So if you wanted a more precise resistance with the 10%-off resistors, you could take one that was high and another that was low and combine them in parallel? My calculations seem to say this.
Even better then Chrome for Linux would be a new process oriented GNOME based, webkit driven browser specially for Linux.
Funny you should say that; what Google has put out is the source code for the core of just such a browser. They haven't got the Gnome UI yet, but they open-sourced the guts of Chrome. In a year or so, I bet it will have turned into exactly what you describe.
Once the open source Chromium version comes out and has been tossed around for a while, I think there will be a pretty solid case for using it. The rendering engine is competitive, and the one-process-per-tab thing is an idea that needs to happen; the browser is being used as an operating system more and more, so it makes sense to delegate some duties to the OS itself.
The purpose of the Turing test was to make a point: if an artificial intelligence is indistinguishable from a natural intelligence, then why should one be treated differently from the other? It's an argument against biological chauvinism.
What Loebner has done is promote a theatrical parody of this concept: have people chat with chatterbots or other people and try to tell the difference. By far the easiest way to score well in the Loebner prize contest is to fake it. Have a vast repertoire of canned lines and try to figure out when to use them. Maybe throw in some fancy sentence parsing, maybe some slightly fancier stuff. That'll get quick results, but it has fundamental limitations. For example, how would it handle anything requiring computer vision? Or spatial reasoning? Or learning about fields that it was not specifically designed for?
It sometimes seems that the hardest part of AI is the things that our nervous systems do automatically, like image recognition, controlling our limbs, and auditory processing. It's a pity the Loebner prize overlooks all that stuff in favor of a cheap flashy spectacle.
Maybe they mean "liquid nitrogen". That happened in a particularly weird episode of Stargate, so it's more plausible. I don't think they've found the world of liquid awesome (P5X-881) yet.
unfortunately, once electric cars take off, the demand will actually be higher at night.
No, it won't. There will be enough cars parked during the day that if daytime prices are cheaper, they can recharge during the day and balance out the cars charging at night. I'm pretty sure the word "elastic" applies here somehow.
That would be almost an ideal situation: by fiddling with the times of day when cars recharge, we could reduce fluctuations in power demand to almost nothing (compared with today, at least). And that would make the power grid much more efficient.
However, wind is still going to be cheaper than solar for 15-20 years.
That's an awfully bold prediction. I don't feel comfortable predicting the course of such a rapidly advancing field even five years into the future. It's not really about percent efficiency of the solar cells; it's about how much they cost to make. If we have (say) 20% efficient solar cells that can be mass produced dirt cheap, then solar very well could beat wind (or even coal) in cost per kilowatt-hour. I don't know where you're getting your "15-20 years" and "30 years" figures, but personally I'm betting solar gets cheaper than wind in about five years.
Better to just hook the panel up to the power grid. Sell power during the day, when there's more demand and the prices are higher, and buy power at night. That way you lessen the need for expensive peak-power generation and get more bang for your buck. It's a win for everyone.
Ah, you're probably right for old modems. I've been thinking in terms of 8 data bits plus one parity bit, which is the default for a lot of things these days.
I'm impressed that somebody actually did the calculations on that.
end to end architecture tendrils everywhere
Usenet and Web and mAil malware
pathogens aren't going away
they're here to stay
yesterday and tomorrow and today
fear the reaper roughly, usenEt
we got to meet this roughly, you bet
fuck it all, we're the internet!
(Was that what you were trying to say, AC? This was originally supposed to be free verse, but it started rhyming for some reason. At least it doesn't have good meter; thank God for that.)
On old modems, I suppose you could get 112.5% of the bytes filled with porn if your modem misuses the parity bit as an extra porn bit. I've been thinking about RS-232 all day.
Now that is what bugs me about Achewood. I love the comic, but it's not the only thing out there. Yet whenever someone in non-Internet media talks about webcomics, Achewood is their golden example.
What monopoly? The U.S. government didn't do anything to prevent these guys from their commercial enterprise...they didn't do anything anti-competitive.
They don't need to be anti-competitive to be a monopoly. In fact, they're one of SpaceX's clients; they're trying to get out of the monopoly business. I wish NASA the best of luck on that.
Of course you can run OpenGL or DirectX on a software renderer, and I'm sure they can both be efficiently parallelized. The point is that soon we won't have to. Or want to.
You think that building a solar cell manufacturing infrastructure on the moon is the simple, lower-tech option? The whole point of this reactor design is that it's small, it's reliable, and it keeps on going even during the long lunar nights.
Incidentally, this would also be the case if the earth were a hollow shell: gravity cancels out inside the shell, and you can float around in there. Which is awesome.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you using Compiz? For some reason the Linux flash player can't use hardware accelerated video alongside Compiz.
In particular, on x86_64 the pointer is specifically structured so you can't steal either the high or low bits to represent some other sort of data.
Why did they make it that way? I really liked being able to use the lower 2 bits or so of pointers as a type tag.
And they have a JIT compiler that would be non-trivial to port to x86-64.
So if you wanted a more precise resistance with the 10%-off resistors, you could take one that was high and another that was low and combine them in parallel? My calculations seem to say this.
