and possibly vomitting, according to one uncited quote I stumbled across, although I'm not sure whether it's subject or observer that would be more distressed by this.
Nitrogen narcosis is another alternative that often comes up, but then some people complain that it's too pleasant.
In a karmic sense, perhaps so. But I wouldn't say that then means it'd be right for society to dish out such torturous punishment regularly and deliberately.
Nature has a way to give people what they deserve in the end.
You can only mean death, since that's the only certainty.
Murderers and Rapists etc. eventually get what they deserve, with or without the Legal System.
In which case, we'll all eventually get what a murderer/rapist deserves.
I'm sorry to say it, but there are probably myriad rapists and murderers living happily into their 90s and passing away peacefully, surrounded by loving friends and family.
It can be both. It'd be reasonable for politicians from all parties to work together harmoniously to enrich the lives of all their countrymen, and ensure peace, justice, and unlimited rice pudding for all, but I'd be shocked if it happened.
Stanford Bioengineers Develop 'Neurocore' Chips 9,000 Times Faster Than a PC
First, as everyone has already pointed out, they won't be just plain "faster than a PC." They are custom chips designed to do a specific job, so it's not that surprising - if it's true.
Because the article's lead-in reads:
Stanford bioengineers have developed faster, more energy-efficient microchips based on the human brain – 9,000 times faster and using significantly less power than a typical PC.
which is a little unclear as to whether the latter half refers to the new chips or to the human brain.
And then the article says:
The modest cortex of the mouse, for instance, operates 9,000 times faster than a personal computer simulation of its functions.
The light being examined is really, REALLY ancient.
Light doesn't rust.
There's no (as far as I can tell) any leeway given to what may be between the star and us
I think it's safe to assume that if you've thought of this problem, the guys who've spent their entire lives devoted to the science of astronomy have already done so as well.
A star "wobbles" after 15 million years of the light traveling to where we can observe it - and It's as definable as the canals of mars were 40 years ago?
Nice bit of out-of-the-ass number pulling. The most distant extrasolar planet so far discovered is about 20,000 l.y. away, while the first to be discovered was only 50 l.y. away.
What does "definable" mean? Is there a standard measure of "definability"? How did you come to equate the "definability" of exoplanets with the "definability" of Martian canals?
If you've got a better explanation for stellar wobble (which is measured not by noting changes in position, but by Doppler shifts in the frequency of light from the star, a very accurate technique, and, as far as I'm aware, with no other known possible cause), astronomers would love to hear it.
It took about 25 years for the notion of Martian canals to fall out of favour, at a time when communication and advancements in technology were far slower than today. The notion of stellar wobble as a means of identifying planets have been around for more than twice that amount of time, and so far no-one's come up with a better explanation for why all of these stars would regularly wobble.
I guess that would explain the Fermi Paradox, though. They're out there, but they're all sitting at home, always waiting for the next next-generation drive before heading out.
as the potential to put an end to the bottled water industry
ORLY?
How strong is it? How easily gripped is it while running or cycling? Can you refill it? Can you reseal it? Can you drink it without dribbling all over the table?
Graphene, a one-atom-thick form of the carbon material graphite, is strong, light, nearly transparent and an excellent conductor of electricity and heat
Wouldn't those two be attributes of a one-atom-thick form of anything?
I mean, you say it's light, but so is anything if you have little enough of it. Atom-for-atom it weighs the same as diamond.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know why the hell they don't just give criminals being executed a lethal dose of morphine
http://www.lists.opn.org/piper...
toxic doses can cause distressing agitation
and possibly vomitting, according to one uncited quote I stumbled across, although I'm not sure whether it's subject or observer that would be more distressed by this.
Nitrogen narcosis is another alternative that often comes up, but then some people complain that it's too pleasant.
Sounds like he got what he deserved.
In a karmic sense, perhaps so. But I wouldn't say that then means it'd be right for society to dish out such torturous punishment regularly and deliberately.
Nature has a way to give people what they deserve in the end.
You can only mean death, since that's the only certainty.
Murderers and Rapists etc. eventually get what they deserve, with or without the Legal System.
In which case, we'll all eventually get what a murderer/rapist deserves.
I'm sorry to say it, but there are probably myriad rapists and murderers living happily into their 90s and passing away peacefully, surrounded by loving friends and family.
"Nature" doesn't give a shit.
It can be both. It'd be reasonable for politicians from all parties to work together harmoniously to enrich the lives of all their countrymen, and ensure peace, justice, and unlimited rice pudding for all, but I'd be shocked if it happened.
