Well almost every mobile device with a browser on. Few examples; Nokia, HP WebOS (Palm), Apple, Google(Chrome, Android mobiles)
The web is transforming to an SDK form making applications availabre from everywhere. It's not an bad idea at all, but should maybe be redisigned from scratsh.
Maybe someone should make an HTML5 only compiant browser.
The article says that it would be easily to restart... I wonder when that salt plug melts it wont be an easy restart of the plant. Need to get it up back from the cooling chamber and i guess they wont do that while it's molten.
I agree and disagree.
A computer works by some sets of algorithms. I do believe it's the same with the brain.
But that they would be similar is just oversimplifications. End they are absolutely not same style of computers. A computer never acts on it's own, the brain does. It teaches itself, it reprogram itself, and if unstimulated it goes rampant.
A program or computer is stable that is not the case with the brain.
This is like in the -80 es Mac PC era.
The PC was incredible difficult to use. Especially if you couln't read the manual. But it was simple to program.
The Mac was simple to use, u didn't need a manual. But it was incredible difficult to program.
I was just a kid, but i still can make a DOS application. I still can't make a good mac applicaton. But i could use the mac when i was a kid, I barely manage hacking registry on a Win PC.:P
However our brain is altering it's own hardware automatically. That is why a smoker can become a nonsmoker, by will. It wont do the same calculation over and over again because it choses to overide that calculation.
To me one ultimate prof of inteligense would be action upon imagination. That may not be the only state that needs to be reached but sure is one important aspect of true intelligense.
But to act you need life. Something dead will not act of its own.
But skipping that part... and descripbe what I view as prof of acts upon imagination.
We humans do imagine impossible things. E.g. we imagined wagons without horces. We imagined how it would be to fly as the birds. This imagination created a lust, this lust inturn created the power to innovate in the science of flying (or other)
Today we do fly with our innovations. We also imagine space travel, we (some) have gotten a lust for space travel which has powerd some innovations in that field of science, we go to the moon, still not traveling. But you know the story from above (actually the profecy, history written in beforehand)
Today we also imagine that we could create intelligence just as God did, or for the majority as Big Bang did (different aproach just a bunch of true random functions).
Personally I doubt the human intelligence would be able to create intelligence, but the patten is the same as in the above. We imagine the posibility, we gain a lust for creating it, we start innovating in that science watson is an example of that. Well if the story doesn't end somwhere it will become a profecy to we will create intelligence.
Is imagination oposite of being rational. Right an Left, our brains seems bit oposite in left and right. Maybe intelligense is a balance upon action based on imagination and being rational.
To program lust and love i belive is a piece of nuts compared with the scope i just described.
It's only due to lousy scientist/engineers etc that we have gotten these problems.
If they only themselves would stick to the proper meanding of each word. Instead of proclaming that they been first to create life syntetically or similary we wouldn't have this problem. But these scientist exagurate the labeling of their findings, only to make a name in the comunity. E.g. this scientist who clamed that he has created life from dead matter. What he actually had done was to create at DNS strin syntetically. Still that DNA string was a direct copy of an existing DNA string of an bactery in the nature. And the cell itself that it was "injected" to was far from "unfertile" or dead in itself.
If only these people who actually know what they are doing, would put their own ego away and actuall lable and describe theri findings correctly. Neither would Ai be missused nor the word hacker!
Life is not aboundant in Univerce it's statistically immpossible. Statistically and scientifically the only place you'll ever find, note, in our univerce except we humans have planted it outside earth is on earth. Heck statistically and mathematically it's even impossible here on earth.
also note just for clarification. I refer to life form that is based on matter that is found in our universe, be it matter, anti matter or dark matter.
I exclude from my calculation any other kind of life form that some migth refer to as energy, spirit, ghost, angels, demons or similar. Anyway if such excist they are not bound to our Universe just the way we are and therfore not a part of the universe. So just leve that discussion out of contents.
h.264 is as open as it has to be.
It's open to view and to create viewers. The commersial sector still afford to pay licenses for creating apps that compress to h.264.
This just have to be som American bs banking.
I have no trouble with online banking, I do it trough my home computer, my mobile and the any PC at the library or internet café. Why make things more difficult than they are.
Go study Finnish or Estonian banks.
Yes I do know this, It's not that I dont understand the realtion between them. Physics do require math. But before you start calulating friction or plank constant you need to know what it's your trying to figure out. You need a perpose four your math.
But to be presice I do not belive math could exist without physics or wiser versa. Theorietically yes but without physics what would you use math for?
