Wouldn't "artificial brains to drive an autonomous car, terminator robot, or flying toaster" be a necessary byproduct of this research, though?
That is, if you create a simulation of a human brain with sufficient fidelity to test hypotheses about brain organization, diseases, etc., then isn't that simulation "sufficiently identical" to a biological human brain to do anything else a biological human brain can do?
If you can simulate a brain that suffers from bipolar depression, couldn't you ask that brain to write you a song, or to research brain simulation? If not, then how is that simulation of any value when it comes to vetting various hypotheses about biological human brains?
Because human brains have come up with a lot of cool stuff over the years. That makes them valuable.
However, they don't improve much from generation to generation. The human brains of today aren't much better than the human brains of a thousand years ago.
The idea is that if we could couple the natural awesomeness of the human brain (which has been conclusively demonstrated) with the steady improvements in silicon computing (Moore's law has also been conclusively demonstrated), we'd have a lot more cool stuff, a lot faster.
You're right, though, in some sense. The human brain is a formidable goal. Shouldn't we start with something a bit less ambitious? Maybe a fly brain, or even just parts of a fly brain? Hmm, yes. Perhaps that's why IBM has been doing just that over the last few years, starting with neural columns and other simple neural structures, working their way up to a large section of a fly brain. I haven't been keeping up with their research, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they're now simulating entire fly brains. It follows, then, that in the future we'll be simulating larger, more complex brains. In the end, I would expect simulations of human brains, since human brains have more value to us than fly brains or cow brains.
Isn't that an argument in support of this research?
I mean, wouldn't simulating these non-neuron cells in silicon help us get an idea of what they are doing?
Or are you suggesting that these other cells don't abide by the known laws of physics, and therefore we have no way of studying them in simulation?
Are you suggesting that understanding how atoms interact with each other would somehow help us battle drug addiction or mental illness?
I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding something, somewhere. This project seeks to simulate the effect of the known laws of physics on the known collection of atoms that we call a human brain. It's like folding@home, but on a much larger scale.
What non-existent algorithms are required to simulate the laws of physics, and how have we been able to simulate the laws of physics for so long without these algorithms?
I don't understand why people think we need some arcane understanding of "intelligence" in order to simulate a human brain in silicon.
Neuroscientists are the wrong bunch to ask. Try physicists.
The brain, as far as I know, is subject to the laws of physics. Also, it's made of matter.
Can you explain why you don't think simulating the effect of the known laws of physics on the known atomic constituents of the human brain would be any different than "a computer that works like a human brain"?
We're subs on plenty of non-FFP contracts that are still humming along. Additionally, all of the other companies we interact with (at least on my FFP project) are running on all cylinders as well, and I know for a fact that at least a few of them are T&M. Perhaps we're more "essential" than I would have expected? Personally, I'm very much disappointed, as I was really hoping for a nice October vacation.
False. Contractors keep on ticking, although perhaps my workplace is merely an anecdote. Additionally, Chuck Hagel already recalled (virtually) all DoD personnel. As far as DoD is concerned, the furlough was over before any of these cleared contractors started with their own furloughs and layoffs.
The reason you're hearing about these contractors shedding personnel today has nothing to do with the political impasse of the day and everything to do with the fact that we're finally drawing down in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Realize that economies of scale are real and that group plans are better than individual plans
These are two separate issues. Economies of scale are real, but that has nothing do with with group vs individual plans.
For example, fifty individuals need insurance. They each go to an insurance company and get individual plans. The average cost per person is $x.
Now let's instead say those very same fifty individuals happen to work for the same company, and they collectively go to an insurance company to get a group plan. The average cost per person is $y.
From the perspective of the insurance company, the same economy of scale applies. It's the same fifty people, and yet, without fail, $y < $x.
Are you suggesting the administrative overhead of handling fifty individual policies versus one group policy with fifty members accounts for the cost difference? No, let's be honest here. It's because insurance companies know they have individuals by the balls, and they will charge what the market will bear. When it's your wellbeing on the line, the market will bear quite a bit.
