Games (re halflife, or c&c) dont actually learn at all, afaik.
They are simply programmed to behave in a certain way (like a chess game, exploring all possibilities until an endgame is found) or using tolerance levels, layed behaviour and cooperation like in halflife (unit seen, increase alertness level, find cover, fire, throw grenades, is my team doing any tasks I could be?). Both of these are considered Top Down AI, where as this system seems to use bottom up learning techniques (eg forced learning Neural Networks).
Programmers dont build learning into games for several reasons: a) the game would take ages to learn your gameplay techniques b) it would be too easy for you c)they have no control over certain situations they need to have for storylines, plotlines and other things like that.
not really a construction kit as such, but then its not really that difficult to learn a language like BASIC now is it.
Kids these days are spoon fed games, and they expect games to be top quality - not something that your average construction kit can provide in all honesty.
Face it, construction kits died with 3D Construction Kit on the Speccy. RIP.
The only cure for London traffic is to make operating one-man busses a crime against humanity, punishable by 50 years hard labour.And even that would only have a minor effect.
I do hope you're joking? It seems a little harse to bang someone up for going to their job in the morning...:)
Banning traffic from city/town centres, apart from busses seems the only way forward in my mind. This must be backed up with a comprehensive overhall of public transport (and I dont just mean a couple of extra trains).
The problems here in the UK are that public transport (not just in cities) is overcrowded already, and national transport is far too expensive (because petrol is expensive) and crap - oh and old and crap too.
The japanese seem to be able to manage their transport systems far better than us, why cant we? Because most of us are building upon archaic transportation systems that are centuries out of date. The japanese people started from scratch, with design for modern living pre built into their systems.
We cant do this because it "costs too much", so we are stuck in a cycle that someday is going to break somewhere, and that cost may be far higher...
Its only as important as to the ethics you subscribe to within the BCS, ie you only help yourself if you want to and if you believe you should (tm).
I am applying for professional membership this year, (although I am having trouble with referees not returning info), and I find, and probably will find in the future, the BCS invaluable to belong to.
It indicates that a programmer will not, by any standard, allow an unethical action as defined by the BCS to pass their tiny fingers and into their systems. This includes not specifying systems larger and more complex than can be expected within the time, and other such items which protect my employer and me, too. If something happens or someone asks me to do something I know I can't do or shouldnt do, I can point out that I will not do it and have protection if I refuse outright. Even if I am sacked for not doing it, I have rules I can quote as to why I refused, which is very useful, especially when suing the ass off the company that sacked me:)
Not being taken seriously is the fault of the Companies Out There and non members, not the fault of the BCS (although they could push themselves out there a bit more, I suppose). After all, doctors, lawyers and accountants have professional standards bodies. Programmers and the like should also attain a body if they wish to be taken seriously too, to extract the wheat from the chaff so to speak and make it easier to spot the fakes, bums and idiots.
Maybe if the BCS were taken seriously as to our ethics as a society, companies wouldnt have employed code cowboys to write software during the dotcom boom, and saved us all a slump? Just maybe, mind you.
Great!! When do I get to plug my brain in?
Will I get an ASDL interface to my skull and how much is one? Imagine.. a beowulf cluster of brains...mmm brains..
"For that, the robot has sensors on the bottom of its feet to help it walk on uneven surfaces such as carpeting and has been programmed to tumble without falling apart and then get up on its own, Doi said."
er, scuse me mr doi, but how do you program it not to fall apart when it falls over? ...
if(robot->sensor.overload && robot->falling)
{
robot->say("danger, danger, get the hell out my way!");
robot->donotfallapart = true;
} ...
I thought that his name was Hamburgler, not Mac Thief...
Oh THAT kind of Mac.
Re:You can still get sucked in
on
Black Holes Disputed
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Please note that, and I quote:
It would be surrounded by a thin spherical shell composed of gravitational energy, a kind of stationary shock wave in space-time sitting exactly where the event horizon of a black hole would traditionally be.
I would say therefore that the gravitational energy is just that: gravitational energy, not some form of wierd mass surrounding it. Your scenario is bogus and would never happen:)
I would of thought this would inconvienience and cost your reseller more than the corporation supplying the cds.
Boycott them until your supplier realises that there is no demand. They will return all the unsold cds in bulk, saving time and money.
Also, point it out to your supplier why these cds are next to useless, shops listen to customers even if corporations don't. I wouldn't inconvienience resellers in this way, its a bit too much.
