Seek out the instructional video summarized here. It should provide you with insight and wisdom. Also... the Hero of the story? He actually hangs around these parts. Well... the guy who played him. I hear he is much cooler IRL.
Lets make everyone into zombies! Zombies have no pets, don't drive cars, don't watch TV... In fact, they go everywhere on foot, and they always use local resources by feeding on human brains - and thereby reducing the number of polluters.
On one hand, John Dvorak is saying something negative about Microsoft. On the other hand, I would have to agree with something that troll John Dvorak thinks.
He does not complain about anything of any importance to anyone in the known universe. His biggest gripe with Windows 7?
I haven't received a single personal note from a Microsoft PR person for roughly four years.
Well shit-a-doodle-doo Mr. Dvorak, sir, that really is not something anyone gives a flying fuck about. You, not getting valentine letters from MS marketing department.
So there you have it. Good thing Microsoft didn't feel like pandering to Mr. Dvorak's ego, or he might have actually talked about Win7's feature or two he (dis)likes. Then you really might have been in a pickle.
This way, he said nothing of any importance about Microsoft or Windows AND AT THE SAME TIME he upgraded his troll status with some whiner points.
A reminder/warning that user should click on to make it go away?
How much time do you suppose would pass before:
a) users completely ignore it, madly clicking [ OK ] without even looking at the text? b) it is spoofed and/or copied by malware sites, cartoon spy and all?
Answer should be calculated in minutes and seconds, but feel free to use larger time units like hours and days.
It starts talking about using rat cells. Then it says how the next step would be using human cells. Then article jumps onto "wetware" as if to explain the term, but actually just jumbling it up in order to allow almost anything remotely biological to be called "wetware". By calling upon a blog-based re-definition of the term, as "re-defined" by a science-fiction writer and a mathematician who supposedly defined the phrase - although it has been around for years before.
Then, article continues talking about "wetware" without any further reference if it is talking about human or rat wetware. And in the end, it once again refers to the above mentioned "re-definition" of the term and using the term "human wetware" in a purposefully ambiguous way. It could be "wetware" belonging to humans (i.e. their property), or coming from humans (i.e. made from "some" human tissue).
Reading the article, you get the notion that it is exactly what the title and summary claim: that they have made a robot that uses human brain cells to move autonomously. But in fact, THERE IS NO MENTIONING OF THAT IN THE ARTICLE.
What happens when a man is merged with a computer or a robot? This is the question that Professor Kevin Warwick and his team at the department of Cybernetics, University of Reading in the UK have been trying to answer for a number of years.
There are many ways to look at this problem. There is the longer term prospect of freeing the mind from the limitations of the brain by uploading it in digital form, potentially onto a computer and/or robotic substrate (see the h+ interview with Dr. Bruce Katz, Will We Eventually Upload Our Minds?). There is also a shorter term prospect at a much more limited scale -- a robot controlled by human brain cells could soon be wandering around Professor Warwick's UK labs.
Professor Warwick (who incidentally has a device implanted in his left arm that enables his nervous system to be connected to a computer) and his colleague Ben Whalley from the School of Pharmacy recently created a robot that is controlled by cultured rat neurons. The next step in their research is to use a human neuron cell line, a type of "wetware."
As reported in New Scientist, some 300,000 rat neurons grown in a nutrient broth and producing spikes of electrical activity were connected to the output of a small robot's distance sensors. The neurons proved capable of steering the robot around an enclosure. Here's the New Scientist video of the robot courtesy of the University of Reading:
This research is the first step in examining how memories create neurological structures in the brain, and how the brain stores specific pieces of data. The researchers hope that this will lead to a better understanding of diseases and disorders that affect the brain such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, stroke, and brain injury.
Warwick comments, "This new research is tremendously exciting as firstly the biological brain controls its own moving robot body, and secondly it will enable us to investigate how the brain learns and memorizes its experiences. This research will move our understanding forward of how brains work, and could have a profound effect on many areas of science and medicine."
Warwick, Whalley, and colleagues don't need specific ethical approval from the University or the UK government. to move forward with the human neuron cell line as soon as they are ready. The cultures are available on the open market and "the ethical side of sourcing is done by the company from whom they are purchased," according to Whalley.
