You could simulate the membrane of one human cell, 20 microns in diameter, plus the enclosed water for 2 nanoseconds. Oh, and it would take 7 years.
Just the membrane, not the DNA, not the proteins, just the lipids and water. It takes an Intel Xeon 40 cpu-days to simulate 2 microseconds of a patch of membrane 50 nm wide. Scale this up to 20 microns and it would take 1000 nodes almost 7 cpu-YEARS to simulate the cell membrane for 2 nanoseconds; and in that time each molecules would only have moved a fraction of its own length.
That's a very, very expensive simulation of mostly water.
What I said is that restricting the freedom of children under a certain age from taking part in certain activities, viz, driving, watching porn, voting etc, is not a human rights issue. This is not at all the same as saying that children don't have human rights, only that they are more restricted in their behaviour than adults because they are (rightly in most cases, unfairly in some) thought to be less responsible/capable/intellectually able.
As far I understand, and this is a debatable issue, human rights relate to universal norms of treatment that are supposed to apply to all people. This does not mean that all people, all of the time, need to be given equal freedom to exercise all kinds of behaviour. Don't you think children of 5 need different treatment under the law than teenagers, and teenagers than adults? It is a complete straw man to suggest that the "magic" phrase "human rights" allows you to say that any group of people whose freedom is restricted are having their "human rights" violated.
Being unjustly imprisoned and killed violate human rights, not letting teenagers into an internet cafe does not. Even if it is an unjust prohibition, and I think it is a bit daft to try and keep 16 year olds off the internet, I don't think it qualifies as a human rights violation.
As far as I know, all societies make rules governing the behaviour of their youth that don't apply to adults. Denying young people (define "young" as you like, take 18 for this example) access to voting rights, driver's licenses, gun licenses, adult videos, etc is not a breach of human rights. It is a recognition that it takes a certain degree of development for the safe and effective exercise of the behaviours in question.
The Chinese government probably does want to restrict access to unflattering views of themselves, but to say that imposing a lower age limit on access to the internet is a human rights violation trivialises the concept of violating human rights.
There are a lot of other actions of the Chinese government that deserve scrutiny and opposition; look at their policies towards Tibet and Taiwan for example. Forbidding access to internet cafes below a certain age is, IMHO, comparable to requiring children to be 11 to get a library card, or 16 to get a driver's license.
All of the above does not apply at all if they try to restrict it to all of their citizens. Then it becomes a restriction of liberty, and then I would oppose it.
You're right, this is "not" a human rights issue. It is about the same as requiring people to be 18 to get a driver's license. Just because some 16 year olds want one, and beat up the vehicle licensing staff to get one, does not mean they should get them.
This is totally different from restricting access to information for adults, which China also does, and wrongly in my opinion. But please don't confuse a gang of hooligans' attempts to get what they want for a serious attempt at helping promote freedom of access to information.
These are not the kind of youth I want to take over. I think they are kind that grow into the people that ordered the Tiannamen square clampdown.
If the suit is 7 feet tall, the grizzly might just think it is another bear rather than a human.
If I were inside the suit, I am not sure I would want the bear to think I am a rival rather than dinner... a bear might not be hungry when he sees me, but he will always dislike competition.
What! $14.95 for a moon lander. I wrote one of those for an Olivetti "desktop" that was the size of small washing machine, and only had the four functions, square root and 10 memory locations when I was 14. AND it took account of the fuel mass decreasing with time.
Damn. I should have tried to sell it. I might have been rich by now.
"I don't understand that argument, there were certainly a lot of Russian soldiers in East Germany as well, or for that matter everywhere East of the curtain. Does that implies that the Soviets were somehow good guys?"
My argument is that the Americans were here at the "request" of the western european powers as a result of the victory in WW2 to prevent Soviet expansion.
The symmetry between Soviet soldiers in eastern europe and American ones in western europe is broken because after the war, America did not systematically imprison and kill those brits, French, Belgians, etc, that had fought against the Nazis; Russia went about exterminating Poles, Czechs and others who had fought AGAINST the Nazis but who were not communist.
