That's a PCB-routing problem that you REALLY don't want, and way outside the scale of anything that we build (it's like every computer on the planet having 10,000 direct Ethernet connections to nearby computers - no switches, hubs, routers, etc. in order to simulate something approaching a small mouse's brain - not only a cabling and routing nightmare but where the hell do you plug it all in?). Not only that, by a real brain learns by breaking and creating connections all the time.
A single neuron-neuron connection has very low bandwidth, in effect transferring a single number (activation level) a few hundred times a second. Even if timing is important, you can simply accompany the level with a timestamp. A single 100 Mbs Ethernet connection is easily able to handle all those 10 000 connections.
Also, most of those 10 000 connections are to nearby neurons, presumably because long-distance communication involves the same latency and energy penalties in the brains as it does anywhere else. There are efficient methods to auto-cluster a P2P network so as to minimize total length of connections, for example Freenet does this; so, you could, in theory, run a distributed neural simulator even on standard Internet technology. In fact, I suspect that it could be possible to achieve human-level or higher artificial intelligence with existant computer power in this method right now.
This system seems to add a lot of complexity to solve something that has not proven a problem.
No, this system adds a lot of complexity to tie every transaction to an IP address. The goal is surveillance, the stated purpose is just a thinly veiled excuse.
If I can afford to pay $6/hour for your unskilled labour (thus giving you an opportunity not only to make a little money, but to develop skills on the job and improve your bargaining position) but the minimum wage is $7.50, that wont force me to pay you more, it will force me not to hire you at all.
Except that the employer is not going to pay as much as he can afford, he is going to be paying the minimum needed to fill the position. Since there are lots of unemployed people around, the law of supply and demand drives wages down, just as it did early in the Industrial Revolution. This is why trade unions were found, and fought for a minimum wage (and 8-hour days, and 5-day weeks, and ban on child labour, and vacation, and the worker actually being free when he's not at work rather than having to stay around as an unpaid fireman-on-call, and other such niceties). If you honestly can't turn a profit when paying $7.50/hour, then I find it highly unlikely that your business is going to be around for long anyway since your profit margin must be pretty much nonexistent. Also, if you are paying your workers too little to actually live on, then they are going to require public support, which means that I am in effect subsidising your company.
And given that both the current conditions in the job market and the law of supply and demand are common knowledge, I find it increasingly difficult to consider statements like yours to have been made in good faith.
Which requires a somewhat objective measure of merit, in other words, a standardized test. This, in turn, incentivizes teachers to teach how to pass the test at the expence of everything else, which in turn will make the problem worse.
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable excuse to disband public education as we know it, and replace it with something that produces competition to the government class.
"Something" is a bit vague. Care to provide a bit more details about what you had in mind before we do any dismantling?
Also, prohibition was something that most people in the U.S. were against. As opposed to the prohibition of drugs, which most people in the U.S. still favor.
Do they, really? Because it seems strange to me that enough people buy drugs in the US that the drug cartels can arm armies with the profits, if most people there are against legalizing non-alcohol drugs. So do people actually oppose legalization, or do they simply claim that to avoid being made examples in the War on Drugs?
I suggest that US pro-government paramilitaries do to the people like you what Zetas did to the bloggers. The best Christmas decoration for American cities will be "legalizers" hanging from each lamppost.
It's rare indeed to see an anti-drug proponent come right out and express his support for the criminal gangs and bloodshed his views cause. I congratulate you on your honesty.
So I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for the "freedom" advocates here because I'm not into the freedom to commit crimes angle.
I think that we should start distinguishing between crimes (murder, theft, etc) and illegal actions (using recreational drugs, pirating files, walking on grass, etc). All law is not equal, quite a bit of it is simply someone trying to push his values onto others or profiting at their expense. Copyright law in particular is notoriously corrupt, only existing to profit a few large media corporations. There's no moral obligation whatsoever to obey it.
The father sounds like an asshole but it isn't child abuse unless it leaves a mark.
Forcing you to drink from a toilet doesn't leave a mark. Would you consider it not abuse?
