Should we be concerned about eliminating pathogens that we have co-evolved with and that help build our immune systems (for those of us that aren't killed by them)? Is there an unintended consequence building up here?
For the record there are other Tokamak's, I believe the most advanced to date is KSTAR, which uses superconducting electromagnets, which are a critical part of ITERs design.
Clearly the statistical analyses' are wrong for at least two of those companies. The prior probability of risk for a given disease is 'average', and if you don't test enough polymorphisms or if the correlations are weak then it remains average. Trouble is you can't make a business case on selling such weak information, so there's an incentive to spice up the summary info they provide.
How ironic then that while these quants were specifying the need for high accuracy calculations, that the maths turned out to be fundametally wrong in a spectacular fashion. They would have done far better if they'd simply spent an evening or two reading Mandelbrot or Taleb. Ho hum.
True, and you're also one software/hardware bug away from creating the infamous grey goo - or at the very least killing everyone on the planet without creating a grey goo. I'm not sure if Kurzweil has ever addressed this specific issue, I guess he would say that biological life would be defunct at that point and we'd all hav either uploaded our minds to an artificial substrate or will have been wiped out and replaced by some machine intelligence. Happy new year!
OK but what if you want to put them inside nanobots designed to target and kill cancer cells or a zillion other applications that are made possible by smaller and less power hungry computation? Smaller also means more powerful computers at the 'classic' scale, for which we know there is demand for right now by way of the very existence of supercomputers.
I think server builders these days are less interested in the number of cores per CPU and more interested in improvements in the performance/wattage ratio.
Wisdom has it that skynet will launch a nuclear attack, whereas in actual fact it is planning to crash the world's economies with erroneous news feeds. Basically while we're all out queuing to get our money out of the bank it's going to lock all the doors so we can't get back in...anywhere!
I've noticed a few time lately that the BBC News site's 'most read' list contains stories from years ago. It's very misleading because the links are on the main news page and the date, although present at the top of each story, is fairly subdued. I've been caught out a couple of times by this. Of course, once a story gets on the 'most read' list everyone clicks on it pushing it further up the list and prolonging its being there.
Oil money comes into economies through very focused routes. Basically it ends up in the lap of government officials who then have to resist corruption. If widespread internet access helped develop the economy it would (hopefully) be a more broad development, the cash would be more evenly distributed.
This guy is ruining the legitimate hitman industry now that most of our (err, their) emails are ending up in spam bins. Better go check your spam bins people.
I'm reminded of something Mandelbrot once said, somethign along the lines of... when we measure(or test) something we are gaining information about both the thing being measured and the measuring device.
So if the test(e.g. the turing test) is known to be wrong or is poorly defined then by performing a test we are potentially learning more about the test than thing being tested. In this case no doubt whther you fool a human is dependent on which human you use - no doubt some would be fooled by this test now, today.
In addition there is also some degree of feedback from higher level processing back to lower levels, e.g. v2 telling v1 "I think this is a man's face, reinterpret based on this context". Information flows in both directions.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but I patented the process of suing patent trolls. Pay up.
Should we be concerned about eliminating pathogens that we have co-evolved with and that help build our immune systems (for those of us that aren't killed by them)? Is there an unintended consequence building up here?
Or in other words - what could possibly go wrong?
The total amount of solar power incident on the earth is about 130,000 TW.
Pretty close - it's approximately 1.74 × 10^17 W
Terra being 10^12 would make that 1.74 * 10^5 TW or 174,000 TW.
Sunlight
So it's not efficient then? I mean, efficient with respect to what?
For the record there are other Tokamak's, I believe the most advanced to date is KSTAR, which uses superconducting electromagnets, which are a critical part of ITERs design.
Clearly the statistical analyses' are wrong for at least two of those companies. The prior probability of risk for a given disease is 'average', and if you don't test enough polymorphisms or if the correlations are weak then it remains average. Trouble is you can't make a business case on selling such weak information, so there's an incentive to spice up the summary info they provide.
In short, 5 to 10 years.
How ironic then that while these quants were specifying the need for high accuracy calculations, that the maths turned out to be fundametally wrong in a spectacular fashion. They would have done far better if they'd simply spent an evening or two reading Mandelbrot or Taleb. Ho hum.
True, and you're also one software/hardware bug away from creating the infamous grey goo - or at the very least killing everyone on the planet without creating a grey goo. I'm not sure if Kurzweil has ever addressed this specific issue, I guess he would say that biological life would be defunct at that point and we'd all hav either uploaded our minds to an artificial substrate or will have been wiped out and replaced by some machine intelligence. Happy new year!
OK but what if you want to put them inside nanobots designed to target and kill cancer cells or a zillion other applications that are made possible by smaller and less power hungry computation? Smaller also means more powerful computers at the 'classic' scale, for which we know there is demand for right now by way of the very existence of supercomputers.
I don't think US national debt is anywhere near $10^22 just yet.
Mr President, the rock or the hard place?
I think server builders these days are less interested in the number of cores per CPU and more interested in improvements in the performance/wattage ratio.
Wrong! A great many stock markets throughout history have been wiped out completely, usually through war and invasion.
Wisdom has it that skynet will launch a nuclear attack, whereas in actual fact it is planning to crash the world's economies with erroneous news feeds. Basically while we're all out queuing to get our money out of the bank it's going to lock all the doors so we can't get back in...anywhere!
I've noticed a few time lately that the BBC News site's 'most read' list contains stories from years ago. It's very misleading because the links are on the main news page and the date, although present at the top of each story, is fairly subdued. I've been caught out a couple of times by this. Of course, once a story gets on the 'most read' list everyone clicks on it pushing it further up the list and prolonging its being there.
Oil money comes into economies through very focused routes. Basically it ends up in the lap of government officials who then have to resist corruption. If widespread internet access helped develop the economy it would (hopefully) be a more broad development, the cash would be more evenly distributed.
If google make profit by helping African economies develop and taking a slice of the subsequent pie then I say good luck to 'em.
45 degrees either side of the equator is a pretty wide 'belt'.
This guy is ruining the legitimate hitman industry now that most of our (err, their) emails are ending up in spam bins. Better go check your spam bins people.
Or increase it. One or the other.
I would of thought the two would of gone hand in hand.
I would have thought the two would have gone hand in hand.
There, fixed that for you. Maybe you should watch more educational programming.
I'm reminded of something Mandelbrot once said, somethign along the lines of... when we measure(or test) something we are gaining information about both the thing being measured and the measuring device.
So if the test(e.g. the turing test) is known to be wrong or is poorly defined then by performing a test we are potentially learning more about the test than thing being tested. In this case no doubt whther you fool a human is dependent on which human you use - no doubt some would be fooled by this test now, today.
Microsoft did some research in this area a few years back. See C Omega
In addition there is also some degree of feedback from higher level processing back to lower levels, e.g. v2 telling v1 "I think this is a man's face, reinterpret based on this context". Information flows in both directions.