If you become a victom of a DNS poisoning attack or if you want to avoid that in the first place, you can use a DNS server other than that of your ISP. For example, below are the names of Microsoft DNS servers (that can be expected to work reliably and be relatively safe):
No, this is basically bullshit. Penrose allows his irrational belief to determine his science, which is a big no-no for a scientist. He postulated that human mind is not a computer and grasps every straw to show how it might potentiall be so. Since he is a renowned and respected mathematician, his views are given a modicum of respect, just sufficient to guarantee he will not shut up for about 20-30 more years (by then we will probably have self-conscious strong AI that passes the Turing test and more).
This particular argument is patently stupid, but again, since Penrose has a big name, he gets away with it. The argument is as follows. Take two tiles that can fill the plane in a unique aperiodic way (one of Penrose's achievements was coming up with such things). Give an infinite amount of such tiles to a human and a "computer". Ask them to start tiling the plane and then ask whether the tiles can in fact tile the whole plane. Since the mosaic is aperiodical, according to Penrose the computer will not see a pattern, but a human will (the pattern being that you could always add a tile (as far as you tried), so the plane must be tileable). Penrose explains this by saying that humans have some magical "human consciousness" that allows them to have some "insight" about the world, to "understand" it, while computer doesn't have it. He then proceeds to explain this with some crackpot theories about quantum effects in microtubules in the human neurons, which is total bullshit, but again, his big name allows him to get away with spouting such garbage.
His argument is, of course, wrong. Humans can easily see patterns, because we were programmed to see them. This, of course, doesn't mean that we are always correct, when we believe there is a pattern. For example, consider the following sequence of numbers: 1, 3, 5, 7... Is there a pattern? If you think I listed odd numbers, you are wrong. It could have been a year, it could have been some random digits, it could have been a part of a different sequence, etc.
If monkeys could understand what an Euclidean plane is, they could reach the same conclusions as humans just as quickly. 1) You place a tile, it fits. 2) You place another, it fits. Repeat 10 times. Wow, it must be a magical pattern! This is just a heuristic that we humans have. The conclusions it helps us come to are not necessarily correct. We are not better than computers in solving the halting problem. It's just that too often we are willing to shout the answer, before we can be reasonably sure. Of course, sometimes we are lucky and the answer is correct. But we can program a computer to do just the same - it will gain the magical ability to "understand" and "see" the answer, at the price of often being completely wrong.
Penrose is just a persistent moron, don't listen to him.
Do you me an that se e i n g do ts pr ev en ts yo u fr o m s ee in g le tter s? I do n't th in k so,I th in k th a t t he br ai n ca n han d le h av i ng seve ral l
evels of reality in its input, so that you can choose to concentrate on the wholistic view or take a more reductionist approach and appreciate the details. But no matter, how deep you look into the dots, the big picture will get into your brain screaming, and you won't be able to avoid it. You want proof? How about your reaction when you first saw this post?:)
For your reference, laser surgery is already used to give patients better than normal vision. I don't know if the clinics are allowed to advertise that, where you live, but ask your ophtalmologist and you'll find out.
As for where it's going, the answer is to wonderful times. Through the accelerating pace of technological development and scientific understanding, we are entering a whole new stage in the history of the human species.
You are probably closer to the SL1 right now, but the fact that you ask these questions gives hope. It's quite easy to find the information about where it's all going nowdays, have fun learning.
Too much zinc is toxic (seriously). Just count how many times you "get rid of excess zinc" daily, multiply by 4-5mg and take this into account when using zinc supplements.
That's a correct, but simplistic view of this technology. You see, there is no "Product X" that is going to be released on May 1 and prescribed to every patient with vision problems (or no vision at all). Rather it's a technology (implemented in a number of prototypes), which was in development for a decade or more and is slowly approaching usable state. Initially (after the trials are complete) it will be prescribed to a small fraction of patients, those most likely to benefit from such a device. Of course, the development will continue, and seeing the initial success, other companies and university research groups will join in. Their technologies will be different in some ways, they will use complimentary approaches, such as stem cell injections to stimulate the growth of image-processing areas in the brain, adding neurotransmitters, including chemically engineered ones, implanting chips into the brain itself to help with the processing, may be using genetically modified pigs to grow parts of the human brain, using VR-training courses to help people blind from birth acquire necessary skills.
