found in his manefesto ...the Great Shame of computer science, which is that we don't seem to be able to write software much better as computers get much faster. Computer software continues to disappoint. How I hated UNIX back in the seventies - that devilish accumulator of data trash, obscurer of function, enemy of the user! If anyone had told me back then that getting back to embarrassingly primitive UNIX would be the great hope and investment obsession of the year 2000, merely because it's name was changed to LINUX and its source code was opened up again, I never would have had the stomach or the heart to continue in computer science.
productivity studies will often admit that they can't control for all of various variables that affects performance. These include stress, motivation, you get the picture.
You need to do the experiment yourself. Take this data, along with another's who got the same results and hand it over to your penny pinching comrades. You could do a lit review in HCI, but you probably won't find info on this for another year or two. And if you do, it won't match what you are talking about(improved OOP output) exactly. It will talk about visual spatial sketch pad and your dudes will be confused when you present this.
but as for dual monitors, the may increase productivity, they may not. Your coders may start using the extra monitor to watch movies, you don't know. Do the experiment.
We really don't need increased memory, we need increased working memory to hold more that 5-10 activation patterns or concepts in our head at a time. Why? There is no know limit to the amount of information that the brain can encode in long term memory since the brain is a distributed system (one neuron doesn't correspond to one item, it's only a component in a vector) and since the brain has 10^12 neurons with and avg of 10,000 connection each. Adding cells is the trivial solution. We could take invitro ones and put them in your head 75+ years ago if we wanted. Hooking them up to do something useful would be the problem since everyone's head is already wired differently and we really would not know how to signal the new neurons to form new connections without messing the old connections up.
By the way, we need to give up the new addage that learning/ encoding new memories should be fast like in the Matrix. Learning is slow on purpose. If you are interested read Kandel and Schwart (2000). It's only 1414 pages.
Don't sell software. Period. Think about if for a minute. This reply is like a Calculus II problem. If you have moved on to the next post by now then you have missed the point (Hint: replace "Period." with "Sell dynamic signals."
talking completely uses up one's Phonological Loop, borrows a ton of resources from one's Visual Spatial Sketch Pad (to do some visual planning of what to say next) and drains the search engines that match relavance to what you are about to say with the semantically coded memories in your Long Term Memory (LTM = what you said anywhere from a minute ago to when you were about three.)
You max out the components of your Working Memory so that immediate sensory information can't get the attention from you it deserves.
anyways that's what cognitive science will tell you through cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience
need to question the intelligence of people who pay $9.00 for a ticket to go see a movie. Yes, there are no nerds here... Its called a student discount. use your old college id folks. $5.50 for me, maybe cause I'm a nerd.
good post, but USB has gotten 40X faster. Have you tried the newer versions?
slow thinkers this is for object recognition!
on
Video with Depth
·
· Score: 0
knowing the depth of something is one more feature we can use in a recognition by components model of the perceptual process. Introduce a context for top-down processing in conjunction with this empirical bottom up camera and computers could recognize all sorts of things.
ET phoned home on the first DSP (from TI's speak and spell) and no one knew cell phones whould be so big back then. Now your precious Soron Calultors get slashed. Hah! And to think they were on their way to making a good PDA for my precious. Figures calculator technology was the way to go(llum). Simple interface (Psychology of computing dictates that a pda must have relatively simple one ring to bind them interface proceedure) A cellphone = a handheld calculator = the ring. One ring. My precious answer was with me all along!
in Jurassic Park
They're too busy trying to figure if they could to stop and think if they SHOULD. Moving functionality to hardware shouldn't make a practical difference. It's more of a keeping up with the industry thing. If you spend sooooo much time in making specific chips for ever app. without some flexible software level, (alot of companies did(still do?) this for a while)then your competition literally beats you to market. Eventually more things get put in to hardware like you want as they become affordible.
DUDE!?!?! Please don't talk about Hitler in conjunction with another person unless you are comaparing or contrasting the two's behavior.(Arguably one should generalize the last comment.) Other wise one falls into the common mistake of the fallacy of irrelevance.
"Balmer did not burn down the Reichstag." Notice how I was able to properly contrast Hitler with Balmer in the last sentence. Now, you try...
Although no one should care about wireless standards because 1)we follow EUROPE ANYWAYS... 2)Most people seem to think that they'll all become one weaving traffic-blanket and 3)Standards run on the greatest integer function -that is the big ones swallow the smaller ones.