I find physics more important than math if I have to chose between them. But IMO math should be physics driven. There is little need for calculatign stuff you don't know what it's your calculating. So understanding first method second. Often you can figure out a method if you have the understanding first. That is much how i did physics though being the lazy one not always attending class missing out on some formulas and so. But usually I could figure out a way to come to the result in the tests. Maybe it wasn't the cleanest or simlpest way of calculating, but it's the problem solving and understanding that is meassured int the tests. Or should be if your teacher is worth a penny.
Hey I can still make my hello world app work multithreaded in GCD with only one line of code that is referred to as blocks.
I believe you all have little clue of the implication this have. I don't say that an app should not designed for multithreading. But I simply don't have to One line of code and all my app is multithreaded. If that is optimal or good programming is an other issue but blocks/GCD provides exactly that possibility. I don't have to design my app for multithreading.
And my old app there that haven't been touch in a long while Is simply multithreaded during an afternoon.
I dont belive that would be slick the GCD, blocks approach from apple IMO is by far better.
What happens when you have more processes to run than you have processors. The GCD in todays way which incorporate single cpu thinking into multiple dynamically will scale with overheads yes but it scales to optimal of the hardware you happen to have.
GCD/blocks approach is ranted by many who don't understands it's beauty, it might not be the most novel approach but it's the best working approach out there.
Hey, your biased, technically your right but practically wrong.
The lame fact is my wifes iPhone does more than any other phone I have. And yes I'm atm wondering about an andrioid but it still can't compete with the iPhone. And that is with an un jailbroken iPhone fully standard. Compared so far with Nokia N900, E71 and friends Andrioid here.
Sorry to say even if the iPhone has been handikapped with stupid restictions, it still does more!
(there are good restrictions too as only tough AppStore, I hope Nokia, Google, MS. Copy that type of restrictions).
Slashdot Mirror
Well almost every mobile device with a browser on. Few examples; Nokia, HP WebOS (Palm), Apple, Google(Chrome, Android mobiles)
The web is transforming to an SDK form making applications availabre from everywhere. It's not an bad idea at all, but should maybe be redisigned from scratsh.
Maybe someone should make an HTML5 only compiant browser.
How do i get lynx to my MacOSX10.6?
The fullscreen idea is crippled anyway tha Macy way for zoomin as it was in pree MacOSX times i absolutely the best way and period.
Maybe linux has some vierd brance that behaves correctly as MacOSX does int not still better than windows on this issue.
Alcohol is not destructive in anyway in moderate ammounts, Alcohol is NOT a drug!
But i guess you meant tobaco.
The article says that it would be easily to restart... I wonder when that salt plug melts it wont be an easy restart of the plant. Need to get it up back from the cooling chamber and i guess they wont do that while it's molten.
Who says it does not emmit energy in an unknown way? How did we first manage to find darkmatter, trough electomagnetic radiation or?
Dont be so sure about that... resently on slashdot it was linked to IBM's new project with a computer doing jeopardy.
here is the link again: http://www.research.ibm.com/deepqa/
so you where wrong about yourself
exactly my point... and it's a stable situation. But ever since the sperm n the egg combined that brain has been unstable
nope they are not stable because we program them to be. Ever seen a computer unprogrammed that aint stable?
I agree and disagree. A computer works by some sets of algorithms. I do believe it's the same with the brain. But that they would be similar is just oversimplifications. End they are absolutely not same style of computers. A computer never acts on it's own, the brain does. It teaches itself, it reprogram itself, and if unstimulated it goes rampant. A program or computer is stable that is not the case with the brain.
This is like in the -80 es Mac PC era. The PC was incredible difficult to use. Especially if you couln't read the manual. But it was simple to program. The Mac was simple to use, u didn't need a manual. But it was incredible difficult to program. I was just a kid, but i still can make a DOS application. I still can't make a good mac applicaton. But i could use the mac when i was a kid, I barely manage hacking registry on a Win PC. :P
However our brain is altering it's own hardware automatically. That is why a smoker can become a nonsmoker, by will. It wont do the same calculation over and over again because it choses to overide that calculation.
