At Newegg.com: Windows 7 Home Premium Upgrade Retail: $109.99 Windows 7 Home Premium Full Retail: $183.49 Windows 7 Pro Premium Upgrade Retail: $179.49 Windows 7 Pro Premium Full Retail: $274.49 Windows 7 Ultimate Upgrade Retail: $199.99 Windows 7 Ultimate Full Retail: $299.99
At Target.com: Wii: $199.99 Xbox 360: $199.99
The only full retail version of Win7 that's cheaper than a Wii or XBox is the Home version, and that's only by $16. Most techies are going for the Full Pro or Ultimate version.
So, where can I get Win7 Ultimate Full Retail for $109? I'd like to get that deal.// Yeah, yeah -1 offtopic...
As I posted in a reply above, they didn't really use a GA. There were no mutations or crossover. They just kept generating new random individuals until they had a good one.
What I think we're going to find is that one type of system won't be sufficient for us create an AI. Early work was done on symbolic systems. Those eventually worked pretty well on idealized domains. They fell apart when they tried to interact with the real world. Neural nets are starting to handle simple real worlds tasks, but can't handle complex domains.
My thought is that we'll see something like this:
Audio/Visual/Etc. Input --> Neural Net-based symbol extractor --> Symbolic Planning and Decision System --> Neural Net-based motor control --> Motors
In this integrated system:
1. Neural nets will be developed to process raw input and generate a set of symbols.
2. Expert systems, symbolic planning systems, knowledge bases, etc. will work together to reason about the input and make a decision what action to take.
3. Another set of neural networks will then translate actions in a symbolic form into control inputs for servos and actuators.
I have no idea how the Asimo robot works under the hood, but it seems to be something similar to this ( http://world.honda.com/ASIMO/technology/intelligence.html ). Anyone have any more details about how Honda implemented the different recognition capabilities?
They didn't really use a GA. They had a genome that described the structure of the neural net they wanted to test, but they didn't "evolve" the population through any process of mutation or crossover. They just kept generating new random individuals until they had a good one.
It's like only doing the first step of a GA, but you keep generating random starting points until you find one who's fitness is fairly high (although they did a uniform sampling over all parameter values for their starting point, not quite completely random).
From the paper, it took 23 PlayStation 3's one week to generate, train, and test a population of 7500 individuals.
Even so, they still beat the best hand-designed solutions. Imagine if they had implemented a true GA and just let that system keep on running.
Oh, and they used Python! I'm encouraged. I'm about half-way through translating the C# implementation of the HyperNEAT algorithm into Python. Next, I'll have to get some PS3s and implement a distributed PyCuda HyperNEAT system.
Or I could be an American who knows full well what a "jury of one's peer's" really means, but chose to employ the phrase as a cliche to make a point that the content of the patent trial would go right over the head of the average citizen.
In America, there is no legal aristocracy, and so every one is in the same peer group and the concept of "jury of peers" didn't have to be codified into law.
If they get a jury trial, every member of the jury should be required to hold at least a Master's degree in some form of engineering. That's the only way to ensure it's a jury of their peers.
If they just pull twelve random people off the street, their eyes will glaze over in about 30 seconds and they'll vote like they were in the audience of American Idol.
In addition to all the other things JavaScript is, it is also a hosted language. "ECMAScript is an object-oriented programming language for performing computations and manipulating computational objects within a host environment." - ECMA-262 3rd Edition.
People seem to forget there is a distinction between JavaScript, the Browser Object Model (BOM), and the Document Object Model (DOM). JavaScript has no native input or output functionality. These capabilities must be provided by the host. When the host is the web browser, there is a fairly well followed standard for JavaScript, there is a partially followed standard for the DOM, and there is no standard for the BOM.
The reason that people still hate JavaScript is not because of the inconsistent implementations of JavaScript. In fact, JavaScript has been implemented fairly consistently. No, the reason people hate JavaScript is because of the inconsistent implementations of the BOM and the DOM.
If you look in the ECMAScript specification, there is no method named alert. Where does it come from? The host environment. If IE 9 changed the name of the alert method to displayMessage, there would be an uproar that Microsoft "broke" JavaScript. When, in fact, they would have broken an unwritten BOM standard that said the browser would provide a host-based method named alert. It's a subtle, but important distinction.
