With this type of size reduction we could have chips at 3 gigahertz with 50 GIGABYTES of L1 cache. At bootup your system would load your entire drive image into L1 memory, and there would never be page faults or disk hits. Except to save, but that would be a background process and not affecting computing.
Well, one thing I would like to point out is that human brains were not designed for memory, they were designed for association, pattern matching, and thinking in general. Computers are great at remembering things, however, they are not designed for thinking (currently).
The two together are a wonderful syngery.
As for the storage of the mind, it is all the abstract and multilayed relationships stored in the mind and somehow mapped to synapse interactions, that are the truly meaningful information in the brain. And this information we do not understand fully (or peven partially according to some). I can assure you, however, that to store all this information would require many orders of magnitude more storage than a single gigabyte (DVDR).
My signature is concerned only with the physical code for the body itself (hardware) which is DNA, which is roughly 620-630 megabytes of information. Not with consciousness or mental state (software) which is incredibly complex and ever permutating and extending itself while running stop the hardware (brain) built according to this gentic program.
How do you know our conciousness isn't 'embeded' in our genetic make-up
Well, it is certainly influenced by it, but if that were the case, identical twins would have an identical consciousness, which we know not to be true.
However, identical twins are often very similiar in behavior, even when separated at birth and raised in different environments. So genetic predisposition definately has a part in the development of your consciousness, personality, and intelligence.
Given the time it takes to build and configure and initialize a fab plant, this is actually a rather short period of time. It takes anywhere from 4-7 years to gt a new fab plant fully operational, with 5 years the norm. Replacing the fabrication hardware, still takes many many months to years to get installed and setup.
You forget the fact that this type of production is to be much faster than current optical methods. That would be where the real big payoff would be. Higher chip density is a plus, but coupled with fast fab would be great news for the industry.
If you had read the article you would know that this technology would be quite inexpensive (for a fab budget) to implement with practical applications immediately.
This isnt far out theoretical research, they have built the system, and scaling it to fab production sounds quite straightforward and practical.
Well, you could squeeze your entire physical blueprint onto a CDR. However, the thing that most of us value most, namely our consciousness, would require many orders of magnitude more space.
If there is to be a court problem with filtering software in libraries, it will be because they filter too broadly, not because a librarian uses them
Exactly. And there is no filter that is not in error as far as this is concerned. That is why the government cannot support these filters in puclib government funded institutions, or in general. It would be absolutely legal to prevent minors from getting to adult information, however, on the net there is currently no way to do this.
But the proposed Utah law does not mandate a specific piece of software. Therefore, the law could be held constitutional, while certain specific applications of it would not be.
Very true. If they mandated filters, it would be illegal, if they mandated open well viewed net terminals with large signs saying no pr0n for kiddies, it would all be cool.
This is not affecting all, it's just affecting state funded libraries. A state can attach just about any restrictions on their funds that they wish.
Sorry, but your wrong here. Denial of funds for failure to impliment filter software by either the national government or state government is still censorship as interpreted by the supreme court, and many other state courts.
States can do whatever they want with their money, as long as they are not violating constitutional law by doing so.
My freedom of speech does not depend upon the existance of libraries, the presence of computer terminals within them, or the lack of filtering. Believe it or not, I would still have 100% freedom of speech if my local library had no computers at all!
Again, your confusing the issue. It would be perfectly valid for the library to remove the computers, and some libraries have done this instead of providing unfiltered net access. However, filters in a government funded public institution are illegal. Period. Quit sidestepping the actual issue.
Can you cite the case where the US Supreme Court said that filtering software was illegal? I can't find it.
Heres a summary, look up Reno vs. ACLU if you want the nitty gritty:
Reno v ACLU: A Momentous Decision
Our vision of an uncensored Internet was clearly shared by the U.S. Supreme Court when it struck down the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA), a federal law that outlawed "indecent" communications online.
