HP r dum?

"He describes the brain as a massively parallel pattern recognition machine. At the core of the neocortex are millions of hierarchically arranged pattern recognition modules working together to model and predict our environment."

Do you think there is a single person in this field that doesn't think that? Why does he need to "argue" that when it's pretty obvious to everyone?

"Leaders in AI like Kurzweil and Hawkins"? Are you sure you're following who is making real progress in "AI" or at least machine learning? Go check out people like Hinton.

our laser set it off

"I'd love to have a 7-8 inch Surface" - Most people would but you just need to be happy with what God gave you

Amazingly (I knew this poster "smelled" like rebel science), you aren't completely wrong here. We do create a model and we predict based on that model, but the basis of the prediction is pattern matching/detection from previous experience. A pattern match isn't guaranteed (hence the connection to probabilities), but it's the best guess based on experience.

Not sure what you mean by "engine", but neural networks are sometimes evolved instead of trained.

Is this a joke? You can't interleave threads if you only have 1 thread. Do you not understand that? Do you not understand the Power architecture when it comes to threading?

But your post is referring to a single threaded situation, in which case the full power of the core is available to that thread. You get that, right? A single thread running on a 3ghz core will operate at 3ghz. It will not operate at 750mhz as you incorrectly stated in your post.

" that would give 1/4th the CPU" - 4x multi-threading doesn't limit a single threaded workload to go at 1/4th the speed of the processor. Multi-threading just allows the processor to do useful work when that single thread would otherwise be waiting on other resources (e.g. memory), but it doesn't slow down a single thread running by itself.

What really matters is that phone mfg's needed an OS they could use with low or no license fees so they could build phones and try to differentiate themselves. Same reason unix took off in the early 90's - companies could get in the game, add some value and make money.

Don't confuse the "Resource Planning" part of ERP with actually meaning anything. ERP used to be MRP when it was just focused on the manufacturing aspects of a business and specifically planning raw material requirements to meet the deman for the finished goods. But as companies added modules to the suite to encompass the entire enterprise, they decided to change the name to Enterprise Resource Planning because it sounded more "Enterprisey". Sure there is some planning in there and a whole bunch of transaction execution and tracking that really isn't related to planning.

In what sense do you think ERP is dead? The functions are all required and if you buy best of breed individual packages, you still need to integrate them, so either you do it yourself or you buy the ERP package that is already integrated.

I agree that some decisions can be made to break it up into manageable pieces and accept less efficiency, but with an organization of that size you still have a problem of complexity whether using an ERP package or creating point solutions and integrating them.

ERP is basically all of the typical office functions put together in an integrated package. For example, an Inventory module to track items, an Order Entry module to allow customers to order those items, an Accounts Receivable system to track the invoices generated when you shipped items to the customer, etc. etc. It's all integrated so, for example, the inventory transactions and the invoicing transactions all feed to the General Ledger for financial reporting.

It's "great" because you can't really run a company without it unless you want to do it all on paper.

Most of the ERP implementations I have been part of have been successful. Every major corporation has a working ERP system, how do you think that happened?

There are big failures, typically in situations where the size of the project exceeds the experience and capabilities of the people managing them. With something as big as the DoD, there just aren't too many opportunities for anyone to gain the proper experience to know how to make it successful. Something like that needs to be broken into much smaller pieces and you just have to forego some of the efficiencies of a completely integrated non-redundant system in favor of more manageable pieces.