Biggest polluters (in absolute terms, not relative to production) are also pretty civilized ones. In fact, the USA alone can cut emissions by a quite good amount. So your "huge overwhelming world-level mandates" are not really required.
So trivially, that image of a circle is in there somewhere, as is an image of a triangle, the source to Linux 4.0, an image of Bush playing with G.I. Joe dolls on his desk and so on.
Existance of those does not imply we could be able to find them or identify if happen to come across them. Until we can calculate and scan ~1E250000 digits of pi in a few years, such a finding would strongly support "signiture of god" hypothesis.
1000 decimal places of pi for engineering is an overkill of more than two magnitudes. 4 to 9 decimal places are quite enough, depending on what exactly you want to calculate. Even one (that is 3, not 3.1) may do sometimes.
As for math, I don't think there is anything at all learnable from actual digits of pi. We know they neither end nor repeat. Actual values are just trivia. It could as well have been 3.76421403038164659... and nobody would care.
First off the technology to detect radioactive material is much more mature than the technology to convetional explosives.
Indeed, one can say that. Conventionals don't go around emitting those easy to detect rays and particles. But you make it sound as if explosive detection technology is not mature enough, which is plain false.
(disclaimer:IANAGuru) There is no problem with glibc preloading, it just didn't exist except as a hack prior to most recent version. It still requires a certain amount of sweat (but not brains) to get it work. At gentoo forums people are talking about really spectecular kde/kde-app loading times with it. I doubt other applications will benefit that much, because kde was slowed down (not that it is slow but...) due to depth of qt's/kde's C++ class hiearchies, which prelinking helps quite a bit.
Openoffice is not optimized while ms office is, that is why it takes much longer to start up, uses more memory and cpu time with less functionality. Blaiming prelinking, preloading or microsoft of dirty tricks won't get anyone anywhere. MS office is a mature product, OOo isn't, yet. If OOo guys follow kde guys' trend, OOo will be better and faster with time, instead of better and slower.
The story is quite different, so I don't see how one can say the ending is the same. The movie is like *two* minority report *rip-offs.* Neither mystery/sub-plot in the movie is the original story. Being the PKD fan I am, I liked both the story and the movie, but the connection between them is not as strong as the names (MR=MR) suggest.
[SPOILER] One of the revelations in the story is that existance of a majority naturally implies existance of a minority. We read on to discover there is no majority report, each of the three precogs have given a different, a minority, report.
[MAJOR SPOILER] One precog predicts ('sees the timeline leading to a specific') the future based on present, the other predicts the future based on present and the knowledge that the department will know about the predicted crime, the last one predicts future based on present and the fact that minority reports of first two will be known by the department. The mere knowledge of future changes what it is, hence, there is no majority report. OTOH the "minority report" concept is only tangential to the movie.
Re:MODUP: Guide to running Photoshop, IE, Kazaa...
on
Fun With Wine
·
· Score: 2
You are advocating a non-workable model based on goodwill of people. It is better for everybody if it fails sooner rather than later.
I have no idea if the information in MOL faq is accurate. I don't have *any* Apple products, so I can't check the claim myself. I have just quoted the relevant part of FAQ, the part parent poster missed while reading it, for/. crowd. If you are sure MacOS EULA permits running MacOS (expecially X) on non-apple machines, please inform MOL people.
Just looked through the mol docs and didn't see anything about Apple's EULA.
It is right there in the faq:
Q: Does MOL run on non-Apple hardware?
A: It does. MOL runs for instance on the Pegasos board, the Teron board and on AmigaOne hardware. In short, MOL should run on any PowerPC hardware (with the except of 601-based systems). However, the EULA of MacOS prohibits its usage on non-Apple hardware (it is of course perfectly legal to use MOL to boot a second Linux though).
As another poster pointed out, Athlon competes well with P4 right now. They may not be faster, but they are as fast. That was not the case with k6 vs. Pentium 2. k6 was beaten very badly.
