Well, they're considering the possibility that it might be prion based. Nobody knows what causes it, and mis-folded proteins can't be ruled out.
So far the evidence supporting the idea that it's prion based is quite weak, but promising approaches seem to keep failing. So it's unreasonable to just dismiss the idea.
Sorry, but drones crash all the time. Usually nobody cares much, but if they were larger, more expensive, and carried passengers, many would care.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but you example sure didn't prove that you are correct. (It's also true that if people cared more, things would be built, maintained, and controlled more carefully...so... maybe.)
It's a desktop application with a bit of graphics. It's not really heavy in computation...well, it off-loads the heavy computation to other routines...but it still isn't exactly light-weight.
Well, yes. I wasn't defending that the greenhouse effect could be modeled with a quantum model. But my caveat was because the various gravitational extensions proposed for quantum theory haven't been validated. They do exist, and, as far as we can measure, they are correct. (We just can't measure very much. And they're clearly wrong in extreme cases where we can compare them with relativity in areas where relativity has been validated. I'm not sure what decimal the inconsistency would show up in, though, as they aren't *that* bad. Just don't try to do the math.)
P.S.: If some real expert wants to chime in, that's fine with me. I'm merely an interested amateur, and it's been multiple decades since I looked a tensor in the face.
Yeah, I know that out side of tiny "proof of principle" models it can't be done. But I was objecting to a particular statement. The assertion that models weren't useful. Without a model your decisions would be worse than throwing darts at a dartboard after being blindfolded, and spun around a few times...and the dart board moved randomly. (Did you notice that I'm building a model?)
Disagree. Every physical process that doesn't involve gravitation can, in principle, be accurately modeled by a quantum theory based model to any desired degree of precision. We're still looking for exceptions.
The problem with something like the greenhouse effect is that it's so large that no feasible quantum theory based model exists. We can't even accurately model the atoms in a liter of air, because the equations get too hairy.
So it's perfectly reasonable to say that the Greenhouse Effect is purely quantum, it's just unreasonable to try to model it that way. A good quantum model would be completely accurate (AFAIKT), but would be so computationally intractable as to be unusable. (Any claim that you've seen WRT a quantum model of the Greenhouse Effect has either lied or made so many simplifying assumptions that you can't trust it.)
That said, particular interactions that go into the Greenhouse Effect can be thoroughly and precisely modeled, and used as input into a classical model. And I'm sure that's what is being referred to.
If I hadn't already used all my mod points, I *would* commence downvoting you. If you don't have a model to justify your conclusions, then you're guessing essentially at random. If you don't know or understand your model, you don't have much reason to trust it.
That said, a model is no guarantee of the correct answer. It's just that not having a model *is* almost a guarantee of the wrong answer.
I think the idea is that it can be made more cheaply, and if it tastes good enough, it will take over the market. This is probably correct, as with increasing competition for meat, the price will probably go up...and the Chinese have started being able to afford it.
The question is, "Will it taste good enough?". So far the answer has been "not really" for most people, and "yes" for some, and "Why mimic meat?" for others. But each incremental step causes an additional group of people to say "yes". When I was growing up the only vegetarians were people with either religious obligations or severe economic (or health) problems. These days the stuff doesn't taste nearly as bad...or maybe my taster has just gotten more used to it.
I'd put that two decades off, if it turns out to be competitive. My guess is that it wouldn't. (Probably the Nitrogen cooled superconductor idea wouldn't work either, but if it did, the time frame would be shorter.)
These are all, including mine, wild ideas. But one of them might work.
I've usually heard it as something about transistors per unit area. To tie it to some particular phrase he said is probably incorrect, as it was something he developed as a prediction over a number of years. It was clear at one point that he thought that 2-1/2 D construction was consistent with his prediction. But he never indicated that he thought that larger dies were significant, even though several sizes were used during his period of activity.
OTOH, I'm certain that he said something essentially similar with different words several times. And Moore's law was proclaimed as such by the technical press, so and refined statement of it shouldn't be believed. He developed it as an operating and predictive principle. It worked, so he kept using and developing it...and changing the details.
It *IS* tricky to program that way. But message passing of invariants is a way to limit the difficulty. Several modern languages are making attempts in that direction, but most of them make it difficult to do NxN independently executing processes without falling back on something like UDP. (TCP is too heavy, but UDP needs a simple message verification protocol tacked on top of it.)
FWIW, tubes used to get too hot to touch. Of course, if there's no emitter, then you might not have that problem. And there better not be, or you'll have an impossibly high failure rate. (They seem to be talking about field effects.)
