I quoted your two "x is a is your religion" obviously. Maybe I should have put a paragraph in for the slow and previewed it properly.
I'm really sick of the Ian Plimer style "x is a religion" and then going on to attack a fringe religion strawman argument against anything a person doesn't like. It's a disgusting weasel move that should be far beneath you but you clearly consider it's worth tricking the gullible on this topic. Did you get as far as my point about it being an argument against expertise to demonise scientists in this way? How would you feel if your expertise was questioned by a young and inexperienced lay preacher in the same way? That's the world you are pushing for.
The testing part is missing; the repeatable testability by independent parties of an hypothesis
This bullshit again? What do you call the adaptation of climate models over time to better fit recorded data again? I suggest you pay attention yourself instead of regurgitating shit vomited up by some intern in a political office. I'd say you already know more about the topic than that court jester who kicked off the "testing part is missing" as a talking point based on some half remembered high school science class. We are supposed to be the sort of people that look around at the world and think for ourselves. Don't let the side down by polluting this place with political propaganda.
If man-made global warming is your religion... science is your religion
If you think that's a religion you are either working with a different dictionary than the rest of us or lying in an attempt to influence the gullible.
This stupid argument brings out the worst in people and appears to be turning reasonable people into anti-intellectual luddites. It's an argument against expertise. Consider the situation where your entire career is considered worthless and some twenty year old lay preacher is listened to instead when he speaks of whatever technical subjects you deal with. That's the world you are trying to convince the newbies is an improvement over the advances of the last four hundred years since we decided to keep religion out of science and vice versa. Asking religion about climate is as irrelevant and demeaning to religion as asking it how best to brush a dog.
Our "crazy" banks and governments won't allow nuclear but it's a lot easier to take to cowardly way out and blame a bunch of harmless hippies that won't fight back. The major thing holding back nuclear power is that nobody wants to put the money in to build the things.
As for the insane German policy - any perceived insanity happened many years ago when they halted new construction. The only thing new is changing it from a slow slide down to nothing to a quick one. Their nuclear industry died years ago and all they have now is caretakers to keep it running.
Even uncompromised they requested an allied foreign intelligence agency to spy on an Indonesian cigarette manufacturer to uncover trade secrets. Such an odd incident appears to indicate that they are serving a US tobacco company. The full story would be interesting - how much does it cost to hire the NSA to spy on a competitor?
Of course, all of this flies in the face of the slashdot conventional wisdom that management provides zero contribution to productivity.
That very common view results from some large places that can afford to have clueless management because they can hire enough assistants to fill the gap. It's depressingly common in places that are a near monopoly. Edsel Ford, the clueless inheritor, instead of Henry Ford is seen as the ideal manager in far too many places. It's the idea of a benevolent King idly holding court saying "make it so" instead of an active manager setting things up and assigning tasks. Sharks like Rupert Murdoch do not fit this role and consume such useless types for breakfast.
Of course smaller places cannot afford to have a parasitic idle nobility so their managers have to actually run things. I think we have a demographic here of people mostly in larger place so they don't see that.
Well, first of all I think all managers have a short list of people that aren't quite bad enough to outright fire for incompetence but who'll float right to the top if there's a downsizing.
When I've seen such things happen it has been a frantic flurry and has either been based on very recent interactions or has been arbitrary. For example, firing everyone employed in the last three years was one example used twice in a place that became increasingly more dysfunctional with shrinking capabilities. In another it was a list of the people the top level manager did not know. The noisy problem children four levels down the tree got to stay while the quiet ones that respected the chain of command got to go - of course the whole place went under less than three months later so I had to find a new supplier.
In heavy industry and transport infrastructure we see that in cycles where savings are made by cutting back on maintaining things until another big disaster happens - and then it wasn't such a saving after all. While you do have a point there are still plenty of things without immediate gain that are a false economy to cut.
Now for an example of where cuts don't happen but should (if done carefully). Near where I live there are plenty of mining companies that use workplace health and safety as the management training fast track for promising new potential managers, close relatives of the powerful etc. That means there is a vast amount of excess and pointless busywork in that area that is having a serious impact on productivity coupled with large numbers of inexperienced people with serious amounts of power to fire and halt production. However the problem is not "jobs that don't need to exist" - just too many people in a job that should exist and not enough oversight of those people for the reasons of office politics. When the backlash comes it will most likely get rid of the people with a clue and retain the power mad newbies on the road to upper management - so that's the big problem with cutting something that now has two roles. I suspect that has already happened in some places. Personally I think the correct people for the role are very experienced site workers moving to office work instead of complete newbies who know how to use powerpoint. It's not as if the office focused people know the legislation, standards etc - they have to learn that from scratch just like someone moving into an office would have to do.
