" Oh look, behold the mighty powers of the butterfly brain, which is about as intelligent as my cheapo Casio watch. I don't see much problems with emulating this. By the way, most of the 'knowledge' about flying isn't in that tiny butterfly brain anyway, it's hardwired into the nervous system. The wings flap so fast that the delay of sending impulses all the way to the brain and back all the time would be too big."
A lot of really smart people have been working on this for a while now, and even the 'simplest' insects have us beat by a long shot.
Simply put, our robotics sucks. It takes immense processing power to have a robot that can pick up a cup of water, so long as the cup is *always* in the exact same place, the arm in the exact same start position.
Now try making your casio watch navigate all the way to Mexico using scent and light to guide it.
Anyways, insects have decentralized nervous systems compared to ours, so I think it's safe to say that it's brain "knows" about flying. You can consider the whole nervous system it's 'brain'.
If we do get to a point where we "max-out" the microprocessor, we will just start putting in several, then dozens, then hundreds, etc. inside single machines. A computer will be composed of many chips doing parallel processing.
MS tries to sell is cell-phone OS and features by saying it's already familiar to people. That might work for computers, but remember, cell phones are not computers.
People feel comfortable already with phones. It's technology they understand. Same goes for cell phones. As cell phones become more like computers, people don't have the same fear-factor going into them like they do PCs. They feel that they understand it already, unlike PCs.
Like the article says, people want a personal experience with a cell phone. It's how you stay in contact with your circle of friends. People don't want or care about a "familiar interface." To them, it's not a computer, it's a phone.
I see cell phones replacing the PDA and the laptop. The truly personal computer will come from simple, functional, portable devices growing better, not from hard-to-operate PCs shrinking. Maybe Microsoft will lose it's monopoly this way.
This just confirms what they said during the anti-trust investigation and trial. If they didn't aggresively pursue their market, they would be out of business in short order.
You can deduce how the animal used its senses from the shape of its brain case and the rest of its skull.
Different regions of the brain handle different tasks.
People have extremely good 3-D color vision. The vision part of the brain, at the back, takes up nearly half the brain mass.
The T Rex has an enourmous olfactory bulb, and a larg nose. She had tiny eyes on the side of his face (no stereoscopic vision) and small visual area. She probably didn't see well. Predators like her today only see motion.
That's why camouflage and the freeze response in prey animals work so well. That makes them invisible, as far as the predator is concerned. But, they are still smellable.
Actually, I think the color-vision in pre-human primates is a pretty good bet. We can assume that they ate a lot of plants from their dentition. Their sense of smell sucked, based on their nasal cavity and the size of their olfactory bulb.
Hearing doesn't really help you in determining which plants are safe to eat, so that leaves only sight.
Nocturnal primates are usually color-blind, have huge eyes, and have good night-vision. Day-time primates have eyes about our size, and *color vision*. If you eat fruit, and you aren't using smell, you need color vision, or you eat something poisonous.
Of course, these aren't assumptions, but good hypotheses.
A better way - have computers do more work.
on
Just One Page a Day
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I was thinking -
In order to make the proofing faster, maybe you could OCR a document 2 or 3 times, and then have only the disagreements proofread.
We use omnipro here at work, and I'm surprised at how well it works, even recreating page formats.
Of course, it doesn't work 100%, but it sure does get about 95%. If you were to OCR a document 2-3 or more times, and most of it was identical, it would save a lot of time if you had humans going over only the parts that the different OCRs didn't agree on.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of really smart people have been working on this for a while now, and even the 'simplest' insects have us beat by a long shot.
Simply put, our robotics sucks. It takes immense processing power to have a robot that can pick up a cup of water, so long as the cup is *always* in the exact same place, the arm in the exact same start position.
Now try making your casio watch navigate all the way to Mexico using scent and light to guide it.
Anyways, insects have decentralized nervous systems compared to ours, so I think it's safe to say that it's brain "knows" about flying. You can consider the whole nervous system it's 'brain'.
That's underdogedness.
If we do get to a point where we "max-out" the microprocessor, we will just start putting in several, then dozens, then hundreds, etc. inside single machines. A computer will be composed of many chips doing parallel processing.
Hey that's a great idea! "re-scrub" those poor brainwashed minds with a book that purports to tell you how to think!!!!!
People feel comfortable already with phones. It's technology they understand. Same goes for cell phones. As cell phones become more like computers, people don't have the same fear-factor going into them like they do PCs. They feel that they understand it already, unlike PCs.
Like the article says, people want a personal experience with a cell phone. It's how you stay in contact with your circle of friends. People don't want or care about a "familiar interface." To them, it's not a computer, it's a phone.
I see cell phones replacing the PDA and the laptop. The truly personal computer will come from simple, functional, portable devices growing better, not from hard-to-operate PCs shrinking. Maybe Microsoft will lose it's monopoly this way.
Just how long is a fraction of a moment?
This just confirms what they said during the anti-trust investigation and trial. If they didn't aggresively pursue their market, they would be out of business in short order.
Those bacteria that live in boiling hot acid die when they leave it.
Different regions of the brain handle different tasks.
People have extremely good 3-D color vision. The vision part of the brain, at the back, takes up nearly half the brain mass.
The T Rex has an enourmous olfactory bulb, and a larg nose. She had tiny eyes on the side of his face (no stereoscopic vision) and small visual area. She probably didn't see well. Predators like her today only see motion.
That's why camouflage and the freeze response in prey animals work so well. That makes them invisible, as far as the predator is concerned. But, they are still smellable.
Plus, the fossils aren't as old as the scientists say they are.
Hearing doesn't really help you in determining which plants are safe to eat, so that leaves only sight.
Nocturnal primates are usually color-blind, have huge eyes, and have good night-vision. Day-time primates have eyes about our size, and *color vision*. If you eat fruit, and you aren't using smell, you need color vision, or you eat something poisonous.
Of course, these aren't assumptions, but good hypotheses.
Two xSDs came out of Berkeley, L and B.
In order to make the proofing faster, maybe you could OCR a document 2 or 3 times, and then have only the disagreements proofread.
We use omnipro here at work, and I'm surprised at how well it works, even recreating page formats.
Of course, it doesn't work 100%, but it sure does get about 95%. If you were to OCR a document 2-3 or more times, and most of it was identical, it would save a lot of time if you had humans going over only the parts that the different OCRs didn't agree on.
Steve Lefevre