Yes it can, but as a prior poster stated, not in real-time with something moving on the screen.
Our color perception is actually an interference pattern. White isn't a "color". Yes we see it as a "color", but it's just neuron notation for "all the colors." Our brains use shorthand a lot in dealing with signals.
An untrained ear listening to a symphony might here the notes in the movement. If you listen more carefully, you will hear the harmonys, the melodys, and the chords. If you really know what to listen for, you can pick out individual instruments.
Now, take the same music, and listen to it while jogging. At that point you could be playing it with the quality of a cellular ring tone and you wouldn't notice.
That said even our eyes aren't sensitive to "infinite" ranges of color. Our perception of color is an interference pattern caused by the firing of nerve cells sensitive to different frequencies of light. While it appears "continuous" to us, it is really a population of discrete events. Remember, white isn't a color. It's an interference pattern.
Yeah, I'm picking nits, but there is a reason by tricks like RGB color work in the first place.
Actually those aren't hard-fast borderlines. It's just the point where 50 % of the population looses sensation. So yes, on average you can't, but there are those oddballs that can.
Yes, but they learned something the hard way with DVD. Unless you control the players, you don't control jack. Their whole region coding scheme was rendered null and void as soon as software DVD players became available.
They want Microsoft buy in so they can have customer lock-in. (Keep in mind, this is an industry that has already been broken up by Antitrust courts before. In addition to producing and distributing movies, they also used to own the theaters.)
"To crash another day" - Agent 0x00000007 takes on a malevelant hacker to twart his plans to take over the world with a killer virus: the "Hi, can I infect your computer" worm.
"x=x+28 days later." A man wakes up from a coma to find all the computers in the world have been reformatted by a virus to run BSD.
I'm just trying to figure out which one is the Alien and which one is the Predator.
The both are a bit awkward and they couldn't sneak up to a deaf man in a disco. It's more like the velocraptors and the T-Rex going at it at the end of Jurassic Park.
(And if you haven't seen AVP, it really is worth watching in the theater.)
If you call developing the theory of control in 3 dimensions a "minor" engineering problem, that is. Yes the answer in the end was simple, but it was not obvious. And it required a deep understanding of the overall design of the aircraft to pull off.
You talk about this as if it were a matter of fact, not opinion.
You must be new here. (LOL)
Frankly the biggest problem with Classic AI has nothing to do with the poor models of rationality.
The problem with Classical AI is that it attempts to use rationality at all.
Human history is a long line of irrational people trying to deal with random events. Yes, we have discovered that symbols make a great way to exchange ideas. But saying that the inner workings of the human mind can be understood through symbols is like saying that music can be understood through studying sheet music.
Yes you can get a lot of neat patterns, but it doesn't help you learn how to actually compose it, play it, or appreciate it.
But this is NOT like building a plane where 10 or 12 different groups of people had a rough idea what it required to make it happen and it was just a race to get the right set of tweaked parameters to make powered human flight work.
If you think the Wright Brother's first flight was a set of tweaked parameters, you really need to re-learn your history. While other teams were working on thrust and power-to-weight ratios, they actually solved the real problem: Control. They figured out how to control roll on an aircraft.
All of the other teams were working under the assumption that they could fly an airplane like you can pilot a boat. They had rudders for pitch. They had rudders for yaw. They had absolutely know idea in the world how to keep the plane from rolling. So they just kept throwing more thrust at the problem.
And it wasn't just the control problem that put the Wright Brothers ahead of the other teams.
They invented the modern concept of wind-tunnel testing and scale model testing. They also pioneered the science of propeller design. A more efficient propeller allowed them to get the aircraft in the sky with a much smaller engine.
I've always suspected that the very act of being alive was a large part of the workings of our brain. Trying to copy our brain structures would be like re-building a city, but without any people in it. Conversely trying to copy the brain patterns without the structures would be like dropping 8 million citizens onto a dirt field and expecting New York City.
Any middle of the road approach would suffer the SimCity effect. No two layouts end up working out the same way unless you can ensure the exact same topology, identical growing conditions, and leaving the disasters button off. Translation: you COULD recreate A brain. Just not a brain that had developed in an uncontrolled environment, ala as soon as the kid steps out of the lab.
(It could make for an interesting world where everyone has essentially the same childhood though.)
In order for computers to start thinking like humans, we first have to be able to properly understand and model how humans think.
So I guess medival "engineers" would have to grasp the concepts of momentum and potential energy before the catapult was invented, and prehistoric man would have had to have groked thermodynamics before fire was created.
No, no, no, no, no. Intellectuals have the problem backwards. Historically makind goes out and does something, and only later do we understand HOW we did it. Look at the invention of the transister. Alchemist predate chemistry by millenia. The profession of Engineering is derived from their work on siege engines. (Shakespear uses the term "Engineer" in his plays a full century before modern physics was formulated by Newton.)