Seriously. Don't buy them. Tell your friends not to buy them, and tell them to tell their friends, and so on. They will have to stop making them if they are not getting their returns - and the power is in your hands to do it, consumer...
Well you've given me something to think about.
I thought you might like to read this article I found about negative mass tachyons... interesting stuff, and I think its genuine.
What caught my eye, apart from the negative mass, was the fact he was using MeV to measure mass, which can definately be negative. So I concede, even if a little reluctantly;0)
You seem to be conflating mass and energy here. An equivalency exists between the two, but they're not strictly speaking identical to each other.
Hmm. I was under the impression that they were pretty identical - energy as afaik from what I understand even has gravitational effects! Thats a pretty strong equivalence... and as we've seen the only difference is that its travelling at x speed in (yes, i know) a direction. Interesting: If you could slow a photon down, reduce its energy, what would you get? Erm scratch that cause I also think you'd need to change its spin to turn it from a fermion into a boson, so we could actually do that. Hmm.
You're diminishing the energy--or, not to be too mathematical about it, applying negative energy to the system. You apply so much energy that you bring the spacecraft to a crashing halt. Before, it had E energy, and now you've applied -E energy.
Yes, that is true. However, from the standpoint of a person observing, there is no difference in you applying -E and something hitting the spacecraft with +E coming in the opposite direction (if it were invisible):) Theres still E as you say but its just how its applied that differs. Therefore, +E and -E cancel out, you get heat and quite abit of light probably which dissapates into the cosmos, making the temperature higher than it was before. The sum total of E in the cosmos is the same as it was before the rockets collided. Now if the rocket then fell into a black hole.... but thats another story.
It is fascinating all this stuff. I wish I had kept it up, but I'm crap at maths:(
To further your cause though, I was reading this book Hawking wrote yesterday and he mentioned that there is probably -energy in the universe. Its called vacuum energy and causes things to fly apart in the universe, a bit like a cosmological constant. So I'll concede the negative energy argument, but not -mass, just to be fickle.:)
I'm not disagreeing with you on these issues. From a perspective of energy in a contained system, it cannot be created or destroyed yes? So therefore it is always some positive value somewhere in the system right?
My arguement is that "negative" energy, as you put it, would have the same effect within the universe as positive "energy" (or mass) because although its observable behaviour would be opposite, the effects on spacetime curvature or whatever would be exactly the same as positive mass - because its only a relative point of view as to how the mass/energy is behaving. Does that make sense? Because you are only looking at relative movements/behaviour of mass or energy when you apply "positive" and "negative", this does change the outcome of the overall system. "Negative" Mass and energy would still warp spacetime, and not necessarily in the opposite direction to "positive" mass/energy.
Erm. I just confused myself.:0)
Its been good debating this with you. I'm just an amatuer who reads too many books, but I have a few theories of my own which I like to thrash about. I hope I haven't annoyed you too much here:)
However, just because a object reacts in the opposite "direction" on your measurement scales doesn't mean that work is not being done, its just being done in a contrary direction. -60v is not a measurement of the energy in the system, its a measure of the direction of the flow of energy in the system. If you told me you could have -60 joules I might listen to you, although not for very long.
When you talk of negative mass/energy it is an obserdity. In order to have mass something must be able to be measured as effecting a change (accelaration) over a measurable time but not necessarily in a measurable direction (-vely or +vely compared to something else). Your measurement of direction relative to something else has no meaning to the objects accelaration/momentum, it doesnt care what "scales" you are using.
Write this down : Mass is not determined by direction (ie its a scalar quantity), however it is determind by momentum. Therefore you cannot have negative mass.
You cannot have negative energy because energy is a measurement of the amount of WORK a system is doing and not a measurement of how this work is being done or where it is going, ie Energy is ALSO a scalar quantity.
Sure, you can plug negative numbers into the equations, but we'll all just laugh at you when you submit your results:)
PS this has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. I doubt very much that even a physics undergrad would dispute that mass/energy, or that these definitions change much when applied to quantum theories.
Negative energy cannot exist because by definition energy is the measurement of how quickly a force can change the motion, physical
composition or temperature of an object. No change = no energy. -ve change = +energy because its still changing at a measurable rate.
Mass is mass is a physical "constant of proportionality" relating force and acceleration. Positive mass, positive accelaration and positive force. Negative mass (inverted accelaration) = positive force and positive accelaration because you can still measure its rate of change.
