It's basically 4 switches that signal a program to play different soundtracks.
What would be interesting if it wasn't all digital signal, and he threw in an A/D converter so he could detect the IR light brightness, so a dull coin would produce a different sound than a nice and shiny coin... so you have more combinations.
Just having 4 on/off signals isn't that impressive right now, but it does have potential (of course, after a while you'd probably want to migrate to the serial port for speed and complexity).
I tried to look through the article, but couldn't find it... does this mean that you will have 4 "virtual cores" on one single chip now?
I remembered a slashdot from a while back about licensing for multiple processor setups, but would this quadruple the cost even though it's a single chip!
Though, it will be neat to see 4 CPU usage graphs in XP's task manager.:)
What does "consciously on some level at least" mean? If an action can be predicted accurately before someone experiences the feeling of making a decision, this impression of free will is obviously an illusion.
Consciously on some level means that there is some course of thinking that brings about the action... on any level (I suppose I use the word too loosely). Be it even a simple emotional reaction that leads to a burst of anger, there is still a conscious level (even though it's not on the level as thinking "I'm angry, I'm going to say [insert phrase]." It's simply saying that you're aware "on some level" that you are going to speak, whether the person in study "knows" it or not (hence, we're not that in tune with our brain/body).
As far as an action being predicted before someone experiences the "feeling", any data coming from a study for such a hypothesis must always be taken with a grain of salt. Relying on someone responding and telling you they are having a feeling at a given point is just.... not good. That response requires conscious decisions beforehand that, again, lead up to the actual action.
It's like telling someone to verbally announce that they're going to flinch in a jolt reaction... they're obviously going to flinch first before saying something (unless conditioned so well that the natural reaction is to say "I'm going to finch" when a ball gets thrown at their face), and there is a reaction in their brain first that makes them flinch. Of course the brain will react before the person physically (as in visual body movement or such); the brain controls the body.
Such a situation does no go against free will, since we still do not fully understand the course of actions within the brain... we can only make correlations between activity in distinct regions of the brain (with a deterministic logic/filter, which of course biases the data) through electromagnetic detection, and even that will most likely never be sensitive enough to get the full picture.
So, even while you have not yet consciously taken the decision to speak yet, your motor cortex has already set up the appropriate commands and sent them out to the nerves involved.... In fact (other discussion entirely, but fascinating nonetheless) most of our "voluntary" decisions appear to be made before we become aware of them. So much for free will:)
That argument against free will is flawed. I've heard it many times, and it's always because of an assumption made on the events leading up to an action. It assumes that you make the decision to speak after your brain starts to setup speech for you... which is rediculous. We're not aware of them because we're not that in tune with our brain/body... which is how we function efficiently; we don't have to sweat the small stuff (Like keeping our heart beating? Perfectly controlling exactly which muscles to fire in walking?).
There are many events before you actually speak that involve your decision to speak, such as thinking of (obviously) what to say, how to phrase it, tone of voice... even taking in breath before actually speaking. Even thinking "hmm... should I say this to so and so person" is a decision that would induce a response along the lines of speaking.
Basically, you've already made the decision (consciously on some level at least) to speak before you do it, but it is possible to stop yourself right before you actually speak.
It's like a car... Say you get a nice audio setup but you were going to put in your own speakers afterward, you don't go back to the dealership and demand a refund.
Just because you don't want an item that comes with a package deal, the seller has no obligation to refund you the money for what you didn't want.
It's in the package price. Packaging items together reduces cost. That's how business works.
going on 5 jokes in a row... time for a real news article already?
There is such a thing as "killing a joke"... ya know, that guy who gets a good laugh at a joke, then keeps adding on to the same thing over, and over, and over... the laughter dies down and then people just start nervously chuckling so they don't make the guy feel bad.
Everyone's "obvious answer" is encryption of some sort, but no one realizes that no matter what you do, someone can come in and broadcast out noise on your frequency to pretty much kill your broadcast in all regards. And THAT is what you need to really protect against. The encryption only makes sure someone isn't receiving when they shouldn't be.
