Very good question. I can only reply by pointing to the scalar polarisation effect negating the red/blue doppler shift you mention. Couple that with Newtonian dynamics in question, and you have a very good correction mechanism along the theta axis. Not to mention that the wibble-wobble isn't nearly as unstable as once thought.
Sometimes I imagine Go as the essence of life, distilled into a binary adversarial form. Of course, I snap out of it when my neighbours explain I can't just take their cars because "they had no liberties" when I double-park.
Very true.
on
Cracking Go
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The game is _very_ subtle.
Absolutely. Last weekend -- Thanksgiving here in Canada -- my family vacationed in Northern Ontario. We didn't bring a television, but somebody did bring a Go set. I set about teaching most of my family how to play it. But what's amazing to me is how long it takes to get an adequate grasp of the basic concepts. Life, death, influence, strength, weakness, playing in the corners and sides, even scoring is hard. I don't even have a good handle on the game, and I've been playing extensively for some five years now.
In that context, I don't wonder that it's hard for computers to handle Go. The game has facets that are hard to quantify. It's hard for intelligent humans, too. Much like life.
Sort of makes you wonder; if a computer can figure out Go, how far from that point is real AI? Or does that question even mean anything?
Karma was originally conceived of to weed out good comment submissions from the bad ones, yes? Why not extend that system to the Firehose. If your submissions are modded down enough, you slip below some threshold, or just can't submit, period.
You see, 'fixing the earth' is a complex affair, especially if you're not going to cop out and either eliminate humanity or return us to hunter-gatherer technology levels.
I'd love to be a hunter-gatherer. It's fundamentally more dangerous, but the risk/reward ratio is better. You do less work for more return.
Of course, we'd have to have far fewer people. But I was on the subway the other day, and I think I'd be okay with that.
If it were merely education in a classroom setting, I could see it as a distraction, a detriment of some kind. But the XO is about a different kind of education entirely, one not driven (necessarily) by classroom learning. It's about enabling a generation to become familiar with computers, with computing metaphors, and even better, UNIX.
It could be like a quantum leap for an entire generation of kids. They might take it to the next level. Punch it up a notch. Fly high. Other metaphors and similes.
Seriously. Let me urinate and let it tell me what I need to know. Incorporate some sort of medical scanning equipment on it. Let me keep my records to myself.
How could that possibly be worse than the combination of Microsoft and doctors?
If you take a path no-one has taken before, you're basically risking your reputation (and I guess in the countries in question your life as well) on something that isn't proven to work. Or, in the case of Windows, isn't proven to sort of work.
The real question becomes, then, how afraid are you? Innovation always involves fear. But it involves ridiculous rewards when you're right.
When you consider that the course of action in question involves the betterment of an entire generation of children, and quite possibly their children as well, you can't be faulted for at least trying something new. Even something untested, because face it, your old and busted way isn't working very well.
So basically what you're saying is... if we don't throttle bandwidth, I'm going to ask my secretary for an internet, only to find the tubes are clogged?
Dammit! Why has the art of the funnel been lost in the annals of history?!?
Read the article. Most of the quotes aren't either right or wrong; most of them are simply mundane, and were mundane when he made them. Read every single quote and see if you don't say, "Well DUH!" in your head a bunch of times.
Maybe the article sucks, or Bill's holding his crystal ball close to the boardroom, but it's all pretty standard stuff.
Bill Gates doesn't seem to be much of a seer in the development of his software, either. From what I've seen his comments correlate well with the way Microsoft works: they make some fine products, but seem to be continually behind the ball on everything. All the major innovations of Windows et al were done somewhere else first, and often much better. Like the web that Gates keeps alluding to. They bolted that functionality on to Windows back in the day (let's not even go there) and to this day the overwhelming body of evidence is that Microsoft doesn't really get the web.
So no, I don't think Bill is a particularly insightful seer. He may be an evil genius or something when it comes to the minutiae of building an empire, but future-aspected he is most certainly not.
You want a seer? Try Jules Verne. Now that guy was pretty damn amazing.
