You realize that's bullshit, right? Jobs and Gassee are both notoriously hard to deal with. Someone got rankled.
Saying that their OS was running apps slower is kindof silly when it's not preemptively multitasked. If you really wanted to, you could just steal the processor from the OS and never give it back.
And Apple stopped sharing specs because they didn't want harware competition.
That said, Be didn't stop porting because they needed the specs. They didn't need the specs. They stopped porting because they wanted to stop. Perhaps because they wanted to know that Apple would support them in the future, but whatever.
We'll never be as fast as Akamai... Just because Akamai gets to trust all its nodes. Without that, I'm sure all their algorithms fall to shit. And if they are provably the most efficient, then we can never be as efficient as them.
Except that common sense is even lower level than what you describe. If common sense was just public school education and idiomatic concepts, that would be pretty easy to integrate into Cyc as well.
But it's not, of course. Common sense also comes from all the procedural and perceptive abilities that humans have. Like being able to look at a scene and identify the objects. Or recognize items by their feel. The ability to learn new strategies for learning.
The point isn't that Cyc is bad, it's just nothing like a human. And it shouldn't be. Since they're not looking for a machine that can play baseball, they shouldn't necesarily aim for humans. If that makes any sense...
I'm a Harvard-Liberal-Academic-Kennedy-Wannabe, and I take offense to this comment. I would prefer not to be linked to useless journalists in this manner.
Truth is, the AC is right. You're shouting bias too early. And I think the bias is different. He's probably not a liberal democrat. He's probably a pinko-limey. Get your slurs straight.
Thirdly, I can hate Bush and still be correct when I diss star wars. I guarantee I would have attacked star wars if Clinton tried it. Not that he really tried anything...
Ok. Whatever. You can have faith in science. But magnetism was obviously directly manipulateable from the moment anyone picked up the lodestone. Every examination of gravity has shown us that there is no way whatsoever that it can be manipulated.
No, not some of the best minds are working on this. The best minds have moved on. They might be examining the nature of gravity, but not necesarily in the hopes of it's manipulation.
I read this article in a magazine. Or something almost exactly like it. Several of the sentences seem word-for-word. But yeah. It *did* run right when Next discontinued the cube though. So it couldn't have taken him too long to do this.
We used to barely understand magnetism, but now we manipulate it all the time.
ergo:
We now barely understand gravity, but in the future we will manipulate it all the time.
Uh, no. Perhaps the law of gravity can be defied near black holes or in some other bizarre frame of reference. This does not mean that we will ever be able to do it. There is no "probably" about it. We might just as probably discover the true nature of gravity and find that it is completely impossible to defy.
This would work if the point was to reveal the truth. Of course this is not the point of the news media. The point of the news media is to make money. This is easier when people are scared. This is why yellow journalism works so well. The problem is not lack of sources, it's the gullibility of the general populace. The only way we could improve the media is if the general populace was made up of proficient skeptics. But it's not. So it doesn't matter.
If I'm not mistaken, it doesn't do any "piece recognition." The pieces are set in predefined layouts, and the computer just has to watch where they move. And the reason to be overwhelmed is assembly line production in places where robot arms and humans couldn't work.
The question, though, is if they can spin the chess pieces. If they can do that, then they've got a considerably more useful tool. --
As Snow Crash helpfully points out, most mundane Egyptian texts were written on papyrus, which doesn't last forever. Most all of what we have in writing from Egypt is what they wrote on walls, or what they kept in tombs. And this stuff is usually religious and rarely discusses day to day life. Or construction techniques. This is why we don't know for certain how the pyramids were built. All of their construction techniques would have been quite well documented, just not entombed. --
Except if there's a serious design flaw with them, and 500 people die in surgery because of the "Light Saber Fiasco of 2001," then people might think of rotting corpses when they hear the words "Light Saber" rather than thinking of Luke and Vader.
This would make it harder for Lucas to move toys off shelves, costing him cash. C'mon. --
There are of course a variety of uses for this technology, and not a single one of them has anything to do with desktops or standard servers.
Many of those applications do not involve networked hardware. Perhaps, systems for transmitting nuclear launch codes. Or discussing troop movements. --
I realize that Free Software is a subset of Open Source(TM), and the statement was not incorrect, but how hard is it to say? --
Also appearing on F*ed company:
on
VA Layoff Rumors
·
· Score: 2
The Free Software Foundation!
Microsoft bought the FSF and has released the new version of the GPL! Thanks to the "upgrade" clause of the GPL, it now applies to any and all GPLed items that Microsoft can find! It reads:
All code and binaries associated with this software belong to Microsoft.
Who else, on reading this headline, thought of Lagos from Snow Crash? Retina scanning lasers? That is, lasers that identify the retina of the person that it is aimed at. Potentially used from long range.
Gnuplot? Is that GPLed? Have you seen this legal agreement thingy? Have you asked them if they would kindly produce the source code for your perusal?