The symmetry is also broken because America did not interfere in the political process of britain, france, etc, in electing their politicians nor back up "their" candidates with tanks rolling down Whitehall or the Champs Elysees. Russia did both. America did get involved in wars that caused huge suffering, but in both cases (Korea and Vietnam) the wars were started by third countries (France in Vietnam) and turned into proxy wars between the two superpowers.
There is no comparison that I can see between America in western europe and Russia in eastern europe, so my conclusion is that the Americans were here for the benefit of europeans, not just their own benefit. Sure, America wanted Russia kept out of western europe, but they didn't have to slaughter europeans to get their aim, europeans were happy to have them. Russia had to continually suppress eastern europeans to maintain their army.
To be frank, I cannot see how you can argue for a symmetry between Soviet Russia's actions in europe and America's. I mean, even DURING the war, Russia behaved appallingly. Over 1,000,000 women were RAPED in eastern europe and Germany by the Soviet Red army. What did America do on this scale? And this is not just a random statistic, A recent book (whose title I admittedly have forgotten but I can find it again) quotes figures and historical evidence for these figures in detail. (And I don't think the bombing campaigns in Germany are relevant here, even though their military use is highly disputable, especially as they were carried out by Britain not America.)
Yes, America has behaved badly during the Cold War, being a superpower means that your actions have larger consequences: and when policies are made with (sometimes) benign intentions they can still do wrong. But, again, you have to look at the comparisons: no other country has behaved better.
As for a workable UN, I think it would be a great help. But I am not optimistic. To get there one has to persuade all large countries that they should cede sovereignty to a body that may be dominated by countries who could gang up on them, risk having their national security threatened by vetoes, or other bureaucratic devices, and have to pay more for other (poorer) countries to benefit. The UN is basically a horse-trading place, where countries vie to gain influence, and no country is in it for the benefit of others. This is the nature of power.
Finally:-) I don't think America only invokes peace and freedom when it suits them, I believe the western democracies have an inbuilt "moral" compass called elections. This allows governments to be judged on their actions and changed. This is not a perfect system, but I have yet to see a better one.
"As a kid growing in Europe at that time I felt extremely disinfranchised from both sides. "
I also grew up in europe during the 70's and it was clear which side was more of a threat to W Europe in Czech in 1968 and Poland in 1980.
"It was pretty clear the US was not going to help Europe in any way should the shit hit the fan."
not true: there were a lot of US troops in Germany all through the cold war, and they would certainly have been killed if a war had broken out. Hence my point: the US was willing to endanger its own people, viz, soldiers, to defend a geographical area outside their homeland.
a second example is that during the Cuba missile crisis, it weighed heavily with the US administration that Russia would probably attack W Berlin if the US attacked Cuba. A strong argument for the route Kennedy took, via Adlai Stevenson and the UN instead of just nuking the small, irritating island, was exactly to avoid giving Russia a pretext for a war in Europe.
"but I don't remember the US intervening in Rwanda. The UN eventually did."
This is misleading. The UN pulled out of Rwanda at the beginning against the advice of their military advisors on the ground. And France sold weapons to the Hutu government of Habyarimana. You're right about the UN being shackled: but that is because no large country, not just the US, wants it to interfere in their own affairs.
I didn't mean to imply that the US did anything in Rwanda, only that "no" country did anything effective. In the face of such hatred and potential mass murder, I would still prefer to rely on America "benefiting its own immediate interests" than any other country having their power. All countries evaluate their "immediate interests" and act accordingly. It seems to me that the America's interests aligned more with peace and freedom than any other great (former great?) power during the 20th century.
I'm not saying the US government is anywhere near perfect: but look at the alternatives.
Perhaps building a sim where the idea is to think about what you are doing before you kill thousands of civillians would be a good idea. You Americans are so obsessed with your toys and you wonder then why some third world lunatic with a grudge plans attacks against you.
Why is this insightful?
A lot of other countries also think about what they are doing AND THEN kill MILLIONS of civilians: Soviet Russia, 1930s, Germany 1940s, China 1950s, Cambodia 1970s, Rwanda 1990s, North Korea 1990s....
