Actually most of what was very good in the alpha chip went to AMD and their Athlon64 chip. For a while they were even pin-compatible. Now Intel has the upper hand again, with no up and coming competitor on the horizon, except maybe IBM/POWER one day.
Simulation is hard, you know. What level of detail is necessary ? we are not absolutely sure how a neuron really works, much less a collection of them. Some people think quantum phenomena are involved in some brain functions. This is at least possible. Do we need to simulate them too? That is a problem because quantum phenomena are very hard to simulate on computer. Indeed, if they were easy, we would not need quantum computation to solve some problems like factorization efficiently.
In fact the level of ignorance we have in the way intelligence works is simply staggering.
If you are going down that way, you might want to add that the women were asked to come out the home to participate to the industrial war effort in both world wars.
4% women engineers is not normal. I know, I married one, she dropped out of the profession not because of lack of capability or interest, but because of the lack of respect.
On the contrary, I think many people would have downloaded the album just to try it for free, precisely because it is a famous band and they are not short of cash. But most people seemed to have liked it and actually paid for it *a fair price*.
OK, RH is a company, so what ? Their product is 99.9% open-source except for their trademark and logos (witness CentOS), they make a very good, stable distro. People trust them with good reason, they contribute a lot of software (esp. the Kernel), they are the poster child of Linux success. If not for RH (and SuSE, Novell, etc), most datacenters would not be running Solaris or HPUX, but Windows Servers, and Microsoft would be a whole lot more obnoxious now that it ever has been.
No entity is ever perfect, but RH are the good guys in this story I think.
Compare the referred author picture of NGC 6888 here to a professional job there. The former is still very impressive for an amateur, indeed this is the verbatim comment from the IAC site (where the professional picture was taken):
NGC 6888 is out of the reach of an amateur telescope. The nebula can only be observed in deep images. Large telescopes like the 2.5-m Isaac Newton Telescope on La Palma and narrow-band filters are needed to image the intricate structure of the gas shells.
They can indeed be compared to HST pictures, as in, they are not as good.
They are pretty, an impressive achievement for an amateur using a 8" telescope, an inspiration to many, but the pictures not as detailed or scientifically interesting.
The center of vision is called that way because this is where the highest concentration of vision cells (called cones) are located on the retina. If he has a hole in that portion of the retina, moving the retina around in his eyes would not help much, if at all. It just means most of his vision cells are simply shot.
In addition what counts is the connectivity of these cells to the vision center of the brain, which his all the way in the back of the head. Simply adding more cells there would do nothing. One would have to also grow the very long axon that goes to the right place in the brain. Then he would have to learn how to use these cells, because vision is not simply acquired, it is learned. A new baby has a fully functional vision system, but they can't see anything at birth. They learn how to use their vision system little by little.
Simply said what you propose is far beyond what the medical art can do today.
In Einstein's GRT, Gravity emerges from space-time curvature. In fact the first thought experiment in the classic book "Gravitation" by Misner et al. is to consider the trajectory of a tennis ball, a bullet and a laser ray on Earth, and to find out that in space-time all three have the same curvature. Particles follow world lines and the force of gravity is an illusion. In The Fine Paper, gravity arises from the holographic principle, but reading it (admitedly very quickly), I'm not sure what difference it makes.
The ArXiV paper is verbose and low on technical details. I guess we'll have to wait for the full refereed paper and see if any useful prediction can be made from the new theory.
At best De Pretto might have a case at claiming a subset of special relativity. However General Relativity, which is Einstein's masterpiece, is a completely different ballgame. No one but Einstein understood GR when he proposed it, not even David Hilbert.
You have to look a little more long-term. Jobs co-started Apple, which truly was the original personal computer company back in the 70s through to the mid-80s, when IBM started the IBM-PC and Microsoft had MS-DOS. After Jobs was fired Apple went into a death spiral. When Jobs came back in the late 90s he rescued the company from the very brink of collapse.
So if you use any kind of personal computer today, more than a little is due to Jobs.
On the other hand, Page and Brin invented pagerank and realized that the path to money on the Internet was micro-advertising. They did good but other search engines existed before them and more are invented every week. They merely perfected it and found the way to make money out of it, which allowed them to stamp out competition. Good for them, but the internet would not be that different without their contribution. Someone else would have filled their shoes quite happily.
