a) people exploiting this and thus gaming google gaming....or a game in which you do this titled, "gaming google gaming game." and therefore if you cheat in said game you are gaming gaming google gaming....buffallo buffalo buffalo buffalo....

b) in soviet russia, google games you...tube!.....

it's been a while.

Excellent clarification!

My misunderstanding indeed hinged on the fact that the FPGA itself was the only device on which this 'simple' adder could operate (due to specifics of its material structure).. I must have also thought the FPGA itself to be simpler than an analogous, hard-wired circuit.

Thank you :)

(wandering two steps offtopic here)

I think FPGA/GA evolved, silicon specific processing would be useful.

GA and FPGA are two animals of science for which I have great interest.

In this case, although this creation was specific for that silicon the creation was still theoretically more simple than should be possible.

My point is that, even though *mass-production* of "magic chips" may not be possible, simple unit-by-unit production of may be.

For supercomputing tasks or other very specialized areas of computing, there are often one-of-a-kind units anyhow - if some high-performance, or highly-efficient device can in fact be made, I see no huge drawback to using it for at least research purposes.

This is potenitally useful: Evolving highly-simplified or highly-optimized, one-of-a-kind chips or devices for very specific tasks with disregard for reproduction of the device.

It doesn't matter if you can't reproduce the machine, as long as it produces the desired output.

Thoughts?

p.s. I read this account before on /. - is this in fact a true account? I don't mean to strike at you, I simply remain highly-skeptical and higly-hopeful. I would like to see some citation. After all, I seem to recall hearing a similar story about GA and FPGA, complete with the inability to reproduce the outcome - only in that case (in my memory) I recall the function of the chip or device to have been caused or enabled by some other electronic device in the room outputting some kind of interference at a regular interval.

p.p.s and to move slightly back on topic, if persistent current exists, the that seems a step-towards cold-computing, or persistent computing: correct me if I am mistaken.

"I have great faith in optimism as a guiding principle, if only because it offers us the opportunity of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy..." - Arthur C. Clarke.

Whenever the future is spoken of, why is it that most people think we will be extinct?

We continue to increase in population, we continue to conquer diseases, we continue to become more connected to each other.

What the fuck people!?

Do you honestly think your great-great grandchildren are going to be more ignorant and less capable of caring for each other and themselves than we are now?

How much greater are we at such things than we were 100 years ago?

This 'humanity extinction' mindset, IMO, is just another aspect of the 'golden age fallacy'.

Things were WORSE back in the day.

They continue to get better and will always.

Let us not forget as well, there are only two kinds of prophecies which come true: those which use good math and science (Moore's law); and those which fulfill themselves (crusades, zionism and the like).

Don't fulfil this stupid idea of our own extinction.

And don't forget, that you are one of those 'people' in whom you have so little belief.

Believe in your damn self and thus believe in each other.

I don't know about others, but my progeny will survive with the universe, for as long as the universe exists, or as long as we can keep the universe existing or as long as we can keep making new universes.

Let's show a little unbounded optimism here.

I think I see - different != random

Enlightening!

Although it can be true that at least the initial state of an EA (or more specifically its genes) can in fact be random, it's very easy to just call a complex or different string of data 'random' when in fact it is not.

I suppose, then, that unpredictable also != random. Take for example that future states of cellular automata using deterministic rules cannot be predicted, but are by no way random.

I still hold that randomness is vital for, but certainly I now begin to think it is often overstated in, evolutionary regards.

And your reply's voice did not make me feel pounced-on in any way! I appreciate prompt pointing-out of any potential oversights in my reasoning.

After all, why wouldn't one want to know when they are missing something?

This type of decision making might simply be an evolutionarily-selected random seeding.

For example, when running an evolutionary algorithm, it is vital to have randomness seeded into the mix. This allows for the system or algorithm to escape from local maxima.