Sidebar: what would happen if fifty unemployed, self-employed, and/or 1099 (contracted) persons got together and formed an LLC, S-Corp, or some other business entity, solely for the purpose of seeking group insurance rates? They'd all be "salaried employees" of said business, with an annual salary of $0 each, with employer-provided healthcare benefits (where the employer paid 0% of the premium). I know small businesses don't get a break with insurers until they hit the fifty employee mark (at least in my state), but are there any other requirements (maybe revenue) that would need to be met? Does anyone know if an approach like this could possibly help get individuals access to health insurance at group rates?
I'm concerned that the government is making financial decisions based on "core" CPI where it would make more sense (for the citizens) if they used CPI instead.
The official line from the government is: "Most importantly, none of the prominent legislated uses of the CPI excludes food and energy."
They seem to be interested in dispelling the notion that "core" CPI has any "prominent legislated uses," and I'm simply curious to see what "non-prominent" legislated uses it has. I apologize for being wary of my government, but whenever I hear a statement like this I can't help but interpret it as political sleight-of-hand. Their statement, to me, seems to imply that there are legislated uses for "core" CPI. I just want to know what they are.
The question was what is the "core" CPI used for within government.
Your response can be paraphrased: "core" CPI is used within government, and also outside of government.
I don't believe you've answered the question. The Federal Reserve is a quasi-governmental body, sure, but you didn't exactly clear up what they use this figure for. The Economist is a magazine that I subscribe to that's been going steadily downhill over the years. Not relevant. I understand that lots of other people use it too, but that's also irrelevant. I understand that a measure of inflation is valuable. I also understand why excluding volatile commodities from such an index might be valuable.
What I don't understand, and what nobody seems to be able to explain, is what the government uses this "core" CPI figure for.
Except that in the United States, core CPI specifically excludes food and energy costs. Calculations of core inflation also specifically exclude food and energy costs. Of course, "core" CPI isn't really used for anything important, allegedly. "The Man" doesn't hesitate to tell us that Social Security, federal retirement benefits, etc., are all calculated based on the CPI figure that does include food and energy costs. Of course, "The Man" doesn't go as far as to tell us what the "core" CPI is used for within government.
Actually, to teach high school, you need to be an Education major. At least in most states.
Caveat: some states also offer an 'alternate route' to becoming a teacher. In my native NJ, this involves full-time unpaid work in inner-city school districts for a year or two. I don't know anyone that can afford to support themselves for a year or two with no income.
If you believe that Copyright should be able to exist on media and that authors and/or distributors should be able to charge for the video/audio, AND you believe that technological protection measures may have some impact to reduce non-paid use of such media, AND you believe that it is in the interest of consumers to have standards for these sort of things, then you may view EME as a good thing.
Begging the question is an informal fallacy similar to circular reasoning.
In this instance, there is nothing circular. There is the question, "are we winning the war on drugs yet?" There is the answer, "no, silk road does big business." But there is no circular reasoning (i.e. "we know silk road does big business because we are not winning the war on drugs."), not even in the implicit sense (begging the question is a form of circular reasoning where one of the claims (one that would make the circular reasoning more apparent), is not explicitly stated). We know silk road does big business because a large sum of money was seized in this bust. This claim is totally independent of our success in the war on drugs.
"Begged" in this context has a very specific meaning. One that doesn't apply in this situation. The question is raised. The question ought to be asked. The question springs to mind. The question follows. The question is not, however, begged. The etymology of the expression "begging the question" might shed some light on this issue. Begging the question, or petitio principii in the original Latin, means literally "assuming the premise" or "assuming the original point". In this context, "begging" is a reference to the "beginning" or basis of an argument. It is not synonymous with "requesting" or "asking for" or "demanding".
I'm sure this response is inaccurate in some way(s), and a true logician or philosopher will shit all over it. It's been over a decade since I last sat through a philosophy class. My previous post, however, was half-troll. "Begs the question" is so frequently misused today that there's really no point in correcting people. Really, there's little need for English vernacular to discriminate between begging the question and other forms of circular reasoning. I'm confident that as language evolves, "circular reasoning" will be "circular reasoning", and "begging the question" will be synonymous with "raising the question".
