I hope that by the time this has been developed to assist high frequency trading, that a mandatory minimum time of ownership of stocks of -say- a few days has been established for all stock markets. High frequency trading is detrimental for society.
Voorwerp indeed translates into English as object, yet it only refers to objects you can, say, pick up. A car would already be a stretch. A more general translation of the English word object is the Dutch word object. Using the first name of the discoverer and the word voorwerp for an object this size has a ring of understatement to it.
I find the essence in Zed's: "I try to show them how...". The problem is getting the message across, not the statistics. Zed, try harder, and most of all, try other approaches. People are funny creatures.
For a software company, I can see the benefit of a global patent. Then again, if I invent a new fence to keep the kangaroos of my cattlestation, I'd prefer to file for a cheaper Australian patent instead.
They were known at the time. Also, the temperatures mentioned in the article are a bit low: "Steels melt at about 1,150C (2,102F)", as these steels would melt at about 1500 C; 1150 is more in the range of cast iron and very modern high strength steels with 15 % Mn. Also, the magnetic effects quoted in the article are of little relevance for understanding the well known effects of heat on strength of steels, apart from at a very fundamental level, which is currently of little practical use.
From the article, I conclude that this is a social sciences study, not a pseudo science study. You could indeed still debate whether asking people about their sexual habits is accurate, or may be skewed, e.g. due to the inherent differences between characters ("nice guys don't exaggerate"). But in absence of indications of incompetence, there is no reason to doubt these researchers' work, for reasons that it might disagree with your personal experience.
Come to think of it, you appear to agree completely with its findings, and add a nice personal angle to it, which is largely besides the issue.
Then again, if you know a bit more about metallurgy and its terminology, strong and hard are still different properties, yet they are usually follow the same tendency: strong materials are usually hard, and weak materials usually soft. For steel an empirical relation exists that its strength (in MPa) is approximately 3x its hardness (in HV).
Strength and toughness are the properties that usually work against each other.
e.g. forwarding a series of relatively harmless messages to original sender and recipient, adding a note they shoud contact their sysadmin to improve security. Then again, hinsight is a lovely thing.
Although the parent post combines a series interesting sounding concepts, it fails to be clear enough to be as interesting as its moderation suggests.
An artificial neural network (digital or not is irrelevant) has an architecture (lay-out; topography?), which defines a blue-print of its connections and its parameters. Usually, these parameters are optimised with a process called learning for neural networks, and fitting in statistics. Randomness is used to assist this process since the 1950s. One learning algorithm is called simulated annealing, which uses an entropy concept, and was discovered in 1953, heavily using random optimisation steps.
Advanced tinkering has resulted in neural networks that change their architecture to some extent during the learning process; my guess is that this is what is meant with "evolving", but I can't really tell from he post. Maybe the changes in architecture now use a more random approach. Maybe this has been labelled "morphing". And maybe the synthesis is another name for defining a new sub-network. And maybe not.
Most artificial neural networks do not have fringes or cores. Cascading neural networks may have; and other more advanced may have those as well. To me it seems the parent post discusses these, or a hybrid expert system-neural network approach, and they are indeed close to the brain if you place your head right on top of your CPU.
The book "Robots op zee" (Robots at sea, P.W. Adriaans) deals with building a highly automated full-scale sailing boat to cross the Atlantic. Their first approach to control the boat was unsuccessful: it involved neural networks. The second approach was more successful, and involved expert systems in a cascading set-up, having a helmsman unit, a navigator unit, and a captain unit, a.o. The helmsman unit had windward and leeward defined in its internals, which proved by no means trivial. It is no project a pedestrian hacker would pull off in a few months.
Another main hurdle for sailing oceans unmanned is the *robustness* of the ship's sensors: the ocean is a hostile place, and Adriaans is doubtful whether the sufficiently robust sensors are available at all.
So (1)read the book, (2)have fun, and (3)good luck.
Both the showdown and the demand for an apology appear to be in stark contrast with the usual composure of both ninja and kung-fu practicing monks. Indeed file under "funny", and funny only.
