"Whenever somebody's conclusion is that we need a new programming language, I know we are dealing with an idiot or more of a philosopher than a programmer."
And yet the idiots/philosophers gave us every languge we use to today. There's a reason we're not writing in machine code.
the networks are represented as templates. It's pretty cool and very high performance. Particularly impressive given the relative resources invested relative to Tensorflow and PyTorch/Caffe.
I guess? I think a legislature would be about the dullest porno intro ever. 8 people dozing in a large, mostly empty room while someone spends 3 hours reading a bill.
Then no one really has the motivation to remove any clothes.
I think sticking with the plumber or delivery guy is a better option.
That's certainly easier than making a filter that actually works. I wonder what the minimum thing that qualifies as a porno filter is. DEFAULT ALLOW...
I was going to break with finest traditions of slashdot and actually read TFA to see, but it gives me Access Denied.
Zealots would claim: "If you've whitelisted one site, you've failed."
Swish! Slash! Wow you certainly took that straw man down in a hurry! Good job, he was coming right at you. Those spiky bits of straw might even have caused a mild rash.
During some calls for public comment, the US government has outright stated that it will refuse to consider any comment submitted through snail mail or email. In one case, the US Copyright Office stated, and I quote, that it "cannot allow submission of comments outside the regulations.gov system on the basis of your objection to the use of proprietary software."
Well that isn't a good thing. It's still irrelevant to this thread though because LibreJS allows whitelisting, so even if you freely choose to use LibreJS, you can still use the site without having to even create an alternate browser profile.
You might very well argue (as the FSF does) that it is not reasonable to require people to accept opaque and arbitrary license agreements, or run essentially unverifiable code, in order to petition the government. I'd agree, you absolutely shouldn't have to.
BUT THAT STILL DOES NOT MEAN LIBREJS IS THE OPPOSITE OF FREEDOM.
This is one of the most bizarre threads I've ever been on.
Do you not understand that: 1. It's your choice whether or not to use LibreJS? 2. You don't have to take its reecommendations even if you do install it?
Failure to run proprietary JavaScript leads to failure to complete a web-based application to prepare and file an individual income tax return. Failing to file your individual income tax return leads to loss of freedom when the feds incarcerate you.
You're claiming that installing LibreJS will send you to prison? That's, well, the other guy in this thread said some pretty off-the-wall stuff but I think you may have topped him!
You could always use LibreJS's whitelist feature on irs.gov (or whatever the site is). Or if you feel REALLY strongly you can file it on paper.
Failure to run proprietary JavaScript leads to failure to complete "I'm not a robot" checks, which leads to failure to submit comments on proposed regulation, which leads to failure "to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (U.S. Const., Amendment I).
I've come to the conclusion that anyone quoting the consitution doesn't understand it. Nothing but nothing in the constitution says you don't have the freedom to not run a javascript blocker if you have it installed.
And you are still allowed to petition your government for redress of grievances by snail mail, email and twitter which I believe still has a JS-free interface.
Not by any normal definition of the word free. If you have the choice then you have your freedom. I, as a non car owner am every bit as free as a car owner, because it is my choice and I can choose precisely the opposite tomorrow if I so desire. Altering the relative levels of convenience is not the opposite of "freedom".
In the context of this thread it's even more completely inane because you can install LibreJS then use its whitelisting feature to whitelist any sites you feel you need that won't run without non-free JavaScript.
So what you're really claiming is that choosing to do something in a slightly different way from other people is "the opposite of freedom". That IS without doubt the stupidest thing I've heard on the internet all week.
And I ventured onto twitter earlier, so you have passed an impressively high bar. Congratulations.
By the time a textbook hits the market it's already a year or three out-of-date. [...] It would need to be[...] organized to match standardized curriculum,
I think those things are somewhat in opposition. If you're at the level of standardised cirricula, then you're teaching intro level or a bit above. Anything much higher doesn't have standardised cirricula. On that note, most things that are intro level don't change fast enough to be out of date in three years (not everything, but most).
