AI isn't going to be close the Hollywood AI for a long time. Say 20-30 years. It requires too much computer power.
OTOH, there are specializations that can totally upset society that will probably be showing up a lot sooner. People can dis self-driving cars all they want, but they are going to cause social upheaval. Probably as much as did the switch from horses to cars, and over a shorter time-frame. And that's just *one* of the applications on a near future track. And while mobile AI is heavy, interconnected AI isn't. So Siri, etc., will be getting a lot better, and showing up in a lot more places. And there will be other *specialized* applications that we just don't see yet.
P.S.: The Luddites are also significant to attend to if you want to observe the way history is managed by the wealthy to make them look good...or at least not totally evil. It is rightly said "History is written *for* the winners". And much of how it's managed isn't through acts of war as such, but through economic pillaging. (And if you don't think that's happening wherever you live today, you've got blinders on.)
You are leaving out the millions that starved to death in the wake of automation. (It didn't happen in one year, but try thousands over a hundred years.) Some times were worse than others, and it occasionally hit a peak. Check out the history of the Enclosure Acts. Or the Luddites. The modern weavers (in US/Europe) do much better than the weavers of that time, but they aren't their descendants. Too many of them died.
One always needs to beware of that, especially from MS. I'd need to check, does the MIT license protect you against patent infringement suits based around the released code? If not, then I'd suspect a trap, even if not a rootkit.
A well designed IDE can be a good learning environment. A poor one is much worse than a text editor, and can leave you feeling trapped.
FWIW, back when I used FOXPRO (before MS bought it) they had a good IDE, so there is(was) an existence proof.
OTOH, even if you know the language backwards and forwards, some purposes can benefit from an IDE. E.g., for importing graphics or sounds. But again, a poorly designed IDE is worse than not having any at all.
The problem is that most IDE designers have the wrong idea about what they're supposed to be doing. You can't even say marketing, because KDE Develop has the same attitude. They hide the details from the user, so the user never learns. That's what the FOXPRO IDE didn't do. It have fancy tools for laying out reports, but when you used them it showed you the generated code. (Among word processors, WordPerfect [some editions] used to have the same capability, which I really appreciated. Sometimes I'd hand edit the changes it applied, and that really improved its capability. For that matter, Microsoft Word 3.1 for the Macintosh used to allow you to hand edit the code that marked index entries, which I found quite useful.)
So it's not a simple question. IDEs can be quite beneficial. But most of them aren't.
I, personally, have always favored multiple sources of "correct" data. You'd need to change IP routing rules a bit, though, to make it work. You'd need to be able to specify a hierarchy of "trusted sources" that would be tried in order, and possibly something on the order of a search engine the resolve things in cases of conflict.
Clearly my idea, even if fleshed out into workable form, would have more overhead. It would also be more secure against centralized control. Think of it as a compromise between mesh networks and the current hierarchical addressing, with the mesh being used at the higher levels, and at the lower (local) levels selectable trusted sources of information.
There are good arguments that the UN has also had a part in the reduction of warfare. They may be invalid, but that can't be proven, and many people believe them, which may, in and of itself, reduce warfare.
I agree that the UN hasn't eliminated warfare. It's too bad, but the only way I can see to do it is for all nations, or at least all powerful nations, to give up their sovereignty. And that might not work.
FWIW, I don't see warfare being eliminated before The Singularity, and then the reason might be either good or bad. (if there aren't any people, then people won't fight wars. And I count, e.g., a high level nuclear war as a Singularity.)
That said, I also feel that if humans continue to run the planet for the next century, then humanity's chances of surviving that century are less than half. We've already had too many close calls.
Depends on what you mean. Americans (and I think I include most Canadians here, though not Mexicans) then to forget about other countries most of the time because they live such a long distance away from them. "Everybody speaks the same language" You don't have this so much in Europe, because it isn't true. And it does carry over into personal habits. Many from the US seem unwilling to understand that other people don't speak English...so if they aren't understood the first time they'll just say it again, only slower and louder. This is, I believe, rare among Europeans.