To get it into your hard wired minds... you can encrypt anything and send it over a cable, but if someone hooks up a vacuum cleaner's motor to that cable, you can kiss your signal goodbye.
One way to get around this is to have a predictable, changing frequency that you are broadcasting on. I'd go into more detail, but in the end, someone can still interfere. So to answer your question, there's probably no good way.
...is having to pay extra for my domain to be "private"... at least with godaddy.com.
I got an e-mail from godaddy yesterday about this ruling, and the whole time I was reading it I was thinking of how godaddy is almost hypocritical in sending such an e-mail.
They want you to sign the petition to allow you to register the.US domain anonymously, but they still want you to pay extra for it.
You also funded Microsoft if you purchased anything from them. It does not mean you should be able to see the source for anything at all.
Same goes with any government function. Even with the freedom of information act, there is still classified information and the like. If someone doesn't want to give you their research... it's their research no matter who funds it.
They have no legal obligation to give *you* anything.
Thats the way the world works and the way it *should* work. Deal with it.
I can see it for RAM, but for processors, I don't think so.
Though, you would probably have to make sure that certian important data for an audio or video clip are stored in *good* memory. Or else you could run into problems where a clip doesn't know where to end.
But, what are the odds that a null terminator gets messed up in meao90efghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~ÇüéâäàåçêëèïîìÄÅÉæ ÆôöòûùÿÖÜ£¥áíóúñÑß±÷ !"#$%&'()*+,-./0Welcome to BankOne Online banking service! Your updated credit card number is 41 <<ERROR: Unexpected EOF >>
One partner said that Microsoft considers CSS2 to be a flawed standard and that the company is waiting for a later point release, such as CSS2.1 or CSS3, before throwing its complete support behind it
See how two-factor authentication doesn't solve anything? In the first case, the attacker can pass the ever-changing part of the password to the bank along with the never-changing part. And in the second case, the attacker is relying on the user to log in.
Yes, and an attacker can physically beat the living @*#^ out of you untill you give him what he wants. See how it doesn't solve anything?
...but I haven't been able to see one actual good argument against what these companies are talking about out of the/. community. The best... "forking can be good for projects... sometimes."
Everybody here is just hinging on to the fact that MS was in that bunch, but no one offers a good counter argument.
I agree with them... Linux is great 'n all, but it's not enough for large enterprises.::cough cough guaranteed binary compatibility cough and support cough::
No name calling intentional, I just wanted to throw in the "idiot-proof" line. A misinterpretation does not imply retardation to the point of a 3 year old.:)
But, I interpreted the TOS differently, which I think is how AOL intends.
AOL Instant Messenger's terms of service do not imply that the company has the right to use private IM communications, and the section quoted in the Slashdot article applies only to posts in public forums.
When they said "post", that's exactly how I read it... posting to message boards and such. Every time you send an IM communication, I never consider it a "post" of any sort. So, the lighter way of saying what I originally "posted", is that AOL modified their TOS to clarify the definition of "post" and the like, and to exclude IM communications from this so there will be no more... misinterpretation.
America Online Inc. plans to make three small but significant modifications to the terms of service for its AIM instant messaging product to head off a firestorm of privacy-related criticisms.
In an earlier slashdot article (too lazy to get the link), it was mentioned that the terms of service was misinterpreted by someone, and that it was *never implied* that private IM conversations were to be snooped upon, saved, or so forth.
We never lost out privacy, some idiot just misread it and this most recent change is in an attempt to make it "idiot-proof" for the future.
Slashdot Mirror
It's basically 4 switches that signal a program to play different soundtracks.
What would be interesting if it wasn't all digital signal, and he threw in an A/D converter so he could detect the IR light brightness, so a dull coin would produce a different sound than a nice and shiny coin... so you have more combinations.
Just having 4 on/off signals isn't that impressive right now, but it does have potential (of course, after a while you'd probably want to migrate to the serial port for speed and complexity).
I tried to look through the article, but couldn't find it... does this mean that you will have 4 "virtual cores" on one single chip now?
