The figures are from my own project, they are estimates but based on a lot of work and research. As this is a private project there are no external citations, and precise complete data will not be published until at least several years after a working machine exists. As a private invention Strong AI has 'considerable' financial value - but only once - and if a prototype machine is working..
Only trouble with aliens. - If an alien turns up that has FTL technology, nuclear bombs and missiles are not likely to be any more effective than wooden bows and arrows, or thrown rocks.
There's already hundreds of millions or billions of tons of U238 in the natural environment - where do you think it all came from? About 4 billion tons of uranium in the oceans alone..
Its been called Strong AI for decades (at least since 1985) - to distinguish it from the more common 'weak' AI. I work in the field and I would put my project at about 10 to 15 years from being able to create a working machine. If I/we had the same kind of money and resources as IBM that could be reduced to about 1 to 4 years.. The secret to Strong AI isn't complex - in fact computer scientists discovered it decades ago, but the fastest computers in the world back then didn't have anywhere near the processing power or memory needed - so they decided it was impossible and abandoned it.. Today its totally different - 10 GB of online memory, 30 GB of backup memory, about 8 to 10 custom CPU's each with a throughput of about 2,000 10,000 MIPS. If you could cool it and power it the machine would pretty much fit inside a human skull.. That might not seem like a lot of processing power but its all about efficiency not power..
AI is just as much a threat as rogue unicorns. And about as likely to be encountered
Given that one of the first tasks that will be given to 'superhuman' Strong AI is going to be reverse engineering the whole of genetics - you just might be right.
Creating the first unicorn actually looks pretty trivial compared to creating a Strong AI.. - All you have to do basically is take the sequence 'horse' and add a bit of 'narwhale' and a with little tinkering to get it right, we can even add rainbow colours..:D
That's actually the key to creating the Terminator. Islamic terrorist hacker "Hey the idiots left a back door! Lets set 'Do not kill humans' to 'Exterminate all Infidels!' (non-Muslims) ". Second hacker, "And 'Death to America!' "
I never actually said I was - but its not very hard to be in front of people who wonder aimlessly round in circles. The truth is that everyone was told decades ago and very firmly that it was impossible so very few are even working on the problem.
I cant really comment much further because it is commercially sensitive. However I can say that if you solve the basic problem of consciousness the problem of how intelligence works becomes relatively simple.. By the way, most of it was solved in traditional AI science decades ago. The core was solved in the 1940's/30's by Alan Turing, or earlier..
At the core of why current designs fail... Well the basic truth is that current hardware and software are simply not designed to run Strong AI. There are several big issues with current hardware, my current design is built on custom CPU's built on FPGA chips and written in Verilog - this looks like it will work, but building it will be immensely complicated.
That's why the Chinese government are so afraid of North Korea. They are afraid the government collapsing there could be a huge spark to trigger unrest or a collapse in China itself. That's also why they've been so careful in how they handled the recent protests in Hong Kong.
We have to remember the reason they gave for ending the original NASA manned Mars program. - To end the threat of scientific and technological progress.
The 'real' GOP are the kind of people who burn a telephone after using it because its the 'devils box'.
Ur Maybe the whole problem is that buggy whips are somewhat simpler than manned rockets. And of course people still make buggy whips, its just that the market is a lot smaller than it was (10,000 x smaller ?)
In case anyone missed it the Orion capsule recently underwent a test which is basically the main one required for manned certification. Of course you would need a capsule ready before you could launch it - and actually building a new capsule takes about something like 1 to 2 years...
I like the word 'planned'. A shuttle replacement did exist but was cancelled by George W Bush.. Each new president likes to cancel the projects of the previous administration and create their own new ones - that is where all the money goes...
I've been working in the field (of Strong AI) for over twenty years and I still cant exactly entirely answer the question about emotions. The machine I'm working on will use emotions - or a rough facsimile of emotions. Are they necessary for intelligence? - I don't know, but I do know that they make the whole design a lot simpler and more logical. Besides these machines will have to work with humans - they will have to understand emotions to understand us..
As for the other question yes the data does lean heavily in favour of the subliminal solution.. but . . . from the perspective of Strong AI and brain development the actual evidence is still ~ equivocal. The psychic model is obviously incorrect, but when tested with certain filters designed for Strong AI it doesn't entirely reduce to zero - at least not yet. One part of the model I am working on is a thing called a 'quantum totality matrix' and this may one day allow an experiment that answers the question definitively.
I assumed always that our self-preservation came about because we have consciousness.