Or does the gnuplot code only run on MS servers? Or does gnuplot use a BSD like license also? --
Re:But why support Athlon first?
on
nVidia nForce
·
· Score: 1
I can think of four boxes built by friends in college with Asus/GeForce2MX. Off the top of my head. I can only think of one that doesn't fit that description. A lot of the people building their own PCs (the ones buying Asus/Abit/MSI/etc. boards) are price-sensitive consumers. --
Um, is anyone thinking here? Of *course* this was copied from somewhere else. What, you thought Disney was going to all of a sudden reverse itself and produce a new story? Disney has *never* produced a completely new animated story. I'm not saying there's anything illegal about it, it's just the way they work.
My friends and I used to gripe about it all the time. Some little kid is going to read hamlet sometime and think, "Wow, this is almost like the Lion King." And I'll have to execute a Disney animator. It's even worse when they butcher historical facts, like in Pocahontas. That was a real woman's life that they trivialized and lied about.
You're confusing different characteristics of the "community" so that it works out best for your argument. First, Michael only said that he would have gladly paid for their service if "they would serve me."
They don't. They didn't. What Michael said was completely reasonable. Even if it "required a little hacking," ZeroKnowledge is closed source. His choice to not purchase their software is *entirely* unrelated to the tendency of Linux people to want their software for free (that is, for zero cash.)
You also briefly refer to the GNU hardliners, who refuse to run code that isn't Free (as in speech):
"This never would have stopped you if it was GNU licensed software with a Makefile or an rpm and available on every street corner distro ftp."
Well, maybe it wouldn't have stopped him. Why not? Perhaps he'd be willing to purchase the software if he would be able to port/improve it. This follows directly. Your point makes no sense.
You begin to finish with a salient point: Of course, it's Zero Knowledge's prerogative to not release on our platform. However, their motivation has nothing to do with the demand for source or that it "should be unhackable by design." The whole point of ZeroKnowledge's client is that even if nodes are compromised, the whole system retains integrity. There's no technical reason that the client, or even the server, shouldn't be GPLed.
And, last of all, people don't support Macs for very very concrete reasons. There's less cash in it than for Wintel programs. Comparing the Macintosh's dilemma to the Linux user's dilemma isn't really fair. --
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks. I was really proud of it. But it's down right now. How did you see it?
You realize that's bullshit, right? Jobs and Gassee are both notoriously hard to deal with. Someone got rankled.
Saying that their OS was running apps slower is kindof silly when it's not preemptively multitasked. If you really wanted to, you could just steal the processor from the OS and never give it back.
And Apple stopped sharing specs because they didn't want harware competition.
That said, Be didn't stop porting because they needed the specs. They didn't need the specs. They stopped porting because they wanted to stop. Perhaps because they wanted to know that Apple would support them in the future, but whatever.
We'll never be as fast as Akamai... Just because Akamai gets to trust all its nodes. Without that, I'm sure all their algorithms fall to shit. And if they are provably the most efficient, then we can never be as efficient as them.
Except that common sense is even lower level than what you describe. If common sense was just public school education and idiomatic concepts, that would be pretty easy to integrate into Cyc as well.
But it's not, of course. Common sense also comes from all the procedural and perceptive abilities that humans have. Like being able to look at a scene and identify the objects. Or recognize items by their feel. The ability to learn new strategies for learning.
The point isn't that Cyc is bad, it's just nothing like a human. And it shouldn't be. Since they're not looking for a machine that can play baseball, they shouldn't necesarily aim for humans. If that makes any sense...
I'm a Harvard-Liberal-Academic-Kennedy-Wannabe, and I take offense to this comment. I would prefer not to be linked to useless journalists in this manner.
Truth is, the AC is right. You're shouting bias too early. And I think the bias is different. He's probably not a liberal democrat. He's probably a pinko-limey. Get your slurs straight.
Thirdly, I can hate Bush and still be correct when I diss star wars. I guarantee I would have attacked star wars if Clinton tried it. Not that he really tried anything...
Ok. Whatever. You can have faith in science. But magnetism was obviously directly manipulateable from the moment anyone picked up the lodestone. Every examination of gravity has shown us that there is no way whatsoever that it can be manipulated.
No, not some of the best minds are working on this. The best minds have moved on. They might be examining the nature of gravity, but not necesarily in the hopes of it's manipulation.
I read this article in a magazine. Or something almost exactly like it. Several of the sentences seem word-for-word. But yeah. It *did* run right when Next discontinued the cube though. So it couldn't have taken him too long to do this.
This is insightful?
We used to barely understand magnetism, but now we manipulate it all the time.
ergo:
We now barely understand gravity, but in the future we will manipulate it all the time.
Uh, no. Perhaps the law of gravity can be defied near black holes or in some other bizarre frame of reference. This does not mean that we will ever be able to do it. There is no "probably" about it. We might just as probably discover the true nature of gravity and find that it is completely impossible to defy.
