Subject: Deep Learning Workshop - Possibility of live webcast?
From: "Bill Howell. Retired from NRCan. now in Alberta Canada" <>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:56:30 -0600
To: "Asim Roy. General Co-Chair. INNS BigData2015. Arizona StateU. USA" <>,

Question :   Is it worth considering live webcasting of the Deep Learning workshop?   I have no idea of the registration so far, but even if it is very strong, I am sure that many researchers who would like to attend are limited by priorities and funding from attending.

Background :
I have just registered for a 5-day conference in Phoenix Arizona to see progress on a "Safire" project to test an electrical model of the Sun (see my "Quick comments about the Safire project" below if of interest), and it brought to mind the Deep Learning Workshop.  I cannot attend the Phoenix conference for the same problem that I have with the INNS-BigData conference and Deep Learning workshop  - I can't afford the travel given commitment to attending IJCNN and around-the-world family visits to see my daughters. 

The trick is that the EU conference will also have "live webcasting" at a cost of 275 $US, which is much more do-able than the estimated 2,200 $US to actually attend the conference.  So I will watch key sessions from home.   This isn't the best solution - just the only affordable one other than waiting six months or so to see a small selection of [videos, papers] from the conference.  They are using "Live Event Pass" for this :    

I have no idea of how well this will work - but until recently I was attending regular Saturday morning webcasts to do with fundamental theoretical physics.  It fell apart over the last 9 months or so partly because the "new, improved" version of "Fuze Meeting" was dysfunctional for many of us.  But the earlier version was great - allowing [videos, powerpoint, chat, questions and exchanges, etc].  My biggest challenge is bandwidth, as my current connection is OK for most of what I do, but limiting for live video. 

Anyways, just a thought....  and I have to get back to panic last-minute arrangements for our town's annual festival.

INNS BigData2015 San Francisco, 09-11Aug2015
Publicity Co-Chairs :
Bill Howell  -  advisory and assistance
Simone Scardapane -  Social Media, Advertisements in journals/mags,
Teng Teck Hou -  Newsgroups, mailing lists, GoogleGroups, monthly updates from IJCNN OrgCom
José Antonio Iglesias - mass emails, calendars of conferences in journals & mags, postings on society websites

Quick comments about the Safire project
(see and click around for descriptions)

The Safire project modernizes "Torella" experiments originally carried out by Kristian Birkeland of Norway in the late 1800's - early 1900's to model Earth geomagnetism.   Solar application is based on "Electric Universe" (EU) concepts that have been worked on long since, including by Hans Alfen, but in the modern sense many others, usually amateurs (mythologists are driving this, if you can believe that!).   The actual setup of the Safire project is "phenomenologically neutral" to some point, even though it is torella-like in nature. 

I'm not saying the EU concepts are [right or wrong, true or false] - just that it can generate experimentally, long-observed solar behaviour and structures that one has to "patch onto" the Standard Model of the Sun.  This is in contrast to the Standard Model of the Sun (Fred Hoyle and others), which has essentially no direct experimental basis (we cannot run continuous fusion experiments), and which relies on after-the-fact patching of mathematical models to reproduce only a small portion of observed solar behaviours.  In my mind, that approach to science may sometimes be necessary, but it isn't comfortable as I see a real problem in relying solely on complex models that take on, in my view, "small-world universal function approximation" properties, such that even if the basis MAY be shown to be "true",

While I have my reservations, I see the electric model of the sun has some very interesting results and "explanation" capabilities that simply aren't there for the Standard Model.  So, right or wrong, quack or not (actually, it appears that they, and many predecessor, have done very credible work), this is to me something to keep an eye on, in the context of my "Multiple Conflicting Hypothesis" approach to avoid becoming a religious disciple of any scientific concept, and to keep my eyes and mind open.