We're close neighbors (NASA simulation) of 2004 MN4. A spacecraft ought to be sent to slice and dice this rock before it cuts in front of us. It's an excellent opportunity for making a test.
What kind of techniques may be used? Bomb? Laser? Drill? Garrote? Chainsaw, even?
One in 233 sounds safe, but people win the lottery all the time. Go figure. That means if most people have odds of missing, there are still people around with odds of getting hit. We need to find these people.
Wait a sec. That doesn't explain the probability does it? Let me see if I can understand it.
Suppose it will hit but we aren't advanced enough to know for sure. Then as it gets closer, the probability for a collision will appear greater and greater, moving from milestone to milestone: 1/233, 1/200, 1/100, 1/50, 1/25, 1/10, 1/4, 1/2, 1.
What in the world is a 1/2 probability of collision? It seems that with such a dire prediction it would behoove astronomers to give us a probability of 1 or 0.
Predicting a collision is made difficult by the errors that are possible - the asteroid is far and fast. It may be influenced by other objects we don't know about. It is small and may miss by a hair. It may gain or lose mass. It may undergo reactions that alter its movement. As I understand the probability is based on the amount of error in favor of a collision/miss, as opposed to an experiment where the earth and the asteroid are placed in the same situation 233,000,000 times and 1 * 10^6 collisions occur to one significant figure.
I suppose that measuring the movement of the asteroid over the course of a few days yields a large set of possible trajectories, and 1/233 of them are collision courses. What would be interesting is the variation in parameters from one collision course to another. Are the collision courses clustered very closely? A low probability of 1/233 leads me to believe so. Collision courses that are not clustered help us by allowing us to use only a minor disturbance to change a collision course into a noncollision course.
We're being taunted by the powerful. They have their agenda, and it doesn't include you and me. Signs are being waved in front of our noses daring us to do something about it.
Do you know what they invented? One of the simplest originators of force, called electronic charge. It makes possible electronic control. That's electronic control of our minds.
We might be living in a fairly bizarre world if people actually live by the letter of EULAs.
Software creators hope that some people don't abide by the terms of the EULA. Software that is heavily copy protected doesn't proliferate well in the market.
would you be satisfied if there was a link on each page to view an image of the actual page?
Not quite. I need Tank to download the actual meanings of the information into my mind complete with examples, cross-indexing, case studies, interpretations, and optimized instructions to arbitrary goal solving.
According to the Google spokesperson "Ever since we acquired a 1 Googlebyte hard drive, we've been obsessed with filling it with data generated by others. Did you want to search Microsoft's cache of Google?"
Hear, hear! Confuscious says "When going to site never seen before, disable scripting paraphernalia."
Generally I leave my scripting settings enabled because I go to sites that use scripting but these are sites that I trust.
The poor souls who don't understand computer programming will have a hard time determining whether a site contains malicious script code, in spite it is visible by View Source. It's amazing so many people are snookered these days by code that is wide open for scrutiny, but all it takes is some gullible clickers.
Clearly because I have to do so much work on Windows applications, I have to have Windows running on the best technology that will be invented.
Windows has been most available for technology that is affordable to the masses. If cell processors will sell everywhere, they will be compatible with Windows I imagine.
By chosing from 2 threads instead of one it has greater chances of finding an instruction that can be computed by an idle (at that time) unit
If the computer has, say, 100 K or 1 M cells running at low power levels, it can still compute a difficult sequential problem with a speculative approach much like the hyperthreading scaled up to the stratosphere. Variables that take a long time to compute can still be assigned speculative values and used to compute further. Then when the values of the variables are definitively obtained, the results based on incorrect speculative assignment are discarded while the results based on correct assignment are retained.
Analogies to this approach occur readily in theorem proving. Fermat's last theorem was shown to be equivalent to a number of conjectures. A fully sequential approach would have to prove the conjecture before proving the equivalence while a speculative approach allows the proof of the equivalence before the proof of the conjecture.
The analogy breaks down in that the conjectures had to be equivalent to Fermat's last theorem rather than a larger set of assertions with unknown equivalence. Another analogy is one might have used Fermat's last theorem speculatively before it was proved, to derive results that would be accepted only after Fermat's last theorem was verified.
Willy nilly speculation would waste a lot of processing time (but so many computers are devoted to nothing but speculation anyway). There are two coordinates - time and space. The speed of light constrains time, but space might be used to obtain results faster than pure sequential computing.
