All other religions fail to build a compounding, historically impactive, evidence for their truth. And I'm bold enough to say that that is why Christianity is the de facto true belief. I challenge you to explore the validity of all other religions on this planet with reason and skepticism, and I guarantee you will concede Christianity as the one and only truth.
Are you joking!? Engineering is the epitome of analytics and problem solving. Engineers use knowledge to solve today's problems! They design and develop SOLUTIONS to PROBLEMS! We have BRIDGES, CELLPHONES, KITTY LITTER BOXES because of ENGINEERS.
Funny, my belief in God is based on an analytical journey.
They've primed volunteers to perform analytical thinking, and then followed up with questions about their religious beliefs. I bet these results could be generalized. You could've substitute the topic of religious belief questions with anything else and I would've expected the same response (e.g. Do you believe in life on other planets?). If you're primed to think analytically, and then asked whether you believe in something without the chance to analyze it, why would you expect any other response than a rejection of blind belief (on average)?
E.g. Sort the following words alphabetically: Reason, Ponder, Analyze, Rationalize.
Question: Do you believe in global warming?
What makes the study sweeter is that it primes the volunteers with some questions that show that their initial intuitive response is wrong! This casts doubt on what they would initially believe to be true, and then they follow up with questions regarding the convictions of their beliefs. Perhaps this study may also show that people don't really analyze or give deep philosophical thought to their beliefs?
Often, you shouldn't believe in something until you've had a chance to analyze it. A blind disbelief is as bad as a blind belief. However, on amoral topics, I'm sure we just trust someone else's popularized work and accept it to be true because it has no moral consequence on our lives (e.g. belief that up/down/charm/strange particles exist).
What could possibly be more accessible than voting online? There are public avenues of doing this (library's, internet cafe's)... Seriously. As for security, we already do some very sensitive transactions online, and I'm sure all the tallied data is going to end up on some networked computer somewhere anyways even now... How about you create a youtube-esque election site that covers everyones agendas? Where the size of your bank account doesn't matter, because you reach to just as many people as the next guy, who's poorer than you...
Away with congressman and representatives! I want to be able to represent myself! Just let me vote for elections and on major policies online...
Obviously this requires some more planning and thinking to actually make it work.
Unsurprisingly, most of the people here haven't read, or perhaps not really absorbed, what TFA discusses, and are jumping to quick and irrelevant conclusions.
The author explains that Survival is a good metric of Intelligence, and he uses humans as an example. One human can definitely kill one lion, bear, mosquito, single bacteria, etc. if equipped with his intelligently designed tools such as a gun, or a mosquito zapper, antibacterial soap. He uses these tools, intelligently, to kill one bear, and hence, the human is more intelligent. However, if you take 10 bears, then sure, they may be able to kill the 1 human, but that means they are less intelligent, and take more numbers.
He simulates intelligence this way, and he defines a simulation as any environment with applied constraints, and that may include the internet, legal system, your neighbourhood community, etc.
So here's what he says: A system, such as the health care or legal system, will not be shutdown by one person. In fact, it probably won't even be shutdown by 10 people, maybe 100. And hence, the system is vastly more intelligent than a human, intrinsically since we worked in numbers to evolve this system.
I think it's a very interesting way of looking at intelligence. Again, this is all based Mr. Barbalet's assumptions.
... could something like this be overlooked over the past several decades? Wouldn't anybody think to check the DNA across the board, or are we just getting lazy?
$350 for components is right (according to what I spent). However, buying a digital projector may bite a $700+ (the cheapest kind) chunk out of your wallet. Total cost: $1,050+ (Computer not included)
A couple friends and I built a multi-touch for about $500 total (plus $50 for a computer that our campus was scrapping.) We used one of those old-fashioned overhead projectors to do our work (and to save money). Not the ideal solution, but still works!
Computers NEVER design anything. They follow algorithms, and they help us to perform vast calculations quickly.
Humans design everything. Computers never advanced us to the next step in technology.
The real news is that this APD device supports a greater bandwidth (340 GHz) for a silicon photonics based repeater.
This helps advance the steps further towards optical computing, with silicon as the mediator for our current electronic devices.
