You are correct. In fact, this is probably the way most tech startups make their founders (and angel investors) rich. Not as rich as they would have been if they'd taken the company to a successful IPO, but still "millionaire rich" with 100 times less risk. The folks at Y Combinator (a Silicon Valley angel investing group) are fully aware of this reality and will not stop a company they've backed from selling privately.
The most successful (financially) startup I was a key participant in was sold directly to General Magic (mostly for a patent we held in the speech recognition field, but they also wanted -- and got -- "the software guy"). (I went along because I wanted to make sure the technology got incorporated into their products correctly. But, it was my last job as an employee! Almost 15 years ago now. Whew -- time flies.)
You didn't specify which password Verizon supposedly changed, but from the context in your message I'm guessing it was your router's administrative password.
Ownership shouldn't matter. Knowledge of your router's administrative password does matter. If you were too lazy or clueless to change that password before the tech who installed it got to his/her truck, you got better than you deserved. You should go immediately to your email program and write a nice thank you note to Verizon for doing a security sweep for a WiFi router administrative password vulnerability recently (2010-7-21) announced (by Seismic) on behalf of its customers. In particular danger are routers with no administrative password set (or ones set to known values used by technicians installing routers, like "password1"). A complete fix for this vulnerability will require firmware updates to the affected routers. But, making sure you have a strong administrative password activated is a good stop-gap measure. And, given the timing, I would bet this stop-gap protection is what Verizon was trying to provide for its customers.
Two of the Web site examples immediately reminded me of the Japanese fan magazines I used to oogle while waiting for my order in this little bento joint next to where i worked in Sunnyvale.
Pretty soon, if this cowardly trend continues, most democratic governments in the world will be repressive police states. Not because of military coups, but as a result of the citizens voting those repressive regimes into power out of fear of terrorism. This is exactly how Hitler gained dictatorial control in a democratic Germany. Fear the Jews. Fear the Communists. Look, “they” burned down the Reichstag! And, the terrorists (in that case, the Nazis) won. In the case of America in 2010, we now have the Department of Homeland Insecurity and the Patriot Act. An institution and a law we would never have tolerated without a 9/11-type tragedy and the fear-mongering, perpetrated by politicians and their corporate backers who find real democracy “uncomfortable” or “inefficient,” that followed.
The best way to preempt a terrorist attack is through constant, consistant intelligence work. Most of it “human intelligence.” Once suspects have been identified using solid police work, the authorities will not need indiscriminate access to private conversations.
What we need to do is step back, take a deep breath and get some perspective people. For example, according to WikiAnswers “There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.”
Now, consider how many American citizens have been killed in terrorism-related incidents at home and abroad since 9/11. According to Information Please just 77. That's right, seventy-seven (that figure includes military personnel killed in terrorist attacks but not those killed fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan).
Now, look back at those auto accident figures. One-hindered fifteen (115) Americans die every day just because they were driving, or riding in, an automobile. It takes less than one day for American deaths in auto accidents to exceed the total number of American deaths from terrorism over the last eight years (excluding 9/11). Of course, each of those deaths (by auto accident or terrorism) is a human tragedy. I do not mean to devalue them in any way. But, we must get and maintain perspective, not only in the US but (obviously) in other democratic countries as well.
Here in America, we won't get our civil liberties out of the clutches of the fear-mongering politicians and corporations who benefit from a “perpetual state of war or the threat of war” any time soon. Take heed, citizens of India.
Not to mention that they all have some odd reasons for timing out the login and I'll be in the middle of doing something (like a Slashdot post!) and it fails because I have to re-login. What a pain in the ass!
Please tell us you don't use the/. editor to compose posts. You were using Google Docs or some other cloud-based editor. Right?
By the way, Barnes & Noble Cafes (basically, Starbucks in a B&N store -- without the too-loud music and snooty baristas) has a similar policy (also AT&T WiFi). They kick you off every two hours or so. I know because, all of a sudden, Pandora will just "disappear." 8-) If I recall, they won't let you log on three consecutive times. That's when I haul out the ol' MAC "spoofer." Only three clicks gets you (back) on line.