Not to mention the virtual impossibility of tracking whose property is in whose in perpetuity. Can you imagine the maker of the chair owning the "intellectual property" for chairs forever? Imagine the legal minefield absolutely everything would become if the estate of the guy who made the first chair started suing eachother. Imagine how ingenuity would grind to a halt as everything become wrapped up in the barbed wire of protection.
This is why I'm in favour of the public domain, and in favour of it sooner rather than later. When your idea, or you implementation, or your song, or your algorithm, or your sheet music go into the public domain, it fosters innovation. The short-term monopoly you are given fosters the actual creation, but when it enters the public domain the real innovation hits. Look, for instance, how hiphop artists are sampling old public domain records. Look at code that's free to be changed. The examples are endless.
But at the end of the day the real challenge is not people extending copyright and treating patents like warheads and trademarking the "Apple". The real challenge is, instead, educating the masses why what you create isn't yours naturally. It's ours. It's the way it's always been: what humanity creates belongs to humanity. You can try to stop it, of course. But you'll fail.
So if I understand you correctly, software patents should be treated like soft wax sculptures that don't last very long, but hardware patents are more like durable cast iron hammers. That means we can melt software patents into candles, using them for lighting and ending the energy crisis, while we can use hardware patents to pound legal textbooks into pulpwood to burn for heat, ending the energy crisis. Both end up solving the energy crisis, so shouldn't we treat them the same?
Have you considered running for Congress? Because you are ready to make laws!
You know, the more I think about your first bullet point, the more I like it. It's workable, it seems like something that would scale well, and frankly, could you imagine the feedback they'd get if a request for prior art to invalidate a patent was, say, posted on Slashdot?
Although it'd give a whole new meaning to "patent troll". I think I'm going to go rush out and patent "a method to prevent trolling on patent feedback" right now...:)
Well, if you can consider that an answer. It's pretty obvious. But how would you go about doing that, exactly? The patent office isn't exactly a deep well of talent into which politicians are willing to simply throw money for the good of the country.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, frankly, I just made a bunch of stuff up.
Unlike String Theory, a rigorously testable... oh wait.
Very good question. I can only reply by pointing to the scalar polarisation effect negating the red/blue doppler shift you mention. Couple that with Newtonian dynamics in question, and you have a very good correction mechanism along the theta axis. Not to mention that the wibble-wobble isn't nearly as unstable as once thought.
Wow, I'm full of shit.
If there were, say, an array of data transfer points, combined with an elaborate system of mirrors and caches, it might actually work!
And I clearly need to take a walk to clear my head.
If I were a CIO, I'd turn the moon into a gigantic data centre.
Cold? Check. Solar-power ready? Check. Visible from earth so that everyone can see my giant penis^H^H^H^H^H data-centre? CHECK.
I like that.
Sometimes I imagine Go as the essence of life, distilled into a binary adversarial form. Of course, I snap out of it when my neighbours explain I can't just take their cars because "they had no liberties" when I double-park.
In that context, I don't wonder that it's hard for computers to handle Go. The game has facets that are hard to quantify. It's hard for intelligent humans, too. Much like life.
Sort of makes you wonder; if a computer can figure out Go, how far from that point is real AI? Or does that question even mean anything?
Karma was originally conceived of to weed out good comment submissions from the bad ones, yes? Why not extend that system to the Firehose. If your submissions are modded down enough, you slip below some threshold, or just can't submit, period.
Hunter/gatherers are allowed to have refrigeration, I think. At least the hunter/gatherer manual doesn't say anything about it.
That thing flying over your head is my point.
You see, 'fixing the earth' is a complex affair, especially if you're not going to cop out and either eliminate humanity or return us to hunter-gatherer technology levels.
I'd love to be a hunter-gatherer. It's fundamentally more dangerous, but the risk/reward ratio is better. You do less work for more return.
Of course, we'd have to have far fewer people. But I was on the subway the other day, and I think I'd be okay with that.
If it were merely education in a classroom setting, I could see it as a distraction, a detriment of some kind. But the XO is about a different kind of education entirely, one not driven (necessarily) by classroom learning. It's about enabling a generation to become familiar with computers, with computing metaphors, and even better, UNIX.
