I love the epiphany students, especially the ones that:
a) Manage to get a C or higher on their final, despite a 20 average on their work to date, and
b) Have marks on their final reflecting how they very obviously cheated with their neighbor during the test.
I have to admin, the "light test"[1] worked for most of our CS1501 pseudocode submissions (that is, before we went to Scheme).
[1] 1. Place papers of suspected cheaters on top of each other.
2. Hold up to light.
3. Observe how everything overlaps *perfectly*, down to the whitespace, var names, etc.
The C*O(N^2) coefficient is small - say I have 3 submissions - the real cost isn't 9 checks, but 6: If I check 1 against 2, I don't need to check 2 against 1.
--G
the cheating detector was simply an urban legend here at GA Tech
- Nope, it was there before I got to Tech, which was back in 1997.
when in fact the real script was quite lame
- It got progressively better every time. It was never perfect - I think you heard "perfect" when we the TAs said "good".
What do you expect when you put a bunch of people in a class who don't give a hoot about programming...
- Actually, if you take the average cheaters when the class was CS-only, and you take the average # of cheaters now, when the class is required for most everyone, you'll find the average has gone up. There were many privy conversations in my time as an STA as to the phenomenon of rising cheating rates "per-capita".
Last semester was the first time an actual executable language
- No, you're just plain wrong here. Scheme was taught a year before as a test run, and before that (wayyy back) we used PASCAL, which, to my knowledge, compilers still exist for.
4. These classes are cake. There is no reason anyone should need to cheat to pass these classes. They are the most basic concepts of programming.
I think there was a direct correlation with the increased cheating per-capita and the opening up of the intro CS class to (almost) the entire school.
Sorry, but if you stick folks who perceive CS as an irritating blocker between them and 3-4 hours of credit towards their unrelated degree, you'll get apathy-induced plagiarism.
I've been pondering building my own wearable for several years now. I was fortunate to have some exposure to Thad Starner at Georgia Tech. I saw quite a few variations on the wearable in the halls of the College of Computing, but my main interest was in the "build-your-own" category, for which Thad has a few links for on his web site.
A $2K price tag is certainly more appealing than a $5K-$6K, but what's the point when you can build your own for less? Laptops are so thin/cheap/powerful these days that, combined with a Twiddler and some form of audio/video IO, you're set.
The Hitachi unit, on the other hand, has barely more horsepower than a handheld device. Do you really need a visor-ed CE device for $2K?
Not really. What if the sattelites were grounded? Would you tax them then. Just because property is 22K+ miles away doesn't make it "free". The issue is not "let's tax space" but "let's tax property which just so happens to be in space".
Didn't Michael already post the Mars 2020 article here?
As far as an earthside use, I can't wait for my own Mars rover PIM! It'll follow me around, make me coffee, and subvert large rocks in the terrain of my driveway...;)
...who's the creator of the creation? You or the AI program?
Who's responsible for your post? You or your mother and father? I vote for the former. In the case of the AI, I'd say it's the creator of the program is responsible, unless the AI happens to be sentient.
Everyone always stares at me when I profess the beauty of Lisp, as well as its possibilities. While being the second oldest language still in use (after Fortran), it's still modern with respect to the new applications people are finding for the language. For the curious, here's some other cool Lisp/Scheme projects:
...a CD-burning software bundled with the OS *is* convenience, as they might not feel confident installing CD Creator themselves.
It may be a time-saver for the more technical at heart, too. I spent many an hour once trying to get Win2K, ASPI, WMP, and a couple of burner/ripper apps to all work on one box. Given the OS-installed burner software option (assuming reliability), I would have probably gone with it instead of trying my own installs.
Sure, harking a Mars 2020 propaganda may get NASA more cash in the near-term. But, will building off of Kennedy's original ultimatum for the moon in the context of inter-planetary exploration going to aid NASA in the long-term?
As part of an AIAA competition, I worked with some fellow undergrads at Georgia Tech to respond to an RFP for a Mars infrastructure plan. Basically, our 100-page proposal answered the question, "How do we get a navigation, mapping, communication, and autonomous exploration infrastructure in place on Mars by 2015?" Our findings were varied: it's very doable, and also very expensive to do. Sure, there are two or three opportunities between 2010-2015 to launch convoys of equipment to Mars to support a human mission, but the cost is way more than NASA has currently, or has budgeted for the near future.
"But," you may ask, "we don't need an infrastructure. We just need to send a few people over there and have them put the flag in the ground and take a few rocks!" Well, while this plan is more doable, it's also more wasteful. Given the number of months it takes to get to Mars each way, it would be a psychological and financial waste to send a few people over just for the photo-op. Real science needs to happen, and as a result, real infrastructure needs to be in place for that to happen.
What's my point? I don't believe 2020 is feasible for a full research team to go out to Mars and do productive work, given there's no infrastructure in Mars presently and given the budgetary limitations of NASA at the moment. I think NASA should concentrate on building this infrastructure rather than setting ultimatums that may not be feasible.
