Step 1. Fill outer space with water.
Step 2. Propel through water using resonance.
Re:Take this to the logical limit
on
DSLBlaster?
·
· Score: 1
From my point of view, the processor is a piece of generalized hardware.
The idea of designing a processor and distributing the design freely has been around for a while. FPGA chips provide a possibility. Check out the OpenCores project. Then there is the Transmeta approach of a very general core processor with surrounding software. Finally, emulators come in and out of vogue.
This idea has a solid historical base. A company named WilTel uses decommissioned oil pipelines as conduits for fiber optic cables. They began in 1986. WilTel was sold, and I do not know what has become of it. I believe WorldCom acquired much of the network. Regardless, decommissioned tubes are fiber optic conduits waiting for use.
One cannot get whether its spellings are correct out of a Slashdot articles. As argued above, Slashot articles give little information about standard English usage.
The pitiful level of language gets tiresome. I'm not asking for beautiful literature on Slashdot. Basic adherence to conjugation and spelling rules would do. Misuses are bumps in the road of coherent expression. The ignorance distracts from the messages.
I found OLGA about 1992. I do not know when it was established. Back then, ftp.nevada.edu and ftp.uwp.edu (maybe with additional subdomains) were the real deal. Then UW Parkside made the archive available via gopher, and we really had it made. Then people started to notice, and the Henry Fox attack dogs started snapping. The archive has been more scattered, less complete and slower in growing ever since. Harmony Central does a good job of providing a search engine and links to archive site, many of them outside the USA. It's a losing battle, though.
He ought to learn to read and play music. Let him learn some foreign, non-computer languages. Give him access to good fiction. I favor learning mathematics above computers and electronics. Let him program the computer, too. I would have enjoyed learning to work with microcontrollers to make computer-controlled machines.
Atomic force microscopy measures the force on a probe extremely near a surface. It measures electric interaction between the probe and the surface. Current hard drives probe the magnetic structure of the surface. As far as reading, it's nearly the same. The difference is in using an electrical probe rather than a magnetic one.
As for writing, I am curious about how rewritable it is.
You are essentially asking for a specialty ISP tailored for sophisticated users. Because the money is in serving the masses with Internet gruel, I'd be surprised to find one.
Mocking an opponent and magnifying is faults are old, old, old techniques. It's a simple matter of good sense. Find weaknesses and exploit them. What kind of idiot doesn't take this approach?
The Republicans paint Gore as a liar. The Democrats paint Bush as uninformed and unintelligent. It looks the same to me.
The attribution of fault makes these articles funny. I highly doubt that they are pointing out Republican errors for the sake of justice. They simply turn the tables. They use the issue of deception to paint a picture of Republicans as deceptive. It is recursion! Next, someone must write an article against the Democrats because their attack on the deceptive techniques of Republicans is clearly motivated by ulterior motives to portray Republicans as schemers.
Remove your heads from your arses, Americans. It's the same thing. We live in a one horse, one method, one party system.
In the spring, Dr. Stickgold talked about Tetris and sleep on Science Friday. I enjoyed the show.
In high school, we played Nyet, a free Tetris clone, too much. I remember envisioning Nyet pieces while falling asleep more than any actual dreams. I would see the column covering my entire field of vision in my mind's eye. Pieces would drop down, and I'd play Nyet against myself while falling asleep. Many of my friends reported similar experiences. Many of us also saw objects, mainly buildings, in the real world and instantly imagined which pieces we'd need to to clear.
If the data were not available, how did Copernicus get his idea? Science relies on data. Copernicus had his ideas after looking at the available data. Heliocentrism was more than a lucky guess. I hope you haven't been reading Koyre.
I am complaining that Hopfield's challenge is not a reality check. It's a fantasy check. Their toy is not a model of anything. It's a toy. He wants people to come look at his toy. Why? Because he thinks that people are not thinking correctly. How is his toy going to help? It beats me.
I think you're misunderstanding Hopfield's challenge, and both of us are misunderstanding one another. Sciences use models to describe and predict events. We agree. Neurobiologists endeavor to describe and understand the brain through a wide variety of approaches. If Hopfield were offering a toy that models the brain, they would be excited. He's not offering one. He's offering a toy problem that isn't the brain as a test to the community. It doesn't approximate anything in the real world. It is, simply, what it is.
There are astronomical data to support the modern understanding of the solar system.
