The aim of the article is "Deep Learning Is Eating Software" meaning it changes everything. Beside the rather aggressive term "is eating" (meaning it eradicates other approaches), this statement suggests a disruptive process which takes place. In the article itself they downplay it to data processing software there is a change away from specific logic to deep learning. While that is true in some sense, it does not have anything to do with their aim displayed in the title. In addition, they claim that deep learning is becoming more widely used. Well that depends, most of these techniques are decades old, but old work well with enough input data. And it is rather unclear to which techniques they refer. There are tons of them. And there are even more statistical models with and without a learning component to them.
In essence they say it is hip and cool and they have speculated about its potential applications. And that is just advertising themselves and Google for that matter.
Most software today and in the coming decades is designed and developed to support business processes or data flow and execution in scientific processes. These systems need a deterministic and foreseeable behavior. Yes, you may use "learning" classification mechanisms such as neural networks to support some tasks, but this is not changing how we develop software. Especially, developing software is usual a technical and social process, as you have to understand the demands and needs of users, which require interviews and discussions with users. You also need to communicate with UI designers to develop together with users and UI designers useful and easily to understand interfaces. And yes, you have to map all this onto technology.
Let's assume there is a real corellation between IQ and score in LoL. And let's further assume that this is good enough to use it as a predictive tool. Then you can at best identify the IQ of those 100 mio gamers using it. Unfortunately, LoL gamers are not a random selected group of any society and definitely not globally. Therefore, you cannot just scale that up, like you do with an perfectly randomized set.
We have a daily, hourly etc. surplus every day of the year in Germany. We could just switch of one of the large ignite coal plants. It would even make the consumer electricity prices lower (I know sounds weird, but thanks to end user paying subsidies, while big companies do not need to...).
The problem is not the move away from nuclear, it is the same shit as in the US where lobbyists of the coal industry/power companies are unwilling to end coal production. Germany exports more electricity every day than it imports. It could easily shutdown one of the larger ignite plants. In addition, they would not need to demolish villages.
So what you're saying is that to understand how the latest advances in quantum physics might relate to things written in in John (and things in Exodus), one should obviously go back to much older writings based on ancient oral tradition, specifically Genesis
No I am not saying that. First, I have the impression that you have not really read anything in the Bible. I have done that. There is no reference to physics in it. If you want to discuss this issue regarding the old testament, ask a rabbi. Its their book, they know it best. As you brought up Kichio Kaku: Have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
He believes in a god, at least he suggest that. He mainly talks about Einstein, who - to Kaku's accord - believes in a non interventionistic god. However, the point is they believe in a god. They did not prove or see a direct scientific proof that there is a god.
In https://www.youtube.com/watch?... he says that there is no proof that there is a god and an afterlife. If your assumption would be correct that the Bible includes references to quantum physics and this is an indicator for a god, ipso facto, there is a god, then Kaku would not tell in that video that there is no such proof. However, if your initial statement was only a believe, then we do not need to talk about it, as clearly you believe it and i don't. We can believe what ever we want.
The article is the same old $deity argument. The we live in a bottle, matrix, simulation argument, which always points to a higher being who controls the damn thing. I have read some nice science fiction books on that topic. Nice thought, but really not a thought experiment. And yes it shows the demise of the enlightenment in the US. And as always Europe is behind you be 20 years. So the rest of western civilization will convert back to a gelatinous state or medieval times. Currently, we are approaching feudalism, a.k.a., oligarchy. Other lead civilizations have also gone down this path. Sadly, we will ruin the climate so that our stupid progenies in 100+x years will certainly face harsh conditions put onto them by the God(s).
I read the book. It does not explain anything about physics. If you cannot elaborate, then the only thing I can do is believe or do not believe. Therefore, this is not physics, but religion. BTW: Have you ever read a physics book? Including those in high school. I doubt that.
It is the matrix, god, simulation, higher being rubbish. Now in its new form omnipotent alien. Actually, god is also an omnipotent alien, who created the universe or maybe only hovered over the water. The Christian Bible is a little bit imprecise and ambiguous. Anyway, if you cannot test it, it is not a theory, it is an believe. You can believe all you want. It is also not a thought experiment. Thought experiments are used to construct a hypothetical reality and identify its features. Then you try to test these features. If it fails your experiment failed. You also can test whether your thought experiment provides the same results as past observations.
Can you name one socialist who said such stupid thing? I guess you do not even know what socialism is or what a socialist is. Anyway, people will invest in something (a) if they have the money and (b) think it is worth it. For the second part the "worth it" can be (a) for profit or (b) for pleasure, e.g., their hobby, or (c) their ego. As Bezos is mentally competing with Musk, he must have also a rocket. So he can be rocket man. Wait until he also invests in Hyperloop 2. He cannot invest in Hyperloop 1, as they got an investment from this other crazy guy called Branson, which has also a rocket plane.