Even better then Chrome for Linux would be a new process oriented GNOME based, webkit driven browser specially for Linux.
Funny you should say that; what Google has put out is the source code for the core of just such a browser. They haven't got the Gnome UI yet, but they open-sourced the guts of Chrome. In a year or so, I bet it will have turned into exactly what you describe.
Once the open source Chromium version comes out and has been tossed around for a while, I think there will be a pretty solid case for using it. The rendering engine is competitive, and the one-process-per-tab thing is an idea that needs to happen; the browser is being used as an operating system more and more, so it makes sense to delegate some duties to the OS itself.
The purpose of the Turing test was to make a point: if an artificial intelligence is indistinguishable from a natural intelligence, then why should one be treated differently from the other? It's an argument against biological chauvinism.
What Loebner has done is promote a theatrical parody of this concept: have people chat with chatterbots or other people and try to tell the difference. By far the easiest way to score well in the Loebner prize contest is to fake it. Have a vast repertoire of canned lines and try to figure out when to use them. Maybe throw in some fancy sentence parsing, maybe some slightly fancier stuff. That'll get quick results, but it has fundamental limitations. For example, how would it handle anything requiring computer vision? Or spatial reasoning? Or learning about fields that it was not specifically designed for?
It sometimes seems that the hardest part of AI is the things that our nervous systems do automatically, like image recognition, controlling our limbs, and auditory processing. It's a pity the Loebner prize overlooks all that stuff in favor of a cheap flashy spectacle.
Maybe he just does all his web browsing over UDP.
Maybe they mean "liquid nitrogen". That happened in a particularly weird episode of Stargate, so it's more plausible. I don't think they've found the world of liquid awesome (P5X-881) yet.
unfortunately, once electric cars take off, the demand will actually be higher at night.
No, it won't. There will be enough cars parked during the day that if daytime prices are cheaper, they can recharge during the day and balance out the cars charging at night. I'm pretty sure the word "elastic" applies here somehow.
That would be almost an ideal situation: by fiddling with the times of day when cars recharge, we could reduce fluctuations in power demand to almost nothing (compared with today, at least). And that would make the power grid much more efficient.
However, wind is still going to be cheaper than solar for 15-20 years.
That's an awfully bold prediction. I don't feel comfortable predicting the course of such a rapidly advancing field even five years into the future. It's not really about percent efficiency of the solar cells; it's about how much they cost to make. If we have (say) 20% efficient solar cells that can be mass produced dirt cheap, then solar very well could beat wind (or even coal) in cost per kilowatt-hour. I don't know where you're getting your "15-20 years" and "30 years" figures, but personally I'm betting solar gets cheaper than wind in about five years.
The USA is such a big power in the world that our elections affect everyone. We at least ought to give Canada some electoral votes.
Farthings per furlong is more alliterative. That's a tax break, probably?
Better to just hook the panel up to the power grid. Sell power during the day, when there's more demand and the prices are higher, and buy power at night. That way you lessen the need for expensive peak-power generation and get more bang for your buck. It's a win for everyone.
Ah, you're probably right for old modems. I've been thinking in terms of 8 data bits plus one parity bit, which is the default for a lot of things these days.
I'm impressed that somebody actually did the calculations on that.
Gmail also referred to "G Mail", a free online email service that's still around. Its features include: "Private, SPAM free, Versatile, and Christian!"
Usenet and Web and mAil malware
pathogens aren't going away
they're here to stay
yesterday and tomorrow and today
fear the reaper roughly, usenEt
we got to meet this roughly, you bet
fuck it all, we're the internet!
(Was that what you were trying to say, AC? This was originally supposed to be free verse, but it started rhyming for some reason. At least it doesn't have good meter; thank God for that.)
If you're using something like BitTorrent, where you can upload and download at the same time, there's going to be pornography flying every which way.
On old modems, I suppose you could get 112.5% of the bytes filled with porn if your modem misuses the parity bit as an extra porn bit. I've been thinking about RS-232 all day.
A great strength of webcomics is diversity. No matter how strange your tastes, there's probably someone writing a comic for you. Why not show off some of the variety? There's so much range, from a comic where one of the protagonists is part of a hive mind to comics with stick figures and nerdy jokes. Achewood alone can't show all that.
What monopoly? The U.S. government didn't do anything to prevent these guys from their commercial enterprise...they didn't do anything anti-competitive.
They don't need to be anti-competitive to be a monopoly. In fact, they're one of SpaceX's clients; they're trying to get out of the monopoly business. I wish NASA the best of luck on that.
Of course you can run OpenGL or DirectX on a software renderer, and I'm sure they can both be efficiently parallelized. The point is that soon we won't have to. Or want to.
Why do you keep talking about corporate ownership? NASA would own the reactors or the solar panels.
Take a look at the "artist's conception" in the article: they're using large, thin panels to radiate excess heat.
You think that building a solar cell manufacturing infrastructure on the moon is the simple, lower-tech option? The whole point of this reactor design is that it's small, it's reliable, and it keeps on going even during the long lunar nights.
Incidentally, this would also be the case if the earth were a hollow shell: gravity cancels out inside the shell, and you can float around in there. Which is awesome.