It helps to understand what you are measuring before you do your calculations:)
These are completely separate topics. You can design a program using the OOD approach, and not write it in an OO language, and you can write an OOP in C++ but not use any OOD.
So which is it?
Assuming it's OOD, you can use this technique in engineering problems to solve things like concurrency or identify interactions between/properties of "objects" or systems that would be too difficult to identify if another approach was used. However, like any tool, it will only be as useful as the application of it will allow; hammers and screwdrivers come to mind. If you're looking into things like RTS (real time systems) OOD may have its uses but nothing beats a good circuit diagram for clarity.
Assuming its OOP, what are you trying to acheive? Obviously, you will have to use OOD to design your system (one would hope so, anyway) but what is your system trying to acheive? Its no good trying to force a screw in where a pin would do. OOP allows reuse of code, clarity of code, and happens to be useful for organising your program as well. However, if you only have 2k of memory, whats the point?
You need to think about your application before you commit to a design/programming methodology. Sure, OOD and OOP don't always fit the bill, and they may not be right for you. But thats why you have to do an analysis of the system, perhaps applying OOD to it, and if you fail, try some other approach. After a while it comes with experience.
Looks like these guys in taiwan have been doing water cooling for amd processors for quite a while.
Dont know how good it is, but this article has a huge peice (fnar)on how it all works if you're interested (its a bit old tho', May 2000 sometime according to google)...
Think about it. You have a gas giant that weight 3000 earth masses. The stresses of gravity, extremely (and i mean EXTREEEMEly) adverse weather conditions and solar radiation prevent even the simplest organisation of molecules, apart from their natural organisation of course.
No way anything as complex as life could exist, or even any form of intelligence. Intelligence requires ordered behaviour, and with that amount of chaos, no way at ALL.
Slashdot Mirror
Games (re halflife, or c&c) dont actually learn at all, afaik.
They are simply programmed to behave in a certain way (like a chess game, exploring all possibilities until an endgame is found) or using tolerance levels, layed behaviour and cooperation like in halflife (unit seen, increase alertness level, find cover, fire, throw grenades, is my team doing any tasks I could be?). Both of these are considered Top Down AI, where as this system seems to use bottom up learning techniques (eg forced learning Neural Networks).
Programmers dont build learning into games for several reasons:
a) the game would take ages to learn your gameplay techniques
b) it would be too easy for you
c)they have no control over certain situations they need to have for storylines, plotlines and other things like that.
how did they tell?
"well, geoff, what we've got here is two small circles intersecting one larger one..."
"gee this looks awful familiar.."
0 _ 0
(_)
Darkbasic? No? oh.
not really a construction kit as such, but then its not really that difficult to learn a language like BASIC now is it.
Kids these days are spoon fed games, and they expect games to be top quality - not something that your average construction kit can provide in all honesty.
Face it, construction kits died with 3D Construction Kit on the Speccy. RIP.
The only cure for London traffic is to make operating one-man busses a crime against humanity, punishable by 50 years hard labour.And even that would only have a minor effect.
:)
I do hope you're joking? It seems a little harse to bang someone up for going to their job in the morning...
Banning traffic from city/town centres, apart from busses seems the only way forward in my mind. This must be backed up with a comprehensive overhall of public transport (and I dont just mean a couple of extra trains).
The problems here in the UK are that public transport (not just in cities) is overcrowded already, and national transport is far too expensive (because petrol is expensive) and crap - oh and old and crap too.
The japanese seem to be able to manage their transport systems far better than us, why cant we? Because most of us are building upon archaic transportation systems that are centuries out of date. The japanese people started from scratch, with design for modern living pre built into their systems.
We cant do this because it "costs too much", so we are stuck in a cycle that someday is going to break somewhere, and that cost may be far higher...
here here!
I find namespaces an invaluable, insightful and exciting contribution to the xml language and its subsets.
m@
Its only as important as to the ethics you subscribe to within the BCS, ie you only help yourself if you want to and if you believe you should (tm).
:)
I am applying for professional membership this year, (although I am having trouble with referees not returning info), and I find, and probably will find in the future, the BCS invaluable to belong to.
