Interesting that you can terminate a fetus in the third trimester for any reason you want - but you can't terminate it in the first to do research that could save lives...
.
Re:Vernor Vinge's Singularity...
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 2
...will be the *last* event in human history.
I don't think so. The computers might not call it human history anymore (cause we'll be irrelevant), but that doesn't mean much. As long as we give them a prime directive of "keep the humans happy", I think life is going to be pretty swell.
Who knows, they may even be able to upgrade us so we're as smart as they are. Or smarter - maybe it'll turn out we have some great components.
I'm a firm believer that intelligence leads to good.
Reply to AC - when there's nothing left to do....
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 2
The more interesing question is, what happens when machines think better than any of us - and we're all "useless".
Doesn't mean that I'll have any less fun playing StarCraft 27 (written by a team of supercomputers in Omaha). As long as the robot's prime directive is "make the human's happy", I think we're in for some good times - they'll figure out some fun stuff.
Re:Chinese Rooms and Software Guys
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 2
What the hell does it mean to know something? What evidence do you have that your coworker knows English? How do you know he isn't just following a complex rulebook (that he doesn't "understand") when he answers your questions?
The problem is that the meaning of "know" is complex. Is it only knowledge if we understand the "rules"?
Wouldn't it be better to define "know" in functional terms? If buddy functions perfectly in regards to understanding and working with Chinese, then he knows Chinese.
Whether the "concious" part of his mind doesn't understand it is a separate question. You could ask him, "Hey, does your concious mind understand the meaning of what I'm saying?" And he could say "no" honestly. But that doesn't change the fact that he, as a system, knows Chinese for any sense of the word "knows" that is usable.
Searle's little problem just batters about the idea that machine's don't have a concious mind, so they can't "know" - but that uses a meaning of the word "know" that requires the kind of concious mind our brain deludes us into thinking we have.
I think AI mainly needs a breakthrough - a new way of approaching the whole problem. As you suggest, we'll need a lot of computing power - but even with much more computing power I don't think current algorithms would be capable of the sort of learning and problem solving that humans are.
Efforts to solve the Turing test are a boondoggle right now. Instead of hacking at real root of AI, they're whacking at leaves like ambiguous meanings and localizing events and states in space time.
I believe there's an algorithm which would be able to learn these kinds of concepts without being led by the hand. And even if today's computers would take eons to learn English using it, I think it's what we need to concentrate on. Is it some sort of neural net? Is it a way of evolving and algorithm?
Is it something nobody has even dreamed of, some code that runs in our brain a million times - the rules of getting from "problem" to "solution"?
"Singularity", the time when AI exceeds humans, will be the most important event in human history. Imagine the prospect of science accelerating exponentially as machines build faster, smarter machines. It's unfortunate that it's still a long way off.
Robots replacing humans in day to day tasks is a process begun quite a while ago, and will proceed. But it's really not that exciting. Lots of people will end up "no-jobbed", but society will adapt. We'll find better things to do than sweeping - like thinking.
It's when machines start thinking better than we do that things will really change.
Riker would get pasted....
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 2
Bluffing is pretty easy when you have complete control over your appearance. Bluffing is such an art in humans mostly because novices are so bad at it (they sweat, look around differently). And when to bluff is something you could write a good algorithm for (not exactly a big chore for a highly advanced intelligence).
Analyzing another face might be hard, but it's infinitely easier than passing a Turing Test. Have you ever heard of a lie detector? See any parallels? With a little work, I'm sure something like this could be put together using only today's technology.
If a machine as smart and adaptable as Data existed, it would bankrupt Riker - easy.
...makes sense really, as 3 is the closest integer base to e. This minimizes the value of (number of different symbols) * (number of symbols required to express n digits).
I honestly don't know how many companies have MFC projects running. I've actually come accross more Delphi apps than MFC based ones. I've talked to a lot of people that started an app in MFC, but then switched either to clean C++ or to Visual Basic. It mostly comes down to "corporate development culture".
Perhaps the best thing to do is talk to some prospective future employers and find out what they use. There's a lot of different skill sets you could acquire - and you might as well acquire a set of skills you'll:
As others have said, avoid MFC like the plague - just write Petzold "Programming Windows" style code. As long as you can find all the API's you need (MSDN helps, but often doesn't search well - example code is a lot better), C programming under Windows is pretty easy.
