A bit more googling tells me storing exactly one genome will use hundreds of megabytes getting up around O(gigabyte). But if we're doing a bunch of people and compressing for the mere change per individual it goes down to O(megabyte).
Perhaps the summary could explain SEC and ETF. At a short glance it's not clear what these are, or if we are taking about an American / European / international organisation.
I don't read financial papers and I don't live in America. I don't think these are prerequisites for visiting Slashdot, and I think it's fair to assume that many Slashdot visitors have widespread minor interests, trying to get the headlines without getting bogged down/rant
... In terms of nutritional value and caloric value.
It would all taste overly similar, offer less variety, be overall worse for people that are used to customizing specifically to their own body system.
Is this a good metaphor? I don't know. But I think the point is the question is a bit simplistic.
.... It would all taste overly similar, offer less variety, be overall worse for people that are used to customizing specifically to their own body system.
Is this a good metaphor? I don't know. But I think the point is the question is a bit simplistic.
Yeah, I see what you mean for existing software practices and understanding of how to write software.
Still, for science-fiction length timeframes ahead of us, it's hard to imagine that we'll be able to make truly efficient and effective neural networks without using more physical nodes. Virtual nodes get limited by physics, and context switching can't compete with true distributed parallel processing.
Hardware and software will have to both improve, and both inform each other.
up until now, it seems that the hardware innovation hasn't been necessary because hardware speed improvements and software improvements have been possible, and were the low hanging fruit.
What I want to know is why no-one is trying to make computers with thousands / millions / billions / trillions of processors and similarly large numbers of connections.
The manufacturing would have to be very different, possibly self replicating processors, biologically inspired.
One of the reasons computers aren't good at what humans can do: image / speech recognition / language processing etc, is that they literally don't do nearly as much processing.
There's only so much speed, disk space, internet connectivity you can throw at the problem to make do, still using with shortcuts, picking low hanging fruit problems.
The 80/20 rule is fine. But if you want 100 percent of the results, you need to do 100 percent of the work.
At this point, fast, faster, fastest processors is a linear solution (or shallow enough), that they still won't get close to the processing power of our brains with 100s of billions of connections for a while yet.
Even our ears take thousands of audio inputs from tiny hairs before our brain starts audio processing. Microphones still work with a single membrane right?
You have space to put basically the entire story in the summary (that's another issue), but not mention this is a success-story update to a much older story?
My example sucked but my point is I think it was possible to deform things before but not measure it so well. With air pressure i'm not so sure there's any actual deformation going on so measuring better doesn't help.
An interesting idea, but it may not be sensitive to typical audio variations in air pressure,it didn't seem to say this in the article. If I can compare it to say deforming a piece of wood with a nail... there's a certain minimum pressure before you can see any deformation of the wood (before the nail makes any scratch or mark). The silly putty might be too thick. If you think about existing microphone components, I'd argue they get moved rather than deformed. Alternatively, ou could imagine making a very thin wire which *does* bend/deform, but I'm not so sure you could make a thin wire from silly putty.
It's reassuring that sub millimetre times are not literally zero-value times and there's a specific example to remind us of that.
In other news, Trump is now president elect for the USA, the country that first put a man on the moon.
Tim McKee got silver in the 1972 Olympics (didn't qualify for a tie-breaker) because he was slower than his competitor... by less than a hundredth of a second.
But this really couldn't have much less to do with the story. It's a random fact, not on topic. TFA: WTF?
You are a beacon of hope. You give my life meaning. $2 per month? I'd pay hundreds each month for the privilege. A subscription service to remove ads is a stroke of genius. In 10 years you'll have $240 dollars from me for this quality software.
I'm not even interested in using the app, but this kind of BS inspires the social justice warrior / idealist in me to go to Google play store and leave a one star review.
Some services, perhaps that include monthly changing content or might be too expensive to pay for outright, could be justified with a monthly subscription. This can't. Removing ads doesn't provide $2 worth of value per month.
Come with me. Who else wants to give an entitled anti-capitalism 1-star vote?
Or an ironic 5 star review?: MS, you cured my cancer! And let my 3 pet blind mice see again. So worth the $2 per month.
As already pointed out (+5 by sacrilicious), the TFS doesn't make sense. Why not update the summary with the missing line of the quote and include the disclaimer "EDIT: summary updated with full relevant quote".
