2. Somethings were uncaused (creation of the universe, God, whatever.)
This isn't really that much of a cop-out. If you leave God out of it and look back to the big bang, it doesn't necessarily make sense for us to look at a cause since the laws of physics (not to mention space and time itself) didn't exist (at least not in any form that we know of) before the big bang. Since we don't know what the laws of physics (if there were any) were surrounding the big bang, asking what caused it may be something of an ill posed problem.
Causality is a nasty little thing, and I'm not really well versed in it, but here is something to think about regarding root causes:
Consider truly random events in quantum physics (I believe certain types of particle decay fit into this category, though my understanding of physics isn't what I wish it was). What is the cause of a particle decaying (or not decaying). One could very easily argue that there is no cause.
Of course, one could always argue that since God created the universe, he in some way caused it.
Anyway, this is a pretty simplistic example, and just something to think about. You should be able to find plenty of readings on causality without much trouble if your really interested in it.
After watching the videos of this thing moving, it appears to form a stable posture with some of it's legs (at least 3), and then move the other ones to find it's next stable posture. On uneven ground the extra legs will help it find a stable stance at any given time. I'm not really too familiar with a lot of legged robots, but it's pretty common to have 6 or 8 legs. You can probably find a lot of different papers online about the different gaits that these things use.
On another note, evolution minimizes energy use, and it gave the scorpion 8 legs.
It's my understanding that a lot of libraries don't keep any records of who has checked out a book in the past. The only records kept are who currently has the book and any info pertaining to fines. The same could essentially be done with computer usage. The records of who was using a computer need not be kept past the end of a day, and the hard drive could then be synced to some disk image (I know some places already do this too, just to keep the machines working properly). I'm not sure any fancy technical solution is really necessary. If libraries are really interested in protecting privacy they can do it.
I don't think Hap was going to confess anything about the planted evidence, I think it was just about some small stuff that he did. Will was afraid that after that though, he would come under close scrutiny and they would find out that he planted evidence. (sorry... just a minor quibble)
How come when something is wrong w/ the security of a MS product, it is posted under the MS topic, and when they do soemthing right it is posted under security... is there some sort of bias showing through here?
This is a pretty simplistic way to look at AI. Tell me, which NP-Complete problem allows a computer to have a human level conversation in english? (or gives a computer understanding about common sense physics, etc...). You might be able to make a computer that plays better chess if you show that P=NP, but there are much deeper problems in AI that I don't think can just be solved by solving NP problems in polynomial time. It would certainly help, but P=NP does not imply that we can suddenly solve all of the problems in AI.
I wouldn't worry much about this. Almost all computer scientists believe that P != NP, and a lot of very smart people have put in a lot of time trying to show otherwise. Besides, even publishing a proof of P=NP does not mean that we can solve NP-Complete problems easily (could be huge exponents involved) and does not make encryption usless overnight.
Besides, cryptographers would very quickly start using much larger keys and eventually move into algorithms whose keys cannot be broken by solving NP-Complete problems.
Do they not want anyone to find them...? Do they keep their phone numbers and address unlisted?
Also, how does linking to them in any way effect their brand name? That just doesn't make any sense? And this is an e-commerce company right (couldn't get their page to load)... if all e-commerce compaines are this savy, then that pretty much explains the dot-com bust!
"Maybe the program warns you but few reads it as they are requesting the clip. "
I think that's the key sentence here... if people would read what they clicked on then this wouldn't happen. People think that they should be able to do whatever they want with their machine, not have to read anything or actually figure anything out and every thing should work fine. When you behave like this and and click "ok" without reading what you jsut oked, and something goes wrong -- you blame the OS or the program...? I don't think the problem is with the OS or program. Now you would have a valid complaint if a program changed a global setting on your machine without asking first... if nothing else that's just plain intrusive. but that is different from a default setting or from changing a setting with your permission.
This is just plain ridiculous... I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but saying their anti-competitive because people would have to spend about 5 min learning how to change a setting, but because they're too stupid or lazy to do so microsoft should be forced to hold their hand while they do it?
What next... Saying that its unfair to have microsoft.com be the default home page for a newly installed copy of ie just because some idiot might want to change it but doesn't want to take the time to figure out how...???
This goes beyond a legitimate argument to just finding something to complain about because complaining about microsoft is the thing to do.
