"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso. The same goes for ultra-intelligent computers. The hard questions - dealing with creativity, intuition or infirmities will remain the domain of organics for the foreseeable future.
One area of recent development is with extremely large datasets (2006, Google's MapReduce) still can only provide results for stuff that we have data on. The data will only take you so far. The true question is hoe effectively is it used. While progress will be made, it'll be a long time before we can sit back and let the computer make all the decisions, especially of those pertaining to our future. And when they finally do that, life will be incredibly boring.
Look, if you can't see that you and the kettle are both black...
The straight and white were included to show you that your attack on him via his religion is not a valid grouping and qualifies as bigotry. It is not how science is to be debated. The only thing that Ham proved in the Nye/Ham young Earth debate was that devout Christians who believe in young earth are still capable of doing science.
Who cares what the motivation is as long as the science is sound? Science does not bend to motivation. It is universally reproducible.
In a plain reading of the graph presented, I found that we are only about 0.4 above the line. Which makes the statement in the OP false. It's not 0.8, it's 0.4.
But even if warming has happened (and we have good data saying it has) it does not mean it is CO2 related. The entirety of the body of evidence for anthropogenic warming is identical to non-anthropogenic warming. So we're at a loss. Melting glaciers, ice-less arctic, weird weather. None of it points a finger at CO2, it only points the finger at heat. There is no tell-tale sign that is specific to CO2. That's why we turn to the models. The models are substantially wrong. I'm sorry, but "climate science" is not a science in that we can make predictions and test them, but we fail to validate those predictions far more than we validate them. Furthermore, we cannot experiment on the environment without substantial outcry.
Do I hope we get models that are accurate. I really do.
We've got BlackBerry, Ubuntu using Qt/QML for native app development. Ubuntu is using Android's kernel. Developing a phone platform that can also run on iOS and Android would fix the problem of inertia with a lot less effort of re-inventing Android. And recent versions of Android have a no-forking provision. So there's no forking way.
I specifically mention Ubuntu Mobile because they are already aligned with WinRT's vision. Ubuntu Mobile uses android kernels, so there's no additional hardware porting effort.
The license(s) for Ubuntu / Qt5 are much more permissive. Microsoft could also just buy Blackberry, and get what they want. So many choices.
This is the 3rd Reactive article in the past year. Whose dick at Slashdot is Val Huber sucking?
Each time it's this PR-ish piece on how his Reactive Progamming model isn't such a bad idea. How the hell does he get these articles to run when so many other good articles get shot down?
STOP IT SLASHDOT. No one wants your Reactive Programming marketing articles.
If he wants to get into web development, it may not be popular, but learn Wt (http://webtoolkit.eu). It's a C++ library for web dev and the results are amazing. I think of everyone used Wt the web would suck 50% less. Its a joy to work in, and you don't have to know too much about all the web to get started. You start by coding an application, then the library takes care of rendering it to the web, using ajax whereever. Its quite amazing.
We got a light, dry snow over night. Its now lightly raining, packing the top layer. If you haven't started shoveling, do it now before it gets too heavy. I've got about 14" and the top 3 are as heavy as than the bottom 11.
Well, that remains to be proven. Not the temperature trend as such, but the attribution thereof. I don't want to get into a whole global warming debate ending in a flame war over attribution. Your suspicions would need to be proven not globally, just locally since we're only talking about a 13 mile ice bridge, whose thickness for wolves would only need to be about 3"
Well he'd be right for the most part. Unless you're dealing with very large data sets, no one pays much mind. They all use Python, or PHP or JavaScript. (point is things are trending to higher level languages without JIT, save for Java and C#) And it's true for the most part. If you're not looking at asymptotic running times, the practice of buying a faster processor outweighs developer time and risk in producing constant-time (shaving time off an operation) or linearly (shaving time off each item of an array) faster code. Meanwhile $50/hr developer optimizing code for just 1 hour can take you from a $50 Intel Celeron G1610 Ivy Bridge 2.6GHz LGA 1155 55W Dual-Core Desktop Processor BX80637G1610 to a $100 Intel Pentium G3430 Haswell 3.3GHz LGA 1150 54W Dual-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD then add in the risks of producing more complex, harder to debug code, and constant-time or linear-time speedups are not of much concern. Of course when dealing with (O)N^2 or more, optimization is very important.
But the LED *itself* wasn't designed for white light or heat dissipation, the junction is somewhat isolated though recent designs with the interest of highpower LEDs have resulted in substantial improvements. But it's till the same "bolt a heatsink on the backside" approach. I'm very interested in lighting technology. I thought the most efficient for high-power white light was inductive gas excitation, where a chamber of gas the size of a grain of rice was able to produce 100W bulb equivelent at a fraction of LED. I can't find the article at the moment.
