vinutheraj

[0] https://tensorflow.github.io/serving/ [1] https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/blob/master/tensorf...

Then what about driving ? By the same logic, car accidents should be much less. Flights are much safer due to the amount of research done in air-travel safety, in general, and also after every accident. And also because in roads you have too many cars interacting together at the same time, where any one person's small mistake can cause an accident, which is not the case with aeroplanes.

Looper was good, but the ending wasn't logically consistent I think.

Since no one has mentioned it, I would recommend Dredd. It was a good movie going experience. Don't know it would make good viewing outside a cinema, though.

Cloud Atlas was interesting, but not as insightful as it was made out to be.

I'm pretty sure we have a Coca-Cola in the social space. It's called Facebook.

Aren't these arguments contradictory ?

Does one decide not to harm someone, just because we have laws against it ?

By the way, don't we already have laws against corruption, why hasn't this stopped anyone yet ? Are more laws going to stop it ?

This is an example of the wide range of beautiful ways of describing nature. When people say that nature must have causality, you can use Newton's law; or if they say that nature must be stated in terms of a minimum principle, you talk about it this last way; or if they insist that nature must have a local field - sure, you can do that. The question is: which one is right? If these various alternatives are not exactly equivalent mathematically, if for certain ones there will be different consequences than for others, then all we have to do is to experiment to find out which way nature actually chooses to do it. People may come along and argue philosophically that they like one better than another; but we have learned from such experience that all philosophical intuitions about what nature is going to do fail. One just has to work out all the possibilities, and try all the alternatives. But in the particular case I am talking about the theories are exactly equivalent. Mathematically each of the three different formulations, Newton's law, the local field method and the minimum principle, gives exactly the same consequences. What do we do then? You will read in all the books that we cannot decide scientifically on one or the other. That is true. They are equivalent scientifically. It is impossible to make a decision, because there is no experimental way to distinguish between them if all the consequences are the same. But psychologically they are very different in two ways. First, philosophically you like them or do not like them; and training is the only way to beat that disease. Second, psychologically they are different because they are completely unequivalent when you are trying to guess new laws.

The problem in India is lack of development and education and poverty. As long as these issues are not addressed we will never touch the root of the problem, and will be just trying to treat the symptoms.

Creating an extra-body which itself can act as the police and be outside of the parliament and be a concentration of power not elected by the democratic process would be the wrong way to go I feel.

I feel the people have good intention behind coming up with this act, but that alone doesn't mean that this law is the right thing to do. We are trying to solve the symptom and not the disease. Corruption is just the symptom created by the way our society and culture functions, we will have to fix the root cause to fix corruption. I don't think increasing punitive measures is going to curb corruption in the big scale. Corruption as a whole is weaved into our social fabric. We would need a lot more than just a law to remove it.