OTOH, living in smaller countries tends to make people more defensive about their country. That's a different sort of "insular" that is less common (not, unfortunately, uncommon) in the US and Canada.
Mexico is a somewhat different case. Not only is it intrinsically smaller, it's been conquered more than once by imperialistic invaders. This tends to mark a people. It's also close to a large number of other countries (most of them are a lot smaller) to the south. And the Caribbean islands are also "close". That the other countries speak the same language doesn't mean they aren't seen as different. (Again consider the US and Canada.)
So, yes, there is an underlying natural human trait, but it expresses itself differently in different environments.
Well....back before the ICANN became a subsidiary of the US govt. it did a better job. Of course, this doesn't mean we'll get back the old board members, or even the original charter. And, to be fair, the Internet has become a lot more a magnet for power hungry schemers than it used to be.
It's not clear to me that it was "joining" the US government that caused the degradation so much as the "palace revolution" that resulted in/from older members leaving the board.
To me it sounds like committing crimes in order to potentially secure a conviction. I.e., they are definitely committing the crimes, and any conviction is only potential.
You don't rob a store to convict someone else of purchasing stolen merchandise.
That may be so, but just consider: The FBI was not only holding one of the largest collections of child porn in the world, they were selling copies to people. (I assume they were selling rather than just giving away.)
If anyone who wasn't a "law enforcement" person did that, they could expect a long term in prison. These "FBI agents" not only did it "under the cover of law", they expect you to believe that they didn't take home a profit.
Actually, Rust looks as if it might become a really good language. Perhaps. But it's going to need better documentation. (And parts of the core library are still marked as unstable.)
So it may be awhile yet before it reaches "acceptable".
According to the link (to the rust site) several of the features of the core library are still marked as unstable. So either their documentation is out of date, of the core library still isn't stable.
Scratch is Squeak with safety bars and training wheels. Use Scratch before they're ready for Squeak. When they're done with Scratch, Squeak is only one of their options.
Lisp is different, but not that different. If you want something that different, look at Erlang. And even Erlang has a transformation of those basic blocks. Perhaps Haskell or CaML, I don't know either of those.
Well, Java's probably a better starting point than C++. Java 1.x actually had many decent characteristics as a starting point for beginners. But modern Java is too complex to be a good first language. C would be a better starting point. But that's when we're talking about high school or advanced middle school children. For younger children neither is any good, though some children would probably overcome the poor fit. And Scratch has a lot to recommend it. Even so, I think they're probably pushing things too early.
Also, what about Minecraft? I've heard that it's a pretty powerful environment for learning programming. If so (I've never played it), that might be the best choice.
Fortran didn't have the "all variables are global" that the early BASIC's had, and THAT was what justified the above quotation. It did, however, lack the structured programming constructs that were present in PL/1. PL/1 was nearly as complex and hard to use as C++, but it had significant advantages over Fortran if you were doing anything involving dynamically allocated memory. (Look up DYSTAL for the lengths some people would go to handle dynamically allocated memory in FORTRAN IV. I don't know COBOL well enough to comment about it.
Sorry, but while crafted subsets of C++ and Java can be great beginners languages, the full languages are terrible beginners languages.
If you're in the right age group, C could be an excellent beginners language, as could some dialects of Forth or Lisp. (In the case of Lisp, NOT Common Lisp. Same problem as C++ and Java... too much. Too many traps.)
FWIW, I started with Fortran IV and from there went on to PL/1, USCD Pascal, Forth, and Assembler. I never did master PL/1. I got to where I could mainly handle Forth. I never used Assembler except for small routines that I called from something else. I rather liked PL/1, even though I never mastered it. I found Forth so interesting (and so frustrating) that I started trying to design a successor language. I didn't pick up C until over a decade after I'd started programming. But it was C that I think would be the best introduction to programming for a high school student. None of them would be appropriate for an elementary school student, and I even wonder about Scratch...though it has it's points. I'd really think it better to wait until middle school, though.
