I would also recommend becoming a fan of Make Magazine on Facebook. They post several links to projects on a daily basis. They can be quite entertaining and inspiring.
There _has_ to be a perfectly reasonable explanation for all this, and it has nothing to do with aliens:
1.) U.S.A. or Russia invents a new flying technology. 2.) But they can only stick it in a ship that's small. 3.) So they use a crew of midgets to fly it around. 4.) It crashes and all the yokels who have never seen ANYTHING like this before assume it's aliens.
Unless your program was written by a moron your dataset was probably worked on in chunks, thereby reducing the impact of cache misses. In additional, memory is fetched and stored in the cache in blocks further reducing the impact of cache misses. The effect of cache misses becomes smallish. I would be more worried about 6-16 cycle latency of L2 cache HITS.
I'd have to agree. I have read other articles by this guy and he practices bad science all around. He uses a lot of tricks you'd expect from sales people or con artists to convince you of something but when you take a close look you realize he never really says anything at all.
Whether or not humans cause it, super viruses and other epidemics occur in nature anyways. There is plenty of research to indicate viruses wiping out wild cat populations (the only example I can think of right now).
If we didn't have pest resistant wheat and corn, the problems with hunger we'd have now would be a joke. And yes they do breed "super-insects". Worldwide there are plenty of insects that are resistant to insectisides that were used in the 70s, 80s, etc.
In that respect we have "sped up" evolution through natural selection.
It's a simple fact that we've been participants in our own evolution since we've been around. It was, of course, not cognitive.
We've affected the evolution of everything we've come in contact with. The plants and animals we eat and kept around, those we have driven extinct. You can't buy fruit or vegetables that hasn't been bred (or in some manner modified). Anyone had a pruot lately?
We have also selectively bred ourselves through sexual selection (an amusing example is the fact that breast and penis size are way our of proportion with the rest of the animal kingdom). I can't prove it, but I suspect people have steadily become more attractive over hundreds or thousands of years.
Culture has had an amazing impact on our evolution. Although, I would not say it's been in an cognitive context. Our technology has enabled us to generate environments, food, etc to make us live longer. The way our body stores fat is out of date with our current environment. No surprise it is taboo or bad to be fat.
So why the fuss over actively, cognitively, making changes to ourselves? I for one am against it RIGHT NOW. We know so much, but know so little.
In the next 50 years I'd bet we'll have a complete or mostly complete knowledge of our entire ecosystem (including ourselves) from anatomy to ecology, ethology to sociology, evolution to memetics, etc etc. With that in mind, research should continue. However, I do not think that making improvements to our genome is wise. We do not know the impact.
Also, people are too immature. Too immature to understand or too immature to handle the tech responsibly.
I always like pondering the idea of nature on Earth several hundred years from now. Will it be a tamed natural environment we work within? I hope so. I prefer to work with rather than against.
We it will wild and out of control? Right now all wild species are under incredible selective pressure because of the demands humans have placed on those environments. Eventually they will catch up (may take millions of years). At that point in time will humans be prepared to be at the mercy of their environments again? Can we stay a step ahead?
Or will all natural populations be decimated and replaced with a designer ecosystem, custom tailored and altered for our needs. It would be well balanced, somehow controlled (evolution happens, period!) and kept in check.
One small comment, under ecological pressure it's the carnivores that are the first to go because it takes so much system underneath to "hold them up".
On the contrary, extinction events have seemingly indiscriminately wiped out large numbers of species.
It is debatable, but the rate of evolutionary change can vary. But why does the rate of change affect whether we should modify our genome?
I do agree however, we've lost sight of why progress is important. Back in the day, things were done for the glory of God. Today the sentiment is personal comfort or self satisfaction (greed?).
As to the last part of your post, let's not forget, we could lead ourselves to a "better" race, but we are human. I'm sure that designer looks would be very popular:).
Natural selection coupled with random mutation is a good example of "trial-and-error" (mutations) checked by "feedback" (natural selection to remove those with low survival value).
It is effective and succesful (obviously). So I cannot dispute that.
Looking back, there are many hacks that could been implemented better, but nature compromised.
By compromise I mean that it would cost WAY TOO MUCH to reimplement something rather than modify what is available.
The classic example is the eye. There are better ways it could be done (for example the nerves vessels grow over rather than behind and must be routed through a hole), but it would take a fantastic mutation to alter that.
If I am not mistaken, the whole concept and Western preoccupation with progress did not come about until the "Scientific Revolution" in the Victorian Era (Descartes, Newton and a hundred other scientists).
badhack
It would be nice if you released a version of cdparanoia that reported data tracks as well as the lead out. This would improve CDDB support across the board for many linux products.
Slashdot Mirror
I would also recommend becoming a fan of Make Magazine on Facebook. They post several links to projects on a daily basis. They can be quite entertaining and inspiring.
I wonder what we will use in place of tantalum caps. Electrolytics don't have the lifespan and most other materials don't have a high enough CV.
There _has_ to be a perfectly reasonable explanation for all this, and it has nothing to do with aliens:
1.) U.S.A. or Russia invents a new flying technology.
