> Is it also immoral to get up to take a leak during a television commercial? Or to use "technological means" to flip to another station?
The main difference between web ads and a television commercial is that the tv commercial has already been paid for. Slashdot, or most any other site, don't get paid for showing ads unless people look/clickthrough/whatever. So if you don't look at the ads, the website you patronize for free doesn't get paid, and you don't get to read it anymore when they go under. Just imagine what would happen if viewers had to watch a commercial for NBC to get paid. And you think not being able to skip ads on DVDs is annoying...
It's funny how when Mindcraft posted its benchmarks, backed by "facts," the posts here blasted them. At least they had NUMBERS to back up their assertions. Why do John Carmack's posts always seem to be moderated up? There is NO factual support in this post. How much is FAR more? To me, 200,000 is a lot of money. It's also more money than many dot-coms have ever made in profit.(MVP, Mercata, Pets, Amazon). I'm sure it's a lot of money to them. So how FAR is FAR? 300,000? 400,000?
Where are the flaims (besides this one) blasting him for vague generalizations and unsupported arguments? Just because he's good at 3D engines doesn't make him an expert in all things computer related. You should know better people...
The 733 G4 was not as fast as my 1 ghz PIII in any of the trouble areas.
Apple is doing a lot of good work, but the CPU's just aren't as fast as the x86 ones.
AltiVec can compensate in some cases, because it is way, way easier to program for than SSE, but it takes a very simple batched, computation intensive task for it to pay off in any noticable way. Amdahls law and all that.
We did a couple functions with AltiVec, but they didn't make much difference.
Video encoding and large image processing are two areas that it can pay off, because you may be spending 90%+ of your time in one page of code.
Even then, it takes a special balance to let a G4 come out ahead, because it has less memory bandwidthd than a high end x86 system.
I finally got around to programming in Altivec support for Quake3 1.27h. If you have a G4 you'll certainly want to flex that velocity engine! I think this safely puts the G4 ahead of the PC. I'll probably post this tomorrow.
We have in the office a G4/533 with a GeForce2 card. It's a very very nice setup.
Graeme.
It would seem the two of you are at odds over this little issue.
Considering that what they're looking at is already at least 3 billion years old when the light reached us, I'm pretty sure more than just dinosaurs would have happened.
What's Doug Miller supposed to say? "Linux kicks our ass in everything that counts." 1 Hour Later Hi, umm RedHat? Yeah, do you have any openings for a group product manager of competitive strategies?
This guy works in the Competitive Strategy group. That's what Microsoft's whole competitive strategy is, FUD. Plus the whole embrace and extend thing.
but mass acceptance of HDTV is as far off as mass acceptance of DVD recorders
So you mean that in 6 years everyone will only be able to buy DVD recorders? 2007 is, afterall, the last year that TV manufacturers can make non-HDTVs.
Last night my friend got arrested because he went to the local QuickieMart to see if they were open. The lights were on and the store is located on public property, but the store was closed. Nevertheless, ADT had to spend time trying to figure out whether or not the window was broken. They're about to file a lawsuit for damages arising from their lost time. My friend is still in jail because the police think he must be a criminal, any law-abiding citizen would never have tested the door in the first place.
When you have to describe a particular method of doing something, do you
A. Draw lots of pictures?
B. Use numbered steps with words?
It's all about abstraction. If I wanted to waste my days programming in assembly (the command line) I could. I may get stuff accomplished, I may not. Or I could spend my day using a higher level language like Java/C++/Perl (the gui). In which language would I get more work accomplished? The one with the higher level of abstraction. That's why we have gui's. Most people don't care to "rm -rf/usr/home/myFolder" when all they want to do is "throw myFolder into the trash."
Similarly, opening a folder in a gui is an abstraction on top of the commands "cd/usr/home/myFolder; ls -la". For a majority of the people, and a majority of the time, if I open a folder, I damn well want to look at what's inside it. Why make me spend the effort to do both?
Command lines do have their uses, as do lower level languages, however, people worshipping CLI's above GUI's are strikingly similar to the idiots who feel smart/clever/genius programmers only code with "mov $a,$b add $c,$f,$g jne $1,$2,$3"
Not having notes or a textbook in front of me, I'm making the assertion (or assumption) that a Turing machine can simulate all finite state machines. In my response to the original post
...then you have to also prove that humans are not themselves simply elaborate finite state machines. I don't think you can do this.
If, according to the halting problem, a Turing machine ( or its equivalent) cannot determine whether a given program halts or not, and a human can, that human cannot be a finite state machine, no matter how "fiendishly complex."
So if you take this program Begin
i=0
While ( i is less than 10 )
i=i+1
End While
End
and you can figure out that this program terminates then congratulations, you're not a machine. I figured out that it halts, so I cannot be a Turing machine nor can I be a "fiendishly complex" finite state machine. Make the program as complex as you wish, a human will still be able to determine whether it terminates or not. "Likely not correct" and mathematically proven (the Halting problem) are quite different.
Consider this: if you're determined to prove that machines are fundamentally different from humans in some way that makes them ineligable for intelligence, then you have to also prove that humans are not themselves simply elaborate finite state machines. I don't think you can do this.
As I stated in this comment, humans can decide whether an algorithm/loop/procedure will terminate (or not) depending on inputs. Machines cannot. I'll look up the exact theorem/law/axiom when I get home tonight.
So how would you convincingly demonstrate that something is intelligent in a way that would distinguish a human from a machine that could communicate with you in such a way that it is indistinguishable from communication with a human? Are there non communication-based ways of judging whether something is intelligent?
If I recall correctly from my automata theory class, it is impossible for a machine to determine whether a given algorithm/function/procedure/loop terminates or not. So it would seem that you could figure out whether it was a machine (or at the very least a stupid human) by asking a statistically significant amount of "does this loop terminate or not?" questions.
I'd image that the wobble of the Earth on its axis throughout time would introduce some sort of error in pointing to true North. The same wobble that causes such vast temperature variations ( read: Ice Age).
Revenue for AS/400 and S/390 systems continuing to decline slowly through 2005 as in previous forecasts - both AS/400 and S/390 will remain viable investments throughout the next five years -- For what, pre-y2k accounting packages that drive dot-matrix printers?!
How so? Does calling for a boycott of your publisher negate their obligation to pay your royalties? Is this something written into these kinds of contracts?
How do you get royalties for something that doesn't sell? That's the intended result of a boycott, correct? Not buying something. You can't get royalties from something that nobody buys. And if it doesn't sell, it doesn't get published any longer. Usually, if an author wants money from one of his/her published works, he/she encourages people to buy one. If you tell people not to buy one, the royalty checks stop coming in.
What exactly would be the most prohibitive problems with starting an "Open Source" DNS? Seeing as how I'm shooting an unresearched, off-the-hip question I'm probably begging to be flamed, but as far as I know, my ISP is responsible for providing me with a DNS. Is there anything preventing them from starting their own dns servers with their own tables? Or for that matter, referring to a master DNS not run by NSI. Ignoring the whole issue about wide-spread use and consistency, this might be possible. It may take a while, but most worthwhile things do.
If you don't like a piece of software, write your own. If you don't like an OS, write your own. If you don't like a service, write your own. The same holds true here. If you don't like the way NSI works, build your own. Afterall, they did it with that openCDDB thing, and secondly with the cue cat. Why not this? No need to answer to NSI or ICANN, just start up your own movement to provide DNS service. Give out domains for free. Develop as many TLD's as you want. It would just need an organized effort, as with any grass-roots endeavor. Linux caught on eventually, why not this?
3) A "digital audio recording device" is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use...
Napster is a device commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, which is designed for the primary purpose of making digital audio copied recordings for private use.
(1) A "digital audio copied recording" is a reproduction in a digital recording format of a digital musical recording, whether that reproduction is made directly from another digital musical recording or indirectly from a transmission.
Sounds like a dead-on match to watch Napster does. Napster makes the reproduction of another digital musical recording, either directly or indirectly, regardless of your interpretation of direct and indirect.
Once you record music onto the digital music medium it becomes a digital music recording. This is what the actual MP3 song files would fall under.
The Mp3 is the digital music recording, Napster is the device that makes the digital music copied recording for private use.
Seems like Napster is hardly illegal now, doesn't it?
I think perhaps you may have missed the word in bold below. It appears in the original paragraph. Think before you post, maybe?
This doesn't say anything about distribution of digital music recordings. Napster is a service that facilitates the distribution of digital music recordings, not the creation of them. As far as I can tell, this section would in no way protect Napster or Napster users.
Original quotation...
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
I'll bite.
Just to rehash some of the latest Mac games to come out in the "dead gaming market." Unreal Tournament. Quake3. The Sims. Diablo2. Deus Ex. Heavy Metal is being ported. Rune as well. And maybe you missed the news releases from Bungie about Halo and how it's being developed for the PC and Mac, in addition to the X-box.
Which brings me to the gaming graphics cards being released. 3dfx's Voodoo5, ATI's Radeon. Nvidia will also be releasing a card.
Just because we don't get a lot of PC games that are crap doesn't mean the market is dead.
From what I've read on the issue, the G5, or the MPC7400+, I might be confusing the two, are supposed to feature multiple cores. Meaning, the next generation of chips is rumored/surmised to contain 4 G4 cores on 1 chip. Thus, a dual or quad G5 would not make much sense in a consumer machine, seeing that you'd have 8 or 16 G4 cores in total 1 machine. A prohibitive cost for one, and a prohibitive waste of chips with the current level of multi-thread-ability (or lack thereof) of most applications.
This point is moot if I've indeed confused the 7400+ and the G5. I can't seem to find any up-to-date articles on the subject. The archives on Mackido concerning the G5 are from September 1999.
Slashdot Mirror
> Is it also immoral to get up to take a leak during a television commercial? Or to use "technological means" to flip to another station?
The main difference between web ads and a television commercial is that the tv commercial has already been paid for. Slashdot, or most any other site, don't get paid for showing ads unless people look/clickthrough/whatever. So if you don't look at the ads, the website you patronize for free doesn't get paid, and you don't get to read it anymore when they go under. Just imagine what would happen if viewers had to watch a commercial for NBC to get paid. And you think not being able to skip ads on DVDs is annoying...
Uh, no. Half Life made FAR more than that.
It's funny how when Mindcraft posted its benchmarks, backed by "facts," the posts here blasted them. At least they had NUMBERS to back up their assertions. Why do John Carmack's posts always seem to be moderated up? There is NO factual support in this post. How much is FAR more? To me, 200,000 is a lot of money. It's also more money than many dot-coms have ever made in profit.(MVP, Mercata, Pets, Amazon). I'm sure it's a lot of money to them. So how FAR is FAR? 300,000? 400,000?
Where are the flaims (besides this one) blasting him for vague generalizations and unsupported arguments? Just because he's good at 3D engines doesn't make him an expert in all things computer related. You should know better people...
Can you contrast your comments
The 733 G4 was not as fast as my 1 ghz PIII in any of the trouble areas. Apple is doing a lot of good work, but the CPU's just aren't as fast as the x86 ones. AltiVec can compensate in some cases, because it is way, way easier to program for than SSE, but it takes a very simple batched, computation intensive task for it to pay off in any noticable way. Amdahls law and all that. We did a couple functions with AltiVec, but they didn't make much difference. Video encoding and large image processing are two areas that it can pay off, because you may be spending 90%+ of your time in one page of code. Even then, it takes a special balance to let a G4 come out ahead, because it has less memory bandwidthd than a high end x86 system.
With those of graeme devine as posted on insidemacgames.
I finally got around to programming in Altivec support for Quake3 1.27h. If you have a G4 you'll certainly want to flex that velocity engine! I think this safely puts the G4 ahead of the PC. I'll probably post this tomorrow. We have in the office a G4/533 with a GeForce2 card. It's a very very nice setup. Graeme.
It would seem the two of you are at odds over this little issue.
Considering that what they're looking at is already at least 3 billion years old when the light reached us, I'm pretty sure more than just dinosaurs would have happened.
What's Doug Miller supposed to say?
"Linux kicks our ass in everything that counts."
1 Hour Later
Hi, umm RedHat? Yeah, do you have any openings for a group product manager of competitive strategies?
This guy works in the Competitive Strategy group. That's what Microsoft's whole competitive strategy is, FUD. Plus the whole embrace and extend thing.
but mass acceptance of HDTV is as far off as mass acceptance of DVD recorders
So you mean that in 6 years everyone will only be able to buy DVD recorders? 2007 is, afterall, the last year that TV manufacturers can make non-HDTVs.
Ironic, considering that the Catholic church has the largest collection of pornography in the world.
Last night my friend got arrested because he went to the local QuickieMart to see if they were open. The lights were on and the store is located on public property, but the store was closed. Nevertheless, ADT had to spend time trying to figure out whether or not the window was broken. They're about to file a lawsuit for damages arising from their lost time. My friend is still in jail because the police think he must be a criminal, any law-abiding citizen would never have tested the door in the first place.
When you have to describe a particular method of doing something, do you A. Draw lots of pictures? B. Use numbered steps with words?
/usr/home/myFolder" when all they want to do is "throw myFolder into the trash." /usr/home/myFolder; ls -la". For a majority of the people, and a majority of the time, if I open a folder, I damn well want to look at what's inside it. Why make me spend the effort to do both?
It's all about abstraction. If I wanted to waste my days programming in assembly (the command line) I could. I may get stuff accomplished, I may not. Or I could spend my day using a higher level language like Java/C++/Perl (the gui). In which language would I get more work accomplished? The one with the higher level of abstraction. That's why we have gui's. Most people don't care to "rm -rf
Similarly, opening a folder in a gui is an abstraction on top of the commands "cd
Command lines do have their uses, as do lower level languages, however, people worshipping CLI's above GUI's are strikingly similar to the idiots who feel smart/clever/genius programmers only code with "mov $a,$b add $c,$f,$g jne $1,$2,$3"
Not having notes or a textbook in front of me, I'm making the assertion (or assumption) that a Turing machine can simulate all finite state machines. In my response to the original post
...then you have to also prove that humans are not themselves simply elaborate finite state machines. I don't think you can do this.
If, according to the halting problem, a Turing machine ( or its equivalent) cannot determine whether a given program halts or not, and a human can, that human cannot be a finite state machine, no matter how "fiendishly complex."
So if you take this program
Begin
i=0
While ( i is less than 10 )
i=i+1
End While
End
and you can figure out that this program terminates then congratulations, you're not a machine. I figured out that it halts, so I cannot be a Turing machine nor can I be a "fiendishly complex" finite state machine. Make the program as complex as you wish, a human will still be able to determine whether it terminates or not. "Likely not correct" and mathematically proven (the Halting problem) are quite different.
Consider this: if you're determined to prove that machines are fundamentally different from humans in some way that makes them ineligable for intelligence, then you have to also prove that humans are not themselves simply elaborate finite state machines. I don't think you can do this.
As I stated in this comment, humans can decide whether an algorithm/loop/procedure will terminate (or not) depending on inputs. Machines cannot. I'll look up the exact theorem/law/axiom when I get home tonight.
So how would you convincingly demonstrate that something is intelligent in a way that would distinguish a human from a machine that could communicate with you in such a way that it is indistinguishable from communication with a human? Are there non communication-based ways of judging whether something is intelligent?
If I recall correctly from my automata theory class, it is impossible for a machine to determine whether a given algorithm/function/procedure/loop terminates or not. So it would seem that you could figure out whether it was a machine (or at the very least a stupid human) by asking a statistically significant amount of "does this loop terminate or not?" questions.
I'd image that the wobble of the Earth on its axis throughout time would introduce some sort of error in pointing to true North. The same wobble that causes such vast temperature variations ( read: Ice Age).
Revenue for AS/400 and S/390 systems continuing to decline slowly through 2005 as in previous forecasts - both AS/400 and S/390 will remain viable investments throughout the next five years -- For what, pre-y2k accounting packages that drive dot-matrix printers?!
For Java. Seeing as how it shattered some Java benchmarks by an order of magnitude.
How so? Does calling for a boycott of your publisher negate their obligation to pay your royalties? Is this something written into these kinds of contracts?
How do you get royalties for something that doesn't sell? That's the intended result of a boycott, correct? Not buying something. You can't get royalties from something that nobody buys. And if it doesn't sell, it doesn't get published any longer. Usually, if an author wants money from one of his/her published works, he/she encourages people to buy one. If you tell people not to buy one, the royalty checks stop coming in.
What exactly would be the most prohibitive problems with starting an "Open Source" DNS? Seeing as how I'm shooting an unresearched, off-the-hip question I'm probably begging to be flamed, but as far as I know, my ISP is responsible for providing me with a DNS. Is there anything preventing them from starting their own dns servers with their own tables? Or for that matter, referring to a master DNS not run by NSI. Ignoring the whole issue about wide-spread use and consistency, this might be possible. It may take a while, but most worthwhile things do.
If you don't like a piece of software, write your own. If you don't like an OS, write your own. If you don't like a service, write your own. The same holds true here. If you don't like the way NSI works, build your own. Afterall, they did it with that openCDDB thing, and secondly with the cue cat. Why not this? No need to answer to NSI or ICANN, just start up your own movement to provide DNS service. Give out domains for free. Develop as many TLD's as you want. It would just need an organized effort, as with any grass-roots endeavor. Linux caught on eventually, why not this?
I'll bite. Just to rehash some of the latest Mac games to come out in the "dead gaming market." Unreal Tournament. Quake3. The Sims. Diablo2. Deus Ex. Heavy Metal is being ported. Rune as well. And maybe you missed the news releases from Bungie about Halo and how it's being developed for the PC and Mac, in addition to the X-box. Which brings me to the gaming graphics cards being released. 3dfx's Voodoo5, ATI's Radeon. Nvidia will also be releasing a card. Just because we don't get a lot of PC games that are crap doesn't mean the market is dead.
From what I've read on the issue, the G5, or the MPC7400+, I might be confusing the two, are supposed to feature multiple cores. Meaning, the next generation of chips is rumored/surmised to contain 4 G4 cores on 1 chip. Thus, a dual or quad G5 would not make much sense in a consumer machine, seeing that you'd have 8 or 16 G4 cores in total 1 machine. A prohibitive cost for one, and a prohibitive waste of chips with the current level of multi-thread-ability (or lack thereof) of most applications. This point is moot if I've indeed confused the 7400+ and the G5. I can't seem to find any up-to-date articles on the subject. The archives on Mackido concerning the G5 are from September 1999.
According to Webster's, they're synonomous. http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=mic rometer