It is in the face of this kind of world that America develops its military. And, it should be said, Europe has had pretty much of a free ride since at least the 60s by only spending 1-2% of GDP on THEIR OWN defence, while living "safe" in the knowledge that America spends 4-5% and was willing to use its own people's lives to defend europe during the cold war (I am a european).
And don't even think of suggesting that the UN is a better current substitute for the military: it did nothing in Rwanda in the early nineties in spite of warnings and months of notice; and it would have done nothing in Kosova if America had not stepped in.
Simulating tactical thinking in urban warfare could save civilian lives by preparing soldiers for the instant decisions and people skills necessary in moving amongst non-combatants while knowing there may be a few combatants lurking.
If you are losing business because of a competitor's skill, BUT you are very, very rich, you don't "compete" with them , you bribe them. In this case, pay some guy 200K a year to do nothing in your firm and prevent him selling your opponent's products that steal sales from you worth millions/year. Fra cheaper than trying to improve your own products.
This is how business (sometimes) works: if you cannot beat the opposition because your products are better, bribe them out of your way.
If spam is costing corporations millions every year, there is a HUGE opportunity for arbitrage between the amount spam costs them and the amount one could charge for a, effective spam filter.
Yes, yes, I know about baysian filters etc, but no current solution is near 99.9% perfect.
I presume the problem is that a solution requires cooperation among a lot of people (ISPs, advertisers, users) who are not naturally likely to work together, and for whom as individuals there is not a significant gain from blocking spam. It's a bit like litter: few people like it, but lots of people drop it, and everyone has to live with it.
We can describe gravity's effects but we can't say how it does the trick.
I think that sums science up: you always have to say "nature behaves AS IF it were this way"; we can see the hands on the watch go round but we cannot open the case (Einstein).
Re:Scientists always wanted the project killed
on
'Einstein Probe' Delayed
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"they are trying to measure not only what has been completely PROVEN but also in the most inane manner. Just about everything else that affects the gyroscopes are larger effects, what they are trying to detect is so small."
Huh? I think that is what makes these experiments interesting: measuring the small effects hidden behind the larger, ordinary ones. Otherwise, we would still believe F = Gm1m2/r**2 says it all about gravity.
"but we're beyond that (can you say strings)"
String theory is not the only possible contender, see Scientific American, Jan 2004 for Loop Quantum Gravity as an alternative. It is still open which of these hard-to-prove theories is a better model, and every piece of evidence about GR and QM is useful. If frame dragging is found not to occur, it makes it much easier to drop GR in developing a theory of quantum gravity, whereas if it is found to occur, then that result has to be taken into account in coming up with a more comprehensive theory.
I found a headline on the Financial Times where it said that Baystar capital allege SCO has breached their contract for their investment. But there were no details. Has anyone seen the full story?
But if you regard spam as trade (and its sole aim does seem to be to get you to pay money) and the spam crosses state borders, which almost all of it does, then the Congress has the right to regulate it not the states. I think this is what Section 10 of Article 1 of the constitution says.
I couldn't figure out if this article is genuine or not. But there is a Dr William Ditto at Georgia Tech who works on non-linear dynamical systems,
see
http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/wditt o.html
The idea sounds very similar to neurons to me. The input thresholds are not randomly determined, they follow an equation of motion that is chaotic. This can be completely deterministic but is unpredictable after a sufficiently long time.
Why is 99% intelligent and 95% not?
"...For some reason that wasn't enough, and EC decided to screw the innocent consumer by robbing him of convenience of having the best media player on the planet come for free with his Windows purchase, and go through the chores of installing it from the internet.""
Huh?
If you define "convenience" as meaning you let someone else tell you what software you can use then, yes, the EU decision does reduce this "convenience"
And, if you define "come for free" as meaning you have to put with defective software that is "just good enough" not to crash once per week, and exposes you to so many security loopholes that I now spend more time trying to patch the OS than I do downloading useful software then, yes, it is a "chore" to have to download an alternative piece of software.
I think that obtaining products from different vendors who each specialise in a few things, and none of whom actively destroys the investment of the others other than by selling a better product, is worth a loss of the "convenience" of not having everything spoon fed to me.
But my point is that it ought to be pretty clear to an SCO employee that their job is not secure. This has been going on for at least a year, and if it were me I would be out there hunting.
