According to slashdot, the Will Smith movie wasn't even written as an Asimov Novel, just picked up the title late in production when the studio got the rights to the I, Robot novel. Some ideas did cross over.
In I Robot there was a story about a big computer having its "keep humans safe" law relaxed in order to work through some hyperspace calculations. It was done very carefully and still the AI went slightly insane and developed a sense of humor, playing a sort of practical joke on the first crew.
In another story something like that was tried, and the robot had to be found and retired because it had gone somewhat insane.
The other case in Asimov's stories, has to do with the 0th law. Keep in mind that in his universe, if a robot realized that it had harmed a human, or even seriously considered it, it would go so far against his instincts that it would basically have a stroke and die. In Robots and Empire, two robots imagine there might be a 0th law, more important than the first, that is for that the robots should help preserve mankind even if that means harming a human. One robot agrees, and goes so far as to try it, but is so conflicted he ends up dieing because of it.
So, yeah, pay no attention to the double-brain hollywood silliness. Asimov started writing the robot novels because he was tired of the Frankestein "our creations vs. us" plot. The whole point is that there is no robot conspiracy to fight.
Hell the first book had Elijah Baley suspect R. Daneel Olivaw (robot) of being the killer, but was of course proven wrong in the process.
For what it's worth, in the latter robot novels, the three laws were not a set of rules that robots couldn't break, but rather a hierarchy of needs to drive their actions.
Basically, why would a robot want to do anything? Why not just sit there and relax all day?
Psychologist have proposed a hierarchy of needs for people. You get off your ass because you need to make sure you eat and survive. Once you got that you make sure you're safe and comfortable. If you got that you find friends, a mate/fall in love. etc.
Asimov's first robot novel (Caves of steel) did include the three laws as unbreakable laws, but later (robots of dawn, etc) he instead stated that they were the reasons robots even moved or acted. Their AIs were based around wanting to protect humans, once that's done, they want to follow order, and if they got that they want to keep themselves safe. It's their deepest instincts, their reason to be.
It wasn't against the law to make a robot without the three laws. The problem was that nobody knew how to do that and have the brain still be stable. It was stated that it would take over a hundred years to develop non-three-laws AIs from scratch.
So, it's not like they want to do their thing and be resentful about having to obey humans. They might be annoyed at doing things that humans want just like we'd be annoyed at having to eat, breathe, have friends and to never shoot ourselves in the head.
Not saying you don't know this, but it's just a pet peeve of mine. Hollywood seems impervious to this resoning:)
Thorough human history, and in all culture I'm aware of, there have always been midwives. Women who help other women, who learn from one another, watching the other women delivering babies, learning from mistakes and teaching each other.
So, no, I don't think not innately knowing how to deliver a baby is a big deal. At least nothing that changed in the last hundred years.
What has changed is our isolation from others. A hundred or two hundred years ago, you'd be hard pressed to live somewhere without some midwife nearby. Maybe if you lived alone on a farm (hard as there would always be family/farmhands around), but in this case the couple couldn't even call the neighbors for help, and they wouldn't be likely to know what to do.
Actually, I'm kind of surprised the midwife didn't stay on the phone to talk them through it. But yeah, google can substitute in a pinch. Kudos to the father for his level-headedness, many would've freaked out in that situation.
Group layers and a single window interface are in current SVN.
For everything else you'll have to wait a year or two until the Gimp developers integrate their new GEGL framework, revamping Gimp into something else entirely along the way. It'll use float-based RGB as its internal representation, but handle anything as input and output. The current implementation of GEGL is dog-slow though, so don't bother to try it.
As for the GP's suggestion for adjustment layers, no it's not enough. And yes, Adjustment layers could be implemented without waiting for GEGL integration, but the Gimp developers refuse to do it worrying that it'll make the integration harder (And because they want to come up with a completely new UI for them).
Interestingly, I was looking at Sun's licensing and procedures. It turns out that they require a copyright assignment form to include your changes in the official version (like the FSF does, but the FSF is not a for profit company). Their procedure is for shared copyright with the author, but it gives them the right to do whatever they want with the code, regardless of license.
