No power to accelerate or climb hills. Ridiculously slow speed. Ridiculously small, uncomfortable vehicle.
Show me 1300 MPG in city traffic, and without inciting road-rage in other drivers.
Show me 1300 MPG going through mountain passes.
How about ventilation? Air conditioning? Show me 1300 MPG on a road trip through a heat wave. You'd be frying like fish in the little coffin on wheels.
Safety? Front impact, side impact, rear impact, rolling? Show me 1300 MPG after building in a steel cage around the driver.
These MPG contests are completely useless because they are devoid of these nasty things called REQUIREMENTS that real engineers have to grapple with.
If you drop almost all requirements, it is easy to optimize.
In programming, if we drop the requirement for correct execution, we can optimize everything down to a single instruction that aborts itself.
I don't think they are necessarily writing about large-scale organized memory, like learning.
But perhaps small-scale memories in groups of brain cells?
For instance, suppose you hear a bell ring briefly, but then after it stops, you continue to hear an intense memory of it in your head as a kind of after image, which mixes in with new sounds that you are hearing.
It sounds like too much remembering induces positive feedback in the brain's pathways which lead to unstable oscillations. Forgetting is then required in order to dampen the system and stabilize it.
If the brain remembers too much, it's possibly not the new stimuli which overwhelm it, but the combination of new stimuli plus the remembered information being replayed, all made worse by feedback paths.
Put the band in a tightly soundproofed room. Put some microphones outside of the room, and amplify the sound from the outside into loudspeakers in the room.
See? Microphone --> amp --> speaker. One way signal with off-the-shelf stuff.
This story is about patent, not copyright. The idea behind code is patentable in the United States, and there are famous examples of ideas that are, or were patented which can be reduced to pure math.
The main mistake here is choosing strawmen to represent all of science: fringe physics and cosmology.
Science has a solid empirical backing. You observe, make a model, use model to make predictions, validate predictions, thus confirm the model (with proper qualifications as to its limitations).
On the outer fringes of science, where new frontiers are being probed, there is an element of faith because of the lag between making hypotheses and being able to confirm them and, further, to finally apply them to something practical. Scientists working on something new do need some inspiration that they are going down the right path, but I would not equate that with religious faith.
Slashdot Mirror
A minimal implementation of just RnRS Scheme is terrible for learning because of the lack of language features and the lack of an environment.
There are some nice Scheme environments with good interactive features and extensions to the language, too.
Beware of cheap imitations.
Playing the real Lode Runner on a decent Apple II emulator is pretty much exactly the same to me.
I got sucked into it again a few months ago.
You can't blame poor classic game re-makes on irrelevant changes in life. They do actually suck, inherently.
As in what, 1987 and onward?
Try "ultra wimpy engines".
No power to accelerate or climb hills. Ridiculously slow speed. Ridiculously small, uncomfortable vehicle.
Show me 1300 MPG in city traffic, and without inciting road-rage in other drivers.
Show me 1300 MPG going through mountain passes.
How about ventilation? Air conditioning? Show me 1300 MPG on a road trip through a heat wave. You'd be frying like fish in the little coffin on wheels.
Safety? Front impact, side impact, rear impact, rolling?
Show me 1300 MPG after building in a steel cage around the driver.
These MPG contests are completely useless because they are devoid of these nasty things called REQUIREMENTS that real engineers have to grapple with.
If you drop almost all requirements, it is easy to optimize.
In programming, if we drop the requirement for correct execution, we can optimize everything down to a single instruction that aborts itself.
Snore ...
Giving the Nobel prize to one branch but not others would be retarded.
For instance, the discovery of public key encryption.
Number theory or computer science?
Doh ...
you're halfway to sales already. :)
Why, an intricate and precise clock-work driven by a wind-up spring.
Pluck a little string, make a big noise!
Chugging heavy metal riffs is like blowing up objects in a video game.
Oh, and there can literally be "disproportionate feedback", too.
Did I time warp to the 90's?
What's that supposed to be about? Reduced maximum output wattage of power amplifying semiconductors at higher ambient temperatures?
There are, like, solutions for that.
Bigger heatsinks, more efficient designs that dissipate less waste heat, liquid cooling ...
I don't think they are necessarily writing about large-scale organized memory, like learning.
But perhaps small-scale memories in groups of brain cells?
For instance, suppose you hear a bell ring briefly, but then after it stops, you continue to hear an intense memory of it in your head as a kind of after image, which mixes in with new sounds that you are hearing.
The result is chaos.
It sounds like too much remembering induces positive feedback in the brain's pathways which lead to unstable oscillations. Forgetting is then required in order to dampen the system and stabilize it.
If the brain remembers too much, it's possibly not the new stimuli which overwhelm it, but the combination of new stimuli plus the remembered information being replayed, all made worse by feedback paths.
Just a wild-assed hypothesis.
Put the band in a tightly soundproofed room. Put some microphones outside of the room, and amplify the sound from the outside into loudspeakers in the room.
See? Microphone --> amp --> speaker. One way signal with off-the-shelf stuff.
It's called: the irreversibility of impedance! This is why, for instance, a loudspeaker isn't a great microphone, and vice versa.
Nuff said.
Other "tech" not dying:
- can openers ... ...
- plastic bottles
- paper cone speakers with copper voice coils and ceramic magnets
- automobile tires
- internal combustion engine
- silicon semiconductors
- latex paint, acrylic lacquer
- hammers, nails, nuts, bolts
- silica-based glass for glassware and windows
- ceramic flush toilets with integrated tank
- electric baseboard heaters
- air compressors and related tools: ratchets, paint guns, grinders,
-
This story is about patent, not copyright. The idea behind code is patentable in the United States, and there are famous examples of ideas that are, or were patented which can be reduced to pure math.
RSA crypto can be reduced to pure math. JPEG, MPEG 2 layer 3 audio encoding, ditto, etc.
Except that "here" can also suffer a catastrophy. It's a problem of storing your data in only one place.
The cloud's purpose is to serve your data without using your local pipe.
You should maintain the main copy of that data yourself.
Let's swap terminology with computer science, thereby righting two wrongs.
Let's call it the "root" particle (root of all mass), and the privileged user on a system should be "god" (all powerful). :)
In fact, if they say they don't need root, just give them root anyway.
It's just a server at work. It's not your bank account.
Go out of your way to let IT do their jobs as easily as possible.
Give them the account and even go to lunch with them later that week.
IT being your friends is the smart way to go.
Cheers!
The main mistake here is choosing strawmen to represent all of science: fringe physics and cosmology.
Science has a solid empirical backing. You observe, make a model, use model to make predictions, validate predictions, thus confirm the model (with proper qualifications as to its limitations).
On the outer fringes of science, where new frontiers are being probed, there is an element of faith because of the lag between making hypotheses and being able to confirm them and, further, to finally apply them to something practical. Scientists working on something new do need some inspiration that they are going down the right path, but I would not equate that with religious faith.