The finite state machine is the only model your digital computer can do
I was thinking of Turing machines, although you might be able to simulate any finite Turing machine on an FSM. It'd be a massive waste of resources, though.
Anyway, why must it be impossible to simulate a brain on an FSM?
Actions of human can't be simulated with arbitrary precision
They can't yet. My use of the word "can" was meant in the timeless sense. How do you know we'll never be able to simulate a human brain, or create another conscious entity with a digital (or analogue, for that matter) computer? There's nothing special about us meatbags.
You might want to research a concept known as quantum mechanics.
The possibilty of simulating QM aside, how do you know that's a requirement for consciousness?
Human brains are not binary computers and there is no hope of a binary finite state machine becoming a concious entity.
That's nonsense. The human brain is a physical entity, therefore it can be simulated with arbitrary precision. And simulating brains hasn't been shown to be the only way to give rise to consciousness.
Also, the finite state machine is not the epitome of computational models.
A bunch of relays (or pneumatic or hydraulic values for that matter) is not self-concious, and no amount of them however interconnected will become conscious, self-aware, or have feelings.
There's no reason to believe that's true.
The stupidity and illogic of otherwise intelligent people believing that nonsense is amazing.
Have you ever heard that saying about how when an old, learned scientist says something is impossible, he's probably wrong? It does quadruple for J. Random Slashdotter.
Go type in your favorite search engine "DCMA [sic] bogus requests" and a treasure trove will appear. There are plenty of citations available to back my statement.
So there are a [vague, undefined] number of bogus takedown requests - but how does that translate to "The overwhelming majority of the take down requests are for censorship purposes"? That was your original claim - not that there are simply a notable number of bogus requests.
Torrentfreak doesn't seem to agree: "Most requests are legitimate, aimed at disabling access to copyright-infringing material."
GP stated that anyone receiving take downs is posting illegal content, and that is an outright lie.
No he didn't. He said:
No one forces you to provide a search engine that accepts illegal content. Just screen everything before it goes into the index or don't host it, as simple as that.
Which is not the same thing (I see no assumption in the first sentence, and the second is a suggestion), and makes your assertion an outright mistake.
Do you think that the exponential growth in requests is all magically legit?
Why do you claim it isn't*? What's the evidence?
*no, I don't think it's all legit. I don't think bad takedowns outnumber good ones, but I've never looked into it, so won't be making a solid claim to that effect.
Well, they call 'em gyroscopes, but since gyro- implies something spinning, and these things are (as far as I can ascertain) just vibrating, I call 'em accelerometers.
And real gyroscopes have more purposes than measuring acceleration anyway.
Snobbish? For a post starting with "my good man" which offers no agreement or argument against its parent and seems to exist merely to shoe-horn in the fact that you listen to vinyl? Of course not.
Slashdot Mirror
They "got to it" five years ago.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/robot...
So use female moths. Duh.
The finite state machine is the only model your digital computer can do
I was thinking of Turing machines, although you might be able to simulate any finite Turing machine on an FSM. It'd be a massive waste of resources, though.
Anyway, why must it be impossible to simulate a brain on an FSM?
Actions of human can't be simulated with arbitrary precision
They can't yet. My use of the word "can" was meant in the timeless sense. How do you know we'll never be able to simulate a human brain, or create another conscious entity with a digital (or analogue, for that matter) computer? There's nothing special about us meatbags.
You might want to research a concept known as quantum mechanics.
The possibilty of simulating QM aside, how do you know that's a requirement for consciousness?
Maybe it's because opinion is subjective.
Oh, Really?
wonkey_monkey writes with news that paradoxes are fun.
if someone offers to have sex with you in exchange for a bucket of fish, run.
Wait... who's offering whom the fish here?
Human brains are not binary computers and there is no hope of a binary finite state machine becoming a concious entity.
That's nonsense. The human brain is a physical entity, therefore it can be simulated with arbitrary precision. And simulating brains hasn't been shown to be the only way to give rise to consciousness.
Also, the finite state machine is not the epitome of computational models.
A bunch of relays (or pneumatic or hydraulic values for that matter) is not self-concious, and no amount of them however interconnected will become conscious, self-aware, or have feelings.
There's no reason to believe that's true.
The stupidity and illogic of otherwise intelligent people believing that nonsense is amazing.
Have you ever heard that saying about how when an old, learned scientist says something is impossible, he's probably wrong? It does quadruple for J. Random Slashdotter.
Go type in your favorite search engine "DCMA [sic] bogus requests" and a treasure trove will appear. There are plenty of citations available to back my statement.
So there are a [vague, undefined] number of bogus takedown requests - but how does that translate to "The overwhelming majority of the take down requests are for censorship purposes"? That was your original claim - not that there are simply a notable number of bogus requests.
Torrentfreak doesn't seem to agree: "Most requests are legitimate, aimed at disabling access to copyright-infringing material."
GP stated that anyone receiving take downs is posting illegal content, and that is an outright lie.
No he didn't. He said:
No one forces you to provide a search engine that accepts illegal content. Just screen everything before it goes into the index or don't host it, as simple as that.
Which is not the same thing (I see no assumption in the first sentence, and the second is a suggestion), and makes your assertion an outright mistake.
Do you think that the exponential growth in requests is all magically legit?
Why do you claim it isn't*? What's the evidence?
*no, I don't think it's all legit. I don't think bad takedowns outnumber good ones, but I've never looked into it, so won't be making a solid claim to that effect.
Well, they call 'em gyroscopes, but since gyro- implies something spinning, and these things are (as far as I can ascertain) just vibrating, I call 'em accelerometers.
And real gyroscopes have more purposes than measuring acceleration anyway.
Which is, of course, exactly the kind of attitude "they" would hope you'd have.
Or maybe it's a matter of opinion and not a fundamental law of the universe.
Just ditch the measuring equipment, the entire point of the project is to drive as far as possible on the surface.
No, it's to draw willies on Mars.
...because...?
I'd guess it'd just use GPS to work out what country it's in
Good luck with that !
Could someone not have tidied up this summary just a little?
My good man... Before you think I'm snobbish
Snobbish? For a post starting with "my good man" which offers no agreement or argument against its parent and seems to exist merely to shoe-horn in the fact that you listen to vinyl? Of course not.
THAT specific meteor isn't, another may be.
Another small correction: it's not a meteor :) Not yet, anyway, and hopefully never.
Isn't that ironic
Nope.
Technological Singularity
Correction to self:
which I would naively assume to be more efficient and less annoying to customers.
The article doesn't propose "no storage" - just something less centralised.
Okay, so there is a little storage involved: ice-storage air conditioning and smart charging of electric vehicles.
Not sure why this is better than centralised storage, which would presumably be more efficient and less annoying to customers.
Melissa at NASA says more than "...taken by astronauts on the station are the highest-resolution night imagery available from orbit..."
What?
[kde.org], really?
What?
Is the resolution better than 1.3nm?
At the risk of repeating myself... what?
How about just "porn"?
Wipe it before you leave the house.
Words to live by.
Unless it's been mixed for 5.1. War of the Worlds sounds awesome on SACD.