On another note, textbooks don't need to be matched to a cirriculum. At uni the lecturers often gave a list of books they thought were useful if you wanted to learn outside of lectures. The cirriculum wasn't organised around those books (or vice versa). And sometimes books are just plain useful for learning stuff, for example, I love my copy of Horowitz & Hill and NR.
On the other hand, a dig in the eye wit ha sharp stick would be a better bet than some of the things that pass for textbooks, especially at the mass eucation level.
The problem with IKEA's pizza is the damn instructions for making it. By the time you figure out how to attach the cheese, the special pepperoni connectors, etc., you'll have starved to death.
Or do what everyone else does, the cheese goes on the bottom. The tomato is kind of spread around the edge and the toppings are carefully stacked in a pile in the middle.
Techincally it's edible and you'll be so fed you that you'll eat it.
I think the thing you're missing is there are correct methods and those methods aren't always being followed.
Yep that's certainly true.
Or to put it another way, it seems that the same mistakes happen over and over and over again.
Also true. Though I'd like to emphasise that science keeps marching forward despite that. The same mistakes are repeated over and over again. You can pick any decade and find it, but the corrective process works, which is why we do make forward progress.
What's stopping universities from determining what the top ten most common mistakes made are and tackling those through their education?
You're conflating the research part of universities and the education part. Those are generally different. But let's ignore that for now. The problem is the incentive structure encourages over interpretation of results and going for high impact over quality.
Because if you don't get high impact papers you lose your job. It doesn't matter what you teach them in the classroom if you then threaten to take away their livelihood if they stick to it.
And if the funding bodies don't bias towards high impact researchers, then people start asking them why they're funding less good scientists. The public/government want oversignt and they want to see the money is being well spent, i.e. going to the best scientists. and how d oyou tell they're the best? Well what can you measure...
IOW this is not a problem universities can solve, since it's a structural problem with the whole machine (they're just a cog and they don't control the funding) and anyway we don't even really know what a better structure is. But we know what doesn't work.
I've bumped into academia on and off over the years, and I know it pretty well. Lots of people have discussed these topics inside. If you like you can propose some solutions and I can tell you why I think they won't work. This is not to say your ideas are bad, but the problem is a hard one and I've already had this conversation many, many times and had every idea shot down for irrefutably good reasons.
This is far too regular occurrence and it looks like ar too large a percentage of scientific studies are flawed and many are so badly flawed that their conclusions are completely wrong and sometimes the complete opposite conclusion is true.
90% of everything is crap and science has never been any exception. The thing about science that works is that it isn't ultimately about the individual results, but about the corrective process. And it demonstrable works.
So why aren't universities teaching people how to do science properly
They are, but there are several problems. One, science is hard. Two, if scientists don't produce high profile results then they lose their jobs, so corners often get cut.
The system looks very broken to me and I do not agree with " It's science working as it should," it's a mess that literally affects whether people live or die.
It's the only way we know. No one's come up with a better way of doind things yet.
That has made it great for recommendations and toys, but is really alarming when applied to more serious stuff.
I don't entirely agree. I mean I accept your point, but I don't agree with the conclusion in all cases. Take self driving cars for example. These are heavily dependent on ML, and certainly important.
I reckon though we don't *need* to know why exactly it does the things it does, because humans aren't statistically very good drivers. The aim isn't to replace a perfect system with a cheaper one, it's to replace a tired, angry, distracted system with a better one.
Again, great when you want an answer but don't care what it is, if it is right, or leaning anything from it.
Or if you only want it to be on average better than another practical way of getting the answer. I think that use case is important.
Sure, except for the fact that I never claimed any such thing.
Yes you literally did and you're about to do it again!
Not running non-free JS is fine, but if it prevents you from doing what you want to do then what have you gained?
Irrelevant, we're talking about freedom not utility.
Where's the "freedom" part in not being able to do what you need?
You said above you didn't say this. You're saying it again. You're 100% free because you're choosing that. Choosing to not do something doesn't mean you're not free any more because you haven't done it.
Your response is the same as saying that "disabling your car frees you from driving it." Right, but what if I want to drive it?
Not even slightly. It'e more like saying: choosing to sell your car is the opposite of "freedom" because you might want to drive.
You can freely make the choice to drive or not drive. Choosing to not drive does not make you less free. because you can un-choose whenever you like. Seriously how can you not understand such a basic concept?
