Dear Twirlip of the Mists,
You have presented many posts dealing with a multitude of considerations on the topic of tabbed browsing. Every one a concisive, cohesive, thought provoking gem.
The plebes have won. This is why we have pro wrestling. I hope that Safari can stay your favoured browser.:-)
I thought that this article was almost pure vaporware, at least compared to what we think of when we mean computer.
The system described is not turing complete, meaning it is not a general purpose computer, and can _only_ do a narrow range of tasks. Specificly, the tasks or taks it was designed for.
An anology of this is sorting numbers. In the field of general purpose computers, we have developed many different algorithims to do this, some better for a paticular task, some worse.
But imagine we had our data in the form of varying lengths of rod, 10.23 = 10.23 meters, for example. Now collect all our numbers into a massive bundle, lets say as thick as the moon, since this is a thought experiment, and drop that bundle on a very large table so that all the ends of the rods align. Tada! Billions of numbers sorted in an instant. Does it play Doom III? No.
This is my perfect machine also.
Although I'm willing to accept the illusion of said play universe. Meaning it won't actually need to simulate every thing on earth, just a big enought section to get lost in for a few hours at a time.
I think your estimate of ops a second is too high. The computer should only have to calculate the section of the world that you are interacting with at any given moment. Memory space and bandwidth look to me to be the more difficult problems. Still, by my figuring, this is quite obtainable in my life time. Hooray!
I've often thought that the next revolution in video card type devices would be dedicated physics simulation hardware. What we need is an optimized solution for storing huge numbers of vectors and performing calculations on them. That is very close to what video cards are doing today with what they treat as purly visual info.
Right now though, all I want is Doom III.
The logical error (IMHO) is in your first point, 'we don't know but there is a probability'
My point is is that there is no probability at all, we simply don't know how rare (or common) life is, so all calculations are suspect. (20^19+1293) * 0 still equals 0.
I want to find life elsewhere as much as anyone. I'm down with my tax dollars being used to look. But any calculation of lifes chances falls victim to the anthomorpic trap. Think of it this way; If life did _not_ exist on Earth, how does that change the chances of finding life on Europa?
I don't understand your or antifreezes atitude . The OP was incorrect, but Nash did have something to do with game theory, so it's a mistake, not a troll.
The OP was, in fact, trying to be helpfull. Unlike you little bitches who are trying to show how much smarter you are and how petty you can be.
You seem to think that you're smarter than the OP. You're not.
Your replies to the OP's points seem almost entirly unrelated to the ideas expressed. You counter him with references to Vietnam, WWII and Iraq. WTF are you on? The only 'fact' you offer is;
Had you been less ignorant about what you were talking about, you'd be aware that the reason shuttle flights were cut so far back from original design parameters is *because* NASA had their funding cut so much since the moon landings.
NASA has less funding than it did, correct. But I think the fact that they've cancelled almost every X plane project in the last 20 years because of massive cost overruns might have something to do with it, also.
In addition, your point about the cost of a normal rocket being more expensive to launch than the oh-so-reusable shuttle is ludicrous. At ~$500,000,000 per launch, the shuttle is nowhere near competitive.
A know-it-all atitude doesn't get you very far, even less when you do not know it all.
I do not understand how you get from 'the sum of a very complex.. process' to 'I do not have a free will', and the other deterministic concepts you express.
Well, if you mean that, I hope you enjoy your $200 C-64.:-)
IMO, there are lots of _very_ cool FPGA devices about to hit market, and they are going to change how we use computers. Gaming not the least.
Ok everyone, go look up the anthropomorphic principle, and repeat after me; Firing bullets into ice does not increase the chances of finding life on Europa.
In fact, the only thing that increases the possibility of life being found anywhere, is finding life somewhere. It doesn't matter how many stars there are, or planets, or planets with water. One data point (Earth), that we are the product of, does not count.. Untill we can look at X number of planets / Y number with life, we know zero about the chances of finding life.
I followed your link.
That was so bad I can hardly even begin to complain....