What is broken is the implementation of the DOM. Some parts of the DOM are implemented consistently. Some parts are horribly different. In IE 8, Microsoft (allegedly) worked on fixing problems with their implementation of CSS. Their implementation of the DOM, however, is basically unchanged from IE 6. This is why web developers still hate IE. Not JavaScript, but the DOM.
As mentioned in other posts above, JavaScript has already broken out of the browser. But is has landed in other hosted environments. ActionScript in Flash is just JavaScript with the "Flash Object Model" instead of the BOM/DOM. You can use JavaScript in Photoshop using the "PhotoShop Object Model" to script the manipulation of images.
The effort here is to provide a "System Object Model" to JavaScript so that JavaScript can interact with the OS more directly. The success of that effort will be based on how well they design the host objects for JavaScript to work with and how consistently those standards are followed. Not on the fact that they're using JavaScript.
And JavaScript on the server is nothing new. I've got an old copy of "Pure JavaScript" by Wyke, Gilliam, and Ting published in 1999 that discusses server-side JavaScript on the Netscape web server. It includes objects to work with form data, files, databases, and e-mail servers.
Am I condoning the efforts to expand the use of JavaScript? No. I just want people that "hate JavaScript" to understand a little better what it is they hate. And I want the proponents of breaking JavaScript out of the browser to realize there are people who went before them and if they stop and look around for a second, there are lessons to be learned before the repeat old mistakes.
JavaScript uses a different type of object than you're used to. JavaScript uses prototype-based objects whereas most other languages use class-based objects. I've seen a lot of work put into developing "class-like" objects in JavaScript and I've wondered why they just didn't learn to write code using prototypes instead.
The problem is your failure to understand infinity.
You can easily see that 0.123 * 10 is 1.23, right?
Well, just because I multiplied by 10 and brought one of the 9's over to the left side of the decimal, there's still an infinite number of nines on the right side.
Even though I "borrowed" a 9, infinity - 1 is still infinity.
If video content is served directly in a video tag, it will be just as easy to download as images on a web page. Content providers know this and won't use the video tag.
One reason content providers use Flash instead of just letting you download the video file is that Flash (ostensibly) prevents you from downloading the video. While it's true that there are plug-ins for Firefox to let you download Flash videos, the people who use them are a small minority. Even with the video tag, Flash will still be widely used to "protect" the content.
Asimov had a style that will never be replicated, not even closely. If you look at the Second Foundation Trilogy, written by Benford, Brin, and Bear, you'll see an example of what happens when you let authors take a stab at writing another author's world. If you like Benford, Brin, or Bear's own books, you may like the SFT. If you're like me, however, you'll think the SFT sucks.
So the question is, who will write the next I, Robot books? If you like their other works, maybe you'll like the new books. If they're two-bit hacks who couldn't write their way out of a wet paper bag, it won't matter how many times they say "positronic" or "three laws", you'll avoid the books.
Slashdot Mirror
At Newegg.com:
Windows 7 Home Premium Upgrade Retail: $109.99
Windows 7 Home Premium Full Retail: $183.49
Windows 7 Pro Premium Upgrade Retail: $179.49
Windows 7 Pro Premium Full Retail: $274.49
Windows 7 Ultimate Upgrade Retail: $199.99
Windows 7 Ultimate Full Retail: $299.99
At Target.com:
Wii: $199.99
Xbox 360: $199.99
The only full retail version of Win7 that's cheaper than a Wii or XBox is the Home version, and that's only by $16. Most techies are going for the Full Pro or Ultimate version.
So, where can I get Win7 Ultimate Full Retail for $109? I'd like to get that deal. // Yeah, yeah -1 offtopic...
So yeah, where can I get a full retail of Uliti
As I posted in a reply above, they didn't really use a GA. There were no mutations or crossover. They just kept generating new random individuals until they had a good one.
What I think we're going to find is that one type of system won't be sufficient for us create an AI. Early work was done on symbolic systems. Those eventually worked pretty well on idealized domains. They fell apart when they tried to interact with the real world. Neural nets are starting to handle simple real worlds tasks, but can't handle complex domains.
My thought is that we'll see something like this:
Audio/Visual/Etc. Input --> Neural Net-based symbol extractor --> Symbolic Planning and Decision System --> Neural Net-based motor control --> Motors
In this integrated system:
1. Neural nets will be developed to process raw input and generate a set of symbols.
2. Expert systems, symbolic planning systems, knowledge bases, etc. will work together to reason about the input and make a decision what action to take.