Mistakes are human, but fixing them is an act of kindness to the readers that don't hit the site in the first wave.
You make fair points, but as devil's advocate...saying when something goes wrong and it gets in the news means there must be more going on that doesn't get in the news is the pessimist's perspective.
The flip side is, it's a big world. If I see murders and rapes on the news, it doesn't mean I necessarily need to be afraid in my own neighborhood.
So far, this kind of thing that Google has done hasn't affected me or my friends or my family. So one misunderstanding won't represent all of Google for all people.
There already should be public backlash against government surveillance, Trump or no Trump.
Because people (including government people) aren't good at keeping secrets and make too many assumptions.
There's no question in my mind that the US government spends too much money and other resources on this stuff. If Trump is the straw that breaks the camel's back and causes enough resentment to actually change something post-Trump then so be it.
Looks like Clinton had more voters in her favor and still loses. As happened when George W Bush won the presidency.
I'm not American, but if I lived in California, a landslide victory state in favour of Clinton, I would be disappointed that my vote doesn't really count. If I wanted Clinton to win and my State's already voting that way, I can't do anything to affect the balance of the closer tied states.
The USA is the country that talks about democracy the most, but the system is pretty far from a true democracy.
Sure, the votes were close, but I'm sure I could construct a scenario where a presidential candidate could get a large majority of votes, especially in the most populous states and still lose the election.
... of somewhat crazy people that waste time and money. An overly powerful, overly funded cult. As with many cults, I don't think I would want to work with/for an organization that gets in the news for so many ridiculous things so often.
Hey America, why not vote for someone who's smart enough to do a cost-benefit analysis on the FBI and make changes? I don't know who, but it's probably not Trump or Clinton.
...I hope someone facing this warrant would have the balls to say your warrant is unconstitutional. I don't think anything's going to change until they do.
Slashdot Mirror
A bit more googling tells me storing exactly one genome will use hundreds of megabytes getting up around O(gigabyte). But if we're doing a bunch of people and compressing for the mere change per individual it goes down to O(megabyte).
Wait, I messed that up. 2x10^15 divided by 2x10^9 is 1x10^6. That's 1 megabyte each. Still surprising!
... At least I now know one person's genome information is 1TB
...which is genuinely interesting to me (though not relevant to the topic at hand).
Thanks!
Perhaps the summary could explain SEC and ETF. At a short glance it's not clear what these are, or if we are taking about an American / European / international organisation.
/rant
I don't read financial papers and I don't live in America. I don't think these are prerequisites for visiting Slashdot, and I think it's fair to assume that many Slashdot visitors have widespread minor interests, trying to get the headlines without getting bogged down
... In terms of nutritional value and caloric value.
It would all taste overly similar, offer less variety, be overall worse for people that are used to customizing specifically to their own body system. Is this a good metaphor? I don't know. But I think the point is the question is a bit simplistic.
.... It would all taste overly similar, offer less variety, be overall worse for people that are used to customizing specifically to their own body system.
Is this a good metaphor? I don't know. But I think the point is the question is a bit simplistic.
Yeah, I see what you mean for existing software practices and understanding of how to write software.
Still, for science-fiction length timeframes ahead of us, it's hard to imagine that we'll be able to make truly efficient and effective neural networks without using more physical nodes. Virtual nodes get limited by physics, and context switching can't compete with true distributed parallel processing.
Hardware and software will have to both improve, and both inform each other.
up until now, it seems that the hardware innovation hasn't been necessary because hardware speed improvements and software improvements have been possible, and were the low hanging fruit.
What I want to know is why no-one is trying to make computers with thousands / millions / billions / trillions of processors and similarly large numbers of connections.
The manufacturing would have to be very different, possibly self replicating processors, biologically inspired.
One of the reasons computers aren't good at what humans can do: image / speech recognition / language processing etc, is that they literally don't do nearly as much processing.
There's only so much speed, disk space, internet connectivity you can throw at the problem to make do, still using with shortcuts, picking low hanging fruit problems.
The 80/20 rule is fine. But if you want 100 percent of the results, you need to do 100 percent of the work.
At this point, fast, faster, fastest processors is a linear solution (or shallow enough), that they still won't get close to the processing power of our brains with 100s of billions of connections for a while yet.
Even our ears take thousands of audio inputs from tiny hairs before our brain starts audio processing. Microphones still work with a single membrane right?