It could be like a quantum leap for an entire generation of kids. They might take it to the next level. Punch it up a notch. Fly high. Other metaphors and similes.
Seriously. Let me urinate and let it tell me what I need to know. Incorporate some sort of medical scanning equipment on it. Let me keep my records to myself.
How could that possibly be worse than the combination of Microsoft and doctors?
If you take a path no-one has taken before, you're basically risking your reputation (and I guess in the countries in question your life as well) on something that isn't proven to work. Or, in the case of Windows, isn't proven to sort of work.
The real question becomes, then, how afraid are you? Innovation always involves fear. But it involves ridiculous rewards when you're right.
When you consider that the course of action in question involves the betterment of an entire generation of children, and quite possibly their children as well, you can't be faulted for at least trying something new. Even something untested, because face it, your old and busted way isn't working very well.
So basically what you're saying is... if we don't throttle bandwidth, I'm going to ask my secretary for an internet, only to find the tubes are clogged?
Dammit! Why has the art of the funnel been lost in the annals of history?!?
Because there's so damn many of them?
Read the article. Most of the quotes aren't either right or wrong; most of them are simply mundane, and were mundane when he made them. Read every single quote and see if you don't say, "Well DUH!" in your head a bunch of times.
Maybe the article sucks, or Bill's holding his crystal ball close to the boardroom, but it's all pretty standard stuff.
Bill Gates doesn't seem to be much of a seer in the development of his software, either. From what I've seen his comments correlate well with the way Microsoft works: they make some fine products, but seem to be continually behind the ball on everything. All the major innovations of Windows et al were done somewhere else first, and often much better. Like the web that Gates keeps alluding to. They bolted that functionality on to Windows back in the day (let's not even go there) and to this day the overwhelming body of evidence is that Microsoft doesn't really get the web.
So no, I don't think Bill is a particularly insightful seer. He may be an evil genius or something when it comes to the minutiae of building an empire, but future-aspected he is most certainly not.
You want a seer? Try Jules Verne. Now that guy was pretty damn amazing.
The video, as far as I can tell, is like exploratory surgery.
Tangentially, actually watching it much like surgery, as well.
Not to mention the virtual impossibility of tracking whose property is in whose in perpetuity. Can you imagine the maker of the chair owning the "intellectual property" for chairs forever? Imagine the legal minefield absolutely everything would become if the estate of the guy who made the first chair started suing eachother. Imagine how ingenuity would grind to a halt as everything become wrapped up in the barbed wire of protection.
This is why I'm in favour of the public domain, and in favour of it sooner rather than later. When your idea, or you implementation, or your song, or your algorithm, or your sheet music go into the public domain, it fosters innovation. The short-term monopoly you are given fosters the actual creation, but when it enters the public domain the real innovation hits. Look, for instance, how hiphop artists are sampling old public domain records. Look at code that's free to be changed. The examples are endless.
But at the end of the day the real challenge is not people extending copyright and treating patents like warheads and trademarking the "Apple". The real challenge is, instead, educating the masses why what you create isn't yours naturally. It's ours. It's the way it's always been: what humanity creates belongs to humanity. You can try to stop it, of course. But you'll fail.
Maybe what's really wrong with HDMI is that it's yet another acronym. Call it SuperAwesomeFunPlug or something like that instead.
Stupid boring technology companies.
Have you considered running for Congress? Because you are ready to make laws!
You know, the more I think about your first bullet point, the more I like it. It's workable, it seems like something that would scale well, and frankly, could you imagine the feedback they'd get if a request for prior art to invalidate a patent was, say, posted on Slashdot?
:)
Although it'd give a whole new meaning to "patent troll". I think I'm going to go rush out and patent "a method to prevent trolling on patent feedback" right now...
Well, if you can consider that an answer. It's pretty obvious. But how would you go about doing that, exactly? The patent office isn't exactly a deep well of talent into which politicians are willing to simply throw money for the good of the country.
Frankly, there are people in the world to help that guy out, even people who are willing to do it free of charge.