(big breath)
So to anybody out there, don't worry about standards, I checked, they're still doing their thing!
*** BUT***your power comment sort of accidently hits the major problem with PDA's(what a dumb commercial Acronym?!!?! )
What nobody seems to get is that all your dream PDAs can be built RIGHT NOW except no one has figured out power well. There are enough engineers to do it, there exists enough cash to give to the enginners to do it. Think:they have the functions, they don't no how to build a better battery to power all of your Star Trek/DSN/STTNG/Enterprise/JBond/Inspector Gadget gadgets that you see and want. So next time you're watching Old Seven of Nine, think about how You(2nd person Plural, not just the post above) can change the laws of Physics to build better voltage traps that can run off your skin.
It sucks when your phone pisses away 20 Hz into ther air and you lose 3 bars of power to change carriers.
The problem is more analog.
You see, you are a frog
sitting in a pot that is slowly rising in temp. You'll die before you can realize that the water is about to boil.
also, all this bitching especially in the open source community (and on/.) about microsoft backfired. No judge could say that microsoft had a monopoly when you can get a clone OS for free. MORAL OF STORY: it ain't over to the fat OS sings. I salute USA president BILL GATES and VP STEVE B. They had the power to check the courts.
(ALL praise to "smoking" Steve Jobs for starting alternacomputing, birthing the yin and yang of zeros and ones... sparking people minds to pop kernals around the internet. umm munch on linux, be cool, don't put money into software. We need to grind software to a halt.
Break the chain of causes, Linux is the second UNCAUSED CAUSE...(theologins understand this and can spell reasonably.))
My friend and i tried to start bookster to make people smart but we got shut down. Plus it was hard scanning all those pages without mechanization. Also, once we converted the scans to txt, we couldn't find a decent(like james earl jones) txt to speech app to make a mp3 of the book. But it was fun listening to The Lord of the Flies in my car.
It's not but how bout something that is:
the govt. has IR technology so sensitive you can hold your hand in front of 50 pieces of paper for a second and take you hand away and remove one by one, the top sheet of paper, and actually see the heat left on each page by you hand. Obviously the heat you see gets less and less as the stack diminishes and time passes. This is actually how they test IR sensitivity. I learned this in school from a prof. who worked on this tech. with the govt. Besides, you could just take regular pictures of the field and not the filtered spectrum of IR.
(1)"there should be a rich ecosytem that works around that" refers to bill gates.
(2)And when did bill see episode I? It seems like he talking about symbiosis descrepencies with all this ecosystem talk. (3) sadly i can't explain gates's comments other than he views software as his way to make money and GPL is his competition. Classic Acrade move: eliminate the competition.
I understand utilitarianism was not pronounced among the ancients. I was trying to refer to utility(like aqueducts and Euclid's thms), not utils(like Locke's measurments).Having recently entered college, I have become shocked at what I would call a cowardly lack of mixing vocab among professionals and peers. It's as if people can only think in one linear dimension. So what if my arguments lack teeth, they're shotgun-attack messages spread throught out time and discipline to prove nothing really except how diverse thinking should become. Isn't this what Open Source is about.
The best social reformers weren't extremely effective with sabotage techniques. Stallman and co. can't convince the american people to buy what they need so the push the limits of subtle sabotage(like Napster). Yes, we need a better OS(MAINLY FOR SECURITY, THEN FEATURES) If Big Soft goes down, don't you think that some Open Source group will take off their sheep clothing to reveal a wolf? Then it's bye -bye Open Source. By the way Big Soft is more like the Borg in ways in which this site jokes about but doesn't realize. It's funny we joke about it but its true and that makes me laugh on top of the Msoft jokes. ***BREAK***
There is nothing wrong with the utility of a operant-psychological term in reference to economics since much of economics is reinforced not only through money supplying aqueducts but also through rewarded frequency increasing patterns of businessmen. (I thought that was a funny to use two different meanings of word "reinforeced" in the same sentence). True, economic peoples would would rather not accept this because they like to explain money-math and people-math separately. (I'm only contending "It's math.")
