"This paper presents a new formula for calculating when fossil fuel reserves are likely to be depleted and develops an econometrics model to demonstrate the relationship between fossil fuel reserves and some main variables. The new formula is modified from the Klass model and thus assumes a continuous compound rate and computes fossil fuel reserve depletion times for oil, coal and gas of approximately 35, 107 and 37 years, respectively. This means that coal reserves are available up to 2112, and will be the only fossil fuel remaining after 2042." http://www.peakoil.net/publications/when-will-fossil-fuel-reserves-be-diminished
Current trends cannot be continued until 2100. There isn't enough fossil fuel. All the easily reachable oil is going to be burned and go into the atmosphere, no matter how successful the attempts to curb global warming. If we dramatically curb the use of fossil fuels, it will simply take a little longer to burn it all up. But it is all going into the atmosphere. There is no political force strong enough to tell all the people of the world they can't run their cars or heat their homes with fossil fuels any more. Since is entirely futile to stop all the easily extracted fossil fuel from being burned, there is no point in debating how to curb emissions. Our focus should be on what we can do to minimize the impact.
It is kind of funny how the marketing departments of big software companies think we actually look forward to 'updates' which annoy us and waste our time. Now I actually breath a sigh of relief when my BlueRay player gets past the moment where it may insist I have to spend 5 minutes 'updating' before I can watch my movie. I can't imagine wanting to pay $100 in return for being hassled with updates I don't care about. Apparently, they haven't figured out that people very well might pay $100 to never be bothered with them.
You are absolutely right I did not use the correct word, but I still am not interested in searching for pages which have copied the text from Wikipedia without adding anything original.
My pet peeve with google searches is when I get page after page of pages which have just stolen the text from Wikipedia and placed it on their site with ads.
Who is responsible for the AI's actions? Is it the machine? Is it the person who setup and turned on the machine, or the person who designed the machine?
As far as the law goes, isn't it important that the accused understand their own actions? I.E. the insanity defense allows you to prevent taking responsibility for your actions. So if the machine does not understand anything, then how can it be held responsible?
By this test, the responsibility for the non-self aware machine's actions should lie with the person who sets up and actives it. They should understand what the machine may do when they set it loose, autonomous or not.
Then the comes question, what does it really mean to 'understand' something? I don't think anybody yet has a good answer for that, but no machine I've heard of seems to actually understand anything yet. I think this has been a big problem in the pursuit of the self-aware machine. Nobody understands understanding yet, so how can they build a machine which does it?
In the article, they mention how robots are immune to fatigue or emotion etc, but I think that may not necessarily be the case with a self-aware AI. Are we so sure that you can make a self-aware machine without emotion or feeling? Isn't it ultimately a balance of conflicting emotion that drives us? How can you *want* to do something if you do not have any feeling? And if you don't *care* about anything, then there is no reason to any action over any other. An intelligence that does not care about anything may just as likely commit suicide or sit like a lump rather than something useful to itself or us.
I think the truly intelligent machine is coming, but I don't think it operate at all like a drone with logic. When you get a machine which is self-aware you not only have ethical issues about what the machine does to humans, but also about what humans do to the machine. That may sound silly, but I can imagine that a self-aware intelligent machine with feelings and memory could be very vulnerable with no ability to defend itself from its owner.
Density and cost may be the holy grail, but there are a number of other properties which important which can make the difference between marketplace success or failure.
1.) Data Reliability 2.) Data Lifetime 3.) Store element lifetime - do the individual storage locations 'wear out' like flash? 3.) Read/Write Speed - Although there is an article in Science Daily which reports 100ns 4.) Power Requirement
I didn't see any of these mentioned in the article. If these properties are all equal to or superior to flash, it could be the next big thing.
At least it didn't get on the radio and swear at everybody, then grab two beers and jump out into space.
Or maybe it did....
Re:How about integers instead of floating point?
on
Quake 3 For Android
·
· Score: 3, Informative
You can still use integer math to represent fractional values. For example, using the upper 16 bits as the integer part, and the lower sixteen as the fractional part.
