Not true. Sweden had 10K volunteers to Finland when it was invaded. But, even given that, I'm not so sure it's a great selling point to proudly point out that Sweden stood still and allowed the German's roll over the rest of Europe.
So, you don't understand that freedom of speach has never been all-inclusive? This is just another example. While the cry of "think of the children" can be over and ill-used, "fuck the children" is much worse.
The average poster here writes at an almost third-grade level, yet are considered intelligent because they're geeks. Yeesh.
As Frank Zappa said, "faciety does not come across in print". Well, exaggeration fails pretty much too.
Perhaps he was making a point? It wasn't in an article, it was in a speech. I failed to notice the inflection marks in the quote. Did you omit them, or were they not there?
Only if you purposely misconstrue. Perhaps your sentence should have read "I offended some people who have nothing better to do with their time than create accounts on websites they wish to participate in editorially".
Yep. That would eliminate the drive-by. You know, those who don't have the veracity to spend a moment. If you've got the time to edit, you've got the time to register. Straw argument there.
And, just how do you vet? Is it by having a degree or is it by actually knowing what you're talking about? Keep in mind, the formar doesn't actually guarantee the latter. Nor does the latter imply the former.
Your statement is not a fact, it is an opinion. And one based on imagination, not science. You blithly state that's how the 'connect'ion is made and conveniently omit just what that connection is and how it works.
And, just WTF, is behaving 'quantumly' when referring to thought? Please be explicit if you wish to give a meaningful answer.
No. There is no shooting of an electical impulse. If there were, we'd have helluva lot faster reaction times. The impulse is a slow flipping of ions in series. Hardly an electric current.
Have to agree with you. I laugh every time I read an article like this or the various ones linked to by posters in which someone claims "they've been doing".
None of the attempts I've read so far come even close to displaying an understanding of the brain functions, much less actually mimicking them. They always leave out a key component, and one which we do not understand how it influences thought. Hormones.
The brain is not a simple network, regardless of how many/.ers desire it. It is organic and the same number and weight of signals to a neuron will not yield the same output repeatedly.
But, as someone pointed out, ya gotta look like you're on the edge to get dem grants.
"OK, so you think I am mad as a hatter. Perhaps. Perhaps not."
No, I just think you've unloaded a bunch of big words (some not used correctly, by the way) and linked to a video of a dry low-level lecture with graphics that are no more sophisticated than these guy's in order to appear cool.
"Overall, I think this is wicked cool, but amateurish from the standpoint of science. Actually, I'd like to see a Gerald Edelelman approach to handling and analyzing the DNA -- which would be wicked cool!"
Wicked cool -- the new definition of sophisticated science.
See if you can explain to everyone here just how using his approach (with which I am familiar and just watched your pretty useless link) would be different from what's being done in DNA research now. You don't think folks already understand that genes do or do not survive?
Neural evolution is the result of biological evolution.
You are wrong. The contractor could come up with usable estimates for the major objects, but this can do it for every object. I've done contracting and known some mighty fine ones and every damn one will say they won't stand by what they tell you without measurement.
Yeah, right. And you then released this software for the general public good?
Perhaps those who would buy it aren't blessed with your amazing talents. You know -- the ability to write a program such as this in under four hours? That's what a low end contractor gets -- ~25 hr.
Academia's lack of real world experience shows again.
That last sentence -- wow. Do you not understand DNA? Is that your twin (which is still not an exact match) or a cousin (which is not much of a match at all)? Looked at it your way, take a swab from a Mongolian steppe nomad, "and then the government essentially has your DNA too". Because, it contains most of the infor to make a human.
Slashdot Mirror
Not true. Sweden had 10K volunteers to Finland when it was invaded. But, even given that, I'm not so sure it's a great selling point to proudly point out that Sweden stood still and allowed the German's roll over the rest of Europe.
So, you don't understand that freedom of speach has never been all-inclusive? This is just another example. While the cry of "think of the children" can be over and ill-used, "fuck the children" is much worse.
Not true. I have rural friends with satellites.
The average poster here writes at an almost third-grade level, yet are considered intelligent because they're geeks. Yeesh.
As Frank Zappa said, "faciety does not come across in print". Well, exaggeration fails pretty much too.
