If you are saying that being identified as a foreigner through your accent, skin color or religion may lead to being treated differently by some people, then I think this is the case pretty much everywhere. Sadly.
It was the fault of the victim, or some other human decision, that got someone killed or injured in every case you mention in Japan - and anywhere else in the world
It will always be 'in a way' the fault of some human decision if a robot does something. In a way, since we build the robots (or the robots that built the robot).
The reason there is no pogrom is that the robot was incapable of deciding to kill a human. The moment that becomes possible, and the first human is DELIBERATELY injured by a thinking robot, we WILL see an Asimovian response to intelligent robots.
This question relates to my last statement. When will a robot's action not be 'in a way' the result of a human decision? When will it be considered as a 'deliberate' action from the robot? Should it not be considered as the fault of the person who designed the robot (who designed the robot (who designed...))?
Can a serial killer defend himself by telling the world he was beaten by his father when he was young? Not entirely, but he will try. Why? Because, like robots, we are quite deterministic in our actions. It is always hard to decide who is taking the real decision; the creator or the creation.
Change that for Java applets. Many browsers don't handle them properly.
Otherwise, java applications run well. Try them. I run JBuilder 5, wich is a full-featured IDE comparable to Visual Studio and such that many people use. It is all java, hence portable. Btw, it does runs on Linux.
Java gui support is slower than your typical native gui support, it doesn't make Java technology is a whole flawed.
There is a big problem here. The guy uses the words computer generated art quite extensivly in his text. And then he says that it is about the medium used.
I'm quite mixed up. I don't say pencil generated art to talk about drawing. If I said that, people would tell me that it is not the pencil that generates the art. The pencil is the medium, and I am an artist. It is human generated arts. And there are quite reknowned artists using computers for their art. And very few artists (even older teachers) would dare to say that the computer is a bad medium for arts... some artists use garbage, flesh, etc.
If the guy was talking about real computer-generated arts (which is what i understood at first), he is wrong talking about a new medium. If he wants the art to be computer generated, he doesn't want people to say his computer is the medium, but the artist. Then, it is a totally questionable thing, and it is not as easy to answer. Not to know if it is computer design or fine arts (i wrote another post about that), but if it is arts at all.
Reading your rating=5 article, and looking at your examples, i believe that you took the first interpretation of the original post. If it is the right one, i think the question is invalid. It is false to say that people look at artists using a computer like people looked at the work of Picasso before (which is the example everyone gives in their posts).
Art produced or intended primarily for beauty rather than utility.
Any of the art forms, such as sculpture, painting, or music, used to create such art. Often used in the plural.
And from your question:
The art critics there claimed that computer-generated art was not a 'fine art' but more of a graphic design, regardless of the quality of the work.
I always thought that the main difference between fine arts and design was the purpose of the work rather than its quality. Graphic design deals with beauty and usefulness. Fine arts usefulness is beauty.
I don't know if computer generated arts can be called fine arts if the computer does it for beauty or if the programmer does it for beauty. But I think the main problem here is not knowing if it is called fine arts or graphic design, but if it can be called arts at all.
I would actually start by getting a CS degree (good math, algorithmics, ai... courses). Sometimes, I don't understand how people think... anybody (well, with a brain) can learn simple technical stuff like directx by himself over a few days. You don't need courses about that.
Now a good computer graphics course (you can take one in your CS degree), where you learn about 2d and 3d rendering, recursive ray tracing, visible surface determination, dithering, and other basic techniques, will be interesting. Just look at the discussion (from Tim Sweeney) about the scripting language and scripting engine design Epic did for Unreal Tournament (http://unreal.epicgames.com)... this is serious and interesting game programming challenges that involve higher challenges that making a sprite move with directx...
Now, if this will get you a job in the computer gaming industry, I can't tell you for sure. I just finished this month my CS degree, and I will look into that pretty soon (I already have a job in cs, but i'm really interested in games and computer graphica)
Hope this helps,
(P.S. English is not my first language) phobos% cat.sig
If someone would make "artificial grape flavour" so close to "grape flavour" that event the best taster would not make the difference between the artificial flavour and the real flavour, i would call it "artificial grape flavour" (or even "grape flavour")...
