I'm sorry if I'm insulting your sense of being so special. am I the only one here who thinks that the human race is special in anyway? language skills? delicate hands that can craft tools? math ? less bodily hair? and about stopping thinking please stop pushing words into my mouth, sure you can disect a human and document everything about the body and invent medicine and do whatever you want with the human body but you will be like a kid who is breaking the toy to find out what makes it tick. very exciting but you can never match the original knowledge of the creator who made.
Who created God then? I can answer that because you are a limited person and will remain limited by design (all of us). to you everything must have a begining and an end but the God who put that rule is certainly an exception. no body created God because he was there before time itself and will remain after time itself ends. So long as people accept the idea of God in their life they will be plagued by lack of knowledge about the real truth. the idea of God will not stop you from exploring and learning. evidence shows that these are just illusions of design. this point is weak you can argue for years without reaching a final conclusion if it is a design or an illusion.
Yes, and we are thoroughly enjoying the play written by your sadistic puppetmaster
so did God start WWII ? actually most the disasters that descendent on the human race are man made.
In near future we can grow new replacement organs
no kidding ? no I don't want you to replace a heart I want you to make a dead ant alive again how about that?
I don't see any reason why the creation of a sentient human being would be beyond our capabilities.
stop thinking about human beings as if they were cars which you can rip apart and install new spare parts or hell make one from scratch not only this is inferior trivial thinking without insight but also insulting
Your logic sucks. You can't prove a negative.
ok fine I will use your logic... you can't create a human being.
the single most significant step in convincing many scientists that life is likely to be abundant in the cosmos
I hate to disappoint you but you will not be drinking coffee with some green men anytime soon.
I guess this story will be a classical debate between creationists and evolutionists, personally I think God made this vast universe as a gigantic theatre for us to perform.
why waste all that space you may ask?
a simple quick answer is because he can, when you examine how beautiful and enormous this universe you should conclude how mighty and great is the creator.
And another thing if we are simply a product of some physical phenomena why are we concise? why are we self-aware ? and why there is no other life form which is radically different from us (for example not carbon based)?
We me be able to clone a human, or genetically alter a creature to create a new species but we certainly can't give life to something dead.
I challenge anyone to explain to me why we die? if you took a cell from the brain of a dying person, and from his heart, lung, and every organ you can sustain them way after the original person dies so what made his/her system shutdown globally?
and for the atheist masses out there YES we have soul and I cant prove it as much as you cant prove the opposite.
whatever you call it...it wasnt in the name of Islam, and muslims worldwide didnt benefit from it in anyway. actually it damaged the image of muslims, and muslim people died in the WTC incident.
Perhaps some of us just can't get past the Xian/Islamic tendency to KILL anyone that disagrees with you. it is truly sad that you associate Islam with killing innocent people, I'm a muslim one of my best friends is a christian, and i did business with alot of people from different religous backgrounds and I didnt kill any of them because they disagree with me. maybe you should do some home work about Islamic history to find out the truth on your own. oh yeah almost forgot what Ossama bin laden did was not to kill people who disagreed with him but to demand the removal of all americans from the middle east...it was a regular war not a religious one.
You missed the trolling sauce ingredients:
1) First posts
2) goatse.cx and tub girl
3) in soviet russia jokes
4) imagining a beowolf cluster of those
5) beautiful ascii art made by some retards
6) oh yeah and Taco, Hemos and CowboyNeal trolls
7) the infamous "it is official XYZ is dying" :-)
So, what would these transformations be other than... instructions? You could show me a list of "transformations" that the input data is to undergo to generate an output, and I'd show you a list of "instructions" that tell the computer what to do to the input data to generate an output.
no...instructions are dynamic, given to the computer as a series of parameterized steps, however transformations are static functions that the data may or may not pass by and typically transformations are applied to whole data in hardware (kinda like vector instructions)
Furthermore, what you want is impossible-- "all possible combinations doable by the [yet uncounted] transformations." That's an arbitrarily large amount of work that requires an arbitrarily large machine and time to accomplish it.
lets just say i have a data bus that is connected simultaneously to two black boxes, the transformation will happen in parallel but i can chose to discard the result that i dont want so no waste of time will occur as you think.
Kinda like a Connection Machine [sunysb.edu], huh? Those are real new. we first of all I didnt claim that I invented this concept, and secondly the CM computer was ahead of its time, but the problem is most research is done on enhancing the implementation rather than replacing it.
