I think it means that no path between the points exists. Much analysis of this sort is based on findinb the shortest path between two nodes in the network. If the shortest path cannot be found, the nodes are disconnected.
I don't see how the Matrix lends itself at all to a sequel.
There are some issues that a good Matrix sequel could explore. For instance, the question of whether freedom is worth the price of the tough life outside of the Matrix. If people knew what they were in for, would they agree to leave the matrix? If they would not agree, is it right to 'free' them by detroying the matrix? Are the freedom fighters actually working against peoples best interests without their consent?
I think the issue of freedom Vs a (generally) better life inside the the matrix could give Matrix sequels some really interesting angles to look at. Maybe The One isn't the saviour of mankind after all...
how did they tap his keyboard without breaking into his house illegally (without court order) or is the first recorded TEMPEST tap by the FBI?
IIRC, they did enter his house (with a search warrant) and installed a (presumably hardware) bug.
They are claiming that it did not constitute a wiretap (requiring a court order) because no communication was intercepted - only usage a computer. The complication is that the computer was used for email...
Try doing an internet search for you social security number - that will show if it has been posted on any websites (once there has been enough time for your search engine of choice to do the necessary spidering)
Of course, the story is about details being posted to a chat room so this might not help in this case...
Isn't it self contradictory on one hand to produce a product as Open Source - releasing the content IP to the world freely - while fighting vigorously to protect the trademark - restricting identification/brand name IP from the world?
If OS projects did not protect trademarks, there would be all sorts of problems. I could bodge together an operating system and sell it under the name Linux - my customers would think that linux was crap.
Until we have better ways of identifying products than simple names, we have to have a way for people to claim a name for their product - if only to prevent confusion.
In a perfect world, everyone would respect each others product names and would not choose potentially confusing ones. The world is not perfect so we need trademark law to force people to respect trademarks.
And by bringing this lawsuit up in the first place, and by forcing them to change their name, isn't that (at least temporarily) halting distrobution and development?
AFAIK it is still unclear whether Adobe were actually aware of the warning letter which was sent by the lawyers firm. (it never got as far as a lawsuit)
In Germany, law firms can send warning letters on another companies behalf and charge those they send them to for their time. The company for whom the warning is being sent is not neccessarlity aware that this has been done. There is more information on this in the earlier article, especially this posting
Google seem to implementing their various search engines in a sensible way - as separate services under the Google banner, rather than tryin gto create one super-service that does everything.
The addition of the newsgroups search has not adversly affected the stanard Google search and I don't expect that this image search will either.
I'm glad that, in expanding their services, Google are sticking to what they know(search engines) rather than offering a whole load of other services (as others have done in the past).
Google is still the best webpage search engine by far, due to it functional, minimal philosophy. If they can take that design philosophy to other types of search then thats a good thing.
The point is that no matter how powerful computers get, they are still Turing machines. Whether they run at 1KHz or 10^100THz, they still operate on the same principles, and as such will never demonstrate true intelligence, ie. semantic understanding.
Well explained
What about if I use my obscenely powerful computer to simulate with absolute perfection every atomic (and sub-atomic)interaction in a volume of space that happens to contain a person?
There are some good arguments against this 'simulated intelligence' thought experiment but if we could simulate the brain inside a Turing machine, it would be more difficult to draw a distinction between what our brain does and what a Turing machine does.
But you and your girlfriend work in roughly the same way as me, whereas the computer works on totally different principles. Therefore, while I'm justified in assuming you're also intelligent,
Or at least, to the best of your knowledge we work in the same way and so you assume we do:)
[on the difference between the human brain and a Turing machine] We simply don't know enough yet to say for definite, but the fact that it has both a changing topology and is analog would indicate it doesn't work in the same manner as a Turing machine, as would the Chinese room experiment.
One of the things i find most interesting about very large expert systems is the possibility of emergent behaviour as the complexity increases. A single human neuron on its own will not exhibit intelligence - its behaviour is deterministic. When combined with millions of others in the right conditions, intelligence emerges. I do not write off the idea that a sufficiently large expert system could begin to exhibit similar emergent behaviour.
I'm not convinced that they will by a long way but I'm keeping my mind open. Assuming that only certain routes will achieve the aims of AI research on the basis of our currently very limited knowledge will limit our chances of finding the right one.
