In a sense, the very thing that makes circuit evolution so potentially powerful is also its weakness -- it evolves to external conditions. In the same way that a hummingbird would be doomed if all the flowers that are shaped for its beak died out or changed their shape, so too are these circuits dependent on the environment in which they evolved. An ideal solution would be to allow these circuit boards to continue to evolve, so that when they are placed in new environments, they will be able to adapt to them.
Well, suppose you gave a program a coin, and a program that could "flip" the coin, and you gave it the assignment: Have it be in a recognizable, identical state as frequently as possible.
The coin in question had a front that was very distinct from the back, but for the sake of argument let's say it was radially symmetrical, meaning it didn't matter which way it was turned when it landed.
The machine could "flip" it in whatever manner it needed to. And suppose it discovered that the easiest way to flip it was, in fact, on its side. The fact that it didn't *know* that the side was there had no relevance -- it only cares about the state, and what works the best.
In this circuit's case, using a radio as a source for the oscillation was the most effective way to create the oscillation. It doesn't "know" about the radio, anymore than the flipping machine "knows" about the side of the coin. It just knows that the result works more effectively.
I disagree that operations run by not-for-profit organizations are inherently inferior to those run by commercial entities. It is my belief that the best non-print news source in the US is NPR - National Public Radio, which is run by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a non-profit corporation.
The reason that not-for-profits *usually* do not have the stability of for-profit companies is that they have a small source of revenue--donations or membership dues. In this case, both the company and the organization would be receiving the same amount of money through registration fees. So they would have plenty of money to use for infrastructure and for scaling their hardware to meet increased demand.
Some of the best work is done by organizations or companies for whom what they're doing is more important than how much money they are making. For-profit entities are more likely to cut staff, or cut corners to ensure profits. On the other hand, non-profits are *required* to spend all the money they take in during a year.
Assuming that.org registrations will still require dues/fees, this indicates a huge amount of money that must be spent. In addition, there is generally a lot more attention paid to *where* that money goes in a non-profit organization. So, it is highly unlikely that they will just get a bunch of "college freshmen" to run the operation--they need to show expenditures, and that would mean hiring many skilled workers.
And finally, if this poster thinks that corporations (especially nice big corporations) are necessarily stable s/he has had his/her head up his/her butt for the past few months!
Okay,
You said you didn't want to use Entourage.
How about Eudora (yeah, commercialware, ads, etc)?
In Eudora, you can create something called a Nickname "book".
You could place *that* in the shared folder, and create aliases to it. I haven't tested it out across shared mailboxes, but it does work if you have an alias pointing to it.
Here are the steps to make an address book:
1) Go to Windows > Address Book
2) Click on the Icon that looks vaguely like a purple book with a star (may be marked "Book")
3) Enter all the addresses you want.
Now quit Eudora, copy that Nickname to the shared folder (will be located in Eudora Folder/Nicknames/) to the shared folder.
As e-mail clients go, you can't go too wrong with Eudora. And it solves your problem, too.
While you may be able to patent the creation of a chemical compound, you can't patent, copyright, or control a plant.
So there's absolutely no financial incentive for a company to put in the hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) that it would cost to test the chemicals.
Not to mention that testing is not the final end all. Many medicines were approved by the FDA, only to be removed later on after their harmful effects were recognized.
Same things with foods--many people react adversly to Aspartame. Stevia, an all natural sweetener derived from leaves of the Stevia plant, however, hasn't been "proven" safe, so it can't be used as a sweetener. Instead, it is distributed as a "supplement" with the suggestion of putting it in your tea. "You may find", one box remarks somewhat tongue-in-cheek-ily, "that you may wish to use one less teaspoon of sugar for every packet of Stevia supplement you add to your tea."
One of the "shocking stastitcs" they present is the following:
88% of the population "believes" in alternative medicine.
To lump alternative medicine in with such things as UFOs and ESP clearly displays the problem that most scientists are facing, and the reason that people *prefer* to be superstitious: science is an exclusive club.
If a treatment doesn't involve a synthetically created compound or cutting someone open, it falls into the realm of "alternative medicine" regardless of how effective it may be.
> It [Microsoft] said that [opening the OS software completely] > would allow them [competitors] to "clone" Windows, > prompting Microsoft to stop investing in research and > development on the operating system.
Hmmm... that hasn't happened with the Apple's open source Darwin software.
If anything, the introduction of Mac OS X and its Darwin OS has led Apple to invest more time and energy into its research and development, partially because they can draw from the Open Source community.
Of course, I have a hard time imagining that the open source community would flock to Windows' aid if it became open source. There's still enough enmity against Microsoft that I think most self-respecting open source developers wouldn't touch the Windows OS with a ten foot pole.
Actually, I can't see how it wouldn't be *great* for Linux.
Consider this.
Each computer has to be running some kind of operating system in order to work. And it has to be flexible and easy to program for.
It doesn't make sense for a company to write an OS from scratch -- way to costly for a single device, so they're going to use a pre-existing one. If they choose Linux, they get two great benefits:
1) It's open source, so the kernel can be modified to suit the device. 2) There are no licensing fees, so they don't have to swallow that cost or pass it on to the consumer, making their product more available, price-wise.
I don't know a hell of a lot about embedded Linux systems, but I do know that they've worked on a variety of devices with great results.
While the drivers that control the hardware may not be open source, I don't think that will affect the choice of Linux as an OS.
