Everyone, please RTFA, this is blown out of all proportion.
It's a recording device next to the operator's seat (so any conversation it records would not be that private, it would be hearable by the bus operator), and it is to be activated by the bus operator.
It's not like each seat has a hidden microphone to record private conversations.
Has anyone who posts on slashdot ridden on a bus? Do you know how much noise they make?
I think the main problem with any possible model of this type is that no-one is sure whether the universe is finite or infinite in extent. Most likely he is using the size of the observable universe as the "size of the universe in his model", but may scientists think the universe may be infinitely large; and even if finite, there is no reason to believe that its extent coincides with the observable universe (it may be arbitrarily larger).
The idea of a substance being able to support 1000 times its own mass is meaningless and betrays a lack of understanding of physics and engineering.
There is no sensible interpretation of this statement. I don't even know where to begin in explaining why it's meaningless. It has a kind of mismatch of dimensions.
The point is that TensorFlow addresses basically the same problems that CNTK does well-- e.g. recurrent architectures like LSTMs, and good GPU support.
I have personal knowledge of this, as I know the guys who developed this toolkit, and I used to work in their group at Microsoft Research. I have also released open source software from MSR.
To some extent this relates to the regime change that happened after Ballmer left. Microsoft previously shunned open source and the Linux ecosystem. Now they are much more open to it, and are shifting to Linux for (e.g.) their GPU computing. Apparently they are also rewriting a lot of the CNTK code to work better with Linux. (Technically, C++ should work well with both Windows and Linux, but with things like threads there can be differences in the way you do things).
They likely shifted this from the standard MSR license (which only permits research use) to the MIT license mostly in order to increase adoption. Even many academic users do not like research-only licenses because if you become dependent on that type of software it closes the door to later commercialization and some types of collaboration with industry. I myself am an example of this-- previously I did not consider using CNTK because of the license. (In the meantime I have built my own toolkit with similar capabilities, and will likely stick with it now because I understand it).
The group wanted to convert to a more open license for a while but were probably waiting on management and lawyers. They are probably upset that it didn't happen sooner, because in the meantime Google released TensorFlow, which will have taken away a lot of the potential market.
Agreed, this is the issue. I've had the same problems on multiple different pages, including on a math page where the editor who controlled it did not seem to understand the topic himself.
It's important to note that for people who are working, getting $800 from their job vs. $800 from the state are not equivalent at all, because the $800 from the state requires higher taxation, and taxation disincentivizes economic activity. C.f. the "dead hand of the government".
I agree with this. (note: I am also an engineer, and also ex-religious, although from an offshoot of Islam, not Islam itself).
I think the engineer mindset is relevant because engineers are quite logical and willing to follow an argument through to its conclusion.
That is, if they believe in Islam, they are likely to accept arguments that its solutions should be propagated by force if necessary.
Agreed. The ICLR conference, which is a machine learning conference organized by Yann LeCun (who now heads Facebook's machine learning group), is a bit like this.
They use their own site for discussions, not Reddit, though.
Wikipedia is very strict with its 'no defamation of living people' policy. Even if you supply a sourced reference in a reputable places such as a New Yorker article it can get rejected.
This happened to me when I tried to update the Wikipedia page about the prosecutor in the Amanda Knox case with a reference to a New Yorker article about some of his previous misdeeds.
I think $200k a year is quite high for a university professor's salary, unless for someone very senior (e.g. department head). I think $100 to $180k is the more normal range. For someone who is a well-known researcher in a hot field, they can probably expect compensation in the $300k to $500k range or more if they went to industry (educated guess based on what I know of salaries of people in my field).
Part of the issue is that all university departments have a mix of people, some of whom have skills that are useful in industry and the real world, and some of whom don't, and of course their salaries won't reflect that, they will reflect mostly seniority. So when companies hire away those who are actually doing useful stuff, all that remains is those with outdated skills or those with a very academic approach (e.g. people who are better at writing papers than code). That has a bad effect because it's the ones that are hired away that would have been teaching students the most marketable skills.