The bit about the defense department and Cyc being a "nice toy" was joking - as indicated by the emoticon.:) I'm sure the defense department is interested in loads of cool stuff - I would be if I had that budget.:)
Bzzzt! Wrong... the Turing test says nothing about whether something is intelligent, merely whether it can fool a person. There are already some pretty good pieces of software out there about this, and they'll get better in the next few years. But they won't be intelligent. Blind adherence to rules is not intelligence.
I think the point he was trying to make was that the Turing test is the only test we have for intelligence. How do I know that you, my girlfriend or anyone else is intelligent? The answer- I don't but I assume that you are because you act in a way that I consider intelligent.
What is your test for intelligence?
Blind adherence to rules is not intelligence
What is the proof that the human barin does not operate by 'blind adherence to rules'?
The fact is that no modern computer, no matter how powerful it gets, will ever be capable of creating true AI.
What do you mean by "true AI"? Artificial Intelligence is defined differently by different people but one widely accepted definition is "The ability for a machine to perform tasks which are normally thought to require intelligence". Intelligence can also have a number of definitions but keys factors are generally the ability to acquire and use knowledge and the ability to reason.
Cyc is doing things that previously machines have not been able to do so it has a lot to do with the future of AI.
You are right to mention that rules based systems will not bring us Strong AI but you make the mistake of thinking that Strong AI == AI. Strong AI is not the only goal of AI research. Many AI researchers are, like the developers of Cyc, trying to create machines that can do things that have previously been the preserve of the human brain. Their work is just as valid as those striving for String AI and at the moment is having more impact on the world.
Sorry, but Cyc is just a nice toy and of no use in serious AI research.
I doubt the defense department would be so interested in Cyc if it were "just a nice toy".:)
Re:To what purpose, I wonder
on
The Social Web
·
· Score: 1
Everyone has different ideas, if anything the cross polination of ideas (information/memes) is MUCH greater in an environment where geography is unimportant, and certainly will be even MORE widespread in the event that language loses its barrieristic capabilities...
I see your point but I disagree with the idea that sites like Slashdot cause their users to mix with a wide variety of people. The success of sites like Slashdot is based in part on the fact that they appeal to a particular sub-set of society. Yes, every Slashdot reader is different but the Slashdot readership really represents quite a thin slice of society. Of course, there are exceptions but the vast majority of Slashdot readers have many things in common.
The tagline says it all - "News For Nerds..." Slashdot appeals to a particular type of person. By coming to Slashdot, those people are able to socialise electronically with people that are interested in the same things.
My original point was that because people can mix more easily with others that share the same interests, they will often choose to do so rather than mixing with those that are more different to them. This could lead to increasing separation of the various groups
I would say that electronic commication has the potential to spread ideas more widely that traditional means but that the temptation to only mix with those who share the same area of interest (if not views) could limit cross-pollenation. By cross pollenation, I do not mean a different view on the same issue but rather an idea from outside the context of an issue that gives perspective or insight. (Like if you are talking to someone while waiting for a bus and you find out something really interesting that you never would have found out by choice)
Re:To what purpose, I wonder
on
The Social Web
·
· Score: 4
I often wonder about the long-term effects of putting so much effort into creating - and now analysing - digital "culture". I'm not advocating being a luddite or anything, but more and more often these days we see online social interaction not adding to but replacing more traditional forms of human contact.
One thing that is different about electronic communication as opposed to older methods is that relationships can be formed based on interests rather than geographical location.
This could be viewed as an advantage - those with similar interests can get together regardless of where they are in the world.
On the other hand, the ease with which people can find and communicate with people like them could be viewed as a bad thing for society; people are not forced to mix with those that are different to them and some valuable "cross-pollenation" of ideas may be lost
The thing to remember is that social systems are not neccessarily replaced because they do not work. Often, a new system will be more attractive to a particular group at a particular time so they adopt it. There is no ruling council of humanity that decides which things are good for us and can dictate which we should adopt (unless you are really paranoid). Even if there were, it is likely that sub-cultures would adopt their own systems regardless.
In many ways, the success of electronic socializing has been due to the fact that it makes things easier for individuals rather than for society. Online, you can present yourself as you want to be seen. You do not have extra stress involved in a face to face meeting where you have to be aware of body langauge, facial expresssions and perhaps even the possibility of physical contact (welcome or unwelcome). By taking away all these considerations, electronic socializing makes it easier to think about what is being said. (of course, it is also easier to lie online...)
If an organization wants to be altruistic and rely on good-will they should be non-profit.
What about shareware programmers? They rely on good-will and yet, if people like their product, they make a profit.
Mandrake chose to release their own work under the GPL, even the work that didnt need to be. They allow free download of their distribution. I see no reason why they should'nt provide users with the means to compompense them for their work.
