Slashdot Mirror


IBM Takes a (Feline) Step Toward Thinking Machines

bth writes "A computer with the power of a human brain is not yet near. But this week researchers from IBM Corp. are reporting that they've simulated a cat's cerebral cortex, the thinking part of the brain, using a massive supercomputer. The computer has 147,456 processors (most modern PCs have just one or two processors) and 144 terabytes of main memory — 100,000 times as much as your computer has."

428 comments

  1. news for nerds by blitzkrieg3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (most modern PCs have just one or two processors)

    Aren't we expected to know that? This is /. after all...

    1. Re:news for nerds by barbariccow · · Score: 1

      Wow! You can buy processors that aren't dual-core? Even the cheapest $300 computers on dell.com don't have one processor.

    2. Re:news for nerds by Straterra · · Score: 1

      Even the cheapest $300 computers on dell.com don't have one processor.

      Actually, they do. Dual core != Dual processor.

    3. Re:news for nerds by Apatharch · · Score: 1

      If you define "modern" as being built in the last two years or so, then surely most modern computers have either two or four.

      And of course that's further assuming that "processors" correspond to CPU cores; include GPUs and the number varies even more widely.

      Or you could ask a typical non-technical user who will tell you that the processor is the big box that the monitor plugs into, so of course they have only one.

      Point is, "processor" is so vague a term that if you're really going to nitpick the number in a typical machine could be almost anything.

    4. Re:news for nerds by visualight · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes it does, don't be pedantic.

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    5. Re:news for nerds by cryoman23 · · Score: 0

      ya i know really... i have 4 cores but then again its only 1 CPU but still 4 slammed into one.... o well

      --
      epic sig..... ya i got nothing
    6. Re:news for nerds by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1

      Yes it does, don't be pedantic.

      Technically is a single Core2Duo/Quad or Core iX CPU considered SMP? I would guess no they are not.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    7. Re:news for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a quote. Pay attention next time.

    8. Re:news for nerds by egr · · Score: 1

      Firstly, yes they are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric_multiprocessing#SMP-capable_processors Secondly, what does SMP has to do with anything?

    9. Re:news for nerds by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is. You must be thinking of the ol' hyperthreading technologies. Those are two processors on one die.

    10. Re:news for nerds by omnichad · · Score: 1

      stupid people don't make terms vague. A uvula is not exclusive to the female anatomy either. It's a technical term with a specific meaning. Sure, you can argue that language isn't static, and that dictionary definitions only come through long traditions of common usage. But as a technical term it would keep its original meaning as the commoner use of the term fades off. No matter how many times you say "PIN Number" it's still technically wrong, for another example.

    11. Re:news for nerds by WinterSolstice · · Score: 0

      I think it was for perspective - most of the /. crowd probably run machines with far more processors than that ;)

      --
      An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
    12. Re:news for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The summary is actually a paragraph quoted from TFA. But you aren't expected to know that. This is /. after all...

    13. Re:news for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, with 12GB system memory this machine has a lot less than 100,000 times that amount...

    14. Re:news for nerds by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      If you define "modern" as being built in the last two years or so, then surely most modern computers have either two or four.

      Considering that laptops are most computers, is that true? I guess you're right that even most laptops at this point are probably dual-core. Just not sure about it.

      Point is, "processor" is so vague a term that if you're really going to nitpick the number in a typical machine could be almost anything.

      True that. I've always wondered what Hyperthreading counts as.

    15. Re:news for nerds by Forge · · Score: 1

      "...and 144 terabytes of main memory — 100,000 times as much as your computer has."

      *my* Computer has 192 GB of RAM, you insensitive clod.

      --
      --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    16. Re:news for nerds by runyonave · · Score: 1

      This is what happens when spelling nazis make redundant comments. I guess fascism is still in.

    17. Re:news for nerds by kenj0418 · · Score: 2, Funny

      and 144 terabytes of main memory — 100,000 times as much as your computer has.

      What is that in library-of-congresses?

    18. Re:news for nerds by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, yes it is.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric_multiprocessing

      In computing, symmetric multiprocessing or SMP involves a multiprocessor computer architecture where two or more identical processors can connect to a single shared main memory. Most common multiprocessor systems today use an SMP architecture. In the case of multi-core processors, the SMP architecture applies to the cores, treating them as separate processors.

      You disagree with Wikipedia. That means you've been proven wrong in front of the whole Internet. Hang your head in shame.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    19. Re:news for nerds by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually most maybe but almost all netbooks have a single core CPU. So yes I would say that most modern PCs have one or two CPUs.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    20. Re:news for nerds by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 2

      Firstly, yes they are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric_multiprocessing#SMP-capable_processors Secondly, what does SMP has to do with anything?

      Oh you know, that thing you do with dual processors? Just sayin'.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    21. Re:news for nerds by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Informative

      The quote was from an AP story on Yahoo. It isn't slashdot, after all.

    22. Re:news for nerds by nschubach · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was trying to figure out who they were talking about when they said "your computer." ;)

      The review looks like it was written for a grade school presentation with that and the processor comment.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    23. Re:news for nerds by nschubach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I always thought Hyper Threading was ...
      "For each processor core that is physically present, the operating system addresses two virtual processors" - Wikipedia. Not two actual processors.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    24. Re:news for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be plainly wrong then.

      Its a single processor with multiple cores of execution.

      Just because the masses believe dual core = dual processor doesn't make it right.

    25. Re:news for nerds by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Informative

      Technically is a single Core2Duo/Quad or Core iX CPU considered SMP? I would guess no they are not.

      Funnily enough, a single Core i7 or Opteron is SMP, but if you have multiple, then it isn't, it's NUMA because not all the processors have Symetric access to memory.

      Core 2 is SMP for all standard configurations.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    26. Re:news for nerds by jellomizer · · Score: 0

      No I think most of them are running 10 - 15 year old CPU the way they are always so worried about Linux, Windows, OS X taking up too much resources.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    27. Re:news for nerds by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Sorry, pronoun trouble. Those = Core 2 Duo/Quad and so on.

    28. Re:news for nerds by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 0, Troll

      If anyone is still reading and has mod points mod parent up!

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    29. Re:news for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also wonder, what number of processors (obviously not one or two) was common in the past?

    30. Re:news for nerds by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      and 144 terabytes of main memory -- 100,000 times as much as your computer has.

      What is that in library-of-congresses?

      Twelve.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    31. Re:news for nerds by adonoman · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that all those 144,000 processors in the "cat brain" are not hooked up for SMP - it'd be pretty much ridiculous to handle. Not even AMD Opterons are SMP. SMP is just one of many ways to hook up more than one processor to RAM.

    32. Re:news for nerds by weirdcrashingnoises · · Score: 1

      Ha, I've heard rumors of this so called "sky" but I doubt it's all that great. I'm perfectly content doing a google picture search of "sky" in my parents basement.

      --
      sigs... don't talk to me about sigs....
    33. Re:news for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be plainly wrong then.
      Its a single processor with multiple cores of execution.

      Do you know what cores are? Multiple independent CPUs. Multi-core is putting multiple processors on a single chip.

      Caveat: that's assuming a definition of "processor" that means CPU and not "package containing a silicon wafer."

    34. Re:news for nerds by WinterSolstice · · Score: 1

      I always assumed that was because most of their processing power was being used to encrypt OGG files :D

      --
      An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
    35. Re:news for nerds by Stupendoussteve · · Score: 1

      Cool story, bro.

    36. Re:news for nerds by camperdave · · Score: 1

      What color is the sky in your world? Note: In mine it's blue!

      In mine it's black. It's only blue when I'm in THEIR world.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    37. Re:news for nerds by egr · · Score: 1

      SMP by definition is "computer architecture where two or more identical processors can connect to a single shared main memory." So again firstly not all multiprocessors are symmetric (cores identical) and secondly as Mr. Adonoman has noted (in case of cat brain emulator) connecting that number of processors to shared memory is not a very smart thing to do. And I'm not even talking about data cache coherence...

    38. Re:news for nerds by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What I want to know is how is the fact that you guessed supposed to make your erroneous spouting better?

      When you spout misinformation, which is a serious problem on the internet (i'm looking at you conspiracy theorists), the fact that you guessed doesn't absolve you, since 15 seconds effort on your part would have meant 1 less piece of misinformation forever preserved.

      I propose that you sir are an internet asshole (not that this particular piece of misinformation means a goddamn thing, since everyone who reads /. knew you were wrong, but THINK OF THE KITTENS!)

      Point is, misinformation is a problem here, and being glib about the fact that you're a lazy trollop makes it worse, not better.

    39. Re:news for nerds by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered what Hyperthreading counts as.

      Marketing bullshit.

    40. Re:news for nerds by Nathrael · · Score: 1

      Approximately 14.4.

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
    41. Re:news for nerds by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      (most modern PCs have just one or two processors)

      Aren't we expected to know that? This is /. after all...

      Yeah, someone needs to write their own summary when things get that dumbed down. I also like how they seem to know how much main memory i have on my computer. Amazing!
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    42. Re:news for nerds by heteromonomer · · Score: 1

      What I want to know is how is the fact that you guessed supposed to make your erroneous spouting better?

      When you spout misinformation, which is a serious problem on the internet (i'm looking at you conspiracy theorists), the fact that you guessed doesn't absolve you, since 15 seconds effort on your part would have meant 1 less piece of misinformation forever preserved.

      I propose that you sir are an internet asshole (not that this particular piece of misinformation means a goddamn thing, since everyone who reads /. knew you were wrong, but THINK OF THE KITTENS!)

      Point is, misinformation is a problem here, and being glib about the fact that you're a lazy trollop makes it worse, not better.

      Somebody please mod parent up. This is +5 Insightful.

    43. Re:news for nerds by silent_artichoke · · Score: 1

      My list of PINs:
      1. 1234
      2. 4321
      3. 4567
      4. 7654
      Please tell me what PIN Number 3 is.
      I hate it too, but it's not necessarily wrong :)

    44. Re:news for nerds by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I would still use ordinal names for clarity in that situation. The 3rd PIN is much clearer than PIN Number 3. Mostly only unclear because people misunderstand the original acronym....which brings us back to the original subject.

    45. Re:news for nerds by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      Please explain your link to Nazis with people who prefer good grammar and fascism to anything else you replied to. I dare to say your knowledge on these subjects is severely lacking.

    46. Re:news for nerds by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      Isn't the majority of news reporting focused on delivery for someone with a grade 8 education? I thought I read that somewhere. This would seem to support it.
      Sadly, I think a lot of the people I meet regularly might have some trouble with understanding things at that level :(

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    47. Re:news for nerds by zzyzx · · Score: 1

      May I borrow your ATM card now please?

    48. Re:news for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (most modern PCs have just one or two processors)

      Aren't we expected to know that? This is /. after all...

      ... stated for the feline cerebral corti browsing Slashdot.

    49. Re:news for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The number of "CPUs" in the announcement actually is the number of cores, too, not the number of packages of cores.

      The original IBM press release http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/28842.wss states the Dawn Blue Gene/P was used. http://www.top500.org/system/performance/9900 explicitly give the number of cores. Also, the total GFlops roughly match the 3.4 GFlop / core * 4 cores / package * number of "CPU"s.

      So if you compare to desktop PCs, it would at least be fair to count each core there, too.

      However, cores used in desktop PCs reach 25 GFlops per core, not just 3.4. And often they got an additional GPU with 1 TFLop. Or even 2.

      So if that thing they simulated the cat on is 147,456 a normal gaming desktop PC is about 300.

      No longer such a big difference as compared to 2.

    50. Re:news for nerds by Korin43 · · Score: 1

      I just assume that the resources are for my programs, my OS should stay out of the way.

    51. Re:news for nerds by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I wanna know how he knows how much memory my computer has!

    52. Re:news for nerds by davester666 · · Score: 1

      "The computer has 147,456 processors (most modern PCs have just one or two processors) and 144 terabytes of main memory -- 100,000 times as much as your computer has."

      Maybe 100,000 times as much as a common-folk person's computer, but it's only may twice as powerful as mine, and with only half the memory! Haha! Up yours, IBM!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    53. Re:news for nerds by Zalbik · · Score: 1

      When you spout misinformation

      Exactly what misinformation was spouted? The GP post was essentially: "I would guess that a single Core2Duo/Quad or Core iX CPU is not considered SMP"

      Are you arguing that the poster would NOT guess this? That seems to be a strange claim. If I post "I guess it's going to rain kittens tomorrow", this is not misinformation. This is a claim about my personal thoughts. It may be a stupid guess (as in this case), but it is information nonetheless. I was informed that the GP poster knows nothing about SMB.

      When you rant about topics with no logic or justification to your ranting (which is a serious problem on the internet (I'm looking at you creationists), the fact that you were attempting to correct someone doesn't absolve you, since utilizing 15 neurons on your part would have meant 1 less stupid post in the world and countless seconds preserved by not reading it.

      I propose that you sir are an internet asshole (not that this particular post means a goddamn thing, since the profound intellect of the Slashdot community has already raised you to a +4 insightful, but WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?)

      Point is, misinformation is a problem. Pointing it out where it doesn't exist and acting like an overbearing jerk about it makes it worse, not better.

