...which was interested in moving a few of their courses over to the web. I was hired to do much of the programming. At the end of the year when they did standardized tests and satisfaction surveys they found that the courses where they cut the in-class physical face time down to 20% of what it had been before and replaced that other 80% with interactive web content, the knowledge acquisition was almost identical and student satisfaction actually increased.
On the other hand, for the courses that they offered entirely on-line both knowledge acquisition (by performance on standaraduzed tests) and student satisfaction declined (something like 15 and 10 percent respectively, IIRC).
Now they have switched several other courses over completely to the 80/20 format, but offer fully on-line courses only as correspondence alternatives.
Yeah.. I have to say I'm not sure how radically different it is compared to just creating yourself a local web-site with a bunch of links to useful files and programs on it, particularly if you include cgi links to shell scripts and what not.
Perhaps even more significantly... how does this really differ from a decent OS or Desktop-Env? I mean in GNOME I can have a Mozilla window open in a quarter of my screen, a terminal window running Mutt in another corner, OpenOffice in another part and nautilus file browser for the rest, etc. The only thing that it seems to include that isn't easily accomplished by an intelligent custom set-up of Linux (or Windows or Mac for that matter) is the arbitrary associations between files and you could do that with a few clever applications of symlinks.
What I'm saying basically is that this package looks like it does some neat things, but it takes up a gig of space and a ton of memory when you could hack together something that works just as well for your individual purposes with almost no memory or storage overhead in a couple of hours if you know a scripting language.
I think most coders spend more time with one hand one the keyboard than they might think. Especially if they are using Windows and don't have the middle-click-as-copy thing going for them. There are a lot of cases where you want to be able to make simple command keystrokes while also using the mouse.
If these keyboards don't make it realatively easy to press any CTRL-(letter) combination with only the left hand, I could consider that a pitfall.
will slow down progress, yes. Because no matter how forward-thinking the people are who make the standards, there an infinite number of things that they can not anticipate.
But still, working within standards is necessary to bring past inventions and innovations to the masses.
Certainly, if you are working on some cutting edge project in the MIT AI labs, you don't need to worry too much about the RFCs. But ten years later when someone is trying to bring that product to the public, standards become tremendously important.
Lack of standards alowed the web to develop at an enormous rate, but then it was the introduction of standards that actually made it usable by the avergae person.
More specifically... As hardware gets more complex, software gets more complex to fill the available space. More complex software not only means more things to go wrong but also means that the hardware never really gets a chance to outpace the needs of the software.
Also, as I'm sure someone else will point out, it is very hard to right code that will not crash under any circumstances. Even if you are running a super-stripped down linux kernel in console mode on an Itanium, you can still get out of memory errors if someone behaves rudely with malloc().
yeah. When I posted the grandparent comment, I knew I was asking for a bunch of "stupid canadian, look at the numbers" responses. I didn't say that I CAN'T tell the bills apart, I said it wasn't CONVENIENT. Here in Canada I can open my wallet and tell how much money I have by glancing in the top, even just seeing the edges of the bill. And I can make sure I get more or less the right change in a transaction just my noting the colors in the pile of money, without actually counting it.
Yes, compared to a lot of things (like proving Fermat's Last Theorem) differentiating American bills is a pretty easy task. But, considering how often everyone has to do it, you gain a lot of convenience by making it even easier.
I would like to see some sort of empirical study for how often people don't notice that they've been given the wrong change in the USA versus in Canada.
you see... waht with this being the internet, I still an't tell whether or not you are joking.
If there are two dollar bills are they a limited run, collectible currency thing like silver dollars? what do they look like? why have I never seen one?
No.. but they are edging more towards looking like canadian bills (or even euros). Seriously though, I've always found that one the problems with American money is that it is too hard to tell the denominations of the bills apart at a glance. If they are going to start using different colors on different bills, good on them. Or they could go even one step further like the Euro and have different denomiations be slightly different sizes. I know this sounds wacky, but imagine trying to use American cash if you are blind.
Also... the article mentions 2-dollar bills. Since when have the States had Twos? We (Canada) got rid of ours almost a decade ago and the states is just starting to make them now? talk about behind the times. Or is that a joke?
yes... I was talking about the ability to tell the difference between american films and art.
also, I think the original article was actually talking about british films.