Why should letting customers set the price not be a valid business model? Customers can decide how much the product is worth to them and how much they can afford to pay
Mandrake are not forcing anyone to do anything - they are just providing a means for people who feel they want to pay for the software they downloaded to make a payment. Users asked for it.
I think adding a little one-liner to the end of a story is different from a detailed attack on the original author in a fashion that doesn't allow him to respond.
Look at the icon that the story is submitted under - editorial. This means you should expect some editorial text which is longer than a one liner which which contains some sort of editorial point of view.
Personally, I think its better to have two conflicting views in the article as this provides more scope for discussion of the issues involved.
I disagree about the original authors ability to repsond to CmdrTaco's comments - he can post a defence of his views as a comment and, if it is moderated up, everyone will be able to see it.
I like seeing conflicting views in the article and expect editorial to have a point of view - if they don't then they are little more than a filter for interesting stories.
I think private companies can carry or drop whatever internet traffic they want to for any reason they want.
What if a big backbone provider decided to block traffic from a website until that site paid them a large sum on money? Would that be okay?
Your suggetsion would allow backbone providers to extort money from commercial site owners by cutting them off from a proportion of their customers. That doesnt seem like a good situation to me.
That is, the page that has been available on the web continuously and without change for the longest time.
Alternatively - what is the oldest server on the internet? That is - the server that has been continuously connected to the internet (preferably at the same IP) for the longest time.
The human immune system sometimes goes wrong and attacks the body itself, causing harm.
A computer immune system of this type could do the same thing - if the 'antibody' worms were not well programmed, they could have unexpected results. Admins are happy to install patches because they trust the source (in either sense) - if the patches distribute themselves then the source is not known and there is no trust.
Slashdot Mirror
EULA's are not legally binding in Germany.
I think it means that no path between the points exists. Much analysis of this sort is based on findinb the shortest path between two nodes in the network. If the shortest path cannot be found, the nodes are disconnected.
I don't see how the Matrix lends itself at all to a sequel.
There are some issues that a good Matrix sequel could explore. For instance, the question of whether freedom is worth the price of the tough life outside of the Matrix. If people knew what they were in for, would they agree to leave the matrix? If they would not agree, is it right to 'free' them by detroying the matrix? Are the freedom fighters actually working against peoples best interests without their consent?
I think the issue of freedom Vs a (generally) better life inside the the matrix could give Matrix sequels some really interesting angles to look at. Maybe The One isn't the saviour of mankind after all...
how did they tap his keyboard without breaking into his house illegally (without court order) or is the first recorded TEMPEST tap by the FBI?
IIRC, they did enter his house (with a search warrant) and installed a (presumably hardware) bug.
They are claiming that it did not constitute a wiretap (requiring a court order) because no communication was intercepted - only usage a computer. The complication is that the computer was used for email...
Try doing an internet search for you social security number - that will show if it has been posted on any websites (once there has been enough time for your search engine of choice to do the necessary spidering)
Of course, the story is about details being posted to a chat room so this might not help in this case...
Isn't it self contradictory on one hand to produce a product as Open Source - releasing the content IP to the world freely - while fighting vigorously to protect the trademark - restricting identification/brand name IP from the world?
If OS projects did not protect trademarks, there would be all sorts of problems. I could bodge together an operating system and sell it under the name Linux - my customers would think that linux was crap.
Until we have better ways of identifying products than simple names, we have to have a way for people to claim a name for their product - if only to prevent confusion.
In a perfect world, everyone would respect each others product names and would not choose potentially confusing ones. The world is not perfect so we need trademark law to force people to respect trademarks.
And by bringing this lawsuit up in the first place, and by forcing them to change their name, isn't that (at least temporarily) halting distrobution and development?
AFAIK it is still unclear whether Adobe were actually aware of the warning letter which was sent by the lawyers firm. (it never got as far as a lawsuit)
In Germany, law firms can send warning letters on another companies behalf and charge those they send them to for their time. The company for whom the warning is being sent is not neccessarlity aware that this has been done. There is more information on this in the earlier article, especially this posting
I get a javascript error on CreativePro.com so I can't comment on how well it works...
I think the point is that the Google service is searching the whole web (well, as much as it can) for images rather than an archive of stock images.
Google seem to implementing their various search engines in a sensible way - as separate services under the Google banner, rather than tryin gto create one super-service that does everything.
The addition of the newsgroups search has not adversly affected the stanard Google search and I don't expect that this image search will either.
