I was saying that killing it at the source is censorship, not filtering it out.. So, I am in complete agreement. If I wasn't clear enough on that, I'm sorry..
If our society has too much information, why did you just add that little tidbit to my stream of conciousness? Are you trying to make my head explode?
Frankly, there is no such thing as too much information. Information is never created, knowledge is created. The information was always there (and always will be), you're just percieving more, creating knowledge of the information.
Doesn't this effectively amount to censorship? I agree that we (as individuals) need to make spamming less cost effective, but just preventing people from emailing (which is what you'd have to do) is censorship, unless of course you're the govt, in which case it's "protecting national interests"...
This would be an awesome tool to block spam. If this program could look at the text of an email message and determine that it is a solicitation of some kind and then drop it into an email "pit" (you know, a folder mapped to/dev/null), that would make my life a LOT easier...
Personally, I'm really fond of Alienware's selection. They used to be the kicking-est gaming boxes on the planet. I'm not sure nowadays, but my custom box from them rocks.
it's not the extinction of indiviudal species that 's the issue, it's the principle; some people get really angry when they see other people seeking short term profit at the expense of the nature we all enjoy.
I totally agree. I'm all for conserving pretty things (You won't see me advocating a Heidi Klum Hunting Season anytime soon...), however, I am much more irritated by people who do things on principle but don't extend that principle to other things in life (see the plastic shoes example). Develop a more realistic principle, and I'll be happy. Object to fur not because it kills animals, object because you're disgusted by the killing of cute animals (which is the actual principle most people hold, rather than the cruel blah blah blah line)
Let's not have a double standard folks, one will do just fine.
Keep in mind that pornography literally means "A visual reproduction created solely for pleasure" Wouldn't the enjoyment of watching a graph wiggle be considered porn?
Similarly, school photos of your kid in your wallet constitutes child pornography.
Seriously though, I've always like this kind of thing. For example, the performance monitor graph is endlessly interesting to me. The modem lights on my roadrunner is interesting to me. I'd like something more interesting than the hourglass icon. One that fills up as the work is completed would be great. It would tell me how much longer I have to wait.
Global warming is a self correcting phenomenon. Yes, we may be accelerating the process, but it's essentially self correcting.
Ozone is created (primarily) in our atmosphere by sunlight hitting high altitude free floating water molecules, which break up into hydrogen and Ozone (O^2). The hole in the Ozone layer allowed sunlight to pour through onto the Antarctic ice cap, sublimating (look it up) ice into water vapor. The increase in water vapor allows larger amounts of water to make it to the higher altitudes where the high energy photons break it up into ozone, closing the hole.
Similarly, ice caps melt, causing water and clouds to form, the clouds shield the earth from sunlight, the temperature drops and ice forms again. We start the cycle all over again.
Of course, I'm not a scientist, but it makes sense to me and I've always thought this was true. With the exception of sunlight, the Earth is essentially a closed system, self reparing. The Earth is essentially a Raid Sunlight Motel: Energy checks in, but it doesn't check out.
Moreover, those nutty-crunchy-granola grannies who stand at the corner of Saks 5th Avenue protesting Fur and Leather don't seem to realize that hey, those plastic shoes they're wearing came from animals too, just 10,000 years deceased.
Most of the environmentalist bunk over the past few decades is exactly that: bunk. It generally hasn't been well thought out. -Why- do we care if the left-handed spotted ocelot is wiped out? There is no reason we should care. We're on the top of the food chain. We have no natural predators (except tigers, but we've pretty much taken care of THAT, and again, why do we care, except that they're pretty?). The Earth is at our disposal. I challenge anybody to point to one single endangered species that if we it wiped out, its dissapearance would significantly affect Mom and Dad Public's life. Whales? Whalers would be affected (and maybe the perfume industry, but they don't use whale oil any more), but there aren't a whole lot of whalers out there. Last time I checked, it was illegal to whale anyway (more run away envrionmentalism). Go on, find me one. And don't tell me the Cow is endangered.. You might just change my mind.
