The real question is whatever happened to Cycorp's natural language processing abilities that have been written about many times before. I recall many an article about this capability of the Cyc inference engine where they even give an excerpt of the actual intelligible conversation, but I have yet to see any NL processing in OpenCyc. I have a feeling that what those reporters were presented with were fake conversations. Probably an alice bot:-P.
Is anyone else offended by the fact that the author of this article doesn't even consider your oppinion valid if you haven't read the stupid book(s)? What a grade A jackass/moron. I guess the person doesn't reallize that some people actually watch movies for the entertainment of seeing a good movie, not for making a comprehensive comparison between it and a book.
You can send energy using any form of electromagnetic radiation, except you'd want to keep the frequency extremely high to keep the signal from diffusing to much.
Why does it matter what we think on this issue? The company has a right to try to determine if the person they are considering is the right person for the job. Anyone that takes offense should just go home. The world is competetive get over it.
What the author of this article is talking about more than anything else are the advantages of having parallel vs. serial communication. But his primary gripe is not a valid one. He states that the problem with these serial connections is one of latency. Well, I don't know where he got the crack he's smoking, but I myself would like some. If something is running at 1Gbps on either serial or parallel hardware, the serial would actually have lower latency and therefore more potential to deliver more immediate responses from data. The real problem herein lies with the PCI bus itself being a bus and not just something that delivers a continuous stream of data. Maybe they should make a Serial ATA nic card, and then his latency issue should go out the door (assuming the serial ATA interface is not being driven off the PCI bus). Also, it sounds like the software he's using isn't performing in a very parallel nature, unless he's trying to develop a distributed neural network (but even then sorting could be done to keep nodes of higher weighted interconnects on the same machine thereby reducing some relevant latency). Why does he need such a reduction in latency anyways?
I'm sure the limited amount of times that CompactFlash can be rewritten would be a big problem for this project. What kind of latency do they need? More details on the actual nature of the project would really help in its design.
Okay, so here's what you need to do. If you can stand a little latency and have a lot of money to burn. Launch a satellite into geosynchronous orbit that's always visible from the theoretical warehouse, that just echoes the signal back (and amplifies it of course). Broadcast out the data stream at as high a bitrate and over as much of the spectrum as you can cover aimed at the satellite with the intention of the satellite bouncing the same signal(s) back to you in a little amount of time. Thereby, you can get the following amount of storage out of the system (theoretically, just hope for no planes, you might want another satellite for redundancy):
2 x total bitrate x distancebetweenstatelliteandwarehouse / speedoflight
and a maximum latency of: 2 x distancebetweenstatelliteandwarehouse / speedoflight
of course if this "warehouse" is going to be moving, then you'd probably want a pilot signal to detect and compensate for any shifting. Now how easy is that:-P!
Fact 3: idsoftware is the only company with enough balls to actually develop novel technologies in their games
Fact 4: PS2 is cheap because sony gets supplemental royalties from game sales.
more like idSoftware's labor of love. If I remember correctly JC wasn't too fond of the idea when it was originally proposed but then a bunch of the team threatened to leave or something stupid like that to get him to consider it.
Re:download it hete ---useless, parent cant spell
on
Doom 3 Alpha Leaked
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I second this, the parent (of the parent) has no friggin' clue what he is talking about. No doom3 here, tried it. Its a hit and miss and a big waste of time, designed only to get you to dload dc++, which is a project that he is a member of. Mod the parent (of the parent) down.
Yeah, 20 video cards / monitors, a tech person to install the 20 video cards monitors linux box with the software, a rack to hold the 20 monitors, the willingness to break some expensive monitors if you slip up setting up the monitors, and the costs incurred by not being able to use those 20 monitors that they were hooked up too, until they all get set back up. Still, doesn't seem worth it.
Why does linux make everything so damn hard. I use linux, but only because I believe in free software and right now its the only real provider capable of doing what I want to do. But it is so outdated it just bugs me. Somebody needs to take these suggestions, and actually think for a second about how much better linux would be if they were just implemented (also I have running about 4 linux desktops and 2 linux servers, so I'm not a super mega linux geek, correct me if I have an off point here):
1) Why does everything have to be compiled into the kernel. What? Can the kernel not map shared objects into its memory space? And if it can't, why not?
2) Why don't they establish only standard APIs that device drivers have to implement (seperate of the kernel and not built into some stupid x-windowing system or something irrelevant to what it does example: sound drivers for KDE), i.e.: OpenGL - graphics library OpenAL - audio library insert appropriate nic standard insert appropriate printer standard, etc. and make the stupid x-windowing system just another interface that runs on top of OpenGL, jeez.
3) The everything is a file mechanism is really getting outdated. Why are there not object oriented shells yet? Come on, just pop a javascript shell in there, make ObjectInstantiators/ObjectSerializers that detect file types and convert to the appropriate object instance, so javascript can instantiate it, use it, serialize it back to disk, and then move on.