Just think, if it weren't for our baser instincts, we'd never have advanced as far technologically as we have. Who knows what the future holds......and if it weren't for our other basic instinct driving technology, more of us would still be alive.
Why not celebrate the birthday by picking a spam site and all visiting it to say Happy Birthday?
If we did this once a day with a new site each day...and, of course, NO ONE buys anything, their click through rate would plummet, possibly their server as well.
And it cannot be illegal: they WANT us to go to their site.
RE: To get a self-assembling molecule, assuming you feed it the right basic building blocks, you don't need a universal assembler. DNA limits itself to 4 molecules with a single type of connecting part. Proteins limit themselves to 24 molecules (I don't know if the connecting parts are standardized but I suspect they are). Ribosomes can construct ribosomes, so we already know self-assembling machines are possible.
There are 20 amino acids that make up all proteins, and they do have a standard linkage between them. The problem is that all the machinery for making proteins comes from an existing cell. The set of proteins the (human) cell can make is a very small fraction of all possible proteins. But you cannot use the cellular machinery to manufacture new proteins because we just don't know what to do. You change one amino acid in a protein and it (not always, but usually) just stops working.
It would take a VERY long time to work out which single amino acid substitutions produce new working proteins, and we don't yet know what linear sequencec of aa's do what in the final protein.
So we would be trying to change a few amino acids in a sequence perhaps 100+ aa's long, seeing what shape the resulting protein folds into (if it does actually fold) and then seeing if it does what we wanted it to do.
I think Drexler is over optimistic about our ability to manipulate atoms. Nature has had a few billion years to make these machines, I don't see us doing any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
You could simulate the membrane of one human cell, 20 microns in diameter, plus the enclosed water for 2 nanoseconds. Oh, and it would take 7 years.
Just the membrane, not the DNA, not the proteins, just the lipids and water. It takes an Intel Xeon 40 cpu-days to simulate 2 microseconds of a patch of membrane 50 nm wide. Scale this up to 20 microns and it would take 1000 nodes almost 7 cpu-YEARS to simulate the cell membrane for 2 nanoseconds; and in that time each molecules would only have moved a fraction of its own length.
That's a very, very expensive simulation of mostly water.
No, you're distorting what I said.
What I said is that restricting the freedom of children under a certain age from taking part in certain activities, viz, driving, watching porn, voting etc, is not a human rights issue. This is not at all the same as saying that children don't have human rights, only that they are more restricted in their behaviour than adults because they are (rightly in most cases, unfairly in some) thought to be less responsible/capable/intellectually able.
As far I understand, and this is a debatable issue, human rights relate to universal norms of treatment that are supposed to apply to all people. This does not mean that all people, all of the time, need to be given equal freedom to exercise all kinds of behaviour. Don't you think children of 5 need different treatment under the law than teenagers, and teenagers than adults? It is a complete straw man to suggest that the "magic" phrase "human rights" allows you to say that any group of people whose freedom is restricted are having their "human rights" violated.
Being unjustly imprisoned and killed violate human rights, not letting teenagers into an internet cafe does not. Even if it is an unjust prohibition, and I think it is a bit daft to try and keep 16 year olds off the internet, I don't think it qualifies as a human rights violation.
As far as I know, all societies make rules governing the behaviour of their youth that don't apply to adults. Denying young people (define "young" as you like, take 18 for this example) access to voting rights, driver's licenses, gun licenses, adult videos, etc is not a breach of human rights. It is a recognition that it takes a certain degree of development for the safe and effective exercise of the behaviours in question.
The Chinese government probably does want to restrict access to unflattering views of themselves, but to say that imposing a lower age limit on access to the internet is a human rights violation trivialises the concept of violating human rights.
There are a lot of other actions of the Chinese government that deserve scrutiny and opposition; look at their policies towards Tibet and Taiwan for example. Forbidding access to internet cafes below a certain age is, IMHO, comparable to requiring children to be 11 to get a library card, or 16 to get a driver's license.
All of the above does not apply at all if they try to restrict it to all of their citizens. Then it becomes a restriction of liberty, and then I would oppose it.