I do have first-hand experience of this issues (I'm a research professor at a top-ranked university).
At last someone pointing out that there isn't a fixed amount of work.
(Also known as the lump of labor fallacy).
It may be true, on the margin, that H1B workers depress wages for US workers in similar occupations in the short term, but they also help to grow the US economy overall, especially the tech economy, and almost certainly improve living standards for Americans not in that very limited pool. (And they probably have very little effect in the long term, on the US market for tech talent, as they are growing the market by making it more favorable for capital).
I found the article interesting - though I'm still "digesting" it and have yet to read up supporting material. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to point me at some sources about what the poll results gets used for - and, correct me if I'm wrong in "suspecting" that poll results don't reflect election results (in the USA). TIA
Bro-- do you even slashdot? Something tells me you're new around here.
In this instance I don't think we need to be too tight-assed about the philosophy of science, and what it means for something to be scientific.
I think the theories we are talking about are ones that do predict all the phenomena that we observe, just like the Standard Model does, but are in some way more elegant. The situation is, we have an existing theory X that predicts everything we observe, and someone comes along with theory Y that also predicts everything we observe, just like theory X, but some people find theory Y more elegant than X. Now, just because X came along first doesn't make it inherently preferable to theory Y. IMO, theory Y is an equally valid line of inquiry, in just the same way that mathematics is; and ultimately physicists will have to decide whether to spend their time learning theory X or theory Y based on their elegance, ease of use, and so on.
The "falsifiable" theory of science was invented by Karl Popper (IIRC) to distinguish science from things like religion. IMO it's a rather limiting view, and not all philosophers of science accept it as the One True Way. But it doesn't even matter for the present discussion. BOTH theories are falsifisable in that they predict observed phenomena; it's just that they are not differentially falsifiable (I mean, they predict the same thing).
The linked-to blog contains an interesting statement which could be interpreted as bashing Ballmer:
Finally, I'd like to share some background on today’s announcement, because this is the 3rd time the PowerShell team has attempted to support SSH. The first attempts were during PowerShell V1 and V2 and were rejected. Given our changes in leadership and culture, we decided to give it another try and this time, because we are able to show the clear and compelling customer value, the company is very supportive.
Slashdot Mirror
Score:11. WTF? Your post wasn't that funny. Or has Slashdot made the scores binary today? Oh yes, I see they have. Ha ha.
Not after we demonstrate the capabilities of this internet-filtering station.
A non-white person who capitalizes the word 'White' is an unusual thing to encounter.
Everyone, please RTFA, this is blown out of all proportion. It's a recording device next to the operator's seat (so any conversation it records would not be that private, it would be hearable by the bus operator), and it is to be activated by the bus operator. It's not like each seat has a hidden microphone to record private conversations. Has anyone who posts on slashdot ridden on a bus? Do you know how much noise they make?
I think the main problem with any possible model of this type is that no-one is sure whether the universe is finite or infinite in extent. Most likely he is using the size of the observable universe as the "size of the universe in his model", but may scientists think the universe may be infinitely large; and even if finite, there is no reason to believe that its extent coincides with the observable universe (it may be arbitrarily larger).
There is no sensible interpretation of this statement. I don't even know where to begin in explaining why it's meaningless. It has a kind of mismatch of dimensions.
aaand, it's back up
Carthage must be destroyed!
The point is that TensorFlow addresses basically the same problems that CNTK does well-- e.g. recurrent architectures like LSTMs, and good GPU support.
To some extent this relates to the regime change that happened after Ballmer left. Microsoft previously shunned open source and the Linux ecosystem. Now they are much more open to it, and are shifting to Linux for (e.g.) their GPU computing. Apparently they are also rewriting a lot of the CNTK code to work better with Linux. (Technically, C++ should work well with both Windows and Linux, but with things like threads there can be differences in the way you do things).
They likely shifted this from the standard MSR license (which only permits research use) to the MIT license mostly in order to increase adoption. Even many academic users do not like research-only licenses because if you become dependent on that type of software it closes the door to later commercialization and some types of collaboration with industry. I myself am an example of this-- previously I did not consider using CNTK because of the license. (In the meantime I have built my own toolkit with similar capabilities, and will likely stick with it now because I understand it).