Speculation on major variables that have only a few possible values is practical - a lot better than speculating on a large set of variables that imply an exponential number of speculations.
Wouldn't Exxon avoid liability with the label "WARNING FROM THE SURGEON GENERAL: Burning gasoline will enlarge the ozone hole, cause mass extinctions, flood coastal regions, and reduce the potency of males."? Mandate some large graphics on gas pumps - a sunburn under a thin ozone layer, extinct species - and the onus reverts to the consumer.
It's nice to bask in the right to express oneself freely, but those who want to enjoy free works of art should either contribute high quality art for free or buy the copyrights.
Clearly technology will make copying easier. Technology will hamper the ability of people to profit from their own creativity. The time will come when computers produce better compilations of knowledge and art than people. At this point information may as well be free because I can click on the button labelled "Create" and receive a dump of information that I can enjoy.
I suggest that we stop using P2P for mere sharing of files that "someone has copied/ripped from somewhere" - especially data that was originally sold rather than freely distributed. P2P is somewhat corrupting, leading to laziness. Instead, consider the success of the free software movement where cooperation produces quality material available at no charge. The time has come for technology to assist us in the production of free art. Look at the incredible special effects done in movies by computers. Well, we can apply worldwide grid computing to rendering free movies, as well as other noble applications such as scientific calculations.
You can bet that prices for data will drop in the years to come. P2P is a bizarre phenomenon meant for surreptitious file copying - if information was to be made available with no qualms, it would be on a website. Valuable information with heavy traffic is mirrored legitimately. If you have the right to freedom of speech, put your money where your mouth is, and output some free stuff for us.
Human intelligence has been roaming the planet on the order of 10 Kyr to 100 Kyr yet it seems that the greatest breakthroughs in knowledge occurred only in the order of 100 yr.
Let N be the year that AI awakens. Assume Moore's Law is valid to infinity. Let M be the first AI machine. Let's say in this fantasy that M is 1/1024 as smart as average man or perhaps 1/4096 as smart as genius man, according to the time required to run a plethora of benchmark activities. A machine M_67108864 denotes a computer 67108864 = 2^26 times as powerful as M. In one year of learning M_67108864 gains the knowledge equivalent to 65536 years of operation of 1024 * M = 1 average man.
Thus if we let our computational progress run its natural course we'll build M_67108864 at the year N + 52, which will grind away for the better part of the year doing very little but by Novemberish time learn enough to catch up to us as we are in 2004 and perhaps by Christmas keep up with average mankind of the year N + 52.
Comical corollary. From these calculations N must be around 2020.
Of course a well taught M_1024 or perhaps even M_16 would pass the Turing test. This is a sharp contrast in the time required for a species to independently discover knowledge and new members to learn the status quo.
Since a computer tends to be fairly consistent, it seems optimal to determine a set P of fundamental principles that M should govern its reasoning with.
Has humanity compiled a subset of P?
Re:Shopping Mall+ This + Tranq Darts = GREAT FUN
on
Internet Hunting
·
· Score: 1
Mark my words. Some wacko will set up a copycat in a city.
How you know it works on your computer
on
Internet Hunting
·
· Score: 1
What kind of video is it though? If it's a random slideshow of the Mandelbrot set at bigtime magnification you need a lot of horsepower. Regular speed movement - not so much unless you need to render every elemental dA.
Let's look back at some recent technological advances, namely supercomputers. Current technology has enabled much better supercomputers at far less expense. Analogy-wise perhaps it's time to replace Hubble with a better one.
The other aspect is the benefit of using space robots. A roboticized repair without any nearby personnel is unprecedented. It's a huge investment and if the return on investment is considered, that's bound to be significant in the case of a successful outcome.
So let's not go around cost-benefit analyzing the availability of money for the needy. Let's face it, people spend billions gambling every day. A lot of that money is supposed to go to charity, and there are still so many poor people. Some of the money is going to research and government. I bet there's a lot of money going to administrators and investments though.
Slashdot Mirror
Then it's a miss. Nothing ever bad happens on Fri. 13.
Update: the probability of impact is 1/13.
"It's coming right for us!"
We're close neighbors (NASA simulation) of 2004 MN4. A spacecraft ought to be sent to slice and dice this rock before it cuts in front of us. It's an excellent opportunity for making a test.
What kind of techniques may be used? Bomb? Laser? Drill? Garrote? Chainsaw, even?
One in 233 sounds safe, but people win the lottery all the time. Go figure. That means if most people have odds of missing, there are still people around with odds of getting hit. We need to find these people.
