radiosity, which tends to take more CPU to do right than the raytracing itself does.
This is a ludicrous statement, since radiosity and raytracing deal with completely different issues. Radiosity is specifically for indirect illumination. Indirect illumination can be done in ray tracing as well, but it's generally a less efficient way to do it, even with modern developments such as photon maps and irradiance caching (they of course combine indirect/direct). Overall, completely different domains, and a comparison such as the one you presented is meaningless.
It is the specific connections to other parts of the brain that made Damasio propose a very interesting theory of at least the abstract nature of the operation of these identified regions (and the effects when various of these connections are severed is the best way to follow up on that). There's a layman's version in his book "The Feeling of What Happens", and you can follow up through the bibliography of papers after.
Damasio et al already have pinned down the neruological circuits on which consciousness depends (and the evidence is that when they are disrupted, only consciousness is disrupted but not anything else, such as senses or wakefulness; of course wakefulness is not the same as consciousness and you can have wakefulness without consciousness, such as in disorders like absence automatism). You really seem to be unaware of the last ten years of research into the neural correlates of consciousness.
Unfortunately, you missed the most interesting thing about this: a gradual replacement of biological tissue with artificial one until it is complete is equivalent to making an artificial copy first then killing the original biological human. The only difference is continuity, and that's something that is very difficult to define and say "here exactly lies the line that makes it murder or not".
The horsepower is useless if your wheels simply spin when you hit the gas, which is exactly what these light cars do. On the street, top speed has little relevance, and it's the acceleration one is after, and with a small light Japanese car you simply can't use all of these 600+ horses until you've picked up speed already. Eating a Viper for lunch my ass.
The Americas cover two continents with many countries. What was arrogant was referring to the US as America. The US is only one country in North America. Hijacking the name of the whole landmass to refer to just your own country is what's arrogant.
Exactly, environmentalists are indeed Luddites. Here's what I had to say to one of the green nuts:
I see energy consumption per capita in industrialized nations as being able to freely grow in order to sustain uninhibited progress. Now add the tenfold increase in third world and developing nations per capita that it will take to match first world ones. What are you going to do to meet this demand with your crappy environmentalist-supported energy source? Cover the fucking planet in solar panels and windmills?
Of course, the greens would say, we need to also reduce usage. And therein lies the evil secret--the main goal of environmentalists is to restrict progress, even reverse it, and bring humans 'back to nature'; of course, that's just the same thing the Unabomber (Theodore Kaczynski) was after. Environmentalist=Luddite, and nothing will convince me otherwise.
I initially began to get very upset with these issues after the ludicrous anti-ITER propaganda that crazed Canadian megalomaniac David Suzuki (a cretinous imbecile that thinks he can tell people how to live) and his cronies put out, contributing to Canada's pullout of what is the most significant project of our time. So why would the greens be against fusion, and against several major governments spending a few tens of billions on the best candidate project? Because they don't want us to have a nearly unlimited clean energy--they want ITER and the subsequent commercial reactors to fail in order to implement their hidden agenda of returning humanity to the dark ages (in harmony with nature, same thing). For this alone Suzuki deserves to be slowly eviscerated in a public display.
I dare you to show a current digital system that can't be abstracted in software.... or a current software algorithm that is written and running on actual computer equipment that also can't be duplicated in hardware that would exhibit identical behavior.
Why would I want to try that? I never made any comment on the issue of hardware vs software. Dude, you need to work on your reading comprehension;P
As far as simulating a Turing machine, there are a great many Turing algorithms that can be demonstrated that do not need the "infinite" tape
Those are called Linearly Bounded Automata, not Turing Machines, and no amount of _finite_ memory is enough to make the LBA as powerful as a TM. Feel free to research the limitations of an LBA compared to a TM. But I already mentioned LBAs and you should have read what you were replying to more carefully.
I just don't see the limitations as being a major factor, and most people would understand these limitations as well.
The limitations are enormous. The physics I mentioned means that any finite physical system, such as a machine you can build, or a human brain, is equivalent to a discrete (due to Bekenstein bound), computational (QM is computational) machine. That means that the limits imposed on computation by Godel and Turing apply to human thought and any artifact that can possibly be built--there's no going beyond that.
Then we should concentrate on reactors with higher breeding ratios, as the exhaustion of mineable uranium can be slowed down significantly, and that is worth it despite the negative political implications of the ease of production of weapons-grade material in these reactors.
The more side a polygon with equal sides has, the more area it has for a given perimeter (and of course convex ones have more area). In the limit, you get a circle. But you cannot tile circles without leaving spaces between them. The identical convex polygons you can tile are squares and hexagons, and the hexagon has more sides. This is so immediately obvious that I am surprised at your post.
