Slashdot Mirror

I think a major problem with the undertaking is that (last time I checked) the fundamentals of how human brains deal with semantic/pragmantic issues (i.e. how we process concepts) was far from nailed down. Half the linguistics community thinks Jerry Fodor is out there, and half of them think he has a point, when he says all concepts are innate.

Now whether or not you believe what he says, the fact that there is so little concensus about something as fundamental as what a concept is and how we process them is a bit worrisome. This is going with the assumption that whatever we build on the software side will mimic *us* on the software side (yet another good question).

You may wonder what all this has to do with machine translation. Well, one of the difficulties mentioned before is known as the "scope problem" -- i.e. if the computer is to use any semantic knowledge (of the world - i.e. concepts) to sort through ambiguity, where does it begin? How do you create an understanding of the world so that there is an understanding of definitions?

I once wrote a PROLOG based Natural Language Parser in college, and thought it was pretty cool until I realized that it was the biggest can of worms I ever opened...

At the bottom you'll find the reference you asked for.

Just think about this: A neural network performs analog mathematical operations (sums, multiplications and so on.

A Turing machine is DIGITAL. It can simulate analog computations at a finite level of presition. But something is lost. Remember that some numbers have infinite decimals (1/3=0.333333...).

But those are only comments to begin to understand. Check the reference!

----------

Gee I'm dumb. As several people pointed out, it's 100 Teraflops. Well, so much for my theory, "I don't get any dumber after a few beers."

As a consolation, here's a link to IBM's Blue Gene supercomputer. It's still about 5 years off, but it will likely be the first Petaflop computer. It's being built specifically to solve a single problem--modelling protein folding. The best bit is that even at a petaflop, it will take about a YEAR to simulate a single protein.

CGI? and Perl?

Not if you want to handle millions of transactions, you won't.
Distributed N-tier architecture, scalable and capable of handling serious loads. Good load balancing in software and hardware. Distributed databases, LDAP for user reg's, cache for the data. Batch processes that run when there is not too much traffic to update and clean your cache. Transaction management, distributed transaction management on different systems.
Resource management, memory, RAID systems, caching, HD space.

If you want to be multiplatformed and n-tiered, go here: http://divya.com/pubs/ejb/ and here: http://www.javaworld .com/javaworld/topicalindex/jw-ti-ejb.html Or here: http://www.cs.rutgers.edu/~shklar/isas98/

And all this is just a beginning of understanding. You actually need a good Software Architect(s) in order to optimize your performance under heavy loads, good Interface Designer(s) to optimize the user interface, good graphics designer(s) to be efficient and good looking, coder(s) who do your *ml work

here is what I do for living, just click on 'Product' there.

Tell me you didn't just cut-and-paste your assignment text into Ask Slashdot... =)

IMO, we really don't want a GNOME-specific solution to this problem, because then users will have to install fonts once into KDE and once into GNOME -- this is an improvement over installing fonts once into every app, but it's still unsatisfactory.

As for TeX fonts ( metafont ), they are a completely different beast. They are very high quality, but render very slowly, and are unsuitable for WYSIWYG publishing. The TeX font system is also somewhat more complex than anything you'd use for WYSIWYG publishing, and as such, it probably needs to be kept seperate.

PS: For everything you ever wanted to know about Type on Linux, check out the Font HOWTO. Cheers,

Ah, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, Scourge of Liberty and Friend to the Tyrant.

We really must get this damnéd thing repealed.

Of course, if you are in New Jersey, you should go to my old Alma Mater, Rutgers, anyway (where I got my B.A. in English). I think they have a more liberal use policy, here it is http://rucs.rutgers.edu/acceptabl e-use-guide.html

Speaking of having office applications for Linux on other architectures, I'm surprised that now that Sun owns StarOffice, they haven't bothered releasing binaries for SPARC Linux. Definitely, opening up the source for StarOffice (and others) would make this possible not only on the SPARC/UltraSPARC, but other CPU architectures as well. I haven't tried out KOffice yet, so maybe that's a good route to go for those of us with non-Intel machines. As an alternative, maybe I'll see if I can get the StarOffice Solaris SPARC version going under Solaris emulation today.

