I'm saying "why would be assume a similar flaw in a biological system because computer simulations have a flaw".
Nobody's assuming; scientists are asking a question.
I think jumping to the possibility that biological systems share the same weaknesses as computer programs is a bit of a stretch.
I've not come across the phrase "jumping to the possibility" before. If I 'jump' to giving this a possibility of 2%, is that a 'stretch'?
If a deep neural network is biologically inspired we can ask the question, does the same result apply to biological networks? Put more bluntly, 'Does the human brain have similar built-in errors?
And, my second question, just because deep neural networks are biologically inspired, can we infer from this kind of issue in computer programs that there is likely to be a biological equivalent? Or has everyone made the same mistake and/or we're seeing a limitation in the technology?
Maybe the problem isn't with the biology, but the technology?
Or are we so confident in neural networks that we deem them infallible? (Which, obviously, they aren't.)
You're just repeating the question asked in the summary.
"Monitoring" is an awfully loose term. Could this, for instance, apply to such things as the persistant port scanning (e.g. "monitoring" which ports a user has open on a given IP) and thus have implications for operations like Shodan HQ, or even the periodic scans of the entire Internet done by the likes of H.D. Moore and other companies or universities conducting research?
Research is conducted based on the data available. If stronger protocols reduce the amount of available data, research will continue with that reduced amount of data.
If some research specifically requires more data, that's OK. That's called 'performing an experiment', and there are numerous procedures which can be followed to do this. One thing they all have in common is that if they involve people, like Internet monitoring does, then it must pass an ethics board and gain consent from all of the subjects involved.
If that were the case today, there wouldn't be all of this mess playing out.
In other words, a God-like observer with perfect knowledge of the brain would not consider it non-computable. But for humans, with their imperfect knowledge of the universe, it is effectively non-computable.
What they're saying is that there are limits, beyond undecidability, when a human mind tries to study itself. It's an algorithmic analogy to the classic data-storage problem of trying to imagine, using your mind, the whole contents of your mind. Via recursion, that can't be done. Likewise, TFA is saying that we can't use our minds to compute some things about our minds, even though an outside observer with perfect knowledge of our mind could do so.
The reference to PCs is hence entirely wrong. What they're saying is that if a PC worked like our brain, it would be limited in its introspection ability compared to, for example, a hypervisor on which it's running.
Because guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
The groupings that emerge when ordered by homicides per 100,000 is interesting. The most dangerous seem to be quasi-dictatorial republics in the Americas. Unsurprisingly this includes the USA.
Some people prefer the high-quality version and are willing to pay extra, others are unwilling to pay extra, or have poor vision and think the low-quality version is good enough.
Others think that the quality of a movie cannot be measured in pixels.
I remember one of my Computer Architecture lecturers lamenting the end of of punchcard era.
Gone are the days of being able to see how hard a PhD student is working by counting the boxes of punchcards in their office.
Gone are the days when sending code to be compiled meant everyone could go to the pub.
I don't want colleagues or (future) employers to know
Then why put it right there in your username?
Restricting yourself from options doesn't necessarily make you a better programmer.
The point is not that we should restrict our choice of technology as programmers; in fact, the more technologies we play with the better programmers we will become. However, the point is that sometimes a specific choice of technology in a project *must* restrict the other technologies we can use in that project.
For example, if our project requires that we always call some cleanup procedure after using some resource, we may choose to ban GOTO, exceptions and call/cc *in that project* since they break the logical flow of procedure calls. TFA is saying that massively-parallel functional code can be completely ruined if we allow even the *possibility* of side-effects, so we may choose to ban side-effects *in that project*.
to have monads is to compromise functional programming.
How so? If anything, monads are one of the great success stories of (pure) functional programming.
There are lots of interesting monads which are literally useless in the presence of effects. For example, side-effects can:
Leak private references from the Single Thread monad, making its encapsulation useless.
Perform irreversible changes, making monads like Software Transactional Memory and Backtrack/Undo useless.
Enter infinite loops, making the Partial monad useless.
Break referential transparency, making Memoisation useless.
1. You pay Comcast for Internet access at X speed.
2. Netflix pays Amazon and others for Internet access at Y speed ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... )
3. You pay Netflix to send you movies via those lines that you both pay for.
4. Comcast holds your content hostage, wanting an extortion payment from NetFlix.
The point about NetFlix paying for bandwidth is important, since Comcast keep claiming things like "they shouldn't get a free ride" and "somebody needs to pay for the infrastructure", but they *were* paying for infrastructure; just not Comcast's (directly, anyway).
This is why open source is so important.
How so? TrueCrypt is neither Open Source or Free Software. It's freeware (ie. proprietary).
Zuckerschmuck saying "teach them to code and everything will be great", then he really is clueless and out of touch. But, we knew that anyway.
More likely is that Zuckerberg, being at the top of an established pyramid, would love to see a huge influx of programmers into the job market.
Wages would come down, saving money for all established players. Average quality would also come down, making it more difficult for startups to disrupt the status quo.
It's the same as all this visa and lack-of-STEM nonsense.
Note that the words "could have" are used, which makes your point moot. They are not claiming that the Universe formed spontaneously from nothing, they are claiming that such claims cannot be refuted (yet). Or, alternatively, they're claiming that theories involving from-nothing Universes do not refute existing results; unlike, say, a theory which allows faster-than-light travel, which *would* refute existing results, and therefore have a much larger burden of proof (ie. it would have to be able to replace relativity).
What kinds of useful objects do you envisage being printed which aren't available from a local store? I've been following 3D printing for a while and have helped build a few machines, but the only objects I've seen printed are either purely aesthetic (eg. keyrings) or could be bought from a local shop in less time than the print takes.
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra
