What I'm saying is, why bother with advances toward photorealism such as hair simulation and advanced underwater effects if every one of your characters is designed to look like a stuffed animal or 3d rendering of a Disney character?
Well, could that that the creative angle they're going for? Having some realistic things in terms of world physics with characters that would be impossible for real actors to pull off?
Because games can provide real world analogues. Yeah, I'm going to invoke Nash and his game theory. When he was studying at princeton, a large portion of the mathematicians there played games, some of which were invented at princeton based on some mathematical notion of some sort. Lots of those dumb little puzzles that you see in hobby shops have rigorous mathematical treatments. Moreover, a classic problem in computer science is to reduce one problem to another, so imagine taking a real world problem and modeling it as a simpler problem with the same characteristics. Say, a game. If you can analyze the game, then you've got at least a suitable starting point for analyzing the real world problem that you're actually interested in. Now, I don't know what practical application that knowing the approximation characteristics of optimizing parts of a tetris game are, but of the cuff I could see it having applications in packing problems or flow control (particles through a pipe?).
So, to answer your assertion that these studies are getting dumber and dumber by the day, I'd counter that while it may not produce immediate practical results, I could see this analysis being used elsewhere.
Currently at MIT doing CS Grad studies. Both of my professors are excellent lecturers and the different between them and the vast majority of my professors at my previous institution are staggering.
Surely China could manage the same sort of advance SOMETIME in the 5000 years it has been civilized. Clearly someone like Mao had the power.
He tried, and failed.
Clearly, he didn't.
Agreed, not taking advantage of pre-existing research is dumb, but there might be some novel ideas in the new chip, which is what I was having a beef with.
I agree with you about research being more conducive in the West due to government structure, but I also disagree with the assessment of the post that I replied to that there probably isn't anything original in the processor based merely on the fact that it comes out of China.
I also did not flame the west in any way. I flamed the parent more than I flamed the west.
There is no way that this chip is completly original anyway. All the know-how on developing it probably came from the U.S. or Europe. All you would need is a few textbooks, datasheets, and a few good engineers for development. With enough time/money any company or government could develop their own CPU.
Because, you know the Chinese or any of those other Asian countries have no originality. Only Westerners are creative.
As happens so often, it's not the data that's important, it's the analysis that matters. Which is the case here./. had the info, and Declan analyzed it.
Correct, and not correct... the tools you cited were indeed developed by support people not directly involved in the research of AI, but I was talking about other things, such as clustering algorithms, face recognition, finger print identification, planning algorithms, scheduling algorithms, etc. Those are all AI offshoots. The stuff you cited are applications, but have no real AI contribution. And not to diss Stallman or anything, but he was a "staff hacker" as he put it. He worked at the AI labs, but his contributions to AI was analogous to a secretary's contribution to the performance of a CEO.
It's a combination of both lack of exercise and too many carbohydrates + a greasy diet. Most people want the simple cure all solution to keep healthy (note that I said healthy, not thin), and it's simply not any one thing. Nor is the cause any one thing.
It's not that AI has failed, it's just that it has failed in the "HAL 9000" sense of the term and had unexpected success in other areas. Most modern algorithms and stuff that have to deal with a certain amount of instability in the world owe their success to thousands of AI researchers bashing their heads against a wall in the vain hopes of creating artificial life but coming up with all sorts of interesting observations and ideas to deal with specific problems. For example, slashdot ran a story on this little machine. You can sure as shit bet that the software involved in causing that thing to walk has at least a little bit of algorithms and ideas incorporated into it from research in AI.
Which is that the RIAA simply does not understand the tech industry or technology.
It's like allowing an 18 year old with a basic knowledge of physics to decide regulations for bridge building.
For a less abstract analogy, I know that my television has been stolen from me. I don't know who, but I know it had to be someone in my neighborhood. Using the RIAA as a model, I should be able to go into each of my neighbor's houses to look for this television, without their permission. And if I have a strong suspicion that I have found the violator, I am allowed to destroy the house. That's basically what the RIAA wants.
We had a problem in the lab I work in with people keeping their ringers on; so we put out a policy that all phones must be on vibrate. That worked for about 5 days until people started forgetting. What made the situation worse was that people would leave cells on their desks while they went to the bathroom or went to smoke.
One day, this guy and his gf were out for a smoke and his cell went off four times. The second and third times it went off I picked up for him and hung up. The fourth time I decided to hide it. By now I was pretty pissed, so with the help of a friend, we hid it in one of the flourescent lightbulb cieling lights. This one you had to lift the bulb out of the socket to get the cell under the light. And we left it there. He came back about 10 minutes later and we had one of the guys in the lab who had his number ring his cell. When he realized that his cell was gone and he had no idea where it was, the fun began. It took him about a minute to identify the area the phone was in and then another 2 to figure out that it was above him. Meanwhile, the entire lab is laughing their asses off at them, myself especially.
The cells were on vibrate pretty regularly for a while, but every once in a while, someone slips up. And then I strike, much to the bemusement of the rest of the lab. It's a fun challenge finding inventive places to stash a cellphone. Next time, I plan on removing the chip from the back. In anycase, the whole lab is now so terrified that when they forget to put their cell phones on vibrate and they get a call, they pick it up in about.25s, look at me, and say "I got it!"
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, the reaction of the /. crowd doesn't fit the impact of the crime. In fact, it's completely opposite.
ba dum psh.
What happens if this thing finds an underground cavern? How does it react?
... survive the drop?
1) Does it attempt to backup and go around?
2) Drop into the cavern
3)
4) Get back to the surface?
As George Carlin put it, "The _Planet_ is fine. The _people_ are fucked."