Of course, from huge array of approaches some will be more applicable to people born blind, some will be less applicable. As the number of people born blind is rather significant, we can expect that some treatment will be developed that are particularly taylored for their needs. Of course, those treatment are likely to be significantly more advanced than the first artificial vision device implanted into a human.
I hope you see now why your remark was hopelessly naive and useless. I hope your next post is better.
You are not entirely correct. Just like people with synesthesia hear with their brain what their eyes see, it is entirely possible that the RGB-L input is translated by the brain into something slightly different. The relationship between actual colour of the light and our perception of it is rather complex.
In any case, the question asked by bird603568 is actually rather moronic. What does "would it be possible" mean? With this prototype technology? Of course not - they don't even have greyscale. With future bionic technology? Of course yes.
Nebu then answered the moronic question with an uninformed and vague asnwer. While the brain obviously has the potential capacity to see more colours (with some improvements and adjustments done), it's foolish to make such specific claims about this particular technology.
Look in the mirror. You are a nice example of human irrationality. A human, who illogically believes his belief that he is more logical than a computer is logical.
You pretend your reasoning is sound, but in reality it's nothing more than primitive magical thinking. Write down a proof, give it to a mathematicial to read and he will magically verify it, while a computer will instead magically attract cosmic rays that will immediately flip all its bits. R-r-right.
But of course, by virtue of being illogical and inconsistent you are immune to being proved wrong. No matter how well someone can show you your shortcomings, you just shrug it off and go on as if nothing have happened. Fortunately, people who are really rational usually have enough rationality to leave your kind alone.
Your belief in the POWER OF THE HUMAN BRAIN is really funny. In reality you don't "truly knowing what your doing", no human does. It's just that we have evolved neat modules that "pretend" to know what we are doing. There are millions of people with serious brain damage. There are hundreds of millions of people with minor brain damage. There are billions with poorly working brains. When we think we know what we are doing, we are just executing our complex survival programs.
Read The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat or one of the many other amuzing (and amazing) books about our imperfect minds. If there can be a guy (apparently self-conscious, intelligent and normal), who can't tell the difference between his life-long female companion and a hat, how can you be sure that a particual mathematician can tell the difference between a correct step and a marginally and deceitfully incorrect? The answer - you can't. To err is human. Human verification is not inherently better than computer verification and in the future (as computers improve) it will gradually become worse.
The theorem says that there are either true unprovable things or things that are both provable and provable to be false. An interesting formal system is either incomplete or contradictory (it can be both, but it doesn't have to).
That's the difference between humans and today's computers. (emphasis mine)
Of course, today's computers can't do advanced stuff. They can't even program themselves. But that's to be expected, as the field of computer proofs is relatively young (20-something years, with most of the progress happening relatively recently).
The grandparent poster said that coming up with new axioms is a "non-formalizable process (it's also proven), so no computer can do this." Of course, he doesn't realise what he is talking about (to be expected - he's just a human). A non-formalizable process can't be proven to produce a correct result.:) We can't really rely on human brains more than on artificial intelligence, and a computer can (in principle) invent new axioms that are just as valid as those invented by humans (and incompleteness theorem basically says that those additional axioms are every bit as good as their opposites).
May be I just couldn't be bothered to browse through all 20-30 pages of that extremely boooooooooooring article, but I haven't actually seen any charts there. Lame.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that you have given more than a cursory glance to these ideas and no evidence that you are qualified to speak about it at all.
So just shut up and don't pretend to understand things that you really don't. Thanks.
It's even cooler to look at the performance improvements of supercomputers. They double their speed faster than every year with amazing regularity. The top 500 supercomputers had a total processing power of 1.12 Teraflops in 1993. By mid-2004 they were at 1127.41 Teraflops. Look at the graph, it really is impressive.
