So basically CS can't be approached like other disciplines - I can learn history from another history
student, and I can learn approaches to a particular CS problem from another CS student, but I can only
acquire problem solving skills by working by myself.
Yeah, sure. CS is really really different from enything else. I mean like after you have to be really smart to do it. You cannot get the "problem-solving" skills just by doing crosswords, you know.
This has nothing to do with parametrizing the circle itself. Rather, intrinsically, to describe a point on a circle you just need one parameter (angle). On the sphere you need two parameters (two angles, for example).
Holy shit, those guys are big time BS artists. That's what guys are doing at Microsoft. I can come up with shit like that by the bucket. For example:
Suppose my sensory input is of the order of 100Kb/sec (that's pretty conservative, since the visual input alone is probably more than that, say 10 frames/sec, 10Kb image/frame).
If I live to 50 years I will have been awake for roughly 10^9 secs. Thus my total informational inflow is around 100*10^12 Kb = 100 petabytes.
Look I have a paper right there. Just mix in some inane ramblings about digital immortality and voila! Too bad I don't work at Microsoft.
There are already several encryption algorithms that do not rely on the computational complexity of factoring. One of the them, for example, is elliptic curve cryptosystem. It is not known whether there is a quantum algorithm which breaks it efficiently, but then again it is not known where there is an aglorithm for ordinary computers to test for primality.
The universities should concern themselves with more fundamental research and not to try to profit too much from it.
On the other hand it is often very hard to judge just how meaningful a particular project or an area of research is. A lot of research, for example, is extremely esoteric and is completely inaccessible to people outside of the field. (I am a mathematician, I ought to know:)
I think the problem with the MediaLab is that they tend to create a public circus around their projects rather than to try to get insight into the problems. Just because you can put a computer
into a coffe machine (or a couch or whatever they have there) and get a million dollar grant to do so, does not make it a scientific research project or even a good idea.
But then again that is exactly the type of stuff the industry would go - they can understand it after all. (Not to say there is no good research in the industry, take the Bell labs, for example).
But what do you mean by "meaningful" activity?
Is it something immediately useful? Is fundamental research "meaningful"? In fact, in my view, the problem is that their research seems superficial.
I am not all that sympathetic to them either.
I have never heard of university professors flying first class. Everyone I know flies economy to conferences, etc. Maybe, some people
would fly business class (esp. in professional schools). I don't know anyone in academia who gets cell phones either. Doctors at the hospitals usually get pagers.
The reference to "Drone Wars" by Orwell appears to be entirely made up. I am also not aware of any Wells novels referring to automatized warfare.
Clarke references also look suspect but I am less sure about those.
I can hardly believe that a journalist would make fabrications like that. This is almost criminal.
where exactly did Orwell and Wells predict that?
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1
I am not aware of any of their (Orwell and Wells) writing referrering to machines replacing people for war.
However Stanislaw Lem in Peace on Earth proposes a scenario where the warfare becomes completely automated and the war machines do battle on the Moon.
That's what sounds so weird about it. When I saw his name I was completely taken aback. I doubt someone like Smale (who actually has done work in somewhat related areas) would be involved with an ouright hoax which this thing clearly is.
The only reasonable explanation is that they used his name without his permission (or perhaps they asked him to consult them, he agreed, etc without actually being involved or knowing about the nature of their company). Very strange business.
Well, some of the words they use do occur in actual math/coding theory usage (e.g. Kolmogorov complexity). But overall it does not seem to make much sense.
I think any claim as striking as theirs has to be considered a hoax until proven to the contrary.
Is it right? I have always thought the book was written after by Clarke. For one thing Kubrick is not a coauthour. For another, the movie is far superior IMHO.
You are absolutely correct. In fact the comparison with Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra is quite apt. Three stages of the movie can be thought of as representing three stages in thte book - the camel, the lion and the child (also the Superman).
The parallel is close to perfect and there is no doubt Kubrick was aware of it (the music in the film is Strauss's Thus Spake Zarathustra, for example).
However, I would consider black monoliths to be just symbols of transition, rather than actual artifacts or beings.
Also note that the book had been written after the film, not the other way around.
I think the review somewhat misunderstands the role of technology in 2001. The technology in the film is secondary although a very important reflection of the progress of the humankind.
The bone in the hand of an ape is the first twinkle of intelligence. Then, as the humanity advances to its full might, the technology allows humans to create giant space stations and sentient computers. But in the end Dave destroys (murders?) the computer and travels down the star tunnel alone to become something just as different from a modern human as the modern humans are different from their prehistoric ancestors.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, no offense meant.
