I was going to point out the virii thing, thank you, its been driving me nuts forthe past 15 minutes. It seems someone wrote virii and everyone though: geese that must be the word for them, it sounds so fancy.
What a sincerly closed mined and superfluos response. Although many of the viruses that have come to public attention are windows associated, the phenomenon of distributing and being a victim of a computer virus is a universal phenomenon to all operating systems. The only computers unaffected by viruses are those that do not have rewritable program space. My dreamcast will never get a virus (and it runs windows CE), but my linux system is vulnerable. The only advantage linux has is that not many people use it, and those who do are often more careful. If, as i'm sure you have argued for. Everyone adopts Linux or whatever you support, there be a whole slew of linux viruses, and the few lonely windows uses will be the safe ones.
Not true. The more peopel share spread spectrum areas, the worse the overall bit-error rate becomes. It's not a hard limit like in AM radio where you can ONLY divide the spectrum into a few chunks. But it cannot expand forever. Every spread spectrum transmission reduces the fidelity of every other spread specturm transmission in that range. The other transmitters just look liek noise sources.
I think PC's lose their usefulness without paralle ports. If your trying to interface some simpel device you've made who wants to bother with USB interfaces and UARTs and stuff. Just read and write to the memory mapped parallel port. Its so easy! whay would I do with this? I suppose not buy it, but still. . .
I can transmit my whole genome in a few seconds, While the silicone guys find ways of speeding this benchmark up, I'm looking for ways of slowing it down.
Open source will rule. Sure, and I can shoot flaming peanuts from my nostrils. Open source will never rule. I would much rather pay for a product than download a hodge-podge of interconnecting modules. The only people who care about open source are those who do or can be involved in its creations. It's art for the artists, not the laymen. This isn't to say its inherently bad, or inherently good. Just that it will never be for everyone. If you mod me down because you think I'm stupid, you've proved my point, I am stupid->can't use open source software; Most other people are stupid->most other people can't use open source software.
3) Software could be sponsored by the state as much as art is. It provides a service to society, and in this way people could be remunerated by their efforts while still providing software for everyone to use licence free. This is, I think much closer to communism than your 2.
Continuing to re-issue these codes is a very easy, very profitable business. The companies could sell the rights to provide these codes during their liquidation. Wouldn't you offer to maintain a web-server that provides a constant stream of income in exchange for sending a few bytes every month or so?
Having travelled in the eastern block I can tell you honestly that there is a different sense of public safety there. People really don't get sued for negligence, and caveat emptor means so much more than be careful or your new jeans might rip-It means buyer beware for your life! People drive drunk on mountain roads with their headlights off in the middle of the night. We could never get a passenger flight off, the liability insurance would be way to huge.
Re:Why we can't model biology with computers
on
Digital Biology
·
· Score: 1
Yes, and no. One could design a computer system (electro-optical system) to measure a single photon. and we (not me pesonally) have. The single photon example was simply an example of how sensitive biological systems are to just about everything. To reproduce them, the computer system would have to be as sensitive, and thus would have to be analog for a start. Secondly, any, repeat, any rounding off error would result in different behaviour. I am not saying that we cannot produce a system as complicated as a biological one in a computer, I'm saying we cannot replicate the biological one to any degree of accuracy.
Why we can't model biology with computers
on
Digital Biology
·
· Score: 1
The fundamental reason why we cannot model biology with computers is that biological systems are chaotic. They respond to extremely small fluctuations no floating point processor can handle. In fact the human eye can respond to a single photon. See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndN uclear/see_a_photon.html
Biological systems are sensitive on quantum level and computers certainly cannot be.
I'm not so sure that you cannot prove things in biology as easily as heartily as your prove them in mathematics. Evolution is a triusm. A truism in the sense of philosophy and math is just symbolic philosophy.
Think about it: "Survival of the fittest" That means survival of those that able to survive.
