That's bogus. For one thing, for each of those monkeys banging out code in Visual Studio, you're paying for a license of Visual Studio. I know. That's why I'm not using it to write my ASP files right now.
Linux costs nothing. And, because it is almost COMPLETELY OSS, the cost of maintenance is nearly nothing, as well! You don't have to buy a license of GCC for each unix engineer you employ.
Because most engineers enjoy linux more than windows as well, they're CHEAPER! You can get an army of linux monkeys coding perl for damn near nothing. I know, I did it last summer as an intern. I got $1400, not paid by the company even, to write Portland State a dynamic information storage system for users. Find that for windows at $1400? I'm getting paid $6000 to do the same thing in windows, this summer.;)
About True AI: Is it a program that passes the Turing test, or a program that can think spontaneously and independently? Is it a program that can respond to what outside influences affect it, or a program that can think spontaneous thoughts, without provocation? Can the program always respond the same way/from a list of responses, like Eliza? Or can it evolve and create new responses? Does it have to communicate with us? Does it have to communicate with other versions of itself? Where does Humanity fit in this scheme, do you think? Do we only respond to outside stimuli, do we create thoughts from our environmental modifiers, or do we just mock the thoughts of others?
A pre-post note: OK, as I have been reading through these postings, a few thoughts have occured to me. You can berate me for being a foolish dreamer, or a lengthy poster as you like. It's a long post with a lot of ideas. I enjoy everything, flame as you will;)
This algorithm that has been created is destructive, neh? And from what I've read, it can't select the correct answer and present it in any way. Also, it has the potential to be incorrect. The RNA also has to be pre-encoded with all possible answers, which gives it a finite number of answers. The RNA solver has to be pre-coded as well. These are all limitations that will stop RNA computing from going computational.
But putting the RNA inside of a container, would solve these problems. Call this container a cell for ease, if you would, although it really wouldn't be. The cell would basically 'regulate' the RNA, so the actions it took would not be so uncontrolled. Enzymes are great, mind you, but we don't have all that solid a hold on them. The cell would also replicate, given correct proteins. So we create one cell and drop it in a vat of metaphorical peanut butter, and watch it multiply. If the multiplication process was automated and modified properly, we could end up with cells with 'identification numbers'.
The identification numbers would serve as an organization process to allow the cells to all refer to their 'parent cells' on which process to execute. The parent cells would refer to their parent cells, etc. If all these cells were placed in a non-moving communicative network, this would actually work. Then you could stimulate the parent of all cells electronically, as humans and all other organisms do. This could be the user's job - tell the cell what to do. It will refer to the 'memory' cells (containing RNA sets with memory pairs which respond to queries about their setting) for programming instructions, then send that out to all the 'child' cells. You get the idea - massively parallel, heirarchal(sp?), nondestructive (reproducing cells don't destroy themselves) processing. The heirarchal process leaves us with an EXTREMELY rare chance of error (check an answer 50 times?). The parallel process gives us extreme power. The RNA factor gives us extreme speed. And the cell network idea gives us the power to modify RNA (through proteins inside the cells themselves, reacting to electric stimuli).
Anyone see any problems with this? I don't, but I have nil background in biochemistry or biocomputing. So someone else answer the comments;)
I bought my 8.4 gig this year for $60 including s&h.. and prices don't go down at a constant rate, they go down at an exponential rate, because technology is advancing. Everyone is thinking in terms of cost per megabyte, but that's completely linear thinking. Technology advances, it doesn't just get bigger! For instance, a DSL connection right now would cost this household less than our two internet connections, three phone lines, and two 14.4k(yeah, 14.4, it would still cost less) modems! It would also support a hell of a lot more.
Slashdot Mirror
That's bogus. For one thing, for each of those monkeys banging out code in Visual Studio, you're paying for a license of Visual Studio. I know. That's why I'm not using it to write my ASP files right now. Linux costs nothing. And, because it is almost COMPLETELY OSS, the cost of maintenance is nearly nothing, as well! You don't have to buy a license of GCC for each unix engineer you employ. Because most engineers enjoy linux more than windows as well, they're CHEAPER! You can get an army of linux monkeys coding perl for damn near nothing. I know, I did it last summer as an intern. I got $1400, not paid by the company even, to write Portland State a dynamic information storage system for users. Find that for windows at $1400? I'm getting paid $6000 to do the same thing in windows, this summer. ;)
About True AI: Is it a program that passes the Turing test, or a program that can think spontaneously and independently? Is it a program that can respond to what outside influences affect it, or a program that can think spontaneous thoughts, without provocation? Can the program always respond the same way/from a list of responses, like Eliza? Or can it evolve and create new responses? Does it have to communicate with us? Does it have to communicate with other versions of itself? Where does Humanity fit in this scheme, do you think? Do we only respond to outside stimuli, do we create thoughts from our environmental modifiers, or do we just mock the thoughts of others?
A pre-post note: OK, as I have been reading through these postings, a few thoughts have occured to me. You can berate me for being a foolish dreamer, or a lengthy poster as you like. It's a long post with a lot of ideas. I enjoy everything, flame as you will ;)
This algorithm that has been created is destructive, neh? And from what I've read, it can't select the correct answer and present it in any way. Also, it has the potential to be incorrect. The RNA also has to be pre-encoded with all possible answers, which gives it a finite number of answers. The RNA solver has to be pre-coded as well. These are all limitations that will stop RNA computing from going computational.
But putting the RNA inside of a container, would solve these problems. Call this container a cell for ease, if you would, although it really wouldn't be. The cell would basically 'regulate' the RNA, so the actions it took would not be so uncontrolled. Enzymes are great, mind you, but we don't have all that solid a hold on them. The cell would also replicate, given correct proteins. So we create one cell and drop it in a vat of metaphorical peanut butter, and watch it multiply. If the multiplication process was automated and modified properly, we could end up with cells with 'identification numbers'.
The identification numbers would serve as an organization process to allow the cells to all refer to their 'parent cells' on which process to execute. The parent cells would refer to their parent cells, etc. If all these cells were placed in a non-moving communicative network, this would actually work. Then you could stimulate the parent of all cells electronically, as humans and all other organisms do. This could be the user's job - tell the cell what to do. It will refer to the 'memory' cells (containing RNA sets with memory pairs which respond to queries about their setting) for programming instructions, then send that out to all the 'child' cells. You get the idea - massively parallel, heirarchal(sp?), nondestructive (reproducing cells don't destroy themselves) processing. The heirarchal process leaves us with an EXTREMELY rare chance of error (check an answer 50 times?). The parallel process gives us extreme power. The RNA factor gives us extreme speed. And the cell network idea gives us the power to modify RNA (through proteins inside the cells themselves, reacting to electric stimuli).
Anyone see any problems with this? I don't, but I have nil background in biochemistry or biocomputing. So someone else answer the comments ;)
I bought my 8.4 gig this year for $60 including s&h.. and prices don't go down at a constant rate, they go down at an exponential rate, because technology is advancing. Everyone is thinking in terms of cost per megabyte, but that's completely linear thinking. Technology advances, it doesn't just get bigger! For instance, a DSL connection right now would cost this household less than our two internet connections, three phone lines, and two 14.4k(yeah, 14.4, it would still cost less) modems! It would also support a hell of a lot more.