Re:One slow day in the news world...
on
Blizzard Births BBS
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I'll back you on this.
This is a dupe. From what? Three or four days ago. Yesterday we saw a multiple dupe about some interview Bill Gates gave 8 years ago.
I realize I'm not paying anyone for the right to post this, but someone is paying the editors, no? Christ, start _trying_ to look like pros, at least. Take a fucking journalisim class and discover the concept of journalistic responsibility. I, for one, am tired of seeing dupes that anyone who actually reads the damn site could recognize.
IMHO, slashdot needs to produce a mission statement that clearly states what slashdot is. Are you news? A gossip site? A bunch of kids playing in Mom's basement?
I realize that 'go start you're own site if you don't like it' is a valid response to this post, but I simply don't understand the lack of professionalism I see here. We are talking about 20 posts a day kids, get with it.
Sigh.... I hope you're young.
Computer games are far better. D&D was what we did when we didn't have the 'internet' thingy.
Actually, a good D&D game, with a great DM, is the best fun ever.
The problem is, a good DM is _very_ hard to come by.
I would add that no game I've ever played has come close to capturing that magic. Diablo!? Fuck you!
OMFG!!!! You're right!! This was posted by Will!! And I was going to post something intelligent and thoughtfull. Good God!!! We are all such geeks I can hardly stand it.
I'm going to go try to get laid now. Good luck to you all.
But that's not 3d, that's a pre-redendered 3d model rendered as vector animation. I'm not saying you can't pull of some great effects, but it's not 3D in the sense OpenGL is.
Flash!? For 3D? What are you talking about? Flash started out dong 2D vector stuff. They've just recently started to get serious as an enviroment with flash 6, in which Actionscript actually becomes usefull as a language. But flash still has no understanding of 3D.
You can fake it sometimes though. My web page has an atempt at such. (link above(shameless plug))
If you havn't noticed, UK domain names are all screwed up compared to the rest of the world. Well, the US, at least, but that's most of the rest of the internet world.
What's the reasoning behind.co.uk anyway? Did the british government decide 'uk' was only for them, or what?
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Twirlip of the Mists, :-)
You have presented many posts dealing with a multitude of considerations on the topic of tabbed browsing. Every one a concisive, cohesive, thought provoking gem.
The plebes have won. This is why we have pro wrestling. I hope that Safari can stay your favoured browser.
The system described is not turing complete, meaning it is not a general purpose computer, and can _only_ do a narrow range of tasks. Specificly, the tasks or taks it was designed for.
An anology of this is sorting numbers. In the field of general purpose computers, we have developed many different algorithims to do this, some better for a paticular task, some worse.
But imagine we had our data in the form of varying lengths of rod, 10.23 = 10.23 meters, for example. Now collect all our numbers into a massive bundle, lets say as thick as the moon, since this is a thought experiment, and drop that bundle on a very large table so that all the ends of the rods align. Tada! Billions of numbers sorted in an instant. Does it play Doom III? No.
This is my perfect machine also.
Although I'm willing to accept the illusion of said play universe. Meaning it won't actually need to simulate every thing on earth, just a big enought section to get lost in for a few hours at a time.
I think your estimate of ops a second is too high. The computer should only have to calculate the section of the world that you are interacting with at any given moment. Memory space and bandwidth look to me to be the more difficult problems. Still, by my figuring, this is quite obtainable in my life time. Hooray!
I've often thought that the next revolution in video card type devices would be dedicated physics simulation hardware. What we need is an optimized solution for storing huge numbers of vectors and performing calculations on them. That is very close to what video cards are doing today with what they treat as purly visual info.
Right now though, all I want is Doom III.
My point is is that there is no probability at all, we simply don't know how rare (or common) life is, so all calculations are suspect. (20^19+1293) * 0 still equals 0.
I want to find life elsewhere as much as anyone. I'm down with my tax dollars being used to look. But any calculation of lifes chances falls victim to the anthomorpic trap. Think of it this way; If life did _not_ exist on Earth, how does that change the chances of finding life on Europa?