Other than computers or programming, what other interests do you have?
Politics. Movies. France. Nanotechnology. Not necessarily in that order:-D
After reading this, I feel slightly safer.:) Many people speculated what would happen if the amazing potential of nanotechnology will be locked in military research labs and universal assemblers will never become available. Now that I know the DVD Jon is keeping an eye on it, I feel marginally better.:)
Seriously, if you consider what this bright lad will be doing in 2020, he might very well be breaking DRM on physical products, so that Manufacturers and Producers Association of America can not prevent you from copying toasters, BMW sedans and medieval castles...
how much time and disk cash you devote to every two-bit logo you see every day
As a matter of fact, the profile/images folder that stores fav.icons of all sites that I visit takes up 50 megabytes! Sure, it's because FAT32 is inefficient at storing small files, and because Microsoft designed that feature in such a retarded way (was there a not retarded way?), but still...
You see, that's precisely the logic of the Ludd guy - "I like technology, I like factory automation, but it takes away jobs from people and so I oppose it". That you like some technology doesn't change the fact that you are a luddite. This is not about membership in a luddite party, it's about attitude to change. Amish are not luddites, they simply don't want to use the technology themselves, but they do not oppose it. Luddites can use some technology, but they oppose some other technology.
Check the definition again. You oppose some technological innovations, this makes you a luddite.
And paranoid ramblings are not rational reasons to oppose city-wide municipal WiFi. You are being extremely one-sided, but you don't realise it. It's part of being a luddite.
If you want to stop being a luddite, you must realise several things. The first one is easy - there are significant good sides to new developments. For example, with WiFi you can use PGPPhone that can't be wiretapped, unlike fixed telephone lines or cell phones. Another example is that fast mobile Internet access can bring significant benefits by itself. The second step is harder - you must realise that a lot of the problems are exaggerated and you only think they are significant because you are afraid of change. You may not believe that it's so, but it is (sadly, noone probably has enough time and motivation to persuade you, so you are on your own here). Finally, you need to realise that society will adapt to this new technology, just like it did with all others in the past and the net effect will be positive, despite certain new problems.
In recent year it became increasingly common among Slashdot trolls to post some wildly anti-technology comment and finish it with "I am not a luddite" to give their complaints a hint of legitimacy.
Well, that doesn't fucking work (except that moderators continue modding up such morons).
Lud-dite, noun - somebody who opposes technological or industrial innovation; one who opposes technical or technological change.
Guess what, INetUser, you qualify. You are a luddite and if you are so fucking opposed to technology, particularly to providing Internet access to people, why don't you cancel your Internet subscription and change your nick to CarrierPigeonUser, uh?
And this shit is modded up. Why the fuck? It doesn't take a genius to say "I don't believe it! It doesn't exist until I can touch it", but this is absolutely moronic.
Many technologies were invented to store data, many of those led to product prototypes. However, our little Slashdot idiot eggoeater was not invited to laboratories. He doesn't know that real storage devices exist that do not rely on traditional HDD tech. And now, as it happens with all new technologies, the new approaches have matured enough. Now the products can finally be brought to market and be competitive with hard disks, offering lower prices and/or bigger capacity and/or better performance. People at Hitachi might know something about storage devices. After all, they do actually develop, manufacture and sell hard disks.
But what do you know, of course, the eggoeater knows better. Until he is shown the new technology in action (preferably by a delegation of Hitachi CEO, CTO, CFO and other C*Os), he doesn't believe it exist. And if he doesn't believe it exist, everyone else must agree.
May be Google has done some nifty things with their file-system, but can't we forget about it already? Their search hasn't changed much http://www.google.com/">in the past six years. Of course, the fanboys will salivate over Google calculator and Google unit converter, but on the scale of Internet these "innovations" barely register.
