I put my current machine together a year ago with a i4790k, and a decent mobo. Installed LinuxMint 17. Then I did a little test. I ran everything I normally do at once, including VMware with 4GB of potential RAM, running AutoCAD and some other crap, in Linux running LibreOffice, Firefox with dozens of vids playing, mp3 players, Thunderbird, and half of the KDE apps. I think I finally got it near 4GB. So I added another 4GB.
If I was doing heavy media editing, maybe more could help. Or heavy computations, which I don't do much anymore. 4GB would not be an obstacle for general office, browsing, and fooling around. This machine is mostly an indulgence, since there is little perceivable increase in UI performance vs. the dual core 3GHz/4GB one it replaced.
It's not clear that people start with any consistent set of axioms at all. And inherent logical contradictions run rampant. The brain is not logical. It's inductive. It's designed to come to a decision, any decision, which is usually better than a detailed and disciplined logical analysis when it comes to avoiding becoming a meal.
You're asking "what is the system architecture of the brain?"
This would be a good thing to have mapped out. In fact, I'm surprised this isn't done already. Or is it?
Instead of working with amorphous blobs of neurons, the real advances in AI will come when specialized subsystems can be taught, then initialized at will with the "teaching." Those systems put together into a larger system similar to an actual brain will be what leads to general AI.
If someone "accidentally" emails a government worker classified information, what they are supposed to do is call a counter-intelligence agent/hotline, immediately!
If anyone pulled something like this they would be facing criminal charges in a hurry. There are many misconceptions people seem to have about classified. Perhaps things are different outside the DOE, but:
1. No classified may be emailed over public networks even if encrypted, because,
2. No classified may exist outside of the classified network which is air gapped from internet exposed networks, period!
3. If you aren't absolutely 100.000% sure information is not classified, you do not move forward with any action until consulting with a specialist who can make determinations of what is classified.
Public officials who violate the laws that would send me to the slammer immediately if I broke them should face an even stricter standard.
This brings up an interesting consideration. Why do a bunch of astronomers get to decide this, or anyone else for that matter. I simply refuse to stop calling Pluto a planet. Whether I conform or not to the changing definitions of scientists has no bearing on what Pluto actually IS, or even what I understand it to be. Furthermore, isn't the categorization hierarchical? Why can't "dwarf-planet" be a subset of "planet?" So then calling Pluto a planet or dwarf-planet makes no difference, both are equally correct, though the latter conveys more information.
This is the correct answer. Since we can "define" whatever the fuck we want, we could have simply let Pluto stay defined as one of the 9 "original" or "classical" planets and been done with it. I don't buy the argument that keeping Pluto a planet means a whole bunch of other junk in space must now be taught in schools as the "list of planets." Just mention, "there's now known to be a whole lot of other dwarf planets like Pluto. Scientists spend endless years mentally masturbating about which to categorize as planets, vs. dwarf planets. If such pedantics interests you, a career in science might be your future!"
Anyone who is doing anything with computers more than fooling around and consuming "content" is a fool to have anything less than triple redundancy.
I learned to take it even a bit further (archives, as well as backups) after a Windows crash in 1993 took out 8 hours of work on a term paper out of about 40 hours total invested. It ate my HD and backup, while in the process of making the backup. The 2nd backup, 8hrs of work ago, saved me from the loony bin.
The fact that "research" is even needed, when it's plainly obvious that men have a dick and women have a vagina, considering all which those differences imply, just goes to show how completely idiotic our "society" has become.
WHY? Why isn't the argument being made to do the same thing for men? So we should start punishing anyone who calls a guy a "fag" when the guy wants to wear a woman's dress? And all the "pressure" must be removed that makes men not choose careers in all the fields in which women dominate too.
Isn't all this just a bit absurd?
Doesn't anyone even question the initial assumptions--that "equality" is a good thing?
Who the fuck are we to try to engineer society when 1. we have no predictive model for individual or societal human behavior; 2. we still have barely a clue what our "nature" is? 3. There is no BASIS for asserting that the ratio of women:men in ANY field SHOULD be anything. It's just a made-up goal that someone "feels" like they want. 4. Whatever reason there is for why the ratio in STEM is different now than it once was probably involves at least 10x more variables than nearly anyone is aware of, and stands a good chance of not even involving the variable that most people think is the reason--at all!
With FPGAs you have to ensure that a toolchain compatible with the particular model of chip is going to be available for that entire timespan, long after the chip has been discontinued--since to date no FPGA vendor has openly documented their low level configuration bitstream generator. Some time after that, the manufacturer's tools will stop targeting the old FPGA. I don't see how it solves anything, just by using an FPGA. The problem may even be worse than with CPUs, where at least for many architectures there are multiple compilers including open-source ones.
is of course, that you do not own your existence. So if you "threaten" suicide, you may be forced to continue living.
I predict that there will be very little overall objection to this premise in the discussion that follows, as the present culture is rapidly converging toward the complete realization of the nightmare "the personal is the political" in which every aspect of everyone's life is going to be everyone else's business. With the individual a bit player.
Slashdot Mirror
I put my current machine together a year ago with a i4790k, and a decent mobo. Installed LinuxMint 17. Then I did a little test. I ran everything I normally do at once, including VMware with 4GB of potential RAM, running AutoCAD and some other crap, in Linux running LibreOffice, Firefox with dozens of vids playing, mp3 players, Thunderbird, and half of the KDE apps. I think I finally got it near 4GB. So I added another 4GB.
If I was doing heavy media editing, maybe more could help. Or heavy computations, which I don't do much anymore. 4GB would not be an obstacle for general office, browsing, and fooling around. This machine is mostly an indulgence, since there is little perceivable increase in UI performance vs. the dual core 3GHz/4GB one it replaced.
