I'm not sure what acceptable support is, which is one of the reasons I'd like to hear whether you have any actual foundation for your argument.
There are a few learning strategies that animals, including humans, have been observed to use. One is mimicry, which has been demonstrated in primates (just recently for the first time by macaques in the wild), where one animal watches another perform a task then imitates it. Another is reinforcement learning, where an animal becomes more likely to demonstrate a given behaviour due to a positive outcome, or less likely due to a negative one. The general theme is learning through repetition and some form of positive and negative feedback.
Both of those learning strategies have been demonstrated by programs.
You seem to be implying that humans somehow learn differently than programs because the program is "programmed" and we're not. Do you have anything to support that assertion, besides "it's blatantly obvious to anyone with technical experience?" There's fairly good evidence that we've been "programmed" very effectively, and quite beyond what most of us would like to believe, by evolution.
He said modern language.
The GPL v4:
You may not modify, distribute, publish, compile, share, view or in any other way make use of this source code without the express written permission of Richard M. Stallman. This is for the protection of your freedoms, comrade!
Open source is pretty IRRELEVANT to the average user. They want something that lets them run Word and look at Facebook. To anybody with the technical ability to make use of the source, the open parts of OS X are the important ones. Not having the source code to your window manager isn't the end of the world. For example, this situation - the vulnerability is in the open source part, so you can go ahead and patch it yourself.
It's a stupid statement anyway. OS X is partly open source and partly closed. The bug is in the open source bit. So just download a patched version of bash, compile it, and install. Problem solved, just like you could do with any open source OS. People have even written a bunch of scripts to do the whole thing for you.
That's what the giant samurai robot was for.
This was exactly my experience as well. My mother in-law has some of the initial run Phillips CFLs. Her hippy roommate installed them in the kitchen in 1994, and they are still going, but they were like $50 a pop back then. They take longer to "warm up" than the new bulbs do, but they provide solid light at a tiny wattage.
Most the the cheap-o CFLs have worked well for me. But the small socket super compact CFL and LED bulbs for my ceiling fan lights have been horrible. The line noise and vibration coming off the motor just destroys the el-cheapo caps and diodes. Same deal, individual LEDs are fine, but I've seen bad caps on the CFLs and scorches on the LED circuitry.
Learn about deep networks. Google is throwing money at people who can build them.
Your post is entirely reasonable except for:
"but it's not the same as 'human learning' at all."
You need to support that position.
Somebody else already told you about Theano. To add to that, a lot of neural net stuff gets done in Python because Theano will happily take your equation, compile it for a multi-GPU or CPU setup, optimize it, and run it fast.
A neural net is a couple of equations that need to run fast and a lot of data manipulation and visualization. Theano, Cython, a C module, pyOpenCL/pyCUDA, or something equivalent takes care of the little bit that needs to be fast.
My statement is not based on observational evidence alone. Several countries have done the experiment. See the various things Bangladesh has done, for example. There's even a great TED talk on it.
Educating women is by far the most effective means of reducing population growth, and various agencies from national governments to the UN have discovered that it's extremely difficult to do that until people have enough to eat. Otherwise the kids go to work growing food instead of going to school. That's also a contributing factor to poor families having lots of kids - cheap labour to help out growing food or running the business. "Who's going to take care of me when I'm old" seems to be less than a primary concern when you don't have enough to eat.
Since the OP is referring to a population problem.
There aren't. From outside the event horizon, a singularity of a particular mass is indistinguishable from an object with that matter distributed evenly throughout the volume within the event horizon, or a shell of matter right at the event horizon. Never mind from ten thousand light years away.
The other part, about stars never being able to form an object with an event horizon, is, at least in principle, observationally testable. But I don't think we've examined any stellar black hole candidates closely enough.
The slowest population growth (it's negative) is in the first world, among populations that have plenty of food. Your assertion simply isn't supported by reality.
An abundance of food creates leisure time, which allows people, especially women, to do things like go to school. Educated people, especially women, have fewer babies. As has been shown over and over and over, the solution to population growth problems is secure basic needs followed by education. The only problem is that it works too well.