I believe this runs counter to the current politically correct understanding of intelligence or if you prefer intelligence(s) - although I do believe in the latter.
117 karma · joined August 30, 2010
I believe this runs counter to the current politically correct understanding of intelligence or if you prefer intelligence(s) - although I do believe in the latter.
Second the recommendation.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/andrewlilico/100010332/...
However if I'm not mistaken an important point of FPLs was to eliminate side-effects and that the ultimate goal was program verification (not validation). I.e. you could prove a program correct in the mathematical sense. That seems still a long way off.
In this case (emotion), my guess is that parsimonious applies. When there’s all that useful circuitry in the cerebellum (emotion), why reinvent it in the cortex? The cortex obviously has new and very useful circuitry but there will still be many applications where the old circuitry - and thus the cerebellum and emotion - are what’s needed.
Emotion has been around a much longer time than reason (and is found in a wider range of animals). It’s true that it was probably easier for evolution to invent emotion but history is also telling you that the evolutionary advantages of emotion are longer-standing and better tested than reason. Current events tell me that the evolutionary jury is still out as regards human-type reason - or at least the way these various quantities (reason, emotion, intuition, etc) are wired together in the case of human beings. Evolution may need a redo.
Except one thing. Until recently GPUs have only done single-precision calculations. Double precisions has been added with the latest architectures but double is, I believe, still very slow. So this means that single precision results are sufficient for the top500 tests as well as the particular applications (in the Tianhe’s case: weather and oil exploration)?
That’s part of the point isn’t it? Google extends the service for free (for a limited time) and people without smartphones grow to like it (glad that 1800FREE411 is still there) and then when the free service is withdrawn that iota more of dump-phone users are more inclined to buy a smartphone.
Smartphones may be growing like crazy, but there are still vastly more dumb-phones actually in peoples’ hands. Big market, right?
Claims that something is 'complicated' can be used to obscure and it seems to me to that one very clear source of problems in health care is the AMA. On the other hand, the AMA represents pretty much all doctors in the US and if they're earning above market salaries you can bet that most of them would strongly defend that. "They spent so many years in med school"; "they have so much student debt"; and "health care is unimpeachably a matter of quality" - right?
Financial markets are 'complicated' and that's why we can't do anything about those either.
"The Truth About ..." is designed to get your juices flowing and to get you to read.
Caveat lector.