Saw a discovery channel show that described the early M16 problems as being the result of the ammunition. The powder wasn't to spec, didn't burn clean, and resulted in the gun jamming. I imagine that current ammunition doesn't have this problem.
I would like a firearm that does not require maintenance. The thing is, I wouldn't want to compromise the accuracy in doing so. So the M16 is great for what it is, but so is the AK47. Two different guns for two different types of soldiers.
Thermal stress resulting from temperature swings and the accompanying expansion and contraction of components -- at different rates, due to differing materials, mind you -- will accelerate wear-and-tear on just about anything, electronics included.
Leaving a computer running all the time stabilizes the temperature.
Agreed. Now the question is this; Which is greater, the damage caused by turning a computer on/off or the damage cause by leaving a computer on for 20 hours a day. My point is that running needlessly for 20 hours a day causes more damage.
Here's a free clue for you: There are things in your computer other than solid state devices. Even solid state devices rely on physical connections- connections vulnerable to this kind of damage.
.
Those components that are not solid state are the ones most likely to kill your device. The dielectric in capacitors degrade with use and even resistors can have their resistance values change over time. I guess my point is that those physical connections of which you speak, while vulnerable to damage, are actually pretty damn reliable. The majority of equipment that I've serviced died as a result of bad capacitors. You can often see bulging caps on broken motherboards, or little burn marks where they've decided to fail. Should it be a solid state device that fails, it's likely due to poor power. Poor power is generally a side effect of worn caps. General rule of thumb, if a motherboard goes for no apparent reason don't replace it without also replacing (or at least testing) the power supply.
I'm not trying to say that turning a computer on/off doesn't cause any damage. I'm saying that in many situations, especially those where there is only limited use, it is better to turn off a computer then to leave it on 24/7.
What's the basis for your assertion? When I was an electronics technician, responsible for keeping a large room full of equipment working, I saw this problem on a regular basis
.
Same here. On equipment that is on 24/7, turning it off/on can be problematic. Moving parts like hard drives and fans are the first to break. They become so worn when operating 24/7 that they have difficulty spinning up. It may look like turning equipment on/off is what kills them, as that is when the problems occur, but in actual fact it is because they were running 24/7.
Where I saw the difference was when working for a school district as a tech. Some schools would leave their computers on 24/7 while others would turn them off when not in use. On average, those that were turned off caused far fewer problems.
My Powerbook G4 with 1gig DDR RAM would sleep for over a week. I only tried it once, but after a week the laptop still ran but had run the battery down to under 15% (if my memory is correct.) The type of memory is actually quite important. For example, SDRAM uses very little power when compared to DDR memory. The big advantage to DDR2 memory isn't the speed, it's the fact that is consumes significantly less power then DDR memory. When Apple upgraded their powerbook G4s to DDR2 memory, the specs for just about everything remained constant but the rated running time increased but about 1/2 hour.
the second is more insidious because while it causes little damage with each occurence, that damage accumulates. Micro cracks in the wires, insulation, board traces, solder joint, even components
.
The effects of such temperature changes on components is negligible. The negative effects of leaving the computer on are actually greater. Ignoring the moving parts, you still have electrical signals (for example, the clock) traversing the entire motherboard that are constantly changing voltage. Magnetic fields are constantly being created / destroyed. These magnetic fields apply forces to their neighboring components. As long as a computer is powered up, damage is being done.
I believe the myth of a computer lasting longer if left on comes from the light bulb. Light bulbs have their tungsten filaments go from room temperature to some outrageously hight temperature in a matter of milliseconds. This results in physical strains that cause the filament to shake violently. Minimizing this shaking extends the life of the filament. But solid state devices aren't effected in the same way so the generalized rule for light bulbs doesn't transfer to modern hardware.
Why do we sleep for ~8h a day? Why do we go through different levels of sleep? Here is how I see it. Having narcolepsy, I've thought about sleep quite a bit...
It's all about efficient use of energy - doing the most with the least food. There really isn't much point to being active at night so we sleep to minimize our use of energy. There are other reasons we require sleep but the reason we sleep for 8h (ie, throughout the night) is to conserve energy.
