I think there are two, very non-arrogant things going on.
1. Colbert's/Stewarts viewers started up a campaign to get them to hold a rally. If they had refused, it would have been likely to reduce audience interest in their shows.
2. They are, I think quite legitimately, concerned about the news exposure that claimed that the 100K Beck rally indicated that America was actually headed in that direction of thought. If they pull a similarly sized rally, they can at least discredit that point.
Have you seen any fox news? They are not mocking a strawman. They pretty exclusively mock actual fox news content (when mocking the right). When mocking the left they pretty exclusively mock msnbc, and again, pretty much with actual excerpts.
Which would mean that the next simulation down the chain is built using a computer no larger than the earth and its immediate surroundings, and therefore the next simulated universe is even smaller and less precise. The chain continues until the largest universe that can be simulated by a computer in the current universe is not sufficiently large to build a computer in at all.
Somewhat depends on your definition of 'about'... we are fast approaching the bit per electron density limit, after which we'll presumably go 3d, but what we'll do after THAT is a really challenging question.
The 2.5" devices aren't even density limited right now, it's all about price. They can easily get a TB in that space, it's just so ludicrously pricey no one is bothering to do it. The 512GB drives of that size are already size-competitive with the largest (600G) 15K rpm drives that people use in the enterprise, and since the price is about 2x (at best) for the SSD, they are focused more on bringing down prices right now.
A billion layers and THZ processor speeds will buy us only 57 more years of Moore's law. And by then we'll be storing thousands of bytes of data per electron, which is a neat trick.
Problem is, people who made those prior assertions were apparently dumb or something, or making up limitations to scare people into buying existing devices instead of waiting for the improvements in the next generation.
Today, people who make those assertions are talking about reaching the point where our devices store one bit on a single atom. I've yet to hear anyone make a remotely plausible argument for how we're going to go significantly denser than one bit per atom.
Of course, we won't actually bother saving the earth. Other than nostalgia, there's no physical advantage to keeping it around, we'll all be safer in smaller habitats carved out of chunks of the earth, so by the time the sun expands, there will be no earth.
Nope. No computer contained within a universe can simulate said entire universe, as it must waste at least one bit on the 'simulate universe' instruction. So it falls at LEAST one bit short of simulating the entire universe. So as you go down the chain of simulated universes, the approximations get rougher and rougher.
It proves he had access to more useless cpu cycles than anyone else. A 'mine's bigger' sort of competition, if you know what I mean, and if you don't, seriously, what are you doing here?
Regardless of what actually happened, there isn't any computation that requires keeping data in memory rather than hard disk. Memory is just faster, if you need more space for the computation, you can always actually use the 100 disks.
Slashdot Mirror
She found it easy because she loved using my money in her quest to ride the dick of every other guy in town.
Prostitution: you're doing it wrong.
Yes, I was only aiming for funny, but indeed, I meant stroke and typed seizure, sadly, IANAMD, and am prone to such mistakes.
I think there are two, very non-arrogant things going on.
1. Colbert's/Stewarts viewers started up a campaign to get them to hold a rally. If they had refused, it would have been likely to reduce audience interest in their shows.
2. They are, I think quite legitimately, concerned about the news exposure that claimed that the 100K Beck rally indicated that America was actually headed in that direction of thought. If they pull a similarly sized rally, they can at least discredit that point.
Have you seen any fox news? They are not mocking a strawman. They pretty exclusively mock actual fox news content (when mocking the right). When mocking the left they pretty exclusively mock msnbc, and again, pretty much with actual excerpts.
That's a seizure ... squinting eye, drooping mouth.
Which would mean that the next simulation down the chain is built using a computer no larger than the earth and its immediate surroundings, and therefore the next simulated universe is even smaller and less precise. The chain continues until the largest universe that can be simulated by a computer in the current universe is not sufficiently large to build a computer in at all.
Somewhat depends on your definition of 'about' ... we are fast approaching the bit per electron density limit, after which we'll presumably go 3d, but what we'll do after THAT is a really challenging question.
The 2.5" devices aren't even density limited right now, it's all about price. They can easily get a TB in that space, it's just so ludicrously pricey no one is bothering to do it. The 512GB drives of that size are already size-competitive with the largest (600G) 15K rpm drives that people use in the enterprise, and since the price is about 2x (at best) for the SSD, they are focused more on bringing down prices right now.
A billion layers and THZ processor speeds will buy us only 57 more years of Moore's law. And by then we'll be storing thousands of bytes of data per electron, which is a neat trick.
Problem is, people who made those prior assertions were apparently dumb or something, or making up limitations to scare people into buying existing devices instead of waiting for the improvements in the next generation.
Today, people who make those assertions are talking about reaching the point where our devices store one bit on a single atom. I've yet to hear anyone make a remotely plausible argument for how we're going to go significantly denser than one bit per atom.
Of course, we won't actually bother saving the earth. Other than nostalgia, there's no physical advantage to keeping it around, we'll all be safer in smaller habitats carved out of chunks of the earth, so by the time the sun expands, there will be no earth.
Nope. No computer contained within a universe can simulate said entire universe, as it must waste at least one bit on the 'simulate universe' instruction. So it falls at LEAST one bit short of simulating the entire universe. So as you go down the chain of simulated universes, the approximations get rougher and rougher.
In none of those previous cryings of wolf had the number of atoms in a single device dropped into the double digits.
The 2,000,000,000,000,000th digit of pi is 13 orders of magnitude less significant than the 200th, at least in base 10.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude
Flamebait mods? Who am I baiting here?
That's a rather ... odd ... reaction to my post. You're hoping to eliminate my superior genes so we don't wipe you out?
I was hoping for a funny rather than the informative I got, to be honest.
It's actually 13 orders of magnitude less significant than the 200th.
So obviously, 640 digits of pi should be enough for anybody.
And here they are:
http://www.eveandersson.com/pi/digits/pi-digits?n_decimals_to_display=640&breakpoint=100
You call that 'somewhat' bizarre? Marginally bizarre at best. Where are the pink unicorns?
It proves he had access to more useless cpu cycles than anyone else. A 'mine's bigger' sort of competition, if you know what I mean, and if you don't, seriously, what are you doing here?
Well, it will help to date the story to this year, compared to stories that run in 2012 that will say 'defunct technology firm yahoo ...'
Beyond having proven the algorithm, and verifying the implementation of the algorithm on known digits of pi, we do not and will not.
Regardless of what actually happened, there isn't any computation that requires keeping data in memory rather than hard disk. Memory is just faster, if you need more space for the computation, you can always actually use the 100 disks.
I mean to make a joke, I am aware that the angles are all 60 degrees in standard Euclidean space.