Some PAC raises one million dollars from unlimited, unreported donations. They use the money to pay 1000 bloggers to promote their issue. They don't need to report that these bloggers work for them, or how much they get paid.
I'm always fascinated by tiny inconsistencies. For instance, in this picture of the dark side of the moon, there are a few areas that haven't been photographed. The areas are in relatively consistent patterns, where the sattelite's camera may have malfunctioned or the orbit didn't cover certain areas. All except for one. Check out the top right, on the left side of a large crater. It's an outlier, all by itself, smack in the middle of an interesting formation. Wouldn't they have tried to get that spot again, on a second go around? Why is it missing? And why isn't it part of a patern like the others?
Yes of course it's a storage medium. All you need is solar energy to produce biodiesel.
Really? That's all you need? You mean there's no energy requiring or consuming steps between sunlight and biodiesel in the tank? Amazing! Why don't more people know about this liquid light?
You can buy a car out of a showroom today and run biodiesel in it without modification. Try that with hydrogen.
Yes, and then you'd have a car with all of the downsides of internal combustion, just with a fuel from a different source.
Look, I'm all for biodiesel. I have no problem with it whatsoever. In fact, if there was a diesel/electric hybrid car on the market I'd buy it today and run it on biodiesel. But we need to plan for the future. Hydrogen is the best way to go. You get flexibility in energy production (i.e. any process that produces electricity can be used to make hydrogen) and zero toxic emmisions when it's consumed in a fuel cell. Biodiesel has neither of these advantages. So while it's a good small scale and short term solution, it's not the long term way to go. And we need long term solutions.
Biodiesel is a storage medium. It takes energy to produce it. What are they going to use? Nuclear, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, oil, or coal? Zero point energy is the way to go.
Seriously, your argument is silly. Both hydrogen and biodiesel are energy storage mechanisms, and both require energy to produce.
There is not a shred of evidence for the existence of intelligent entities other than humans or machines created by humans.
At the moment, I'd be inclined to agree. I hope you don't also assert that the existence of such beings in impossible. Also, before 1905 (and for several decades afterwards) there was incomplete evidence to support special and general relativity. Doesn't mean it wasn't (and isn't) a valid theory. So trying to argue against ID on those grounds is useless. You must attack it in a way that is productive. I'm trying to show you how, but you're one stubborn mutherfucker. I wash my hands of ye.
Right. So why did you try to define it later in your post?...it must be an information processing system that shares some aspects with human information processing not possessed by animals or inanimate objects.
So, the quest to create artificial intelligence is pointless, then? It would be composed of inanimate objects, you know. As are we, if you hadn't noticed. And the boundry of where intelligence resides is a bit more fuzzy than "We've got it, nothing else does." Parrots posses verbal ability. Apes can master sign language. Both can carry on conversations. Are they not intelligent?
And, besides, your definition is self serving. Saying intelligence is a trait of humans, and thus no non-human entity exists that could be an intelligent creator, is a tautology. Come on. You can do better.
But really, if you have such a large population that simply can't believe facts...
Do you realize the contradiction there?:)
Most of the population does not take the time to learn the facts. Many don't have the time or ability to do so. So the challenge is for them to agree with the outcomes of science without verification, i.e. they must believe in it. But given the choice between one belief and another, which will they choose? Rationality need not be involved in that decision.
This is antithetical to the attitudes of most scientists. They'd prefer that you understand, not believe. But that's just not possible for many people....then how on Earth can science advance in that kind of environment.
It's the only environment possible, unless everyone was a scientist. That ain't gonna happen any time soon.
But in this case you do need a precise definition. You need a testable defition. If we are to posit an intelligent creator we must know what we are positing. Otherwise the assertion os meaningless, and any subsequent assertions based on it are meaningless. (And thus not testable.)
Look, by saying "I know it's wrong" you're playing right into the hands of ID proponents. You're falling for their game. Don't.
That's false. ID can be tested (in the same way astronomy can be)...
Really? OK. Give me the definition of intelligence upon which you could build such tests. And, remember, your community of researchers all must agree on this defition.
I mean, if you're going to test the predictions of ID, you have to know the nature of intelligence, right?
If so, I'd like an example-- because I've never heard of a creature with a deep, light-sensitive pit in its body.