Today, October 1, 2013, the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, started the major part of its implementation. That is a "gift" to the people of the United States from the Democratic party.
You mean the same Obamacare that's based on the healthcare legislation that the republican candidate Romney promoted and implemented in Massachusetts? Yes, the irony is palpable.
Stop with the fucking excuses already. The republicrats are two sides of the same coin. Stop throwing away your vote. The republicrats agree on ALL major issues. Unlimited campaign contributions from corporate persons? Public campaign financing? Alternative voting mechanisms? Unchecked expansion of executive branch powers? Unconstitutional surveillance of the American public, wholesale? Increased protections for government whistleblowers? A congressional medal of honor for Edward Snowden? Disengagement in the Middle East? Accountability for public officials known to have violated the public trust? Accountability from the financial industry? Yes, show me this "plenty of difference" with anything that actually matters. Note, I don't consider gay marriage, abortion, or creationism to be "major issues" that are worth fighting over while this country crumbles around us.
You keep talking about "both parties" as though there were only two to choose from.
The fact that you think the head of the republican party is any different than the head of the democratic party is telling.
The problem with this country is people like you. Wake the fuck up. Stop voting for the establishment, and stop with the fucking excuses.
I don't care if you vote for the Greens or for the Libertarians or for the Communists, but stop throwing away your vote by voting for a continuation of republicrat domination of politics.
I too voted for Jill Stein despite having some serious problems with the Green Party. The only thing I have to say to anyone that still votes for the republicrats: Stop with the fucking excuses already; YOU are the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't "artificial brains to drive an autonomous car, terminator robot, or flying toaster" be a necessary byproduct of this research, though?
That is, if you create a simulation of a human brain with sufficient fidelity to test hypotheses about brain organization, diseases, etc., then isn't that simulation "sufficiently identical" to a biological human brain to do anything else a biological human brain can do?
If you can simulate a brain that suffers from bipolar depression, couldn't you ask that brain to write you a song, or to research brain simulation? If not, then how is that simulation of any value when it comes to vetting various hypotheses about biological human brains?
Because human brains have come up with a lot of cool stuff over the years. That makes them valuable.
However, they don't improve much from generation to generation. The human brains of today aren't much better than the human brains of a thousand years ago.
The idea is that if we could couple the natural awesomeness of the human brain (which has been conclusively demonstrated) with the steady improvements in silicon computing (Moore's law has also been conclusively demonstrated), we'd have a lot more cool stuff, a lot faster.
You're right, though, in some sense. The human brain is a formidable goal. Shouldn't we start with something a bit less ambitious? Maybe a fly brain, or even just parts of a fly brain? Hmm, yes. Perhaps that's why IBM has been doing just that over the last few years, starting with neural columns and other simple neural structures, working their way up to a large section of a fly brain. I haven't been keeping up with their research, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they're now simulating entire fly brains. It follows, then, that in the future we'll be simulating larger, more complex brains. In the end, I would expect simulations of human brains, since human brains have more value to us than fly brains or cow brains.
Isn't that an argument in support of this research?
I mean, wouldn't simulating these non-neuron cells in silicon help us get an idea of what they are doing?
Or are you suggesting that these other cells don't abide by the known laws of physics, and therefore we have no way of studying them in simulation?
Are you suggesting that understanding how atoms interact with each other would somehow help us battle drug addiction or mental illness?
I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding something, somewhere. This project seeks to simulate the effect of the known laws of physics on the known collection of atoms that we call a human brain. It's like folding@home, but on a much larger scale.
What non-existent algorithms are required to simulate the laws of physics, and how have we been able to simulate the laws of physics for so long without these algorithms?
I don't understand why people think we need some arcane understanding of "intelligence" in order to simulate a human brain in silicon.
Neuroscientists are the wrong bunch to ask. Try physicists.
The brain, as far as I know, is subject to the laws of physics. Also, it's made of matter.
Can you explain why you don't think simulating the effect of the known laws of physics on the known atomic constituents of the human brain would be any different than "a computer that works like a human brain"?
