Well, most of the good traffic control algorithms are already provided as standard by most GOOD server OS' (Linux, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and the like), most routers and router/switches have also provided those same algorithms, leaving the fast-n-basic switches as the only "dumb" devices (well, other than the CEOs, who are the dumbest devices in any system).
There is a drawback in making Ethernet too expensive by adding too much smarts to the system that I think people are missing. Infiniband isn't THAT much more expensive, but can run at speeds of 24 Gb/s and already has some congestion control. That's 2.4x the bandwidth of the fastest ethernet currently available already, reducing the need for congestion control in the first place, and it does already supply QoS facilities that are quite useful. Once you push Ethernet in the datacentre above the cost of Infiniband in the datacentre for the same performance, Ethernet is going to lose. Price was the only real reason people stuck with it.
QoS is a powerful tool and I like QoS a lot, but QoS can be done cheaply, efficiently and effectively without impacting price or performance. That is not what is being done, and that is why I have a problem with it.
If some of the consequences were unexpected, we now know far more about the energies involved in superconducting magnets when they quench. Our knowledge of physics at the extreme end of superconducting magnetism has lept forward by a considerable distance - quite literally, if it was placed on top of one of the magnets.
Nono, it is a picture. Rassilon is holding the camera, photographing Omega (you can see him waving in the distance) as he plunges into the merging singularities, the energy from which will be tapped for time travel purposes, and for powering the data centre holding Rassilon's intergalactic pron archive.
Leave the bill in place, much as the amendment for Abolition was left in place, but supersede it. We already have an Internet Czar position (currently vacant). If said Czar were to regulate those who do the monitoring (the RIAA/MPAA and lackeys thereof), say by banning their access to the Internet, the bill can remain in place and harm no-one.
My biggest problem with the notion is that there is better (still weak, but nonetheless better) evidence of self-awareness in some of the other primate families, and quite reasonable evidence of self-awareness in other mammals (such as cetaceans) and avians (birds are capable of locating objects placed on them from images in a mirror). It would appear from such examples that self-awareness is not a binary state but a continuum that likely started extremely early in brain evolution and has continued since. Now, this hypothesis has several benefits over the notion of recent evolution of self-awareness. We can test other species relatively easily, we can examine common facets of self-awareness with common structures in the brain and common ancestors, and we can then make predictions of what should be observed in other species based on those known quantities.
Now, my next problem is to do with the fact that we have no evidence (that I know of) that modern-day stone age tribes (some of which are more "primitive" than the supposed date for the development of self-awareness) lack self-awareness. This would be a simple test of the hypothesis, there are known uncontacted tribes that we can observe from extreme distance, and it would seem simple enough to compare observations with predictions. If a testable theory remains untested and largely unadopted, one must assume there are reasons why nobody is bothering to test or adopt the theory. (Its popularity with cyberpunk novelists is unimportant - Arthur C Clarke and Fred Hoyle were notorious for coming up with - or accepting other people's - wild ideas which later proved wrong, and they had better justification for those ideas than modern writers do for theirs.)
...I found details of a contest in the UK you might want to beat. The Peak District, for those not familiar with England, is a mix of gentle, rolling hills and extremely steep inclines. Even walking up from Castleton to the Blue John Caverns is tough going, if you're not a seasoned hill-walker. So, to achieve fuel efficiencies massively above the "national average" (where "average" drivers tend to stick to roads that are flat and relatively uniform in speed) is very impressive. 83 MPG in a Toyota, just by driving better, is not bad at all for the terrain. (The 10,000 MPG specialist fuel-efficiency racing cars can manage on the flat is an unfair comparison.)
As an aside, students will typically drive to/from colleges that are relatively nearby, drive to/from nearby pubs, nearby cinemas, etc. If you could calculate how much fuel a typical student would actually NEED to burn to meet all typical student expectations of where to go, what to see, then you should be able to produce a more-or-less disposable car with plug-and-play gas tanks and oil cartridges. This could be made extremely cheap (far cheaper than a regular car) and free a group of people who live on tight finances anyway from the vagaries of oil prices. Would they buy such a vehicle? Well, depends. If they've been given a Ferrari, no. If they wouldn't otherwise have a car, especially in mass transit/cycle-hostile cities in the US, then they might. Less money on transport = more money for booze, women and clubs.
