But if a cpu in 2015 can simulate 100 billion neurons sending signals to each other a couple hundred times a second over 100 trillion morphing connections asynchronously... sign me up!
The article doesn't mention anything about the stresses this concrete can take. It just says it looks exactly like concrete and cracks less.
I don't think this kind of concrete is the kind builders would want to make lower-level walls of very tall buildings with. Sure it can handle tensile stresses very well and is extremely flexible, but how will this "concrete" react to compressive stresses? Flexible concrete means less force is required to make it buckle and warp.
Will this concrete be appropriate for floors of condomunium and office towers? Will the concrete floor warp if a heavy copier is moved into the office, or if someone moves in a piano?
Maybe because it's lighter, concrete floors can be made thicker, and thus less prone to warping, but I really think something like this would be better suited in bridges, roads, houses, and maybe their foundations.
I wonder who will be the first to undergo this procedure sometime before they're about to die.
Maybe they'll pay somebody to put them into hibernation when they're 75 years old and tired of life, and have instructions to wake them up when we finally have flying cars.
However, I don't think this kind of thing would happen if someone were prosecuted under this law.
I dunno, the general public are under this presumption that "computer pirates" are "out to steal everything they can" using technology. Spam, trojans, viruses, "hackers", "movie pirates" are all the general public really knows about computer users who are guilty of the real-world equivalent as petty-theft.
If anyone is tried under this law, it will be some 19 year-old the entertainment industry will make an example of. They will put him in jail, take his keyboard and hoist it on a 5m-long pike outside corporate head office.
Look at those college kids who got nailed by those John Doe lawsuits. The industry probably lost millions pursuing them, but they did it anyway just to make a point.
Only difference now is that instead of students paying a fine/settlement, the U.S. is going to put their own university and college students into prisons. Again, just to prove a point... and all for the sake of entertainment.
Why not use a hidden markov model to filter spam that use random digits as filler?
A very basic filter will work this way:
Train a network of say, 30 to 40 units, with any english text. The training text doesn't just have to be limited to letters and numbers, it can include other ascii characters as well, because the hidden markov model will create distributions for them as well.
Now, for each new email that comes in, grab random chunks of text (maybe random 30-character strings) and see how probable the text would be in this hidden markov model. If it turns out not very likely, then scrap it.
Any thoughts?
Re:They just want better pricing from Intel
on
Dell Might do AMD
·
· Score: 1
Actually, this sounds to me to be a hint from the CEO for people to really make a point of wanting amd procs when calling up Dell sales lines.
If I were a Dell CEO, profiting like crazy already on Intel machines, while fully knowing that the overhead costs of getting into amd are fairly high and requires a lot of changes... I would not be able to make such a drastic change in direction if there were no hard numbers to support the claim of strong profitable demand for amd machines.
So do what he says, start demanding amd machines from dell, instead of mumbling under our breaths about how they won't.
You raise some interesting and very valid points. Many of which I've never considered before. You're not like the other creationists that write about our Flinstones existence with dinosaurs 6000 years ago.
Because evolution demands that to go from species/animal A to species/animal B, there have to be 'x' sub-species/animals between A and B.
I guess your proof of evolution would be to see every generation of every animal in history lined up one against the other with complete dna samples respectively with each genetic mutation between each generation accounted for all the way up to modern day human huh?
That's fair I guess. Impossible. But fair.
It's not any less than any atheist would request for (what they would consider) proof of the existence of god. Also just as impossible. But also just as fair.
I would think evolution of language would be enough to answer any questions anybody had about evolution a la Darwin. Same concept. I mean, they're not identical in every respect, but it is fairly analogous in explaining how hundreds of distinct languages can exist in the world today, while acknowledging that they evolved from one (or a couple) root languages.
(While at the same time there's no evidence of one language *directly* "morphing" into another in a discrete manner).
I mean, I think you'd be hard-pressed to explain the eventual evolution of the british accent spanning only one, or even several generations of humanity. So why expect the same level of proof from genetics?
"I arrived at creationism using the Sherlock Holmes method: Eliminate the impossible, and whatever's left, however improbable, is the truth. Since evolution is mathematically so remote so as to be impossible I gave up on it"
I think this is the flaw (bias) in your approach. If evolution is improbable, it is *not* impossible.
Evolution may be improbable, creationism may just be as improbable, but for some reason you've written off evolution's improbability as impossibility, and somehow accepted creationism's improbability.
------
And, nobody can show you a squirrel "in the process" of evolving. But I *can* paint you a theoretical picture.