Ruling unanimously in Reno v. ACLU, the Court declared the Internet to be a free speech zone, deserving of at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to books, newspapers and magazines. The government, the Court said, can no more restrict a person's access to words or images on the Internet than it could be allowed to snatch a book out of a reader's hands in the library, or cover over a statue of a nude in a museum.
The nine Justices were clearly persuaded by the unique nature of the medium itself, citing with approval the lower federal court's conclusion that the Internet is "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed," entitled to "the highest protection from governmental intrusion." The Internet, the Court concluded, is like "a vast library including millions of readily available and indexed publications," the content of which "is as diverse as human thought."
Blocking Software: For Parents, Not the Government
In striking down the CDA on constitutional grounds, the Supreme Court emphasized that if a statute burdens adult speech--as any censorship law must-- it "is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives were available."
Commenting on the availability of user-based blocking software as a possible alternative, the Court concluded that the use of such software was appropriate for parents. Blocking software, the Court wrote, is a "reasonably effective method by which parents can prevent their children from accessing material which the parents believe is inappropriate." [Emphasis in the original]
The rest of the Court's decision firmly holds that government censorship of the Internet violates the First Amendment, and that holding applies to government use of blocking software just as it applied when the Court struck down the CDA's criminal ban.
Then what's the problem? Utah will pass the law, someone will challenge it, and the very first court it reaches will throw it out.
In the meantime, it causes a disruption of net service for all pulbic library patrons. This kind of crap shouldn't even make it into a proposal. THAT is the problem.
How is my speech stifled when a library uses filtering?
Because web filters DO NOT WORK, and thus filter valid content, which, when sponsored by a government funded public institution like a library, is a violation of the constitution.
Do I now have the right to compel libraries to distribute that speech? Of course not.
That is NOT the same. This is NOT about distribution, its about access.
If the government clamped down on the web site itself, that would be censorship, but that is not the case.
And if the government funded filter software, it would ALSO be a violation of the constitution.
Get a clue please, its obvious you do not understand these issues.
I suppose given their current track record with crash landing expensive satelites and recon vehicales, they figure this is one operation they cannot screw up.
I just hope they dont miss and send it flying off into deep space.
Oops! Thanks for playing Bunky, but the government is already paying for access.
Uhhh, i'll pretend you had a point here...
He who pays the piper calls the tune, and despite the efforts of First Amendment fetishists/absolutists like yourself, the EFF, the ACLU, and sundry other malcontents, internet access from publicly funded terminals will eventually be filtered.
Really.. Well, goodluck persuading the supereme court, and the various federal courts which have all struck down the legality of filter software in public government funded institutions like libraries. Get a clue. Read the precendent setting cases and the explanations behind their decisions.
You have no right to view internet content. You have no right to compel anyone to provide you with internet access, unless you happen to view internet access as a fundamental right.
Thats NOT THE POINT! You religious fanatics are always confusing the issue. The point IS, filters DO NOT WORK, thus, to implement them in a library would be government censorship. Period. This has already been decided in courts all over.
Nope, it's about recognizing basic morality. Don't cheat, steal, lie, hurt, etc. Porn is an offense against human dignity.
Thats your moral opinion. Please dont try and tell me this is a fundamental fact.
Wrong, religion does not and should not permeate government. Religious people may, but there is a difference.
Your hatred of religion is blinding you to the fact that porn destroys lives - through HIV infection of performers, through drug abuse by sex workers, etc.
Ok, lets get real, HIV destroys all sorts of lives, and sex performers as a whole are much more cautious and protected than the general population. And as for your fact that porn is nothing but evil, it has done some good things for people as well. By your judgement, cars, cell phones, etc, should all be banned because they destroy lives as well. Get a clue.
I think someone is trying to avoid the issue. Guns, cars, etc. have good and bad uses. Porn only has bad uses.
Thats ONLY YOUR OPINION. Porn has done good things for people, and much of what you would consider porn is appreciated by many as art. You cant enforce this issue wihtout trashing freedom.