That same article claims that the process would not apply to large-scale atmospheric flows such as on Saturn. Sigh... yet another case of "you should have RTFA"
There can never be a physical equivalent to a Turing machine for exactly that reason of infinite memory. The best you can do is linearly bounded automata. Since, unlike with TM, a non-deterministic LBA is more powerful than a deterministic one, quantum mechanics does help. As for super-turing machines etc., you cannot have a physical implementation as that would violate the Bekenstein bound (this also being the reason you cannot have infinite-precision real numbers in the physical word, as that implies infinite information density and also violates the Bekenstein bound).
How conveniently you ignore the real problem (that's even mentioned in the summary): viruses. This is not just some theoretical problem, but one that is well known in xenotransplantation. Do some research first, before clicking the Submit button! Even if these viruses do not normally infect humans, their presence in large amounts due to the transplant makes it quite likely that combination with some endogenous retroviral DNA in your genome will result in a virus that attacks humans. Thus by accepting animal-sourced organs yourself, you are putting all of humanity in danger.
Best? I've never seen an inkjet or laser come close to the quality of a good thermal dye transfer or wax printer, which, unlike the laser and inkjet, make continuous images rather than little dots.
This is not so, because virtually all digital/analog converters on the receiving side that the average consumer is likely to own are synchronous, and recover the clock with a phase-locked loop. The problem is that jitter (phase noise) in the transition times of the digital signal makes for a jittery recovered clock, and thus the clock is actually analog information. This creates a problem in the DAC chip itself, where the phase noise is converted into amplitude errors of the digital signal. Higher end converters will use asynchronous resampling, which attenuates the jitter down but still doesn't reject it. Basically, what's needed is a fully asynchronous connection, which means packet-based, bidirectional interface, with a buffer on the converter side which, when it starts getting low, the controller requests more data from the source. S/PDIF over coaxial or optical is basically a flawed interface, and you can find a good paper in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society by Hawksford that goes into more detail.
Slashdot Mirror
radiosity, which tends to take more CPU to do right than the raytracing itself does.
This is a ludicrous statement, since radiosity and raytracing deal with completely different issues. Radiosity is specifically for indirect illumination. Indirect illumination can be done in ray tracing as well, but it's generally a less efficient way to do it, even with modern developments such as photon maps and irradiance caching (they of course combine indirect/direct). Overall, completely different domains, and a comparison such as the one you presented is meaningless.
It is the specific connections to other parts of the brain that made Damasio propose a very interesting theory of at least the abstract nature of the operation of these identified regions (and the effects when various of these connections are severed is the best way to follow up on that). There's a layman's version in his book "The Feeling of What Happens", and you can follow up through the bibliography of papers after.
Damasio et al already have pinned down the neruological circuits on which consciousness depends (and the evidence is that when they are disrupted, only consciousness is disrupted but not anything else, such as senses or wakefulness; of course wakefulness is not the same as consciousness and you can have wakefulness without consciousness, such as in disorders like absence automatism). You really seem to be unaware of the last ten years of research into the neural correlates of consciousness.
Unfortunately, you missed the most interesting thing about this: a gradual replacement of biological tissue with artificial one until it is complete is equivalent to making an artificial copy first then killing the original biological human. The only difference is continuity, and that's something that is very difficult to define and say "here exactly lies the line that makes it murder or not".
Clarification: By simply spin I meant spin without traction. You can't put huge wide tires on a small car.
The horsepower is useless if your wheels simply spin when you hit the gas, which is exactly what these light cars do. On the street, top speed has little relevance, and it's the acceleration one is after, and with a small light Japanese car you simply can't use all of these 600+ horses until you've picked up speed already. Eating a Viper for lunch my ass.
The Americas cover two continents with many countries. What was arrogant was referring to the US as America. The US is only one country in North America. Hijacking the name of the whole landmass to refer to just your own country is what's arrogant.
Exactly, environmentalists are indeed Luddites. Here's what I had to say to one of the green nuts:
I see energy consumption per capita in industrialized nations as being able to freely grow in order to sustain uninhibited progress. Now add the tenfold increase in third world and developing nations per capita that it will take to match first world ones. What are you going to do to meet this demand with your crappy environmentalist-supported energy source? Cover the fucking planet in solar panels and windmills?
Of course, the greens would say, we need to also reduce usage. And therein lies the evil secret--the main goal of environmentalists is to restrict progress, even reverse it, and bring humans 'back to nature'; of course, that's just the same thing the Unabomber (Theodore Kaczynski) was after. Environmentalist=Luddite, and nothing will convince me otherwise.