Let $L(x)$ be the life of subject $x$ (e.g. yours). Let $\|L_x\|_s$ the well known-suckiness measure of $L(x)$, with $\|.\|_s = f(\mbox{spouse}, \mbox{children}, \mbox{health},\mbox{job},\mbox{acts of God},...)$.
We denote $L_0(x)$ the life of $x$ with $\mbox{acts of God} = 0$, and $L_1(x)$ the life of $x$ with $\mbox{acts of god} > 0$.
Property 1: $\|.\|_s$ is symmetric positive definite, like all measures.
Actually now we have reliable and safe in-utero genetic and physical tests, combined with legal and safe abortion, so the incidence of Down syndrome, spina bifida etc is lower than ever in Western societies, except perhaps bigoted locales where abortion is not legal. I personally know several couples who aborted for these reasons.
In addition people with (say) Down syndrome who are actually born may contribute their "faulty" gene only if they do reproduce. Now we have safe and effective, long-term contraceptives.
Also it happens that quite often in spite of their genetic "defects" Down syndrome children are still loved by their parents and siblings. In the name of what irrational dogma are you going to put down someone like that who is doing no harm ?
Further everybody has genetic defects, you do too (that is quite obvious in fact given how callous you sound). Shall we put you down now because you might come down with some form of disease one day ? Even I would not advocate it.
Slashdot Mirror
ZFS will probably have to be reimplemented somehow to go on Linux. We'll have to wait for ext5 or 6 to get a reasonable subset of ZFS feature list.
Actually most of what was very good in the alpha chip went to AMD and their Athlon64 chip. For a while they were even pin-compatible. Now Intel has the upper hand again, with no up and coming competitor on the horizon, except maybe IBM/POWER one day.
Normal brain weight in people vary by a factor of 3 or more. There is no evidence that brain weight or number of neurons is linked to intelligence.
I'm not so convinced.
Simulation is hard, you know. What level of detail is necessary ? we are not absolutely sure how a neuron really works, much less a collection of them. Some people think quantum phenomena are involved in some brain functions. This is at least possible. Do we need to simulate them too? That is a problem because quantum phenomena are very hard to simulate on computer. Indeed, if they were easy, we would not need quantum computation to solve some problems like factorization efficiently.
In fact the level of ignorance we have in the way intelligence works is simply staggering.
If you are going down that way, you might want to add that the women were asked to come out the home to participate to the industrial war effort in both world wars.
So, the *men* chose this path, right ?
Awesome reply. Thanks.
Or the IEEE WIE.
4% women engineers is not normal. I know, I married one, she dropped out of the profession not because of lack of capability or interest, but because of the lack of respect.
Well, except for number theorists of course.
On the contrary, I think many people would have downloaded the album just to try it for free, precisely because it is a famous band and they are not short of cash. But most people seemed to have liked it and actually paid for it *a fair price*.
Yes, any company with enough (monetary) clout. Choose the fortune 500 that you prefer for this ?
OK, RH is a company, so what ? Their product is 99.9% open-source except for their trademark and logos (witness CentOS), they make a very good, stable distro. People trust them with good reason, they contribute a lot of software (esp. the Kernel), they are the poster child of Linux success. If not for RH (and SuSE, Novell, etc), most datacenters would not be running Solaris or HPUX, but Windows Servers, and Microsoft would be a whole lot more obnoxious now that it ever has been.
No entity is ever perfect, but RH are the good guys in this story I think.
Sorry for duplicated post
Compare the referred author picture of NGC 6888 here to a professional job there. The former is still very impressive for an amateur, indeed this is the verbatim comment from the IAC site (where the professional picture was taken):
They can indeed be compared to HST pictures, as in, they are not as good.
They are pretty, an impressive achievement for an amateur using a 8" telescope, an inspiration to many, but the pictures not as detailed or scientifically interesting.
The center of vision is called that way because this is where the highest concentration of vision cells (called cones) are located on the retina. If he has a hole in that portion of the retina, moving the retina around in his eyes would not help much, if at all. It just means most of his vision cells are simply shot.
