For a moment there, I thought you meant on the other side of the moon from us, rather than from the base. I was already to go "nooooo, that'll crash it into the Earth, you fool!" Then I realised. And posted anyway. Ah well.
And hard to envisage habitable plants remaining stable for sufficiently long periods of time for complex life to evolve. Though if you're looking for somewhere to put people, planets without existing life are a much better bet.
So I don't know why anyone should be surprised at this, Linux has always been OpenGL, Windows DirectX, so having Linux do OpenGL better isn't surprising, anymore than Windows doing DirectX, its just what the platform is made for is all.
Assuming I understand you correctly, I should perhaps have rephrased this:
What I find more interesting, to be honest, is that Open GL is (slightly) outperforming Direct 3D on a windows/nvidia box.
To:
What I find more interesting, to be honest, is that Open GL on a windows/nvidia box is (slightly) outperforming Direct 3D on the same box.
There's no mention of graphic detail in their article, so I'd presume (might be a big one) that they're running both at equivalent resolution, level of detail, and shader effects
To be fair, it was their porting to to Open GL that improved the windows Open GL performance.
What I find more interesting, to be honest, is that Open GL is (slightly) outperforming Direct 3D on a windows/nvidia box.
Surely that's only not menacing if I've had an appendectomy?
I'd imagine that whether or not this message is interpreted as "menacing" is dependent on the recipient?
I don't think this technique can reveal what's good about Dostoyevsky, nor indeed what's good about computer games. It can, however, show you whether or not something else has the same neurological effect as reading Dostoyevsky, or playing a shooter, or whatever.
If they were able to recreate the identical (your word) neural stimulation, then I would - but I don't think they'd ever be able to recreate it identically, so that's perhaps not so important.
This neuro technique presupposes that you accomplish what you want by just skipping the insight and going straight to the rush of pleasure that insight causes.
I've not read TFA, but I'm not convinced that they are making that supposition. Any reason why they wouldn't consider the build up (which they can presumably also track) to be an equally important part of the phenomenon? They may be missing the point entirely, but they're the neurologists, so I'd hope they wouldn't disregard that sort of thing.
Those that are about that, unless they're SF or fantasy-based, should strive to have the most realistic experience as digitally possible but there is no substitute for the firing range.
Surely they'd be better off striving to have the most enjoyable experience possible? Especially if you say that they'd still be "no substitute." A sniper game that involves hiding in the one place for 2 days straight, for instance, may be realistic, but why would anyone want to play it? Give me TF2 any day.
So some of your states don't kill people? Looks like the rest are keeping nice company.
Merely rhetorical questions: Do you believe the most vile of criminals such as pedophiles, murderers and rapists can honestly meet justice with a life sentence? Should people who are serving sentences which are guaranteed to extend well past their natural life span be supported on taxpayer money?
Even though it's rhetorical, I couldn't answer the first question without knowing what you mean by "justice"... I suspect you're thinking more about vengeance, or at best, mere punishment. Regardless of the offense, the purpose of prison is supposedly threefold: to protect society, to punish the perpetrator, and to rehabilitate them. If you feel that the state cannot punish someone enough by merely locking them up, it doesn't seem like the biggest leap from that to justifying torture as an extreme form of state-sanctioned punishment.
And here's a rhetorical one back at you: Do you believe that a state killing someone can ever be just? I can think of scenarios where it might be the best option, but I don't believe it's ever just.
Indeed, that's a valid example. But because so many people were involved, I doubt arming the populace would have reduced the killing in that case. I had been thinking more of "western" nations, however.
There is absolutely no correlation, nor has there every been any findings of a correlation between owning a gun and shooting someone with it; compared with not owning a gun, and not shooting someone with it.
Whah? Are you trolling, or was that meant to make sense? (If it's a troll, fair enough, Whoosh.)
How could someone ever simultaneously both own and not own a gun?
The person attempting to separate a firearm from its owner is an agent of tyranny.
In all circumstances? Seriously? I disagree.
It is moral, almost to the point of an obligation, to kill agents of tyranny or die trying.
I disagree vehemently. It is moral to attempt to end tyranny, provided that you know what you're doing, and aren't just gonna make things worse. (See e.g. US involvement in Afghanistan.) Surely shooting someone because you disagree with them is also tyranny?
It is better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. Which would you prefer?
Alas, the USA is one of the few countries where the trial by 12 can have you sentenced to being carried by 6. Kinda makes it seem like less of a binary choice.
This is a problem that is NOT just going to go away, and i for one am not happy with the idea of just giving up because people with limited vision say we're all going to die. We damn well better invent a way around the problem, whether that's by physical engineering or social engineering or more likely a combination of both.
*Shrug* fair enough. I can agree enough with your last paragraph that I'm happy to let the rest of it slide.
In other words:
If X is defined as Y, then Z looks like it would be a good measure of X.
So you disagree with my definition of fairness. That's not circular argument on my part. You can either agree with the definition or not. If you don't agree with the definition, the measure won't be valid, but that doesn't make it circular. It's conditional.
But anyway, yeah have you a better definition of fairness and method to measure it?
Well if "fair" is distributing "stuff" equally among the masses, then the difference between top and bottom seems to me to be a good measure of overall "fairness."
And if you look at the difference between the highest standards (excluding the top 0.1%, which I guess its hard to measure meaningfully) and the lowest... they've never been further apart. As such, by certain measures, that makes modern society considerably less fair than pretty much any that preceded it.
So you'd have us not prepare for the worst, because it's conceivable that we might invent a way around the problem? That sounds overly optimistic. You see, we're kind of in an all-our-eggs-in-one-basket situation. Not everyone's happy with the idea of gambling the fate of the world on your optimism.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not just build the base on Earth, and beam it up, when you're finished designing your Von Neumann machines?