It didn't take that long.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I'm a whore.
This would work if the point was to reveal the truth. Of course this is not the point of the news media. The point of the news media is to make money. This is easier when people are scared. This is why yellow journalism works so well. The problem is not lack of sources, it's the gullibility of the general populace. The only way we could improve the media is if the general populace was made up of proficient skeptics. But it's not. So it doesn't matter.
If I'm not mistaken, it doesn't do any "piece recognition." The pieces are set in predefined layouts, and the computer just has to watch where they move. And the reason to be overwhelmed is assembly line production in places where robot arms and humans couldn't work.
The question, though, is if they can spin the chess pieces. If they can do that, then they've got a considerably more useful tool.
--
As Snow Crash helpfully points out, most mundane Egyptian texts were written on papyrus, which doesn't last forever. Most all of what we have in writing from Egypt is what they wrote on walls, or what they kept in tombs. And this stuff is usually religious and rarely discusses day to day life. Or construction techniques. This is why we don't know for certain how the pyramids were built. All of their construction techniques would have been quite well documented, just not entombed.
--
There's no way he's pushing 300. He's not the tallest guy in show business, so he looks heavier in photos. Iduno. Maybe I'm full of shit.
--
Except if there's a serious design flaw with them, and 500 people die in surgery because of the "Light Saber Fiasco of 2001," then people might think of rotting corpses when they hear the words "Light Saber" rather than thinking of Luke and Vader.
This would make it harder for Lucas to move toys off shelves, costing him cash. C'mon.
--
Because if you get one for $10, then it might be heavy enough that it won't fly up at you.
--
There are of course a variety of uses for this technology, and not a single one of them has anything to do with desktops or standard servers.
Many of those applications do not involve networked hardware. Perhaps, systems for transmitting nuclear launch codes. Or discussing troop movements.
--
No, writing down your passwords is only stupid if all of your enemies will be able to find your written down password.
Like, if you post their location to a very public place...
--
Free as in Free Software? :)
I realize that Free Software is a subset of Open Source(TM), and the statement was not incorrect, but how hard is it to say?
--
The Free Software Foundation!
Microsoft bought the FSF and has released the new version of the GPL! Thanks to the "upgrade" clause of the GPL, it now applies to any and all GPLed items that Microsoft can find! It reads:
All code and binaries associated with this software belong to Microsoft.
Thank God the FSF is non-profit...
--
Who else, on reading this headline, thought of Lagos from Snow Crash? Retina scanning lasers? That is, lasers that identify the retina of the person that it is aimed at. Potentially used from long range.
Nevermind...
--
Gnuplot? Is that GPLed? Have you seen this legal agreement thingy? Have you asked them if they would kindly produce the source code for your perusal?
Or does the gnuplot code only run on MS servers? Or does gnuplot use a BSD like license also?
--
I can think of four boxes built by friends in college with Asus/GeForce2MX. Off the top of my head. I can only think of one that doesn't fit that description. A lot of the people building their own PCs (the ones buying Asus/Abit/MSI/etc. boards) are price-sensitive consumers.
--
Boy, do I feel dumb.
--
Um, is anyone thinking here? Of *course* this was copied from somewhere else. What, you thought Disney was going to all of a sudden reverse itself and produce a new story? Disney has *never* produced a completely new animated story. I'm not saying there's anything illegal about it, it's just the way they work.
My friends and I used to gripe about it all the time. Some little kid is going to read hamlet sometime and think, "Wow, this is almost like the Lion King." And I'll have to execute a Disney animator. It's even worse when they butcher historical facts, like in Pocahontas. That was a real woman's life that they trivialized and lied about.
Ok, I'll calm down...
--
You're confusing different characteristics of the "community" so that it works out best for your argument. First, Michael only said that he would have gladly paid for their service if "they would serve me."
They don't. They didn't. What Michael said was completely reasonable. Even if it "required a little hacking," ZeroKnowledge is closed source. His choice to not purchase their software is *entirely* unrelated to the tendency of Linux people to want their software for free (that is, for zero cash.)
You also briefly refer to the GNU hardliners, who refuse to run code that isn't Free (as in speech):
"This never would have stopped you if it was GNU licensed software with a Makefile or an rpm and available on every street corner distro ftp."
Well, maybe it wouldn't have stopped him. Why not? Perhaps he'd be willing to purchase the software if he would be able to port/improve it. This follows directly. Your point makes no sense.
You begin to finish with a salient point: Of course, it's Zero Knowledge's prerogative to not release on our platform. However, their motivation has nothing to do with the demand for source or that it "should be unhackable by design." The whole point of ZeroKnowledge's client is that even if nodes are compromised, the whole system retains integrity. There's no technical reason that the client, or even the server, shouldn't be GPLed.
And, last of all, people don't support Macs for very very concrete reasons. There's less cash in it than for Wintel programs. Comparing the Macintosh's dilemma to the Linux user's dilemma isn't really fair.
--