Specifically, above and beyond any advanced AI software we would need dedicated hardware designed from the ground up for the task. Getting a computer to emulate a human with a generic processor, is like saying when will our general CPUs be powerful enough that we can just forget about getting a video card. A processor designed for general purpose computing will never be powerful enough to simulate a powerful specialized processor like a human brain.
It seem to me at this point the biggest improvements will have to be architectural. It is not like size is a constraint, processors could be 20 times bigger and still be small enough for a desktop. The problem is designing one where latency does not kill its efficiency.
Or atoms are like 99.99% empty space, I wonder if we could break the atom barrier and cut away at all that wasted space (push atoms closer together then you find naturally).
I would be more interested to hear how much they made per stream. It is just ad based right? You do not make that much off of an individual seeing an ad for 5 minutes. The average user probably listens for hours at a time, which will come out to like 15 cents, which is loads more that I would of thought an ad company would give them for a single user.
Lol. Just lol.
You obviously have not put much thought into this. If you had bothered to get up and look around you would have found that all of the long lasting species have incredibly small brains. Brains are far too demanding of vast quantities of meat, and cause too many natal problems to survive any significant changing conditions.
Look at how successfully early humans survived all over the globe, in almost every climate
Yes along side thousands of other species that are even more widely dispersed and which have been at the game of survival thousands (in some cases billions) of times longer. Come talk to me after humans has surpassed the average mammalian species lifespan (although, at that point the dodo will still have them beat).
I don't know about that. If you base your belief in the integrity of the scientist conducting the research instead of repeat-ability and peer review process, I think that is a little misguided. If you are saying that to trust hat a plane I am getting on will on not crash, I have to trust a series of hundreds of scientist's integrity, than I disagree. It does not matter what whit if one of them was an adulterer, a liar, or a thief, only if their processes were solid (as verified by peer review), and there experiments could suffer repetition by interested third parties.
If the fossil fuel industry wants to spend their money, that sounds great. I am not going to complain that they are wasting their money, and research in to alternative reasons why the climate is changing is important. As for declaring where his funding comes from, why? A scientific paper must stand alone, and not be judged by any other standard than if its logic is correct and if it is repeatable. All research is funded by someone, and no one is going to fund a paper that they have no conflicts of interest in. Probably far more worrisome is that each and every researcher has a huge personal and professional conflict of interest to have their research hypothesis proved correct and find interesting publishable results. That the funding also ubiquitously comes partied have how huge expectations of getting the results they want can also cause problems, but since no one has yet found a way to conduct research for free, it is not a solvable problem.
And I am not even sure that it help for research. Sure it makes it easy, but I think there are definitely some downsides to allowing kids to just g to Wikipedia for all their research needs.
I disagree, the founding stones of Naziism was a desire to set right the wrong perpetrated on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles; Anything else is just a symptom. This Treaty itself was created because Britain/France/et al wanted to find some form or justice in this most terrible war. The War which happened because Europe had a big web of alliances that meant that they were contractually obliged to help out.
This. The Milgram experiment (often used to explain how the holocaust [or any other mass human consciously caused tragedies, like say mutual destruction] could of happened) did not find that aggression was a cause, more like the exact opposite.
This is just a smokescreen to cover up the real culprit. It was physicists like Hawking who gave world destroying weapons to a bunch of monkeys who could not hope to even understand them if they studied for a thousand years.
No major wars were ever started because of aggression. Horrible atrocities are committed because smart caring individuals want to set right wrongs and bring some form of justice. It does not matter if you are talking about Nazi moment, Russian Communist moment, or the modern day commenter/solider/general on the Israel-Palestine War. Everything is acceptable when you have right on your side.
But that is what you get when you ask an overly arrogant person something outside of their field of expertise.
It is not that difficult. Being selfish is always the best for the individual, and short term sometimes entire species. The biggest lifeform on the planet is the Oregon Armillaria ostoyae, which unlike much of its fungus cousins kills its hosts. It has a huge advantage against not only other fungi but pretty much all other life. Long term when the forest it feeds off dies it will not fair nearly as well, that is why fungus as a whole is so benefaction, because a species that causes its own huge natural disasters cannot compete with one that strengthens and enriches its home.
No, I am saying we already have a sample population to test theories on. The gay community, which is predominately like the male population as a whole. They are in all strata of this population and as such act as a very good sample. One major difference between these populations, and the only hard physical difference in their relationships, is that gay men do not have to worry about pregnancy, and as such we see 40 times as much aids in the homosexual population. We see a tiny majority host the vast majority of STDs. The addition of these pills will put the whole population in the exact situation that gay men have been in for generations.
I don't really think it is fair to say that editor of TWoT did the series any favors. It is not that he was a terrible writer, but the books obviously suffered form a severe lack of decent editing. Perhaps if they had used a less personally involved person, they would of convinced him to cut out all the shit.