We're subs on plenty of non-FFP contracts that are still humming along. Additionally, all of the other companies we interact with (at least on my FFP project) are running on all cylinders as well, and I know for a fact that at least a few of them are T&M. Perhaps we're more "essential" than I would have expected? Personally, I'm very much disappointed, as I was really hoping for a nice October vacation.
False. Contractors keep on ticking, although perhaps my workplace is merely an anecdote. Additionally, Chuck Hagel already recalled (virtually) all DoD personnel. As far as DoD is concerned, the furlough was over before any of these cleared contractors started with their own furloughs and layoffs.
The reason you're hearing about these contractors shedding personnel today has nothing to do with the political impasse of the day and everything to do with the fact that we're finally drawing down in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Realize that economies of scale are real and that group plans are better than individual plans
These are two separate issues. Economies of scale are real, but that has nothing do with with group vs individual plans.
For example, fifty individuals need insurance. They each go to an insurance company and get individual plans. The average cost per person is $x.
Now let's instead say those very same fifty individuals happen to work for the same company, and they collectively go to an insurance company to get a group plan. The average cost per person is $y.
From the perspective of the insurance company, the same economy of scale applies. It's the same fifty people, and yet, without fail, $y < $x.
Are you suggesting the administrative overhead of handling fifty individual policies versus one group policy with fifty members accounts for the cost difference? No, let's be honest here. It's because insurance companies know they have individuals by the balls, and they will charge what the market will bear. When it's your wellbeing on the line, the market will bear quite a bit.
Sidebar: what would happen if fifty unemployed, self-employed, and/or 1099 (contracted) persons got together and formed an LLC, S-Corp, or some other business entity, solely for the purpose of seeking group insurance rates? They'd all be "salaried employees" of said business, with an annual salary of $0 each, with employer-provided healthcare benefits (where the employer paid 0% of the premium). I know small businesses don't get a break with insurers until they hit the fifty employee mark (at least in my state), but are there any other requirements (maybe revenue) that would need to be met? Does anyone know if an approach like this could possibly help get individuals access to health insurance at group rates?
That begs the question: is he really being pedantic?
I'm concerned that the government is making financial decisions based on "core" CPI where it would make more sense (for the citizens) if they used CPI instead.
The official line from the government is: "Most importantly, none of the prominent legislated uses of the CPI excludes food and energy."
They seem to be interested in dispelling the notion that "core" CPI has any "prominent legislated uses," and I'm simply curious to see what "non-prominent" legislated uses it has. I apologize for being wary of my government, but whenever I hear a statement like this I can't help but interpret it as political sleight-of-hand. Their statement, to me, seems to imply that there are legislated uses for "core" CPI. I just want to know what they are.
Intel i3 is now a high-end CPU?
I think a more accurate characterization would be "will use various Intel CPUs".
16GB memory is pretty damn nice, though.
The question was what is the "core" CPI used for within government.
Your response can be paraphrased: "core" CPI is used within government, and also outside of government.
I don't believe you've answered the question. The Federal Reserve is a quasi-governmental body, sure, but you didn't exactly clear up what they use this figure for. The Economist is a magazine that I subscribe to that's been going steadily downhill over the years. Not relevant. I understand that lots of other people use it too, but that's also irrelevant. I understand that a measure of inflation is valuable. I also understand why excluding volatile commodities from such an index might be valuable.
What I don't understand, and what nobody seems to be able to explain, is what the government uses this "core" CPI figure for.
I am not saying out and out communism in the soviet style as that really doesn't work
That hasn't worked before, without universal automation, sure.
But why wouldn't it work in the future, as the demand for human labor approaches zero?
Except that in the United States, core CPI specifically excludes food and energy costs. Calculations of core inflation also specifically exclude food and energy costs. Of course, "core" CPI isn't really used for anything important, allegedly. "The Man" doesn't hesitate to tell us that Social Security, federal retirement benefits, etc., are all calculated based on the CPI figure that does include food and energy costs. Of course, "The Man" doesn't go as far as to tell us what the "core" CPI is used for within government.
Actually, to teach high school, you need to be an Education major. At least in most states.