In a part of China, a handful of people have been discovered to posess a certain gene that makes them immune to HIV. If they have a lot of babies and they have a lot of sex over the next thousand years or so, the number of hiv-immune people will grow. The remaining population not immune to hiv will die off, leaving only the hiv-immune people in the world.
This is an example of an accidental mutation. This is an example of an accidental mutation benefiting humans. This is an example of an accidental mutation benefiting humans in a way that will extend their lifespans longer than those without this accidental mutation.
Yeah, it's the same here in Canada too. It's either permission, or a court-order that gets 3rd parties access to your information.
If a company had presence in both the UK and the States, the data was in the UK, and the U.S. asked that company for data that resided in the UK, citing the Patriot Act, I don't know why, but I think the U.S. part of the company would be forced to cooperate and produce the data for the feds. Namely, the U.S. side of the company must obey U.S. laws, and "give permission" to the feds to get data from the UK... data protection act or no data protection act.
It sucks I know, because that would mean *any* foreign company setting up shop in the U.S. would be vulnerable to this sort of iron-fisting.
Re:Why move privacy-sensitive data offsite anyway?
on
What's Going On in Canada?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It has nothing to do with where the data is actually stored.
Case and point.
Up here, Royal Bank of Canada's credit card business is outsourced to a U.S. firm. Because of this setup, this U.S. credit card firm has to give up RBC customer data to government officials if they use the Patriot Act to get at it.
So, let's say (hypothetically) that the scenario is flipped around. So instead of RBC outsourcing to the U.S., we're talking about Chase Manhattan, and they've outsourced their credit card business to RBC. I think it'd be pretty safe to say that credit card data would still be accessible to the U.S. government through the Patriot Act.
I think this would be the case for any company that incorporates in the states, no matter where their head office or data is.
One way to fix the patent system (re: software patents) without going through the arduous process of patent revokations, appeals, re-reviews, peer-reviews, court dates, dumb juries, is to simply limit patent protection to 2 to 3 years.
That way, those who are serious about their idea will be given plenty of time to get a head start and license out to those who can't wait, or don't want to fall that far behind the curve.
Those who make it their business model to sue won't have much time to sue. Most companies may just simply wait it out, or license a non-infringing technology, or simply work out some 2-3 year licensing agreement.
And once the protection time is over, those who waited will have to play catch-up... and it'll be back to the good'ol days where companies actually competed on things like cost and quality.
"The iTunes Music Store (and Napster, Walmart, etc) are still screwing the artists."
You know I hear about this all the time, and as an artist that works with a recent grammy winner, as well as my partner having a dozen gold and platinum, I've rarely heard artists complain about getting screwed over by the RIAA or the iTMS
You haven't said much except the fact that the multi-gold/platinum-grammy-award-winner artists you work with don't feel like they're getting screwed.
Well duh.
And who said anything about looking after your best interests? *You* should be looking out for your best interests. *We* should be looking out for our own best interests. Your best interests include getting your music heard, and making $$$. Our best interests include paying only for the music we want. Us looking out for your best interests would be a conflict of interest. The gravy boat of online distribution of music is leaving port, and us telling the music industry "You'd better get onboard if you don't want to get fscked over" is probably the most we'll ever care about your best interests.
The funny thing that most people don't realize is that there are laws in most a lot of cities (especially in California) that ban trucks weighing more than 6000lb from driving on residential streets.
For SUV's to qualify for tax breaks, they're classified as "trucks", and they're intentionally made to pass the 6000lb weight requirement.
These SUV's are practically illegal to drive on every residential street in Santa Monica, most residential streets in San Fransisco, and a ton of other cities.
So while these people may be able to get their driver's license by driving a prius, they'll be hard-pressed to make proper use of their SUV's.
Well, that is, if these cities actually enforced their own by-laws.
I think the low pressure from the top of the bottom rotor would have eliminated the high pressure below the top rotor, disabling the top rotor's ability to produce lift.
Since the top rotor wasn't producing lift, the rotor would sag, while the lower rotor was, and straightened out, and *crunch*...
How much difference would there be in air pressure between the top and bottom of each rotor?
It's been a while since my last fluid mechanics class, but wouldn't the low-pressure above the bottom rotor "suck" the top rotor downward every time the two rotors overlapped each other while spinning?... causing the top and bottom rotors to bounce (if ever so slightly) up and down?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, 22.8 teraflops is waaaay not enough.
... sign me up!
But if a cpu in 2015 can simulate 100 billion neurons sending signals to each other a couple hundred times a second over 100 trillion morphing connections asynchronously
The article doesn't mention anything about the stresses this concrete can take. It just says it looks exactly like concrete and cracks less.