Face it, any programming, however you do it, requires the kind of abstraction that you get in subjects like algebra, and shouldn't be introduced until about the same time. Scratch is probably simpler than Algebra in some ways, but it adds dynamics to the mix, which makes it more complex in other ways. (OTOH, I feel the same way about set theory...only moreso. I think it's a mistake to introduce it early, except possibly in a *VERY* restricted form.)
Scratch has a lot of the rough edges filed off so beginners can't hurt themselves, and integrates a lot of fun or useful things.
When I last tried e-toys the developers hadn't bothered to get all the user interface bugs out, and it was a lot more complicated to use than Scratch was. But, IIRC, Scratch was developed from e-toys, but extracted from the larger environment so you don't need to load a complete Smalltalk image to run it. (I don't think most of Squeak is included...but the transition from Scratch to Squeak should be relatively painless.)
OTOH, it was stated above that the transition from Scratch to Python is also pretty simple, and Python is more widely useful. (The last time I checked Squeak still wasn't dealing effectively with unicode. And database connections from Squeak were a pain.)
Sorry, but though the water was acceptable at the place of treatment, the manager had been informed that it would result in poisonous levels of lead leaching into the water before it reached the users.
IIUC, it is always a judicial decision as to whether sentences should run consecutively or concurrently. I know that there have been cases in the past where different judges have decided differently, though I admit not knowing on what grounds.
Sorry, treason is rather specifically defined by the Constitution, and this doesn't fit the definition. I'm sure there are lots of other things that could fit it rather easily, though.
You can't show malice, but you can show indifference. And I believe it's a crime to intentionally poison people even if it doesn't kill them. (Of course, I could be wrong.)
I'd say wanton endangerment is certainly applicable, and I'm not sure that assault wouldn't apply. But possibly 100,000 (or whatever the number is) of cases of wanton endangerment with the sentences applied consecutively would suffice.
Slashdot Mirror
AI isn't going to be close the Hollywood AI for a long time. Say 20-30 years. It requires too much computer power.
OTOH, there are specializations that can totally upset society that will probably be showing up a lot sooner. People can dis self-driving cars all they want, but they are going to cause social upheaval. Probably as much as did the switch from horses to cars, and over a shorter time-frame. And that's just *one* of the applications on a near future track. And while mobile AI is heavy, interconnected AI isn't. So Siri, etc., will be getting a lot better, and showing up in a lot more places. And there will be other *specialized* applications that we just don't see yet.
I think you missed the <sarcasm> tag.
P.S.: The Luddites are also significant to attend to if you want to observe the way history is managed by the wealthy to make them look good...or at least not totally evil. It is rightly said "History is written *for* the winners". And much of how it's managed isn't through acts of war as such, but through economic pillaging. (And if you don't think that's happening wherever you live today, you've got blinders on.)
You are leaving out the millions that starved to death in the wake of automation. (It didn't happen in one year, but try thousands over a hundred years.) Some times were worse than others, and it occasionally hit a peak. Check out the history of the Enclosure Acts. Or the Luddites. The modern weavers (in US/Europe) do much better than the weavers of that time, but they aren't their descendants. Too many of them died.
One always needs to beware of that, especially from MS. I'd need to check, does the MIT license protect you against patent infringement suits based around the released code? If not, then I'd suspect a trap, even if not a rootkit.
A well designed IDE can be a good learning environment. A poor one is much worse than a text editor, and can leave you feeling trapped.
FWIW, back when I used FOXPRO (before MS bought it) they had a good IDE, so there is(was) an existence proof.
OTOH, even if you know the language backwards and forwards, some purposes can benefit from an IDE. E.g., for importing graphics or sounds. But again, a poorly designed IDE is worse than not having any at all.
The problem is that most IDE designers have the wrong idea about what they're supposed to be doing. You can't even say marketing, because KDE Develop has the same attitude. They hide the details from the user, so the user never learns. That's what the FOXPRO IDE didn't do. It have fancy tools for laying out reports, but when you used them it showed you the generated code. (Among word processors, WordPerfect [some editions] used to have the same capability, which I really appreciated. Sometimes I'd hand edit the changes it applied, and that really improved its capability. For that matter, Microsoft Word 3.1 for the Macintosh used to allow you to hand edit the code that marked index entries, which I found quite useful.)
