If someone used less force on the wishbone than the other person, it would move in their direction. Now if you're talking about torque, that's a different story.
Whoa whoa whoa... the implication that computers never choke is entirely too strong. I'll submit that a computer will probably never make the same kind of mistakes that a human does (unless we achieve perfect AI), but a computer is still made of materials governed by the laws of physics. There is always a non-vanishing probability that a bit can be flipped, or a series of bits that avoid error detection. Now, whether or not this is the same as a human "choking" in the heat of the moment is a discussion about semantics.
If you can destroy a missile in a fraction of second, this would be a good way of treating any threatening asteroids. In a few days/weeks, you could vaporize a portion on one side of the asteroid, and the off-flowing hot vapor would push the rock to a safer orbit.
If I understand correctly, you're proposing that the laser would be shot at the asteroid for an extended period of time. These lasers are "50-ton monsters" partially because of the massive amounts of raw materials needed to power the things. I'm guessing it would take several nuclear power plants devoting all of their energy towards keeping the laser powered, or untold amount of chemicals to mix. Same goes for your oil spill solution.
You're right and you're wrong. They're the same in that both are based on assumptions or faith. They're different in that science makes testable predictions. I haven't seen any good prophets around lately.
and fight against the strongest being in the universe. Then, after that being is destroyed, he will fight an even stronger being. And then, after that being is destroyed, he will fight an even stronger being...
God I love dragon ball.
The couch may eventually order food for you? Let's extend this:
The couch could feed the food to you. But not through normal means, how about through transdermal tubes. And what couch would be complete without a kickass entertainment system. TV won't do for the couch of the future... maybe we could somehow get an interface between the couch and the brain directly. I can see it now, it would plug right into the back of the neck. Hmmm... this seems a bit familiar.
Oh no! The couch of the future is the first step in the machines taking over. FEAR THE COUCH.
Get a hotmail account with a very short user name. Using a short name (~3 characters) or a very common first name before the @ sign guarantees that you will be found on any domain. I used to have adrian@ as an alias my job, but I got slammed with spam. I then asked them to remove it. Presto: no more spam. Then I got added to a d-list (ops@). Now I get the spam again.
If everything is kept nice and unary, every computation is fully reversable (this is not so with classical gates such as OR). One of the implications is that a quantum processor (theoretically) could operate without doing work (generating heat).
Not only are there those three states for a single qubit, but the infinite amount of values in between. Anything of the form a|0> + b|1> where a^2 + b^2 = 1. "a" and "b" can be complex.
Also with quantum computers, you have entanglement between qubits, something classical computers shouldn't have.
I'm pretty sure quantum computers will only allow us to simulate quantum systems. String theory is at a more fundamental level. Sure, we can compute (numerically) the mathematics behind string theory, but we can do that on classical computers as well.
This guy is doing the same thing Wolfram is doing, which is trying to construct a new set of rules which govern physics. The reason there is any resistance is because physics (especially classical) is quite simple and beautiful. People are unwilling to budge from their comfortable mindsets.
The thing is, there can be many ways of interpreting physics. I like to think of the universe as a chess game. It has its rules, but in the context of our universe, there are infinite implementations. A rook in the game can NEVER tell whether it is on a physical chess board or in a computer program or just an R on a page. In the context of the chess game, the rules (physics) for the rook will be the same.
As long as Mr. Wolfram and Mr. Lynds can make predictions as accurately as the current model of physics, they should be taken seriously. If they can make better predictions, or predict things that generally accepted physics cannot, then we should start questioning what we think we know more.
Does anybody else out there search for the easter eggs that they put in their animations? A lot are at the ends of the e-mails and toons, but they put some in the middle as well. For instance, I think that if you click on one of the pumpkins in the pumpkin carving contest, Homsar makes an apperance. (I'd verify this, but the site is slashdotted)
Also, check out Thorax Corp. It's another creation by the brothers.
Slashdot Mirror
I heard on CNN that the same explosions were being reported by multiple stations due to the fact that they exploded on trains between tube stations.
If someone used less force on the wishbone than the other person, it would move in their direction. Now if you're talking about torque, that's a different story.
And you can forget about glide jumping. My mouse gets angry when I shake him.
They were hacking the code on the Gibson.