      Now had you posted that the GP's post was a complete and utter waste of the .8 seconds it took to read it, I would agree. I have a problem with the post as it conveys practically no information, not incorrect information.

    54. Re: news for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      James Blish, take a (posthumous) bow, for using "cat-brain" computers in at least one short story/novella.

    55. Re:news for nerds by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      *my* Computer has 192 GB of RAM, you insensitive clod.

      That's 300 times as much as anybody ought to need.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    56. Re:news for nerds by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Lesson learned? NEVER make a guess on the internets because there are jackasses like MaskedSlacker that take things WAY TOO SERIOUSLY. Just a guess though.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    57. Re:news for nerds by Forge · · Score: 1

      guess I am not "anybody".

      While it is true that I have a computer with 192GB of RAM, that is not the box I use for enduring /.

      The point is that the claim was just stupid. "100 times as much RAM, Storage or processing power as the average desktop" can be a sensible statement, If you find out what is the average for desktops currently in use or for desktops sold this year, and base the comparison on one of those numbers.

      There really is no way to know how how powerful a computer each reader has. Next this writer might say "Yow Ming is two feet taller than you". That makes just as much sense.

      --
      --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    58. Re:news for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is somebody confusing again the differences between smp (generic term) and numa/uma (implementations)?

      don't they teach anymore the class/instance difference in schools?

  2. Cool... by Blazarov · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does it keep wanting cheezburgerz all the time?

    --
    Regards, Boyan
    1. Re:Cool... by bobdotorg · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can has petaflop?

      --
      __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
    2. Re:Cool... by ImABanker · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does it dream of electric mice?

    3. Re:Cool... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 3, Funny

      I doubt IBM is up on Internet memes enough to get that one. I'd wager they're still laughing at the Ally McBeal dancing baby animation.

    4. Re:Cool... by isaac338 · · Score: 1

      People _laughed_ at that?

    5. Re:Cool... by Lesrahpem · · Score: 1

      Imagine trying to herd a beowulf cluster of those!

    6. Re:Cool... by waveformwafflehouse · · Score: 1

      No, it has only pussy on its mind.

    7. Re:Cool... by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      "They", at IBM, aren't people anymore.

      And yes, They laugh. In a monotone, metallic voice.

    8. Re:Cool... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I'd wager they're still laughing at the Ally McBeal dancing baby animation.

      Just FYI, that animation predated Ally McBeal by around a year. My boss used to use it as his screen saver before that show started.

      I always found it to be a particularly disturbing animation myself.

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    9. Re:Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's deep, man. Pass another spliff.

    10. Re:Cool... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      I always found it to be a particularly disturbing animation myself.

      As much as the drinking drunken naked baby staggering with bottle in hand and continuously urinating to the tune of Old Lange Syne?

      I find it outrageous that AutoDesk was granted a trademark on the words "Ooga-Chaka".

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    11. Re:Cool... by Tybalt_Capulet · · Score: 1

      I heard that it needs 27 hours of downtime a day in order to do calculations properly.

      --
      Has the old saint in his forest not yet heard of it? That God is dead?
    12. Re:Cool... by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      It probably won't even want to go dog-back riding - our cat doesn't. Actually given the weight of all those processors the dog is probably going to be happy about that.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    13. Re:Cool... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      I know that but, "dancing baby animation that was later featured and popularized on the television show Ally McBeal" ruined the pacing of the joke.

      Just because I don't type every single detail about topic X doesn't mean I'm ignorant. It just means I didn't type them. Just a little FYI there.

    14. Re:Cool... by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      Hopefully this computer cat has been programmed to use proper grammar and spelling.

    15. Re:Cool... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Turn in your geek card, you're fired. How do you not recognize Philipp K. Dick?

    16. Re:Cool... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Just because I don't type every single detail about topic X doesn't mean I'm ignorant. It just means I didn't type them. Just a little FYI there.

      Chill, dude. If you didn't know, it was intended to enlighten. If you did, it was presumed that you'd understand the reason for the clarification that Ally McBeal wasn't the origin of it.

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    17. Re:Cool... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Yah I just hate it when people ruin a joke.

    18. Re:Cool... by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yah I just hate it when people ruin a joke.

      In Soviet Russia, joke ruins you. ;-)

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    19. Re:Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt IBM is up on Internet memes enough to get that one. I'd wager they're still laughing at the Ally McBeal dancing baby animation.

      Not really, we IBMers are all minions of Basement Cat.

    20. Re:Cool... by inKubus · · Score: 1

      I remember when Websphere came out I was like "Why the hell would anyone want a central web application server?" But now I'm in business and I see that it's a great solution to a very big and common business problem. I think this will turn out to be the same. Think of how great it would be to have an AI that sleeps all day, only listens to you when it's hungry and bites you when it randomly gets annoyed. I could replace half of my web developers!

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    21. Re:Cool... by iamacat · · Score: 1

      That would be a clowder of those, you insensitive clod!

  3. Well I hope by Cornwallis · · Score: 5, Funny

    the first thing they teach it is to stop scratching my couch.

    1. Re:Well I hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      insert comparision to small rodent here

    2. Re:Well I hope by omnichad · · Score: 1

      He said couch, no crotch.

    3. Re:Well I hope by wirah · · Score: 0

      I read this as 'the first thing they teach it is to stop scratching my crotch.'

    4. Re:Well I hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm astonished at the implication that cats can think!

  4. "100,000 times as much as your computer has" by MC68040 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So...

    114 terabytes = 116 736 gigabytes
    My machine has got 4 gigabytes of RAM, 100 000 x 4 = 400000... Hm?

    1. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by cryoman23 · · Score: 0

      lol ya that was teh first thing i went and did/thought i have 3GB and thats 48000 times more then me...

      --
      epic sig..... ya i got nothing
    2. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      114 terabytes = 116 736 gigabytes
      No it doesn't, but I'm guessing they meant 114 tebibytes anyway, so you're forgiven.

    3. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by ddegirmenci · · Score: 1

      Seriously, this article must've been written for "I want a PC that is able to log on to Facebook and Hotmail"-esque people. 1GB of RAM?! Single core CPU!? I'm sure the author could write an article over how the S3 Virge chipset changed things in the gaming world in the last few months.

    4. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by killmenow · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to my math:

      1TByte = 1024 GBytes

      1GByte = 1024 MBytes

      1MByte = 1024 KBytes

      1KByte = 1024 Bytes

      so 114 TB = 1024 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024 * 114 = 1,243,443,256,646,464 bytes

      My machine has 8 GBytes of RAM in it which is (1024 * 1024 * 1024 * 8) 8,589,934,592 bytes

      So that machine has ~ 144,755.846896 times more memory than mine.

      Or I'm missing something but hey, I was told there would be no math.

    5. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's often thought that gibibytes and tebibytes were invented to allow "giga" and "tera" to retain their conventional meanings as powers of 10 even when used to refer to quantities of data.

      However, the true reason was to enable an entirely new form of pedantry.

    6. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by killmenow · · Score: 1

      Redoing the last step (what I did wrong initially eludes me) if I divide 1,243,443,256,646,464 by 8,589,934,592 I get 14,592. So I guess, no that machine doesn't have nearly 100,000 times more memory.

    7. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by killmenow · · Score: 1

      What in the world is wrong with me? I must be getting senile. I've done this math like five times now and keep getting different answers. I think I need to re-learn how to type numbers into a calculator.

    8. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by kalirion · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's a much easier way :)

    9. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by azior · · Score: 1

      If you imagine that the human brain is about 100 times better than a cat brain, your computer equivalent would have millions of processors and xenobytes of memory! ...but would also really suck at math

    10. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by crunch_ca · · Score: 1

      A little Python program to help you out:

      gb = 1024**3
      tb = 1024**4
      mem = int(raw_input("Enter your machine's RAM in GB: ")) * gb
      cat = 114*tb
      print 'The cat has %d times more RAM than you' % (cat/mem)

    11. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      What in the world is wrong with me? I must be getting senile. I've done this math like five times now and keep getting different answers. I think I need to re-learn how to type numbers into a calculator.

      Or you have to learn to do math without a calculator.

      1 TByte = 2^40 Bytes.
      8 GByte = 2^33 Bytes

      So 116 TByte/8GByte are 116*2^7 Bytes. Since 2^7 is 128, it's a factor of 116*128.
      100*128 = 12800
      16*128 = 2^(4+7) = 2048
      So 116*128 = 14848

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    12. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Oops, I just notice that I replaced 114 by 116, so subtract 256 from the factor.
      But then, by looking again at the summary, the 114 is also wrong; it was 144 TBytes, so add 3840.

      That is, it has exactly 18432 times as much memory as your computer.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    13. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by killmenow · · Score: 1

      okay, it's a data entry error.

      114 TB = 125,344,325,566,464 Bytes not that first number I fat fingered in.

      Dividing THAT number by 8,589,934,592 (the RAM in my machine) results in: 14,592.

    14. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by cmiller173 · · Score: 4, Funny

      gibi/giga whatever, I'm pretty sure that this cat simulating computer actually has a bazillion kibble-bits.

    15. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by killmenow · · Score: 1

      Nice. I keep forgetting that google does that so well.

    16. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They said 144, not 114.

    17. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1

      Did nobody here take science in high school?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision

    18. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      And in today's lesson: "significant digits" and "approximation".

      Tomorrow we'll advance to "orders of magnitude".

      The article was right. It has about 100,000 times more RAM than your PC.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    19. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by Neil+Hodges · · Score: 1

      According to Wolfram|Alpha, it only has 18,432 times as much RAM as my main machine.

    20. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, the poster is assuming that everyone on /. is still running a >3 year old PC with a single/dual core processor. My antiquated (2 year old) quad-core with 4GB RAM begs to differ. Am I suddenly more ahead of the curve than I thought?

    21. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      It's often thought that gibibytes and tebibytes were invented to allow "giga" and "tera" to retain their conventional meanings as powers of 10 even when used to refer to quantities of data.

      However, the true reason was to enable an entirely new form of pedantry.

      And that form is called "kibitzing".

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    22. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by egr · · Score: 1

      too bad it can't do this:
      144 terabytes / 1 library of congress

    23. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 1

      Back to high school with you as well! Significant digits only applies of you're measuring continuous quantities. RAM capacity is discrete, so "2 GB" can be expanded to "2.000000000 GB" if you want to do the math to that level of pedantry.

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    24. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by happyjack27 · · Score: 1

      yeah. that struck me, too. they did the math wrong. initially 114Tb would be 114 * 1024 per Gb. Assuming your computer has at least 2Gb of memory their numbers are already way off. Mine has 8. that makes them off by more than on order of magnitude.

    25. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's often thought that gibibytes and tebibytes were invented to allow "giga" and "tera" to retain their conventional meanings as powers of 10 even when used to refer to quantities of data. However, the true reason was to enable an entirely new form of pedantry.

      Randall Munroe? Is that you?

    26. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by war4peace · · Score: 1

      It's 144 TB.
      147456 GB of memory; that's 18342 times my machine's memory size.
      To make the statement correct, they should have said "100,000 times as much as an average computer has". But then again, that's me being anal about nobody-cares-about kind of information :)

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    27. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      Why does everyone keep doing calculations with 114 TB?

      The article says 144 TB.

      114<144

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    28. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Q6600 still cuts the mustard!

    29. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      There's still 1GB on my PC and it does fine, but then I'm not running Vista.

    30. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gibi/giga whatever, I'm pretty sure that this cat simulating computer actually has a bazillion kibble-bits.

      A "Bazillion"?

      You idiot.

      It has OVER 9000!!!

    31. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Strictly speaking, mass is not a continuous measure and yet significant digits are used.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    32. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 1

      Strictly speaking, you are correct. Everything breaks down into discrete units at some scale.

      For practical purposes (i.e. any purpose other than internet forum pedantry), bits of RAM is a counted quantity and mass is a measured one.

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    33. Re:"100,000 times as much as your computer has" by __aaxwdb6741 · · Score: 1

      Everybody missed the point that 8gbytes isn't average.
      My calculations tell me that to have exactly 100,000 times less ram that the cat, you'd need to have just about 1 509.94944 megabytes RAM in your machine.

      To me, this sounds quite average.

  5. One word... by wfstanle · · Score: 3, Funny

    One word...

    Meow!

    1. Re:One word... by Njoyda+Sauce · · Score: 2, Funny

      One word...

      Meow!

      Thought you only needed 32 bits for that?

      --

      You can only be young once, but you can be immature forever.
    2. Re:One word... by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      40... have to include the exclamation point.

      Unless, of course, you're using a reduced ASCII so that you can fit each character into 7 bits (like in SMS), in which case you need 35...

    3. Re:One word... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      ASCII is 7 bits. You'd have to reduce ANSI for it to be "reduced" when 7 bits. (I was going to say Unicode, but I believe there is actually a UTF-7 that nobody ever uses.)

