AE Public Forum
Antievolution.org is the critic's resource on antievolution. The public bulletin board is a lightly moderated place for general discussions, using a set of rules first implemented in 1992 for the Fidonet "Evolution Echo".
Updated: 10 years 25 weeks ago
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by Bob O'H
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 30 2014,14:20)Has anybody else noticed that Salvador is MIA? No postings in at least a month.
Silently banninated?
Started running a new venture - Prostitutes for Christ?
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 30 2014,14:20)Has anybody else noticed that Salvador is MIA? No postings in at least a month.
Silently banninated?
Started running a new venture - Prostitutes for Christ?
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by Quack
What if Joe would look up Brownian motion?
What if Joe would look up Brownian motion?
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Nomad @ May 14 2014,22:53)Where did I say that there is no RAM in a PC? How can you misread what I repeatedly say that badly?
I also have to explain how the circuit works in a PC.
How biology accomplishes the same thing is another matter where what the equivalent mechanism is named is still "RAM".
Quote (Nomad @ May 14 2014,22:53)Where did I say that there is no RAM in a PC? How can you misread what I repeatedly say that badly?
I also have to explain how the circuit works in a PC.
How biology accomplishes the same thing is another matter where what the equivalent mechanism is named is still "RAM".
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Nomad
Where did I say that there is no RAM in a PC? How can you misread what I repeatedly say that badly?
Where did I say that there is no RAM in a PC? How can you misread what I repeatedly say that badly?
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Now we're back to claims that suggest there is no RAM in the PC used to model the circuit by using code that dimensions a "RAM array" to store all the critter's memories in, by trying to argue with that there is no analogy to RAM in a neural brain when it should be obvious from the way the model works that there is.
No evidence has ever been presented to the contrary of what is stated in the the theory and is in the the models.
I'm getting annoyed by the nameless mudslingers who have nothing better to do than complain over nothing, because they don't like the terminology of science and electronics required to study intelligence.
Now we're back to claims that suggest there is no RAM in the PC used to model the circuit by using code that dimensions a "RAM array" to store all the critter's memories in, by trying to argue with that there is no analogy to RAM in a neural brain when it should be obvious from the way the model works that there is.
No evidence has ever been presented to the contrary of what is stated in the the theory and is in the the models.
I'm getting annoyed by the nameless mudslingers who have nothing better to do than complain over nothing, because they don't like the terminology of science and electronics required to study intelligence.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Nomad
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 14 2014,06:09)Not all "Neural Networks" are even a RAM substitute. Your arguments become ridiculous.
Not a single one is, Gary. Yet you think they can be, despite your quaint little experiment making it quite clear to you that a system like this requires more than just RAM.
How did you miss the implications of your own work that badly?
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 14 2014,06:09)Not all "Neural Networks" are even a RAM substitute. Your arguments become ridiculous.
Not a single one is, Gary. Yet you think they can be, despite your quaint little experiment making it quite clear to you that a system like this requires more than just RAM.
How did you miss the implications of your own work that badly?
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by NoName
Of course you do Gary. But that's due far more to your idee fixe, your presuppositions and fixations, than to any genuine merit in the notion.
The brain does not have RAM.
Ears do not address memory locations by address.
Of course you do Gary. But that's due far more to your idee fixe, your presuppositions and fixations, than to any genuine merit in the notion.
The brain does not have RAM.
Ears do not address memory locations by address.
Categories: AE Public BB
The Bathroom Wall
Post by OgreMkV
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 14 2014,14:24)This will be viral in a few days. Might as well see it here first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....7wz93Lw
Viral now.
Of course, we've had a few dog attacks in our neighborhood too.
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 14 2014,14:24)This will be viral in a few days. Might as well see it here first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....7wz93Lw
Viral now.
Of course, we've had a few dog attacks in our neighborhood too.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
This is a must-read:
Strongly interacting electrons in wacky oxide synchronize to work like the brain
http://phys.org/news....de.html
When I visualize this (more neural) technology in a speech recognition system I see a RAM being addressed by an ear.