I'm glad that, in expanding their services, Google are sticking to what they know(search engines) rather than offering a whole load of other services (as others have done in the past).
Google is still the best webpage search engine by far, due to it functional, minimal philosophy. If they can take that design philosophy to other types of search then thats a good thing.
The point is that no matter how powerful computers get, they are still Turing machines. Whether they run at 1KHz or 10^100THz, they still operate on the same principles, and as such will never demonstrate true intelligence, ie. semantic understanding.
Well explained
What about if I use my obscenely powerful computer to simulate with absolute perfection every atomic (and sub-atomic)interaction in a volume of space that happens to contain a person?
There are some good arguments against this 'simulated intelligence' thought experiment but if we could simulate the brain inside a Turing machine, it would be more difficult to draw a distinction between what our brain does and what a Turing machine does.
But you and your girlfriend work in roughly the same way as me, whereas the computer works on totally different principles. Therefore, while I'm justified in assuming you're also intelligent,
Or at least, to the best of your knowledge we work in the same way and so you assume we do :)
[on the difference between the human brain and a Turing machine] We simply don't know enough yet to say for definite, but the fact that it has both a changing topology and is analog would indicate it doesn't work in the same manner as a Turing machine, as would the Chinese room experiment.
One of the things i find most interesting about very large expert systems is the possibility of emergent behaviour as the complexity increases. A single human neuron on its own will not exhibit intelligence - its behaviour is deterministic. When combined with millions of others in the right conditions, intelligence emerges. I do not write off the idea that a sufficiently large expert system could begin to exhibit similar emergent behaviour.
I'm not convinced that they will by a long way but I'm keeping my mind open. Assuming that only certain routes will achieve the aims of AI research on the basis of our currently very limited knowledge will limit our chances of finding the right one.
The bit about the defense department and Cyc being a "nice toy" was joking - as indicated by the emoticon. :) I'm sure the defense department is interested in loads of cool stuff - I would be if I had that budget. :)
Bzzzt! Wrong... the Turing test says nothing about whether something is intelligent, merely whether it can fool a person. There are already some pretty good pieces of software out there about this, and they'll get better in the next few years. But they won't be intelligent. Blind adherence to rules is not intelligence.
I think the point he was trying to make was that the Turing test is the only test we have for intelligence. How do I know that you, my girlfriend or anyone else is intelligent? The answer- I don't but I assume that you are because you act in a way that I consider intelligent.
What is your test for intelligence?
Blind adherence to rules is not intelligence
What is the proof that the human barin does not operate by 'blind adherence to rules'?
The fact is that no modern computer, no matter how powerful it gets, will ever be capable of creating true AI.
What do you mean by "true AI"? Artificial Intelligence is defined differently by different people but one widely accepted definition is "The ability for a machine to perform tasks which are normally thought to require intelligence". Intelligence can also have a number of definitions but keys factors are generally the ability to acquire and use knowledge and the ability to reason.
Cyc is doing things that previously machines have not been able to do so it has a lot to do with the future of AI.
You are right to mention that rules based systems will not bring us Strong AI but you make the mistake of thinking that Strong AI == AI. Strong AI is not the only goal of AI research. Many AI researchers are, like the developers of Cyc, trying to create machines that can do things that have previously been the preserve of the human brain. Their work is just as valid as those striving for String AI and at the moment is having more impact on the world.
Sorry, but Cyc is just a nice toy and of no use in serious AI research.
I doubt the defense department would be so interested in Cyc if it were "just a nice toy". :)
Everyone has different ideas, if anything the cross polination of ideas (information/memes) is MUCH greater in an environment where geography is unimportant, and certainly will be even MORE widespread in the event that language loses its barrieristic capabilities...
I see your point but I disagree with the idea that sites like Slashdot cause their users to mix with a wide variety of people. The success of sites like Slashdot is based in part on the fact that they appeal to a particular sub-set of society. Yes, every Slashdot reader is different but the Slashdot readership really represents quite a thin slice of society. Of course, there are exceptions but the vast majority of Slashdot readers have many things in common.
The tagline says it all - "News For Nerds..." Slashdot appeals to a particular type of person. By coming to Slashdot, those people are able to socialise electronically with people that are interested in the same things.