You're right, this is "not" a human rights issue. It is about the same as requiring people to be 18 to get a driver's license. Just because some 16 year olds want one, and beat up the vehicle licensing staff to get one, does not mean they should get them.
This is totally different from restricting access to information for adults, which China also does, and wrongly in my opinion. But please don't confuse a gang of hooligans' attempts to get what they want for a serious attempt at helping promote freedom of access to information.
These are not the kind of youth I want to take over. I think they are kind that grow into the people that ordered the Tiannamen square clampdown.
If the suit is 7 feet tall, the grizzly might just think it is another bear rather than a human.
If I were inside the suit, I am not sure I would want the bear to think I am a rival rather than dinner... a bear might not be hungry when he sees me, but he will always dislike competition.
Almost all human faces have common characteristics, such as two eyes and one mouth.
The "almost" reminds me of the joke: "Do you know that you have more than the average number of legs?
Some people have lost one or both legs, but no one has three or more. So the average number of legs is slightly less than two."
What! $14.95 for a moon lander. I wrote one of those for an Olivetti "desktop" that was the size of small washing machine, and only had the four functions, square root and 10 memory locations when I was 14. AND it took account of the fuel mass decreasing with time.
Damn. I should have tried to sell it. I might have been rich by now.
"I don't understand that argument, there were certainly a lot of Russian soldiers in East Germany as well, or for that matter everywhere East of the curtain. Does that implies that the Soviets were somehow good guys?"
:-) I don't think America only invokes peace and freedom when it suits them, I believe the western democracies have an inbuilt "moral" compass called elections. This allows governments to be judged on their actions and changed. This is not a perfect system, but I have yet to see a better one.
My argument is that the Americans were here at the "request" of the western european powers as a result of the victory in WW2 to prevent Soviet expansion.
The symmetry between Soviet soldiers in eastern europe and American ones in western europe is broken because after the war, America did not systematically imprison and kill those brits, French, Belgians, etc, that had fought against the Nazis; Russia went about exterminating Poles, Czechs and others who had fought AGAINST the Nazis but who were not communist.
The symmetry is also broken because America did not interfere in the political process of britain, france, etc, in electing their politicians nor back up "their" candidates with tanks rolling down Whitehall or the Champs Elysees. Russia did both. America did get involved in wars that caused huge suffering, but in both cases (Korea and Vietnam) the wars were started by third countries (France in Vietnam) and turned into proxy wars between the two superpowers.
There is no comparison that I can see between America in western europe and Russia in eastern europe, so my conclusion is that the Americans were here for the benefit of europeans, not just their own benefit. Sure, America wanted Russia kept out of western europe, but they didn't have to slaughter europeans to get their aim, europeans were happy to have them. Russia had to continually suppress eastern europeans to maintain their army.
To be frank, I cannot see how you can argue for a symmetry between Soviet Russia's actions in europe and America's. I mean, even DURING the war, Russia behaved appallingly. Over 1,000,000 women were RAPED in eastern europe and Germany by the Soviet Red army. What did America do on this scale? And this is not just a random statistic, A recent book (whose title I admittedly have forgotten but I can find it again) quotes figures and historical evidence for these figures in detail. (And I don't think the bombing campaigns in Germany are relevant here, even though their military use is highly disputable, especially as they were carried out by Britain not America.)
Yes, America has behaved badly during the Cold War, being a superpower means that your actions have larger consequences: and when policies are made with (sometimes) benign intentions they can still do wrong. But, again, you have to look at the comparisons: no other country has behaved better.
As for a workable UN, I think it would be a great help. But I am not optimistic. To get there one has to persuade all large countries that they should cede sovereignty to a body that may be dominated by countries who could gang up on them, risk having their national security threatened by vetoes, or other bureaucratic devices, and have to pay more for other (poorer) countries to benefit. The UN is basically a horse-trading place, where countries vie to gain influence, and no country is in it for the benefit of others. This is the nature of power.
Finally
"As a kid growing in Europe at that time I felt extremely disinfranchised from both sides. "
I also grew up in europe during the 70's and it was clear which side was more of a threat to W Europe in Czech in 1968 and Poland in 1980.