Humans evolved in groups as hunter/gatherers. Groups allows for some to sleep while others are alert for predators. This would be my explanation for the different levels of sleep. While some are completely comatose, others will wake at the slightest sound. People alternate between being alert and comatose throughout the night. The end result, everyone gets their deep sleep while being protected by those who are more alert.
Note that I didn't explain why we need sleep, just why we sleep the way we do.
If I'm right, we should be ok in artificially modifying our sleeping patters. We can now be productive at night and we no longer have to worry about predators. Why not just go into deep sleep for 4h and wake up refreshed? Evolution can't keep up with our quickly changing environment.
Now those at Stanford think that they have solved the mystery of narcolepsy. At a young age the immune system destroys a group of 10-20 thousand brain cells responsible for producing a chemical that puts the brain into deep sleep. As a result, those with narcolepsy are always tired because they don't get rested when they sleep (trust me, I know..) This drug has been identified so the logical next step would be to see if injecting this drug lets someone with narcolepsy reach deep sleep. The problem is that this drug breaks down in the body too quickly. An artificial version that doesn't break down as fast is required. Development time ~10-15 years mainly due to lack of funding.
But what if this drug could be taken to let regular people get a good sleep in 4hours? Would this not provide a much larger market for the drug? What effect would this have on our society? Just look at the effect the birth control pill had. Food for thought.
While everyone here appears to think that this is a troll, he actually has a point. Depending on the market it could be the best solution. However, if there is enough demand a competitor could release a MacOS version and steal your clients. And not just the MacOS clients. A company of say 100 with 2 Macs could decide to go with your competitor because of those two lousy Macs... Or a company thinking that someday they might want a Mac would have that much more incentive to avoid your product.
I read a blog about the business decisions behind the upcoming Mac port of IBM Notes (or do they still call it Lotus Notes?) Anyway, the comment was that Macs make up only 1% of the market but carry 99% of the weight. (Probably a slight exaggeration on their part.) When I say weight I'm referring to making purchasing decisions. They're a very vocal group and the decision to make a *good* native version of Notes was not based on Mac numbers but on the influence that those few Mac users wielded. Moral of the story, don't dismiss Macs just because only a few of your clients have them.
Clouds may appear to limit the heat from the sun, but in reality they actually add to the problem. The energy from the sun gets transfers into the H2O of the clouds. With respect to global warming, this is no different then the energy transferring into the ground. Either way, the energy from the sun is deposited into the atmosphere.
Where clouds add to the problem is that they insulate the ground preventing heat from escaping. Ever see clouds when it's 40 below? Where I live it never goes below -20 when there are clouds in the sky. Without clouds it can hit -50.
Sensors with GPS units (used for their accurate timers) are placed on various different towers and connected via radio. They detect power spikes resulting from a line breaking / lightning hitting. Based on the times recorded when the spike passes over the two closest towers, the exact position of the fault can be deduced. If it's a break, a crew is sent out to repair the damage. In the case of a lightning strike, line switches can be signaled to disengage on either end of the fault before the effects of the fault pass over them. Once all is ok, the line switches can be reengaged.
They had all this working over 10 years ago when I did a little tour of their R&D lab.
A good idea, but you don't need a separate battery - just leave some power in reserve for use by the cell phone. All these devices already have battery management ICs. The user could even adjust the amount to suit their needs. This would reduce costs while increasing the flexibility of the device.
My area of research is in wireless sensor and actor networks - which more or less covers this material. When it comes to robustness, there are decision making techniques that are more robust then swarms. My personal favorite is in utilizing auctions. An actor receives an event and decides it needs to act. It breaks up the task into subtasks and auctions those subtasks off to neighboring actors. The subtasks are assigned based on who can accomplish the task for the least cost. Actors then work together in an organized fashion to accomplish the task. Should failure occur, it is detected and the subtask re-auctioned.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see when swarm intelligence is the "right approach". My original point was that swarm intelligence evolved because it was the best solution for insects given their limitations. Robots have different limitations - very different. As such, it warrants a different solution.
I've read one paper that debunks swarm intelligence for other reasons (I wish I saved the link.) It basically said that a coordinated solution will always be more efficient then an uncoordinated one. But I've never read anything that identifies the differences between robots and insects as being a reason why swarm intelligence doesn't work with robots - hence my original comment.