Slashdot Mirror
For those of you who want to read that article (or at least one that describes what he's talking about), here it is:a l.jsp
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/ai/primordi
In a sense, the very thing that makes circuit evolution so potentially powerful is also its weakness -- it evolves to external conditions. In the same way that a hummingbird would be doomed if all the flowers that are shaped for its beak died out or changed their shape, so too are these circuits dependent on the environment in which they evolved. An ideal solution would be to allow these circuit boards to continue to evolve, so that when they are placed in new environments, they will be able to adapt to them.
Well, suppose you gave a program a coin, and a program that could "flip" the coin, and you gave it the assignment: Have it be in a recognizable, identical state as frequently as possible.
The coin in question had a front that was very distinct from the back, but for the sake of argument let's say it was radially symmetrical, meaning it didn't matter which way it was turned when it landed.
The machine could "flip" it in whatever manner it needed to. And suppose it discovered that the easiest way to flip it was, in fact, on its side. The fact that it didn't *know* that the side was there had no relevance -- it only cares about the state, and what works the best.
In this circuit's case, using a radio as a source for the oscillation was the most effective way to create the oscillation. It doesn't "know" about the radio, anymore than the flipping machine "knows" about the side of the coin. It just knows that the result works more effectively.
I'd never heard of the massacre myself -- obviously I don't pay enough attention to world news.
In any case, for those who want to know more about what happened, here are some links:
The Rohde to Srebrenica
Women of Srebrenica
US Congressional Hearing
I disagree that operations run by not-for-profit organizations are inherently inferior to those run by commercial entities. It is my belief that the best non-print news source in the US is NPR - National Public Radio, which is run by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a non-profit corporation.
.org registrations will still require dues/fees, this indicates a huge amount of money that must be spent. In addition, there is generally a lot more attention paid to *where* that money goes in a non-profit organization. So, it is highly unlikely that they will just get a bunch of "college freshmen" to run the operation--they need to show expenditures, and that would mean hiring many skilled workers.
The reason that not-for-profits *usually* do not have the stability of for-profit companies is that they have a small source of revenue--donations or membership dues. In this case, both the company and the organization would be receiving the same amount of money through registration fees. So they would have plenty of money to use for infrastructure and for scaling their hardware to meet increased demand.
Some of the best work is done by organizations or companies for whom what they're doing is more important than how much money they are making. For-profit entities are more likely to cut staff, or cut corners to ensure profits. On the other hand, non-profits are *required* to spend all the money they take in during a year.
Assuming that
And finally, if this poster thinks that corporations (especially nice big corporations) are necessarily stable s/he has had his/her head up his/her butt for the past few months!
Okay, You said you didn't want to use Entourage. How about Eudora (yeah, commercialware, ads, etc)? In Eudora, you can create something called a Nickname "book". You could place *that* in the shared folder, and create aliases to it. I haven't tested it out across shared mailboxes, but it does work if you have an alias pointing to it. Here are the steps to make an address book: 1) Go to Windows > Address Book 2) Click on the Icon that looks vaguely like a purple book with a star (may be marked "Book") 3) Enter all the addresses you want. Now quit Eudora, copy that Nickname to the shared folder (will be located in Eudora Folder/Nicknames/) to the shared folder. As e-mail clients go, you can't go too wrong with Eudora. And it solves your problem, too.
Like the subject line says.
While you may be able to patent the creation of a chemical compound, you can't patent, copyright, or control a plant.
So there's absolutely no financial incentive for a company to put in the hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) that it would cost to test the chemicals.
Not to mention that testing is not the final end all. Many medicines were approved by the FDA, only to be removed later on after their harmful effects were recognized.
Same things with foods--many people react adversly to Aspartame. Stevia, an all natural sweetener derived from leaves of the Stevia plant, however, hasn't been "proven" safe, so it can't be used as a sweetener. Instead, it is distributed as a "supplement" with the suggestion of putting it in your tea. "You may find", one box remarks somewhat tongue-in-cheek-ily, "that you may wish to use one less teaspoon of sugar for every packet of Stevia supplement you add to your tea."
One of the "shocking stastitcs" they present is the following:
88% of the population "believes" in alternative medicine.
To lump alternative medicine in with such things as UFOs and ESP clearly displays the problem that most scientists are facing, and the reason that people *prefer* to be superstitious: science is an exclusive club.
If a treatment doesn't involve a synthetically created compound or cutting someone open, it falls into the realm of "alternative medicine" regardless of how effective it may be.
From the AP Wire news story:
> It [Microsoft] said that [opening the OS software completely]
> would allow them [competitors] to "clone" Windows,
> prompting Microsoft to stop investing in research and
> development on the operating system.
Hmmm... that hasn't happened with the Apple's open source Darwin software.
If anything, the introduction of Mac OS X and its Darwin OS has led Apple to invest more time and energy into its research and development, partially because they can draw from the Open Source community.
Of course, I have a hard time imagining that the open source community would flock to Windows' aid if it became open source. There's still enough enmity against Microsoft that I think most self-respecting open source developers wouldn't touch the Windows OS with a ten foot pole.
Actually, I can't see how it wouldn't be *great* for Linux.
Consider this.
Each computer has to be running some kind of operating system in order to work. And it has to be flexible and easy to program for.
It doesn't make sense for a company to write an OS from scratch -- way to costly for a single device, so they're going to use a pre-existing one. If they choose Linux, they get two great benefits:
1) It's open source, so the kernel can be modified to suit the device.
2) There are no licensing fees, so they don't have to swallow that cost or pass it on to the consumer, making their product more available, price-wise.
I don't know a hell of a lot about embedded Linux systems, but I do know that they've worked on a variety of devices with great results.
While the drivers that control the hardware may not be open source, I don't think that will affect the choice of Linux as an OS.