Eddie is an excellent suggestion, particularly when Lenny Henrys name has also been mentioned (I ask you!). Another possibility would be Bill Bailey. He's mad enough but might lack the physical presence.
Here is another example of a gadget which is good at some, poor at others. The phone I have already is a good phone, but it is a poor address book and an ok organiser. On the otherhand my Palm is a good organiser and address book but lacks any phone functionality. Also I have an Ipod, a great MP3 player, but a rather poor address book. I have too much Gadget overlap.
Fundamentally I want one of two discrete solutions;
The ultimate universal gadget that does each of the above well
Devices which perform one task and none of the others but with good communication
A quote lifted from the interview says much about this company...
"There is no issue in my life I take as seriously as this," said Peter Chernin, president and chief operating officer of the News Corporation, which owns 20th Century Fox.
I see no mention of Java being used in the core of this system, it's all built on Gnome & GTK isn't it? I heard that Sun have started to recognise the marketing potential in Java and said they will be exploiting it to greater extent in the future. Is that what is happening here?
I noticed in the interview it mentioned that Valve were comtemplating bundling HL2 with a graphics card. Now, I might just be being cynical but what if nVidia had already turned down this idea, but ATi hadn't. Whose card would you want to look good if you were Valve?
Im sure I can lay my hands on a couple of washing up bottles, an egg carton and some silver paint... ermmm.. I mean the original Liberator from Blakes 7.
Worth noting that the ballon is so large that once airborne it will be visible over a radius of some 600 miles. Its being launched on the south coats of cornwall so most of England, Ireland and Wales and Northern France will be able to see it.
"The main goal of A.I. is to have a computer and be able to converse with it to the point where you believe it has human values,"
This is simply the Turing test and not the goal of A.I. generally. Producing a system able to convince a particular goup of people that it is "intellegent" via IRC will not necessarily provide sufficient understanding to understand, say, the human vision system.
I would say the more general goal of A.I. is to understand the essential elements of those behaviours regarded as intellegent with enough depth to replicate/emulate/simulate them to advantage outside of those mechanisms naturally bestode with such behaviours.
I can't say I see how patenting his diagram is going to improve the science of A.I.
I have long since taken the attitude that UNIX now stands as a model for an OS. Linux, openBSD, netBSD, Solaris and OSX are all implementations of that model. Each one has its differences and perculiarities, but they are all based on the UNIX model. The great thing about this is that once you understand the model, moving from between the different implementations is easy. And for every from of hardware there is a UNIX model OS. So you can UNIX anywhere.
One of the essential aspects of the UNIX model is 'openness', which promote clarity and understanding.
I think VOD will have its place in the market - rental DVD and VHS might be the ones to suffer - provided that the infrastructure can reliably be put in place. I don't see how it competes with owning a DVD or VHS. I can't imagine that every film ever will be maintained by my particular VOD distributor. Why would I run the risk of not being able to watch "Peewee Hermans Big Adventure" at 3am on a Sunday when I can gaurantee it by owning a copy (which I don't by the way) for not very much money. However I might be willing to augment my normal TV viewing with a choice of an up to date movie from a VOD distributor. Means I don't have to get wet going to the video shop (I live in Manchester, England where it always rains) only to find that all the copies are gone. The one but is the reliability of the technology. If my provider goes down I can't watch ANY films. If the film is not I want is not in the video store, I can choose another.
Don't ignore the momentum that established technologies have. In the UK under half the homes have anything more than the standard 5 TV channels, despite over 15 years of satellite and cable availability. The uptake of broadband is also much slower than expected. Why? Because people don't really see the need to change. I think people are becoming much more cynical about the claims of new technology. They recognise that it may just mean lots of poorly supported, over hyped facilities that will cost them money, after 6 months the company offering them will go under and for what? So I don't have to walk to the video shop? Well how will I get out of the house (and away from the kids) for 20 minutes?
The public have become hardend to novel and exciting technology. The public don't want technology just because it is different (or more convenient for the providers), they want technology that works and does something they can't do at the moment that they really need to do.
