It doesn't matter what the pattern is, nor what it means. If the pattern is there, then the pattern is there. What does matter is what you DO with the pattern, and maybe why it is there.
Any pattern can be modeled in an algorithm, and from this algorithm it can be extrapolated. A set of data without any patterns is noise; random data. An algorithm found in a dataset speaks of a function, and understanding functions in the human genome leads to better understanding of what we truly are.
...killing someone in war doesn't do half the damage that, say, starting a war based on lies in the first place does.
The former is the result of the latter, so the comparison is a bit odd.
At any rate, reducing the bodycount of a war seems to be a lot easier to accomplish than stopping politicians from lying.
Shooting bullets is cheap, but it appears many armies aren't really concerned about cost. Deploying robots that subdue people without harming them seems not that far-fetched...
If we need chaos, we run NetBIOS. Problem solved.;)
On a more serious note, I guess what you said should lead us to ask what a good protocol for the brain would be like. IIRC the brain operated like a "pulse computer" or somesuch, so Ethernet-to-the-Brain wouldn't be a viable solution to begin with...
Interesting post. I wish I had mod points for you. =)
I've been wondering myself if neural plasticity would be enough to decode the protocols and codecs used on the net... A rat brain evidently managed to operate a flight simulator, so why couldn't a human brain learn TCP/IP?
Plus, there was an article some time ago about electrodes on the tounge letting the blind see thanks to neural plasticity, so maybe it'd be enough for me to suck on a CAT-5? XD
At any rate, it seems to me the difficult part will be getting data OUT from the brain rather than INTO the brain. Once we learn that trick properly things might get really interesting.
The megajoule number is probably for the momentum of the projectile, possibly at the impact point. A high-powered rifle has some thousand of joules in its projectile at muzzle exit, which would mean an 8MJ gun is the equivalent of a few thousand high-powered rifles. This seems reasonable for a test-setup, but doesn't seem to intuitively compare with modern naval guns. The 64MJ version however sounds pretty decent.
Still, with a 6 min flight-time, a quick target could easily evade. Even with smart retargeting at the trajectory aphex, 3 min would be enough for a slightly quicker still target to evade. If anything, this probably spells the end of heavy gunships by 2020. Quick missile boats seems to be the ever-unfortunate way of future naval warfare.
"Organizations which design systems are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations. " -- Conway's Law
Ergo hoc, thusly and heneceforth, Let our mind be Conway's system which designs other systems. These other systems are those which we use to interpret the nature of the universe. Since we cannot design a system more complex than our minds, we are destined to at most create a model of our minds rather than a model of what contains our minds; the universe.
This is why mathematics is so inexplicably good at describing the universe; it simply isn't doing that. Instead, what it is doing is describing the minds which have created it. Enter string theory.
Funny thing is, "shut up and calculate" is not neccessarily wrong. If one gains the same intuitive understanding of the physics through studying the math as one does through the Copenhagen, then all is well.
As whith all intuitive interpretations, they are best used to build a bridge between the interpretation and the math. However, when the math is understood, the interpretation is best abandoned since it carries connotations possibly emotional baggage which might serve to distract or derail future efforts.
Telling advanced students "shut up and calculate" is OK if they already understand the intuitive interpretation, but if they don't then time is awaste.
There's a third option as well; maybe there are two different phenomena at work. On one had we have what these Brazilians have demonstrated, and on the other we have what you have seen.
It could still be that with a different chemical composition the balls would behave in a different way, and lightening isn't known for being picky about where it hits. Limestone, granite or trees. - Doesn't really matter.
Maybe analyzing the soil and comparing it to the nuances of the reports of ball lightening would yield some insight into the matter. Certainly would be enough to get a research grant.;)
I find it fascinating that it displays almost no friction to the floor as it moves about. Plus, the gas jets tell of a very complex combination of structure and chemical process occurring. It will be interesting to read more research on the subject when it becomes available.
You can count to 1024 on your fingers if you use binary; also known as digital; digit, for "finger". Binary arithmetic is an ancient art. It's not something new. It should be a requirement for all computer geeks to learn to do on one's fingers.
Plus, 2 is only divisible with 1 and itself, and is a prime even if neglected. Using a prime for the base of number systems is optimal for numeric operations.
I'm making variable capacitators with air as the dielectric for use with an Antenna Tuning Unit. They're the kind you see in old radios, with interlocking plates separated a short distance. Apparently I can increase their capacitance further if I wish by soaking them in mineral oil. Or at least, that was what I was told. Point is, making capacitators are really quite simple. You need to be a bit inclined for practical matters, but the device as such can be really low-tech.