Some of the other search engines are comparable in quality to Google (Teoma, Vivisimo), and may be better, depending on how many points you take away from Google for spam-infested results, too many blogs, too many Wikipedia clones, too many commercial sites, etc. And some sites are so much further on the innovation scale (meet BrainBoost, an artifically intelligent Internet reference desk answering any questions asked in natural English, with amazing quality and accuracy in a very friendly and usable interface) that they put Google to shame.
some information on fictional characters in Mystara
"Even after ten quadrillion years, you can never know that you have achieved immortality - that would take ETERNITY It is not possible to ever - know that you can live forever"
"Bova speculates that various biomedical advances could coalesce into the achievement of human immortality within fifty years."
"Immortality achieved through ones descendents" (from the bible)
"Ron Klatz MD, president of The American Academy of Anti - Aging Medicine , suggests that the human life span will reach 150 years within 30 years and physical immortality will be achieved by mid - century."
This is goddamn impressive. I will definitely try using BB in the future, beats google in quality and presentation (if not in completeness) hands down.
I decided to test two of my favourite search engines - Teoma and Vivisimo. And guess what - they both outperform Google, returning 4 out of 4 relevant results with the answer. Clearly, at least for this one topic, they are both better than Google (and the rest of the pack).
It's very typical for specialists to be sceptical in the prospects of their own field if they worked in a failed company. Seriously, your claim that it will take many decades to make general-purpose RP machines useful is ridiculous. By 2030 we might very well have nanotech universal assemblers. The progress with rapid prototyping will go much faster than you realise, don't let your personal pessimism defeat your rationality and knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
If you become a victom of a DNS poisoning attack or if you want to avoid that in the first place, you can use a DNS server other than that of your ISP. For example, below are the names of Microsoft DNS servers (that can be expected to work reliably and be relatively safe):
DNS1.CP.MSFT.NET 207.46.138.20
DNS2.CP.MSFT.NET 207.46.138.21
DNS3.CP.MSFT.NET 207.46.138.126
DNS4.CP.MSFT.NET 207.46.245.230
DNS5.CP.MSFT.NET 64.4.25.30
DNS7.CP.MSFT.NET 207.46.138.14
The IP-addresses may change when Microsoft changes their DNS Architecture.
No, this is basically bullshit. Penrose allows his irrational belief to determine his science, which is a big no-no for a scientist. He postulated that human mind is not a computer and grasps every straw to show how it might potentiall be so. Since he is a renowned and respected mathematician, his views are given a modicum of respect, just sufficient to guarantee he will not shut up for about 20-30 more years (by then we will probably have self-conscious strong AI that passes the Turing test and more).
This particular argument is patently stupid, but again, since Penrose has a big name, he gets away with it. The argument is as follows. Take two tiles that can fill the plane in a unique aperiodic way (one of Penrose's achievements was coming up with such things). Give an infinite amount of such tiles to a human and a "computer". Ask them to start tiling the plane and then ask whether the tiles can in fact tile the whole plane. Since the mosaic is aperiodical, according to Penrose the computer will not see a pattern, but a human will (the pattern being that you could always add a tile (as far as you tried), so the plane must be tileable). Penrose explains this by saying that humans have some magical "human consciousness" that allows them to have some "insight" about the world, to "understand" it, while computer doesn't have it. He then proceeds to explain this with some crackpot theories about quantum effects in microtubules in the human neurons, which is total bullshit, but again, his big name allows him to get away with spouting such garbage.
His argument is, of course, wrong. Humans can easily see patterns, because we were programmed to see them. This, of course, doesn't mean that we are always correct, when we believe there is a pattern. For example, consider the following sequence of numbers: 1, 3, 5, 7... Is there a pattern? If you think I listed odd numbers, you are wrong. It could have been a year, it could have been some random digits, it could have been a part of a different sequence, etc.
If monkeys could understand what an Euclidean plane is, they could reach the same conclusions as humans just as quickly. 1) You place a tile, it fits. 2) You place another, it fits. Repeat 10 times. Wow, it must be a magical pattern! This is just a heuristic that we humans have. The conclusions it helps us come to are not necessarily correct. We are not better than computers in solving the halting problem. It's just that too often we are willing to shout the answer, before we can be reasonably sure. Of course, sometimes we are lucky and the answer is correct. But we can program a computer to do just the same - it will gain the magical ability to "understand" and "see" the answer, at the price of often being completely wrong.