He just doesn't accept that proprietary software has its place when there are no sane alternatives.
[citation needed].
At most you could reasonably claim he says that free software could provide alternatives. I've never seen him claim it currently does.
For example, what software do you use [...]
Unless you back up your claims about what RMS says with actual not-out-of-context quotes/citations, I'm going to assume you're yet another person who's heard some stuff about RMS and so you assume you know what he says. Don't worry it's a popular hobby to do that. The problem is RMS is capable of a lot of nuance. People on the whole don't like nuance and it often gets lost.
I'm not having a go really. If you know about RMS from second hand sources, you've almost certainly got it wrong because other people's ability to misunderstand him is astonishing.
I had to look up "GOFAI". Turns out it refers to symbolic reasoning type systems (good old-fasioned AI).
y. But GOFAI techniques are out of style right now, and it is getting worse as GOFAI systems are so much slower and resource intensive not to mention require so much more domain knowledge to set up and just can not compete with the sexy instant gratification that machine learning can give you..
Well yeah... and symbolic systems haven't delivered the results. Take for example the bit of machine learning which responds to "hey siri" or whatever Alexa responds to (no idea, I don't want either kind of spy-box in my house). It really doesn't matter why or how it works, if it works 99% of the time instead of 100% and so on.
It's a useful (apparently) product anyway. There are countless examples of things like that. If AI or ML isn't an end in itself, but part of a product, then that explains why GOFIA is not very popular.
On the other hand Facebook using GANs to hallucinate MRI data for medical purposes? Holy shit that is not going to end well.
Why the down mod? It's a joke see? "when all you have is a hammer, you know the drill". Must be an SDS drill. Because an SDS drill is a hammer drill. See? see?
It's not off topic just a joke, and there's no -1 unfunny mod so there.
To be frank, British policing has devolved so badly in the last 30 years that you can't even call it policing. You've got serious issues with the police and local government covering up crimes, with approval of higher-up members of the government
Right so there was a brief window from 1980-1987 where everything was glorious. You know after the notoriously corrupt 70's, and before it then all went downhill again...
As usual you have no idea what you're talking about. Thw worst stories you hear on the news are not anything like the average case.
Yes, and it'll also prevent you from using the site in most cases. That's kind of the opposite of "freedom".
That's about the most foolish definition of freedom I've seen today on the internet. Installing LibreJS is your choice. Claiming that choosing to not run non-free JS is 'the opposite of "freedom"' is several steps beyond facile.
The world isn't ideal, and many things (not only software) sometimes require compromises to work.[...] RMS is just too idealistic to be able to put up with the imperfection of the world.
I love how people just make up random shit that they think must be true about RMS without ever actually bothering to look at what he has done.
the GNU project was initially built with proprietary tools on UNIX workstations. It only became fully self hosting in 1994 with the Linux kernel, a full 11 years after starting the project.
Clearly RMS was entirely prepared to put up with the impefection of the world.
IMHO Eric Raymond is a much better FSF leader candidate
Maybe once upon a time, but he off went off the deep end.
It's obvious the neural network was trained on stock images, including lots of celebrities.
Probably more the latter than the former, since there are quite a lot of celebrity datasets, like Celeb-A, VGG's Celebrity in places, VGG's Celebrity Together dataset, VoxCeleb and so on.
You appear to be be strongly on one political side on this topic. The odd thing is I can't actually tell *which* side you are strongly on. Would you care to enlighten me?
But Hollywood teaches anybody who doesn't know gun laws that all guns have to be registered with 'the government' and it's made it into wide spread popular belief.
No it doesn't. Name some films that do that.
I fully expected to get modded "troll" or "flaimbait" for not simply swallowing that talking point at face value and demanding something to back it up.
Slashdot Mirror
"Whenever somebody's conclusion is that we need a new programming language, I know we are dealing with an idiot or more of a philosopher than a programmer."
And yet the idiots/philosophers gave us every languge we use to today. There's a reason we're not writing in machine code.