Re:I liked this game better...
on
Pirates!
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I hate the idea that I would be considered "old school" (I'm not that old) but I used to actually play this on an apple II and I still think it was one of the best games I've ever played. Just recently I got sick of the newer games and just had to find a copy of it to play. I like it for the same reason I like alot of ATARI 7800/2600 games, they actually had good game play. There was some sort of interesting plot, some strategy, openendness, some thumb candy, and you never got stuck in some position where you couldn't make any progress (I can't tell you how many games I've given up on because I just can't figure out where to go, I like challenges in games, but finding the damn "magic" pixel I need to click on to continue in the game is not my idea of fun, same thing with navigating some maze like geography... I didn't shell out all that money to play lab rat), and it didn't have to rely on flashy graphics to make it fun, it was just fun to play. I think a lot of that is lost in games
in new games because so much effort goes into making them look pretty, (ohh wow... I can have blood and guts splattering at 80fps... this must be good!!!!!) and the end result is soemthing that is less interesting then a decent game of hearts. Now why would I shell out $50 for that?
Just one more thing,... It bothers me that the copy for the PDA actually copied the name right down to the "!" at the end and didn't give any credit to the origional game. I couldn't even find any mention of the origional on the web page (and no, I didn't read the pdfs, maybe the mention it in there).
Any I'm done ranting... I'm gonna go play a game of cribbage.
I'd be interested to see how well this works... does anyone know of a way to see whether or not a certain page will be blocked (short of playing w/ aol's parental controls). It would be cool just to be able to feed it text and see if it oks it or not. I didn't see anything like this on the companies web site (though I didn't look everywhere). I would bet that if the software actually worked well, then they would have something like this available. It kind of reminds me of that neural net software that was supposed to be able to recognize pronographic images and how dismally it performed (even though I do think you'll have better success working with text).
I think Aimster has a much better chance of falling under fair use than napster does. If it's fair use to share a recording with a few of your friends (and not everyone in the world as is the case with napster) then why should it not be fair use if it's done on-line? Basically, it's been accepted that people will share recordings among their friends... and I don't see the RIAA trying to crack down on that... why should it be different just because it's on-line? Small scale sharing among friends has always happened. It happened long before mp3s or even cds... it's probably not worth the RIAA's time or money to try to stop it (because it will just go on off-line instead of on-line). Unless Aimster becomes the next napster somehow (i.e. maybe by everyone on aimster putting everyone else on their buddy list), then it's probably not a problem for the RIAA (I doubt it will effect their bottom line in any significant way).
Out of the two e-mail addresses that I have had for a significant amount of time, neither of them get any spam... one is with my college (I've had that one for almost 4 years) and I've had another one with yahoo for almost a year.... and I never get ANY spam in either. I guess I just don't understand what the big deal is... I try to keep them from being posted publicly, but otherwise I take no precautions with them... what is it that everyone else is doing with their addresses that I am not doing that gets them spammed? It really doesn't seem that hard to prevent spam from reaching your inbox(maybe just create a sperate e-mail account for stuff like/., I would never post my main e-mail addresses publicly, that would just be asking for it)
Ben
I actually went and hooked up the cue cat that I've had for months and tried this. I was a bit dissapointed. For the few companies that I acutally managed to find cuecat ready ads for, the program didn't open any interesting pages (I even got a page in french when I scanned an ad for columbia/tristar home videos). Now I didn't check the pages that it didn't open for me, so maybe I missed something. The program's an interesting idea, but maybe there's a better way to search for more interesting pages. For example, if I scan a barcode that would normally bring me to www.companyname.com, maybe it could do some sort of search for pages like www.companynamesucks.com or www.companynameblows.com, etc... this might yeild more interesting results.
I don't understand how we are supposed to raise children to respect the ideas of the constitution and the rights of others if we raise them in an essentially fascist environment 180 days a year. Now I understand that children under 18 or 21 shouldn't have all the same rights as adults, and this is for their own protection. But we need to be careful what rights we limit in children. Not letting an 8 year old drive or buy a gun is common sense. But it seems that if we start censoring the ideas that they are exposed to during their most formative years, then that is all they will know. We are essentially stunting their ability for free and independant thought.