That type of warfare ended with WWII. Today in the global economy there is little difference between friend and foe, as evident by the enormous amount of cash pumped into rebuilding Iraq. Yet we (Well, some of us.) still insist on blowing things up even though we know we get the bill after the party. Yet, writing the bill up as debt and never paying it seems to work perfectly fine too! Debt decreases the value of currency, which in turn increases export.
It seems like employment is more important than production. Doesn't matter what you're doing, as long as you get paid. So absurd... I'm sure economists get all the best drugs...
Yes, but it all boils down to a very simple thing; things are built, then promptly blown up only to rebuild it. That's a monumental waste of resources. Would be better to repair the old stuff and only build new when it's actually needed. The economy would cool down, but who says that's a bad thing? If I repair and maintain my old things (write faster code instead of constantly buying new computers, for example) I can spend my money, and therefore the world's resources, on something better.
Removing money from the equation, it'd mean that instead of constantly building a completely new, better and more complex cell-phone I'd improve on the one I have and use the extra time to work on for example a space station.
This has always confused me. I have such trouble understanding how war improves economy. Tom me it seems to go like this;
1. Gov't needs to buy bombs. Buys them with money collected from taxes. 2. Private companies sell bombs, uses money to pay salaries. 3. Salaries are taxed, leftovers used to buy fun and useful things. 4. Bombs are dropped, destroyed, along with resources and infrastructure (plus fun and useful things). 6. After the war, gov't buys new infrastructure to replace the old. 7. Private companies sell infrastructure... 8....Rinse and Repeat... n-1. ??? n. PROFIT!
To me it just appears as if it's endless wasting of resources. Maybe if we stopped paying taxes we could put an end to war or something...
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter what the pattern is, nor what it means. If the pattern is there, then the pattern is there. What does matter is what you DO with the pattern, and maybe why it is there.
Any pattern can be modeled in an algorithm, and from this algorithm it can be extrapolated. A set of data without any patterns is noise; random data. An algorithm found in a dataset speaks of a function, and understanding functions in the human genome leads to better understanding of what we truly are.
Sure the demon can know the speed, and sure it can know its position, but can it know both at the same time?
Anyone remember maybe a year or two ago when IBM was doing something with rather intrusive software to mine data on people?
It seems IBM doesn't really have a clear policy on whether to be Good or Evil. They seem to try doing both at the same time...
Guess we need to label IBM as Chaotic Neutral...
The former is the result of the latter, so the comparison is a bit odd.
At any rate, reducing the bodycount of a war seems to be a lot easier to accomplish than stopping politicians from lying.
Shooting bullets is cheap, but it appears many armies aren't really concerned about cost. Deploying robots that subdue people without harming them seems not that far-fetched...
If we need chaos, we run NetBIOS. Problem solved. ;)
On a more serious note, I guess what you said should lead us to ask what a good protocol for the brain would be like. IIRC the brain operated like a "pulse computer" or somesuch, so Ethernet-to-the-Brain wouldn't be a viable solution to begin with...
Interesting post. I wish I had mod points for you. =)
I've been wondering myself if neural plasticity would be enough to decode the protocols and codecs used on the net... A rat brain evidently managed to operate a flight simulator, so why couldn't a human brain learn TCP/IP?
Plus, there was an article some time ago about electrodes on the tounge letting the blind see thanks to neural plasticity, so maybe it'd be enough for me to suck on a CAT-5? XD
At any rate, it seems to me the difficult part will be getting data OUT from the brain rather than INTO the brain. Once we learn that trick properly things might get really interesting.
That confirms it. Military "research" is a matter of trial and error until they find something that works.
A million monkeys, with typewriters and guns...
The US almost got a nuclear powered airplane working during the cold war. Size isn't an issue.
The megajoule number is probably for the momentum of the projectile, possibly at the impact point. A high-powered rifle has some thousand of joules in its projectile at muzzle exit, which would mean an 8MJ gun is the equivalent of a few thousand high-powered rifles. This seems reasonable for a test-setup, but doesn't seem to intuitively compare with modern naval guns. The 64MJ version however sounds pretty decent.
Still, with a 6 min flight-time, a quick target could easily evade. Even with smart retargeting at the trajectory aphex, 3 min would be enough for a slightly quicker still target to evade.
If anything, this probably spells the end of heavy gunships by 2020. Quick missile boats seems to be the ever-unfortunate way of future naval warfare.
