One can implement it with a few gates. There need not be a processor as such.
If you have some kind of processor fetish the processor needed to run the software can be a one-bit one implementable in a few hundred gates. Not complex.
The problem with this line of thought is there isn't any indication there exists something more powerful than a computer (the model - not physical implementation/subset).
Quantum computers are _computers_ as defined by Church-Turing. They aren't hyper-computers. They aren't even generally faster than the stored program computer/von Neumann model computer which is the most commonly one (though not the only one).
If the common(?) misconception that a quantum computer would compute all results at once and then select the correct one would be true (it isn't) then it would be a hyper-computer. It doesn't and it isn't.
TL;DR If this shows that a computer can't simulate the real world it also shows that a quantum computer can't do it.
Why assume that the external computer wouldn't be a hyper-computer? At most this research may (if it's done correct) prove that the simulator must be more powerful than that described by Church-Turing.
The Buran had enough differences that it couldn't be a shuttle copy according to some NASA people (don't remember who - it was a while ago after all). The differences meant (according to the NASA people) that Buran had to be redesigned essentially from scratch to not break up during reentry. Inspired by? Absolutely, strongly inspired by but with several critical differences. People involved in the design have hinted that a lot of the development was done simply because 1) they didn't want to be behind the US and 2) to try to understand why someone would design something that essentially useless. There were a lot of theory of it being part of a space weapon of some sort.
IIRC, from what I read etc. etc. take with a mountain of salt.
So? I hope you realize that I never claimed otherwise? The dangers are (for most people) minor to non-existent while nicotine is dangerous for everyone.
I think a potential for a future stable ABI isn't worth much when they can't even release an update of the main language that is compatible with existing code.
It also opens up ways to decrease security (by replacing a library module). In most other ways I think statically linked code is the best choice at this point given good infrastructure support.
But it isn't like a combination of static and dynamic linking isn't possible today, mix and match to suit the program under development. Or even ship the main code as pre-compiled code and link at installation time -> possible to replace with a new openssl library if needed. Or even better allow installation time static linking with optimization making the result as efficient as a globally optimized static linked code can be - however that's something not generally possible today.
Why would that even be relevant? Why would it be a Linux advocate that have switched and made that public? How do you define respected? How do you define advocate (someone that have recommended something, someone with a fanatical devotion to something)?
You see as you have stated the above you can just say "nope, they weren't a true advocate" or "nope, not a respected person" or even "they were true advocates and they are respected but they haven't put it on the official record that they have switched". In other words your request is unreasonable.
Science isn't about being impressive - just about doing science. And this seems to be a limited study that shows some things that perhaps seem obvious.
But showing that those "obvious" things are real is also doing science! Because believing things without backup is being anti-scientific.
This study does more than you imply in your post, maybe you should understand what it is about before complaining about it? But there are of course things that complain about - especially that the sample size being so small.
Especially when the stimulant is a well know, well documented toxin that evolved as a toxin to defend plants (so not toxic as a side-effect).
The blurb mentions people believing nicotine being harmless... Why mention idiots without critical thinking and knowledge? They surely are there just as there are those that thinks fluoridated water is a communist conspiracy but what do they have to do with anything connected to the real world? Just ignore them.
Really fine powders is nanotechnology, current semiconductor processing is nanotechnology. Improving scale, control and yield is what research is about.
As the AC replied 1um is something one can do with metal work - with the semiconductor industry (with optical lithography) working on the nanometer level (tens of nm for most parts, atomic layer deposition can do better but only in one dimension).
In fact amateurs can do work on the 1um level with some effort though not on a large scale.
"Patterns of Sedentary Behavior and Mortality in U.S. Middle-Aged and Older Adults: A National Cohort Study".
It doesn't claim measuring sitting, it states it doesn't measure sitting and it is honest in stating limitations. Or do you have any actual claim made by the researchers that say otherwise?
Slashdot Mirror
AAARGH!! NO!
Quantum computers ARE _NOT_ HYPER-COMPUTERS!!
One can implement it with a few gates. There need not be a processor as such.
If you have some kind of processor fetish the processor needed to run the software can be a one-bit one implementable in a few hundred gates. Not complex.
The problem with this line of thought is there isn't any indication there exists something more powerful than a computer (the model - not physical implementation/subset).