The use of the term "wetware" has been around since the mid-1950s. In the recent academic literature, it refers to cells (that are "wet") built out of molecular circuits that perform logical operations, as electronic devices do, but with unique properties. Mathematician and science fiction writer Rudy Rucker used the
There is a MUCH simpler solution. Larger bin INSIDE the roomba. All it requires is more plastic - no need for extra robotic thingies.
Best part... It could be made as an attachment. You wouldn't have to buy a new roomba, just the bigger dust bin attachment that would replace the old one.
They called it a Mech at first, but people kept complaining how it lacks legs, and missile arms, and swords... And that is not counting those who complained how Mech is not a robot but a vehicle.
So... they jumbled the letters a bit and called it chem-bot.
But bear in mind that if she's wrong the company's costs, on balance, will be much higher when their insured start showing up in the hospital not having gotten the vaccine.
And have the Li-Ion battery to power all that in the form of a hat. It will be great in the upcoming winter months. Not so great in the summer when it explodes and catches fire on top of your head.
Humans have obviously reached the human frontier on that umm... front. And found Ferengi staring at them from the other side. So, having warp-drive and replicators (which nearly eliminated scarcity), they decided to be guided by their natural curiosity, instead of their natural greed. Space exploration sure beats "who has more valuables at the time of death" competition in my book.
As for inherent repulsion towards anything starting with social... You do realize that you have been brainwashed by your rulers?
You should have stayed there for just a bit longer.
Then you would have also noticed the white, bespectacled woman in her 50s "researching" Snoop Dog. And that 6-year-old WikiReader poster child reading about string theory.
I did not click on the links to see the videos though. I prefer the version I got in my head, where Will Smith bursts in and shoots that kid before it starts some shit.
Did you really have to title your post "Umm...No"? You're taking a totally unnecessary confrontational tone.
If you don't like your posts criticizing specific actions and cases being understood as general critiques on subjects - elaborate your posts a little further.
You know... like the stuff you wrote in the reply-post above. Just dumping a throwaway comment like "Papers should STFU!" is bound to get you some negative or "confrontational" comments.
It'd be nice if the papers would hold off reporting on things like this until the facts are in and public.
What you are referring to is not journalism but blogging. Investigative journalism has a very important role in democratic societies as a tool for making information available to the public. Look up Watergate.
As things stand, they're spreading as much disinformation as information.
Not if properly sourced and leveraged by some form ethical code of conduct - backed by either their personal or their news company's reputation and/or open to criticism of peer review.
It is quite understandable that in today's world of "FOXed out" news and anonymous internet commentators one might confuse investigative journalism and reporting with slander and propaganda.
One way communication is an important and valuable form of communication.
How can you know that, unless it is two-way? With one way communication all you get is "undeniable opinions". Sure... you might get a grade in return, but you don't get to revise your essay, or argue its value. The grade you get is just another one-way "undeniable opinion". Unless there is dialog, communication is worthless - as far as communicating goes. Sure.. it may be a nice story, but the writer and the reader are NOT communicating.
I am sure that if your application essay was ranting or overly "expressing" that would not get you accepted. Just like in any other situation in life - if you meet with your boss and start rambling incoherently you are not going to be the one who gets the promotion. You can call that "thought crime" if you want. I call it life.
Ta-DAH! And that is the point. There is NO communication in the essay. One shot and that's it.
In real-life you wouldn't get to rant-out incoherently. You would be asked to explain your behavior most likely more than once. And as you have put it - you might not get the promotion. NOT get banned from practicing the profession - which is what using a 500 word essay as a determining criteria for getting into the university of your choosing effectively is.
Slashdot Mirror
Seek out the instructional video summarized here. It should provide you with insight and wisdom.
Also... the Hero of the story? He actually hangs around these parts.
Well... the guy who played him. I hear he is much cooler IRL.
Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow.
Lets make everyone into zombies!
Zombies have no pets, don't drive cars, don't watch TV...
In fact, they go everywhere on foot, and they always use local resources by feeding on human brains - and thereby reducing the number of polluters.
Zombies would be the ultimate green solution!
What did you use to calculate with such "precision"?
A Pentium?
On one hand, John Dvorak is saying something negative about Microsoft.