That said, if you have the option of using.NET it's probably the best way to go right now. C#, or even VB.NET, are pretty dang easy to use. Might even make for compatible code once Mono is working.
Either way, much better than sifting through MFC you'll never use again.
We have Outlook Express on all our Win desktops (about 500), and it has _never_ had a problem thus far. I get a fair bit of e-mail (some of our servers log to me via e-mail) - about 300 a day - and I've never had a problem (though I do have a fairly fast machine and decent RAM).
Performance is a little sluggish if you've got 2 or 3 thousand e-mails in a folder. I usually just select them all and drag them out to a folder (where they're stored in individual text.eml files), and archive them. Older versions of OE did handle this a little better.
Does anyone have anything more than an anecdote about Outlook Express client reliability? I'd be interested to find out...
A lot of people have actually e-mailed me to tell me that I'm an idiot - and that support is actually quite good under a few different e-mail programs.
Interesting how that doesn't stop people from arguing. It's a good break from work anyway.
Have a good day - and thanks for not calling me an idiot.
I don't do open source development, and if I did I wouldn't touch this sort of thing either.
Which hurts more: To hack your e-mail program to read Outlook-HTML e-mails, or to watch open source dismissed by business users because they can't find a way to read their clients' stupid letterheaded e-mail?
The other interesting part of this is my own ignorance. A few years ago when I was more into Unix, it was dang hard to read fancy e-mails. It sounds like the situation has changed now, and support is actually pretty good for Outlook and other goofy formats. So perhaps the whole question is a little moot.
Fair enough. I suppose the value of the thing varies with your situation. You're right too, in that a program that did a good job rendering Outlook-HTML messages would have value now but perhaps not later.
It'll be interesting to watch MS over the next few years..NET and the CLR promise reliance on standards. Perhaps in a few years, Windows software will just run on Linux via Mono - and MS will be making its money selling xbox games.
Surely the MS upgrade cycle can't go on much longer. They're already scraping the bottom of the barrel for new features (ie security, reliability, that sort of non-seller type thing).
Sometimes I use Lego to build things not illustrated on the cover. And I do not add the correct supplements to my Rice Krispies to make it a true "part of a complete breakfast".
I think it's ludicrous that Sony can do this.
Unfortunately, nobody disagrees with me so I can't really get going...
I've heard enough complaints about Outlook e-mails (lots of people have trouble reading the ones formatted in HTML) that I guess I projected them on to this story without warrant.
I guess that makes me off-topic... But close maybe - only 2 tangents away....
I think sending back an Outlook-unfriendly mail is fair play, at least to those who can't fire you.
But wouldn't it be nice if our open source programs were so good that we never even noticed. If open source packages could read the HTML formatting, complete with its eccentricities. If you'd be able to click on that attachment and have it come up in StarOffice (or whatever) without a hitch (I can dream...).
Many people don't seem to agree that the above would be a good state of affairs. They seem to think it's better that we fight MS on this one and make them stick to standards (which would be great too, but seems unlikely).
My argument is only this: Being able to cope with MS eccentricities is a good feature - and it's better use of time to just make it work than it is to complain about MS.
And as you mention, it's not really all that bad now. Most stuff does "just work".
Why do you make it compatible? Well, you don't have to.
But if you want to give your users something really great, then you do. It's a good feature to be able to read Outlook-ified e-mails - and a feature many, many people would appreciate.
As to MS changing their formats, they might. But probably not by much in this case (as they will likely choose to retain backwards compatibility, and thus can't change too much).
And if some future MS e-mail program creates new, crappier emails? Well, then your "reading Outlook email" feature becomes less valuable - and you have to choose whether or not to try to be able to read the new format.
Your answers to these questions doesn't change the fact that the feature is a valuable (if not critical, to many business people) now.
I understand the story, and I understand that my original post isn't specifically about the Outlook renderer problem (which should, of course, be fixed (and which has very little to do with his changed headers, fool)).