Penrose is just a persistent moron, don't listen to him.
Correct. Sorry for making a mistake - I'm still just a human. :-(
Do you me an that se e i n g do ts pr ,I
:)
ev en ts yo u fr o m s ee in g le
tter s? I do n't th in k so
th in k th a t t he br ai n ca
n han d le h av i ng seve ral l
evels of reality in its input, so that you can choose to concentrate on the wholistic view or take a more reductionist approach and appreciate the details. But no matter, how deep you look into the dots, the big picture will get into your brain screaming, and you won't be able to avoid it. You want proof? How about your reaction when you first saw this post?
For your reference, laser surgery is already used to give patients better than normal vision. I don't know if the clinics are allowed to advertise that, where you live, but ask your ophtalmologist and you'll find out.
As for where it's going, the answer is to wonderful times. Through the accelerating pace of technological development and scientific understanding, we are entering a whole new stage in the history of the human species.
You are probably closer to the SL1 right now, but the fact that you ask these questions gives hope. It's quite easy to find the information about where it's all going nowdays, have fun learning.
Too much zinc is toxic (seriously). Just count how many times you "get rid of excess zinc" daily, multiply by 4-5mg and take this into account when using zinc supplements.
That's a correct, but simplistic view of this technology. You see, there is no "Product X" that is going to be released on May 1 and prescribed to every patient with vision problems (or no vision at all). Rather it's a technology (implemented in a number of prototypes), which was in development for a decade or more and is slowly approaching usable state. Initially (after the trials are complete) it will be prescribed to a small fraction of patients, those most likely to benefit from such a device. Of course, the development will continue, and seeing the initial success, other companies and university research groups will join in. Their technologies will be different in some ways, they will use complimentary approaches, such as stem cell injections to stimulate the growth of image-processing areas in the brain, adding neurotransmitters, including chemically engineered ones, implanting chips into the brain itself to help with the processing, may be using genetically modified pigs to grow parts of the human brain, using VR-training courses to help people blind from birth acquire necessary skills.
Of course, from huge array of approaches some will be more applicable to people born blind, some will be less applicable. As the number of people born blind is rather significant, we can expect that some treatment will be developed that are particularly taylored for their needs. Of course, those treatment are likely to be significantly more advanced than the first artificial vision device implanted into a human.
I hope you see now why your remark was hopelessly naive and useless. I hope your next post is better.
You are not entirely correct. Just like people with synesthesia hear with their brain what their eyes see, it is entirely possible that the RGB-L input is translated by the brain into something slightly different. The relationship between actual colour of the light and our perception of it is rather complex.
In any case, the question asked by bird603568 is actually rather moronic. What does "would it be possible" mean? With this prototype technology? Of course not - they don't even have greyscale. With future bionic technology? Of course yes.
Nebu then answered the moronic question with an uninformed and vague asnwer. While the brain obviously has the potential capacity to see more colours (with some improvements and adjustments done), it's foolish to make such specific claims about this particular technology.
Look in the mirror. You are a nice example of human irrationality. A human, who illogically believes his belief that he is more logical than a computer is logical.
You pretend your reasoning is sound, but in reality it's nothing more than primitive magical thinking. Write down a proof, give it to a mathematicial to read and he will magically verify it, while a computer will instead magically attract cosmic rays that will immediately flip all its bits. R-r-right.
But of course, by virtue of being illogical and inconsistent you are immune to being proved wrong. No matter how well someone can show you your shortcomings, you just shrug it off and go on as if nothing have happened. Fortunately, people who are really rational usually have enough rationality to leave your kind alone.
The average human doesn't show any creativity either. So what?