I see so much time and effort going into making robots act like insects because insects are so efficient at what they do. It pains me to see this as I believe it is the wrong approach. It's the hype behind swarm intelligence that accounts for it's popularity (I have to admit, it is cool). But when closely examined, I fail to see how it can benefit robots.
But thanks for your comment. It is a topic that warrants discussion and I appreciate the different point of view.
I think that nature is a wonderful place from which researchers can gain inspiration. But when you stop and think about it robots and swarm intelligence just doesn't work. Robots are have different properties then insects and as a result, insect behavior doesn't transfer well to robots.
It's all about energy. Both insects and robots have to be designed to optimize the amount of work done with their limited energy source. There are three basic tasks that consume energy.
- thinking - communication - acting (ie, moving)
Insects:
Thinking is the most expensive task for an insect. Brains are expensive. They use a lot of energy and require a physical body to support the increased energy usage. As a result, insects don't think - they act. There actions are hard coded so as to minimize cost.
Communication is difficult for insects to implement. Pheromones are relatively inexpensive, but impose serious limitations. Visual communication is possible (look at bees) but isn't used much. It also requires good eyesight and a neural network to decipher the images (both of which consume energy.) Audio communication is also possible but requires significant resources (ie, a brain) in order to be effective. In real life it is only used for the most basic forms of communication (look at crickets.) What I'm basically saying is that communication is expensive - as a result, insects found ways to work with minimal communication.
Acting requires energy, but it is the most efficient of the three tasks. If you take into consideration that insects already require a body to acquire food and reproduce, the added cost of using that body to perform an action is minimal. Acting requires no additional parts, it only consumes a small additional amount of energy.
Robots
Acting is the most expensive task for a robot. To act, a robot requires a body. This adds weight, motors, complexity. Batteries suck, have a limited lifespan and are difficult to recharge. Nothing reduces an actor's lifespan quicker then acting. While new technology can improve the lifespan, it won't improve fast enough.
Communication is expensive for a robot, but much cheaper then acting. Wireless communication allows for sophisticated communication between robots while using only a minimal amount of energy. New technology will improve the efficiency of communication more then it will the efficiency of acting.
Thinking is cheap for a robot. New CPUs allow for complex programs while only consuming microamps.
So this is what you have: (hight energy usage to low energy usage)
They are the exact opposite. Does it really make sense to have robots mimic insects? It's crazy. A more efficient way for robots to perform a group task is to have them cooperate explicitly. Elect a leader, create a plan of action, distribute that plan, then act together while minimizing the amount of energy required.
Instead of logging in as an admin to install software, just change the rights of your current user - temporarily. This way all the user specific changes the installer is required to do won't be lost. Of course, it really shouldn't matter one way or the other - the fact that it does shows that Apple didn't design the Windows version as well as the Mac version. Either that or Windows doesn't make it as easy to do as MacOS.
It's about the software. With a larger market share more companies will write software for MacOS - that will effect you. And even those companies that currently support MacOS will have more motivation to provide better quality software.
Ever go to a website that doesn't render correctly in Safari or Firefox? There are plenty of them out there. Again, a larger market share would help prevent this.
Open source is great and all but one still needs full specifications in order to make a high performance driver. Just look at the open source ATI drivers, they lack the features and performance of the binary drivers.
So my question is this - does Intel also fully disclose the full specifications and internal workings of their chipset? My guess is no. Most likely, the drivers will be developed by Intel employees with access to internal documents. Those drivers could then be debugged and possibly optimized by the community but the community will still be locked out of development.
Frankly, the platform matters less when it comes to these things than the user's behaviour.
True, but what you're forgetting is that the platform influences behavior. Well designed software will be designed such that it makes it difficult for users to mess up while being convenient for users to do things "correctly". The fact that all your friends and relatives who use Windows keep making the same mistakes just proves this point.
And about the friends and relatives thing - I concur 100%. I've given up on trying to teach my Windows colleagues how to not get a virus. Funny thing is, none of my Mac friends have to put up with this. So I would argue that platform truly does make a difference.
