I may have missed it at first glance, but I didnt see anything on nano-technology. I would think that 3 atom wide wires and 67 (i think) atom large motors were pretty important discoveries. I know that neither of these technologies are finished (the wires can only be permanently set and the motor cannot make a full revolution) but they are the first steps into a technology that will change every form of science known to man. But then again, I may have just missed it in the article.
Which is why you cannot have open sourced games. It is too easy to fake any authentication protocols within the program. Sorry guys, but we need to keep open source out of games.
Sorry about the mispelled name, I didnt catch it on my preview. And correct, he did create the Periodic Table and was the first to start putting elements into families (such as alkali metals and halogens).
What do you mean just a game? Games control the computer industry. They are the single thing that is driving computer hardware to new levels of power and efficiency.
And since when is security through obscurity a bad idea? Without obscurity every single possible type of security could be broken. All you can hope for is to keep the protocols hidden for as long as possible.
Why should he be man of the year, for this list anyway. For the list that this article is referring to, even Bill Gates is much more deserving of the title.
Just because your grandmother - who must know nothing about the computer industry - accidentally happened upon an article about Linus, that doesnt mean that Linus is better known than Gates. The difference between the popularity of Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds (regarding computers) is about the same as the difference between Albert Einstien (sp?) and Dmitri Medeleeff (regarding science).
And that is why you need to go Closed source. That will keep a game fun and cheater free for the longest possible time. And maybe then you can put out a patch with a different protocol so that all the honest players can stretch play cheater free for a little longer until the next version of the game comes out. Then it doesnt matter any more, cause there will be a better game to play.
That is why, while I like Linux and its ideals, it seams to me that all it ever does is reinvent the wheel. The good thing is that they are usually very good wheels, and free to boot.
I cannot believe that you have nothing better to do with your christmas eve that complain about someone puting an apostrophe (sp?) in the word "i'm." And for god's sake, look at how many grammer mistakes you made.
First of all, it's good you're a student.
That should be : First of all, it's good that you're a student.
This way you have a change of taking some English comp classes so you learn how to spell
That should be : This way you have a chance of taking some English comp classes so that you can learn how to spell.
And also, I know many people in "IT" jobs that are very intelligent individuals. And most of the most intelligent people that I know aren't in CS at all. They are biochem, physics, or aerospace engineering majors. The level of math and science courses they have to take in their junior year would make a CS grad student cry.
Actually, I bet the redundancy and damage survival controls are there to make sure that the vote gets to the its destination in tact. They believe that one vote is a powerful thing and that every single vote with no exceptions should get to its destination with the correct vote still inside it.
Regarding your Thomas Edison example, he was more of an inventor than a pure physicist. It is a VERY different thing to pump out multiple inventions than it is to pump out new theories about how the universe works. While I hope that this guy is correct in all of his claims, I would guess that it is more than a little doubtfull that he even even remotely correct.
R-Rated movie? He said two words of profanity that in my opinion were used very well to prove his point. In this case the phrase "fuck around with" worked much better than maybe "mess around with". I relayed the message that what this scientist is doing is trying to debunk almost everything that we know about both chemistry and physics. His choicing of words fit what he was trying to get across to his audience.
I agree with you that constant profanity does degrade from the respectfullness of a person's statement, but you do not know whether or not this scientist uses such language often. He was quoted on I believe three of his sentences. Do you have any idea how long the interview was? I have no idea, but I am sure that it was longer than three sentences. All that this article shows is that the journalist found those phrases to be the most effective, not that Dr Anderson was overly proud of them.
And also, language alone cannot show you how intelligent a person is. I can understand if you said that usually people who use profanity are unintelligent, but you clearly stated that all people who use such language are ignorant in your opinion. That is as unintelligent as saying that all people who use good language are smart. So I guess if I would have started this post by saying that even though Dr Anderson was slightly acrimonious in his quote he eloquently stated that he was in a choleric temperament, you would think me a smart man even though I could just be a ditch digger for all you know.
Too bad I wasnt in your class or you could have done what most of my classmates did. They looked over my shoulder watching me while they handed me $30 to rewrite my programs enough so that they could hand it in too. I rewrote my C++ final program five times! That was the easiest $150 dollars I ever made, and I did it in one class period (about 1 hour). $150 an hour isnt bad for a college kid. Too bad that only happened once every other week when programs were due, cause it was more lucrative than writing people's term papers for them. Too bad that they will grow up to be bad programmers later, but I guess that will give more jobs to me.