These kids shouldn't be raised by some piece of software made by a company whose only motive is most likely profit. What they need is guidence in choosing what to do on the internet, because when they get to the real world, there isn't going to be anyone doing this choosing for them in any part of their life. My only worry is that having been raised this way they will want the government to start choosing etc... and we can all figure out where that will lead.
Consider this situation: The government requires by law that children attend school up to 16 or 18 (whatever it is)... during their most formative years. They spend the better part of their day at these schools for at least 180+ days a year. While they are there, they are taught that they essentially have no rights, and that someone else should decide what information they can see. Basically what this seems to amount to is govenment forced (especially if you can't afford private school) indoctrination into a certain way of thinking.
Seems like we're starting down a dangerous path...
I don't think the commercials are as good this year as they were in past years... I have always liked the bud ads in the past but there just kind of boring this year. No Frogs. The snickers ones are alright though. You would think that for what an ad spot costs they would be more entertaining.
I'm rather appaled at the lack of mention of Kurt Vonnegut here. I know he doesn't write typica science fiction, but his works are written in very much the same spirit as science fiction. Interestingly enough, I don't think that Slaugher House 5 (probably his most famous book) is necessarily his best or the best one to start with. I would reccomend reading "Welcome to the Monkey House", a collection of short stories, or possibly "Cat's Cradle" to start. I think the first Vonnegut book I ever read was "Cat's Cradle", and within something like two days, I read three more of his novels. BenC
When any given two people have sex and have a kid, there is a good chance that their kid will be smarter than at least one if not both of them (take einstein.... you think both of his parents were as smart as him). So indeed, every time people have sex and have a kid they are taking the chance that will create something smarter than themselves... and so far the world apparently failed to end.
It's very sad... but most people base their fears of Artifical Intelligence (or man made intelligence) on bad science fiction movies... I suggest that you actually take the time to learn something about the field... (first of all, I would say we are no where near creating anything of even near the intelligence of, say a monkey), but even more so... there is really no intrisic danger to man made intelligence, if it ever comes to be... like any technology, the potential for missuse is there, but I believe that what we have to gain from creating intelligence (whether as a computer or a life form) far outweighs the risks...
This is a sad sad thing... unfortunate as it may be, religion and science don't mix... What if Galileo went to the religious authorities when he realized that he was on the verge of discoveries that might upset them... Or what if Darwin never researched evolution because it might annoy the religious powers that be... Just because a scientific discovery may turn religous dogma upsidedown doesn't mean we should abandon our search for truth... even if it discredits or disproves some religions... I believe that consulting relgious leaders is not only absurd, but unethical..., I believe a scientist has the duty to pursue the truth about our world... no matter who it upsets, or what taboo subjects it talks about... when I believe something a scientist says, I believe it because I believe that their information comes from careful scientific study... If scienctists start to base their research on religion then I can no longer believe what they have to say... What they say will have no more credibility then the story book that says zeus creates thunder.
This seems totally ridiculous to me... Assuming that either party in the case was a mature adult (which I sincerely doubt based on what I know), if either one felt thretented, or that there could be actual violence.. they could have just stopped posting to the news group or responding to the other... no one was forcing them to go there, and neither of them had any more right than the other to be there... Either one could have stopped it at any time by just not participating in the flame. The government stepping in and telling them that their war of words (no matter how crude it was) was unaccpetable is complete bull shit... I can see how there would be a case if one was actively pursuing the other, and seeking out the other to harass them... but they could have both used the newsgroup without even paying attention to eachothers postings... filtering them if they wanted... it seemed as if they were both willing participants in a disscussion that Big Brother had no right to halt. Note that I haven't actually seen any of these posts... but I think the above applies regardless of the contents of their posts.
Professors do have input into the process... it's when they give their lecutre in which they share the notes with the entire class (or in many cases where they put the notes on the web or hand them out in class)... it shouldn't be the professors problem if someone doesn't bother to come to class. And I agree that this professor bashing is pretty inane... if you don't like the professors at a school, or the price of the school, don't go, no ones forcing you. Granted there are bad professors out there... but if your taking their class, obviously they know something you don't and you might get something useful out of listening to them insetad of complaining... it's sad.. but I see some students spend more time whining about professors and classes then actually doing the work... if they put their whining energy into the class they would do fine.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe if everyone had these, it would lead to smarter intersections.