Treating women as disembodied vaginas is not culturally healthy
What the hell? Show me your research where porn has been shown to make everyone believe women are nothing but disembodied vaginas. Thats the most ignorant religiously biased comment youve made so far. And what about all the women viewing porn? Are men all of the sudden nothing but long schlongs to them??
I can list three that present the physical brutalization of women as erotic
True, that kind of stuff is degrading and perverse, but that is also, just MHO! and I have no right to say that it should unequivically be banned because I disagree with it.
I don't particularly like MacKinnon/Dworkin - but they have a point that porn dehumanizes people - participant and viewer.
Whatever, again, FIND FACTS, not RELIGIOUS BIAS.
Filtering, by and large, works. It will work even better when the.adult domain names become available.
Riiiight.. porn will only be on the.adult domain. Please, dont be so ignorant. And the fact is filters DONT work. And thus, they are unconstitutional.
Second, the first amendment does not mean that freedom of expression has to be carried by government facilities. Thinking this way is just plain ridiculous. I have the freedom to orate on political issues but I don't have the right to compel (hah!) the government to broadcast it for me.
This is a whole different issue. Please understand what your talking about. The fact is, and has been upheld numerous times in court, and by the supreme court, that current filter software CANNOT be implemented in public libraries. It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL and violate FREE SPEACH. Period.
A reading of the amendments to the US constitution reveals that they are all limits to government actions
True. But again, this is beside the point.
Not one of them gives any powers to the government, nor compels private individuals to any action. Just as the second amendment does not mean that the goverment has to supply you with firearms, so the first amendment does not mean that the government has to provide you with speech or press.
True, but THIS IS NOT ABOUT PROVIDING SPEACH, its about stifling free speech. There is a huge difference, which you conviantly overlook.
You can't steal, you can't murder, you can't spit on the sidewalk, you can't speed, you can't put pornography on billboards... Ok, I guess you can do these things, but if you get caught, the LAW ENFORCEMENT will do something. (hopefully). All of our laws are based on morality dude. Now you want to make laws not based on morality
Dont be an idiot. All of those issues except the billboard one are human rights issues.
That would be anachary - no laws at all!
Nope, not what I want, and not what I said. No fundamentalist christian laws that break the constitution, like mandatory filters in public libraies.
You can't take morality out of law. All that gibberish that you can't legislate morality is all false. All anyone legislates is morailty and it happens all the time.
Well, i dont have my cryptography book with me, but basically, your LCG is limited by its eqation. After all, the eqations are just interative feedback types that will always repeat. Unfortunately there is no way to extend their operation.
What you may try, is a good cypher. An encryption algorithm is not truly a random sequence, but enough chained together and initialized with a large dataset (like a nice 50k file say) would yeild a very very very long string of random numbers. Not truly random, but without the key they would appear and act random for all intents and purposes. (the key to a good algorithm si the fact that you cant determine the key, or anything about the key based on the genereated cypher output).
So, that would be something to look into. Of course, this would take massssssive CPU power as well. Its a trade off.
I imgaine a few thousand blowfish cyphers at 448 bits in parrallel crunching on a dataset would yeild a stream of numbers long enough to fill a few terabytes.. perhapd a few orders of magnitude more.. who knows..
If your computer has an infinite tape, it can generate pseudorandom sequeunces with no period.
Nope, psuedo random numbers are based on linear congruential genereators, which will iterate through a given permutation, but will always have an end point, meaning they loop to the beggining of the permutation. Hance the seed function fo the rand() to modify the starting location in the sequence.
Quantum noise is perfectly random and so has no period.
We dont know that yet. If the period for quantum noise took 50 trillion years to iterate through at 10 trillion interations per second, then it would sure APPEAR random, but there is a difference.
Another way to put this: could a purely random sequence be computed given some seed?
Nope. Not if they are based on LCG's...
what are the implications for quantum computers
Massive search through a problem space in nanoseconds. This is real, but quite far from acutal implementation.
P.S. As for the creator, he is a block of computational power which we cannot understand, that allows the various states of low level string interactions to be scaled to a mind bending level and the interactions as constraints within the hardware. Too bad its not aware that we exist.