You have space to put basically the entire story in the summary (that's another issue), but not mention this is a success-story update to a much older story?
I seem to have posted anonymously by mistake.
..reinventing the wheel. Which can easily be done badly.
Even for the most common search / sort algorithms, there's a good chance you won't code them perfectly first time.
Code re-use, code-from scratch. Both have their place. Both require intelligent thought.
My example sucked but my point is I think it was possible to deform things before but not measure it so well. With air pressure i'm not so sure there's any actual deformation going on so measuring better doesn't help.
An interesting idea, but it may not be sensitive to typical audio variations in air pressure ,it didn't seem to say this in the article. If I can compare it to say deforming a piece of wood with a nail... there's a certain minimum pressure before you can see any deformation of the wood (before the nail makes any scratch or mark). The silly putty might be too thick. If you think about existing microphone components, I'd argue they get moved rather than deformed. Alternatively, ou could imagine making a very thin wire which *does* bend/deform, but I'm not so sure you could make a thin wire from silly putty.
It's reassuring that sub millimetre times are not literally zero-value times and there's a specific example to remind us of that. In other news, Trump is now president elect for the USA, the country that first put a man on the moon.
Yikes, millisecond. Typo
It's reassuring that sub millimetre times are not literally zero-value times and there's a specific example to remind us of that.
In other news, Trump is now president elect for the USA, the country that first put a man on the moon.
Tim McKee got silver in the 1972 Olympics (didn't qualify for a tie-breaker) because he was slower than his competitor... by less than a hundredth of a second.
But this really couldn't have much less to do with the story. It's a random fact, not on topic. TFA: WTF?
You are a beacon of hope. You give my life meaning. $2 per month? I'd pay hundreds each month for the privilege. A subscription service to remove ads is a stroke of genius. In 10 years you'll have $240 dollars from me for this quality software.
I'm not even interested in using the app, but this kind of BS inspires the social justice warrior / idealist in me to go to Google play store and leave a one star review.
Some services, perhaps that include monthly changing content or might be too expensive to pay for outright, could be justified with a monthly subscription. This can't. Removing ads doesn't provide $2 worth of value per month.
Come with me. Who else wants to give an entitled anti-capitalism 1-star vote?
Or an ironic 5 star review?: MS, you cured my cancer! And let my 3 pet blind mice see again. So worth the $2 per month.
As already pointed out (+5 by sacrilicious), the TFS doesn't make sense. Why not update the summary with the missing line of the quote and include the disclaimer "EDIT: summary updated with full relevant quote".
Mistakes are human, but fixing them is an act of kindness to the readers that don't hit the site in the first wave.
You make fair points, but as devil's advocate...saying when something goes wrong and it gets in the news means there must be more going on that doesn't get in the news is the pessimist's perspective.
The flip side is, it's a big world. If I see murders and rapes on the news, it doesn't mean I necessarily need to be afraid in my own neighborhood.
So far, this kind of thing that Google has done hasn't affected me or my friends or my family. So one misunderstanding won't represent all of Google for all people.
There already should be public backlash against government surveillance, Trump or no Trump.
Because people (including government people) aren't good at keeping secrets and make too many assumptions.
There's no question in my mind that the US government spends too much money and other resources on this stuff. If Trump is the straw that breaks the camel's back and causes enough resentment to actually change something post-Trump then so be it.
Looks like Clinton had more voters in her favor and still loses. As happened when George W Bush won the presidency.
I'm not American, but if I lived in California, a landslide victory state in favour of Clinton, I would be disappointed that my vote doesn't really count. If I wanted Clinton to win and my State's already voting that way, I can't do anything to affect the balance of the closer tied states.
The USA is the country that talks about democracy the most, but the system is pretty far from a true democracy.
Sure, the votes were close, but I'm sure I could construct a scenario where a presidential candidate could get a large majority of votes, especially in the most populous states and still lose the election.
... of somewhat crazy people that waste time and money. An overly powerful, overly funded cult. As with many cults, I don't think I would want to work with/for an organization that gets in the news for so many ridiculous things so often.
Hey America, why not vote for someone who's smart enough to do a cost-benefit analysis on the FBI and make changes? I don't know who, but it's probably not Trump or Clinton.
...I hope someone facing this warrant would have the balls to say your warrant is unconstitutional. I don't think anything's going to change until they do.