If you had gotten Bitcoins very early, ten dollars could have made you a multimillionaire.
In related and equally meaningful news, if you had gotten a lotto ticket at the The Corner Store at the Riverbend Plaza in Wasaga last Friday within a specific time range, a few dollars would have made you an $50-million-aire.
ARM still sucks. Note how comparisons between ARM and mobile x86 are based on raw compute power, which ignores the elephant in the room: x86 enforces a much stronger memory model (Intel themselves were guilty of doing this with Itanium). To implement the same lockless multithreaded algorithms on ARM, you'd have to insert explicit barriers; how do you think that would affect its performance relative to x86, which has much stricter reordering constraints? You can say "just use locks", but comparisons should be done with an approximately optimal implementation of the benchmark problem.
The article makes an arugment that the closed-cycle gaseous "lightbulb" design is the best option. They even have a freakin' picture of it, FFS! All parent had to do is scan the images, and would have avoided wasting our time with a red herring argument.
It is unfair because the profits of a corporation get taxed anyway during outflow, through the taxes on dividends and capital gains. Corporate income tax thus brings double taxation on that money. Those countries which have little or no corporate income tax are taking this into consideration and are being fair, unlike this money grab by Obama.
They need to leave the euro (as does every other member). Monetary union doesn't work unless you have fiscal and economic union as well, and Europe is too diverse for that any time soon. Trade imbalance results in the most efficient exporter (Germany) beggaring their neighbors and accumulating cash, since the rest can't adapt by floating exchange rates -- it's classic merchantilism. What's worse is that only the heads of the German economic engine really benefit from it, due to wage suppression at home (which is part of what fuels their trade surplus).
borrowing and spending their way out of it may be very limited
I don't think you understand macroeconomics. There is a too limited money supply that is significantly worsening a recession/derpession. Greece gave up one of its primary rights as a sovereign -- issuing its own currency -- and so lacks one of the most powerful policy tools for intervention in its own economy. If it wasn't part of the euro, it wouldn't have to borrow from anyone but itself. Even the US mainly borrows from itself: the majority of its debt is not held by foreigners but is simply a number registered between treasury and federal reserve, which is an accounting fiction akin to debt between husband and wife. There are primarily political reasons some of the US debt is held by others, but it's not a basic requirement of its monetary system. The typical argument against government spending is inflation, but that doesn't happen if the spending is targeted as to decrease unemployment and thus increase aggregate demand -- which is exactly what's needed in a recession. The devil is in exactly how the spending should be carried out (things like a job guarantee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... come to mind) and should not be carried out (Bernanke's quantitative easing).
The most important part of a job is being able to do the job.
First of all, I didn't say fitting in is the most important part, but that it's one of the most important ones. Capisce? Second, nothing is in isolation. What you do affects other people in the company and (in the case of a small-to-medium business) the company itself, and not only through your fulfillment of the stated specs of the job. What autists and aspies fail to realize is that there are many things which are implied and not written in the spec, and that is very efficient because they're automatically known to normal people. In any case, most geeks don't suffer nearly that level of social retardation. My ability to write exemplary C++ isn't impaired by being a good citizen of the social context of my work environment.
Memories are, indeed, tagged with an importance value — the value is represented in the brain as a feeling/emotion. This modulates the strength of the long term encoding of the memory. But unimportant memories don't get "cycled out" as you say. Memories are not stored independently of each other and room for new ones recovered by some mechanism that frees up storage space. Forgetting is caused by a combination of interference from the storage of new memories and decay (two processes proposed independently but with evidence for both). This very much makes sense when considering that memories are stored through synaptic plasticity in the same neural network, which, upon triggering by the right stimulus for recall, recreates an activation pattern in other parts of the brain, including the consciously accessible image-making ones (one proposal for how the latter is accomplished, with some neurological evidence for it, is http://www.cell.com/trends/neu... ).
the boy/girl divide is fake. There's only one human mind and it's gender neutral in principle.
Why is it so hard for some people to realize that sexual dimorphism affects the physiology of the brain just as much as that of the rest of the body? There is a well established body of research documenting these differences in the brain, which are particularly pronounced in certain areas, such as the ventromedial nucleus of the hypothalamus. And since mind is what the brain does, there is every reason to conclude that biology is the primary determinant of many of the psychological differences that politically correct ideologues with a social engineering agenda — see parent post — ascribe to rearing and culture.