You just may be getting a moment of lucidity here and starting to understand my reaction and beginning to get the idea of what the line is intended for in the first place.
if not for the political problems which just render it moot
In China potential profits make political problems vanish like magic.
Planes are cheaper? This place really has gone downhill. People used to be careful not to expose their lack of a high school education but now it just does not seem to matter.
Fair enough. Python and Numpy is usually the tool of choice where I am but there is some fortran in use, probably mainly due to convenience of adding to existing projects instead of porting.
Don't need fortran due to Petc? Take a look at how it is installed: http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/documentation/installation.html Especially note the:./configure --with-cc=gcc --with-fc=gfortran --download-f-blas-lapack --download-mpich Is that enough to tell you that the Petc libraries contain fortran?
but he is learning foreign relations as well as simple history of the world on the job.
Situation normal. See also the President of the day laughing at the joke of "Uncle Joe" Stalin about mass killings of his own civilians while Churchill went pale in horror. There is a structural disconnection between Presidents and people with a clue - for example Kissenger was the only official conduit for intelligence information to Nixon which resulted in some serious misconceptions about the Vietnam war that could have led to WWIII if Nixon had taken them seriously enough. If the joint chiefs hadn't had their own spy in the executive branch giving them feedback who knows what would have happened.
Obama can't even muster enough determination to send body-armor to Ukrainian military.
Does the US really want to support the current Ukrainian government? They may not be as morally dubious as the Algerian government that the US already supports militarily but as a new operation that really needs to be considered carefully. It may not be as hard as picking a side in Syria but it's not a black and white choice either. Backing Saddam against Iran was a pretty stupid mistake in hindsight so backing anyone opposed to people we do not like is already proven to be a stupid policy.
They are not going to do a Panama on Ukraine (comparisons hurt don't they?). Putin is getting everything he wants without a full invasion. Ukraine is being turned into a satellite state that will do as it is told on issues Putin considers important instead of a micromanaged occupied territory.
Those who truly remember the problems when "the lights were off" are happy when the lights continue to remain on without incident for long periods of time.
"Small government" advocates are frequently shysters who don't want anyone to catch them with their fingers in the till - or the useful idiots of such shysters. Having enough people to ensure that foxes don't get allowed into henhouses unaccompanied does not necessarily mean "big government". Is that point put simply enough or should I try again?
With some of the things systemd has not yet implemented or does not plan to that is what systemd is doing:( I wonder how upstart and the other less vocal and intrusive projects are going in comparison? Upstart had a very simple approach initially instead of being a large interdependent fragile structure like systemd.
No it's an example of those who set policy failing in their public duty. Money has been paid, the papers approved and the system working as designed. However the new design sucks immensely for everyone apart from those who can afford to run out the clock in court with patent lawyers. The Apple vs Samsung examples should be enough to demonstrate that.
Seriously. Did the examiner on this even consider asking anyone who knows anything about photography
They don't do that stuff any more. They check that it fits the rules for submissions, collect the fee and leave it to courts to sort out validity, prior art etc. It's called "running government like a business". The patent office makes their money and do not give a shit that it's a drain on the economy to move the service they used to perform to the courts.
Sorry, I thought we were discussing realistic approaches
However such an AI is still speculation until we get a bit more of a handle about what intelligence actually is so why shouldn't others speculate about "pseudoscience"? We can build increasingly complex mechanical turks with rules such that outputs can match what a thinking being would do with the same input but we don't know how to make a machine think yet. It would be very nice if we could just save the memory state of an AI and use it to build another one, but it's a bit early to be taking such a wish as realistic. We can certainly transfer the rulesets from one mechanical turk fake AI to another but we shouldn't confuse that with the real thing. Even "neural networks" are a weak analogy to a dumbed down 1980s understanding of a very simple nervous system and owe far more to being simplified digital models of analog computer components.
The mathematicians may have not accounted for logical reconstruction, or even be running the algorithm right
No they have just shown up a gap in a current model of how thought happens.