And how?
With a cookie monster, of course.
Whoa whoa whoa... the implication that computers never choke is entirely too strong. I'll submit that a computer will probably never make the same kind of mistakes that a human does (unless we achieve perfect AI), but a computer is still made of materials governed by the laws of physics. There is always a non-vanishing probability that a bit can be flipped, or a series of bits that avoid error detection. Now, whether or not this is the same as a human "choking" in the heat of the moment is a discussion about semantics.
I'm fairly happy with my IPod, although I should have tested the other ones out before taking the plunge. I was taken in because it's just so sexy.
I got it.
If you can destroy a missile in a fraction of second, this would be a good way of treating any threatening asteroids. In a few days/weeks, you could vaporize a portion on one side of the asteroid, and the off-flowing hot vapor would push the rock to a safer orbit.
If I understand correctly, you're proposing that the laser would be shot at the asteroid for an extended period of time. These lasers are "50-ton monsters" partially because of the massive amounts of raw materials needed to power the things. I'm guessing it would take several nuclear power plants devoting all of their energy towards keeping the laser powered, or untold amount of chemicals to mix. Same goes for your oil spill solution.
Please use more pronouns.
Let's be honest about what? I wouldn't believe who if I did what?
You're right and you're wrong. They're the same in that both are based on assumptions or faith. They're different in that science makes testable predictions. I haven't seen any good prophets around lately.
and fight against the strongest being in the universe. Then, after that being is destroyed, he will fight an even stronger being. And then, after that being is destroyed, he will fight an even stronger being... God I love dragon ball.
The couch may eventually order food for you? Let's extend this:
The couch could feed the food to you. But not through normal means, how about through transdermal tubes. And what couch would be complete without a kickass entertainment system. TV won't do for the couch of the future... maybe we could somehow get an interface between the couch and the brain directly. I can see it now, it would plug right into the back of the neck. Hmmm... this seems a bit familiar.
Oh no! The couch of the future is the first step in the machines taking over. FEAR THE COUCH.
Get a hotmail account with a very short user name.
Using a short name (~3 characters) or a very common first name before the @ sign guarantees that you will be found on any domain. I used to have adrian@ as an alias my job, but I got slammed with spam. I then asked them to remove it. Presto: no more spam. Then I got added to a d-list (ops@). Now I get the spam again.
Yeah... I noticed that too. I guess it's "Population: Awexome".
Did I see Population: Tire in the screenshots?
Or maybe the scientist knew all too well. I'd like to be the first to welcome our new alien overlords.
Some other cool things about quantum computers:
If everything is kept nice and unary, every computation is fully reversable (this is not so with classical gates such as OR). One of the implications is that a quantum processor (theoretically) could operate without doing work (generating heat).
Not only are there those three states for a single qubit, but the infinite amount of values in between. Anything of the form a|0> + b|1> where a^2 + b^2 = 1. "a" and "b" can be complex.
Also with quantum computers, you have entanglement between qubits, something classical computers shouldn't have.
I'm pretty sure quantum computers will only allow us to simulate quantum systems. String theory is at a more fundamental level. Sure, we can compute (numerically) the mathematics behind string theory, but we can do that on classical computers as well.
IAAI (I am an idiot)
16 times is 4-fold, if I'm not mistaken.
</nitpick>
So here's how I see it:
This guy is doing the same thing Wolfram is doing, which is trying to construct a new set of rules which govern physics. The reason there is any resistance is because physics (especially classical) is quite simple and beautiful. People are unwilling to budge from their comfortable mindsets.
The thing is, there can be many ways of interpreting physics. I like to think of the universe as a chess game. It has its rules, but in the context of our universe, there are infinite implementations. A rook in the game can NEVER tell whether it is on a physical chess board or in a computer program or just an R on a page. In the context of the chess game, the rules (physics) for the rook will be the same.
As long as Mr. Wolfram and Mr. Lynds can make predictions as accurately as the current model of physics, they should be taken seriously. If they can make better predictions, or predict things that generally accepted physics cannot, then we should start questioning what we think we know more.
I found this site, which sort of explains the origins.
Also, check out Thorax Corp. It's another creation by the brothers.
CmdrTaco's brain. Not yet observed.