Re:Will we ever have *real* AI?
on
AI Going Nowhere?
·
· Score: 5, Funny
No one has ever been able to satisfactorily create/reproduce one.
My parents had no problem producing a brain; four in fact. Maybe I'll create some myself some day. I could tell you how but I'd need a signed note from your mom:).
Creating brains isn't hard; creating artificial brains is.
1. You read and are a registered member of Slashdot, therefore your intelligence is likely at least 40 points above the average population.
Really? Is that so? This is nothing but unfounded arrogance and propaganda. You fancy yourself well ahead of the curve (doesn't really matter whether you've been tested or not, so please don't tell me your score) and as such like to believe that all those who share your interests are well ahead of the curve as well. What makes you think that there is a correlation between being able to read and sign up on a website and intelligence? Not to mention the fact that the so-called Intelligence Quotient only measures logical problem solving and mathematical insight, a very tiny fraction of what could reasonably be considered intelligence. Or, as it has been put glibly many times before: It only measures your ability to do well on IQ tests. At a guess I would say that it is probably likely that the Slashdot crew would average above the norm on IQ tests (maybe 120 or so) seeing as a large proportion are programmers and that is a field where logical problem solving is an important skill. But what we are talking about here is appreciation of the arts. I won't argue that this may be a function of intelligence, but it is certainly not a function of the IQ type of intelligence.
2. This "successful movie formula" is geared for the masses, i.e., people with an IQ of approximately 100 or so.
IQ is statistically defined such that the mean is exactly 100.
I know that this post sounds dangerously like a flame, but the spreading of this IQ propaganda really irks me.
One of the big problems with our legal system is that it is easy to bully someone with a frivolous lawsuit when they can't afford the time or money to defend themselves. As the defendant pointed out, a lawsuit against AltaVista would have just as much justification behind it (little to none) but they didn't go after them because AltaVista can afford to defend themselves.
Something I have definitely noticed with initiatives like OSS which are still currently largely under the radar of the public is that those who are promoting them are screaming as loud as they can to get heard and will say whatever will get them a little attention. Things like "Linux won't cost you anything." "You never have to upgrade." "You get support forever."
All of these things have a kernel of truth to them, but when someone looks a little more deeply at the issue and sees that it's more complicated than that it makes the original statement seem deceptive. It should be noted that even after the author goes through all the myths put forward by OSS proponents he still in the end says that he believes Linux on the desktop offers a real cost savings over Windows.
1. Microsoft controlled architecture 2. Thumbprint scanner
Does anyone else see through this simple ploy on Microsoft's part to collect all of our biometric information? I bet their next computer requires a blood sample for verification.
The problem with chess as an AI problem is that it turns out there is a better way to play chess than the way humans play it. Due to constraints on mental processing, humans simply can not play with eight move look-ahead in multiple paths. Studies of grandmasters have suggested that most moves on the board they never even consider and that of those they consider they generally only look ahead two or someties three moves. The only time a grandmaster ever looks ahead more than about three moves is when they are trying to make sure that a complicated forced mate is actually a forced mate.
Chess is interesting to AI because it is a formal case of problem solving which is well understood and can be easily studied. Traditional AI researchers and adherents to more modern approaches such as connectionism both generally agree that problem solving is central to thought. A computer which simulates the way human beings play chess would be a tremendous breakthrough in AI. There are a few research projects which are attempting to do this (this one, for example). The problem is that early on in the Chess/AI initiative the goals became confused. As soon as computer chess began to show some promise, many AI researchers got diverted from the goal of trying to model human problem solving and got sucked in to the competitive game of trying to make a computer which is REALLY REALLY good at chess.
It so happens that with sufficiently powerful hardware, there exist algorithms which are extraordinarily good at chess yet which in no way model human problem solving. So long as the chess/AI initiative is primarily the pursuit of those algorithms chess will remain a non-interesting task to AI.
Slashdot Mirror
...which was interested in moving a few of their courses over to the web. I was hired to do much of the programming. At the end of the year when they did standardized tests and satisfaction surveys they found that the courses where they cut the in-class physical face time down to 20% of what it had been before and replaced that other 80% with interactive web content, the knowledge acquisition was almost identical and student satisfaction actually increased.
On the other hand, for the courses that they offered entirely on-line both knowledge acquisition (by performance on standaraduzed tests) and student satisfaction declined (something like 15 and 10 percent respectively, IIRC).
