We have medical finding from unethical experiments on people done by horrible people in the past. Does this mean we don't believe the findings and don't use them? Or if we use the knowledge gained, then we "have faith in the process that generated it"? Torture might give you answers. Even if sometimes the information you get turns out correct, that does not mean we should trust the process. You can say something is correct because you tested it yourself without trusting the person that told it to you because they are full of crap most of the time.
The Amazon Echo will point the light at the person speaking, but it has never known who the person is. It does not seem to have any type of identification of the person talking as far as I can tell. I believe I have heard the Google Home can identify family members by voice and do play their preferred music or other things.
Once we get rid of all the Hitler quotes, we can move on to the next part of history to erase. I can see it happening with the American Indians also. We don't want any reference to their existence. Team names need to be changed, town names, people's names, and finally the people themselves. If we simply round up all the Indians into camps and gas them, then we will never have to think about them again. Society will be a much nicer place when people don't have to be reminded that they existed and were treated so badly by the early people.
I was thinking a similar thing. I read the other quote previously removed that was due to sexism and learned something about history.
Are Women Human?
In the year 584, in Lyon, France, 43 Catholic bishops and 20 men
representing other bishops, after a lengthy debate, took a vote.
The results were 32 yes, 31 no. Women were declared human by one
vote.
I don't even see how that fortune can be considered sexist. The people back in 584 who voted against women being human are sexist, but telling people about something that happened in the past can not be sexist. Unless you are saying we should have another vote to see if they can be considered human today. I would agree on a vote about SJW being human, but that can't be sexist or racism since SJW can be whatevers.
So that means the reader gets to determine what is allowed to be said. I am offended by your goat fucker statement, so I demand that it be removed. And now I have the power to be offended by each and everything you ever say. Nice bit of free speech you have there, just don't try to use it because it will get you in trouble.
No, using it simply means you believe it is correct. I does not mean anything about what you think about the scientific method or scientific findings in general.
Yeah, but the term "applied science" does not mean any science is being done. There are no hypothesis involved, and no experimentation and no worrying about controls or bias or any of that stuff. Applied science simply means following the formulas that someone has figured out work correctly and using them for your calculations. It is simply using the latest technology and math toward your invention. Not science at all.
You really think that companies that you pay for content would not sell extra information to another company to make even more money? Do you remember Cable television? Do you remember that you pay for television, rather than watching the free over-the-air stuff, and you get it commercial-free? That did not last very long before you pay for it and you get commercials also.
I have seen that movie. If you haven't watch Idiocracy yet, you really should. It is hilarious, but sometimes scary because it seems like we could end up there.
So it will only take a few hundred more melt-downs and explosions before we have gotten every little thing figured out, right? When you think you made something fool-proof, then someone invents a better fool. We still don't have concrete that lasts as long as the Romans, and nothing we have build will last as long as the pyramids or stone hinge. What makes you think we can build something that is impervious to a nearly unlimited array of catastrophic events.
I don't understand why you think this aspect of human nature will ever change. Regulatory capture, corporate greed, belief that the alignment of many disasters will not happen at one time, thinking your backups will work when needed, etc. Even if the generators weren't in the basement, there are still things that can happen to damage them and the same disaster would have happened again.
So they are decades past their designed life span. So what? Do you think the nuclear reactors we have in the states have been decommissioned when their lifespan is over? They haven't! Instead they get their lifespan extended so it can continue operating. And profit needs to be made, so don't go trying to tell me that they spend unlimited amounts of money making them safe. They are as safe as anything can be when controlled by humans that make mistakes and corporations that only care about profit.
This work addresses exactly that problem, they have installed two mechanisms in different parts of the genome both of which produce different toxins. ... A two step process of losing the toxin B gene, followed by losing the trigger would be needed to eliminate the kill switch.
None of that seems out of the ordinary for evolution. We have toads that lay their eggs on their own backs. They need a special skin that protects the eggs and keeps them moist. But they also need a long egg depositor that can reach all the way up to their back. One change by itself it useless, so it needs both of them to work. And it the toxin A and B story, if it looses the Toxin B generator first, nothing happens to kill it. Then after that it can loose the toxin A gene and now it can live.
None of that warranted his firing, but what DID was that he was making himself known as a bad actor in the environment at google. Because they do both peer and manager reviews, he basically painted a big red flag on himself because there was no way to tell if he'd be sufficiently objective when reviewing female teammates. Women were already blacklisting him.
So some women openly admit that they are not objective and you claim that he might be so must be fired. Ok, I agree that he caused problems in the Google environment. But then the women or others that said they would not work with him did so also and must be fired to keep it fair. And the person who released the memo must also be fired.
If you don't do these things then you are demonstrating that it is only fear of the thoughts that is the problem. Plus, don't forget that the memo was being discussed for a month with no problems before it was released and the Google fired him.
