Said the commenter who equated being anti-union to being right wing. I programmed/designed/analyzed for an entire career without the need for someone to represent me. I represented myself. If you're smart enough to code for a living, you're smart enough to do the same.
Re:4th Doctor is BEST Doctor. Scientific fact.
on
The 2014 Hugo Awards
·
· Score: 1
How in holy hell does that make it science fiction? You just buried the bar for the lowest definition under the earth rendering The Wonderful Wizard of Oz into science fiction.
Those two goals are in no way incompatible. There's no need to employ sloppy writing to generate emotion unless your goal is a high score on What's Wrong With.
I still think that the paintings are likely unrelated to each other, but it seems that both artists were thinking similar thoughts when they chose to paint these. And that's the sophistication of the algorithm.
Unfortunately, it's not the point of the algorithm, so that sophistication is projected upon it by you, not intrinsic to it's conception. You yourself invalidate the point of the algorithm with the beginning of your sentence. There were no influences between the artists, only similarities. Which is to be expected, as they are humans painting human activities.
You can't use mathematical computation an example that's anywhere near similar to this as similarity in art is far more than if both items contain a rectangle. The worthiness of this particular algorithm depends on the percentage of false positives. Only going by the items in the article, I count three for three false positives. A waste of human time to review.
Running arbitrary code doesn't meany anything more than a jump table. Humans are far more capable of altering their thinking patterns, studying and adopting new pattern on their own and even forgetting things, making for new overall outlooks. Short response: you are so completely wrong.
That is nowhere near a strong enough caveat to overcome their claim the algorithm finds artistic similarities. That kind of algorithm cannot take the place of common sense.
Just using the bottom example. The 'related' elements are that each painting used a window, each painting had a small group of people (the first in mid-ground, the second in a back room), each had a pipe shaped heating stove, each had a piece (different) of furniture and each had a diagonal element (both differing angles).
Those things, they think, may be from influence instead of, say, the fact that humans have all those things in everyday life.
Their algorithm and their view of its output needs a lot of tweaking.
A troll will troll and some will pay to troll. Trolling is a subjective thing, so unless you're willing to face a lawsuit, once someone pays to comment, you'd better have a friggin' tight description of what's allowed before you censor them or reject their subscription. Opinions aren't trolling.
No, he's saying wealthy Democrats do. What, you think only Republicans are wealthy and live beyond everyone else? If so, you are naive. But, that's a standard strawman to through out.
When I built my house, we had a large living room - 20x30 feet. Not grand because it's function was mostly solar. I installed four speakers in the ceiling. They were arranged L/R/L/R going around the room. This was quite sufficient to fool you into thinking it was surround and things moved from right to left. In short, quite unnecessary technical clutter proposed here.
So, yes college is incredibly expensive, tuition has to come down, etc. etc. -- but other than the military, how does a high school student make the transition from being a dumb kid to being a responsible adult?
The mere fact that they had purchased the ad on that particular page shows their intentions weren't good at all but strictly profit motivated. A "good" response would have been to remove the ad, not create a pop-up. On the other hand, the car company should have fired them.
The Spanish Flu. The effects were as bad as Ebola and much faster. Even the military couldn't quarantine their bases fast enough to prevent spreading. This one would be even "better". Yes, purposeful scare quotes because an estimated 5% of the world population *did* die.
That 7% lethality stat was true for SF, not this thing purposefully designed to be more lethal. Makes that 20% look more feasible, doesn't it?
The Spanish Flu killed upwards of 5 percent of the world's population in one year in a world with much slower travel. Do you really think something like this, purposely designed to be far more lethal, would be counteracted in time to to help? If this gets out, the *remaining* five percent will understand why the other ninety-five died. Keep in mind, it it escapes, the researchers will be the first to go.
You would also have to completely model host organisms and their immediate environments.
Does this suggest you would be in favor of trying out this virus? Not on yourself of course, but on some other human in a city, as that would be the one and only way to determine how it works inside a human body and spreads?
I am not.
The information gained is valuable enough that it is worth the minor risk involved in gaining it.
