Not to mention, it's just a side effect of the male syndrom of giant prime number envy.
Re:Article Text from TFA (oops..with formatting)
on
Digital Life and Evolution
·
· Score: 2, Informative
TESTING DARWIN DISCOV ER, FEBRUARY 2005 (Cover story)If you want to find alien life-forms, hold off on booking that trip to the moons of Saturn. You may only need to catch a plane to East Lansing, Michigan.
The aliens of East Lansing are not made of carbon and water. They have no DNA. Billions of them are quietly colonizing a cluster of 200computers in the basement of the Plant and Soil Sciences building at Michigan State University. To peer into their world, however, you have to walk a few blocks west on Wilson Road to the engineering department and visit the Digital Evolution Laboratory. Here you'll find a crew of computer scientists, biologists, and even a philosopher or two gazing at computer monitors, watching the evolution of bizarre new life-forms.
These are digital organisms-strings of commands-akin to computer viruses. Each organism can produce tens of thousands of copies of itself within a matter of minutes. Unlike computer viruses, however, they are made up of digital bits that can mutate in much the same way DNA mutates. A software program called Avida allows researchers to track the birth, life, and death of generation after generation of the digital organisms by scanning columns of numbers that pour down a computer screen like waterfalls.
After more than a decade of development, Avida's digital organisms are now getting close to fulfilling the definition of biological life. "More and more of the features that biologists have said were necessary for life we can check off," says Robert Pennock, a philosopher at Michigan State and a member of the Avida team. "Does this, does that, does this. Metabolism? Maybe not quite yet, but getting pretty close."
One thing the digital organisms do particularly well is evolve." Avida is not a simulation of evolution; it is an instance of it," Pennock says. "All the core parts of the Darwinian process are there. These things replicate, they mutate, they are competing with one another. The very process of natural selection is happening there. If that's central to the definition of life, then these things count."
It may seem strange to talk about a chunk of computer code in the same way you talk about a cherry tree or a dolphin. But the more biologists think about life, the more compelling the equation becomes. Computer programs and DNA are both sets of instructions. Computer programs tell a computer how to process information, while DNA instructs a cell how to assemble proteins.
The ultimate goal of the instructions in DNA is to make new organisms that contain the same genetic instructions. "You could consider a living organism as nothing more than an information channel, where it's transmitting its genome to its offspring," says Charles Ofria, director of the Digital Evolution Laboratory. "And the information stored in the channel is how to build a new channel." So a computer program that contains instructions for making new copies of itself has taken a significant step toward life.
A cherry tree absorbs raw materials and turns them into useful things. In goes carbon dioxide, water, and nutrients. Out comes wood, cherries, and toxins to ward off insects. A computer program works the same way. Consider a program that adds two numbers. The numbers go in like carbon dioxide and water, and the sum comes out like a cherry tree.
In the late 1990s Ofria's former adviser, physicist Chris Adami of Caltech, set out to create the conditions in which a computer program could evolve the ability to do addition. He created some primitive digital organisms and at regular intervals presented numbers to them. At first they could do nothing. But each time a digital organism replicated, there was a small chance that one of its command lines might mutate. On a rare occasion, these mutations allowed an organism to process one of the numbers in a simple way. An organism might acquire the ability simply to read a number, for example, and then produce an identical output.
TESTING DARWIN
DISCOV ER, FEBRUARY 2005 (Cover story)If you want to find alien life-forms, hold off on booking that trip to the moons of Saturn. You may only need to catch a plane to East Lansing, Michigan.
The aliens of East Lansing are not made of carbon and water. They have no DNA. Billions of them are quietly colonizing a cluster of 200computers in the basement of the Plant and Soil Sciences building at Michigan State University. To peer into their world, however, you have to walk a few blocks west on Wilson Road to the engineering department and visit the Digital Evolution Laboratory. Here you'll find a crew of computer scientists, biologists, and even a philosopher or two gazing at computer monitors, watching the evolution of bizarre new life-forms.
These are digital organisms-strings of commands-akin to computer viruses. Each organism can produce tens of thousands of copies of itself within a matter of minutes. Unlike computer viruses, however, they are made up of digital bits that can mutate in much the same way DNA mutates. A software program called Avida allows researchers to track the birth, life, and death of generation after generation of the digital organisms by scanning columns of numbers that pour down a computer screen like waterfalls.
