icandoitbetter

The idea was hardly original in 2001. What made you start this in 2011?

Jealous?

Good one.

Exactly. A functional description of genius, i.e. one that is applied to subjects meeting certain criteria, is the only description that makes sense. Let's not forget that genius does not describe a particular brain configuration, but rather a specific perception/archetype that exists in some cultures.

Actually, it's extremely easy to stop being a genius. No need to damage your brain; the only thing required is being prone to social conditioning.

No, Inception had a mediocre direction, atrocious dialogue, wooden characters, overcomplicated-without-being-deep plot. Not that I take the Golden Globes seriously, but I'm certain that Inception did not deserve the award.

>All the teacher did was change the names of things; the underlying structure of the class is disappointingly standard.

The name of a thing is an integral part of the thing. Often, solving a problem means reformulating the problem in different terms.

Arbitrary from the software developer's point of view, perhaps. But don't forget that *.0s have a clear marketing value.

Memories was a feature that was desperately needed. Everything else is meh. How many times do they have to change the design of the same pages without adding anything new?

This is the same case.

AIDS has actually become manageable, and most HIV+ patients in the developed world die of other causes (cancer, aging, etc.) instead of AIDS. So I wouldn't be too sure.

Let's apply a single term to everything until it loses all of its meaning!

Oh-come-on. With the same logic, neural-nets were applied in a thousand and one domains. The problem of object tracking has been solved a thousand times in the past. Even if Numenta's algorithm is better at it than every other solution, you still can't call this a major result!

Even Hawkins himself has admitted that his hierarchical network design hasn't caused the huge bang that he expected it to cause.

Jeff Hawkins began a few decades ago by criticizing all those neural-net researchers who were all promises and no results and (surprise!) he's become one of them now.

Started a web server to try it. Not usable at the moment. Does't seem very promising either. Will check back for updates in a year.

"If it makes it impossible for me to fire you because you are smoking pot as a result of productivity loss, it's impeding on my rights, sorry. The California law would have made it "discrimination" to do so, which is just ridiculous."

So you're saying that you're unable to fire someone who doesn't perform as well as you wanted (be it because of pot or sheer incompetence)? I don't think that's actually true... Sorry.

"Do you want someone under the influence flying airplanes, driving a school bus, or operating machinery that could potentially harm others? Seriously? I've seen enough people high to know how scary a thought this truly is."

Do you want someone under the influence of alcohol flying airplanes, driving a school bus, or operating machinery that could potentially harm others? Seriously? I've seen enough people drunk to know how scary a thought this truly is.

Wait...

"Right. Because a drug that many times causes short-term memory loss and paranoia is going to help someone's productivity."

Yeah, as we all know no drugs ever have negative side effects while still having positive effects. But okay, I agree that high people are less likely to perform well. All that is, however, besides the point: if they don't work well, you can fire them. You don't have to bring up pot to make your case; they aren't doing their job well, they're out. The law allows you to kick people out because they don't do the job well.

Again, how many people do you see coming to work drunk? I'd guess not many. Why do they not come to work drunk? Because they wouldn't be able to perform very well. Why do they care about performing well? Because they want to keep their jobs. I don't see how anything would be different with marijuana.

>You also say it's your body and you can do what you want. The law proposed in California would make it difficult to fire someone that smokes pot. I don't agree with this. This takes away my right as a business owner.

So do you consider your right as a business owner to be more important than the fundamental right to do whatever you want to your body? Seriously?

And EVERYBODY IS DRUGGED in this country. Some drink coffee. Some drink alcohol. Some take anti-depressants. Some take anxiolytics. The performance of your workers should be your only concern; the "why" behind their performance should not bother you. If someone gets high all the time and is able to produce amazing output, then why would you fire him? On the other hand, if someone gets high all the time and is terrible at his job, you have a reason to fire him that is cause-independent: he is not performing well. Why would you care how people like to cope with reality? The only thing that should matter for you is how useful they are to you for a given purpose.

Reality is harsh. People try to cope with it with their own tools. Different tools work for different people. Drugs are such tools.

Good to see that Kinect has been hacked that fast. It's a shame that he's not willing to share code but this is a good indicator that open-source drivers are coming fast enough.

Ubuntu 10.10, awesome, gnome do, emacs, eclipse, bash, (i)python, ghc(i), git, trac, chromium (& vimium), openoffice, gmail, gcalendar, evernote, pidgin, xchat, grooveshark.