I myself have decoded the message. Its an encrypted communication from the creator of this universe. It is encryptred using some kind of powerful subquantum interaction propagation as the cypher, wuite interesting, id detail it in the column but id run out of room.
But anyway, it says: 'The Answer is 42'.
So, looks like the guide was right after all.
Course, thats 42 different base harmonics for the superstrings composing our usinverse, but hey, 42 is 42.
As for other universes, or course they exists. Different harmonics and frequencies of the strings, which are really just the constraints on the formation of matter, lead to differnt types of large matter, like quarks and atoms and such.. most fo the harmonics lead to either gaseus type homogenous universes devoid of anything interesting, or tight big bang type singularities.. but on occasion, you will get some that SING.. just like our universe.. a perfect balance.. and capable of wild variety of endless porportions. Thus, the complexity nescessary for intelligence to form, and life to thrive is available in the substrate layer, with cprobability up to his work of organizing it all..
The first amendment doesn't promise you the ability to snag porn in a library. Its time to stop thinking like the brainless ACLU and start realizing that character matters. *GASP!* Did I say that?
Jesus, will you get a clue? ITS NOT ABOUT PORN! because it would be perfectly legal to remove p0rn from a library. However, there is no way to prevent porn in the internet. Filters dont work, and because they dont, they are unconstitutional.
If you are that concerned about it, get funding for a private library and make it as clean as you want!!
Please educate yourself before jumping to your fundamental moral conclusions which DO NOT APPLY.
Slashdot Mirror
Your thinking too small!
With this type of size reduction we could have chips at 3 gigahertz with 50 GIGABYTES of L1 cache. At bootup your system would load your entire drive image into L1 memory, and there would never be page faults or disk hits. Except to save, but that would be a background process and not affecting computing.
Now THAT would be a fast system.
Well, one thing I would like to point out is that human brains were not designed for memory, they were designed for association, pattern matching, and thinking in general. Computers are great at remembering things, however, they are not designed for thinking (currently).
The two together are a wonderful syngery.
As for the storage of the mind, it is all the abstract and multilayed relationships stored in the mind and somehow mapped to synapse interactions, that are the truly meaningful information in the brain. And this information we do not understand fully (or peven partially according to some). I can assure you, however, that to store all this information would require many orders of magnitude more storage than a single gigabyte (DVDR).
My signature is concerned only with the physical code for the body itself (hardware) which is DNA, which is roughly 620-630 megabytes of information. Not with consciousness or mental state (software) which is incredibly complex and ever permutating and extending itself while running stop the hardware (brain) built according to this gentic program.
How do you know our conciousness isn't 'embeded' in our genetic make-up
Well, it is certainly influenced by it, but if that were the case, identical twins would have an identical consciousness, which we know not to be true.
However, identical twins are often very similiar in behavior, even when separated at birth and raised in different environments. So genetic predisposition definately has a part in the development of your consciousness, personality, and intelligence.
Given the time it takes to build and configure and initialize a fab plant, this is actually a rather short period of time. It takes anywhere from 4-7 years to gt a new fab plant fully operational, with 5 years the norm. Replacing the fabrication hardware, still takes many many months to years to get installed and setup.
You forget the fact that this type of production is to be much faster than current optical methods. That would be where the real big payoff would be. Higher chip density is a plus, but coupled with fast fab would be great news for the industry.
That was UNTIL they figured out a different way to do it.
If you had read the article you would know that this technology would be quite inexpensive (for a fab budget) to implement with practical applications immediately.
This isnt far out theoretical research, they have built the system, and scaling it to fab production sounds quite straightforward and practical.
Well, you could squeeze your entire physical blueprint onto a CDR. However, the thing that most of us value most, namely our consciousness, would require many orders of magnitude more space.
Dont forget that a refined implementation of this technique would yeild lithographic etchic at the near atomic level .
