So, lets see. We have an organ, arguably the most critical organ in the male part of the species. Problem: it requires a temperature a couple of degrees cooler than core in order to function.
Option 1: Rework the design so it can function a couple of degrees warmer. Encase it safely (like the heart).
Option 2: Create a simple cooling system within the core whereby the organ, safely ensconced, can function properly.
Option 3: Stick the critical organ in a sack on the outside with a bunch of pain receptors.
Thanks, Darwin!
At the very least, we know the brain obeys the laws of physics. A computer can simulate the laws of physics. Therefore, a computer can simulate the brain.
A computer can estimate the progression of physical systems, but cannot solve for all but a trifling few. (think three body problem). In some cases, we can estimate to an arbitrary degree of closeness, but in many cases we cannot (or at least cannot know that we are). This is the norm for complicated differential equations. An estimate which seems to be arbitrarily close to a solution might in fact be very far away. And these inaccuracies can compound and cascade in a massively parallel system like the brain.
Until we know more about just what aspects of the brain are relevant for the mind, we will have no idea of how limited the prospects are for a computer simulation. The problem may not be one of computing resources, but of fundamental limitations in the mathematics of computation.
If Lomax is a typical engineer (i.e., logical smartass), he could very well be referring to himself when saying "It was reassuring to know the person who had fixed it was still on the aeroplane".
Twenty or twenty-five years ago, I would've been excited for a vector-based CGI feature film.
(The smoothness of vector graphics motion was unparalleled. I loved my Vectrex!)
The trust issue comes into play (at least for me) much more with sites offering free software. I might just be tempted to install some free widget from an ugly site that looks like its maintained on the cheap by some benevolent soul, but I'll run for the hills if some slick site offers me "free" software. What's paying for the site design, if not spyware, etc.?
I find it distracting to hear sounds behind me (any form of surround) when the picture is in a two dimensional field in front of me.
The problem is that you're still using a mono video system. That's all well and good if it's well placed and you you never turn your head. But most people in real life turn their heads, and that's where 5 or 6 monitor surround video really shines (so long as it's properly installed).
Remember about seven years back when prices for long distance service crashed? Everyone, AT&T included, started offering all kinds of new plans that saved people 50-90% on their bills. But what didn't drop for years was the standard rates that Grandma still payed because she never called an 800 number. It's deja vu all over again.
I think it's fair to assume that the vast majority of the bacteria of human origin on a typical keyboard belongs to one or two primary users. This is not risky at all for these users, and not even so risky for the occasional guest user. Public facilities, including such things as your typical building doorknob, may contain pathogens from thousands of different people. While quantity of bacteria obviously is relevant as a factor in chance of disease transmission, it is dwarfed in importance by diversity.
From TFA:
"In humans, consciousness is basically a state in which the behavior of the self and another is understood," said Takeno.
Umm, no. There are plenty of disagreements over the nature of consciousness, but this is just sillyness that not even a hard core analytic functionalist should care to defend. A good intro to the subject can be found in the (excellent) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanfod Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The main reason that cane sugar is so expensive in the US has nothing to do with the Cuba embargo, and everything to do with American sugar beet farmers who have one of the sweetest (pun intended) farm subsidy/tarrif deals. Imported cane sugar (mostly from the Carribean) is taxed heavily, which is why prices are so high. In fact, much granulated sugar in the supermarket is beet sugar, not cane sugar. The taste is different, if you pay attention. If it doesn't say "pure cane sugar" it's probably beet-derived.
Even without public funding, the government is still squarely involved the equation.
If I set up my own private unaccredited dental school, my students would not be free to perform dental surgery and prescribe medication. The big bad guvmit would throw their asses in jail if they tried. It doesn't matter whether they are working on fully informed and consenting patients. That monopoly of force, as you call it, has its mitts deep into the dentistry game. There is no free market.
Through accreditation, the government has some control over who gets to practice dentistry. Even if there is an independent accreditation board, the government still chooses to recognize it.
What's the upshot of this for free speech at dental schools? It's not clear. But we should be aware that the governement, in effect, grants a limited number of licenses. And when it comes to governemt granting of licenses, there are obvious reasons for being vigilent about free speech issues.
Slashdot Mirror
Here ya go: 10 POKE 53281,2 Voila! Verizon IPhone!
Option 1: Rework the design so it can function a couple of degrees warmer. Encase it safely (like the heart).