Still, if she inherited the copyright ownership, she inherited her way into the lease agreement. She has become the official head of the franchise. Just because a CEO changes does not mean that the company is no longer under any obligation to fulfill its contracts. And since she in the official in charge of this entity, it is far more like a ceo role than an individual. I am not certain, but if she was found to have officially stated this in her role as the head of the WoT universe, instead of just as an individual, I could see that holding some weight in court.
OK, but like you already said you already have options. You have already mentioned condoms, there is vasectomies (and freezing sperm), abstinence, etc. With this pill you might of died of aids before even meeting her, so it does not really seem like a solution. Besides, most people in monogamous relationships get a little on the side. I have heard, though not seen the actually papers, that something like a third of all children born in wedlock are from affairs.
And still to this day aids is a huge concern to homosexual males simply because they equate not being able to knock their partner up with safe sex. So we know with absolutely certainty that that will not happen, a large significant population will use this instead of using a condom; And many of them will die, but not until after they spread AIDs to even more people. There are no technical solutions to anything that are worth a damn. The onyl solution to pregnancy and STDs is common sense, unfortunately this "solution" will only act as a smoke screen for many.
And STDs will skyrocket. There is pretty much no reason you should ever have unprotected sex if you do not want to father a child. Imagine if this was available a generation ago, 80% of the population would of died along side all of those homosexuals. I might imagine that we have STDs slightly more under control now and the death rate won't skyrocket quite that much, but still...
20% growth is not flattening out, it is pretty much as much as you would hope for a big established player. It probably represents far more about how fast the economy is growing as a whole than actually effort by Google to grow bigger.
Secondly, Google can play the long game. FB itself did not add any ads to its site for a long time, instead focusing on growing its user base and making them dependant. The article mentions the move to tablets like it is a knock against Google, but they have most of the table marketshare with Android. They own most of our OSes now, and an even bigger percentage of us use their browser to browse the internet. Yet they are not Microsoft, they have yet to leverage this position for trillions of dollars in licensing fees, or more ubiquitous ads that they probably could, because like FB they are more interested in gaining even more users. FB is one site on the internet, one site that 99% of the people who visit use at least Google OS or Google Browser to do so.
How the f*** do you expect people to "rank them correctly within the genre"?
What does that even mean? Where doe Dwarf Fortress stand in the genre of DF-likes? Where does Brutal Legend stand in the genre of Action, Comedy, Adventure, Open World RPG, Hack and Slash, RTS games?
Slashdot Mirror
The second the government is regulating the internet, how could they not go after child pornography, harassment, piracy, and them all encryption?
Specifically, above and beyond any advanced AI software we would need dedicated hardware designed from the ground up for the task. Getting a computer to emulate a human with a generic processor, is like saying when will our general CPUs be powerful enough that we can just forget about getting a video card. A processor designed for general purpose computing will never be powerful enough to simulate a powerful specialized processor like a human brain.
It seem to me at this point the biggest improvements will have to be architectural. It is not like size is a constraint, processors could be 20 times bigger and still be small enough for a desktop. The problem is designing one where latency does not kill its efficiency.
Or atoms are like 99.99% empty space, I wonder if we could break the atom barrier and cut away at all that wasted space (push atoms closer together then you find naturally).
I would be more interested to hear how much they made per stream. It is just ad based right? You do not make that much off of an individual seeing an ad for 5 minutes. The average user probably listens for hours at a time, which will come out to like 15 cents, which is loads more that I would of thought an ad company would give them for a single user.
Look at how successfully early humans survived all over the globe, in almost every climate
Yes along side thousands of other species that are even more widely dispersed and which have been at the game of survival thousands (in some cases billions) of times longer. Come talk to me after humans has surpassed the average mammalian species lifespan (although, at that point the dodo will still have them beat).
I don't know about that. If you base your belief in the integrity of the scientist conducting the research instead of repeat-ability and peer review process, I think that is a little misguided. If you are saying that to trust hat a plane I am getting on will on not crash, I have to trust a series of hundreds of scientist's integrity, than I disagree. It does not matter what whit if one of them was an adulterer, a liar, or a thief, only if their processes were solid (as verified by peer review), and there experiments could suffer repetition by interested third parties.
Should of just posted that as main level comment. Great, short, and very relevant.
If the fossil fuel industry wants to spend their money, that sounds great. I am not going to complain that they are wasting their money, and research in to alternative reasons why the climate is changing is important. As for declaring where his funding comes from, why? A scientific paper must stand alone, and not be judged by any other standard than if its logic is correct and if it is repeatable. All research is funded by someone, and no one is going to fund a paper that they have no conflicts of interest in. Probably far more worrisome is that each and every researcher has a huge personal and professional conflict of interest to have their research hypothesis proved correct and find interesting publishable results. That the funding also ubiquitously comes partied have how huge expectations of getting the results they want can also cause problems, but since no one has yet found a way to conduct research for free, it is not a solvable problem.
Yes, but they get millions to conduct research. I doubt he took that $1.2 million home.
