But how do the neurons learn how to fly the thing? That's done by electrical pulses into the dish through one of the electrodes. That in effect tells the neurons when they are doing the right thing to keep the plane on course. High frequency, or rapid pulses, stimulate the neurons and enhance the connections between them.
Simply put, by stimulating the neurons the researchers tell them they're on the right track, so they continue to adjust the plane's elevator to keep it from plunging toward the ground during a downdraft, for example. When the plane levels off, the simulator reduces the frequency of the pulses, and the neurons back off from that control surface, allowing the plane to remain on course.
After just a few minutes of that kind of training, the "brain" takes over completely, sending signals to the plane's control surfaces, and using feedback from the simulator to know just which signals to send.
As I understand it, one or more of the electrodes function as correctness feedback for the brain cells. These electrodes become more active when the simulated plane is flying level and in the right direction. More activation in these electrodes causes more activation among the brain cells, and when activation is higher the brain cells form stronger connections. So when the brain cells are doing what they are supposed to their behavior is reinforced.
My pet peeve is "It's the exception that proves the rule" which has outlived it's own well understood meaning.
They are probably thinking of the other saying, "There is an exception to every rule." So finding an exception validates a rule in the eyes of the traditional aphorism.
This is not very relevant, but I can't resist the comparison. I work at a nuclear reactor, a small one that generates 250 kW at full power and is about the size of a washing machine. Now, it has way more than 250 square cm of surface area, so at 1 kw of heat dissipation per square cm this stuff could easily keep it cool. Of course we already have a better cooling system involving a 25 ft deep pool of water, but it makes an interesting comparison when you think about what kind of heat a CPU is actually generating.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is the best explanation of NP that I have seen. Thank you!
Ditto for the right.
My pet peeve is "It's the exception that proves the rule" which has outlived it's own well understood meaning. They are probably thinking of the other saying, "There is an exception to every rule." So finding an exception validates a rule in the eyes of the traditional aphorism.
The same goes for diphthong and dipthong.
If they are disconnected from everyone else, how would any kind of search reach them/everybody else?
I think it means that the test switched away from C++ one year ago and switched from Pascal to C++ ten years ago.
I also took the test with C++, two years ago.
No, a kilowatt actually is 1000 watts. The 1,024 thing really only applies to bytes.
This is not very relevant, but I can't resist the comparison. I work at a nuclear reactor, a small one that generates 250 kW at full power and is about the size of a washing machine. Now, it has way more than 250 square cm of surface area, so at 1 kw of heat dissipation per square cm this stuff could easily keep it cool. Of course we already have a better cooling system involving a 25 ft deep pool of water, but it makes an interesting comparison when you think about what kind of heat a CPU is actually generating.