So, IBM would be buying the right to include all of the work in Sun's open source projects in their closed-sourced solutions and/or cannibalize them anyway they want. That's pretty big, really.
Granted, the current open source projects would survive, and IBM is nice enough to the open-source crowd that these won't be killed outright.
Then it sounds like you need a camera and GPS with bluetooth. They can talk to each other and fill in location data in real-time, and if you're in a studio or near your laptop, it can upload the pictures in the background.
You could even use it as a phone camera, or for videoconferencing, or whatever you want. Bluetooth is pretty standard for tethering like this.
Wifi is only useful if you want to upload directly to the internet. That's not always the best solution
Well, if you RTFA you'll find out that they did indeed put a bag in his bag, so he can carry while he carries, and even lay them flat so the TSA can check it while they check him.
GCC has supported PGO since at least 1999 (when I first saw it)
See if you can find some old docs and look up -pg, --profile-arcs, and related flags.
The amount and quality of optimization based on this information has varied over the years, but the basic infrastructure is pretty old. I think modern gccs build themselves with PGO by default.
I just wanted to point out that statically compiled code with PGO is even more advantageous because your final version is optimized with the runtime information, but doesn't have profiling code built in (which the java version would). So once again, static languages win.
Also, GCC uses PGO for branch prediction. Instead of having the compiler guess which side of the branch gets taken more often, the profile gives you a better idea of the runtime behavior.
This can be useful for things like loop unrolling, branch prediction, inlining (is the increased code size worth it?), etc.
One example I remember is, if you know some branch is never taken (say, error handling), the compiler can put the normally taken branch right after the branch instruction, so the processor cache is more effective, and the untaken branch on an entirely different linker section, together with all the other similar branches of the application, so it's more easily paged out. The branch is still available to be executed if needed, of course, just a bit more slowly, but who cares?
But then again, not all Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. After all if we assume a hierarchical buffalloes relation, there will be at least one buffalo at the bottom of the ladder. The one Buffalo buffalo who all Buffalo buffalo can buffalo, which would get buffalloed if it tried to buffalo other Buffalo buffalo.
Though it itheoretically possible that one Buffallo buffallo buffaloes a Buffalo buffalo that buffaloes a Buffalo Buffalo that Buffaloes the original Buffalo buffalo.
From TFA: The software: currently weâ(TM)re running a full install of Ubuntu Linux on the prototype with a custom Webkit browser. Maybe they'll cut it down later, but I don't see why they should. They probably don't boot Gnome or any services, but it should be able to run random executables.
I wonder if they have tried to incorporate the setup from the 5 second boot project.
Actually, R is an imperative language. You can loop just fine, as well as modify variables (state) and everything else you'd expect from a normal language. (Though functions are first-class objects and all that)
The reason you don't is that it's like SQL in that its statements can work on whole tables at a time. For example, applying mean() to a table gives you an array with the mean value of every column (and the array positions are named after the column names).
If you want to get the rows of an array (x) with 0 on column 1, you do x[x[,1]==0]. basically, x[,1] gives you a one column table with the appropriate column, x[,1]==0 gives you a vector of true,false values, which you can use to index into the array again.
You can do things like by(x,x[,1]==0,nrow), which gives you how many rows have 0 and how many don't on column 1. by(x,x[,1]==0,mean) gives you the per-column mean of the rows which have 0 on column 1 and the same for those that don't
Anyway, you get the idea. You can loop just like can use cursors in SQL, but your code will be slower and less readable if you do.
Actually, they can already be reprogrammed wirelessly, but not via wifi or bluetooth, nor at any reasonable range.
Since only doctors have to change the settings, it is profitable for the pacemaker companies to make pacemakers require a special handheld programmer using a special low-power protocol and built by the same company. Vendor lock-in of doctors and all that.
Replanting is great, but does that newly planted tree use as much CO2 as the 100 year old one cut down? Trees take a while to regrow... so saying they're being replanting is a bit disingenuous.
Yes. That's whee the carbon in the new wood comes from. Same amount as the old tree used when growing up.
Besides, you don't burn the tree to make paper. The carbon in the old one is still sequestered.