It would, however, really be fun when they would use their money to do something about climate change.
Investing this money in the ability to commercially send rich people to orbit is nice, but will (a) not help them escape a ruined earth and (b) will only be funny for a short time. However, he could invest $1bn in preventing climate change and becoming therefore a hero in the history books.
You are right. I should have been more precise and refer to those synthetic agents which are used in industrial farming with the common wide spread side effects on insects and plant diversity.
Thanks. Anyway, We need an edit function in slashdot. Especially for those who write with their smartphone and clumsy fingers.;-)
In reality, unless you grow them yourself, your chances of finding an apple that has not been treated with some kind of 'toxic' chemical is practically zero, and, even if you do grow them yourself, the environment is full of noxious things that can pollute your pristine apple.
The air is nowadays often less toxic than in the past. They do not use DDT anymore and the use of other agents is more regulated. In addition, factory exhaust is cleaner than in the past. Recent particulate matter issues in Western countries also happened in the past, but were not a public issue then. Anyway, they are a problem and you should wash your food before eating.
Look in any orchard and you'll tend to see rather a lot of plants that aren't trees [...]
That depends. You might find orchards where different types of trees and fruits are kept together, which has some advantages when it come to fungi issues. However, there are also espaliers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espalier). I have seen some in the US, in South Africa, in north Italy, and in my childhood garden. They require less space than an orchard, you can collect the fruits more quickly and therefore require less labor per apple.
reduce pesticide use --> increase yields?
Well this is a shorthand of what I said. However, I can elaborate that: (a) If you use pesticides, herbicides, etc. you reduce insect and plant diversity and volume (biomass). (b) If you reduce diversity and biomass, the interaction of these insects and plants with your plants is reduced. (c1) In case of plants this makes your plant more vulnerable to harmful insects, bacteria and fungi. (c2) In case of insects this reduces bees and other insects which are necessary to for the pollination of your trees. (d) As of (c1) and (c2) long term use of pesticides harms your yield.
There are also organic acceptable anti-fungi/anti-biotic treatments available. However, you do not need to use them as often and as intensively when there is more space between trees of the same kind. In addition, intensive use of anti-fungi/anti-biotic agents make them less effective, which must be counteracted by high dosage. Therefore, in the long run, it is better not to use 'toxic' chemicals in food production.
Organic farming in the US and EU is farming that only uses âoecertified organicâ pesticides.
There is not such thing as an "certified organic pesticides". What should that be? Or are you talking about Copperhydroxid, Azadirachtin, Bacillus thuringiensis, etc. which are biodegradable, are already present in nature, and are very specific in their properties. Whereas Glyphosate (herbicide) and other chemicals, e.g., carbamates, are usually much more dangerous and are sprayed on crops. While you do not find pesticides and herbicides on your organic apple (if it is not be transported from the neighbor).
They did not conclude the universe should not exist. They rather just said they did not understand why there is an imbalance between matter and anti-matter. This by the way not new and is discussed in physics for quite some time.
No they don't. It would be against the very basic idea of organic farming. Anyway, in the EU pesticides and fungisides are forbidden together with artificial fertilizers in organic farming.
BTW writing... just looks like you are lazy and have no real argument and no insight you just do not like it that is why do post because it shows that your lifestyle is not sustainable.
Buy apple without poison on them. Yes I know, the organic apples are more expensive and some people have the odassity to sell you apples with spots (not that they taste worse, often they taste better). And yes if all would do that, you could not have large monocultures anymore making the apples more expensive. Still you do not have to eat poison and maybe we have a chance to get our insects back, which could increase the yield.
When you are 14 then you do not need a private network. You need to get out and find out what it is with the girls/boys everyone is talking about. Also you should prepare your home and friends for your 16th birthday, the day you can drink beer and wine for the first time legally. In case you are an US citizen, save money for a trip to Europe.
In Europe, they put trailors and trucks on trains which can go up to 160 km/h. They use them also for Alpes transit to relieve roads. On distances above 100km this is a faster mode of transportation. With some improvements in the loading process this could even be feasible for shorter distances.
True. It makes no sense to have such system in Kansas or North Dakota. Except for Bismark itself, maybe. However, it would work in both costal regions which would fix a lot of transport issues.
You still have to lift it, which reduces the total mass to orbit. The key question is: Is the reduction in lift off mass less costly and a reusable rocket less expensive than a single use rocket?
Anyway, ESA experiments with a reusable engine (without the tank), as this is the mist costly part of all.
If you want to see working mass transfer t systems, visit any other developed country. We already have that. Unfortunately, the stuff was not invented by an US American.