This is a must-read:
Strongly interacting electrons in wacky oxide synchronize to work like the brain
http://phys.org/news....de.html
When I visualize this (more neural) technology in a speech recognition system I see a RAM being addressed by an ear.
Categories: AE Public BB
The Bathroom Wall
Post by midwifetoad
This will be viral in a few days. Might as well see it here first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....7wz93Lw
This will be viral in a few days. Might as well see it here first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....7wz93Lw
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by JohnW
Quote (Kattarina98 @ May 14 2014,04:09) Quote (rossum @ May 14 2014,12:34) Quote (George @ May 14 2014,01:43) Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2014,15:52) Quote (George @ May 12 2014,08:33) Quote (timothya @ May 12 2014,00:56)Byers at UD on the intelligence gene:
Quote As said before intelligence can be measured. However its still just measuring a point in time of some people or person.
If conclusions are made then it must be a controlled experiment.
no bringing immigrant peoples from backward nations into our nations AND THEN SCORING IT.
The only reason this stuff is allowed is because they don’t have to admit to a british or aryan or white superiority. Otherwise these books and writers would be burned at the stake.
Its proof its a liberal establishment and not common consent on these matters.
in reality there is no such thing as intelligence. just divisions of knowing.
The bible says Wisdom, first, and then understanding and then knowledge. its all outside us and its there for everybody HOWEVER generally the people you are born into and mingle with are the origin for what the kid picks up.
Thats why there are identity differences. Including motivation to explain female behindness etc.
You would have to think long and hard to deliberately cram so much toxic rubbish into so few words. There are at least three good reasons to keep your mouth closed in an Internet discussion:
1. If you don't know what you are talking about
2. If you don't want to prove that you don't know what you are talking about
3. If you don't want the flies to crap all over your tongue
I have to admit to being a big fan of female behindness.
But will you ever get to the bottom of it?
No, just arsing around.
We need to get back to fundamentals here.
You shouldn't make female anatomy the butt of your jokes.
Cheeky!
Quote (Kattarina98 @ May 14 2014,04:09) Quote (rossum @ May 14 2014,12:34) Quote (George @ May 14 2014,01:43) Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2014,15:52) Quote (George @ May 12 2014,08:33) Quote (timothya @ May 12 2014,00:56)Byers at UD on the intelligence gene:
Quote As said before intelligence can be measured. However its still just measuring a point in time of some people or person.
If conclusions are made then it must be a controlled experiment.
no bringing immigrant peoples from backward nations into our nations AND THEN SCORING IT.
The only reason this stuff is allowed is because they don’t have to admit to a british or aryan or white superiority. Otherwise these books and writers would be burned at the stake.
Its proof its a liberal establishment and not common consent on these matters.
in reality there is no such thing as intelligence. just divisions of knowing.
The bible says Wisdom, first, and then understanding and then knowledge. its all outside us and its there for everybody HOWEVER generally the people you are born into and mingle with are the origin for what the kid picks up.
Thats why there are identity differences. Including motivation to explain female behindness etc.
You would have to think long and hard to deliberately cram so much toxic rubbish into so few words. There are at least three good reasons to keep your mouth closed in an Internet discussion:
1. If you don't know what you are talking about
2. If you don't want to prove that you don't know what you are talking about
3. If you don't want the flies to crap all over your tongue
I have to admit to being a big fan of female behindness.
But will you ever get to the bottom of it?
No, just arsing around.
We need to get back to fundamentals here.
You shouldn't make female anatomy the butt of your jokes.
Cheeky!
Categories: AE Public BB
The Bathroom Wall
Post by fnxtr
What I want to know is who was St. Eve, and why did she need a Tory?
What I want to know is who was St. Eve, and why did she need a Tory?
Categories: AE Public BB
Wildlife
Post by Lou FCD
Quote (dhogaza @ May 12 2014,00:42)Some new bird and mammal photos taken over the last week ...
You are getting some awesome stuff!
Quote (dhogaza @ May 12 2014,00:42)Some new bird and mammal photos taken over the last week ...