The article claimed that he laser system is 30% more efficient than comparable LED systems. And yes the separation should help heat dissipation.
We invented the internet, if it wasn't for DARPA and Al Gore, there would be no ICANN. Just like with GPS. If you don't like the US version, build your own.
Nevermind that Europe, while better on privacy rights, is far worse on freedom of speech rights. Technical measures can help with privacy but it is very hard to overcome freedom of speech restrictions with software ('m talking rights to, not the ability to. Ability means nothing if it lands you in jail or your speech is removed)
For once we did not screw this one up. This is just nature playing the course.
And if we already know what will happen, what good is conducting the study? How is science being done if the outcome is known? What value does maintaining the local fir population have? To who?
My thoughts are something will find a way to keep the moose population in check, even if it is starvation from a population so dense that all reachable vegetation is consumed.
The Vacuum Tube is not considered a solid-state device. Your bulb most closely resembles a vacuum tube - and that filament bounces around and is subject to various stresses that solid state electronics are not.
The other consderation is that with lasers, a primary concern is heat dissipation. Top lasers are only about 33% effective, meaning you generate twice as much heat as you do light. Therefore from the get-go cooling is a concern. Whereas with LEDs cooling is the last thing anyone thinks about.
In the ideal world, you'd share your drone with other views, broadcasting like TV. You'd have a database of channels for segments of road and would flip between them, automatically. The traffic authority would operate the drones, which would be automatic because they are GPS guided.
Yup. I fracked up the abbreviation. ECM is correct. My mind probably went the phonetic route and EXtra to X. It happens more often as I get older. Hrumph.
We've "discovered" this material that is called Extra Celluar Matrix, which forms the scaffolding for organs. We can remove the organ's cells, leaving just this scaffolding. Then we can take a culture of cells from your own organ and use it to populate the scaffolding, resulting in an organ. .
3D printing an organ is a much more complicated process. The only advantage is it does not require a donor XCM. But here's the cool thing about XCM, it doesn't trip the immune system, and the organ's cells are yours, so there is no rejection.
Slashdot Mirror
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso.
The same goes for ultra-intelligent computers. The hard questions - dealing with creativity, intuition or infirmities will remain the domain of organics for the foreseeable future.
One area of recent development is with extremely large datasets (2006, Google's MapReduce) still can only provide results for stuff that we have data on. The data will only take you so far. The true question is hoe effectively is it used. While progress will be made, it'll be a long time before we can sit back and let the computer make all the decisions, especially of those pertaining to our future. And when they finally do that, life will be incredibly boring.
Look, if you can't see that you and the kettle are both black...
The straight and white were included to show you that your attack on him via his religion is not a valid grouping and qualifies as bigotry. It is not how science is to be debated. The only thing that Ham proved in the Nye/Ham young Earth debate was that devout Christians who believe in young earth are still capable of doing science.
Who cares what the motivation is as long as the science is sound? Science does not bend to motivation. It is universally reproducible.
and varients should be variants. ;-)
So rather than attack his science, you attack his character? Since when can only straight, white, agnostic scientists do science?
Farmer's Almanac which is based on historic patterns, called this one.
In a plain reading of the graph presented, I found that we are only about 0.4 above the line. Which makes the statement in the OP false. It's not 0.8, it's 0.4.
But even if warming has happened (and we have good data saying it has) it does not mean it is CO2 related. The entirety of the body of evidence for anthropogenic warming is identical to non-anthropogenic warming. So we're at a loss. Melting glaciers, ice-less arctic, weird weather. None of it points a finger at CO2, it only points the finger at heat. There is no tell-tale sign that is specific to CO2. That's why we turn to the models. The models are substantially wrong. I'm sorry, but "climate science" is not a science in that we can make predictions and test them, but we fail to validate those predictions far more than we validate them. Furthermore, we cannot experiment on the environment without substantial outcry.
Do I hope we get models that are accurate. I really do.
Fork that!
Actually, it was COMPAQ that reverse engineered the BIOS.
We've got BlackBerry, Ubuntu using Qt/QML for native app development. Ubuntu is using Android's kernel. Developing a phone platform that can also run on iOS and Android would fix the problem of inertia with a lot less effort of re-inventing Android. And recent versions of Android have a no-forking provision. So there's no forking way.
I specifically mention Ubuntu Mobile because they are already aligned with WinRT's vision. Ubuntu Mobile uses android kernels, so there's no additional hardware porting effort.
The license(s) for Ubuntu / Qt5 are much more permissive. Microsoft could also just buy Blackberry, and get what they want. So many choices.
This is the 3rd Reactive article in the past year. Whose dick at Slashdot is Val Huber sucking?
Each time it's this PR-ish piece on how his Reactive Progamming model isn't such a bad idea. How the hell does he get these articles to run when so many other good articles get shot down?