Now they have switched several other courses over completely to the 80/20 format, but offer fully on-line courses only as correspondence alternatives.
There is a pretty decent, no-reg-required story about it at news.com.au.
Yeah.. I have to say I'm not sure how radically different it is compared to just creating yourself a local web-site with a bunch of links to useful files and programs on it, particularly if you include cgi links to shell scripts and what not.
Perhaps even more significantly... how does this really differ from a decent OS or Desktop-Env? I mean in GNOME I can have a Mozilla window open in a quarter of my screen, a terminal window running Mutt in another corner, OpenOffice in another part and nautilus file browser for the rest, etc. The only thing that it seems to include that isn't easily accomplished by an intelligent custom set-up of Linux (or Windows or Mac for that matter) is the arbitrary associations between files and you could do that with a few clever applications of symlinks.
What I'm saying basically is that this package looks like it does some neat things, but it takes up a gig of space and a ton of memory when you could hack together something that works just as well for your individual purposes with almost no memory or storage overhead in a couple of hours if you know a scripting language.
he's got a good point.
I think most coders spend more time with one hand one the keyboard than they might think. Especially if they are using Windows and don't have the middle-click-as-copy thing going for them. There are a lot of cases where you want to be able to make simple command keystrokes while also using the mouse.
If these keyboards don't make it realatively easy to press any CTRL-(letter) combination with only the left hand, I could consider that a pitfall.
will slow down progress, yes. Because no matter how forward-thinking the people are who make the standards, there an infinite number of things that they can not anticipate.
But still, working within standards is necessary to bring past inventions and innovations to the masses.
Certainly, if you are working on some cutting edge project in the MIT AI labs, you don't need to worry too much about the RFCs. But ten years later when someone is trying to bring that product to the public, standards become tremendously important.
Lack of standards alowed the web to develop at an enormous rate, but then it was the introduction of standards that actually made it usable by the avergae person.
More specifically... As hardware gets more complex, software gets more complex to fill the available space. More complex software not only means more things to go wrong but also means that the hardware never really gets a chance to outpace the needs of the software.
Also, as I'm sure someone else will point out, it is very hard to right code that will not crash under any circumstances. Even if you are running a super-stripped down linux kernel in console mode on an Itanium, you can still get out of memory errors if someone behaves rudely with malloc().
Slashback tonight brings you updates on the future
That's a pretty good trick... care to tell me how you do it?
e) Who cares? everyone with any real cred still uses HTTP 1.0.
no... he was better too.
yeah. When I posted the grandparent comment, I knew I was asking for a bunch of "stupid canadian, look at the numbers" responses. I didn't say that I CAN'T tell the bills apart, I said it wasn't CONVENIENT. Here in Canada I can open my wallet and tell how much money I have by glancing in the top, even just seeing the edges of the bill. And I can make sure I get more or less the right change in a transaction just my noting the colors in the pile of money, without actually counting it.
Yes, compared to a lot of things (like proving Fermat's Last Theorem) differentiating American bills is a pretty easy task. But, considering how often everyone has to do it, you gain a lot of convenience by making it even easier.
I would like to see some sort of empirical study for how often people don't notice that they've been given the wrong change in the USA versus in Canada.
The post even said that it was 'official'.
Oh man, with all this contradiction, I'm going to have to stop believing things I read on the Internet... even Slashdot.
you see... waht with this being the internet, I still an't tell whether or not you are joking.
If there are two dollar bills are they a limited run, collectible currency thing like silver dollars? what do they look like? why have I never seen one?
No.. but they are edging more towards looking like canadian bills (or even euros). Seriously though, I've always found that one the problems with American money is that it is too hard to tell the denominations of the bills apart at a glance. If they are going to start using different colors on different bills, good on them. Or they could go even one step further like the Euro and have different denomiations be slightly different sizes. I know this sounds wacky, but imagine trying to use American cash if you are blind.
Also... the article mentions 2-dollar bills. Since when have the States had Twos? We (Canada) got rid of ours almost a decade ago and the states is just starting to make them now? talk about behind the times. Or is that a joke?
yes... I was talking about the ability to tell the difference between american films and art.
also, I think the original article was actually talking about british films.
No one has ever been able to satisfactorily create/reproduce one.