And I am not even sure that it help for research. Sure it makes it easy, but I think there are definitely some downsides to allowing kids to just g to Wikipedia for all their research needs.
I disagree, the founding stones of Naziism was a desire to set right the wrong perpetrated on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles; Anything else is just a symptom. This Treaty itself was created because Britain/France/et al wanted to find some form or justice in this most terrible war. The War which happened because Europe had a big web of alliances that meant that they were contractually obliged to help out.
This. The Milgram experiment (often used to explain how the holocaust [or any other mass human consciously caused tragedies, like say mutual destruction] could of happened) did not find that aggression was a cause, more like the exact opposite.
This is just a smokescreen to cover up the real culprit. It was physicists like Hawking who gave world destroying weapons to a bunch of monkeys who could not hope to even understand them if they studied for a thousand years.
Besides, no one lacking in aggression would go exploring around the universe, they is strictly the task of the aggressive.
No major wars were ever started because of aggression. Horrible atrocities are committed because smart caring individuals want to set right wrongs and bring some form of justice. It does not matter if you are talking about Nazi moment, Russian Communist moment, or the modern day commenter/solider/general on the Israel-Palestine War. Everything is acceptable when you have right on your side.
But that is what you get when you ask an overly arrogant person something outside of their field of expertise.
It is not that difficult. Being selfish is always the best for the individual, and short term sometimes entire species. The biggest lifeform on the planet is the Oregon Armillaria ostoyae, which unlike much of its fungus cousins kills its hosts. It has a huge advantage against not only other fungi but pretty much all other life. Long term when the forest it feeds off dies it will not fair nearly as well, that is why fungus as a whole is so benefaction, because a species that causes its own huge natural disasters cannot compete with one that strengthens and enriches its home.
No, I am saying we already have a sample population to test theories on. The gay community, which is predominately like the male population as a whole. They are in all strata of this population and as such act as a very good sample. One major difference between these populations, and the only hard physical difference in their relationships, is that gay men do not have to worry about pregnancy, and as such we see 40 times as much aids in the homosexual population. We see a tiny majority host the vast majority of STDs. The addition of these pills will put the whole population in the exact situation that gay men have been in for generations.
I don't really think it is fair to say that editor of TWoT did the series any favors. It is not that he was a terrible writer, but the books obviously suffered form a severe lack of decent editing. Perhaps if they had used a less personally involved person, they would of convinced him to cut out all the shit.
Still, if she inherited the copyright ownership, she inherited her way into the lease agreement. She has become the official head of the franchise. Just because a CEO changes does not mean that the company is no longer under any obligation to fulfill its contracts. And since she in the official in charge of this entity, it is far more like a ceo role than an individual. I am not certain, but if she was found to have officially stated this in her role as the head of the WoT universe, instead of just as an individual, I could see that holding some weight in court.
OK, but like you already said you already have options. You have already mentioned condoms, there is vasectomies (and freezing sperm), abstinence, etc. With this pill you might of died of aids before even meeting her, so it does not really seem like a solution. Besides, most people in monogamous relationships get a little on the side. I have heard, though not seen the actually papers, that something like a third of all children born in wedlock are from affairs.
And still to this day aids is a huge concern to homosexual males simply because they equate not being able to knock their partner up with safe sex. So we know with absolutely certainty that that will not happen, a large significant population will use this instead of using a condom; And many of them will die, but not until after they spread AIDs to even more people. There are no technical solutions to anything that are worth a damn. The onyl solution to pregnancy and STDs is common sense, unfortunately this "solution" will only act as a smoke screen for many.
And STDs will skyrocket. There is pretty much no reason you should ever have unprotected sex if you do not want to father a child. Imagine if this was available a generation ago, 80% of the population would of died along side all of those homosexuals. I might imagine that we have STDs slightly more under control now and the death rate won't skyrocket quite that much, but still...
The burial/cremation/memorial business is huge money.
20% growth is not flattening out, it is pretty much as much as you would hope for a big established player. It probably represents far more about how fast the economy is growing as a whole than actually effort by Google to grow bigger.
Secondly, Google can play the long game. FB itself did not add any ads to its site for a long time, instead focusing on growing its user base and making them dependant. The article mentions the move to tablets like it is a knock against Google, but they have most of the table marketshare with Android. They own most of our OSes now, and an even bigger percentage of us use their browser to browse the internet. Yet they are not Microsoft, they have yet to leverage this position for trillions of dollars in licensing fees, or more ubiquitous ads that they probably could, because like FB they are more interested in gaining even more users. FB is one site on the internet, one site that 99% of the people who visit use at least Google OS or Google Browser to do so.
How the f*** do you expect people to "rank them correctly within the genre"? What does that even mean? Where doe Dwarf Fortress stand in the genre of DF-likes? Where does Brutal Legend stand in the genre of Action, Comedy, Adventure, Open World RPG, Hack and Slash, RTS games?