evolved to where the metric used to make the original observations is less becoming meaningfull. Kinda like measuring the evolution of muli-cellular life by counting the number of cells in an organisim.
"Multi-Core technology is good for desktop systems as it is meant to run a lot of relatively small apps Rarely taking advantage of more then 1 or 2 cores. per app.In other-words it allows Multi-Tasking without a penalty. We don't use super computers that way. We use them to to perform 1 app that takes huge resources that would take hours or years on your PC and spit out results in seconds or days."
Sorry but that's not entirely correct, most super computers work on highly parallel problems using numerical analysis techniques. By definition the problem is broken up into millions of smaller problems that make ideal "small apps", a common consequence is that the bandwidth of the communications between the 'small apps' becomes the limiting factor.
"Back in the early-mid 90's we had different processors for Desktop and Super Computers."
The earth simulator was refered to in some parts as 'computenick', it's speed jump over it's nearest rival and longevity at the top marked the renaissance of "vector processing" after it had been largely ignored during the 90's.
In the end a supercomputer is a purpose built machine, if cores fit the purpose then they will be used.
The dumb thing is, he does not even realize the size of the list does not matter.
He is a politician, he is well aware that the existance, content, and size, of the list are ALL that matters.
From the day these stories started appearing I have claimed that the mandatory thing will go nowhere. This is not about technology it's about politics, in particular placating one senator Fielding from the "family first" party. Because of the senate's current make-up, under certain political stand-offs he gets to be "the decider", so in true "yes minister" fashion an "inquiry" must be held to drag it out as long as possible. Conroy is mute because he does not support it, he is demonstrating loyalty to the PM by taking the heat (he is also somewhat of a rival to the PM).
IMHO the MAFIAA's attack on iiNet is far more orwellian than a reccuring political theater that both major parties play in order to keep the "think of the children" crowd chasing their own tail. - The theater is inefficient and wastefull - it's democratic what did you expect?
I like my porn, to quote Larry Flint "I ain't guilt of nothing 'cept bad taste". However if the "other parties" mentioned in the report happen to bust a few rock-spiders while conducting their trial, I would consider that a bonus.
Since they have already broken your good faith by lying to you, do you still "really believe Warner is trying to do good with this system"? Or is lying too strong a word? Perhaps on your next con-call you could leave the rose coloured glasses at home, ask if they are aware that they are "unintentionally" misrepresenting the EFF's stance, sit back and gauge their reaction?
"Please, let us give them a chance to do something right."
They have, and have always had, the option to "do something right". Their legal assult on students is failing, please do not bypass the slow wheels of justice by GIVING them the option to institutionalise "doing something wrong"....And if your not "giving" them anything then what is in this deal for the students and UoM, other than 'protection'?
BTW: I notice you claim to work "at" the UoM. Just for the record - who do you work FOR when working AT the UoM?
Support-101, Training your customer: If your customer says something like "I WANT THIS FIXED NOW YOU GOD DAMN MOTHERFUCKING...", hang-up without explaination - rinse and repeat until customer gets a clue.
As a fellow Aussie I find most of your posts insightfull and informative. However I feel compeled to point out the phrase "which it exercises often" only applies for certain definitions of often.
I think the classification board does a great job but I disagree with outright bans on philosophical grounds. The current push for filtering is a storm in a tea-cup and is driven by the governments need to placate senator Fielding. After KRuddy has got what he wants out of Fielding the mandatory filtering legislation will fail to pass the senate and the political fallout will land directly on Fielding at the next election.
"Goedel already proved that axiomatic systems contain errors, especially the error of excluding inconceivable axioms, from which we can conclude that "scientific method" is a) provisional, and b) political."
Not sure who this 'Goedel' fella is but Kurt Godel did nothing of the sort. Godel's incompleteness theorm had nothing to do with errors, what it shows is that provability is a weaker notion than truth.
So lets be scientific and revise your provisional conclusion in light of new information....
a) Yes it's true that all science is provisional, that is by design and history shows that provisional does not mean useless. Many people like to belive there are "other ways of knowing" but those "other ways" have always revolved around wishfull thinking, none of them come close to the track record of utility seen in science.
b) Politics has nothing to do with science, politicians and others just like to see it that way because it's easier than practicing skepticisim on their own assumptions and assertions.
BTW: My dear old dad can bite his own forehead - science made this possible by providing him with false teeth.
The same way pure and applied maths differ - one feeds the Elephant, the other rides on it. You don't need to ride the Elephant to feed it but it helps.
Although your points are valid they are rather narrow in that they implicitly define 'alive' as the potential for consiousness, the GP's point that doesn't make sense to you was that there is no black & white definition of 'alive'.
For example the wood frog can allow itself to freeze solid for the winter and will thaw out in spring with no ill affects despite the fact it hasn't had a heartbeat or any sign of brain activity for months. By your tests the frog is dead during the winter and alive again in the spring.
