For several years, this subject has been accepted as part of Computer Science.
However, this field is not to be taken too seriously for its purpose is to overburden the programmer rather than making software better. We must understand that while "Programming Languages", "Compilers", "Verification", "Functional Programming", etc. *is* Computer Science, "Software Engineering" hardly is a science of any sort.
"Software Engineering" is in my understanding an icon of bigotry and inability to accomplish a good design, contrary to its popular advertisement as a means to achieve engineering goals. "Apply our methodology, and you can get 1000 monkeys to write your next OS!!"
If you have good scientists and programmers who know how to design software and their toolbox, you will be set. Don't waste your time with this bulls***.
I don't think he even understands the real difference between an NFA and a DFA. You can convert any NFA to a minimal DFA and that's how it should be done. That is the fastest possible strategy, and... I'm surprised none of you karma whores have been able to shoot this one down.
It is written by an unfortunate person with an
intellectual level so inferior to researchers
at the MIT lab, that he would like to state that
"Media Lab's heyday may be over".
He also makes the claim that the lab may "see
itself overshadowed by more concrete research
--by tangible products like drugs." What the hell
is Media Lab's relation to drug research? How
does this imbecile think that he may compare
things like AI, VR or robotics research to medicine?
And why does he think that a lab at the university
should aim tangible products at all? Who are you
to decide what is "concrete" and what is not "concrete"
research.
I don't value the subjective content of that
article at all. To me, he is just a "financial"
moron who would be better off dumped into a
nuclear wasteyard.
On the other hand, I think when the resources
are scarce a research lab should try to focus
the money on research rather than other activities.
In a
review of your "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace" which I had written, I had argued that there would be technical limits to regulation by architecture, i.e. in that a "perfect control" is not possible (while supporting the rest of the main views). To summarize "Limits to Regulation: Code and Coders" section , I first argue that there is a mathematical limit that prevents us from increasing the accuracy of control arbitrarily and there is a limit due to the distributed nature of control itself.
Computers, being finite things, present us many limits. For instance, there can be only a certain amount of network traffic, memory and computation power. What do you think will be the limits of regulation by architecture in the age of Cyberspace?
Making system and application codes more portable is a good thing. That's why cygwin is a good project, and it's good that your code works both on UNIX and Windoze.
It's also good for users, so that they can use your code even if they are forced to use one common operating system.
Maybe there aren't many interesting things to run on a high-end PC *now*, but there will be.
I firmly believe that a moment will come when there will be something better to run than a desktop OS. (And for the desktop head over to www.kde.org right away;)
Speaking AI? Knowledge based systems, machine learning, planning, language processing, and a whole lot more. There will be stuff that you wouldn't dare write in a novel.
Speaking network? Where is my distributed OS, will there be one Avalon that I can login to? Who knows... Today we've got lots of cluster stuff, computational network projects and a beowulf at our research lab but tomorrow...
Speaking privacy? Come and decypher my GnuPG encrypted emails. The better algo's we need, the more they will be made.
1)proper Drag-n-Drop everywhere.
2) integrated voice activation (that was tied to non-free libs, and the necessity of which is very open to debate)
3) An easy way to script out application action. DCOP makes applications scriptable.
4) XML for everything, and a VERY organized file structure-- This is UNIX, and we use XML where _necessary_
5) display pdf (or postscript). kde has many viewers from dvi to pdf
7) A proper user interface
8) Lots of properly integrated apps
9) A proper application structure that reduces clutter yet is more powerful than any current structure.
9) A lot of other little things that KDE has in plentitude (miscellaneous coolnesses).
We only miss a "4th generation display engine", which means we're not trying to postscript everything yet. X11 is sufficient for now, thank you.
I have a coder friend who does use ED
on
VIM 6.0 is Out
·
· Score: 1
You know why? Because ed is the standard text editor. It isn't bloated, it isn't visual.
Yes, and my friend is a real programmer. Hello Berkant?:)
With your disrespectful posts about Alan Turing, you have once again proved how lowly you are. As a computer scientist, I am ashamed to see that people who are acquainted with computers, and even idiots like you, cannot recognize the greatness of Turing.
To the operators of this terrible site called slashdot: We come here to read the news in the technology world, but the amount of stupidity is extremely repulsive.
