There is no technology, not even speculative, that can give the kind of increases in processing power we are used to seeing once you've hit the atomic level
What about a 3rd dimension?
Sure - it's still just transistors, but if we can figure out how cram transistors vertically at the same density we can cram them horizontally, that'll add another few decades to Moore's Law.
so what if it wasn't as good as one of the if not the greatest RPGs ever made.
That's exactly the problem....well, ok - the problem is that it didn't even hit the top 20. It ended up being like Godfather 3. It's got its warts, and in places it shines. But it's so far below its predecessor that I just can't take it seriously.
I feel the need to defend Mario Galaxy here. I really enjoyed the game, and not (just) because of nostalgia. The game was a showcase of level design and creativity. I've got a PS3 and a ton of games, but haven't found any that were quite as fun as Mario Galaxy.
Furthermore, by not initializing variables, you are creating a special case for certain values. You are saying, in effect, "I will initialize variables to the correct value, unless that correct value happens to be [0|''|null]".
But I'd also argue that initialization doesn't have to occur at declaration. Constructors/factories/initializer methods are perfectly valid places for initialization.
I didn't RTFA, but for small sets of neurons, I presume you'd stimulate neurons on the "output" end with the "correct" output. "Neurons that fire together, wire together", so eventually the neurons should build a network that produces the correct output for that input.
1) Find uranium asteroid 2) Automated factory builds a nuclear engine on the asteroid that uses the asteroid itself as fuel. 3) Drive the asteroid to other nearby asteroids, and use it as a tugboat. 4) ??? 5) Profit!
I was wondering how he could possibly hope to fill up a sleeve. Pi is *perfect* for this.
3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510......and as many more as he needs, in whatever is the smallest size the tattoo artist can make while still being legible.
I'm not sure how you hit +4 while mistaking weather and climate. While we can't predict the earth's weather particularly well, we can say that hurricanes tend to bunch around a particular time, and that the period between the peaks is approximately 365 days. That's the same type of prediction we're making for the sun, and it tends to be quite accurate - far more accurate than "weather" predictions.
What "honest opinions" do I want to prevent people from expressing?
Well, this whole thing pretty much started as a means of supporting South Park's right to make fun of whomever they want. So the "honest opinion" you're preventing is support for freedom of speech. Given the fact that SP's freedom of speech was curtailed by preventing them from depicting Mohammed, it's reasonable to express support for them by doing the very thing they were prevented from doing.
And the other honest opinion I have on the issue is that even passive, tolerant geeks can become raging assholes towards your religion if your religion starts stepping on toes. I choose to express this belief by becoming a raging asshole when a religion starts stepping on toes.
I haven't seen it mentioned in either of the articles, but I presume they've got a way to deal with the unfiltered solar radiation? Or maybe the answer is so obvious (mm-thick protective fabric) that it wasn't worth the mention.
I have no idea what "lenticular lenses" means, so maybe I'm rehashing. But I thought there was an article on/. a while back about a prototype TV that was no-glasses 3D. However, you had to sit directly in front of it - it sent different images to the left and right.
The technology didn't seem useful as a TV, but for a handheld gaming system, I can see it working.
Simply changing "tickets" to "cancer cure" doesn't change the answer to the question "what laws were broken".
If it's illegal to use a pseudonym while buying cancer cures online, then your fraud charge would be accurate in that situation. If it's not illegal to use a pseudonym while buying tickets online, then what's the problem?
To answer your underlying question, if you're a nihilist, then nothing has meaning and there's no reason to do anything. If, however, you find some meaning in existence, then it's fairly easy to extrapolate that the existence of others also has meaning, and it's a worthwhile goal to ensure that "others" will be able to continue existing for as long as possible.
Why do you think that MSFT has 90%+ of the market?
They don't. There's a whole world of computing out there beyond laptops and desktops. When it comes to embedded and server devices, Linux is kicking ass.
The majority of the population want pretty pictures controlling their computers, there's no doubting that. Aside from basic office apps, the PS3 could probably handle most of their needs (web browser, movies, pictures).
