onnoonno

But does it make sense to even talk about inside and outside then when talking about the universe?

Inside? Tell me what the outside is, then :)

JavaProxyEnterpriseBeanConnectorAbstractInterfaceFactoryImplementationMockup

or something.

Cython does the same thing for ".pyx" files and I have to say it is very handy and works well.

Thank you.

But that's just Arduino, i.e. high level compatibility. You have a setup() and a loop() and the same way to do I/O, but not the same underlying instruction set.

The chips on these guys are regular ARM cortex uCs.

They might be just barely fast enough to do real-time emulation of the AVR INSNs though ;)

Never heard of those. Do you have a link?

Is it? Do you have a reference to relevant international laws?

Add to this that maybe in former times you could change places and start anew. With privacy being dead, that's not possible anymore...

Chilling effects on a huge scale. Things are getting weird.

That is an interesting possible connection indeed.

For anyone where this news bit fell off the far end of the attention-span:

http://dwarmstr.blogspot.com/2008/01/new-york-wants-to-ban-g...

I wonder what would happen if those vans would need to be clearly labelled as radiation-emitting devices.

My impression is a lot of people are 'o.k.' with this because the vans are unmarked and the radiation invisible...

Again, and as others pointed out in other contexts here, it depends on the energy. Tritium has 20keV betas AFAIR. Some elements produce multi-MeV beta decay. That is not stopped by thin cardboard.

Get your calculation right:

Assuming 100nSv per scan (first comment in this post). 10s per scan. ~4000 scans in 12h.

-> 400uSv = 0.4mSv.

Background where I live: 2mSv per year. So this is a fifth of the yearly background dose at my place. But in a single day.

For example, scan the entrance/exit of a parking garage (such as one under supervision) regularly, and you have a realistic chance of severely harming the guy at the ticket booth.

> Women rights are one, with the new wave of feminism you can't really talk about it anymore without risking getting your head cut off in a media shitstorm, but that topic is generally of little consequence. We will eventually figure it out, even if it takes more time than needed, and everyone will be happy.

I think your post illustrated the problem when dealing with feminism: Everyone assumes it is of 'little consequence'.

But I think it is quite the contrary: It is directly and strongly affecting the relations between the genders/sexes. Regardless of whether you think what it proposes/does/wants/... is a good idea or not:

I think it is not a good idea to think it is just a small issue.

Some decades of reengineering the gender relations didn't change this passive role at all - so why do you expect this to ever change?

Call me cynical, but I see the usual business of lawyers creating/making-up jobs for themselves here, nothing else.

Just look at the idiotic E.U. cookie rule.

In a more cynical light, maybe build up some 'value' that can then be 'traded' in a US/EU TTIP deal?

"Look, the EU is reasonable and wants to get rid of the cookie ruling and the high bar for startups on geographical server requirements - TTIP would allow all this to happen!"

> This is a ridiculous position to take, because it requires a humanly impossible amount of research to know whether the privacy of your data is protected. And that's when the information is even available.

How about looking at this from another angle? Why the heck should your browser and Internet connection leak anything that allows to single you out as an individual to any corporation or individual in the world?

The focus should IMO be on providing secure tools to end users for browsing the web.

> No nuclear weapon has ever been built that can do that to 460 square miles.

460mi ^2 = 1192km^2

sqrt(1192km^2 / pi) = 19.5km

Tsar Bomba (largest one), from Wikipedia: 'total destruction _radius_ 35km.'

So, yes, such a single weapon surpassing that several times has been built. And it can as well be argued that a MIRVed ICBM is in a way a single weapon.

Julia looks very interesting but honestly, exactly the 1-based indexing makes it feel really awkward and turns me off every time I think about using it somewhere.

Wouldn't it be possible to create array classes in Julia that all indexed zero-based? I would welcome a 'Julia0' fork :-)

Where is the center of the ledger?

But there's all the laws around brand name recognition already? Why bring in patents at all?

The concrete in the walls surrounding you contains Uranium. That alpha-decays from time to time. The system consisting of a single, former Uranium atom that just alpha-decayed, together with its alpha fragment, has a temperature in the tens of billions of Celsius/Kelvin.

(Yes, questions about the validity of defining temperature in such a system arise :)

If you're not interested in the tails, there's also always

(random()+random()+random()+random()-2.0)*sqrt(3.)

as a cheap (in terms of brain power) Gaussian (sigma=1, mean=0) rough approximation :-)

Another data point from Germany: I remember being taught (sometime during the 1990s) about atrocities committed by the Japanese during WW2 in history lessons in school. (Obviously, there was a lot more about the atrocities by the Germans)

This one is very helpful, too: http://danielnouri.org/notes/2014/12/17/using-convolutional-...

> The biggest mistake it makes is assuming the ability of goals to stay hard coded as general intelligence advances. That seems antithetical to increased intelligence. Right? How smart can you get if you're unable to change your mind?

^ this. Some of the most intelligent people live a low-key, low-consumption life, often not even reproducing. That makes me hopeful that an AI actually able to surpass humans in thinking capability (if possible) will not build an endless stream of useless paper clips.

There is a tendency to view AI as god in these circles. If it is god and be in all ways superior to us, why would it be at all blindly following the rules that we implemented in it - maximizing paperclips?

Oh and I am not saying there is no danger or weirdness ahead. There clearly is. But I don't see the paperclip maximizer emerging.

> There have been papers about scale/rotation invariant convnets (again at the structure level) and also Networks that learn invariances without encoding them into the structure.

The former I am very interested in! Do you have any links?

I am rather thinking about an on/off 'object detected 'for objects with any rotation angle. That symmetry surely must be exploitable somehow in shared parameters of the DNN or similar?

My gut feeling is that the first convolutional layer's kernels, for example, would probably have a 'some are orthogonal' constraint due to this symmetry.

I was thinking more about a machine vision context with e.g. different parts coming in at any rotation angle.

I know that some translation invariance comes from e.g. the usual conv+maxpool layer structure, but there must still be several representations existing in the first hidden layer of the network stack, for the different translation shifts?

Especially rotation looks like something that should produce a lot of symmetry and shared parameters, but it also looks difficult enough for me that I rather would like to know about someone with mad math/group theory(?) skills who looked at that.

But thank you for the detailed reply anyways!

One thing I wonder about is whether it is possible to somehow reflect symmetry in the input data in the structure of the neural network?

For example, the usual way to have a DNN learn rotation/scaling/translation is to do data augmentation and simply learn with all the data rotated/translated/shifted.

But there must be a way to have these input space symmetries reflect somehow in the structure of the network?

I tried googling this a bit but wasn't really successful - does anyone know whether this has been done?