I know. But they are all in NP. It makes sense to say "more than polynomial, but less than exponential" but it makes no sense at all to say "closer to P than to NP". I know what they mean, but they're mixing up the terminology.
If Chrome is just a Safari wrapper, why didn't the hackers just use Safari then? An exploit using the browser used by the vast majority of iOS users is surely more useful than one used only by those who installed Chrome? Most iOS users hardly know what a web browser is, they just know the blue compass icon gets them onto the internet.
So no, the exploit seems to be specific to Chrome. That's no excuse for Apple (no hijacked app should be able to install apps), but Google does share a small part of the blame.
Wind power has actually become cheaper than coal or gas. And we've just ordered solar panels for our house that will pay themselves back in less than 10 years, without subsidies of any kind.
But I still agree we need more nuclear power for when the wind is not blowing and the sun isn't shining. And theres only so much land we can use for wind turbines. Instead of extending the life of old nuclear plants (which then blow up, like Fukushima), we should be building new ones that are more efficient and safe. Not "safer" but actually "safe". Yes, they do exist, but we're hardly building any because "nucular is dangerous". So we keep extending the older ones. Way to go.
I can imagine what that e-mail was like. "Here's the code to cheat on emissions tests, only for 'testing' purposes, don't use it in production cars, wink wink..."
"O, and how many millions of licenses did you want?"
I'm not saying it's around the corner, but give technology a couple of hundred more years of evolution (maybe even less) at the same pace as the last hundred years, and I'd say it's pretty likely to happen. People are already imaging individual atoms, where you can see the actual electrons orbiting the nucleus, while something like that would have been deemed totally impossible a hundred years ago (since you can only "see" using elementary particles, making it impossible to see something that small). We've even created anti-hydrogen atoms. We've mapped entire genomes. Some kind of new scanning technology capable of mapping a brain will arrive eventually.
The various analytical engines scored zero when it comes to understanding human speech. 1000 year old rockets scored zero when it comes to escaping the eath's gravitational field. Yet, when scaled up, they got us pretty far.
A bacterium's consciousness scores zero too. Yet after millions of years of evolution, here we are.
I think that, once we can simulate neural networks with a similar number of connections as a human brain, we'll start seeing behaviour that looks a lot like consciousness. The question will forever remain whether or not that consciousness is "real", whether or not it has a "soul", but once they'll behave the same, I predict we'll come to accept them as real. Just like we gave certain rights to animals even though some people still claim they don't have souls.
As to actually understanding consciousness, that's a different story. Simulated brains will certainly give us a lot of material to study. But we may never really understand what it means for a consciousness to be "real".
In real terms we have been in decline for a century or so. Newer discoveries are always smaller and further apart than the last one. The iPhone, for example, is very nifty but doesn't represent much progress over the personal computer, which wasn't much progress from the old timeshare systems - and they weren't exactly a discovery after the various analytical engines. It's all just "computer" with a "miniaturization" process applied. Similarly, landing a man on the Moon was a very impressive achievement, but then rocketry (~1000 y.o.) and orbital physics (~500 y.o.) were old hat.
We can already do brain scans, and map all the synapses in a small part of brain tissue, so mapping an entire brain is just the same thing with some performance enhancements. And since we can already simulate small neural networks, simulating an entire brain is just the same thing with some scale improvements.
Yes, if we can decipher whale sounds, I don't see why aliens would have any difficulty deciphering our images and sounds. They might not see anything if they look at one of our CRT monitors, but they certainly could decipher the transmission and display it on whatever device they use. Not that they would be able to make sense of it right away, but the particular difficulties listed in the article are actually the easiest to solve.
Yes, it's just you. Everyone else understood that 8K doesn't just mean 8000 pixels per horizontal line (give or take a few) but also twice as many of those lines. Both horizontal and vertical resolution are doubled. We're not talking megapixels (that would be "M") but horizontal pixels.
Apple found a pretty good solution to this. The retina displays use a coordinate system where integer coordinates correspond to double pixel boundaries. So with the same coordinates, everything looks the same size as before but just gets sharper. The size of menu bars, icons, etcetera is still the same number of "points" but twice as many pixels. Little or no programming effort required.
Teslas actually do very well in the snow, better than most other cars. Even the RWD version is excellent already, but definitely the AWD has incredible traction.
They do sell high power wall chargers that charge a Model S in less than 8 hours (if your home's electric system can handle the amps, otherwise you might have to upgrade it or accept a longer charging time)
Casey Spencer actually did 550 miles and ended at the starting point (if the comments below the article on teslarati.com are correct, because I couldn't find exact details on the route myself), so the initial downhill segment doesn't matter. But he did deactivate or turn down as much as possible everything that used even the smallest amount of power (climate control, radio, dimmed screens), overinflated the tires, and chose a favorable weather pattern with a strong tailwind in the last leg. And of course he only did 24 mph.