Wait a sec. That doesn't explain the probability does it? Let me see if I can understand it.
Suppose it will hit but we aren't advanced enough to know for sure. Then as it gets closer, the probability for a collision will appear greater and greater, moving from milestone to milestone: 1/233, 1/200, 1/100, 1/50, 1/25, 1/10, 1/4, 1/2, 1.
What in the world is a 1/2 probability of collision? It seems that with such a dire prediction it would behoove astronomers to give us a probability of 1 or 0.
Predicting a collision is made difficult by the errors that are possible - the asteroid is far and fast. It may be influenced by other objects we don't know about. It is small and may miss by a hair. It may gain or lose mass. It may undergo reactions that alter its movement. As I understand the probability is based on the amount of error in favor of a collision/miss, as opposed to an experiment where the earth and the asteroid are placed in the same situation 233,000,000 times and 1 * 10^6 collisions occur to one significant figure.
I suppose that measuring the movement of the asteroid over the course of a few days yields a large set of possible trajectories, and 1/233 of them are collision courses. What would be interesting is the variation in parameters from one collision course to another. Are the collision courses clustered very closely? A low probability of 1/233 leads me to believe so. Collision courses that are not clustered help us by allowing us to use only a minor disturbance to change a collision course into a noncollision course.
We're being taunted by the powerful. They have their agenda, and it doesn't include you and me. Signs are being waved in front of our noses daring us to do something about it.
Do you know what they invented? One of the simplest originators of force, called electronic charge. It makes possible electronic control. That's electronic control of our minds.
if anyone agrees to an EULA.
We might be living in a fairly bizarre world if people actually live by the letter of EULAs.
Software creators hope that some people don't abide by the terms of the EULA. Software that is heavily copy protected doesn't proliferate well in the market.
would you be satisfied if there was a link on each page to view an image of the actual page?
Not quite. I need Tank to download the actual meanings of the information into my mind complete with examples, cross-indexing, case studies, interpretations, and optimized instructions to arbitrary goal solving.
According to the Google spokesperson "Ever since we acquired a 1 Googlebyte hard drive, we've been obsessed with filling it with data generated by others. Did you want to search Microsoft's cache of Google?"
Hear, hear! Confuscious says "When going to site never seen before, disable scripting paraphernalia."
Generally I leave my scripting settings enabled because I go to sites that use scripting but these are sites that I trust.
The poor souls who don't understand computer programming will have a hard time determining whether a site contains malicious script code, in spite it is visible by View Source. It's amazing so many people are snookered these days by code that is wide open for scrutiny, but all it takes is some gullible clickers.
The unsuspecting may be entering confidential information into a spoofed window, especially username and password.
Could the hijacked window be used in any way to impersonate the trusted site to do things like install malicious software?
This is a frightful possibility - the popup alerts you an upgrade of program xyz is required. Many people will accept their fate.
How is Windows on PPC even relevant?
Clearly because I have to do so much work on Windows applications, I have to have Windows running on the best technology that will be invented.
Windows has been most available for technology that is affordable to the masses. If cell processors will sell everywhere, they will be compatible with Windows I imagine.
By chosing from 2 threads instead of one it has greater chances of finding an instruction that can be computed by an idle (at that time) unit
If the computer has, say, 100 K or 1 M cells running at low power levels, it can still compute a difficult sequential problem with a speculative approach much like the hyperthreading scaled up to the stratosphere. Variables that take a long time to compute can still be assigned speculative values and used to compute further. Then when the values of the variables are definitively obtained, the results based on incorrect speculative assignment are discarded while the results based on correct assignment are retained.
Analogies to this approach occur readily in theorem proving. Fermat's last theorem was shown to be equivalent to a number of conjectures. A fully sequential approach would have to prove the conjecture before proving the equivalence while a speculative approach allows the proof of the equivalence before the proof of the conjecture.
The analogy breaks down in that the conjectures had to be equivalent to Fermat's last theorem rather than a larger set of assertions with unknown equivalence. Another analogy is one might have used Fermat's last theorem speculatively before it was proved, to derive results that would be accepted only after Fermat's last theorem was verified.
Willy nilly speculation would waste a lot of processing time (but so many computers are devoted to nothing but speculation anyway). There are two coordinates - time and space. The speed of light constrains time, but space might be used to obtain results faster than pure sequential computing.
Speculation on major variables that have only a few possible values is practical - a lot better than speculating on a large set of variables that imply an exponential number of speculations.
in a few years, when all cpus will have peaked at some--obscenely high--MHz limit
few meaning less than 10?
