If there's a file you KNOW is illegal--possibly because you planted it (wasn't there a new story about the RIAA doing this with a Britney Spears album a few years back?), then it IS possible to detect it in a person's library--assuming the person hasn't altered it in any way. There's obviously no way to make a database of all known LEGAL tracks, but you can definitely make one of known ILLEGAL tracks.
My question is still: if two people rip different copies of the same CD with, say, LAME, will the resulting files be identical?
The only thing I can think is that they compare it to a database of known illegal files using MD5 hashes or somesuch. But this is actually a valid question: if two people rip different copies of the same CD with, say, LAME, will the resulting files be identical?
I doubt the researchers are saying that physical and emotional pain are the exact same but rather that one's brain processes them in similar ways. So it suggests that it may be more than just poetic or overdramatic when one says, "It feels like my heart's been cut out" after a messy breakup.
And slightly OT, but is there any actual GP-GPU software out there that isn't for black hats?
I've written plenty of numerical simulation coding in CUDA. I realize you probably meant like, "Is Adobe working on porting Photoshop to OpenCL" but I'm sure it's only a matter of time. Actually, I just remembered this Slashdot article: Matlab now comes with GPU integration.
In any case, let's stop making stories about preprints proving/falsifying famous conjectures. After they've been reviewed by some experts, great, make a story--just not until then.
This isn't the Washington Post or the New York Times. I don't think Slashdot needs to have the same journalistic standards as publications "of record." I don't think there's any harm in reporting these kinds of stories. Personally, I think it's pretty cool to see these kinds of attempts, even if they turn out to be WAY off base. And it's not like this story had a sensational headline--all it said was that a proof was "proposed." Anyway, that's my two cents.
Typo aside, I very much agree with this sentiment: don't say anything until you know for sure, don't cause a premature outrage or get people's hopes up (not sure that last part really applies here, but still).
IIRC, ENIAC was used to compute the trajectory of artillery shells. The following ones were heavily involved in the design of nuclear weapons.
Question: what came before "electric computers" like ENIAC? Were difference engines ever that prevalent? Because, it's my understanding that electric computers were able to use the algorithms, etc. designed for difference engines. So ENIAC wouldn't really be the first computer the same way this is the first quantum computer. The better comparison would be to Babbage's analytical engines.
I think calling it "snake oil" is going a step too far, but I'm sure Lockheed is buying it mainly for the bragging rights.
Think of it as a big, big toy. I'm sure there's a team of Lockheed scientists who are going to have a BLAST seeing what this puppy can do, and I'll bet that they find that, for some arbitrarily specific problem, it's insanely useful, but for everything else...
The other thing to keep in mind is that I'm sure the first commercially available digital computers weren't particularly more useful, but it's an important step.
"Don't you reckon it might uncover some sort of particle, or energy, that might explain our connectivity with the Universe?"
Sounds like Orson Scott Card's "philotes" to me. While I loved the series when I read it as a kid and I still love it now, as someone who has a decent background in physics, I find the idea laughable.
I'm a firm believer that consciousness is simply a "complex systems" / nonlinear dynamics effect, but that's a topic for a different debate.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless it's a plant.
If there's a file you KNOW is illegal--possibly because you planted it (wasn't there a new story about the RIAA doing this with a Britney Spears album a few years back?), then it IS possible to detect it in a person's library--assuming the person hasn't altered it in any way. There's obviously no way to make a database of all known LEGAL tracks, but you can definitely make one of known ILLEGAL tracks. My question is still: if two people rip different copies of the same CD with, say, LAME, will the resulting files be identical?
The only thing I can think is that they compare it to a database of known illegal files using MD5 hashes or somesuch. But this is actually a valid question: if two people rip different copies of the same CD with, say, LAME, will the resulting files be identical?
I doubt the researchers are saying that physical and emotional pain are the exact same but rather that one's brain processes them in similar ways. So it suggests that it may be more than just poetic or overdramatic when one says, "It feels like my heart's been cut out" after a messy breakup.
agreed. pain from a boot to the head fades faster.
And slightly OT, but is there any actual GP-GPU software out there that isn't for black hats?
I've written plenty of numerical simulation coding in CUDA. I realize you probably meant like, "Is Adobe working on porting Photoshop to OpenCL" but I'm sure it's only a matter of time. Actually, I just remembered this Slashdot article: Matlab now comes with GPU integration.
In any case, let's stop making stories about preprints proving/falsifying famous conjectures. After they've been reviewed by some experts, great, make a story--just not until then.
This isn't the Washington Post or the New York Times. I don't think Slashdot needs to have the same journalistic standards as publications "of record." I don't think there's any harm in reporting these kinds of stories. Personally, I think it's pretty cool to see these kinds of attempts, even if they turn out to be WAY off base. And it's not like this story had a sensational headline--all it said was that a proof was "proposed." Anyway, that's my two cents.
Typo aside, I very much agree with this sentiment: don't say anything until you know for sure, don't cause a premature outrage or get people's hopes up (not sure that last part really applies here, but still).
Weren't they this?
IIRC, ENIAC was used to compute the trajectory of artillery shells. The following ones were heavily involved in the design of nuclear weapons.
Question: what came before "electric computers" like ENIAC? Were difference engines ever that prevalent? Because, it's my understanding that electric computers were able to use the algorithms, etc. designed for difference engines. So ENIAC wouldn't really be the first computer the same way this is the first quantum computer. The better comparison would be to Babbage's analytical engines.
Think of it as a big, big toy. I'm sure there's a team of Lockheed scientists who are going to have a BLAST seeing what this puppy can do, and I'll bet that they find that, for some arbitrarily specific problem, it's insanely useful, but for everything else...
The other thing to keep in mind is that I'm sure the first commercially available digital computers weren't particularly more useful, but it's an important step.
"Don't you reckon it might uncover some sort of particle, or energy, that might explain our connectivity with the Universe?" Sounds like Orson Scott Card's "philotes" to me. While I loved the series when I read it as a kid and I still love it now, as someone who has a decent background in physics, I find the idea laughable. I'm a firm believer that consciousness is simply a "complex systems" / nonlinear dynamics effect, but that's a topic for a different debate.
This actually makes sense to me. Well, as much as spin makes sense in the first place. Is this what the experiment was actually measuring?
Aren't electrons point particles? How can something be spherical if it has no radius?