So it's not a simple question. IDEs can be quite beneficial. But most of them aren't.
I, personally, have always favored multiple sources of "correct" data. You'd need to change IP routing rules a bit, though, to make it work. You'd need to be able to specify a hierarchy of "trusted sources" that would be tried in order, and possibly something on the order of a search engine the resolve things in cases of conflict.
Clearly my idea, even if fleshed out into workable form, would have more overhead. It would also be more secure against centralized control. Think of it as a compromise between mesh networks and the current hierarchical addressing, with the mesh being used at the higher levels, and at the lower (local) levels selectable trusted sources of information.
There are good arguments that the UN has also had a part in the reduction of warfare. They may be invalid, but that can't be proven, and many people believe them, which may, in and of itself, reduce warfare.
I agree that the UN hasn't eliminated warfare. It's too bad, but the only way I can see to do it is for all nations, or at least all powerful nations, to give up their sovereignty. And that might not work.
FWIW, I don't see warfare being eliminated before The Singularity, and then the reason might be either good or bad. (if there aren't any people, then people won't fight wars. And I count, e.g., a high level nuclear war as a Singularity.)
That said, I also feel that if humans continue to run the planet for the next century, then humanity's chances of surviving that century are less than half. We've already had too many close calls.
Depends on what you mean. Americans (and I think I include most Canadians here, though not Mexicans) then to forget about other countries most of the time because they live such a long distance away from them. "Everybody speaks the same language" You don't have this so much in Europe, because it isn't true. And it does carry over into personal habits. Many from the US seem unwilling to understand that other people don't speak English...so if they aren't understood the first time they'll just say it again, only slower and louder. This is, I believe, rare among Europeans.
OTOH, living in smaller countries tends to make people more defensive about their country. That's a different sort of "insular" that is less common (not, unfortunately, uncommon) in the US and Canada.
Mexico is a somewhat different case. Not only is it intrinsically smaller, it's been conquered more than once by imperialistic invaders. This tends to mark a people. It's also close to a large number of other countries (most of them are a lot smaller) to the south. And the Caribbean islands are also "close". That the other countries speak the same language doesn't mean they aren't seen as different. (Again consider the US and Canada.)
So, yes, there is an underlying natural human trait, but it expresses itself differently in different environments.
Well....back before the ICANN became a subsidiary of the US govt. it did a better job. Of course, this doesn't mean we'll get back the old board members, or even the original charter. And, to be fair, the Internet has become a lot more a magnet for power hungry schemers than it used to be.
It's not clear to me that it was "joining" the US government that caused the degradation so much as the "palace revolution" that resulted in/from older members leaving the board.
To me it sounds like committing crimes in order to potentially secure a conviction. I.e., they are definitely committing the crimes, and any conviction is only potential.
You don't rob a store to convict someone else of purchasing stolen merchandise.
That may be so, but just consider:
The FBI was not only holding one of the largest collections of child porn in the world, they were selling copies to people. (I assume they were selling rather than just giving away.)
If anyone who wasn't a "law enforcement" person did that, they could expect a long term in prison. These "FBI agents" not only did it "under the cover of law", they expect you to believe that they didn't take home a profit.
Actually, Rust looks as if it might become a really good language. Perhaps. But it's going to need better documentation. (And parts of the core library are still marked as unstable.)
So it may be awhile yet before it reaches "acceptable".
According to the link (to the rust site) several of the features of the core library are still marked as unstable. So either their documentation is out of date, of the core library still isn't stable.
Scratch is Squeak with safety bars and training wheels. Use Scratch before they're ready for Squeak. When they're done with Scratch, Squeak is only one of their options.
Lisp is different, but not that different. If you want something that different, look at Erlang. And even Erlang has a transformation of those basic blocks. Perhaps Haskell or CaML, I don't know either of those.