I myself make the source code for my software freely available for the purpose of scientific dissemination. I work in a field (computer vision) where complex software is developed and forms the basis of experiments. Publishing papers which describe the algorithm and results is the main output but this has some limitations. Often there isnt the space to describe all the subtle aspects which make the program work. Perhaps the author does not even appreciate themselves what it is which is really driving the process (code can chge an aweful lot from conception to use). Also we want others to build on our work and that process is made much more difficult when everyone has to re-implement algorithms from scratch, possibly from incomplete or inaccurate papers.
Sharing code to explain techniques is something that has happened in experimental science for many years. Mordern open source frameworks such as GNU have made this task much easier by providing tools and standards. The web has also massively improved distribution.
Several people have suggested that there are many aircraft (miltary and civilian) that rival the Concordes ability to fly at a sustained mach 2 for several hours. However, according to this site www.sr-71.org it is only Concorde and the SR-71 which can do this. I know there are aircraft faster, more efficient etc thats not the point. This is still beyond the performance of all civillian aircraft and virtual all military aircraft. Further, a sustained high speed must be a most desirable characteristic of any passenger aircraft. (It does not take Concorde 2 hours to reach this speed either concordesst). Bottom line, we want aircraft to get us there quick, and concorde is the quickest.
The mothballing of Concorde represents an relatively unusual situation. In terms of flight time Concorde represents the most advanced way to travel. No aircraft built since, not even military, can sustain a mach 2 flight speed for over 3 hours. Yet this aircraft is to be decommissioned. Can anyone think of a parallel situation in the computing field?. Where an outdated technology is made redundant, yet whose performance has not be exceeded.
Answering the question of whether a computer programmer is an engineer, must surely depend on what the programmer is doing. There is little doubt that any form of programming requires some technical ability and an engineering approach is essential for efficient development. However, there is a marked difference between the complexity of producing webpages to display some home photographs and coding a numerical simulation of a particle accelerator. That is not to say that just because the subject matter (in this case particle physics) is mathematically complex the software is also more complex. But numerical simulations tend to demand a deeper understanding of the internals of a computer and how matters such as numerical precision will affect the result; it demands greater computer knowledge. Producing webpages to display home photographs has been done often before. However, even here it could be that the display images task is non-trivial and requires extensive computing knowledge.
As a professional engineer (with a PhD and Chartered status) and someone who develops software (for algorithmic research) I would consider myself a computer engineer. In the UK anyone can use the title engineer, unlike doctor or lawyer for which you could be found fraudulent. This is different from other European countries notiably Germany where the title engineer is protected and also regarded. And I think this is an important point. Often (as some postings here have shown) engineering is regarded as the poor cousin to other professions. Thus people feel free to abuse the title. Also, unlike doctor and lawyer, the term engineer doesn't imply any particular field and so is often attached to areas of work where you have to question the utility of an engineering approach!
I would like to see technician used as a title for someone programming with lesser aims, although how you define the quality of the aim is another matter.
I guess in summary I would say that just because you are planting a tree, it doesn't mean you are a gardener.
Not sure about other countries but last Tuesday (4th) was Shrove Tuesday in the UK when we all make pancakes. For the religious amongst you the word 'Shrove' refers to the practice of confessing of sins, then afterwards the fast of Lent could be considered a penance of faults committed. Thats why the BBC ran the story on Tuesday. However, most of us just love eating the pancakes!
Given that home games consoles provide much the same compute resource as arcade machines what is the added value of an arcade? I think there are two 'extras' which arcades provide.
1. Modern arcade machines tend to be more like fairground rides with hydraulics to augment the game experience and probably better screens
2. An audience.
I can see kids refining their skills at home and then going head-to-head in the arcades. Integrate this with on-line gambling and we may see a return of the gladiatorial arena
As a tool in education modern computers (such as the iBook) have a lot to offer children, and can be used to enhance learning in virtually every subject. However, the one area where they might not be the best thing is in computer education itself. A modern computer is an incredibly complex beast with layers of software and hardware which abstract from the basic concepts.
When I was at school we had a simple Z80 based microboard on which we were taught the basic principles of digital electronics. By the time I went to university I already understood the basic concepts of how computers work and how software and hardware interact. The computer was a understandable as a complete system. I worry that future generations will not have such a complete view of the computer. Without it how can we expect innovative developments to arise.