Actually, there's already a fair amount of research going on using doped silica (the main constituent of sand) as the substrate for fabricating photonic silica-based quantum circuits.
RingTFA, I realize that the bible is 400 CE, and portions of the new testament were found, which would mean the Resurrection would have to be in there.
They've been making features smaller than the wavelength of light for almost a decade now using interference lithography, it's nothing new, but it did scare people that Moore's Law would be over sooner than they thought (after all, how would they write features using extreme UV with the materials that have?).
What's interesting is that their interference lithography mask allows them to reach a minimum feature size limit of 25nm for silicon.
Hurray, Moore's Law should continue for another 10 or so years:) (At least, in terms of using silicon... But we're already using other materials (specifically hafnium) to keep going.)
The area of photonics is largely related to physics and electrical engineering, not so much with computer science, which deals with information processing and computations.
Being someone who works in the area of silicon photonics, this is some pretty exciting news.
Actually, discussion on the nanotubes from bacteria usually talks about them being used to gain electron neutrality. Some bacteria may serve as acceptors, and others as the donors. What's interesting is that these tubes are also sometimes produced by bacteria seeking metallic elements in order to be able to "dump" their excess electrons, which may be used as a means of manufacturing them.
Bacteria nanutubes have been discovered in 2006, but originally they were coined as nanoWIRES. This was before they took a closer look at the inner composition of the nanowires to discover that they were actually hollow. It's interesting that they have electrical properties.
You know, in the future, the internet may quite literally become a series of tubes.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, an entire paragraph devoid of any facts, instead purely based on personal conjecture.
You assume people lie about what they believe, do we have any evidence to support this?
All other religions fail to build a compounding, historically impactive, evidence for their truth. And I'm bold enough to say that that is why Christianity is the de facto true belief. I challenge you to explore the validity of all other religions on this planet with reason and skepticism, and I guarantee you will concede Christianity as the one and only truth.
Who said God needs tools?
Are you joking!? Engineering is the epitome of analytics and problem solving. Engineers use knowledge to solve today's problems! They design and develop SOLUTIONS to PROBLEMS! We have BRIDGES, CELLPHONES, KITTY LITTER BOXES because of ENGINEERS.
It's ok, I forgive you for being wrong.
How is FSM more plausible? What body of evidence is there?
Funny, my belief in God is based on an analytical journey.
They've primed volunteers to perform analytical thinking, and then followed up with questions about their religious beliefs. I bet these results could be generalized. You could've substitute the topic of religious belief questions with anything else and I would've expected the same response (e.g. Do you believe in life on other planets?). If you're primed to think analytically, and then asked whether you believe in something without the chance to analyze it, why would you expect any other response than a rejection of blind belief (on average)?
E.g. Sort the following words alphabetically: Reason, Ponder, Analyze, Rationalize. Question: Do you believe in global warming?
What makes the study sweeter is that it primes the volunteers with some questions that show that their initial intuitive response is wrong! This casts doubt on what they would initially believe to be true, and then they follow up with questions regarding the convictions of their beliefs. Perhaps this study may also show that people don't really analyze or give deep philosophical thought to their beliefs?
Often, you shouldn't believe in something until you've had a chance to analyze it. A blind disbelief is as bad as a blind belief. However, on amoral topics, I'm sure we just trust someone else's popularized work and accept it to be true because it has no moral consequence on our lives (e.g. belief that up/down/charm/strange particles exist).
What could possibly be more accessible than voting online? There are public avenues of doing this (library's, internet cafe's)... Seriously. As for security, we already do some very sensitive transactions online, and I'm sure all the tallied data is going to end up on some networked computer somewhere anyways even now... How about you create a youtube-esque election site that covers everyones agendas? Where the size of your bank account doesn't matter, because you reach to just as many people as the next guy, who's poorer than you...
Away with congressman and representatives! I want to be able to represent myself! Just let me vote for elections and on major policies online...
Obviously this requires some more planning and thinking to actually make it work.
Unsurprisingly, most of the people here haven't read, or perhaps not really absorbed, what TFA discusses, and are jumping to quick and irrelevant conclusions.