Just use C++
Indeed, and the library you want in particular is called DLib.
http://dlib.net/
Specifically:
http://blog.dlib.net/2016/06/a...
the networks are represented as templates. It's pretty cool and very high performance. Particularly impressive given the relative resources invested relative to Tensorflow and PyTorch/Caffe.
So they're already implementing the filter.
I guess? I think a legislature would be about the dullest porno intro ever. 8 people dozing in a large, mostly empty room while someone spends 3 hours reading a bill.
Then no one really has the motivation to remove any clothes.
I think sticking with the plumber or delivery guy is a better option.
To just stop selling phones in Kansas.
That's certainly easier than making a filter that actually works. I wonder what the minimum thing that qualifies as a porno filter is. DEFAULT ALLOW...
I was going to break with finest traditions of slashdot and actually read TFA to see, but it gives me Access Denied.
Zealots would claim: "If you've whitelisted one site, you've failed."
Swish! Slash! Wow you certainly took that straw man down in a hurry! Good job, he was coming right at you. Those spiky bits of straw might even have caused a mild rash.
During some calls for public comment, the US government has outright stated that it will refuse to consider any comment submitted through snail mail or email. In one case, the US Copyright Office stated, and I quote, that it "cannot allow submission of comments outside the regulations.gov system on the basis of your objection to the use of proprietary software."
Well that isn't a good thing. It's still irrelevant to this thread though because LibreJS allows whitelisting, so even if you freely choose to use LibreJS, you can still use the site without having to even create an alternate browser profile.
You might very well argue (as the FSF does) that it is not reasonable to require people to accept opaque and arbitrary license agreements, or run essentially unverifiable code, in order to petition the government. I'd agree, you absolutely shouldn't have to.
BUT THAT STILL DOES NOT MEAN LIBREJS IS THE OPPOSITE OF FREEDOM.
Yes, one can question physical textbooks. I avoid them also as much as possible
I don't, though mostly beacuse textbooks have paragraph breaks.
This is one of the most bizarre threads I've ever been on.
Do you not understand that:
1. It's your choice whether or not to use LibreJS?
2. You don't have to take its reecommendations even if you do install it?
Failure to run proprietary JavaScript leads to failure to complete a web-based application to prepare and file an individual income tax return. Failing to file your individual income tax return leads to loss of freedom when the feds incarcerate you.
You're claiming that installing LibreJS will send you to prison? That's, well, the other guy in this thread said some pretty off-the-wall stuff but I think you may have topped him!
You could always use LibreJS's whitelist feature on irs.gov (or whatever the site is). Or if you feel REALLY strongly you can file it on paper.
Failure to run proprietary JavaScript leads to failure to complete "I'm not a robot" checks, which leads to failure to submit comments on proposed regulation, which leads to failure "to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (U.S. Const., Amendment I).
I've come to the conclusion that anyone quoting the consitution doesn't understand it. Nothing but nothing in the constitution says you don't have the freedom to not run a javascript blocker if you have it installed.
And you are still allowed to petition your government for redress of grievances by snail mail, email and twitter which I believe still has a JS-free interface.
Yeah it actually does
Not by any normal definition of the word free. If you have the choice then you have your freedom. I, as a non car owner am every bit as free as a car owner, because it is my choice and I can choose precisely the opposite tomorrow if I so desire. Altering the relative levels of convenience is not the opposite of "freedom".
In the context of this thread it's even more completely inane because you can install LibreJS then use its whitelisting feature to whitelist any sites you feel you need that won't run without non-free JavaScript.
So what you're really claiming is that choosing to do something in a slightly different way from other people is "the opposite of freedom". That IS without doubt the stupidest thing I've heard on the internet all week.
And I ventured onto twitter earlier, so you have passed an impressively high bar. Congratulations.
Excuse the selective quoting, but:
By the time a textbook hits the market it's already a year or three out-of-date. [...] It would need to be[...] organized to match standardized curriculum,
I think those things are somewhat in opposition. If you're at the level of standardised cirricula, then you're teaching intro level or a bit above. Anything much higher doesn't have standardised cirricula. On that note, most things that are intro level don't change fast enough to be out of date in three years (not everything, but most).