So do you refute that many of the best runners in the world are black? I think there is even scientific studies that found the length of the shin-bone to be an important factor in how well you run. Perhaps we should stop allowing black people to run races since they are not being fair and it hurts other people's feelings.
And change that from "women are loss suited to engineering jobs" to "women would rather do other things". Or do you deny that there are fields that have more women than men. How did the men not stop women from taking over the field of law and certain specialties in medicine. Somehow the nerds have done what no other men have been capable of. Wow! I didn't know I was so awesome. Now give me my million dollars!
"Coming forward" years after the fact may constitute a case in the alternative legal system that SJWs are building for themselves, but the real world legal system is perfectly capable of prosecuting molesters if you tell your family about molestation by your teacher, minister, or counselor at the time it happens. If you are an adult, you can call the cops themselves when a rape kit will identify the perpetrator according to the real rules of evidence that have been ironed out by years of experience and judicial review.
That would be if the rape kit is ever actually sent to the lab. There are police districts that have decades of old rape kits that are sitting on shelves having never been tested.
Ability is generally observed to be normally distributed: most people are average, few are exceptionally good or bad.
Therefore we can conclude that opportunity is not uniformly distributed.
TL;DR: Statistically abnormal inequality of outcome is evidence of inequality of opportunity.
So wouldn't that mean we have some sort of bias is used to create more black Olympic runners? Or that we need to force more white and "other-than-black" ethnicitys into Basketball? I mean, American runners must have the best opportunity since we spend so much money in this country on training and technology for improving our athletes. But the outcome is not equal, and we must assume that the ability is, so it can only be opportunity that is ruining it all!
This ignores the science that shows why certain body shapes are very good for running or swimming, for example. Length of the lower leg for runners and trunk to leg ratio for swimmers.
Note that if you record the audio without their permission, it is illegal and you could go to jail for it.
Correction. "Could be illegal". It depends on the state you are in. If it is a single person consent state, then the fact that you know you are recording it makes it legal. If it is two party consent, then all people being recorded need to be notified.
I'm not sure what you are calling a lookup table. Having an AI algorithm try things and remember what worked and what did not work does not sound like any kind of input table. The algorithm learns how to play by trying things out. I don't consider it intelligent, so I would suggest you stop confusing things by talking about unrelated things, this conversation is about learning, not about intelligence.
I remember one of the mario playing bots figured out some sort of cheat jump that it did not watch anyone play, because it was not fed any games that were played for it to learn. It found that if the turtle landed on marios head as he was falling in a jump (just after the peak of the jump) it would count as bouncing off of the turtle and kill it while bouncing mario up higher. It also learned to play several other games. This seems a direct opposite of what you said, "can only mimic any move it has previously seen". Or differs from your other statement, "completely incapable of playing any other game".
Unlike other AI programs, MarI/O wasn't taught anything before jumping into the game.
They did give the AI a fitness rating that increased the further to the right that Mario moved. So the rest of the game had to be learned. You would not even have to teach the AI about the buttons for jumping as it can figure that out by trial and error also. If you consider that a self-created database of actions that work to be a lookup table that was created by the programmers, then you have serious problems with your understanding of technical ideas.
The direction of the "electrons" is meaningless and I don't think it's helping you to focus on them.
It is the direction of "current" that matters. Whether that is implemented as a stream of negative charge in one direction, or positive charge in the other, is irrelevant.
That may be true in most day to day electronics, but it is not true in all areas. When the electrons or holes are moving through a magnetic field they deflect differently. I remember learning about this back when I was learning basic electronics in the Navy. They had found that in certain materials it is more accurate to think of the holes moving rather than the electrons. And testing those materials in a magnitic field gave differing results based on whether it is holes or electrons moving. Here is a link with similar finding.
They taught it how to play go by letting it watch games being played. The second version learned by playing against itself.
There are video game playing AIs that learn to play pac-man or other classics by trying things and seeing the results it makes on the screen. They don't even define where the score is, or even that there is a score. They let the algorithm figure out what makes for a better result and it learns to play the game with no rules given to it. If you give the same algorithm a new game it can learn that one just as easily.
If you take that same program, without any modification, and tell it to play chess instead of go, it won't have a clue what to do because it is fundamentally incapable of playing any game other than the one it was programmed to play. It can't learn a new game because it can't actually learn anything at all.
Doesn't sound like you have been paying attention to what the AI has been doing these days. And I do realize it is just a neural net that I myself would not consider to be intelligence. But it does show learning abilities without being programmed how to do things directly.
A stand of trees is often still connected underground though. So the differentiation between individual tree and part of a larger whole is more blurred.
Slashdot Mirror
Because you have to wash the dishes before putting them into the dishwasher. It defeats the point of itself.