War likely does effect evolution - but evolution of culture, not genetics. In fact, one can view non-physical entities such as cultures and religions as entities for which evolution does apply.
802.11b is supposed to be 11 Mbit per second, but I rarely get that, because it's divided among the other users of the access point.
Not really.. The rated speed is the speed of the physical layer. Same with ethernet. Wireless just has more overhead associated with it so the actual data transfer rates are much slower. Once you take into account MAC and IP overhead, that 11Mbit turns into ~6 Mbit.
802.11b actually works much like traditional telephone modems. There are several physical speeds supported. When the two modems connect they negotiate the speed that will provide the greatest overall bandwidth. Often this is 11Mbit but sometimes it is 1.5Mbit. A professor from UBC recently lectured at UNBC about a new ieee proposal he designed. Great stuff, it's amazing how a simple change can result in such a large improvement.
Ok, this is off topic but I'll briefly review his idea. Essentially he suggests that the MAC protocol support two kind of errors - collisions and noise (ie, environmental). The current MAC protocol treats these the same. Currently, on an error the MAC protocol stops, waits, and tries again. The wait time increases with more errors. This is great for collisions, but unnecessary for noise.
Differentiating between the two types of errors does impose a little overhead, but the gains are worth it. In his simulations, overall bandwidth usage improved by ~10% on average. There were even instances where usage improved by >60%.
I wish I had a link to his presentation, but I don't. Needless to say, there is a little more too it then I described. If you want to search for it, be advised that he is a CS instructor at UBC and is also of asian descent (I think Chinese). Oh well, the point I was originally trying to make is that physical speed > data speed but this doesn't mean that the hardware isn't actually communicating at the rated physical speed.
Don't forget that the Intel chip is a laptop chip that is designed to run in nice small enclosures. These enclosures have poor ventilation and the rated clock speed must take this into account. Put the same laptop chip into a desktop with a real heat sink/fan and proper ventilation and it should overclock just fine. In fact, when real desktop chips are released they will probably just relabel the portable chips with a higher power consumption, voltage and clock frequency.
iTunes was out before the Nomad and does exactly what Creative's patent describes. In fact, the iPod's interface is simply an extension of the interface found in iTunes. The reasons for this are obvious.
The question here is: Is a specialized portable computer any different from a personal computer with respect to the patent in question?
All the Ice melting off Greenland might suck if you live in Venice, New Orleans, or some other port town that is mostly below sea level, but it's the best news ever if you've invested in any arctic real estate.
Most of the arctic is made up of islands. As water level increases, those islands will either shrink or submerge. Not very good for arctic real estate.
Mine works quite well in snow and mixed snow/ice/mud, even offroad. I'm really impressed by it.
Generally speaking, I also think it's great. However, I've had lots of problems with a Mazda truck - (I believe it was a 92 so it's probably fixed now.) Anyway, when breaking on gravel just as it is turning into asphalt (like at a stop sign to a gravel off-road), the ABS wouldn't recognize the change in surface. The effect was that you can't stop at the stop sign - you'll go 20' into the intersection if not careful. It's a weird (and unpleasant) feeling when you're pressing the breaks harder and harder but nothing is happening. When using a vehicle without ABS stoping isn't a problem. Start to slow down on the gravel then once the tires touch asphalt, push the breaks a little harder...
My point is that I can see if some people don't like ABS. It had it's problems. I wonder, have they all been fixed? Probably...
These is not an insurgent war. This is a religious civil war that the US made possible by kicking over a strong man.
No, it is not a religious war. Wars are never about religion, religion is just a tool used to motivate people to fight. The insurgents are simply getting the people worked up so they will revolt. The more fighting the better as far as they are concerned - remember, it all gets blamed on the current leadership. Once the current leadership has been sufficiently crippled, they will offer the people an alternative. They will offer the people security and the people will accept. This would be the start of their dark ages....
To be honest, I would merrily in favor of giving them a 1 year notice and telling them to get their shit together because we are getting out. Then drawing back simply defend the Iraqi borders to keep outside parties from entering Iraq, and letting them deal with their own shit.