*Sigh*
Quantum computers are _computers_ as defined by Church-Turing. They aren't hyper-computers. They aren't even generally faster than the stored program computer/von Neumann model computer which is the most commonly one (though not the only one).
If the common(?) misconception that a quantum computer would compute all results at once and then select the correct one would be true (it isn't) then it would be a hyper-computer. It doesn't and it isn't.
TL;DR If this shows that a computer can't simulate the real world it also shows that a quantum computer can't do it.
Why? Gödel would already know this by then...
Why assume that the external computer wouldn't be a hyper-computer? At most this research may (if it's done correct) prove that the simulator must be more powerful than that described by Church-Turing.
Statistics. Learn about them. But always remember that statistics aren't truth _for_a_subset_ of what the statistics measure.
The Buran had enough differences that it couldn't be a shuttle copy according to some NASA people (don't remember who - it was a while ago after all). The differences meant (according to the NASA people) that Buran had to be redesigned essentially from scratch to not break up during reentry. Inspired by? Absolutely, strongly inspired by but with several critical differences.
People involved in the design have hinted that a lot of the development was done simply because 1) they didn't want to be behind the US and 2) to try to understand why someone would design something that essentially useless. There were a lot of theory of it being part of a space weapon of some sort.
IIRC, from what I read etc. etc. take with a mountain of salt.
Don't know if I should treat this as a bad troll or an insane idiot.
So? I hope you realize that I never claimed otherwise? The dangers are (for most people) minor to non-existent while nicotine is dangerous for everyone.
Gates isn't a spokesman of MS, not the leader of MS and have used products from other companies before. So what?
I think a potential for a future stable ABI isn't worth much when they can't even release an update of the main language that is compatible with existing code.
It also opens up ways to decrease security (by replacing a library module). In most other ways I think statically linked code is the best choice at this point given good infrastructure support.
But it isn't like a combination of static and dynamic linking isn't possible today, mix and match to suit the program under development. Or even ship the main code as pre-compiled code and link at installation time -> possible to replace with a new openssl library if needed. Or even better allow installation time static linking with optimization making the result as efficient as a globally optimized static linked code can be - however that's something not generally possible today.
Other things that didn't make it:
1. Germ theory
2. Vaccines
3. Antibiotics
Why would that even be relevant? Why would it be a Linux advocate that have switched and made that public? How do you define respected? How do you define advocate (someone that have recommended something, someone with a fanatical devotion to something)?
You see as you have stated the above you can just say "nope, they weren't a true advocate" or "nope, not a respected person" or even "they were true advocates and they are respected but they haven't put it on the official record that they have switched". In other words your request is unreasonable.
You just provided another example of delusional ranting...
And possibly because a study for a certain way to use nicotine can't really tell about other ways to do that.
Science isn't about being impressive - just about doing science. And this seems to be a limited study that shows some things that perhaps seem obvious.
But showing that those "obvious" things are real is also doing science! Because believing things without backup is being anti-scientific.
This study does more than you imply in your post, maybe you should understand what it is about before complaining about it? But there are of course things that complain about - especially that the sample size being so small.
Especially when the stimulant is a well know, well documented toxin that evolved as a toxin to defend plants (so not toxic as a side-effect).
The blurb mentions people believing nicotine being harmless... Why mention idiots without critical thinking and knowledge? They surely are there just as there are those that thinks fluoridated water is a communist conspiracy but what do they have to do with anything connected to the real world? Just ignore them.
Really fine powders is nanotechnology, current semiconductor processing is nanotechnology. Improving scale, control and yield is what research is about.
As the AC replied 1um is something one can do with metal work - with the semiconductor industry (with optical lithography) working on the nanometer level (tens of nm for most parts, atomic layer deposition can do better but only in one dimension).
In fact amateurs can do work on the 1um level with some effort though not on a large scale.
"Patterns of Sedentary Behavior and Mortality in U.S. Middle-Aged and Older Adults: A National Cohort Study".
It doesn't claim measuring sitting, it states it doesn't measure sitting and it is honest in stating limitations. Or do you have any actual claim made by the researchers that say otherwise?
I'll just note that "antiquated" is a really crap reason to dislike something...
Yes and that's why there are no road signs nor street lights anywhere.
Overreacted - sorry. :(