After more than a decade of development, Avida's digital organisms are now getting close to fulfilling the definition of biological life. "More and more of the features that biologists have said were necessary for life we can check off," says Robert Pennock, a philosopher at Michigan State and a member of the Avida team. "Does this, does that, does this. Metabolism? Maybe not quite yet, but getting pretty close."
One thing the digital organisms do particularly well is evolve." Avida is not a simulation of evolution; it is an instance of it," Pennock says. "All the core parts of the Darwinian process are there. These things replicate, they mutate, they are competing with one another. The very process of natural selection is happening there. If that's central to the definition of life, then these things count."
It may seem strange to talk about a chunk of computer code in the same way you talk about a cherry tree or a dolphin. But the more biologists think about life, the more compelling the equation becomes. Computer programs and DNA are both sets of instructions. Computer programs tell a computer how to process information, while DNA instructs a cell how to assemble proteins.
The ultimate goal of the instructions in DNA is to make new organisms that contain the same genetic instructions. "You could consider a living organism as nothing more than an information channel, where it's transmitting its genome to its offspring," says Charles Ofria, director of the Digital Evolution Laboratory. "And the information stored in the channel is how to build a new channel." So a computer program that contains instructions for making new copies of itself has taken a significant step toward life.
A cherry tree absorbs raw materials and turns them into useful things. In goes carbon dioxide, water, and nutrients. Out comes wood, cherries, and toxins to ward off insects. A computer program works the same way. Consider a program that adds two numbers. The numbers go in like carbon dioxide and water, and the sum comes out like a cherry tree.
In the late 1990s Ofria's former adviser, physicist Chris Adami of Caltech, set out to create the conditions in which a computer program could evolve the ability to do addition. He created some primitive digital organisms and at regular intervals presented numbers to them. At first they could do nothing. But each time a digital organism replicated, there was a small chance that one of its command lines might mutate. On a rare occasion, these mutations allowed an organism to process one of the numbers in a simple way. An organism might acquire the ability simply to read a number, for example, and then produce an identical output.
Adami rewarded the digital organisms by speeding up the time it took them to reproduce. If an organism could read two nu
Um, are you required to write working code by hand in 5 minutes? Or solve impromptu design and/or theory questions on the spot? If so, I feel sorry for you. The interview environment in no way simulates a working environment. Granted you also have many tasks and deadlines to meet, but you have much more time and the flexibility to prioritize. You have resources to consult when you are stuck. You can multitask to other projects when you hit the wall in another. Does your manager stand over your shoulder as you quickly hack out that "top priority" project due tomorrow? No. In fact, you probably throw a bunch of nuts and bolts together to get that thing working, and push it out to meet the deadline, resulting in a sub-par product. Sure, you thrive under pressure because you can meet deadlines. Does that mean you can solve tough problems in much higher scrutinized situations? No. Does it mean you can design and create elegant solutions to complex problems over a long period of time? No. It just means you're good at throwing shit together.
I think of myself as fairly intelligent (doing pretty well in a CS program at one of the top 4 CS schools in the US). However, I don't tend to do as well in technical interviews, in particular ones involving coding sessions. Although the tasks are relatively simple, the pressure of performing just makes it much more daunting. Personally, this is just one of my quips about technical interviews in general. They really don't let you demonstrate your skill set, as the interview environment (high pressure) is very much different from almost all working environments (loose and unconstrained). Just ranting:)
Um, just because you learn 10 more languages doesn't mean the statement doesn't apply to you. That's like a carpenter learning how to use 10 more tools and gadgets, but still not knowing how to efficiently design a sturdy piece of furniture or something. Go ahead, flame away... but I resent your comment as it seems like you're part of the major influx of i-know-100-programming-languages-so-that-makes-me- more-qualified-and-special programmers that the article was referring to.
Hmm which great university was this? UIUC? I don't know about you, but at my school (University of California, Berkeley), those "theory" courses you complained about where merely pre-requisite math courses that one had to take before applying for admission into the CS major. I really don't consider those courses to be theoretical in any sense. The real theory (and what I consider to be the valuable portions of a top-notch CS curriculum) are about efficient algorithms, intractable problems, combinatorics, discrete probability, computability, complexity, etc. A lot of these concepts drive the underlying mechanisms of the technology we all use. Then there are the more "practical" types of theory, such as the theoretical issues surrounding operating systems, compilers & programming languages, databases, graphics, and AI. I know this is already flamebait material, but I find it agonizing to read your comment about how you were a 1500+ SAT National Merit Scholar but couldn't get past the very basic math courses that precede the formal CS education! I myself scored much lower on my SATs, but have been able to succeed with flying colors in the CS curriculum in college. Bottom line is, don't trivialize CS theory as just consisting of (in my opinion) fairly introductory math courses.