You are getting some awesome stuff!
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by Bob O'H
Quote (sparc @ May 09 2014,03:36)Even without extremities gpuccio will still call it a draw:
Quote 17 JLAfan2001 May 8, 2014 at 7:27 am
gpuccio
19% functional is long cry from 80%.
Quote 18 gpuccio May 8, 2014 at 7:38 am
JLAfan2001:
OK, but the ENCODE data still show activity for 80% of DNA. Nothing has changed. We will see how much of that is confirmed as functional in independent ways. Science must be patient.
edited to correct links and spacing
There's a nice review of the case for "junk DNA" in PLOS Genetics, which I'm sure won't be mis-interpreted by 'news' at all.
Quote (sparc @ May 09 2014,03:36)Even without extremities gpuccio will still call it a draw:
Quote 17 JLAfan2001 May 8, 2014 at 7:27 am
gpuccio
19% functional is long cry from 80%.
Quote 18 gpuccio May 8, 2014 at 7:38 am
JLAfan2001:
OK, but the ENCODE data still show activity for 80% of DNA. Nothing has changed. We will see how much of that is confirmed as functional in independent ways. Science must be patient.
edited to correct links and spacing
There's a nice review of the case for "junk DNA" in PLOS Genetics, which I'm sure won't be mis-interpreted by 'news' at all.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 08 2014,22:18)Gary:
Quote
I think that it is rude to demand a citation from someone who is only explaining how Watson works.
Gary:
Quote
Of course there is no mention by star of "temporal correlation" being "the way Watson works" you are the lunkhead who mentioned it.
"star0":
Quote
Here's how you can derive "causation" from Big Data: suppose you have two "factors", call them X and Y. You know, based on data, that X is correlated with Y. But you don't know whether X causes Y, Y causes X, or whether there is no causal relation between them. One example of how they can be correlated, but for which there is no causal relation is if there is a THIRD factor Z that causes both of them. You can render these possibilities as graphical models as:
X --> Y,
X <-- Y, and
X <-- Z --> Y
How can you decide which one it is? Well, you can disentangle the first two, in some cases, through temporal knowledge. e.g. Usually, X --> Y implies that X precedes Y; but the converse is not true. So, you can do some temporal reasoning to eliminate possibilities. And there are other ways to separate them; for example, you can mine text, and look to see how people speak about the relationship between X and Y. Individuals are maybe not to be trusted, but high-quality sources are -- and individuals, in aggregate, are, in some cases (and, you can even do deeper modeling and figure out when they are and when they aren't).
Now what about the third possibility? Well, you need some candidate Zs to work with. And how can you find those? Again, this is where data-mining comes in: you go to the web, and look for co-occurrence of (X,Y) with other factors Z. Once you've located a set of possible Z's, then you need to determine whether the third possibility holds. You can, for instance, ELIMINATE the third case, again, using temporal reasoning. And you can do even more elaborate things.
Gary, what "star0" discusses above *is* temporal correlation. The 2003 Nobel Prize in Economics went to Clive Granger, in part for his development of temporal correlation as the basis for his causality test. What "star0" did not assert was that IBM's "Watson" uses temporal correlation for detecting causality. In fact, "star0" makes no claim at all about any method that "Watson" might be using in the entirety of that post.
To sum up: "star0" does discuss temporal correlation, but does not discuss "Watson" in that post (thus "star0" was not "explaining how Watson works", at least not in the post Gary quoted and I was referring to).
Gary is 0 for 2.
"Lunkhead", when used by Gary, means "perceptive".
Explaining how Watson works was in a number of their threads. That information came from just one of them. This one does maybe go into more than what Watson has but I would not be surprised by it already having that as well.
Star0 used the phrase "temporal reasoning" when talking about "causation" and I'm not sure whether they would agree that "temporal correlation" is a direct substitute. It might be, but in this case the question is why David Ferrucci said “People are so enamored with the data-driven approach that they believe correlation is sufficient."
This evening I'll have some time to go over your leads.