Imagine the poor soul that takes the time to read this entire agreement and winds up missing his flight. :-)
You can get the media formats in QuickTime, Windows Media, and RealMedia. On the disney site at least. The apple site is different.
Well, could that that the creative angle they're going for? Having some realistic things in terms of world physics with characters that would be impossible for real actors to pull off?
I do believe that you go to my Alma Mater. As far as I know, they own everything that I wrote there... least the stuff I told them about. :-)
I'll attribute the other 23% to other factors as well as the riaa.
:-)
One of the other factors that comes to mind is the lemming-like-stupidity of alot of people.
Because games can provide real world analogues. Yeah, I'm going to invoke Nash and his game theory. When he was studying at princeton, a large portion of the mathematicians there played games, some of which were invented at princeton based on some mathematical notion of some sort. Lots of those dumb little puzzles that you see in hobby shops have rigorous mathematical treatments. Moreover, a classic problem in computer science is to reduce one problem to another, so imagine taking a real world problem and modeling it as a simpler problem with the same characteristics. Say, a game. If you can analyze the game, then you've got at least a suitable starting point for analyzing the real world problem that you're actually interested in. Now, I don't know what practical application that knowing the approximation characteristics of optimizing parts of a tetris game are, but of the cuff I could see it having applications in packing problems or flow control (particles through a pipe?).
So, to answer your assertion that these studies are getting dumber and dumber by the day, I'd counter that while it may not produce immediate practical results, I could see this analysis being used elsewhere.
Which was is it swirling? :-)
-1: Stupid
Agreed, maybe it's just the fresh atmosphere.
Currently at MIT doing CS Grad studies. Both of my professors are excellent lecturers and the different between them and the vast majority of my professors at my previous institution are staggering.
Surely China could manage the same sort of advance SOMETIME in the 5000 years it has been civilized. Clearly someone like Mao had the power. He tried, and failed. Clearly, he didn't.
The difference is that IRIS is developed by MIT and Freenet isn't.
You can take that as either a sarcastic or serious comment. I think it's a little of both.
Agreed, not taking advantage of pre-existing research is dumb, but there might be some novel ideas in the new chip, which is what I was having a beef with.
I agree with you about research being more conducive in the West due to government structure, but I also disagree with the assessment of the post that I replied to that there probably isn't anything original in the processor based merely on the fact that it comes out of China.
I also did not flame the west in any way. I flamed the parent more than I flamed the west.
Because, you know the Chinese or any of those other Asian countries have no originality. Only Westerners are creative.
This discussion is now over in accordance with Godwin's Law. :-)
As happens so often, it's not the data that's important, it's the analysis that matters. Which is the case here. /. had the info, and Declan analyzed it.
Correct, and not correct... the tools you cited were indeed developed by support people not directly involved in the research of AI, but I was talking about other things, such as clustering algorithms, face recognition, finger print identification, planning algorithms, scheduling algorithms, etc. Those are all AI offshoots. The stuff you cited are applications, but have no real AI contribution. And not to diss Stallman or anything, but he was a "staff hacker" as he put it. He worked at the AI labs, but his contributions to AI was analogous to a secretary's contribution to the performance of a CEO.
It's a combination of both lack of exercise and too many carbohydrates + a greasy diet. Most people want the simple cure all solution to keep healthy (note that I said healthy, not thin), and it's simply not any one thing. Nor is the cause any one thing.
Sounds a bit like science in general; ie: looking for something else and stumbling onto a whole slew of other things.
It's not that AI has failed, it's just that it has failed in the "HAL 9000" sense of the term and had unexpected success in other areas. Most modern algorithms and stuff that have to deal with a certain amount of instability in the world owe their success to thousands of AI researchers bashing their heads against a wall in the vain hopes of creating artificial life but coming up with all sorts of interesting observations and ideas to deal with specific problems. For example, slashdot ran a story on this little machine. You can sure as shit bet that the software involved in causing that thing to walk has at least a little bit of algorithms and ideas incorporated into it from research in AI.
Which is that the RIAA simply does not understand the tech industry or technology.
It's like allowing an 18 year old with a basic knowledge of physics to decide regulations for bridge building.
For a less abstract analogy, I know that my television has been stolen from me. I don't know who, but I know it had to be someone in my neighborhood. Using the RIAA as a model, I should be able to go into each of my neighbor's houses to look for this television, without their permission. And if I have a strong suspicion that I have found the violator, I am allowed to destroy the house. That's basically what the RIAA wants.
We had a problem in the lab I work in with people keeping their ringers on; so we put out a policy that all phones must be on vibrate. That worked for about 5 days until people started forgetting. What made the situation worse was that people would leave cells on their desks while they went to the bathroom or went to smoke.
.25s, look at me, and say "I got it!"
:-)
One day, this guy and his gf were out for a smoke and his cell went off four times. The second and third times it went off I picked up for him and hung up. The fourth time I decided to hide it. By now I was pretty pissed, so with the help of a friend, we hid it in one of the flourescent lightbulb cieling lights. This one you had to lift the bulb out of the socket to get the cell under the light. And we left it there. He came back about 10 minutes later and we had one of the guys in the lab who had his number ring his cell. When he realized that his cell was gone and he had no idea where it was, the fun began. It took him about a minute to identify the area the phone was in and then another 2 to figure out that it was above him. Meanwhile, the entire lab is laughing their asses off at them, myself especially.
The cells were on vibrate pretty regularly for a while, but every once in a while, someone slips up. And then I strike, much to the bemusement of the rest of the lab. It's a fun challenge finding inventive places to stash a cellphone. Next time, I plan on removing the chip from the back. In anycase, the whole lab is now so terrified that when they forget to put their cell phones on vibrate and they get a call, they pick it up in about
The lab has quieted down quite a bit.