While insighful, I'm not sure "enemy" combatant applies. After all, most of the world isn't an enemy of Gaza or Israel. There is probably some classification like that (Unlawful combatant?), though I doubt whether there even are legal consequences your country is not involved in the war. It's even less clear if you reside on a country that has a mutual defense kind of agreement with of one of these countries.
Yes, joining on such a botnet is stupid. Yes, joining such a botnet in wartime would be stupid, possibly in a legal way. Yes, joining it while in one country would be even more stupid if your country were to lose and you get caught by the occupying army. Yes, joining while in the target country would be supremely stupid.
But it would be interesting to hear a lawyer weigh in on this
What if they were to penetrate the network of a hospital? Of a police station?
Oh, noes!! They could stop all of people's pace makers! And turn on all the police cars and drive crash them into walls!!!
Err, no. This isn't Terminator 3, you know. And no medical device that I know of is normally networked. You can't trip the power breakers either.
The best they could do is take down their web site, or erase admission records and such. annoying, yes. Big monetary loss, yes. At a level matching the rest of the war? Not really.
Who knows, maybe someday there will be international treaties not to hack hospitals, like the Geneva convention protects doctors. Just to shut you up.
You probably had the module preinstalled? Or did you do a clean install?
My blackberry (8320) will not charge on my Ubuntu laptop. It won't charge on Windows before installing the drivers either. I found bpowerd for linux before this article, but I haven't got around to installing it, since the binaries are only for 7.10 and 8.04 and I usually charge from a wall socket anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
obXKCD... err... obSchlockMercenary
Have you seen how much aliens are charging for a ride nowadays???
Is it wrong that the first thing I thought after reding that is "Ooooh, they should reboot The Punisher!"
OK,OK. IANACBG (comic book geek), so maybe someone can come up with a better match, but from what I've heard, the Punisher fits that vision.
According to slashdot, the Will Smith movie wasn't even written as an Asimov Novel, just picked up the title late in production when the studio got the rights to the I, Robot novel. Some ideas did cross over.
In I Robot there was a story about a big computer having its "keep humans safe" law relaxed in order to work through some hyperspace calculations. It was done very carefully and still the AI went slightly insane and developed a sense of humor, playing a sort of practical joke on the first crew.
In another story something like that was tried, and the robot had to be found and retired because it had gone somewhat insane.
The other case in Asimov's stories, has to do with the 0th law. Keep in mind that in his universe, if a robot realized that it had harmed a human, or even seriously considered it, it would go so far against his instincts that it would basically have a stroke and die. In Robots and Empire, two robots imagine there might be a 0th law, more important than the first, that is for that the robots should help preserve mankind even if that means harming a human. One robot agrees, and goes so far as to try it, but is so conflicted he ends up dieing because of it.
So, yeah, pay no attention to the double-brain hollywood silliness. Asimov started writing the robot novels because he was tired of the Frankestein "our creations vs. us" plot. The whole point is that there is no robot conspiracy to fight.
Hell the first book had Elijah Baley suspect R. Daneel Olivaw (robot) of being the killer, but was of course proven wrong in the process.
That movie was an insult to Asimov's memory.
For what it's worth, in the latter robot novels, the three laws were not a set of rules that robots couldn't break, but rather a hierarchy of needs to drive their actions.
Basically, why would a robot want to do anything? Why not just sit there and relax all day?
Psychologist have proposed a hierarchy of needs for people. You get off your ass because you need to make sure you eat and survive. Once you got that you make sure you're safe and comfortable. If you got that you find friends, a mate/fall in love. etc.
Asimov's first robot novel (Caves of steel) did include the three laws as unbreakable laws, but later (robots of dawn, etc) he instead stated that they were the reasons robots even moved or acted. Their AIs were based around wanting to protect humans, once that's done, they want to follow order, and if they got that they want to keep themselves safe. It's their deepest instincts, their reason to be.
It wasn't against the law to make a robot without the three laws. The problem was that nobody knew how to do that and have the brain still be stable. It was stated that it would take over a hundred years to develop non-three-laws AIs from scratch.