I am sure that two people working seperatly would get done much faster than two people working together. Just think of the programmer that is simply looking over the actual coder's shoulder. How long will he be paying attention untill he has had enough? How long could a (usually egotistical) programmer stand being told that he missed another semi-colon untill he started ignoring the other bystandard. Two people working seperatly (while sharing finished functions and classes of course) would finish much faster since they would both be using their full abililty at all time.
Remember that behaviourism is mixed with the biological as well. For some reason our biological taste buds like sweet foods rather than other foods. Therefore if you give a person both ice cream and broccoli they will probably choose ice cream. The problem is that behavioristic thought would then tell the person that brocolli is more healthy which would prolong your life, or that you will become fat which would reduce your sex appeal (I know you said not to use it but I did give another reason first). Most people would never eat most healthy foods if they didnt know that they were healthy (maybe after spending too much time in the bathroom they might, but that again with be a conditioned response).
The idea that intelligence is as simple as mimicking reations has already been proven to be false.
That is not even close to being true. It has not been proven to be false, only improbable. It is similar to a few centuries ago when English longbowmen said that gunpowder was useless compared to their bows.
Just because our computers cant think like humans yet does not mean that they never will. It will just take us more time to figure out how to do it (not to mention we will need faster computers). You must remember that nanotechnology is used by our brains, amd that is far more efficient than our computers. Wait for computers 50 times faster as Athlons that fit into your watch. Im sure that by then we will have the necessary architecture to start creating sentient robots.
And BTW, programmers do not program computers to adapt. They set up parameters for what the programs want to have happen, and the programs adapt for themselves. Instead of a good result being find food or staying alive (like in real life), it may be predicting the correct weather pattern.
You are correct that our brains use a combination of biological and behavioristic variables to make decisions. I do not believe, however, that this would stop a robot from thinking like a human. I would like to use the analogy of wheels and legs. Both are very different from eachother in every way possible, but both can give the ability of locomotion. This is much similar to a computer brain and human brain. Both are very different, but both would allow for a building ground for thought. While it would take a while, eventually computers will be able to do everything that humans do.
While I definetly agree that someday robots will be able to do everything that we do only better, I disagree with your belief that early robots would not want to be like humans. It is possible that once robots are truly sentient, they will have the same desire to fit in as we do. The desire to fit in is very great among humans, and it is possible to believe that other sentient being would have the same desire (not guarenteed, but plausible). That would make robots want to be like us not because we are better, but just because they want to fit in. While I know this might not happen, it is definetly justifyable enough to be used in a work of fiction.
Re:How does this mock religion?
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
Well, no one will ever see this post again since it is no longer on the main page, but I couldnt let that go. Heat is no the amount of kinetic energy. Heat is the amount of kinetic energy transfered between two objects that are in thermal contact with eachother.
How did this comment get an overrated moderation. It was at score 1, it hadnt been rated at all. Is that just a convenient way to attack people when you dont agree with them? "I dont have an intelligent response, but look here, I have a moderation point left over. Lets mark him down because I have big corporations like Intel and he is putting down my AMD."
Re:How does this mock religion?
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
There is a big difference between the two. We do not simply look at the effects of something to prove it exists. The part that is most important is the effect's reproducability. Boiling water is 373 K every time you measure it. Religons work because they just say that something happened and people believe it because of faith. If you dont trust it or it is proven wrong then you just dont have enough faith. People can then be scared into having faith since you may have an unfavorable afterlife if you lack faith. Events in the Bible cannot be reproduced, and therefore cannot be used in an argument where science is even hinted at. Everything in the universe has a reasonable explanation that has nothing to do with the paranormal or spiritual, we just dont know all of the explanations yet. Two thousand years ago we didnt know what created lightning, but it didnt mean there wasnt a logical explanation beyond the realm of the gods.
How did this post get a 4 score? If someone said that AMD is playing catchup to Intel and that the new AMD chips are all going to suck they would get a score of -1 flaimbait. The new coppermines are just as good as the AMD. The Athlon was only a short time wonder which lost its flash in a few months. It was must like the first nuclear bombs - they were the best in the world for a few years and now everyone has them. It will still take a few years to see if AMD can really go toe to toe with Intel.
>>I'll answer your question with one word----- Capitalism. That's what drives these companies. They are not looking to change the world, they just want to pad their pockets!
No, Capitalism is what has allowed technology to grow so fast during this century. It gives people whatever they will pay for. Capitalism is not responsible for innovation just like doctors are not responsible for fixing your car. That does not make Capitalism or surgeans useless.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that all of these things are great, but I just hope that next year they can list "Evolution again taught in Kansas." Here is to wishing.