Way to miss the point. It's not about defending itself, but about overzealous goal-orientation, maximizing the use of all available resources, potentially to disastrous results to anything else sharing available resources (such as biological life). Building in safety constraints is not realistic when one begins considering general, recursively self-improving AI. Once a general AI is much smarter than a collection of humans, AI would be designing the next generation of AI, not humans, and then maintenance of any initial constraints through the generations would be out of our hands, and subject to inevitable drift and/or degradation. Even the standard text by Russell and Norvig acknowledges in the most recent edition the so called "friendly AI" arguments. The solution proposed by people like Kurzweil is that we'll more or less integrate with the machines, becoming superintelligent ourselves, and there might not even be stand-alone AI agents. The approach I prefer is imbuing any advanced general AI with technology substituting for embodied consciousness and human-like emotions (check the wiki article on embodied consciousness, as well as the research of the famous neurologist Damasio), and making the AI love us, which it cannot do unless it can understand us (an AI that is not human-like is actually far more dangerous — the opposite of what you suggest). If our well-being is integrated as well into the AI's fundamental cognitive processes as it is into our own (take somatic marker hypothesis and extend it to a system beyond just inside the brain), then this would make for a much more robust over generations mechanism than any formal constraints we try to build into the design specs.
From the article: "tumours cannot form in nerve cells". This, of course, is BS that was discredited a couple of years ago: http://m.medicalxpress.com/new... Perhaps we should have a Slashdot discussion on lazy scientists failing to keep up with developments in their own field. If you write without bothering to read, you end up with... well, something like Slashdot...
The New Testament supersedes the Old, so the post is invalid. This applies to most branches of Christianity. The parent poster is either trolling or ignorant of that which he is criticizing (my guess: copy-pasting random collection from teh intrawebs). The various interpretations are all aligned with this. Catholics, for example, interpret the Law of Moses (the Old Law) as a preparation for the Gospel, and as such no longer binding; the New Law (the Law of Gospel) is a perfection of it, delivered through faith in JC. Disclaimer: I'm an agnostic atheist (as in, no god with 85% confidence).
They exceed it in a limited frequency range, as I pointed out. I'm pretty sure you measured at say 1 kHz and "done deal", instead of sampling the full 20-20k range and noting how especially at the higher end SNR degrades. You also completely ignored my point that 90 dB is not the right target, as the ear does 120.
Let's be more specific about the notion of "sound the same". I don't know what it means to you, but I take it literally: that it is impossible to distinguish for any human in a set of blind tests, let's say ITU-standard ABC/hidden reference form, between these amplifiers or whatever other DUT we have (let us suppose that we can agree on a reasonable sample size of trained listeners, and a reasonably long time limit — I would push for several hours, split over a few experiments.) The 120 dB provides an upper bound to the noise and distortion, a guarantee that any reproduction equipment that meets that distortion spec will cause no possibly detectable change in the sound. I don't suggest that my bound is tight. However, you have failed to present an argument for a significantly tighter bound. You might argue against my basing of my argument on listening in ideal conditions, but such can be approached to varying degree in practice, and so I'm discussing the limiting cases, not the typical ones.
While a CD has a 90 dB range, typical players don't achieve that SNR, except maybe within a narrow subrange of the audio band, and the THD is several dB worse yet. You forget that the digital side has all the bits, but you need to convert it to analog. The DAC chip and the subsequent stages are the issue. At the digital/analog interface, signal jitter remains a problem, especially since phase noise performance of the cheap clocks used in even mid-upper range players is rather poor. There are many other issues, including poorly designed upsampling filtering before the DAC and so on. Moreover, you're forgetting that there's increasing amount of 24 bit, 96 kHz/192 kHz content, so the goal there is 120 dB, not 90. This far the only commercially available DAC chips that handle jitter issues, filtering, and the actual analog conversion sufficiently well for that target are the ESS Sabre models (ES9008 etc); the white papers are interesting. There are also some hobbyist stuff built with Sharc DSPs that can be found at the diyaudio forum.
I would hazard a guess that his headphone tube amp is output-transformerless. The truth is that what most people think of tube sound is really output transformer sound (the exception being the soft clipping, of course).
Slashdot Mirror
Hydro has much higher human death rate per terawatt generated than nuclear. http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/...