Slashdot Mirror
Eddie is an excellent suggestion, particularly when Lenny Henrys name has also been mentioned (I ask you!). Another possibility would be Bill Bailey. He's mad enough but might lack the physical presence.
Fundamentally I want one of two discrete solutions;
ermmm.. it was a joke. Lighten up.
It's this kind of pointless endeavour that gives geeks a bad name.
It's this kind of pointless endeavour that makes me happy to be a geek.
Some people climb mountains, other disassemble 8085 binary code.
A quote lifted from the interview says much about this company...
They need to get out more....
I see no mention of Java being used in the core of this system, it's all built on Gnome & GTK isn't it? I heard that Sun have started to recognise the marketing potential in Java and said they will be exploiting it to greater extent in the future. Is that what is happening here?
64K of RAM? My God this is only an order of magnitude away from the maximum anyone will ever need!
I noticed in the interview it mentioned that Valve were comtemplating bundling HL2 with a graphics card. Now, I
might just be being cynical but what if nVidia had already
turned down this idea, but ATi hadn't. Whose card would you want to look good if you were Valve?
Im sure I can lay my hands on a couple of washing up bottles, an egg carton and some silver paint... ermmm.. I mean the original Liberator from Blakes 7.
It would be worth a mint if you could prove he said "I have a bad feeling about this" just before it popped out!
Worth noting that the ballon is so large that once airborne it will be visible over a radius of some 600 miles. Its being launched on the south coats of cornwall so most of England, Ireland and Wales and Northern France will be able to see it.
I bet the bastards launch at night though....
This is simply the Turing test and not the goal of A.I. generally. Producing a system able to convince a particular goup of people that it is "intellegent" via IRC will not necessarily provide sufficient understanding to understand, say, the human vision system.
I would say the more general goal of A.I. is to understand the essential elements of those behaviours regarded as intellegent with enough depth to replicate/emulate/simulate them to advantage outside of those mechanisms naturally bestode with such behaviours.
I can't say I see how patenting his diagram is going to improve the science of A.I.
It mentioned this being a "spoiler" on the website,but who the fuck hasn't read the book?
I have long since taken the attitude that UNIX now stands as a model for an OS. Linux, openBSD, netBSD, Solaris and OSX are all implementations of that model. Each one has its differences and perculiarities, but they are all based on the UNIX model. The great thing about this is that once you understand the model, moving from between the different implementations is easy. And for every from of hardware there is a UNIX model OS. So you can UNIX anywhere.
One of the essential aspects of the UNIX model is 'openness', which promote clarity and understanding.
Will my printer begin to sing "Daisy" as I take a screwdriver to the cartridge?
Fortunately, as the owner of a later revision 15" TiBook I only get case deformations upon re-entry into the earths atmosphere.
I think VOD will have its place in the market - rental DVD and VHS might be the ones to suffer - provided that the infrastructure can reliably be put in place. I don't see how it competes with owning a DVD or VHS. I can't imagine that every film ever will be maintained by my particular VOD distributor. Why would I run the risk of not being able to watch "Peewee Hermans Big Adventure" at 3am on a Sunday when I can gaurantee it by owning a copy (which I don't by the way) for not very much money. However I might be willing to augment my normal TV viewing with a choice of an up to date movie from a VOD distributor. Means I don't have to get wet going to the video shop (I live in Manchester, England where it always rains) only to find that all the copies are gone. The one but is the reliability of the technology. If my provider goes down I can't watch ANY films. If the film is not I want is not in the video store, I can choose another.
Don't ignore the momentum that established technologies have. In the UK under half the homes have anything more than the standard 5 TV channels, despite over 15 years of satellite and cable availability. The uptake of broadband is also much slower than expected. Why? Because people don't really see the need to change. I think people are becoming much more cynical about the claims of new technology. They recognise that it may just mean lots of poorly supported, over hyped facilities that will cost them money, after 6 months the company offering them will go under and for what? So I don't have to walk to the video shop? Well how will I get out of the house (and away from the kids) for 20 minutes?
The public have become hardend to novel and exciting technology. The public don't want technology just because it is different (or more convenient for the providers), they want technology that works and does something they can't do at the moment that they really need to do.