Barnes & Noble has a "Members Card" program as well. Gets you money off your drink and food, but no extra perks on WiFi (and you pay $25 per year to use that card). But, it's still a great deal (free shipping form bn.com and nice in-store discounts, for example). I always get my $25 back and then some.
While the research paper itself may be behind a paywall at the Nature web site, the article to which the post's link takes you (on Medical News Today) is not. It looks like a fairly good description of that research for the layperson.
Version 3 Bluetooth? All of my bluetooth devices (stereo headphones/Sony, mobile phone headset/Motorola, BT transceiver/IOGear) are all 2.something. I don't think I've ever seen any actual products labeled as BT 3.
But, then, I don't get out as much as I used to...
...and it concluded:
"The license agreement above has a high calculated interest ID. It's extremely long, and there were a high number of detected 'interesting' words or phrases." That means Eulalyzer thinks its a bad EULA. The interesting words or phrases are listed and can be viewed in context: (1) Advertising, (2) Emergency Calls or Services, (3) Third Party, (4) Web Site Address, and (5) Without Notice. I've never seen a EULA with that many "'interesting' words or phrases" called out by the program.
EULAlyzer is a free (download: http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/downloads.html). If, like me, you don't have the time to read through the EULA's for software you're thinking of purchasing, this is just the program for you. At the very least, it will give you a "heads up" and point you to the 'interesting' parts of the EULA where you can, then, read as much "legalese" as you can stomach..
Alan Turing was a genius. No doubt about it. But, even geniuses get it wrong sometimes. The "Turing Test" (he never called it that, by the way) is something Turing got wrong. Why? Because the Turing Test implicitly contains two questionable assumptions: (1) understanding natural human language is the sine qua non of human intelligence; and, (2) AI is really just shorthand for AHI (Artificial Human Intelligence). Assumption (1) is a tall order to begin with since, nearly sixty years after Turing's paper was published, we still don't know how to build a machine that can understand natural language. It also ignores the fact that human intelligence, historically speaking, preceded human language. Natural language understanding is an NP hard problem in AI. It may never be solved. Yet “natural language understanding” has been a top-priority of AI researchers since day-one of the modern AI movement. Assumption (2) is problematic because there may be other forms of human-beneficial intelligence (some of which could be very human-like, others of which would be difficult for a human to comprehend). Such an intelligence would have to be human-compatible but might, at the same time, be unable to pass the Turing Test. It would, therefore, not be classified as AI according to the Turing Test proponents.
If humans are going to get serious about building an AI, we need to expend our scarce intellectual and financial resources on activities designed to achieve a more readily attainable goal. Nothing wrong with using human intelligence as a “guide.” After all, we used birds as a guide when we developed powered human flight. Yet no viable airplane has ever worked “just like” a bird. Indeed, many airplanes exceed the capabilities of any bird (although I have seen goldfinches that appeared to break the sound barrier and who were not afraid to fly to the feeder bucking 40 MPH wind gusts in blizzard conditions). AI should not be pursued so we can build an R2D2. The test of successful AI should be “Is it human-beneficial?” Not “Is it human-like?”
We already have AI that exceeds human intelligence and we've had it ever since the first digital computer added its first two numbers ~70 years ago. Even the slowest personal computer in existence today can add a list of 1000, 100-digit numbers in just a few milliseconds. When is the last time you were (or any human you've ever known or heard about was) able to do that? Digital computers don't “forget.” Humans do. Digital computers have “perfect recall.” Humans don't. Digital computers never get tired or bored. Humans do. Just because the computer can't answer questions posed in human language about how it does what it does using human language doesn't mean it isn't intelligent is some way and, perhaps, even “smarter” than a human (even a human “expert”) in many ways.
Back in 1989, I wrote AI software (under contract to a major computer manufacturer) that was able to do in 21 seconds (on a high-end mainframe computer) or 2 minutes (on an Intel 286 PC) what took a highly-trained human engineer two weeks to do. The AI did it with zero errors per project compared to the human engineer's average of four (sometimes very costly) errors per project. The AI was trained (i.e., its rule base was written) by the company's best human engineer (who had to learn to “speak” the AI's language – which was close, but not even remotely near Turing-Test-close, to human language). It impressed a lot of serious-minded people (including the CEO of the company). But, while this AI did appear at times to have developed intelligence independently of that which was programmed into (or taught to) it, closer scrutiny (or knowing how the AI was built in the first place) quickly revealed its “secret.” These types of AI are simply able to use the computer's perfect recall and large working-memory capabilit
Just FYI, you can work off-line with Google Docs. Next time you go on-line, everything is automatically synchronized courtesy of the Google Gears plug-in (for Firefox & Internet Exploder). You only need to be net-connected when you want to send or share a document (but that would also be the case for OpenOffice).