2.) But they can only stick it in a ship that's small.
3.) So they use a crew of midgets to fly it around.
4.) It crashes and all the yokels who have never seen ANYTHING like this before assume it's aliens.
Unless your program was written by a moron your dataset was probably worked on in chunks, thereby reducing the impact of cache misses. In additional, memory is fetched and stored in the cache in blocks further reducing the impact of cache misses. The effect of cache misses becomes smallish. I would be more worried about 6-16 cycle latency of L2 cache HITS.
I've never bought monster, but I buy other "high end" cables and can attest to the difference in quality. Analog, or digital.
Social stigma aside, herpes is still no laughing matter. Herpes can kill newborn babies who become infected during birth. Google it.
Considering how difficult it is to get infected I'd be more afraid of an untested partner!
I might go to the movies a little more often if it weren't for all the bitch ass kids. Call me old, but I was taught to stfu at the movies.
Ya... in my engineering courses the boy:girl ratio is typically 7:1.
In my other classes the boy:girl ratio is typically 1:1.
I'd have to agree. I have read other articles by this guy and he practices bad science all around. He uses a lot of tricks you'd expect from sales people or con artists to convince you of something but when you take a close look you realize he never really says anything at all.
Indeed. It appears they have nearly the same definition. (A detailed analysis of the differences in a reply will be both annoying and not necessary.)
I believe the word you're looking for is "transmogrify".
Actually, TCP rocks. It's IP that sucks.
DOWN WITH IP!
As far as success goes, what is here now has been successful up to this point.
As far as which one is faster, who cares???
badhack
If we didn't have pest resistant wheat and corn, the problems with hunger we'd have now would be a joke. And yes they do breed "super-insects". Worldwide there are plenty of insects that are resistant to insectisides that were used in the 70s, 80s, etc.
In that respect we have "sped up" evolution through natural selection.
badhack
We've affected the evolution of everything we've come in contact with. The plants and animals we eat and kept around, those we have driven extinct. You can't buy fruit or vegetables that hasn't been bred (or in some manner modified). Anyone had a pruot lately?
We have also selectively bred ourselves through sexual selection (an amusing example is the fact that breast and penis size are way our of proportion with the rest of the animal kingdom). I can't prove it, but I suspect people have steadily become more attractive over hundreds or thousands of years.
Culture has had an amazing impact on our evolution. Although, I would not say it's been in an cognitive context. Our technology has enabled us to generate environments, food, etc to make us live longer. The way our body stores fat is out of date with our current environment. No surprise it is taboo or bad to be fat.
So why the fuss over actively, cognitively, making changes to ourselves? I for one am against it RIGHT NOW. We know so much, but know so little.
In the next 50 years I'd bet we'll have a complete or mostly complete knowledge of our entire ecosystem (including ourselves) from anatomy to ecology, ethology to sociology, evolution to memetics, etc etc. With that in mind, research should continue. However, I do not think that making improvements to our genome is wise. We do not know the impact.
Also, people are too immature. Too immature to understand or too immature to handle the tech responsibly.
I always like pondering the idea of nature on Earth several hundred years from now. Will it be a tamed natural environment we work within? I hope so. I prefer to work with rather than against.
We it will wild and out of control? Right now all wild species are under incredible selective pressure because of the demands humans have placed on those environments. Eventually they will catch up (may take millions of years). At that point in time will humans be prepared to be at the mercy of their environments again? Can we stay a step ahead?
Or will all natural populations be decimated and replaced with a designer ecosystem, custom tailored and altered for our needs. It would be well balanced, somehow controlled (evolution happens, period!) and kept in check.
Hmmm....we'll see.
badhack
badhack
On the contrary, extinction events have seemingly indiscriminately wiped out large numbers of species.
badhack
I do agree however, we've lost sight of why progress is important. Back in the day, things were done for the glory of God. Today the sentiment is personal comfort or self satisfaction (greed?).
As to the last part of your post, let's not forget, we could lead ourselves to a "better" race, but we are human. I'm sure that designer looks would be very popular :).
badhack
Natural selection coupled with random mutation is a good example of "trial-and-error" (mutations) checked by "feedback" (natural selection to remove those with low survival value).
It is effective and succesful (obviously). So I cannot dispute that.
Looking back, there are many hacks that could been implemented better, but nature compromised.
By compromise I mean that it would cost WAY TOO MUCH to reimplement something rather than modify what is available.
The classic example is the eye. There are better ways it could be done (for example the nerves vessels grow over rather than behind and must be routed through a hole), but it would take a fantastic mutation to alter that.
badhack
If I am not mistaken, the whole concept and Western preoccupation with progress did not come about until the "Scientific Revolution" in the Victorian Era (Descartes, Newton and a hundred other scientists). badhack
It would be nice if you released a version of cdparanoia that reported data tracks as well as the lead out. This would improve CDDB support across the board for many linux products.
Thanks!
badhack
badhack
badhack
And wouldn't XML be easier to parse? It's well documented, libraries (for linux) readily available, and it's highly organized.
badhack