IBM said that computational scaling overcomes these limitations by using mathematical techniques to modify the shape of the masks and the characteristics of the illuminating source used to image the circuits for each layer of an integrated circuit.
They're using lithography, and math tricks involving light.
Could this be an application of negative index of refraction metamaterials we've heard about in the past few years?
One of the more provocative suggestions came from Pendry, who predicted that a slab of negative-index material could refocus the rays of a nearby source far better than the diffraction limit that is associated with all positive-index optics. In other words, it could lead to a "perfect lens".
Funny how any time there is a proposed innovation to solve a problem, there are always nitpickers who point out side effects without considering their proportion compared to the original problem being solved. A solution either offers a net benefit, or it doesn't.
Propose to an Englishman any principle, or any instrument, however admirable, and you will observe that the whole effort of the English mind is directed to find a difficulty, a defect, or an impossibility in it. If you speak to him of a machine for peeling a potato, he will pronounce it impossible: if you peel a potato with it before his eyes, he will declare it useless, because it will not slice a pineapple.
* Charles Babbage, with regard to his Analytical Engine, the first programmable computer.
Changing it so everybody gets the minimum wage while still keeping track of all the special designations, payments for those designations, taxes, etc is a lot of work. Don't forget, the state employees will be payed back pay for the time when their wages were cut, so you have to run two systems in parallel.
Understatement of the year. We're talking a Herculean effort. And the liability?! Who would even touch this?
Number of payroll warrants issued monthly 168,802 Number of direct deposit payments issued monthly 277,298 Percentage of employees on direct deposit 68% Amount of gross wages paid monthly $1,625,842,348 Amount of net wages paid monthly $1,087,354,433 Amount of Federal taxes withheld monthly $179,489,126 Amount of State taxes withheld monthly $48,059,733 Amount of payroll deductions withheld monthly $161,969,765
I feel like I understand your perspective and you make some valid points, but I feel like arguing:
my first objection is that comcast isn't just managing their network, they are sending forged packets not only to my computer attached to their network but also to other computers attached to non-comcast networks.
Right, because sending forged packets is the current state of countermeasures in the arms race between ISPs and applications (using protocols like BitTorrent) that will consume all available bandwidth, if allowed.
Forging packets is only a violation of network policy if it is not your network. The fact that some of these injected packets reach computers attached to non-comcast networks is a secondary effect of the initial communications that transited or targeted Comcast's network. It is reactive and they have made a policy decision that this traffic is volatile in a pinch.
Clearly, there are ways to work around this, but then there will be new countermeasures, and so on. I think what you are saying is that we had a trust relationship with Comcast and feel betrayed that they interfered with some of our communications. However, the protocols can be re-engineered or secondary protocols defined that do not make these assumptions. This is a design flaw.
My second objection is that the justification for the FCC's authority is that the frequency spectrum is a form of interstate commerce, the telephones are also a form of interstate commerce and although I'm basically libertarian I don't see why the same arguments don't equally apply to interstate computer networks and internetworks.
The commerce clause is a hot potato. At what layer does the FCC's authority stop, in your opinion?
By this definition, does the FCC also then *not* have authority over intrastate communications? Would you leave it to the states to mandate intrastate network policy? Will we all need FCC and State callsigns to facilitate enforcement of this and face possible revocation of communications privileges? Will monitoring of traffic take place to facilitate enforcement or will they work on a complaint basis?
Comcast is a behemoth and I wonder if the right hand knew what the left hand was doing. The sky isn't falling yet but I'm wary of increasing FCC jurisdiction.
All the FCC has said is using arguably illegal techniques to send forged traffic to unsuspecting users and irregardless of existing network traffic fail to meet the standard of reasonable traffic management.
This is precedent setting. Never before has the FCC mandated traffic management practices for private networks. We're not talking about broadcast traffic on public spectrum anymore.
This isn't that much different to a slum-lord committing arson by burning down his rat and cockroach infested buildings and claiming it's a reasonable pest control technique!
Except we're only talking about the controlled fluctuations of light. No one dies if they can't pirate the latest tv show or download the latest WoW update. That is much different than burning down a multi-tenant dwelling.
I favor network neutrality but consumer-level Internet access has no guarantees. Comcast has every right to manage their private network the way they see fit. We've all seen the examples of Compuserve, Prodigy, AOL, and the others who tried to operate a closed network. The free market will select against them, given the opportunity.