Imagine that Copernicus had not learned anything about the solar system. Instead, he made up a system that they claimed worked in a way similar to the solar system. They told everybody to stop looking at the sky and to look at their system because everybody is thinking incorrectly. Telling everybody that he/she is thinking badly and showing him/her a toy is not the same thing as having an answer.
Hopfield and Brody are challenging the neuroscience field (and others) to solve their puzzle and demonstrate their reasoning ability. The USC team is working on something that's just what it is, a machine to recognize speech.
Many neuroscientists think that this challenge is a diversion and a waste. Implicitly, Hopfield thinks that they need a challenge that he is the one to give it. Anyone can see why that attitude is potentially offensive. The quotes in the article show this attitude. It's questionable whether solving the toy problem of one (very accomplished, but still human) scientist helps with "sharpening the skills required for brain research."
Are you saying John Hopfield should be the authorized examiner of neuroscientists? The challenge is taken as a stunt and an insult by some. Who are these two to tell everyone else how to work? I can see their point.
Secondly, will solving Hopfield's network give us any insight into the brain? He is a leader, but this problem may not be so relevant. Perhaps it won't help. Time spent working on this problem is time not spent working on the brain directly.
I don't think we're there yet on combating resistance mutations. I feel that we're going to get much better in the near future, maybe very good within 25 years. Evolution is very old, though. As far as I can tell, there will always be risks from infections and risks from their treatments. It is sad that these biotech companies pick an area based solely on financial potential. We are inviting danger. The danger arises from selfishness and greedy doctors. People want to feel better now. Too many doctors cave. Public health takes a back seat to personal health.
I'm less a believer in the doom of drug resistance. Drug resistance is bad, yes, but the treatment of apparently trivial disease can have great benefits. One argument is that we are going to create supermutants that will kill people. Another argument is that we already suffer. These diseases already kill people. A regular bug can look like a supermutant when there are no effective treatments. The mutants aren't going to put us anywhere new; they'll just return us to where we were, to a time of untreatable influenza (or whatever). The Golden Mean. We should not spew medicines out so much that we create mdr bugs that will kill pepole. We should not tell people they have to suffer and even die because we don't want to create mdr bugs. People do die from trivial disease. Having thousands of untreated contagious people everywhere has its own risks. We have to balance the tradeoffs. Of course, we don't understand quite what the tradeoffs are. It's tricky.
Thought: How will resistance affect virulence? If a drug becomes ineffective, will the new resistant bugs--I'll assume viruses.--be any worse than the virus strains before we had the drug? I would guess that the answer rests with the drug's mechanism. Imagine that the drug is a competitive inhibitor that closely imitates a cell receptor. It would be very hard for the virus to develop resistance without losing virulence. Imagine that the drug imitates some immune response. A resistance mutation could spell disaster. The new virus strain would be more resistant to the drug and to our immune response. At this time, we might not be smart enough to think clearly about this question.
When Dr. Hubbard was here, I asked whether she advocated a socialized health care system. As I expected, she said yes and contrasted us with nearly every other developed country on earth. IIRC, I then asked about how we are supposed to implement one, and she said something vague about legislation. I have little faith in public opinion, legislative integrity and healthcare company ethics. While she has good ideas and so do you, you both are living in fantasies from my perspective. Intolerant idealism does not solve problems. A perceived solution that has no hope of ever being implemented is not a solution. Take the Clinton healthcare initiative. His ideas may have been terrible. Maybe they were good. I do not know. I just know that he got nowhere with them and that people were in an uproar. Knowing what human forces we are up against is as much a part of the battle as knowing what disease forces we face.
Sidenote: When I tried to do a little (and very light) web research on these new antiviral drugs, I came across a NASA page. They grew neuraminidase protein crystals in microgravity. I guess they couldn't get good crystals on earth for x-ray crystallography.
I saw the movie Awakenings, I think. I don't know anything about the epidemic. I would write that I'll look into it. I'm sure it's interesting. Honestly, I probably won't look into it.
Europeans are idiots. So are Americans, but it's a different kind of idiocy. I used to think Europe was great until I started meeting Europeans. They were generally more aware than Americans in historical and cultural terms. They also tended to be very dogmatic and critical. They never seemed much different in critical thinking and debating abilities, just more offensive and rude.
My eyelids are getting heavy. I'm done writing for tonight.
Your position and what you think my position is are unclear to me. You seem to be advocating better public health. Specifically, I think you demand that epidemiology and evolution, not just effectiveness and toxicity/side effects, be considered in the drug approval and prescription process. I agree. I think I'm less fervent than you. I'm not quite sure which approaches you think are best and what you see as the errors of my reasoning.