I initially began to get very upset with these issues after the ludicrous anti-ITER propaganda that crazed Canadian megalomaniac David Suzuki (a cretinous imbecile that thinks he can tell people how to live) and his cronies put out, contributing to Canada's pullout of what is the most significant project of our time. So why would the greens be against fusion, and against several major governments spending a few tens of billions on the best candidate project? Because they don't want us to have a nearly unlimited clean energy--they want ITER and the subsequent commercial reactors to fail in order to implement their hidden agenda of returning humanity to the dark ages (in harmony with nature, same thing). For this alone Suzuki deserves to be slowly eviscerated in a public display.
Your post is extremely arrogant (or ignorant, I'm not sure which). I live in America, and breeder reactors are allowed here (Canada).
I dare you to show a current digital system that can't be abstracted in software.... or a current software algorithm that is written and running on actual computer equipment that also can't be duplicated in hardware that would exhibit identical behavior.
;P
Why would I want to try that? I never made any comment on the issue of hardware vs software. Dude, you need to work on your reading comprehension
As far as simulating a Turing machine, there are a great many Turing algorithms that can be demonstrated that do not need the "infinite" tape
Those are called Linearly Bounded Automata, not Turing Machines, and no amount of _finite_ memory is enough to make the LBA as powerful as a TM. Feel free to research the limitations of an LBA compared to a TM. But I already mentioned LBAs and you should have read what you were replying to more carefully.
I just don't see the limitations as being a major factor, and most people would understand these limitations as well.
The limitations are enormous. The physics I mentioned means that any finite physical system, such as a machine you can build, or a human brain, is equivalent to a discrete (due to Bekenstein bound), computational (QM is computational) machine. That means that the limits imposed on computation by Godel and Turing apply to human thought and any artifact that can possibly be built--there's no going beyond that.
Then we should concentrate on reactors with higher breeding ratios, as the exhaustion of mineable uranium can be slowed down significantly, and that is worth it despite the negative political implications of the ease of production of weapons-grade material in these reactors.
I don't get it. What is this in reference to?
The more side a polygon with equal sides has, the more area it has for a given perimeter (and of course convex ones have more area). In the limit, you get a circle. But you cannot tile circles without leaving spaces between them. The identical convex polygons you can tile are squares and hexagons, and the hexagon has more sides. This is so immediately obvious that I am surprised at your post.
That same article claims that the process would not apply to large-scale atmospheric flows such as on Saturn. Sigh... yet another case of "you should have RTFA"
There shouldn't be an apostrophe in your "Meme 0567GS02"
There can never be a physical equivalent to a Turing machine for exactly that reason of infinite memory. The best you can do is linearly bounded automata. Since, unlike with TM, a non-deterministic LBA is more powerful than a deterministic one, quantum mechanics does help. As for super-turing machines etc., you cannot have a physical implementation as that would violate the Bekenstein bound (this also being the reason you cannot have infinite-precision real numbers in the physical word, as that implies infinite information density and also violates the Bekenstein bound).
Uh, if chances are they won't tell me, why should I ask them? LOL
How conveniently you ignore the real problem (that's even mentioned in the summary): viruses. This is not just some theoretical problem, but one that is well known in xenotransplantation. Do some research first, before clicking the Submit button! Even if these viruses do not normally infect humans, their presence in large amounts due to the transplant makes it quite likely that combination with some endogenous retroviral DNA in your genome will result in a virus that attacks humans. Thus by accepting animal-sourced organs yourself, you are putting all of humanity in danger.
OpenMP is a language extension, and thus part of the language.
Best? I've never seen an inkjet or laser come close to the quality of a good thermal dye transfer or wax printer, which, unlike the laser and inkjet, make continuous images rather than little dots.
Why not use something most recent versions of C/C++ compilers already support? Just use OpenMP. GCC, Intel's compiler, Visual C++, all support it.
The reproductive capacity argument doesn't hold water, since you can have it both ways by making the species hermaphrodites.
Yes.
Pretty much. Here's the paper I mentioned; it's from 1992 and the standard has not changed since: http://www.essex.ac.uk/ese/research/audio_lab/malc olmspubdocs/C41%20SPDIF%20interface%20flawed.pdf
This is not so, because virtually all digital/analog converters on the receiving side that the average consumer is likely to own are synchronous, and recover the clock with a phase-locked loop. The problem is that jitter (phase noise) in the transition times of the digital signal makes for a jittery recovered clock, and thus the clock is actually analog information. This creates a problem in the DAC chip itself, where the phase noise is converted into amplitude errors of the digital signal. Higher end converters will use asynchronous resampling, which attenuates the jitter down but still doesn't reject it. Basically, what's needed is a fully asynchronous connection, which means packet-based, bidirectional interface, with a buffer on the converter side which, when it starts getting low, the controller requests more data from the source. S/PDIF over coaxial or optical is basically a flawed interface, and you can find a good paper in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society by Hawksford that goes into more detail.