Hrm. I suppose you've never noticed that memory buses are now specified by what amounts to a bandwidth number, as are IDE (ATA) bus family members. As to the "classical type" computer
I dont see how this contradicts my point of view? ofcourse data transfer components are measured in bandwidth not MIPS.
a final word there are millions of great solutions waiting to solve future problems, it is just a matter of technology catching up, to give you an example IIRC the math behind wavelet compression is done in the 18th century by someone who never imagined that his work will be used to compress images on digital computers, maybe the people of Thinking Machines were on to something but the crude technologies of their time didnt help them.
nope it is not burning spammers alive, but buying those penis enlargement kits + herbal viagra and fucking spammers with mega-big horny cocks.....ouch that will hurt.
so it is basically two synchronized computers, it probably cost 3x the normal, and if you wiped out the self-correcting logic the system was likely to die, you mentioned that they managed to duplicate everything did they duplicated the self-correcting logic itself ?
the primary immediately hands over the responsibility to the redundant/backup is there an effective way to judge which processor is correct? you need an odd number of processors to do that or an odd split on an even number of processors.
I'm not saying that this system is flawed actually the way you described here it is certainly far more reliable than the usual servers, what I'm trying to point out is that the concept itself is the bottleneck.
well the man who answers this question will certainly become the von Neumann of the century, you need to do some serious out of the box thinking, first you throw away the concept of the digital computer as you know it, personally I think there will be a split in computer science, there will be generally two computer types the "classical" von Neumann and a new and different type of computer, the classical computer will be useful as a controller of some sort for the newer one, it is difficult to come up with the working principle of that computer, let me elaborate it is like a missing piece of the puzzle you know how it looks like but you are not certain what exactly will be printed on it, but I can summarize it is features:
1. It must be data oriented with no concept of instructions (just routing information), data flows in the system and transformed in a non-linear way, and the output will be all possible computations doable by the transformations.
2. It must be based on a fully interconnected grid of very simple processing elements.
3. The performance of said computer will be measured in terms of bandwidth not the usual MIPS.
As you can see you will need a classical type computer to operate the described computer above so it will not totally replace it.
I believe that we should look into nature more closely, we stole the design of the plane straight from birds wings, and the helicopter from the dragonfly, and there are a lot that was inspired to us by mother nature, one of the relevant examples that always fascinated me was the fly brain, each eye is a processor on its own, the works independently conveying information to a more concise layer and so on, even human vision is based on similar concept of retina cells, there is no "pixel" concept, each layer that process vision emphasize on one concept of vision like texture, color, outline, shadowing, movement...etc..Etc
Finally well such a computer be useful? can we just write a plain spread sheet on it and send it by email to someone and then resume our saved DOOM game?
well it is possible but we need also to redefine what we can do with a computer because the classical von Neumann computer that we are stuck with for the last half a century certainly limited our imagination on what can be done with a computer.
Computers still rely on the original John von Neumann architecture they are not redundant in anyway, there will be always a single point of failure for ever, no matter what you hear about RAID, redundant power suppliers etc.. etc.. basically the self-healing system is based on the same concept, compare that to a natural thing like the nervous system of humans now that is redundant and self healing, a fly has more wires in it's brain than all of the internet nodes, cut your finger and after a couple of days a fully automated autonomous transparent healing system will fix it, if we ever need to create self healing computers we need to radically change what is a computer, we need to break from the John von Neumann not because anything wrong with it but because it is reaching it's limits quickly, we need truly parallel autonomous computers with replicated capacity that increase linearly by adding more hardware, and software paradigms that take advantage of that, try make a self-healing self-fixing computer today and you will end up with a every complicated piece of software that will fail in real life.
Mozilla is free, IE is not microsoft charges you real money for IE so when a bug shows up it is more damaging the Mozilla people are working hard on patching it and fixing it and I personally think that Mozilla became alot better recently so i'm more forgiving when a bug shows up in Mozilla.
this not a troll I swear
The good news is that people are finally understanding that X sucks, X is ugly, slow, stupid, a big pile of hacks and rustry code. I think X is one of the reasons that Linux is not catching up on the desktop, why have built-in network transparency when you can still have a remote desktop by other cleaner ways, no matter how much effort is spent on fixing X it will for ever suck the bad news is that this distro is a step back to the good ole 80s the desktop is becoming more graphical, loaded with eye candy,a day ago a story was posted on/. about M$ Longhorn XP or whatever its called, it was beautiful and a user interface is not only eye candy we have that already just look at the tons of themes but also concept like responsivness which X lacks with its big FAT slow ass for Linux to do some serious desktop stuff it should lose X as soon as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry if I'm insulting your sense of being so special.
am I the only one here who thinks that the human race is special in anyway?
language skills? delicate hands that can craft tools? math ? less bodily hair?
and about stopping thinking please stop pushing words into my mouth, sure you can disect a human and document everything about the body and invent medicine and do whatever you want with the human body but you will be like a kid who is breaking the toy to find out what makes it tick. very exciting but you can never match the original knowledge of the creator who made.
sounds like vodo science to me, ok to be fair it is certainly not mainstream science.
Who created God then?