Athlon was a revolutionary cpu, which got everybody excited long before it was released. It would obviously be much faster than what Intel offered unless it was too late. Fortunately, it was not too late. OTOH who gets too excited about Opterons are probably lost in "64 bit" hype. All hammer cpus are basically Athlons with 64bit, SSE2 ISA extensions and an integrated memory controller. Even though the performance increase associated with additional registers, double precision vector processing and lower memory latency is quite a bit, the Athlon to Opteron step is definitely evolutionary, comparable to evolution of Athlon classic to Athlon XP. Athlon is AMD's Pentium pro, they will milk it until they can't.
One may argue that since Athlons can compete with P4s, the fact that hammers are evolved Athlons is not really bad news. That is also my position. One may also argue that since Athlons are not scaling as good as P4s and Opterons offer one-time performance increase (after all, you can't add new instructions every full moon), the future is not good for AMD. That is also a valid argument. What IMHO is an invalid argument is saying that the situation is like back when amd was designing Athlons; the difference is too much to ignore.
I can assert that as-of-yet-unknown-neural-networks are capable of having super-human level intelligence. I would not be contradicting our understanding of NNs while asserting that. The question is, what use is that assertion being true as long as there is no such network?
It has been tried many times, with less-than-spectecular results. Brute-force chess players always beats. In fact, NNs only have been really successful at backgammon, so far. Even when an NN plays game X well, either a human (as in Go) or a brute-force program (as in Checkers) play the game better.
9.0 is much better than 8.2 in my experience. My only problem was related to java & mozilla working together on ie oriented web sites (curiously the same java works fine with konq and moz 1.0) Of course, YMMV.
Not because FORTRAN is a must-know language (actually it is butt-ugly) but the time you need to invest is a few days at worst. Yes, FORTRAN (77 and prior versions) is that simple.
There will be none. Blizzard declared on numerous occasions that they won't allow any third party to port it and they don't plan to port it themselves "at this time" - which is an euphemism for "ever".
You forgot the interface. It has by far the best user interface usability. The changes are evolutionary rather than revolutionary. I love not hunting for idle workers, ability to select a class of units without breaking the group, autocasting some spells to name just a few.
An anti-gravity device which leaves the mass intact but shields gravitational effects can also be used as an inertial dampner, essentially a mass reducer if object in question can be surrounded by it. Either that or Mach's principle is incorrect (which may as well be.)
You are out of context there. Had they replicated the experiment anywhere else, lack of theory would not be a problem for antigrav guys; instead physicist would have a big problem. The data doesn't exist except for claims of this crook in this case. If you can't observe the phenomena and can't see any reason why and how it could exist, it is no circle jerking to be very suspicious about its reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Biggest polluters (in absolute terms, not relative to production) are also pretty civilized ones. In fact, the USA alone can cut emissions by a quite good amount. So your "huge overwhelming world-level mandates" are not really required.
It is not that hard to give the impression of an AI that doesn't have shortcomings you mention but will you be able to beat it?
Care to enlighten us with a possible use then?
Existance of those does not imply we could be able to find them or identify if happen to come across them. Until we can calculate and scan ~1E250000 digits of pi in a few years, such a finding would strongly support "signiture of god" hypothesis.
As for math, I don't think there is anything at all learnable from actual digits of pi. We know they neither end nor repeat. Actual values are just trivia. It could as well have been 3.76421403038164659... and nobody would care.
Indeed, one can say that. Conventionals don't go around emitting those easy to detect rays and particles. But you make it sound as if explosive detection technology is not mature enough, which is plain false.
Openoffice is not optimized while ms office is, that is why it takes much longer to start up, uses more memory and cpu time with less functionality. Blaiming prelinking, preloading or microsoft of dirty tricks won't get anyone anywhere. MS office is a mature product, OOo isn't, yet. If OOo guys follow kde guys' trend, OOo will be better and faster with time, instead of better and slower.
[SPOILER] One of the revelations in the story is that existance of a majority naturally implies existance of a minority. We read on to discover there is no majority report, each of the three precogs have given a different, a minority, report.