MMmmmmm nano nano
If there is to be a court problem with filtering software in libraries, it will be because they filter too broadly, not because a librarian uses them
Exactly. And there is no filter that is not in error as far as this is concerned. That is why the government cannot support these filters in puclib government funded institutions, or in general. It would be absolutely legal to prevent minors from getting to adult information, however, on the net there is currently no way to do this.
But the proposed Utah law does not mandate a specific piece of software. Therefore, the law could be held constitutional, while certain specific applications of it would not be.
Very true. If they mandated filters, it would be illegal, if they mandated open well viewed net terminals with large signs saying no pr0n for kiddies, it would all be cool.
This is not affecting all, it's just affecting state funded libraries. A state can attach just about any restrictions on their funds that they wish.
Sorry, but your wrong here. Denial of funds for failure to impliment filter software by either the national government or state government is still censorship as interpreted by the supreme court, and many other state courts.
States can do whatever they want with their money, as long as they are not violating constitutional law by doing so.
Government money is government money.
My freedom of speech does not depend upon the existance of libraries, the presence of computer terminals within them, or the lack of filtering. Believe it or not, I would still have 100% freedom of speech if my local library had no computers at all!
Again, your confusing the issue. It would be perfectly valid for the library to remove the computers, and some libraries have done this instead of providing unfiltered net access. However, filters in a government funded public institution are illegal. Period. Quit sidestepping the actual issue.
Can you cite the case where the US Supreme Court said that filtering software was illegal? I can't find it.
Heres a summary, look up Reno vs. ACLU if you want the nitty gritty:
Reno v ACLU: A Momentous Decision
Our vision of an uncensored Internet was clearly shared by the U.S. Supreme Court when it struck down the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA), a federal law that outlawed
"indecent" communications online.
Ruling unanimously in Reno v. ACLU, the Court declared the Internet to be a free speech zone, deserving of at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to books,
newspapers and magazines. The government, the Court said, can no more restrict a person's access to words or images on the Internet than it could be allowed to snatch a book out of
a reader's hands in the library, or cover over a statue of a nude in a museum.
The nine Justices were clearly persuaded by the unique nature of the medium itself, citing with approval the lower federal court's conclusion that the Internet is "the most participatory
form of mass speech yet developed," entitled to "the highest protection from governmental intrusion." The Internet, the Court concluded, is like "a vast library including millions of
readily available and indexed publications," the content of which "is as diverse as human thought."
Blocking Software:
For Parents, Not the Government
In striking down the CDA on constitutional grounds, the Supreme Court emphasized that if a statute burdens adult speech--as any censorship law must-- it "is unacceptable if less
restrictive alternatives were available."
Commenting on the availability of user-based blocking software as a possible alternative, the Court concluded that the use of such software was appropriate for parents. Blocking
software, the Court wrote, is a "reasonably effective method by which parents can prevent their children from accessing material which the parents believe is inappropriate."
[Emphasis in the original]
The rest of the Court's decision firmly holds that government censorship of the Internet violates the First Amendment, and that holding applies to government use of blocking software
just as it applied when the Court struck down the CDA's criminal ban.
Like on /. ?
So, if I were to slander the fundie stooges Jerry and crew, and they sued me.. would slashdot get raided?
Interesting. If the answer is no, i'll just send sensitive information via a public forum!
;)
Then what's the problem? Utah will pass the law, someone will challenge it, and the very first court it reaches will throw it out.
In the meantime, it causes a disruption of net service for all pulbic library patrons. This kind of crap shouldn't even make it into a proposal. THAT is the problem.
How is my speech stifled when a library uses filtering?
Because web filters DO NOT WORK, and thus filter valid content, which, when sponsored by a government funded public institution like a library, is a violation of the constitution.
Do I now have the right to compel libraries to distribute that speech? Of course not.
That is NOT the same. This is NOT about distribution, its about access.
If the government clamped down on the web site itself, that would be censorship, but that is not the case.
And if the government funded filter software, it would ALSO be a violation of the constitution.
Get a clue please, its obvious you do not understand these issues.
I suppose given their current track record with crash landing expensive satelites and recon vehicales, they figure this is one operation they cannot screw up.