Maybe I missed something, but don't the sensors build into the road sort of serve the same purpose?
2. Somethings were uncaused (creation of the universe, God, whatever.)
This isn't really that much of a cop-out. If you leave God out of it and look back to the big bang, it doesn't necessarily make sense for us to look at a cause since the laws of physics (not to mention space and time itself) didn't exist (at least not in any form that we know of) before the big bang. Since we don't know what the laws of physics (if there were any) were surrounding the big bang, asking what caused it may be something of an ill posed problem.
Causality is a nasty little thing, and I'm not really well versed in it, but here is something to think about regarding root causes:
Consider truly random events in quantum physics (I believe certain types of particle decay fit into this category, though my understanding of physics isn't what I wish it was). What is the cause of a particle decaying (or not decaying). One could very easily argue that there is no cause.
Of course, one could always argue that since God created the universe, he in some way caused it.
Anyway, this is a pretty simplistic example, and just something to think about. You should be able to find plenty of readings on causality without much trouble if your really interested in it.
After watching the videos of this thing moving, it appears to form a stable posture with some of it's legs (at least 3), and then move the other ones to find it's next stable posture. On uneven ground the extra legs will help it find a stable stance at any given time. I'm not really too familiar with a lot of legged robots, but it's pretty common to have 6 or 8 legs. You can probably find a lot of different papers online about the different gaits that these things use.
On another note, evolution minimizes energy use, and it gave the scorpion 8 legs.
Ben
It's my understanding that a lot of libraries don't keep any records of who has checked out a book in the past. The only records kept are who currently has the book and any info pertaining to fines. The same could essentially be done with computer usage. The records of who was using a computer need not be kept past the end of a day, and the hard drive could then be synced to some disk image (I know some places already do this too, just to keep the machines working properly). I'm not sure any fancy technical solution is really necessary. If libraries are really interested in protecting privacy they can do it.
I don't think Hap was going to confess anything about the planted evidence, I think it was just about some small stuff that he did. Will was afraid that after that though, he would come under close scrutiny and they would find out that he planted evidence. (sorry... just a minor quibble)
How come when something is wrong w/ the security of a MS product, it is posted under the MS topic, and when they do soemthing right it is posted under security... is there some sort of bias showing through here?
This is a pretty simplistic way to look at AI. Tell me, which NP-Complete problem allows a computer to have a human level conversation in english? (or gives a computer understanding about common sense physics, etc...). You might be able to make a computer that plays better chess if you show that P=NP, but there are much deeper problems in AI that I don't think can just be solved by solving NP problems in polynomial time. It would certainly help, but P=NP does not imply that we can suddenly solve all of the problems in AI.
I wouldn't worry much about this. Almost all computer scientists believe that P != NP, and a lot of very smart people have put in a lot of time trying to show otherwise. Besides, even publishing a proof of P=NP does not mean that we can solve NP-Complete problems easily (could be huge exponents involved) and does not make encryption usless overnight.
Besides, cryptographers would very quickly start using much larger keys and eventually move into algorithms whose keys cannot be broken by solving NP-Complete problems.
Do they not want anyone to find them...? Do they keep their phone numbers and address unlisted?
Also, how does linking to them in any way effect their brand name? That just doesn't make any sense? And this is an e-commerce company right (couldn't get their page to load)... if all e-commerce compaines are this savy, then that pretty much explains the dot-com bust!
"Maybe the program warns you but few reads it as they are requesting the clip. "
I think that's the key sentence here... if people would read what they clicked on then this wouldn't happen. People think that they should be able to do whatever they want with their machine, not have to read anything or actually figure anything out and every thing should work fine. When you behave like this and and click "ok" without reading what you jsut oked, and something goes wrong -- you blame the OS or the program...? I don't think the problem is with the OS or program. Now you would have a valid complaint if a program changed a global setting on your machine without asking first... if nothing else that's just plain intrusive. but that is different from a default setting or from changing a setting with your permission.
This is just plain ridiculous... I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but saying their anti-competitive because people would have to spend about 5 min learning how to change a setting, but because they're too stupid or lazy to do so microsoft should be forced to hold their hand while they do it?
What next... Saying that its unfair to have microsoft.com be the default home page for a newly installed copy of ie just because some idiot might want to change it but doesn't want to take the time to figure out how...???