So, it's not like they want to do their thing and be resentful about having to obey humans. They might be annoyed at doing things that humans want just like we'd be annoyed at having to eat, breathe, have friends and to never shoot ourselves in the head.
Not saying you don't know this, but it's just a pet peeve of mine. Hollywood seems impervious to this resoning :)
Thorough human history, and in all culture I'm aware of, there have always been midwives. Women who help other women, who learn from one another, watching the other women delivering babies, learning from mistakes and teaching each other.
So, no, I don't think not innately knowing how to deliver a baby is a big deal. At least nothing that changed in the last hundred years.
What has changed is our isolation from others. A hundred or two hundred years ago, you'd be hard pressed to live somewhere without some midwife nearby. Maybe if you lived alone on a farm (hard as there would always be family/farmhands around), but in this case the couple couldn't even call the neighbors for help, and they wouldn't be likely to know what to do.
Actually, I'm kind of surprised the midwife didn't stay on the phone to talk them through it. But yeah, google can substitute in a pinch. Kudos to the father for his level-headedness, many would've freaked out in that situation.
Group layers and a single window interface are in current SVN.
For everything else you'll have to wait a year or two until the Gimp developers integrate their new GEGL framework, revamping Gimp into something else entirely along the way. It'll use float-based RGB as its internal representation, but handle anything as input and output. The current implementation of GEGL is dog-slow though, so don't bother to try it.
As for the GP's suggestion for adjustment layers, no it's not enough. And yes, Adjustment layers could be implemented without waiting for GEGL integration, but the Gimp developers refuse to do it worrying that it'll make the integration harder (And because they want to come up with a completely new UI for them).
Shouldn't you be referencing the Space Carrier Blue Noah? (Thundersub for you I guess)
I mean, seriously. A sbumarine-aircraft carrier and nobody even mentions it???
Interestingly, I was looking at Sun's licensing and procedures. It turns out that they require a copyright assignment form to include your changes in the official version (like the FSF does, but the FSF is not a for profit company). Their procedure is for shared copyright with the author, but it gives them the right to do whatever they want with the code, regardless of license.
So, IBM would be buying the right to include all of the work in Sun's open source projects in their closed-sourced solutions and/or cannibalize them anyway they want. That's pretty big, really.
Granted, the current open source projects would survive, and IBM is nice enough to the open-source crowd that these won't be killed outright.
Then it sounds like you need a camera and GPS with bluetooth. They can talk to each other and fill in location data in real-time, and if you're in a studio or near your laptop, it can upload the pictures in the background.
You could even use it as a phone camera, or for videoconferencing, or whatever you want. Bluetooth is pretty standard for tethering like this.
Wifi is only useful if you want to upload directly to the internet. That's not always the best solution
Well, if you RTFA you'll find out that they did indeed put a bag in his bag, so he can carry while he carries, and even lay them flat so the TSA can check it while they check him.
Try out M-x make-frame-on-display
True interactive collaborative editing with all the Emacs tools for version control, TeX editing and everything else.
(Don't blame me, I found out about it here on slashdot)
GCC has supported PGO since at least 1999 (when I first saw it)
See if you can find some old docs and look up -pg, --profile-arcs, and related flags.
The amount and quality of optimization based on this information has varied over the years, but the basic infrastructure is pretty old. I think modern gccs build themselves with PGO by default.
I just wanted to point out that statically compiled code with PGO is even more advantageous because your final version is optimized with the runtime information, but doesn't have profiling code built in (which the java version would). So once again, static languages win.
Sorry, just tired of this stupid slashdot meme.
Also, GCC uses PGO for branch prediction. Instead of having the compiler guess which side of the branch gets taken more often, the profile gives you a better idea of the runtime behavior.
This can be useful for things like loop unrolling, branch prediction, inlining (is the increased code size worth it?), etc.
One example I remember is, if you know some branch is never taken (say, error handling), the compiler can put the normally taken branch right after the branch instruction, so the processor cache is more effective, and the untaken branch on an entirely different linker section, together with all the other similar branches of the application, so it's more easily paged out. The branch is still available to be executed if needed, of course, just a bit more slowly, but who cares?
