*ring ring*
"Hello, Baikonur Cosmodrome? Yes? Oh good - yes, hello. Ah, well, you see, we have a couple of astronauts we'd like to send up. Yes. As soon as possible. No, next month will be fine. 50 Million? Sure, no problem. Ok, great, we'll send them over. Yep. Yep, ok. Thanks. Yes, dasvidanya to you too. Great, thanks, bye!" *click*
Nitpick: Then how do you really know them to be true?
The goal of secondary sources, as I understand it, is to get independent confirmation of facts. In this case, it seems unlikely that the primary source would be false, but consider a sentenced criminal who says "I'm innocent, and I should know! Why doesn't my wikipedia page reflect this?"
I'm not demanding you do better - I just ask that you explain what you think is wrong in their approach (or I why I am wrong in my comment).
You are correct in that Justin's work is not making robots self-aware or anything philosophically challenging. In fact, they never claimed to be doing so. Their reserach is in finding correlates in their robot's sensors that match its own motion (which I explained in my original post). Yes, this has everything to do with image analysis and spatial awareness - that's the point of their work. It turns out that it's harder to do than most people give it credit for.
Blame the article if you feel that some metaphysical claim has been made about the robot's perception, but it's not what their work is about (and not what I said, either). You can call me 'educated stupid' all you want, but it doesn't invalidate the interesting work they are doing, nor my opinion of it.
If you disagree with Justin and Prof Scassellati's approach, I'd like to hear your thoughts as to how you'd solve the problem differently. If you're familiar enough with their work so as to dismiss it in such straight-forward terms, I presume you can provide specific criticisms that will help them improve their work?
(And yes, I know both Justin and Scaz personally, and I volunteered for one of their social robot-interaction studies.)
Actually, it's more about recognising the auto-motion structure in the scene. I'm familiar with Justin's work (Go Team Scazlab!) and it's a lot deeper and more interesting than the article gives it credit for.
AI claims from the 70s ruined a generation of people for machine intelligence (which is why we now have to sell it as 'machine intelligence' or 'machine learning'). Knowing what part of the camera scene is moving because something is happening, and knowing what part of the scene is moving because you're waving your end-effector is useful. If you can extract your own state from indicators in the environment, then you have more information to work with - that's why we use a mirror to do our hair and straighten our ties.
Or perhaps Japanese radioactive monster movies are an expression of the impact to their cultural psyche from being bombed with two atomic weapons? Something powerful, atomic, indiscriminate and terrifying? Daigo FukuryÅ Maru certainly contributed, but I think the fear of the nuclear monster was already entrenched by then.
But the thing to remember is that in less developed parts of the world, that $1k/year goes a lot further than $1k elsewhere. I couldn't feed myself on $1k/per year living in Brisbane. Well, at least not unless I wanted to sacrifice my health in a big way (trolls, I challenge you to live in a modern developed city on $2.75/day). While we may have more disposable income for technology toys, it's ridiculous to try to compare total earning capacity unless you compare it to cost of living. I know lots of folks living in the US who struggle to pay for even basic stuff like medical care - frankly, they get first dibs on my charity.
This always confuses me. Why do people seem to think that climate scientists advocate deindustrialisation? I have never heard a serious case arguing for it. And yet, many arguments against global warming measures seem to claim that that is what is being proposed. Wherefore this misconception?
What a complex creature man is. It makes the libertarians' heads spin!
But presumably not all of them?
I'm assuming it has occured to you that libertarians' generalisations about corporate behaviour are as legitimate as your generalisations about libertarian behaviour.
Because it's not that kind of war. Social struggles have no 'front' - the fight takes place everywhere, all at once. And in a struggle of public consensus the more battles you start, the more likely you are to succeed at each (cf. Arab Spring for snow-balling social-political change). We should start as many campaigns as our resources allow, for the benefit of everyone.
I am not convinced that is the case. I know lots of people who refresh their iphone as soon as a new version come on the market. (And yes, an iphone is a computer)
No, actually - any group with the power over a communication channel can censor. It doesn't have to be a government; it could just as readily be a broadcast network, a news paper, or even the self. All that is required is the ability to choose what may or may not be said. Censorship by any entitity, when there is a reasonable expectation of free communication, is egregious.
Simply saying "it's because you're fat!" is an oversimplification. Even very healthy people get heart disease. That said, obesity itself is a medical problem; if losing weight was easy, everyone would be skinny. Obviously it's not simple case of everyone trying to live better. Regardless of 'lifestyle choice', not everyone has access to quality food or the opportunity to get the execise they need in the week (lord knows I don't!).
I think, however, that what you're trying to say is that health problems are systemic as much as random instances, and that if we solve the underlying problems we will have an easier time of it. I agree, but I would assert those systemic problems are societal as much as they are individual.
Slashdot Mirror
OMG! You mean scientists can now 3D print batteries to fly to Mars? I have to publish a science article on it right away!
*ring ring*
"Hello, Baikonur Cosmodrome? Yes? Oh good - yes, hello. Ah, well, you see, we have a couple of astronauts we'd like to send up. Yes. As soon as possible. No, next month will be fine. 50 Million? Sure, no problem. Ok, great, we'll send them over. Yep. Yep, ok. Thanks. Yes, dasvidanya to you too. Great, thanks, bye!"