It is apparent that you have written of the memorial with good intentions, and it is a warm news item for the mathematicians and computer scientists here. But perhaps you could have written an article about Turing's life and work to prevent this kind of imbecile responses from your rude and ignorant readers.
Or perhaps considering the standard of discussion here, you should just shut down this site, and lie down on the floor until you give your last breath.
I still wonder, is the average north american computer user really this stupid, or are you all pretending to be morons?
You can't prevent programming from sucking because it's a mess from ground up. The good programmer knows the mess and deals with it. That's about it.
PL design is my personal interest. I challenge anybody out there to show me a decent PL that's being widely used! Our systems are all flawed. C and C++ are not things that let you build beautiful structures. Any code beyond some scale written in these languages and on current systems will suck, especially if you get clueless programmers in the mix. (And I'm not saying that a _good_ language exists. Screw python,perl,java,... [and the list goes on] )
Ah, and to those who claim that the mess can be elegant: NO WAY. 95% of all code on my GNU/Linux system is NOT elegant. No C code can ever be elegant as long as it is not the implementation of a simple sorting algorithm. Forget the language, everything is a mess. Our build/config systems are total kludgery. The UNIX *is* the biggest heap of junk, and what are we talking about? I'm not even talking about the 'doze side. This side is heaven compared to that hole of stupidity.
That's what programming is like.
It's got so little to do with physical construction. In the software world, what we build is logical, and it *is* complex. Humans are not smart enough to handle that much of complexity, and here we are.
My point, though, is that even if we honestly wanted to build very good software it wouldn't be possible. You just need talented, smart and experienced programmers, and that's something you don't have. You can't just teach good programming like you can teach a simpler profession. It's sort of an expertise, like being a heart surgeon.
I don't think NN will work out. Why do people here think that neural nets are any good? NNs are slow things. You can use the most advanced NN only to solve moderate problems with low quality and enormously slowly.
This is a general machine learning task, and NN is not the only method. As a matter of fact in most of machine learning data mining literature NNs are not seen as state-of-the-art. There are much more advanced algorithms.
As a programmer, writing documentation of your program's IO behavior and internal structure is simply not honorable because it might actually elicit your mistakes.
A real programmer writes no documentation. Another real programmer doesn't need documentation to read the data another one's code output.
Now send me the tape and I'll mail you back the data.
Let's see the code people
on
ICFP 2001 Task
·
· Score: 1
I'm joining the contest. That is if this damn semantic analyzer works, I can get on to the optimization part.:P
in which I've reviewed the talk Minsky gave. The same review has been posted on comp.ai and comp.ai.philosophy, too. You can find it in the Media section in k5, titled ' Minsky's "Programs, Emotions and Common Sense" '
Nothing more. Neuroscientists are blind people trying to find their way in a vast maze. I pity most of them.
These people still have not understood that representation and computation are what makes the mind tick. Yes, when a subsystem, say which is responsible for assessing motion, is invoked it is highly probable that the same neurons will be excited when the individual or some other individual makes a move. And the only reason for this comes from the fact that it would be unwise to duplicate the same subsystem for perception of yourself and others. I may not have put this point too clearly but the simple argument goes: Assume there is a function I(x) in your brain: it is responsible for "understanding" motion attributed to a species. Say of "apes". Assume further that you are an ape, too.
Now, whenever you do a motion, you track your own motion. Therefore, you have to interpret it. I(x) does that. When some other ape acts in a way that you can detect visually, you apply the same interpretation function I(x) for the other individual. Thus, there is nothing fundamental or novel about the so-called mirror cell. Extend the argument to your liking.
Slashdot Mirror
For several years, this subject has been accepted as part of Computer Science.
However, this field is not to be taken too seriously for its purpose is to overburden the programmer rather than making software better. We must understand that while "Programming Languages", "Compilers", "Verification", "Functional Programming", etc. *is* Computer Science, "Software Engineering" hardly is a science of any sort.
"Software Engineering" is in my understanding an icon of bigotry and inability to accomplish a good design, contrary to its popular advertisement as a means to achieve engineering goals. "Apply our methodology, and you can get 1000 monkeys to write your next OS!!"