It doesn't have to be intelligence to be artificial intelligence. IBM here answer as if their definition of AI was really accepted by everyone, and it is not the case.
Automating human behaviour will be called by many people artificial intelligence. Taking humanlike decisions as well, even if the decision process is different then in the human brain. Some people try to make the machine think our way, some people want the same result.
(read Luger & Stubblefield or any other AI book to see that that the definition of AI is not as clear as what IBM can make us feel)
When i open a parenthesis in my favourite programming language and forget to close it, any standard (compiler/interpreter/browserifyouwish) will tell me that it's wrong and not accept my work. And I like this feature. Now, i rarely forget to close a parenthesis.
this is like taxing cars because some of them can be used as getaway vehicle in a bank robbery
I wonder how they decide how much you par for car insurance...
Hope it doesn't count the accidents/(+robbery/vandalism) per capita... because it would mean that i pay for crazy drivers... gee... i wonder why it cost so much for my friend to get insurance on his red sport car... he's 18...;)
Hence the need to choose a single (oop and elegant) programming language, so we can concentrate on concepts and put aside syntax (students will learn that by themselves, as everyone could).
Was this flamebait? I expect future CS students to be able to understand generic OO concepts/vocabulary.
If you have many instances from one class (objects) they have the same static method.
If you have many instances of the "Class object" (a class is an object in java), then each of these Class will own it's own copy of static methods and static variables.
Just a difference between an instance of an object "representing the Class concept" and another object being "an instance of the class". Agreed, it is a whole new world for someone who never used an OOP language, but Java is a quite simple and elegant example of these languages (don't mix the API with the language...)
Actually, i really do like explorer. Both the Windows explorer and the Internet explorer (they do share some code;).
These don't crash. I can't believe so many linux users who can install a complete linux system with X and manage it afterwards can't install correctly windows32 systems. I've installed some on many different setups and i did have problems sometimes... multiple cd-burning apps can be a mess in windows... etc...
But...
But the two explorers windows offers you don't crash. And actually, they are great. And if Gnome or Kde could integrate products exactly like these two they would. ASAP. Really.
Is there any practical application for a single system to require more than 4 GB of RAM? It seems to me that once a task becomes so huge as to require 4GB of RAM, it might be time for a cluster or a mainframe type solution rather than one massive system.
In production, you often want to mmap (bring a file to main memory) big chunks of data (like, for exemple, your entire database). If you think the profit from the increased efficiency is bigger than the price of the ram, you want more of it.
If people want to buy systems that were overclocked even though nobody told them, let them be.
If people use the high tech product X without knowing problem Y because they are interested in Z instead of being interested in high tech products, let them do it.
It's not as if people who know more about X can help/protect people who don't know X well.
GrainOfSalt grain = new GrainOfSalt( GrainOfSalt.HUGE );
;)
<RANT target='not the parent poster'>
People are never happy. They want people to know about the open source community, but now that we see it more, it's always company X is kissing open source butt. It goes as far in some comments as bitching against StarOffice open becoming open source.
And stop believing that because Quake3 or UT could not be efficient under a jvm, java is a useless pile of hype, because it is not true. Go learn Java, it IS nice.
</RANT>
Maybe the definition of level 2 cache is different now with different approaches, but level 2 cache is usually (normally?) bigger than level 1 cache because it is a cache level... if I split the level 1 cache on two chips it stays level 1 cache. If I cache the memory cache (becomes complicated;) then there is another level of cache.
What I mean is that saying that the part of level 2 cache that is already contained in level 1 cache is lost memory that should be used for a different purpose is an error... because a cache by definition contains a copy of data. Putting a section of L1 contents on another chip doesn't make it another cache level! Does it?
I don't mean that level 1 cache doesn't contain data from the main memory when there is level 2 cache... i mean that the level 1 memory caches the level 2 memory, and therefore it contains memory from the main memory but only because the level 2 cache contains data from the main memory.