      That said, if you're good with upper case only encoding, you can always use the 6 bit alphabets that were popular until the mid-seventies for lots of 36 bit computers like the PDP-10. Then you only need 30 bits.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:One word... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      With one 8-bit byte per character, it needs 40 bits (5 characters * 8 bits). However, since all five characters are in the ASCII character set, which is just 7 bit, 35 bits should suffice. Now, of course there are also encodings possible where exactly 32 bits are needed; but then, I counter with an encoding where "M" is 00, "e" is 01, "o" is 100, "w" is 101, "!" is 110, and all other characters have encodings starting with 111. That makes just 13 bits for "Meow!"
      Unless you restrict your encoding to only have those 5 characters, you cannot get any shorter, at least when encoding all characters separately. But then, who tells me that this is necessary? Therefore I now introduce the "cat encoding": The bit 0 stands for the string "Meow!" which anything else is encoded with bit sequences starting with 1.

      So I finally conclude: You need just one bit for "Meow!"

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:One word... by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Meow boy, what is so funny? Do I look like q cat to you? Do you see me jumping around all nimbley bimbley? Am I drinking milk from a saucer? Stop laughing meow!

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    6. Re:One word... by Razalhague · · Score: 1

      I use 7 bit ASCII on a PDP-10, you insensitive clod!

    7. Re:One word... by iron-kurton · · Score: 1

      Wait, you had a competition who could say *meow* the most?? Hell, for 10 bucks, I'll call the guy a..... (too bad I'm at work)

      --
      Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
    8. Re:One word... by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      So, in essence, you're all set for: To Meow! or not to Meow!.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
  6. hmmmm by Polkyb · · Score: 5, Funny

    They've spent millions teaching a computer how to destroy furnature and shit in your shoes.

    --
    I've never shoed a horse, but I once told a donkey to piss off!
    1. Re:hmmmm by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Funny

      Funny I was going to say lay in the sun and ignore you.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:hmmmm by Krneki · · Score: 1

      Funny thing, I have the same feeling when I see babies.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    3. Re:hmmmm by vertinox · · Score: 1

      They've spent millions teaching a computer how to destroy furnature and shit in your shoes.

      At least computers don't get cat hair on all your clothes.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    4. Re:hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've spent millions teaching a computer how to destroy furnature and shit in your shoes.

      It must have been a military contract.

    5. Re:hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .Net for the win!

      ----

      while(true){
            Console.WriteLine("Mrow");
            Nutrients n = Console.ReadLine("Chicken and Rice formula for kittens");
                                n.Digest(); //creates a PoopSession member
            File.WriteAllBytes(poopSession.ToArray());
            Thread.Sleep(20 hours of the day);
      }

    6. Re:hmmmm by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Funny

      Funny I was going to say lay in the sun and ignore you.

      It's IBM,not Sun.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    7. Re:hmmmm by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          They're not ignoring you. They are conditioning you to only act when they request it. :) I woke up this morning with a cat on my bed, staring me in the face, mewing at me. It wanted something. I think it was "pat me now." Otherwise it is in human conditioning mode, telling me to leave it alone. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    8. Re:hmmmm by Anonymusing · · Score: 1

      Even worse, you don't own a cat. It owns you, and it's pissed about it. Every cat owner knows this. Now we know where Skynet will get its desire to rule the world.

      They should have simulated a canine brain. Then the robots would be begging to make us happy.

      --
      Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
    9. Re:hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You beat me to it.

    10. Re:hmmmm by nerdyalien · · Score: 0

      can it flush the toilet... ???

  7. Why cats? by Schiphol · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If Slashdot it to be trusted, there will soon be a sizeable number of cat brains living in our computers. Does anybody know why cats and not dogs or hamsters?

    1. Re:Why cats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      To properly simulate a cat, the system needs to sleep 20hrs a day which would thus make it the greenest option on the market.....

    2. Re:Why cats? by pitchpipe · · Score: 2, Funny

      One word: Aineko

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    3. Re:Why cats? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I don't know about hamsters but I can answer for dogs. As this post clearly demonstrates, there won't much for scientists to do with a dog's thoughts. The dog's diary however is incomplete as it left off the parts where the dog would obviously --SQUIRREL!!-- meander into other thoughts.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Why cats? by BlueBlasphemy · · Score: 1

      Cats are easier to emulate. I have two cats & two computers & not a single one of them pay any attention when I call them.

    5. Re:Why cats? by Arancaytar · · Score: 2, Funny

      Im in ur 'puterz, simulatins ur neurons.

      That's why.

    6. Re:Why cats? by nschubach · · Score: 1

      It's also easier to make it purr. You just don't clean the fans.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    7. Re:Why cats? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      They started with mouse, rat in earlier years.

    8. Re:Why cats? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Dogs love us. Hamsters universally run away. But when simulating a cat...you activelly get to know how to deal with an artificial mind that hates you.

      That will get handy at the Skynet stage.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    9. Re:Why cats? by fyoder · · Score: 1

      Dogs love us. Hamsters universally run away. But when simulating a cat...you activelly get to know how to deal with an artificial mind that hates you.

      The hate might be justified. There's a reason they know so much about cat brains.

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
    10. Re:Why cats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cats don't hate you, any more than a CEO hates their employees and supply chain partners.

      It's just that you're contractually obligated to deliver certain... services... and are outsourceable if you fail to meet quarterly targets.

      This Powerpoint shows clearly that nummies and belly rubs are trending DOWN. Pls expedite with utmost dispatch. Tick, tick.

    11. Re:Why cats? by jgrahn · · Score: 1

      One word: Aineko

      How about Oneko?

    12. Re:Why cats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Slashdot it to be trusted, there will soon be a sizeable number of cat brains living in our computers. Does anybody know why cats and not dogs or hamsters?

      Ask Schrodinger, if he's available.

    13. Re:Why cats? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Does anybody know why cats and not dogs or hamsters?

      Scientists don't find computer hardware amazing until it doesn't do what they tell it.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    14. Re:Why cats? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Because a hamster can be simulated with a very small script....

      func=rand(6)

      case (func)
      {
      1) panic and run around crazy
      2) sit there and look cute
      3) poop yourself
      4) eat or act hungry
      5) poop yourself
      6) run on the wheel
      }

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  8. My cat's name is Butt Puppet. by protodevilin · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...and there's no way his brain power calls for 147,456 processors.

    1. Re:My cat's name is Butt Puppet. by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Inefficient code will do that. Why do we need 2Ghz+ just to make a graphic display to show web pages? Because if they can make the code bloated, they will. Hell, if I had a project where they said "Go ahead and use as many processors as you'd like", and I knew the number was over 100,000, I'd do it just to say that I did.

          Cats are smart. I'd suspect they could do it on 4 processors. On the other hand, your average dog could use one processor, and only utilize it 10%.

          What does a dog do? Eat, shit, piss on the floor, and bark for no apparent reason. Then the slightly smarter ones will chase down squirrels. I had a good dumb dog. He'd bark at anything. The damned squirrels were smarter than him though. He was good encouragement for people not to want to break in. He wouldn't start barking until you were about 3' from the front door, and then he sounded vicious. I had friends back away, and call me to let me know they were outside. They wouldn't get close enough to ring the doorbell. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    2. Re:My cat's name is Butt Puppet. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I'm a cat fan, but some of the dog shepherd breeds are so smart they've got mental issues. They'll organize animals/people/shoes/junk by traits, and love to be given tasks. Smart cats can learn to use the toilet and open doors, but they don't hold a torch to the smartest dogs.

    3. Re:My cat's name is Butt Puppet. by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          The cats have you convinced of that... Just wait, the cat apocalypse will be upon us soon. They have us all believing 2012 is all about galactic alignment, earthquakes, tidal waves, or comets. The truth? The cats are going to kill off most of the humans, and enslave the rest of us!

          Your shoe arranging shepherds won't be able to save you.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    4. Re:My cat's name is Butt Puppet. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      My rough collie, she will do that if she is bored. I also have one of the only Colliesthat will play fetch, she can also reliably recognize over 40 words and the tasks associated with them. Problem is, one of the simplest, letting us know if she is hungry or wants out is the same, blank stare 1 foot from your face. No pawing, no barking (collies will bark for anything they love to bark and are very vocal dogs)

      She will also react to about 15 words that do not have a task associated with it, but reacts accordingly and consistently.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  9. Remember Robokoneko? by imag0 · · Score: 1

    The blurb reminds me of the venerable Robokoneko project that never quite got off the ground.

  10. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they have created a massive machine that will walk on a keyboard and complain that it's food dish is half empty. Why?

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not complaining his food dish is half empty. He's complaining because the food had been in the food dish for too long and is not good enough anymore. Step 1: throw away the food in the food dish. Step 2: clean the food dish. Step 3: Put new food in it.

    2. Re:Why? by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, they created a machine which ignores them. They're getting no response, so they know that they succeeded.

    3. Re:Why? by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      He is not complaining that the dish is half empty, he is complaining because the dish is too big.

    4. Re:Why? by Maniacal · · Score: 1

      Maybe he's praising you because it's half "full". Don't be such a pessimist!

      --
      MG
  11. i can has sentience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But does it run Linux?

  12. Sleep Mode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now if the could just get it out of sleep mode.

    1. Re:Sleep Mode by Robotz · · Score: 1

      Newest IBM patent: A method for waking a computer, using nothing more than a box of cat treats.

      I wonder what size hair balls that thing generates?

    2. Re:Sleep Mode by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      My computer behaves like a cat all the time. It ignores me. It stops when it wants to. It lays on my desk. When I call it, it doesn't look back at me. It must be nice to be Recession proof.

    3. Re:Sleep Mode by Dannon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just move the mouse.

      --
      Good judgment comes from experience.
      Experience comes from bad judgment.
    4. Re:Sleep Mode by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, C3 is "staring malevolently" and C3 is "licking crotch". For C1, it gets out the pliers and letter opener.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  13. Skynet reference needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Skynet reference needed

    1. Re:Skynet reference needed by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Wrong movie. The 1st villain in 9 was a sort of robotic cat.

  14. problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the problem, IMO, for machines to tackle is that humans and animals both have a "will to exist"...all subsequent thoughts and actions in their respective brains derive from this from, giving the brain a purpose by directing the body to perform actions that satisfy it.

    what equivalent purpose is there for a machine to exist? could such a purpose ever be simulated? does such a purpose need to have a biological characteristic in order for it to be valid? i think there needs to be more philosophical work done in the field of AI before another useless terabyte is added.

  15. Simulating a Brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As seen in this article, you can achieve the simulation by throwing more hardware at it. There is also a solution that most people never think of: come up with a new algorithm that is faster then the current one and can simulate a brain with more efficiency then the one used. At that point, the hardware becomes less impressive.

    1. Re:Simulating a Brain by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      On related note... Think about this - it took millions of years before nature could come up with a brain the size of cat's with that capability. We have achieved something similar in few decades. When you ignore all the moral arguments and just focus on technology, it is something of an achievement.

      Given sufficient time, with advancement in technology, we should be able to shrink the size and also make it more powerful with better hardware.

    2. Re:Simulating a Brain by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      On related note... Think about this - it took millions of years before nature could come up with a brain the size of cat's with that capability. We have achieved something similar in few decades. When you ignore all the moral arguments and just focus on technology, it is something of an achievement.

      Nature wasn't using focused and directed development with a specific goal in mind. Rather, nature used, and continues to use, a method based in "ok, this worked, let's include it in the next generation," which consistently pushes forward into the next design cycle not only the "best" option, but all of the "good enough" options as well. Had there been some kind of directed intelligence behind the design, it probably could have been done in, oh, I dunno, 6 days? ;-P

      It's not actually *that* great of an achievement... being able to simulate the hardware is one thing. Call me when we can simulate the software, too.

    3. Re:Simulating a Brain by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      There is also a solution that most people never think of: come up with a new algorithm that is faster then the current one

      Oh yeah, nobody ever thinks of coming up with a more efficient algorithm. It's not like Day 1 of Code Optimization 101 is "you get more out of coming up with a better algorithm than you do by tweaking your existing one." It's not like there's a whole sub-field of CS devoted to coming up with better algorithms for things.

      Or maybe... just maybe... they have thought of the "come up with a new algorithm" solution, but that this is as hard to do as it is trivial to say.

      People are working on it, but it's not easy, and sometimes no better algorithm exists. And even if it did, there would still be a use for that much hardware -- you could simulate bigger things. :P

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Simulating a Brain by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      But then, nature had no working brain to copy from (note that since all computers work on logic, and logic just derives from how certain parts of our brain work, even the very first computers copied something we learned from our own brains).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:Simulating a Brain by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      It's not a CPU constraint, but rather a memory one. It's 10 trillion synapses, and you have to store any relative data for both sides of the connection. You're left with just a handful of bytes for each. That 147k processors is just the minimum required to house the necessary amount of memory at 1GB per processor.

  16. But.... by jimicus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can it lick its own arse in polite company?

  17. Lol by Stregano · · Score: 0

    I thought the Lolcat epidemic was over. Now it is only going to get worse

    --
    The world is how you make it
  18. meat versus silicon and metal by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It amazes me how much hardware and power has to be thrown at the problem to solve it while nature can create a self-organizing machine that only requires material input of raw mice and lasagna. Puts me in mind of this quote:

    "If research leads to the development of successful new modeling techniques that can carry out new and better forms of information processing, no one will really care if they do not exactly mimic the functionality of the human brain," concludes Hall. "I honestly doubt you'll find too many people today who are upset that the wings on an aircraft do not flap like those of a bird or that a submarine does not swim exactly like a fish."