The group wanted to convert to a more open license for a while but were probably waiting on management and lawyers. They are probably upset that it didn't happen sooner, because in the meantime Google released TensorFlow, which will have taken away a lot of the potential market.
Agreed, this is the issue. I've had the same problems on multiple different pages, including on a math page where the editor who controlled it did not seem to understand the topic himself.
http://www.economist.com/news/...
It's important to note that for people who are working, getting $800 from their job vs. $800 from the state are not equivalent at all, because the $800 from the state requires higher taxation, and taxation disincentivizes economic activity. C.f. the "dead hand of the government".
I'll pay in blood.. but not my own.
I agree with this. (note: I am also an engineer, and also ex-religious, although from an offshoot of Islam, not Islam itself). I think the engineer mindset is relevant because engineers are quite logical and willing to follow an argument through to its conclusion. That is, if they believe in Islam, they are likely to accept arguments that its solutions should be propagated by force if necessary.
Agreed. The ICLR conference, which is a machine learning conference organized by Yann LeCun (who now heads Facebook's machine learning group), is a bit like this. They use their own site for discussions, not Reddit, though.
This happened to me when I tried to update the Wikipedia page about the prosecutor in the Amanda Knox case with a reference to a New Yorker article about some of his previous misdeeds.
This slashdot comment is being sent back in time from the year 2042 to tell you that this is a very bad idea!
Part of the issue is that all university departments have a mix of people, some of whom have skills that are useful in industry and the real world, and some of whom don't, and of course their salaries won't reflect that, they will reflect mostly seniority. So when companies hire away those who are actually doing useful stuff, all that remains is those with outdated skills or those with a very academic approach (e.g. people who are better at writing papers than code). That has a bad effect because it's the ones that are hired away that would have been teaching students the most marketable skills.
I do have first-hand experience of this issues (I'm a research professor at a top-ranked university).
It may be true, on the margin, that H1B workers depress wages for US workers in similar occupations in the short term, but they also help to grow the US economy overall, especially the tech economy, and almost certainly improve living standards for Americans not in that very limited pool. (And they probably have very little effect in the long term, on the US market for tech talent, as they are growing the market by making it more favorable for capital).
Would upvote if I had mod points.
It was a joke about how no-one on Slashdot reads the articles.
I found the article interesting - though I'm still "digesting" it and have yet to read up supporting material. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to point me at some sources about what the poll results gets used for - and, correct me if I'm wrong in "suspecting" that poll results don't reflect election results (in the USA). TIA
Bro-- do you even slashdot? Something tells me you're new around here.
I think the theories we are talking about are ones that do predict all the phenomena that we observe, just like the Standard Model does, but are in some way more elegant. The situation is, we have an existing theory X that predicts everything we observe, and someone comes along with theory Y that also predicts everything we observe, just like theory X, but some people find theory Y more elegant than X. Now, just because X came along first doesn't make it inherently preferable to theory Y. IMO, theory Y is an equally valid line of inquiry, in just the same way that mathematics is; and ultimately physicists will have to decide whether to spend their time learning theory X or theory Y based on their elegance, ease of use, and so on.
The "falsifiable" theory of science was invented by Karl Popper (IIRC) to distinguish science from things like religion. IMO it's a rather limiting view, and not all philosophers of science accept it as the One True Way. But it doesn't even matter for the present discussion. BOTH theories are falsifisable in that they predict observed phenomena; it's just that they are not differentially falsifiable (I mean, they predict the same thing).
Finally, I'd like to share some background on today’s announcement, because this is the 3rd time the PowerShell team has attempted to support SSH. The first attempts were during PowerShell V1 and V2 and were rejected. Given our changes in leadership and culture, we decided to give it another try and this time, because we are able to show the clear and compelling customer value, the company is very supportive.
BTW, I think the real goal of the article is to drive up prices of palladium futures: a pump and dump.