This is Comcast's network. Comcast isn't the Internet at large. They should not be sanctioned and they should fight this. Otherwise, in time, the FCC will make more mandates about the operation of their private network (and ours!).
I have had an interest in AI over the years and have found Gerald Edelman's books particularly insightful.
See: _Neural Darwinism_ (ISBN 0-19-286089-5) _Bright Air Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of the Mind_ (ISBN 0-465-00764-3)
The ideas in these books might be outdated by now but I doubt it. I think the works of Norbert Weiner are still relevant.
I particularly liked the NEAT project, however crude it may be. I like the changing neural topology via genetic evolution concept and think this is consistent with what Edelman tells us really happens in biology.
See: http://www.cs.ucf.edu/~kstanley/neat.html
My other suggestion is to define the many different scopes of the AI. For some, it seems the bar has been placed at natural language processing and full-on human cognition. Without the frame of reference and body of experience of a human though, this seems to be an unrealistic goal. I just don't think we can "program" a computer to do it. To pull it off, this would seem to require duplicating the nervous system of a human to enough of a degree that the AI can experience sensory input compatible with our shared human experience. Think about how many years it takes for a human to reach the level of intelligence we are seeking in AI. I don't think there are any overnight solutions here. We need to teach it like a baby, child, adolescent, and adult. While we may be able to speed train an AI, it may be that there is something to the lack of interesting input that enables us to reflect and refine our mental models of the world. The AI must also continue to interact with the human world in order to stay current.
But AI doesn't have to match a human. There are much simpler organisms we can model as a start that may pay off in other ways. Nature seems to excel at reusing novel patterns and we should exploit that code/model library. The AI produced from this research may not be able to hold a conversation, but it can probably keep an autonomous robot alive and on it's mission, whatever that may be. And I think it's a better foundation for the eventual human equivalent and beyond.
Most women do not consciously realize they select a mate on these criteria, but they do. So do men. There is a lot more compulsive, animal behavior in humans than we care to admit.
Women do sit around and discuss it, just not necessarily in terms of genetics. But when women think or say "he's so strong", "he has a big dick", "i can control him so he'll stick around and help with the baby", etc.. Think about what these ultimately mean to a female and why she may be attracted to them.
Whether you are aware of it or not, these cues tell you that your children with that mate "will have all the advantages they need to edge out those mutants from down the block"!
Biodiversity is declining and that's a bad thing even if more weeds are growing in Oshkosh. The scientist is quoted in the article saying:
"The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century."
How do you arrive at the conclusion that biodiversity is declining? Have you personally observed this phenomenon and tracked it over time, over the entire planet, somehow better than the scientists with their satellites and field observations?
The arctic ice pack is melting and that will ultimately change the earth's albedo in a bad way. Please help us to understand the methodology that allowed you to reach your conclusions about the Earth's albedo. Could you also define "bad"?
I don't see much optimism in that, even if some plants in some places grow better due to changing climate conditions. I get the impression that you don't see much optimism in anything. If we can cut out the layer of "homo-sapiens-is-a-plague" bias while we continue to observe our biosphere, perhaps we can not jump to conclusions that the sky is falling and we're doomed. Or if we do reach that conclusion, we can take it seriously.
My experience, in the US anyway, is that if you live in a sprawling cityscape, it will seem like the Earth is dying around you at an accelerating pace. Live in a rural area though and you will find that plant and animal life seem to be doing OK.
The biosphere doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's constantly changing and adapting. We are part of our environment and our interaction with it changes it, sometimes in ways that can be considered "bad", sometimes in ways that can be considered "good". It is Heisenberg uncertainty on a macro scale.
Some species have had problems adapting to our activities (or our sheer ignorance), and we're doing some things to try to help those species recover, provided we can exploit the species for food or resources or it is somehow essential to the foodchain for other species we value. In doing so, we may also be condemning the populations of the same species that adapted.
My guess is that there are constant pressures on the climate and there are so many variables involved, we will continue to be surprised at the mechanisms in play and the adaptability of life. Our attempts to predict the outcomes of the change over time for all of these variables is likely to be futile. But we can theorize and then observe. Our attempts to control the environment are almost certainly naive, and quite possibly dangerously so. Should we really take action to prevent the pressure safety valve in the steam engine from opening? Can we accept the possibility of a new normal and the inevitability that we must adapt as a species or die?