My original point was that because people can mix more easily with others that share the same interests, they will often choose to do so rather than mixing with those that are more different to them. This could lead to increasing separation of the various groups
I would say that electronic commication has the potential to spread ideas more widely that traditional means but that the temptation to only mix with those who share the same area of interest (if not views) could limit cross-pollenation. By cross pollenation, I do not mean a different view on the same issue but rather an idea from outside the context of an issue that gives perspective or insight. (Like if you are talking to someone while waiting for a bus and you find out something really interesting that you never would have found out by choice)
I often wonder about the long-term effects of putting so much effort into creating - and now analysing - digital "culture". I'm not advocating being a luddite or anything, but more and more often these days we see online social interaction not adding to but replacing more traditional forms of human contact.
One thing that is different about electronic communication as opposed to older methods is that relationships can be formed based on interests rather than geographical location.
This could be viewed as an advantage - those with similar interests can get together regardless of where they are in the world.
On the other hand, the ease with which people can find and communicate with people like them could be viewed as a bad thing for society; people are not forced to mix with those that are different to them and some valuable "cross-pollenation" of ideas may be lost
The thing to remember is that social systems are not neccessarily replaced because they do not work. Often, a new system will be more attractive to a particular group at a particular time so they adopt it. There is no ruling council of humanity that decides which things are good for us and can dictate which we should adopt (unless you are really paranoid). Even if there were, it is likely that sub-cultures would adopt their own systems regardless.
In many ways, the success of electronic socializing has been due to the fact that it makes things easier for individuals rather than for society. Online, you can present yourself as you want to be seen. You do not have extra stress involved in a face to face meeting where you have to be aware of body langauge, facial expresssions and perhaps even the possibility of physical contact (welcome or unwelcome). By taking away all these considerations, electronic socializing makes it easier to think about what is being said. (of course, it is also easier to lie online...)
Just my ideas...
What if someone (say Terrorists, or Microsoft) steals that plutonium?
One of the requirements of the competition is that the plutonium is secured against attempted theft.
If an organization wants to be altruistic and rely on good-will they should be non-profit.
What about shareware programmers? They rely on good-will and yet, if people like their product, they make a profit.
Mandrake chose to release their own work under the GPL, even the work that didnt need to be. They allow free download of their distribution. I see no reason why they should'nt provide users with the means to compompense them for their work.
Why should letting customers set the price not be a valid business model? Customers can decide how much the product is worth to them and how much they can afford to pay
Mandrake are not forcing anyone to do anything - they are just providing a means for people who feel they want to pay for the software they downloaded to make a payment. Users asked for it.
I think adding a little one-liner to the end of a story is different from a detailed attack on the original author in a fashion that doesn't allow him to respond.
Look at the icon that the story is submitted under - editorial. This means you should expect some editorial text which is longer than a one liner which which contains some sort of editorial point of view.Personally, I think its better to have two conflicting views in the article as this provides more scope for discussion of the issues involved.
I disagree about the original authors ability to repsond to CmdrTaco's comments - he can post a defence of his views as a comment and, if it is moderated up, everyone will be able to see it.
I like seeing conflicting views in the article and expect editorial to have a point of view - if they don't then they are little more than a filter for interesting stories.
I think private companies can carry or drop whatever internet traffic they want to for any reason they want.
What if a big backbone provider decided to block traffic from a website until that site paid them a large sum on money? Would that be okay?
Your suggetsion would allow backbone providers to extort money from commercial site owners by cutting them off from a proportion of their customers. That doesnt seem like a good situation to me.
The "free" license places all sorts of limitations on the ways in which the data can be used.
I assume these clauses prevent a proxy being set up.
... what the oldest page on the web is?
That is, the page that has been available on the web continuously and without change for the longest time.
Alternatively - what is the oldest server on the internet? That is - the server that has been continuously connected to the internet (preferably at the same IP) for the longest time.
Suggestions anyone?
The human immune system sometimes goes wrong and attacks the body itself, causing harm.
A computer immune system of this type could do the same thing - if the 'antibody' worms were not well programmed, they could have unexpected results. Admins are happy to install patches because they trust the source (in either sense) - if the patches distribute themselves then the source is not known and there is no trust.
Seems to me that he doesnt really want to sue anyone:
"A lawsuit just doesnt seem like it would really net any cash"
and wants to get peoples advice about how the situation can be sorted:
"Does anyone have any realistic advice for all these webmasters?"
Lots of webmasters read slashdot so it seems like a fair enough place to ask what others have done in this situation.
I think you're being a bit harsh.
If you think The Business is confusing, try reading The Bridge (also By Iain Banks).
I've read it four times and I'm still not quite sure whats going on. Must be fun to read though or I wouldnt have read it so many times.