It seems to me that one the reasons this guy intentionally made messages hard for Outlook users to read was that he was incensed by difficult to read Outlook created e-mails. I think that makes both "Outlook's illegibility" and "open source users' appropriate response" fair game for discussion.
If you have some problem with the arguments I've made, I'd be interested to hear them. Otherwise, your post seems to be "Uhh, you're offtopic" - which I think is hardly worth debating.
If half the people I dealt with sent me e-mail in pig-latin, I'd make damn sure my e-mail reader translated it for me.
And I understand that Outlook has a bug in it too. And it should be fixed. But the parallel problem (which I think is very relevant to this thread, and was motivation for the actions in the story) - Outlook's illegibility - can be solved too.
Seems to me like the ability to read Outlook garbage would be a good feature in any e-mail client. Just because a format is stupid doesn't mean it isn't worth being able to read.
Great logic. In any case, I guess I'll respond to you and the AC - who both seem to think I'm MS apologizing...
The only way open source will win the fight with MS is by producing a platform that always takes the higher road. What would be an idea e-mail program?
1. Sends out well formatted, standardized emails, and reads the same.
2. Feature rich. Great user experience.
3. Is able to interact with all the major email programs/servers out there - even if they don't play fair.
I understand that the article was talking about a bug in Outlook's own renderer. It should be fixed. Yes.
But the parallel complaint, that Outlook produces illegible email, should be laid to rest too, and not by MS (cause they won't do it). Our favorite open source packages should be made to "just work". Open source needs to produce this sort of product, something that "just works" if it is ever going to win (not that I'm suggesting that open source's only goal is to win, but I think it would be nice).
As to my username, it's from a PalmOS game I wrote - Jumpman Zero. And since you've given me an excuse, here's a plug - www.betweenyourears.com/jmzero
Slashdot Mirror
... if Michael hadn't killed censorware.org - as it stands censorware.net is a good resource for the info you want to teach.
And yes, I'm talking about the Slashdot editor ("User" if you will) who's username is michael.
Interesting that you can terminate a fetus in the third trimester for any reason you want - but you can't terminate it in the first to do research that could save lives...
.
...will be the *last* event in human history.
I don't think so. The computers might not call it human history anymore (cause we'll be irrelevant), but that doesn't mean much. As long as we give them a prime directive of "keep the humans happy", I think life is going to be pretty swell.
Who knows, they may even be able to upgrade us so we're as smart as they are. Or smarter - maybe it'll turn out we have some great components.
I'm a firm believer that intelligence leads to good.
The more interesing question is, what happens when machines think better than any of us - and we're all "useless".
Doesn't mean that I'll have any less fun playing StarCraft 27 (written by a team of supercomputers in Omaha). As long as the robot's prime directive is "make the human's happy", I think we're in for some good times - they'll figure out some fun stuff.
What the hell does it mean to know something? What evidence do you have that your coworker knows English? How do you know he isn't just following a complex rulebook (that he doesn't "understand") when he answers your questions?
The problem is that the meaning of "know" is complex. Is it only knowledge if we understand the "rules"?
Wouldn't it be better to define "know" in functional terms? If buddy functions perfectly in regards to understanding and working with Chinese, then he knows Chinese.
Whether the "concious" part of his mind doesn't understand it is a separate question. You could ask him, "Hey, does your concious mind understand the meaning of what I'm saying?" And he could say "no" honestly. But that doesn't change the fact that he, as a system, knows Chinese for any sense of the word "knows" that is usable.
Searle's little problem just batters about the idea that machine's don't have a concious mind, so they can't "know" - but that uses a meaning of the word "know" that requires the kind of concious mind our brain deludes us into thinking we have.
.
I think AI mainly needs a breakthrough - a new way of approaching the whole problem. As you suggest, we'll need a lot of computing power - but even with much more computing power I don't think current algorithms would be capable of the sort of learning and problem solving that humans are.
Efforts to solve the Turing test are a boondoggle right now. Instead of hacking at real root of AI, they're whacking at leaves like ambiguous meanings and localizing events and states in space time.
I believe there's an algorithm which would be able to learn these kinds of concepts without being led by the hand. And even if today's computers would take eons to learn English using it, I think it's what we need to concentrate on. Is it some sort of neural net? Is it a way of evolving and algorithm?