This is exactly what the insurgents want. Their peace won't last. There will be violence and a lot of death. In the end, Iraq would be far worse off then when Hussein was in power. The US really messed this country up - they owe it to the Iraqi people to maintain security until the elected government can hold it's own. If not, it'll be the Taliban all over again.
People are like sheep and can be easily manipulated. I think the States was ignorant of the fact that for a Democracy to work, you need an educated population that both understands and appreciates Democracy. You need a population that is a little less like sheep. If instead of prosecuting Hussein, the States left him in power with a new mandate - a mandate to educate, provide certain human rights, and eventually (~10years) transfer all power to a democratically elected officials - much of this violence could have been avoided. With US troops on the ground, ensuring Hussein lives up to his end of the bargain would have been easy. Reform without all the death..
Slashdot Mirror
Saw a discovery channel show that described the early M16 problems as being the result of the ammunition. The powder wasn't to spec, didn't burn clean, and resulted in the gun jamming. I imagine that current ammunition doesn't have this problem.
I would like a firearm that does not require maintenance. The thing is, I wouldn't want to compromise the accuracy in doing so. So the M16 is great for what it is, but so is the AK47. Two different guns for two different types of soldiers.
Leaving a computer running all the time stabilizes the temperature.
Agreed. Now the question is this; Which is greater, the damage caused by turning a computer on/off or the damage cause by leaving a computer on for 20 hours a day. My point is that running needlessly for 20 hours a day causes more damage.
.
Those components that are not solid state are the ones most likely to kill your device. The dielectric in capacitors degrade with use and even resistors can have their resistance values change over time. I guess my point is that those physical connections of which you speak, while vulnerable to damage, are actually pretty damn reliable. The majority of equipment that I've serviced died as a result of bad capacitors. You can often see bulging caps on broken motherboards, or little burn marks where they've decided to fail. Should it be a solid state device that fails, it's likely due to poor power. Poor power is generally a side effect of worn caps. General rule of thumb, if a motherboard goes for no apparent reason don't replace it without also replacing (or at least testing) the power supply.
I'm not trying to say that turning a computer on/off doesn't cause any damage. I'm saying that in many situations, especially those where there is only limited use, it is better to turn off a computer then to leave it on 24/7.
Same here. On equipment that is on 24/7, turning it off/on can be problematic. Moving parts like hard drives and fans are the first to break. They become so worn when operating 24/7 that they have difficulty spinning up. It may look like turning equipment on/off is what kills them, as that is when the problems occur, but in actual fact it is because they were running 24/7.
Where I saw the difference was when working for a school district as a tech. Some schools would leave their computers on 24/7 while others would turn them off when not in use. On average, those that were turned off caused far fewer problems.
My Powerbook G4 with 1gig DDR RAM would sleep for over a week. I only tried it once, but after a week the laptop still ran but had run the battery down to under 15% (if my memory is correct.) The type of memory is actually quite important. For example, SDRAM uses very little power when compared to DDR memory. The big advantage to DDR2 memory isn't the speed, it's the fact that is consumes significantly less power then DDR memory. When Apple upgraded their powerbook G4s to DDR2 memory, the specs for just about everything remained constant but the rated running time increased but about 1/2 hour.
.
The effects of such temperature changes on components is negligible. The negative effects of leaving the computer on are actually greater. Ignoring the moving parts, you still have electrical signals (for example, the clock) traversing the entire motherboard that are constantly changing voltage. Magnetic fields are constantly being created / destroyed. These magnetic fields apply forces to their neighboring components. As long as a computer is powered up, damage is being done.
I believe the myth of a computer lasting longer if left on comes from the light bulb. Light bulbs have their tungsten filaments go from room temperature to some outrageously hight temperature in a matter of milliseconds. This results in physical strains that cause the filament to shake violently. Minimizing this shaking extends the life of the filament. But solid state devices aren't effected in the same way so the generalized rule for light bulbs doesn't transfer to modern hardware.
Why do we sleep for ~8h a day? Why do we go through different levels of sleep? Here is how I see it. Having narcolepsy, I've thought about sleep quite a bit...
It's all about efficient use of energy - doing the most with the least food. There really isn't much point to being active at night so we sleep to minimize our use of energy. There are other reasons we require sleep but the reason we sleep for 8h (ie, throughout the night) is to conserve energy.