...this approach, with the one taken by Mark Tilden:

• http://eagle.online.discovery.com/stories/technolo gy/robots/robots1.2.html
• http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cfs/472_html/Intro/NYT _Intro/History/MachineIntelligen ce2.html

The latest Smithosonian had an especially good article about him. Apparently his original demo 'bot was a robust walker that could clear most obstacles, run by all of 12 transistors.

I think somebody needs to look at combining the approaches of AI based robots that make decisions based on modeling their world, and robots such as Tilden's that seem to simply have "body feel" for their environment. Perhaps a Tilden type robot body could carry a reasoning "head" that sets goals for the body to carry out. I think this would be much like ourselves. Imagine if you had to walk or jump with only your eyes to guide you. No sense of balance, or kinesthetic sense. I doubt you could do it. We shouldn't expect robots to do the same.

The code in question (I assume) is this lovely slashdotted ditty over here in case anyone wants a look-see.

My favorite still has to be this one which translates the imput into pig latin while being itself an ascii pig comprised of pig-latin'ed code. I'd inline it, but slashdot munges the extra spacing.

If Dave Miller (now redhat) were still at Rutgers I bet he'd have SparcLinux running on this by now...

http://www.caip.rutgers.edu/~e10k/

Whether they're Dead or Alive,
Add them to the Archive!
You can check out the computer magazine archive at http://www.caip.rutgers. edu/~msimons/library/compmaga.html we're a resource of old & new computer, electronics, and media magazines. I know the page isn't too exciting, but scans are coming soon once our curator is no longer sick and gets a better system/access. Access to the collection, OCR scans, and photocopies are available to any contributors to the archive.

mochaone wrote:

So let me get this straight. I'm supposed to gather evidence to support my suppositions, yet you are allowed to postulate as to what Judge Jackson is going to do?

No, you were postulating about what the appeals court would do, and I asked for some evidence for your postulations. I too was postulating, and in spite of your sarcastic tone, I will take your statements as a request for evidence on my part.

You seem to be questioning two points of mine: I expect the findings of fact will probably declare Microsoft to be a monopoly, and not suggest anything as to remidies, which is really two points: I expect the findings will declare monopoly, and I expect they won't suggest remedies at this point. The other point is A slap on the wrist would hasten the death of the proprietary software industry, because Microsoft would continue to kill it.

First, I expect the findings of fact to declare Microsoft a monopoly because that is far from controvertial. The rule of thumb is a company is a monopoly if it has more than a 70% market share, Microsoft has a 90% market share. The controversy is over whether or not Microsoft used its Monopoly powers illegally, and I did not speculate on what Jackson would find there.

I expect the findings of fact to suggest no remedies because there is no other reason for Judge Jackson to split the findings of fact from the Judgement. Microsoft asserted that they will appeal any negative judgement very early in the trial. The purpose of separating the judgement from the findings of fact is to shield the facts of the case (which are harder to appeal) from being dragged through the mud during the appeal of the judgement. Suggesting remedies during the findings of fact would defeat the purpose.

Lastly, as for Microsoft killing the proprietary software industry, here is some good material to support my opinion:
Caldera v Microsoft Complaint
Reiser v Microsoft on allegedly illegal product tying
A Rutgers University analysis of Microsoft's use of predatory pricing to destroy competitors
A Reuters Article describing Microsoft's pressure on Acer to not sell competitors applications

In all, Microsoft is clearly trying to encompass as much of the industry as they can get away with, and kill any competitors that stand in their way. If they're the only provider of proprietary software, it's no longer an industry, hence they would have killed the industry. Personally, I don't think it's a great loss, since Microsoft is a big fish, eating all the little fishes (other proprietary vendors), while the rest of us are learning to farm kelp (Free software).

Hmm...I guess since you're saying it, "evidence" isn't needed to prove your point?
No, I was saying evidence was needed to prove your point. As you can see above, there's lots of evidence to support my point.

PS: I was completely baffled by your talk of movies and heads. What were you trying to say there?

----

Um, so? Some predictions pan out, some don't. In any case, Drexler seems to be pretty careful about just pointing out what could be and not saying that he knows what will be. Granted, some nano-enthusiasts get carried away and make pretty ludicrous predictions, but that's hardly Drexler's fault. In fact, he tries to discourage bogosity.

