My fault - there is a missing greek (I always think that should be geek) letter before the comma and I didn't see that the gt lt signs had been removed.
In this case though the point is do you think that anyone would have suggested a dmr day without the same having been done for Steve Jobs. It''s not about stealing anyones thunder.
On Dennis Ritchie: A conversation with Brian Kerni
on
Dennis Ritchie Day
·
· Score: 3, Informative
You would need a physical simulation - i.e.something that does real material, friction, gravity etc. - to be certain that the thing would actually work.
This is a lot of gears, levers and connecting rods and it isn't obvious that it could be made to work.
Yes I heard that it was to be run using a steam engine and the question was could it over come the friction in all of the parts to make it work.
Still it would have been good to have been able to shout "more coal we are just getting the the heavy compuation"
It would also give the term "crash" an even more physical interpretation.
Being serious for a moment it really is an open question whether or not you can implement an computer using macro mechanical parts i.e the technology of the 19th century. What you can build in theory might not be possible in practice due to friction and tolerances in the parts. Even if you use 21st century technology to manufacture the components to high precision - the steam engine still might not be able to turn the shaft and cycle the machine though its various states.
If the thing can be built it will prove that the Victorians didn't invent the computer simply because they didn't get behind the project not because it was out of reach.
Sorry my fault - I latched onto Babbage's birth date and wrote 18th century for 1791.
The article does say 1880s and that is indeed the 19th century.
Will try harder in future even if I have only just got used to the idea that it is the 21st century....:-)
Can you say who it was?
Also what is ground breaking about this is that the depth data made the task of learning so much easier.
They had a range of activities and the training data was fairly limited for the task and yet it seems to work.
It seems to be a general rule that depth data makes a lot of vision tasks much easier.
Slashdot Mirror
Another view and more info: A New Chromebook - Is This The Tipping Point? http://www.i-programmer.info/news/126-os/4963-a-new-chromebook-is-this-the-tipping-point.html
My fault - there is a missing greek (I always think that should be geek) letter before the comma and I didn't see that the gt lt signs had been removed.
have a look at http://www.i-programmer.info/news/177-windows-8/4198-mozilla-microsoft-is-blocking-browser-choice-again.html which attempts to explain it.
The non-expert thinks that mechanical computer = calculating machine
See: http://www.i-programmer.info/news/112-theory/4090-the-physical-travelling-salesman-challenge.html for a short explanation of why its different.
Once you have a NOT gate you simply put it after an OR and you have a NOR.
The AND gate also produces NOT X AND Y and X AND NOT Y outputs. All you have to do is hold Y high and you have a NOT X gate.
AI at the Crossroads - predicting who is going to run a red light
Yes it was the test you had to pass to get into the class... but now you have blown it by going public it has been corrected!
In this case though the point is do you think that anyone would have suggested a dmr day without the same having been done for Steve Jobs. It''s not about stealing anyones thunder.
This has just appeared: On Dennis Ritchie: A conversation with Brian Kernighan
The interesting bit is the sudden rise in the demand for .NET.
That is more difficult to explain.
No you can write Metro apps in C# and VB but you can't use the .NET framework.
.NET languages but not the framework. Also if you want to create a component you need to use C++ which is the only language that can do the job.
And your point is? I agreed I made a mistake - gave the reason for it and you are telling me again I was wrong...
You would need a physical simulation - i.e.something that does real material, friction, gravity etc. - to be certain that the thing would actually work. This is a lot of gears, levers and connecting rods and it isn't obvious that it could be made to work.
Not that I've found...
They already have and I've already explained how I made the mistake - see earlier comments.
Yes I heard that it was to be run using a steam engine and the question was could it over come the friction in all of the parts to make it work. Still it would have been good to have been able to shout "more coal we are just getting the the heavy compuation" It would also give the term "crash" an even more physical interpretation. Being serious for a moment it really is an open question whether or not you can implement an computer using macro mechanical parts i.e the technology of the 19th century. What you can build in theory might not be possible in practice due to friction and tolerances in the parts. Even if you use 21st century technology to manufacture the components to high precision - the steam engine still might not be able to turn the shaft and cycle the machine though its various states. If the thing can be built it will prove that the Victorians didn't invent the computer simply because they didn't get behind the project not because it was out of reach.
It should provide good hard evidence of prior art.... Now if only they could find an brass iPhone design in his papers.
Sorry my fault - I latched onto Babbage's birth date and wrote 18th century for 1791. The article does say 1880s and that is indeed the 19th century. Will try harder in future even if I have only just got used to the idea that it is the 21st century.... :-)
I think that the idea that these fashions will catch on to stop day to day facial recognition quite reasonable. See: CV Dazzle
Thanks I'll look up the details.
Can you say who it was? Also what is ground breaking about this is that the depth data made the task of learning so much easier. They had a range of activities and the training data was fairly limited for the task and yet it seems to work. It seems to be a general rule that depth data makes a lot of vision tasks much easier.
as if :-)