A two layer system is not a 3-d system. I won't get into any bumblign math arguements, but true 3-d storage would have N^3 density. The double layer disk has 2*N^2 density. it's still O(N^2). When we get storage of O(N^3) we'll know it. It's the same increase in peformance as moving from a tape O(N) to a disk O(N^2). An eight track although 8*N in density is still, once again, O(N). Read O(N) as of the order N.
"It takes more time, being realtime, but you can get a higher quality copy by connecting the analog output on your CD player to the analog input on decent PC audio hardware, and going through a whole D/A A/D conversion"
I think you are mistaken, the D/A, A/D conversion cycle will distort the signal. Software exists to convert a CD image to a.wav file which is a perfect reporduction. any a/d,d/a will ALWAYS result in quality worse than the original
There should be a byte available on each chip (or memory cell) that samples thermal noise in some way. This, as I see it, is the only way to get uncorrelated noise. The other systems use iterating functions and take advantage of chaos to produce 'unpredictable' but certainly not random sequences. Know the iterating function and the last result to the precision it is stored in the iterating function- know the next number in the sequence.
The versatility in the iPOD that allows for this is the sign of a well designed product. It takes more time and thought to design a product that both serves its original purpose and allows for upgrades and changes to be made succesffully. I suspect apple will use the iPOD platform for other purposes as time goes on as there is really no other motivation for engineering this amount of flexibility.
There are specific ways to differentiate species. Generally if two sets of organisms can interbreed and produce offspring that can breed themselves, they are considered of the same species.
Example 1 : Cocker Spanial, golden retriever: can interbreed therefore same species.
Example 2: Donkey, horse, makes mule but mule is sterile therefore donkey and horse are different species.
A good C or Assembler programmer can always move up and figure out what to do with a new language. I am not convinced VB.NET designers will have the same veratility. There is no need to understand how a machine works, and without that knowledge one can, and often does, miss something.
Slashdot Mirror
That phenomenon is not specifically a result of using spread spectrum.
I was going to point out the virii thing, thank you, its been driving me nuts forthe past 15 minutes. It seems someone wrote virii and everyone though: geese that must be the word for them, it sounds so fancy.
What a sincerly closed mined and superfluos response. Although many of the viruses that have come to public attention are windows associated, the phenomenon of distributing and being a victim of a computer virus is a universal phenomenon to all operating systems. The only computers unaffected by viruses are those that do not have rewritable program space. My dreamcast will never get a virus (and it runs windows CE), but my linux system is vulnerable. The only advantage linux has is that not many people use it, and those who do are often more careful. If, as i'm sure you have argued for. Everyone adopts Linux or whatever you support, there be a whole slew of linux viruses, and the few lonely windows uses will be the safe ones.
Not true. The more peopel share spread spectrum areas, the worse the overall bit-error rate becomes. It's not a hard limit like in AM radio where you can ONLY divide the spectrum into a few chunks. But it cannot expand forever. Every spread spectrum transmission reduces the fidelity of every other spread specturm transmission in that range. The other transmitters just look liek noise sources.
Now finally I have a reason to buy that 300ft personal submarine!
I think PC's lose their usefulness without paralle ports. If your trying to interface some simpel device you've made who wants to bother with USB interfaces and UARTs and stuff. Just read and write to the memory mapped parallel port. Its so easy! whay would I do with this?
I suppose not buy it, but still. . .
I can transmit my whole genome in a few seconds, While the silicone guys find ways of speeding this benchmark up, I'm looking for ways of slowing it down.
I think its sort of funny that you've been modded up for this post!
Flamebait? I responded to the question, that's ridiculous.
De in cantonese for things like fuck you
boh-yeh for sex
Open source will rule. Sure, and I can shoot flaming peanuts from my nostrils. Open source will never rule. I would much rather pay for a product than download a hodge-podge of interconnecting modules. The only people who care about open source are those who do or can be involved in its creations. It's art for the artists, not the laymen. This isn't to say its inherently bad, or inherently good. Just that it will never be for everyone. If you mod me down because you think I'm stupid, you've proved my point, I am stupid->can't use open source software; Most other people are stupid->most other people can't use open source software.