Some team, or a lone crackpot, is going to develop a thinking machine as a side effect of some other project, and 30 years later science will formulate a theory about how it works.
AI is moving slowly because researchers in the 60's realized that if they did their job too well, their very jobs would be done by the machine.
If teamsters (the guys who used to drive teams of horses mind you) were in charge of developing the steam engine we would still be waiting for the locomotive.
My 12" iBook is about as small as a computer can go and still be functional. I have a Clie with a color screen, and while balsy, it's really only good as a datebook and a way subject my victims to rolls of photographs of my infant daughter.
I've tried the Clie for bus schedules. (SEPTA lets you pull them off the website in PDF) I either have to zoom out to the point that the text is illegable, or zoom in to the point that you are constantly scrolling to figure out which column is my stop. I actually find it faster to just keep the iBook in my laptop in sleep mode, and call up the schedules on screen.
And of course, there is the matter of the keyboard...
We have several Linux kiosks, and they work quite well as uber-locked down, single site stations.
Most of our Kiosks are Windows based though. Our tech shop has a lockdown procedure that combines a couple of commercial packages, a pile of registry hack, and VNC to remotely reboot the darn things if a program locks up.
What I've found is, that irrational as it sounds, people refuse to use something that doesn't look like windows. (Despite the fact that Windows doesn't even look like windows after a while.) Of course, they also get annoyed when the start button and the desktop don't work, they can't download Gator, and AIM is blocked.
Offering open net access is a black hole to throw labor hours into. Despite the complaints, the Linux boxes work for years at a time. The Windows boxes crash a lot, but they can work well too. And no matter what you go with, people will bitch about whatever you have set up.
Actually, it IS the patent holder's job to find infringement. There are firms that do try to sniff out patentially patented material, but it's still hit or miss.
All things being equal, you are better off (legally speaking) by simply doing what you intend to do. You can always license whatever the technology is later, even assuming the patent is valid and/or applicable in your situation.
True. We can write about a patented process to our heart's content. It's only when we render it in concrete form that it enters the realm of patent law.
IOW, we would toss in a compile flag for "INCLUDE CODE COVERED BY CONTESTED PATENTS"
Er, because I don't have enough to keep me awake at night as it is beyond the erroding IT job market in the US, the goofball in office, and natural disasters?
Scratch that. The introduction of Windows 98 an NT 4.0 was the deathblow for Mac outside of core markets. 95 was an unmitigated pile of dung. Plug and play was like plug and swear.
Yes, 95 machines were very stable. It you laid them flat.
They seem too expensive and have too small a software base compared to Windows and Linux combined. That is not an unfair comparison, given how common it is for people to have dual-bootable PCs.
Too small a software base? Well what the hell do I care about software base if the application I use everyday IS available.
As far as dual booting computers (and yes I've had them), it's not about software base. It's generally because someone wants to play with one operating system while keeping another. Seriously, ask most people who dual boot "do you use both OS's". The answer is no. 80% of the time they tossed Linux on one partition to be 133+ and have never looked at it again. The remainder are Linux converts who keep the windows partition alive for gaming or MS Office.
And I'll have you know I am a Mac person and a drive a Ford Focus. It was cheaper, balsier, and more fuel efficient than the beetle. At least in 2000 when I bought it.
Slashdot Mirror
Our color perception is actually an interference pattern. White isn't a "color". Yes we see it as a "color", but it's just neuron notation for "all the colors." Our brains use shorthand a lot in dealing with signals.
An untrained ear listening to a symphony might here the notes in the movement. If you listen more carefully, you will hear the harmonys, the melodys, and the chords. If you really know what to listen for, you can pick out individual instruments.
Now, take the same music, and listen to it while jogging. At that point you could be playing it with the quality of a cellular ring tone and you wouldn't notice.
Yeah, I'm picking nits, but there is a reason by tricks like RGB color work in the first place.
Actually those aren't hard-fast borderlines. It's just the point where 50 % of the population looses sensation. So yes, on average you can't, but there are those oddballs that can.
They want Microsoft buy in so they can have customer lock-in. (Keep in mind, this is an industry that has already been broken up by Antitrust courts before. In addition to producing and distributing movies, they also used to own the theaters.)
"x=x+28 days later." A man wakes up from a coma to find all the computers in the world have been reformatted by a virus to run BSD.
You mean like DVD, Divx...
All those divisions just sort of "happened" too.
Cue jokes about the license fees from .NET, as opposed to .GROSS
The both are a bit awkward and they couldn't sneak up to a deaf man in a disco. It's more like the velocraptors and the T-Rex going at it at the end of Jurassic Park.
