So, what happens if you want to use your fancy computer to model two universes?
Simple. Since we've got a computer capable of simulating the entire universe, we'll just use it to simulate a universe which contains a computer which is capable of simulating more than one universe.
A standard implementation of a linked list of integers will now be 50 to 100% larger
Yes, but how often do you have a realistic linked list that only has a single data element per node? Even with 32-bit pointers that would be a ridiculous waste. A linked list of integers is a first year programming assignment, not a real application.
The answer is obvious -- assuming the memory allocator has good locality, use 32-bit integer offsets instead of 64-bit pointers. To follow the link, take your own address and add the offset to obtain the 64-bit pointer to the next node.
The reason this works is because the temperature is an excellent approximation of the pressure for incompressible fluids (when multiplied by the appropriate constant). What you're really computing is the product of flow rate times pressure difference.
This is a very interesting analog between electricity and fluid flow. For electric flows, the power is the voltage times the current. For fluid flows, the power is the pressure difference times the flow in liters per second.
This is easily shown by some simple dimensional analysis:
Volt * Amp = Joule / Coulomb * Coloumb / Sec = Joule / Sec = Watt
Newton / Meter^2 * Meter^3 / Second = Newton * Meter / Second = Joule / Sec = Watt
In other words, "Volts" are the equivalent of "Pressure" in the fluid world, and "Amps" are the equivalent of flow rate.
It's just the consequence of the way that exponentiation on complex numbers is defined.
Yep. The series expansion of exp(i*x) turns out to be the same as the series expansion of cos(x)+i*sin(x). Thus, exp(i*x) = cos(x)+i*sin(x).
It's hardly surprising that pi would enter into it, given the presence of the trigonometric functions.
However, there's still something a bit mysterious about the fact that the two series are identical to each other. But it's probably no more meaningful than finding a particular pattern of tea leaves on the bottom of your cup...
He didn't say anything remotely like it. The point is apparently too simple for you to grasp: there is, currently, no method of proving that a being is conscious or not conscious.
You can believe that flies are not conscious all you want, but because you cannot prove it, your assertions are meaningless spew.
better not swat those pesky mosquitoes any more, after all, they're clearly conscious...
Even if a mosquito was conscious, what reason would that be not to kill it? Humans kill higher lifeforms which seem to be conscious (e.g., game animals) and they even kill other humans. Your point?
int main() { printf("I am alive, and self-aware.\n"); }
Explain why my program is NOT sentient. It claims to be self-aware, right?
Re:Disturbing Experiment: Who is "I"?
on
Flying By Brain
·
· Score: 1
Chinese and Korean society are brutal because the notion of Western ethics does not exist there.
Okay, I'll give you that. Now, take this:
"American and European societies are corrupt and evil because the notion of Sharia law does not exist there."
Care to explain why your statement is valid, but mine isn't? I'm afraid you can't.
Re:Disturbing Experiment: Who is "I"?
on
Flying By Brain
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
If we conducted a similar experiment with a human brain, would the artifical brain now be separate and distinct from the human victim who surrendered the brain cells for the artificial brain? Have we created 2 "souls"?
Does the question even mean anything?
Years ago, patients with extreme cases of epilepsy were treated by severing the connection between the left and right halves of the brain. The theory was that this would prevent the "electrical storm" of the seizure from propagating from one side of the brain to the other. This would supposedly reduce the frequency and severity of the seizures.
As a result, these individuals had, in their skulls, two independent brains with no communication link between them (a simplification, but mostly accurate). These patients would report strange experiences, such as getting up out of a chair and walking to another room, without having any idea why they were doing it. Essentially, the two halves of their brains were functioning independently, and sometimes "fought" over what the body was going to do.
It's a very interesting question -- did the "person" go into the left half of the brain, or the right? If it went into the left side, for example, what happened to the right side? Is it now a soulless automaton? How can a single person exist in two conscious modes simultaneously? Yet these people live normal lives, for the most part.
Sadly, you are trolling. But you raise an interesting point.