If you're going to do that, why not use liquid Nitrogen, and high-temperature super-conductors. ISTR that it's fairly cheap to generate liquid Nitrogen locally. (You wouldn't need medical grade.)
It's a good thing we're talking about hardware a decade from now, though, or that suggestion would be impractical.
Virtual reality is a real possibility, but they've got to resolve the vestibular canal disagreeing with the eyes about what's happening first, so people don't get nauseous. Some people can deal with it, but most can't without a lot of training, and some never can. And among those who can, a lot don't want to. Sea sickness isn't pleasant.
As originally stated, I don't think a larger die would count as facilitating the continuation. 3-D construction would, though. And if they run enough cooler, then that would work.
OTOH, even though Moore's law has hit a pause, that's happened before, and then a new technology showed up that reinstated it. The current problem with that happening is that local processing is sufficient for most current uses with current technology. Some new application will probably be needed to change that. It'll probably be called AI, but what will be meant by that is a bit unclear. One good candidate is self-driving cars. They would benefit immensely from smaller computers that were less power hungry. And there would be huge numbers of them sold.
I've got to admit my first though was "How is a GPU going to allow spyware the massively infect systems?". (My real thought was "malware", but only the spyware provides them with any benefit.
I must admit that I've never read the Huffington Post, but the rest of your comment tells me more about you than about them. WHY do you consider them whatever you think of as "left".
Sorry, but both the left and the right have their authoritarian assholes. Being pro-dictatorship doesn't mean that you aren't liberal, for many current uses of the word.
The actual fact is that every political party is run by people who want to control other people, including the Libertarians. Listening to their rhetoric will usually reveal this, but sometimes you need to watch their actions. And this isn't happenstance, it's because those who don't want power don't seek power. So left, right, liberal, conservative, even many anarchist parties are run by people who want control. Some of them are more socially destructive than others, but that's a different argument (and in that one I'd argue that details are extremely significant...but one of the significant details is "What happens after the next election, when a different group gets into power?"
I often don't, if both candidates are bad enough. But I vote for someone else knowing that my vote is thrown away. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the election system in a "plurality wins" election.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, they're considering the possibility that it might be prion based. Nobody knows what causes it, and mis-folded proteins can't be ruled out.
So far the evidence supporting the idea that it's prion based is quite weak, but promising approaches seem to keep failing. So it's unreasonable to just dismiss the idea.
That's not a FreeBSD problem, as I just went there on firefox without any complaints.
Sorry, but drones crash all the time. Usually nobody cares much, but if they were larger, more expensive, and carried passengers, many would care.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but you example sure didn't prove that you are correct. (It's also true that if people cared more, things would be built, maintained, and controlled more carefully...so ... maybe.)
It's a desktop application with a bit of graphics. It's not really heavy in computation...well, it off-loads the heavy computation to other routines...but it still isn't exactly light-weight.
If you're talking about web sites, you aren't talking about my area of interest or application.
Well, yes. I wasn't defending that the greenhouse effect could be modeled with a quantum model. But my caveat was because the various gravitational extensions proposed for quantum theory haven't been validated. They do exist, and, as far as we can measure, they are correct. (We just can't measure very much. And they're clearly wrong in extreme cases where we can compare them with relativity in areas where relativity has been validated. I'm not sure what decimal the inconsistency would show up in, though, as they aren't *that* bad. Just don't try to do the math.)
P.S.: If some real expert wants to chime in, that's fine with me. I'm merely an interested amateur, and it's been multiple decades since I looked a tensor in the face.
Yeah, I know that out side of tiny "proof of principle" models it can't be done. But I was objecting to a particular statement. The assertion that models weren't useful. Without a model your decisions would be worse than throwing darts at a dartboard after being blindfolded, and spun around a few times...and the dart board moved randomly. (Did you notice that I'm building a model?)
FWIW, I rather like Ruby. Too bad it's so slow. I'm not sure 3 times as fast is going to be fast enough...and so far that's just a promise.
Disagree. Every physical process that doesn't involve gravitation can, in principle, be accurately modeled by a quantum theory based model to any desired degree of precision. We're still looking for exceptions.
The problem with something like the greenhouse effect is that it's so large that no feasible quantum theory based model exists. We can't even accurately model the atoms in a liter of air, because the equations get too hairy.
So it's perfectly reasonable to say that the Greenhouse Effect is purely quantum, it's just unreasonable to try to model it that way. A good quantum model would be completely accurate (AFAIKT), but would be so computationally intractable as to be unusable. (Any claim that you've seen WRT a quantum model of the Greenhouse Effect has either lied or made so many simplifying assumptions that you can't trust it.)