Google Docs gets its "size" advantage because it is browser-based (even when being used off-line). Unless Google Docs has been significantly improved over the last six months or so, though, it's no replacement for OpenOffice (unless you use OpenOffice only to compose emails).
The video is so obviously amateurish that one has to wonder if this isn't some studio hoax. Maybe to test certain viral marketing pathways, such as/.
Granted, for $300, it was a very clever amateur production. But, Hollywood doesn't usually pony up $30M development deals for something that is simply clever in an area (special effects) where they have well-established ways to achieve a much better result using known sources.
You need to understand the nature of these Hollywood development deals. The contracts for these things give the studios about 1,000 ways to dump the deal in a heartbeat with absolutely no fear of legal action by the other party. Ninety-nine percent of these deals never get out of the development phase and are typically canceled well before even 1% of the total "budget" has been spent.
As others have pointed out, there is no real story here (other than monsters trash big city, citizen's run screaming just before they are crushed or vaporized by the monsters). It's, basically, a "see what I can do with cheap special effects" demo.
Compare this effort with the plot and special effects used for an Outer Limits (original B&W series) episode that probably cost well under $100,000 total (1960's USDs).
The story opens with an old woman sitting alone in a house (probably a farmhouse) out in the middle of nowhere. Suddenly, there's a loud sound from above, like something has crashed through the roof of her home. Startled, she picks up a broom and slowly pulls down the ladder to the attic. She carefully peeks her head into the attic space. There, not three feet in front of her, is a flying saucer. A very tiny flying saucer. Just next to the flying saucer are a couple of even tinnier figures dressed in space suits. She quickly retreats back down the stairway in fear, shutting the ceiling door behind her. She is shaking. As she is trying to decide what to do, she can hear different noises coming from the attic. In her state of near panic, these noises seem to be getting more frequent and louder (it sounds like the aliens are using a radio to contact other aliens). Finally, she decides to do what the audience has all along been hoping she would do: go on the offensive. Armed with her trusty broom she again enters the attic. This time, though, she attempts to destroy the space craft and the little aliens by swatting at them with her broom stick. The aliens fight back by firing at her with some sort of laser weapon (there is never a closeup shot of the aliens or their flying saucer). These sting the woman but, otherwise, have little effect. Finally, she succeeds in crushing the space ship and, she believes, killing all of the little aliens. The audience cheers her victory! But, just as she is closing the attic door again, the audience hears one, final distress call from the alien ship's radio: "This is United States Starship Verdant. We've landed on a planet of giant humanoids. One has destroyed our spacecraft and killed most of us. Please send help!" End episode.
The plastic space ship could have been purchased at the local Ben Franklin for under $10. The tiny aliens moved too realistically to have been artificially-generated with the technology back then, so I'm guessing they just shot those scenes from a distance using a special type of lens that would make the images seem even smaller. Every other physical item used in the filming was human-sized, garden-variety stuff. All they had to do to sell the special effects was to not shoot a closeup of the spaceship or its alien crew.
Amazing what a little imagination can do, isn't it? Too bad Hollywood seems to equate "imagination" and "originality" with "high risk."
.
I've read the proposal twice. They don't describe what they want to store at all. And I don't see a reference to another document either. How can anyone make an informed proposal without knowing anything about the data!!
I dunno. I just read the Public Notice (only once, and quickly). Sounds pretty straightforward to me. They are looking for a database with a real-time API that can be used by devices designed to use the white space bands. These devices are required to have geo-location capabilities (e.g., GPS) so (presumably in real-time) they can give the database their current location (e.g., GPS coordinates). The database replies with an "available channels" report based on the device's location and information it has obtained from "incumbents" who want their channels protected from interference. From the Notice:
"The database will tell a TV band device which TV channels are vacant and can be used at its location." They're not handing you a database definition, but they're surely telling you what type of data you are going to need to store and communicate in real time. In the next sentence,
"The database will also be used to register the locations of fixed TV band devices and protected locations and channels of incumbent services that are not recorded in Commission databases."