The author explains that Survival is a good metric of Intelligence, and he uses humans as an example. One human can definitely kill one lion, bear, mosquito, single bacteria, etc. if equipped with his intelligently designed tools such as a gun, or a mosquito zapper, antibacterial soap. He uses these tools, intelligently, to kill one bear, and hence, the human is more intelligent. However, if you take 10 bears, then sure, they may be able to kill the 1 human, but that means they are less intelligent, and take more numbers.
He simulates intelligence this way, and he defines a simulation as any environment with applied constraints, and that may include the internet, legal system, your neighbourhood community, etc.
So here's what he says: A system, such as the health care or legal system, will not be shutdown by one person. In fact, it probably won't even be shutdown by 10 people, maybe 100. And hence, the system is vastly more intelligent than a human, intrinsically since we worked in numbers to evolve this system.
I think it's a very interesting way of looking at intelligence. Again, this is all based Mr. Barbalet's assumptions.
... could something like this be overlooked over the past several decades? Wouldn't anybody think to check the DNA across the board, or are we just getting lazy?
$350 for components is right (according to what I spent). However, buying a digital projector may bite a $700+ (the cheapest kind) chunk out of your wallet. Total cost: $1,050+ (Computer not included)
A couple friends and I built a multi-touch for about $500 total (plus $50 for a computer that our campus was scrapping.) We used one of those old-fashioned overhead projectors to do our work (and to save money). Not the ideal solution, but still works!
As someone who works in the field of nanotechnology, I assure you that this development is definitely a milestone.
Some of the major developments in quantum computing and photonics relies on cheap and efficient development of quantum dots.
Teleportation requires dematerializing one object, and rematerializing it at another location.
Here we have two atoms, which totally inherit each others information at the speed of light.
Am I the only one who thought teleportation is instantaneous and requires only a single entity?
Computers NEVER design anything. They follow algorithms, and they help us to perform vast calculations quickly. Humans design everything. Computers never advanced us to the next step in technology.
The real news is that this APD device supports a greater bandwidth (340 GHz) for a silicon photonics based repeater. This helps advance the steps further towards optical computing, with silicon as the mediator for our current electronic devices.
That's because temperature in space is not absolute zero. Nothing ever can reach that limit. Temperature in space hovers at about 3 Kelvin.
Actually, there's already a fair amount of research going on using doped silica (the main constituent of sand) as the substrate for fabricating photonic silica-based quantum circuits.
Quantum computing is on its way!
RingTFA, I realize that the bible is 400 CE, and portions of the new testament were found, which would mean the Resurrection would have to be in there.
... then no wonder it doesn't mention the Resurrection, which occurred in CE (or AD, however you like it).
They've been making features smaller than the wavelength of light for almost a decade now using interference lithography, it's nothing new, but it did scare people that Moore's Law would be over sooner than they thought (after all, how would they write features using extreme UV with the materials that have?).
:) (At least, in terms of using silicon... But we're already using other materials (specifically hafnium) to keep going.)
What's interesting is that their interference lithography mask allows them to reach a minimum feature size limit of 25nm for silicon.
Hurray, Moore's Law should continue for another 10 or so years
For now it shant be a problem especially if the new names are expected to cost over $100,000.
I really, really, hope I can get http://www.ocd.www/
I think http://slash.dot/ would be better
The area of photonics is largely related to physics and electrical engineering, not so much with computer science, which deals with information processing and computations. Being someone who works in the area of silicon photonics, this is some pretty exciting news.
Actually, discussion on the nanotubes from bacteria usually talks about them being used to gain electron neutrality. Some bacteria may serve as acceptors, and others as the donors. What's interesting is that these tubes are also sometimes produced by bacteria seeking metallic elements in order to be able to "dump" their excess electrons, which may be used as a means of manufacturing them.
Bacteria nanutubes have been discovered in 2006, but originally they were coined as nanoWIRES. This was before they took a closer look at the inner composition of the nanowires to discover that they were actually hollow. It's interesting that they have electrical properties.
You know, in the future, the internet may quite literally become a series of tubes.
Here's some real Windows hardware: http://www.helldesk.dk/keyboard-ctrl-alt-del.jpg