On another note, textbooks don't need to be matched to a cirriculum. At uni the lecturers often gave a list of books they thought were useful if you wanted to learn outside of lectures. The cirriculum wasn't organised around those books (or vice versa). And sometimes books are just plain useful for learning stuff, for example, I love my copy of Horowitz & Hill and NR.
On the other hand, a dig in the eye wit ha sharp stick would be a better bet than some of the things that pass for textbooks, especially at the mass eucation level.
The problem with IKEA's pizza is the damn instructions for making it. By the time you figure out how to attach the cheese, the special pepperoni connectors, etc., you'll have starved to death.
Or do what everyone else does, the cheese goes on the bottom. The tomato is kind of spread around the edge and the toppings are carefully stacked in a pile in the middle.
Techincally it's edible and you'll be so fed you that you'll eat it.
[replying to both messages at once]
I think the thing you're missing is there are correct methods and those methods aren't always being followed.
Yep that's certainly true.
Or to put it another way, it seems that the same mistakes happen over and over and over again.
Also true. Though I'd like to emphasise that science keeps marching forward despite that. The same mistakes are repeated over and over again. You can pick any decade and find it, but the corrective process works, which is why we do make forward progress.
What's stopping universities from determining what the top ten most common mistakes made are and tackling those through their education?
You're conflating the research part of universities and the education part. Those are generally different. But let's ignore that for now. The problem is the incentive structure encourages over interpretation of results and going for high impact over quality.
Because if you don't get high impact papers you lose your job. It doesn't matter what you teach them in the classroom if you then threaten to take away their livelihood if they stick to it.
And if the funding bodies don't bias towards high impact researchers, then people start asking them why they're funding less good scientists. The public/government want oversignt and they want to see the money is being well spent, i.e. going to the best scientists. and how d oyou tell they're the best? Well what can you measure...
IOW this is not a problem universities can solve, since it's a structural problem with the whole machine (they're just a cog and they don't control the funding) and anyway we don't even really know what a better structure is. But we know what doesn't work.
I've bumped into academia on and off over the years, and I know it pretty well. Lots of people have discussed these topics inside. If you like you can propose some solutions and I can tell you why I think they won't work. This is not to say your ideas are bad, but the problem is a hard one and I've already had this conversation many, many times and had every idea shot down for irrefutably good reasons.
So why do scientists keep screwing up science?
becaue science, it turns out, is hard.
This is far too regular occurrence and it looks like ar too large a percentage of scientific studies are flawed and many are so badly flawed that their conclusions are completely wrong and sometimes the complete opposite conclusion is true.
90% of everything is crap and science has never been any exception. The thing about science that works is that it isn't ultimately about the individual results, but about the corrective process. And it demonstrable works.
So why aren't universities teaching people how to do science properly
They are, but there are several problems. One, science is hard. Two, if scientists don't produce high profile results then they lose their jobs, so corners often get cut.
The system looks very broken to me and I do not agree with " It's science working as it should," it's a mess that literally affects whether people live or die.
It's the only way we know. No one's come up with a better way of doind things yet.
That has made it great for recommendations and toys, but is really alarming when applied to more serious stuff.
I don't entirely agree. I mean I accept your point, but I don't agree with the conclusion in all cases. Take self driving cars for example. These are heavily dependent on ML, and certainly important.
I reckon though we don't *need* to know why exactly it does the things it does, because humans aren't statistically very good drivers. The aim isn't to replace a perfect system with a cheaper one, it's to replace a tired, angry, distracted system with a better one.
Again, great when you want an answer but don't care what it is, if it is right, or leaning anything from it.
Or if you only want it to be on average better than another practical way of getting the answer. I think that use case is important.
Sure, except for the fact that I never claimed any such thing.
Yes you literally did and you're about to do it again!
Not running non-free JS is fine, but if it prevents you from doing what you want to do then what have you gained?
Irrelevant, we're talking about freedom not utility.
Where's the "freedom" part in not being able to do what you need?
You said above you didn't say this. You're saying it again. You're 100% free because you're choosing that. Choosing to not do something doesn't mean you're not free any more because you haven't done it.
Your response is the same as saying that "disabling your car frees you from driving it." Right, but what if I want to drive it?