Not really. The network of neurons is not conscious; it's just a mass of cells that happens to have a way to communicate with each other that's convenient for the application.
What? How can you possibly assert that? I could make the same claim about you. All you are is a "bunch of neurons" that exhibits complex behavior. I have absolutely no reason to suspect that you are conscious. Sure, you act like you're conscious, but you're just saying that.
Uhh, what if I played PBS shows instead of mind-numbing garbage? Would I be an acceptable parent then?
While driving in a car is NOT the time to have a conversation with your children. Being able to distract them so they stay quiet and don't create a dangerous situation is a GOOD thing. Distracting them with something educational is a bonus.
I disagree, sort of. You shouldn't commit when code is in a state of flux. For tweak-type changes involving a single file, it makes sense, but for more complicated changes that involve multiple files, headers, makefiles, etc., the code really should be in a consistent state. Not necessarily bug-free, which is probably impossible anyway, but at least consistent.
Many times, changes to one part of the code don't make sense outside the context of changes to some other part of the code. These things shouldn't be halfway committed. Every tagged revision that can be rolled back to should be self-consistent. You risk hours or even days of headaches if you break this rule.
If you insist on committing while developing a large scale change, at the very least fork a branch off and do your commits there, so that when the changes stabilize you can merge them back into the real tree and delete the development branch and its confusing, inconsistent states.
In other words - for every time a rabbit correctly "senses danger" they over-react to 99 completely benign events.
The same is true of people. A great deal of time and energy is wasted by people looking for patterns in events which aren't really there. The human mind evolved to discern and process patterns, with a bias toward finding a pattern, even if one isn't really present.
It's better to believe you see a tiger in the grass and be wrong about it, than to believe you don't see the tiger and be wrong about it.
I think this is the basic principle behind religion, superstition, etc.
What about pollution from this? Has that even been considered?
Compare with traditional rechargable batteries.
First, there is the one-time environmental cost of manufacturing the batteries. Making a battery requires fuel for mining equipment, transporting the materials, running the manufacturing equipment, and producing the electrolyte.
Second, there is the energy required to charge the battery. This energy comes from the power grid. Ultimately, it comes from burning fossil fuels in power plants. This energy must be transmitted via wires to an electrical outlet, turned into DC by a rectifier, and finally, used to charge the battery.
In other words, here's the energy path for the turbine:
Fossil fuel ---> Combustion ---> Turn turbine ---> Generate DC power
And for the rechargable batteries:
Fossil fuel ---> Combustion ---> Turn turbine ---> Generate AC current ---> Transform to high voltage ---> Transmit down wires ---> Transform back to low voltage ---> Rectify to DC power
Asshole? Well then I'll just outsource all my computer and programming needs to India. I'm only planning on doing what the stupid liberals in this country want me to do and now I'm an asshole.
No, you're an asshole for denying jobs to people like my wife, who lives permanently in this country, works here, pays her taxes, and participates in society, but who happens to not be a citizen for various reasons.
That's funny, I've used that exact same command and never had any problems with it.
Modern UNIX-type systems like Linux have more up-to-date tools that prevent you from making this mistake:-) The shell pattern.* no longer matches "." and ".." for this exact reason.
I acknowledge that many of those are lower paying jobs, but you can't blame Bush for what types of jobs are created entirely.
I see. You can't blame him for it, but you can attribute it to him? What the hell are you smoking? Make up your mind.
I will grant that there was a large loss of jobs early in his presidency which has a tendancy to screw the job numbers a lot, but much of that is due to "the dot com bust" which came out of the Clinton era
Oh please. We all worked in the industry. We all know why the bubble burst. It's because it was a fucking bubble and investors were insane for about 4 years. Clinton had nothing to do with it. We caused it with our own hype and "glory."
The problem with the dictionary definition is that it assumed the existence of absolute velocity. But we know that isn't true. You know, relativity.
I mean, look at the definition:
1. To decrease the velocity of.
This is meaningless. Decreased with respect to what? I can select a reference frame where the velocity has increased, not decreased! This "definition" is bogus. A forgiveable error, seeing as the dictionary authors are not physicists, but still an error.
