Schmidhuber has interesting claims, like about his Goedel machine, an algorithm that makes provably globally optimal self-modifications.
But he never seems to get around to actually writing the code, or even non-vague pseudocode to implement these algorithms to show how they actually work and that they actually work. I guess it's just an "implementation issue". Ah, the chorus of the pure theorist...
You do realise the US acted as a safe haven, training grounds and turned a blind eye to funding of IRA terrorists guilty of terrorist attacks on Britain right?
I'm sorry, I must have missed when al-Qaeda phoned in advance warning of the time and place of the 9/11 attacks so people could clear out of the area and avoid civilian casualties.
You know, like the IRA does.
Yes, they're both technically terrorists, but really, they're not even in the same fuckin league.
You joke, but that was my reaction: "The US government is making my sugar more expensive? Oh noes! Maybe now I'll have to pay 205% of the world market price for it instead of the usual 200! And maybe 99% of the crap we eat will be infested with HFCS instead of just 98%. What EVER will we do..."
So tell them you were not the encrypter/encoder. You downloaded it.
And when they make it illegal to download and view encrypted files, or files from an unverifiable source, your brilliant countermeasure will be _____ ?
The irony is that it's probably the threat of lawsuits that's *keeping* the blind from being able drive themselves.
Driverless cars are pretty much ready to be put on the market, but very few want to take the risk. If a sighted driver kills someone while driving, their insurance pays you maybe a half million. If it's a larger corporation's automated driving system (which would tremendously benefit the blind) causes someone to die -- even if it's at a significantly lower rate than normal drivers kill people -- they will have to pay a lot more because, hey, they have deep pockets.
In plain view means just that, in plain view. Even using your analogy of headlights on a police cruiser, you still can't use headlights to peer into someone's house THROUGH THE WALL or ROOF.
But keep in mind, that's largely an artifact of how walls and roofs have always been designed to block visible light, without checking for whether they also block transmission of information contained in temperature and infrared waves. Had humans been capable of perceiving and processing this information just like visible light -- and kept the same privacy standards -- walls and roofs would have been designed to hinder this kind of information gathering.
And maybe in the future, they will be, and you'll be expected to take such measures if you want privacy. What happens when people start getting bionic eyes that can be switched at will to detection of different parts of the EM spectrum?
Because "this building is warmer than the neighbors" doesn't give them probable cause, but "this shape looks like a bank of warming lights" does.
Unfortunately, it also gets them "this shape looks like one man mounting another doggy style and giving him a reacharound"... the kind of thing you're supposed to have a warrant *first* before finding out.
A security expert and a businessman are traveling together, and they have to go through the screening at the airport. But the security expert has a bottle with liquid and he's asked to discard it, as it violates the regulations. He is outraged.
"What's the matter with this? Look, it's just a plastic bottle of lemonade. No harm potential here. Look, I'll even drink it, see? Just plain, harmless lemonade!" and takes a big gulp.
After speaking with a supervisor, he finally convinces them to let him through with it.
As they're on their way to their gate, the businessman says, "you know, you really need to be aware of the new regulations on flying."
However, the security expert can barely contain his mirth and says, "No, no, you don't get it. The joke's on them. I just tricked them into letting me bring a bottle of my OWN urine on board!"
Keep in mind, it's not just the birth canal per se, but also the "pelvic clearance" (or whatever they call it): the diameter of the biggest downward hole between the legs at the bottom of the pelvis bone. No matter how big you make the lady parts, they eventually press up against bone.
This is one instance of significant difference between men and women: men can have a smaller pelvic clearance, more efficient for locomotion, while women have a less efficient design which makes them walk a bit different.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Correct, as long as you take that to mean "experiments in general". It is possible to make mistakes in experiments, and you shouldn't throw out General Relativity because some lab newbie got the setup wrong.
As I said in my other comment on this issue, you have to decide which is more likely: that you got the experiment wrong, or the hypothesis is wrong, and this depends on your confidence in both. But you should never hide the result, or else you can get an informational cascade that leads to conformism to bad theories.
Very true. Sometimes the data really are wrong. (The Minimum Discrimination Information criterion is a way of rigorously answering the question of whether your data or your theory is in error.)
But simply throwing out the data is the 100% wrong thing to do. That destroys the information that would have eventually told you if you were really doing something wrong in your experiment, or if you've discovered something new.
It also creates an information cascade-type situation where everyone culls any non-conforming data they see, and then all available data is conforming, which makes later scientists more skeptical of future non-conforming data, and so on. This cascade can make it so that even a randomly-chosen theory could be supported by the literature, even in the face of being completely unrelated to reality.
Supposedly, that's what happened with the Millikan oil drop experiment and everyone biasing themselves in the direction of his initial, wrong value for electron charge.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not so much the lack of code but the
or even non-vague pseudocode
And it's not so much the "where's your finished product?" but "um, so what *is* the algorithm?"
Schmidhuber has interesting claims, like about his Goedel machine, an algorithm that makes provably globally optimal self-modifications.
But he never seems to get around to actually writing the code, or even non-vague pseudocode to implement these algorithms to show how they actually work and that they actually work. I guess it's just an "implementation issue". Ah, the chorus of the pure theorist...
Right next to the "I don't understand statistics and won't bother to read their methodology" tag.
You do realise the US acted as a safe haven, training grounds and turned a blind eye to funding of IRA terrorists guilty of terrorist attacks on Britain right?
I'm sorry, I must have missed when al-Qaeda phoned in advance warning of the time and place of the 9/11 attacks so people could clear out of the area and avoid civilian casualties.
You know, like the IRA does.