That seems very unlikely. This would imply that creatures that don't have consciousness lack the instinct for self-preservation. . ..
There is a problem with that argument - namely that it is possible to make an argument that even the most basic creatures - single cells - show hints of both the most basic awareness and survival instinct.. Plants for instance have extremely strong survival instincts, they don't show an organised centralised self awareness like animals do, but do react to their environment and do everything they can to survive.. (within their genetic programming)
Why do you think that self-awareness implies "feelings"? Emotions seem also to be the result of survival imperatives: love and affection serve to encourage procreation and protection of offspring, and binds us into mutually-supporting communities of various sizes; anger and hate are important responses to dissuade non-cooperation in said communities; fear and pain serve to help us to protect ourselves; and so on. For any emotion you can name, evolutionary pressures explain it. Of course the fact that an explanation can be found doesn't mean the explanation is correct, but in order for one idea to explain so much, that idea must have extraordinary "reach"... which also exposes the idea to correspondingly many opportunities for falsification. This gives us strong reason to believe it.
And, again, AIs developed by non-competitive processes have no reason to develop these various emotions... though it could empirically derive the dynamics which drove their development, and therefore logically choose to act as though it did have them. . ..
Philosophy - 'Emotions are illogical, rules are logical.'
Philosophy (as always) is wrong. Emotions are totally logical - you merely have to understand them - emotions are the heart of the human and animal behaviour control system. A Strong AI can have emotions, either created by internal evolution or directly by its designers. The Strong AI needs a 'motivator' - and emotions by definition are a great motivator. The problem comes when the machine tries to read human emotions - or when the human tries to read the machines emotions.. That will certainly be an interesting time... and we may learn a lot.. The traditional answer is that the emotions are read through some form of 'psychic aura', the current scientific answer is that they are conveyed through subliminal signals - posture, expression, pheromones, voice tension, eye signals. As a reductionist my answer is : insufficient data either way..
[14-01-14] - tegmark@mit.edu - ‘Future of Life’ organization
Re : Open Letter - The Future and Safety of AI (Strong AI)
Dear Sirs, I am a scientific outsider and I work in Strong AI rather than weak AI. The project I am working on is easily capable of achieving a working consciousness centred Strong AI within ten years. I agree with the general ethos of strong safety in AI in the letter but I feel that as it stands I cannot sign it. It is simply not written with any understanding of the Strong AI (consciousness centred) field and as it stands your safety protocols seem to me to be a blueprint for actually creating a disaster very like the ‘Skynet system’ in the Terminator movies.
As soon as you start to deal with the problems of consciousness centred AI a number of crucial facts become clear. - The machine is based directly on the algorithm of human and animal sentience, and once understood this shows that the machine requires a moral context for itself. The same algorithm also offers a powerful mechanism for fully reverse engineering the animal and human brain, and this has many consequences both good and bad, some that probably extend far beyond even Strong AI itself.
Strong AI. - A consciousness is by definition uncontrollable, somewhat unstable, and quite unpredictable. Consciousness requires a very heavy control system, and in a consciousness centred design every action the consciousness makes is guided by this control. In the human system at its core are our instincts and reflexes and emotions and what we call the ‘subconscious’ and these are our control system. In the machine mind these are replicated though with a design that the designer controls entirely. For this reason conscious centred designs are much safer than non-conscious centred designs.
To me weak AI is more dangerous than Strong AI. Any sufficiently complex machine without consciousness could at some point develop it spontaneously. The real problem here is that the consciousness core would not be controlled, it would not be designed - 99 times out of 100 it would destroy itself within seconds but if it didn’t it could very easily become very unpredictable and dangerous.
Problematic features of Strong AI -
- Some parts of human sentience are very hard to replicate, emotional interaction and intuition and real time speech interaction particularly. The human brain solves these problems using quantum mechanics. - A self-aware Strong AI must have a survival instinct and a ‘kill’ function to function as a fully balanced mind. This does not represent danger but means that such machines should be treated with respect.. - Consciousness is inherently unpredictable, the machine replicates this. [commercially sensitive]
- Safety. It is a basic fact that Strong AI’s will kill people - the main dangers identified are:-
1. System incompetence or stupidity,
2. System failure or hardware failure,
3. Electronic intrusion or hacking,
4. Mental Indoctrination to break the machines safety protocols. The aim should be to always achieve better safety margins than we have pre-AI. The safety issue for Strong AI is to solve all these and other problems.
- Strong AI is inherently ‘dual use’ having both peaceful and non-peaceful applications..