AI will just be a more elaborate version of the 19th century mechanical turk until we get more physical insights into how thought happens and how those memories are actually stored.
Slashdot Mirror
I quoted your two "x is a is your religion" obviously. Maybe I should have put a paragraph in for the slow and previewed it properly.
I'm really sick of the Ian Plimer style "x is a religion" and then going on to attack a fringe religion strawman argument against anything a person doesn't like. It's a disgusting weasel move that should be far beneath you but you clearly consider it's worth tricking the gullible on this topic.
Did you get as far as my point about it being an argument against expertise to demonise scientists in this way? How would you feel if your expertise was questioned by a young and inexperienced lay preacher in the same way? That's the world you are pushing for.
This bullshit again? What do you call the adaptation of climate models over time to better fit recorded data again? I suggest you pay attention yourself instead of regurgitating shit vomited up by some intern in a political office. I'd say you already know more about the topic than that court jester who kicked off the "testing part is missing" as a talking point based on some half remembered high school science class.
We are supposed to be the sort of people that look around at the world and think for ourselves. Don't let the side down by polluting this place with political propaganda.
If you think that's a religion you are either working with a different dictionary than the rest of us or lying in an attempt to influence the gullible.
This stupid argument brings out the worst in people and appears to be turning reasonable people into anti-intellectual luddites. It's an argument against expertise. Consider the situation where your entire career is considered worthless and some twenty year old lay preacher is listened to instead when he speaks of whatever technical subjects you deal with. That's the world you are trying to convince the newbies is an improvement over the advances of the last four hundred years since we decided to keep religion out of science and vice versa. Asking religion about climate is as irrelevant and demeaning to religion as asking it how best to brush a dog.
Our "crazy" banks and governments won't allow nuclear but it's a lot easier to take to cowardly way out and blame a bunch of harmless hippies that won't fight back.
The major thing holding back nuclear power is that nobody wants to put the money in to build the things.
As for the insane German policy - any perceived insanity happened many years ago when they halted new construction. The only thing new is changing it from a slow slide down to nothing to a quick one. Their nuclear industry died years ago and all they have now is caretakers to keep it running.
You've just made everyone over 40 feel old.
Even uncompromised they requested an allied foreign intelligence agency to spy on an Indonesian cigarette manufacturer to uncover trade secrets. Such an odd incident appears to indicate that they are serving a US tobacco company. The full story would be interesting - how much does it cost to hire the NSA to spy on a competitor?
Unless you've got a plastic case the signal would suck even before the problem of a small antenna kicks in.
That very common view results from some large places that can afford to have clueless management because they can hire enough assistants to fill the gap. It's depressingly common in places that are a near monopoly. Edsel Ford, the clueless inheritor, instead of Henry Ford is seen as the ideal manager in far too many places. It's the idea of a benevolent King idly holding court saying "make it so" instead of an active manager setting things up and assigning tasks. Sharks like Rupert Murdoch do not fit this role and consume such useless types for breakfast.
Of course smaller places cannot afford to have a parasitic idle nobility so their managers have to actually run things. I think we have a demographic here of people mostly in larger place so they don't see that.
When I've seen such things happen it has been a frantic flurry and has either been based on very recent interactions or has been arbitrary. For example, firing everyone employed in the last three years was one example used twice in a place that became increasingly more dysfunctional with shrinking capabilities. In another it was a list of the people the top level manager did not know. The noisy problem children four levels down the tree got to stay while the quiet ones that respected the chain of command got to go - of course the whole place went under less than three months later so I had to find a new supplier.
In heavy industry and transport infrastructure we see that in cycles where savings are made by cutting back on maintaining things until another big disaster happens - and then it wasn't such a saving after all. While you do have a point there are still plenty of things without immediate gain that are a false economy to cut.
Now for an example of where cuts don't happen but should (if done carefully). Near where I live there are plenty of mining companies that use workplace health and safety as the management training fast track for promising new potential managers, close relatives of the powerful etc. That means there is a vast amount of excess and pointless busywork in that area that is having a serious impact on productivity coupled with large numbers of inexperienced people with serious amounts of power to fire and halt production. However the problem is not "jobs that don't need to exist" - just too many people in a job that should exist and not enough oversight of those people for the reasons of office politics. When the backlash comes it will most likely get rid of the people with a clue and retain the power mad newbies on the road to upper management - so that's the big problem with cutting something that now has two roles. I suspect that has already happened in some places. Personally I think the correct people for the role are very experienced site workers moving to office work instead of complete newbies who know how to use powerpoint. It's not as if the office focused people know the legislation, standards etc - they have to learn that from scratch just like someone moving into an office would have to do.