4) Why do we still use program based architectures? Programs are way too linear. We need objects and an object handling mechanism (like javascript or something similar to it, like a Delphi UI or something) not programs. Once you make a program things get hard coded in that make it too specialized to be used in anything other than what it is designed for, if everything was just an interactive object, you could chain them together and do all sorts of neat tricks, that you could never dream of with standard file based shells/programs. And then you could serialize these object webs you create to disk for use as kind of a template(I'd say program but you could easily modify these to fit your needs). Sounds way better than standard file based scripts to me. Although javascript scripts sound nice too.
5) If we are going to be using a program/file based OS, lets make the program names intelligible. Lets see: vi, emacs, joe (joe??? what the hell man), yast, lilo, initrd, sh, etc., etc.. Come on guys name your programs something intelligible, and leave the credits in the fscking readme file. At least if dos had something it had convenient keywords (copy, rename, delete, deltree, EDIT). I realize I could make symlinks to my hearts delight, but that is only assuming you know what the program your looking for is called.
6) Why did anybody think it would be a good idea to integrate the inetd with the x-windowing system (xinetd). Yippee, all the speed of NT servers on a linux system. Of course thats assuming you use inetd to begin with.
7) This one is for the distros: quit using the damn graphical installers. Graphical installers don't make installing any faster (quite to the contrary in a lot of cases), and in installing on older hardware a lot of times it makes it nearly impossible. I'm all for straightforward installers, but you don't have to be in a graphics mode to do it (fine standard VGA modes will work)
8) Hey I got a fun idea, lets put all those binaries in one directory, with no real index as to what each of these programs with obfuscated names do, and then lets give no easy way to find out what it does short of running it. Woo! And don't say, "One word, man" or "info" those systems are pretty fucked up as it is.
9) Standardize the damn locations, follow the LSB biatches.
10) This may sound contradictory to the above, but... abolish the Unix file system layout. I can't stress enough how a simple object persistence/serialization mechanism would be way better than a file system any day.
Anyways, those are just my rants/suggestions as to what needs to be changed or layered on top of the linux filesystem if they wanted it to actually be a BETTER OS than windows or MacOS.
Slashdot Mirror
The really weird part is how they have to integrate Polish into their products somehow, hmmmm.
The real question is whatever happened to Cycorp's natural language processing abilities that have been written about many times before. I recall many an article about this capability of the Cyc inference engine where they even give an excerpt of the actual intelligible conversation, but I have yet to see any NL processing in OpenCyc. I have a feeling that what those reporters were presented with were fake conversations. Probably an alice bot :-P.
Is anyone else offended by the fact that the author of this article doesn't even consider your oppinion valid if you haven't read the stupid book(s)? What a grade A jackass/moron. I guess the person doesn't reallize that some people actually watch movies for the entertainment of seeing a good movie, not for making a comprehensive comparison between it and a book.
It comes from two giant wires: one touching our charged atmosphere and the other grounding out in the moon, duh!
Here's the deal. Buy the ram drive. And make that your swap drive. Works just about as well as more RAM.
Man this article is wicked relevant. In other news I just spilled my fucking coke on my keyboard. Who the hell cares.
You can send energy using any form of electromagnetic radiation, except you'd want to keep the frequency extremely high to keep the signal from diffusing to much.
The energy comes from radio waves.
So about these huge gaping windows that are in current PCs, these materials don't usually provide any variety of EMF shielding do they?
Why does it matter what we think on this issue? The company has a right to try to determine if the person they are considering is the right person for the job. Anyone that takes offense should just go home. The world is competetive get over it.
What the author of this article is talking about more than anything else are the advantages of having parallel vs. serial communication. But his primary gripe is not a valid one. He states that the problem with these serial connections is one of latency. Well, I don't know where he got the crack he's smoking, but I myself would like some. If something is running at 1Gbps on either serial or parallel hardware, the serial would actually have lower latency and therefore more potential to deliver more immediate responses from data. The real problem herein lies with the PCI bus itself being a bus and not just something that delivers a continuous stream of data. Maybe they should make a Serial ATA nic card, and then his latency issue should go out the door (assuming the serial ATA interface is not being driven off the PCI bus). Also, it sounds like the software he's using isn't performing in a very parallel nature, unless he's trying to develop a distributed neural network (but even then sorting could be done to keep nodes of higher weighted interconnects on the same machine thereby reducing some relevant latency). Why does he need such a reduction in latency anyways?
Followed by The Neanderthal's Pearl Necklace: In Search of the First Nymphos
I'm sure the limited amount of times that CompactFlash can be rewritten would be a big problem for this project. What kind of latency do they need? More details on the actual nature of the project would really help in its design.
:-P!