Well, Java's probably a better starting point than C++. Java 1.x actually had many decent characteristics as a starting point for beginners. But modern Java is too complex to be a good first language. C would be a better starting point. But that's when we're talking about high school or advanced middle school children. For younger children neither is any good, though some children would probably overcome the poor fit. And Scratch has a lot to recommend it. Even so, I think they're probably pushing things too early.
Also, what about Minecraft? I've heard that it's a pretty powerful environment for learning programming. If so (I've never played it), that might be the best choice.
Fortran didn't have the "all variables are global" that the early BASIC's had, and THAT was what justified the above quotation. It did, however, lack the structured programming constructs that were present in PL/1. PL/1 was nearly as complex and hard to use as C++, but it had significant advantages over Fortran if you were doing anything involving dynamically allocated memory. (Look up DYSTAL for the lengths some people would go to handle dynamically allocated memory in FORTRAN IV. I don't know COBOL well enough to comment about it.
Sorry, but while crafted subsets of C++ and Java can be great beginners languages, the full languages are terrible beginners languages.
If you're in the right age group, C could be an excellent beginners language, as could some dialects of Forth or Lisp. (In the case of Lisp, NOT Common Lisp. Same problem as C++ and Java ... too much. Too many traps.)
FWIW, I started with Fortran IV and from there went on to PL/1, USCD Pascal, Forth, and Assembler. I never did master PL/1. I got to where I could mainly handle Forth. I never used Assembler except for small routines that I called from something else. I rather liked PL/1, even though I never mastered it. I found Forth so interesting (and so frustrating) that I started trying to design a successor language. I didn't pick up C until over a decade after I'd started programming. But it was C that I think would be the best introduction to programming for a high school student. None of them would be appropriate for an elementary school student, and I even wonder about Scratch...though it has it's points. I'd really think it better to wait until middle school, though.
Face it, any programming, however you do it, requires the kind of abstraction that you get in subjects like algebra, and shouldn't be introduced until about the same time. Scratch is probably simpler than Algebra in some ways, but it adds dynamics to the mix, which makes it more complex in other ways. (OTOH, I feel the same way about set theory...only moreso. I think it's a mistake to introduce it early, except possibly in a *VERY* restricted form.)
Scratch has a lot of the rough edges filed off so beginners can't hurt themselves, and integrates a lot of fun or useful things.
When I last tried e-toys the developers hadn't bothered to get all the user interface bugs out, and it was a lot more complicated to use than Scratch was. But, IIRC, Scratch was developed from e-toys, but extracted from the larger environment so you don't need to load a complete Smalltalk image to run it. (I don't think most of Squeak is included...but the transition from Scratch to Squeak should be relatively painless.)
OTOH, it was stated above that the transition from Scratch to Python is also pretty simple, and Python is more widely useful. (The last time I checked Squeak still wasn't dealing effectively with unicode. And database connections from Squeak were a pain.)
Is Scratch on-line now? When I tested it a few years ago I installed it, and if there were any other options I ignored them.
Well, if you know Scratch and want to do maths, then Squeak with e-toys is perfect for you.
I don't know Wolfram's tools well enough to comment on them, however. (As in "I've never seen them used, or talked to anyone who used them.".)
Sorry, but though the water was acceptable at the place of treatment, the manager had been informed that it would result in poisonous levels of lead leaching into the water before it reached the users.
IIUC, it is always a judicial decision as to whether sentences should run consecutively or concurrently. I know that there have been cases in the past where different judges have decided differently, though I admit not knowing on what grounds.
Sorry, treason is rather specifically defined by the Constitution, and this doesn't fit the definition. I'm sure there are lots of other things that could fit it rather easily, though.
You can't show malice, but you can show indifference. And I believe it's a crime to intentionally poison people even if it doesn't kill them. (Of course, I could be wrong.)
I'd say wanton endangerment is certainly applicable, and I'm not sure that assault wouldn't apply. But possibly 100,000 (or whatever the number is) of cases of wanton endangerment with the sentences applied consecutively would suffice.