That's pretty traditional IT stuff. And that's really it (other than unresolved architecture issues, which they define quite clearly). The rest of the report covers what type of presentation they want to see from a prospective provider and how to go about filing it.
I would seek clarification about how they propose the TV band device communicate in real-time with the database if its not using, well.... some of the TV band. There should be a reserved frequency for that type of thing, but the Notice didn't address that issue.
And, then, there's footnote 5 on page 1 of the Notice: "See 47 C.F.R. %%15.713-15.715 for the rules pertaining to the operation of the TV band database" Sounds like a pretty on-point reference to other documentation to me. Don't have the time to look it up, but it's there and they've given you a pointer to it.
Thirty days should be more than sufficient for a reasonably competent applicant to submit a proposal based on the description of the problem given in the Notice.
For some reason there are those in the programming profession (usually the "we code to live" crowd who will slide easily into management as soon as possible) who cannot seem to get it into their thick skulls that "everybody wants to program a computer" is just about as true as "everybody wants to repair their own car." Non-programmers are that way because they are neither emotionally nor intellectually equipped by either nature or nurture to be a computer programmer (let alone a good one). Only 1% of the Earth's population are scientists or engineers. Making the tools employed by software engineers easier isn't going to make it (more) interesting or any easier for that 99% of the population who are not.
As far as making programming easier for programmers... Don't you get it? We like it hard. The harder the better. Most of us would be as happy as pigs in shit if our masters would let us program everything up in assembly language. If we could get away with it, every shell script would be written as one, big, fat, hairy regular expression. Real programmers don't want "easy," we want "control" and are more than happy to put up with the lack of ease having more control invariably entails. Programming languages that are more like human languages? That sounds like documentation to me. And you know how much programmers love writing documentation.
Computer programmers are not your typical breed of cat. To us, 200 milliseconds is a long time. Indeed, every day at work we manipulate space and time with hardly giving it a second thought. We are the poster children for OCD. We'd rather be "in the zone" struggling to craft an elegant solution to a very difficult problem than be in the real world struggling with very difficult people. We despise organized fun. We can't understand why "normal people" don't get the concept of indirection. We have working memories that rival those of Chimpanzees. To us, "average," "normal" and "easy" are swear words. And, truth be told, most of us would do what we do without pay if we could (and, judging by the number of open source programming projects on the Internet, a significant number of us can). We don't code to live, we live to code. We can't resist an intellectual challenge. If you want a programming project done quickly, just tell the programmer(s), "There's no way you can do that in a <pick-your-time-period>!" The best way to avoid a programmer at family gatherings? Give him or her a book of (mathematical) puzzles. You won't see him/her again until every puzzle in that book has been solved. Does any of this sound like (part of) a description of "your typical business person?"
Programming computers isn't difficult because the tools aren't close enough to English (or whatever human language you prefer). Programming computers is difficult because highly-structured problem solving is difficult. And its not really something they teach in school. Probably because its as hard to teach as are the problems it is most suited to solve. It may, indeed, be something you can't teach because the student either has "it" or doesn't. To do it well requires mental discipline, above-average intelligence, attention to detail, the willingness (indeed, insatiable desire) to continually learn new concepts and tools and, most of all, an insane amount of persistence. Most people don't have that particular constellation of traits. Making programming tools simpler will not turn these people into programmers any more than the advent of power tools and embedded, computerized control/diagnostic systems turned people who weren't auto mechanics into auto mechanics.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct. In fact, this is probably the way most tech startups make their founders (and angel investors) rich. Not as rich as they would have been if they'd taken the company to a successful IPO, but still "millionaire rich" with 100 times less risk. The folks at Y Combinator (a Silicon Valley angel investing group) are fully aware of this reality and will not stop a company they've backed from selling privately.
The most successful (financially) startup I was a key participant in was sold directly to General Magic (mostly for a patent we held in the speech recognition field, but they also wanted -- and got -- "the software guy"). (I went along because I wanted to make sure the technology got incorporated into their products correctly. But, it was my last job as an employee! Almost 15 years ago now. Whew -- time flies.)