Humans evolved in groups as hunter/gatherers. Groups allows for some to sleep while others are alert for predators. This would be my explanation for the different levels of sleep. While some are completely comatose, others will wake at the slightest sound. People alternate between being alert and comatose throughout the night. The end result, everyone gets their deep sleep while being protected by those who are more alert.
Note that I didn't explain why we need sleep, just why we sleep the way we do.
If I'm right, we should be ok in artificially modifying our sleeping patters. We can now be productive at night and we no longer have to worry about predators. Why not just go into deep sleep for 4h and wake up refreshed? Evolution can't keep up with our quickly changing environment.
Now those at Stanford think that they have solved the mystery of narcolepsy. At a young age the immune system destroys a group of 10-20 thousand brain cells responsible for producing a chemical that puts the brain into deep sleep. As a result, those with narcolepsy are always tired because they don't get rested when they sleep (trust me, I know..) This drug has been identified so the logical next step would be to see if injecting this drug lets someone with narcolepsy reach deep sleep. The problem is that this drug breaks down in the body too quickly. An artificial version that doesn't break down as fast is required. Development time ~10-15 years mainly due to lack of funding.
But what if this drug could be taken to let regular people get a good sleep in 4hours? Would this not provide a much larger market for the drug? What effect would this have on our society? Just look at the effect the birth control pill had. Food for thought.
Willy
While everyone here appears to think that this is a troll, he actually has a point. Depending on the market it could be the best solution. However, if there is enough demand a competitor could release a MacOS version and steal your clients. And not just the MacOS clients. A company of say 100 with 2 Macs could decide to go with your competitor because of those two lousy Macs... Or a company thinking that someday they might want a Mac would have that much more incentive to avoid your product.
I read a blog about the business decisions behind the upcoming Mac port of IBM Notes (or do they still call it Lotus Notes?) Anyway, the comment was that Macs make up only 1% of the market but carry 99% of the weight. (Probably a slight exaggeration on their part.) When I say weight I'm referring to making purchasing decisions. They're a very vocal group and the decision to make a *good* native version of Notes was not based on Mac numbers but on the influence that those few Mac users wielded. Moral of the story, don't dismiss Macs just because only a few of your clients have them.
Willy
Clouds may appear to limit the heat from the sun, but in reality they actually add to the problem. The energy from the sun gets transfers into the H2O of the clouds. With respect to global warming, this is no different then the energy transferring into the ground. Either way, the energy from the sun is deposited into the atmosphere.
Where clouds add to the problem is that they insulate the ground preventing heat from escaping. Ever see clouds when it's 40 below? Where I live it never goes below -20 when there are clouds in the sky. Without clouds it can hit -50.
A system in British Columbia already exists..
Sensors with GPS units (used for their accurate timers) are placed on various different towers and connected via radio. They detect power spikes resulting from a line breaking / lightning hitting. Based on the times recorded when the spike passes over the two closest towers, the exact position of the fault can be deduced. If it's a break, a crew is sent out to repair the damage. In the case of a lightning strike, line switches can be signaled to disengage on either end of the fault before the effects of the fault pass over them. Once all is ok, the line switches can be reengaged.
They had all this working over 10 years ago when I did a little tour of their R&D lab.
A good idea, but you don't need a separate battery - just leave some power in reserve for use by the cell phone. All these devices already have battery management ICs. The user could even adjust the amount to suit their needs. This would reduce costs while increasing the flexibility of the device.
Willy
My area of research is in wireless sensor and actor networks - which more or less covers this material. When it comes to robustness, there are decision making techniques that are more robust then swarms. My personal favorite is in utilizing auctions. An actor receives an event and decides it needs to act. It breaks up the task into subtasks and auctions those subtasks off to neighboring actors. The subtasks are assigned based on who can accomplish the task for the least cost. Actors then work together in an organized fashion to accomplish the task. Should failure occur, it is detected and the subtask re-auctioned.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see when swarm intelligence is the "right approach". My original point was that swarm intelligence evolved because it was the best solution for insects given their limitations. Robots have different limitations - very different. As such, it warrants a different solution.
