This is proof that the LiveCD fad is out of hand. GNUStep's distinguishing feature is an API. How is distributing a LiveCD going to persuade developers to code to that API?
I suspect that your picture of the survivability of film stock is a little optimistic. But I'll leave that issue to somebody who actually knows the technology. What really bothers me about your argument is your focus on a single factor: keeping the data available as long as possible with an absolute minimum of maintenance. If that were the only consideration, then film is actually a bad choice. Many more archival techniques are obviously more survivable. You could, for example, etch the data on platinum plates.
But survivability isn't the only consideration. Cost is always an issue. (So much for my platinum plates, though your approach isn't exactly cheap either.) You also want to be able to able to access the data in the short term. I worked my way through college operating film projectors. It's is not a convenient medium!
One thing I'd like to know is why archival-quality optical discs weren't considered. (Presumably there's something in the document about this, but it's a poorly structured word file, and finding key facts is more work than I care to expend.) They cost 5 times as much as standard CD-Rs and recordable DVDs, but their manufacters claim the data is good for 300 years. Of course, you need some fairly complicated technology to play them back, but CD and DVD drives are pervasive consumer devices -- they should be around for a very long time.
My apologies. I thought you were trying to participate in the discussion, when you really just wanted to document all my personality flaws. I should have seen this much sooner, but, as you noted, I am not very bright.
Look, I apologize for getting under your skin. But what really seems to bother you is that I used to admire the same writers you do and don't any more. (Or at least not as much.) I see it as growth. You see it as condescension. If that's a serious problem for you, I don't know how to address it without pissing your off even more.
You know, I never said that I'd outgrown SF. (In fact, this discussion has altered my plans for my next trip to the library.) I've just outgrown my uncritical attitude toward it. Good SF writers deserve a lot of credit for entertaining us in intelligent, thought-provoking ways. But none of them are the great thinkers so many of their fans seem to think they are.
In fact, nearly all the stories in I, Robot are parables about the dangers of blind adherence to dogma, using the three laws as an allegory.
I pretty much disagree with that statement. But there's no getting away from the fact that these stories were only incidentally about technology. In particular, there's a lot heavy-handed satire of racism, with human characters addressing robots with exactly the patronizing language many whites in that era used to address blacks.
Somewhere I read an essay by Asimov where he said that he came to avoid writing about aliens because his main editor, John Campbell could only think about human-alien relations in a white man's burden" model. This problem also motivated some of his stories about robots, since it allowed him to slip an anti-racism message beneath Campbell's radar.
My favorite robot story has always been "Reason", in which a robot on a space station "proves" that humans are inferior, delusional beings, and that their fabulous stories about a planet called Earth with billions of ihabitants are pure mythology. The Second Law is not mentioned in this story, probably because Asimov hadn't invented it yet. There is a statement that robots are supposed to be obedient, but this robot is able to transfer his obedience to the deity of the religion he invents.
When I read this story as a teenager, I thought it was the most ground-breaking bits of philosophizing in human history. Since then, I've read some more thoughtful writers on similar topics, and the story seems rather less insighful. Which is not to say that I'm not grateful to Asimov for giving me some thought-provoking entertainment. But I've outgrown my hero-worship of the dude, and it pains me to see how people continue to treat his every idea as gospel.
Behavior isn't simply "vague" -- it's extremely complicated and poorly understood. Why did Hitler kill millions of humans, while Schweitzer refused to kill an ant?
There's more to programming behavior than coming up with a short (either 3 or 1507) list of rules. They had to do more than that just to create their autonomous vacuum cleaner. And they still can't predict everything it does!
Asimov always acknowledged that he had no notion exactly how his robots worked. His "laws" were just pseudo-science that he invented to substitute for science that didn't exist at the time. A reasonable thing to do. What's less acceptable is that he never revised his ideas after AI became a real discipline. Indeed, he never seems to have acquired more than a general understanding of computers.
OK, he's not perfect, and he wrote some good stories. But he was not the great oracle many half-educated SF fans seem to think he was.
Perhaps "inanimate" was a poor choice of words. But you know what I mean. Your rules would protect a lot of non-human entities. And they'd still require major breakthroughs to implement.
You're talking Azimov's "Laws"? I find their continued currency frustrating. The might work intuitive in a hand-waving 1940s science fiction story. But when you try to find a place for them in modern Computer Science, they're just too vague and general to plug in anywhere. How on earth do you program "don't hurt people"? A machine that could even distinguish a people from an inanimate object would be a major breakthrough.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm waiting for the MP/M LiveCD!
