Novell has one great stronghold, and that is eDirectory (i know - ZenWorks and DirXML is also great:-). Linux lacks any equivalent solution today, and hopefully Linux and eDirectory will complement each other perfectly.
For me as a sys.adm. this is a dream come true. No more fighting with Netware, and the (IMHO) best directory services being available for Linux.
Its about seeing the pattern and knowing how to counter it. This is exactly the kind of thing computers are good at.
Nope. Pattern recognition is excactly the kind of thing humans are good at. Computers are improving, but they are still heavily dependent on their raw calculating powers when playing chess.
We could argue for years over when dictionary-writing became serious, but most people would probably cite Samuel Johnson's dictionary, published in 1755, about 75 years before Websters. Note that it included only spellings, not definitions.
You mention Samuel Johnson... I just have to quote from Blackadder:
Dr. Johnson:
This book, sir, contains every word in our beloved language.
Edmund:
Every word, sir?
Dr. Johnson:
Every word, sir.
Edmund:
Well, in that case, sir, I hope you will not object if I also offer the doctor my most enthusiastic contrafibularities.
Dr. Johnson:
What??
Edmund:
Contrafibularities, sir. It is a common word down our way.
Dr. Johnson:
Damn!
Edmund:
Oh, I'm sorry, sir. I'm anaspeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericumbobulation.
I remember taking an AI course at university, and the first thing on the agenda was defining AI. The professor suggested several definations, and then he discarded each of them as eighter too narrow or too focuses on human intelligence. The only definition that withstood his scrutiny was something like "AI is what AI scientists do for a living".
By that definition chess!=AI. But once upon a time it was, because chess is at the borderline between the "computer realm" and the "human realm" i.e. it is calculation with lots of knowledge added.
Deep Blue - Kasparov was played with standard "long" matches. This Deep Fritz vs. Kramnik match is also played with standard time, but I believe Kramnik is allowed to rest every 5 or 6 hour of play.
I would not completely write off humanity yet. While Kasparov might have been the strongest among _humans_ he is perhaps not the best human to play against a machine. That has to do with style. Kasparov excels when it comes to calculation, but even he cannot compare to a computer. Vladimir Kramnik on the other hand, has a positional style that is much more effective against computers. I.e intuition and knowledge might still be able to beat raw computional power.
Slashdot Mirror
Novell has one great stronghold, and that is eDirectory (i know - ZenWorks and DirXML is also great :-). Linux lacks any equivalent solution today, and hopefully Linux and eDirectory will complement each other perfectly.
For me as a sys.adm. this is a dream come true. No more fighting with Netware, and the (IMHO) best directory services being available for Linux.
Go Novell!Its about seeing the pattern and knowing how to counter it. This is exactly the kind of thing computers are good at.
Nope. Pattern recognition is excactly the kind of thing humans are good at. Computers are improving, but they are still heavily dependent on their raw calculating powers when playing chess.
We could argue for years over when dictionary-writing became serious, but most people would probably cite Samuel Johnson's dictionary, published in 1755, about 75 years before Websters. Note that it included only spellings, not definitions.
You mention Samuel Johnson... I just have to quote from Blackadder:
Dr. Johnson:
This book, sir, contains every word in our beloved language.
Edmund:
Every word, sir?
Dr. Johnson:
Every word, sir.
Edmund:
Well, in that case, sir, I hope you will not object if I also offer the doctor my most enthusiastic contrafibularities.
Dr. Johnson:
What??
Edmund:
Contrafibularities, sir. It is a common word down our way.
Dr. Johnson:
Damn!
Edmund:
Oh, I'm sorry, sir. I'm anaspeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericumbobulation.
I remember taking an AI course at university, and the first thing on the agenda was defining AI. The professor suggested several definations, and then he discarded each of them as eighter too narrow or too focuses on human intelligence. The only definition that withstood his scrutiny was something like "AI is what AI scientists do for a living".
By that definition chess!=AI. But once upon a time it was, because chess is at the borderline between the "computer realm" and the "human realm" i.e. it is calculation with lots of knowledge added.
Deep Blue - Kasparov was played with standard "long" matches. This Deep Fritz vs. Kramnik match is also played with standard time, but I believe Kramnik is allowed to rest every 5 or 6 hour of play.
I would not completely write off humanity yet. While Kasparov might have been the strongest among _humans_ he is perhaps not the best human to play against a machine. That has to do with style. Kasparov excels when it comes to calculation, but even he cannot compare to a computer. Vladimir Kramnik on the other hand, has a positional style that is much more effective against computers. I.e intuition and knowledge might still be able to beat raw computional power.