And "lunkhead" was to go with earlier reply about it sometimes getting like Three Stooges in this thread. It's a bit of humor without personal insult like I was responding to that you hurled at me.
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 08 2014,22:18)Gary:
Quote
I think that it is rude to demand a citation from someone who is only explaining how Watson works.
Gary:
Quote
Of course there is no mention by star of "temporal correlation" being "the way Watson works" you are the lunkhead who mentioned it.
"star0":
Quote
Here's how you can derive "causation" from Big Data: suppose you have two "factors", call them X and Y. You know, based on data, that X is correlated with Y. But you don't know whether X causes Y, Y causes X, or whether there is no causal relation between them. One example of how they can be correlated, but for which there is no causal relation is if there is a THIRD factor Z that causes both of them. You can render these possibilities as graphical models as:
X --> Y,
X <-- Y, and
X <-- Z --> Y
How can you decide which one it is? Well, you can disentangle the first two, in some cases, through temporal knowledge. e.g. Usually, X --> Y implies that X precedes Y; but the converse is not true. So, you can do some temporal reasoning to eliminate possibilities. And there are other ways to separate them; for example, you can mine text, and look to see how people speak about the relationship between X and Y. Individuals are maybe not to be trusted, but high-quality sources are -- and individuals, in aggregate, are, in some cases (and, you can even do deeper modeling and figure out when they are and when they aren't).
Now what about the third possibility? Well, you need some candidate Zs to work with. And how can you find those? Again, this is where data-mining comes in: you go to the web, and look for co-occurrence of (X,Y) with other factors Z. Once you've located a set of possible Z's, then you need to determine whether the third possibility holds. You can, for instance, ELIMINATE the third case, again, using temporal reasoning. And you can do even more elaborate things.
Gary, what "star0" discusses above *is* temporal correlation. The 2003 Nobel Prize in Economics went to Clive Granger, in part for his development of temporal correlation as the basis for his causality test. What "star0" did not assert was that IBM's "Watson" uses temporal correlation for detecting causality. In fact, "star0" makes no claim at all about any method that "Watson" might be using in the entirety of that post.
To sum up: "star0" does discuss temporal correlation, but does not discuss "Watson" in that post (thus "star0" was not "explaining how Watson works", at least not in the post Gary quoted and I was referring to).
Gary is 0 for 2.
"Lunkhead", when used by Gary, means "perceptive".
Explaining how Watson works was in a number of their threads. That information came from just one of them. This one does maybe go into more than what Watson has but I would not be surprised by it already having that as well.
Star0 used the phrase "temporal reasoning" when talking about "causation" and I'm not sure whether they would agree that "temporal correlation" is a direct substitute. It might be, but in this case the question is why David Ferrucci said “People are so enamored with the data-driven approach that they believe correlation is sufficient."
This evening I'll have some time to go over your leads.
And "lunkhead" was to go with earlier reply about it sometimes getting like Three Stooges in this thread. It's a bit of humor without personal insult like I was responding to that you hurled at me.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by REC
As silly as UD is, the denizens there are made to look like geniuses by some of the YECs out there.
Take this guy Nathaniel T. Jeanson, who claims to have a PhD from Harvard.
Here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCVE5BwBrUk
Quote We can't say that we are closer to, say, chimps than we are to yeast, because chimps and humans are equally distant from yeast.
Holy hell. You're doing it wrong. I promise you that despite all of us being equally distant to my great aunt, that I can prove I am more closely related to my sister than my first cousin. It is beautiful that in his presentation he has the data to do phylogeny right, then discards it, and from the resulting mess, claims to have "disproved evolution."
Here: http://www.icr.org/article...., he applies a molecular clock to mitochondria, multiplying millions of years or 6000 years by the mutation rate. The number of differences works better for the YEC model. He conveniently forgets mitochondria have small (20,000 base) genomes, and that he has predicted 2-3 million coding changes. Oops. (Not to mention mtDNA is probably not neutral, he picked the most rapidly evolving segment "D-loop" to get his molecular clock, and he never states what genomes he's comparing).
