Author Topic: Dovoljno napredna tehnologija... je magična! :)  (Read 5025 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

zakk

  • Očigledan slučaj RASTROJSTVA!
  • 3
  • Posts: 10.892
    • IP Tardis
Dovoljno napredna tehnologija... je magična! :)
« on: 27-10-2009, 23:56:04 »
Ljudi su za venčanje na poklon od prijatelja dobili čudnovatu kutiju. Na njoj dugme i displej.

Pritisak na dugme je rezultirao porukom: udaljenost 250km - pristup sadržini nije dozvoljen. Pokušaj 1/50.

Uz malo triangulacije i proputovanja problem je rešen a poklon otključan.

http://arduiniana.org/projects/the-reverse-geo-cache-puzzle/

"Dovoljno napredna tehnologija se ne može razlikovati od magije"
Fenomenalno.
Why shouldn't things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.097
Re: Dovoljno napredna tehnologija... je magična! :)
« Reply #1 on: 28-10-2009, 10:35:50 »
Zabavno.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.097
Re: Dovoljno napredna tehnologija... je magična! :)
« Reply #2 on: 08-09-2012, 09:26:38 »
Quantum Teleportation Goes the Distance: Record-Breaking Distance of 143 Kilometers Through Free Space
 
Quote
ScienceDaily (Sep. 5, 2012) — An international research team including several scientists from the University of Waterloo has achieved quantum teleportation over a record-breaking distance of 143 kilometres through free space.
 
The experiment saw the successful teleportation of quantum information -- in this case, the states of light particles, or photons -- between the Canary Islands of La Palma and Tenerife. The breakthrough is a crucial step toward quantum communications via satellite.
Unlike the teleportation of solid objects popularized in science fiction, the experiment involved the teleportation of quantum states, an essential pre-requisite of quantum computing, quantum communication and other powerful technologies under development at the Institute for Quantum Computing (IQC) at Waterloo.
The project, led by researchers from Vienna's Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information, relied on algorithms and equipment developed in Waterloo. Their results were published this week in Nature.
Teleportation across 143 kilometres is a crucial milestone in this research, since that is roughly the minimum distance between the ground and orbiting satellites. This achievement leads to the possibility of quantum teleportation between ground stations and orbiting satellites, a key goal in the research of Professor Thomas Jennewein, an IQC faculty member and collaborator on the record-setting experiment.
For this experiment, Jennewein developed the coincidence algorithm, which synchronized and measured the transfer of photons between the two sites in the Canary Islands.
The ultra-precise clocks needed to measure the teleportation of photon states were aligned to each other to within a nanosecond, or one-billionth of a second. Such precision will be necessary in the development of satellite-based quantum communications networks.
"The experiment paves the way toward teleportation of signals over free space, or even using satellites," said Jennewein, whose research is largely focused on the creation of large-scale quantum communications networks. "This is useful for applications in secure communication, as well as the possibility of networking full-scale quantum computers, once they exist."
IQC research assistant professor Vadim Makarov, along with PhD student Elena Anisimova, designed the highly sensitive photon detectors, which allowed the teleportation to occur with high precision despite some hazy air conditions.
Makarov and Anisimova were recruited to help overcome inclement atmospheric conditions caused by dust whipped up from the Sahara Desert in the summer of 2011 that foiled the first attempt at the teleportation experiment. Makarov's photon detectors, and more cooperative weather, allowed for a successful experiment last April.
Because there is less atmospheric disturbance when communicating upwards to space than between the Canary Islands, Makarov says the next logical step is to attempt teleportation between Earth and a satellite.
Makarov was in the Canary Islands for the experiment, but Jennewein stayed in Waterloo, connecting with his international colleagues via Skype to lend troubleshooting tips and scientific expertise.
 

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: Dovoljno napredna tehnologija... je magična! :)
« Reply #3 on: 28-02-2013, 10:20:04 »

3Doodler 3D Printing Pen Kickstarter


Quote
Five days after launch on Kickstarter, the 3Doodler 3D printing pen boasted over 21,000 backers and $1.9 million in pledges. Their goal was $30,000! What’s so special about the 3Doodler? If nothing else, it rivals the lofty infomercial marketing heights of Slap Chop or ShamWow. But let’s get something straight—3Doodler is a crafting “pen” not a handheld 3D printing pen (whatever that even means).