Slashdot Mirror
I won't enjoy it.- Marvin, the Paranoid Android
I hope that by the time this has been developed to assist high frequency trading, that a mandatory minimum time of ownership of stocks of -say- a few days has been established for all stock markets. High frequency trading is detrimental for society.
...Pope Picks God over Physics For Big Bang
[[ ducks ]]
Voorwerp indeed translates into English as object, yet it only refers to objects you can, say, pick up. A car would already be a stretch. A more general translation of the English word object is the Dutch word object. Using the first name of the discoverer and the word voorwerp for an object this size has a ring of understatement to it.
I find the essence in Zed's: "I try to show them how ...".
The problem is getting the message across, not the statistics.
Zed, try harder, and most of all, try other approaches. People are funny creatures.
... otoplastics
In other words: "reasonably intelligent design"
For a software company, I can see the benefit of a global patent. Then again, if I invent a new fence to keep the kangaroos of my cattlestation, I'd prefer to file for a cheaper Australian patent instead.
They were known at the time. Also, the temperatures mentioned in the article are a bit low: "Steels melt at about 1,150C (2,102F)", as these steels would melt at about 1500 C; 1150 is more in the range of cast iron and very modern high strength steels with 15 % Mn. Also, the magnetic effects quoted in the article are of little relevance for understanding the well known effects of heat on strength of steels, apart from at a very fundamental level, which is currently of little practical use.
From the article, I conclude that this is a social sciences study, not a pseudo science study. You could indeed still debate whether asking people about their sexual habits is accurate, or may be skewed, e.g. due to the inherent differences between characters ("nice guys don't exaggerate"). But in absence of indications of incompetence, there is no reason to doubt these researchers' work, for reasons that it might disagree with your personal experience. Come to think of it, you appear to agree completely with its findings, and add a nice personal angle to it, which is largely besides the issue.
Then again, if you know a bit more about metallurgy and its terminology, strong and hard are still different properties, yet they are usually follow the same tendency: strong materials are usually hard, and weak materials usually soft. For steel an empirical relation exists that its strength (in MPa) is approximately 3x its hardness (in HV).
Strength and toughness are the properties that usually work against each other.
e.g. forwarding a series of relatively harmless messages to original sender and recipient, adding a note they shoud contact their sysadmin to improve security. Then again, hinsight is a lovely thing.
Although the parent post combines a series interesting sounding concepts, it fails to be clear enough to be as interesting as its moderation suggests.
An artificial neural network (digital or not is irrelevant) has an architecture (lay-out; topography?), which defines a blue-print of its connections and its parameters. Usually, these parameters are optimised with a process called learning for neural networks, and fitting in statistics. Randomness is used to assist this process since the 1950s. One learning algorithm is called simulated annealing, which uses an entropy concept, and was discovered in 1953, heavily using random optimisation steps.
Advanced tinkering has resulted in neural networks that change their architecture to some extent during the learning process; my guess is that this is what is meant with "evolving", but I can't really tell from he post. Maybe the changes in architecture now use a more random approach. Maybe this has been labelled "morphing". And maybe the synthesis is another name for defining a new sub-network. And maybe not.
Most artificial neural networks do not have fringes or cores. Cascading neural networks may have; and other more advanced may have those as well. To me it seems the parent post discusses these, or a hybrid expert system-neural network approach, and they are indeed close to the brain if you place your head right on top of your CPU.
The book "Robots op zee" (Robots at sea, P.W. Adriaans) deals with building a highly automated full-scale sailing boat to cross the Atlantic. Their first approach to control the boat was unsuccessful: it involved neural networks. The second approach was more successful, and involved expert systems in a cascading set-up, having a helmsman unit, a navigator unit, and a captain unit, a.o. The helmsman unit had windward and leeward defined in its internals, which proved by no means trivial. It is no project a pedestrian hacker would pull off in a few months. Another main hurdle for sailing oceans unmanned is the *robustness* of the ship's sensors: the ocean is a hostile place, and Adriaans is doubtful whether the sufficiently robust sensors are available at all. So (1)read the book, (2)have fun, and (3)good luck.
Both the showdown and the demand for an apology appear to be in stark contrast with the usual composure of both ninja and kung-fu practicing monks. Indeed file under "funny", and funny only.