Why so serious?
"401 Authorization Required" - The irony...
Not necessarily. It depends on what your needs are and how much money are you willing to invest.
Only if he can compile the schematics into chips.
Dec 14 2012 — 5:00pm
Joel N. Shurkin, ISNS Contributor
(ISNS) — What if everything — all of us, the world, the universe — was not real? What if everything we are, know and do was really just someone's computer simulation?
The notion that our reality was some kid on a couch in the far future playing with a computer game like a gigantic Sim City, or Civilization, and we are his characters, isn't new. But a group of physicists now thinks they know of a way to test the concept. Three of them propose to test reality by simulating the simulators.
Martin Savage, professor of physics at the University of Washington, Zohreh Davoudi, one of his graduate students, and Silas Beane of the University of New Hampshire, would like to see whether they can find traces of simulation in cosmic rays. The work was uploaded in arXiv, an online archive for drafts of academic research papers.
The notion that reality is something other than we think it is goes far back in philosophy, including Plato and his Parable of the Cave, which claimed reality was merely shadows of real objects on a cave wall. Sixteenth-century philosopher-mathematician René Descartes thought he proved reality with his famous "I think, therefore, I am," which proposed that he was real and his thoughts had a reality.
Then, in 2003, a British philosopher, Nick Bostrom of the University of Oxford, published a paper that had the philosophy and computer science departments buzzing.
Bostrom suggested three possibilities: "The chances that a species at our current level of development can avoid going extinct before becoming technologically mature is negligibly small," "almost no technologically mature civilizations are interested in running computer simulations of minds like ours,” or we are "almost certainly" a simulation.
All three could be equally possible, he wrote, but if the first two are false, the third must be true. "There will be a
Link to Original Source
Strange. I'm using 1366x768 and the page has height 1010px on Firefox, so I have to scroll around 200px to actually see the link.
I think the people at Samsung will laugh to tears if Apple will be asked to modify their page once more. This is another great example of corporate trolling.
Let's see: stem cells -> eggs -> ovary tissue -> natural ovaries -> oocytes -> removed from ovaries -> fertilized -> transplanted into "foster mothers"... To me, that sounds like a combination between Frankenstein and Fantastic Voyage
While these online courses are not as rigorous, well structured and of the same quality as Stanford / MIT / Oxford / whatever courses, I do think that most of them are much better than what students usually get at standard universities in poorer countries. Does anyone from Romania want to contradict me?
Even though there is enough room for improvement, there are many students in other countries who don't even have access to courses such as Machine Learning, Cryptography, Quantum Computing, etc so any introduction to such topics is most welcome.
I think that in a few years they will only get better, based on feedback received from the forums as well as from the quizzes. Also, they should implement some mechanism to determine which segments of the videos are re-winded over and over, since those might need clarifications. A term index is also welcome.
Just think about it: if an online course doesn't live up to the expectations of the students, then it will just die out when they will stop following it. Now, compare this to a professor who teaches poorly a certain course: generations upon generations of students will be forced to try and make sense of that course, because they have no other alternative.
I personally followed Andrew Ng's course on Machine Learning and, while it wasn't rigorous regarding the mathematics, it did offer me a really good intuition on how those algorithms work, as well as the required terminology to be able to start reading a book on this subject. I also followed Jennifer Widom's course on databases, which was really, really good and Dan Boneh's course on Cryptography helped me get a decent understanding of this subject for my current job.
So, we should encourage them to improve the courses instead of just yelling that some of them doesn't really live up to "the standards".