This goes beyond a legitimate argument to just finding something to complain about because complaining about microsoft is the thing to do.
I hate the idea that I would be considered "old school" (I'm not that old) but I used to actually play this on an apple II and I still think it was one of the best games I've ever played. Just recently I got sick of the newer games and just had to find a copy of it to play. I like it for the same reason I like alot of ATARI 7800/2600 games, they actually had good game play. There was some sort of interesting plot, some strategy, openendness, some thumb candy, and you never got stuck in some position where you couldn't make any progress (I can't tell you how many games I've given up on because I just can't figure out where to go, I like challenges in games, but finding the damn "magic" pixel I need to click on to continue in the game is not my idea of fun, same thing with navigating some maze like geography... I didn't shell out all that money to play lab rat), and it didn't have to rely on flashy graphics to make it fun, it was just fun to play. I think a lot of that is lost in games
in new games because so much effort goes into making them look pretty, (ohh wow... I can have blood and guts splattering at 80fps... this must be good!!!!!) and the end result is soemthing that is less interesting then a decent game of hearts. Now why would I shell out $50 for that?
Just one more thing,... It bothers me that the copy for the PDA actually copied the name right down to the "!" at the end and didn't give any credit to the origional game. I couldn't even find any mention of the origional on the web page (and no, I didn't read the pdfs, maybe the mention it in there).
Any I'm done ranting... I'm gonna go play a game of cribbage.
-Ben
I'd be interested to see how well this works... does anyone know of a way to see whether or not a certain page will be blocked (short of playing w/ aol's parental controls). It would be cool just to be able to feed it text and see if it oks it or not. I didn't see anything like this on the companies web site (though I didn't look everywhere). I would bet that if the software actually worked well, then they would have something like this available. It kind of reminds me of that neural net software that was supposed to be able to recognize pronographic images and how dismally it performed (even though I do think you'll have better success working with text).
I think Aimster has a much better chance of falling under fair use than napster does. If it's fair use to share a recording with a few of your friends (and not everyone in the world as is the case with napster) then why should it not be fair use if it's done on-line? Basically, it's been accepted that people will share recordings among their friends... and I don't see the RIAA trying to crack down on that... why should it be different just because it's on-line? Small scale sharing among friends has always happened. It happened long before mp3s or even cds... it's probably not worth the RIAA's time or money to try to stop it (because it will just go on off-line instead of on-line). Unless Aimster becomes the next napster somehow (i.e. maybe by everyone on aimster putting everyone else on their buddy list), then it's probably not a problem for the RIAA (I doubt it will effect their bottom line in any significant way).
Out of the two e-mail addresses that I have had for a significant amount of time, neither of them get any spam... one is with my college (I've had that one for almost 4 years) and I've had another one with yahoo for almost a year.... and I never get ANY spam in either. I guess I just don't understand what the big deal is... I try to keep them from being posted publicly, but otherwise I take no precautions with them... what is it that everyone else is doing with their addresses that I am not doing that gets them spammed? It really doesn't seem that hard to prevent spam from reaching your inbox(maybe just create a sperate e-mail account for stuff like /., I would never post my main e-mail addresses publicly, that would just be asking for it)
Ben
I actually went and hooked up the cue cat that I've had for months and tried this. I was a bit dissapointed. For the few companies that I acutally managed to find cuecat ready ads for, the program didn't open any interesting pages (I even got a page in french when I scanned an ad for columbia/tristar home videos). Now I didn't check the pages that it didn't open for me, so maybe I missed something. The program's an interesting idea, but maybe there's a better way to search for more interesting pages. For example, if I scan a barcode that would normally bring me to www.companyname.com, maybe it could do some sort of search for pages like www.companynamesucks.com or www.companynameblows.com, etc... this might yeild more interesting results.