Slashdot Mirror
The aim of the article is "Deep Learning Is Eating Software" meaning it changes everything. Beside the rather aggressive term "is eating" (meaning it eradicates other approaches), this statement suggests a disruptive process which takes place. In the article itself they downplay it to data processing software there is a change away from specific logic to deep learning. While that is true in some sense, it does not have anything to do with their aim displayed in the title. In addition, they claim that deep learning is becoming more widely used. Well that depends, most of these techniques are decades old, but old work well with enough input data. And it is rather unclear to which techniques they refer. There are tons of them. And there are even more statistical models with and without a learning component to them.
In essence they say it is hip and cool and they have speculated about its potential applications. And that is just advertising themselves and Google for that matter.
That sums it up quite nicely.
Most software today and in the coming decades is designed and developed to support business processes or data flow and execution in scientific processes. These systems need a deterministic and foreseeable behavior. Yes, you may use "learning" classification mechanisms such as neural networks to support some tasks, but this is not changing how we develop software. Especially, developing software is usual a technical and social process, as you have to understand the demands and needs of users, which require interviews and discussions with users. You also need to communicate with UI designers to develop together with users and UI designers useful and easily to understand interfaces. And yes, you have to map all this onto technology.
Let's assume there is a real corellation between IQ and score in LoL. And let's further assume that this is good enough to use it as a predictive tool. Then you can at best identify the IQ of those 100 mio gamers using it. Unfortunately, LoL gamers are not a random selected group of any society and definitely not globally. Therefore, you cannot just scale that up, like you do with an perfectly randomized set.
We have a daily, hourly etc. surplus every day of the year in Germany. We could just switch of one of the large ignite coal plants. It would even make the consumer electricity prices lower (I know sounds weird, but thanks to end user paying subsidies, while big companies do not need to ...).
The problem is not the move away from nuclear, it is the same shit as in the US where lobbyists of the coal industry/power companies are unwilling to end coal production. Germany exports more electricity every day than it imports. It could easily shutdown one of the larger ignite plants. In addition, they would not need to demolish villages.
So what you're saying is that to understand how the latest advances in quantum physics might relate to things written in in John (and things in Exodus), one should obviously go back to much older writings based on ancient oral tradition, specifically Genesis
No I am not saying that. First, I have the impression that you have not really read anything in the Bible. I have done that. There is no reference to physics in it. If you want to discuss this issue regarding the old testament, ask a rabbi. Its their book, they know it best. As you brought up Kichio Kaku: Have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
He believes in a god, at least he suggest that. He mainly talks about Einstein, who - to Kaku's accord - believes in a non interventionistic god. However, the point is they believe in a god. They did not prove or see a direct scientific proof that there is a god.
In https://www.youtube.com/watch?... he says that there is no proof that there is a god and an afterlife. If your assumption would be correct that the Bible includes references to quantum physics and this is an indicator for a god, ipso facto, there is a god, then Kaku would not tell in that video that there is no such proof. However, if your initial statement was only a believe, then we do not need to talk about it, as clearly you believe it and i don't. We can believe what ever we want.
You quote and refer to the Bible. So from context I meant that book. Obviously you did not read a book on physics or science methodology .
The article is the same old $deity argument. The we live in a bottle, matrix, simulation argument, which always points to a higher being who controls the damn thing. I have read some nice science fiction books on that topic. Nice thought, but really not a thought experiment. And yes it shows the demise of the enlightenment in the US. And as always Europe is behind you be 20 years. So the rest of western civilization will convert back to a gelatinous state or medieval times. Currently, we are approaching feudalism, a.k.a., oligarchy. Other lead civilizations have also gone down this path. Sadly, we will ruin the climate so that our stupid progenies in 100+x years will certainly face harsh conditions put onto them by the God(s).
I read the book. It does not explain anything about physics. If you cannot elaborate, then the only thing I can do is believe or do not believe. Therefore, this is not physics, but religion. BTW: Have you ever read a physics book? Including those in high school. I doubt that.
It is the matrix, god, simulation, higher being rubbish. Now in its new form omnipotent alien. Actually, god is also an omnipotent alien, who created the universe or maybe only hovered over the water. The Christian Bible is a little bit imprecise and ambiguous. Anyway, if you cannot test it, it is not a theory, it is an believe. You can believe all you want. It is also not a thought experiment. Thought experiments are used to construct a hypothetical reality and identify its features. Then you try to test these features. If it fails your experiment failed. You also can test whether your thought experiment provides the same results as past observations.
Can you name one socialist who said such stupid thing? I guess you do not even know what socialism is or what a socialist is. Anyway, people will invest in something (a) if they have the money and (b) think it is worth it. For the second part the "worth it" can be (a) for profit or (b) for pleasure, e.g., their hobby, or (c) their ego. As Bezos is mentally competing with Musk, he must have also a rocket. So he can be rocket man. Wait until he also invests in Hyperloop 2. He cannot invest in Hyperloop 1, as they got an investment from this other crazy guy called Branson, which has also a rocket plane.