In addition what counts is the connectivity of these cells to the vision center of the brain, which his all the way in the back of the head. Simply adding more cells there would do nothing. One would have to also grow the very long axon that goes to the right place in the brain. Then he would have to learn how to use these cells, because vision is not simply acquired, it is learned. A new baby has a fully functional vision system, but they can't see anything at birth. They learn how to use their vision system little by little.
Simply said what you propose is far beyond what the medical art can do today.
Since when did quality of patent matter ? The significant numbers of patent trolls out there is proof enough that it doesn't much.
In Einstein's GRT, Gravity emerges from space-time curvature. In fact the first thought experiment in the classic book "Gravitation" by Misner et al. is to consider the trajectory of a tennis ball, a bullet and a laser ray on Earth, and to find out that in space-time all three have the same curvature. Particles follow world lines and the force of gravity is an illusion. In The Fine Paper, gravity arises from the holographic principle, but reading it (admitedly very quickly), I'm not sure what difference it makes.
The ArXiV paper is verbose and low on technical details. I guess we'll have to wait for the full refereed paper and see if any useful prediction can be made from the new theory.
Sorry, that is an over-broad statement. I can think of plenty of counterexamples.
Please try to keep up, even the very lower end of Apple laptops, and even the Air have had reasonable discrete GPUs for a while now.
At best De Pretto might have a case at claiming a subset of special relativity. However General Relativity, which is Einstein's masterpiece, is a completely different ballgame. No one but Einstein understood GR when he proposed it, not even David Hilbert.
Tell iTunes in the preferences that you want to manage your music manually, and you can drag-and-drop.
You have to look a little more long-term. Jobs co-started Apple, which truly was the original personal computer company back in the 70s through to the mid-80s, when IBM started the IBM-PC and Microsoft had MS-DOS. After Jobs was fired Apple went into a death spiral. When Jobs came back in the late 90s he rescued the company from the very brink of collapse.
So if you use any kind of personal computer today, more than a little is due to Jobs.
On the other hand, Page and Brin invented pagerank and realized that the path to money on the Internet was micro-advertising. They did good but other search engines existed before them and more are invented every week. They merely perfected it and found the way to make money out of it, which allowed them to stamp out competition. Good for them, but the internet would not be that different without their contribution. Someone else would have filled their shoes quite happily.
Nothing is wrong with pornography ; however political information is sensitive and should be controlled, obviously.
The Chinese government is breeding a resistance movement, I do not think it can work, but if it does this is very bad news for everybody.
Definitions:
Let $L(x)$ be the life of subject $x$ (e.g. yours). Let $\|L_x\|_s$ the well known-suckiness measure of $L(x)$, with $\|.\|_s = f(\mbox{spouse}, \mbox{children}, \mbox{health},\mbox{job},\mbox{acts of God}, ...)$.
We denote $L_0(x)$ the life of $x$ with $\mbox{acts of God} = 0$, and $L_1(x)$ the life of $x$ with $\mbox{acts of god} > 0$.
Property 1: $\|.\|_s$ is symmetric positive definite, like all measures.
Theorem 1: $\|L_0(x)\|_s \leq \|L_1(x)\|_s$.
Proof: obvious due to property 1.
The plural of anecdotes is not data.
A new species, the Nazi Eugenist Troll,
Actually now we have reliable and safe in-utero genetic and physical tests, combined with legal and safe abortion, so the incidence of Down syndrome, spina bifida etc is lower than ever in Western societies, except perhaps bigoted locales where abortion is not legal. I personally know several couples who aborted for these reasons.
In addition people with (say) Down syndrome who are actually born may contribute their "faulty" gene only if they do reproduce. Now we have safe and effective, long-term contraceptives.
Also it happens that quite often in spite of their genetic "defects" Down syndrome children are still loved by their parents and siblings. In the name of what irrational dogma are you going to put down someone like that who is doing no harm ?
Further everybody has genetic defects, you do too (that is quite obvious in fact given how callous you sound). Shall we put you down now because you might come down with some form of disease one day ? Even I would not advocate it.
Eugenics is a very slippery road.