I don't understand how we are supposed to raise children to respect the ideas of the constitution and the rights of others if we raise them in an essentially fascist environment 180 days a year. Now I understand that children under 18 or 21 shouldn't have all the same rights as adults, and this is for their own protection. But we need to be careful what rights we limit in children. Not letting an 8 year old drive or buy a gun is common sense. But it seems that if we start censoring the ideas that they are exposed to during their most formative years, then that is all they will know. We are essentially stunting their ability for free and independant thought. These kids shouldn't be raised by some piece of software made by a company whose only motive is most likely profit. What they need is guidence in choosing what to do on the internet, because when they get to the real world, there isn't going to be anyone doing this choosing for them in any part of their life. My only worry is that having been raised this way they will want the government to start choosing etc... and we can all figure out where that will lead. Consider this situation: The government requires by law that children attend school up to 16 or 18 (whatever it is)... during their most formative years. They spend the better part of their day at these schools for at least 180+ days a year. While they are there, they are taught that they essentially have no rights, and that someone else should decide what information they can see. Basically what this seems to amount to is govenment forced (especially if you can't afford private school) indoctrination into a certain way of thinking. Seems like we're starting down a dangerous path...
I don't think the commercials are as good this year as they were in past years... I have always liked the bud ads in the past but there just kind of boring this year. No Frogs. The snickers ones are alright though. You would think that for what an ad spot costs they would be more entertaining.
I'm rather appaled at the lack of mention of Kurt Vonnegut here. I know he doesn't write typica science fiction, but his works are written in very much the same spirit as science fiction. Interestingly enough, I don't think that Slaugher House 5 (probably his most famous book) is necessarily his best or the best one to start with. I would reccomend reading "Welcome to the Monkey House", a collection of short stories, or possibly "Cat's Cradle" to start. I think the first Vonnegut book I ever read was "Cat's Cradle", and within something like two days, I read three more of his novels. BenC
When any given two people have sex and have a kid, there is a good chance that their kid will be smarter than at least one if not both of them (take einstein.... you think both of his parents were as smart as him). So indeed, every time people have sex and have a kid they are taking the chance that will create something smarter than themselves... and so far the world apparently failed to end.
It's very sad... but most people base their fears of Artifical Intelligence (or man made intelligence) on bad science fiction movies... I suggest that you actually take the time to learn something about the field... (first of all, I would say we are no where near creating anything of even near the intelligence of, say a monkey), but even more so... there is really no intrisic danger to man made intelligence, if it ever comes to be... like any technology, the potential for missuse is there, but I believe that what we have to gain from creating intelligence (whether as a computer or a life form) far outweighs the risks...
This is a sad sad thing... unfortunate as it may be, religion and science don't mix... What if Galileo went to the religious authorities when he realized that he was on the verge of discoveries that might upset them... Or what if Darwin never researched evolution because it might annoy the religious powers that be... Just because a scientific discovery may turn religous dogma upsidedown doesn't mean we should abandon our search for truth... even if it discredits or disproves some religions... I believe that consulting relgious leaders is not only absurd, but unethical..., I believe a scientist has the duty to pursue the truth about our world... no matter who it upsets, or what taboo subjects it talks about... when I believe something a scientist says, I believe it because I believe that their information comes from careful scientific study... If scienctists start to base their research on religion then I can no longer believe what they have to say... What they say will have no more credibility then the story book that says zeus creates thunder.
This seems totally ridiculous to me... Assuming that either party in the case was a mature adult (which I sincerely doubt based on what I know), if either one felt thretented, or that there could be actual violence.. they could have just stopped posting to the news group or responding to the other... no one was forcing them to go there, and neither of them had any more right than the other to be there... Either one could have stopped it at any time by just not participating in the flame. The government stepping in and telling them that their war of words (no matter how crude it was) was unaccpetable is complete bull shit... I can see how there would be a case if one was actively pursuing the other, and seeking out the other to harass them... but they could have both used the newsgroup without even paying attention to eachothers postings... filtering them if they wanted... it seemed as if they were both willing participants in a disscussion that Big Brother had no right to halt. Note that I haven't actually seen any of these posts... but I think the above applies regardless of the contents of their posts.
Professors do have input into the process... it's when they give their lecutre in which they share the notes with the entire class (or in many cases where they put the notes on the web or hand them out in class)... it shouldn't be the professors problem if someone doesn't bother to come to class. And I agree that this professor bashing is pretty inane... if you don't like the professors at a school, or the price of the school, don't go, no ones forcing you. Granted there are bad professors out there... but if your taking their class, obviously they know something you don't and you might get something useful out of listening to them insetad of complaining... it's sad.. but I see some students spend more time whining about professors and classes then actually doing the work... if they put their whining energy into the class they would do fine.