Welcome to The New BLUE BOARD FORUMS


Also, please feel free to visit our simple THREADED message board.

To subscribe to our RSS feed
to see new & updated posts automatically

You are not logged in. Would you like to login?

POLITICS » Did anyone see tRUMP's "white tie" outfit in the UK with Queen Liz ?? » 6/08/2019 5:30 pm

Merlin
Replies: 10

Go to post

Trump Was Filling In For the Court Jester, Yorick.

POLITICS » Trump's Tax Returns - More Than Meets the Eye? » 5/08/2019 6:32 pm

Merlin
Replies: 2

Go to post

President Trump's glaring secretiveness about his Federal tax returns appears to be rather exaggerated considering the fact that predecessors were more than happy to disclose their tax returns.

The most common explanation seems to be that Trump's tax returns will reveal that:

1. Trump is not nearly as wealthy as he claims to be

2. Or that Trump takes questionable deductions

Neither reason nor even both together seem worth the brouhaha.

I recall reading Trump or maybe it was Michael Cohen or Rudy Giuliani or someone in Trump's camp saying the Trump's tax returns would reveal proprietary business secrets the disclosure of which to competitors would be harmful to President Trump and Trump Enterprises monetarily.

But what secrets of the trade could there be thattrump has not already sold to any buyer who stepped up with the price in hand in Trump's various books, such as the art of the deal, or at Trump University?

I think that the secret that Trump fears will be revealed by an examination of his tax returns by forensic accountants is that Trump's financial empire is a leveraged house of cards, a self-inflated bubble ready to be pricked at any moment by happenstance, coincidence or enemy action.

A house of cards financial model that Trump is now applying to the USA.


Donald Trump appeared alone on the cover of Forbes magazine for the first time on May 14, 1990. The story inside offered a devastating look at his finances. 

Why We Took Trump Off The Forbes 400 During His Decade Of Tax Losses 
[color=#000000][url]https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2019/05/08/why-we-took-trump-off-the-forbes-400-during-his-decad

POLITICS » Great Chart: How Biased and/or Fake Are News Sources » 4/24/2019 8:33 am

Merlin
Replies: 2

Go to post



A very useful chart I think because you can also use it to gauge your own bias and gullibility.

The SCIENCES » First photo of a black hole. » 4/19/2019 5:07 pm

Merlin
Replies: 13

Go to post

How do they know that is what a Black Hole looks like?

FORUM HELP & FAQ » Feel free to offer suggesions, ask questions, or complain » 3/08/2019 1:38 pm

Merlin
Replies: 5

Go to post

Ever thought about updating the picture? 



 

The CREATIVE ARTS » Rembrandt in the Blood » 3/01/2019 10:28 pm

Merlin
Replies: 2

Go to post

An Obsessive Aristocrat Rediscovered Paintings and an Art-World Feud



No one had spotted a new painting by the Dutch master for four decades — until the scion of a storied Amsterdam family found two.

[url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/magazine/rembrandt-jan-six.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/magazine/rembrandt-jan-six.html

[/url]
Jan Six XI in his gallery in Amsterdam last year.

At first I presumed he would be Dutch but was puzzled by his name which sounded Chinese.

The CREATIVE ARTS » A philosopher argues that an AI can’t be an artist » 2/25/2019 4:53 pm

Merlin
Replies: 4

Go to post

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612913/a-philosopher-argues-that-an-ai-can-never-be-an-artist/Creativity is, and always will be, a human endeavor.


  • by Sean Dorrance Kelly
  •  
  • February 21, 2019
  • Portrait of Edmond Belamy (2018)
  • Created with AI algorithms called GANs by Parisian art collective Obvious, sold for $432,500.



I thought it was a very interesting read and food for thought.

And I have the temerity to suggest that Professor Kelly, in his analysis, is guilty of anthropocentrism to the exclusion of AI entities. Thus his conclusions are parochial. And I think that leonine AI entities would beg to differ.

[color=#000000]"Suppose the best and brightest deep-learning algorithm is set loose and after some time says, “I’ve found a proof of a fundamentally new theorem, but it’s too complicated for even your best mathematicians to understand.”This isn’t actually possible. A proof that not even the best mathematicians can understand doesn’t really count as a proof. Proving something implies that you are proving it to someone. Just as a musician has to persuade her audience to accept her aesthetic concept of what is good music, a mathematician has to persuade other mathematicians that there are good reasons to believe her vision of the truth. To count as a valid proof in mathematics, a claim must be understandable and endorsable by some independent set of experts who are in a good position to understand it. If the experts who should be able to understand the proof can’t, then the community refuses to endorse it as a proof.For this reason, mathematics is more like music than one might have thought. A machine could not surpass us massively in creativity because either its achievement would be understandable, in which case it would not mas

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum

Also, please feel free to visit our simple THREADED message board.


Moderators: Pikes Peak 14115 & Amadeus & Poppet and Administrator: Siagiah