Nearside. The clue's in its name.
For a moment there, I thought you meant on the other side of the moon from us, rather than from the base. I was already to go "nooooo, that'll crash it into the Earth, you fool!" Then I realised. And posted anyway. Ah well.
And hard to envisage habitable plants remaining stable for sufficiently long periods of time for complex life to evolve. Though if you're looking for somewhere to put people, planets without existing life are a much better bet.
So I don't know why anyone should be surprised at this, Linux has always been OpenGL, Windows DirectX, so having Linux do OpenGL better isn't surprising, anymore than Windows doing DirectX, its just what the platform is made for is all.
Assuming I understand you correctly, I should perhaps have rephrased this:
What I find more interesting, to be honest, is that Open GL is (slightly) outperforming Direct 3D on a windows/nvidia box.
To:
What I find more interesting, to be honest, is that Open GL on a windows/nvidia box is (slightly) outperforming Direct 3D on the same box.
There's no mention of graphic detail in their article, so I'd presume (might be a big one) that they're running both at equivalent resolution, level of detail, and shader effects
To be fair, it was their porting to to Open GL that improved the windows Open GL performance. What I find more interesting, to be honest, is that Open GL is (slightly) outperforming Direct 3D on a windows/nvidia box.
Surely that's only not menacing if I've had an appendectomy?
I'd imagine that whether or not this message is interpreted as "menacing" is dependent on the recipient?
This neuro technique presupposes that you accomplish what you want by just skipping the insight and going straight to the rush of pleasure that insight causes.
I've not read TFA, but I'm not convinced that they are making that supposition. Any reason why they wouldn't consider the build up (which they can presumably also track) to be an equally important part of the phenomenon? They may be missing the point entirely, but they're the neurologists, so I'd hope they wouldn't disregard that sort of thing.
And reading something interesting doesn't count as a specific form of neural stimulation?
Those that are about that, unless they're SF or fantasy-based, should strive to have the most realistic experience as digitally possible but there is no substitute for the firing range.
Surely they'd be better off striving to have the most enjoyable experience possible? Especially if you say that they'd still be "no substitute." A sniper game that involves hiding in the one place for 2 days straight, for instance, may be realistic, but why would anyone want to play it? Give me TF2 any day.
Merely rhetorical questions: Do you believe the most vile of criminals such as pedophiles, murderers and rapists can honestly meet justice with a life sentence? Should people who are serving sentences which are guaranteed to extend well past their natural life span be supported on taxpayer money?
Even though it's rhetorical, I couldn't answer the first question without knowing what you mean by "justice" ... I suspect you're thinking more about vengeance, or at best, mere punishment. Regardless of the offense, the purpose of prison is supposedly threefold: to protect society, to punish the perpetrator, and to rehabilitate them. If you feel that the state cannot punish someone enough by merely locking them up, it doesn't seem like the biggest leap from that to justifying torture as an extreme form of state-sanctioned punishment.
And here's a rhetorical one back at you: Do you believe that a state killing someone can ever be just? I can think of scenarios where it might be the best option, but I don't believe it's ever just.
Indeed, that's a valid example. But because so many people were involved, I doubt arming the populace would have reduced the killing in that case. I had been thinking more of "western" nations, however.
There is absolutely no correlation, nor has there every been any findings of a correlation between owning a gun and shooting someone with it; compared with not owning a gun, and not shooting someone with it.
Whah? Are you trolling, or was that meant to make sense? (If it's a troll, fair enough, Whoosh.)
How could someone ever simultaneously both own and not own a gun?
So how many cases do you hear about where a guy kills a whole class of kids with a cigarette lighter, or even a knife?
The person attempting to separate a firearm from its owner is an agent of tyranny.
In all circumstances? Seriously? I disagree.
It is moral, almost to the point of an obligation, to kill agents of tyranny or die trying.
I disagree vehemently. It is moral to attempt to end tyranny, provided that you know what you're doing, and aren't just gonna make things worse. (See e.g. US involvement in Afghanistan.) Surely shooting someone because you disagree with them is also tyranny?
It is better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. Which would you prefer?
Alas, the USA is one of the few countries where the trial by 12 can have you sentenced to being carried by 6. Kinda makes it seem like less of a binary choice.
Indeed they don't, but there's usually a certain minimum living standard required for you to feel happy & content. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
This is a problem that is NOT just going to go away, and i for one am not happy with the idea of just giving up because people with limited vision say we're all going to die. We damn well better invent a way around the problem, whether that's by physical engineering or social engineering or more likely a combination of both.
*Shrug* fair enough. I can agree enough with your last paragraph that I'm happy to let the rest of it slide.
In other words:
If X is defined as Y, then Z looks like it would be a good measure of X.
So you disagree with my definition of fairness. That's not circular argument on my part. You can either agree with the definition or not. If you don't agree with the definition, the measure won't be valid, but that doesn't make it circular. It's conditional.
But anyway, yeah have you a better definition of fairness and method to measure it?
Well if "fair" is distributing "stuff" equally among the masses, then the difference between top and bottom seems to me to be a good measure of overall "fairness."
And if you look at the difference between the highest standards (excluding the top 0.1%, which I guess its hard to measure meaningfully) and the lowest ... they've never been further apart. As such, by certain measures, that makes modern society considerably less fair than pretty much any that preceded it.
So you'd have us not prepare for the worst, because it's conceivable that we might invent a way around the problem? That sounds overly optimistic. You see, we're kind of in an all-our-eggs-in-one-basket situation. Not everyone's happy with the idea of gambling the fate of the world on your optimism.
1 mm over many decades doesn't mean squat..
You missed out the rather important per year part from that sentence.
It's 404ing, for now. http://live.leapmotion.com/developer-kit-application