:).
My parents had no problem producing a brain; four in fact. Maybe I'll create some myself some day. I could tell you how but I'd need a signed note from your mom
Creating brains isn't hard; creating artificial brains is.
1. You read and are a registered member of Slashdot, therefore your intelligence is likely at least 40 points above the average population.
Really? Is that so? This is nothing but unfounded arrogance and propaganda. You fancy yourself well ahead of the curve (doesn't really matter whether you've been tested or not, so please don't tell me your score) and as such like to believe that all those who share your interests are well ahead of the curve as well. What makes you think that there is a correlation between being able to read and sign up on a website and intelligence? Not to mention the fact that the so-called Intelligence Quotient only measures logical problem solving and mathematical insight, a very tiny fraction of what could reasonably be considered intelligence. Or, as it has been put glibly many times before: It only measures your ability to do well on IQ tests. At a guess I would say that it is probably likely that the Slashdot crew would average above the norm on IQ tests (maybe 120 or so) seeing as a large proportion are programmers and that is a field where logical problem solving is an important skill. But what we are talking about here is appreciation of the arts. I won't argue that this may be a function of intelligence, but it is certainly not a function of the IQ type of intelligence.
2. This "successful movie formula" is geared for the masses, i.e., people with an IQ of approximately 100 or so.
IQ is statistically defined such that the mean is exactly 100.
I know that this post sounds dangerously like a flame, but the spreading of this IQ propaganda really irks me.
I think the acronym you were looking for was:
Somewhat Lousy Advertising Supporting Hypocrisy
Not that I agree with you, but it would have been funnier that way.
One of the big problems with our legal system is that it is easy to bully someone with a frivolous lawsuit when they can't afford the time or money to defend themselves. As the defendant pointed out, a lawsuit against AltaVista would have just as much justification behind it (little to none) but they didn't go after them because AltaVista can afford to defend themselves.
Something I have definitely noticed with initiatives like OSS which are still currently largely under the radar of the public is that those who are promoting them are screaming as loud as they can to get heard and will say whatever will get them a little attention. Things like "Linux won't cost you anything." "You never have to upgrade." "You get support forever."
All of these things have a kernel of truth to them, but when someone looks a little more deeply at the issue and sees that it's more complicated than that it makes the original statement seem deceptive. It should be noted that even after the author goes through all the myths put forward by OSS proponents he still in the end says that he believes Linux on the desktop offers a real cost savings over Windows.
'twas a joke... a parody.
ah well, tongue in cheek doesn't always come across perfectly on the ol' Internet.
Hmmm...
1. Microsoft controlled architecture
2. Thumbprint scanner
Does anyone else see through this simple ploy on Microsoft's part to collect all of our biometric information? I bet their next computer requires a blood sample for verification.
we don't use integers around here. the whole thing is coded in unary.
The problem with chess as an AI problem is that it turns out there is a better way to play chess than the way humans play it. Due to constraints on mental processing, humans simply can not play with eight move look-ahead in multiple paths. Studies of grandmasters have suggested that most moves on the board they never even consider and that of those they consider they generally only look ahead two or someties three moves. The only time a grandmaster ever looks ahead more than about three moves is when they are trying to make sure that a complicated forced mate is actually a forced mate.
Chess is interesting to AI because it is a formal case of problem solving which is well understood and can be easily studied. Traditional AI researchers and adherents to more modern approaches such as connectionism both generally agree that problem solving is central to thought. A computer which simulates the way human beings play chess would be a tremendous breakthrough in AI. There are a few research projects which are attempting to do this (this one, for example). The problem is that early on in the Chess/AI initiative the goals became confused. As soon as computer chess began to show some promise, many AI researchers got diverted from the goal of trying to model human problem solving and got sucked in to the competitive game of trying to make a computer which is REALLY REALLY good at chess.
It so happens that with sufficiently powerful hardware, there exist algorithms which are extraordinarily good at chess yet which in no way model human problem solving. So long as the chess/AI initiative is primarily the pursuit of those algorithms chess will remain a non-interesting task to AI.
transient0
cognitive scientist
Aw man... you're not old school! I'm old school!
I'm still using IPv0.62. I mean seriously, who had this stupid idea of periods in IP addresses. IPv6 holds no appeal for me, I'm waiting for IP XP.
I know... it was a joke.