I myself make the source code for my software freely available for the purpose of scientific dissemination. I work in a field (computer vision) where complex software is developed and forms the basis of experiments. Publishing papers which describe the algorithm and results is the main output but this has some limitations. Often there isnt the space to describe all the subtle aspects which make the program work. Perhaps the author does not even appreciate themselves what it is which is really driving the process (code can chge an aweful lot from conception to use). Also we want others to build on our work and that process is made much more difficult when everyone has to re-implement algorithms from scratch, possibly from incomplete or inaccurate papers.
Sharing code to explain techniques is something that has happened in experimental science for many years. Mordern open source frameworks such as GNU have made this task much easier by providing tools and standards. The web has also massively improved distribution.
Several people have suggested that there are many aircraft (miltary and civilian) that rival the Concordes ability to fly at a sustained mach 2 for several hours. However, according to this site www.sr-71.org it is only Concorde and the SR-71 which can do this. I know there are aircraft faster, more efficient etc thats not the point. This is still beyond the performance of all civillian aircraft and virtual all military aircraft. Further, a sustained high speed must be a most desirable characteristic of any passenger aircraft. (It does not take Concorde 2 hours to reach this speed either concordesst). Bottom line, we want aircraft to get us there quick, and concorde is the quickest.
This does assume that the parents are able to use the computer....
The mothballing of Concorde represents an relatively unusual situation. In terms of flight time Concorde represents the most advanced way to travel. No aircraft built since, not even military, can sustain a mach 2 flight speed for over 3 hours. Yet this aircraft is to be decommissioned. Can anyone think of a parallel situation in the computing field?. Where an outdated technology is made redundant, yet whose performance has not be exceeded.
Answering the question of whether a computer programmer is an engineer, must surely depend on what the programmer is doing. There is little doubt that any form of programming requires some technical ability and an engineering approach is essential for efficient development. However, there is a marked difference between the complexity of producing webpages to display some home photographs and coding a numerical simulation of a particle accelerator. That is not to say that just because the subject matter (in this case particle physics) is mathematically complex the software is also more complex. But numerical simulations tend to demand a deeper understanding of the internals of a computer and how matters such as numerical precision will affect the result; it demands greater computer knowledge. Producing webpages to display home photographs has been done often before. However, even here it could be that the display images task is non-trivial and requires extensive computing knowledge.
As a professional engineer (with a PhD and Chartered status) and someone who develops software (for algorithmic research) I would consider myself a computer engineer. In the UK anyone can use the title engineer, unlike doctor or lawyer for which you could be found fraudulent. This is different from other European countries notiably Germany where the title engineer is protected and also regarded. And I think this is an important point. Often (as some postings here have shown) engineering is regarded as the poor cousin to other professions. Thus people feel free to abuse the title. Also, unlike doctor and lawyer, the term engineer doesn't imply any particular field and so is often attached to areas of work where you have to question the utility of an engineering approach!
I would like to see technician used as a title for someone programming with lesser aims, although how you define the quality of the aim is another matter.
I guess in summary I would say that just because you are planting a tree, it doesn't mean you are a gardener.
Not sure about other countries but last Tuesday (4th) was Shrove Tuesday in the UK when we all make pancakes. For the religious amongst you the word 'Shrove' refers to the practice of confessing of sins, then afterwards the fast of Lent could be considered a penance of faults committed. Thats why the BBC ran the story on Tuesday. However, most of us just love eating the pancakes!
Given that home games consoles provide much the same compute resource as arcade machines what is the added value of an arcade? I think there are two 'extras' which arcades provide.
1. Modern arcade machines tend to be more like fairground rides with hydraulics to augment the game experience and probably better screens
2. An audience.
I can see kids refining their skills at home and then going head-to-head in the arcades. Integrate this with on-line gambling and we may see a return of the gladiatorial arena
As a tool in education modern computers (such as the iBook) have a lot to offer children, and can be used to enhance learning in virtually every subject. However, the one area where they might not be the best thing is in computer education itself. A modern computer is an incredibly complex beast with layers of software and hardware which abstract from the basic concepts.
When I was at school we had a simple Z80 based microboard on which we were taught the basic principles of digital electronics. By the time I went to university I already understood the basic concepts of how computers work and how software and hardware interact. The computer was a understandable as a complete system. I worry that future generations will not have such a complete view of the computer. Without it how can we expect innovative developments to arise.