The relevant level is the neural structure of the brain (or the molecular structure, or the atomic structure). Rapid advances in medical imaging (improving both spatial and temporal resolution) are getting us to understand what the brain is at this level. We already know quite a bit about physics at this scale as well. According to your own argument, simulating the known laws of physics acting on a collection of particles analogous to a physical brain should be sufficient to produce general intelligence. I agree.
NLP is AI. The ontology Watson pulls from, that's AI too. Perhaps you're not very familiar with the field of AI, but it's surprisingly broad. It extends quite a bit beyond "general-purpose strong AI".
Except it's not an investment. It's a place to live.
Indeed. Nobody's forcing him to sell at market rate and realize a huge profit. Since it's not an investment, as you so conveniently point out, he could sell it at the same price he bought it for and not have to worry about a single penny in owed taxes.
That's the nature of a tax on financial transactions. What if I wanted to sell my brand new car and buy a different brand new car? Well, sales tax means I can't move sideways. I'd be moving a _lot_ down, and I don't even get a break on the first $250K of car that I'm swapping. I don't see anyone crying over that, though.
Ah, Silicon Valley. I'd need to win the lottery to be able to cover the security deposit on a shoebox-that-you-call-an-apartment there. Plus I'm already in the middle of moving closer to NYC proper.
Maybe it's a geographical thing. I currently work in the defense industry (which, as it turns out, is much less exciting than I had hoped), but I'm trying to GTFO. Around here, it really looks like my only other option is finance, which I absolutely refuse to touch. Even though there's some large telecoms in the area, I never see them posting anything about embedded development or other close-to-the-metal positions. It's infuriating.
Here's to hoping I'll end up on the best coast eventually.
I got my BS in Electrical/Computer Engineering because I had already taught myself to code when I was a kid in the 90s. All of my electives were theoretical computer sciences courses, since I was aware that teaching myself C didn't help me understand asymptotic analysis, proofs by induction, etc. I figured a good grasp of hardware, a solid ability to write code, and a comprehensive understanding of theory would start me down a personally satisfying career path.
And now I'm stuck coding Java using bloated frameworks like Spring, constantly being prodded to pick up JavaScript and JQuery. I've been searching for a gig doing low-level coding for years and years. I simply haven't seen any positions like that. Everyone wants iOS/Android developers, JavaScript developers, amateur developers.
If you can point me towards "a huge demand for people with these skills", in the NYC (or northern NJ) job market, I'll blow you. Figuratively.
He said that he can't actually sell his place without incurring a very large tax penalty that would come out of his profit and affect his ability to buy another property.
They certainly are not perfect, but when you average them over large populations, they are a pretty well-correlated with what is believed to be "true" intelligence. The idea behind IQ tests is not that you can measure intelligence directly, but rather that you can measure factors highly correlated with intelligence, such as pattern recognition, the same way that you cannot measure nuclear fusion rate directly in a star, but rather indirectly like through color and magnitude.
That's precisely my point. We can't even objectively define "intelligence", let alone measure it directly. We measure pattern recognition ability and say that it correlates with intelligence, but this claim is subjective until there is a formal definition of intelligence. This is no better than measuring how many photons bounce off a person to measure their size. If indirect measurement of an undefined property is the best we can do at this point, I question the value of these measurements.
Whenever people object to the abuse of their research to support a racist/ideological agenda, people like you scream "That's political correctness!" without even attempting to understand what the objections are.
Regarding the point you make regarding the IQ gap: Is it not possible that this is the result of the IQ test being idiotic?
Imagine for a minute that someone commissioned a study to quantify the relationship between average body size and race. And let's say that to measure body size, we used some hypothetical Size Quotient (SQ). Someone's SQ is measured by shining light on them and measuring how many photons bounce back. It turns out that white people have a higher SQ than black people, so black people are smaller than white people, right? Well, until you realize that SQ is an idiotic measure of size. Mass, sure. Height, okay. But it's evident that this hypothetical SQ only measures relative size (or cross-sectional area, assuming diffuse reflectivity) accurately for people that reflect light at the same rate (false assumption). That's why we use mass or height or something less idiotic.