For some things. What things?
Using a resistive magnet is the opposite of using a superconducting magnet though. And they get hot. And suck power. Am I missing something? If you use your new superconductor for the bitter helix, shouldn't they use less power, experience less saturation, and not heat up?
These ID schemes will in fact ONLY harm citizens and their rights to do as they constitutionally are allowed. Maybe this was just a poor choice of words on your part, but...
We are allowed to do anything we want as natural, sentient beings. The Constitution doesn't grant us freedom -- it is an innate quality of our existence. The Constitution only serves to codify this fact, explicitly defining some natural rights in the Bill of Rights, should we forget.
If you allow yourself to think in terms that you are "allowed" to do things because the Constitution says so, then you are not really free.
"Not that long ago, within my lifetime, E911 didn't know where you called from, you had to tell them. So phreaking them was as simple as giving a false address. What's more, it had been this ways for DECADES."
Not that long ago, within my lifetime, E911 didn't exist...but I digress.
When did phreaking become a verb? I don't think I've ever heard someone say "So phreaking them...". But I digress further.
Calling 911 and giving a fake address isn't phreaking and never has been.
Low level infra-red red is thought to stimulate the growth of cells of all types of tissue and encourage their repair. It is able to penetrate the skin and even get through the skull.
Seems like it would rather help prevent cancer by increasing the number of good, healthy cells.
Slashdot Mirror
So "computational scaling" is another term for "computational holography"?
The original article states...
IBM said that computational scaling overcomes these limitations by using mathematical techniques to modify the shape of the masks and the characteristics of the illuminating source used to image the circuits for each layer of an integrated circuit.
They're using lithography, and math tricks involving light.
Could this be an application of negative index of refraction metamaterials we've heard about in the past few years?
See: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/17398
One of the more provocative suggestions came from Pendry, who predicted that a slab of negative-index material could refocus the rays of a nearby source far better than the diffraction limit that is associated with all positive-index optics. In other words, it could lead to a "perfect lens".
You want a toe? I can get you a toe, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don't wanna know about it, believe me.
Hell, I can get you a toe by 3 o'clock this afternoon... with nail polish. These fucking amateurs...
http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_Michelson.htm
Funny how any time there is a proposed innovation to solve a problem, there are always nitpickers who point out side effects without considering their proportion compared to the original problem being solved. A solution either offers a net benefit, or it doesn't.
Propose to an Englishman any principle, or any instrument, however admirable, and you will observe that the whole effort of the English mind is directed to find a difficulty, a defect, or an impossibility in it. If you speak to him of a machine for peeling a potato, he will pronounce it impossible: if you peel a potato with it before his eyes, he will declare it useless, because it will not slice a pineapple.
* Charles Babbage, with regard to his Analytical Engine, the first programmable computer.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage
Changing it so everybody gets the minimum wage while still keeping track of all the special designations, payments for those designations, taxes, etc is a lot of work. Don't forget, the state employees will be payed back pay for the time when their wages were cut, so you have to run two systems in parallel.
Understatement of the year. We're talking a Herculean effort. And the liability?! Who would even touch this?
Number of payroll warrants issued monthly 168,802
Number of direct deposit payments issued monthly 277,298
Percentage of employees on direct deposit 68%
Amount of gross wages paid monthly $1,625,842,348
Amount of net wages paid monthly $1,087,354,433
Amount of Federal taxes withheld monthly $179,489,126
Amount of State taxes withheld monthly $48,059,733
Amount of payroll deductions withheld monthly $161,969,765
Source: http://www.sco.ca.gov/ppsd/empinfo/demo/index.shtml
For all those people saying to fix this in Perl or c-shell: hah!
HAH!
HAHA, mod parent up!
You can produce phosphorus from urine just like Hennig Brand did 339 years ago.
1 litre of adult human urine contains about 1.4g phosphorus.
30 liters urine/day * 1.4g P/liter urine * 11 days = 462 grams or about a pound.
I feel like I understand your perspective and you make some valid points, but I feel like arguing:
my first objection is that comcast isn't just managing their network, they are sending forged packets not only to my computer attached to their network but also to other computers attached to non-comcast networks.