Yeah, sure. CS is really really different from enything else. I mean like after you have to be really smart to do it. You cannot get the "problem-solving" skills just by doing crosswords, you know.
Are these really your own views? They seem to do a good job at brainwashing.
It is not a compact manifold (as you said it is open), therefore Poincare conjecture does not apply.
And of course it is not homeomorphic to the 3-sphere, it is homotopic to the 2-sphere.
This has nothing to do with parametrizing the circle itself. Rather, intrinsically, to describe a point on a circle you just need one parameter
(angle). On the sphere you need two parameters
(two angles, for example).
Of course, workers or entertainers can also be made into einsteins by clicking.
In utmost confidence here is a part of the top secret output of a military random number generator:
3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Suppose my sensory input is of the order of
100Kb/sec (that's pretty conservative, since the visual input alone is probably more than that, say 10 frames/sec, 10Kb image/frame).
If I live to 50 years I will have been awake for roughly 10^9 secs. Thus my total informational inflow is around 100*10^12 Kb = 100 petabytes.
Look I have a paper right there.
Just mix in some inane ramblings about digital immortality and voila! Too bad I don't work at Microsoft.
only 2 or 3 years old, assuming they are going to Alpha Cenatauri.
If they were to go to a star 60 light years away the trip would take
several thousand years.
There are already several encryption algorithms that do not rely on the computational complexity of factoring. One of the them, for example, is elliptic curve cryptosystem. It is not known whether there is a quantum algorithm which breaks it efficiently, but then again it is not known where there is an aglorithm for ordinary computers to test for primality.
For example, GDP per capita of Switzerland is ~$30,000. GDP per capita of China is less then $1000.
I generally agree with you.
The universities should concern themselves with more fundamental research and not to try to profit too much from it.
On the other hand it is often very hard to judge just how meaningful a particular project or an area of research is. A lot of research, for example, is extremely esoteric and is completely inaccessible to people outside of the field. (I am a mathematician, I ought to know
I think the problem with the MediaLab is that they tend to create a public circus around their projects rather than to try to get insight into the problems. Just because you can put a computer
into a coffe machine (or a couch or whatever they have there) and get a million dollar grant to do so, does not make it a scientific research project or even a good idea.
But then again that is exactly the type of stuff the industry would go - they can understand it after all. (Not to say there is no good research in the industry, take the Bell labs, for example).
I am not all that sympathetic to them either. I have never heard of university professors flying first class. Everyone I know flies economy to conferences, etc. Maybe, some people would fly business class (esp. in professional schools). I don't know anyone in academia who gets cell phones either. Doctors at the hospitals usually get pagers.
Am I right to understand, that your comment had been posted before?
It is a VERY short story. That's why you cannot find any references to it.
I am also not aware of any Wells novels referring to automatized warfare.
Clarke references also look suspect but I am less sure about those.
I can hardly believe that a journalist would make fabrications like that.
This is almost criminal.
However Stanislaw Lem in Peace on Earth proposes a scenario where the warfare becomes completely
automated and the war machines do battle on the Moon.
That's what sounds so weird about it. When I saw his name I was completely taken aback. I doubt someone like Smale (who actually has done work in somewhat related areas) would be involved with an ouright hoax which this thing clearly is.
The only reasonable explanation is that they used his name without his permission (or perhaps they asked him to consult them, he agreed, etc without actually being involved or knowing about the nature of their company). Very strange business.
Sure, just send your credid card number.
How would they make money out of it though?
I think any claim as striking as theirs has to be considered a hoax until proven to the contrary.
Is it right? I have always thought the book was written after by Clarke. For one thing Kubrick is not a coauthour. For another, the movie is far superior IMHO.
You are absolutely correct. In fact the comparison with Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra is quite apt. Three stages of the movie can be thought of as representing three stages in thte book - the camel, the lion and the child (also the Superman).
The parallel is close to perfect and there is no doubt Kubrick was aware of it (the music in the film is Strauss's Thus Spake Zarathustra, for example).
However, I would consider black monoliths to be just symbols of transition, rather than actual artifacts or beings.
Also note that the book had been written after the film, not the other way around.
Well, to be even more precise, a prehistoric weapon - bone is thrown into the air and becomes an ultramodern weapon - a nuclear weapons platform.
I think the review somewhat misunderstands the role of technology in 2001. The technology in the film is secondary although a very important reflection of the progress of the humankind.
The bone in the hand of an ape is the first twinkle of intelligence. Then, as the humanity advances to its full might, the technology allows humans to create giant space stations and sentient computers. But in the end Dave destroys (murders?) the computer and travels down the star tunnel alone to become something just as different from a modern human as the modern humans are different from their prehistoric ancestors.