I can answer that because you are a limited person and will remain limited by design (all of us). to you everything must have a begining and an end but the God who put that rule is certainly an exception. no body created God because he was there before time itself and will remain after time itself ends.
So long as people accept the idea of God in their life they will be plagued by lack of knowledge about the real truth.
the idea of God will not stop you from exploring and learning.
evidence shows that these are just illusions of design.
this point is weak you can argue for years without reaching a final conclusion if it is a design or an illusion.
awaiting the -1 flamebait,
a different point of view != a flamebait
Yes, and we are thoroughly enjoying the play written by your sadistic puppetmaster
so did God start WWII ? actually most the disasters that descendent on the human race are man made.
In near future we can grow new replacement organs
no kidding ? no I don't want you to replace a heart I want you to make a dead ant alive again how about that?
I don't see any reason why the creation of a sentient human being would be beyond our capabilities.
stop thinking about human beings as if they were cars which you can rip apart and install new spare parts or hell make one from scratch not only this is inferior trivial thinking without insight but also insulting
Your logic sucks. You can't prove a negative.
ok fine I will use your logic... you can't create a human being.
the single most significant step in convincing many scientists that life is likely to be abundant in the cosmos
I hate to disappoint you but you will not be drinking coffee with some green men anytime soon. I guess this story will be a classical debate between creationists and evolutionists, personally I think God made this vast universe as a gigantic theatre for us to perform. why waste all that space you may ask? a simple quick answer is because he can, when you examine how beautiful and enormous this universe you should conclude how mighty and great is the creator. And another thing if we are simply a product of some physical phenomena why are we concise? why are we self-aware ? and why there is no other life form which is radically different from us (for example not carbon based)? We me be able to clone a human, or genetically alter a creature to create a new species but we certainly can't give life to something dead. I challenge anyone to explain to me why we die? if you took a cell from the brain of a dying person, and from his heart, lung, and every organ you can sustain them way after the original person dies so what made his/her system shutdown globally? and for the atheist masses out there YES we have soul and I cant prove it as much as you cant prove the opposite.
whatever you call it...it wasnt in the name of Islam, and muslims worldwide didnt benefit from it in anyway. actually it damaged the image of muslims, and muslim people died in the WTC incident.
Perhaps some of us just can't get past the Xian/Islamic tendency to KILL anyone that disagrees with you.
it is truly sad that you associate Islam with killing innocent people, I'm a muslim one of my best friends is a christian, and i did business with alot of people from different religous backgrounds and I didnt kill any of them because they disagree with me.
maybe you should do some home work about Islamic history to find out the truth on your own.
oh yeah almost forgot what Ossama bin laden did was not to kill people who disagreed with him but to demand the removal of all americans from the middle east...it was a regular war not a religious one.
8) stupid Anonymous coward comments.
You missed the trolling sauce ingredients :
:-)
1) First posts
2) goatse.cx and tub girl
3) in soviet russia jokes
4) imagining a beowolf cluster of those
5) beautiful ascii art made by some retards
6) oh yeah and Taco, Hemos and CowboyNeal trolls
7) the infamous "it is official XYZ is dying"
So, what would these transformations be other than... instructions? You could show me a list of "transformations" that the input data is to undergo to generate an output, and I'd show you a list of "instructions" that tell the computer what to do to the input data to generate an output.
no...instructions are dynamic, given to the computer as a series of parameterized steps, however transformations are static functions that the data may or may not pass by and typically transformations are applied to whole data in hardware (kinda like vector instructions)
Furthermore, what you want is impossible-- "all possible combinations doable by the [yet uncounted] transformations." That's an arbitrarily large amount of work that requires an arbitrarily large machine and time to accomplish it.
lets just say i have a data bus that is connected simultaneously to two black boxes, the transformation will happen in parallel but i can chose to discard the result that i dont want so no waste of time will occur as you think.
Kinda like a Connection Machine [sunysb.edu], huh? Those are real new.
we first of all I didnt claim that I invented this concept, and secondly the CM computer was ahead of its time, but the problem is most research is done on enhancing the implementation rather than replacing it.
Hrm. I suppose you've never noticed that memory buses are now specified by what amounts to a bandwidth number, as are IDE (ATA) bus family members. As to the "classical type" computer
I dont see how this contradicts my point of view? ofcourse data transfer components are measured in bandwidth not MIPS.
a final word there are millions of great solutions waiting to solve future problems, it is just a matter of technology catching up, to give you an example IIRC the math behind wavelet compression is done in the 18th century by someone who never imagined that his work will be used to compress images on digital computers, maybe the people of Thinking Machines were on to something but the crude technologies of their time didnt help them.
nope it is not burning spammers alive, but buying those penis enlargement kits + herbal viagra and fucking spammers with mega-big horny cocks.....ouch that will hurt.
so it is basically two synchronized computers, it probably cost 3x the normal, and if you wiped out the self-correcting logic the system was likely to die, you mentioned that they managed to duplicate everything did they duplicated the self-correcting logic itself ?
the primary immediately hands over the responsibility to the redundant/backup
is there an effective way to judge which processor is correct? you need an odd number of processors to do that or an odd split on an even number of processors.