This was back in 2003 or so, IIRC.
But then again, not all Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. After all if we assume a hierarchical buffalloes relation, there will be at least one buffalo at the bottom of the ladder. The one Buffalo buffalo who all Buffalo buffalo can buffalo, which would get buffalloed if it tried to buffalo other Buffalo buffalo.
Though it itheoretically possible that one Buffallo buffallo buffaloes a Buffalo buffalo that buffaloes a Buffalo Buffalo that Buffaloes the original Buffalo buffalo.
Who knows?
I'm still waiting for RoboCop.
At least as a guest in The Sarah Connor Chronicles....
From TFA:
The software: currently weâ(TM)re running a full install of Ubuntu Linux on the prototype with a custom Webkit browser.
Maybe they'll cut it down later, but I don't see why they should. They probably don't boot Gnome or any services, but it should be able to run random executables.
I wonder if they have tried to incorporate the setup from the 5 second boot project.
Just because it's a popular last name doesn't mean that everyone with the last name 'Chu' is sterile, you insensitie clod.
Quite the opposite, I would think.
Actually, R is an imperative language. You can loop just fine, as well as modify variables (state) and everything else you'd expect from a normal language. (Though functions are first-class objects and all that)
The reason you don't is that it's like SQL in that its statements can work on whole tables at a time. For example, applying mean() to a table gives you an array with the mean value of every column (and the array positions are named after the column names).
If you want to get the rows of an array (x) with 0 on column 1, you do x[x[,1]==0]. basically, x[,1] gives you a one column table with the appropriate column, x[,1]==0 gives you a vector of true,false values, which you can use to index into the array again.
You can do things like by(x,x[,1]==0,nrow), which gives you how many rows have 0 and how many don't on column 1. by(x,x[,1]==0,mean) gives you the per-column mean of the rows which have 0 on column 1 and the same for those that don't
Anyway, you get the idea. You can loop just like can use cursors in SQL, but your code will be slower and less readable if you do.
Actually, they can already be reprogrammed wirelessly, but not via wifi or bluetooth, nor at any reasonable range.
Since only doctors have to change the settings, it is profitable for the pacemaker companies to make pacemakers require a special handheld programmer using a special low-power protocol and built by the same company. Vendor lock-in of doctors and all that.
Replanting is great, but does that newly planted tree use as much CO2 as the 100 year old one cut down? Trees take a while to regrow... so saying they're being replanting is a bit disingenuous.
Yes. That's whee the carbon in the new wood comes from. Same amount as the old tree used when growing up.
Besides, you don't burn the tree to make paper. The carbon in the old one is still sequestered.
While insighful, I'm not sure "enemy" combatant applies. After all, most of the world isn't an enemy of Gaza or Israel. There is probably some classification like that (Unlawful combatant?), though I doubt whether there even are legal consequences your country is not involved in the war. It's even less clear if you reside on a country that has a mutual defense kind of agreement with of one of these countries.
Yes, joining on such a botnet is stupid. Yes, joining such a botnet in wartime would be stupid, possibly in a legal way. Yes, joining it while in one country would be even more stupid if your country were to lose and you get caught by the occupying army. Yes, joining while in the target country would be supremely stupid.
But it would be interesting to hear a lawyer weigh in on this
What if they were to penetrate the network of a hospital? Of a police station?
Oh, noes!! They could stop all of people's pace makers! And turn on all the police cars and drive crash them into walls!!!
Err, no. This isn't Terminator 3, you know. And no medical device that I know of is normally networked. You can't trip the power breakers either.
The best they could do is take down their web site, or erase admission records and such. annoying, yes. Big monetary loss, yes. At a level matching the rest of the war? Not really.
Who knows, maybe someday there will be international treaties not to hack hospitals, like the Geneva convention protects doctors. Just to shut you up.
You probably had the module preinstalled? Or did you do a clean install?
My blackberry (8320) will not charge on my Ubuntu laptop. It won't charge on Windows before installing the drivers either. I found bpowerd for linux before this article, but I haven't got around to installing it, since the binaries are only for 7.10 and 8.04 and I usually charge from a wall socket anyway.