We have to deal with these problems within the framework we are given. That framework is really messed up. I don't think that something should be because it already is. I do think that what is is going to be with us for a while, even in the face of good arguments and good evidence. Powerful forces are at work. In a world of bad policies, we have to do what we can to make better policies and, in the meantime, deal with the current policies. The NIH, CDC and similar organizations seem to have many brilliant, cautious, moral scientists. They only can suggest policies. As an American, I am obsessed with liberty (not that the USA is close to as free as most think). Stupidity and wrong must be allowed.
The automobile has its upside. Life expectancy has risen. Automobiles do not directly promote health; they hurt it. They do facilitate technology. We can distribute medicines. People can go to universities and become researchers. People can get to hospitals and doctor's offices. Food can be transported. All of these good things could happen without people driving as much as they do. Walking and public transportation could eliminate many of the risks without losing many benefits. Every societal phenomenon I can consider has an upside and a downside.
Intellectual property is the real problem. Drug companies, now often called "biotech," are financial monsters. I heard Dr. Ruth Hubbard speak about a year ago. She was the first tenured woman biology professor at Harvard, and now she's a speaker, writer and activist for biological issues, especially feminist ones. She discussed a company that is genetically profiling Iceland. When the job is done, the company will own the data. Drug research and development have long been shaky ground. As we get better at them, their problems will loom larger. Now companies own and patent organisms. At some point, I hope people, through the governments of the world, will put public health before profit and decommercialize biotechnology, especially healthcare. She pointed out major financial problems of public health. These miracle drugs are nice for us Westerners and Far Easterners. 1% of us die from infections. Circulatory disease and cancer are our major causes of death. 46% of the undeveloped world die from infections. New drugs make more money that older, effective drugs sold at lower cost. Third worlders are short on cash. (The numbers came from my Brock Biology of Microorganisms.)
Slashdot Mirror
Step 1. Fill outer space with water.
Step 2. Propel through water using resonance.
From my point of view, the processor is a piece of generalized hardware.
The idea of designing a processor and distributing the design freely has been around for a while. FPGA chips provide a possibility. Check out the OpenCores project. Then there is the Transmeta approach of a very general core processor with surrounding software. Finally, emulators come in and out of vogue.
This idea has a solid historical base. A company named WilTel uses decommissioned oil pipelines as conduits for fiber optic cables. They began in 1986. WilTel was sold, and I do not know what has become of it. I believe WorldCom acquired much of the network. Regardless, decommissioned tubes are fiber optic conduits waiting for use.
Your bait of "it's articles" is a nice try.
One cannot get whether its spellings are correct out of a Slashdot articles. As argued above, Slashot articles give little information about standard English usage.
The pitiful level of language gets tiresome. I'm not asking for beautiful literature on Slashdot. Basic adherence to conjugation and spelling rules would do. Misuses are bumps in the road of coherent expression. The ignorance distracts from the messages.
I found OLGA about 1992. I do not know when it was established. Back then, ftp.nevada.edu and ftp.uwp.edu (maybe with additional subdomains) were the real deal. Then UW Parkside made the archive available via gopher, and we really had it made. Then people started to notice, and the Henry Fox attack dogs started snapping. The archive has been more scattered, less complete and slower in growing ever since. Harmony Central does a good job of providing a search engine and links to archive site, many of them outside the USA. It's a losing battle, though.
Can a text message be aspiring?
He ought to learn to read and play music. Let him learn some foreign, non-computer languages. Give him access to good fiction. I favor learning mathematics above computers and electronics. Let him program the computer, too. I would have enjoyed learning to work with microcontrollers to make computer-controlled machines.
Also encourage a sense of humility.
Maybe "electronic" is more appropriate. The probe measures electrostatic forces.
Atomic force microscopy measures the force on a probe extremely near a surface. It measures electric interaction between the probe and the surface. Current hard drives probe the magnetic structure of the surface. As far as reading, it's nearly the same. The difference is in using an electrical probe rather than a magnetic one.
As for writing, I am curious about how rewritable it is.
See which one fills first.
You are essentially asking for a specialty ISP tailored for sophisticated users. Because the money is in serving the masses with Internet gruel, I'd be surprised to find one.
Mocking an opponent and magnifying is faults are old, old, old techniques. It's a simple matter of good sense. Find weaknesses and exploit them. What kind of idiot doesn't take this approach?