Something like this only implemented with inline assembly:
Int32 fMult( Int32 a, Int32 b) {
return (Int32) (((Int64) a * (Int64) b)>>32); }
You don't have nearly the dynamic range of floating point, but you *can* implement rotation matrices, vectors, time and distance and physics calculations. You just have to be careful to keep the values in range.
I was just reading in Scientific American about a research group looking into the effects on vision done by 3D shooter gameplay. One of the points they mentioned was that it was quite difficult to find college students who does *not* play them. There are 6 PC's in our house, and they all run Windows because 4 of out the 5 family members play mainstream commercial games. We use Open Office, Firefox, Gimp for non-gaming applications, so it isn't Windows Application like Office that keeps us in the Microsoft camp. It is Oblivion, City of Heroes, Call of Duty etc. Yes, there are 3D games that run great in Linux. That's nice, but until EA and the others start taking the Linux platform seriously, it really isn't a choice the gamer.
We have tried running Red Hat or Ubuntu as dual-boot, or in VMWare Player. It is nice, but there really is no big reason to boot Linux, when we can do everything we want using Windows.
My son has a dual-boot Ubuntu with some fancy desktop thing where he can make his windows jiggle. That is really neat, but when he wants to play, it's back to Windows....
The key is the gamers. Microsoft works very hard on Direct 3D for a reason... I heard that the newest Direct 3D will only be for Vista. Now I wonder why that is? Hmmm.... Could it be they aren't stupid?
-Jenny Z
"Adjusting the position of the detector that captures the second photon (the one sent through the cables) determines whether it is detected as a particle or a wave."
Ummm... I think the researcher is measuring the 'spin' of a photon, which can either be Up or Down. If you measure the photon as 'up' at the end of your cable, then you know the other photon was 'down', for example. The reporter is confused about Particle-Wave duality which doesn't have much to do with the experiment.
But you have *NOT* transferred any information into the past or into the future or over a distance. Yes it is true that you have discovered what the other photon must be, but you have no control over what the other photon will be. Somebody measuring the second photon would get no indication that the first photon had been measured.
So it is true that the person measuring photon 1 will know what answer the photon 2 person will get. But person one has no *control* over what person 2 will get.
From Wikipedia:
"Observations on entangled states naively appear to conflict with the property of Einsteinian relativity that information cannot be transferred faster than the speed of light. Although two entangled systems appear to interact across large spatial separations, no useful information can be transmitted in this way, so causality cannot be violated through entanglement. This is the statement of no communication theorem."
Slashdot Mirror
"This paper presents a new formula for calculating when fossil fuel reserves are likely to be depleted and develops an econometrics model to demonstrate the relationship between fossil fuel reserves and some main variables. The new formula is modified from the Klass model and thus assumes a continuous compound rate and computes fossil fuel reserve depletion times for oil, coal and gas of approximately 35, 107 and 37 years, respectively. This means that coal reserves are available up to 2112, and will be the only fossil fuel remaining after 2042." http://www.peakoil.net/publications/when-will-fossil-fuel-reserves-be-diminished
Current trends cannot be continued until 2100. There isn't enough fossil fuel. All the easily reachable oil is going to be burned and go into the atmosphere, no matter how successful the attempts to curb global warming. If we dramatically curb the use of fossil fuels, it will simply take a little longer to burn it all up. But it is all going into the atmosphere. There is no political force strong enough to tell all the people of the world they can't run their cars or heat their homes with fossil fuels any more. Since is entirely futile to stop all the easily extracted fossil fuel from being burned, there is no point in debating how to curb emissions. Our focus should be on what we can do to minimize the impact.
It is kind of funny how the marketing departments of big software companies think we actually look forward to 'updates' which annoy us and waste our time. Now I actually breath a sigh of relief when my BlueRay player gets past the moment where it may insist I have to spend 5 minutes 'updating' before I can watch my movie. I can't imagine wanting to pay $100 in return for being hassled with updates I don't care about. Apparently, they haven't figured out that people very well might pay $100 to never be bothered with them.
You are absolutely right I did not use the correct word, but I still am not interested in searching for pages which have copied the text from Wikipedia without adding anything original.
My pet peeve with google searches is when I get page after page of pages which have just stolen the text from Wikipedia and placed it on their site with ads.