(via Singularity Hub)



A ono što 3Doodler 3D Printing Pen jeste:



3Doodler Intro Video



Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

zakk

  • Očigledan slučaj RASTROJSTVA!
  • 3
  • Posts: 10.892
    • IP Tardis
Re: Dovoljno napredna tehnologija... je magična! :)
« Reply #4 on: 28-02-2013, 11:47:52 »
Dobar izbor topika :)
Why shouldn't things be largely absurd, futile, and transitory? They are so, and we are so, and they and we go very well together.

BladeRunner

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 928
Re: Dovoljno napredna tehnologija... je magična! :)
« Reply #5 on: 28-02-2013, 14:11:25 »
Moj favorit, ukraden sa Slate-a (ima serija tekstova o robotici, svaki je dobar):

Will Robots Steal Your Job?

Can robots work as scientists? At first, this seems like a silly question. Computers are pervasive in science, and if you walk into a large university lab today, there’s a good chance you’ll find a fully fledged robot working alongside the lab-coat-wearing humans. Robots fill test tubes, make DNA microarrays, participate in archaeological digs, and survey the oceans. There are entire branches of science—climate modeling and genomics, for example—that wouldn’t exist without powerful microprocessors. Machines even play an integral part in abstract fields of discovery. In experimental mathematics, humans rely on computers to inspire new lines of thinking and investigate hypotheses. In 1976, mathematicians used computers to prove the four-color theorem, and machines have since been used in several other proofs.

Still, in most scientific fields, there’s a clear division of labor between humans and computers. Machines occupy themselves with gruntwork—they do the calculating, graphing, mixing, filling, watching, and waiting. Wherever there’s work that’s too tedious, time-consuming, or boring for a human—even a graduate student—you’ll find a robot ready to help. Humans save themselves for that most rarefied pastime: thinking.

In the last section, I wrote about lawyers who believe their thinking-heavy profession is beyond the scope of machines; in science, that feeling is so pervasive as to be unquestioned. Here, people do everything that’s remotely interesting—they come up with theories, design creative experiments, and dream up deep questions for the machines to help answer. So far, this division of labor has worked out pretty well. The humans are happy to give up the dirty work—we’ll even go so far as to concede that the machines are really good at all that tedium, and that without them we wouldn’t be anywhere. The machines, meanwhile, appear to have little capacity to match humans when it comes to mental heavy lifting. All seems well: The humans are in charge, the robots are content, and science progresses.

Then, two years ago, Hod Lipson and Michael Schmidt announced the first stirrings of robotic thinking. Lipson, a computer science professor at Cornell, and Schmidt, then a graduate student in Lipson’s lab, created a computer program that, given a raft of data from physical systems, can describe the natural laws that apply to that system. When they fed their software the motion-capture coordinates of a swinging double pendulum, the machine pondered the data for a couple days, then spat out the Hamiltonian equation describing the motion of such a system—an equation that represents the physical law known as conservation of energy. Their software needed no prior knowledge to discover this law. It wasn’t familiar with gravity, energy, geometry, or anything else. It simply did what human scientists have done since the time of Newton. It looked at the world, came up with theories about how it works, tested them, and then produced a law.

Lipson and Schmidt called their program Eureqa, and they made it available for free on the Web. It has since yielded several new discoveries in a range of fields, discovering scientific laws that we’d never known. Lipson and Schmidt recently worked with Gurol Suel, a molecular biophysicist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, to look at the dynamics of a bacterium cell. Given data about several different biological functions within the cell, the computer did something mind-blowing. “We found this really beautiful, elegant equation that described how the cell worked, and that tended to hold true over all of our new experiments,” Schmidt says. There was only one problem: The humans had no idea why the equation worked, or what underlying scientific principle it suggested. It was, Schmidt says, as if they’d consulted an oracle.

This should terrify scientists. If robots can now outsmart us, what’s left for people to do? More importantly, if we’re entering an age in which machines will be the primary discoverers of new scientific wisdom, what will that mean for human knowledge? We may be able to make use of the laws and equations uncovered by computers, but it’s quite possible that some of it will be too complex for even the smartest humans to understand.

