It depends on whether things like working memory are more limited by biological convenience or more limited by architecture. If biological convenience is the problem, an artificial brain using the same architecture as a human brain could likely have a much larger working memory (humans can hold about 7 items of information in their working memory, plus or minus), which would probably give it better-than-human processing capabilities.
And if the first version of the artificial substrate creates a brain that operates at essentially human processing speed, wouldn't you expect a second version with enhanced underlying processing to be able to operate at some multiple of that speed?
Each time they shrink the die size, they reduce the number of silicon in the chip, lowering the cost of the silicon in the chip, lowering the cost of the chip.
If they had not successfully increased yield on past technology generations, do you think chips today would still be cheaper and faster?
The article talks about comparing the performance of the US students with the performance of students from other countries, but not in any detail.
The interesting question is how correctable the mistake is; does it reveal a true lack of understanding about the nature of the comparison noted by the equal sign, or does it show that the students didn't understand the question in the form that it was presented?
I don't think the leadership at Google has any illusions about where the money comes from, but I think they also realize that they can use technology to save money (even just on servers), and to give themselves new places to sell ads.
Throw in the realization that there is little point in trying to be a mediocre technology company and their helter-skelter 'product strategy' fits right in.
I'm hostile enough to the lock down that I wouldn't buy a phone with it, so to me the fact that there are major security holes on the phone just means that there are major security holes.
This is a massively publicized remote exploit. That is the most critical sort of security issue for an operating system. There is nothing strange about them prioritizing it.
I'm a fan of some of the difference coming from self reporting, but they don't actually make it clear how they determined the number of sexual partners.
(and they ignore that the iPhone users could be having infrequent sex with changing partners while the Android users could be having frequent sex with the same partner)
Re:the english language is better off with out gra
on
The Great Typo Hunt
·
· Score: 1
Sure. Which is why I called such discussions tiresome. Or do you mean to deny that there are people that attempt to have such discussions?
Slashdot Mirror
Due to time zones and dst, solar noon here happens at about 1:40 in the afternoon.
The U.S. Eastern time zone is rather wide though.
How come the CIA dark ops teams don't benefit from the presumption of innocence?
(You know, until proven guilty)
I'm sort of hoping there is video, so that the denials can get really hilarious.
It depends on whether things like working memory are more limited by biological convenience or more limited by architecture. If biological convenience is the problem, an artificial brain using the same architecture as a human brain could likely have a much larger working memory (humans can hold about 7 items of information in their working memory, plus or minus), which would probably give it better-than-human processing capabilities.
And if the first version of the artificial substrate creates a brain that operates at essentially human processing speed, wouldn't you expect a second version with enhanced underlying processing to be able to operate at some multiple of that speed?
That's a pale shadow of what GP is talking about.
The context has the probation period being 'for free'.
It's plenty, but when you compare it to U.S. energy consumption, it isn't particularly interesting.
Getting everybody to move their thermostat 1/2 degree towards the outdoor ambient would have a much larger impact on energy use.
Each time they shrink the die size, they reduce the number of silicon in the chip, lowering the cost of the silicon in the chip, lowering the cost of the chip.
If they had not successfully increased yield on past technology generations, do you think chips today would still be cheaper and faster?
The article talks about comparing the performance of the US students with the performance of students from other countries, but not in any detail.
The interesting question is how correctable the mistake is; does it reveal a true lack of understanding about the nature of the comparison noted by the equal sign, or does it show that the students didn't understand the question in the form that it was presented?
When English learned French, it really drifted away from German.
I don't think the leadership at Google has any illusions about where the money comes from, but I think they also realize that they can use technology to save money (even just on servers), and to give themselves new places to sell ads.
Throw in the realization that there is little point in trying to be a mediocre technology company and their helter-skelter 'product strategy' fits right in.
Gosh, maybe I meant how could you know they published "all they got about any one"?
Please explain how you could possibly know that.
I think it is more like geocaching, so the position of the body would be noted and publicized, but there wouldn't be a physical marker.
Without the sacrificial maiden, it hardly seems worth it.
I'm hostile enough to the lock down that I wouldn't buy a phone with it, so to me the fact that there are major security holes on the phone just means that there are major security holes.
This is a massively publicized remote exploit. That is the most critical sort of security issue for an operating system. There is nothing strange about them prioritizing it.
The easy solution is to think of yourself as a rather clever dog.
Must vary. I went to a fairly decent public university in the U.S. and freshman courses were all 100, 101, etc.
Tariff free sugar would be cheaper than corn syrup.
I'm encouraging you to call a spade a spade. It is fraud, 100%, but it is tiddlywinks, not a subversion of the United States financial system.
I'm a fan of some of the difference coming from self reporting, but they don't actually make it clear how they determined the number of sexual partners.
(and they ignore that the iPhone users could be having infrequent sex with changing partners while the Android users could be having frequent sex with the same partner)
Sure. Which is why I called such discussions tiresome. Or do you mean to deny that there are people that attempt to have such discussions?
The outstanding supply is coming from a hole in the ground? Or is it coming from open bids?
It wouldn't be a language if it didn't have a grammar.
Tiresome discussion of rigid formal rules is fairly unnecessary.