(And that separation is fine on paper and in the pursuit of specialized degrees at universities , but you tell me, who really has more control of the economy? Microsoft or that Fed guy? )
It's no different than say a statician who refuses to belive that amongst all his wonderfull equations, I'm really looking at things either on a MACRO or MICRO level. They'll never see this a so, because MICRO and MACRO only "go" together in the same sentence with ECONOMICS. ANYWAYS this is pointless... semantics... Why don't the MF hackers build a sweet OS and sell it. Then 3 great things would happen: Sweet almost unhackable OS...protection from all forms of our enemies... hackers would be putting to use all that great info they unlocked and earn them well deserved public respect as builders and not intruders. That is what reinforces them right, FAMA!
You talk of "efficiency and utility", both ancient theories manifested(turned into laws) with the advent of the modern corporation and the assembly line. In fact, it's a "chicken and egg" thing; both needed to create the other. The ideas that fathered Open Source are based on those that fathered our country and the modern corporation.
It is also true that efficient Open Source code would not be here if not for Microsoft, IBM, UNIX, and other parts of the economy including your mentioned "research." It is not a coincedence that (1) cloning, the (2)internet, and (3) Open Source are hot topics, for you see they are intrarelated. Open Source attempts to clone existing software that most people would have to pay for and give it to them for free over the internet.
And while it is undeniable that open source is not motivated by provits and deadlines, thier programs have more "drawing board time" and this "kicking around in the clouds" definitely shows. Ironically, you can't port an OS (namely Windows X) designed to handle many peripherals to a toaster, but strangely you can with Linux... as it has less cruft, code, in general problems.
Yet, my friend, you are forgeting the basic psychology of economics. If I am not rewarded or REINFORCED(---don't say "Mother Theresa doesn't do it for money!") then the frequency of my actions will decrease. A basic proof of Dot Com failure. No money coming in, no more jaguars.
And an explanation of how Open Source took off.
Corporations(you know organizations that make money) have adopted it as an efficient solution to make more money. It's like free consulting...who wouldn't take it?
MY BASIC POINT: People including "head in the cloud Open Source coders" and "miseducated critics" like me both fail to see the simple picture. Software is a function, f(x), and software without revenue has no more X's to act upon with that function. Just like sterile chickens that can't make more eggs.
Slashdot Mirror
weight is huge problem still
HL2 and Doom3 are coming to Xbox which really shoots this conspiracy theory down. (Sure there will be ported differences).
found in his manefesto
...the Great Shame of computer science, which is that we don't seem to be able to write software much better as computers get much faster. Computer software continues to disappoint. How I hated UNIX back in the seventies - that devilish accumulator of data trash, obscurer of function, enemy of the user! If anyone had told me back then that getting back to embarrassingly primitive UNIX would be the great hope and investment obsession of the year 2000, merely because it's name was changed to LINUX and its source code was opened up again, I never would have had the stomach or the heart to continue in computer science.
productivity studies will often admit that they can't control for all of various variables that affects performance. These include stress, motivation, you get the picture.
You need to do the experiment yourself. Take this data, along with another's who got the same results and hand it over to your penny pinching comrades. You could do a lit review in HCI, but you probably won't find info on this for another year or two. And if you do, it won't match what you are talking about(improved OOP output) exactly. It will talk about visual spatial sketch pad and your dudes will be confused when you present this.
but as for dual monitors, the may increase productivity, they may not. Your coders may start using the extra monitor to watch movies, you don't know. Do the experiment.
We really don't need increased memory, we need increased working memory to hold more that 5-10 activation patterns or concepts in our head at a time. Why?
There is no know limit to the amount of information that the brain can encode in long term memory since the brain is a distributed system (one neuron doesn't correspond to one item, it's only a component in a vector) and since the brain has 10^12 neurons with and avg of 10,000 connection each.
Adding cells is the trivial solution.
We could take invitro ones and put them in your head 75+ years ago if we wanted.
Hooking them up to do something useful would be the problem since everyone's head is already wired differently and we really would not know how to signal the new neurons to form new connections without messing the old connections up.
By the way, we need to give up the new addage that learning/ encoding new memories should be fast like in the Matrix. Learning is slow on purpose. If you are interested read Kandel and Schwart (2000). It's only 1414 pages.
Don't sell software. Period. Think about if for a minute. This reply is like a Calculus II problem. If you have moved on to the next post by now then you have missed the point (Hint: replace "Period." with "Sell dynamic signals."
talking completely uses up one's Phonological Loop, borrows a ton of resources from one's Visual Spatial Sketch Pad (to do some visual planning of what to say next) and drains the search engines that match relavance to what you are about to say with the semantically coded memories in your Long Term Memory (LTM = what you said anywhere from a minute ago to when you were about three.)