Touchless porn. Think about it.
You didn't specify which password Verizon supposedly changed, but from the context in your message I'm guessing it was your router's administrative password.
Ownership shouldn't matter. Knowledge of your router's administrative password does matter. If you were too lazy or clueless to change that password before the tech who installed it got to his/her truck, you got better than you deserved. You should go immediately to your email program and write a nice thank you note to Verizon for doing a security sweep for a WiFi router administrative password vulnerability recently (2010-7-21) announced (by Seismic) on behalf of its customers. In particular danger are routers with no administrative password set (or ones set to known values used by technicians installing routers, like "password1"). A complete fix for this vulnerability will require firmware updates to the affected routers. But, making sure you have a strong administrative password activated is a good stop-gap measure. And, given the timing, I would bet this stop-gap protection is what Verizon was trying to provide for its customers.
Two of the Web site examples immediately reminded me of the Japanese fan magazines I used to oogle while waiting for my order in this little bento joint next to where i worked in Sunnyvale.
Hehe. Another good example showing why the hyphen should be banned from the English language.
"Procrastination is the solution, not the problem. So, don't put it off: procrastinate today!" Ellen DeGeneres
I love alot of alliteration!
I come for the summaries. I stay for the sigs.
Amazing what a little fear can do, isn't it?
Pretty soon, if this cowardly trend continues, most democratic governments in the world will be repressive police states. Not because of military coups, but as a result of the citizens voting those repressive regimes into power out of fear of terrorism. This is exactly how Hitler gained dictatorial control in a democratic Germany. Fear the Jews. Fear the Communists. Look, “they” burned down the Reichstag! And, the terrorists (in that case, the Nazis) won. In the case of America in 2010, we now have the Department of Homeland Insecurity and the Patriot Act. An institution and a law we would never have tolerated without a 9/11-type tragedy and the fear-mongering, perpetrated by politicians and their corporate backers who find real democracy “uncomfortable” or “inefficient,” that followed.
The best way to preempt a terrorist attack is through constant, consistant intelligence work. Most of it “human intelligence.” Once suspects have been identified using solid police work, the authorities will not need indiscriminate access to private conversations.
What we need to do is step back, take a deep breath and get some perspective people. For example, according to WikiAnswers “There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.”
Now, consider how many American citizens have been killed in terrorism-related incidents at home and abroad since 9/11. According to Information Please just 77. That's right, seventy-seven (that figure includes military personnel killed in terrorist attacks but not those killed fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan).
Now, look back at those auto accident figures. One-hindered fifteen (115) Americans die every day just because they were driving, or riding in, an automobile. It takes less than one day for American deaths in auto accidents to exceed the total number of American deaths from terrorism over the last eight years (excluding 9/11). Of course, each of those deaths (by auto accident or terrorism) is a human tragedy. I do not mean to devalue them in any way. But, we must get and maintain perspective, not only in the US but (obviously) in other democratic countries as well.
Here in America, we won't get our civil liberties out of the clutches of the fear-mongering politicians and corporations who benefit from a “perpetual state of war or the threat of war” any time soon. Take heed, citizens of India.
It's about time! I understand that early adopters report being "All caught up in it!" Kudos to those pioneering Aussies!
Not to mention that they all have some odd reasons for timing out the login and I'll be in the middle of doing something (like a Slashdot post!) and it fails because I have to re-login. What a pain in the ass!
Please tell us you don't use the /. editor to compose posts. You were using Google Docs or some other cloud-based editor. Right?
By the way, Barnes & Noble Cafes (basically, Starbucks in a B&N store -- without the too-loud music and snooty baristas) has a similar policy (also AT&T WiFi). They kick you off every two hours or so. I know because, all of a sudden, Pandora will just "disappear." 8-) If I recall, they won't let you log on three consecutive times. That's when I haul out the ol' MAC "spoofer." Only three clicks gets you (back) on line.
Barnes & Noble has a "Members Card" program as well. Gets you money off your drink and food, but no extra perks on WiFi (and you pay $25 per year to use that card). But, it's still a great deal (free shipping form bn.com and nice in-store discounts, for example). I always get my $25 back and then some.