To be a cache, you must actually cache data that exists in another memory level. That 'exclusive level 2 cache' contains data from main memory. The level 1 cache contains data from the main memory. Both contain data from the same level, so both are level 1 cache, and there is no level 2 cache.
Quote from Computer systems design and architecture by Vincent P. Heuring and Harry F. Jordan:
Where there are two cache levels between the processor and main memory, the faster level is called the primary cache and the slower level is called the secondary cache.
Actually, this secondary level cache is not another level, it is only a slower extension of the primary cache used (logically) for the least useful part of the first level cache.
I don't think that the difference of speed between these two parts of the primary cache could make them two cache levels
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know where if you are talking out of your ass or have some personal resentment about the situation. Let me correct your facts.
Actually, our written french is almost identical to international french. We do speak french with a different accent and have our very own slang, but anyone who speaks french here can be well understood everywhere French is spoken. I'd say the situation on that particular angle between Québec's and France's french is quite similar to US vs UK English.
If you are saying that being identified as a foreigner through your accent, skin color or religion may lead to being treated differently by some people, then I think this is the case pretty much everywhere. Sadly.
It was the fault of the victim, or some other human decision, that got someone killed or injured in every case you mention in Japan - and anywhere else in the world
It will always be 'in a way' the fault of some human decision if a robot does something. In a way, since we build the robots (or the robots that built the robot).
The reason there is no pogrom is that the robot was incapable of deciding to kill a human. The moment that becomes possible, and the first human is DELIBERATELY injured by a thinking robot, we WILL see an Asimovian response to intelligent robots.
This question relates to my last statement. When will a robot's action not be 'in a way' the result of a human decision? When will it be considered as a 'deliberate' action from the robot? Should it not be considered as the fault of the person who designed the robot (who designed the robot (who designed...))?
Can a serial killer defend himself by telling the world he was beaten by his father when he was young? Not entirely, but he will try. Why? Because, like robots, we are quite deterministic in our actions. It is always hard to decide who is taking the real decision; the creator or the creation.
Change that for Java applets. Many browsers don't handle them properly.
Otherwise, java applications run well. Try them. I run JBuilder 5, wich is a full-featured IDE comparable to Visual Studio and such that many people use. It is all java, hence portable. Btw, it does runs on Linux.
Java gui support is slower than your typical native gui support, it doesn't make Java technology is a whole flawed.
You got what you wanted, the good old +5 (Kats Bashing).
.sig
This is exactly the critic I was waiting for about these movies, and I am happy about it.
phobos% cat
There is a big problem here. The guy uses the words computer generated art quite extensivly in his text. And then he says that it is about the medium used.
.sig
I'm quite mixed up. I don't say pencil generated art to talk about drawing. If I said that, people would tell me that it is not the pencil that generates the art. The pencil is the medium, and I am an artist. It is human generated arts. And there are quite reknowned artists using computers for their art. And very few artists (even older teachers) would dare to say that the computer is a bad medium for arts... some artists use garbage, flesh, etc.
If the guy was talking about real computer-generated arts (which is what i understood at first), he is wrong talking about a new medium. If he wants the art to be computer generated, he doesn't want people to say his computer is the medium, but the artist. Then, it is a totally questionable thing, and it is not as easy to answer. Not to know if it is computer design or fine arts (i wrote another post about that), but if it is arts at all.
Reading your rating=5 article, and looking at your examples, i believe that you took the first interpretation of the original post. If it is the right one, i think the question is invalid. It is false to say that people look at artists using a computer like people looked at the work of Picasso before (which is the example everyone gives in their posts).
phobos% cat
n.
- Art produced or intended primarily for beauty rather than utility.
- Any of the art forms, such as sculpture, painting, or music, used to create such art. Often used in the plural.
And from your question: The art critics there claimed that computer-generated art was not a 'fine art' but more of a graphic design, regardless of the quality of the work.I always thought that the main difference between fine arts and design was the purpose of the work rather than its quality. Graphic design deals with beauty and usefulness. Fine arts usefulness is beauty.