Slashdot Mirror
Not disputing the evolutionary signifigance of technology but when you compare the complexity of the cell colony (complex organisim) to the complexity within the cells, the organanisim may be the simpler of the two levels.
Do such leaps happen in such evolutionary algorithms ? - Yes, the 'leaps' concept is called punctuated equilibrium.
Ignore the ML evolving part, it's a population of polygons, the picture created by the polygons might not be evolving BUT...
/IANAB
The resulting picture could be compared to an ants nest where all the individual ants/polygons in a poulation work together to create something more than a pile of ants/polygons. Each of the million pictures in the program is analogous to an individual nest built by exactly one generation of polygons (a nest usually has one queen and dies when she does).
The overall structure and behaviour of the nests that ants build definitely changes over a long period of time in order to compete with other nests built and stocked with different ants. The populations of polygons competed with each other to fit their target environment. The question is: Is a single ants nest (the final Mona Lisa) analogous to an individual in an evolving population? If the answer is no, then why is it accepted that human culture evolves?
"it's simulated annealing"
As far as I can tell the Universe is some sort of (in)finite state machine, how anyone labels the progression and configuration of those states is kinda arbritrary but understandable with enough practice. I agree the concept of evolution may has a strict definition in biology but the concept of evolution also directly applies, or is useful in explaining, a wide range of systems that seem to be more than just the sum of their parts.
Dare I suggest that the concept of evolution has evolved since Darwin's time?
"So anything that 'fuels the demand' for child porn is illegal."
Apparently, this case was also an appeal against the original decision. The law is an ass and so is the first judge, however the law has probably been interpreted correctly in the literal sense and that's why it failed.
What I as an Aussie want to know is why the hell was he arrested and charged in the first place? People don't get accidently arrested and charged, who is behind this bullshit and why?
Rather than dismissing "uneducated" critcisim you could try some simplistic cross-checking of Tenpenny's feeble publication list with just one reputable mountain of evidence, it will demonstrate how "out there" this woman is.
BTW: It's not compulsory to be educated to be a skeptic but it is cumpulsory to be skeptical to be properly educated.
You have done all that research and point to Sherri Tenpenny as an authorative voice, you must be farking joking!!! Tenpenny's cherry-picked data is worse than anecdotal data since it implies Tenpenny has an agenda other than intellectual curiosity.
You are not doing your kid or anyone else a favour by re-negotiating the schedule to suit the rantings of Tenpenny, unless you can point to peer-reviewed epidemiological studies that show otherwise please either join the Tom Cruise fan club or STFU.
To put the OP's measles quote in a better perspective. Without immunization 1 in every 1000 cases of measles will result in hospitalization.
"Why are so many Americans so certain that everything their government does is an attempt to oppress them?" ...."
"Why are so many Canadians so certain that everything their government does is an attempt to oppress them?"
"Why are so many Brits so certain that everything their government does is an attempt to oppress them?"
"Why are so many Aussies so certain that everything their government does is an attempt to oppress them?"
"Why are so many
Because they swap data, personally that hardly makes me certain they are out to oppress me but it is a valid concern.
"did people in your generation think that their parents/grandparents had never thought about some kind of joke or expression?"
Most parents acted so prudish we really belived they only had sex to procreate. My HS was co-ed but sexually segregated, seperate play areas, seperate rows in clas, etc. Being an Aussie slang is a national hobby, it's not that hard to work out new slang when your own kids come out with it.
BTW: Your species idea is a good one, Richard Dawkins compares what he calls memes in a population to a lifeform that evoles over time.
"if it is really a gift from microsoft"
1. Build spook data center next to MS data center.
2. Give Obama zune...
Do I really need to spell it out?
Excellent logic, here in Autralia anything less than $50 is too small even for the small claims tribunal.
Give it up, I'm 50 and have known about it since high school.
"Yeah, and get the sack because you hung up on 90% of your callers. People treat tech support like shit."
But they only get away with it when YOU let them. Have you ever thought about why you get 90% abuse? Do you work for scammers? Is it becuase the abusers keep ringing and everyone else but you hangs up? Is it because you are ineffective in 90% of calls?
Disclaimer: No flame intended, just that introspection is preferable to feeling like shit. It's a given that most helpdesk people are paid like shit but that is no reason to allow yourself or others to treat you like shit. If your boss would rather have you constantly abused than stand up to a few bulling, blowhard customers then getting the sack is a blessing.
If only I had mod points....
Wonderfull! BTW: I thought about putting +1Albert because amoung the many words I can't spell is his last name, sure I could look it up but I am too lazy to swivel my chair and look at the biography sitting on the bookshelf.
The sort of thing they use in the LHC? - Thanks for the interesting post, I'm off to look up some of those acronyms.
Moore's 'law' is not a 'law' but rather an insightfull observation about the rate of evolution in processor technology. Processors have now evolved to where the metric used to make the original observations is less becoming meaningfull. Kinda like measuring the evolution of muli-cellular life by counting the number of cells in an organisim.
