RyanJ

I understand the differences but you often find that the philosophy of a JIT language is different from that of a compiled one. Say, for example, in a scripted JIT language you could have a file to be processed and output native code that when executed would also be just as fast as usual compiled code (it's how my eBook organiser works). This is far more difficult with a compiled language.

I don't really agree since JIT is classed as "compile-at-runtime" not compile then run. They may have the same underlying concept but the philosophy is totally different.

I second bascule. However Ruby does have some very strange language syntax structures and some people find it difficult to move to other languages like PHP or C afterward. Personally I started head first with C++ and it never did me any harm. Except for that dent on my head just won't go away after bashing it against my computer in frustration for weeks on end.

Languages with JIT execute almost as fast as native code these days. The advantage being that scripted languages are normally easier to work with than compiled languages. These days the boundaries are quite grayed out. Some languages can be both or either depending on how they are used.

That's true. But then you normally suffer from parse time which can be a real downer. But for the most part I agree. You can get lots done in Ruby, Python and others.

I could see some uses for it. One more language to add to the "to learn" list I think. Compile time is a big thing, especially on larger projects.

Also true. But that's not to say that they will not make some progress in the future. If one could develop a self-modifying neural network that could expand upon information it absorbed then it could eventually become aware. I say could because there is no evidence so far.

A very good point. But there is no knowing if any type of intelligence would eventually come to act the same way. If it can think for it's self and act for it's self.

In this context you want a content management system.

Honestly? I don't know. I suspect that the brain acts together more than separately so maybe we would. Still, the bottom-up approach of trying to reproduce features from scratch may work - but it may not be an AI in the sense that we think of it.

At identifying that which we do not understand, maybe. Are we any closer to a complete picture of how the brain works as a whole? Not really. Almost every week there is an article in New Scientist about "x" and "y" feature being found in the brain. It's pretty fascinating really.

As I said. I'm not convinced. Based upon the many (and I mean many) articles, reviews and so on that I've read - we are a long, long way off understanding the workings of the brain. We've barely begun to scratch the surface. If you wanted to exactly model the brain you would have to create a neural net (or a virtual one) that copies it. And it's never been done, not even an approximation as of yet. It's not a matter of finding - it's the basic matter that you can't emulate something you don't understand. Sure, we may be able to piece bits from here and there and say "xxx" does this while "yyy" does that but we're no closer to understanding how the thing works as a whole than we were 30 years ago.

I was responding to the post by Zolar V. I never said that it would be a requirement, only that it would help point us in the right direction (probably!).

Science is full of things that they said would be "solved in a few years" and most of those are still around today. AI is one of those things. Understanding the brain and mapping it are two completely different things. One can map a genome but it doesn't mean you would understand it. Mapping can be considered the first stage on the path, not the last. And if you read what I said, I said that few neural networks surpass 100 nodes (neurons) and until they do we probably aren't going to make a whole lot of progress based upon what I have seen so far.

In this case, it's because of the fact that two substances are mixed together - the carbon dioxide and the liquid. When the pressure is released the carbon dioxide tried to escape to a place of lower concentration - the air. The bubbles usually form through nucleation - attaching to minor defects in the walls of the can say or around particle contaminants in the liquid but they can happen fairly spontaneously if there is enough agitation of the liquid.

Shouldn't this be in the Computer Science section? It's more of a computer thing than an engineering thing would you not agree? There is more at the work in the brain than raw processing power. It's more akin to thousands of CPU's working in parallel than one CPU working alone. it's a neural net and even the most advanced ones I've seen only have a hundred "neurons". To emulate the brain, which has tens of billions, is still well outside our understanding.

The result is not natural, or certainly not a large fraction of it. Have a look at this if you need some convincing. Be sure to look at the graphs. They are very informative

If you could see what you just said, you'd realize how wrong you are. Look at it objectively. You said yourself that the ultimate result is unknown. Unknowns tend to have the ability to surprise you. You consider the butterfly effect, that such a small, seemingly insignificant change can fundemantally alter such large scale features - imagine what altering the weather for an entire planet could do. THAT is reason enough to be concerned, the fact that said possibility exists is reason enough to act as though it were true. Would you rather that we take a laid back attitude and just accept that the outcome is unknown or would you rather try to minimize the damage that ultimately could be caused? There can only be one answer to any who look at it objectively. Quite correct. That fact is not disputed. What you fail to consider is that this is hardly the same thing. The circumstances of previous warnings were natural - this one most certainly isn't. Will this make a large difference? Possibly. Is it worth taking the chance that it will be "as before"? No. Haha. Didn't you even read what I said? I quote: Where did I say that it specifically implied Earth? I said it is considered a possibility. Just as you consider it a possibility that it will not. They are both the same - just on different sides of the scale.

And you cannot say that it will not be just as bad for the environment can you? You can assume that it won't be but that would be the same as assuming that we will or will not survive. There is no definitive answer one way or another. It could be worse, good enough reason to do something about it. Too my knowledge nobody has ever said that it would. The fact that it's a possibility if frightening enough for most people to take notice. And I on the other hand have read studies that say it is a possibility. Research runaway greenhouse effect.

You base the last statement on a LOT of assumptions. Nobody really knows the true implications of global warming. If we do not know that how do you know that things will be better? What makes you think you know so much about something we barely understand? As it stands we may not be able to stop global warming but we should try because there is no information about how the world will end up as a result because of it. For example, a run-away greenhouse effect could lead the Earth to end up like Venus.

Something like this. May be what you're looking for. I had this in one of my URL archives but you may want to try Google for some more up-to-date materials.

Of course. One normally does such things via access permission systems - like say administrators, moderators etc. This would allow you to exactly control what a person can and cannot do without giving them absolute control so some features will always be limited to certain users only. That, for example, if the way that both forums and Wiki's work.

As far as I can see the evidence speaks for it's self just nicely. So I don't doubt it.

Yeah. I'd say that pretty much sums it up. I mean with the worlds population on the climb we need to get more and more out of the land we have (and there is less and less of that due to housing and so on). This required technology. If maybe two thirds of the worlds population died we'd be fine with what we have sustainably and with no advances in technology.

That's an impressive margin of error with GR neglected. I didn't think it would be quite that much. Thanks for the information all