If you have good scientists and programmers who know how to design software and their toolbox, you will be set. Don't waste your time with this bulls***.
I don't think he even understands the real difference between an NFA and a DFA. You can convert any NFA to a minimal DFA and that's how it should be done. That is the fastest possible strategy, and... I'm surprised none of you karma whores have been able to shoot this one down.
Can't even find this basic fact on Google!!?!?!
Perl people... Soooo far from theory.
It is written by an unfortunate person with an
intellectual level so inferior to researchers
at the MIT lab, that he would like to state that
"Media Lab's heyday may be over".
He also makes the claim that the lab may "see
itself overshadowed by more concrete research
--by tangible products like drugs." What the hell
is Media Lab's relation to drug research? How
does this imbecile think that he may compare
things like AI, VR or robotics research to medicine?
And why does he think that a lab at the university
should aim tangible products at all? Who are you
to decide what is "concrete" and what is not "concrete"
research.
I don't value the subjective content of that
article at all. To me, he is just a "financial"
moron who would be better off dumped into a
nuclear wasteyard.
On the other hand, I think when the resources
are scarce a research lab should try to focus
the money on research rather than other activities.
Thanks,
It's ANSI C.
If it's this long, then it's not a suitable implementation
language.
He should have used a more capable language (read C++)
and avoid rewriting and copy/pasting the whole world
including data structures.
To understand how big code is written: www.kde.org
In a review of your "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace" which I had written, I had argued that there would be technical limits to regulation by architecture, i.e. in that a "perfect control" is not possible (while supporting the rest of the main views). To summarize "Limits to Regulation: Code and Coders" section , I first argue that there is a mathematical limit that prevents us from increasing the accuracy of control arbitrarily and there is a limit due to the distributed nature of control itself.
Computers, being finite things, present us many limits. For instance, there can be only a certain amount of network traffic, memory and computation power. What do you think will be the limits of regulation by architecture in the age of Cyberspace?
Thanks,
Eray Ozkural, CS Dept., Bilkent University
Making system and application codes more portable is a good thing. That's why cygwin is a good project, and it's good that your code works both on UNIX and Windoze.
It's also good for users, so that they can use your code even if they are forced to use one common operating system.
there's a slip of tongue there, but you get the point
Maybe there aren't many interesting things to run on a high-end PC *now*, but there will be.
;)
I firmly believe that a moment will come when there will be something better to run than a desktop OS. (And for the desktop head over to www.kde.org right away
Speaking AI? Knowledge based systems, machine learning, planning, language processing, and a whole lot more. There will be stuff that you wouldn't dare write in a novel.
Speaking network? Where is my distributed OS, will there be one Avalon that I can login to? Who knows... Today we've got lots of cluster stuff, computational network projects and a beowulf at our research lab but tomorrow...
Speaking privacy? Come and decypher my GnuPG encrypted emails. The better algo's we need, the more they will be made.
Happy writing,
When there's KMail and Aethera who fucks Ximian?
You are an intelligent person. If there were 1 million people like you in the US, much would change.
I'm thrilled at all the cunning interpretations slashdot readers have given under this post.
It's apparent that Americans still have reason to guide them.
He he. RIP LISP.
Data mining and "knowledge synthesis" algorithms are NOT scalable to that many nodes, especially for such clumsy topology.
I suggest them to get their facts straight.
All you can do is to hold stupid matrices and do y=s.axb. And _rather_ slowly.
If you did, you'd know that KDE does have
1)proper Drag-n-Drop everywhere.
2) integrated voice activation (that was tied to non-free libs, and the necessity of which is very open to debate)
3) An easy way to script out application action. DCOP makes applications scriptable.
4) XML for everything, and a VERY organized file structure-- This is UNIX, and we use XML where _necessary_
5) display pdf (or postscript). kde has many viewers from dvi to pdf
7) A proper user interface
8) Lots of properly integrated apps
9) A proper application structure that reduces clutter yet is more powerful than any current structure.
9) A lot of other little things that KDE has in plentitude (miscellaneous coolnesses).
We only miss a "4th generation display engine", which means we're not trying to postscript everything yet. X11 is sufficient for now, thank you.
You know why? Because ed is the standard text editor. It isn't bloated, it isn't visual.