It's not clear that people start with any consistent set of axioms at all. And inherent logical contradictions run rampant. The brain is not logical. It's inductive. It's designed to come to a decision, any decision, which is usually better than a detailed and disciplined logical analysis when it comes to avoiding becoming a meal.
Late bloomer. That started for me in kindergarten.
You're asking "what is the system architecture of the brain?"
This would be a good thing to have mapped out. In fact, I'm surprised this isn't done already. Or is it?
Instead of working with amorphous blobs of neurons, the real advances in AI will come when specialized subsystems can be taught, then initialized at will with the "teaching." Those systems put together into a larger system similar to an actual brain will be what leads to general AI.
If someone "accidentally" emails a government worker classified information, what they are supposed to do is call a counter-intelligence agent/hotline, immediately!
If anyone pulled something like this they would be facing criminal charges in a hurry. There are many misconceptions people seem to have about classified. Perhaps things are different outside the DOE, but: 1. No classified may be emailed over public networks even if encrypted, because, 2. No classified may exist outside of the classified network which is air gapped from internet exposed networks, period! 3. If you aren't absolutely 100.000% sure information is not classified, you do not move forward with any action until consulting with a specialist who can make determinations of what is classified. Public officials who violate the laws that would send me to the slammer immediately if I broke them should face an even stricter standard.
But we apparently evolved to have the inclination to do just that. So religious belief can't be considered an "illness." Delusion yes. Illness no.
What about all the people who think they have free will?
Or the ones who can look straight at a penis vs. a vagina then declare that gender is "socially constructed?"
This brings up an interesting consideration. Why do a bunch of astronomers get to decide this, or anyone else for that matter. I simply refuse to stop calling Pluto a planet. Whether I conform or not to the changing definitions of scientists has no bearing on what Pluto actually IS, or even what I understand it to be. Furthermore, isn't the categorization hierarchical? Why can't "dwarf-planet" be a subset of "planet?" So then calling Pluto a planet or dwarf-planet makes no difference, both are equally correct, though the latter conveys more information.
This is the correct answer. Since we can "define" whatever the fuck we want, we could have simply let Pluto stay defined as one of the 9 "original" or "classical" planets and been done with it. I don't buy the argument that keeping Pluto a planet means a whole bunch of other junk in space must now be taught in schools as the "list of planets." Just mention, "there's now known to be a whole lot of other dwarf planets like Pluto. Scientists spend endless years mentally masturbating about which to categorize as planets, vs. dwarf planets. If such pedantics interests you, a career in science might be your future!"
There's nothing more dangerous than someone who's got how to run the world all figured out.
Anyone who is doing anything with computers more than fooling around and consuming "content" is a fool to have anything less than triple redundancy.
I learned to take it even a bit further (archives, as well as backups) after a Windows crash in 1993 took out 8 hours of work on a term paper out of about 40 hours total invested. It ate my HD and backup, while in the process of making the backup. The 2nd backup, 8hrs of work ago, saved me from the loony bin.
No one in our present culture can even conceive of the possibility that sometimes not doing anything is the best way to get something done.
You sound like someone who's spent some time in the Orient...
The fact that "research" is even needed, when it's plainly obvious that men have a dick and women have a vagina, considering all which those differences imply, just goes to show how completely idiotic our "society" has become.
WHY? Why isn't the argument being made to do the same thing for men? So we should start punishing anyone who calls a guy a "fag" when the guy wants to wear a woman's dress? And all the "pressure" must be removed that makes men not choose careers in all the fields in which women dominate too.
Isn't all this just a bit absurd?
Doesn't anyone even question the initial assumptions--that "equality" is a good thing?
Who the fuck are we to try to engineer society when 1. we have no predictive model for individual or societal human behavior; 2. we still have barely a clue what our "nature" is? 3. There is no BASIS for asserting that the ratio of women:men in ANY field SHOULD be anything. It's just a made-up goal that someone "feels" like they want. 4. Whatever reason there is for why the ratio in STEM is different now than it once was probably involves at least 10x more variables than nearly anyone is aware of, and stands a good chance of not even involving the variable that most people think is the reason--at all!
Too bad placebos can't treat the stupidity of doctors and people who assume that every illness they don't understand must be hypochondria.
Good luck with that if you have some kind of poisoning. And chronic poisonings can make you feel very down, mimicing mental illness symptoms.
What's a "letter?"
With FPGAs you have to ensure that a toolchain compatible with the particular model of chip is going to be available for that entire timespan, long after the chip has been discontinued--since to date no FPGA vendor has openly documented their low level configuration bitstream generator. Some time after that, the manufacturer's tools will stop targeting the old FPGA. I don't see how it solves anything, just by using an FPGA. The problem may even be worse than with CPUs, where at least for many architectures there are multiple compilers including open-source ones.
All of the things he mentioned except universal healthcare are appealing to a libertarian capitalist as well.
is of course, that you do not own your existence. So if you "threaten" suicide, you may be forced to continue living.
I predict that there will be very little overall objection to this premise in the discussion that follows, as the present culture is rapidly converging toward the complete realization of the nightmare "the personal is the political" in which every aspect of everyone's life is going to be everyone else's business. With the individual a bit player.
Exist, dammit, or we'll put you in prison!
" FATCA is the best thing to happen to US taxpayers abroad in"
Can you clarify what exactly you are trying to say here?
You're just jealous of our freedum!
That's right--ASSHOLE!--you "can't imagine." So why don't you just STFU!?!?!?
You mean the place where hot-headed US shitheads are constantly fomenting chaos?