I don't know if computer generated arts can be called fine arts if the computer does it for beauty or if the programmer does it for beauty. But I think the main problem here is not knowing if it is called fine arts or graphic design, but if it can be called arts at all.
phobos% cat
I would actually start by getting a CS degree (good math, algorithmics, ai... courses). Sometimes, I don't understand how people think... anybody (well, with a brain) can learn simple technical stuff like directx by himself over a few days. You don't need courses about that.
.sig
Now a good computer graphics course (you can take one in your CS degree), where you learn about 2d and 3d rendering, recursive ray tracing, visible surface determination, dithering, and other basic techniques, will be interesting. Just look at the discussion (from Tim Sweeney) about the scripting language and scripting engine design Epic did for Unreal Tournament (http://unreal.epicgames.com)... this is serious and interesting game programming challenges that involve higher challenges that making a sprite move with directx...
Now, if this will get you a job in the computer gaming industry, I can't tell you for sure. I just finished this month my CS degree, and I will look into that pretty soon (I already have a job in cs, but i'm really interested in games and computer graphica)
Hope this helps,
(P.S. English is not my first language)
phobos% cat
[...] than in the human brain [...]
.sig
Sorry, my first language is not English.
phobos% cat
If someone would make "artificial grape flavour" so close to "grape flavour" that event the best taster would not make the difference between the artificial flavour and the real flavour, i would call it "artificial grape flavour" (or even "grape flavour")...
.sig
It doesn't have to be intelligence to be artificial intelligence. IBM here answer as if their definition of AI was really accepted by everyone, and it is not the case.
Automating human behaviour will be called by many people artificial intelligence. Taking humanlike decisions as well, even if the decision process is different then in the human brain. Some people try to make the machine think our way, some people want the same result.
(read Luger & Stubblefield or any other AI book to see that that the definition of AI is not as clear as what IBM can make us feel)
phobos% cat
When i open a parenthesis in my favourite programming language and forget to close it, any standard (compiler/interpreter/browserifyouwish) will tell me that it's wrong and not accept my work. And I like this feature. Now, i rarely forget to close a parenthesis.
.sig
phobos% cat
this is like taxing cars because some of them can be used as getaway vehicle in a bank robbery
;)
.sig
I wonder how they decide how much you par for car insurance...
Hope it doesn't count the accidents/(+robbery/vandalism) per capita... because it would mean that i pay for crazy drivers... gee... i wonder why it cost so much for my friend to get insurance on his red sport car... he's 18...
phobos% cat
Gee... thanks! It's not listed on any search engine and anyways i had no idea about how to reach www.creative.com... oops... Creative Labs, i mean...
And when i did "nomad mp3 player" in google and pressed "I'm feeling lucky", it crashed! I don't know where they would have sent me!
</SARCASM>
phobos% cat
Hence the need to choose a single (oop and elegant) programming language, so we can concentrate on concepts and put aside syntax (students will learn that by themselves, as everyone could).
.sig
phobos% cat
- If you have many instances from one class (objects) they have the same static method.
-
If you have many instances of the "Class object" (a class is an object in java), then each of these Class will own it's own copy of static methods and static variables.
Just a difference between an instance of an object "representing the Class concept" and another object being "an instance of the class". Agreed, it is a whole new world for someone who never used an OOP language, but Java is a quite simple and elegant example of these languages (don't mix the API with the language...)phobos% cat
Now if you want me to get anti-french fine, but I assure you I am not in any way phobic about the french even if they do eat frogs and snails.
.sig
It is easy to see that there is a strange french-bashing party time on slashdot every time there are news concerning France.
French food is great.
You shouldn't be talking with your ass...
You're polluting the world.
Think.
phobos% cat
Errr...
.sig
Actually, i really do like explorer. Both the Windows explorer and the Internet explorer (they do share some code;).
These don't crash. I can't believe so many linux users who can install a complete linux system with X and manage it afterwards can't install correctly windows32 systems. I've installed some on many different setups and i did have problems sometimes... multiple cd-burning apps can be a mess in windows... etc...