Perhaps he was making a point? It wasn't in an article, it was in a speech. I failed to notice the inflection marks in the quote. Did you omit them, or were they not there?
As a great writer once said (paraphrase) -- I don't have time to be concise.
Just how much of that 2.6 is the lack of precise writing and how much is drek?
Only if you purposely misconstrue. Perhaps your sentence should have read "I offended some people who have nothing better to do with their time than create accounts on websites they wish to participate in editorially".
Hmm, doesn't sound to bad stated that way.
Yep. That would eliminate the drive-by. You know, those who don't have the veracity to spend a moment. If you've got the time to edit, you've got the time to register. Straw argument there.
And, just how do you vet? Is it by having a degree or is it by actually knowing what you're talking about? Keep in mind, the formar doesn't actually guarantee the latter. Nor does the latter imply the former.
"First of all, they will dissipate almsot instantly due to Hawking radiation."
Theoretical Hawking radiation.
"Most of us geeks are also very well versed in ... etc."
Hot damn! Which of those other sites to they hang out in?
Your statement is not a fact, it is an opinion. And one based on imagination, not science. You blithly state that's how the 'connect'ion is made and conveniently omit just what that connection is and how it works.
And, just WTF, is behaving 'quantumly' when referring to thought? Please be explicit if you wish to give a meaningful answer.
Big thoughts, little meaning.
No. There is no shooting of an electical impulse. If there were, we'd have helluva lot faster reaction times. The impulse is a slow flipping of ions in series. Hardly an electric current.
Have to agree with you. I laugh every time I read an article like this or the various ones linked to by posters in which someone claims "they've been doing".
/.ers desire it. It is organic and the same number and weight of signals to a neuron will not yield the same output repeatedly.
None of the attempts I've read so far come even close to displaying an understanding of the brain functions, much less actually mimicking them. They always leave out a key component, and one which we do not understand how it influences thought. Hormones.
The brain is not a simple network, regardless of how many
But, as someone pointed out, ya gotta look like you're on the edge to get dem grants.
"I don't mind people copying all the docs I've written. ... Bastard."
Thought you didn't mind?
"We share 99% of DNA with the shimp right (now)."
We share a large (not 99%) of our DNA with shrimp (and shimp, whatever those are) because most of it is involved with cellular functioning, you idiot.
"OK, so you think I am mad as a hatter. Perhaps. Perhaps not."
No, I just think you've unloaded a bunch of big words (some not used correctly, by the way) and linked to a video of a dry low-level lecture with graphics that are no more sophisticated than these guy's in order to appear cool.
"Overall, I think this is wicked cool, but amateurish from the standpoint of science. Actually, I'd like to see a Gerald Edelelman approach to handling and analyzing the DNA -- which would be wicked cool!"
Wicked cool -- the new definition of sophisticated science.
See if you can explain to everyone here just how using his approach (with which I am familiar and just watched your pretty useless link) would be different from what's being done in DNA research now. You don't think folks already understand that genes do or do not survive?
Neural evolution is the result of biological evolution.
Really? Talk to this guy.
You are wrong. The contractor could come up with usable estimates for the major objects, but this can do it for every object. I've done contracting and known some mighty fine ones and every damn one will say they won't stand by what they tell you without measurement.
Yeah, right. And you then released this software for the general public good?
Perhaps those who would buy it aren't blessed with your amazing talents. You know -- the ability to write a program such as this in under four hours? That's what a low end contractor gets -- ~25 hr.
Academia's lack of real world experience shows again.
And the culture of the people 2K yr ago. People are still basically the same -- gullible.
So, you have no backup for your assertion? Link maybe?
That last sentence -- wow. Do you not understand DNA? Is that your twin (which is still not an exact match) or a cousin (which is not much of a match at all)? Looked at it your way, take a swab from a Mongolian steppe nomad, "and then the government essentially has your DNA too". Because, it contains most of the infor to make a human.
Don't bother him with legal facts, he's working up a good paranoia.
Uh, and the Europeans voted for all the regulations that the EU enacted? No, they did not. The EU is a horrible example and I'll keep ours, thank you.
Even with an estimate of one cent damage per wall, the catapults it into a felony in fifty out of fifty states.