I'm not saying that this system is flawed actually the way you described here it is certainly far more reliable than the usual servers, what I'm trying to point out is that the concept itself is the bottleneck.
well the man who answers this question will certainly become the von Neumann of the century, you need to do some serious out of the box thinking, first you throw away the concept of the digital computer as you know it, personally I think there will be a split in computer science, there will be generally two computer types the "classical" von Neumann and a new and different type of computer, the classical computer will be useful as a controller of some sort for the newer one, it is difficult to come up with the working principle of that computer, let me elaborate it is like a missing piece of the puzzle you know how it looks like but you are not certain what exactly will be printed on it, but I can summarize it is features: ..Etc
Finally well such a computer be useful? can we just write a plain spread sheet on it and send it by email to someone and then resume our saved DOOM game?
1. It must be data oriented with no concept of instructions (just routing information), data flows in the system and transformed in a non-linear way, and the output will be all possible computations doable by the transformations.
2. It must be based on a fully interconnected grid of very simple processing elements.
3. The performance of said computer will be measured in terms of bandwidth not the usual MIPS. As you can see you will need a classical type computer to operate the described computer above so it will not totally replace it.
I believe that we should look into nature more closely, we stole the design of the plane straight from birds wings, and the helicopter from the dragonfly, and there are a lot that was inspired to us by mother nature, one of the relevant examples that always fascinated me was the fly brain, each eye is a processor on its own, the works independently conveying information to a more concise layer and so on, even human vision is based on similar concept of retina cells, there is no "pixel" concept, each layer that process vision emphasize on one concept of vision like texture, color, outline, shadowing, movement...etc
well it is possible but we need also to redefine what we can do with a computer because the classical von Neumann computer that we are stuck with for the last half a century certainly limited our imagination on what can be done with a computer.
well instead of commenting on my english just extract the knowledge in the post, english is not my native language.
Computers still rely on the original John von Neumann architecture they are not redundant in anyway, there will be always a single point of failure for ever, no matter what you hear about RAID, redundant power suppliers etc.. etc.. basically the self-healing system is based on the same concept, compare that to a natural thing like the nervous system of humans now that is redundant and self healing, a fly has more wires in it's brain than all of the internet nodes, cut your finger and after a couple of days a fully automated autonomous transparent healing system will fix it, if we ever need to create self healing computers we need to radically change what is a computer, we need to break from the John von Neumann not because anything wrong with it but because it is reaching it's limits quickly, we need truly parallel autonomous computers with replicated capacity that increase linearly by adding more hardware, and software paradigms that take advantage of that, try make a self-healing self-fixing computer today and you will end up with a every complicated piece of software that will fail in real life.
so can social software help a desperate slashdot reader get laid any time soon?
asshole boss who thinks that the world starts and ends with microsoft...?
I think we should lock him on a room with a keyboard and leave him there for infinity maybe he will come up with some worthy source code.
supported flawlessly by Microsoft software.
:P
.
And now I wonder if I get modded down for this as Troll or up as Funny
how about getting modded imaginary:-2
Works every time (just ask some former relatives of some Iraqi families).
:-)
that pile of crap ? just ask the relative of the former apache crew...
shot down by a farmer with a rifle and was downed in Afghanistan or simply just crashed...
you should be moded funny
Mozilla is free, IE is not
microsoft charges you real money for IE so when a bug shows up it is more damaging
the Mozilla people are working hard on patching it and fixing it and I personally think that Mozilla became alot better recently
so i'm more forgiving when a bug shows up in Mozilla.
ezyak yad ya badr... keda te7'li el 7'awagt el sharamet yetrya2o 3ala el english beta3ak ? dayman kont a2olak ekteb 3ala mehlak :-)
this not a troll I swear /. about M$ Longhorn XP or whatever its called, it was beautiful and a user interface is not only eye candy we have that already just look at the tons of themes but also concept like responsivness which X lacks with its big FAT slow ass
The good news is that people are finally understanding that X sucks, X is ugly, slow, stupid, a big pile of hacks and rustry code.
I think X is one of the reasons that Linux is not catching up on the desktop, why have built-in network transparency when you can still have a remote desktop by other cleaner ways, no matter how much effort is spent on fixing X it will for ever suck
the bad news is that this distro is a step back to the good ole 80s the desktop is becoming more graphical, loaded with eye candy,a day ago a story was posted on
for Linux to do some serious desktop stuff it should lose X as soon as possible.
about 90 per cent of the universe is missing.
that explains what happend to my favorite mouse pad