You max out the components of your Working Memory so that immediate sensory information can't get the attention from you it deserves.
anyways that's what cognitive science will tell you through cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience
need to question the intelligence of people who pay $9.00 for a ticket to go see a movie. Yes, there are no nerds here... Its called a student discount. use your old college id folks. $5.50 for me, maybe cause I'm a nerd.
oh wait, the ADA will burn this down. Or wait 2X should dentists go back to med school and learn something like Neurosurgery?
good post, but USB has gotten 40X faster. Have you tried the newer versions?
knowing the depth of something is one more feature we can use in a recognition by components model of the perceptual process. Introduce a context for top-down processing in conjunction with this empirical bottom up camera and computers could recognize all sorts of things.
n+1 post
ET phoned home on the first DSP (from TI's speak and spell) and no one knew cell phones whould be so big back then. Now your precious Soron Calultors get slashed. Hah! And to think they were on their way to making a good PDA for my precious. Figures calculator technology was the way to go(llum). Simple interface (Psychology of computing dictates that a pda must have relatively simple one ring to bind them interface proceedure) A cellphone = a handheld calculator = the ring. One ring. My precious answer was with me all along!
in Jurassic Park They're too busy trying to figure if they could to stop and think if they SHOULD. Moving functionality to hardware shouldn't make a practical difference. It's more of a keeping up with the industry thing. If you spend sooooo much time in making specific chips for ever app. without some flexible software level, (alot of companies did(still do?) this for a while)then your competition literally beats you to market. Eventually more things get put in to hardware like you want as they become affordible.
DUDE!?!?! Please don't talk about Hitler in conjunction with another person unless you are comaparing or contrasting the two's behavior.(Arguably one should generalize the last comment.) Other wise one falls into the common mistake of the fallacy of irrelevance. "Balmer did not burn down the Reichstag." Notice how I was able to properly contrast Hitler with Balmer in the last sentence. Now, you try...
Although no one should care about wireless standards because 1)we follow EUROPE ANYWAYS... 2)Most people seem to think that they'll all become one weaving traffic-blanket and 3)Standards run on the greatest integer function -that is the big ones swallow the smaller ones. (big breath) So to anybody out there, don't worry about standards, I checked, they're still doing their thing! *** BUT***your power comment sort of accidently hits the major problem with PDA's(what a dumb commercial Acronym?!!?! ) What nobody seems to get is that all your dream PDAs can be built RIGHT NOW except no one has figured out power well. There are enough engineers to do it, there exists enough cash to give to the enginners to do it. Think :they have the functions, they don't no how to build a better battery to power all of your Star Trek/DSN/STTNG/Enterprise/JBond/Inspector Gadget gadgets that you see and want. So next time you're watching Old Seven of Nine, think about how You(2nd person Plural, not just the post above) can change the laws of Physics to build better voltage traps that can run off your skin.
It sucks when your phone pisses away 20 Hz into ther air and you lose 3 bars of power to change carriers.
Open source and leaders.leaders and opeN sourcE; please, i just got out of escher's assending and descending...
The problem is more analog. You see, you are a frog sitting in a pot that is slowly rising in temp. You'll die before you can realize that the water is about to boil.
also, all this bitching especially in the open source community (and on /.) about microsoft backfired. No judge could say that microsoft had a monopoly when you can get a clone OS for free. MORAL OF STORY: it ain't over to the fat OS sings. I salute USA president BILL GATES and VP STEVE B. They had the power to check the courts.
(ALL praise to "smoking" Steve Jobs for starting alternacomputing, birthing the yin and yang of zeros and ones... sparking people minds to pop kernals around the internet. umm munch on linux, be cool, don't put money into software. We need to grind software to a halt.
Break the chain of causes, Linux is the second UNCAUSED CAUSE...(theologins understand this and can spell reasonably.))
My friend and i tried to start bookster to make people smart but we got shut down. Plus it was hard scanning all those pages without mechanization. Also, once we converted the scans to txt, we couldn't find a decent(like james earl jones) txt to speech app to make a mp3 of the book. But it was fun listening to The Lord of the Flies in my car.
after they got their buts trimmed by AMD. The next slashdot article on Intel will read" Intel doubles Itanium" by end of 4th quarter! EXTRA EXTRA...