3. Another set of neural networks will then translate actions in a symbolic form into control inputs for servos and actuators.
I have no idea how the Asimo robot works under the hood, but it seems to be something similar to this ( http://world.honda.com/ASIMO/technology/intelligence.html ). Anyone have any more details about how Honda implemented the different recognition capabilities?
They didn't really use a GA. They had a genome that described the structure of the neural net they wanted to test, but they didn't "evolve" the population through any process of mutation or crossover. They just kept generating new random individuals until they had a good one.
It's like only doing the first step of a GA, but you keep generating random starting points until you find one who's fitness is fairly high (although they did a uniform sampling over all parameter values for their starting point, not quite completely random).
From the paper, it took 23 PlayStation 3's one week to generate, train, and test a population of 7500 individuals.
Even so, they still beat the best hand-designed solutions. Imagine if they had implemented a true GA and just let that system keep on running.
Oh, and they used Python! I'm encouraged. I'm about half-way through translating the C# implementation of the HyperNEAT algorithm into Python. Next, I'll have to get some PS3s and implement a distributed PyCuda HyperNEAT system.
Or I could be an American who knows full well what a "jury of one's peer's" really means, but chose to employ the phrase as a cliche to make a point that the content of the patent trial would go right over the head of the average citizen.
In America, there is no legal aristocracy, and so every one is in the same peer group and the concept of "jury of peers" didn't have to be codified into law.
The concept of a jury of peers was actually started in Britain in 1215 (in Article 39 of the Magna Carta: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial) and the practice was finally abolished in 1948 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_of_Peerage ).
The more you know.
Until IE without Chrome Frame accounts for less than 10% of the market, you can't ignore IE and all its flaws.
So let's see...
You didn't buy your car, you licensed it from Toyota. Therefore, you can only take it to Toyota for parts and service.
You didn't buy your coffee maker, you licensed it from Mr. Coffee. Therefore, you can only use Mr. Coffee brand coffee.
You didn't buy your printer, you licensed it from HP. Therefore... um, bad example. Moving on.
You didn't buy your monitor, you licensed it from Acer. Therefore, you can only connect it to an Acer desktop PC.
Do I need to go on?
If they get a jury trial, every member of the jury should be required to hold at least a Master's degree in some form of engineering. That's the only way to ensure it's a jury of their peers.
If they just pull twelve random people off the street, their eyes will glaze over in about 30 seconds and they'll vote like they were in the audience of American Idol.
DOM 3 has been out for a while. The DOM is also not the problem. It's the inconsistent implementation of the DOM by Microsoft that's the problem.
In addition to all the other things JavaScript is, it is also a hosted language. "ECMAScript is an object-oriented programming language for performing computations and manipulating computational objects within a host environment." - ECMA-262 3rd Edition.
People seem to forget there is a distinction between JavaScript, the Browser Object Model (BOM), and the Document Object Model (DOM). JavaScript has no native input or output functionality. These capabilities must be provided by the host. When the host is the web browser, there is a fairly well followed standard for JavaScript, there is a partially followed standard for the DOM, and there is no standard for the BOM.
The reason that people still hate JavaScript is not because of the inconsistent implementations of JavaScript. In fact, JavaScript has been implemented fairly consistently. No, the reason people hate JavaScript is because of the inconsistent implementations of the BOM and the DOM.
If you look in the ECMAScript specification, there is no method named alert. Where does it come from? The host environment. If IE 9 changed the name of the alert method to displayMessage, there would be an uproar that Microsoft "broke" JavaScript. When, in fact, they would have broken an unwritten BOM standard that said the browser would provide a host-based method named alert. It's a subtle, but important distinction.
What is broken is the implementation of the DOM. Some parts of the DOM are implemented consistently. Some parts are horribly different. In IE 8, Microsoft (allegedly) worked on fixing problems with their implementation of CSS. Their implementation of the DOM, however, is basically unchanged from IE 6. This is why web developers still hate IE. Not JavaScript, but the DOM.