Stanford Bioengineers Develop 'Neurocore' Chips 9,000 Times Faster Than a PC
First, as everyone has already pointed out, they won't be just plain "faster than a PC." They are custom chips designed to do a specific job, so it's not that surprising - if it's true.
Because the article's lead-in reads:
Stanford bioengineers have developed faster, more energy-efficient microchips based on the human brain – 9,000 times faster and using significantly less power than a typical PC.
which is a little unclear as to whether the latter half refers to the new chips or to the human brain.
And then the article says:
The modest cortex of the mouse, for instance, operates 9,000 times faster than a personal computer simulation of its functions.
which again does not refer to the new chips.
Actually not even that is clear:
The modest cortex of the mouse, for instance, operates 9,000 times faster than a personal computer simulation of its functions.
So a real brain - or cortex anyway - is 9,000 times faster than the PC simulation. No actual word on how fast these new chips are.
Maybe, maybe not. In any case the "9,000 times" thing in the headline jars with what's in the article:
The modest cortex of the mouse, for instance, operates 9,000 times faster than a personal computer simulation of its functions.
That implies the speed comparison is only between real brains and PC simulations, not being this new chip and an equivalent PC simulation.
You missed the first part of that quote:
"The modest cortex of the mouse, for instance, operates 9,000 times faster than a personal computer simulation of its functions."
So, actually, the "9,000 times" refers to a comparison between a real mouse cortex and a PC simulation.
Whether the headline is therefore erroneous, or whether the new chip runs at comparable speeds to real brains, is unclear.
Duh. You can't see ground when you're over water. Also dogs can't look up.
I'm quite sure an intelligent person could learn how to be a bricklayer if they really wanted to.
All they need is a Bricky.
There's something about that one that I could watch for hours.
Then there's this guy.
The second show, about a fictional Las Vegas NBA team, will appeal to Yahoo's sports audience.
...Yahoo hopes. Let's wait and see.
Conversely, why would you expect it not to be expensive?
Maybe you should try making one first.
Obviously not the point I was making.
The light being examined is really, REALLY ancient.
Light doesn't rust.
There's no (as far as I can tell) any leeway given to what may be between the star and us
I think it's safe to assume that if you've thought of this problem, the guys who've spent their entire lives devoted to the science of astronomy have already done so as well.
A star "wobbles" after 15 million years of the light traveling to where we can observe it - and It's as definable as the canals of mars were 40 years ago?
Nice bit of out-of-the-ass number pulling. The most distant extrasolar planet so far discovered is about 20,000 l.y. away, while the first to be discovered was only 50 l.y. away.
What does "definable" mean? Is there a standard measure of "definability"? How did you come to equate the "definability" of exoplanets with the "definability" of Martian canals?
If you've got a better explanation for stellar wobble (which is measured not by noting changes in position, but by Doppler shifts in the frequency of light from the star, a very accurate technique, and, as far as I'm aware, with no other known possible cause), astronomers would love to hear it.
It took about 25 years for the notion of Martian canals to fall out of favour, at a time when communication and advancements in technology were far slower than today. The notion of stellar wobble as a means of identifying planets have been around for more than twice that amount of time, and so far no-one's come up with a better explanation for why all of these stars would regularly wobble.
Sure, and in every sci fi book
Don't forget what the "fi" stands for there.
I guess that would explain the Fermi Paradox, though. They're out there, but they're all sitting at home, always waiting for the next next-generation drive before heading out.
I've still never seen an ad on YouTube. Maybe it's my off-the-charts geographic region, or maybe Adblock takes care of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
mice that are sex specific
Who can tell in this crazy day and age.
as the potential to put an end to the bottled water industry
ORLY?
How strong is it? How easily gripped is it while running or cycling? Can you refill it? Can you reseal it? Can you drink it without dribbling all over the table?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Sold!
the Koch brothers
Am I supposed to know who they are?
If it tastes like chicken and beef, it doesn't pass the "tastes like chicken" test.
So, you love the service but not enough just to go to a web site and buy it for 30% (or so) less than you have been paying now?
That's a rather optimistic assumption.
That sounds like a larf.
Graphene, a one-atom-thick form of the carbon material graphite, is strong, light, nearly transparent and an excellent conductor of electricity and heat
Wouldn't those two be attributes of a one-atom-thick form of anything?
I mean, you say it's light, but so is anything if you have little enough of it. Atom-for-atom it weighs the same as diamond.
Something about speed reading being great? Right?