*click*
Fortunately, obesity riots happen very slowly.
Last post!
Nitpick: Then how do you really know them to be true?
The goal of secondary sources, as I understand it, is to get independent confirmation of facts. In this case, it seems unlikely that the primary source would be false, but consider a sentenced criminal who says "I'm innocent, and I should know! Why doesn't my wikipedia page reflect this?"
I'm not demanding you do better - I just ask that you explain what you think is wrong in their approach (or I why I am wrong in my comment).
You are correct in that Justin's work is not making robots self-aware or anything philosophically challenging. In fact, they never claimed to be doing so. Their reserach is in finding correlates in their robot's sensors that match its own motion (which I explained in my original post). Yes, this has everything to do with image analysis and spatial awareness - that's the point of their work. It turns out that it's harder to do than most people give it credit for.
Blame the article if you feel that some metaphysical claim has been made about the robot's perception, but it's not what their work is about (and not what I said, either). You can call me 'educated stupid' all you want, but it doesn't invalidate the interesting work they are doing, nor my opinion of it.
If you disagree with Justin and Prof Scassellati's approach, I'd like to hear your thoughts as to how you'd solve the problem differently. If you're familiar enough with their work so as to dismiss it in such straight-forward terms, I presume you can provide specific criticisms that will help them improve their work?
(And yes, I know both Justin and Scaz personally, and I volunteered for one of their social robot-interaction studies.)
Actually, it's more about recognising the auto-motion structure in the scene. I'm familiar with Justin's work (Go Team Scazlab!) and it's a lot deeper and more interesting than the article gives it credit for.
AI claims from the 70s ruined a generation of people for machine intelligence (which is why we now have to sell it as 'machine intelligence' or 'machine learning'). Knowing what part of the camera scene is moving because something is happening, and knowing what part of the scene is moving because you're waving your end-effector is useful. If you can extract your own state from indicators in the environment, then you have more information to work with - that's why we use a mirror to do our hair and straighten our ties.
Well... those of us that wear ties...
I'm naming my firstborn Nebuchadnezzar
banging their heads against bricks, jumping down random pipes, and eating strange mushrooms.
Sounds like a good weekend to me!
Nonono, I like his idea better. "Boom! Headsh- er, checkmate!"
Or perhaps Japanese radioactive monster movies are an expression of the impact to their cultural psyche from being bombed with two atomic weapons? Something powerful, atomic, indiscriminate and terrifying? Daigo FukuryÅ Maru certainly contributed, but I think the fear of the nuclear monster was already entrenched by then.
Somehow "H7N3" looks like something I'd expect to see written on the side of a ship in Mass Effect.
That's because it's pigs doing the arresting.
But the thing to remember is that in less developed parts of the world, that $1k/year goes a lot further than $1k elsewhere. I couldn't feed myself on $1k/per year living in Brisbane. Well, at least not unless I wanted to sacrifice my health in a big way (trolls, I challenge you to live in a modern developed city on $2.75/day). While we may have more disposable income for technology toys, it's ridiculous to try to compare total earning capacity unless you compare it to cost of living. I know lots of folks living in the US who struggle to pay for even basic stuff like medical care - frankly, they get first dibs on my charity.
This always confuses me. Why do people seem to think that climate scientists advocate deindustrialisation? I have never heard a serious case arguing for it. And yet, many arguments against global warming measures seem to claim that that is what is being proposed. Wherefore this misconception?
What a complex creature man is. It makes the libertarians' heads spin!
But presumably not all of them?
I'm assuming it has occured to you that libertarians' generalisations about corporate behaviour are as legitimate as your generalisations about libertarian behaviour.
Because it's not that kind of war. Social struggles have no 'front' - the fight takes place everywhere, all at once. And in a struggle of public consensus the more battles you start, the more likely you are to succeed at each (cf. Arab Spring for snow-balling social-political change). We should start as many campaigns as our resources allow, for the benefit of everyone.
I am not convinced that is the case. I know lots of people who refresh their iphone as soon as a new version come on the market. (And yes, an iphone is a computer)
No, actually - any group with the power over a communication channel can censor. It doesn't have to be a government; it could just as readily be a broadcast network, a news paper, or even the self. All that is required is the ability to choose what may or may not be said. Censorship by any entitity, when there is a reasonable expectation of free communication, is egregious.
Actually, those all sound quite reasonable. They boil down to the right to personal autonomy - and by extension, to be left alone.
... are related to preventing offspring from becoming wards of the state, something which doesn't apply to homosexual couples.
Afterall, gay couples never adopt, use surrogates, sperm donors, or have children from previous marriages. That never happens.
He must be either evil or incompetent.
Why can't he be both?
Sir, I envy you. Make her happy and never let her go.
Simply saying "it's because you're fat!" is an oversimplification. Even very healthy people get heart disease. That said, obesity itself is a medical problem; if losing weight was easy, everyone would be skinny. Obviously it's not simple case of everyone trying to live better. Regardless of 'lifestyle choice', not everyone has access to quality food or the opportunity to get the execise they need in the week (lord knows I don't!).
I think, however, that what you're trying to say is that health problems are systemic as much as random instances, and that if we solve the underlying problems we will have an easier time of it. I agree, but I would assert those systemic problems are societal as much as they are individual.