I just hope they dont miss and send it flying off into deep space.
Oops! Thanks for playing Bunky, but the government is already paying for access.
.adult domain names become available.
.adult domain. Please, dont be so ignorant. And the fact is filters DONT work. And thus, they are unconstitutional.
Uhhh, i'll pretend you had a point here...
He who pays the piper calls the tune, and despite the efforts of First Amendment fetishists/absolutists like yourself, the EFF, the ACLU, and sundry other malcontents, internet access from publicly funded terminals will eventually be filtered.
Really.. Well, goodluck persuading the supereme court, and the various federal courts which have all struck down the legality of filter software in public government funded institutions like libraries. Get a clue. Read the precendent setting cases and the explanations behind their decisions.
You have no right to view internet content. You have no right to compel anyone to provide you with internet access, unless you happen to view internet access as a fundamental right.
Thats NOT THE POINT! You religious fanatics are always confusing the issue. The point IS, filters DO NOT WORK, thus, to implement them in a library would be government censorship. Period. This has already been decided in courts all over.
Nope, it's about recognizing basic morality. Don't cheat, steal, lie, hurt, etc. Porn is an offense against human dignity.
Thats your moral opinion. Please dont try and tell me this is a fundamental fact.
Besides, religion permeates our society/government
Wrong, religion does not and should not permeate government. Religious people may, but there is a difference.
Your hatred of religion is blinding you to the fact that porn destroys lives - through HIV infection of performers, through drug abuse by sex workers, etc.
Ok, lets get real, HIV destroys all sorts of lives, and sex performers as a whole are much more cautious and protected than the general population. And as for your fact that porn is nothing but evil, it has done some good things for people as well. By your judgement, cars, cell phones, etc, should all be banned because they destroy lives as well. Get a clue.
I think someone is trying to avoid the issue. Guns, cars, etc. have good and bad uses. Porn only has bad uses.
Thats ONLY YOUR OPINION. Porn has done good things for people, and much of what you would consider porn is appreciated by many as art. You cant enforce this issue wihtout trashing freedom.
Treating women as disembodied vaginas is not culturally healthy
What the hell? Show me your research where porn has been shown to make everyone believe women are nothing but disembodied vaginas. Thats the most ignorant religiously biased comment youve made so far. And what about all the women viewing porn? Are men all of the sudden nothing but long schlongs to them??
I can list three that present the physical brutalization of women as erotic
True, that kind of stuff is degrading and perverse, but that is also, just MHO! and I have no right to say that it should unequivically be banned because I disagree with it.
I don't particularly like MacKinnon/Dworkin - but they have a point that porn dehumanizes people - participant and viewer.
Whatever, again, FIND FACTS, not RELIGIOUS BIAS.
Filtering, by and large, works. It will work even better when the
Riiiight.. porn will only be on the
Second, the first amendment does not mean that freedom of expression has to be carried by government facilities. Thinking this way is just plain ridiculous. I have the freedom to orate on political issues but I don't have the right to compel (hah!) the government to broadcast it for me.
This is a whole different issue. Please understand what your talking about. The fact is, and has been upheld numerous times in court, and by the supreme court, that current filter software CANNOT be implemented in public libraries. It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL and violate FREE SPEACH. Period.
A reading of the amendments to the US constitution reveals that they are all limits to government actions
True. But again, this is beside the point.
Not one of them gives any powers to the government, nor compels private individuals to any action. Just as the second amendment does not mean that the goverment has to supply you with firearms, so the first amendment does not mean that the government has to provide you with speech or press.
True, but THIS IS NOT ABOUT PROVIDING SPEACH, its about stifling free speech. There is a huge difference, which you conviantly overlook.
You can't steal, you can't murder, you can't spit on the sidewalk, you can't speed, you can't put pornography on billboards... Ok, I guess you can do these things, but if you get caught, the LAW ENFORCEMENT will do something. (hopefully). All of our laws are based on morality dude. Now you want to make laws not based on morality
Dont be an idiot. All of those issues except the billboard one are human rights issues.