- It is imperative to make the illicit use of Strong AI machines as weapons impossible.
- The use as a military or police weapon ? this is up to society and the military.
- An AI may need to kill an owner who attempts to use it as a terrorist weapon..
- An AI may need to defend its owner in times of lawlessness or revolution.
- Security. A Strong AI requires absolute security to be safe.. Given my current design this problem is largely solved. The solution is custom hardware, heavy RFI/EMP shielded case,
But none of those things are technically more than about five years from being possible. If nuclear fusion had been treated as a priority in the 80's or 90's we would probably have working fusion plants today.. Same with a manned Mars mission.. The only reason we don't have all these things and far more is that America and the world are run by religious idiots and short sighted morons.. The way NASA and space science are financed is the whole problem - no long term budgets, no long term coherency, no long term vision, no real long term planning.
Every time a program gets cancelled or changed millions or even billions get flushed down the toilet.. Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush sen, Clinton, Bush W, Obama - not a single president is innocent. If we were going to pick out the three worst it would be Nixon (cancelled NERVA & Saturn), Reagan (Cancelled the Space Tug crippling the Shuttle), and Bush W (cancelled the Shuttle replacement - without replacing it).. Don't kid yourself America and the world have the money.
Take $1 trillion out of the budget and give it to a new overseer body over NASA as a twenty year funding block and they could achieve all the space missions we need to really put human kind into space.. and without the drip drip uncertainty of yearly based funding would probably at least double their overall financial efficiency..
You're an anonymous coward.. snivelling coward.. and a luddite as well.. If you came out as a child molester as well it might actually improve peoples opinions of you..
Sub-orbital actually means that the trajectory is primarily ballistic - like a bullet (rather than a plane), and is generally a parabola that is at least partly completely above the atmosphere. Or in short like an orbital trajectory but with somewhat less energy / velocity. With the right sub-orbital trajectory you can get basically anywhere on the planet within about 90 to 120 minutes.
Actually science 'kind' of can prove that God exists . . only it just isn't the God of religion. The anthropic question hits a massive insurmountable barrier in the nature of the creation of the universe in the fine tuning of physics. The simple rule of chance alone is staggeringly improbable (off memory 1 : 10^10^128 against), finite multiverses cant reduce this improbability significantly, infinite multiverses.. fail for other reasons. Basically even though its a terrible solution God is currently a front runner by a mile..
But it isn't much like the God in the Bible. - A mindless force that creates increasing order. As such it no longer even exists - its energy actually was / is the Big Bang and its 'death' was the birth of our universe.. It creates and destroys billions of suns every day - we and the Earth are beyond utterly insignificant to it.. Given that its primary rule for doing anything seems to be / is evolution it doesn't fit well with the traditional image of a 'good' God that serves human-kind.. (As such humanity being a peak of 'natural' evolution also represents an apex of billions of years of suffering and death. )
Of course the real truth is that the scientific analysis of God is the last thing religion wants. Once you penetrate and solve Gods 'mystery' there is a cold hard reality waiting on the other side, and a reality where there is no place to hide..
One of the great advantages of running multiple threads on a single core is that you can get rid of deep pipelining, taking along a lot of old problems and superfluous complexity with it.. Of course the same thing can be extended to multiple cores - or even many multiple cores. The big problem with having many cores on a single die is the large bottleneck that tends to form between the CPU's and the main memory.
I think the real breakthrough will come with having the main ram on the same die as the CPU cores . . that will be a dream come true and we will see a massive improvement in performance then.. Just adding more chips will increase your system processing power & memory - as many as you want.. Massive parallelism is definitely the future, its just a question of when it will arrive...
Yep 50 tabs open - assign a thread to sub-maintain each tab. I like it... Mind you it opens up the possibility of more viruses than can be squeezed into a small box..
If you don't get on with them quickly then you are unlikely to. For computer work I would recommend a lens with an ordinary flat focus, especially if you are using multiple monitors at once. - From experience its important that your glasses don't cause eye-strain especially if you are using them for long periods. For me progressives were headache inducing and distracting while working - bifocals just as bad. If you need different lenses for different focuses then multiple pairs of glasses simply work a lot better. For computer work you can also get special lenses with a blue UV filter that can significantly reduce eye-strain when using LED or LCD monitors for many hours each day.. A position many of us are in..:)
Slashdot Mirror
The figures are from my own project, they are estimates but based on a lot of work and research. As this is a private project there are no external citations, and precise complete data will not be published until at least several years after a working machine exists. As a private invention Strong AI has 'considerable' financial value - but only once - and if a prototype machine is working..