On the other hand, I would have to agree with something that troll John Dvorak thinks.
He does not complain about anything of any importance to anyone in the known universe.
His biggest gripe with Windows 7?
I haven't received a single personal note from a Microsoft PR person for roughly four years.
Well shit-a-doodle-doo Mr. Dvorak, sir, that really is not something anyone gives a flying fuck about. You, not getting valentine letters from MS marketing department.
So there you have it.
Good thing Microsoft didn't feel like pandering to Mr. Dvorak's ego, or he might have actually talked about Win7's feature or two he (dis)likes.
Then you really might have been in a pickle.
This way, he said nothing of any importance about Microsoft or Windows AND AT THE SAME TIME he upgraded his troll status with some whiner points.
A reminder/warning that user should click on to make it go away?
How much time do you suppose would pass before:
a) users completely ignore it, madly clicking [ OK ] without even looking at the text?
b) it is spoofed and/or copied by malware sites, cartoon spy and all?
Answer should be calculated in minutes and seconds, but feel free to use larger time units like hours and days.
And kiss goodbye its main target audience - pre-16 teens and younger kids.
Actually, the article is purposefully vague.
It starts talking about using rat cells.
Then it says how the next step would be using human cells.
Then article jumps onto "wetware" as if to explain the term, but actually just jumbling it up in order to allow almost anything remotely biological to be called "wetware".
By calling upon a blog-based re-definition of the term, as "re-defined" by a science-fiction writer and a mathematician who supposedly defined the phrase - although it has been around for years before.
Then, article continues talking about "wetware" without any further reference if it is talking about human or rat wetware.
And in the end, it once again refers to the above mentioned "re-definition" of the term and using the term "human wetware" in a purposefully ambiguous way.
It could be "wetware" belonging to humans (i.e. their property), or coming from humans (i.e. made from "some" human tissue).
Reading the article, you get the notion that it is exactly what the title and summary claim: that they have made a robot that uses human brain cells to move autonomously.
But in fact, THERE IS NO MENTIONING OF THAT IN THE ARTICLE.
What happens when a man is merged with a computer or a robot?
This is the question that Professor Kevin Warwick and his team at the department of Cybernetics, University of Reading in the UK have been trying to answer for a number of years.
There are many ways to look at this problem.
There is the longer term prospect of freeing the mind from the limitations of the brain by uploading it in digital form, potentially onto a computer and/or robotic substrate (see the h+ interview with Dr. Bruce Katz, Will We Eventually Upload Our Minds?).
There is also a shorter term prospect at a much more limited scale -- a robot controlled by human brain cells could soon be wandering around Professor Warwick's UK labs.
Professor Warwick (who incidentally has a device implanted in his left arm that enables his nervous system to be connected to a computer) and his colleague Ben Whalley from the School of Pharmacy recently created a robot that is controlled by cultured rat neurons.
The next step in their research is to use a human neuron cell line, a type of "wetware."
As reported in New Scientist, some 300,000 rat neurons grown in a nutrient broth and producing spikes of electrical activity were connected to the output of a small robot's distance sensors.
The neurons proved capable of steering the robot around an enclosure. Here's the New Scientist video of the robot courtesy of the University of Reading:
This research is the first step in examining how memories create neurological structures in the brain, and how the brain stores specific pieces of data.
The researchers hope that this will lead to a better understanding of diseases and disorders that affect the brain such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, stroke, and brain injury.
Warwick comments, "This new research is tremendously exciting as firstly the biological brain controls its own moving robot body, and secondly it will enable us to investigate how the brain learns and memorizes its experiences.
This research will move our understanding forward of how brains work, and could have a profound effect on many areas of science and medicine."
Warwick, Whalley, and colleagues don't need specific ethical approval from the University or the UK government. to move forward with the human neuron cell line as soon as they are ready. The cultures are available on the open market and "the ethical side of sourcing is done by the company from whom they are purchased," according to Whalley.
The use of the term "wetware" has been around since the mid-1950s.
In the recent academic literature, it refers to cells (that are "wet") built out of molecular circuits that perform logical operations, as electronic devices do, but with unique properties.
Mathematician and science fiction writer Rudy Rucker used the
It already is.
There is a MUCH simpler solution. Larger bin INSIDE the roomba.