"Multi-Core technology is good for desktop systems as it is meant to run a lot of relatively small apps Rarely taking advantage of more then 1 or 2 cores. per app.In other-words it allows Multi-Tasking without a penalty. We don't use super computers that way. We use them to to perform 1 app that takes huge resources that would take hours or years on your PC and spit out results in seconds or days."
Sorry but that's not entirely correct, most super computers work on highly parallel problems using numerical analysis techniques. By definition the problem is broken up into millions of smaller problems that make ideal "small apps", a common consequence is that the bandwidth of the communications between the 'small apps' becomes the limiting factor.
"Back in the early-mid 90's we had different processors for Desktop and Super Computers."
The earth simulator was refered to in some parts as 'computenick', it's speed jump over it's nearest rival and longevity at the top marked the renaissance of "vector processing" after it had been largely ignored during the 90's.
In the end a supercomputer is a purpose built machine, if cores fit the purpose then they will be used.
Mod the parent +1Eienstien, the term 'supercomputer' is relative.
The dumb thing is, he does not even realize the size of the list does not matter.
He is a politician, he is well aware that the existance, content, and size, of the list are ALL that matters.
From the day these stories started appearing I have claimed that the mandatory thing will go nowhere. This is not about technology it's about politics, in particular placating one senator Fielding from the "family first" party. Because of the senate's current make-up, under certain political stand-offs he gets to be "the decider", so in true "yes minister" fashion an "inquiry" must be held to drag it out as long as possible. Conroy is mute because he does not support it, he is demonstrating loyalty to the PM by taking the heat (he is also somewhat of a rival to the PM).
IMHO the MAFIAA's attack on iiNet is far more orwellian than a reccuring political theater that both major parties play in order to keep the "think of the children" crowd chasing their own tail. - The theater is inefficient and wastefull - it's democratic what did you expect?
I like my porn, to quote Larry Flint "I ain't guilt of nothing 'cept bad taste". However if the "other parties" mentioned in the report happen to bust a few rock-spiders while conducting their trial, I would consider that a bonus.
"This is just what the EFF wanted"
You have several posts in this thread repeating the claim that the EFF support this scheme. As others have pointed out the EFF do not support a MANDATORY music tax.
Since they have already broken your good faith by lying to you, do you still "really believe Warner is trying to do good with this system"? Or is lying too strong a word? Perhaps on your next con-call you could leave the rose coloured glasses at home, ask if they are aware that they are "unintentionally" misrepresenting the EFF's stance, sit back and gauge their reaction?
"Please, let us give them a chance to do something right."
They have, and have always had, the option to "do something right". Their legal assult on students is failing, please do not bypass the slow wheels of justice by GIVING them the option to institutionalise "doing something wrong"....And if your not "giving" them anything then what is in this deal for the students and UoM, other than 'protection'?
BTW: I notice you claim to work "at" the UoM. Just for the record - who do you work FOR when working AT the UoM?
Support-101, Training your customer: If your customer says something like "I WANT THIS FIXED NOW YOU GOD DAMN MOTHERFUCKING...", hang-up without explaination - rinse and repeat until customer gets a clue.
Yeah, the jokes on the UN 'cause the US will just print more dollars. /ducks
As a fellow Aussie I find most of your posts insightfull and informative. However I feel compeled to point out the phrase "which it exercises often" only applies for certain definitions of often.
I think the classification board does a great job but I disagree with outright bans on philosophical grounds. The current push for filtering is a storm in a tea-cup and is driven by the governments need to placate senator Fielding. After KRuddy has got what he wants out of Fielding the mandatory filtering legislation will fail to pass the senate and the political fallout will land directly on Fielding at the next election.
"Goedel already proved that axiomatic systems contain errors, especially the error of excluding inconceivable axioms, from which we can conclude that "scientific method" is a) provisional, and b) political."
Not sure who this 'Goedel' fella is but Kurt Godel did nothing of the sort. Godel's incompleteness theorm had nothing to do with errors, what it shows is that provability is a weaker notion than truth.
So lets be scientific and revise your provisional conclusion in light of new information....
a) Yes it's true that all science is provisional, that is by design and history shows that provisional does not mean useless. Many people like to belive there are "other ways of knowing" but those "other ways" have always revolved around wishfull thinking, none of them come close to the track record of utility seen in science.
b) Politics has nothing to do with science, politicians and others just like to see it that way because it's easier than practicing skepticisim on their own assumptions and assertions.
BTW: My dear old dad can bite his own forehead - science made this possible by providing him with false teeth.
"So how do they differ?"
The same way pure and applied maths differ - one feeds the Elephant, the other rides on it. You don't need to ride the Elephant to feed it but it helps.
Although your points are valid they are rather narrow in that they implicitly define 'alive' as the potential for consiousness, the GP's point that doesn't make sense to you was that there is no black & white definition of 'alive'.
For example the wood frog can allow itself to freeze solid for the winter and will thaw out in spring with no ill affects despite the fact it hasn't had a heartbeat or any sign of brain activity for months. By your tests the frog is dead during the winter and alive again in the spring.