Slashdot Mirror
Said the commenter who equated being anti-union to being right wing. I programmed/designed/analyzed for an entire career without the need for someone to represent me. I represented myself. If you're smart enough to code for a living, you're smart enough to do the same.
How in holy hell does that make it science fiction? You just buried the bar for the lowest definition under the earth rendering The Wonderful Wizard of Oz into science fiction.
Those two goals are in no way incompatible. There's no need to employ sloppy writing to generate emotion unless your goal is a high score on What's Wrong With.
Both of you apparently are unaware of the gay Republicans. In short, you're both wrong.
You do not get to choose what he believes himself to be in order to make his statements fit into your narrative.
Nope, not what he said.
Everything you say may indeed be true, but the point of the program is to find influences between artists, not similarities in their works.
If they need to check with living artists for validation, the entire exercise is worthless as the bulk of the artists are dead.
Unfortunately, it's not the point of the algorithm, so that sophistication is projected upon it by you, not intrinsic to it's conception. You yourself invalidate the point of the algorithm with the beginning of your sentence. There were no influences between the artists, only similarities. Which is to be expected, as they are humans painting human activities.
You can't use mathematical computation an example that's anywhere near similar to this as similarity in art is far more than if both items contain a rectangle. The worthiness of this particular algorithm depends on the percentage of false positives. Only going by the items in the article, I count three for three false positives. A waste of human time to review.
Running arbitrary code doesn't meany anything more than a jump table. Humans are far more capable of altering their thinking patterns, studying and adopting new pattern on their own and even forgetting things, making for new overall outlooks. Short response: you are so completely wrong.
The human needed to establish that influence can establish that similarity as well, rendering the computer superfluous.
That is nowhere near a strong enough caveat to overcome their claim the algorithm finds artistic similarities. That kind of algorithm cannot take the place of common sense.
Just using the bottom example. The 'related' elements are that each painting used a window, each painting had a small group of people (the first in mid-ground, the second in a back room), each had a pipe shaped heating stove, each had a piece (different) of furniture and each had a diagonal element (both differing angles).
Those things, they think, may be from influence instead of, say, the fact that humans have all those things in everyday life.
Their algorithm and their view of its output needs a lot of tweaking.
A troll will troll and some will pay to troll. Trolling is a subjective thing, so unless you're willing to face a lawsuit, once someone pays to comment, you'd better have a friggin' tight description of what's allowed before you censor them or reject their subscription. Opinions aren't trolling.
No, he's saying wealthy Democrats do. What, you think only Republicans are wealthy and live beyond everyone else? If so, you are naive. But, that's a standard strawman to through out.
If you gotta wear glasses, it's not 3D.
When I built my house, we had a large living room - 20x30 feet. Not grand because it's function was mostly solar. I installed four speakers in the ceiling. They were arranged L/R/L/R going around the room. This was quite sufficient to fool you into thinking it was surround and things moved from right to left. In short, quite unnecessary technical clutter proposed here.
"journalistic integrity", that's a good one.
Getting a job and an apartment?
The mere fact that they had purchased the ad on that particular page shows their intentions weren't good at all but strictly profit motivated. A "good" response would have been to remove the ad, not create a pop-up. On the other hand, the car company should have fired them.
The Spanish Flu. The effects were as bad as Ebola and much faster. Even the military couldn't quarantine their bases fast enough to prevent spreading. This one would be even "better". Yes, purposeful scare quotes because an estimated 5% of the world population *did* die.
That 7% lethality stat was true for SF, not this thing purposefully designed to be more lethal. Makes that 20% look more feasible, doesn't it?
The Spanish Flu killed upwards of 5 percent of the world's population in one year in a world with much slower travel. Do you really think something like this, purposely designed to be far more lethal, would be counteracted in time to to help? If this gets out, the *remaining* five percent will understand why the other ninety-five died. Keep in mind, it it escapes, the researchers will be the first to go.
Here.
So you agree, the risk is not zero. What was that recently discovered lost sample of deadly pathogen again?
Does this suggest you would be in favor of trying out this virus? Not on yourself of course, but on some other human in a city, as that would be the one and only way to determine how it works inside a human body and spreads?
I am not.
The risk is not minor, it is pandemic.