Don't know about light sensisive, but pit vipers have heat sensitive pits. (Heat being another form of electromagnetic energy...) These pits tell the snake about direction and intensity of a heat source.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight.
This is a common misconception about evolution. The only thing "necessary" is for the organism displaying the trait to reproduce. Nothing else. The trait can confer absolutely no advantage, and even cause disadvantage, as long as enough organisms with the genes for that trait reproduce. The trait need not even be expressed, as long as a gene that creates it is passed on. (Big example: recessive genes.)
So, to recap, every change did not have to conver advantage. The gene for that trait merely had to be passed on.
The "no titles" rule is silly, but that "no celebrity names" rule (I know, from another game) is even sillier. I have personally known two guys named "Michael Jackson," and neither of them owned a monkey. Would they not be allowed to use their own name?
Personally, I share my name with an Olympic kayaker who won the gold medal in 1988. Would that be too much of a celebrity name for some games? Would I not be able to use my own name in some forums just because of that odd juxtaposition? Or, further still, could my own name be copyrighted and branded so that I couldn't use it for other purposes, say on my driver's license?
Ask Slashdot answers have somehow failed to put EMC, IBM, HP, etc. out of business.
Yes, that's right... You can't do it yourself... There's never an open source solution... You must buy an expensive solution.... From a big company.... You're getting very....very...sleepy...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes this is free speech.
Ah. So folks with more money should have a louder voice? They have a greater right to have their opinions heard?
I've noticed that there are a whole lot of conservative leaning Anonymous Coward posts on this thread.
Coincidence?
I have to agree. My slashdot subscription recently lapsed. I may not renew it now.
Consider this scenerio:
Some PAC raises one million dollars from unlimited, unreported donations.
They use the money to pay 1000 bloggers to promote their issue.
They don't need to report that these bloggers work for them, or how much they get paid.
Rinse. Repeat.
Is this free speech?
I'm always fascinated by tiny inconsistencies. For instance, in this picture of the dark side of the moon, there are a few areas that haven't been photographed. The areas are in relatively consistent patterns, where the sattelite's camera may have malfunctioned or the orbit didn't cover certain areas. All except for one. Check out the top right, on the left side of a large crater. It's an outlier, all by itself, smack in the middle of an interesting formation. Wouldn't they have tried to get that spot again, on a second go around? Why is it missing? And why isn't it part of a patern like the others?
Yes of course it's a storage medium. All you need is solar energy to produce biodiesel.
Really? That's all you need? You mean there's no energy requiring or consuming steps between sunlight and biodiesel in the tank? Amazing! Why don't more people know about this liquid light?
You can buy a car out of a showroom today and run biodiesel in it without modification. Try that with hydrogen.
Yes, and then you'd have a car with all of the downsides of internal combustion, just with a fuel from a different source.
Look, I'm all for biodiesel. I have no problem with it whatsoever. In fact, if there was a diesel/electric hybrid car on the market I'd buy it today and run it on biodiesel. But we need to plan for the future. Hydrogen is the best way to go. You get flexibility in energy production (i.e. any process that produces electricity can be used to make hydrogen) and zero toxic emmisions when it's consumed in a fuel cell. Biodiesel has neither of these advantages. So while it's a good small scale and short term solution, it's not the long term way to go. And we need long term solutions.
Biodiesel is the way to go.
Biodiesel is a storage medium. It takes energy to produce it. What are they going to use? Nuclear, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, oil, or coal? Zero point energy is the way to go.
Seriously, your argument is silly. Both hydrogen and biodiesel are energy storage mechanisms, and both require energy to produce.
I second the suggestion others have made of trying NIO. It could solve two of your problems (GC woes and IO woes) using direct memory mapping.
There is not a shred of evidence for the existence of intelligent entities other than humans or machines created by humans.
At the moment, I'd be inclined to agree. I hope you don't also assert that the existence of such beings in impossible. Also, before 1905 (and for several decades afterwards) there was incomplete evidence to support special and general relativity. Doesn't mean it wasn't (and isn't) a valid theory. So trying to argue against ID on those grounds is useless. You must attack it in a way that is productive. I'm trying to show you how, but you're one stubborn mutherfucker. I wash my hands of ye.
We don't need a definition of intelligence.