Not even slightly. It'e more like saying: choosing to sell your car is the opposite of "freedom" because you might want to drive.
You can freely make the choice to drive or not drive. Choosing to not drive does not make you less free. because you can un-choose whenever you like. Seriously how can you not understand such a basic concept?
He just doesn't accept that proprietary software has its place when there are no sane alternatives.
[citation needed].
At most you could reasonably claim he says that free software could provide alternatives. I've never seen him claim it currently does.
For example, what software do you use [...]
Unless you back up your claims about what RMS says with actual not-out-of-context quotes/citations, I'm going to assume you're yet another person who's heard some stuff about RMS and so you assume you know what he says. Don't worry it's a popular hobby to do that. The problem is RMS is capable of a lot of nuance. People on the whole don't like nuance and it often gets lost.
I'm not having a go really. If you know about RMS from second hand sources, you've almost certainly got it wrong because other people's ability to misunderstand him is astonishing.
I had to look up "GOFAI". Turns out it refers to symbolic reasoning type systems (good old-fasioned AI).
y. But GOFAI techniques are out of style right now, and it is getting worse as GOFAI systems are so much slower and resource intensive not to mention require so much more domain knowledge to set up and just can not compete with the sexy instant gratification that machine learning can give you..
Well yeah... and symbolic systems haven't delivered the results. Take for example the bit of machine learning which responds to "hey siri" or whatever Alexa responds to (no idea, I don't want either kind of spy-box in my house). It really doesn't matter why or how it works, if it works 99% of the time instead of 100% and so on.
It's a useful (apparently) product anyway. There are countless examples of things like that. If AI or ML isn't an end in itself, but part of a product, then that explains why GOFIA is not very popular.
On the other hand Facebook using GANs to hallucinate MRI data for medical purposes? Holy shit that is not going to end well.
Why the down mod? It's a joke see? "when all you have is a hammer, you know the drill". Must be an SDS drill. Because an SDS drill is a hammer drill. See? see?
It's not off topic just a joke, and there's no -1 unfunny mod so there.
To be frank, British policing has devolved so badly in the last 30 years that you can't even call it policing. You've got serious issues with the police and local government covering up crimes, with approval of higher-up members of the government
Right so there was a brief window from 1980-1987 where everything was glorious. You know after the notoriously corrupt 70's, and before it then all went downhill again...
As usual you have no idea what you're talking about. Thw worst stories you hear on the news are not anything like the average case.
"When all you have is a hammer"... Well, you know the drill.
SDS, right?
Yes, and it'll also prevent you from using the site in most cases. That's kind of the opposite of "freedom".
That's about the most foolish definition of freedom I've seen today on the internet. Installing LibreJS is your choice. Claiming that choosing to not run non-free JS is 'the opposite of "freedom"' is several steps beyond facile.
The world isn't ideal, and many things (not only software) sometimes require compromises to work.[...] RMS is just too idealistic to be able to put up with the imperfection of the world.
I love how people just make up random shit that they think must be true about RMS without ever actually bothering to look at what he has done.
the GNU project was initially built with proprietary tools on UNIX workstations. It only became fully self hosting in 1994 with the Linux kernel, a full 11 years after starting the project.
Clearly RMS was entirely prepared to put up with the impefection of the world.
IMHO Eric Raymond is a much better FSF leader candidate
Maybe once upon a time, but he off went off the deep end.
It's obvious the neural network was trained on stock images, including lots of celebrities.
Probably more the latter than the former, since there are quite a lot of celebrity datasets, like Celeb-A, VGG's Celebrity in places, VGG's Celebrity Together dataset, VoxCeleb and so on.
You appear to be be strongly on one political side on this topic. The odd thing is I can't actually tell *which* side you are strongly on. Would you care to enlighten me?
But Hollywood teaches anybody who doesn't know gun laws that all guns have to be registered with 'the government' and it's made it into wide spread popular belief.
No it doesn't. Name some films that do that.
I fully expected to get modded "troll" or "flaimbait" for not simply swallowing that talking point at face value and demanding something to back it up.
I didn't do any hacking to unmask her.
Oh wow! You didn't do something literally illegal. Have a cookie.