It indicates that a programmer will not, by any standard, allow an unethical action as defined by the BCS to pass their tiny fingers and into their systems. This includes not specifying systems larger and more complex than can be expected within the time, and other such items which protect my employer and me, too. If something happens or someone asks me to do something I know I can't do or shouldnt do, I can point out that I will not do it and have protection if I refuse outright. Even if I am sacked for not doing it, I have rules I can quote as to why I refused, which is very useful, especially when suing the ass off the company that sacked me
Not being taken seriously is the fault of the Companies Out There and non members, not the fault of the BCS (although they could push themselves out there a bit more, I suppose). After all, doctors, lawyers and accountants have professional standards bodies. Programmers and the like should also attain a body if they wish to be taken seriously too, to extract the wheat from the chaff so to speak and make it easier to spot the fakes, bums and idiots.
Maybe if the BCS were taken seriously as to our ethics as a society, companies wouldnt have employed code cowboys to write software during the dotcom boom, and saved us all a slump? Just maybe, mind you.
Food for thought, then?
Great!! When do I get to plug my brain in?
Will I get an ASDL interface to my skull and how much is one?
Imagine.. a beowulf cluster of brains...mmm brains..
"For that, the robot has sensors on the bottom of its feet to help it walk on uneven surfaces such as carpeting and has been programmed to tumble without falling apart and then get up on its own, Doi said."
...
...
:)
er, scuse me mr doi, but how do you program it not to fall apart when it falls over?
if(robot->sensor.overload && robot->falling)
{
robot->say("danger, danger, get the hell out my way!");
robot->donotfallapart = true;
}
hmm
I thought that his name was Hamburgler, not Mac Thief...
Oh THAT kind of Mac.
Please note that, and I quote:
:)
It would be surrounded by a thin spherical shell composed of gravitational energy, a kind of stationary shock wave in space-time sitting exactly where the event horizon of a black hole would traditionally be.
I would say therefore that the gravitational energy is just that: gravitational energy, not some form of wierd mass surrounding it. Your scenario is bogus and would never happen
I would of thought this would inconvienience and cost your reseller more than the corporation supplying the cds.
Boycott them until your supplier realises that there is no demand. They will return all the unsold cds in bulk, saving time and money.
Also, point it out to your supplier why these cds are next to useless, shops listen to customers even if corporations don't. I wouldn't inconvienience resellers in this way, its a bit too much.
Boycott these CDs.
Seriously. Don't buy them. Tell your friends not to buy them, and tell them to tell their friends, and so on. They will have to stop making them if they are not getting their returns - and the power is in your hands to do it, consumer...
Does this mean I need indicators on my ass?
OOO I always wanted those!!!
Well you've given me something to think about. I thought you might like to read this article I found about negative mass tachyons... interesting stuff, and I think its genuine.
;0)
What caught my eye, apart from the negative mass, was the fact he was using MeV to measure mass, which can definately be negative. So I concede, even if a little reluctantly
You seem to be conflating mass and energy here. An equivalency exists between the two, but they're not strictly speaking identical to each other. Hmm. I was under the impression that they were pretty identical - energy as afaik from what I understand even has gravitational effects! Thats a pretty strong equivalence... and as we've seen the only difference is that its travelling at x speed in (yes, i know) a direction. Interesting: If you could slow a photon down, reduce its energy, what would you get? Erm scratch that cause I also think you'd need to change its spin to turn it from a fermion into a boson, so we could actually do that. Hmm.
:) Theres still E as you say but its just how its applied that differs. Therefore, +E and -E cancel out, you get heat and quite abit of light probably which dissapates into the cosmos, making the temperature higher than it was before. The sum total of E in the cosmos is the same as it was before the rockets collided. Now if the rocket then fell into a black hole.... but thats another story.
:(
:)
You're diminishing the energy--or, not to be too mathematical about it, applying negative energy to the system. You apply so much energy that you bring the spacecraft to a crashing halt. Before, it had E energy, and now you've applied -E energy.
Yes, that is true. However, from the standpoint of a person observing, there is no difference in you applying -E and something hitting the spacecraft with +E coming in the opposite direction (if it were invisible)
It is fascinating all this stuff. I wish I had kept it up, but I'm crap at maths
To further your cause though, I was reading this book Hawking wrote yesterday and he mentioned that there is probably -energy in the universe. Its called vacuum energy and causes things to fly apart in the universe, a bit like a cosmological constant. So I'll concede the negative energy argument, but not -mass, just to be fickle.
The cosmos can be a really weird place. Beetroot.
I'm not disagreeing with you on these issues. From a perspective of energy in a contained system, it cannot be created or destroyed yes? So therefore it is always some positive value somewhere in the system right?