I wonder if, as the limit approaches, we may as well just quit pushing closer to it. Resistance to nature is futile.
All the same there is so much being done by synchronizing on leading and trailing edges - double pumping, quad pumping and so on.
Wouldn't Exxon avoid liability with the label "WARNING FROM THE SURGEON GENERAL: Burning gasoline will enlarge the ozone hole, cause mass extinctions, flood coastal regions, and reduce the potency of males."? Mandate some large graphics on gas pumps - a sunburn under a thin ozone layer, extinct species - and the onus reverts to the consumer.
Given the rate we use energy, the transport will be a pipeline.
She added that the emergency payments system was "working perfectly."
Jones agreed, "I still have plenty of blank cheques. My pen is at room temperature."
Instructions for reassembly were also included.
make a KILLING off of drinks + food
being chips and sodas - we can take the literal meaning
It's nice to bask in the right to express oneself freely, but those who want to enjoy free works of art should either contribute high quality art for free or buy the copyrights.
Clearly technology will make copying easier. Technology will hamper the ability of people to profit from their own creativity. The time will come when computers produce better compilations of knowledge and art than people. At this point information may as well be free because I can click on the button labelled "Create" and receive a dump of information that I can enjoy.
I suggest that we stop using P2P for mere sharing of files that "someone has copied/ripped from somewhere" - especially data that was originally sold rather than freely distributed. P2P is somewhat corrupting, leading to laziness. Instead, consider the success of the free software movement where cooperation produces quality material available at no charge. The time has come for technology to assist us in the production of free art. Look at the incredible special effects done in movies by computers. Well, we can apply worldwide grid computing to rendering free movies, as well as other noble applications such as scientific calculations.
You can bet that prices for data will drop in the years to come. P2P is a bizarre phenomenon meant for surreptitious file copying - if information was to be made available with no qualms, it would be on a website. Valuable information with heavy traffic is mirrored legitimately. If you have the right to freedom of speech, put your money where your mouth is, and output some free stuff for us.
If this is true I wonder if it will give greedy employers an excuse make me work more hours in the day
By then you will be self-employed. Are you going to take extra holidays or work 60+ hours?
Human intelligence has been roaming the planet on the order of 10 Kyr to 100 Kyr yet it seems that the greatest breakthroughs in knowledge occurred only in the order of 100 yr.
Let N be the year that AI awakens. Assume Moore's Law is valid to infinity. Let M be the first AI machine. Let's say in this fantasy that M is 1/1024 as smart as average man or perhaps 1/4096 as smart as genius man, according to the time required to run a plethora of benchmark activities. A machine M_67108864 denotes a computer 67108864 = 2^26 times as powerful as M. In one year of learning M_67108864 gains the knowledge equivalent to 65536 years of operation of 1024 * M = 1 average man.
Thus if we let our computational progress run its natural course we'll build M_67108864 at the year N + 52, which will grind away for the better part of the year doing very little but by Novemberish time learn enough to catch up to us as we are in 2004 and perhaps by Christmas keep up with average mankind of the year N + 52.
Comical corollary. From these calculations N must be around 2020.
Of course a well taught M_1024 or perhaps even M_16 would pass the Turing test. This is a sharp contrast in the time required for a species to independently discover knowledge and new members to learn the status quo.
Since a computer tends to be fairly consistent, it seems optimal to determine a set P of fundamental principles that M should govern its reasoning with.
Has humanity compiled a subset of P?
Mark my words. Some wacko will set up a copycat in a city.
Giving new meaning to plug and prey
What kind of video is it though? If it's a random slideshow of the Mandelbrot set at bigtime magnification you need a lot of horsepower. Regular speed movement - not so much unless you need to render every elemental dA.
So what would you do with 1.6 billion?
Is that the right question?
Let's look back at some recent technological advances, namely supercomputers. Current technology has enabled much better supercomputers at far less expense. Analogy-wise perhaps it's time to replace Hubble with a better one.
The other aspect is the benefit of using space robots. A roboticized repair without any nearby personnel is unprecedented. It's a huge investment and if the return on investment is considered, that's bound to be significant in the case of a successful outcome.
So let's not go around cost-benefit analyzing the availability of money for the needy. Let's face it, people spend billions gambling every day. A lot of that money is supposed to go to charity, and there are still so many poor people. Some of the money is going to research and government. I bet there's a lot of money going to administrators and investments though.