...it must be an information processing system that shares some aspects with human information processing not possessed by animals or inanimate objects.
Right. So why did you try to define it later in your post?
So, the quest to create artificial intelligence is pointless, then? It would be composed of inanimate objects, you know. As are we, if you hadn't noticed. And the boundry of where intelligence resides is a bit more fuzzy than "We've got it, nothing else does." Parrots posses verbal ability. Apes can master sign language. Both can carry on conversations. Are they not intelligent?
And, besides, your definition is self serving. Saying intelligence is a trait of humans, and thus no non-human entity exists that could be an intelligent creator, is a tautology. Come on. You can do better.
But really, if you have such a large population that simply can't believe facts...
:)
...then how on Earth can science advance in that kind of environment.
Do you realize the contradiction there?
Most of the population does not take the time to learn the facts. Many don't have the time or ability to do so. So the challenge is for them to agree with the outcomes of science without verification, i.e. they must believe in it. But given the choice between one belief and another, which will they choose? Rationality need not be involved in that decision.
This is antithetical to the attitudes of most scientists. They'd prefer that you understand, not believe. But that's just not possible for many people.
It's the only environment possible, unless everyone was a scientist. That ain't gonna happen any time soon.
But in this case you do need a precise definition. You need a testable defition. If we are to posit an intelligent creator we must know what we are positing. Otherwise the assertion os meaningless, and any subsequent assertions based on it are meaningless. (And thus not testable.)
Look, by saying "I know it's wrong" you're playing right into the hands of ID proponents. You're falling for their game. Don't.
That's false. ID can be tested (in the same way astronomy can be)...
Really? OK. Give me the definition of intelligence upon which you could build such tests. And, remember, your community of researchers all must agree on this defition.
I mean, if you're going to test the predictions of ID, you have to know the nature of intelligence, right?
And, I haven't even asked about "Design" yet...
If so, I'd like an example-- because I've never heard of a creature with a deep, light-sensitive pit in its body.
Don't know about light sensisive, but pit vipers have heat sensitive pits. (Heat being another form of electromagnetic energy...) These pits tell the snake about direction and intensity of a heat source.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight.
This is a common misconception about evolution. The only thing "necessary" is for the organism displaying the trait to reproduce. Nothing else. The trait can confer absolutely no advantage, and even cause disadvantage, as long as enough organisms with the genes for that trait reproduce. The trait need not even be expressed, as long as a gene that creates it is passed on. (Big example: recessive genes.)
So, to recap, every change did not have to conver advantage. The gene for that trait merely had to be passed on.
Two words: Gnostic Gospels.
I think the OS is the very, very last thing that Google would aim for. They'd go for all the application and framework space first.
You mean, like, Java?
It certainly could be the beginning of the next bubble.
Nah. This is the foam after the bubble popped.
I predict this XML technology will soon take over the internets.
It already has. Heard of the "HTML" virus?
We've got tons of human related data.. why aren't we using it instead of rats?
Because you can't dissect or vivisect a human when you want to find out what's going on in their guts.
Supraficial.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The "no titles" rule is silly, but that "no celebrity names" rule (I know, from another game) is even sillier. I have personally known two guys named "Michael Jackson," and neither of them owned a monkey. Would they not be allowed to use their own name?
Personally, I share my name with an Olympic kayaker who won the gold medal in 1988. Would that be too much of a celebrity name for some games? Would I not be able to use my own name in some forums just because of that odd juxtaposition? Or, further still, could my own name be copyrighted and branded so that I couldn't use it for other purposes, say on my driver's license?
I wish there was some reasonable way to cap the salary of executives to, say, 20x what their average employee makes..
There is a way. It's called "electing Democrats."
Ask Slashdot answers have somehow failed to put EMC, IBM, HP, etc. out of business.
! !!!!!!!!!!
Yes, that's right... You can't do it yourself... There's never an open source solution... You must buy an expensive solution.... From a big company.... You're getting very....very...sleepy...
MMMMWWWUUUUUUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
Yes, because every developer is conversant with C, and knows how to code kernels.
Well, if you've got a project that requires changes to the kernel...maybe you should have some developers who can hack it...maybe?
Maintenance coding is NOT simple.
Yet it's a step up from impossible, which can be the difficulty of getting a bugfix from some vendors.