Is it not possible that IQ tests are measuring not intelligence (because how the fuck do you do that?), but instead merely something that looks a lot like intelligence? Perhaps these tests aren't as culturally-insensensitive as we think? Perhaps because our definition of intelligence isn't as generalized as we think? In the case of the vanishing gap between the Native Americans and the crackers that plundered North America, do we know that the natives "evolved" (on an unrealistically short timescale) to be as smart as whitey instead of merely acculturing? So, if you look at the IQ test, are you convinced that it's not idiotic? That there are no unaccounted-for confounding factors? That it actually measures intelligence?
I'm okay with reality being "racist", some people being "better" at certain things than other people, even on the basis of race or skin color. But if we're looking at IQ test scores and talking about "science", then call me a fucking Luddite, because that shit isn't cutting it for me.
Disclaimer: Recently took a series of IQ tests with my girlfriend. I came out slightly ahead in each one. Now I know IQ tests are bullshit.
IF MY CAR DOESN'T HAVE A STICK I DON'T NEED TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE WITH A STICK.
Indeed. I never argued otherwise. Very few people need to be skilled drivers. I mean, if you own a vehicle with an automatic transmission, there's really no practical benefit to being able to drive stick. Much like if you're not a stunt driver, there's really no practical benefit to being able to do a J-turn.
People in the past protested when we got power steering, independent suspension, and OBD too.
I wouldn't 'protest' any of these features. However, it is clear that they obviate the need for a driver to have certain skills, thereby making driving accessible to those who are less skilled. With power steering, a driver doesn't need to worry about the relation of wheel speed to turning ability. With anti-lock brakes, a driver doesn't need to worry about how to mitigate the effects of locking wheels. Many features of modern cars make them easier to drive, which has the effect of making driving more accessible and safer for drivers with less driving skill. The reason I don't say these features made driving safer for everyone is that a truly skilled driver isn't benefited by these features any more than a skilled bicyclist is aided by training wheels. Not that there's anything wrong with training wheels; they make bicycling safer and more accessible to cyclists with less skill.
Caveat: Certain features found in new cars do benefit even the most skilled of drivers. For example, the paddle shifted direct-shift gearbox is much easier to operate than a standard manual transmission, lowering the skill required of the driver. However, it also decreases shift times an order of magnitude beyond the shift times of even the most skilled driver. In this case, technology has not only made driving require less skill, but also put unskilled drivers at the exact same level of ability as skilled drivers (at least in the context of shift times).
I've destroyed thousands of square meters of forest just for the fuck of it, using nothing more than my bare hands and a hatchet. Okay, maybe gloves too. For perspective, a thousand square meters is less than a quarter of an acre.
With no locks, it means no lake, and consequently no water in the canal, and no ships paying money to use the canal. I think it's unlikely that this little detail was overlooked at design time. You're an idiot.
That's true. 720p was always defined as HD. Not "Partial HD", but just HD. Then 1080p was defined as "Full HD". Now, if we apply some basic reasoning to this situation...
If 1080p is "Full HD", and 720p is less than 1080p, then 720p is not "Full HD", and it is not inaccurate to describe it as partially-full HD, or partial HD, acccording to the English language.
This is one of those not-so-rare moments when there is some discrepancy between the English language and marketers' language.
And I don't know why you think average drivers should be able to pull a Rockford turn and immobilize people.
I don't think that, because I don't think average drivers are good drivers. This seems somewhat tautologous to me, so I'm not sure where you're getting confused.
To clarify, I explicitly said that "very few people are good drivers". Then I went further to explain that most drivers in the US can't even operate a manual transmission, the implication being that such an ability would be necessary (but not sufficient) to qualify them as good (or skilled) drivers. Subsequently I elaborated that they can't do any advanced driving manouvers, the implication being that the ability to perform advanced driving manouvers is what differentiates a good (or skilled) driver from the rest.