The Republicans paint Gore as a liar. The Democrats paint Bush as uninformed and unintelligent. It looks the same to me.
The attribution of fault makes these articles funny. I highly doubt that they are pointing out Republican errors for the sake of justice. They simply turn the tables. They use the issue of deception to paint a picture of Republicans as deceptive. It is recursion! Next, someone must write an article against the Democrats because their attack on the deceptive techniques of Republicans is clearly motivated by ulterior motives to portray Republicans as schemers.
Remove your heads from your arses, Americans. It's the same thing. We live in a one horse, one method, one party system.
In the spring, Dr. Stickgold talked about Tetris and sleep on Science Friday. I enjoyed the show.
In high school, we played Nyet, a free Tetris clone, too much. I remember envisioning Nyet pieces while falling asleep more than any actual dreams. I would see the column covering my entire field of vision in my mind's eye. Pieces would drop down, and I'd play Nyet against myself while falling asleep. Many of my friends reported similar experiences. Many of us also saw objects, mainly buildings, in the real world and instantly imagined which pieces we'd need to to clear.
If the data were not available, how did Copernicus get his idea? Science relies on data. Copernicus had his ideas after looking at the available data. Heliocentrism was more than a lucky guess. I hope you haven't been reading Koyre.
I am complaining that Hopfield's challenge is not a reality check. It's a fantasy check. Their toy is not a model of anything. It's a toy. He wants people to come look at his toy. Why? Because he thinks that people are not thinking correctly. How is his toy going to help? It beats me.
I think you're misunderstanding Hopfield's challenge, and both of us are misunderstanding one another. Sciences use models to describe and predict events. We agree. Neurobiologists endeavor to describe and understand the brain through a wide variety of approaches. If Hopfield were offering a toy that models the brain, they would be excited. He's not offering one. He's offering a toy problem that isn't the brain as a test to the community. It doesn't approximate anything in the real world. It is, simply, what it is.
There are astronomical data to support the modern understanding of the solar system.
Imagine that Copernicus had not learned anything about the solar system. Instead, he made up a system that they claimed worked in a way similar to the solar system. They told everybody to stop looking at the sky and to look at their system because everybody is thinking incorrectly. Telling everybody that he/she is thinking badly and showing him/her a toy is not the same thing as having an answer.
Hopfield and Brody are challenging the neuroscience field (and others) to solve their puzzle and demonstrate their reasoning ability. The USC team is working on something that's just what it is, a machine to recognize speech.
Many neuroscientists think that this challenge is a diversion and a waste. Implicitly, Hopfield thinks that they need a challenge that he is the one to give it. Anyone can see why that attitude is potentially offensive. The quotes in the article show this attitude. It's questionable whether solving the toy problem of one (very accomplished, but still human) scientist helps with "sharpening the skills required for brain research."
Are you saying John Hopfield should be the authorized examiner of neuroscientists? The challenge is taken as a stunt and an insult by some. Who are these two to tell everyone else how to work? I can see their point.
Secondly, will solving Hopfield's network give us any insight into the brain? He is a leader, but this problem may not be so relevant. Perhaps it won't help. Time spent working on this problem is time not spent working on the brain directly.
I thought Aggies were too dumb to steal.
The structure of that sugar is very simple. I believe it is the simplest sugar. This result is not something I would use to extrapolate far.
Look here or here to find the reasons "virii" is stupid.
Are librarians ruling the world?
Has anyone tried these cards with Apple's AirPort? Both are supposed to use IEEE 802.11.
Think about identical twins to answer several of your questions. In many ways, a clone is nothing more than a twin born much later.
I don't think we're there yet on combating resistance mutations. I feel that we're going to get much better in the near future, maybe very good within 25 years. Evolution is very old, though. As far as I can tell, there will always be risks from infections and risks from their treatments. It is sad that these biotech companies pick an area based solely on financial potential. We are inviting danger. The danger arises from selfishness and greedy doctors. People want to feel better now. Too many doctors cave. Public health takes a back seat to personal health.
I'm less a believer in the doom of drug resistance. Drug resistance is bad, yes, but the treatment of apparently trivial disease can have great benefits. One argument is that we are going to create supermutants that will kill people. Another argument is that we already suffer. These diseases already kill people. A regular bug can look like a supermutant when there are no effective treatments. The mutants aren't going to put us anywhere new; they'll just return us to where we were, to a time of untreatable influenza (or whatever). The Golden Mean. We should not spew medicines out so much that we create mdr bugs that will kill pepole. We should not tell people they have to suffer and even die because we don't want to create mdr bugs. People do die from trivial disease. Having thousands of untreated contagious people everywhere has its own risks. We have to balance the tradeoffs. Of course, we don't understand quite what the tradeoffs are. It's tricky.