It would, however, really be fun when they would use their money to do something about climate change.
Investing this money in the ability to commercially send rich people to orbit is nice, but will (a) not help them escape a ruined earth and (b) will only be funny for a short time. However, he could invest $1bn in preventing climate change and becoming therefore a hero in the history books.
You are right. I should have been more precise and refer to those synthetic agents which are used in industrial farming with the common wide spread side effects on insects and plant diversity.
Thanks. Anyway, We need an edit function in slashdot. Especially for those who write with their smartphone and clumsy fingers. ;-)
In reality, unless you grow them yourself, your chances of finding an apple that has not been treated with some kind of 'toxic' chemical is practically zero, and, even if you do grow them yourself, the environment is full of noxious things that can pollute your pristine apple.
The air is nowadays often less toxic than in the past. They do not use DDT anymore and the use of other agents is more regulated. In addition, factory exhaust is cleaner than in the past. Recent particulate matter issues in Western countries also happened in the past, but were not a public issue then. Anyway, they are a problem and you should wash your food before eating.
Look in any orchard and you'll tend to see rather a lot of plants that aren't trees [...]
That depends. You might find orchards where different types of trees and fruits are kept together, which has some advantages when it come to fungi issues. However, there are also espaliers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espalier). I have seen some in the US, in South Africa, in north Italy, and in my childhood garden. They require less space than an orchard, you can collect the fruits more quickly and therefore require less labor per apple.
reduce pesticide use --> increase yields?
Well this is a shorthand of what I said. However, I can elaborate that:
(a) If you use pesticides, herbicides, etc. you reduce insect and plant diversity and volume (biomass).
(b) If you reduce diversity and biomass, the interaction of these insects and plants with your plants is reduced.
(c1) In case of plants this makes your plant more vulnerable to harmful insects, bacteria and fungi.
(c2) In case of insects this reduces bees and other insects which are necessary to for the pollination of your trees.
(d) As of (c1) and (c2) long term use of pesticides harms your yield.
There are also organic acceptable anti-fungi/anti-biotic treatments available. However, you do not need to use them as often and as intensively when there is more space between trees of the same kind. In addition, intensive use of anti-fungi/anti-biotic agents make them less effective, which must be counteracted by high dosage. Therefore, in the long run, it is better not to use 'toxic' chemicals in food production.
Organic farming in the US and EU is farming that only uses âoecertified organicâ pesticides.
There is not such thing as an "certified organic pesticides". What should that be? Or are you talking about Copperhydroxid, Azadirachtin, Bacillus thuringiensis, etc. which are biodegradable, are already present in nature, and are very specific in their properties. Whereas Glyphosate (herbicide) and other chemicals, e.g., carbamates, are usually much more dangerous and are sprayed on crops. While you do not find pesticides and herbicides on your organic apple (if it is not be transported from the neighbor).
Have a look: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal...
They did not conclude the universe should not exist. They rather just said they did not understand why there is an imbalance between matter and anti-matter. This by the way not new and is discussed in physics for quite some time.
No they don't. It would be against the very basic idea of organic farming. Anyway, in the EU pesticides and fungisides are forbidden together with artificial fertilizers in organic farming.
BTW writing ... just looks like you are lazy and have no real argument and no insight you just do not like it that is why do post because it shows that your lifestyle is not sustainable.
Buy apple without poison on them. Yes I know, the organic apples are more expensive and some people have the odassity to sell you apples with spots (not that they taste worse, often they taste better). And yes if all would do that, you could not have large monocultures anymore making the apples more expensive. Still you do not have to eat poison and maybe we have a chance to get our insects back, which could increase the yield.
I did not say that Europe is a country. Still you can visit us. Beer and wine can be bought in Germany at age 16. Just as an example.
When you are 14 then you do not need a private network. You need to get out and find out what it is with the girls/boys everyone is talking about. Also you should prepare your home and friends for your 16th birthday, the day you can drink beer and wine for the first time legally. In case you are an US citizen, save money for a trip to Europe.
In Europe, they put trailors and trucks on trains which can go up to 160 km/h. They use them also for Alpes transit to relieve roads. On distances above 100km this is a faster mode of transportation. With some improvements in the loading process this could even be feasible for shorter distances.
True. It makes no sense to have such system in Kansas or North Dakota. Except for Bismark itself, maybe. However, it would work in both costal regions which would fix a lot of transport issues.
You still have to lift it, which reduces the total mass to orbit. The key question is: Is the reduction in lift off mass less costly and a reusable rocket less expensive than a single use rocket?
Anyway, ESA experiments with a reusable engine (without the tank), as this is the mist costly part of all.
If you want to see working mass transfer t systems, visit any other developed country. We already have that. Unfortunately, the stuff was not invented by an US American.