I take it back. This guy can't be that dumb. He's just lying.
As silly as UD is, the denizens there are made to look like geniuses by some of the YECs out there.
Take this guy Nathaniel T. Jeanson, who claims to have a PhD from Harvard.
Here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCVE5BwBrUk
Quote We can't say that we are closer to, say, chimps than we are to yeast, because chimps and humans are equally distant from yeast.
Holy hell. You're doing it wrong. I promise you that despite all of us being equally distant to my great aunt, that I can prove I am more closely related to my sister than my first cousin. It is beautiful that in his presentation he has the data to do phylogeny right, then discards it, and from the resulting mess, claims to have "disproved evolution."
Here: http://www.icr.org/article...., he applies a molecular clock to mitochondria, multiplying millions of years or 6000 years by the mutation rate. The number of differences works better for the YEC model. He conveniently forgets mitochondria have small (20,000 base) genomes, and that he has predicted 2-3 million coding changes. Oops. (Not to mention mtDNA is probably not neutral, he picked the most rapidly evolving segment "D-loop" to get his molecular clock, and he never states what genomes he's comparing).
I take it back. This guy can't be that dumb. He's just lying.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by NoName
Quote (NoName @ April 26 2014,21:41) Quote (NoName @ April 26 2014,09:06) Quote (NoName @ Aug. 24 2013,07:25) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2013,02:44) Quote (didymos @ Aug. 24 2013,02:35) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2013,23:21) Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 22 2013,09:16)Seemingly Mentally Ill Internet Commenter Presumably Functions In Outside World
Why did you post that?
C'mon, Gary. You're not that clueless, are you?
Explain it to me please.
How about we get right on that -- right after you take care of some of the outstanding explanations you owe us.
Like what do you mean when you say natural selection is subjective?
What do you mean when you say natural selection cannot be quantified?
How does 'molecular intelligence' differ from, or go above and beyond, the standard laws of chemistry and physics?
How does 'cellular intelligence' differ from, or go above and beyond, the standard laws of chemistry and physics?
Those will do for starters.
Gee, from August of last year.
Gary sure has moved on, having already answered and explained all the outstanding issues raised here.
In some alternate universe that apparently only exists inside his head -- gods know there's plenty of space for one.
These questions remain, Gary. You have not addressed them, you have not shown them to be irrelevant to your "theory", you have not disqualified them in any respect.
They follow directly from the claims you make and the terms in which you chose to make them.
If you believe we are misconstruing your meaning or intent, it is incumbent on you to rectify your failure to communicate. If we do not misconstrue them, then it is incumbent on you to elaborate and justify the claims we find to be unsupported by logic or evidence.
We have provided evidence for our claims and directed you to massive amounts of additional evidence and reasoning, almost always with specific references. You have provided less than nothing comparable.
As I have already pointed out once today, it's your "theory" -- deal with it.
Bears repeating, as Gary begins his shift from focus on his "theory" to focus on his software. As I predicted would happen.
It is always funny to see Gary complaining about people jumping to conclusions. It is particularly so when the complaint arises in a context where it is clear the ultimate fault lies in Gary's inability to communicate in a clear and straightforward manner coupled with his adamant refusal to engage with questions or criticisms.
Quote (NoName @ April 26 2014,21:41) Quote (NoName @ April 26 2014,09:06) Quote (NoName @ Aug. 24 2013,07:25) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2013,02:44) Quote (didymos @ Aug. 24 2013,02:35) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2013,23:21) Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 22 2013,09:16)Seemingly Mentally Ill Internet Commenter Presumably Functions In Outside World
Why did you post that?
C'mon, Gary. You're not that clueless, are you?
Explain it to me please.
How about we get right on that -- right after you take care of some of the outstanding explanations you owe us.
Like what do you mean when you say natural selection is subjective?
What do you mean when you say natural selection cannot be quantified?
How does 'molecular intelligence' differ from, or go above and beyond, the standard laws of chemistry and physics?