I may have missed it at first glance, but I didnt see anything on nano-technology. I would think that 3 atom wide wires and 67 (i think) atom large motors were pretty important discoveries. I know that neither of these technologies are finished (the wires can only be permanently set and the motor cannot make a full revolution) but they are the first steps into a technology that will change every form of science known to man. But then again, I may have just missed it in the article.
Which is why you cannot have open sourced games. It is too easy to fake any authentication protocols within the program. Sorry guys, but we need to keep open source out of games.
Sorry about the mispelled name, I didnt catch it on my preview. And correct, he did create the Periodic Table and was the first to start putting elements into families (such as alkali metals and halogens).
What do you mean just a game? Games control the computer industry. They are the single thing that is driving computer hardware to new levels of power and efficiency.
And since when is security through obscurity a bad idea? Without obscurity every single possible type of security could be broken. All you can hope for is to keep the protocols hidden for as long as possible.
Why should he be man of the year, for this list anyway. For the list that this article is referring to, even Bill Gates is much more deserving of the title.
Just because your grandmother - who must know nothing about the computer industry - accidentally happened upon an article about Linus, that doesnt mean that Linus is better known than Gates. The difference between the popularity of Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds (regarding computers) is about the same as the difference between Albert Einstien (sp?) and Dmitri Medeleeff (regarding science).
And that is why you need to go Closed source. That will keep a game fun and cheater free for the longest possible time. And maybe then you can put out a patch with a different protocol so that all the honest players can stretch play cheater free for a little longer until the next version of the game comes out. Then it doesnt matter any more, cause there will be a better game to play.
That is why, while I like Linux and its ideals, it seams to me that all it ever does is reinvent the wheel. The good thing is that they are usually very good wheels, and free to boot.
I cannot believe that you have nothing better to do with your christmas eve that complain about someone puting an apostrophe (sp?) in the word "i'm." And for god's sake, look at how many grammer mistakes you made.
First of all, it's good you're a student.
That should be : First of all, it's good that you're a student.
This way you have a change of taking some English comp classes so you learn how to spell
That should be : This way you have a chance of taking some English comp classes so that you can learn how to spell.
And also, I know many people in "IT" jobs that are very intelligent individuals. And most of the most intelligent people that I know aren't in CS at all. They are biochem, physics, or aerospace engineering majors. The level of math and science courses they have to take in their junior year would make a CS grad student cry.
Actually, I bet the redundancy and damage survival controls are there to make sure that the vote gets to the its destination in tact. They believe that one vote is a powerful thing and that every single vote with no exceptions should get to its destination with the correct vote still inside it.
Regarding your Thomas Edison example, he was more of an inventor than a pure physicist. It is a VERY different thing to pump out multiple inventions than it is to pump out new theories about how the universe works. While I hope that this guy is correct in all of his claims, I would guess that it is more than a little doubtfull that he even even remotely correct.
R-Rated movie? He said two words of profanity that in my opinion were used very well to prove his point. In this case the phrase "fuck around with" worked much better than maybe "mess around with". I relayed the message that what this scientist is doing is trying to debunk almost everything that we know about both chemistry and physics. His choicing of words fit what he was trying to get across to his audience.
I agree with you that constant profanity does degrade from the respectfullness of a person's statement, but you do not know whether or not this scientist uses such language often. He was quoted on I believe three of his sentences. Do you have any idea how long the interview was? I have no idea, but I am sure that it was longer than three sentences. All that this article shows is that the journalist found those phrases to be the most effective, not that Dr Anderson was overly proud of them.
And also, language alone cannot show you how intelligent a person is. I can understand if you said that usually people who use profanity are unintelligent, but you clearly stated that all people who use such language are ignorant in your opinion. That is as unintelligent as saying that all people who use good language are smart. So I guess if I would have started this post by saying that even though Dr Anderson was slightly acrimonious in his quote he eloquently stated that he was in a choleric temperament, you would think me a smart man even though I could just be a ditch digger for all you know.
Too bad I wasnt in your class or you could have done what most of my classmates did. They looked over my shoulder watching me while they handed me $30 to rewrite my programs enough so that they could hand it in too. I rewrote my C++ final program five times! That was the easiest $150 dollars I ever made, and I did it in one class period (about 1 hour). $150 an hour isnt bad for a college kid. Too bad that only happened once every other week when programs were due, cause it was more lucrative than writing people's term papers for them. Too bad that they will grow up to be bad programmers later, but I guess that will give more jobs to me.