The real, physical definition of acceleration is a CHANGE in velocity. An increase or a decrease. Change is universal. Change can be measured in any reference frame. In some frames, the change is negative, while in others it is positive. No matter which, it is always called acceleration.
Nobody is disputing the usefulness of the term "decelerate," but the OP was quite correct that there is absolutely no distinction between the two.
Slashdot Mirror
Water is a much better coolant than your typical refrigerant. The reason water is not used, however, is because its boiling point is far too high.
Simple. Since we've got a computer capable of simulating the entire universe, we'll just use it to simulate a universe which contains a computer which is capable of simulating more than one universe.
Yes, but how often do you have a realistic linked list that only has a single data element per node? Even with 32-bit pointers that would be a ridiculous waste. A linked list of integers is a first year programming assignment, not a real application.
The answer is obvious -- assuming the memory allocator has good locality, use 32-bit integer offsets instead of 64-bit pointers. To follow the link, take your own address and add the offset to obtain the 64-bit pointer to the next node.
Right, because as we all know, the solution to every social problem is to simply throw money at it.
I guess it doesn't rhyme as well that way, though :-P
This is a very interesting analog between electricity and fluid flow. For electric flows, the power is the voltage times the current. For fluid flows, the power is the pressure difference times the flow in liters per second.
This is easily shown by some simple dimensional analysis:
Volt * Amp = Joule / Coulomb * Coloumb / Sec = Joule / Sec = Watt
Newton / Meter^2 * Meter^3 / Second = Newton * Meter / Second = Joule / Sec = Watt
In other words, "Volts" are the equivalent of "Pressure" in the fluid world, and "Amps" are the equivalent of flow rate.
Yep. The series expansion of exp(i*x) turns out to be the same as the series expansion of cos(x)+i*sin(x). Thus, exp(i*x) = cos(x)+i*sin(x).
It's hardly surprising that pi would enter into it, given the presence of the trigonometric functions.
However, there's still something a bit mysterious about the fact that the two series are identical to each other. But it's probably no more meaningful than finding a particular pattern of tea leaves on the bottom of your cup...
Perhaps the intention was to determine what percentage of Fedora users are absolute fucking morons? With no prior evidence, I'd wager quite a few.
Bayes' Theorem is so obvious it hurts:
1. P(A,B) = P(A|B) * P(B) (obvious)
2. P(A,B) = P(B|A) * P(A) (obvious)
3. P(A|B) * P(B) = P(B|A) * P(A)
4. P(A|B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B)
QED
He didn't say anything remotely like it. The point is apparently too simple for you to grasp: there is, currently, no method of proving that a being is conscious or not conscious.
You can believe that flies are not conscious all you want, but because you cannot prove it, your assertions are meaningless spew.
better not swat those pesky mosquitoes any more, after all, they're clearly conscious...
Even if a mosquito was conscious, what reason would that be not to kill it? Humans kill higher lifeforms which seem to be conscious (e.g., game animals) and they even kill other humans. Your point?
int main()
{
printf("I am alive, and self-aware.\n");
}
Explain why my program is NOT sentient. It claims to be self-aware, right?
Okay, I'll give you that. Now, take this:
"American and European societies are corrupt and evil because the notion of Sharia law does not exist there."
Care to explain why your statement is valid, but mine isn't? I'm afraid you can't.
Does the question even mean anything?
Years ago, patients with extreme cases of epilepsy were treated by severing the connection between the left and right halves of the brain. The theory was that this would prevent the "electrical storm" of the seizure from propagating from one side of the brain to the other. This would supposedly reduce the frequency and severity of the seizures.
As a result, these individuals had, in their skulls, two independent brains with no communication link between them (a simplification, but mostly accurate). These patients would report strange experiences, such as getting up out of a chair and walking to another room, without having any idea why they were doing it. Essentially, the two halves of their brains were functioning independently, and sometimes "fought" over what the body was going to do.