All it requires is more plastic - no need for extra robotic thingies.
Best part... It could be made as an attachment.
You wouldn't have to buy a new roomba, just the bigger dust bin attachment that would replace the old one.
They called it a Mech at first, but people kept complaining how it lacks legs, and missile arms, and swords...
And that is not counting those who complained how Mech is not a robot but a vehicle.
So... they jumbled the letters a bit and called it chem-bot.
Another robot that would empty that bin into another larger bin?
And a larger robot to empty that one into a even larger bin?
We can't just keep building larger and larger robots and bins. We would run out of space pretty soon. Then where would we be?
They are natural psychopaths.
Also, author comes off as a bit of a jerk.
"Crossroads" and "You spin me round" comments were not only funny, but also completely on topic.
"Crossroads" - case statement, "You spin me round" - loop.
"At a minimum distracting"? You know what else is distracting?
Having a sense of humor.
But bear in mind that if she's wrong the company's costs, on balance, will be much higher when their insured start showing up in the hospital not having gotten the vaccine.
Substitute arrows with vaccines, archers with doctors, Irishmen with patients and scouts with lawyers and researchers.
A book would be accessible offline after the first time it was accessed.
Does your boss read slashdot?
Cause, boy do I have an Insightful and Interesting post to show him/her.
And have the Li-Ion battery to power all that in the form of a hat.
It will be great in the upcoming winter months. Not so great in the summer when it explodes and catches fire on top of your head.
Humans have obviously reached the human frontier on that umm... front. And found Ferengi staring at them from the other side.
So, having warp-drive and replicators (which nearly eliminated scarcity), they decided to be guided by their natural curiosity, instead of their natural greed.
Space exploration sure beats "who has more valuables at the time of death" competition in my book.
As for inherent repulsion towards anything starting with social...
You do realize that you have been brainwashed by your rulers?
You should have stayed there for just a bit longer.
Then you would have also noticed the white, bespectacled woman in her 50s "researching" Snoop Dog.
And that 6-year-old WikiReader poster child reading about string theory.
I did not click on the links to see the videos though.
I prefer the version I got in my head, where Will Smith bursts in and shoots that kid before it starts some shit.
Mine's called k700i... But I often refer to it as Bob.
Did you really have to title your post "Umm...No"? You're taking a totally unnecessary confrontational tone.
If you don't like your posts criticizing specific actions and cases being understood as general critiques on subjects - elaborate your posts a little further.
You know... like the stuff you wrote in the reply-post above.
Just dumping a throwaway comment like "Papers should STFU!" is bound to get you some negative or "confrontational" comments.
It'd be nice if the papers would hold off reporting on things like this until the facts are in and public.
What you are referring to is not journalism but blogging.
Investigative journalism has a very important role in democratic societies as a tool for making information available to the public.
Look up Watergate.
As things stand, they're spreading as much disinformation as information.
Not if properly sourced and leveraged by some form ethical code of conduct - backed by either their personal or their news company's reputation and/or open to criticism of peer review.
It is quite understandable that in today's world of "FOXed out" news and anonymous internet commentators one might confuse investigative journalism and reporting with slander and propaganda.
But I'll tell you how it will end.
The final architecture EVER will be 640-bit. And that WILL be enough for everyone.
One way communication is an important and valuable form of communication.
How can you know that, unless it is two-way? With one way communication all you get is "undeniable opinions".
Sure... you might get a grade in return, but you don't get to revise your essay, or argue its value. The grade you get is just another one-way "undeniable opinion".
Unless there is dialog, communication is worthless - as far as communicating goes. Sure.. it may be a nice story, but the writer and the reader are NOT communicating.
I am sure that if your application essay was ranting or overly "expressing" that would not get you accepted. Just like in any other situation in life - if you meet with your boss and start rambling incoherently you are not going to be the one who gets the promotion. You can call that "thought crime" if you want. I call it life.
Ta-DAH!
And that is the point. There is NO communication in the essay. One shot and that's it.
In real-life you wouldn't get to rant-out incoherently. You would be asked to explain your behavior most likely more than once.
And as you have put it - you might not get the promotion.
NOT get banned from practicing the profession - which is what using a 500 word essay as a determining criteria for getting into the university of your choosing effectively is.