That said, particular interactions that go into the Greenhouse Effect can be thoroughly and precisely modeled, and used as input into a classical model. And I'm sure that's what is being referred to.
If I hadn't already used all my mod points, I *would* commence downvoting you. If you don't have a model to justify your conclusions, then you're guessing essentially at random. If you don't know or understand your model, you don't have much reason to trust it.
That said, a model is no guarantee of the correct answer. It's just that not having a model *is* almost a guarantee of the wrong answer.
Well, that's one way to enter the "Caves of Steel". It may be a better option than some of the others.
I think the idea is that it can be made more cheaply, and if it tastes good enough, it will take over the market. This is probably correct, as with increasing competition for meat, the price will probably go up...and the Chinese have started being able to afford it.
The question is, "Will it taste good enough?". So far the answer has been "not really" for most people, and "yes" for some, and "Why mimic meat?" for others. But each incremental step causes an additional group of people to say "yes". When I was growing up the only vegetarians were people with either religious obligations or severe economic (or health) problems. These days the stuff doesn't taste nearly as bad...or maybe my taster has just gotten more used to it.
I'd put that two decades off, if it turns out to be competitive. My guess is that it wouldn't. (Probably the Nitrogen cooled superconductor idea wouldn't work either, but if it did, the time frame would be shorter.)
These are all, including mine, wild ideas. But one of them might work.
I've usually heard it as something about transistors per unit area. To tie it to some particular phrase he said is probably incorrect, as it was something he developed as a prediction over a number of years. It was clear at one point that he thought that 2-1/2 D construction was consistent with his prediction. But he never indicated that he thought that larger dies were significant, even though several sizes were used during his period of activity.
OTOH, I'm certain that he said something essentially similar with different words several times. And Moore's law was proclaimed as such by the technical press, so and refined statement of it shouldn't be believed. He developed it as an operating and predictive principle. It worked, so he kept using and developing it...and changing the details.
It *IS* tricky to program that way. But message passing of invariants is a way to limit the difficulty. Several modern languages are making attempts in that direction, but most of them make it difficult to do NxN independently executing processes without falling back on something like UDP. (TCP is too heavy, but UDP needs a simple message verification protocol tacked on top of it.)
FWIW, tubes used to get too hot to touch. Of course, if there's no emitter, then you might not have that problem. And there better not be, or you'll have an impossibly high failure rate. (They seem to be talking about field effects.)
If you're going to do that, why not use liquid Nitrogen, and high-temperature super-conductors. ISTR that it's fairly cheap to generate liquid Nitrogen locally. (You wouldn't need medical grade.)
It's a good thing we're talking about hardware a decade from now, though, or that suggestion would be impractical.
Virtual reality is a real possibility, but they've got to resolve the vestibular canal disagreeing with the eyes about what's happening first, so people don't get nauseous. Some people can deal with it, but most can't without a lot of training, and some never can. And among those who can, a lot don't want to. Sea sickness isn't pleasant.
As originally stated, I don't think a larger die would count as facilitating the continuation. 3-D construction would, though. And if they run enough cooler, then that would work.
Sorry, but your graphs need work.
OTOH, even though Moore's law has hit a pause, that's happened before, and then a new technology showed up that reinstated it. The current problem with that happening is that local processing is sufficient for most current uses with current technology. Some new application will probably be needed to change that. It'll probably be called AI, but what will be meant by that is a bit unclear. One good candidate is self-driving cars. They would benefit immensely from smaller computers that were less power hungry. And there would be huge numbers of them sold.
I've got to admit my first though was "How is a GPU going to allow spyware the massively infect systems?". (My real thought was "malware", but only the spyware provides them with any benefit.
I must admit that I've never read the Huffington Post, but the rest of your comment tells me more about you than about them. WHY do you consider them whatever you think of as "left".
Sorry, but both the left and the right have their authoritarian assholes. Being pro-dictatorship doesn't mean that you aren't liberal, for many current uses of the word.
The actual fact is that every political party is run by people who want to control other people, including the Libertarians. Listening to their rhetoric will usually reveal this, but sometimes you need to watch their actions. And this isn't happenstance, it's because those who don't want power don't seek power. So left, right, liberal, conservative, even many anarchist parties are run by people who want control. Some of them are more socially destructive than others, but that's a different argument (and in that one I'd argue that details are extremely significant...but one of the significant details is "What happens after the next election, when a different group gets into power?"
I often don't, if both candidates are bad enough. But I vote for someone else knowing that my vote is thrown away. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the election system in a "plurality wins" election.
The same kind of laws exist in the US, though I think that officially they have to call it "Contempt of Court".