When he said the "information is out there, what do the Universities add?" I hear that you are missing, that he may or may not have actually made. Consider an education as a whole - it involves not only skills and compiled intellect, but also self-knowledge and an understanding of the (meta)physical forces of the world (and more, the point is that it is broad. it is everything you benefit by learning). The information to learn all these things is available without the standard university system (especially with an informational tool such as the Internet). however, the universities act as if they are the only portal to education, and what's worse is that many people believe this. they end up denying themselves a fruitful life as they consider themselves 'grownup' around 25 and grow stale the rest of their lives. Universities can offer so much, but they exist unchecked. they are too formulaic, expensive, political, bent on self-agrandizement. if you could decifer the order of their primary goals, you'd probably see a few items ahead of education. the opensource science model would remedy this, providing an alternative (we can do it well ourselves). one reason OSS is working so well is that the Internet provides us with a means to interact without the aciene regime propping itself up upon our back. let's let them know that we know they are taking advantage of us. let's call them on their bluff. are they really the source of "higher discovery" or do they too much resemble a self-glorified diploma vending machine? mradlerATedenDOTrutgersDOTedu

Send your patch to the linux-kernel mailing list just saying "Hey here's a patch against Linux 2.x.y that autodetects Foo Inc.'s Bizbaz XT controller card." Unless your patch is really big (why would it be?); then just give a link to a website or something to your patch. In case you're not on the linux-kernel mailing list, the short summary of how to make a good patch is:
$ diff -urN {original-source-tree} {your-source-tree} >/tmp/linux-patch

Alternatively, look in the .c file for the XT controller and find an appropriate email address if you don't want to broadcast your patch to everyone on the lkml. Hope this helps.

my boss here at rutgers wrote his own stuff to count our ip's on the network, it goes by MAC addresses... we use MRTG and SNMP to do quite a bit... read to get more info at http://dorm.rutgers.edu/ipcount.shtml

Sure it is. The GNU system is a collection of software, some of it written by the GNU project to make a complete free Unix clone. check out the 'it all started here' link through this.

I can run XFree86 on Windows NT

Sure, you can run lots of bits of the GNU system on non-GNU systems, but they are still part of the GNU system.

XFree86 is also part of the NetBSD system, and the RedHat system, of course.

Sure you could easily add a non-GNU shell. what compiler would you compile it with? Which C library would you compile it with (hint, all versions of libc for Linux are based on GNU libc). Which termcap would you link to?

You seem to think that Linus wrote the kernel, and then there just happened to be available all the free tools necesary to make a free OS. The reason why all the bits were just there as if by magic was that the GNU project had been adding them, filling in the gaps in the available free software until all there was missing (or rather late) was the kernel.

Do you think the GNU people wrote a C library because it was the most exciting free software project they could think of? I'm sure they would have had more fun writing the LISP-based windowing system they originally planned, but if they had done that we would have had two windowing systems (with X) and no C library. Ie we would not have had Linux distributions.

I can quite understand RMS's frustration that everyone thinks the entirety of the Linux system appeared out of nowhere as soon as Linus wrote the kernel. Probably changing the name isn't the way to raise awareness (gets too many people's backs up, and noone can be bothered with as clumsy a name as GNU/Linux) but I don't know what is.

For those old enough to remember the Yggdrasil distribution (my first) it was labelled Linux/GNU/X. Can't quite remember the order, though I still have the CD somewhere.

And of course what all the above means is that noone would want to call the combination of Tru64 and a lot of free stuff GNU/anything. To suggest otherwise (even as a joke) is to misunderstand totally the motivation behind the GNU/Linux name.

The operating system in which Linux is typically used is basically the GNU system, combined with Linux and somewhat modified. The GNU Project started development of this system, so we ought to get credit.

Mentioning GNU in names of variants of the system is a way of giving credit. The best name to use for the Linux-based variant of the system is "GNU/Linux", which means, GNU and Linux together.

It wouldn't be right to use the term "GNU Linux", because that would mean either "GNU's version of Linux" or "Linux, which is a GNU program". Those meanings don't fit the facts. "GNU/Linux" does fit.

Calling the operating system just Linux confuses most users--anyone who doesn't have a real firm understanding of the difference and relationship between the whole system and the kernel. These people see statements about "Linux", some of which refer to the kernel and some of which refer to the whole system, and they don't realize that not all the statements are talking about the same thing.