While the research paper itself may be behind a paywall at the Nature web site, the article to which the post's link takes you (on Medical News Today) is not. It looks like a fairly good description of that research for the layperson.
The Japanese use the metric system. We don't want a repeat of that Mars Climate Orbiter fuck up...
Hear that, American corporations? Stick to doing business in only those countries where you can buy the government. Like, say, the U.S.
...adjusting "penis enlargement" spam filter to let emails with "stem cells" in the subject or body through...
You're never too rich, too thin or too well-hung.
Oops! There goes WalMart. Two birds with one stone?
Puts me in mind of a corollary flowing directly from the "Everything in moderation" rule: "Everything in moderation. Including moderation."
Works for me!
I think I'm in love.
Version 3 Bluetooth? All of my bluetooth devices (stereo headphones/Sony, mobile phone headset/Motorola, BT transceiver/IOGear) are all 2.something. I don't think I've ever seen any actual products labeled as BT 3.
But, then, I don't get out as much as I used to...
...and it concluded: "The license agreement above has a high calculated interest ID. It's extremely long, and there were a high number of detected 'interesting' words or phrases." That means Eulalyzer thinks its a bad EULA. The interesting words or phrases are listed and can be viewed in context: (1) Advertising, (2) Emergency Calls or Services, (3) Third Party, (4) Web Site Address, and (5) Without Notice. I've never seen a EULA with that many "'interesting' words or phrases" called out by the program.
EULAlyzer is a free (download: http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/downloads.html). If, like me, you don't have the time to read through the EULA's for software you're thinking of purchasing, this is just the program for you. At the very least, it will give you a "heads up" and point you to the 'interesting' parts of the EULA where you can, then, read as much "legalese" as you can stomach..
Does your toilet have a Handel. Or is it Haydn?
(Sorry, I just couldn't resist...)
Alan Turing was a genius. No doubt about it. But, even geniuses get it wrong sometimes. The "Turing Test" (he never called it that, by the way) is something Turing got wrong. Why? Because the Turing Test implicitly contains two questionable assumptions: (1) understanding natural human language is the sine qua non of human intelligence; and, (2) AI is really just shorthand for AHI (Artificial Human Intelligence). Assumption (1) is a tall order to begin with since, nearly sixty years after Turing's paper was published, we still don't know how to build a machine that can understand natural language. It also ignores the fact that human intelligence, historically speaking, preceded human language. Natural language understanding is an NP hard problem in AI. It may never be solved. Yet “natural language understanding” has been a top-priority of AI researchers since day-one of the modern AI movement. Assumption (2) is problematic because there may be other forms of human-beneficial intelligence (some of which could be very human-like, others of which would be difficult for a human to comprehend). Such an intelligence would have to be human-compatible but might, at the same time, be unable to pass the Turing Test. It would, therefore, not be classified as AI according to the Turing Test proponents.
If humans are going to get serious about building an AI, we need to expend our scarce intellectual and financial resources on activities designed to achieve a more readily attainable goal. Nothing wrong with using human intelligence as a “guide.” After all, we used birds as a guide when we developed powered human flight. Yet no viable airplane has ever worked “just like” a bird. Indeed, many airplanes exceed the capabilities of any bird (although I have seen goldfinches that appeared to break the sound barrier and who were not afraid to fly to the feeder bucking 40 MPH wind gusts in blizzard conditions). AI should not be pursued so we can build an R2D2. The test of successful AI should be “Is it human-beneficial?” Not “Is it human-like?”
We already have AI that exceeds human intelligence and we've had it ever since the first digital computer added its first two numbers ~70 years ago. Even the slowest personal computer in existence today can add a list of 1000, 100-digit numbers in just a few milliseconds. When is the last time you were (or any human you've ever known or heard about was) able to do that? Digital computers don't “forget.” Humans do. Digital computers have “perfect recall.” Humans don't. Digital computers never get tired or bored. Humans do. Just because the computer can't answer questions posed in human language about how it does what it does using human language doesn't mean it isn't intelligent is some way and, perhaps, even “smarter” than a human (even a human “expert”) in many ways.