But when you want power, a GUI can't cut it. Sometimes you need to see the guts. And that's when Linux shines. It's not for 90% of the population. It's the perfect tool for devs and admins.
If some company wanted to put forth the effort, they could probably put together a decent Linux UI that was easy to use for your average consumer. And they have. People use Linux more often than they know - in their cameras and cell phones and assorted other gadgets. The UI is so prominent that without special tools it's *impossible* to "open up bash and type...".
If it doesn't have emotions and we mistreat it then it will logically see us as a threat to its own survival and try to eliminate us.
I agree with many of your sentiments, but I think they're still too anthropocentric. We evolved in an environment where survival was very nearly the prime directive (just after "pass along your genes"). Strong AI will be developed in a lab. We could create the "smartest" computer in the world, but who would feed it goals, and the lengths it would go to achieve those goals?
If an AI is tasked with finding a Theory of Everything, and someone decides to take an axe to its circuits, will it determine that the axe is a threat to its goal, and act accordingly? Or will it simply interpret it as another in a long series of alterations to its circuits? Or perhaps it will ignore it altogether, considering it irrelevant.
Because ultimately, those options were programmed in by a human. Our strong AI - the first ones at least - aren't going to be independent life forms with their own dreams and desires. They will be tools to help us solve problems, and I think they will be well-understood by many, many computer scientists. When something unexpected happens, the program will be debugged, and altered to prevent the unexpected behaviour.
If there is a robot apocalypse, it won't be because we didn't treat our creations right, but because some 13-year-old hacker in Russia said "I wonder what happens if I do this".
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly - just the type of thing that might take another two decades to even get started on.
There are plenty of opportunities for improvement beyond just shrinking the transistors. When a limit is reached, serious research will start on them.
There is no technology, not even speculative, that can give the kind of increases in processing power we are used to seeing once you've hit the atomic level
What about a 3rd dimension?
Sure - it's still just transistors, but if we can figure out how cram transistors vertically at the same density we can cram them horizontally, that'll add another few decades to Moore's Law.
Thanks a lot for that, Sony. Just one more reason why I will not spend another cent on you.
I have absolutely nothing to add to this topic, except to chime in with support for this statement.
We bought a Sony BD player that actually crashes during fast-forward. A disc player - in 2011 - that crashes - requiring a full power cycle.
Their PS3 shenanigans were bad enough, but I'd always thought they were technically sound. Now I've been proven wrong on that front too.
so what if it wasn't as good as one of the if not the greatest RPGs ever made.
That's exactly the problem....well, ok - the problem is that it didn't even hit the top 20. It ended up being like Godfather 3. It's got its warts, and in places it shines. But it's so far below its predecessor that I just can't take it seriously.
I feel the need to defend Mario Galaxy here. I really enjoyed the game, and not (just) because of nostalgia. The game was a showcase of level design and creativity. I've got a PS3 and a ton of games, but haven't found any that were quite as fun as Mario Galaxy.
Speaking of "step up and going the pack" - where have all the grammar nazis gone?
Furthermore, by not initializing variables, you are creating a special case for certain values. You are saying, in effect, "I will initialize variables to the correct value, unless that correct value happens to be [0|''|null]".
But I'd also argue that initialization doesn't have to occur at declaration. Constructors/factories/initializer methods are perfectly valid places for initialization.
You said it. The last game I finished took a full 15 years of effort to complete.
Of course, Nethack's in a league all its own.
Here's an animated gif using the same technique.
http://yfrog.com/fxlowresmuybridgeracehorsg
I didn't RTFA, but for small sets of neurons, I presume you'd stimulate neurons on the "output" end with the "correct" output. "Neurons that fire together, wire together", so eventually the neurons should build a network that produces the correct output for that input.
1) Find uranium asteroid
2) Automated factory builds a nuclear engine on the asteroid that uses the asteroid itself as fuel.
3) Drive the asteroid to other nearby asteroids, and use it as a tugboat.
4) ???
5) Profit!
I was wondering how he could possibly hope to fill up a sleeve. Pi is *perfect* for this.
3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510... ...and as many more as he needs, in whatever is the smallest size the tattoo artist can make while still being legible.