To me one ultimate prof of inteligense would be action upon imagination. That may not be the only state that needs to be reached but sure is one important aspect of true intelligense. But to act you need life. Something dead will not act of its own. But skipping that part... and descripbe what I view as prof of acts upon imagination. We humans do imagine impossible things. E.g. we imagined wagons without horces. We imagined how it would be to fly as the birds. This imagination created a lust, this lust inturn created the power to innovate in the science of flying (or other) Today we do fly with our innovations. We also imagine space travel, we (some) have gotten a lust for space travel which has powerd some innovations in that field of science, we go to the moon, still not traveling. But you know the story from above (actually the profecy, history written in beforehand) Today we also imagine that we could create intelligence just as God did, or for the majority as Big Bang did (different aproach just a bunch of true random functions). Personally I doubt the human intelligence would be able to create intelligence, but the patten is the same as in the above. We imagine the posibility, we gain a lust for creating it, we start innovating in that science watson is an example of that. Well if the story doesn't end somwhere it will become a profecy to we will create intelligence. Is imagination oposite of being rational. Right an Left, our brains seems bit oposite in left and right. Maybe intelligense is a balance upon action based on imagination and being rational. To program lust and love i belive is a piece of nuts compared with the scope i just described.
It's only due to lousy scientist/engineers etc that we have gotten these problems. If they only themselves would stick to the proper meanding of each word. Instead of proclaming that they been first to create life syntetically or similary we wouldn't have this problem. But these scientist exagurate the labeling of their findings, only to make a name in the comunity. E.g. this scientist who clamed that he has created life from dead matter. What he actually had done was to create at DNS strin syntetically. Still that DNA string was a direct copy of an existing DNA string of an bactery in the nature. And the cell itself that it was "injected" to was far from "unfertile" or dead in itself. If only these people who actually know what they are doing, would put their own ego away and actuall lable and describe theri findings correctly. Neither would Ai be missused nor the word hacker!
Life is not aboundant in Univerce it's statistically immpossible. Statistically and scientifically the only place you'll ever find, note, in our univerce except we humans have planted it outside earth is on earth. Heck statistically and mathematically it's even impossible here on earth. also note just for clarification. I refer to life form that is based on matter that is found in our universe, be it matter, anti matter or dark matter. I exclude from my calculation any other kind of life form that some migth refer to as energy, spirit, ghost, angels, demons or similar. Anyway if such excist they are not bound to our Universe just the way we are and therfore not a part of the universe. So just leve that discussion out of contents.
h.264 is as open as it has to be. It's open to view and to create viewers. The commersial sector still afford to pay licenses for creating apps that compress to h.264.
This just have to be som American bs banking. I have no trouble with online banking, I do it trough my home computer, my mobile and the any PC at the library or internet café. Why make things more difficult than they are. Go study Finnish or Estonian banks.
you need a UI guy?
Yes I do know this, It's not that I dont understand the realtion between them. Physics do require math. But before you start calulating friction or plank constant you need to know what it's your trying to figure out. You need a perpose four your math. But to be presice I do not belive math could exist without physics or wiser versa. Theorietically yes but without physics what would you use math for?
Einstein did not find out what he found out by calculatign, first he understood the physics behind it after eh calculated for us the formula E=MC^2
I find physics more important than math if I have to chose between them. But IMO math should be physics driven. There is little need for calculatign stuff you don't know what it's your calculating. So understanding first method second. Often you can figure out a method if you have the understanding first. That is much how i did physics though being the lazy one not always attending class missing out on some formulas and so. But usually I could figure out a way to come to the result in the tests. Maybe it wasn't the cleanest or simlpest way of calculating, but it's the problem solving and understanding that is meassured int the tests. Or should be if your teacher is worth a penny.
Hey I can still make my hello world app work multithreaded in GCD with only one line of code that is referred to as blocks. I believe you all have little clue of the implication this have. I don't say that an app should not designed for multithreading. But I simply don't have to One line of code and all my app is multithreaded. If that is optimal or good programming is an other issue but blocks/GCD provides exactly that possibility. I don't have to design my app for multithreading. And my old app there that haven't been touch in a long while Is simply multithreaded during an afternoon.
I dont belive that would be slick the GCD, blocks approach from apple IMO is by far better. What happens when you have more processes to run than you have processors. The GCD in todays way which incorporate single cpu thinking into multiple dynamically will scale with overheads yes but it scales to optimal of the hardware you happen to have. GCD/blocks approach is ranted by many who don't understands it's beauty, it might not be the most novel approach but it's the best working approach out there.
Hey, your biased, technically your right but practically wrong. The lame fact is my wifes iPhone does more than any other phone I have. And yes I'm atm wondering about an andrioid but it still can't compete with the iPhone. And that is with an un jailbroken iPhone fully standard. Compared so far with Nokia N900, E71 and friends Andrioid here. Sorry to say even if the iPhone has been handikapped with stupid restictions, it still does more! (there are good restrictions too as only tough AppStore, I hope Nokia, Google, MS. Copy that type of restrictions).