And metal-air batteries are light years ahead of Tesla's (with energy density an order of magnitude better, without compromising on power density). http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... http://www.extremetech.com/ext...
If you had gotten Bitcoins very early, ten dollars could have made you a multimillionaire.
In related and equally meaningful news, if you had gotten a lotto ticket at the The Corner Store at the Riverbend Plaza in Wasaga last Friday within a specific time range, a few dollars would have made you an $50-million-aire.
ARM still sucks. Note how comparisons between ARM and mobile x86 are based on raw compute power, which ignores the elephant in the room: x86 enforces a much stronger memory model (Intel themselves were guilty of doing this with Itanium). To implement the same lockless multithreaded algorithms on ARM, you'd have to insert explicit barriers; how do you think that would affect its performance relative to x86, which has much stricter reordering constraints? You can say "just use locks", but comparisons should be done with an approximately optimal implementation of the benchmark problem.
The article makes an arugment that the closed-cycle gaseous "lightbulb" design is the best option. They even have a freakin' picture of it, FFS! All parent had to do is scan the images, and would have avoided wasting our time with a red herring argument.
It is unfair because the profits of a corporation get taxed anyway during outflow, through the taxes on dividends and capital gains. Corporate income tax thus brings double taxation on that money. Those countries which have little or no corporate income tax are taking this into consideration and are being fair, unlike this money grab by Obama.
I can understand normal people who don't understand science thinking that Mallett is a crackpot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
borrowing and spending their way out of it may be very limited
I don't think you understand macroeconomics. There is a too limited money supply that is significantly worsening a recession/derpession. Greece gave up one of its primary rights as a sovereign -- issuing its own currency -- and so lacks one of the most powerful policy tools for intervention in its own economy. If it wasn't part of the euro, it wouldn't have to borrow from anyone but itself. Even the US mainly borrows from itself: the majority of its debt is not held by foreigners but is simply a number registered between treasury and federal reserve, which is an accounting fiction akin to debt between husband and wife. There are primarily political reasons some of the US debt is held by others, but it's not a basic requirement of its monetary system. The typical argument against government spending is inflation, but that doesn't happen if the spending is targeted as to decrease unemployment and thus increase aggregate demand -- which is exactly what's needed in a recession. The devil is in exactly how the spending should be carried out (things like a job guarantee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... come to mind) and should not be carried out (Bernanke's quantitative easing).
The most important part of a job is being able to do the job.
First of all, I didn't say fitting in is the most important part, but that it's one of the most important ones. Capisce? Second, nothing is in isolation. What you do affects other people in the company and (in the case of a small-to-medium business) the company itself, and not only through your fulfillment of the stated specs of the job. What autists and aspies fail to realize is that there are many things which are implied and not written in the spec, and that is very efficient because they're automatically known to normal people. In any case, most geeks don't suffer nearly that level of social retardation. My ability to write exemplary C++ isn't impaired by being a good citizen of the social context of my work environment.
Hit a nerve, did I?
aspies*
>implying I'm also not a nerd, and that most nerds are aspes lel
Best post in this story!
https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/i...
Memories are, indeed, tagged with an importance value — the value is represented in the brain as a feeling/emotion. This modulates the strength of the long term encoding of the memory. But unimportant memories don't get "cycled out" as you say. Memories are not stored independently of each other and room for new ones recovered by some mechanism that frees up storage space. Forgetting is caused by a combination of interference from the storage of new memories and decay (two processes proposed independently but with evidence for both). This very much makes sense when considering that memories are stored through synaptic plasticity in the same neural network, which, upon triggering by the right stimulus for recall, recreates an activation pattern in other parts of the brain, including the consciously accessible image-making ones (one proposal for how the latter is accomplished, with some neurological evidence for it, is http://www.cell.com/trends/neu... ).
the boy/girl divide is fake. There's only one human mind and it's gender neutral in principle.
Why is it so hard for some people to realize that sexual dimorphism affects the physiology of the brain just as much as that of the rest of the body? There is a well established body of research documenting these differences in the brain, which are particularly pronounced in certain areas, such as the ventromedial nucleus of the hypothalamus. And since mind is what the brain does, there is every reason to conclude that biology is the primary determinant of many of the psychological differences that politically correct ideologues with a social engineering agenda — see parent post — ascribe to rearing and culture.