In fact, I can't think of a single interaction I've had with state or federal governments in the last year that I haven't been able to do entirely online.
Having worked PT at this e-gov company, I can tell you that there are lots of local, state, and national agencies that do not have electronic services for their transactions. It sounds like you have had a good experience in Texas, but there are a ton of other local and state governments that have nothing in place for online transactions.
Plus, there are federal agencies exluding the IRS (such as the INS or passport acquisition or renewal) that aren't online, IIRC.
I don't think we will make any significant gains in "true" AI until we sit down and figure out the principles of human intelligence, rather than trying a) mimicry or b) more silicon.
According to AI researchers I've spoken to, the field of artificial intelligence is still in a "pre-science" stage. There hasn't been a unifying theory or someone (like Newton in physics, for example) to throw down the gavel with a conclusive, all-in-one set of findings. There are many schools of thought in AI research (genetic programming, neural nets, semantic trees, case-based reasoning, and symbolic representations, to name a few) that all have their plusses and minuses.
There really isn't a "true" AI when one can't define how to define the AI; in a sense, what is an intelligence? Is it a piece of code that changes itself? Is it a brute-force algorithm? How about a network of simulated synapses with threshold functions? When we don't have the metrics for defining something, it all comes down to how well you present your research findings in a way that makes it look apropos to the problem at hand. =)
Well, it does exist in some fashion. A graphics or music person who's used to a certain app running on, say, MacOS, may choose a new version of this app (or a competitor) and then make sure it will run on their configuration. If not, IMHO I think they'd find a way to run the app rather than pick another app.
In niche fields, people are more interested in getting a job done; here, rather than an "Apps, then OS" mentality, people follow a "Just give me the Apps...I have a deadline to meet!" view.:)
For the majority of users, however, I hold to my original statement.
Slashdot Mirror
It snowed out here recently, literally! Does that mean it was a cold day in hell? :)
I love the epiphany students, especially the ones that:
a) Manage to get a C or higher on their final, despite a 20 average on their work to date, and
b) Have marks on their final reflecting how they very obviously cheated with their neighbor during the test.
It's especially efficient when you're able to conduct multiple papers in parallel all stacked on top of each other. :)
I think Hughes, Lerner, or Jenks must have already patented it...
--G
I have to admin, the "light test"[1] worked for most of our CS1501 pseudocode submissions (that is, before we went to Scheme).
[1] 1. Place papers of suspected cheaters on top of each other.
2. Hold up to light.
3. Observe how everything overlaps *perfectly*, down to the whitespace, var names, etc.
PS: Hey Yngve! Not much - email me!
The C*O(N^2) coefficient is small - say I have 3 submissions - the real cost isn't 9 checks, but 6: If I check 1 against 2, I don't need to check 2 against 1.
--G
If an Intro to Computing student wrote an anti-cheatfinder, I'd give them a vicarious "A"...much more advanced than what CS1311/1312 offer.
the cheating detector was simply an urban legend here at GA Tech
- Nope, it was there before I got to Tech, which was back in 1997.
when in fact the real script was quite lame
- It got progressively better every time. It was never perfect - I think you heard "perfect" when we the TAs said "good".
What do you expect when you put a bunch of people in a class who don't give a hoot about programming...
- Actually, if you take the average cheaters when the class was CS-only, and you take the average # of cheaters now, when the class is required for most everyone, you'll find the average has gone up. There were many privy conversations in my time as an STA as to the phenomenon of rising cheating rates "per-capita".
Last semester was the first time an actual executable language
- No, you're just plain wrong here. Scheme was taught a year before as a test run, and before that (wayyy back) we used PASCAL, which, to my knowledge, compilers still exist for.
4. These classes are cake. There is no reason anyone should need to cheat to pass these classes. They are the most basic concepts of programming.
I think there was a direct correlation with the increased cheating per-capita and the opening up of the intro CS class to (almost) the entire school.
Sorry, but if you stick folks who perceive CS as an irritating blocker between them and 3-4 hours of credit towards their unrelated degree, you'll get apathy-induced plagiarism.
--George, another former GaTech TA
I've been pondering building my own wearable for several years now. I was fortunate to have some exposure to Thad Starner at Georgia Tech. I saw quite a few variations on the wearable in the halls of the College of Computing, but my main interest was in the "build-your-own" category, for which Thad has a few links for on his web site.
A $2K price tag is certainly more appealing than a $5K-$6K, but what's the point when you can build your own for less? Laptops are so thin/cheap/powerful these days that, combined with a Twiddler and some form of audio/video IO, you're set.
The Hitachi unit, on the other hand, has barely more horsepower than a handheld device. Do you really need a visor-ed CE device for $2K?
These displays exist. You'd have to purchase them separately from the WIA, however.
Just IMO, but I believe one of the reasons they opted for one screen instead of two is battery life.
Do they tax each companies vehicles & computers?
In some countries, yes.
Not really. What if the sattelites were grounded? Would you tax them then. Just because property is 22K+ miles away doesn't make it "free". The issue is not "let's tax space" but "let's tax property which just so happens to be in space".
