At least for autonomous vehicles.

I think surveillance isn't bad, so long as it is public and open.

http://www.brainonfire.net/blog/surveillance-for-the-public/ - only result I could find quick google.

I like to think of open surveillance as "big family", as opposed to "big brother".

Can't find any studies or implementations at this moment, but I like to imagine it would work. Still, it feels like this idea is ripe for hole-shooting-into.

text REDCROSS to 90999 to donate $10

"That poor sweet monkey. Oh well , lets gather him up , theres no sense in letting him go to waste" *licks lips*

Non-Obligatory Futurama reference ;)

It is somewhat useful, depending upon one's use of google earth.

I use google earth to look at things.

I like looking at trees.

I think it's useful :) ...a first person shooter layer would be pretty cool too though!

yet so easy to nay...about the future :)

The internet is the flying car.

Never, it seems, is there a lack of anti-capitalist rhetoric on slashdot - but perhaps it is more proper to say there is never a lack of pro-capitalist rhetoric: pro-capitalist ideals being assumed as pro-competitive.

There is something wrong when competition turns into opposition. When an entity actively obstructs the progress of another, not through a product of better fit, but through the slandering or image-tarnishing of a competitors product.

To be fair (someone has to be), evolution has shown that, as a concept, offensive advertisement works. I therefore leave it to you, the reader, to decide if there really is anything wrong with (philosophically speaking) being a skunk.

"Listen lady, I only speak two languages: English and bad English."

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.