Thought: How will resistance affect virulence? If a drug becomes ineffective, will the new resistant bugs--I'll assume viruses.--be any worse than the virus strains before we had the drug? I would guess that the answer rests with the drug's mechanism. Imagine that the drug is a competitive inhibitor that closely imitates a cell receptor. It would be very hard for the virus to develop resistance without losing virulence. Imagine that the drug imitates some immune response. A resistance mutation could spell disaster. The new virus strain would be more resistant to the drug and to our immune response. At this time, we might not be smart enough to think clearly about this question.
When Dr. Hubbard was here, I asked whether she advocated a socialized health care system. As I expected, she said yes and contrasted us with nearly every other developed country on earth. IIRC, I then asked about how we are supposed to implement one, and she said something vague about legislation. I have little faith in public opinion, legislative integrity and healthcare company ethics. While she has good ideas and so do you, you both are living in fantasies from my perspective. Intolerant idealism does not solve problems. A perceived solution that has no hope of ever being implemented is not a solution. Take the Clinton healthcare initiative. His ideas may have been terrible. Maybe they were good. I do not know. I just know that he got nowhere with them and that people were in an uproar. Knowing what human forces we are up against is as much a part of the battle as knowing what disease forces we face.
Sidenote: When I tried to do a little (and very light) web research on these new antiviral drugs, I came across a NASA page. They grew neuraminidase protein crystals in microgravity. I guess they couldn't get good crystals on earth for x-ray crystallography.
I saw the movie Awakenings, I think. I don't know anything about the epidemic. I would write that I'll look into it. I'm sure it's interesting. Honestly, I probably won't look into it.
Europeans are idiots. So are Americans, but it's a different kind of idiocy. I used to think Europe was great until I started meeting Europeans. They were generally more aware than Americans in historical and cultural terms. They also tended to be very dogmatic and critical. They never seemed much different in critical thinking and debating abilities, just more offensive and rude.
My eyelids are getting heavy. I'm done writing for tonight.
Your position and what you think my position is are unclear to me. You seem to be advocating better public health. Specifically, I think you demand that epidemiology and evolution, not just effectiveness and toxicity/side effects, be considered in the drug approval and prescription process. I agree. I think I'm less fervent than you. I'm not quite sure which approaches you think are best and what you see as the errors of my reasoning.
We have to deal with these problems within the framework we are given. That framework is really messed up. I don't think that something should be because it already is. I do think that what is is going to be with us for a while, even in the face of good arguments and good evidence. Powerful forces are at work. In a world of bad policies, we have to do what we can to make better policies and, in the meantime, deal with the current policies. The NIH, CDC and similar organizations seem to have many brilliant, cautious, moral scientists. They only can suggest policies. As an American, I am obsessed with liberty (not that the USA is close to as free as most think). Stupidity and wrong must be allowed.
The automobile has its upside. Life expectancy has risen. Automobiles do not directly promote health; they hurt it. They do facilitate technology. We can distribute medicines. People can go to universities and become researchers. People can get to hospitals and doctor's offices. Food can be transported. All of these good things could happen without people driving as much as they do. Walking and public transportation could eliminate many of the risks without losing many benefits. Every societal phenomenon I can consider has an upside and a downside.
Intellectual property is the real problem. Drug companies, now often called "biotech," are financial monsters. I heard Dr. Ruth Hubbard speak about a year ago. She was the first tenured woman biology professor at Harvard, and now she's a speaker, writer and activist for biological issues, especially feminist ones. She discussed a company that is genetically profiling Iceland. When the job is done, the company will own the data. Drug research and development have long been shaky ground. As we get better at them, their problems will loom larger. Now companies own and patent organisms. At some point, I hope people, through the governments of the world, will put public health before profit and decommercialize biotechnology, especially healthcare. She pointed out major financial problems of public health. These miracle drugs are nice for us Westerners and Far Easterners. 1% of us die from infections. Circulatory disease and cancer are our major causes of death. 46% of the undeveloped world die from infections. New drugs make more money that older, effective drugs sold at lower cost. Third worlders are short on cash. (The numbers came from my Brock Biology of Microorganisms.)