I see an opportunity to coin a term here... when you're engaged in multiplayer, and your teammate crosses streams with you, resulting in both your deaths... we'll call that streamkilling. Or teamcrossing. I'm still working on it.
Figures... I make the first post in the comments about using Linux, and I get tagged "redundant". How very silly of me to make a point that everybody else is GOING to make at some point in the future.
The overall sample size was 60. 20 people per group isn't really that bad. I've reviewed their figures from the study press release, and it looks like their methods were fairly comprehensive.
Likewise, where do you get your figures? How large a majority of the people who own iPhones did not previously own a smartphone, and just who conducted the study? What justification do you have for the idea that a large percentage of those people never sent SMS messages?
You're forgetting Step 5: Plug holes in previous version until more easily patch holes exist in new version. Claim victory when it takes all of ten minutes to patch 94 gaping flaws in new version. Loop around to Step 1.
I could argue the same think about the neurons and synapses in your head. You'd be crazy to think that they could actually be capable of as advanced an activity as thought.
No, but seriously, the question becomes "Just how high a level of autonomy is required of any seemingly-sentient being before they are deemed capable of thought?" As with many things in computer science, it's all about abstraction; just how far outside the box are you sitting? I as a computer scientist may look at Asimo and say, "Boy that's neat, but it's not really thinking." On the other hand, I wonder just how many kids have watched Asimo walk with wonder in their eyes. "Mommy mommy, look at the robot walking around! He's waving at me!" I know that computers are only capable of doing what you program them to do, but several of my friends will swear that their computer hates them, or that their gaming console has it in for them. Were we to plop an Aibo down in front of a group of people in certain remote villages in certain third-world countries, how much would it take to convince them that it was alive?
Arthur C. Clarke suggested that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I'd like to build on that and suggest that any sufficiently advanced AI is indistinguishable from real intelligence. The question is, how "intelligent" should we build them? In the case of a robot to assist the elderly, I'd say that accepting voice commands to perform common tasks is a pretty darn good start.
Small advances in programmable AI are usually pretty big steps. Those "children's toys" you're talking about were nothing more than pipe dreams 20 years ago. Anybody who has ever had to calculate an integral of a sum can tell you that little pieces add up to big things.
My personal religious views aside, that is one of the dumbest replies I've ever seen to any thread on Slashdot. You, sir, deserve a Proverbs 10:13-style beating with a stick.
Admittedly, this tracking system can't be 100% accurate... but, that doesn't mean it's not useful. This is an application of technology that can potentially save lives. Now, you may not have the greatest respect for the human race, but you share dna with the rest of us and therefore have a vested interest in things like this working. If it weren't for people and organizations taking new approaches to stopping disease, the milk you buy at the store would potentially make you sick. Surgeons wouldn't bother washing their hands. You likely would have died before you reached your fifth birthday. The streets would be full of sewage.
I'd like to add that your senseless anti-religious trolling still boggles my mind.
Moore's law doesn't help us right NOW. If I promise you ten bazillion dollars in 2025, that doesn't help you buy even a stick of gum today.
Unless, of course, you'd like to stick to the realm of theoretics, in which case I postulate that cancer doesn't exist and neither do you, and by a solid application of Finagle's law I'm about to take a hatchet to my left hand. Do you see my point?
We're computer scientists. We can calculate these kinds of things. Protein folding calculations take a ridiculous amount of time and processing power. That's a reflection of how complex your dna is, not a reflection of how much processing power we have at our disposal. If we could borrow from the computing power of the future, then you might be right. But the fact remains, we only have what's at our disposal now. At the current state of computing technology, the calculations would take 162 years.
That's the thing, though... as computing power scales, so does the distributed computing. With one centralized server, if you start running a simulation on it, you have to continue to run that simulation on that server. On the other hand, in a distributed environment, when newer, more powerful machines come out, you can just set up a simulation client on it, and increase your calculation speed by that much. I used to run Folding @ Home on a 700 MHz computer with 256 MB of RAM. I later upgraded to a 1600 MHz computer with 512 MB of RAM. Now, I fold on a 2.2 GHz dual-core machine with 2.5 Gig of RAM. Does the newer machine do the work much faster than the two older machines? Yes, it does. Does that mean that the work I did on those older machines was needless? No. I still fold occasionally on the 1.6 GHz machine, and it takes about a week to turn over a WU, as opposed to less than 24 hours on my main machine. Should I stop folding on the old one because the new one works so much faster? No, because that's about 52 WUs I don't have to fold on my main machine per year. It's an increase in computing power, and that's always desirable in a situation like this.