Being a second semester 4th year Computer Science student at UC Berkeley, I always cringe at the sight of the mention of the "devaluation" of Computer Science degrees. Without trying to stray from sounding elitism, I think a lot of this hype about the dime-a-dozen "programming" (another term I hate) degrees is due to changing market forces and lower-tiered educational institutions. As technology improves, more and more individuals are empowered to utilize the newer tools to do more powerful things. This makes the ITT/DeVry credited student just as valuable (on a superficial level) to a corporation as a graduate from one of the top 4 CS schools (UC Berkeley, Stanford, CMU, MIT). Personally, I think the best way to distinguish yourself from being a cookie-cutter CS student is to take on the harder things. In the beginning of my curriculum, I too was victim to the phobia of "hard theory" and instead took as many application courses as possible (ie. graphics, databases, AI). Lucky for me, almost all of UC Berkeley's CS courses are heavily theoretical and less about teaching you how to become a Java guru. But looking back, I do regret not having attempted to take the "hardcore" CS courses, especially on CS theory. Ultimately, it is a form of self-improvement, regardless of it's pragmatic value. Plus, it makes you feel good about yourself and sets you apart from your co-workers who know every language under the sun, but don't understand much about the science behind Computer Science.
As hardware capabilities improve, people often forget that software utilization of these resources increases as well. The applications users are interacting with are simply improving at the same rate, and attempt to harness more of the available hardware power. But as applications try to do more, the user won't be able to notice any performance improvements. Rather, they get the luxury of new sets of features that are made possible by these hardware improvements.
WTF is this true? Someone confirm this? This sounds way too far-fetched. I bet half the people on slashdot don't even know about a9, let alone people watching the OC;)
Don't forget A9, which recently added some virtual locality features. I think the fact that it's a subsidiary of another internet behemoth (Amazon.com) gives it some edge as well.
WTF does google have to do with building a $100 PC besides this being good publicity for them? Are they going to install Google Desktop Search on all the PCs or something? Stupid google...always trying to jump on the bandwagon.
Is this new security standard a result of the plot on the TV show "24" of terrorists involves the theft of a remote controlling device that grants the terrorists access to all domestic nuclear power plants?
RTFA. It says ranging from 2 degrees Celsius, up to 11 degrees. I guess it doesn't help when the original submitter is an idiot and can't even get the facts straight. Incompetency on Slashdot. Sigh.
If you've seen Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11", you'll have found out that Oregon's entire coastline is protected at most by about 8, that's eight, state troopers. Interesting how the "Open" Source movement is moving to Oregon. You can say Oregon puts the "O" in Open Source;)
To have your death year, initials, and famous number permanently tied down to a big chunk of ice and rock floating in space, unbeknownst to most people, is a fitting tribute? I guess if by asteroid, they mean the moon, then it could be more "fitting"... otherwise, I personally wouldn't even find such a "tribute" very flattering if it were named after (things associated with) me.
Not cultured, but popular since you stopped watching TV, listening to the radio, reading magazines and newspapers, and surfing the internet (reading slashdot 24/7 doesn't really count:).
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention, it's just a side effect of the male syndrom of giant prime number envy.
