Computers already experience the world through mice, touchpads, touchscreens, cameras, etc... Humans use sensory apparatus to experience the world why would it be any different for a computer?
The original claim was that you can just speed up the computer and have it experience a lifetime in a minute. If it experiences the world through a webcam, that is going to be a lifetime spent looking at some guy's face looking left and right every other year.
What kind of insight is that computer supposed to gain from that?
But you still have not explained how a computer "experiences" anything.
We don't really understand how humans experience things, either, but one thing is obvious: Experience come from interacting with our environment. How are you suggesting to speed that up?
I look at that, and I see nothing but copying things others have done better before. What is the point of this? Just being a cheaper version of the same thing we already have? Why would anybody care?
Say what you want about Microsoft and Windows 8, but at least they actually tried building something on their own, instead of directly copying what was popular.
A lifetime of experience to a computer cluster with several thousand cores, and several billion Hz of operational frequency, per core, can be passed in a very short time.
Ah yes, I see: If we just let criminals buy any gun they need legally, we wouldn't have a problem with robberies. This makes perfect sense, because guns are exactly like drugs: They are completely harmless to anybody but their user!
They couldn't delete a vanishingly tiny fraction of the infringing files they hosted.
The whole thing is a complete non-issue, which is being pumped up by Dotcom because he knows the internet will eat this stuff up no matter how dishonest it is.
"Old" is right. This was the standard from 1791 to 1795. Even in the eighteenth century, people considered this so bad a definition it was only in use for four years.
Because the definition of a unit has to be implementable as a measurement, so that it can be used to calibrate scales. A purely theoretical definition may be exact, but it is also completely useless if you can't actually build a scale.
And as we can't count hydrogen atoms, this one doesn't work.
Slashdot Mirror
Computers already experience the world through mice, touchpads, touchscreens, cameras, etc...
Humans use sensory apparatus to experience the world why would it be any different for a computer?
The original claim was that you can just speed up the computer and have it experience a lifetime in a minute. If it experiences the world through a webcam, that is going to be a lifetime spent looking at some guy's face looking left and right every other year.
What kind of insight is that computer supposed to gain from that?
But you still have not explained how a computer "experiences" anything.
We don't really understand how humans experience things, either, but one thing is obvious: Experience come from interacting with our environment. How are you suggesting to speed that up?
I look at that, and I see nothing but copying things others have done better before. What is the point of this? Just being a cheaper version of the same thing we already have? Why would anybody care?
Say what you want about Microsoft and Windows 8, but at least they actually tried building something on their own, instead of directly copying what was popular.
A lifetime of experience to a computer cluster with several thousand cores, and several billion Hz of operational frequency, per core, can be passed in a very short time.
How?
It can also be explained by aubergines and the Fairies at the Bottom of your Garden.
You have no idea what the words "can explain" mean in a scientific context. What you just said is just plain wrong.
The Sun is the most reasonable explanation.
Except that this very study, which was done with actual data by people who actually know things, clearly says it isn't.
You just believe that because you want to, not because there is any evidence for it.
Ah yes, I see: If we just let criminals buy any gun they need legally, we wouldn't have a problem with robberies. This makes perfect sense, because guns are exactly like drugs: They are completely harmless to anybody but their user!
And here I thought people bought guns to protect themselves against crime. I guess there are many things I still don't understand about guns.
Remember, guns are your best protection against crime! But don't you dare tell anyone I have them because they attract crime!
The DOJ basically told them, "don't delete any files that are reported to be DMCA violations."
This is a lie.
They couldn't delete a vanishingly tiny fraction of the infringing files they hosted.
The whole thing is a complete non-issue, which is being pumped up by Dotcom because he knows the internet will eat this stuff up no matter how dishonest it is.
Go ahead and ask, sure, but from the phrasing of the problem it is pretty clear they fishing for the efficient in-place version.
You're using twice the memory you actually need.
On the one hand it seems kind of lazy.
Programming is pretty much Applied Laziness, so that is probably a good thing too.
Remember, if somebody you don't like hasn't actually done anything bad, you can just make something up and accuse them of that!
They are much, much easier.
Maybe if you were born without a nose.
That is many orders of magnitude less exact than the current standard.
Are these people fucking retarded?
Are the world's foremost experts on measuring "fucking retarded"?
Here's a hint: "No."
"Old" is right. This was the standard from 1791 to 1795. Even in the eighteenth century, people considered this so bad a definition it was only in use for four years.
You can not make water pure enough. You can't build a container cubical enough. And you can't account for the weight of your container exactly enough.
This has been suggested, but it is not yet possible to do to the same accuracy as the standard kilogram.
Because the definition of a unit has to be implementable as a measurement, so that it can be used to calibrate scales. A purely theoretical definition may be exact, but it is also completely useless if you can't actually build a scale.
And as we can't count hydrogen atoms, this one doesn't work.
Uh, pretty much everything?
He's in trouble, all right, but the trouble is mostly inside his head.
The practice has been officially banned, but apparently continues nonetheless.
Of course, we're not going to let that stop us from calling it "China's", as if it were some kind of official and mandatory procedure.