That would be anachary - no laws at all!
Nope, not what I want, and not what I said. No fundamentalist christian laws that break the constitution, like mandatory filters in public libraies.
You can't take morality out of law. All that gibberish that you can't legislate morality is all false. All anyone legislates is morailty and it happens all the time.
Again, dont be an idiot.
Its a damn shame they dont have lynx on your side of the world.
LynX r0x0rZ! and it makes you k00l
Well, i dont have my cryptography book with me, but basically, your LCG is limited by its eqation. After all, the eqations are just interative feedback types that will always repeat. Unfortunately there is no way to extend their operation.
What you may try, is a good cypher. An encryption algorithm is not truly a random sequence, but enough chained together and initialized with a large dataset (like a nice 50k file say) would yeild a very very very long string of random numbers. Not truly random, but without the key they would appear and act random for all intents and purposes. (the key to a good algorithm si the fact that you cant determine the key, or anything about the key based on the genereated cypher output).
So, that would be something to look into. Of course, this would take massssssive CPU power as well. Its a trade off.
I imgaine a few thousand blowfish cyphers at 448 bits in parrallel crunching on a dataset would yeild a stream of numbers long enough to fill a few terabytes.. perhapd a few orders of magnitude more.. who knows..
but it would eb huge.
If your computer has an infinite tape, it can generate pseudorandom sequeunces with no period.
Nope, psuedo random numbers are based on linear congruential genereators, which will iterate through a given permutation, but will always have an end point, meaning they loop to the beggining of the permutation. Hance the seed function fo the rand() to modify the starting location in the sequence.
Quantum noise is perfectly random and so has no period.
We dont know that yet. If the period for quantum noise took 50 trillion years to iterate through at 10 trillion interations per second, then it would sure APPEAR random, but there is a difference.
Another way to put this: could a purely random sequence be computed given some seed?
Nope. Not if they are based on LCG's...
what are the implications for quantum computers
Massive search through a problem space in nanoseconds. This is real, but quite far from acutal implementation.
Cool! Lets give god some aCiD and see what happens!!!!
Only problem with your theory is that the physical laws are quite static, just chaotic.
Minds however, are like a cypher, forever permutating into new configurations.
So, it may be similiar in compleixty as the mind, but not composition.
P.S. As for the creator, he is a block of computational power which we cannot understand, that allows the various states of low level string interactions to be scaled to a mind bending level and the interactions as constraints within the hardware. Too bad its not aware that we exist.
I myself have decoded the message. Its an encrypted communication from the creator of this universe. It is encryptred using some kind of powerful subquantum interaction propagation as the cypher, wuite interesting, id detail it in the column but id run out of room.
But anyway, it says:
'The Answer is 42'.
So, looks like the guide was right after all.
Course, thats 42 different base harmonics for the superstrings composing our usinverse, but hey, 42 is 42.
As for other universes, or course they exists. Different harmonics and frequencies of the strings, which are really just the constraints on the formation of matter, lead to differnt types of large matter, like quarks and atoms and such.. most fo the harmonics lead to either gaseus type homogenous universes devoid of anything interesting, or tight big bang type singularities.. but on occasion, you will get some that SING.. just like our universe.. a perfect balance.. and capable of wild variety of endless porportions. Thus, the complexity nescessary for intelligence to form, and life to thrive is available in the substrate layer, with cprobability up to his work of organizing it all..
Anyway, thats for the curious.
The first amendment doesn't promise you the ability to snag porn in a library. Its time to stop thinking like the brainless ACLU and start realizing that character matters. *GASP!* Did I say that?
Jesus, will you get a clue? ITS NOT ABOUT PORN! because it would be perfectly legal to remove p0rn from a library. However, there is no way to prevent porn in the internet. Filters dont work, and because they dont, they are unconstitutional.
If you are that concerned about it, get funding for a private library and make it as clean as you want!!
Please educate yourself before jumping to your fundamental moral conclusions which DO NOT APPLY.