I'm not arguing that optical formats will be around forever. But they'll be around for a lot longer than floppy drives.
Any format you could pick is a tradeoff between long term availability and the other factors I mentioned. No format will be around forever.
But survivability isn't the only consideration. Cost is always an issue. (So much for my platinum plates, though your approach isn't exactly cheap either.) You also want to be able to able to access the data in the short term. I worked my way through college operating film projectors. It's is not a convenient medium!
One thing I'd like to know is why archival-quality optical discs weren't considered. (Presumably there's something in the document about this, but it's a poorly structured word file, and finding key facts is more work than I care to expend.) They cost 5 times as much as standard CD-Rs and recordable DVDs, but their manufacters claim the data is good for 300 years. Of course, you need some fairly complicated technology to play them back, but CD and DVD drives are pervasive consumer devices -- they should be around for a very long time.
Biggest 419 scam ever! Let's do it!
Pay attention. I wasn't criticizing the stories. Go back and read the thread again.
Thank you, and have a nice day.
So you're full of opinions about a genre you never read? Get over yourself.
OK then, you're my dumbass.
As long as you hold it upgright, so the handset doesn't fall out of the cradle.
You know, I never said that I'd outgrown SF. (In fact, this discussion has altered my plans for my next trip to the library.) I've just outgrown my uncritical attitude toward it. Good SF writers deserve a lot of credit for entertaining us in intelligent, thought-provoking ways. But none of them are the great thinkers so many of their fans seem to think they are.
Which makes them interesting stories. But doesn't give them any relevance to modern AI problems.
Microsoft is working on that.
So I should apologize for growing up? Perhaps you should apologize for not wanting to.
Maybe you should read something besides science fiction.
You mean, "We'll give you this worthless piece of junk if you'll give us several million in upkeep costs"? Rather like a 419 scam.
We've already covered this issue!
Get back to me when you built your robot. I think it's a bigger project than you realize.
Somewhere I read an essay by Asimov where he said that he came to avoid writing about aliens because his main editor, John Campbell could only think about human-alien relations in a white man's burden" model. This problem also motivated some of his stories about robots, since it allowed him to slip an anti-racism message beneath Campbell's radar.
My favorite robot story has always been "Reason", in which a robot on a space station "proves" that humans are inferior, delusional beings, and that their fabulous stories about a planet called Earth with billions of ihabitants are pure mythology. The Second Law is not mentioned in this story, probably because Asimov hadn't invented it yet. There is a statement that robots are supposed to be obedient, but this robot is able to transfer his obedience to the deity of the religion he invents.
When I read this story as a teenager, I thought it was the most ground-breaking bits of philosophizing in human history. Since then, I've read some more thoughtful writers on similar topics, and the story seems rather less insighful. Which is not to say that I'm not grateful to Asimov for giving me some thought-provoking entertainment. But I've outgrown my hero-worship of the dude, and it pains me to see how people continue to treat his every idea as gospel.
I saw that movie. Not a reliable safeguard.
Perhaps "stalker" is the wrong word. You think I'm full of shit, but you don't have the mental skills to explain why. What's a good word for that?
There's more to programming behavior than coming up with a short (either 3 or 1507) list of rules. They had to do more than that just to create their autonomous vacuum cleaner. And they still can't predict everything it does!
Asimov always acknowledged that he had no notion exactly how his robots worked. His "laws" were just pseudo-science that he invented to substitute for science that didn't exist at the time. A reasonable thing to do. What's less acceptable is that he never revised his ideas after AI became a real discipline. Indeed, he never seems to have acquired more than a general understanding of computers.
OK, he's not perfect, and he wrote some good stories. But he was not the great oracle many half-educated SF fans seem to think he was.
Perhaps "inanimate" was a poor choice of words. But you know what I mean. Your rules would protect a lot of non-human entities. And they'd still require major breakthroughs to implement.
Is Slashdot experiencing an upsurge in brainless AC lurkers, or do I have a stalker?
You're talking Azimov's "Laws"? I find their continued currency frustrating. The might work intuitive in a hand-waving 1940s science fiction story. But when you try to find a place for them in modern Computer Science, they're just too vague and general to plug in anywhere. How on earth do you program "don't hurt people"? A machine that could even distinguish a people from an inanimate object would be a major breakthrough.