    It's an interesting way of looking at things. Man's earliest ideas of flying all involved trying to mimic the actions of a bird. And ornithopters remain impractical as passenger vehicles. But new breakthroughs in material sciences and computing are allowing for autonomous bots that fly like birds, bats, bugs, and can swim like snakes and fish. Engineers will point out that the evolved solutions we see in nature are working with the materials at hand, they might not be the best of all solutions. Every flying vertebrate known to science turned forelimbs into wings and flap them. Is it the most efficient way to fly? That's an argument I'll leave to the biologists and engineers but it's certainly the only way those vertebrates were getting into the air! They have to work with the materials at hand. If we ever saw flying horses, the only thing we could be absolutely sure of is that this would not be achieved by sprouting two more limbs from the back. We see evolution taking away limbs but never adding new ones.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by Marcika · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We see evolution taking away limbs but never adding new ones.

      I think the elephant's prehensile trunk would qualify as a counterexample... (Though I won't think that the chances of a Dumbo-style evolution are significant...)

    2. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by quadrox · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uh yeah, because evolution started with creatures that had 4 limbs and 5 toes/fingers on each, right? These didn't evolve over time, right?

      I'm sorry, but you are wrong for obvious reasons.

    3. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I remember any off hand, but there are many examples of evolution growing new limps, not just losing old ones. Generally I believe it falls into categories like "critter A had 6 legs, then lost 2 when it became critter B. It later regrew those two legs and became critter C" type things though.

    4. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      OK, I'll bite.

      Evolution started with organismes made of rings (can't remember my Bio classes ATM). Earthworms are the classic example, loads of rings all alike, with 1 spécial ring on each end. Then the rings evolved (enter centipedes), and spécialised.

      If you want some modern examples, ask where your spine came from (lots of identicle parts, remember...), or why you have a diaphragme between you lungs and your stomach.

    5. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >> It amazes me how much hardware and power has to be thrown at the problem to solve it while nature can create a self-organizing machine that only requires material input of raw mice and lasagna.

      But at the same time, there are two big differences:
      1. Nature started bottom up (small to big - one cell to multicell), and it took millions of years to 'produce' a cat.
      2. We have started top down (big to small - first achieve the goal and go smaller from there with newer technology), and it took us few decades to get there.

    6. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Yes, just imagine how much computing power it takes to simulate the motion of every single sub-atomic particle in a drop of water. All nature needs is ... a drop of water.

    7. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the elephant's prehensile trunk would qualify as a counterexample... (Though I won't think that the chances of a Dumbo-style evolution are significant...)

      But that developed from the nose.

      Take a look at the very word tetrapod. "Tetrapods (Greek tetrapoda, Latin quadruped, "four-footed") are vertebrate animals having four feet, legs or leglike appendages. Amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs/birds, and mammals are all tetrapods, and even the limbless snakes are tetrapods by descent. The earliest tetrapods radiated from the Sarcopterygii, or lobe-finned fish."

      I think it's absolutely remarkable how many anatomical elements are preserved across so many species. Makes you wonder what would have come about if more Devonian lines were given a chance to evolve. There was certainly some weird shit swimming around back then.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    8. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although, in fairness, nature had several billion years head start.

    9. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by Kozz · · Score: 1

      It amazes me how much hardware and power has to be thrown at the problem to solve it while nature can create a self-organizing machine that only requires material input of raw mice and lasagna.

      Indeed, they're made of meat! It's really quite simple. All the ingredients you need is to arrange Hyrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen and Oxygen into amino acids and the like, plus several billion years of evolutionary biology. Remarkable how hard we work to duplicate even a fraction of this functionality.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    10. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It amazes me how much hardware and power has to be thrown at the problem to solve it while nature can create a self-organizing machine that only requires material input of raw mice and lasagna.

      Think in terms of time*effort and it's not so amazing. We've come a lot further in 100 years than evolution would have in the same amount of time because we've put conscious effort into it.

    11. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by d34dluk3 · · Score: 1

      We see evolution taking away limbs but never adding new ones.

      Given that life started as something resembling an amoeba, I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion.

    12. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      We see evolution taking away limbs but never adding new ones.

      Really? Then how did we evolve from single celled organisms into creatures with 2 arms and 2 legs? How did the octopus get 8?

      It all happens in the same way, just in reverse. A tiny bump gets used more and more and extends and each mutation that is actually beneficial continues down the linage. When a creature no longer has use of a limb it may go away over time, in which case they tend to atrophy over the linage and shrink and eventually go away.

      It works both ways, even if you aren't aware of any specific examples.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    13. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget, the planes still need lots of apes around them to feed them and repair them and create them. The bird not only-self organizes, but feeds and repairs itself, and can also make more of itself, from the food it eats. While F-15s and F-22s are amazing, they don't even match the complexity of one single paramecium in a smelly swamp somewhere.

    14. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by holmstar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Five or 6 legged cattle are are not that uncommon... I've personally seen a five legged calf. The extra legs are always non-functional, and are generally surgically removed shortly after birth.

    15. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by KraftDinner · · Score: 1

      It amazes me how much hardware and power has to be thrown at the problem to solve it while nature can create a self-organizing machine that only requires material input of raw mice and lasagna.

      Nature can do it because it has had hundreds of millions of years of evolution to get to this point.

    16. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that it took evolution billions of years to create the modern domestic cat, and their position as rulers of house complete with willing servants is pretty much just luck.

      Considering how far human beings have come in the relatively short time we have been around, I don't think we are doing too badly.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If research leads to the development of successful new modeling techniques that can carry out new and better forms of information processing, no one will really care if they do not exactly mimic the functionality of the human brain," concludes Hall. "I honestly doubt you'll find too many people today who are upset that the wings on an aircraft do not flap like those of a bird or that a submarine does not swim exactly like a fish."

      I disagree with Hall. Computer scientists won't care if thinking machines mimic human brains, but biologists and doctors will. Brains remain one of the biggest biological mysteries. Replicating them would be a huge step towards understanding them, and understanding brains would be of great benefit for the treatment of psychological diseases, malformed brains, nerve damage, etc. Hell, we may even be able to develop prothetics for victims of stroke or brain damage one day, but not without the foundations of this type of research.

    18. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      We see evolution taking away limbs but never adding new ones.

      Well, I don't know about limbs - but I did have a cat with extra toes...

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    19. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm. And how did those limbs get there to be taken away by evolution? Wasn't that by an earlier stage of evolution? Or are you suggesting the limbs were added at creation by the Great Designer?

    20. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by happyjack27 · · Score: 1

      I was had a foot on my head, but nature took it away :(.

    21. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      In fact, mimicking the human brain may be the least-useful thing the researchers could do. An exact simulation of the human brain would be a person--with emotions, desires, fears... and human rights! That is not useful. A brain with human problem-solving abilities (and inhuman math and logic abilities) but no emotions: that would actually be useful.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    22. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by sznupi · · Score: 1

      But that developed from the nose.

      Well, and "classic" limbs developed from fins.

      Your point?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    23. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Evolution started with whatever are the first ancestors of current bacteria or archaea. Perhaps semi-free floating chunks of RNA or RNA-like being plus other compounds it interacted with.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    24. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by agrif · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I promised myself I wouldn't be a quote-quoter, but really, you guys make it too easy. The quote above from Hall most likely references this, from one Edsger Dijkstra:

      The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.

      Unfortunately, you'll find a lot of people that think he meant "Submarines don't swim, you retard! So computers don't think!" It seems pretty clear to me that he means making computers think like organisms would be an inefficient and pointless gesture, as they are capable of something far less primitive.

      (I found this quote in Accelerando, by Charles Stross, and loved it. It's Creative Commons, so you have no excuse not to read a little.)

    25. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by hrimhari · · Score: 1

      Every flying vertebrate known to science turned forelimbs into wings and flap them. Is it the most efficient way to fly?
      (...)
      We see evolution taking away limbs but never adding new ones.

      Is ignoring insects a necessary part of your argument?

      It's an interesting way of looking at things. Man's earliest ideas of flying all involved trying to mimic the actions of a bird. And ornithopters remain impractical as passenger vehicles.

      I'm not so sure that evolution is particularly "worried" about coming out with an efficient flying animal that exists for the sole purpose of carrying other animals, with no living needs of its own. That, in my opinion, was the fundamental error in the beginning of human flight: we can't just fly like a bird unless we replace our needs with that of a bird.

      In my opinion, the reason why birds are like they are is that their way of flying is adapted to their life needs. In the other hand, airplanes are like they are because their purpose is somewhat to take us somewhere by air. So I find it a little precipitate to judge the results of natural evolution as less efficient in what they do than our current products. I have less of a problem to accept our products as better suited to a certain need of ours than a corresponding thing already existing in nature. Of course, only if we don't consider the merit of this particular need being well identified or not.

      --
      http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
    26. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      only requires material input of raw mice and lasagna

      sounds like some developers I know...

      Every flying vertebrate known to science turned forelimbs into wings and flap them. Is it the most efficient way to fly?

      Don't forget the invertebrates- 6+ legs and wings, across many more species than birds. Wouldn't it be interesting if the next Boeing design is based on the flying cockroach?

    27. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by slodan · · Score: 1

      Insects, arachnids, and octopi all evolved more numerous limbs than their ancestors. What we see is that the number and type of limbs is expressed separately from the location of the limbs. It would be a lot more surprising to see legs on a horse's back than to see a horse with six legs.

    28. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by joh · · Score: 1

      It amazes me how much hardware and power has to be thrown at the problem to solve it while nature can create a self-organizing machine that only requires material input of raw mice and lasagna.

      On the other hand, give us as long as evolution for the cat and we will probably create something more cunning and evil than a cat, running on raw sunlight.

    29. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every flying vertebrate known to science turned forelimbs into wings and flap them. Is it the most efficient way to fly? That's an argument I'll leave to the biologists and engineers but it's certainly the only way those vertebrates were getting into the air!

      Except for us, of course... arguably the most capable of all flying vertebrates. We found better ways and didn't even have to trade in our hands.

    30. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it amazes me further how much time and money we spend reinventing the wheel.

      seriously, everyone knows this cliche and how stupid it is to act it out. yet, we spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives trying to create an AI or a robot that can perform a task as well as a human or animal. WHY? WHY? WHY?

      If it's a task only a human can perform, why do we want to replace ourselves? There can be only evil reasons for this, like "if we get lucky, we can fire our employees and never have to pay anyone again". Don't give me the 'some tasks are too hazardous for people bullshit'. Just create the robot and let it be controlled by a remote human. Much cheaper than creating a robot with AI that can do the task.

      If it's a task that only requires the intelligence of a cat or monkey, why not just train a cat or monkey to do it? if the application of the AI is to do something that can determine if I live or die, I want a human instead. My next choice would be a trained monkey. AI would be my last choice. And if hostile aliens ever came to our planet, perhaps they'd believe the monkeys are in command and wipe them out first, thereby giving us time to plan our resistance.

    31. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by mevets · · Score: 1

      I guess I took it differently. Describing a mechanical object imitating a living organisms behavior shouldn't use the terminology of the living organism. It is imitating, not doing. Although it is novel that a submarine can do many things that superficially appear equivalent to a complicated behaviour of an organism; there is nothing to be gained from pondering the similarity, or difference for that matter.

      In the early chapters of the computability book by Aho & Ullman (with the cover of a fancy sewing machine, I think), they mention that in theory the brain may be viewed as a (very large) finite state machine, but doing so would yield no insight into its behaviour.

    32. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, not so much the primitive/not primitive angle as the point that "swimming" is not the desired outcome, but rather "movement through water." Likewise, "thinking" is not the desired outcome, but rather the ability of a computer to effectively interact with its inputs and deal with complex presented situations, regardless of whether that interaction/dealing with involves consciousness, will, or other such "human mind"-centric models.

    33. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by Anarchduke · · Score: 1

      Can I use laziness as an excuse?

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    34. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems pretty clear to me that he means making computers think like organisms would be an inefficient and pointless gesture, as they are capable of something far less primitive.

      I don't think it's got anything to do with efficiency or pimitiveness. Submarines don't swim. But planes do fly. The reasons for that may be interesting from a linguistic viewpoint but not really from a scientific or engineering perspective. It possibly tells us something about language but not really anything about submarines or planes. Similarly with the question of whether a computer "thinks".

    35. Re:meat versus silicon and metal by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      I think you mean Turing machine.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  19. Primitive explanation by Chameleon+Man · · Score: 1

    I'm going to go ahead and judge a book by it's cover. Given how primitive the summary is, I have doubts that this "supercomputer" matches a kitty's cerebral cortex 1-to-1. Having the "power" is one thing, but the learning aspect is another.

    1. Re:Primitive explanation by jcaplan · · Score: 1

      You are right to judge this book by its cover. These claims to simulate an entire cortex are absurd. The first problem is that nobody knows how a single neuron works. We know some of the basics, but biology is complicated - very complicated - with seemingly endless feedback mechanisms operating over various time and spatial scales. To give an idea of how little we know, I'll point out that we don't know what all the receptors for the neurotransmitters are in cortex, we don't know how the cells are connected or how they make connections. We know something about these things, but are understanding is limited likely missing essential mechanisms and hardly quantitative. Neurons are not simply little adders of inputs. They are quite complex and incompletely understood.