I'd always heard Specially Prepared Assorted Meats
+4 Insightful.
This is why I read /.
I'm not sure how you hit +4 while mistaking weather and climate. While we can't predict the earth's weather particularly well, we can say that hurricanes tend to bunch around a particular time, and that the period between the peaks is approximately 365 days. That's the same type of prediction we're making for the sun, and it tends to be quite accurate - far more accurate than "weather" predictions.
What "honest opinions" do I want to prevent people from expressing?
Well, this whole thing pretty much started as a means of supporting South Park's right to make fun of whomever they want. So the "honest opinion" you're preventing is support for freedom of speech. Given the fact that SP's freedom of speech was curtailed by preventing them from depicting Mohammed, it's reasonable to express support for them by doing the very thing they were prevented from doing.
And the other honest opinion I have on the issue is that even passive, tolerant geeks can become raging assholes towards your religion if your religion starts stepping on toes. I choose to express this belief by becoming a raging asshole when a religion starts stepping on toes.
Just like Batman. Got it.
"Facecrook"? Really?
And to think I was taking you seriously before that line. You might as well have referenced Winblows and MacO$.
I haven't seen it mentioned in either of the articles, but I presume they've got a way to deal with the unfiltered solar radiation? Or maybe the answer is so obvious (mm-thick protective fabric) that it wasn't worth the mention.
I have no idea what "lenticular lenses" means, so maybe I'm rehashing. But I thought there was an article on /. a while back about a prototype TV that was no-glasses 3D. However, you had to sit directly in front of it - it sent different images to the left and right.
The technology didn't seem useful as a TV, but for a handheld gaming system, I can see it working.
Simply changing "tickets" to "cancer cure" doesn't change the answer to the question "what laws were broken".
If it's illegal to use a pseudonym while buying cancer cures online, then your fraud charge would be accurate in that situation. If it's not illegal to use a pseudonym while buying tickets online, then what's the problem?
Either that, or we'll get a second asteroid belt.
To answer your underlying question, if you're a nihilist, then nothing has meaning and there's no reason to do anything. If, however, you find some meaning in existence, then it's fairly easy to extrapolate that the existence of others also has meaning, and it's a worthwhile goal to ensure that "others" will be able to continue existing for as long as possible.
Why do you think that MSFT has 90%+ of the market?
They don't. There's a whole world of computing out there beyond laptops and desktops. When it comes to embedded and server devices, Linux is kicking ass.
The majority of the population want pretty pictures controlling their computers, there's no doubting that. Aside from basic office apps, the PS3 could probably handle most of their needs (web browser, movies, pictures).
But when you want power, a GUI can't cut it. Sometimes you need to see the guts. And that's when Linux shines. It's not for 90% of the population. It's the perfect tool for devs and admins.
If some company wanted to put forth the effort, they could probably put together a decent Linux UI that was easy to use for your average consumer. And they have. People use Linux more often than they know - in their cameras and cell phones and assorted other gadgets. The UI is so prominent that without special tools it's *impossible* to "open up bash and type...".
If it doesn't have emotions and we mistreat it then it will logically see us as a threat to its own survival and try to eliminate us.
I agree with many of your sentiments, but I think they're still too anthropocentric. We evolved in an environment where survival was very nearly the prime directive (just after "pass along your genes"). Strong AI will be developed in a lab. We could create the "smartest" computer in the world, but who would feed it goals, and the lengths it would go to achieve those goals?
If an AI is tasked with finding a Theory of Everything, and someone decides to take an axe to its circuits, will it determine that the axe is a threat to its goal, and act accordingly? Or will it simply interpret it as another in a long series of alterations to its circuits? Or perhaps it will ignore it altogether, considering it irrelevant.
Because ultimately, those options were programmed in by a human. Our strong AI - the first ones at least - aren't going to be independent life forms with their own dreams and desires. They will be tools to help us solve problems, and I think they will be well-understood by many, many computer scientists. When something unexpected happens, the program will be debugged, and altered to prevent the unexpected behaviour.
If there is a robot apocalypse, it won't be because we didn't treat our creations right, but because some 13-year-old hacker in Russia said "I wonder what happens if I do this".