In other parts of this series, I’ve touched on how robots will help many of us—we’ll get better medicine  and better legal services—while putting others on the unemployment line. Thinking machines like Eureqa present a knottier problem. Over the long run, they’ll likely put human scientists out of work. And they may even help change the world in positive ways—Schmidt argues that a machine like Eureqa could determine the strongest, lightest metal alloys to use in industrial applications. At the same time, though, scientific thinking machines might leave us utterly confused about how the world works. We’ll just have to take the computers at their word.

At the moment, Schmidt and Lipson’s machine is still very much subservient to humans—it depends on people to feed it data, and to direct it toward novel research problems. Eureqa is quite simple in design. After it’s fed data about a particular process (the swinging of a pendulum, the dynamics of a cell), the computer generates a huge field of potential equations. These initial equations are random, and the vast majority of them will not apply. But a few of these random equations will show some agreement with the physical world. “We take the ones that are slightly better than the others, and we randomly recombine them to get new equations—and then we repeat the process over and over again, billions and billions and billions of times, until we’ve exhausted the space of short, simple equations,” Schmidt says. In the end, this Darwinian process tends to come up with equations that describe “invariant relationships”—that is, equations that apply across all the data. Such invariant relationships are often associated with fundamental laws of nature: the conservation of energy, Newton’s laws of motion, the mass-energy equivalence.

Both Lipson and Schmidt stress that even if a system like Eureqa becomes the standard way scientists discover natural laws, human scientists will still need to determine what the computer’s formulas mean. “This gets into a deeply philosophical area, which is, What is insight?” Lipson says. “I think it’s a subjective thing—insight and meaning represent some kind of feeling, some kind of sense that you really understand what’s going on. You’ll still need humans for that.”

But there are two problems for human scientists expecting to find long-term employment as meaning-finders. First, Lipson is already working on ways for the computer to explain itself—that is, to describe, in terms that humans might understand, what its equations mean. For the pendulum, we might explain to the computer that we understand a certain quantity as representing energy. Then the software will have to explain its new finding using only the concepts that we’ve taught it. “It’s a little bit like if a child asks you, ‘What’s an airplane?’ and you say, ‘Well, it has wings like a bird, and it has an engine, like a car.’ ” At some point, though, the computer might discover laws that are impossible for us to understand. “It would be like trying to explain Shakespeare to a dog,” Lipson says.

Steven Strogatz, a mathematician at Cornell, coined a name for this problem in an essay he wrote a couple of years ago: “The end of insight.” The idea that humans should be able to understand the world around them is a relatively recent concept. “From my point of view as a mathematician, insight started with Isaac Newton,” Strogatz says. “So it’s like we’ve had 350 years of really good insight, where we’ve found that nature obeys beautiful mathematical patterns and we can understand them.”

Strogatz believes our window of insight is closing—that “we’re reaching our limitations.” In several fields, we seem to be approaching the limits of our intellectual abilities. “People talk about hundreds of billions of things in economics, in the brain, in genes,” Strogatz says. “Once you start talking about that kind of number, lots of interesting interactions occur, and that’s where the scientific frontier problems are—and we’re just not very good at thinking about those kinds of numbers.” And computers are.

Neither Strogatz nor Lipson have a date in mind for when humans will lose their mastery over science. Even as the robots get smarter and smarter, there will still be many human traits that science will depend on. For instance, taste—the ability to choose interesting, creative areas of science to investigate. But make no mistake: Our time is limited. “As thinking machines, they have a lot of advantages over us—this is obvious,” Strogatz says. “We’re not going to be the best players in town. I do think we’ll be put out of business. This is really going to happen.”

Već vidim oglase tipa "Sastavi Teslu", "Hilbert Self-assembly Kit" itd.
All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Gaff

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.341
Re: Dovoljno napredna tehnologija... je magična! :)
« Reply #9 on: 16-04-2013, 10:59:44 »

My 90 year old grandmother tries the Oculus Rift.


"Like Magic! Oh, it's beautiful!"
Sum, ergo cogito, ergo dubito.

Agota

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.824
This is a gift, it comes with a price. Who is the lamb and who is the knife. Midas is king and he holds me so tight. And turns me to gold in the sunlight ...