That seems a standard statement from anyone with an unfounded argument, you have spent a lot of effort putting your case across but you haven't offered anything to back it up. It's a bit like religious nuts preaching all day about God but expecting people to believe it without any evidence or even a decent definition of what god is.If you can disprove anything I have said i'd love to know.
Django, it could well be nonsense but having said that can it be proved that that neural processing technology is inferior to sequential based processing systems?
I have puzzled over this for almost 17 years!
Neural processing technology is not new, it is just that sequential processing systems have been considered more effective at solving problems and development of one corrupted the (investment) chances of the other. On balanced consideration of the two processing technologies I do not agree and believe that the problems governments face today are due in part to historical decisions.
"The new challenge facing mankind" in a letter to The Times Newspaper from Sir Peter Smithers, September 23rd, 2003 gave a warning, yet despite the technology advance in 45 years it seems that his letter is true.
Perhaps the UK government did not have the answers when Sir Peter Smithers was in government and it appears that our government still does not have an answer (other than what Peter Smithers concludes).
I do not agree with Sir Peter Smithers, because I believe the government could make better decisions if they tried, in a similar way to how I learned that a Hopfield Network Pattern was not the best pattern for neural processing while studying Artificial Intelligence with the OU.
Django, if the technology ever gets a second chance, it will either run or sink.
Gordon Brown (or another prime minister) will have taken the time to learn about what neural processing technology can do (through simulated modelling). He decides on its potential and compatibility: If it is a success then Blair will have the authorisation required. If a change in government performance is perceived it will be noticed and more Google threads will be generated.
Anyway, what has this got to do with electric bicycles?
How else do you think I knew before flecc about the s-class Kalkhoff?
Neural process computing:
If Blair rides an s-class Kalkhoff, I want one too - providing I do not upset The chief Engineer who always gets the last say.
Flecc, you will have to check it out further and get back to me on the Scientology whiff. If you can disprove anything I have said i'd love to know.
)
I doubt you did if you are referring to it's existence and the S class Panasonic bikes. The S class was created by BikeTech years ago for their Flyer F model by modifying a standard Panasonic unit, this later adopted by Panasonic themselves for the export market and now used by Derby Cycles in the Kalkhoff Pro Connect S.
I was making a comparison with the way you are presenting your knowledge, as something mysterious and beyond other's comprehension, even to being unable to find anything in Google. You can refer to other's responses on this for what I think of that, and also for your comment on disproval.
Torrent99,Nope, still confused.
What I'm gleaning using my own neural processing network, is that the Christina project is some form of neural network that is intended to take inputs from many places, spot patterns and offer advice to the government in particular about running the economy?
Or are you saying that neural processing as a method of computing has been sidelined in comparison to traditional sequential processing?
Well, I'd say that no, it hasn't. Neural processing is simply less well understood in comparison to sequential processing. It also requires more powerful/diffferent hardware to work efficiently. Once it acquires a critical mass of understanding and suitable cheap hardware, and probably a "killer" app, then it'll take off and take it's righful place alongside traditional sequential processing.
Quite simply, most of the problems that have been addressed by computers so far have been more suited to sequential processing. That's probably a chicken and egg problem, but there you go.
Sequential processing is also more easily understood by most people, and vitally is easier to test. Which means it's easier to prove that your solution really works (at least 99% of the time
But simply how this relates to a lack of search results for the Christina project on Google I don't understand. Surely if this is a large academic project, there will be many research papers published, easily searchable via Google. Or are you saying it's a SECRET government project and so off the radar?