Douglas Adams had a great quote at the end of one of his last lectures regarding humans' re-invention of everything - nothing is ever 'good enough': http://www.guba.com/watch/3000053272

Perhaps this is all that just random, unpredictable outcomes from a horrendously complex system we call the brain, which has emerged out of a random, unpredictable and horrendously complex universe.

Done correctly, the delay could be on par with the delay inherent in the wiimote - which is noticeable to the observant- but completely doable.

now, of course, add the wireless controller delay AND the streaming delay and a problem does arise.

Some games would be more tolerant to this UI lag - but FPS and sim games would definitely be affected.

A plus side of this in respect to shooters and real-time action games, is that in a multiplayer environment all client data is server-side, making hacking much more difficult, and aim-bots and such practically impossible.

Was just discussing the feasibility of this not long ago actually: streaming a game experience to your system.

There are ways to mitigate the problem - like have your cockpit/gun view still client side, but stream the 3d world with a little extra visual data on the periphery.

I read the comic, and will say that I enjoyed the movie more.

The book was of course more nuanced, and more interesting - but I'm a sucker for visuals (and it was a comic book to start with, so visual is obviously an important aspect for Watchmen).

I found the changes to the story to be tasteful, and I thought the imagery was spectacular.

I have a very good talent at going into movies with no, or at least very few, expectations. This is good because I generally enjoy movies more: This is bad because I tend to enjoy movies I guess I shouldn't have (whatever that means).

The few reasons I watch movies for:

1) Visuals and Imagery - it is a big screen, after all

2) New Ideas, Insight - movies are a great way to convey these.

I guess that's it actually. Those two reasons would explain why I pretty much just watch sci-fi and documentaries.

of course, I love comedies as well, but only the select few (generally the uber-popular ones at that).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTxW3GWZ5hI

They need to work on the restraint systems, but other than that it looks like it's working great!

Many couples have spent their life savings caring for a sick child - I view this as preventative medicine.

So the technology which allows selection for conditions also means parents can also choose hair color and such, what's the big deal?

If I get a cast for a broken arm, what's wrong with choosing a cool color too?

Still, in my moderate mode I must agree that the shallowness of individuals affecting the future of another person is sad, but as I phrased it there, it should be evident that this is nothing new.

http://thelazysci-fiauthor.blogspot.com/2007/07/observation-via-entangled-computers.html

but kind of different.

These 500+ page bills; how is it arguable that documents of that length are not asinine? I recently tried to read the Microsoft privacy statement and EULA for Office (kind of paltry legal docs, relatively speaking) and gave up after 10 minutes.

Something akin to cognitive dissonance had arisen, and like I do with any document/book which causes that - I tossed it.

I can understand when computer code achieves a size like this, or scientific studies, but really - law becomes more and more esoteric, even while it becomes slower and slower to adapt to modern technological and subsequent social conventions.

I await that hoped-for day when that mythical AI which is trillions of times smarter (or at least has trillions of times the patience and time) than us looks through these, to it, crayon drawings, and distills the circular reasonings, contradictions and plain nonsense into a succinctly digestible form understandable to that mythical 'reasonable person' so that we can all have a good laugh. ...or until it launches legions of red glowing-eyed, humanoid military robots to wipe us out.

Either outcome is fine with me.

Taking a military standpoint is a way to make progress.

Every day thousands take much greater than 5% risks undertaking missions far less glamorized, and perhaps really far less important than space exploration.

5% risk in a life-saving operation sounds ideal given the alternative. After all, in reality, isn't space exploration a life saving operation?

Thank goodness for you math geeks.

I'm a big singularity hopeful - however I must admit, begrudgingly, that there seems to be quite a bit of confirmation bias amongst the singularity luminaries.

I had seen this function, but couldn't recall the name.

A beautiful (and strongly supported) counter-example to run-away, or perpetual, exponential growth.

After all, in my mind at least it makes sense to draw at least some analogy between speciation & population growth and technologic progress & adoption.

I just hope the curve doesn't peeter-out before we can develop a mind just baaaarely smarter than us. that's all I think we need.