I've read one paper that debunks swarm intelligence for other reasons (I wish I saved the link.) It basically said that a coordinated solution will always be more efficient then an uncoordinated one. But I've never read anything that identifies the differences between robots and insects as being a reason why swarm intelligence doesn't work with robots - hence my original comment.
I see so much time and effort going into making robots act like insects because insects are so efficient at what they do. It pains me to see this as I believe it is the wrong approach. It's the hype behind swarm intelligence that accounts for it's popularity (I have to admit, it is cool). But when closely examined, I fail to see how it can benefit robots.
But thanks for your comment. It is a topic that warrants discussion and I appreciate the different point of view.
Willy
I think that nature is a wonderful place from which researchers can gain inspiration. But when you stop and think about it robots and swarm intelligence just doesn't work. Robots are have different properties then insects and as a result, insect behavior doesn't transfer well to robots.
It's all about energy. Both insects and robots have to be designed to optimize the amount of work done with their limited energy source. There are three basic tasks that consume energy.
- thinking
- communication
- acting (ie, moving)
Insects:
Thinking is the most expensive task for an insect. Brains are expensive. They use a lot of energy and require a physical body to support the increased energy usage. As a result, insects don't think - they act. There actions are hard coded so as to minimize cost.
Communication is difficult for insects to implement. Pheromones are relatively inexpensive, but impose serious limitations. Visual communication is possible (look at bees) but isn't used much. It also requires good eyesight and a neural network to decipher the images (both of which consume energy.) Audio communication is also possible but requires significant resources (ie, a brain) in order to be effective. In real life it is only used for the most basic forms of communication (look at crickets.) What I'm basically saying is that communication is expensive - as a result, insects found ways to work with minimal communication.
Acting requires energy, but it is the most efficient of the three tasks. If you take into consideration that insects already require a body to acquire food and reproduce, the added cost of using that body to perform an action is minimal. Acting requires no additional parts, it only consumes a small additional amount of energy.
Robots
Acting is the most expensive task for a robot. To act, a robot requires a body. This adds weight, motors, complexity. Batteries suck, have a limited lifespan and are difficult to recharge. Nothing reduces an actor's lifespan quicker then acting. While new technology can improve the lifespan, it won't improve fast enough.
Communication is expensive for a robot, but much cheaper then acting. Wireless communication allows for sophisticated communication between robots while using only a minimal amount of energy. New technology will improve the efficiency of communication more then it will the efficiency of acting.
Thinking is cheap for a robot. New CPUs allow for complex programs while only consuming microamps.
So this is what you have: (hight energy usage to low energy usage)
insects - thinking, communicating, acting
robots - acting, communicating, thinking
They are the exact opposite. Does it really make sense to have robots mimic insects? It's crazy. A more efficient way for robots to perform a group task is to have them cooperate explicitly. Elect a leader, create a plan of action, distribute that plan, then act together while minimizing the amount of energy required.
Willy
Instead of logging in as an admin to install software, just change the rights of your current user - temporarily. This way all the user specific changes the installer is required to do won't be lost. Of course, it really shouldn't matter one way or the other - the fact that it does shows that Apple didn't design the Windows version as well as the Mac version. Either that or Windows doesn't make it as easy to do as MacOS.
Ever go to a website that doesn't render correctly in Safari or Firefox? There are plenty of them out there. Again, a larger market share would help prevent this.
Willy
So my question is this - does Intel also fully disclose the full specifications and internal workings of their chipset? My guess is no. Most likely, the drivers will be developed by Intel employees with access to internal documents. Those drivers could then be debugged and possibly optimized by the community but the community will still be locked out of development.
Willy
True, but what you're forgetting is that the platform influences behavior. Well designed software will be designed such that it makes it difficult for users to mess up while being convenient for users to do things "correctly". The fact that all your friends and relatives who use Windows keep making the same mistakes just proves this point.
And about the friends and relatives thing - I concur 100%. I've given up on trying to teach my Windows colleagues how to not get a virus. Funny thing is, none of my Mac friends have to put up with this. So I would argue that platform truly does make a difference.
Willy
War likely does effect evolution - but evolution of culture, not genetics. In fact, one can view non-physical entities such as cultures and religions as entities for which evolution does apply.