TESTING DARWIN DISCOV ER, FEBRUARY 2005 (Cover story)If you want to find alien life-forms, hold off on booking that trip to the moons of Saturn. You may only need to catch a plane to East Lansing, Michigan. The aliens of East Lansing are not made of carbon and water. They have no DNA. Billions of them are quietly colonizing a cluster of 200computers in the basement of the Plant and Soil Sciences building at Michigan State University. To peer into their world, however, you have to walk a few blocks west on Wilson Road to the engineering department and visit the Digital Evolution Laboratory. Here you'll find a crew of computer scientists, biologists, and even a philosopher or two gazing at computer monitors, watching the evolution of bizarre new life-forms. These are digital organisms-strings of commands-akin to computer viruses. Each organism can produce tens of thousands of copies of itself within a matter of minutes. Unlike computer viruses, however, they are made up of digital bits that can mutate in much the same way DNA mutates. A software program called Avida allows researchers to track the birth, life, and death of generation after generation of the digital organisms by scanning columns of numbers that pour down a computer screen like waterfalls. After more than a decade of development, Avida's digital organisms are now getting close to fulfilling the definition of biological life. "More and more of the features that biologists have said were necessary for life we can check off," says Robert Pennock, a philosopher at Michigan State and a member of the Avida team. "Does this, does that, does this. Metabolism? Maybe not quite yet, but getting pretty close." One thing the digital organisms do particularly well is evolve." Avida is not a simulation of evolution; it is an instance of it," Pennock says. "All the core parts of the Darwinian process are there. These things replicate, they mutate, they are competing with one another. The very process of natural selection is happening there. If that's central to the definition of life, then these things count." It may seem strange to talk about a chunk of computer code in the same way you talk about a cherry tree or a dolphin. But the more biologists think about life, the more compelling the equation becomes. Computer programs and DNA are both sets of instructions. Computer programs tell a computer how to process information, while DNA instructs a cell how to assemble proteins. The ultimate goal of the instructions in DNA is to make new organisms that contain the same genetic instructions. "You could consider a living organism as nothing more than an information channel, where it's transmitting its genome to its offspring," says Charles Ofria, director of the Digital Evolution Laboratory. "And the information stored in the channel is how to build a new channel." So a computer program that contains instructions for making new copies of itself has taken a significant step toward life. A cherry tree absorbs raw materials and turns them into useful things. In goes carbon dioxide, water, and nutrients. Out comes wood, cherries, and toxins to ward off insects. A computer program works the same way. Consider a program that adds two numbers. The numbers go in like carbon dioxide and water, and the sum comes out like a cherry tree. In the late 1990s Ofria's former adviser, physicist Chris Adami of Caltech, set out to create the conditions in which a computer program could evolve the ability to do addition. He created some primitive digital organisms and at regular intervals presented numbers to them. At first they could do nothing. But each time a digital organism replicated, there was a small chance that one of its command lines might mutate. On a rare occasion, these mutations allowed an organism to process one of the numbers in a simple way. An organism might acquire the ability simply to read a number, for example, and then produce an identical output. Adami rewarded the digital organisms by speeding up the time it took them to reproduce. If an organism could read two nu
Um, are you required to write working code by hand in 5 minutes? Or solve impromptu design and/or theory questions on the spot? If so, I feel sorry for you. The interview environment in no way simulates a working environment. Granted you also have many tasks and deadlines to meet, but you have much more time and the flexibility to prioritize. You have resources to consult when you are stuck. You can multitask to other projects when you hit the wall in another. Does your manager stand over your shoulder as you quickly hack out that "top priority" project due tomorrow? No. In fact, you probably throw a bunch of nuts and bolts together to get that thing working, and push it out to meet the deadline, resulting in a sub-par product. Sure, you thrive under pressure because you can meet deadlines. Does that mean you can solve tough problems in much higher scrutinized situations? No. Does it mean you can design and create elegant solutions to complex problems over a long period of time? No. It just means you're good at throwing shit together.
Lesson One: How to Develop Games in Tortuous Working Environments and Not Complain One Bit
I think of myself as fairly intelligent (doing pretty well in a CS program at one of the top 4 CS schools in the US). However, I don't tend to do as well in technical interviews, in particular ones involving coding sessions. Although the tasks are relatively simple, the pressure of performing just makes it much more daunting. Personally, this is just one of my quips about technical interviews in general. They really don't let you demonstrate your skill set, as the interview environment (high pressure) is very much different from almost all working environments (loose and unconstrained). Just ranting :)
Um, just because you learn 10 more languages doesn't mean the statement doesn't apply to you. That's like a carpenter learning how to use 10 more tools and gadgets, but still not knowing how to efficiently design a sturdy piece of furniture or something. Go ahead, flame away... but I resent your comment as it seems like you're part of the major influx of i-know-100-programming-languages-so-that-makes-me- more-qualified-and-special programmers that the article was referring to.