It's all fine and dandy to talk about how much computing speed will increase in the future... but, in the end, reality overcomes theory. There are people dying of cancer right now, people that can be helped by letting computers do the work. True, in two years, the work will likely get done faster... but, that doesn't change the fact that we can't just sit around and wait. When those better computers come in to play, then let's add them to the pool. Until then, let's get something done.
Of course, there's NO way that software could improve much in a decade. I mean, come on, obviously Windows Server 2003 isn't any different than Windows 3.1. Also, Quake 4 is pretty much a clone of the original Quake. Likewise, Final Fantasy VII was no different than the first one in the series.
"Any company that can make a mobile phone with no buttons, no picture messaging, slow Web access and no video capture into the most desirable phone on the planet can easily make tablets popular."
I laughed hard at this. While Apple certainly makes good products, their hype engine is one of the most effective on the planet. I would kind of like to see Apple pull this one off, just to annoy Steve Ballmer.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me get this straight... he thinks that the music industry should have sued college kids out of existence... I am NEVER touching drugs. EVER.
I see an opportunity to coin a term here... when you're engaged in multiplayer, and your teammate crosses streams with you, resulting in both your deaths... we'll call that streamkilling. Or teamcrossing. I'm still working on it.
Figures... I make the first post in the comments about using Linux, and I get tagged "redundant". How very silly of me to make a point that everybody else is GOING to make at some point in the future.
So basically what you're saying is... run Linux? Got it.
And thank you for the civil, enlightening discourse.
Wait... civil, enlightening discourse? Slashdot must be broken! I better put my tinfoil hat on, just to be sure.
I hate the media with their artificial sensation causing slants... "Common Cold Season To Start - Will You Die?"
SOME people don't have tinfoil face masks to protect themselves from the germs, man. Take it easy.
...if you're hoping that a lap desk will "satisfy" you, then I'm afraid that you need to get out more.
The overall sample size was 60. 20 people per group isn't really that bad. I've reviewed their figures from the study press release , and it looks like their methods were fairly comprehensive.
Likewise, where do you get your figures? How large a majority of the people who own iPhones did not previously own a smartphone, and just who conducted the study? What justification do you have for the idea that a large percentage of those people never sent SMS messages?
Oh, it's pretty simple:
Wait... you pay when my data is stolen? That's awful nice of you, mister. Here I thought you didn't even like me.
You're forgetting Step 5: Plug holes in previous version until more easily patch holes exist in new version. Claim victory when it takes all of ten minutes to patch 94 gaping flaws in new version. Loop around to Step 1.
As one of the aforementioned college students, I humbly protest your opinion.
My computer doesn't have a malformed copy protection driver. You must be one of those Windows users.
By the way, couldn't they have thought up a better name than Blu-Ray? WTH is a Blu Ray?
It's a death ray for Smurfs, of course. I'm having some installed on my sharks next Thursday... just in case.
In Soviet Nigeria, the government stops YOU from taking bribes!
I could argue the same think about the neurons and synapses in your head. You'd be crazy to think that they could actually be capable of as advanced an activity as thought.
No, but seriously, the question becomes "Just how high a level of autonomy is required of any seemingly-sentient being before they are deemed capable of thought?" As with many things in computer science, it's all about abstraction; just how far outside the box are you sitting? I as a computer scientist may look at Asimo and say, "Boy that's neat, but it's not really thinking." On the other hand, I wonder just how many kids have watched Asimo walk with wonder in their eyes. "Mommy mommy, look at the robot walking around! He's waving at me!" I know that computers are only capable of doing what you program them to do, but several of my friends will swear that their computer hates them, or that their gaming console has it in for them. Were we to plop an Aibo down in front of a group of people in certain remote villages in certain third-world countries, how much would it take to convince them that it was alive?