"It was pretty clear the US was not going to help Europe in any way should the shit hit the fan."
not true: there were a lot of US troops in Germany all through the cold war, and they would certainly have been killed if a war had broken out. Hence my point: the US was willing to endanger its own people, viz, soldiers, to defend a geographical area outside their homeland.
a second example is that during the Cuba missile crisis, it weighed heavily with the US administration that Russia would probably attack W Berlin if the US attacked Cuba. A strong argument for the route Kennedy took, via Adlai Stevenson and the UN instead of just nuking the small, irritating island, was exactly to avoid giving Russia a pretext for a war in Europe.
"but I don't remember the US intervening in Rwanda. The UN eventually did."
This is misleading. The UN pulled out of Rwanda at the beginning against the advice of their military advisors on the ground. And France sold weapons to the Hutu government of Habyarimana. You're right about the UN being shackled: but that is because no large country, not just the US, wants it to interfere in their own affairs.
I didn't mean to imply that the US did anything in Rwanda, only that "no" country did anything effective. In the face of such hatred and potential mass murder, I would still prefer to rely on America "benefiting its own immediate interests" than any other country having their power. All countries evaluate their "immediate interests" and act accordingly. It seems to me that the America's interests aligned more with peace and freedom than any other great (former great?) power during the 20th century.
I'm not saying the US government is anywhere near perfect: but look at the alternatives.
Perhaps building a sim where the idea is to think about what you are doing before you kill thousands of civillians would be a good idea. You Americans are so obsessed with your toys and you wonder then why some third world lunatic with a grudge plans attacks against you.
Why is this insightful?
A lot of other countries also think about what they are doing AND THEN kill MILLIONS of civilians: Soviet Russia, 1930s, Germany 1940s, China 1950s, Cambodia 1970s, Rwanda 1990s, North Korea 1990s....
It is in the face of this kind of world that America develops its military. And, it should be said, Europe has had pretty much of a free ride since at least the 60s by only spending 1-2% of GDP on THEIR OWN defence, while living "safe" in the knowledge that America spends 4-5% and was willing to use its own people's lives to defend europe during the cold war (I am a european).
And don't even think of suggesting that the UN is a better current substitute for the military: it did nothing in Rwanda in the early nineties in spite of warnings and months of notice; and it would have done nothing in Kosova if America had not stepped in.
Simulating tactical thinking in urban warfare could save civilian lives by preparing soldiers for the instant decisions and people skills necessary in moving amongst non-combatants while knowing there may be a few combatants lurking.
If you are losing business because of a competitor's skill, BUT you are very, very rich, you don't "compete" with them , you bribe them. In this case, pay some guy 200K a year to do nothing in your firm and prevent him selling your opponent's products that steal sales from you worth millions/year. Fra cheaper than trying to improve your own products.
This is how business (sometimes) works: if you cannot beat the opposition because your products are better, bribe them out of your way.
If spam is costing corporations millions every year, there is a HUGE opportunity for arbitrage between the amount spam costs them and the amount one could charge for a, effective spam filter.
Yes, yes, I know about baysian filters etc, but no current solution is near 99.9% perfect.
I presume the problem is that a solution requires cooperation among a lot of people (ISPs, advertisers, users) who are not naturally likely to work together, and for whom as individuals there is not a significant gain from blocking spam. It's a bit like litter: few people like it, but lots of people drop it, and everyone has to live with it.
We can describe gravity's effects but we can't say how it does the trick.
I think that sums science up: you always have to say "nature behaves AS IF it were this way"; we can see the hands on the watch go round but we cannot open the case (Einstein).
"they are trying to measure not only what has been completely PROVEN but also in the most inane manner. Just about everything else that affects the gyroscopes are larger effects, what they are trying to detect is so small."
Huh? I think that is what makes these experiments interesting: measuring the small effects hidden behind the larger, ordinary ones. Otherwise, we would still believe F = Gm1m2/r**2 says it all about gravity.
"but we're beyond that (can you say strings)"
String theory is not the only possible contender, see Scientific American, Jan 2004 for Loop Quantum Gravity as an alternative. It is still open which of these hard-to-prove theories is a better model, and every piece of evidence about GR and QM is useful. If frame dragging is found not to occur, it makes it much easier to drop GR in developing a theory of quantum gravity, whereas if it is found to occur, then that result has to be taken into account in coming up with a more comprehensive theory.