But...
But the two explorers windows offers you don't crash. And actually, they are great. And if Gnome or Kde could integrate products exactly like these two they would. ASAP. Really.
And you know it.
phobos% cat
Is there any practical application for a single system to require more than 4 GB of RAM? It seems to me that once a task becomes so huge as to require 4GB of RAM, it might be time for a cluster or a mainframe type solution rather than one massive system.
.sig
In production, you often want to mmap (bring a file to main memory) big chunks of data (like, for exemple, your entire database). If you think the profit from the increased efficiency is bigger than the price of the ram, you want more of it.
phobos% cat
public string sorry() {
//from www.dictionary.com
.sig
String wError = instantanously;
StringBuffer wCorrect();
char wInsert = 'e';
wCorrect.append( wError.substring( 0, 9 ) );
wCorrect.append( wInsert );
wCorrect.append( wError.substring( 9 ) );
System.out.println( "Sorry... english is not my first language..." );
return wCorrect.toString();
}
phobos% cat
Yes, but in this case:
;)
.sig
- Maybe the compiler can make good use of the extra bandwith even if the code wasn't designed for it.
- Recompiling the code will remove the translation overhead
- Rewrite/recompile our java virtual machines and all of our java code will be instantanously happy
I tend to like the idea of a new architecture better than the amd tandem (2x x86s) solution...
phobos% cat
Typical UT Capture the flag keyboard mapping:
.sig
Up, Down, Strafe Left, Strafe Right, 10 weapons, crouch, jump, feign death, 3 acknowledgment voice commands, 3 orders/status voice commande, a couple taunts...
That makes so many more buttons than there are on this device... so many more...
phobos% cat
If people want to buy systems that were overclocked even though nobody told them, let them be.
.sig
If people use the high tech product X without knowing problem Y because they are interested in Z instead of being interested in high tech products, let them do it.
It's not as if people who know more about X can help/protect people who don't know X well.
How was that comment 4, Insightful? What insight?
We're talking about contents control here.
phobos% cat
At least, follow the Java standards:
;)
.sig
import com.mon-sense.GrainOfSalt;
GrainOfSalt grain = new GrainOfSalt( GrainOfSalt.HUGE );
<RANT target='not the parent poster'>
People are never happy. They want people to know about the open source community, but now that we see it more, it's always company X is kissing open source butt. It goes as far in some comments as bitching against StarOffice open becoming open source.
And stop believing that because Quake3 or UT could not be efficient under a jvm, java is a useless pile of hype, because it is not true. Go learn Java, it IS nice.
</RANT>
phobos% cat
Maybe the definition of level 2 cache is different now with different approaches, but level 2 cache is usually (normally?) bigger than level 1 cache because it is a cache level... if I split the level 1 cache on two chips it stays level 1 cache. If I cache the memory cache (becomes complicated;) then there is another level of cache.
.sig
What I mean is that saying that the part of level 2 cache that is already contained in level 1 cache is lost memory that should be used for a different purpose is an error... because a cache by definition contains a copy of data. Putting a section of L1 contents on another chip doesn't make it another cache level! Does it?
phobos% cat
I don't mean that level 1 cache doesn't contain data from the main memory when there is level 2 cache... i mean that the level 1 memory caches the level 2 memory, and therefore it contains memory from the main memory but only because the level 2 cache contains data from the main memory.
.sig
phobos% cat
To be a cache, you must actually cache data that exists in another memory level. That 'exclusive level 2 cache' contains data from main memory. The level 1 cache contains data from the main memory. Both contain data from the same level, so both are level 1 cache, and there is no level 2 cache.
.sig
Quote from Computer systems design and architecture by Vincent P. Heuring and Harry F. Jordan:
Where there are two cache levels between the processor and main memory, the faster level is called the primary cache and the slower level is called the secondary cache.
Actually, this secondary level cache is not another level, it is only a slower extension of the primary cache used (logically) for the least useful part of the first level cache.
I don't think that the difference of speed between these two parts of the primary cache could make them two cache levels
phobos% cat