Well, SSL is one option, sure. Sun's SK/IP system would be another, since it was designed with unreliable connections in mind. Requiring client-side certs and using any of the public-key systems (ECC, for example) would be vastly superior to a shared key system. If privacy is not as big of a concern as just authenticating who sent the packets, 802.1x offers some interesting possibilities. Of these, how many are implemented in low-cost COTS wireless devices? 802.1x appears in a few, but not many. The others - well, "none at all" might be an overestimate. Sure, you can roll your own image for some wireless routers, so you can install something like ENSKIP (the Linux version of Sun SK/IP), but that ceases to be a true COTS solution, and businesses are fanatical about COTS-only as it means they can blame someone else when things screw up.
(The ability to blame someone else is vitally important in any country where lawsuits are commonplace but accountability is optional. Why do you think the British government outsources security? They don't trust GCHQ's experts? Or because it becomes Somebody Else's Problem - SEP fields are wonderful things - and they get to fingerpoint?)
There were two other discoveries for silicon (such as 3d structures) that claimed similar improvement. So do you get x1,000,000 improvement or only x300 improvement? Or are the improvements going to negate each other?
Digital Mars D actually looks quite good, but the GCC frontend seems to have stopped development and there's a dearth of other implementations - at least that I could find - that would be binary-compatible. Anyone have any suggestions?
Re:Sorry, Loebner Has Done Nothing for AI
on
Loebner Talks AI
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Intelligence goes way beyond those limited parameters, which is why no psychologist or AI expert would claim to know what intelligence actually, fundamentally, is. Sure, it includes all of those, but there are many examples of intelligence which don't fit any of those categories, and many examples of non-intelligence which do.
Re:creators promote real intelligence, spiritualit
on
Loebner Talks AI
·
· Score: 1
Just in: Creators go on to promote new book on chat-show, then win the Eurovision Song Contest.
Re:Sorry, Loebner Has Done Nothing for AI
on
Loebner Talks AI
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The Turing Test, as classically described in books, is not that useful, but the Turing Test, as imagined by Turing, is extremely useful. The idea of the test is that even when you can't measure or define something, you can usually compare it with a known quantity and see if they look similar enough. It's no different from the proof of Fermat's Last Theorum that compared two types of infinity because you couldn't compare the sets directly.
The notion of the Turing Test being simple string manipulation dates back to using Elisa as an early example of sentence parsing in AI classes. Really, the Turing Test is rather more sophisticated. It requires that the machine be indistinguishable from a person, when you black-box test them both. In principle, humans can perform experiments (physical and thought), show lateral thinking, demonstrate imagination and artistic creativity, and so on. The Turing Test does not constrain the judges from testing such stuff, and indeed requires it as these are all facets of what defines intelligence and distinguishes it from mere string manipulation.
If a computer cannot demonstrate modeling the world internally in an analytical, predictive -and- speculative manner, I would regard it as failing the Turing Test. Whether all humans would pass such a test is another matter. I would argue Creationists don't exhibit intelligence, so should be excluded from such an analysis.
I have to say I'm impressed. Ever since they started with Group 4 for prisoners and nuclear waste (at the same time and possibly in the same vehicle), they have managed to pick with 100% accuracy every incompetent on the planet. Name me one country in the world, just one, that can boast a track record as perfect as that.
Re:This is news for nerds?
on
Loebner Talks AI
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Which is why I think some of the other interviews being published on AI are far more interesting. But that could just be me.
Don't forget Steve Furbur
on
Loebner Talks AI
·
· Score: 5, Informative
He is the genius who brought the UK the BBC Micro, and is now studying the relationship between AI and biological neurons. His comments on the BBC website make very interesting reading regarding the problems facing AI and computer intelligence.
If test taking (or, indeed, test taking strategy) is the deciding factor between a pass and a fail, you could modify a simple PROLOG expert system shell to take the exam and pass it more often than the students. Since nobody claims such a shell is intelligent or has any understanding, this is clearly a bug in the examination process. Besides which, researchers and commercial employees have access to texts that can provide any of the information such a shell could spout, making this the least-useful material to test. I have no objection to an AI passing a test, and indeed would expect an AI that has comparable ability to understand as a human to pass with comparable grades, once such an AI exists. The fundamental problem is that humans make for lousy databases, and databases make for lousy humans. If you need one, don't get the other. Tests that would rank SQL Server over and above a genuine expert in the field are clearly tests that are incapable of identifying the criteria that make people useful.
(Knowing the raw facts is useful, but should never attain a person - or machine - more than N points below a bare minimum for a passing grade. Understanding should make up all of the remainder of the grade, where you determine N by how much understanding is the bare minimum to be useful later on.)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, most of the good traffic control algorithms are already provided as standard by most GOOD server OS' (Linux, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and the like), most routers and router/switches have also provided those same algorithms, leaving the fast-n-basic switches as the only "dumb" devices (well, other than the CEOs, who are the dumbest devices in any system).