I *grok* Stallman's motivation, and this is why:
Stallman's announcement of GNU creation
A lecture he gave in Stocholm

I identify with him, and these writings are very inspiring to me. Probably most people who don't get it haven't emotionally identified with Stallman - emotion is the source of most conflict, realized or not.

I think if Stallman is to bring more people to his side, he must emotionally appeal to the hackers with newer, more widely publicized writings. I bet most people agree with him more than they are aware.

Information costs nothing to share, yet corporations become rich by restricting who you can share it with. GNU combats this peacefully by producing free information to share with everyone - a worthy organization to share the spotlight with.

FYI, these Stallman writings were found at the Stallman Shrine, apparently created by Dave Miller, kernel code hacker extraordinare.

The operating system in which Linux is typically used is basically the GNU system, combined with Linux and somewhat modified. The GNU Project started development of this system, so we ought to get credit.

Mentioning GNU in names of variants of the system is a way of giving credit. The best name to use for the Linux-based variant of the system is "GNU/Linux", which means, GNU and Linux together.

It wouldn't be right to use the term "GNU Linux", because that would mean either "GNU's version of Linux" or "Linux, which is a GNU program". Those meanings don't fit the facts. "GNU/Linux" does fit.

Calling the operating system just Linux confuses most users--anyone who doesn't have a real firm understanding of the difference and relationship between the whole system and the kernel. These people see statements about "Linux", some of which refer to the kernel and some of which refer to the whole system, and they don't realize that not all the statements are talking about the same thing.

I *grok* Stallman's motivation, and this is why:
Stallman's announcement of GNU creation
A lecture he gave in Stocholm

I identify with him, and these writings are very inspiring to me. Probably most people who don't get it haven't emotionally identified with Stallman - emotion is the source of most conflict, realized or not.

I think if Stallman is to bring more people to his side, he must emotionally appeal to the hackers with newer, more widely publicized writings. I bet most people agree with him more than they are aware.

Information costs nothing to share, yet corporations become rich by restricting who you can share it with. GNU combats this peacefully by producing free information to share with everyone - a worthy organization to share the spotlight with.

FYI, these Stallman writings were found at the Stallman Shrine, apparently created by Dave Miller, kernel code hacker extraordinare.

The operating system in which Linux is typically used is basically the GNU system, combined with Linux and somewhat modified. The GNU Project started development of this system, so we ought to get credit.

Mentioning GNU in names of variants of the system is a way of giving credit. The best name to use for the Linux-based variant of the system is "GNU/Linux", which means, GNU and Linux together.

It wouldn't be right to use the term "GNU Linux", because that would mean either "GNU's version of Linux" or "Linux, which is a GNU program". Those meanings don't fit the facts. "GNU/Linux" does fit.

Calling the operating system just Linux confuses most users--anyone who doesn't have a real firm understanding of the difference and relationship between the whole system and the kernel. These people see statements about "Linux", some of which refer to the kernel and some of which refer to the whole system, and they don't realize that not all the statements are talking about the same thing.

I *grok* Stallman's motivation, and this is why:
Stallman's announcement of GNU creation
A lecture he gave in Stocholm

I identify with him, and these writings are very inspiring to me. Probably most people who don't get it haven't emotionally identified with Stallman - emotion is the source of most conflict, realized or not.

I think if Stallman is to bring more people to his side, he must emotionally appeal to the hackers with newer, more widely publicized writings. I bet most people agree with him more than they are aware.

Information costs nothing to share, yet corporations become rich by restricting who you can share it with. GNU combats this peacefully by producing free information to share with everyone - a worthy organization to share the spotlight with.

FYI, these Stallman writings were found at the Stallman Shrine, apparently created by Dave Miller, kernel code hacker extraordinare.

Linux can beat BSD much of the time. See the scoreboard, where Linux toasts both SunOS 5 (SysV-based Solaris 2) and SunOS 4 (BSD-based Solaris 1) on Sun's own hardware.

I'm sure the OS is just there to config the hardware and perform low-speed tasks as needed. The real work is done on special-purpose chips. Just think about the memory bandwidth your CPU would need to handle all that.