Anyway, I came here to write exactly what you wrote: Elon said that someone already did 800 km, so they should be able to break 1000 km in 2017 or so. To me it certainly sounded like he was talking about a similar hypermiling record, not real world performance. And since the record was done with an 85D while 90D is already available, they ought to already be able to achieve 937 km today. So it looks like they won't improve much in the coming years, 5 to 10% per year like he said.
Yes, but power is energy per second, and since you're doing more distance per second at higher speed, energy usage per km only increases with the square of the velocity.
I wonder how that letter went. "Here's the software to cheat on the emissions test. Only use this for internal testing, not in production cars, wink wink..."
Oh, you want how many licenses for that software? A few million? No problem, but remember it's only for internal testing!
I've got a piece of paper right here than can store 1.7 googol datapoints. Really. I put 333 little circles on it, every circle can be either filled or empty. That gives 1,7 googol different combinations.
From Porsche, I would have expected better than "in five years we'll be able to make a car that has the same range and is almost as fast as the P85Ds that Tesla has been selling for almost a year." (Never mind the even faster ludicrous P90D).
About the only advantage would be the charging time, which is faster than Tesla's current crop of superchargers. But those have been improved several times over the last years, and with 5 years to go, I think it would be extremely unlikely for Teslas to still take more than 15 minutes to charge 400 km by then.
Very clever article. They write some ridiculous bullshit about 36 bits being able to store 68 billion data points, so all the geeks and nerds start talking about how stupid those journalists are, meanwhile they have all seen the product and will remember it. When you see one of these new labels, you'll go "oh, I remember, that's the one where those idiots claimed it could contain so many data points with cryptography and all". If they would have just said "hey, we invented a new label that can store 36 bits", nobody would talk about it and it would be quickly forgotten. Negative publicity is good publicity.
No, when stopping on non-compacted snow, the snow will build up in front of the locked wheels and improve braking. With anti-lock brakes, you roll over the snow so it doesn't build up in front of the wheels and your stopping distance actually increases.
In most other conditions (dry, wet, ice,...) a good ABS system does indeed let you stop quicker. But not in snow.
And many cheaper ABS systems even give you longer stopping distances on dry roads too. Pretty much the only advantage of those is keeping steering control while braking hard.
Slashdot Mirror
I know. But they are all in NP. It makes sense to say "more than polynomial, but less than exponential" but it makes no sense at all to say "closer to P than to NP". I know what they mean, but they're mixing up the terminology.
How can something be closer to P than to NP? P is a subset of NP.
You mean NP-complete, right?
If Chrome is just a Safari wrapper, why didn't the hackers just use Safari then? An exploit using the browser used by the vast majority of iOS users is surely more useful than one used only by those who installed Chrome? Most iOS users hardly know what a web browser is, they just know the blue compass icon gets them onto the internet.
So no, the exploit seems to be specific to Chrome. That's no excuse for Apple (no hijacked app should be able to install apps), but Google does share a small part of the blame.
Electricity is pretty expensive in Belgium, that's true.
Wind power has actually become cheaper than coal or gas. And we've just ordered solar panels for our house that will pay themselves back in less than 10 years, without subsidies of any kind.
But I still agree we need more nuclear power for when the wind is not blowing and the sun isn't shining. And theres only so much land we can use for wind turbines. Instead of extending the life of old nuclear plants (which then blow up, like Fukushima), we should be building new ones that are more efficient and safe. Not "safer" but actually "safe". Yes, they do exist, but we're hardly building any because "nucular is dangerous". So we keep extending the older ones. Way to go.
I can imagine what that e-mail was like. "Here's the code to cheat on emissions tests, only for 'testing' purposes, don't use it in production cars, wink wink..."
"O, and how many millions of licenses did you want?"
I'm not saying it's around the corner, but give technology a couple of hundred more years of evolution (maybe even less) at the same pace as the last hundred years, and I'd say it's pretty likely to happen. People are already imaging individual atoms, where you can see the actual electrons orbiting the nucleus, while something like that would have been deemed totally impossible a hundred years ago (since you can only "see" using elementary particles, making it impossible to see something that small). We've even created anti-hydrogen atoms. We've mapped entire genomes. Some kind of new scanning technology capable of mapping a brain will arrive eventually.
The various analytical engines scored zero when it comes to understanding human speech. 1000 year old rockets scored zero when it comes to escaping the eath's gravitational field. Yet, when scaled up, they got us pretty far.
A bacterium's consciousness scores zero too. Yet after millions of years of evolution, here we are.
I think that, once we can simulate neural networks with a similar number of connections as a human brain, we'll start seeing behaviour that looks a lot like consciousness. The question will forever remain whether or not that consciousness is "real", whether or not it has a "soul", but once they'll behave the same, I predict we'll come to accept them as real. Just like we gave certain rights to animals even though some people still claim they don't have souls.
As to actually understanding consciousness, that's a different story. Simulated brains will certainly give us a lot of material to study. But we may never really understand what it means for a consciousness to be "real".