Is it something nobody has even dreamed of, some code that runs in our brain a million times - the rules of getting from "problem" to "solution"?
We'll find out I guess.
.
"Singularity", the time when AI exceeds humans, will be the most important event in human history. Imagine the prospect of science accelerating exponentially as machines build faster, smarter machines. It's unfortunate that it's still a long way off.
Robots replacing humans in day to day tasks is a process begun quite a while ago, and will proceed. But it's really not that exciting. Lots of people will end up "no-jobbed", but society will adapt. We'll find better things to do than sweeping - like thinking.
It's when machines start thinking better than we do that things will really change.
Bluffing is pretty easy when you have complete control over your appearance. Bluffing is such an art in humans mostly because novices are so bad at it (they sweat, look around differently). And when to bluff is something you could write a good algorithm for (not exactly a big chore for a highly advanced intelligence).
Analyzing another face might be hard, but it's infinitely easier than passing a Turing Test. Have you ever heard of a lie detector? See any parallels? With a little work, I'm sure something like this could be put together using only today's technology.
If a machine as smart and adaptable as Data existed, it would bankrupt Riker - easy.
...makes sense really, as 3 is the closest integer base to e. This minimizes the value of (number of different symbols) * (number of symbols required to express n digits).
We should all use Base 3. Maybe....
.
I wouldn't have guessed the number would be so high, nor would I have though Delphi would rank so high.
I guess that's the problem with making judgements based on only your own experience.
Have a good day.
.
...that this was produced by Apple, so that it would be a must-have life changer instead of a boring system with two monitors.
.
I honestly don't know how many companies have MFC projects running. I've actually come accross more Delphi apps than MFC based ones. I've talked to a lot of people that started an app in MFC, but then switched either to clean C++ or to Visual Basic. It mostly comes down to "corporate development culture".
Perhaps the best thing to do is talk to some prospective future employers and find out what they use. There's a lot of different skill sets you could acquire - and you might as well acquire a set of skills you'll:
1. Get work with
2. Enjoy using
As others have said, avoid MFC like the plague - just write Petzold "Programming Windows" style code. As long as you can find all the API's you need (MSDN helps, but often doesn't search well - example code is a lot better), C programming under Windows is pretty easy.
.NET it's probably the best way to go right now. C#, or even VB.NET, are pretty dang easy to use. Might even make for compatible code once Mono is working.
That said, if you have the option of using
Either way, much better than sifting through MFC you'll never use again.
Hmmm... We don't use Exchange or "Outlook" (we use Outlook Express and IMail) - perhaps that explains the different experiences.
Hopefully the boss never decides he wants an integrated calendar...
Have a good day.
.
We have Outlook Express on all our Win desktops (about 500), and it has _never_ had a problem thus far. I get a fair bit of e-mail (some of our servers log to me via e-mail) - about 300 a day - and I've never had a problem (though I do have a fairly fast machine and decent RAM).
.eml files), and archive them. Older versions of OE did handle this a little better.
Performance is a little sluggish if you've got 2 or 3 thousand e-mails in a folder. I usually just select them all and drag them out to a folder (where they're stored in individual text
Does anyone have anything more than an anecdote about Outlook Express client reliability? I'd be interested to find out...
A lot of people have actually e-mailed me to tell me that I'm an idiot - and that support is actually quite good under a few different e-mail programs.
Interesting how that doesn't stop people from arguing. It's a good break from work anyway.
Have a good day - and thanks for not calling me an idiot.
It's a tough call isn't it?
I don't do open source development, and if I did I wouldn't touch this sort of thing either.
Which hurts more: To hack your e-mail program to read Outlook-HTML e-mails, or to watch open source dismissed by business users because they can't find a way to read their clients' stupid letterheaded e-mail?
The other interesting part of this is my own ignorance. A few years ago when I was more into Unix, it was dang hard to read fancy e-mails. It sounds like the situation has changed now, and support is actually pretty good for Outlook and other goofy formats. So perhaps the whole question is a little moot.
Either way, have a good day.
.
Fair enough. I suppose the value of the thing varies with your situation. You're right too, in that a program that did a good job rendering Outlook-HTML messages would have value now but perhaps not later.