There is a drawback in making Ethernet too expensive by adding too much smarts to the system that I think people are missing. Infiniband isn't THAT much more expensive, but can run at speeds of 24 Gb/s and already has some congestion control. That's 2.4x the bandwidth of the fastest ethernet currently available already, reducing the need for congestion control in the first place, and it does already supply QoS facilities that are quite useful. Once you push Ethernet in the datacentre above the cost of Infiniband in the datacentre for the same performance, Ethernet is going to lose. Price was the only real reason people stuck with it.
QoS is a powerful tool and I like QoS a lot, but QoS can be done cheaply, efficiently and effectively without impacting price or performance. That is not what is being done, and that is why I have a problem with it.
Only if Cowboy Neil ran for office. But which office would he run for, and what would happen to the poor sod in said office once he got there?
Broke or crawled off the keyboard, crying from the abuse?
If some of the consequences were unexpected, we now know far more about the energies involved in superconducting magnets when they quench. Our knowledge of physics at the extreme end of superconducting magnetism has lept forward by a considerable distance - quite literally, if it was placed on top of one of the magnets.
Nono, it is a picture. Rassilon is holding the camera, photographing Omega (you can see him waving in the distance) as he plunges into the merging singularities, the energy from which will be tapped for time travel purposes, and for powering the data centre holding Rassilon's intergalactic pron archive.
Vista Enhanced Edition, to make it sound like a certain game system.
Leave the bill in place, much as the amendment for Abolition was left in place, but supersede it. We already have an Internet Czar position (currently vacant). If said Czar were to regulate those who do the monitoring (the RIAA/MPAA and lackeys thereof), say by banning their access to the Internet, the bill can remain in place and harm no-one.
My biggest problem with the notion is that there is better (still weak, but nonetheless better) evidence of self-awareness in some of the other primate families, and quite reasonable evidence of self-awareness in other mammals (such as cetaceans) and avians (birds are capable of locating objects placed on them from images in a mirror). It would appear from such examples that self-awareness is not a binary state but a continuum that likely started extremely early in brain evolution and has continued since. Now, this hypothesis has several benefits over the notion of recent evolution of self-awareness. We can test other species relatively easily, we can examine common facets of self-awareness with common structures in the brain and common ancestors, and we can then make predictions of what should be observed in other species based on those known quantities.
Now, my next problem is to do with the fact that we have no evidence (that I know of) that modern-day stone age tribes (some of which are more "primitive" than the supposed date for the development of self-awareness) lack self-awareness. This would be a simple test of the hypothesis, there are known uncontacted tribes that we can observe from extreme distance, and it would seem simple enough to compare observations with predictions. If a testable theory remains untested and largely unadopted, one must assume there are reasons why nobody is bothering to test or adopt the theory. (Its popularity with cyberpunk novelists is unimportant - Arthur C Clarke and Fred Hoyle were notorious for coming up with - or accepting other people's - wild ideas which later proved wrong, and they had better justification for those ideas than modern writers do for theirs.)
Cylon leaders have three brains, and even their soldiers have one.
I took it as meaning "any program that cannot be expressed as an integer, by means of a Turing Machine, but requires an imaginary component".
...I found details of a contest in the UK you might want to beat. The Peak District, for those not familiar with England, is a mix of gentle, rolling hills and extremely steep inclines. Even walking up from Castleton to the Blue John Caverns is tough going, if you're not a seasoned hill-walker. So, to achieve fuel efficiencies massively above the "national average" (where "average" drivers tend to stick to roads that are flat and relatively uniform in speed) is very impressive. 83 MPG in a Toyota, just by driving better, is not bad at all for the terrain. (The 10,000 MPG specialist fuel-efficiency racing cars can manage on the flat is an unfair comparison.)
As an aside, students will typically drive to/from colleges that are relatively nearby, drive to/from nearby pubs, nearby cinemas, etc. If you could calculate how much fuel a typical student would actually NEED to burn to meet all typical student expectations of where to go, what to see, then you should be able to produce a more-or-less disposable car with plug-and-play gas tanks and oil cartridges. This could be made extremely cheap (far cheaper than a regular car) and free a group of people who live on tight finances anyway from the vagaries of oil prices. Would they buy such a vehicle? Well, depends. If they've been given a Ferrari, no. If they wouldn't otherwise have a car, especially in mass transit/cycle-hostile cities in the US, then they might. Less money on transport = more money for booze, women and clubs.