Arthur C. Clarke suggested that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I'd like to build on that and suggest that any sufficiently advanced AI is indistinguishable from real intelligence. The question is, how "intelligent" should we build them? In the case of a robot to assist the elderly, I'd say that accepting voice commands to perform common tasks is a pretty darn good start.
Small advances in programmable AI are usually pretty big steps. Those "children's toys" you're talking about were nothing more than pipe dreams 20 years ago. Anybody who has ever had to calculate an integral of a sum can tell you that little pieces add up to big things.
No hard reset that I know of, but it does have a "melt down due to lack of cooling" option.
... on making them hurry up and finish the darned thing.
My personal religious views aside, that is one of the dumbest replies I've ever seen to any thread on Slashdot. You, sir, deserve a Proverbs 10:13-style beating with a stick.
Admittedly, this tracking system can't be 100% accurate... but, that doesn't mean it's not useful. This is an application of technology that can potentially save lives. Now, you may not have the greatest respect for the human race, but you share dna with the rest of us and therefore have a vested interest in things like this working. If it weren't for people and organizations taking new approaches to stopping disease, the milk you buy at the store would potentially make you sick. Surgeons wouldn't bother washing their hands. You likely would have died before you reached your fifth birthday. The streets would be full of sewage.
I'd like to add that your senseless anti-religious trolling still boggles my mind.
Moore's law doesn't help us right NOW. If I promise you ten bazillion dollars in 2025, that doesn't help you buy even a stick of gum today.
Unless, of course, you'd like to stick to the realm of theoretics, in which case I postulate that cancer doesn't exist and neither do you, and by a solid application of Finagle's law I'm about to take a hatchet to my left hand. Do you see my point?
We're computer scientists. We can calculate these kinds of things. Protein folding calculations take a ridiculous amount of time and processing power. That's a reflection of how complex your dna is, not a reflection of how much processing power we have at our disposal. If we could borrow from the computing power of the future, then you might be right. But the fact remains, we only have what's at our disposal now. At the current state of computing technology, the calculations would take 162 years.
That's the thing, though... as computing power scales, so does the distributed computing. With one centralized server, if you start running a simulation on it, you have to continue to run that simulation on that server. On the other hand, in a distributed environment, when newer, more powerful machines come out, you can just set up a simulation client on it, and increase your calculation speed by that much. I used to run Folding @ Home on a 700 MHz computer with 256 MB of RAM. I later upgraded to a 1600 MHz computer with 512 MB of RAM. Now, I fold on a 2.2 GHz dual-core machine with 2.5 Gig of RAM. Does the newer machine do the work much faster than the two older machines? Yes, it does. Does that mean that the work I did on those older machines was needless? No. I still fold occasionally on the 1.6 GHz machine, and it takes about a week to turn over a WU, as opposed to less than 24 hours on my main machine. Should I stop folding on the old one because the new one works so much faster? No, because that's about 52 WUs I don't have to fold on my main machine per year. It's an increase in computing power, and that's always desirable in a situation like this.
It's all fine and dandy to talk about how much computing speed will increase in the future... but, in the end, reality overcomes theory. There are people dying of cancer right now, people that can be helped by letting computers do the work. True, in two years, the work will likely get done faster... but, that doesn't change the fact that we can't just sit around and wait. When those better computers come in to play, then let's add them to the pool. Until then, let's get something done.
Of course, there's NO way that software could improve much in a decade. I mean, come on, obviously Windows Server 2003 isn't any different than Windows 3.1. Also, Quake 4 is pretty much a clone of the original Quake. Likewise, Final Fantasy VII was no different than the first one in the series.
I'll likely lose karma for that. Oh bother.
"Any company that can make a mobile phone with no buttons, no picture messaging, slow Web access and no video capture into the most desirable phone on the planet can easily make tablets popular."
I laughed hard at this. While Apple certainly makes good products, their hype engine is one of the most effective on the planet. I would kind of like to see Apple pull this one off, just to annoy Steve Ballmer.
How do sharks react to these intense magnetic fields of manipulation?