We have medical finding from unethical experiments on people done by horrible people in the past. Does this mean we don't believe the findings and don't use them? Or if we use the knowledge gained, then we "have faith in the process that generated it"? Torture might give you answers. Even if sometimes the information you get turns out correct, that does not mean we should trust the process. You can say something is correct because you tested it yourself without trusting the person that told it to you because they are full of crap most of the time.
The Amazon Echo will point the light at the person speaking, but it has never known who the person is. It does not seem to have any type of identification of the person talking as far as I can tell. I believe I have heard the Google Home can identify family members by voice and do play their preferred music or other things.
Once we get rid of all the Hitler quotes, we can move on to the next part of history to erase. I can see it happening with the American Indians also. We don't want any reference to their existence. Team names need to be changed, town names, people's names, and finally the people themselves. If we simply round up all the Indians into camps and gas them, then we will never have to think about them again. Society will be a much nicer place when people don't have to be reminded that they existed and were treated so badly by the early people.
I was thinking a similar thing. I read the other quote previously removed that was due to sexism and learned something about history.
Are Women Human? In the year 584, in Lyon, France, 43 Catholic bishops and 20 men representing other bishops, after a lengthy debate, took a vote. The results were 32 yes, 31 no. Women were declared human by one vote.
I don't even see how that fortune can be considered sexist. The people back in 584 who voted against women being human are sexist, but telling people about something that happened in the past can not be sexist. Unless you are saying we should have another vote to see if they can be considered human today. I would agree on a vote about SJW being human, but that can't be sexist or racism since SJW can be whatevers.
So that means the reader gets to determine what is allowed to be said. I am offended by your goat fucker statement, so I demand that it be removed. And now I have the power to be offended by each and everything you ever say. Nice bit of free speech you have there, just don't try to use it because it will get you in trouble.
No, using it simply means you believe it is correct. I does not mean anything about what you think about the scientific method or scientific findings in general.
Yeah, but the term "applied science" does not mean any science is being done. There are no hypothesis involved, and no experimentation and no worrying about controls or bias or any of that stuff. Applied science simply means following the formulas that someone has figured out work correctly and using them for your calculations. It is simply using the latest technology and math toward your invention. Not science at all.
You really think that companies that you pay for content would not sell extra information to another company to make even more money? Do you remember Cable television? Do you remember that you pay for television, rather than watching the free over-the-air stuff, and you get it commercial-free? That did not last very long before you pay for it and you get commercials also.
I have seen that movie. If you haven't watch Idiocracy yet, you really should. It is hilarious, but sometimes scary because it seems like we could end up there.
So it will only take a few hundred more melt-downs and explosions before we have gotten every little thing figured out, right? When you think you made something fool-proof, then someone invents a better fool. We still don't have concrete that lasts as long as the Romans, and nothing we have build will last as long as the pyramids or stone hinge. What makes you think we can build something that is impervious to a nearly unlimited array of catastrophic events.
I don't understand why you think this aspect of human nature will ever change. Regulatory capture, corporate greed, belief that the alignment of many disasters will not happen at one time, thinking your backups will work when needed, etc. Even if the generators weren't in the basement, there are still things that can happen to damage them and the same disaster would have happened again.
So they are decades past their designed life span. So what? Do you think the nuclear reactors we have in the states have been decommissioned when their lifespan is over? They haven't! Instead they get their lifespan extended so it can continue operating. And profit needs to be made, so don't go trying to tell me that they spend unlimited amounts of money making them safe. They are as safe as anything can be when controlled by humans that make mistakes and corporations that only care about profit.
>
This work addresses exactly that problem, they have installed two mechanisms in different parts of the genome both of which produce different toxins.
... A two step process of losing the toxin B gene, followed by losing the trigger would be needed to eliminate the kill switch.
None of that seems out of the ordinary for evolution. We have toads that lay their eggs on their own backs. They need a special skin that protects the eggs and keeps them moist. But they also need a long egg depositor that can reach all the way up to their back. One change by itself it useless, so it needs both of them to work. And it the toxin A and B story, if it looses the Toxin B generator first, nothing happens to kill it. Then after that it can loose the toxin A gene and now it can live.
Don't you know. . . Introverts are considered "weird" by society. It does't fit in and is not really accepted.
None of that warranted his firing, but what DID was that he was making himself known as a bad actor in the environment at google. Because they do both peer and manager reviews, he basically painted a big red flag on himself because there was no way to tell if he'd be sufficiently objective when reviewing female teammates. Women were already blacklisting him.
So some women openly admit that they are not objective and you claim that he might be so must be fired. Ok, I agree that he caused problems in the Google environment. But then the women or others that said they would not work with him did so also and must be fired to keep it fair. And the person who released the memo must also be fired.