Well, SSL is one option, sure. Sun's SK/IP system would be another, since it was designed with unreliable connections in mind. Requiring client-side certs and using any of the public-key systems (ECC, for example) would be vastly superior to a shared key system. If privacy is not as big of a concern as just authenticating who sent the packets, 802.1x offers some interesting possibilities. Of these, how many are implemented in low-cost COTS wireless devices? 802.1x appears in a few, but not many. The others - well, "none at all" might be an overestimate. Sure, you can roll your own image for some wireless routers, so you can install something like ENSKIP (the Linux version of Sun SK/IP), but that ceases to be a true COTS solution, and businesses are fanatical about COTS-only as it means they can blame someone else when things screw up.
(The ability to blame someone else is vitally important in any country where lawsuits are commonplace but accountability is optional. Why do you think the British government outsources security? They don't trust GCHQ's experts? Or because it becomes Somebody Else's Problem - SEP fields are wonderful things - and they get to fingerpoint?)
There were two other discoveries for silicon (such as 3d structures) that claimed similar improvement. So do you get x1,000,000 improvement or only x300 improvement? Or are the improvements going to negate each other?
Digital Mars D actually looks quite good, but the GCC frontend seems to have stopped development and there's a dearth of other implementations - at least that I could find - that would be binary-compatible. Anyone have any suggestions?
Intelligence goes way beyond those limited parameters, which is why no psychologist or AI expert would claim to know what intelligence actually, fundamentally, is. Sure, it includes all of those, but there are many examples of intelligence which don't fit any of those categories, and many examples of non-intelligence which do.
Just in: Creators go on to promote new book on chat-show, then win the Eurovision Song Contest.
The Turing Test, as classically described in books, is not that useful, but the Turing Test, as imagined by Turing, is extremely useful. The idea of the test is that even when you can't measure or define something, you can usually compare it with a known quantity and see if they look similar enough. It's no different from the proof of Fermat's Last Theorum that compared two types of infinity because you couldn't compare the sets directly.
The notion of the Turing Test being simple string manipulation dates back to using Elisa as an early example of sentence parsing in AI classes. Really, the Turing Test is rather more sophisticated. It requires that the machine be indistinguishable from a person, when you black-box test them both. In principle, humans can perform experiments (physical and thought), show lateral thinking, demonstrate imagination and artistic creativity, and so on. The Turing Test does not constrain the judges from testing such stuff, and indeed requires it as these are all facets of what defines intelligence and distinguishes it from mere string manipulation.
If a computer cannot demonstrate modeling the world internally in an analytical, predictive -and- speculative manner, I would regard it as failing the Turing Test. Whether all humans would pass such a test is another matter. I would argue Creationists don't exhibit intelligence, so should be excluded from such an analysis.
Strong or Weak Turing Test? Makes a big difference. Especially if he wants to be credible to Real Geeks.
BBC Basic always initialized variables on first use, so you're ok.
I have to say I'm impressed. Ever since they started with Group 4 for prisoners and nuclear waste (at the same time and possibly in the same vehicle), they have managed to pick with 100% accuracy every incompetent on the planet. Name me one country in the world, just one, that can boast a track record as perfect as that.
If the experts were from AT&T, a fully-pwned subsidiary of the NSA Corporation, worry.
...it was Diebold?
Which is why I think some of the other interviews being published on AI are far more interesting. But that could just be me.
He is the genius who brought the UK the BBC Micro, and is now studying the relationship between AI and biological neurons. His comments on the BBC website make very interesting reading regarding the problems facing AI and computer intelligence.
If test taking (or, indeed, test taking strategy) is the deciding factor between a pass and a fail, you could modify a simple PROLOG expert system shell to take the exam and pass it more often than the students. Since nobody claims such a shell is intelligent or has any understanding, this is clearly a bug in the examination process. Besides which, researchers and commercial employees have access to texts that can provide any of the information such a shell could spout, making this the least-useful material to test. I have no objection to an AI passing a test, and indeed would expect an AI that has comparable ability to understand as a human to pass with comparable grades, once such an AI exists. The fundamental problem is that humans make for lousy databases, and databases make for lousy humans. If you need one, don't get the other. Tests that would rank SQL Server over and above a genuine expert in the field are clearly tests that are incapable of identifying the criteria that make people useful.
(Knowing the raw facts is useful, but should never attain a person - or machine - more than N points below a bare minimum for a passing grade. Understanding should make up all of the remainder of the grade, where you determine N by how much understanding is the bare minimum to be useful later on.)