It's a very interesting question -- did the "person" go into the left half of the brain, or the right? If it went into the left side, for example, what happened to the right side? Is it now a soulless automaton? How can a single person exist in two conscious modes simultaneously? Yet these people live normal lives, for the most part.
Sadly, you are trolling. But you raise an interesting point.
What? How can you possibly assert that? I could make the same claim about you. All you are is a "bunch of neurons" that exhibits complex behavior. I have absolutely no reason to suspect that you are conscious. Sure, you act like you're conscious, but you're just saying that.
While driving in a car is NOT the time to have a conversation with your children. Being able to distract them so they stay quiet and don't create a dangerous situation is a GOOD thing. Distracting them with something educational is a bonus.
Many times, changes to one part of the code don't make sense outside the context of changes to some other part of the code. These things shouldn't be halfway committed. Every tagged revision that can be rolled back to should be self-consistent. You risk hours or even days of headaches if you break this rule.
If you insist on committing while developing a large scale change, at the very least fork a branch off and do your commits there, so that when the changes stabilize you can merge them back into the real tree and delete the development branch and its confusing, inconsistent states.
The same is true of people. A great deal of time and energy is wasted by people looking for patterns in events which aren't really there. The human mind evolved to discern and process patterns, with a bias toward finding a pattern, even if one isn't really present.
It's better to believe you see a tiger in the grass and be wrong about it, than to believe you don't see the tiger and be wrong about it.
I think this is the basic principle behind religion, superstition, etc.
Umm.. Where do you think the energy in batteries comes from?
Compare with traditional rechargable batteries.
First, there is the one-time environmental cost of manufacturing the batteries. Making a battery requires fuel for mining equipment, transporting the materials, running the manufacturing equipment, and producing the electrolyte.
Second, there is the energy required to charge the battery. This energy comes from the power grid. Ultimately, it comes from burning fossil fuels in power plants. This energy must be transmitted via wires to an electrical outlet, turned into DC by a rectifier, and finally, used to charge the battery.
In other words, here's the energy path for the turbine:
Fossil fuel ---> Combustion ---> Turn turbine ---> Generate DC power
And for the rechargable batteries:
Fossil fuel ---> Combustion ---> Turn turbine ---> Generate AC current ---> Transform to high voltage ---> Transmit down wires ---> Transform back to low voltage ---> Rectify to DC power
Which do you think is more efficient?
No, you're an asshole for denying jobs to people like my wife, who lives permanently in this country, works here, pays her taxes, and participates in society, but who happens to not be a citizen for various reasons.
In short, you fuck off, racist.
There is no such thing as the "inertial reference frame" of an accelerating object.
Modern UNIX-type systems like Linux have more up-to-date tools that prevent you from making this mistake :-) The shell pattern .* no longer matches "." and ".." for this exact reason.
I see. You can't blame him for it, but you can attribute it to him? What the hell are you smoking? Make up your mind.
I will grant that there was a large loss of jobs early in his presidency which has a tendancy to screw the job numbers a lot, but much of that is due to "the dot com bust" which came out of the Clinton era
Oh please. We all worked in the industry. We all know why the bubble burst. It's because it was a fucking bubble and investors were insane for about 4 years. Clinton had nothing to do with it. We caused it with our own hype and "glory."
Uhh, I was referring to the guy who posted the link to a woman with shit on her face, but if you'd like me to call you an idiot, I'll be happy to.
I mean, look at the definition:
1. To decrease the velocity of.
This is meaningless. Decreased with respect to what? I can select a reference frame where the velocity has increased, not decreased! This "definition" is bogus. A forgiveable error, seeing as the dictionary authors are not physicists, but still an error.
The real, physical definition of acceleration is a CHANGE in velocity. An increase or a decrease. Change is universal. Change can be measured in any reference frame. In some frames, the change is negative, while in others it is positive. No matter which, it is always called acceleration.
Nobody is disputing the usefulness of the term "decelerate," but the OP was quite correct that there is absolutely no distinction between the two.