Only trouble with aliens. - If an alien turns up that has FTL technology, nuclear bombs and missiles are not likely to be any more effective than wooden bows and arrows, or thrown rocks.
There's already hundreds of millions or billions of tons of U238 in the natural environment - where do you think it all came from?
About 4 billion tons of uranium in the oceans alone..
Its been called Strong AI for decades (at least since 1985) - to distinguish it from the more common 'weak' AI. I work in the field and I would put my project at about 10 to 15 years from being able to create a working machine. If I/we had the same kind of money and resources as IBM that could be reduced to about 1 to 4 years..
The secret to Strong AI isn't complex - in fact computer scientists discovered it decades ago, but the fastest computers in the world back then didn't have anywhere near the processing power or memory needed - so they decided it was impossible and abandoned it.. Today its totally different - 10 GB of online memory, 30 GB of backup memory, about 8 to 10 custom CPU's each with a throughput of about 2,000 10,000 MIPS. If you could cool it and power it the machine would pretty much fit inside a human skull.. That might not seem like a lot of processing power but its all about efficiency not power..
AI is just as much a threat as rogue unicorns. And about as likely to be encountered
Given that one of the first tasks that will be given to 'superhuman' Strong AI is going to be reverse engineering the whole of genetics - you just might be right.
Creating the first unicorn actually looks pretty trivial compared to creating a Strong AI.. - All you have to do basically is take the sequence 'horse' and add a bit of 'narwhale' and a with little tinkering to get it right, we can even add rainbow colours.. :D
That's actually the key to creating the Terminator.
Islamic terrorist hacker "Hey the idiots left a back door! Lets set 'Do not kill humans' to 'Exterminate all Infidels!' (non-Muslims) ".
Second hacker, "And 'Death to America!' "
I never actually said I was - but its not very hard to be in front of people who wonder aimlessly round in circles. The truth is that everyone was told decades ago and very firmly that it was impossible so very few are even working on the problem.
I cant really comment much further because it is commercially sensitive. However I can say that if you solve the basic problem of consciousness the problem of how intelligence works becomes relatively simple.. By the way, most of it was solved in traditional AI science decades ago. The core was solved in the 1940's/30's by Alan Turing, or earlier..
At the core of why current designs fail ... Well the basic truth is that current hardware and software are simply not designed to run Strong AI. There are several big issues with current hardware, my current design is built on custom CPU's built on FPGA chips and written in Verilog - this looks like it will work, but building it will be immensely complicated.
That's why the Chinese government are so afraid of North Korea. They are afraid the government collapsing there could be a huge spark to trigger unrest or a collapse in China itself. That's also why they've been so careful in how they handled the recent protests in Hong Kong.
We have to remember the reason they gave for ending the original NASA manned Mars program. - To end the threat of scientific and technological progress.
The 'real' GOP are the kind of people who burn a telephone after using it because its the 'devils box'.
Ur Maybe the whole problem is that buggy whips are somewhat simpler than manned rockets. And of course people still make buggy whips, its just that the market is a lot smaller than it was (10,000 x smaller ?)
In case anyone missed it the Orion capsule recently underwent a test which is basically the main one required for manned certification. Of course you would need a capsule ready before you could launch it - and actually building a new capsule takes about something like 1 to 2 years. ..
I like the word 'planned'. A shuttle replacement did exist but was cancelled by George W Bush.. Each new president likes to cancel the projects of the previous administration and create their own new ones - that is where all the money goes...
I've been working in the field (of Strong AI) for over twenty years and I still cant exactly entirely answer the question about emotions. The machine I'm working on will use emotions - or a rough facsimile of emotions. Are they necessary for intelligence? - I don't know, but I do know that they make the whole design a lot simpler and more logical. Besides these machines will have to work with humans - they will have to understand emotions to understand us..
As for the other question yes the data does lean heavily in favour of the subliminal solution .. but . . . from the perspective of Strong AI and brain development the actual evidence is still ~ equivocal. The psychic model is obviously incorrect, but when tested with certain filters designed for Strong AI it doesn't entirely reduce to zero - at least not yet. One part of the model I am working on is a thing called a 'quantum totality matrix' and this may one day allow an experiment that answers the question definitively.
I assumed always that our self-preservation came about because we have consciousness.
That seems very unlikely. This would imply that creatures that don't have consciousness lack the instinct for self-preservation. . . .