Everyone needs to stop pushing their values on other people and telling them how to raise their kids.
The problem with that is that children are people too. Simply letting the parents do anything they want to their kids is effectively the same as declaring said kids as mere objects, lesser than even animals since animal abuse is illegal. That's simply not going to happen.
I was spanked with a razor belt more times than I care to count when I was growing up.
So it wasn't very effective then. Except, of course, for teaching you to consider domestic violence acceptable and instilling a rather disturbing level of authoritarianism, which you demonstrate here by instantly siding with the authority figure, even when he's clearly abusing his power. And so the cycle continues.
Looks to me like a father who probably lost his temper and a young woman playing to the internet 'jury' for sympathy and revenge.
Are you implying that an adult man who "lost his temper" and beat up a helpless girl in rage should be pitied, because his victim made the disgusting crime public?
Granted, he's scaring the hell out of his daughter in the video (probably with good reason), but unless there was evidence of such abuse then I think people should mind their own damn business.
There is evidence of abuse, specifically the video in question which depicts it. This abuse is everyone's business, because violent crime doesn't become any less of a violent crime just because it happens inside four walls and the victims are in a particularly vulnerable position in respect to the criminal. And in this particular case the criminal happens to be a judge; if he can't control his violent impulses with his own family, why would we expect him to do so in in official capacity either?
Once you're running code in the kernel, you can pretty much do whatever you want and the user's permissions and UAC become irrelevant.
UAC is irrelevant, since it doesn't tell the user what the program is actually trying to do, so the choices are to accept and hope everything goes well, or deny and have the program not work. Add the fact that random programs will require admin rights at random times, and the only real effect of UAC adds up to blame shifting.
For example the roman catholic church teaches evolution in its science classes. This church has stated that there is no conflict with faith and the scientific findings regarding evolution. I believe other major denominations have similar views.
a recent development largely due to politics and a desire to keep the church relevant as possible while still holding on to a false sense of historical consistency with existing dogma.
So when a church doesn't accept evolution it is insane, and when it does it is a hypocrite. So tell us: how should a church relate to evolution to meet your standards?
Regarding going with the evidence, a Bishop at Oxford helped establish the framework of the western tradition of the scientific method: observe, hypothesize, predict, and test.
a scientist can be religious as long as his studies don't conflict with his beliefs. the second they do and he lets his faith override his results, he has failed.
Yes, thinking your personal pre-conceived notions override reality means you fail as a scientists, and in fact I'd say it makes you quite insane. What this has to do with the paragraph you responded to is anyone's quess.
As a side note, refusing to acknowledge that you might simply be wrong (which is what letting faith override evidence is) seems like a classic case of Pride, the numo uno of the Seven Deadly Sins.
You can't life in peace with different viewpoints when you live in a democracy. Those different viewpoints vote too.
And so do you. The result is a compromise where different issues get weight based on how many people find them important. Certain core values - such as freedom of speech - are usually protected so that they can't be changed unless the vast majority wants that.
Frankly, when you say that you can't live in peace with that, I get the impression that you simply can't tolerate not getting your way in every issue.
What science "cares" about is the propogation of knowlege teased out through experiment. If religion contradicts this, science - quite rightly - seeks to correct the error (the same way science seeks to eliminate error from science).
No. Science does not care about anything, because science is simply systematic study of the surrounding reality. Scientists might care about correcting errors, and that is all well and good; however, when you start ascribing this desire to science itself, you are for all intents and purposes setting up a god.
How is a file going to define any kind of operation? Are you seriously suggesting we should run arbitrary code from some random file downloaded off the Internet?
Like I said, files would include type info (for example MIMEtype). This would allow the operating system to load the appropriate library to handle the operations the file supports. Eeven including the code in the file itself is not a problem if we run it in a separate memory space with no access to anything except the byte sequence of the file and the input/output buffer of the operation.