I never suggested that "average" drivers should be able to to perform advanced driving manouvers. Quite the opposite: I said that good (or skilled) drivers should be able to perform advanced driving manouvers. I recommend actually reading posts before you reply to them.
I don't need to know how to operate a manual transmission if I don't have a manual transmission.
Indeed, because you live in a country that hands out drivers licenses to the lowest common denominator. In the US, there is a perception that everyone "needs" a car, so it's somehow "wrong" to limit driver licensing to only those who have demonstrated a willingness to be educated and well trained drivers. Let's take a look at Germany, which has a rather different driving culture (one where there is considerably more respect and responsibility I'd say), where you (yes, you, operagost) wouldn't be able to qualify for a full drivers license due to your lack of driving skill.
You're conflating "good" with "safe". Many of the world's best drivers wouldn't be considered safe drivers, and many of the world's safest drivers wouldn't be considered good drivers. You're imposing your own value judgement (that safe drivers are good drivers) on the conversation in a way that redefines existing words, thereby impeding everyone's ability to communicate clearly.
What you meant to say was:
2% Very safe
88% Safe
10% Unsafe
I'd say very few people are good drivers. Most drivers in the US can't even operate a manual transmission, let alone execute PIT manouvers, J-turns, or booleg turns. Of course, one could argue that I'm conflating "good" with "skilled"...
Slashdot Mirror
My Galaxy S2 is still not able to run CyanogenMod. Eventually I discovered a "Calkulin's mod" that didn't do much more than unlock tethering. Woohoo.
The relevant level is the neural structure of the brain (or the molecular structure, or the atomic structure). Rapid advances in medical imaging (improving both spatial and temporal resolution) are getting us to understand what the brain is at this level. We already know quite a bit about physics at this scale as well. According to your own argument, simulating the known laws of physics acting on a collection of particles analogous to a physical brain should be sufficient to produce general intelligence. I agree.
NLP is AI. The ontology Watson pulls from, that's AI too. Perhaps you're not very familiar with the field of AI, but it's surprisingly broad. It extends quite a bit beyond "general-purpose strong AI".
Except it's not an investment. It's a place to live.
Indeed. Nobody's forcing him to sell at market rate and realize a huge profit. Since it's not an investment, as you so conveniently point out, he could sell it at the same price he bought it for and not have to worry about a single penny in owed taxes.
That's the nature of a tax on financial transactions. What if I wanted to sell my brand new car and buy a different brand new car? Well, sales tax means I can't move sideways. I'd be moving a _lot_ down, and I don't even get a break on the first $250K of car that I'm swapping. I don't see anyone crying over that, though.
Ah, Silicon Valley. I'd need to win the lottery to be able to cover the security deposit on a shoebox-that-you-call-an-apartment there. Plus I'm already in the middle of moving closer to NYC proper.
Maybe it's a geographical thing. I currently work in the defense industry (which, as it turns out, is much less exciting than I had hoped), but I'm trying to GTFO. Around here, it really looks like my only other option is finance, which I absolutely refuse to touch. Even though there's some large telecoms in the area, I never see them posting anything about embedded development or other close-to-the-metal positions. It's infuriating.
Here's to hoping I'll end up on the best coast eventually.
Not really typical of "all currencies", but you did technically satisfy my request. In any case, I appreciate the fascinating link! Wild!
I thought BTC was unique... Can you name other currencies with which you can't pay your taxes?
Where? Where the hell is this happening?!
I got my BS in Electrical/Computer Engineering because I had already taught myself to code when I was a kid in the 90s. All of my electives were theoretical computer sciences courses, since I was aware that teaching myself C didn't help me understand asymptotic analysis, proofs by induction, etc. I figured a good grasp of hardware, a solid ability to write code, and a comprehensive understanding of theory would start me down a personally satisfying career path.
And now I'm stuck coding Java using bloated frameworks like Spring, constantly being prodded to pick up JavaScript and JQuery. I've been searching for a gig doing low-level coding for years and years. I simply haven't seen any positions like that. Everyone wants iOS/Android developers, JavaScript developers, amateur developers.