Your belief in the POWER OF THE HUMAN BRAIN is really funny. In reality you don't "truly knowing what your doing", no human does. It's just that we have evolved neat modules that "pretend" to know what we are doing. There are millions of people with serious brain damage. There are hundreds of millions of people with minor brain damage. There are billions with poorly working brains. When we think we know what we are doing, we are just executing our complex survival programs.
Read The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat or one of the many other amuzing (and amazing) books about our imperfect minds. If there can be a guy (apparently self-conscious, intelligent and normal), who can't tell the difference between his life-long female companion and a hat, how can you be sure that a particual mathematician can tell the difference between a correct step and a marginally and deceitfully incorrect? The answer - you can't. To err is human. Human verification is not inherently better than computer verification and in the future (as computers improve) it will gradually become worse.
Wrong.
The theorem says that there are either true unprovable things or things that are both provable and provable to be false. An interesting formal system is either incomplete or contradictory (it can be both, but it doesn't have to).
That's the difference between humans and today's computers. (emphasis mine)
:) We can't really rely on human brains more than on artificial intelligence, and a computer can (in principle) invent new axioms that are just as valid as those invented by humans (and incompleteness theorem basically says that those additional axioms are every bit as good as their opposites).
Of course, today's computers can't do advanced stuff. They can't even program themselves. But that's to be expected, as the field of computer proofs is relatively young (20-something years, with most of the progress happening relatively recently).
The grandparent poster said that coming up with new axioms is a "non-formalizable process (it's also proven), so no computer can do this." Of course, he doesn't realise what he is talking about (to be expected - he's just a human). A non-formalizable process can't be proven to produce a correct result.
May be I just couldn't be bothered to browse through all 20-30 pages of that extremely boooooooooooring article, but I haven't actually seen any charts there. Lame.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that you have given more than a cursory glance to these ideas and no evidence that you are qualified to speak about it at all.
So just shut up and don't pretend to understand things that you really don't. Thanks.
It's even cooler to look at the performance improvements of supercomputers. They double their speed faster than every year with amazing regularity. The top 500 supercomputers had a total processing power of 1.12 Teraflops in 1993. By mid-2004 they were at 1127.41 Teraflops. Look at the graph, it really is impressive.
Other than computers or programming, what other interests do you have?
:-D
:) Many people speculated what would happen if the amazing potential of nanotechnology will be locked in military research labs and universal assemblers will never become available. Now that I know the DVD Jon is keeping an eye on it, I feel marginally better. :)
Politics. Movies. France. Nanotechnology. Not necessarily in that order
After reading this, I feel slightly safer.
Seriously, if you consider what this bright lad will be doing in 2020, he might very well be breaking DRM on physical products, so that Manufacturers and Producers Association of America can not prevent you from copying toasters, BMW sedans and medieval castles...
how much time and disk cash you devote to every two-bit logo you see every day
As a matter of fact, the profile/images folder that stores fav.icons of all sites that I visit takes up 50 megabytes! Sure, it's because FAT32 is inefficient at storing small files, and because Microsoft designed that feature in such a retarded way (was there a not retarded way?), but still...
You see, that's precisely the logic of the Ludd guy - "I like technology, I like factory automation, but it takes away jobs from people and so I oppose it". That you like some technology doesn't change the fact that you are a luddite. This is not about membership in a luddite party, it's about attitude to change. Amish are not luddites, they simply don't want to use the technology themselves, but they do not oppose it. Luddites can use some technology, but they oppose some other technology.
Check the definition again. You oppose some technological innovations, this makes you a luddite.
And paranoid ramblings are not rational reasons to oppose city-wide municipal WiFi. You are being extremely one-sided, but you don't realise it. It's part of being a luddite.
If you want to stop being a luddite, you must realise several things. The first one is easy - there are significant good sides to new developments. For example, with WiFi you can use PGPPhone that can't be wiretapped, unlike fixed telephone lines or cell phones. Another example is that fast mobile Internet access can bring significant benefits by itself. The second step is harder - you must realise that a lot of the problems are exaggerated and you only think they are significant because you are afraid of change. You may not believe that it's so, but it is (sadly, noone probably has enough time and motivation to persuade you, so you are on your own here). Finally, you need to realise that society will adapt to this new technology, just like it did with all others in the past and the net effect will be positive, despite certain new problems.
