I agree with most of those who have said that Objective C is easy enough to pick up in an afternoon. And in my experience, Objective C is preferable to Java for Cocoa development. And in my experence Cocoa is preferable to Carbon, not only because the Carbon featureset is a subset of the Cocoa featureset, not only because Cocoa is the native framework for OS X, but also because you can leverage the excellent development tools provided by Apple (especially Project Builder and Interface Builder). A dedicated programmer can learn how to use PB and IB and Objective C in a day or two, and proficiency in those tools will speed up your actual coding work more than enough to merit the time spent learning them.
Documentation for the development environment, as well as Carbon and Cocoa API tutorials and reference, can be found on Apple's Developer site.
Artificial Intelligence: a Modern Approach by Russell and Norvig is a very strong text. I find it particularly appealing with my background in mathematics because it is nicely organized in a formal, algorithmic way. It is generally a very "neat" book, which is why the professor for my undergrad course chose it---to offset his "scruffy" ways.
This text won't get you too far into game AI (it is an introductory text) but it will provide a very strong background, and a simultaneously comprehensive and in-depth overview of what the field entails. Plus the exercises are very good, and in abundance. Hope this helps.
In fact, for an excellent critique of why systems like Cyc can't really succeed in their claims (for general intelligence), check out Dreyfus, What Computers (Still) Can't Do. It's a classic refutation of the classic AI paradigm.
My biggest concern isn't, actually, that J Public doesn't have the ability to rip MP3s from the lastest Britney Spears. While I'm bothered also by the muddiness of where this fits into fair use, that's not my primary concern either. Most important to me is sound quality. More than anything else, music is supposed to be about the music (more than the distribution, etc.), and the quality control issues here concern me.
Speaking in gross hypotheticals, if I've taken great care in putting together a set of components and cables which are very high fidelity and explicitly meant to maximize the potential of the recording, and the source sucks all my effort is for naught. What's worse, many high fidelity components eschew eupohonic effects (smoothing or shaping---compensating for a poor source signal), and sources which aren't recorded or mastered well sound horrible.
The one thing worse than not being able to play a new disc is playing a new disc and having it sound atrocious.
Media schemes that compromise sound quality for anything (especially marketing interests) are ill-intentioned and grossly missing the point.
Re:Ten Reasons Why TeX/LaTeX is Better than Word
on
Writing Documentation
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I realize this is a bit off topic, so I apologize in advance.
From the \begin{equation} and \end{equation} macros, I'm guessing that you're using LaTeX. If I'm right (and you feel a need to define abbreviations for these two macros instead of using them as-is), you might try \newcommand{...} instead of \def. Of course, if you don't need the numbering, \[ and \] are acceptible shortcuts (if you do need the numbering, you could always check into renewing \[ and \]).
I think it is important, in your criticism, to distinguish between the mythological references which are central to the article, and philosophical references which you provide. It's not a question of which one is correct. One must appreciate the innate difference between mythology and philosophy. They are not equivalent bodies of work. The Matrix is perhaps also derived from Plato's Cave, perhaps also derived from Descartes' skepticism. That does not preclude the possability that, along with its philosophical argument, it carries a mythological argument (in the same way Star Wars does, or not) with it also.
Either way, if you chose to criticize Mr. Katz on his writing, that's fine (there are enough syntactical errors to merit a little scathing). But don't question his ability to write because he hasn't read the Meditations, or because what he saw underlying the movie was different from what you saw.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with most of those who have said that Objective C is easy enough to pick up in an afternoon. And in my experience, Objective C is preferable to Java for Cocoa development. And in my experence Cocoa is preferable to Carbon, not only because the Carbon featureset is a subset of the Cocoa featureset, not only because Cocoa is the native framework for OS X, but also because you can leverage the excellent development tools provided by Apple (especially Project Builder and Interface Builder). A dedicated programmer can learn how to use PB and IB and Objective C in a day or two, and proficiency in those tools will speed up your actual coding work more than enough to merit the time spent learning them.
Documentation for the development environment, as well as Carbon and Cocoa API tutorials and reference, can be found on Apple's Developer site.
This text won't get you too far into game AI (it is an introductory text) but it will provide a very strong background, and a simultaneously comprehensive and in-depth overview of what the field entails. Plus the exercises are very good, and in abundance. Hope this helps.
In fact, for an excellent critique of why systems like Cyc can't really succeed in their claims (for general intelligence), check out Dreyfus, What Computers (Still) Can't Do. It's a classic refutation of the classic AI paradigm.
My biggest concern isn't, actually, that J Public doesn't have the ability to rip MP3s from the lastest Britney Spears. While I'm bothered also by the muddiness of where this fits into fair use, that's not my primary concern either. Most important to me is sound quality. More than anything else, music is supposed to be about the music (more than the distribution, etc.), and the quality control issues here concern me.
Speaking in gross hypotheticals, if I've taken great care in putting together a set of components and cables which are very high fidelity and explicitly meant to maximize the potential of the recording, and the source sucks all my effort is for naught. What's worse, many high fidelity components eschew eupohonic effects (smoothing or shaping---compensating for a poor source signal), and sources which aren't recorded or mastered well sound horrible.
The one thing worse than not being able to play a new disc is playing a new disc and having it sound atrocious.
Media schemes that compromise sound quality for anything (especially marketing interests) are ill-intentioned and grossly missing the point.
I realize this is a bit off topic, so I apologize in advance.
From the \begin{equation} and \end{equation} macros, I'm guessing that you're using LaTeX. If I'm right (and you feel a need to define abbreviations for these two macros instead of using them as-is), you might try \newcommand{...} instead of \def. Of course, if you don't need the numbering, \[ and \] are acceptible shortcuts (if you do need the numbering, you could always check into renewing \[ and \]).
I think it is important, in your criticism, to distinguish between the mythological references which are central to the article, and philosophical references which you provide. It's not a question of which one is correct. One must appreciate the innate difference between mythology and philosophy. They are not equivalent bodies of work. The Matrix is perhaps also derived from Plato's Cave, perhaps also derived from Descartes' skepticism. That does not preclude the possability that, along with its philosophical argument, it carries a mythological argument (in the same way Star Wars does, or not) with it also.
Either way, if you chose to criticize Mr. Katz on his writing, that's fine (there are enough syntactical errors to merit a little scathing). But don't question his ability to write because he hasn't read the Meditations, or because what he saw underlying the movie was different from what you saw.