In real terms we have been in decline for a century or so. Newer discoveries are always smaller and further apart than the last one. The iPhone, for example, is very nifty but doesn't represent much progress over the personal computer, which wasn't much progress from the old timeshare systems - and they weren't exactly a discovery after the various analytical engines. It's all just "computer" with a "miniaturization" process applied. Similarly, landing a man on the Moon was a very impressive achievement, but then rocketry (~1000 y.o.) and orbital physics (~500 y.o.) were old hat.
We can already do brain scans, and map all the synapses in a small part of brain tissue, so mapping an entire brain is just the same thing with some performance enhancements. And since we can already simulate small neural networks, simulating an entire brain is just the same thing with some scale improvements.
What was your point again, exactly?
Yes, if we can decipher whale sounds, I don't see why aliens would have any difficulty deciphering our images and sounds. They might not see anything if they look at one of our CRT monitors, but they certainly could decipher the transmission and display it on whatever device they use. Not that they would be able to make sense of it right away, but the particular difficulties listed in the article are actually the easiest to solve.
mere fusion power you are likely to get from deuterium probably wouldn't get you very far...
Except if you use it to power an EmDrive.
If you power an imaginary device with another imaginary device, you get a real one, right?
Yes, it's just you. Everyone else understood that 8K doesn't just mean 8000 pixels per horizontal line (give or take a few) but also twice as many of those lines. Both horizontal and vertical resolution are doubled. We're not talking megapixels (that would be "M") but horizontal pixels.
Apple found a pretty good solution to this. The retina displays use a coordinate system where integer coordinates correspond to double pixel boundaries. So with the same coordinates, everything looks the same size as before but just gets sharper. The size of menu bars, icons, etcetera is still the same number of "points" but twice as many pixels. Little or no programming effort required.
Teslas actually do very well in the snow, better than most other cars. Even the RWD version is excellent already, but definitely the AWD has incredible traction.
They do sell high power wall chargers that charge a Model S in less than 8 hours (if your home's electric system can handle the amps, otherwise you might have to upgrade it or accept a longer charging time)
Casey Spencer actually did 550 miles and ended at the starting point (if the comments below the article on teslarati.com are correct, because I couldn't find exact details on the route myself), so the initial downhill segment doesn't matter. But he did deactivate or turn down as much as possible everything that used even the smallest amount of power (climate control, radio, dimmed screens), overinflated the tires, and chose a favorable weather pattern with a strong tailwind in the last leg. And of course he only did 24 mph.
Anyway, I came here to write exactly what you wrote: Elon said that someone already did 800 km, so they should be able to break 1000 km in 2017 or so. To me it certainly sounded like he was talking about a similar hypermiling record, not real world performance. And since the record was done with an 85D while 90D is already available, they ought to already be able to achieve 937 km today. So it looks like they won't improve much in the coming years, 5 to 10% per year like he said.
Yes, but power is energy per second, and since you're doing more distance per second at higher speed, energy usage per km only increases with the square of the velocity.
I wonder how that letter went. "Here's the software to cheat on the emissions test. Only use this for internal testing, not in production cars, wink wink..."
Oh, you want how many licenses for that software? A few million? No problem, but remember it's only for internal testing!
I've got a piece of paper right here than can store 1.7 googol datapoints. Really. I put 333 little circles on it, every circle can be either filled or empty. That gives 1,7 googol different combinations.
I'm off to the patent office...
From Porsche, I would have expected better than "in five years we'll be able to make a car that has the same range and is almost as fast as the P85Ds that Tesla has been selling for almost a year." (Never mind the even faster ludicrous P90D).
About the only advantage would be the charging time, which is faster than Tesla's current crop of superchargers. But those have been improved several times over the last years, and with 5 years to go, I think it would be extremely unlikely for Teslas to still take more than 15 minutes to charge 400 km by then.
It didn't do 0 to 100 km/h though.
Very clever article. They write some ridiculous bullshit about 36 bits being able to store 68 billion data points, so all the geeks and nerds start talking about how stupid those journalists are, meanwhile they have all seen the product and will remember it. When you see one of these new labels, you'll go "oh, I remember, that's the one where those idiots claimed it could contain so many data points with cryptography and all". If they would have just said "hey, we invented a new label that can store 36 bits", nobody would talk about it and it would be quickly forgotten. Negative publicity is good publicity.
Hopefully the ones that evolved to be playful sexy catgirls. In a nearly infinite universe, that has to be somewhere, right?
Probably somewhere in the vicinity of Sqornshellous Zeta.
No, when stopping on non-compacted snow, the snow will build up in front of the locked wheels and improve braking. With anti-lock brakes, you roll over the snow so it doesn't build up in front of the wheels and your stopping distance actually increases.
In most other conditions (dry, wet, ice,...) a good ABS system does indeed let you stop quicker. But not in snow.
And many cheaper ABS systems even give you longer stopping distances on dry roads too. Pretty much the only advantage of those is keeping steering control while braking hard.
Don't drag Bono into this.