STOP IT SLASHDOT. No one wants your Reactive Programming marketing articles.
If he wants to get into web development, it may not be popular, but learn Wt (http://webtoolkit.eu). It's a C++ library for web dev and the results are amazing. I think of everyone used Wt the web would suck 50% less. Its a joy to work in, and you don't have to know too much about all the web to get started. You start by coding an application, then the library takes care of rendering it to the web, using ajax whereever. Its quite amazing.
You're call but we have round #2 coming with 4 more inches.
We got a light, dry snow over night. Its now lightly raining, packing the top layer. If you haven't started shoveling, do it now before it gets too heavy. I've got about 14" and the top 3 are as heavy as than the bottom 11.
No ice yet, though its 31.
Well, that remains to be proven. Not the temperature trend as such, but the attribution thereof. I don't want to get into a whole global warming debate ending in a flame war over attribution. Your suspicions would need to be proven not globally, just locally since we're only talking about a 13 mile ice bridge, whose thickness for wolves would only need to be about 3"
Well he'd be right for the most part. Unless you're dealing with very large data sets, no one pays much mind. They all use Python, or PHP or JavaScript. (point is things are trending to higher level languages without JIT, save for Java and C#) And it's true for the most part. If you're not looking at asymptotic running times, the practice of buying a faster processor outweighs developer time and risk in producing constant-time (shaving time off an operation) or linearly (shaving time off each item of an array) faster code. Meanwhile $50/hr developer optimizing code for just 1 hour can take you from a
$50 Intel Celeron G1610 Ivy Bridge 2.6GHz LGA 1155 55W Dual-Core Desktop Processor BX80637G1610 to a
$100 Intel Pentium G3430 Haswell 3.3GHz LGA 1150 54W Dual-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD
then add in the risks of producing more complex, harder to debug code, and constant-time or linear-time speedups are not of much concern. Of course when dealing with (O)N^2 or more, optimization is very important.
But the LED *itself* wasn't designed for white light or heat dissipation, the junction is somewhat isolated though recent designs with the interest of highpower LEDs have resulted in substantial improvements. But it's till the same "bolt a heatsink on the backside" approach. I'm very interested in lighting technology. I thought the most efficient for high-power white light was inductive gas excitation, where a chamber of gas the size of a grain of rice was able to produce 100W bulb equivelent at a fraction of LED. I can't find the article at the moment.
The article claimed that he laser system is 30% more efficient than comparable LED systems. And yes the separation should help heat dissipation.
We invented the internet, if it wasn't for DARPA and Al Gore, there would be no ICANN. Just like with GPS. If you don't like the US version, build your own.
Nevermind that Europe, while better on privacy rights, is far worse on freedom of speech rights. Technical measures can help with privacy but it is very hard to overcome freedom of speech restrictions with software ('m talking rights to, not the ability to. Ability means nothing if it lands you in jail or your speech is removed)
For once we did not screw this one up. This is just nature playing the course.
And if we already know what will happen, what good is conducting the study? How is science being done if the outcome is known?
What value does maintaining the local fir population have? To who?
My thoughts are something will find a way to keep the moose population in check, even if it is starvation from a population so dense that all reachable vegetation is consumed.
Good call on the programmer part.
The Vacuum Tube is not considered a solid-state device. Your bulb most closely resembles a vacuum tube - and that filament bounces around and is subject to various stresses that solid state electronics are not.
The other consderation is that with lasers, a primary concern is heat dissipation. Top lasers are only about 33% effective, meaning you generate twice as much heat as you do light. Therefore from the get-go cooling is a concern. Whereas with LEDs cooling is the last thing anyone thinks about.
How's that for a 'programmer'?
Theoretically, none. The laser is all solid state, the phosphor is not a filament. It should outlast the car.
In the ideal world, you'd share your drone with other views, broadcasting like TV.
You'd have a database of channels for segments of road and would flip between them, automatically.
The traffic authority would operate the drones, which would be automatic because they are GPS guided.
Yup. I fracked up the abbreviation. ECM is correct. My mind probably went the phonetic route and EXtra to X. It happens more often as I get older. Hrumph.
For got to mention the XCM is also not species dependent. So We could use pig organs to contribute the scaffolding.
We've "discovered" this material that is called Extra Celluar Matrix, which forms the scaffolding for organs. We can remove the organ's cells, leaving just this scaffolding. Then we can take a culture of cells from your own organ and use it to populate the scaffolding, resulting in an organ. .
3D printing an organ is a much more complicated process. The only advantage is it does not require a donor XCM. But here's the cool thing about XCM, it doesn't trip the immune system, and the organ's cells are yours, so there is no rejection.
Er, LA and TN
N not X
MAP
LA and TX... Correlation isn't causation, but damn!