Right, because sending forged packets is the current state of countermeasures in the arms race between ISPs and applications (using protocols like BitTorrent) that will consume all available bandwidth, if allowed.
Forging packets is only a violation of network policy if it is not your network. The fact that some of these injected packets reach computers attached to non-comcast networks is a secondary effect of the initial communications that transited or targeted Comcast's network. It is reactive and they have made a policy decision that this traffic is volatile in a pinch.
Clearly, there are ways to work around this, but then there will be new countermeasures, and so on. I think what you are saying is that we had a trust relationship with Comcast and feel betrayed that they interfered with some of our communications. However, the protocols can be re-engineered or secondary protocols defined that do not make these assumptions. This is a design flaw.
My second objection is that the justification for the FCC's authority is that the frequency spectrum is a form of interstate commerce, the telephones are also a form of interstate commerce and although I'm basically libertarian I don't see why the same arguments don't equally apply to interstate computer networks and internetworks.
The commerce clause is a hot potato. At what layer does the FCC's authority stop, in your opinion?
By this definition, does the FCC also then *not* have authority over intrastate communications? Would you leave it to the states to mandate intrastate network policy? Will we all need FCC and State callsigns to facilitate enforcement of this and face possible revocation of communications privileges? Will monitoring of traffic take place to facilitate enforcement or will they work on a complaint basis?
Comcast is a behemoth and I wonder if the right hand knew what the left hand was doing. The sky isn't falling yet but I'm wary of increasing FCC jurisdiction.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/88/O0028850.html
http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-oct1.htm
Actually, it's C-octalthorpe.
All the FCC has said is using arguably illegal techniques to send forged traffic to unsuspecting users and irregardless of existing network traffic fail to meet the standard of reasonable traffic management.
This is precedent setting. Never before has the FCC mandated traffic management practices for private networks. We're not talking about broadcast traffic on public spectrum anymore.
This isn't that much different to a slum-lord committing arson by burning down his rat and cockroach infested buildings and claiming it's a reasonable pest control technique!
Except we're only talking about the controlled fluctuations of light. No one dies if they can't pirate the latest tv show or download the latest WoW update. That is much different than burning down a multi-tenant dwelling.
I favor network neutrality but consumer-level Internet access has no guarantees. Comcast has every right to manage their private network the way they see fit. We've all seen the examples of Compuserve, Prodigy, AOL, and the others who tried to operate a closed network. The free market will select against them, given the opportunity.
This is Comcast's network. Comcast isn't the Internet at large. They should not be sanctioned and they should fight this. Otherwise, in time, the FCC will make more mandates about the operation of their private network (and ours!).
All traffic is not created equal.
There were federalists and anti-federalists from the get go.
Everywhere is
Freaks and hairies
Dykes and fairies
Tell me where is sanity
Tax the rich
Feed the poor
Till there are no
Rich no more
I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you
Population
Keeps on breeding
Nation bleeding
Still more feeding economy
Life is funny
Skies are sunny
Bees make honey
Who needs money, monopoly
I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you
Oh yeah
World pollution
There's no solution
Institution
Electrocution
Just black or white
Rich or poor
Them and us
Stop the war
I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you
- "I'd Love To Change The World" by Ten Years After, 1967
I have had an interest in AI over the years and have found Gerald Edelman's books particularly insightful.
See:
_Neural Darwinism_ (ISBN 0-19-286089-5)
_Bright Air Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of the Mind_ (ISBN 0-465-00764-3)
The ideas in these books might be outdated by now but I doubt it. I think the works of Norbert Weiner are still relevant.
I particularly liked the NEAT project, however crude it may be. I like the changing neural topology via genetic evolution concept and think this is consistent with what Edelman tells us really happens in biology.
See: http://www.cs.ucf.edu/~kstanley/neat.html
My other suggestion is to define the many different scopes of the AI. For some, it seems the bar has been placed at natural language processing and full-on human cognition. Without the frame of reference and body of experience of a human though, this seems to be an unrealistic goal. I just don't think we can "program" a computer to do it. To pull it off, this would seem to require duplicating the nervous system of a human to enough of a degree that the AI can experience sensory input compatible with our shared human experience. Think about how many years it takes for a human to reach the level of intelligence we are seeking in AI. I don't think there are any overnight solutions here. We need to teach it like a baby, child, adolescent, and adult. While we may be able to speed train an AI, it may be that there is something to the lack of interesting input that enables us to reflect and refine our mental models of the world. The AI must also continue to interact with the human world in order to stay current.