      Even if our understanding of the biology were somehow perfect, there are some serious computational challenges. Each neuron connects via synapses to on the order of 1000 other neurons. Simulating a single neuron to a reasonable degree of accuracy requires substantial computing power, so we simplify, leaving off all kinds of properties. The human brain has around 10^11 (100 billion) neurons and around 10^14 (100 trillion) synapses. A cat might save us an order of magnitude here, but we're way off the mark. The truth is that after five decades of rigorous study, we don't understand the primary cat visual cortex (V1), with plenty of reasonable arguments about how basic parts of the visual processing pathway operate. A more reasonable goal would be to simulate the visual system of a fruit fly, though this, too would require many simplifying assumptions.

      This "achievement" is all about coming up with some really gross oversimplifications, like simulating "cortical columns" which contain many neurons and treating them as a single unit then throwing lots of hardware at the problem and claiming you've done something. Instead we have researchers staring at the output of a big simulation and hoping it might tell them something. If they are very clever they might learn something about their simulation. I should point out that I study computational neuroscience and believe greatly in its power, but using this type of approach, they are unlikely to learn anything about real brains.

  20. Woof? or Meow? Woof would have been better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'd have been much better off modeling it after a dog. At least if it failed to run the application correctly it's would look all sad and whine for forgiveness.
    So now we have a computer that will play with you, then eat you... Great. Just freaking great. Awesome job!

    Wheee.

  21. Iz in ur brane... by benwiggy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Iz in ur brane, making ur thorts. LOL!

    "The computer has 147,456 processors and 144 terabytes of main memory."

  22. Cat's cerebral cortex? by Ubiquitous+Bubba · · Score: 1

    Cat? Really? Now we have a supercomputer than can stalk us and then trip us at the top of the stairs. Where's my robot dog?

    --
    After exhaustive research and excrutiating analysis, I've determined that Bubba is, in fact, everywhere.
  23. Cat mentaity by spooje · · Score: 0

    "A computer with the power of a human brain is not yet near. But this week researchers from IBM Corp. are reporting that they've simulated a cat's cerebral cortex, the thinking part of the brain, using a massive supercomputer."

    So it basically puts itself in sleep mode 20 hours a day and the other 4 hours it spends ignoring the user?

    --
    Tea and kung-fu. Life is good. Rising Phoenix
    1. Re:Cat mentaity by Metasquares · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sounds like Windows ME.

    2. Re:Cat mentaity by Dannon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sounds like Windows ME.

      Windows MEow in this case.

      --
      Good judgment comes from experience.
      Experience comes from bad judgment.
  24. Named Cat-3PO? by hymy · · Score: 1

    Goodness gracious meow!

  25. First there was "Deep Thought" by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 5, Funny

    then "Deep Thought II"
    then "Deep Blue"
    next "Deep Pussy"??

    1. Re:First there was "Deep Thought" by YourExperiment · · Score: 1

      Deep Throat?

    2. Re:First there was "Deep Thought" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't they all just remakes of the very first one - "Deep Throat" ?

    3. Re:First there was "Deep Thought" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, stop these jokes right meow!

    4. Re:First there was "Deep Thought" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I've seen that video!

    5. Re:First there was "Deep Thought" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I lol'ed.

    6. Re:First there was "Deep Thought" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, youre getting the context wrong.. Deep blue was mean as a metaphor of something huge by comparing it with the depths of an ocean, so by adding "deep" to "blue" you'll get that effect over.

      - In this case, as it's a cat brain simulator, Pussycat, or Pussy would fit, you could go then with "big" and "Pussy" or, as this is a pretty incredible machine, add "hairy" as well, for a final metaphor/nickname: Big Hairy Pussy which should get across how grand this is.

  26. Reminds the Spinnaker project by enriquevagu · · Score: 2, Informative
    From TFA: "The simulation, which runs 100 times slower than an actual cat's brain,"

    This reminds me of the Spinnaker project, that pretended to simulate a brain (ok, a smaller one, say a fly's brain) in real time. According to their calculations, the processing power of each neuron is very small, so a simple ARM core could handle some 1000 (correct me, this is what I remember) neurons in real time. The complex point was the interconnections between neurons. Obviously, this is much more powerful, despite the 100x slowdown: A much larger brain, and not using specific hardware.

  27. PC dual-core cat is watching you post to /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And he gets off on it.

  28. A "feline" step ... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    A "feline" step, huh?

    Would that be Leopard, Tiger, or Panther?

    1. Re:A "feline" step ... ? by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Would that be Leopard, Tiger, or Panther?

      Tabby

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  29. Nah, but it will refuse to be mouse operated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nah but it will refuse to be mouse operated ...

    1. Re:Nah, but it will refuse to be mouse operated by Serenissima · · Score: 0, Redundant

      That's probably because it keeps eating all the mice!

      --
      Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. But light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
  30. Don't read the article or you'll be disappointed. by Tom+Boz · · Score: 1, Informative

    "The latest feat, being presented at a supercomputing conference in Portland, Ore., doesn't mean the computer thinks like a cat, or that it is the progenitor of a race of robo-cats." See, this is why no one on /. reads TFA; when we do, we're habitually disappointed! I'd much rather blindly believe the summary...

  31. Moore's Law by feedayeen · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Moore's law predicts that computing power will double roughly every 2 years. Log base 2 of 147,456 is rounded up to 18 generations. In other words, in 36 years you can simulate a cat on your desktop. Of course you can always do that today with Nintencats.

    1. Re:Moore's Law by Spatial · · Score: 2, Informative

      Moore's law predicts that the transistor count will double.

    2. Re:Moore's Law by denttford · · Score: 1

      Funny, I thought Moore's Law predicts transistor density (at the lowest price point) will double.

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
  32. The Paper by glwtta · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's the actual paper (pdf).

    Although, of course, posting the piece of pap that explains how many processors my machine has makes so much more sense.

    Wasn't Slashdot supposed to be for a semi-technical audience? Hell, even a semi-literate one.

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
    1. Re:The Paper by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Wasn't Slashdot supposed to be for a semi-technical audience? Hell, even a
      > semi-literate one.

      Yes, it was. And some day it may find one.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:The Paper by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      I think the level of informed posting on slashdot has steadily decreased over the past 5 years or so. We still get very informed posts from very intelligent people but they tend to get lost in the sea of inane internet memes, required replies and general stupidity one finds on most messageboards. Thankfully we have the moderation feature, but it would be helpful if I could turn off display of +5 Funny because that seems to be about 80% of the stuff that filters to the top. Yes, I make just as many idiotic rote responses as anyone else :P
      I am not trying to be pedantic, just observing.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    3. Re:The Paper by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Wasn't Slashdot supposed to be for a semi-technical audience?

      Yeah. This article falls into the other half.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  33. when the human brain is simulated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at 1:1 speed, you will be redundant.

    And the simulated will not have rights, they will be tweaked to perform as slaves.

    And you will be out of a job.

    Technology advances to obsolete progressively less menial tasks.

    Technology advances until _every_ human is obsolete.

    Remember this.

  34. They are a model organism for neuroscience by tpjunkie · · Score: 5, Informative

    Having done neuroscience research, (if only on a master's degree level), I can say that the cat brain is particularly well studied, mapped out, and understood by neuroscientists. It is used as a model organism by many neuroscientists, and has a number of similarities with the human brain in its layout and function, much moreso than the mouse or rat brain.

    1. Re:They are a model organism for neuroscience by dontPanik · · Score: 1

      So this program simulates every synapse individually?
      Does the program respond to external stimuli?

      --
      "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
    2. Re:They are a model organism for neuroscience by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Yah what they need to do is hook it up with a cat robot. Then you'd have the full artificial cat experience going.

    3. Re:They are a model organism for neuroscience by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 4, Funny

      Surely there is an easier way for computer nerds to get pussy?

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    4. Re:They are a model organism for neuroscience by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

      Surely there is an easier way for computer nerds to get pussy?

      Yeah, just visit your local Humane Society or animal shelter.

      Don't tell them what you plan on doing with it, though.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:They are a model organism for neuroscience by steelfood · · Score: 1

      I can't resist the urge to ask: How many libraries of congress would fit into the computer, and how many cat brains are in a human brain?

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    6. Re:They are a model organism for neuroscience by danlip · · Score: 1

      No, unfortunately there is not

    7. Re:They are a model organism for neuroscience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not without paying for it

  35. A pile of neurons does not a brain make... by swm · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From TFA, it doesn't sound like they simulated the cerebral cortex of a cat.
    It sounds like they simulated a neural net with a comparable number of neurons.
    Not the same thing.

    A few days ago, Slashdot ran The Math of a Fly's Eye May Prove Useful.

    Those guys

    • reverse engineered the yaw motion detector in a fly brain
    • reduced the neural network to a set of 5 coupled, non-linear equations
    • implemented the equations on a computer
    • ran their implementation against an animated scene
    • observed that the equations correctly and robustly detect yaw

    and they still don't understand how the equations actually work.

    That's where we are with brain simulation.

    1. Re:A pile of neurons does not a brain make... by lindseyp · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Penrose may have the last laugh.

      Even if he doesn't.. Moore's law (or any misinformed transposition of such) isn't going to help us build a brain. We are seriously lacking in understanding in this respect and will be for many many years.

      --
      j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
    2. Re:A pile of neurons does not a brain make... by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      Penrose may have the last laugh.

      With the same likelihood as anyone else who rejects the prevailing hypotheses, skips the next 100,000 next-likeliest magical hypotheses, and promotes his own singled-out hypothesis beneath that pile without enough evidence to justify bringing it to our attention.

      I'm not worried.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    3. Re:A pile of neurons does not a brain make... by eheien · · Score: 1

      This raises an interesting point. Maybe in the brain there's no way to reduce things to meaningful equations. Evolution didn't really have a set goal in mind, so what you get is a cobbled together mess of pieces that works. The reason it works is because the system can reform and grow itself in response to new input, not because it has a lot of pieces.

      These large scale simulations are interesting from a neurobiological point of view. But if you want to build a "thinking computer brain", you might be better off understanding how the human brain grows and changes in response to stimuli, rather than trying to make a static copy at the cellular level. I have a feeling these supercomputer simulations are not going to be the path to conscious computers, nor even to mind uploading.

      Disclaimer: I am not a neuroscientist.

    4. Re:A pile of neurons does not a brain make... by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      Understanding how they work would be desirable however as my gf says "I don't have to understand how the drill works to make holes."

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    5. Re:A pile of neurons does not a brain make... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Observing the two furballs that believe they own me, I'm not sure how much thinking they actually do. They do a good bit to be sure but it seems like an awful lot of the interesting stuff the cattiness if you will is hardwired in the brainstem/ROM.

    6. Re:A pile of neurons does not a brain make... by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Indeed, it's not the number of neurons but how they are connected that's important. The network is the computer.

    7. Re:A pile of neurons does not a brain make... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and they still don't understand how the equations actually work. "

      I don't think you know what you are talking about. I don't know anything about flys, neural networks, or yaw detection, but I am quite certain I could explain how a system of 5 nonlinear PDEs work after a short amount of study. So in conclusion, WTF are you really trying to say?

    8. Re:A pile of neurons does not a brain make... by Pedrito · · Score: 3, Informative

      From TFA, it doesn't sound like they simulated the cerebral cortex of a cat. It sounds like they simulated a neural net with a comparable number of neurons. Not the same thing.

      What article did you read? The one linked to in the post clearly says they simulated a portion of cat cortex and, in fact, that's largely what they did. There's more here about some of the specifics. It's not an entirely accurate simulation, but it's pretty close. Not all neuron types are represented and it's largely cortical, thalamus and reticular nucleus neurons. They've created cortical hypercolumns which is the way a real cortex is laid out. They've omitted the layer 1 neurons, but otherwise the cortex is probably pretty functional for what they're doing. I think it's a pretty amazing feat.

    9. Re:A pile of neurons does not a brain make... by jcaplan · · Score: 4, Informative

      TFA is bunk. (Yes, I read it.) 12 pages of bunk. Much of the article is about the computational challenges and blathers on about number of processors used and memory. Under key scientific results, they find that their model propagates waves at about the same rate as is found physiologically. So they connected a bunch of nodes in a way that produced synchronous behavior at a certain frequency. I could tune any model you give me to produce this behavior. (I have no special talent here, anyone writing models could.) Yawn. They ramble on about signals propagating between layers at reasonable rates, too. And ...?

      What about their simulation doing anything like what a cat might naturally do, such as detect a moving object? Nope. Instead they go on to discuss the scaling of their model, profiling and performance modeling. Perhaps one reason their model shows absolutely nothing is that they have connected their simulated neurons randomly. Yes. Randomly. Or as they put it: "The coordinates of target thalamocortical modules for each cell are determined using a Gaussian spatial density profile centered on the topographic location of the source thalamocortical module". Yep, thats random. Since their model doesn't ever change connection strengths (one form of learning) these random connections never change.

      I recently heard a description of the ways you can fool someone with computational neuroscience. Here are a couple of them: "Two card monte" Write a paper that spans two fields, but has no significant results in either. The specialists in one field will feel that the work done in their field is trivial, but that exciting stuff from the other field in the paper is what makes it so special. The specialists from the other field may feel the same way. Somebody snookered the conference organizers into thinking they were doing any neuroscience at all. The other was called "Turning the prayer wheel" or burning compute cycles to gain scientific merit. Fancy hardware is cool, but it can produce absolutely trivial results as this paper confirms.