Hmm which great university was this? UIUC? I don't know about you, but at my school (University of California, Berkeley), those "theory" courses you complained about where merely pre-requisite math courses that one had to take before applying for admission into the CS major. I really don't consider those courses to be theoretical in any sense. The real theory (and what I consider to be the valuable portions of a top-notch CS curriculum) are about efficient algorithms, intractable problems, combinatorics, discrete probability, computability, complexity, etc. A lot of these concepts drive the underlying mechanisms of the technology we all use. Then there are the more "practical" types of theory, such as the theoretical issues surrounding operating systems, compilers & programming languages, databases, graphics, and AI. I know this is already flamebait material, but I find it agonizing to read your comment about how you were a 1500+ SAT National Merit Scholar but couldn't get past the very basic math courses that precede the formal CS education! I myself scored much lower on my SATs, but have been able to succeed with flying colors in the CS curriculum in college. Bottom line is, don't trivialize CS theory as just consisting of (in my opinion) fairly introductory math courses.
Being a second semester 4th year Computer Science student at UC Berkeley, I always cringe at the sight of the mention of the "devaluation" of Computer Science degrees. Without trying to stray from sounding elitism, I think a lot of this hype about the dime-a-dozen "programming" (another term I hate) degrees is due to changing market forces and lower-tiered educational institutions. As technology improves, more and more individuals are empowered to utilize the newer tools to do more powerful things. This makes the ITT/DeVry credited student just as valuable (on a superficial level) to a corporation as a graduate from one of the top 4 CS schools (UC Berkeley, Stanford, CMU, MIT). Personally, I think the best way to distinguish yourself from being a cookie-cutter CS student is to take on the harder things. In the beginning of my curriculum, I too was victim to the phobia of "hard theory" and instead took as many application courses as possible (ie. graphics, databases, AI). Lucky for me, almost all of UC Berkeley's CS courses are heavily theoretical and less about teaching you how to become a Java guru. But looking back, I do regret not having attempted to take the "hardcore" CS courses, especially on CS theory. Ultimately, it is a form of self-improvement, regardless of it's pragmatic value. Plus, it makes you feel good about yourself and sets you apart from your co-workers who know every language under the sun, but don't understand much about the science behind Computer Science.
Also might be good for those users that have a cellphone next to their brain 24/7. Although the risks are "undetermined," better safe than sorry :)
As hardware capabilities improve, people often forget that software utilization of these resources increases as well. The applications users are interacting with are simply improving at the same rate, and attempt to harness more of the available hardware power. But as applications try to do more, the user won't be able to notice any performance improvements. Rather, they get the luxury of new sets of features that are made possible by these hardware improvements.
At long last I will track down, hunt, and kill my arch nemesis, Polish Sausage!
If I were Bill Gates I'd shell out some money for that stuff.
WTF is this true? Someone confirm this? This sounds way too far-fetched. I bet half the people on slashdot don't even know about a9, let alone people watching the OC ;)
Don't forget A9, which recently added some virtual locality features. I think the fact that it's a subsidiary of another internet behemoth (Amazon.com) gives it some edge as well.
WTF does google have to do with building a $100 PC besides this being good publicity for them? Are they going to install Google Desktop Search on all the PCs or something? Stupid google...always trying to jump on the bandwagon.
Why not just buy a Segway? It looks so much cooler :)
Four, you insensitive clod!
Is this new security standard a result of the plot on the TV show "24" of terrorists involves the theft of a remote controlling device that grants the terrorists access to all domestic nuclear power plants?
RTFA. It says ranging from 2 degrees Celsius, up to 11 degrees. I guess it doesn't help when the original submitter is an idiot and can't even get the facts straight. Incompetency on Slashdot. Sigh.
If you've seen Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11", you'll have found out that Oregon's entire coastline is protected at most by about 8, that's eight, state troopers. Interesting how the "Open" Source movement is moving to Oregon. You can say Oregon puts the "O" in Open Source ;)
Hahaha...the grandparent's attempt at a smart-ass remark sure wasn't run through the idiot-checker :)
To have your death year, initials, and famous number permanently tied down to a big chunk of ice and rock floating in space, unbeknownst to most people, is a fitting tribute? I guess if by asteroid, they mean the moon, then it could be more "fitting"... otherwise, I personally wouldn't even find such a "tribute" very flattering if it were named after (things associated with) me.
Not cultured, but popular since you stopped watching TV, listening to the radio, reading magazines and newspapers, and surfing the internet (reading slashdot 24/7 doesn't really count :).
For the pop-culture-impaired, my comment was a reference to a line from Eminem's song "My Name Is" :)