If you can point me towards "a huge demand for people with these skills", in the NYC (or northern NJ) job market, I'll blow you. Figuratively.
He said that he can't actually sell his place without incurring a very large tax penalty that would come out of his profit and affect his ability to buy another property.
FTFY.
140 characters, okay.
From Europe, check.
30 years ago, hmm...
For a minute there I thought you were describing a Tolstoy novel.
They certainly are not perfect, but when you average them over large populations, they are a pretty well-correlated with what is believed to be "true" intelligence. The idea behind IQ tests is not that you can measure intelligence directly, but rather that you can measure factors highly correlated with intelligence, such as pattern recognition, the same way that you cannot measure nuclear fusion rate directly in a star, but rather indirectly like through color and magnitude.
That's precisely my point. We can't even objectively define "intelligence", let alone measure it directly. We measure pattern recognition ability and say that it correlates with intelligence, but this claim is subjective until there is a formal definition of intelligence. This is no better than measuring how many photons bounce off a person to measure their size. If indirect measurement of an undefined property is the best we can do at this point, I question the value of these measurements.
Anthropogenic gravity is a serious problem here in the United States due to the exponentially increasing mass of the average person.
Just try being skeptical about anthropogenic climate change.
Or gravity, for that matter. Just try being skeptical about gravity and see how far you get.
Whenever people object to the abuse of their research to support a racist/ideological agenda, people like you scream "That's political correctness!" without even attempting to understand what the objections are.
Aesop explained this very clearly.
I mean was a Germanic tribesman shaking a bronze tipped spear any different, genetically, to a modern day Berlin banker?
Very different. The Germanic tribesman probably lacked the gene for ruthless greed.
Regarding the point you make regarding the IQ gap: Is it not possible that this is the result of the IQ test being idiotic?
Imagine for a minute that someone commissioned a study to quantify the relationship between average body size and race. And let's say that to measure body size, we used some hypothetical Size Quotient (SQ). Someone's SQ is measured by shining light on them and measuring how many photons bounce back. It turns out that white people have a higher SQ than black people, so black people are smaller than white people, right? Well, until you realize that SQ is an idiotic measure of size. Mass, sure. Height, okay. But it's evident that this hypothetical SQ only measures relative size (or cross-sectional area, assuming diffuse reflectivity) accurately for people that reflect light at the same rate (false assumption). That's why we use mass or height or something less idiotic.
Is it not possible that IQ tests are measuring not intelligence (because how the fuck do you do that?), but instead merely something that looks a lot like intelligence? Perhaps these tests aren't as culturally-insensensitive as we think? Perhaps because our definition of intelligence isn't as generalized as we think? In the case of the vanishing gap between the Native Americans and the crackers that plundered North America, do we know that the natives "evolved" (on an unrealistically short timescale) to be as smart as whitey instead of merely acculturing? So, if you look at the IQ test, are you convinced that it's not idiotic? That there are no unaccounted-for confounding factors? That it actually measures intelligence?
I'm okay with reality being "racist", some people being "better" at certain things than other people, even on the basis of race or skin color. But if we're looking at IQ test scores and talking about "science", then call me a fucking Luddite, because that shit isn't cutting it for me.
Disclaimer: Recently took a series of IQ tests with my girlfriend. I came out slightly ahead in each one. Now I know IQ tests are bullshit.
IF MY CAR DOESN'T HAVE A STICK I DON'T NEED TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE WITH A STICK.
Indeed. I never argued otherwise. Very few people need to be skilled drivers. I mean, if you own a vehicle with an automatic transmission, there's really no practical benefit to being able to drive stick. Much like if you're not a stunt driver, there's really no practical benefit to being able to do a J-turn.
People in the past protested when we got power steering, independent suspension, and OBD too.