How does 'cellular intelligence' differ from, or go above and beyond, the standard laws of chemistry and physics?
Those will do for starters.
Gee, from August of last year.
Gary sure has moved on, having already answered and explained all the outstanding issues raised here.
In some alternate universe that apparently only exists inside his head -- gods know there's plenty of space for one.
These questions remain, Gary. You have not addressed them, you have not shown them to be irrelevant to your "theory", you have not disqualified them in any respect.
They follow directly from the claims you make and the terms in which you chose to make them.
If you believe we are misconstruing your meaning or intent, it is incumbent on you to rectify your failure to communicate. If we do not misconstrue them, then it is incumbent on you to elaborate and justify the claims we find to be unsupported by logic or evidence.
We have provided evidence for our claims and directed you to massive amounts of additional evidence and reasoning, almost always with specific references. You have provided less than nothing comparable.
As I have already pointed out once today, it's your "theory" -- deal with it.
Bears repeating, as Gary begins his shift from focus on his "theory" to focus on his software. As I predicted would happen.
It is always funny to see Gary complaining about people jumping to conclusions. It is particularly so when the complaint arises in a context where it is clear the ultimate fault lies in Gary's inability to communicate in a clear and straightforward manner coupled with his adamant refusal to engage with questions or criticisms.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by sparc
Even without extremities gpuccio will still call it a draw:
Quote 17 JLAfan2001May 8, 2014 at 7:27 am
gpuccio
19% functional is long cry from 80%.
Quote 18 gpuccio May 8, 2014 at 7:38 am
JLAfan2001:
OK, but the ENCODE data still show activity for 80% of DNA. Nothing has changed. We will see how much of that is confirmed as functional in independent ways. Science must be patient.
Even without extremities gpuccio will still call it a draw:
Quote 17 JLAfan2001May 8, 2014 at 7:27 am
gpuccio
19% functional is long cry from 80%.
Quote 18 gpuccio May 8, 2014 at 7:38 am
JLAfan2001:
OK, but the ENCODE data still show activity for 80% of DNA. Nothing has changed. We will see how much of that is confirmed as functional in independent ways. Science must be patient.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
Heiserman is a pragmatist. Gary, on the other hand, is an ideologue. Thus the dogmatic rejection by Gary of any documentation that his cited source actually embraced a CPU as part of the circuitry to achieve a physically implemented robot.
The documentation doesn't disappear simply because Gary finds it inconvenient, though.
Heiserman is a pragmatist. Gary, on the other hand, is an ideologue. Thus the dogmatic rejection by Gary of any documentation that his cited source actually embraced a CPU as part of the circuitry to achieve a physically implemented robot.
The documentation doesn't disappear simply because Gary finds it inconvenient, though.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
Oh, there was one more bit from Gary worth noting, his continued intransigence in forthrightly admitting that I was right about Heiserman and CPUs. Gary continues to blither about Heiserman's simulations, though those are completely irrelevant to the robots Heiserman actually constructed.
Heiserman's physical gamma-class robot required the use of an 8085 CPU. I've quoted Heiserman discussing exactly that.
Gary continues to ignore that that is established.
Gary also has never ponied up so much as a simulation of a gamma-class Heiserman agent, at least not that I've been able to determine. Gary could correct any misapprehension on that score on my part by specifying which file and what line numbers in his PSC code implements a Heiserman gamma-class generalization of response.
Oh, there was one more bit from Gary worth noting, his continued intransigence in forthrightly admitting that I was right about Heiserman and CPUs. Gary continues to blither about Heiserman's simulations, though those are completely irrelevant to the robots Heiserman actually constructed.
Heiserman's physical gamma-class robot required the use of an 8085 CPU. I've quoted Heiserman discussing exactly that.
Gary continues to ignore that that is established.
Gary also has never ponied up so much as a simulation of a gamma-class Heiserman agent, at least not that I've been able to determine. Gary could correct any misapprehension on that score on my part by specifying which file and what line numbers in his PSC code implements a Heiserman gamma-class generalization of response.
Categories: AE Public BB