:0)
:)
My arguement is that "negative" energy, as you put it, would have the same effect within the universe as positive "energy" (or mass) because although its observable behaviour would be opposite, the effects on spacetime curvature or whatever would be exactly the same as positive mass - because its only a relative point of view as to how the mass/energy is behaving. Does that make sense? Because you are only looking at relative movements/behaviour of mass or energy when you apply "positive" and "negative", this does change the outcome of the overall system. "Negative" Mass and energy would still warp spacetime, and not necessarily in the opposite direction to "positive" mass/energy.
Erm. I just confused myself.
Its been good debating this with you. I'm just an amatuer who reads too many books, but I have a few theories of my own which I like to thrash about. I hope I haven't annoyed you too much here
Thanks for pointing out my own point to me :)
:)
However, just because a object reacts in the opposite "direction" on your measurement scales doesn't mean that work is not being done, its just being done in a contrary direction. -60v is not a measurement of the energy in the system, its a measure of the direction of the flow of energy in the system. If you told me you could have -60 joules I might listen to you, although not for very long.
When you talk of negative mass/energy it is an obserdity. In order to have mass something must be able to be measured as effecting a change (accelaration) over a measurable time but not necessarily in a measurable direction (-vely or +vely compared to something else). Your measurement of direction relative to something else has no meaning to the objects accelaration/momentum, it doesnt care what "scales" you are using.
Write this down : Mass is not determined by direction (ie its a scalar quantity), however it is determind by momentum. Therefore you cannot have negative mass.
You cannot have negative energy because energy is a measurement of the amount of WORK a system is doing and not a measurement of how this work is being done or where it is going, ie Energy is ALSO a scalar quantity.
Sure, you can plug negative numbers into the equations, but we'll all just laugh at you when you submit your results
PS this has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. I doubt very much that even a physics undergrad would dispute that mass/energy, or that these definitions change much when applied to quantum theories.
Negative energy cannot exist because by definition energy is the measurement of how quickly a force can change the motion, physical composition or temperature of an object. No change = no energy. -ve change = +energy because its still changing at a measurable rate.
:)
Mass is mass is a physical "constant of proportionality" relating force and acceleration. Positive mass, positive accelaration and positive force. Negative mass (inverted accelaration) = positive force and positive accelaration because you can still measure its rate of change.
It helps to understand what you are measuring before you do your calculations
No, it wouldnt have a negative mass. Its only opposite in charge (and possibly spin i think) but not in its properties like mass.
why thankyou br0ck. I just wish we had been given the details in the main body :(
you are a true friend, and I have added u as one.
It would be good if you had a page where you could see who had put YOU on THEIR friends/foes list.
What good is a friend/foe if you dont know they are out there?
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer, thats what I say.
'scuse me, but are you interested in OOP, or OOD?
These are completely separate topics. You can design a program using the OOD approach, and not write it in an OO language, and you can write an OOP in C++ but not use any OOD.
So which is it?
Assuming it's OOD, you can use this technique in engineering problems to solve things like concurrency or identify interactions between/properties of "objects" or systems that would be too difficult to identify if another approach was used. However, like any tool, it will only be as useful as the application of it will allow; hammers and screwdrivers come to mind. If you're looking into things like RTS (real time systems) OOD may have its uses but nothing beats a good circuit diagram for clarity.
Assuming its OOP, what are you trying to acheive? Obviously, you will have to use OOD to design your system (one would hope so, anyway) but what is your system trying to acheive? Its no good trying to force a screw in where a pin would do. OOP allows reuse of code, clarity of code, and happens to be useful for organising your program as well. However, if you only have 2k of memory, whats the point?
You need to think about your application before you commit to a design/programming methodology. Sure, OOD and OOP don't always fit the bill, and they may not be right for you. But thats why you have to do an analysis of the system, perhaps applying OOD to it, and if you fail, try some other approach. After a while it comes with experience.
heh, followed a link on that article and found out what it did to this poor bastard's chip.
Water + Electricity = buggered cpu + pissed off clocker
Looks like these guys in taiwan have been doing water cooling for amd processors for quite a while.
Dont know how good it is, but this article has a huge peice (fnar)on how it all works if you're interested (its a bit old tho', May 2000 sometime according to google)...
Think about it. You have a gas giant that weight 3000 earth masses. The stresses of gravity, extremely (and i mean EXTREEEMEly) adverse weather conditions and solar radiation prevent even the simplest organisation of molecules, apart from their natural organisation of course.
No way anything as complex as life could exist, or even any form of intelligence. Intelligence requires ordered behaviour, and with that amount of chaos, no way at ALL.