It's not but how bout something that is: the govt. has IR technology so sensitive you can hold your hand in front of 50 pieces of paper for a second and take you hand away and remove one by one, the top sheet of paper, and actually see the heat left on each page by you hand. Obviously the heat you see gets less and less as the stack diminishes and time passes. This is actually how they test IR sensitivity. I learned this in school from a prof. who worked on this tech. with the govt. Besides, you could just take regular pictures of the field and not the filtered spectrum of IR.
(1)"there should be a rich ecosytem that works around that" refers to bill gates. (2)And when did bill see episode I? It seems like he talking about symbiosis descrepencies with all this ecosystem talk. (3) sadly i can't explain gates's comments other than he views software as his way to make money and GPL is his competition. Classic Acrade move: eliminate the competition.
I understand utilitarianism was not pronounced among the ancients. I was trying to refer to utility(like aqueducts and Euclid's thms), not utils(like Locke's measurments).Having recently entered college, I have become shocked at what I would call a cowardly lack of mixing vocab among professionals and peers. It's as if people can only think in one linear dimension. So what if my arguments lack teeth, they're shotgun-attack messages spread throught out time and discipline to prove nothing really except how diverse thinking should become. Isn't this what Open Source is about. The best social reformers weren't extremely effective with sabotage techniques. Stallman and co. can't convince the american people to buy what they need so the push the limits of subtle sabotage(like Napster). Yes, we need a better OS(MAINLY FOR SECURITY, THEN FEATURES) If Big Soft goes down, don't you think that some Open Source group will take off their sheep clothing to reveal a wolf? Then it's bye -bye Open Source. By the way Big Soft is more like the Borg in ways in which this site jokes about but doesn't realize. It's funny we joke about it but its true and that makes me laugh on top of the Msoft jokes. ***BREAK*** There is nothing wrong with the utility of a operant-psychological term in reference to economics since much of economics is reinforced not only through money supplying aqueducts but also through rewarded frequency increasing patterns of businessmen. (I thought that was a funny to use two different meanings of word "reinforeced" in the same sentence). True, economic peoples would would rather not accept this because they like to explain money-math and people-math separately. (I'm only contending "It's math.") (And that separation is fine on paper and in the pursuit of specialized degrees at universities , but you tell me, who really has more control of the economy? Microsoft or that Fed guy? ) It's no different than say a statician who refuses to belive that amongst all his wonderfull equations, I'm really looking at things either on a MACRO or MICRO level. They'll never see this a so, because MICRO and MACRO only "go" together in the same sentence with ECONOMICS. ANYWAYS this is pointless... semantics... Why don't the MF hackers build a sweet OS and sell it. Then 3 great things would happen: Sweet almost unhackable OS...protection from all forms of our enemies... hackers would be putting to use all that great info they unlocked and earn them well deserved public respect as builders and not intruders. That is what reinforces them right, FAMA!
You talk of "efficiency and utility", both ancient theories manifested(turned into laws) with the advent of the modern corporation and the assembly line. In fact, it's a "chicken and egg" thing; both needed to create the other. The ideas that fathered Open Source are based on those that fathered our country and the modern corporation. It is also true that efficient Open Source code would not be here if not for Microsoft, IBM, UNIX, and other parts of the economy including your mentioned "research." It is not a coincedence that (1) cloning, the (2)internet, and (3) Open Source are hot topics, for you see they are intrarelated. Open Source attempts to clone existing software that most people would have to pay for and give it to them for free over the internet. And while it is undeniable that open source is not motivated by provits and deadlines, thier programs have more "drawing board time" and this "kicking around in the clouds" definitely shows. Ironically, you can't port an OS (namely Windows X) designed to handle many peripherals to a toaster, but strangely you can with Linux... as it has less cruft, code, in general problems. Yet, my friend, you are forgeting the basic psychology of economics. If I am not rewarded or REINFORCED(---don't say "Mother Theresa doesn't do it for money!") then the frequency of my actions will decrease. A basic proof of Dot Com failure. No money coming in, no more jaguars. And an explanation of how Open Source took off. Corporations(you know organizations that make money) have adopted it as an efficient solution to make more money. It's like free consulting...who wouldn't take it? MY BASIC POINT: People including "head in the cloud Open Source coders" and "miseducated critics" like me both fail to see the simple picture. Software is a function, f(x), and software without revenue has no more X's to act upon with that function. Just like sterile chickens that can't make more eggs.