Option 2: Create a simple cooling system within the core whereby the organ, safely ensconced, can function properly.
Option 3: Stick the critical organ in a sack on the outside with a bunch of pain receptors. Thanks, Darwin!
You can visit him in C-Cell.
At the very least, we know the brain obeys the laws of physics. A computer can simulate the laws of physics. Therefore, a computer can simulate the brain.
A computer can estimate the progression of physical systems, but cannot solve for all but a trifling few. (think three body problem). In some cases, we can estimate to an arbitrary degree of closeness, but in many cases we cannot (or at least cannot know that we are). This is the norm for complicated differential equations. An estimate which seems to be arbitrarily close to a solution might in fact be very far away. And these inaccuracies can compound and cascade in a massively parallel system like the brain.
Until we know more about just what aspects of the brain are relevant for the mind, we will have no idea of how limited the prospects are for a computer simulation. The problem may not be one of computing resources, but of fundamental limitations in the mathematics of computation.
Now THIS is something that can threaten marriage. There's a natural harmony between declining sight and declining sights.
If Lomax is a typical engineer (i.e., logical smartass), he could very well be referring to himself when saying "It was reassuring to know the person who had fixed it was still on the aeroplane".
Twenty or twenty-five years ago, I would've been excited for a vector-based CGI feature film. (The smoothness of vector graphics motion was unparalleled. I loved my Vectrex!)
That's because ~362x faster than effectively forever is still effectively forever.
That's not your neighbor anymore. Just another stinkin' zombie.
I take off my wizard hat.
Perhaps you were listening to one of NPR's excellent reports on the environmental costs of electronics "recycling". You can read or listen here
So does the happy ending cost extra?
The trust issue comes into play (at least for me) much more with sites offering free software. I might just be tempted to install some free widget from an ugly site that looks like its maintained on the cheap by some benevolent soul, but I'll run for the hills if some slick site offers me "free" software. What's paying for the site design, if not spyware, etc.?
As of next month, operations will be handled in Nigeria.
The problem is that you're still using a mono video system. That's all well and good if it's well placed and you you never turn your head. But most people in real life turn their heads, and that's where 5 or 6 monitor surround video really shines (so long as it's properly installed).
where'll they put the fan? Wait, I don't want to know.
Remember about seven years back when prices for long distance service crashed? Everyone, AT&T included, started offering all kinds of new plans that saved people 50-90% on their bills. But what didn't drop for years was the standard rates that Grandma still payed because she never called an 800 number. It's deja vu all over again.
New Motto: Do as little evil as can be expected.
I think it's fair to assume that the vast majority of the bacteria of human origin on a typical keyboard belongs to one or two primary users. This is not risky at all for these users, and not even so risky for the occasional guest user. Public facilities, including such things as your typical building doorknob, may contain pathogens from thousands of different people. While quantity of bacteria obviously is relevant as a factor in chance of disease transmission, it is dwarfed in importance by diversity.
The phrase "almost, but not quite, entirely redundant" is itself almost, but not quite, entirely redundant.
Umm, no. There are plenty of disagreements over the nature of consciousness, but this is just sillyness that not even a hard core analytic functionalist should care to defend. A good intro to the subject can be found in the (excellent) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanfod Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The main reason that cane sugar is so expensive in the US has nothing to do with the Cuba embargo, and everything to do with American sugar beet farmers who have one of the sweetest (pun intended) farm subsidy/tarrif deals. Imported cane sugar (mostly from the Carribean) is taxed heavily, which is why prices are so high. In fact, much granulated sugar in the supermarket is beet sugar, not cane sugar. The taste is different, if you pay attention. If it doesn't say "pure cane sugar" it's probably beet-derived.
Toss him into a lake of fire for eternity. But what's your point?
If I set up my own private unaccredited dental school, my students would not be free to perform dental surgery and prescribe medication. The big bad guvmit would throw their asses in jail if they tried. It doesn't matter whether they are working on fully informed and consenting patients. That monopoly of force, as you call it, has its mitts deep into the dentistry game. There is no free market.
Through accreditation, the government has some control over who gets to practice dentistry. Even if there is an independent accreditation board, the government still chooses to recognize it.
What's the upshot of this for free speech at dental schools? It's not clear. But we should be aware that the governement, in effect, grants a limited number of licenses. And when it comes to governemt granting of licenses, there are obvious reasons for being vigilent about free speech issues.
I wonder now the New lan was wrong loo.