(And if you haven't seen AVP, it really is worth watching in the theater.)
But of course we've had this discussion before...
You must be new here. (LOL)
Frankly the biggest problem with Classic AI has nothing to do with the poor models of rationality. The problem with Classical AI is that it attempts to use rationality at all.
Human history is a long line of irrational people trying to deal with random events. Yes, we have discovered that symbols make a great way to exchange ideas. But saying that the inner workings of the human mind can be understood through symbols is like saying that music can be understood through studying sheet music.
Yes you can get a lot of neat patterns, but it doesn't help you learn how to actually compose it, play it, or appreciate it.
If you think the Wright Brother's first flight was a set of tweaked parameters, you really need to re-learn your history. While other teams were working on thrust and power-to-weight ratios, they actually solved the real problem: Control. They figured out how to control roll on an aircraft.
All of the other teams were working under the assumption that they could fly an airplane like you can pilot a boat. They had rudders for pitch. They had rudders for yaw. They had absolutely know idea in the world how to keep the plane from rolling. So they just kept throwing more thrust at the problem.
And it wasn't just the control problem that put the Wright Brothers ahead of the other teams. They invented the modern concept of wind-tunnel testing and scale model testing. They also pioneered the science of propeller design. A more efficient propeller allowed them to get the aircraft in the sky with a much smaller engine.
Any middle of the road approach would suffer the SimCity effect. No two layouts end up working out the same way unless you can ensure the exact same topology, identical growing conditions, and leaving the disasters button off. Translation: you COULD recreate A brain. Just not a brain that had developed in an uncontrolled environment, ala as soon as the kid steps out of the lab.
(It could make for an interesting world where everyone has essentially the same childhood though.)
Don't tell that to Mozart, Franklin, or Jim Morrison.
8752 Humans discover that this isn't their first time through history.
So I guess medival "engineers" would have to grasp the concepts of momentum and potential energy before the catapult was invented, and prehistoric man would have had to have groked thermodynamics before fire was created.
No, no, no, no, no. Intellectuals have the problem backwards. Historically makind goes out and does something, and only later do we understand HOW we did it. Look at the invention of the transister. Alchemist predate chemistry by millenia. The profession of Engineering is derived from their work on siege engines. (Shakespear uses the term "Engineer" in his plays a full century before modern physics was formulated by Newton.)
Some team, or a lone crackpot, is going to develop a thinking machine as a side effect of some other project, and 30 years later science will formulate a theory about how it works.
If teamsters (the guys who used to drive teams of horses mind you) were in charge of developing the steam engine we would still be waiting for the locomotive.
I've tried the Clie for bus schedules. (SEPTA lets you pull them off the website in PDF) I either have to zoom out to the point that the text is illegable, or zoom in to the point that you are constantly scrolling to figure out which column is my stop. I actually find it faster to just keep the iBook in my laptop in sleep mode, and call up the schedules on screen.
And of course, there is the matter of the keyboard...
Most of our Kiosks are Windows based though. Our tech shop has a lockdown procedure that combines a couple of commercial packages, a pile of registry hack, and VNC to remotely reboot the darn things if a program locks up.
What I've found is, that irrational as it sounds, people refuse to use something that doesn't look like windows. (Despite the fact that Windows doesn't even look like windows after a while.) Of course, they also get annoyed when the start button and the desktop don't work, they can't download Gator, and AIM is blocked.
Offering open net access is a black hole to throw labor hours into. Despite the complaints, the Linux boxes work for years at a time. The Windows boxes crash a lot, but they can work well too. And no matter what you go with, people will bitch about whatever you have set up.
All things being equal, you are better off (legally speaking) by simply doing what you intend to do. You can always license whatever the technology is later, even assuming the patent is valid and/or applicable in your situation.
IOW, we would toss in a compile flag for "INCLUDE CODE COVERED BY CONTESTED PATENTS"
Er, because I don't have enough to keep me awake at night as it is beyond the erroding IT job market in the US, the goofball in office, and natural disasters?
Yes, 95 machines were very stable. It you laid them flat.
Too small a software base? Well what the hell do I care about software base if the application I use everyday IS available.
As far as dual booting computers (and yes I've had them), it's not about software base. It's generally because someone wants to play with one operating system while keeping another. Seriously, ask most people who dual boot "do you use both OS's". The answer is no. 80% of the time they tossed Linux on one partition to be 133+ and have never looked at it again. The remainder are Linux converts who keep the windows partition alive for gaming or MS Office.
And I'll have you know I am a Mac person and a drive a Ford Focus. It was cheaper, balsier, and more fuel efficient than the beetle. At least in 2000 when I bought it.
So when is the last time you washed dishes with bottled water?