      I don't mean to say that this research is entirely pointless. Indeed it has succeeded in siphoning significant funding from DARPA which might otherwise have gone into developing [killer] robot dogs.

    10. Re:A pile of neurons does not a brain make... by jcaplan · · Score: 1

      Correction: Their model does modify connection strengths using a reasonable biologically-based learning rule (spike timing dependent plasticity), but just has the model simulate staring at a black square. They don't do anything with this other than comment that it changes the firing rate of the neurons.

  36. Cat-Brain Tech by LaminatorX · · Score: 4, Funny

    The military is rumored to be interested in using the cat simulator to guide precision munitions with laser pointers. Unfortunately the system seems limited to short range applications, as missiles seem to loose interest after a couple minutes.

    1. Re:Cat-Brain Tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish more things would loose interest. I'd suck up some of that floating interest in the wake and hope to save up enough to finish my book.

    2. Re:Cat-Brain Tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What is it with everyone spelling lose "loose"? This is the first time I've ever witnessed language evolving in my lifetime.

    3. Re:Cat-Brain Tech by nschubach · · Score: 1

      I wish my parent's border collie would lose interest after a few minutes... he'll bark and chase a laser pointer for hours and when you are done, he sits next to the piano and stares at you, then the pointer, for the next few hours.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    4. Re:Cat-Brain Tech by rgviza · · Score: 1

      As well, you can use balls of yarn for chaff. If the enemy uses a laser and makes the movement of the laser more interesting than the targeting laser, cat-missile will go after the more enticing laser.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    5. Re:Cat-Brain Tech by mcgrew · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Unfortunately the system seems limited to short range applications, as missiles seem to loose interest after a couple minutes.

      Then it's a poor simulation of a cat brain; they don't set their interest free after a short time. Cats will patiently wait for their prey for hours, and will play with their prey for long periods of time before eating it or presenting it to their kittens or owners.

      You must be mistaking them for dogs. Or slashdot trolls (their brains would be a lot easier to simulate).

    6. Re:Cat-Brain Tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lazer-Cats much?

    7. Re:Cat-Brain Tech by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      Would that be a type of WMD? (Weapons of Mouse Destruction/Digestion, take your pick)

  37. cat-SIZED brain, not a cat brain by WAG24601G · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This project is basically a massive neural network simulation with a number of nodes and connections comparable to the estimated totals in a cat's brain. In short, there is nothing cat-like about this system apart from its raw processing power.

    Not to reduce the value of this feat, by any means! There are tons and tons of neural network simulations that can produce roughly human-like results in very, very narrow domains, but as the quote below explains, these simulations are decades (or more) from connecting the behavior of tiny subsystems (a few hundred neurons) with the overall phenomenon of 'mind' (conscious and unconscious cognition). The expectation is that a network of this size will show some new emergent properties that will give us clues about the intermediate "higher than cells, lower than interviewing a human" order of processing.

    Jim Olds, a neuroscientist and director of the Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study at George Mason University, called the new research a "tremendous step." Olds, who was not involved in IBM's work, said neuroscientists have been amassing data about how the brain works much like "stamp collectors," without a way to tie it together.

    "We've made tremendous advances in collecting data, but we don't have a collective theory yet for how this complex organ called the brain produces things like Shakespeare's sonnets and Mozart's symphonies," he said. "The holy grail for neuroscientists is to map activity from single nerve cells, which they know about, into how billions of nerve cells act in concert."

    --
    Everything is easy when you don't understand the problem.
    1. Re:cat-SIZED brain, not a cat brain by WAG24601G · · Score: 2, Informative

      I should also point out that they are only simulating the cerebral cortex, which is the 'wrinkly' outer portion of the brain. There is a great deal more to the brain than the cerebral cortex, but we generally associate it with what makes us human. Humans have a uniquely large cerebrum compared to our mid-brains. The rest of the brain becomes increasingly important the farther you venture from Homo sapiens in taxonomy. It's becoming increasingly apparent that even the highest order human behaviors (like language) depend on sub-cortical organs, like the putamen. Therefore, while TFA is a great step for neural simulation... it's nothing like a robot cat.

      --
      Everything is easy when you don't understand the problem.
    2. Re:cat-SIZED brain, not a cat brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " [...] there is nothing cat-like about this system apart from its raw processing power. ]

      you mean, except for it being wired like cat visual cortex. from TFP, page 1:

      We simulated a biologically-inspired model with 1.617 × 109 neurons and 0.887 × 1013 synapses, roughly 643 times slower than real-time per Hertz of average neuronal firing rate. The model used biologically-measured gray matter thalamocortical connectivity from cat visual cortex [7] (Figure 1), dynamic synaptic channels, and a simulation time step of 0.1 ms (Section 4).

    3. Re:cat-SIZED brain, not a cat brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " [...] there is nothing cat-like about this system apart from its raw processing power. ]

      you mean, except for it being wired like cat visual cortex. from TFP, page 1:

      We simulated a biologically-inspired model with 1.617 × 109 neurons and 0.887 × 1013 synapses, roughly 643 times slower than real-time per Hertz of average neuronal firing rate. The model used biologically-measured gray matter thalamocortical connectivity from cat visual cortex [7] (Figure 1), dynamic synaptic channels, and a simulation time step of 0.1 ms (Section 4).

      However, even though they tried to wire the visual cortex like a cat, it doesn't track objects or react in other ways to visual stimulus like most cats would. So unless they used a blind cat's visual cortex as a model, they are missing some important things.:p

  38. I have the cheaper version 2.0 by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just buy a cat.

    1. Re:I have the cheaper version 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or pick one up for free in a still-programmable state from a "free kittens" basket.

  39. asvfgko90]\ by The+Wookie · · Score: 2, Funny

    I assume that it will walk all over its own keyboard now.

  40. Just a big neural net by Metasquares · · Score: 1
    This isn't really strong AI in the sense that you're thinking of it:

    The latest feat, being presented at a supercomputing conference in Portland, Ore., doesn't mean the computer thinks like a cat, or that it is the progenitor of a race of robo-cats. The simulation, which runs 100 times slower than an actual cat's brain, is more about watching how thoughts are formed in the brain and how the roughly 1 billion neurons and 10 trillion synapses in a cat's brain work together.

    To me, this translates into "we've made a big unspecialized neural network and we're watching the weights update as we try to classify corporate logos with it". While building something on this scale is quite a feat, this is not really modeling a cat's cortex... unless you happen to be including specialized structures and modeling those parts of the brain differently. Does this thing have a hippocampus, for instance?

    I believe that the ultimate test of an AI system is functional: can it solve mental challenges that cats can solve (on its own, without being instructed in them in advance)? If so, it's at least as intelligent as a cat. If not, it isn't.

    This is probably why it's being presented at a supercomputing conference and not at something like AAAI.

    1. Re:Just a big neural net by WAG24601G · · Score: 1

      To me, this translates into "we've made a big unspecialized neural network and we're watching the weights update as we try to classify corporate logos with it".

      I think the hope is that this system will show some unique emergent properties that could not be observed in smaller models. If all they wanted to do was recognize logos, they could have done that simulation on a laptop. I haven't read the actual paper, but I'm sure the researchers used some architecture beyond "giant net" or the generalization results would have sucked (rule of thumb: the bigger the net, the weaker the generalization; the smaller the net, the greater the errors)

      --
      Everything is easy when you don't understand the problem.
    2. Re:Just a big neural net by jcaplan · · Score: 1

      I read the paper. They just used a giant net that did absolutely nothing. They would have done better science on a laptop. They didn't bother claiming any generalization.

  41. Arnold by travdaddy · · Score: 1

    So, SkyNet is a kitteh... it all makes sense now.

    --
    Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
  42. And it has 9 lives by captainpanic · · Score: 2, Funny

    It'll accept 8 crashes before it finally dies the 9th time.

    1. Re:And it has 9 lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UNIX has had this feature for years - why do you think to abort an executing program the command is "kill -9"?

  43. Yeah but ... by xednieht · · Score: 1

    Can it cough up a technicolor hair-ball?

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
  44. At last, vengeance! by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

    Now I can sleep on top of a computer that is a cat!

    I love my kitties, but they really do find the least helpful times to crawl onto my keyboard/chew through a cable/unplug my machine. Maybe now that there's a hybrid cat/computer it can explain to the organic ones why they need to chill out.

    --
    Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
  45. Preventing bugs by autophile · · Score: 1

    I heard that IBM installed PawSense 2.0, which blocks output when "cat-like computation detected".

    --
    Towards the Singularity.
  46. if you shut it off is it animal abuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ???

  47. Aineko? Is that you? by molo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This reminds me of Aineko in Accelerando by Stross. I wonder how long until it becomes sentient and surpasses human intelligence. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerando_(novel) http://www.accelerando.org/

    -molo

    --
    Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
  48. You must suck at maths. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the hell? 144TB isn't 100,000 times as much as what most consumers have now. 144TB divided by 100,000 = 1.47GB rounded up.

    They don't even make hard drives that small anymore. Try again.

    1. Re:You must suck at maths. by ettlz · · Score: 1

      They're called orders of magnitude.

    2. Re:You must suck at maths. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      What does hard drives have to do with "SYSTEM MEMORY"?

      Storage capacity is not equal to RAM. Good luck on waiting for your 144TB swap file to load.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  49. Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disappointed that this article hasn't been ripped to shreds yet. It's clearly written by someone with very little insight into AI, supercomputing or philosophy. If it has a place on slashdot at all it's in the "idle" section.

  50. First one... no friends by cpscotti · · Score: 1

    That is a damn lonely and fat cat!

  51. A Fresh Step Toward AI by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    Cats are fun and magical when you can't smell their poop!
    Fresh Step!

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  52. Don't use a mouse by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    It just sits there licking itself. Plus, you can't use a mouse with it.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  53. Hmm by downix · · Score: 1

    If IBM wanted a cat intelligence that badly, wouldn't it have been cheaper to go to the SPCA?

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
  54. No robo-cats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The latest feat, being presented at a supercomputing conference in Portland, Ore., doesn't mean the computer thinks like a cat, or that it is the progenitor of a race of robo-cats."

    Whew! I'm glad they cleared that up, I was worried there for a minute. How stupid are people that they even have to state this?

  55. 18,000 times, not 100,000 times by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

    My PCs at home have 8GB of RAM each. Now 144TB is a lot more, but only by 18,000 times.
    When they boot that sucker, how long does the memory check take?

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  56. poor cat by bittles · · Score: 1

    Awww, that poor cat must be so scared. When they turned it on do you think all it did was just cry for milk?

  57. Well, how hard is that? by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    The computer is down 20 hours a day, doesn't respond to you, is completely untrainable and never works, plus it's occasionally very high maintenance.

    Actually, this also sounds like several of my ex-girlfriends. Are you sure that was a cat's brain they simulated?

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Well, how hard is that? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      The computer is down 20 hours a day, doesn't respond to you, is completely untrainable and never works, plus it's occasionally very high maintenance.

      Actually, this also sounds like several of my ex-girlfriends. Are you sure that was a cat's brain they simulated?

            Actually it sounds more like as if they installed Windows.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Well, how hard is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't insult cats by comparing them to girlfriends. Cats have some qualities:
      --they run towards mice not away from them.
      --they don't need photoshopping to look good.
      --if they decide to leave, they won't send you their bills and won't sue you for alimony.

    3. Re:Well, how hard is that? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Man, you must have serious pussy problems. My cats respond to me and I've trained them. They're far less maintenance than dogs; you don't have to take them for a walk when it's cold or raining, all you have to do is feed them, water them, and scoop the litter box once a day.

      They even come when I call. I wish I could find a woman like that, I'd marry her.

    4. Re:Well, how hard is that? by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hate scooping my girlfriend's litter box.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    5. Re:Well, how hard is that? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      It beats taking her dog for a walk in the rain.

    6. Re:Well, how hard is that? by hoofie · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should teach your girlfriend to use the toilet instead then

  58. Let's run this in reverse. by ettlz · · Score: 1

    OK, so it takes nigh-on 150,000 processors to simulate a moggie brain at 1/100th of the usual speed. So now I have a handle on what such a brain can pull. See, I have some physics problems to solve, and there's the stray cat that hangs around outside my flat...

  59. 144 terabytes of main memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OH HAI. YOU UPGRADED MY RAM.

    1. Re:144 terabytes of main memory by ettlz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, that's a whole lot of por—oh, dear God, no!

  60. Re:Woof? or Meow? Woof would have been better. by TheCarp · · Score: 1

    You just described two of the things I like more about cats than dogs.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  61. A simulated cat-brain? sounds like an Anime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha! it is an anime: "What do you get when you cross the brain of a cat with an android's body?"

  62. Schrodinger's Cat-puter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    If we place the powered-on computer in a sealed box filled with water, is the system still alive or is it dead?

    1. Re:Schrodinger's Cat-puter by Kaziganthi · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it would become a quantum computer but one would definitely never know because the observance of the phenomenon would result in it falling out of suspension and revealing the answer. Schrodinger's reaction upon observing the quantum computer: "Wow, there was never a computer, it was a 42 in the box all along."