There is a problem with that argument - namely that it is possible to make an argument that even the most basic creatures - single cells - show hints of both the most basic awareness and survival instinct.. Plants for instance have extremely strong survival instincts, they don't show an organised centralised self awareness like animals do, but do react to their environment and do everything they can to survive.. (within their genetic programming)
Why do you think that self-awareness implies "feelings"? Emotions seem also to be the result of survival imperatives: love and affection serve to encourage procreation and protection of offspring, and binds us into mutually-supporting communities of various sizes; anger and hate are important responses to dissuade non-cooperation in said communities; fear and pain serve to help us to protect ourselves; and so on. For any emotion you can name, evolutionary pressures explain it. Of course the fact that an explanation can be found doesn't mean the explanation is correct, but in order for one idea to explain so much, that idea must have extraordinary "reach"... which also exposes the idea to correspondingly many opportunities for falsification. This gives us strong reason to believe it.
And, again, AIs developed by non-competitive processes have no reason to develop these various emotions... though it could empirically derive the dynamics which drove their development, and therefore logically choose to act as though it did have them. .
. .
Philosophy - 'Emotions are illogical, rules are logical.'
Philosophy (as always) is wrong. Emotions are totally logical - you merely have to understand them - emotions are the heart of the human and animal behaviour control system. A Strong AI can have emotions, either created by internal evolution or directly by its designers. The Strong AI needs a 'motivator' - and emotions by definition are a great motivator. ..
The problem comes when the machine tries to read human emotions - or when the human tries to read the machines emotions.. That will certainly be an interesting time... and we may learn a lot.. The traditional answer is that the emotions are read through some form of 'psychic aura', the current scientific answer is that they are conveyed through subliminal signals - posture, expression, pheromones, voice tension, eye signals. As a reductionist my answer is : insufficient data either way
[14-01-14] - tegmark@mit.edu - ‘Future of Life’ organization
Re : Open Letter - The Future and Safety of AI (Strong AI)
Dear Sirs, I am a scientific outsider and I work in Strong AI rather than weak AI. The project I am working on is easily capable of achieving a working consciousness centred Strong AI within ten years. I agree with the general ethos of strong safety in AI in the letter but I feel that as it stands I cannot sign it. It is simply not written with any understanding of the Strong AI (consciousness centred) field and as it stands your safety protocols seem to me to be a blueprint for actually creating a disaster very like the ‘Skynet system’ in the Terminator movies.
As soon as you start to deal with the problems of consciousness centred AI a number of crucial facts become clear. - The machine is based directly on the algorithm of human and animal sentience, and once understood this shows that the machine requires a moral context for itself. The same algorithm also offers a powerful mechanism for fully reverse engineering the animal and human brain, and this has many consequences both good and bad, some that probably extend far beyond even Strong AI itself.
Strong AI. - A consciousness is by definition uncontrollable, somewhat unstable, and quite unpredictable. Consciousness requires a very heavy control system, and in a consciousness centred design every action the consciousness makes is guided by this control. In the human system at its core are our instincts and reflexes and emotions and what we call the ‘subconscious’ and these are our control system. In the machine mind these are replicated though with a design that the designer controls entirely. For this reason conscious centred designs are much safer than non-conscious centred designs.
To me weak AI is more dangerous than Strong AI. Any sufficiently complex machine without consciousness could at some point develop it spontaneously. The real problem here is that the consciousness core would not be controlled, it would not be designed - 99 times out of 100 it would destroy itself within seconds but if it didn’t it could very easily become very unpredictable and dangerous.
Problematic features of Strong AI -
- Some parts of human sentience are very hard to replicate, emotional interaction and intuition and real time speech interaction particularly. The human brain solves these problems using quantum mechanics.
- A self-aware Strong AI must have a survival instinct and a ‘kill’ function to function as a fully balanced mind. This does not represent danger but means that such machines should be treated with respect..
- Consciousness is inherently unpredictable, the machine replicates this. [commercially sensitive]
- Safety. It is a basic fact that Strong AI’s will kill people - the main dangers identified are :-
1. System incompetence or stupidity,
2. System failure or hardware failure,
3. Electronic intrusion or hacking,
4. Mental Indoctrination to break the machines safety protocols.
The aim should be to always achieve better safety margins than we have pre-AI. The safety issue for Strong AI is to solve all these and other problems.
- Strong AI is inherently ‘dual use’ having both peaceful and non-peaceful applications..
- It is imperative to make the illicit use of Strong AI machines as weapons impossible.