Yes, they're both technically terrorists, but really, they're not even in the same fuckin league.
Sorry, I can't understand this decision which was taken silently and cowardly by sf.net .
They're no more cowardly than you are in letting your goverment harbor and sponsor terrorists.
I know what you're thinking -- "You can't expect me to change government policy on ...", and you're right.
Well, neither can SourceForge change government policy -- and they're right.
Sorry, all I got out of that was, "He's my buddy, he wouldn't miss something obvious like that."
Science only works to the extent that such defenses are insufficient.
You joke, but that was my reaction: "The US government is making my sugar more expensive? Oh noes! Maybe now I'll have to pay 205% of the world market price for it instead of the usual 200! And maybe 99% of the crap we eat will be infested with HFCS instead of just 98%. What EVER will we do..."
So tell them you were not the encrypter/encoder. You downloaded it.
And when they make it illegal to download and view encrypted files, or files from an unverifiable source, your brilliant countermeasure will be _____ ?
What was that? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you with Bill Gates's dick in your mouth like that.
Want to provide some ACTUAL examples for us, or did you just want to shill today?
Remember to swallow.
The irony is that it's probably the threat of lawsuits that's *keeping* the blind from being able drive themselves.
Driverless cars are pretty much ready to be put on the market, but very few want to take the risk. If a sighted driver kills someone while driving, their insurance pays you maybe a half million. If it's a larger corporation's automated driving system (which would tremendously benefit the blind) causes someone to die -- even if it's at a significantly lower rate than normal drivers kill people -- they will have to pay a lot more because, hey, they have deep pockets.
In Soviet Russia, vendor warns YOU!
Right, except for the whole "that would be in contravention of the Arms Export Control Act of 1976" thing.
"Oh, these explosives must have been *planted* on me. I'm not part of a group trying doing dry run or anything."
Hey, just "puttin' it out there"...
In plain view means just that, in plain view. Even using your analogy of headlights on a police cruiser, you still can't use headlights to peer into someone's house THROUGH THE WALL or ROOF.
But keep in mind, that's largely an artifact of how walls and roofs have always been designed to block visible light, without checking for whether they also block transmission of information contained in temperature and infrared waves. Had humans been capable of perceiving and processing this information just like visible light -- and kept the same privacy standards -- walls and roofs would have been designed to hinder this kind of information gathering.
And maybe in the future, they will be, and you'll be expected to take such measures if you want privacy. What happens when people start getting bionic eyes that can be switched at will to detection of different parts of the EM spectrum?
Because "this building is warmer than the neighbors" doesn't give them probable cause, but "this shape looks like a bank of warming lights" does.
Unfortunately, it also gets them "this shape looks like one man mounting another doggy style and giving him a reacharound" ... the kind of thing you're supposed to have a warrant *first* before finding out.
Also, if you inject milk into your scrotum, you've clearly gone beyond "intelligent person but brief moment of serious stupidity".
Right, but injecting "milk" out of your scrotum tends to disqualify you for the Darwin Awards.
We're not insulting them; we're honoring them for removing their genes from the gene pool before they could replicate.
Two words: China.
in fairness, he is pretty optimistic for a guy whose name sounds like macabre...
According to wikipedia, this entire article is just silly. Neodymium is not rare, nor only occurring in China
Um, just make sure the last hundred or so edits aren't from Chinese addresses...
Reminds me of a joke:
A security expert and a businessman are traveling together, and they have to go through the screening at the airport. But the security expert has a bottle with liquid and he's asked to discard it, as it violates the regulations. He is outraged.
"What's the matter with this? Look, it's just a plastic bottle of lemonade. No harm potential here. Look, I'll even drink it, see? Just plain, harmless lemonade!" and takes a big gulp.
After speaking with a supervisor, he finally convinces them to let him through with it.
As they're on their way to their gate, the businessman says, "you know, you really need to be aware of the new regulations on flying."
However, the security expert can barely contain his mirth and says, "No, no, you don't get it. The joke's on them. I just tricked them into letting me bring a bottle of my OWN urine on board!"
Keep in mind, it's not just the birth canal per se, but also the "pelvic clearance" (or whatever they call it): the diameter of the biggest downward hole between the legs at the bottom of the pelvis bone. No matter how big you make the lady parts, they eventually press up against bone.
This is one instance of significant difference between men and women: men can have a smaller pelvic clearance, more efficient for locomotion, while women have a less efficient design which makes them walk a bit different.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Correct, as long as you take that to mean "experiments in general". It is possible to make mistakes in experiments, and you shouldn't throw out General Relativity because some lab newbie got the setup wrong.
As I said in my other comment on this issue, you have to decide which is more likely: that you got the experiment wrong, or the hypothesis is wrong, and this depends on your confidence in both. But you should never hide the result, or else you can get an informational cascade that leads to conformism to bad theories.
Very true. Sometimes the data really are wrong. (The Minimum Discrimination Information criterion is a way of rigorously answering the question of whether your data or your theory is in error.)
But simply throwing out the data is the 100% wrong thing to do. That destroys the information that would have eventually told you if you were really doing something wrong in your experiment, or if you've discovered something new.
It also creates an information cascade-type situation where everyone culls any non-conforming data they see, and then all available data is conforming, which makes later scientists more skeptical of future non-conforming data, and so on. This cascade can make it so that even a randomly-chosen theory could be supported by the literature, even in the face of being completely unrelated to reality.
Supposedly, that's what happened with the Millikan oil drop experiment and everyone biasing themselves in the direction of his initial, wrong value for electron charge.
Nah, I would have gone with:
In Soviet Russia, weather complains about YOU!