Okay, so here's what you need to do. If you can stand a little latency and have a lot of money to burn. Launch a satellite into geosynchronous orbit that's always visible from the theoretical warehouse, that just echoes the signal back (and amplifies it of course). Broadcast out the data stream at as high a bitrate and over as much of the spectrum as you can cover aimed at the satellite with the intention of the satellite bouncing the same signal(s) back to you in a little amount of time. Thereby, you can get the following amount of storage out of the system (theoretically, just hope for no planes, you might want another satellite for redundancy):
2 x total bitrate x distancebetweenstatelliteandwarehouse / speedoflight
and a maximum latency of:
2 x distancebetweenstatelliteandwarehouse / speedoflight
of course if this "warehouse" is going to be moving, then you'd probably want a pilot signal to detect and compensate for any shifting. Now how easy is that
first tangle server slashdotted
And those idiots on TV say that 'Plastics make it happen' bah. Its glass microspheres that make it happen.
That is fucking hilarious, sir.
They already do this.
Fact 3: idsoftware is the only company with enough balls to actually develop novel technologies in their games
Fact 4: PS2 is cheap because sony gets supplemental royalties from game sales.
more like idSoftware's labor of love. If I remember correctly JC wasn't too fond of the idea when it was originally proposed but then a bunch of the team threatened to leave or something stupid like that to get him to consider it.
I second this, the parent (of the parent) has no friggin' clue what he is talking about. No doom3 here, tried it. Its a hit and miss and a big waste of time, designed only to get you to dload dc++, which is a project that he is a member of. Mod the parent (of the parent) down.
Yeah, 20 video cards / monitors, a tech person to install the 20 video cards monitors linux box with the software, a rack to hold the 20 monitors, the willingness to break some expensive monitors if you slip up setting up the monitors, and the costs incurred by not being able to use those 20 monitors that they were hooked up too, until they all get set back up. Still, doesn't seem worth it.
Sorry, 20 video cards/monitors.
Weird, my first thought when I saw this was a computer and 20 video cards is cheaper than a computer and a projector?
Why does linux make everything so damn hard. I use linux, but only because I believe in free software and right now its the only real provider capable of doing what I want to do. But it is so outdated it just bugs me. Somebody needs to take these suggestions, and actually think for a second about how much better linux would be if they were just implemented (also I have running about 4 linux desktops and 2 linux servers, so I'm not a super mega linux geek, correct me if I have an off point here):
1) Why does everything have to be compiled into the kernel. What? Can the kernel not map shared objects into its memory space? And if it can't, why not?
2) Why don't they establish only standard APIs that device drivers have to implement (seperate of the kernel and not built into some stupid x-windowing system or something irrelevant to what it does example: sound drivers for KDE), i.e.:
OpenGL - graphics library
OpenAL - audio library
insert appropriate nic standard
insert appropriate printer standard, etc. and make the stupid x-windowing system just another interface that runs on top of OpenGL, jeez.
3) The everything is a file mechanism is really getting outdated. Why are there not object oriented shells yet? Come on, just pop a javascript shell in there, make ObjectInstantiators/ObjectSerializers that detect file types and convert to the appropriate object instance, so javascript can instantiate it, use it, serialize it back to disk, and then move on.
4) Why do we still use program based architectures? Programs are way too linear. We need objects and an object handling mechanism (like javascript or something similar to it, like a Delphi UI or something) not programs. Once you make a program things get hard coded in that make it too specialized to be used in anything other than what it is designed for, if everything was just an interactive object, you could chain them together and do all sorts of neat tricks, that you could never dream of with standard file based shells/programs. And then you could serialize these object webs you create to disk for use as kind of a template(I'd say program but you could easily modify these to fit your needs). Sounds way better than standard file based scripts to me. Although javascript scripts sound nice too.
5) If we are going to be using a program/file based OS, lets make the program names intelligible. Lets see: vi, emacs, joe (joe??? what the hell man), yast, lilo, initrd, sh, etc., etc.. Come on guys name your programs something intelligible, and leave the credits in the fscking readme file. At least if dos had something it had convenient keywords (copy, rename, delete, deltree, EDIT). I realize I could make symlinks to my hearts delight, but that is only assuming you know what the program your looking for is called.
6) Why did anybody think it would be a good idea to integrate the inetd with the x-windowing system (xinetd). Yippee, all the speed of NT servers on a linux system. Of course thats assuming you use inetd to begin with.
7) This one is for the distros: quit using the damn graphical installers. Graphical installers don't make installing any faster (quite to the contrary in a lot of cases), and in installing on older hardware a lot of times it makes it nearly impossible. I'm all for straightforward installers, but you don't have to be in a graphics mode to do it (fine standard VGA modes will work)
8) Hey I got a fun idea, lets put all those binaries in one directory, with no real index as to what each of these programs with obfuscated names do, and then lets give no easy way to find out what it does short of running it. Woo! And don't say, "One word, man" or "info" those systems are pretty fucked up as it is.
9) Standardize the damn locations, follow the LSB biatches.
10) This may sound contradictory to the above, but... abolish the Unix file system layout. I can't stress enough how a simple object persistence/serialization mechanism would be way better than a file system any day. Anyways, those are just my rants/suggestions as to what needs to be changed or layered on top of the linux filesystem if they wanted it to actually be a BETTER OS than windows or MacOS.
Yeah, and OpenFirmware balances my checkbook, gives me money, and magically knows what OS I'm using. Give me a break.