Caveat: some states also offer an 'alternate route' to becoming a teacher. In my native NJ, this involves full-time unpaid work in inner-city school districts for a year or two. I don't know anyone that can afford to support themselves for a year or two with no income.
If you believe that Copyright should be able to exist on media and that authors and/or distributors should be able to charge for the video/audio, AND you believe that technological protection measures may have some impact to reduce non-paid use of such media, AND you believe that it is in the interest of consumers to have standards for these sort of things, then you may view EME as a good thing.
Emphasis mine. Reading comprehension for the win.
Mod parent up. That's hilarious.
Yes, filming consensual sex. How vile and/or threatening.
Also, you may want to update your four pillars. Your boss, your mother, and don't forget your government.
Begging the question is an informal fallacy similar to circular reasoning.
In this instance, there is nothing circular. There is the question, "are we winning the war on drugs yet?" There is the answer, "no, silk road does big business." But there is no circular reasoning (i.e. "we know silk road does big business because we are not winning the war on drugs."), not even in the implicit sense (begging the question is a form of circular reasoning where one of the claims (one that would make the circular reasoning more apparent), is not explicitly stated). We know silk road does big business because a large sum of money was seized in this bust. This claim is totally independent of our success in the war on drugs.
"Begged" in this context has a very specific meaning. One that doesn't apply in this situation. The question is raised. The question ought to be asked. The question springs to mind. The question follows. The question is not, however, begged. The etymology of the expression "begging the question" might shed some light on this issue. Begging the question, or petitio principii in the original Latin, means literally "assuming the premise" or "assuming the original point". In this context, "begging" is a reference to the "beginning" or basis of an argument. It is not synonymous with "requesting" or "asking for" or "demanding".
I'm sure this response is inaccurate in some way(s), and a true logician or philosopher will shit all over it. It's been over a decade since I last sat through a philosophy class. My previous post, however, was half-troll. "Begs the question" is so frequently misused today that there's really no point in correcting people. Really, there's little need for English vernacular to discriminate between begging the question and other forms of circular reasoning. I'm confident that as language evolves, "circular reasoning" will be "circular reasoning", and "begging the question" will be synonymous with "raising the question".
The ones we don't know about.
If you disagree, perhaps you could be so kind as to specify which of those you think are in fact legal?
See how that works?
Today, October 1, 2013, the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, started the major part of its implementation. That is a "gift" to the people of the United States from the Democratic party.
You mean the same Obamacare that's based on the healthcare legislation that the republican candidate Romney promoted and implemented in Massachusetts? Yes, the irony is palpable.
Stop with the fucking excuses already. The republicrats are two sides of the same coin. Stop throwing away your vote. The republicrats agree on ALL major issues. Unlimited campaign contributions from corporate persons? Public campaign financing? Alternative voting mechanisms? Unchecked expansion of executive branch powers? Unconstitutional surveillance of the American public, wholesale? Increased protections for government whistleblowers? A congressional medal of honor for Edward Snowden? Disengagement in the Middle East? Accountability for public officials known to have violated the public trust? Accountability from the financial industry? Yes, show me this "plenty of difference" with anything that actually matters. Note, I don't consider gay marriage, abortion, or creationism to be "major issues" that are worth fighting over while this country crumbles around us.
You keep talking about "both parties" as though there were only two to choose from.
The fact that you think the head of the republican party is any different than the head of the democratic party is telling.
The problem with this country is people like you. Wake the fuck up. Stop voting for the establishment, and stop with the fucking excuses.
I don't care if you vote for the Greens or for the Libertarians or for the Communists, but stop throwing away your vote by voting for a continuation of republicrat domination of politics.
I too voted for Jill Stein despite having some serious problems with the Green Party. The only thing I have to say to anyone that still votes for the republicrats: Stop with the fucking excuses already; YOU are the problem.
Hey. Thanks for spreading the word. I've never heard of WOLF-PAC before I read your post.
I've already signed the petition and look forward to contacting my state legislators in the coming days.
I urge you to keep spreading the word that WOLF-PAC exists and that there may still be a way to reclaim our government.
*head asplodes*