I'm just glad they didn't add Penrose to that list. He's really lost his marbles in his old age -- such a shame.
Way to miss the point. It's not about defending itself, but about overzealous goal-orientation, maximizing the use of all available resources, potentially to disastrous results to anything else sharing available resources (such as biological life). Building in safety constraints is not realistic when one begins considering general, recursively self-improving AI. Once a general AI is much smarter than a collection of humans, AI would be designing the next generation of AI, not humans, and then maintenance of any initial constraints through the generations would be out of our hands, and subject to inevitable drift and/or degradation. Even the standard text by Russell and Norvig acknowledges in the most recent edition the so called "friendly AI" arguments. The solution proposed by people like Kurzweil is that we'll more or less integrate with the machines, becoming superintelligent ourselves, and there might not even be stand-alone AI agents. The approach I prefer is imbuing any advanced general AI with technology substituting for embodied consciousness and human-like emotions (check the wiki article on embodied consciousness, as well as the research of the famous neurologist Damasio), and making the AI love us, which it cannot do unless it can understand us (an AI that is not human-like is actually far more dangerous — the opposite of what you suggest). If our well-being is integrated as well into the AI's fundamental cognitive processes as it is into our own (take somatic marker hypothesis and extend it to a system beyond just inside the brain), then this would make for a much more robust over generations mechanism than any formal constraints we try to build into the design specs.
the bank started including the basis with their electronic important
u wot mate?
From the article: "tumours cannot form in nerve cells". This, of course, is BS that was discredited a couple of years ago: http://m.medicalxpress.com/new... Perhaps we should have a Slashdot discussion on lazy scientists failing to keep up with developments in their own field. If you write without bothering to read, you end up with... well, something like Slashdot...
http://news.nationalpost.com/2...
The New Testament supersedes the Old, so the post is invalid. This applies to most branches of Christianity. The parent poster is either trolling or ignorant of that which he is criticizing (my guess: copy-pasting random collection from teh intrawebs). The various interpretations are all aligned with this. Catholics, for example, interpret the Law of Moses (the Old Law) as a preparation for the Gospel, and as such no longer binding; the New Law (the Law of Gospel) is a perfection of it, delivered through faith in JC. Disclaimer: I'm an agnostic atheist (as in, no god with 85% confidence).
They exceed it in a limited frequency range, as I pointed out. I'm pretty sure you measured at say 1 kHz and "done deal", instead of sampling the full 20-20k range and noting how especially at the higher end SNR degrades. You also completely ignored my point that 90 dB is not the right target, as the ear does 120.
Let's be more specific about the notion of "sound the same". I don't know what it means to you, but I take it literally: that it is impossible to distinguish for any human in a set of blind tests, let's say ITU-standard ABC/hidden reference form, between these amplifiers or whatever other DUT we have (let us suppose that we can agree on a reasonable sample size of trained listeners, and a reasonably long time limit — I would push for several hours, split over a few experiments.) The 120 dB provides an upper bound to the noise and distortion, a guarantee that any reproduction equipment that meets that distortion spec will cause no possibly detectable change in the sound. I don't suggest that my bound is tight. However, you have failed to present an argument for a significantly tighter bound. You might argue against my basing of my argument on listening in ideal conditions, but such can be approached to varying degree in practice, and so I'm discussing the limiting cases, not the typical ones.
While a CD has a 90 dB range, typical players don't achieve that SNR, except maybe within a narrow subrange of the audio band, and the THD is several dB worse yet. You forget that the digital side has all the bits, but you need to convert it to analog. The DAC chip and the subsequent stages are the issue. At the digital/analog interface, signal jitter remains a problem, especially since phase noise performance of the cheap clocks used in even mid-upper range players is rather poor. There are many other issues, including poorly designed upsampling filtering before the DAC and so on. Moreover, you're forgetting that there's increasing amount of 24 bit, 96 kHz/192 kHz content, so the goal there is 120 dB, not 90. This far the only commercially available DAC chips that handle jitter issues, filtering, and the actual analog conversion sufficiently well for that target are the ESS Sabre models (ES9008 etc); the white papers are interesting. There are also some hobbyist stuff built with Sharc DSPs that can be found at the diyaudio forum.
I would hazard a guess that his headphone tube amp is output-transformerless. The truth is that what most people think of tube sound is really output transformer sound (the exception being the soft clipping, of course).