:)
Yes, and my friend is a real programmer. Hello Berkant?
Debian users do so :)
It's a free software replacement for pico.
With your disrespectful posts about Alan Turing, you have once again proved how lowly you are. As a computer scientist, I am ashamed to see that people who are acquainted with computers, and even idiots like you, cannot recognize the greatness of Turing.
To the operators of this terrible site called slashdot: We come here to read the news in the technology world, but the amount of stupidity is extremely repulsive.
It is apparent that you have written of the memorial with good intentions, and it is a warm news item for the mathematicians and computer scientists here. But perhaps you could have written an article about Turing's life and work to prevent this kind of imbecile responses from your rude and ignorant readers.
Or perhaps considering the standard of discussion here, you should just shut down this site, and lie down on the floor until you give your last breath.
I still wonder, is the average north american computer user really this stupid, or are you all pretending to be morons?
You can't prevent programming from sucking because it's a mess from ground up. The good programmer knows the mess and deals with it. That's about it.
PL design is my personal interest. I challenge anybody out there to show me a decent PL that's being widely used! Our systems are all flawed. C and C++ are not things that let you build beautiful structures. Any code beyond some scale written in these languages and on current systems will suck, especially if you get clueless programmers in the mix. (And I'm not saying that a _good_ language exists. Screw python,perl,java,... [and the list goes on] )
Ah, and to those who claim that the mess can be elegant: NO WAY. 95% of all code on my GNU/Linux system is NOT elegant. No C code can ever be elegant as long as it is not the implementation of a simple sorting algorithm. Forget the language, everything is a mess. Our build/config systems are total kludgery. The UNIX *is* the biggest heap of junk, and what are we talking about? I'm not even talking about the 'doze side. This side is heaven compared to that hole of stupidity.
That's what programming is like.
It's got so little to do with physical construction. In the software world, what we build is logical, and it *is* complex. Humans are not smart enough to handle that much of complexity, and here we are.
My point, though, is that even if we honestly wanted to build very good software it wouldn't be possible. You just need talented, smart and experienced programmers, and that's something you don't have. You can't just teach good programming like you can teach a simpler profession. It's sort of an expertise, like being a heart surgeon.
You are so very right. Got to keep my mouth tighter.
I don't think NN will work out. Why do people here think that neural nets are any good? NNs are slow things. You can use the most advanced NN only to solve moderate problems with low quality and enormously slowly.
This is a general machine learning task, and NN is not the only method. As a matter of fact in most of machine learning data mining literature NNs are not seen as state-of-the-art. There are much more advanced algorithms.
Naive bayesian is one of the weaker methods.
Thanks,
I mean how many real world CS people studying AI reads Slashdot?
Doing that and dumb enough to waste his time with this. Count me one.
As a programmer, writing documentation of your program's IO behavior and internal structure is simply not honorable because it might actually elicit your mistakes.
A real programmer writes no documentation. Another real programmer doesn't need documentation to read the data another one's code output.
Now send me the tape and I'll mail you back the data.
I'm joining the contest. That is if this damn semantic analyzer works, I can get on to the optimization part. :P
in which I've reviewed the talk Minsky gave. The same review has been posted on comp.ai and comp.ai.philosophy, too. You can find it in the Media section in k5, titled ' Minsky's "Programs, Emotions and Common Sense" '
Thanks!
Nothing more. Neuroscientists are blind people trying to find their way in a vast maze. I pity most of them.
These people still have not understood that representation and computation are what makes the mind tick. Yes, when a subsystem, say which is responsible for assessing motion, is invoked it is highly probable that the same neurons will be excited when the individual or some other individual makes a move. And the only reason for this comes from the fact that it would be unwise to duplicate the same subsystem for perception of yourself and others. I may not have put this point too clearly but the simple argument goes: Assume there is a function I(x) in your brain: it is responsible for "understanding" motion attributed to a species. Say of "apes". Assume further that you are an ape, too.
Now, whenever you do a motion, you track your own motion. Therefore, you have to interpret it. I(x) does that. When some other ape acts in a way that you can detect visually, you apply the same interpretation function I(x) for the other individual. Thus, there is nothing fundamental or novel about the so-called mirror cell. Extend the argument to your liking.
Thanks,