Who is responsible for the AI's actions? Is it the machine? Is it the person who setup and turned on the machine, or the person who designed the machine?
As far as the law goes, isn't it important that the accused understand their own actions? I.E. the insanity defense allows you to prevent taking responsibility for your actions. So if the machine does not understand anything, then how can it be held responsible?
By this test, the responsibility for the non-self aware machine's actions should lie with the person who sets up and actives it. They should understand what the machine may do when they set it loose, autonomous or not.
Then the comes question, what does it really mean to 'understand' something? I don't think anybody yet has a good answer for that, but no machine I've heard of seems to actually understand anything yet. I think this has been a big problem in the pursuit of the self-aware machine. Nobody understands understanding yet, so how can they build a machine which does it?
In the article, they mention how robots are immune to fatigue or emotion etc, but I think that may not necessarily be the case with a self-aware AI. Are we so sure that you can make a self-aware machine without emotion or feeling? Isn't it ultimately a balance of conflicting emotion that drives us? How can you *want* to do something if you do not have any feeling? And if you don't *care* about anything, then there is no reason to any action over any other. An intelligence that does not care about anything may just as likely commit suicide or sit like a lump rather than something useful to itself or us.
I think the truly intelligent machine is coming, but I don't think it operate at all like a drone with logic. When you get a machine which is self-aware you not only have ethical issues about what the machine does to humans, but also about what humans do to the machine. That may sound silly, but I can imagine that a self-aware intelligent machine with feelings and memory could be very vulnerable with no ability to defend itself from its owner.
Density and cost may be the holy grail, but there are a number of other properties which important which can make the difference between marketplace success or failure.
1.) Data Reliability
2.) Data Lifetime
3.) Store element lifetime - do the individual storage locations 'wear out' like flash?
3.) Read/Write Speed - Although there is an article in Science Daily which reports 100ns
4.) Power Requirement
I didn't see any of these mentioned in the article. If these properties are all equal to or superior to flash, it could be the next big thing.
At least it didn't get on the radio and swear at everybody, then grab two beers and jump out into space.
Or maybe it did....
You can still use integer math to represent fractional values. For example, using the upper 16 bits as the integer part, and the lower sixteen as the fractional part.
Something like this only implemented with inline assembly:
Int32 fMult( Int32 a, Int32 b)
{
return (Int32) (((Int64) a * (Int64) b)>>32);
}
You don't have nearly the dynamic range of floating point, but you *can* implement rotation matrices, vectors, time and distance and physics calculations. You just have to be careful to keep the values in range.
' Have we reched Peak Advertising? I think that was supposed to be ' retched '? Or ' wretched ??
We have tried running Red Hat or Ubuntu as dual-boot, or in VMWare Player. It is nice, but there really is no big reason to boot Linux, when we can do everything we want using Windows.
My son has a dual-boot Ubuntu with some fancy desktop thing where he can make his windows jiggle. That is really neat, but when he wants to play, it's back to Windows....
The key is the gamers. Microsoft works very hard on Direct 3D for a reason... I heard that the newest Direct 3D will only be for Vista. Now I wonder why that is? Hmmm.... Could it be they aren't stupid? -Jenny Z
From the article..
"Adjusting the position of the detector that captures the second photon (the one sent through the cables) determines whether it is detected as a particle or a wave."
Ummm... I think the researcher is measuring the 'spin' of a photon, which can either be Up or Down. If you measure the photon as 'up' at the end of your cable, then you know the other photon was 'down', for example. The reporter is confused about Particle-Wave duality which doesn't have much to do with the experiment.
But you have *NOT* transferred any information into the past or into the future or over a distance. Yes it is true that you have discovered what the other photon must be, but you have no control over what the other photon will be. Somebody measuring the second photon would get no indication that the first photon had been measured.
So it is true that the person measuring photon 1 will know what answer the photon 2 person will get. But person one has no *control* over what person 2 will get.
From Wikipedia:
"Observations on entangled states naively appear to conflict with the property of Einsteinian relativity that information cannot be transferred faster than the speed of light. Although two entangled systems appear to interact across large spatial separations, no useful information can be transmitted in this way, so causality cannot be violated through entanglement. This is the statement of no communication theorem."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
-Jenny