Back in 1989, I wrote AI software (under contract to a major computer manufacturer) that was able to do in 21 seconds (on a high-end mainframe computer) or 2 minutes (on an Intel 286 PC) what took a highly-trained human engineer two weeks to do. The AI did it with zero errors per project compared to the human engineer's average of four (sometimes very costly) errors per project. The AI was trained (i.e., its rule base was written) by the company's best human engineer (who had to learn to “speak” the AI's language – which was close, but not even remotely near Turing-Test-close, to human language). It impressed a lot of serious-minded people (including the CEO of the company). But, while this AI did appear at times to have developed intelligence independently of that which was programmed into (or taught to) it, closer scrutiny (or knowing how the AI was built in the first place) quickly revealed its “secret.” These types of AI are simply able to use the computer's perfect recall and large working-memory capabilit
Just FYI, you can work off-line with Google Docs. Next time you go on-line, everything is automatically synchronized courtesy of the Google Gears plug-in (for Firefox & Internet Exploder). You only need to be net-connected when you want to send or share a document (but that would also be the case for OpenOffice).
Google Docs gets its "size" advantage because it is browser-based (even when being used off-line). Unless Google Docs has been significantly improved over the last six months or so, though, it's no replacement for OpenOffice (unless you use OpenOffice only to compose emails).
The video is so obviously amateurish that one has to wonder if this isn't some studio hoax. Maybe to test certain viral marketing pathways, such as /.
Granted, for $300, it was a very clever amateur production. But, Hollywood doesn't usually pony up $30M development deals for something that is simply clever in an area (special effects) where they have well-established ways to achieve a much better result using known sources.
You need to understand the nature of these Hollywood development deals. The contracts for these things give the studios about 1,000 ways to dump the deal in a heartbeat with absolutely no fear of legal action by the other party. Ninety-nine percent of these deals never get out of the development phase and are typically canceled well before even 1% of the total "budget" has been spent.
As others have pointed out, there is no real story here (other than monsters trash big city, citizen's run screaming just before they are crushed or vaporized by the monsters). It's, basically, a "see what I can do with cheap special effects" demo.
Compare this effort with the plot and special effects used for an Outer Limits (original B&W series) episode that probably cost well under $100,000 total (1960's USDs).
The story opens with an old woman sitting alone in a house (probably a farmhouse) out in the middle of nowhere. Suddenly, there's a loud sound from above, like something has crashed through the roof of her home. Startled, she picks up a broom and slowly pulls down the ladder to the attic. She carefully peeks her head into the attic space. There, not three feet in front of her, is a flying saucer. A very tiny flying saucer. Just next to the flying saucer are a couple of even tinnier figures dressed in space suits. She quickly retreats back down the stairway in fear, shutting the ceiling door behind her. She is shaking. As she is trying to decide what to do, she can hear different noises coming from the attic. In her state of near panic, these noises seem to be getting more frequent and louder (it sounds like the aliens are using a radio to contact other aliens). Finally, she decides to do what the audience has all along been hoping she would do: go on the offensive. Armed with her trusty broom she again enters the attic. This time, though, she attempts to destroy the space craft and the little aliens by swatting at them with her broom stick. The aliens fight back by firing at her with some sort of laser weapon (there is never a closeup shot of the aliens or their flying saucer). These sting the woman but, otherwise, have little effect. Finally, she succeeds in crushing the space ship and, she believes, killing all of the little aliens. The audience cheers her victory! But, just as she is closing the attic door again, the audience hears one, final distress call from the alien ship's radio: "This is United States Starship Verdant. We've landed on a planet of giant humanoids. One has destroyed our spacecraft and killed most of us. Please send help!" End episode.
The plastic space ship could have been purchased at the local Ben Franklin for under $10. The tiny aliens moved too realistically to have been artificially-generated with the technology back then, so I'm guessing they just shot those scenes from a distance using a special type of lens that would make the images seem even smaller. Every other physical item used in the filming was human-sized, garden-variety stuff. All they had to do to sell the special effects was to not shoot a closeup of the spaceship or its alien crew.
Amazing what a little imagination can do, isn't it? Too bad Hollywood seems to equate "imagination" and "originality" with "high risk." .
Per day? Hell, I do that before breakfast. Above average again! Damn, life is sweet.
I've read the proposal twice. They don't describe what they want to store at all. And I don't see a reference to another document either. How can anyone make an informed proposal without knowing anything about the data!!