Simple. With railguns you'd be using the military's budget. 50 billion is chump-change. They'll take two. :o)
"Organizations which design systems are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations. "
-- Conway's Law
Ergo hoc, thusly and heneceforth,
Let our mind be Conway's system which designs other systems. These other systems are those which we use to interpret the nature of the universe. Since we cannot design a system more complex than our minds, we are destined to at most create a model of our minds rather than a model of what contains our minds; the universe.
This is why mathematics is so inexplicably good at describing the universe; it simply isn't doing that. Instead, what it is doing is describing the minds which have created it. Enter string theory.
Funny thing is, "shut up and calculate" is not neccessarily wrong. If one gains the same intuitive understanding of the physics through studying the math as one does through the Copenhagen, then all is well.
As whith all intuitive interpretations, they are best used to build a bridge between the interpretation and the math. However, when the math is understood, the interpretation is best abandoned since it carries connotations possibly emotional baggage which might serve to distract or derail future efforts.
Telling advanced students "shut up and calculate" is OK if they already understand the intuitive interpretation, but if they don't then time is awaste.
It's not Slashdot; it's reality. We're living in the future, remember? At least you don't have to worry about flying cars and teleportation just yet.
There's a third option as well; maybe there are two different phenomena at work. On one had we have what these Brazilians have demonstrated, and on the other we have what you have seen.
;)
It could still be that with a different chemical composition the balls would behave in a different way, and lightening isn't known for being picky about where it hits. Limestone, granite or trees. - Doesn't really matter.
Maybe analyzing the soil and comparing it to the nuances of the reports of ball lightening would yield some insight into the matter. Certainly would be enough to get a research grant.
I find it fascinating that it displays almost no friction to the floor as it moves about. Plus, the gas jets tell of a very complex combination of structure and chemical process occurring.
It will be interesting to read more research on the subject when it becomes available.
You can count to 1024 on your fingers if you use binary; also known as digital; digit, for "finger".
Binary arithmetic is an ancient art. It's not something new. It should be a requirement for all computer geeks to learn to do on one's fingers.
Plus, 2 is only divisible with 1 and itself, and is a prime even if neglected. Using a prime for the base of number systems is optimal for numeric operations.
No, it's not even close.
You insensitive clod!
So you won't sell your account until you're dead, huh...
Excuse me, I need to make a few phone calls.
You've got a nice account, by the way. Very nice...
I'm making variable capacitators with air as the dielectric for use with an Antenna Tuning Unit. They're the kind you see in old radios, with interlocking plates separated a short distance. Apparently I can increase their capacitance further if I wish by soaking them in mineral oil. Or at least, that was what I was told.
Point is, making capacitators are really quite simple. You need to be a bit inclined for practical matters, but the device as such can be really low-tech.
The Wikipedia page on varicaps has a link to a guide for building your own caps. Check it out if you're interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Capacitor
Those are the LED lights on your computer. The stars and such are Outside. You know, outside; where the bears are.
That type of warfare ended with WWII. Today in the global economy there is little difference between friend and foe, as evident by the enormous amount of cash pumped into rebuilding Iraq. Yet we (Well, some of us.) still insist on blowing things up even though we know we get the bill after the party. Yet, writing the bill up as debt and never paying it seems to work perfectly fine too! Debt decreases the value of currency, which in turn increases export.
It seems like employment is more important than production. Doesn't matter what you're doing, as long as you get paid. So absurd... I'm sure economists get all the best drugs...
Yes, but it all boils down to a very simple thing; things are built, then promptly blown up only to rebuild it. That's a monumental waste of resources. Would be better to repair the old stuff and only build new when it's actually needed. The economy would cool down, but who says that's a bad thing? If I repair and maintain my old things (write faster code instead of constantly buying new computers, for example) I can spend my money, and therefore the world's resources, on something better.
;)
Removing money from the equation, it'd mean that instead of constantly building a completely new, better and more complex cell-phone I'd improve on the one I have and use the extra time to work on for example a space station.
Let me repeat; a SPACE STATION!
There are lots of contracts, big contracts, to rebuild Iraq. The locals aren't paying for it.
This has always confused me. I have such trouble understanding how war improves economy. Tom me it seems to go like this;
...Rinse and Repeat...
1. Gov't needs to buy bombs. Buys them with money collected from taxes.
2. Private companies sell bombs, uses money to pay salaries.
3. Salaries are taxed, leftovers used to buy fun and useful things.
4. Bombs are dropped, destroyed, along with resources and infrastructure (plus fun and useful things).
6. After the war, gov't buys new infrastructure to replace the old.
7. Private companies sell infrastructure...
8.
n-1. ???
n. PROFIT!
To me it just appears as if it's endless wasting of resources. Maybe if we stopped paying taxes we could put an end to war or something...