:)
I remembered a slashdot from a while back about licensing for multiple processor setups, but would this quadruple the cost even though it's a single chip!
Though, it will be neat to see 4 CPU usage graphs in XP's task manager.
"They took er jerrrrbs!"
Though, this time it's not as simple as preventing the future from happening.
What does "consciously on some level at least" mean? If an action can be predicted accurately before someone experiences the feeling of making a decision, this impression of free will is obviously an illusion.
Consciously on some level means that there is some course of thinking that brings about the action... on any level (I suppose I use the word too loosely). Be it even a simple emotional reaction that leads to a burst of anger, there is still a conscious level (even though it's not on the level as thinking "I'm angry, I'm going to say [insert phrase]." It's simply saying that you're aware "on some level" that you are going to speak, whether the person in study "knows" it or not (hence, we're not that in tune with our brain/body).
As far as an action being predicted before someone experiences the "feeling", any data coming from a study for such a hypothesis must always be taken with a grain of salt. Relying on someone responding and telling you they are having a feeling at a given point is just.... not good. That response requires conscious decisions beforehand that, again, lead up to the actual action.
It's like telling someone to verbally announce that they're going to flinch in a jolt reaction... they're obviously going to flinch first before saying something (unless conditioned so well that the natural reaction is to say "I'm going to finch" when a ball gets thrown at their face), and there is a reaction in their brain first that makes them flinch. Of course the brain will react before the person physically (as in visual body movement or such); the brain controls the body.
Such a situation does no go against free will, since we still do not fully understand the course of actions within the brain... we can only make correlations between activity in distinct regions of the brain (with a deterministic logic/filter, which of course biases the data) through electromagnetic detection, and even that will most likely never be sensitive enough to get the full picture.
So, even while you have not yet consciously taken the decision to speak yet, your motor cortex has already set up the appropriate commands and sent them out to the nerves involved. ... In fact (other discussion entirely, but fascinating nonetheless) most of our "voluntary" decisions appear to be made before we become aware of them. So much for free will :)
That argument against free will is flawed. I've heard it many times, and it's always because of an assumption made on the events leading up to an action. It assumes that you make the decision to speak after your brain starts to setup speech for you... which is rediculous. We're not aware of them because we're not that in tune with our brain/body... which is how we function efficiently; we don't have to sweat the small stuff (Like keeping our heart beating? Perfectly controlling exactly which muscles to fire in walking?).
There are many events before you actually speak that involve your decision to speak, such as thinking of (obviously) what to say, how to phrase it, tone of voice... even taking in breath before actually speaking. Even thinking "hmm... should I say this to so and so person" is a decision that would induce a response along the lines of speaking.
Basically, you've already made the decision (consciously on some level at least) to speak before you do it, but it is possible to stop yourself right before you actually speak.
.howlongwillthesetldsget ?
After rudely refusing to take the money, the cashier accepted the bills, only to mark them as though they were co[u]nterfeit.
To single them out from the other two dollar bills that the cashier has, since he/she obviously tendered so many in a day?
He should have mixed in some gold dollar coins just to really screw the morons up.
It's like a car... Say you get a nice audio setup but you were going to put in your own speakers afterward, you don't go back to the dealership and demand a refund.
Just because you don't want an item that comes with a package deal, the seller has no obligation to refund you the money for what you didn't want.
It's in the package price. Packaging items together reduces cost. That's how business works.
...the moon is made of cheese, after all.
The extra 180 was added for a "bushisms" effect.
Guess that's an inside joke... nevermind...
...but that's a stretch. Bush supported a large increase for funding to NASA a little while back, so it's a complete 360.
:)
April fools jokes need to be more subtle.
going on 5 jokes in a row... time for a real news article already?
/. right now.
There is such a thing as "killing a joke"... ya know, that guy who gets a good laugh at a joke, then keeps adding on to the same thing over, and over, and over... the laughter dies down and then people just start nervously chuckling so they don't make the guy feel bad.
"That guy" is
realize that it's RADIO WAVES.