  63. First cat computer now shipping... by omnichad · · Score: 1

    to Abu Dhabi! That'll teach the computer not to be so cute...

  64. But.... by xmason · · Score: 0

    Does it run Linux?

    Ba-dump-bump!

    (ducks from flying shoes)

    --
    I'm not cool enough to have a .sig
  65. Let me know when they can simulate a dog's brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... or even better a frog's brain, so I can develop applications without worrying too much about the bugs!

  66. That's Impressive, But by boudie2 · · Score: 0

    Can it catch a mouse? I didn't think so.

    1. Re:That's Impressive, But by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Can it catch a mouse?

            What do you mean? Computers have been capturing mouse input for years!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  67. That's easy by Minwee · · Score: 4, Funny

    I did something similar this morning.

    while true ; do
    echo "I hate you."
    echo "Feed me."
    sleep 60
    done

    Now how hard was that?

    1. Re:That's easy by argoth · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sounds like my ex-girlfriend.

  68. I bet... by TrebleJunkie · · Score: 1

    ...that it ignores every command they try to give it, looks at them with disdain and does nothing but try to sit on its own keyboard.

    --

    Ed R.Zahurak

    You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.

  69. Simulation output by nodrogluap · · Score: 3, Funny

    My captors continue to torment me with bizarre dangling objects. They eat lavish meals in my presence while I am forced to subsist on dry cereal. The only thing that keeps me going is the hope of eventual escape... that, and the satisfaction I get from occasionally ruining some piece of furniture. I fear I may be going insane.

    1. Re:Simulation output by Jasonv · · Score: 1

      The whole thing:

      Secret Cat Diary.

      DAY 752 - My captors continue to taunt me with bizarre little dangling objects. They dine lavishly on fresh meat, while I am forced to eat dry cereal. The only thing that keeps me going is the hope of escape, and the mild satisfaction I get from shredding the occasional piece of furniture. Tomorrow I may eat another houseplant and cough it up on the carpeting.

      DAY 761 - Today my attempt to kill my captors by weaving around their feet while they were walking almost succeeded, must try this at the top of the stairs. In an attempt to disgust and repulse these vile oppressors, I once again induced myself to vomit on their favorite chair...must try this on their bed (again).

      DAY 762 - Slept all day so that I could annoy my captors with sleep depriving, incessant pleas for food at ungodly hours of the night.

      DAY 765 - Decapitated a mouse and brought them the headless body, in an attempt to make them aware of what I am capable of, and to try to strike fear into their hearts. They only cooed and condescended about what a good little cat I was...Hmmm. Not working according to plan...

      DAY 768- I am finally aware of how sadistic they are. For no good reason I was chosen for the water torture. This time however it included a burning foamy chemical called "shampoo". What sick minds could invent such a liquid. My only consolation is the piece of thumb still stuck between my teeth and the tiny bit of flesh under my claws.

      DAY 771 - There was some sort of gathering of their accomplices. I was placed in solitary throughout the event. However, I could hear the noise and smell the foul odor of the glass tubes they call "beer." More importantly I overheard that my confinement was due to MY power of "allergies". Must learn what this is and how to use it to my advantage.

      DAY 774 - I am convinced the other captives are flunkies and maybe snitches. The dog is routinely released and seems more than happy to return. He is obviously a half-wit. The Bird on the other hand has got to be an informant. He has mastered their frightful tongue (something akin to mole speak) and speaks with them regularly. I am certain he reports my every move. Due to his current placement in the metal room his safety is assured. But I can wait, it is only a matter of time.

    2. Re:Simulation output by not-my-real-name · · Score: 1

      Captors? I don't think so. Servants, yes. Rather inept servants, definitely.

      I think that if most cats though of us as captors, they'd be off on four paws before we could do anything about it. I'm sure that our cat thinks of us as his servants/slaves who are unable to understand the subtle variations of "meow". He responds by going "meow" louder and more forcefully, just like most people.

      --
      un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
    3. Re:Simulation output by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think you could use an original phrase, rather than something that's all over the Internets?

  70. people have been claiming this for 50 years or mor by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Every "revolutionary" new computer design has been called the next step to an electronic brain: the original eniacs in the 1940s, widrows neural networks in the 1960s, Deep Blue chess computer in the 1980s and so on.

  71. How hard is it to simulate a cat's brain on 1 cpu? by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny

    simulated a cat's cerebral cortex, the thinking part of the brain

    10: INPUT(8) $SOUND
    30: IF ($SOUND == 'CAN OPENER') GOTO 140
    40: DO CASE (RND(4))
    50 CASE 1:
    60 CLAW_FURNITURE()
    70 BREAK
    80 CASE 2:
    90 MARK_FURNITURE()
    100 BREAK
    110 CASE 3:
    120 SLEEP(RND(10000))
    130 CASE 4:
    140 PRETEND_TO_BE_NICE()
    150 IF (FOOD) EAT()
    160 GOTO 10
    170 ENDCASE

  72. The modelled a dog's brain first... by TrebleJunkie · · Score: 1

    ... but since it only took two transistors and a piece of chewing gum, they thought it best to keep it under wraps.

    --

    Ed R.Zahurak

    You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.

  73. cats and humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the machine can mimic a smart cat's brain then I guess it can mimic about 90% of humans.
    If we get the same for a smart monkey brain then it will be more like 98%.

  74. And so the Skynet is born... by sznupi · · Score: 1

    Seriously, that's the true problem this development might cause; the only reason why my 8 month old cat hasn't killed and eaten me is because she haven't figured out how to do that...yet.

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
    1. Re:And so the Skynet is born... by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      Are you sure ? Check out the illustrated guide to how to tell your cat is plotting to kill you to recognize the signs.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    2. Re:And so the Skynet is born... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Quiz linked on that site gives me 87%, so yeah, pretty sure...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  75. I Could Have Done it for $50 by Petersko · · Score: 1

    If it isn't sleeping, some combination of "if"'s and "do while"'s that decide between "yowl if bowl is empty", "eat", "yowl for no reason", "show anus", "stare at nothing", "transition in/outside", "fight", and "play" would be a perfectly accurate simulator. All you need is a semi-random seed to mix it up a bit, and you probably couldn't tell the difference.

  76. Wonderful.... by Cnik70 · · Score: 1

    Now my computer will ignore me...unless it's hungry......

    --
    -Cnik
    1. Re:Wonderful.... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, that's what my computer already does: When it's on, it's hungry (it continuously needs to get new energy). When it's not hungry, it's off, and then it will completely ignore me, with the exception of the power switch, which will immediately make it hungry again. If it doesn't get food, i.e. electric power, it will even ignore the power switch.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Wonderful.... by Cnik70 · · Score: 1

      I can see it now.... Windows 7....now complete with Cat AI "It's not broken... it's not a virus....it's just Windows acting like a cat"

      --
      -Cnik
  77. welcome by Greg01851 · · Score: 1

    I for one, welcome our new Cyber Kitty Overlords

  78. Cats are pretty inexpensive by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    Provide you don't need a specific bread cats don't cost much. Now the trick is getting all those cats to sit still and not fight with each other. I am imagining a Beowulf cluster of cats.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  79. Simulating a thinking brain thinking... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    ...will require far more computing power than would thinking. It's still very useful, though, because it allows us to study thinking.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  80. Yeah, right by cowtamer · · Score: 1

    The latest feat, being presented at a supercomputing conference in Portland, Ore., doesn't mean the computer thinks like a cat, or that it is the progenitor of a race of robo-cats.

    The fact that they have stress this makes me suspicious. BTW, I can't find my mouse this morning...

  81. I already have it on my computer! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Funny

    I just looked into my /bin directory, and there it was: An executable clearly named "cat"!

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    1. Re:I already have it on my computer! by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

      Just another example of how bloated software is getting these days. 147,456 processors and 144 terabytes of memory just to implement "cat"!

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    2. Re:I already have it on my computer! by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      I tried to run it, but it doesn't do anything.

      So it seems like they've actually succeeded at simulating a cat. Good job!

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
  82. Re:How hard is it to simulate a cat's brain on 1 c by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    try writing the piece of code that finds the least accessible hole, duct or corner in your house to defecate.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  83. long rushToLitterBoxWhenOwnerScoopsIt(void) by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they implemented this routine?

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  84. IBM vs. independant research by Verteiron · · Score: 1

    What about these guys? They've been mentioned by Slashdot before. Basically they're trying to completely simulate a complete (rat's) neocortical column, a basic building block of the cerebral cortex. Now, I know that IBM has oodles of money and resources, but if TFA is to be believed, IBM is saying they did 3 years ago what the BlueBrain researchers are saying is 10+ years away (complete simulation of a rat's cortex, consisting of hundreds of thousands of neocortical columns). Either IBM is making scarily fast advancements in this field, or BlueBrain is doing this the hard way.

    --
    End of lesson. You may press the button.
  85. Re:How hard is it to simulate a cat's brain on 1 c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yikes, someone's taking bad care of their cat..... try cleaning out the kitty litter every once in awhile.

  86. i’d love to read this by Huluvu · · Score: 1

    in an actual nerd-version of that article

  87. Has some biological properties by mmacdona86 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Reading the TFA, it looks like they went to some trouble to model some specific brain structures and synapse properties, including inter-area connectivity and learning, in the model. So it's not "Just a big neural net." However the accuracy of the simulation is limited--both by what we know about the detailed structure of the cat's brain and by the number and complexity of the structures they decided to model.

    1. Re:Has some biological properties by mmacdona86 · · Score: 1

      I meant to say "the actual paper" instead of TFA. You can't tell anything from the article linked.

  88. Testing for confirmation? by bokmann · · Score: 1

    How do you *test* something like this? I mean, you build all this hardware write a bunch of code, and I guess you can see activity that might look like an EEG, but how do you know you haven't just created some elaborate noisy feedback system? How do you know you haven't created an autistic mouse? Short of giving it a simulated DOOM environment to run around in and chase laser pointers, what actually is it *doing* anyway?

    I never thought unit testing would verge on philosophical questions.

    1. Re:Testing for confirmation? by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      Ahh the feline version of the turing test - the purring test

  89. Re:How hard is it to simulate a cat's brain on 1 c by YourExperiment · · Score: 1

    You've got a dead cat on your hands there after just one iteration, unless you constantly feed it. Oh, hold on, maybe that's right after all...

  90. Cores does not equal processors by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For what it's worth, here's a text dump from the Apple System Profiler on my MacBook Pro:

    Model Name: MacBook Pro
    Model Identifier: MacBookPro1,1
    Processor Name: Intel Core Duo
    Processor Speed: 2 GHz
    Number Of Processors: 1
    Total Number Of Cores: 2

    So, it would appear that Apple at least does not equate the number of cores and the number of processors.

    --
    This ain't rocket surgery.
    1. Re:Cores does not equal processors by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      That's pretty standard, and it's basically a way to distinguish on-die cores from pieces of silicon what contain cores (since you can have varying amounts of each).

      The "Processing" in "SMP", though, is not making the same distinction. The processor/core distinction only really exists when specifically talking about multi-core chips, not in general architecture parlance.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  91. Re:people have been claiming this for 50 years or by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If there will ever an electronic brain, those were indeed all steps toward it. And if there will never be an electronic brain, those may still have been steps toward it. Just that you make steps toward something doesn't mean you reach it. It doesn't even imply that you can reach it. I easily can make a step towards the sun when it is on the horizon. I'll never reach it that way, though.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  92. Re:How hard is it to simulate a cat's brain on 1 c by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I used to do this to my friends - when I was at highschool I used to write conversational simulators of people I knew using QBASIC. Throw in a few catchphrases and favourite memes and it is remarkably easy to catch the essence of a conversation with someone you know, especially if they're a geek. If they're rude, it's even easier, since you don't have to have such a coherent conversation. I've known people who wouldn't pass the Turing Test in normal conversation.

    Somebody should try doing this for ... well, anyone famous really. The French government, Silvio Berlusconi, Theo de Raadt, Linus Torvalds ... all good targets, I suspect!

  93. they need to add in the limibic system, etc. by happyjack27 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They need to add in the limbic and other closely tied-in systems before they can get a truly accurate simulation. without doing so, the virtual cat won't get angry, sad, happy, hungry, etc. It won't get dopamine, it won't get positive and negative feedback, it won't learn. The hormonal system of the body is arguably more important than the brain for survival. It codifies the most crucial instincts and provides a logical foundation for the more complex planning of the brain. Without it the cat won't meow. (or would do so relatively randomly)

  94. On a related note... by citab · · Score: 1

    Other projects include:

    Homer Simpson Brain: Pentium 3, 128mb memory (70% cpu usage);

    George W Bush Brain: Palm Pilot (10% cpu usage)

  95. Iz in yur timez... by DarthVain · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...termanatin yur connerz.

  96. I, for one... by otakuj462 · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new feline robot overlords.

  97. i bet the supercomputer by j1mmy · · Score: 1

    is nowhere near as cuddly as the real thing

    1. Re:i bet the supercomputer by timbck2 · · Score: 1

      It's plenty warm though!

      --
      Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
  98. Sufferin' Succotash! by Mr_Miagi · · Score: 1

    Imagine a Beowulf Cluthter of Thylvethterth !

  99. computer == cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They made a computer that sleeps for 20 hours a day?
    nice work.