I don't think this kind of concrete is the kind builders would want to make lower-level walls of very tall buildings with. Sure it can handle tensile stresses very well and is extremely flexible, but how will this "concrete" react to compressive stresses? Flexible concrete means less force is required to make it buckle and warp.
Will this concrete be appropriate for floors of condomunium and office towers? Will the concrete floor warp if a heavy copier is moved into the office, or if someone moves in a piano?
Maybe because it's lighter, concrete floors can be made thicker, and thus less prone to warping, but I really think something like this would be better suited in bridges, roads, houses, and maybe their foundations.
The Genographic Project
This might tickle your brain a bit.
On earth, the day is blue and the sun sets red.
On mars, it's the other way around: The day is red and the sunsets are blue.
Weird huh?
I wonder who will be the first to undergo this procedure sometime before they're about to die.
Maybe they'll pay somebody to put them into hibernation when they're 75 years old and tired of life, and have instructions to wake them up when we finally have flying cars.
I agree, and you have a very good point.
However, I don't think this kind of thing would happen if someone were prosecuted under this law.
I dunno, the general public are under this presumption that "computer pirates" are "out to steal everything they can" using technology. Spam, trojans, viruses, "hackers", "movie pirates" are all the general public really knows about computer users who are guilty of the real-world equivalent as petty-theft.
If anyone is tried under this law, it will be some 19 year-old the entertainment industry will make an example of. They will put him in jail, take his keyboard and hoist it on a 5m-long pike outside corporate head office.
Look at those college kids who got nailed by those John Doe lawsuits. The industry probably lost millions pursuing them, but they did it anyway just to make a point.
Only difference now is that instead of students paying a fine/settlement, the U.S. is going to put their own university and college students into prisons. Again, just to prove a point... and all for the sake of entertainment.
God bless the United States of America indeed.
They're gonna need all the help they can get.
Why not use a hidden markov model to filter spam that use random digits as filler?
A very basic filter will work this way:
Train a network of say, 30 to 40 units, with any english text. The training text doesn't just have to be limited to letters and numbers, it can include other ascii characters as well, because the hidden markov model will create distributions for them as well.
Now, for each new email that comes in, grab random chunks of text (maybe random 30-character strings) and see how probable the text would be in this hidden markov model. If it turns out not very likely, then scrap it.
Any thoughts?
Actually, this sounds to me to be a hint from the CEO for people to really make a point of wanting amd procs when calling up Dell sales lines.
If I were a Dell CEO, profiting like crazy already on Intel machines, while fully knowing that the overhead costs of getting into amd are fairly high and requires a lot of changes... I would not be able to make such a drastic change in direction if there were no hard numbers to support the claim of strong profitable demand for amd machines.
So do what he says, start demanding amd machines from dell, instead of mumbling under our breaths about how they won't.
It's actually closer to 10^11 neurons in the brain, which just blows your mind even more!
Google news (includes reg-free nytimes link).
Can't the person who took this photo just walk up and take a few pictures of that light post that seems to have been struck by something?
... will all those who bought licenses get their money back?
You raise some interesting and very valid points. Many of which I've never considered before.
You're not like the other creationists that write about our Flinstones existence with dinosaurs 6000 years ago.
Because evolution demands that to go from species/animal A to species/animal B, there have to be 'x' sub-species/animals between A and B.
I guess your proof of evolution would be to see every generation of every animal in history lined up one against the other with complete dna samples respectively with each genetic mutation between each generation accounted for all the way up to modern day human huh?
That's fair I guess.
Impossible. But fair.
It's not any less than any atheist would request for (what they would consider) proof of the existence of god.
Also just as impossible. But also just as fair.
I would think evolution of language would be enough to answer any questions anybody had about evolution a la Darwin. Same concept. I mean, they're not identical in every respect, but it is fairly analogous in explaining how hundreds of distinct languages can exist in the world today, while acknowledging that they evolved from one (or a couple) root languages.
(While at the same time there's no evidence of one language *directly* "morphing" into another in a discrete manner).
I mean, I think you'd be hard-pressed to explain the eventual evolution of the british accent spanning only one, or even several generations of humanity. So why expect the same level of proof from genetics?
Just something to think about.
(cont'd from my last post)
Cancer is an example of an accidental mutation that does *not* benefit humans in a way that will extend their lifespans.
This is what evolution is.
However improbable... it IS possible.
"I arrived at creationism using the Sherlock Holmes method: Eliminate the impossible, and whatever's left, however improbable, is the truth. Since evolution is mathematically so remote so as to be impossible I gave up on it"
I think this is the flaw (bias) in your approach.
