"the effect of CO2 is problematic, because it is mixing with other gasses and that makes a difference". Mixing how? Chemically? Via radiation? Interacting with clouds?
The different gases overlap in their absorption bands, so that makes it hard to say what the individual contribution is. Also, while CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, water vapour is not. For instance, most of the water vapour is in the lower layers of the atmosphere, and in the arctic areas there's very little water vapour at all, so in higher layers and in the arctic, greenhouse effect is mostly determined by CO2. In humid layers, water vapor is the main contributor.
Yes, there's a theory that humans cooking their food was a big enabler for their bigger brains, because the cooking process makes it a lot easier to digest the food and absorb more of the nutrients in a short time. But the ability to cook the food depends on a lot more than being intelligent. You also need the body that allows manipulation of tools so you can carry the fire wood, start a fire and control it, and carry the food to the fire. That's something that our bipedal humanoid ancestors could do well, but most other animals would not be able to pull off, even if they were a little bit smarter.
Intelligence can do far more than gather food more effectively. Less intelligent critters are plenty good at that as well
The point is that they need to "pay" for their bigger brain by eating more food. And for a creature with a small body, it means a a lot more food. So, it doesn't matter what nice things intelligence can do for a creature, if it can't afford the energy for it.
But if it was evolution alone, other species would have it too
You assume that bigger brains offer a net benefit to other species. The problem is that large brains consume a large amount of energy. If the extra intelligence doesn't help to acquire extra food, the bigger brain is not a asset. Also, acquiring food is only part of the equation. Animals must also be able to actually eat and digest it. An animal like a cow already spends every waking moment on eating and digesting. Even if bigger brain could help it find more grass, there's still not enough time to actually process enough of it.
There's no fundamental reason why robots couldn't do all those things as well as humans. In the end, our brain is nothing but a big information processing unit.
It's trying to figure out how to do things that no one else has actually done before, and doing it with very demanding constraints of size and speed
The demanding constraints are constantly getting less, though. I remember spending days to squeeze the code into 1024 instructions into a small microcontroller. Nowadays, I can get 1MB flash for the same price, and use maybe 40kB of it.
Flash memory is a specialized business. It would take Sony huge investments to become a player in that field, even if they already have their own manufacturing capabilities.
Chess will likely never be solved, but it's possible to get more accurate results by using a better engine. Especially since Stockfish is open source, there's not really a good reason to go with Crafty.
You can only watch the traffic from your own machine, and even then it's a hopeless task to sort it all out. I have at least 10 IP connected devices in my home, of which 5-6 may be on-line at a given time, and 4 of them controlled by other family members, with potentially hundreds of packets per second generated.
Slashdot Mirror
Intel is improving faster with power reduction than ARM is improving with performance increases.
What about the stuff they don't produce locally and have to import, like such vital things as oil and gas ?
"the effect of CO2 is problematic, because it is mixing with other gasses and that makes a difference". Mixing how? Chemically? Via radiation? Interacting with clouds?
The different gases overlap in their absorption bands, so that makes it hard to say what the individual contribution is. Also, while CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, water vapour is not. For instance, most of the water vapour is in the lower layers of the atmosphere, and in the arctic areas there's very little water vapour at all, so in higher layers and in the arctic, greenhouse effect is mostly determined by CO2. In humid layers, water vapor is the main contributor.
And as it is complicated enough that normal people cannot really doublecheck data, we are left to believe the 'consensus'.
No, because other scientists can double check the data.
Yes, there's a theory that humans cooking their food was a big enabler for their bigger brains, because the cooking process makes it a lot easier to digest the food and absorb more of the nutrients in a short time. But the ability to cook the food depends on a lot more than being intelligent. You also need the body that allows manipulation of tools so you can carry the fire wood, start a fire and control it, and carry the food to the fire. That's something that our bipedal humanoid ancestors could do well, but most other animals would not be able to pull off, even if they were a little bit smarter.
Still, many things can happen in parallel. A tiger could have evolved to have bigger muscles, and a bigger brain at the same time.
That doesn't make Dyson an expert on climate.
He's in good company here, this scientist in 2008, using the same hypothesis correctly predicts the awful and cold winters of 2013 and 2014
The winters of 2013 and 2014 were in the top-10 warmest. Not sure why you would refer to them as "awful and cold".
You think it's warming? Show me your data that proves NASA wrong then.
How about NASA's own data where they show it's warming ?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea...
What about we motivate you by giving you a promotion, and put as many as four people right underneath you ?
Intelligence can do far more than gather food more effectively. Less intelligent critters are plenty good at that as well
The point is that they need to "pay" for their bigger brain by eating more food. And for a creature with a small body, it means a a lot more food. So, it doesn't matter what nice things intelligence can do for a creature, if it can't afford the energy for it.
But if it was evolution alone, other species would have it too
You assume that bigger brains offer a net benefit to other species. The problem is that large brains consume a large amount of energy. If the extra intelligence doesn't help to acquire extra food, the bigger brain is not a asset. Also, acquiring food is only part of the equation. Animals must also be able to actually eat and digest it. An animal like a cow already spends every waking moment on eating and digesting. Even if bigger brain could help it find more grass, there's still not enough time to actually process enough of it.
Thats where their evolutionary "currency" was spent
The currency is the food needed to grow the tissue and support it. Evolution itself doesn't cost anything.
You do realize that male mosquitoes often live on pollen and are a pollinator
So, only kill the females.
I wouldn't care that it was ripped off, but I would care about the difference in quality.
There's no fundamental reason why robots couldn't do all those things as well as humans. In the end, our brain is nothing but a big information processing unit.
When that time comes, maybe the robots can keep us as pets. We should start looking into activating our genes to get nice soft fur all over our skin.
It's trying to figure out how to do things that no one else has actually done before, and doing it with very demanding constraints of size and speed
The demanding constraints are constantly getting less, though. I remember spending days to squeeze the code into 1024 instructions into a small microcontroller. Nowadays, I can get 1MB flash for the same price, and use maybe 40kB of it.
Flash memory is a specialized business. It would take Sony huge investments to become a player in that field, even if they already have their own manufacturing capabilities.
Where's the spherical cow ?
At that point the only ethical course of action is to give them said rights
Why? It's just a criterion that you made up.
I for one welcome our new rodent overlords.
What you're *giving* these companies is something far more valuable: your personal data
If I don't watch their ads, how valuable is this data really ?
Anyone else remember way back when we actually had to go face to face for human interaction because international calls cost a fucking fortune?
Yeah, because international face to face meetings were so much cheaper than a phone call.
Chess will likely never be solved, but it's possible to get more accurate results by using a better engine. Especially since Stockfish is open source, there's not really a good reason to go with Crafty.
You can only watch the traffic from your own machine, and even then it's a hopeless task to sort it all out. I have at least 10 IP connected devices in my home, of which 5-6 may be on-line at a given time, and 4 of them controlled by other family members, with potentially hundreds of packets per second generated.