As mentioned in other posts above, JavaScript has already broken out of the browser. But is has landed in other hosted environments. ActionScript in Flash is just JavaScript with the "Flash Object Model" instead of the BOM/DOM. You can use JavaScript in Photoshop using the "PhotoShop Object Model" to script the manipulation of images.
The effort here is to provide a "System Object Model" to JavaScript so that JavaScript can interact with the OS more directly. The success of that effort will be based on how well they design the host objects for JavaScript to work with and how consistently those standards are followed. Not on the fact that they're using JavaScript.
And JavaScript on the server is nothing new. I've got an old copy of "Pure JavaScript" by Wyke, Gilliam, and Ting published in 1999 that discusses server-side JavaScript on the Netscape web server. It includes objects to work with form data, files, databases, and e-mail servers.
Am I condoning the efforts to expand the use of JavaScript? No. I just want people that "hate JavaScript" to understand a little better what it is they hate. And I want the proponents of breaking JavaScript out of the browser to realize there are people who went before them and if they stop and look around for a second, there are lessons to be learned before the repeat old mistakes.
JavaScript uses a different type of object than you're used to. JavaScript uses prototype-based objects whereas most other languages use class-based objects. I've seen a lot of work put into developing "class-like" objects in JavaScript and I've wondered why they just didn't learn to write code using prototypes instead.
Would you get your panties untwisted if I said "second-rate" country instead? The Cold War ended 18 years ago. Move on.
Not really. The STEM acronym has been around a lot longer than Obama's inauguration.
For example, the STEM Education Coalition has been around since 1996.
still can't compete with PS, Xbox, Wii, DS, etc.
Which is why we're heading towards second-world country status.
10a - a = 9.999... - 0.999...
There's your problem. What makes you think you can take an infinitely long number and ADD or SUBTRACT it to another infinitely long number?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2459/an-infinite-question-why-doesnt-999-1
Algebra
Calculus
et alii ad infinitum...
You claim that 0.555... = 1?
Let's do my "fancy math" and see what it equals...
a = 0.555...
10a = 5.555...
10a - a = 5.555... - 0.555...
9a = 5
a = 5/9
Convert 5/9 to a decimal and you get 0.555...
So your arguement that 0.555... = 1 is wrong.
Once again, you fail to understand the nature of infinity.
The problem is your failure to understand infinity.
You can easily see that 0.123 * 10 is 1.23, right?
Well, just because I multiplied by 10 and brought one of the 9's over to the left side of the decimal, there's still an infinite number of nines on the right side.
Even though I "borrowed" a 9, infinity - 1 is still infinity.
I read that in Max Headroom's voice...
P = NP?
I so want it to be true. Quantum computing is our best hope right now of shedding light on this problem.
And it's not on their list...
Let's try this...
Start with:
a = 0.999...
Multiply both sides by 10 to get:
10a = 9.999...
Subtract the first equation from the second:
10a - a = 9.999... - 0.999...
9a = 9
a = 1
Substituting back into the original equation:
a = 0.999...
1 = 0.999...
Who's the retard?
The base of a log can be neither 0 nor 1. That's like dividing both side of an equation by zero to "prove" that 1 = 2.
If video content is served directly in a video tag, it will be just as easy to download as images on a web page. Content providers know this and won't use the video tag.
One reason content providers use Flash instead of just letting you download the video file is that Flash (ostensibly) prevents you from downloading the video. While it's true that there are plug-ins for Firefox to let you download Flash videos, the people who use them are a small minority. Even with the video tag, Flash will still be widely used to "protect" the content.
Asimov had a style that will never be replicated, not even closely. If you look at the Second Foundation Trilogy, written by Benford, Brin, and Bear, you'll see an example of what happens when you let authors take a stab at writing another author's world. If you like Benford, Brin, or Bear's own books, you may like the SFT. If you're like me, however, you'll think the SFT sucks.
So the question is, who will write the next I, Robot books? If you like their other works, maybe you'll like the new books. If they're two-bit hacks who couldn't write their way out of a wet paper bag, it won't matter how many times they say "positronic" or "three laws", you'll avoid the books.
Still no cure for... oh, wait.
I'd love to have a checkbox on my tax return that said: "I hereby direct that ( ) 5% ( ) 10% ( ) 100% of my taxes be used for NASA."
If you could guarantee that it would be added to the NASA budget and not just be used to shuffle money around, I'd even let them keep my refund.