But files are not molecules, they are a sequence of bytes. And we do exactly this with other sequences of bytes; it's the whole idead behind object-oriented programming. So, one possible way of "extending" files would be for them to define a type and type-dependent operations; for example, an image file could define "getWidth", "getHeight" and "get24ColourRectangle" functions for reading it, a text processor file could define "getContentsAsAnUtf8String", etc.
Whether or not this would be a good idea is another matter. And the Microsoft proposal, at the very least, seems to be yet another attempt to push remote-delete DRM ("there is an especial need to support the notion of âownershipâ(TM) that adequately serves both users and engineers as they engage with the world of networked sociality").
Who is that 50 trillion owed to? Because if person A pays person B a dollar, after which person B pays person C, and C to D and D to E, a single dollar bill ended up paying 4 dollars worth of debt. Or, in case of international debt, any amount can be paid back simply by exporting industrial or other products.
The size of the money supply has nothing to do with the ability to pay debt, because money is simply a logistical tool to simplify keeping tabs on who owns what to whom.
Every choice in life has consequences, and the consequences of choosing a career that does not pay well is having a difficult time paying back the loan used to get that degree and career.
This rises the question of why do people who know that every choice has consequences exclude the choice of lowering the general education level (which is the rather obvious consequence of making student loans a worse deal)? An English or Philosophy degree might be worthless job-wise, but it does (or should) teach rethorical tricks and logic, making the student harder prey for various demagogues, which benefits everyone (except the top 1%).
Another question that rises is why the heck does it cost $80,000 to get an English degree? Just what is the money used for - developing a time machine to go meet Shakespear?
Nobody expects life to stop adapting to the environment, but there are limits; e.g., humans aren't going to evolve resistance to being shot in the head, no matter how many times it happens.
Humans can and have evolved resistance to head injuries (why do you think you have a skull?), it's just that firearms evolve a lot faster than humans.
By definition, the future actions of an entity with free will cannot be known.
No, that's not the definition of free will. Free will is a concept in philosophy and law and means, roughly, that nobody's holding a gun to your head, while determinism is a concept in physics. They don't operate on the same level of reality and thus can't be meaningfully contrasted.
Another way of looking at this is asking why does an actor with free will choose something over something else? Because of personal preferences? Then someone who knows those preferences could guess what those actions might be. Because of personal history? That, too, can be known and accounted for. By choosing completely at random? How is rolling dice and doing what it tells you to "free" in any meaningful sense?
Addiction can also be viewed as a continued involvement with a substance or activity despite the negative consequences associated with it. Pleasure and enjoyment would have originally been sought; however, over a period of time involvement with the substance or activity is needed to feel normal.
Are you trying to suggest that this applies to drinking soda?
After I finally got my fridge door handle fixed, it took me a long time and quite a bit of effort to kick the habit of grapping the door by the side. So, according to the definition you quoted, using a fridge with a broken door handle is addictive. I'd say that that's a good reason to consider the definition overly broad: absolutely everything falls under "addictive" according to it, since normal is whatever you're used to, which could be anything.
Fill a room with nitrogen. Supposedly it doesn't have some of the nastier effects that Carbon Monoxide or Carbon Dioxide would have. It's what we normally breathe. You'd still might get headaches from the lack of oxygen before you passed out, but no suicide method is perfect.
You don't get headaches, nor do you need to fill a room with it. Simply open a nitrogen valve, go near it and breath in.
Nitrogen is one of the more dangerous substances in chemical industry, because the first sign that something is wrong is that you pass out and stop breathing.
I've always felt that version control systems should store syntax trees, but have never had the time to do the work to do that.
The problem is: if you store the syntax tree prior to running templates/macros, it likely will not parse, while if apply macros, all places touched by them will be different, despite not having been altered by the programmer directly.
Slashdot Mirror
A single neuron-neuron connection has very low bandwidth, in effect transferring a single number (activation level) a few hundred times a second. Even if timing is important, you can simply accompany the level with a timestamp. A single 100 Mbs Ethernet connection is easily able to handle all those 10 000 connections.