There is a third alternative:
3) Software could be sponsored by the state as much as art is. It provides a service to society, and in this way people could be remunerated by their efforts while still providing software for everyone to use licence free. This is, I think much closer to communism than your 2.
Continuing to re-issue these codes is a very easy, very profitable business. The companies could sell the rights to provide these codes during their liquidation.
Wouldn't you offer to maintain a web-server that provides a constant stream of income in exchange for sending a few bytes every month or so?
Having travelled in the eastern block I can tell you honestly that there is a different sense of public safety there. People really don't get sued for negligence, and caveat emptor means so much more than be careful or your new jeans might rip-It means buyer beware for your life!
People drive drunk on mountain roads with their headlights off in the middle of the night.
We could never get a passenger flight off, the liability insurance would be way to huge.
Man do I love that mathml.
Yes, and no. One could design a computer system (electro-optical system) to measure a single photon. and we (not me pesonally) have. The single photon example was simply an example of how sensitive biological systems are to just about everything. To reproduce them, the computer system would have to be as sensitive, and thus would have to be analog for a start. Secondly, any, repeat, any rounding off error would result in different behaviour. I am not saying that we cannot produce a system as complicated as a biological one in a computer, I'm saying we cannot replicate the biological one to any degree of accuracy.
The fundamental reason why we cannot model biology with computers is that biological systems are chaotic. They respond to extremely small fluctuations no floating point processor can handle. In fact the human eye can respond to a single photon. See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndN uclear/see_a_photon.html
Biological systems are sensitive on quantum level and computers certainly cannot be.
I'm not so sure that you cannot prove things in biology as easily as heartily as your prove them in mathematics. Evolution is a triusm. A truism in the sense of philosophy and math is just symbolic philosophy.
Think about it: "Survival of the fittest" That means survival of those that able to survive.
You can't argue with this.
A two layer system is not a 3-d system. I won't get into any bumblign math arguements, but true 3-d storage would have N^3 density. The double layer disk has 2*N^2 density. it's still O(N^2). When we get storage of O(N^3) we'll know it. It's the same increase in peformance as moving from a tape O(N) to a disk O(N^2). An eight track although 8*N in density is still, once again, O(N). Read O(N) as of the order N.
"It takes more time, being realtime, but you can get a higher quality copy by connecting the analog output on your CD player to the analog input on decent PC audio hardware, and going through a whole D/A A/D conversion"
.wav file which is a perfect reporduction. any a/d,d/a will ALWAYS result in quality worse than the original
I think you are mistaken, the D/A, A/D conversion cycle will distort the signal. Software exists to convert a CD image to a
you can xor all the bits sequentually and get a repeating string of 1's and 0's 2^15 in period
There should be a byte available on each chip (or memory cell) that samples thermal noise in some way. This, as I see it, is the only way to get uncorrelated noise. The other systems use iterating functions and take advantage of chaos to produce 'unpredictable' but certainly not random sequences. Know the iterating function and the last result to the precision it is stored in the iterating function- know the next number in the sequence.
The versatility in the iPOD that allows for this is the sign of a well designed product. It takes more time and thought to design a product that both serves its original purpose and allows for upgrades and changes to be made succesffully. I suspect apple will use the iPOD platform for other purposes as time goes on as there is really no other motivation for engineering this amount of flexibility.
There are specific ways to differentiate species. Generally if two sets of organisms can interbreed and produce offspring that can breed themselves, they are considered of the same species.
Example 1 : Cocker Spanial, golden retriever: can interbreed therefore same species.
Example 2: Donkey, horse, makes mule but mule is sterile therefore donkey and horse are different species.
A good C or Assembler programmer can always move up and figure out what to do with a new language. I am not convinced VB.NET designers will have the same veratility. There is no need to understand how a machine works, and without that knowledge one can, and often does, miss something.