Disturbingly so.
You just may be getting a moment of lucidity here and starting to understand my reaction and beginning to get the idea of what the line is intended for in the first place.
In China potential profits make political problems vanish like magic.
Planes are cheaper?
This place really has gone downhill. People used to be careful not to expose their lack of a high school education but now it just does not seem to matter.
Personally I see using outside contractors such as Booz Allen Hamilton as the massive security breach.
Fair enough. Python and Numpy is usually the tool of choice where I am but there is some fortran in use, probably mainly due to convenience of adding to existing projects instead of porting.
Don't need fortran due to Petc? Take a look at how it is installed: ./configure --with-cc=gcc --with-fc=gfortran --download-f-blas-lapack --download-mpich
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/documentation/installation.html
Especially note the:
Is that enough to tell you that the Petc libraries contain fortran?
Situation normal. See also the President of the day laughing at the joke of "Uncle Joe" Stalin about mass killings of his own civilians while Churchill went pale in horror. There is a structural disconnection between Presidents and people with a clue - for example Kissenger was the only official conduit for intelligence information to Nixon which resulted in some serious misconceptions about the Vietnam war that could have led to WWIII if Nixon had taken them seriously enough. If the joint chiefs hadn't had their own spy in the executive branch giving them feedback who knows what would have happened.
Does the US really want to support the current Ukrainian government? They may not be as morally dubious as the Algerian government that the US already supports militarily but as a new operation that really needs to be considered carefully. It may not be as hard as picking a side in Syria but it's not a black and white choice either. Backing Saddam against Iran was a pretty stupid mistake in hindsight so backing anyone opposed to people we do not like is already proven to be a stupid policy.
They are not going to do a Panama on Ukraine (comparisons hurt don't they?). Putin is getting everything he wants without a full invasion. Ukraine is being turned into a satellite state that will do as it is told on issues Putin considers important instead of a micromanaged occupied territory.
Those who truly remember the problems when "the lights were off" are happy when the lights continue to remain on without incident for long periods of time.
"Small government" advocates are frequently shysters who don't want anyone to catch them with their fingers in the till - or the useful idiots of such shysters. Having enough people to ensure that foxes don't get allowed into henhouses unaccompanied does not necessarily mean "big government".
Is that point put simply enough or should I try again?
With some of the things systemd has not yet implemented or does not plan to that is what systemd is doing :(
I wonder how upstart and the other less vocal and intrusive projects are going in comparison? Upstart had a very simple approach initially instead of being a large interdependent fragile structure like systemd.
So more complicated - like a light box used in macro photography since at least the 1920s maybe?
No it's an example of those who set policy failing in their public duty. Money has been paid, the papers approved and the system working as designed.
However the new design sucks immensely for everyone apart from those who can afford to run out the clock in court with patent lawyers. The Apple vs Samsung examples should be enough to demonstrate that.
They don't do that stuff any more. They check that it fits the rules for submissions, collect the fee and leave it to courts to sort out validity, prior art etc.
It's called "running government like a business". The patent office makes their money and do not give a shit that it's a drain on the economy to move the service they used to perform to the courts.
However such an AI is still speculation until we get a bit more of a handle about what intelligence actually is so why shouldn't others speculate about "pseudoscience"?
We can build increasingly complex mechanical turks with rules such that outputs can match what a thinking being would do with the same input but we don't know how to make a machine think yet. It would be very nice if we could just save the memory state of an AI and use it to build another one, but it's a bit early to be taking such a wish as realistic. We can certainly transfer the rulesets from one mechanical turk fake AI to another but we shouldn't confuse that with the real thing. Even "neural networks" are a weak analogy to a dumbed down 1980s understanding of a very simple nervous system and owe far more to being simplified digital models of analog computer components.
No they have just shown up a gap in a current model of how thought happens.
AI will just be a more elaborate version of the 19th century mechanical turk until we get more physical insights into how thought happens and how those memories are actually stored.