I wouldn't 'protest' any of these features. However, it is clear that they obviate the need for a driver to have certain skills, thereby making driving accessible to those who are less skilled. With power steering, a driver doesn't need to worry about the relation of wheel speed to turning ability. With anti-lock brakes, a driver doesn't need to worry about how to mitigate the effects of locking wheels. Many features of modern cars make them easier to drive, which has the effect of making driving more accessible and safer for drivers with less driving skill. The reason I don't say these features made driving safer for everyone is that a truly skilled driver isn't benefited by these features any more than a skilled bicyclist is aided by training wheels. Not that there's anything wrong with training wheels; they make bicycling safer and more accessible to cyclists with less skill.
Caveat: Certain features found in new cars do benefit even the most skilled of drivers. For example, the paddle shifted direct-shift gearbox is much easier to operate than a standard manual transmission, lowering the skill required of the driver. However, it also decreases shift times an order of magnitude beyond the shift times of even the most skilled driver. In this case, technology has not only made driving require less skill, but also put unskilled drivers at the exact same level of ability as skilled drivers (at least in the context of shift times).
It was more a complaint about your estimated surface area being orders of magnitude too small than about the units you used to express it.
And around here, we call them soccer fields.
*ducks*
destroying thousands of square meters of forest
I've destroyed thousands of square meters of forest just for the fuck of it, using nothing more than my bare hands and a hatchet. Okay, maybe gloves too. For perspective, a thousand square meters is less than a quarter of an acre.
With no locks, it means no lake, and consequently no water in the canal, and no ships paying money to use the canal. I think it's unlikely that this little detail was overlooked at design time. You're an idiot.
Except 720p was always defined as HD.
That's true. 720p was always defined as HD. Not "Partial HD", but just HD. Then 1080p was defined as "Full HD". Now, if we apply some basic reasoning to this situation...
If 1080p is "Full HD", and 720p is less than 1080p, then 720p is not "Full HD", and it is not inaccurate to describe it as partially-full HD, or partial HD, acccording to the English language.
This is one of those not-so-rare moments when there is some discrepancy between the English language and marketers' language.
And I don't know why you think average drivers should be able to pull a Rockford turn and immobilize people.
I don't think that, because I don't think average drivers are good drivers. This seems somewhat tautologous to me, so I'm not sure where you're getting confused.
To clarify, I explicitly said that "very few people are good drivers". Then I went further to explain that most drivers in the US can't even operate a manual transmission, the implication being that such an ability would be necessary (but not sufficient) to qualify them as good (or skilled) drivers. Subsequently I elaborated that they can't do any advanced driving manouvers, the implication being that the ability to perform advanced driving manouvers is what differentiates a good (or skilled) driver from the rest.
I never suggested that "average" drivers should be able to to perform advanced driving manouvers. Quite the opposite: I said that good (or skilled) drivers should be able to perform advanced driving manouvers. I recommend actually reading posts before you reply to them.
I don't need to know how to operate a manual transmission if I don't have a manual transmission.
Indeed, because you live in a country that hands out drivers licenses to the lowest common denominator. In the US, there is a perception that everyone "needs" a car, so it's somehow "wrong" to limit driver licensing to only those who have demonstrated a willingness to be educated and well trained drivers. Let's take a look at Germany, which has a rather different driving culture (one where there is considerably more respect and responsibility I'd say), where you (yes, you, operagost) wouldn't be able to qualify for a full drivers license due to your lack of driving skill.
You're conflating "good" with "safe". Many of the world's best drivers wouldn't be considered safe drivers, and many of the world's safest drivers wouldn't be considered good drivers. You're imposing your own value judgement (that safe drivers are good drivers) on the conversation in a way that redefines existing words, thereby impeding everyone's ability to communicate clearly.
What you meant to say was:
2% Very safe
88% Safe
10% Unsafe
I'd say very few people are good drivers. Most drivers in the US can't even operate a manual transmission, let alone execute PIT manouvers, J-turns, or booleg turns. Of course, one could argue that I'm conflating "good" with "skilled"...
I wish that were true. It sure looks like the US funds a vast majority of drug marketing, though.
But for completeness sake, here's some counterpoints.