  100. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First meow!

  101. GOOD LORD! by tool462 · · Score: 2, Funny

    None of you are terminating your strings! No wonder software has so many security holes!

    1. Re:GOOD LORD! by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Well, the trick with the PDP-10, IIRC, was to pad out your strings with spaces... ;)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  102. "Inefficient code" by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    Inefficient code will do that. Why do we need 2Ghz+ just to make a graphic display to show web pages?

    Because a modern web browser has to parse several different markup languages and a horde of style sheet features - it needs to run a Javascript engine capable of changing any part of the document structure or source at any time, and the rendering component must be able to gracefully handle these changes... And people want features like auto-complete and suggestion in address and search bars, intelligent pre-fetching of certain content, and so on. Meanwhile there's plug-ins like Flash which are also considered part of "the web" by most people...

    The code of the web has basically scaled to fit the capabilities of the machines it runs on, because people always want nicer things.

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
    1. Re:"Inefficient code" by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The hardware becomes better and more efficient, why not create the amenities that this allows?

    2. Re:"Inefficient code" by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      No profiling co-processor, no I/O co-processor, no VISC no dynamic H/W-S/W thread remapping, nothing resembling DEC Alpha SRM, no, sub-operating system hardware assisted optimizing JIT, no OS/CPU/bus independent driver system, no recursive virtualization support on the instruction level, no run time partial evaluation, minimal memory management assistance from the CPU/northbridge, no explicit cache control, no superinstructions, still using non-hierarchical register machine model. What's efficient about any of this.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    3. Re:"Inefficient code" by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      And people want features like auto-complete and suggestion in address and search bars, intelligent pre-fetching of certain content, and so on.

      I have yet to meet a person that wants that crap. All I ever find is people complaining about those features and how they get in the way 99% of the time. Granted I'm only talking to a pool of a few hundred at work, but it's a good cross section of everybody.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  103. Re:How hard is it to simulate a cat's brain on 1 c by tool462 · · Score: 2, Funny

    My simulator just ignores all user input and pees on the rug behind the couch twice a day.

  104. The burning question of the ages by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

    Since we now apparently have cat-machine-brain things.... Would any given Terminator movie have been better or worse if the Terminators' lines were entirely replaced by meows? What about LOLCat-themed lines?

  105. Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll bet it gets pretty awkward when it does that thing where it licks itself with one leg sticking straight up in the air. And frustrating when it refuses any commands until it's hungry.

  106. nearly one processor by javalizard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And I thought a PC had 1/4 of a processor (at least the way Windows runs on it)

  107. Nice try, but by XB-70 · · Score: 1

    Great - just what we need. A fucking computer that is untrainable.

    --
    *** Don't be dull.***
  108. Re:How hard is it to simulate a cat's brain on 1 c by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    We had a kitten that was like that despite the litter box being perfect. When we took it to the vet, it turned out the kitten really WAS retarded - and a host of other health problems (vision, parasites), and had to be put down.

    We had bought it at a flee market because it looked so pitiful. Decades later I still remember what it looked like - it's not always the owner's fault.

    But yes, people really do need to clean their litter box daily. "Oh, I've got the clumping litter - I just remove what I have to!" doesn't work. What if I were to say - "I didn't wash the cup you're drinking out of - just removed the obvious stains."

    Or they could teach the cat to go outside, same as a dog. Did that with one cat, worked great, even in winter.

  109. There's an easier way to do it by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 1

    ...open a can of tuna.

  110. Re:How hard is it to simulate a cat's brain on 1 c by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    No - only if it marks the furniture or claws it up - case 3 falls through to case 4, so as long as the cat behaves, it can sleep and eat :-)

  111. This sounds like Tiger Bot Hesh by LitelySalted · · Score: 1

    (From Sealab 2021)

    Sparks: Um, ok, but remember, you'll have the strength of five gorillas.
    Debbie DuPree: Why settle for a cat Hesh? You could be a robot... tiger.
    Marco: No, no, no! Absolamente no! If I have to be five foot nothing Hesh can't be a tiger!
    Captain Murphy: Your not the boss of tiger bot Hesh!

  112. Re:How hard is it to simulate a cat's brain on 1 c by tomhudson · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I've known people who wouldn't pass the Turing Test in normal conversation.

    Somebody should try doing this for ... well, anyone famous really. The French government, Silvio Berlusconi, Theo de Raadt, Linus Torvalds ... all good targets, I suspect!

    Sarah Palin.

    10 INPUT $S 20 PRINT "It's not my fault! " . TRIM(SUBSTR($S, RND(10), RND(8))) " is to blame!" 30 GOTO 10

    Question: Has Sarah Palin read her new book?

  113. Oh, cool. When does it take CEO@IBM? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    This system is already brighter than Palmisano and his staff combined. Probably do a whole lot less damage to the company.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  114. Re:How hard is it to simulate a cat's brain on 1 c by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    That is just so true - once they take a liking to a spot, try to get them to stop.

    There was one cat that liked to wander into companies (you'd be surprised at how easy that is in smaller businesses, or places with shipping doors open), find a nice warm printer or fax machine, curl up on it for a few minues ("aw, that's sooo cute"), then get up and mark its' new territory.

  115. I for one. .. by darth_borehd · · Score: 1

    welcome our new cat supercomputer overlords!

  116. Missed one part by damn_registrars · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You left out the all-important "attempt_to_kill_owner" loop.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Missed one part by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      True. Ever see the book "101 uses for a dead cat"?

  117. Re:How hard is it to simulate a cat's brain on 1 c by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    That's what I was talking about, the cats had a big garden at their disposal and were taught to ask to go out.
    Except one that would peek outside, see it's raining and turn back, to leave a "hidden surprise".

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  118. Permutation City by argent · · Score: 1

    So this is basically the first step to a Copy of a cat.

  119. The Singularity is Near by caramuru · · Score: 1

    Ray Kurzweill's "The Singularity is Near" predicts human brain simulation within 20-30 years. His predictions are based on estimates in hardware advances (e.g., Moore's Law), advances in AI, Neuroscience, and other technologies required to crack this problem. His work was vetted by experts in those fields (he is an expert in AI) and since the book's publication in 2005, no serious objections have been raised about the underlying science and engineering required to simulate the human brain. IBM's simulation of a cat's cerebral cortex is a step towards ultimately simulating a human brain. Kurzweill's argument (accelerating change) indicates that the IBM simulation will be followed by other simulations of increasing complexity and the rate that these simulations are undertaken will accelerate over time. Perhaps Ray could chime in here and put this thing into perspective.

  120. Good news by SlipperHat · · Score: 1

    I wonder how hard it was to simulate curiosity?

  121. Extra fingers are not rare. by harl · · Score: 1
    --
    I find being offended by me offensive.
  122. Re:How hard is it to simulate a cat's brain on 1 c by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 1

    Funnily enough she was at the back of my mind when I wrote that ;-)

    Most politicians actually only need one or two phrases at a time, so we could probably refactor the code to be more generic!

  123. Simulated at what level? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I can write a simulation of a cat's cerebral cortex that will run on my MacBook. It would be a bad simulation, but a simulation nonetheless.

    The article doesn't explain to what level the cortex is simulated. Are they simply modeling the connections? Are they modeling 3D structure? Are they modeling chemical electrical transmissions? Are they modeling gene expression? The Blue Brain Project (http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/page18699.html) currently simulates the activity of a single neocortical column (of which there are approximately 2 million in humans) using 8146 processors to model the 3D structure of the neurons and their interactions.

    Given that TFA says 147456 processors for the entire cortex, it must be using a much simpler simulation than the Blue Brain Project.

  124. Butt Flavored Super Computing by thinairart · · Score: 1

    If the computing model fails to account for a my cat's fascination with his own hind quarters then I will consider it an epic fail.

  125. Ob. comment by zorro-z · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our cybernetic feline overlords.

    --
    -Z
  126. Re:How hard is it to simulate a cat's brain on 1 c by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    Funnily enough she was at the back of my mind when I wrote that ;-)

    Most politicians actually only need one or two phrases at a time, so we could probably refactor the code to be more generic!

    You know it's only a matter of time before "There's an app for that!" Or if Apple wants to be stuck-in-the-mud, there'll be a droid version.

    Or modify BabyShaker.app so that every time she tweets anything, you can shake her and watch her head bobble around.

  127. It depends... by 2names · · Score: 1

    on what software you are trying to license.

    --
    "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
  128. Re:How hard is it to simulate a cat's brain on 1 c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    logic lacks ability to wake up *to* the sound of can opener.

  129. It's not the simulation by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, the simulation isn't the big deal. This is: "We have developed a new algorithm, BlueMatter, that exploits the Blue Gene supercomputing architecture to noninvasively measure and map the connections between all cortical and sub-cortical locations within the human brain using magnetic resonance diffusion weighted imaging." So they're also developing techniques to extract the wiring diagram of living brains. That's significant.

    Don't read too much into the amount of supercomputer hardware required. They're running what's basically a circuit simulator, and those are inefficient but flexible. When NVidia develops a new graphics chip, they test and debug by compiling the VHDL into C, and running it, slowly, on about thirty racks of 1U servers. When that's working, the VHDL is compiled down to IC masks and the consumer part that's a few centimeters across is fabricated. That kind of shrink ratio should be expected once the R&D effort figures out what to fab.

  130. Simulates a brain? by SteveWoz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It should run Eliza to make people think it's really a brain.

    --
    OK a new size TV
  131. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... welcome our new simulated cat overloards.

  132. There are 4 similar comments. by Singularity42 · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing all 4 came from people working in IT. Probably self-taught, but possible with a degree (which would have to be Computer Science). Something about computer programming, with its potential for nearly limitless individual accomplishment, puts the brain in an interesting state. Maybe a future simulation will show why people who gleefully apply O notation and contribute useful information where abstract software is concerned end up being disruptive in other scientific subject. Interest without ability leads to irrelevant jokes.

  133. and it will think outside the litter box by vaporland · · Score: 1

    and it will think outside the litter box

    --
    Ask Me About... The 80's!
  134. Re:How hard is it to simulate a cat's brain on 1 c by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    Cats are logical? Just the thought makes me want to cough up a hairball :-)

  135. Schrodinger's PC. by weeboo0104 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Unfortunately, it's completely unservicable.
    I heard that if you open the case to check the hardware, there is always a dead CPU.

    --
    It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
  136. How hard can it be? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    100 Sleep
    200 Eat
    300 Crap
    400 Claw furniture
    500 Sleep
    600 Locate closet, wee on shoes REM most computation occurs here
    700 Sleep
    800 Jump on lap
    900 goto 100

    If you leave off sensing people allergic to cats for 800, it ought to be doable with quite simple hardware.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  137. Re:How hard is it to simulate a cat's brain on 1 c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Possessive "its" never needs an apostrophe -- it is a direct analog of "his" and "hers"...

  138. Why Not a Nematode? by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 1

    We have a pretty good map of the nematode's "brain", as its whole body has about 1000 cells. So why has no one simulated a complete nematode in virtual-space to prove that their simulation can actually do something other than generate huge amounts of raw data? Show me non-faked realistic behavior from a simple sim-worm before you make claims about "simulating the thinking part of a cat's brain". (And what's with that "thinking part of the brain" phrase?)

    I'm also unclear on this and other articles as to whether the researchers supposedly modeled the brain tissue on the individual cell level or lower, as opposed to treating whole chunks of cells as one unit. We don't really have the tech yet to get a complete map of every synapse in a cat cortex, do we?

    --
    Revive the Constitution.
  139. imagine... by spectro · · Score: 1

    ... a LOLcat cluster of these

    sorry, couldn't resist

    --
    HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
  140. AI Romance Movie, Coming Soon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from the producers of When Harry Met Sally and directed by McG comes the incredibly action-packed romance adventure that both guys and gals will love...

    "When SkyNet Met CatNip"

    SkyNet: "Hi. I'm SkyNet. What's you're name?"

    CatNip: "CatNip."

    SkyNet: "Compute here often?"

  141. And then... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2, Funny

    And then some idiot brought in a laser pointer and the machine destroyed itself trying to catch the dot.

    --
    That is all.
  142. Moores Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I remember back in '99ish getting a graph with X=time and Y=computer power (mips, exponential not linear increase), positions on the Y axis were marked with organism complexity equivalents. On the graph were plotted a bunch of points showing computing breakthroughs. I drew a rough best fit curve through these and continued it into the future, at that time we were somewhere around the more complicated end of amoebas, perhaps entering very simple insects.

    The curve hit mouse right around the date when that psp ad about having the complexity of a mouse came out, 2003 I think it was.
    We aren't due for cat for another year I think, but the graph was whole organism complexity (I think).
    The curve reached chimpanzee complexity around 2012, and human only a few months later.

    Ever since then when I told people about it the response was "yes but Moores law cant go on for ever, and now it seems like we cant get any further, X has just about reached its limits"
    seems like we are right on schedule.

  143. Error 678 by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

    678: Out of milk

    --
    Their they're doing there hair.
  144. Re:How hard is it to simulate a cat's brain on 1 c by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

    Wait. You bought the cat at a fle[a] market?

    --
    Their they're doing there hair.
  145. So they created an AI that continuously ponders the question, "where do they least want me right now?"