Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Right! (Score 1) 578

by Tyler Durden (#46729409) Attached to: Michael Bloomberg: You Can't Teach a Coal Miner To Code

Having technical skills doesn't necessarily mean that someone is smart, especially when it comes naturally to them.

Sure it does. If someone's a natural mathematician (like Euler or Ramanujan for instance) or physicist or (to a lesser extent) programmer then they are naturally smart. These topics engage the intellect. Being a natural people-person is an innate skill that does not require any proper definition of intelligence, and they don't need to appeal to the intellect much at all to be successful at it.

That isn't to say that being good with people isn't an important skill; it is vitally important. But being good at it does not always require or engage smarts.

Comment: Re:Right! (Score 1) 578

by Tyler Durden (#46727165) Attached to: Michael Bloomberg: You Can't Teach a Coal Miner To Code

Meh. Having people-person skills doesn't necessarily mean that someone is smart, especially when it comes naturally to them. Someone without natural people skills and are able to apply their intellect to gain them are very intelligent, however. But a lot of people out there don't have to think about it much. Must be nice.

Comment: Re:Quantum fluctuations != nothing (Score 1) 594

- "cool and what made the universe forcibly logical? all you did so far is to prove the universe can't help but follow the same logic that you derived from the behavior of the universe itself."

Well logic is a property of the universe only insofar as there are parts of the universe (like us) who use logic to try and understand the thing. Logic is something you have to obey in order to describe the universe because saying something illogical is equivalent to making a meaningless statement.

Comment: Re:New Type of "Computing" (Score 1) 60

by Tyler Durden (#46470375) Attached to: Physicist Proposes a New Type of Computing

Yeah, not so much a "hope" for me though. When I read the title I just really doubted they meant to say what it sounded like they were saying. And sure enough, they didn't.

There very likely isn't any computational model that can solve any problems that some TM equivalent method can't. It's just a matter of doing them faster.

Comment: Re:New Type of "Computing" (Score 1) 60

by Tyler Durden (#46468049) Attached to: Physicist Proposes a New Type of Computing

In your first reply you mentioned that computers are based on binary logic - on or off. I thought you were getting at quantum computing where you can have a combination of the two.

From the article - "One is the discovery of a material that allows electrons to switch states really quickly that could improve magnetic random access memory speeds by a factor of thousand." So, yeah, that's essentially what I said.

If the difference is that a single electron can store on or more bits then this is definitely equivalent to a Turing Machine.The only thing a Turing Machine specifies for storage is a sequence of symbols. How you create the symbols, whether by on/off bits or an electron that can represent multiple bits, is completely irrelevant as to whether or not is is the equivalent of a TM.

Comment: Re:Ray was right! (Score 1) 60

by Tyler Durden (#46467857) Attached to: Physicist Proposes a New Type of Computing

They're not. But there seem to be a whole bunch of people who like to turn to science or technology for some type of transcendent experience or something.

"Oh almighty computer, how powerful you are! Surely your intellect will excel beyond us puny humans soon. I am so unworthy. *Grovel*"

It's just a desire to have something to take the place of what the faithful crowd use some omnipotent god for. All over a tool that can do pointless drudgery work quickly and efficiently so that us humans can spend our time working on interesting stuff. Meh.

Comment: Re:New Type of "Computing" (Score 1) 60

by Tyler Durden (#46467665) Attached to: Physicist Proposes a New Type of Computing

Hmmm, I'm not so sure. Unless I'm missing something in the article the proposal does not offer anything new toward quantum computing. The advantages listed are the ability to switch electron states very quickly to improve RAM speeds and being able to read the spin of electrons - both without requiring excessive power to drive it.

I'm not sure how quantum computers compare to TMs. After some quick browsing it looks like they don't have the computational speed potential of the (only theoretical) non-deterministic Turing Machine.

Comment: Re:Texas Barely Registers (Score 1) 544

by Tyler Durden (#46094803) Attached to: Map of Publicly-Funded Creationism Teaching

To claim there is no god or supreme power in the universe requires just as much faith as claiming there is one God who gave you a book of rules.

Both beliefs require faith. Hell, all beliefs that are not the result of strict logic (given set of assumptions X, the set of conclusions Y must also be true) require an element of faith. The former belief can only be considered in the realm of "religion" and "myth" by seriously perverting the common definitions of those words.

To even entertain the notion of a god, "supreme power", or whatever you want to call it takes way more faith than not bothering with it in the first place.

What hath Bob wrought?

Working...