I dunno. I just read the Public Notice (only once, and quickly). Sounds pretty straightforward to me. They are looking for a database with a real-time API that can be used by devices designed to use the white space bands. These devices are required to have geo-location capabilities (e.g., GPS) so (presumably in real-time) they can give the database their current location (e.g., GPS coordinates). The database replies with an "available channels" report based on the device's location and information it has obtained from "incumbents" who want their channels protected from interference. From the Notice:
"The database will tell a TV band device which TV channels are vacant and can be used at its location." They're not handing you a database definition, but they're surely telling you what type of data you are going to need to store and communicate in real time. In the next sentence,
"The database will also be used to register the locations of fixed TV band devices and protected locations and channels of incumbent services that are not recorded in Commission databases."
That's pretty traditional IT stuff. And that's really it (other than unresolved architecture issues, which they define quite clearly). The rest of the report covers what type of presentation they want to see from a prospective provider and how to go about filing it.
I would seek clarification about how they propose the TV band device communicate in real-time with the database if its not using, well.... some of the TV band. There should be a reserved frequency for that type of thing, but the Notice didn't address that issue.
And, then, there's footnote 5 on page 1 of the Notice: "See 47 C.F.R. %%15.713-15.715 for the rules pertaining to the operation of the TV band database" Sounds like a pretty on-point reference to other documentation to me. Don't have the time to look it up, but it's there and they've given you a pointer to it.
Thirty days should be more than sufficient for a reasonably competent applicant to submit a proposal based on the description of the problem given in the Notice.
For some reason there are those in the programming profession (usually the "we code to live" crowd who will slide easily into management as soon as possible) who cannot seem to get it into their thick skulls that "everybody wants to program a computer" is just about as true as "everybody wants to repair their own car." Non-programmers are that way because they are neither emotionally nor intellectually equipped by either nature or nurture to be a computer programmer (let alone a good one). Only 1% of the Earth's population are scientists or engineers. Making the tools employed by software engineers easier isn't going to make it (more) interesting or any easier for that 99% of the population who are not.
As far as making programming easier for programmers... Don't you get it? We like it hard. The harder the better. Most of us would be as happy as pigs in shit if our masters would let us program everything up in assembly language. If we could get away with it, every shell script would be written as one, big, fat, hairy regular expression. Real programmers don't want "easy," we want "control" and are more than happy to put up with the lack of ease having more control invariably entails. Programming languages that are more like human languages? That sounds like documentation to me. And you know how much programmers love writing documentation.
Computer programmers are not your typical breed of cat. To us, 200 milliseconds is a long time. Indeed, every day at work we manipulate space and time with hardly giving it a second thought. We are the poster children for OCD. We'd rather be "in the zone" struggling to craft an elegant solution to a very difficult problem than be in the real world struggling with very difficult people. We despise organized fun. We can't understand why "normal people" don't get the concept of indirection. We have working memories that rival those of Chimpanzees. To us, "average," "normal" and "easy" are swear words. And, truth be told, most of us would do what we do without pay if we could (and, judging by the number of open source programming projects on the Internet, a significant number of us can). We don't code to live, we live to code. We can't resist an intellectual challenge. If you want a programming project done quickly, just tell the programmer(s), "There's no way you can do that in a <pick-your-time-period>!" The best way to avoid a programmer at family gatherings? Give him or her a book of (mathematical) puzzles. You won't see him/her again until every puzzle in that book has been solved. Does any of this sound like (part of) a description of "your typical business person?"
Programming computers isn't difficult because the tools aren't close enough to English (or whatever human language you prefer). Programming computers is difficult because highly-structured problem solving is difficult. And its not really something they teach in school. Probably because its as hard to teach as are the problems it is most suited to solve. It may, indeed, be something you can't teach because the student either has "it" or doesn't. To do it well requires mental discipline, above-average intelligence, attention to detail, the willingness (indeed, insatiable desire) to continually learn new concepts and tools and, most of all, an insane amount of persistence. Most people don't have that particular constellation of traits. Making programming tools simpler will not turn these people into programmers any more than the advent of power tools and embedded, computerized control/diagnostic systems turned people who weren't auto mechanics into auto mechanics.