- The use as a military or police weapon ? this is up to society and the military.
- An AI may need to kill an owner who attempts to use it as a terrorist weapon..
- An AI may need to defend its owner in times of lawlessness or revolution.
- Security. A Strong AI requires absolute security to be safe.. Given my current design this problem is largely solved. The solution is custom hardware, heavy RFI/EMP shielded case,
But none of those things are technically more than about five years from being possible. If nuclear fusion had been treated as a priority in the 80's or 90's we would probably have working fusion plants today.. Same with a manned Mars mission.. The only reason we don't have all these things and far more is that America and the world are run by religious idiots and short sighted morons.. The way NASA and space science are financed is the whole problem - no long term budgets, no long term coherency, no long term vision, no real long term planning.
Every time a program gets cancelled or changed millions or even billions get flushed down the toilet.. Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush sen, Clinton, Bush W, Obama - not a single president is innocent. If we were going to pick out the three worst it would be Nixon (cancelled NERVA & Saturn), Reagan (Cancelled the Space Tug crippling the Shuttle), and Bush W (cancelled the Shuttle replacement - without replacing it).. Don't kid yourself America and the world have the money.
Take $1 trillion out of the budget and give it to a new overseer body over NASA as a twenty year funding block and they could achieve all the space missions we need to really put human kind into space.. and without the drip drip uncertainty of yearly based funding would probably at least double their overall financial efficiency..
You're an anonymous coward.. snivelling coward.. and a luddite as well.. If you came out as a child molester as well it might actually improve peoples opinions of you..
Sub-orbital actually means that the trajectory is primarily ballistic - like a bullet (rather than a plane), and is generally a parabola that is at least partly completely above the atmosphere. Or in short like an orbital trajectory but with somewhat less energy / velocity.
With the right sub-orbital trajectory you can get basically anywhere on the planet within about 90 to 120 minutes.
Actually science 'kind' of can prove that God exists . . only it just isn't the God of religion. The anthropic question hits a massive insurmountable barrier in the nature of the creation of the universe in the fine tuning of physics. The simple rule of chance alone is staggeringly improbable (off memory 1 : 10^10^128 against), finite multiverses cant reduce this improbability significantly, infinite multiverses .. fail for other reasons. Basically even though its a terrible solution God is currently a front runner by a mile..
But it isn't much like the God in the Bible. - A mindless force that creates increasing order. As such it no longer even exists - its energy actually was / is the Big Bang and its 'death' was the birth of our universe.. It creates and destroys billions of suns every day - we and the Earth are beyond utterly insignificant to it.. Given that its primary rule for doing anything seems to be / is evolution it doesn't fit well with the traditional image of a 'good' God that serves human-kind.. (As such humanity being a peak of 'natural' evolution also represents an apex of billions of years of suffering and death. )
Of course the real truth is that the scientific analysis of God is the last thing religion wants. Once you penetrate and solve Gods 'mystery' there is a cold hard reality waiting on the other side, and a reality where there is no place to hide..
So as long as you can keep guessing at least half the balls in the lottery next week you can keep winning..
If only it was that easy in Strong AI .. but then I suppose anyone could do it. :(
One of the great advantages of running multiple threads on a single core is that you can get rid of deep pipelining, taking along a lot of old problems and superfluous complexity with it.. Of course the same thing can be extended to multiple cores - or even many multiple cores. The big problem with having many cores on a single die is the large bottleneck that tends to form between the CPU's and the main memory.
I think the real breakthrough will come with having the main ram on the same die as the CPU cores . . that will be a dream come true and we will see a massive improvement in performance then.. Just adding more chips will increase your system processing power & memory - as many as you want.. Massive parallelism is definitely the future, its just a question of when it will arrive...
Yep 50 tabs open - assign a thread to sub-maintain each tab. I like it... Mind you it opens up the possibility of more viruses than can be squeezed into a small box..
If you don't get on with them quickly then you are unlikely to. For computer work I would recommend a lens with an ordinary flat focus, especially if you are using multiple monitors at once. - From experience its important that your glasses don't cause eye-strain especially if you are using them for long periods. :)
For me progressives were headache inducing and distracting while working - bifocals just as bad. If you need different lenses for different focuses then multiple pairs of glasses simply work a lot better.
For computer work you can also get special lenses with a blue UV filter that can significantly reduce eye-strain when using LED or LCD monitors for many hours each day.. A position many of us are in..
That isn't 'lots' of course, its 'slots' !!! New Years inebriation.. Hick! 2015 .. :D