If evolution is improbable, it is *not* impossible.
Evolution may be improbable, creationism may just be as improbable, but for some reason you've written off evolution's improbability as impossibility, and somehow accepted creationism's improbability.
------
And, nobody can show you a squirrel "in the process" of evolving. But I *can* paint you a theoretical picture.
In a part of China, a handful of people have been discovered to posess a certain gene that makes them immune to HIV.
If they have a lot of babies and they have a lot of sex over the next thousand years or so, the number of hiv-immune people will grow. The remaining population not immune to hiv will die off, leaving only the hiv-immune people in the world.
This is an example of an accidental mutation.
This is an example of an accidental mutation benefiting humans.
This is an example of an accidental mutation benefiting humans in a way that will extend their lifespans longer than those without this accidental mutation.
This is what evolution is.
Yeah, it's the same here in Canada too. It's either permission, or a court-order that gets 3rd parties access to your information.
If a company had presence in both the UK and the States, the data was in the UK, and the U.S. asked that company for data that resided in the UK, citing the Patriot Act, I don't know why, but I think the U.S. part of the company would be forced to cooperate and produce the data for the feds. Namely, the U.S. side of the company must obey U.S. laws, and "give permission" to the feds to get data from the UK... data protection act or no data protection act.
It sucks I know, because that would mean *any* foreign company setting up shop in the U.S. would be vulnerable to this sort of iron-fisting.
It has nothing to do with where the data is actually stored.
= /2 0041002/TTMONEY08/210020513/-1/MONEY
Case and point.
Up here, Royal Bank of Canada's credit card business is outsourced to a U.S. firm. Because of this setup, this U.S. credit card firm has to give up RBC customer data to government officials if they use the Patriot Act to get at it.
http://canadaeast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID
So, let's say (hypothetically) that the scenario is flipped around. So instead of RBC outsourcing to the U.S., we're talking about Chase Manhattan, and they've outsourced their credit card business to RBC. I think it'd be pretty safe to say that credit card data would still be accessible to the U.S. government through the Patriot Act.
I think this would be the case for any company that incorporates in the states, no matter where their head office or data is.
HOly shit.
Guess that Echelon thing really works.
One way to fix the patent system (re: software patents) without going through the arduous process of patent revokations, appeals, re-reviews, peer-reviews, court dates, dumb juries, is to simply limit patent protection to 2 to 3 years.
That way, those who are serious about their idea will be given plenty of time to get a head start and license out to those who can't wait, or don't want to fall that far behind the curve.
Those who make it their business model to sue won't have much time to sue. Most companies may just simply wait it out, or license a non-infringing technology, or simply work out some 2-3 year licensing agreement.
And once the protection time is over, those who waited will have to play catch-up... and it'll be back to the good'ol days where companies actually competed on things like cost and quality.
You haven't said much except the fact that the multi-gold/platinum-grammy-award-winner artists you work with don't feel like they're getting screwed.
Well duh.
And who said anything about looking after your best interests? *You* should be looking out for your best interests. *We* should be looking out for our own best interests. Your best interests include getting your music heard, and making $$$. Our best interests include paying only for the music we want. Us looking out for your best interests would be a conflict of interest. The gravy boat of online distribution of music is leaving port, and us telling the music industry "You'd better get onboard if you don't want to get fscked over" is probably the most we'll ever care about your best interests.
That's exactly what people who pay gang/mafia "protection fees" say.
Cars have/are "gasoline bombs"?
1 .c fm
You've been watching too many movies.
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae
The funny thing that most people don't realize is that there are laws in most a lot of cities (especially in California) that ban trucks weighing more than 6000lb from driving on residential streets.
For SUV's to qualify for tax breaks, they're classified as "trucks", and they're intentionally made to pass the 6000lb weight requirement.
These SUV's are practically illegal to drive on every residential street in Santa Monica, most residential streets in San Fransisco, and a ton of other cities.
So while these people may be able to get their driver's license by driving a prius, they'll be hard-pressed to make proper use of their SUV's.
Well, that is, if these cities actually enforced their own by-laws.
I think the low pressure from the top of the bottom rotor would have eliminated the high pressure below the top rotor, disabling the top rotor's ability to produce lift.
Since the top rotor wasn't producing lift, the rotor would sag, while the lower rotor was, and straightened out, and *crunch*...
How much difference would there be in air pressure between the top and bottom of each rotor?
It's been a while since my last fluid mechanics class, but wouldn't the low-pressure above the bottom rotor "suck" the top rotor downward every time the two rotors overlapped each other while spinning?... causing the top and bottom rotors to bounce (if ever so slightly) up and down?