Also, most of those 10 000 connections are to nearby neurons, presumably because long-distance communication involves the same latency and energy penalties in the brains as it does anywhere else. There are efficient methods to auto-cluster a P2P network so as to minimize total length of connections, for example Freenet does this; so, you could, in theory, run a distributed neural simulator even on standard Internet technology. In fact, I suspect that it could be possible to achieve human-level or higher artificial intelligence with existant computer power in this method right now.
So, who wants to start HAL@Home ?-)
No, this system adds a lot of complexity to tie every transaction to an IP address. The goal is surveillance, the stated purpose is just a thinly veiled excuse.
How do you they aren't already doing that? This could well be a giant jamming antenna, intended to block out satellite communication.
The main difference between China and the US is that the Chinese economy is growing.
The main difference between the Soviet Union and the US was that the SU had social security.
Except that the employer is not going to pay as much as he can afford, he is going to be paying the minimum needed to fill the position. Since there are lots of unemployed people around, the law of supply and demand drives wages down, just as it did early in the Industrial Revolution. This is why trade unions were found, and fought for a minimum wage (and 8-hour days, and 5-day weeks, and ban on child labour, and vacation, and the worker actually being free when he's not at work rather than having to stay around as an unpaid fireman-on-call, and other such niceties). If you honestly can't turn a profit when paying $7.50/hour, then I find it highly unlikely that your business is going to be around for long anyway since your profit margin must be pretty much nonexistent. Also, if you are paying your workers too little to actually live on, then they are going to require public support, which means that I am in effect subsidising your company.
And given that both the current conditions in the job market and the law of supply and demand are common knowledge, I find it increasingly difficult to consider statements like yours to have been made in good faith.
Which requires a somewhat objective measure of merit, in other words, a standardized test. This, in turn, incentivizes teachers to teach how to pass the test at the expence of everything else, which in turn will make the problem worse.
"Something" is a bit vague. Care to provide a bit more details about what you had in mind before we do any dismantling?
Do they, really? Because it seems strange to me that enough people buy drugs in the US that the drug cartels can arm armies with the profits, if most people there are against legalizing non-alcohol drugs. So do people actually oppose legalization, or do they simply claim that to avoid being made examples in the War on Drugs?
It's rare indeed to see an anti-drug proponent come right out and express his support for the criminal gangs and bloodshed his views cause. I congratulate you on your honesty.
I think that we should start distinguishing between crimes (murder, theft, etc) and illegal actions (using recreational drugs, pirating files, walking on grass, etc). All law is not equal, quite a bit of it is simply someone trying to push his values onto others or profiting at their expense. Copyright law in particular is notoriously corrupt, only existing to profit a few large media corporations. There's no moral obligation whatsoever to obey it.
Forcing you to drink from a toilet doesn't leave a mark. Would you consider it not abuse?
The problem with that is that children are people too. Simply letting the parents do anything they want to their kids is effectively the same as declaring said kids as mere objects, lesser than even animals since animal abuse is illegal. That's simply not going to happen.
So it wasn't very effective then. Except, of course, for teaching you to consider domestic violence acceptable and instilling a rather disturbing level of authoritarianism, which you demonstrate here by instantly siding with the authority figure, even when he's clearly abusing his power. And so the cycle continues.
Are you implying that an adult man who "lost his temper" and beat up a helpless girl in rage should be pitied, because his victim made the disgusting crime public?
There is evidence of abuse, specifically the video in question which depicts it. This abuse is everyone's business, because violent crime doesn't become any less of a violent crime just because it happens inside four walls and the victims are in a particularly vulnerable position in respect to the criminal. And in this particular case the criminal happens to be a judge; if he can't control his violent impulses with his own family, why would we expect him to do so in in official capacity either?
UAC is irrelevant, since it doesn't tell the user what the program is actually trying to do, so the choices are to accept and hope everything goes well, or deny and have the program not work. Add the fact that random programs will require admin rights at random times, and the only real effect of UAC adds up to blame shifting.
So when a church doesn't accept evolution it is insane, and when it does it is a hypocrite. So tell us: how should a church relate to evolution to meet your standards?