Not really.. The rated speed is the speed of the physical layer. Same with ethernet. Wireless just has more overhead associated with it so the actual data transfer rates are much slower. Once you take into account MAC and IP overhead, that 11Mbit turns into ~6 Mbit.
802.11b actually works much like traditional telephone modems. There are several physical speeds supported. When the two modems connect they negotiate the speed that will provide the greatest overall bandwidth. Often this is 11Mbit but sometimes it is 1.5Mbit. A professor from UBC recently lectured at UNBC about a new ieee proposal he designed. Great stuff, it's amazing how a simple change can result in such a large improvement.
Ok, this is off topic but I'll briefly review his idea. Essentially he suggests that the MAC protocol support two kind of errors - collisions and noise (ie, environmental). The current MAC protocol treats these the same. Currently, on an error the MAC protocol stops, waits, and tries again. The wait time increases with more errors. This is great for collisions, but unnecessary for noise.
Differentiating between the two types of errors does impose a little overhead, but the gains are worth it. In his simulations, overall bandwidth usage improved by ~10% on average. There were even instances where usage improved by >60%.
I wish I had a link to his presentation, but I don't. Needless to say, there is a little more too it then I described. If you want to search for it, be advised that he is a CS instructor at UBC and is also of asian descent (I think Chinese). Oh well, the point I was originally trying to make is that physical speed > data speed but this doesn't mean that the hardware isn't actually communicating at the rated physical speed.
Don't forget that the Intel chip is a laptop chip that is designed to run in nice small enclosures. These enclosures have poor ventilation and the rated clock speed must take this into account. Put the same laptop chip into a desktop with a real heat sink/fan and proper ventilation and it should overclock just fine. In fact, when real desktop chips are released they will probably just relabel the portable chips with a higher power consumption, voltage and clock frequency.
The question here is: Is a specialized portable computer any different from a personal computer with respect to the patent in question?
Willy
Willy
Most of the arctic is made up of islands. As water level increases, those islands will either shrink or submerge. Not very good for arctic real estate.
Willy
Generally speaking, I also think it's great. However, I've had lots of problems with a Mazda truck - (I believe it was a 92 so it's probably fixed now.) Anyway, when breaking on gravel just as it is turning into asphalt (like at a stop sign to a gravel off-road), the ABS wouldn't recognize the change in surface. The effect was that you can't stop at the stop sign - you'll go 20' into the intersection if not careful. It's a weird (and unpleasant) feeling when you're pressing the breaks harder and harder but nothing is happening. When using a vehicle without ABS stoping isn't a problem. Start to slow down on the gravel then once the tires touch asphalt, push the breaks a little harder...
My point is that I can see if some people don't like ABS. It had it's problems. I wonder, have they all been fixed? Probably...
Willy
No, it is not a religious war. Wars are never about religion, religion is just a tool used to motivate people to fight. The insurgents are simply getting the people worked up so they will revolt. The more fighting the better as far as they are concerned - remember, it all gets blamed on the current leadership. Once the current leadership has been sufficiently crippled, they will offer the people an alternative. They will offer the people security and the people will accept. This would be the start of their dark ages....
To be honest, I would merrily in favor of giving them a 1 year notice and telling them to get their shit together because we are getting out. Then drawing back simply defend the Iraqi borders to keep outside parties from entering Iraq, and letting them deal with their own shit.
This is exactly what the insurgents want. Their peace won't last. There will be violence and a lot of death. In the end, Iraq would be far worse off then when Hussein was in power. The US really messed this country up - they owe it to the Iraqi people to maintain security until the elected government can hold it's own. If not, it'll be the Taliban all over again.
People are like sheep and can be easily manipulated. I think the States was ignorant of the fact that for a Democracy to work, you need an educated population that both understands and appreciates Democracy. You need a population that is a little less like sheep. If instead of prosecuting Hussein, the States left him in power with a new mandate - a mandate to educate, provide certain human rights, and eventually (~10years) transfer all power to a democratically elected officials - much of this violence could have been avoided. With US troops on the ground, ensuring Hussein lives up to his end of the bargain would have been easy. Reform without all the death..