But AI doesn't have to match a human. There are much simpler organisms we can model as a start that may pay off in other ways. Nature seems to excel at reusing novel patterns and we should exploit that code/model library. The AI produced from this research may not be able to hold a conversation, but it can probably keep an autonomous robot alive and on it's mission, whatever that may be. And I think it's a better foundation for the eventual human equivalent and beyond.
For some possible hardware platforms, see:
http://www.neurotechnology.neu.edu/
http://biorobots.cwru.edu/
http://birg.epfl.ch/
Get off my lawn ?
Who mowed down my field?Most women do not consciously realize they select a mate on these criteria, but they do. So do men. There is a lot more compulsive, animal behavior in humans than we care to admit.
Women do sit around and discuss it, just not necessarily in terms of genetics. But when women think or say "he's so strong", "he has a big dick", "i can control him so he'll stick around and help with the baby", etc.. Think about what these ultimately mean to a female and why she may be attracted to them.
Whether you are aware of it or not, these cues tell you that your children with that mate "will have all the advantages they need to edge out those mutants from down the block"!
Give a man a fish and he'll tell you to cook it for him while you're at it.
"The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century."
How do you arrive at the conclusion that biodiversity is declining? Have you personally observed this phenomenon and tracked it over time, over the entire planet, somehow better than the scientists with their satellites and field observations? The arctic ice pack is melting and that will ultimately change the earth's albedo in a bad way. Please help us to understand the methodology that allowed you to reach your conclusions about the Earth's albedo. Could you also define "bad"? I don't see much optimism in that, even if some plants in some places grow better due to changing climate conditions. I get the impression that you don't see much optimism in anything. If we can cut out the layer of "homo-sapiens-is-a-plague" bias while we continue to observe our biosphere, perhaps we can not jump to conclusions that the sky is falling and we're doomed. Or if we do reach that conclusion, we can take it seriously.
My experience, in the US anyway, is that if you live in a sprawling cityscape, it will seem like the Earth is dying around you at an accelerating pace. Live in a rural area though and you will find that plant and animal life seem to be doing OK.
The biosphere doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's constantly changing and adapting. We are part of our environment and our interaction with it changes it, sometimes in ways that can be considered "bad", sometimes in ways that can be considered "good". It is Heisenberg uncertainty on a macro scale.
Some species have had problems adapting to our activities (or our sheer ignorance), and we're doing some things to try to help those species recover, provided we can exploit the species for food or resources or it is somehow essential to the foodchain for other species we value. In doing so, we may also be condemning the populations of the same species that adapted.
My guess is that there are constant pressures on the climate and there are so many variables involved, we will continue to be surprised at the mechanisms in play and the adaptability of life. Our attempts to predict the outcomes of the change over time for all of these variables is likely to be futile. But we can theorize and then observe. Our attempts to control the environment are almost certainly naive, and quite possibly dangerously so. Should we really take action to prevent the pressure safety valve in the steam engine from opening? Can we accept the possibility of a new normal and the inevitability that we must adapt as a species or die?
Sapiens qui vigilat.
Can we do away with messy coils of laminated wire and go with resistive (aka Bitter) magnets?
We are allowed to do anything we want as natural, sentient beings. The Constitution doesn't grant us freedom -- it is an innate quality of our existence. The Constitution only serves to codify this fact, explicitly defining some natural rights in the Bill of Rights, should we forget.
If you allow yourself to think in terms that you are "allowed" to do things because the Constitution says so, then you are not really free.
"Not that long ago, within my lifetime, E911 didn't know where you called from, you had to tell them. So phreaking them was as simple as giving a false address. What's more, it had been this ways for DECADES."
Not that long ago, within my lifetime, E911 didn't exist...but I digress.
When did phreaking become a verb? I don't think I've ever heard someone say "So phreaking them...". But I digress further.
Calling 911 and giving a fake address isn't phreaking and never has been.
Odd comment, Klaus.
From the article:
Low level infra-red red is thought to stimulate the growth of cells of all types of tissue and encourage their repair. It is able to penetrate the skin and even get through the skull.
Seems like it would rather help prevent cancer by increasing the number of good, healthy cells.
Cheers.