Yes, thinking your personal pre-conceived notions override reality means you fail as a scientists, and in fact I'd say it makes you quite insane. What this has to do with the paragraph you responded to is anyone's quess.
As a side note, refusing to acknowledge that you might simply be wrong (which is what letting faith override evidence is) seems like a classic case of Pride, the numo uno of the Seven Deadly Sins.
And so do you. The result is a compromise where different issues get weight based on how many people find them important. Certain core values - such as freedom of speech - are usually protected so that they can't be changed unless the vast majority wants that.
Frankly, when you say that you can't live in peace with that, I get the impression that you simply can't tolerate not getting your way in every issue.
No. Science does not care about anything, because science is simply systematic study of the surrounding reality. Scientists might care about correcting errors, and that is all well and good; however, when you start ascribing this desire to science itself, you are for all intents and purposes setting up a god.
Like I said, files would include type info (for example MIMEtype). This would allow the operating system to load the appropriate library to handle the operations the file supports. Eeven including the code in the file itself is not a problem if we run it in a separate memory space with no access to anything except the byte sequence of the file and the input/output buffer of the operation.
But files are not molecules, they are a sequence of bytes. And we do exactly this with other sequences of bytes; it's the whole idead behind object-oriented programming. So, one possible way of "extending" files would be for them to define a type and type-dependent operations; for example, an image file could define "getWidth", "getHeight" and "get24ColourRectangle" functions for reading it, a text processor file could define "getContentsAsAnUtf8String", etc.
Whether or not this would be a good idea is another matter. And the Microsoft proposal, at the very least, seems to be yet another attempt to push remote-delete DRM ("there is an especial need to support the notion of âownershipâ(TM) that adequately serves both users and engineers as they engage with the world of networked sociality").
Who is that 50 trillion owed to? Because if person A pays person B a dollar, after which person B pays person C, and C to D and D to E, a single dollar bill ended up paying 4 dollars worth of debt. Or, in case of international debt, any amount can be paid back simply by exporting industrial or other products.
The size of the money supply has nothing to do with the ability to pay debt, because money is simply a logistical tool to simplify keeping tabs on who owns what to whom.
This rises the question of why do people who know that every choice has consequences exclude the choice of lowering the general education level (which is the rather obvious consequence of making student loans a worse deal)? An English or Philosophy degree might be worthless job-wise, but it does (or should) teach rethorical tricks and logic, making the student harder prey for various demagogues, which benefits everyone (except the top 1%).
Another question that rises is why the heck does it cost $80,000 to get an English degree? Just what is the money used for - developing a time machine to go meet Shakespear?
Humans can and have evolved resistance to head injuries (why do you think you have a skull?), it's just that firearms evolve a lot faster than humans.
No, that's not the definition of free will. Free will is a concept in philosophy and law and means, roughly, that nobody's holding a gun to your head, while determinism is a concept in physics. They don't operate on the same level of reality and thus can't be meaningfully contrasted.
Another way of looking at this is asking why does an actor with free will choose something over something else? Because of personal preferences? Then someone who knows those preferences could guess what those actions might be. Because of personal history? That, too, can be known and accounted for. By choosing completely at random? How is rolling dice and doing what it tells you to "free" in any meaningful sense?
After I finally got my fridge door handle fixed, it took me a long time and quite a bit of effort to kick the habit of grapping the door by the side. So, according to the definition you quoted, using a fridge with a broken door handle is addictive. I'd say that that's a good reason to consider the definition overly broad: absolutely everything falls under "addictive" according to it, since normal is whatever you're used to, which could be anything.
You don't get headaches, nor do you need to fill a room with it. Simply open a nitrogen valve, go near it and breath in.
Nitrogen is one of the more dangerous substances in chemical industry, because the first sign that something is wrong is that you pass out and stop breathing.
The problem is: if you store the syntax tree prior to running templates/macros, it likely will not parse, while if apply macros, all places touched by them will be different, despite not having been altered by the programmer directly.