Didn't Michael already post the Mars 2020 article here?
;)
As far as an earthside use, I can't wait for my own Mars rover PIM! It'll follow me around, make me coffee, and subvert large rocks in the terrain of my driveway...
To clarify, Lisp is the second oldest language still in use. I refer you to these comments:
Fateman, 1998
McCarthy, 1996
Walker, 1997
Reference to McCarthy and Lisp
...who's the creator of the creation? You or the AI program?
Who's responsible for your post? You or your mother and father? I vote for the former. In the case of the AI, I'd say it's the creator of the program is responsible, unless the AI happens to be sentient.
Everyone always stares at me when I profess the beauty of Lisp, as well as its possibilities. While being the second oldest language still in use (after Fortran), it's still modern with respect to the new applications people are finding for the language. For the curious, here's some other cool Lisp/Scheme projects:
A Common LISP Hypermedia Server
UTexas's archive of classic Lisp AI code (SHRDLU, Eliza, etc.)
SPIKE - Planning/Scheduling software for the Hubble Space Telescope
Babylon - an environment for developing expert systems
Lisp-Stat - statistics package
Also, here's a great directory on more info and resources on Lisp:
Association of Lisp Users
Check out MS SharePoint. It may be what you're looking for.
...a CD-burning software bundled with the OS *is* convenience, as they might not feel confident installing CD Creator themselves.
It may be a time-saver for the more technical at heart, too. I spent many an hour once trying to get Win2K, ASPI, WMP, and a couple of burner/ripper apps to all work on one box. Given the OS-installed burner software option (assuming reliability), I would have probably gone with it instead of trying my own installs.
Anyone know what they used to achieve such high levels of atmospheric pressure?
Sure, harking a Mars 2020 propaganda may get NASA more cash in the near-term. But, will building off of Kennedy's original ultimatum for the moon in the context of inter-planetary exploration going to aid NASA in the long-term?
As part of an AIAA competition, I worked with some fellow undergrads at Georgia Tech to respond to an RFP for a Mars infrastructure plan. Basically, our 100-page proposal answered the question, "How do we get a navigation, mapping, communication, and autonomous exploration infrastructure in place on Mars by 2015?" Our findings were varied: it's very doable, and also very expensive to do. Sure, there are two or three opportunities between 2010-2015 to launch convoys of equipment to Mars to support a human mission, but the cost is way more than NASA has currently, or has budgeted for the near future.
"But," you may ask, "we don't need an infrastructure. We just need to send a few people over there and have them put the flag in the ground and take a few rocks!" Well, while this plan is more doable, it's also more wasteful. Given the number of months it takes to get to Mars each way, it would be a psychological and financial waste to send a few people over just for the photo-op. Real science needs to happen, and as a result, real infrastructure needs to be in place for that to happen.
What's my point? I don't believe 2020 is feasible for a full research team to go out to Mars and do productive work, given there's no infrastructure in Mars presently and given the budgetary limitations of NASA at the moment. I think NASA should concentrate on building this infrastructure rather than setting ultimatums that may not be feasible.
In fact, I can't think of a single interaction I've had with state or federal governments in the last year that I haven't been able to do entirely online.
Having worked PT at this e-gov company, I can tell you that there are lots of local, state, and national agencies that do not have electronic services for their transactions. It sounds like you have had a good experience in Texas, but there are a ton of other local and state governments that have nothing in place for online transactions.
Plus, there are federal agencies exluding the IRS (such as the INS or passport acquisition or renewal) that aren't online, IIRC.
I don't think we will make any significant gains in "true" AI until we sit down and figure out the principles of human intelligence, rather than trying a) mimicry or b) more silicon.
According to AI researchers I've spoken to, the field of artificial intelligence is still in a "pre-science" stage. There hasn't been a unifying theory or someone (like Newton in physics, for example) to throw down the gavel with a conclusive, all-in-one set of findings. There are many schools of thought in AI research (genetic programming, neural nets, semantic trees, case-based reasoning, and symbolic representations, to name a few) that all have their plusses and minuses.
There really isn't a "true" AI when one can't define how to define the AI; in a sense, what is an intelligence? Is it a piece of code that changes itself? Is it a brute-force algorithm? How about a network of simulated synapses with threshold functions? When we don't have the metrics for defining something, it all comes down to how well you present your research findings in a way that makes it look apropos to the problem at hand. =)
No. There's plenty of pro-Linux people at MS. Perhaps not a majority, but it's not something that's taboo to speak of in the halls.
Well, it does exist in some fashion. A graphics or music person who's used to a certain app running on, say, MacOS, may choose a new version of this app (or a competitor) and then make sure it will run on their configuration. If not, IMHO I think they'd find a way to run the app rather than pick another app.
:)
In niche fields, people are more interested in getting a job done; here, rather than an "Apps, then OS" mentality, people follow a "Just give me the Apps...I have a deadline to meet!" view.
For the majority of users, however, I hold to my original statement.
MS Research still has dibs on it, considering the Bayesian foundations and MS Agent tie-ins, no?