[MAJOR SPOILER] One precog predicts ('sees the timeline leading to a specific') the future based on present, the other predicts the future based on present and the knowledge that the department will know about the predicted crime, the last one predicts future based on present and the fact that minority reports of first two will be known by the department. The mere knowledge of future changes what it is, hence, there is no majority report. OTOH the "minority report" concept is only tangential to the movie.
You are advocating a non-workable model based on goodwill of people. It is better for everybody if it fails sooner rather than later.
I have no idea if the information in MOL faq is accurate. I don't have *any* Apple products, so I can't check the claim myself. I have just quoted the relevant part of FAQ, the part parent poster missed while reading it, for /. crowd. If you are sure MacOS EULA permits running MacOS (expecially X) on non-apple machines, please inform MOL people.
It is right there in the faq:
Q: Does MOL run on non-Apple hardware?
A: It does. MOL runs for instance on the Pegasos board, the Teron board and on AmigaOne hardware. In short, MOL should run on any PowerPC hardware (with the except of 601-based systems). However, the EULA of MacOS prohibits its usage on non-Apple hardware (it is of course perfectly legal to use MOL to boot a second Linux though).
It wouldn't be much different from k5 and its "5 or 1" raters. The system there seems to work so far.
Athlon was a revolutionary cpu, which got everybody excited long before it was released. It would obviously be much faster than what Intel offered unless it was too late. Fortunately, it was not too late. OTOH who gets too excited about Opterons are probably lost in "64 bit" hype. All hammer cpus are basically Athlons with 64bit, SSE2 ISA extensions and an integrated memory controller. Even though the performance increase associated with additional registers, double precision vector processing and lower memory latency is quite a bit, the Athlon to Opteron step is definitely evolutionary, comparable to evolution of Athlon classic to Athlon XP. Athlon is AMD's Pentium pro, they will milk it until they can't.
One may argue that since Athlons can compete with P4s, the fact that hammers are evolved Athlons is not really bad news. That is also my position. One may also argue that since Athlons are not scaling as good as P4s and Opterons offer one-time performance increase (after all, you can't add new instructions every full moon), the future is not good for AMD. That is also a valid argument. What IMHO is an invalid argument is saying that the situation is like back when amd was designing Athlons; the difference is too much to ignore.
I can assert that as-of-yet-unknown-neural-networks are capable of having super-human level intelligence. I would not be contradicting our understanding of NNs while asserting that. The question is, what use is that assertion being true as long as there is no such network?
It has been tried many times, with less-than-spectecular results. Brute-force chess players always beats. In fact, NNs only have been really successful at backgammon, so far. Even when an NN plays game X well, either a human (as in Go) or a brute-force program (as in Checkers) play the game better.
9.0 is much better than 8.2 in my experience. My only problem was related to java & mozilla working together on ie oriented web sites (curiously the same java works fine with konq and moz 1.0) Of course, YMMV.
Which part did you mistype?
Actually NTFS is a journalling file system; a very good one in specification and a fairly good one in implementation.
I hope you learned instaneous information travel means time travel, which makes all "speed" issues irrelevant, during the decade.
Not because FORTRAN is a must-know language (actually it is butt-ugly) but the time you need to invest is a few days at worst. Yes, FORTRAN (77 and prior versions) is that simple.
There will be none. Blizzard declared on numerous occasions that they won't allow any third party to port it and they don't plan to port it themselves "at this time" - which is an euphemism for "ever".
You forgot the interface. It has by far the best user interface usability. The changes are evolutionary rather than revolutionary. I love not hunting for idle workers, ability to select a class of units without breaking the group, autocasting some spells to name just a few.
An anti-gravity device which leaves the mass intact but shields gravitational effects can also be used as an inertial dampner, essentially a mass reducer if object in question can be surrounded by it. Either that or Mach's principle is incorrect (which may as well be.)
You are out of context there. Had they replicated the experiment anywhere else, lack of theory would not be a problem for antigrav guys; instead physicist would have a big problem. The data doesn't exist except for claims of this crook in this case. If you can't observe the phenomena and can't see any reason why and how it could exist, it is no circle jerking to be very suspicious about its reality.