The OP was, in fact, trying to be helpfull. Unlike you little bitches who are trying to show how much smarter you are and how petty you can be.
Then you also failed to read the article, didn't you?
Your replies to the OP's points seem almost entirly unrelated to the ideas expressed. You counter him with references to Vietnam, WWII and Iraq. WTF are you on? The only 'fact' you offer is;
Had you been less ignorant about what you were talking about, you'd be aware that the reason shuttle flights were cut so far back from original design parameters is *because* NASA had their funding cut so much since the moon landings.
NASA has less funding than it did, correct. But I think the fact that they've cancelled almost every X plane project in the last 20 years because of massive cost overruns might have something to do with it, also.
In addition, your point about the cost of a normal rocket being more expensive to launch than the oh-so-reusable shuttle is ludicrous. At ~$500,000,000 per launch, the shuttle is nowhere near competitive.
A know-it-all atitude doesn't get you very far, even less when you do not know it all.
I'm sorry, but if you can't walk at 5 mph for hours (lets say 2) I would say that you are in bad shape.
Stop preaching in my school and I'll stop thinking in your church.
I do not understand how you get from 'the sum of a very complex .. process' to 'I do not have a free will', and the other deterministic concepts you express.
Well, if you mean that, I hope you enjoy your $200 C-64. :-)
IMO, there are lots of _very_ cool FPGA devices about to hit market, and they are going to change how we use computers. Gaming not the least.
Priced out a FPGA recently? Not cheap.
It seems you might be confusing acronyms or something. CGI != CLI.
Unless you're trying to make a joke, in which case, the jokes on me.
Ok everyone, go look up the anthropomorphic principle, and repeat after me;
Firing bullets into ice does not increase the chances of finding life on Europa.
In fact, the only thing that increases the possibility of life being found anywhere, is finding life somewhere. It doesn't matter how many stars there are, or planets, or planets with water. One data point (Earth), that we are the product of, does not count.. Untill we can look at X number of planets / Y number with life, we know zero about the chances of finding life.
I followed your link.
That was so bad I can hardly even begin to complain....
This is a dupe. From what? Three or four days ago. Yesterday we saw a multiple dupe about some interview Bill Gates gave 8 years ago.
I realize I'm not paying anyone for the right to post this, but someone is paying the editors, no? Christ, start _trying_ to look like pros, at least. Take a fucking journalisim class and discover the concept of journalistic responsibility. I, for one, am tired of seeing dupes that anyone who actually reads the damn site could recognize.
IMHO, slashdot needs to produce a mission statement that clearly states what slashdot is. Are you news? A gossip site? A bunch of kids playing in Mom's basement?
I realize that 'go start you're own site if you don't like it' is a valid response to this post, but I simply don't understand the lack of professionalism I see here. We are talking about 20 posts a day kids, get with it.
Not to knock em' but most geeks I know seem to ignore the fact that there are other fields of intellectual pursuit than their own.
I understand that the U.S is Apples biggest market, but the rest of us take notice, ya know? I want to love Apple, I really do.
Sigh.... I hope you're young.
Computer games are far better. D&D was what we did when we didn't have the 'internet' thingy.
Actually, a good D&D game, with a great DM, is the best fun ever.
The problem is, a good DM is _very_ hard to come by.
I would add that no game I've ever played has come close to capturing that magic. Diablo!? Fuck you!
I'm going to go try to get laid now. Good luck to you all.
while interesting, is;
8 years old.
a multiple dupe.
news for nerds, indeed.
Infact, given the kneejerk moderation that goes on around here, you can simply repost good posts from ~50 lines up and get points. :-)
But that's not 3d, that's a pre-redendered 3d model rendered as vector animation. I'm not saying you can't pull of some great effects, but it's not 3D in the sense OpenGL is.
You can fake it sometimes though. My web page has an atempt at such. (link above(shameless plug))
What's the reasoning behind .co.uk anyway? Did the british government decide 'uk' was only for them, or what?