No experiment, well done, is useless.
I don't know: do you want to save 0.015 cents/oz on pasta?
I found a headline on the Financial Times where it said that Baystar capital allege SCO has breached their contract for their investment. But there were no details. Has anyone seen the full story?
But if you regard spam as trade (and its sole aim does seem to be to get you to pay money) and the spam crosses state borders, which almost all of it does, then the Congress has the right to regulate it not the states. I think this is what Section 10 of Article 1 of the constitution says.
I couldn't figure out if this article is genuine or not. But there is a Dr William Ditto at Georgia Tech who works on non-linear dynamical systems, see http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/wditt o.html
The idea sounds very similar to neurons to me. The input thresholds are not randomly determined, they follow an equation of motion that is chaotic. This can be completely deterministic but is unpredictable after a sufficiently long time.
Why is 99% intelligent and 95% not?
"...For some reason that wasn't enough, and EC decided to screw the innocent consumer by robbing him of convenience of having the best media player on the planet come for free with his Windows purchase, and go through the chores of installing it from the internet.""
Huh?
If you define "convenience" as meaning you let someone else tell you what software you can use then, yes, the EU decision does reduce this "convenience"
And, if you define "come for free" as meaning you have to put with defective software that is "just good enough" not to crash once per week, and exposes you to so many security loopholes that I now spend more time trying to patch the OS than I do downloading useful software then, yes, it is a "chore" to have to download an alternative piece of software.
I think that obtaining products from different vendors who each specialise in a few things, and none of whom actively destroys the investment of the others other than by selling a better product, is worth a loss of the "convenience" of not having everything spoon fed to me.
But my point is that it ought to be pretty clear to an SCO employee that their job is not secure. This has been going on for at least a year, and if it were me I would be out there hunting.
Imagine being a non-US regional director for SCO. You come to work one day and have a conference call with Utah:
"Start sending out license letters."
"But,.. but I have a meeting with N clients in the next week, we are closing deals on M systems."
"Forget that. Send out license letters."
Why are people still working for SCO?
Just think, if it weren't for our baser instincts, we'd never have advanced as far technologically as we have. Who knows what the future holds... ...and if it weren't for our other basic instinct driving technology, more of us would still be alive.
Why not celebrate the birthday by picking a spam site and all visiting it to say Happy Birthday?
If we did this once a day with a new site each day...and, of course, NO ONE buys anything, their click through rate would plummet, possibly their server as well.
And it cannot be illegal: they WANT us to go to their site.
Here's my suggestion
www.ffdsd4d.com or 219.153.1.215.
Here's part of the email that delivered this:
envy of the other members of the gym GET UP TO 3 MONTHS
SUPPLY FREE !
Try Dot.Con
0 20 800512775/
http://www.unixreview.com/documents/s=1357/uni1
Great book.
RE: To get a self-assembling molecule, assuming you feed it the right basic building blocks, you don't need a universal assembler. DNA limits itself to 4 molecules with a single type of connecting part. Proteins limit themselves to 24 molecules (I don't know if the connecting parts are standardized but I suspect they are). Ribosomes can construct ribosomes, so we already know self-assembling machines are possible.
There are 20 amino acids that make up all proteins, and they do have a standard linkage between them. The problem is that all the machinery for making proteins comes from an existing cell. The set of proteins the (human) cell can make is a very small fraction of all possible proteins. But you cannot use the cellular machinery to manufacture new proteins because we just don't know what to do. You change one amino acid in a protein and it (not always, but usually) just stops working.
It would take a VERY long time to work out which single amino acid substitutions produce new working proteins, and we don't yet know what linear sequencec of aa's do what in the final protein.
So we would be trying to change a few amino acids in a sequence perhaps 100+ aa's long, seeing what shape the resulting protein folds into (if it does actually fold) and then seeing if it does what we wanted it to do.
I think Drexler is over optimistic about our ability to manipulate atoms. Nature has had a few billion years to make these machines, I don't see us doing any time soon.