Everyone's "obvious answer" is encryption of some sort, but no one realizes that no matter what you do, someone can come in and broadcast out noise on your frequency to pretty much kill your broadcast in all regards. And THAT is what you need to really protect against. The encryption only makes sure someone isn't receiving when they shouldn't be.
To get it into your hard wired minds... you can encrypt anything and send it over a cable, but if someone hooks up a vacuum cleaner's motor to that cable, you can kiss your signal goodbye.
One way to get around this is to have a predictable, changing frequency that you are broadcasting on. I'd go into more detail, but in the end, someone can still interfere. So to answer your question, there's probably no good way.
...is having to pay extra for my domain to be "private"... at least with godaddy.com.
.US domain anonymously, but they still want you to pay extra for it.
I got an e-mail from godaddy yesterday about this ruling, and the whole time I was reading it I was thinking of how godaddy is almost hypocritical in sending such an e-mail.
They want you to sign the petition to allow you to register the
Anonymity should be free.
How it is an update when it acts as a total re-install?
I love how firefox/thunderbird keep filling up my Add/Remove Programs list in XP everytime there is an "update".
Not trying to flame, but shouldn't there be a better way?
You recieved the results in the form of end data or a finished piece of software. You do not need to see the methods (the code).
You paid for the end result and the researchers required $X to get it. The research was just a necessary step to give you the end product or result.
You also funded Microsoft if you purchased anything from them. It does not mean you should be able to see the source for anything at all.
Same goes with any government function. Even with the freedom of information act, there is still classified information and the like. If someone doesn't want to give you their research... it's their research no matter who funds it.
They have no legal obligation to give *you* anything.
Thats the way the world works and the way it *should* work. Deal with it.
...doesn't the military already use this for their "line up and get shot in the arm" vaccinations and the like?
I can see it for RAM, but for processors, I don't think so.
æ ÆôöòûùÿÖÜ£¥áíóúñÑß±÷ !"#$%&'()*+,-./0Welcome to BankOne Online banking service! Your updated credit card number is 41
Though, you would probably have to make sure that certian important data for an audio or video clip are stored in *good* memory. Or else you could run into problems where a clip doesn't know where to end.
But, what are the odds that a null terminator gets messed up in meao90efghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~ÇüéâäàåçêëèïîìÄÅÉ
<<ERROR: Unexpected EOF >>
One partner said that Microsoft considers CSS2 to be a flawed standard and that the company is waiting for a later point release, such as CSS2.1 or CSS3, before throwing its complete support behind it
But CSS 2.1 is already out?
I'm talking about Sun...
See how two-factor authentication doesn't solve anything? In the first case, the attacker can pass the ever-changing part of the password to the bank along with the never-changing part. And in the second case, the attacker is relying on the user to log in.
Yes, and an attacker can physically beat the living @*#^ out of you untill you give him what he wants. See how it doesn't solve anything?
...but I haven't been able to see one actual good argument against what these companies are talking about out of the /. community. The best... "forking can be good for projects... sometimes."
::cough cough guaranteed binary compatibility cough and support cough::
Everybody here is just hinging on to the fact that MS was in that bunch, but no one offers a good counter argument.
I agree with them... Linux is great 'n all, but it's not enough for large enterprises.
But, I interpreted the TOS differently, which I think is how AOL intends.
From the monday article:
When they said "post", that's exactly how I read it... posting to message boards and such. Every time you send an IM communication, I never consider it a "post" of any sort. So, the lighter way of saying what I originally "posted", is that AOL modified their TOS to clarify the definition of "post" and the like, and to exclude IM communications from this so there will be no more... misinterpretation.
America Online Inc. plans to make three small but significant modifications to the terms of service for its AIM instant messaging product to head off a firestorm of privacy-related criticisms.
In an earlier slashdot article (too lazy to get the link), it was mentioned that the terms of service was misinterpreted by someone, and that it was *never implied* that private IM conversations were to be snooped upon, saved, or so forth.
We never lost out privacy, some idiot just misread it and this most recent change is in an attempt to make it "idiot-proof" for the future.