gursikh

Assuming the space required to run watson halves every two years and v:: of the human brain is v1 = 1500cm³, and Σv of Watson's servers = v2 = 90 x (17.5cm x 44.0cm x 73.0xcm) = 5.05e6 cm^3.

So Watson will be the size of a human brain in t = - ln(v1/v2)/ln(2).

We're looking at 11.7 years. So, 2023.

* Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_%28artificial_intelligen...

"Watson is made up of a cluster of ninety IBM Power 750 servers..."

* Source: http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/hardware/750/specs.html

"175 mm x 440 mm x 730 mm"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qefD5YHPeEM

Touche, but then lawyers, doctors, police officers, senatorial aides, and cancer researchers shouldn't be talking in Comic Sans.

Landing Page: http://p2pu.org/webcraft/html5

Course syllabus: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Drumbeat/p2pu/courses/html5#HTML5.2...

Here's Scott Wilson's update form China in which he walks through the process of getting the watches manufactured.

Integration with nike+ and perhaps a good set of bluetooth headphones make this the ideal running "watch".

"Tim Ferris is a charlatan. He's relies on spin and marketing to sell his products. His methods encourage people to be lazy and not make a genuine effort to reach their goals. His advice is counterproductive."

But while Tim makes every effort to support his claims using facts, anecdotes and citations these sorts of comments are rarely supported by anything other than the commenter's opinion. I'm not saying people shouldn't post Tim-hating comments, to the contrary I'm asking for Tim-haters to form a strong argument against his ideology by citing studies and literature that clearly contradict what he preaches.

* Have you read the book?

* Do you have thoughts of your own about why Tim Ferris's methods cannot be applied to exercise?

If so, I would be genuinely delighted to read them.

Self-defense isn't the same as aggression, it's an act of self-preservation which is still very much a principle of civilized society. The author of the article failed to make this distinction clear. When you stand up for yourself or a friend you're sending a clear message that says "I'm not going to take this laying down."

"We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified."

-Barrack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech

2. I do not consider it a valid way to solve problems.

The smart solution to bullying is to make it socially unacceptable.

When you're in a confrontational situation where the other party is about to beat you to a bloody pulp you can't take a time-out to establish a social stigma. Furthermore that wouldn't work. Most bullies are deviant by nature so making something socially unacceptable would just make it more alluring.

3. We live in a civilized society, where intelligence can triumph over brute strength.

But hitting back only works if you're stronger than them.

By the former statement it appears that you exclude violence categorically from the realm of "intelligent things to do." Violence, just like any other human interaction, is a language with its own inflections and subtleties. Without training and practice how do you expect to be fluent or successful in getting your point across?

See for yourselves.

  "Except for the petroleum graphs, the things I tell you are
  not predictions of the future. I am only reporting facts and
  the results of some very simple arithmetic." (1:22)

  "Please you check the facts. Please check my arithmetic. if
  you find errors, please let me know. But if you don't find
  errors, I hope you take this very very seriously."

The name was left blank in the original, but was intended to be filled in and used when a suitable subject should turn up.