I am sure that two people working seperatly would get done much faster than two people working together. Just think of the programmer that is simply looking over the actual coder's shoulder. How long will he be paying attention untill he has had enough? How long could a (usually egotistical) programmer stand being told that he missed another semi-colon untill he started ignoring the other bystandard. Two people working seperatly (while sharing finished functions and classes of course) would finish much faster since they would both be using their full abililty at all time.
Remember that behaviourism is mixed with the biological as well. For some reason our biological taste buds like sweet foods rather than other foods. Therefore if you give a person both ice cream and broccoli they will probably choose ice cream. The problem is that behavioristic thought would then tell the person that brocolli is more healthy which would prolong your life, or that you will become fat which would reduce your sex appeal (I know you said not to use it but I did give another reason first). Most people would never eat most healthy foods if they didnt know that they were healthy (maybe after spending too much time in the bathroom they might, but that again with be a conditioned response).
The idea that intelligence is as simple as mimicking reations has already been proven to be false.
That is not even close to being true. It has not been proven to be false, only improbable. It is similar to a few centuries ago when English longbowmen said that gunpowder was useless compared to their bows.
Just because our computers cant think like humans yet does not mean that they never will. It will just take us more time to figure out how to do it (not to mention we will need faster computers). You must remember that nanotechnology is used by our brains, amd that is far more efficient than our computers. Wait for computers 50 times faster as Athlons that fit into your watch. Im sure that by then we will have the necessary architecture to start creating sentient robots.
And BTW, programmers do not program computers to adapt. They set up parameters for what the programs want to have happen, and the programs adapt for themselves. Instead of a good result being find food or staying alive (like in real life), it may be predicting the correct weather pattern.
You are correct that our brains use a combination of biological and behavioristic variables to make decisions. I do not believe, however, that this would stop a robot from thinking like a human. I would like to use the analogy of wheels and legs. Both are very different from eachother in every way possible, but both can give the ability of locomotion. This is much similar to a computer brain and human brain. Both are very different, but both would allow for a building ground for thought. While it would take a while, eventually computers will be able to do everything that humans do.
While I definetly agree that someday robots will be able to do everything that we do only better, I disagree with your belief that early robots would not want to be like humans. It is possible that once robots are truly sentient, they will have the same desire to fit in as we do. The desire to fit in is very great among humans, and it is possible to believe that other sentient being would have the same desire (not guarenteed, but plausible). That would make robots want to be like us not because we are better, but just because they want to fit in. While I know this might not happen, it is definetly justifyable enough to be used in a work of fiction.
Well, no one will ever see this post again since it is no longer on the main page, but I couldnt let that go. Heat is no the amount of kinetic energy. Heat is the amount of kinetic energy transfered between two objects that are in thermal contact with eachother.
Sorry to nitpick.
Sorry, that was hate big corporations, not have big corporations.
How did this comment get an overrated moderation. It was at score 1, it hadnt been rated at all. Is that just a convenient way to attack people when you dont agree with them? "I dont have an intelligent response, but look here, I have a moderation point left over. Lets mark him down because I have big corporations like Intel and he is putting down my AMD."
There is a big difference between the two. We do not simply look at the effects of something to prove it exists. The part that is most important is the effect's reproducability. Boiling water is 373 K every time you measure it. Religons work because they just say that something happened and people believe it because of faith. If you dont trust it or it is proven wrong then you just dont have enough faith. People can then be scared into having faith since you may have an unfavorable afterlife if you lack faith. Events in the Bible cannot be reproduced, and therefore cannot be used in an argument where science is even hinted at. Everything in the universe has a reasonable explanation that has nothing to do with the paranormal or spiritual, we just dont know all of the explanations yet. Two thousand years ago we didnt know what created lightning, but it didnt mean there wasnt a logical explanation beyond the realm of the gods.
How did this post get a 4 score? If someone said that AMD is playing catchup to Intel and that the new AMD chips are all going to suck they would get a score of -1 flaimbait. The new coppermines are just as good as the AMD. The Athlon was only a short time wonder which lost its flash in a few months. It was must like the first nuclear bombs - they were the best in the world for a few years and now everyone has them. It will still take a few years to see if AMD can really go toe to toe with Intel.
>>I'll answer your question with one word----- Capitalism. That's what drives these companies. They are not looking to change the world, they just want to pad their pockets!
No, Capitalism is what has allowed technology to grow so fast during this century. It gives people whatever they will pay for. Capitalism is not responsible for innovation just like doctors are not responsible for fixing your car. That does not make Capitalism or surgeans useless.