.NET and the CLR promise reliance on standards. Perhaps in a few years, Windows software will just run on Linux via Mono - and MS will be making its money selling xbox games.
It'll be interesting to watch MS over the next few years.
Surely the MS upgrade cycle can't go on much longer. They're already scraping the bottom of the barrel for new features (ie security, reliability, that sort of non-seller type thing).
Have a good day.
Sometimes I use Lego to build things not illustrated on the cover. And I do not add the correct supplements to my Rice Krispies to make it a true "part of a complete breakfast".
I think it's ludicrous that Sony can do this.
Unfortunately, nobody disagrees with me so I can't really get going...
You're very much correct.
I've heard enough complaints about Outlook e-mails (lots of people have trouble reading the ones formatted in HTML) that I guess I projected them on to this story without warrant.
I guess that makes me off-topic... But close maybe - only 2 tangents away....
Have a good day.
I think sending back an Outlook-unfriendly mail is fair play, at least to those who can't fire you.
But wouldn't it be nice if our open source programs were so good that we never even noticed. If open source packages could read the HTML formatting, complete with its eccentricities. If you'd be able to click on that attachment and have it come up in StarOffice (or whatever) without a hitch (I can dream...).
Many people don't seem to agree that the above would be a good state of affairs. They seem to think it's better that we fight MS on this one and make them stick to standards (which would be great too, but seems unlikely).
My argument is only this: Being able to cope with MS eccentricities is a good feature - and it's better use of time to just make it work than it is to complain about MS.
And as you mention, it's not really all that bad now. Most stuff does "just work".
Have a good day.
Why do you make it compatible? Well, you don't have to.
But if you want to give your users something really great, then you do. It's a good feature to be able to read Outlook-ified e-mails - and a feature many, many people would appreciate.
As to MS changing their formats, they might. But probably not by much in this case (as they will likely choose to retain backwards compatibility, and thus can't change too much).
And if some future MS e-mail program creates new, crappier emails? Well, then your "reading Outlook email" feature becomes less valuable - and you have to choose whether or not to try to be able to read the new format.
Your answers to these questions doesn't change the fact that the feature is a valuable (if not critical, to many business people) now.
I understand the story, and I understand that my original post isn't specifically about the Outlook renderer problem (which should, of course, be fixed (and which has very little to do with his changed headers, fool)).
It seems to me that one the reasons this guy intentionally made messages hard for Outlook users to read was that he was incensed by difficult to read Outlook created e-mails. I think that makes both "Outlook's illegibility" and "open source users' appropriate response" fair game for discussion.
If you have some problem with the arguments I've made, I'd be interested to hear them. Otherwise, your post seems to be "Uhh, you're offtopic" - which I think is hardly worth debating.
If half the people I dealt with sent me e-mail in pig-latin, I'd make damn sure my e-mail reader translated it for me.
And I understand that Outlook has a bug in it too. And it should be fixed. But the parallel problem (which I think is very relevant to this thread, and was motivation for the actions in the story) - Outlook's illegibility - can be solved too.
Seems to me like the ability to read Outlook garbage would be a good feature in any e-mail client. Just because a format is stupid doesn't mean it isn't worth being able to read.
Great logic. In any case, I guess I'll respond to you and the AC - who both seem to think I'm MS apologizing...
The only way open source will win the fight with MS is by producing a platform that always takes the higher road. What would be an idea e-mail program?
1. Sends out well formatted, standardized emails, and reads the same.
2. Feature rich. Great user experience.
3. Is able to interact with all the major email programs/servers out there - even if they don't play fair.
I understand that the article was talking about a bug in Outlook's own renderer. It should be fixed. Yes.
But the parallel complaint, that Outlook produces illegible email, should be laid to rest too, and not by MS (cause they won't do it). Our favorite open source packages should be made to "just work". Open source needs to produce this sort of product, something that "just works" if it is ever going to win (not that I'm suggesting that open source's only goal is to win, but I think it would be nice).
As to my username, it's from a PalmOS game I wrote - Jumpman Zero. And since you've given me an excuse, here's a plug - www.betweenyourears.com/jmzero
Have a good day.