If you don't do these things then you are demonstrating that it is only fear of the thoughts that is the problem. Plus, don't forget that the memo was being discussed for a month with no problems before it was released and the Google fired him.
So do you refute that many of the best runners in the world are black? I think there is even scientific studies that found the length of the shin-bone to be an important factor in how well you run. Perhaps we should stop allowing black people to run races since they are not being fair and it hurts other people's feelings.
And change that from "women are loss suited to engineering jobs" to "women would rather do other things". Or do you deny that there are fields that have more women than men. How did the men not stop women from taking over the field of law and certain specialties in medicine. Somehow the nerds have done what no other men have been capable of. Wow! I didn't know I was so awesome. Now give me my million dollars!
"Coming forward" years after the fact may constitute a case in the alternative legal system that SJWs are building for themselves, but the real world legal system is perfectly capable of prosecuting molesters if you tell your family about molestation by your teacher, minister, or counselor at the time it happens. If you are an adult, you can call the cops themselves when a rape kit will identify the perpetrator according to the real rules of evidence that have been ironed out by years of experience and judicial review.
That would be if the rape kit is ever actually sent to the lab. There are police districts that have decades of old rape kits that are sitting on shelves having never been tested.
Just not a safe space for people who don't think like you are supposed to!
Ability is generally observed to be normally distributed: most people are average, few are exceptionally good or bad.
Therefore we can conclude that opportunity is not uniformly distributed.
TL;DR: Statistically abnormal inequality of outcome is evidence of inequality of opportunity.
So wouldn't that mean we have some sort of bias is used to create more black Olympic runners? Or that we need to force more white and "other-than-black" ethnicitys into Basketball? I mean, American runners must have the best opportunity since we spend so much money in this country on training and technology for improving our athletes. But the outcome is not equal, and we must assume that the ability is, so it can only be opportunity that is ruining it all!
This ignores the science that shows why certain body shapes are very good for running or swimming, for example. Length of the lower leg for runners and trunk to leg ratio for swimmers.
Note that if you record the audio without their permission, it is illegal and you could go to jail for it.
Correction. "Could be illegal". It depends on the state you are in. If it is a single person consent state, then the fact that you know you are recording it makes it legal. If it is two party consent, then all people being recorded need to be notified.
I'm not sure what you are calling a lookup table. Having an AI algorithm try things and remember what worked and what did not work does not sound like any kind of input table. The algorithm learns how to play by trying things out. I don't consider it intelligent, so I would suggest you stop confusing things by talking about unrelated things, this conversation is about learning, not about intelligence.
I remember one of the mario playing bots figured out some sort of cheat jump that it did not watch anyone play, because it was not fed any games that were played for it to learn. It found that if the turtle landed on marios head as he was falling in a jump (just after the peak of the jump) it would count as bouncing off of the turtle and kill it while bouncing mario up higher. It also learned to play several other games. This seems a direct opposite of what you said, "can only mimic any move it has previously seen". Or differs from your other statement, "completely incapable of playing any other game".
Unlike other AI programs, MarI/O wasn't taught anything before jumping into the game.
They did give the AI a fitness rating that increased the further to the right that Mario moved. So the rest of the game had to be learned. You would not even have to teach the AI about the buttons for jumping as it can figure that out by trial and error also. If you consider that a self-created database of actions that work to be a lookup table that was created by the programmers, then you have serious problems with your understanding of technical ideas.
The direction of the "electrons" is meaningless and I don't think it's helping you to focus on them.
It is the direction of "current" that matters. Whether that is implemented as a stream of negative charge in one direction, or positive charge in the other, is irrelevant.
That may be true in most day to day electronics, but it is not true in all areas. When the electrons or holes are moving through a magnetic field they deflect differently. I remember learning about this back when I was learning basic electronics in the Navy. They had found that in certain materials it is more accurate to think of the holes moving rather than the electrons. And testing those materials in a magnitic field gave differing results based on whether it is holes or electrons moving. Here is a link with similar finding.
They taught it how to play go by letting it watch games being played. The second version learned by playing against itself.
There are video game playing AIs that learn to play pac-man or other classics by trying things and seeing the results it makes on the screen. They don't even define where the score is, or even that there is a score. They let the algorithm figure out what makes for a better result and it learns to play the game with no rules given to it. If you give the same algorithm a new game it can learn that one just as easily.
If you take that same program, without any modification, and tell it to play chess instead of go, it won't have a clue what to do because it is fundamentally incapable of playing any game other than the one it was programmed to play. It can't learn a new game because it can't actually learn anything at all.
Doesn't sound like you have been paying attention to what the AI has been doing these days. And I do realize it is just a neural net that I myself would not consider to be intelligence. But it does show learning abilities without being programmed how to do things directly.
A stand of trees is often still connected underground though. So the differentiation between individual tree and part of a larger whole is more blurred.