And I'm by no means a luddite.
In recent year it became increasingly common among Slashdot trolls to post some wildly anti-technology comment and finish it with "I am not a luddite" to give their complaints a hint of legitimacy.
Well, that doesn't fucking work (except that moderators continue modding up such morons).
Lud-dite, noun - somebody who opposes technological or industrial innovation; one who opposes technical or technological change.
Guess what, INetUser, you qualify. You are a luddite and if you are so fucking opposed to technology, particularly to providing Internet access to people, why don't you cancel your Internet subscription and change your nick to CarrierPigeonUser, uh?
And this shit is modded up. Why the fuck? It doesn't take a genius to say "I don't believe it! It doesn't exist until I can touch it", but this is absolutely moronic.
Many technologies were invented to store data, many of those led to product prototypes. However, our little Slashdot idiot eggoeater was not invited to laboratories. He doesn't know that real storage devices exist that do not rely on traditional HDD tech. And now, as it happens with all new technologies, the new approaches have matured enough. Now the products can finally be brought to market and be competitive with hard disks, offering lower prices and/or bigger capacity and/or better performance. People at Hitachi might know something about storage devices. After all, they do actually develop, manufacture and sell hard disks.
But what do you know, of course, the eggoeater knows better. Until he is shown the new technology in action (preferably by a delegation of Hitachi CEO, CTO, CFO and other C*Os), he doesn't believe it exist. And if he doesn't believe it exist, everyone else must agree.
Come on, people! Stop modding up retards!
May be Google has done some nifty things with their file-system, but can't we forget about it already? Their search hasn't changed much http://www.google.com/">in the past six years. Of course, the fanboys will salivate over Google calculator and Google unit converter, but on the scale of Internet these "innovations" barely register.
Some of the other search engines are comparable in quality to Google (Teoma, Vivisimo), and may be better, depending on how many points you take away from Google for spam-infested results, too many blogs, too many Wikipedia clones, too many commercial sites, etc. And some sites are so much further on the innovation scale (meet BrainBoost, an artifically intelligent Internet reference desk answering any questions asked in natural English, with amazing quality and accuracy in a very friendly and usable interface) that they put Google to shame.
The results:
some information on fictional characters in Mystara
"Even after ten quadrillion years, you can never know that you have achieved immortality - that would take ETERNITY It is not possible to ever - know that you can live forever"
"Bova speculates that various biomedical advances could coalesce into the achievement of human immortality within fifty years."
"Immortality achieved through ones descendents" (from the bible)
"Ron Klatz MD, president of The American Academy of Anti - Aging Medicine , suggests that the human life span will reach 150 years within 30 years and physical immortality will be achieved by mid - century."
This is goddamn impressive. I will definitely try using BB in the future, beats google in quality and presentation (if not in completeness) hands down.
I decided to test two of my favourite search engines - Teoma and Vivisimo. And guess what - they both outperform Google, returning 4 out of 4 relevant results with the answer. Clearly, at least for this one topic, they are both better than Google (and the rest of the pack).
h tml Contains Answer
h tml Contains Answer
Teoma
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010518.html Contains Answer
http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/Flamingos/home.
http://www.thewildones.org/Animals/flamingo.html Contains Answer
http://webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/7.html Contains Answer
Vivisimo
http://www.thewildones.org/Animals/flamingo.html Contains Answer
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010518.html Contains Answer
http://webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/7.html Contains Answer
http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/Flamingos/home.
It's very typical for specialists to be sceptical in the prospects of their own field if they worked in a failed company. Seriously, your claim that it will take many decades to make general-purpose RP machines useful is ridiculous. By 2030 we might very well have nanotech universal assemblers. The progress with rapid prototyping will go much faster than you realise, don't let your personal pessimism defeat your rationality and knowledge.