George Carlin had a point which I think applies here: euphemisms are basically an attempt by people to salve their conciences. Same thing with environmentalism (in general, there ARE exceptions). Environmentalist causes are by and large taken up by guilty, rich, well-fed white people. If you doubt this, take a look at the protestors on the corner. How many of them need a bath or a meal (except by choice: I know many envrionmentalists who need a bath, and most vegetarians need a steak, but it's not because they don't have the resources, it's because they choose it)? Almost none. They have the time to protest because they can afford it. They have the time. You don't see many homeless people protesting, because they're too busy trying to get a meal and a bath. I can tell you this because despite being a well fed white man myself, I have personal, visceral, experience with the "transient lifestyle". (Quoth George Carlin: "If you want to know what a moronic word 'lifestyle' is, all you have to do is realize that in a technical sense, Attila the Hun had an 'active, outdoor lifestyle'" Take my advice, homelessness is a crime of violence. Avoid it if you can.
This technique has proven to be highly ineffective, which is why govt protectees don't get helmets, just long BP vests. Traditionally, head shots (despite what Half-Life would lead you to believe) and actually rarely fatal, just debilitating. A torso shot is more likely to kill you with one shot, ironically.
If you have a firearm, try this: Get a small watermelon (about the size of a head), suspend it from the limb of a tree and start it swinging. Then take 4 strides away from it, turn and shoot it. Then try again. Keep in mind, the melon is swining in a predicable arc, not an erratic motion like the head of a panicked potential victim.
I just posted as a reply to another poster, but this thought seems completely unrelated to what I was saying there, so here's another one.
Science Fiction novels have latched on to this idea vigorously. One of the best ideas would be smart armor for soldiers (even civilians...). When the fabric is struck by enough kinetic force, the fabric goes rigid, dispersing the force across a larger area. Bullet-proof vests made out of this kind of material could prevent even MINOR injury from relatively large sidearms.
From a civilian application, you would be able to buy ballistic protective shirts, pants, jackets etc that look fashionable, but protect you from the jerks with knives and.38's that want to take your money.
It would be an interesting social exercise. If you outfitted every civilian in a city with clothing that completely protected the wearer from knives and small arms (handheld firearms), would crime dissapear? What would a mugger use to compel someone to give over their wallet? Gas? Sprays? Biologicals?
Would the criminal of the future wield a Windex sprayer full of some mysterious liquid and say "Gimme your wallet, or I'll give you the Black Plague!" Basically, what I'm asking is do you think that crime would escalate or give up?
I realize that people say "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." (which, by they way, I think is a stupid statement. Of course only outlaws would have guns. They're outlaws because they have guns. Duh!), but what if the guns were rendered useless? Even new guns?
I completely agree. Some things definately do NOT need to be 'smart' or otherwise "enhanced". On the other hand, some things that are enhanced would be great. I'd love to be able to pay a parking ticket right on the ticket. When paid, the ticket changes to a reciept.
Flags that were smart would be cool. Smart fabrics in general are neat because they have the potential to require less closet space. It would be very cool to wear a suit that could change color from business grey or green to funeral black. You wouldn't have to go home to go to the wake of a coworker. Similarly, road workers outfits could change color from the usual to International Emergency Orange (yes, that color has a name)when they're on the job. Smart curtains would be neat, ones that can change color when you want to redecorate, or change opacity on demand (this already exists in windows, though).
I'd hate to see a "smart" glove (I don't want my clothes to know where my hands have been), or a smart beer can (unless it can make more beer). I certainly don't need a smart door, but a smart key would be great (one key for you car, house, garage, desk at work etc...), unless you lose it, then you'd need a backup.
Come to think of it, I can't think of many things that wouldn't be better if it were "enhanced", but those few things definately DON'T need to be enhanced.
It would be really cool to see Sony or some other company come up with a thin, flexible PDA. The technology is already there, save for the touch screen part of it.
Two companies, Flexible Circuits and E-Ink have the circuits and display parts down. All we need now is a flexible processor and flexible memory, and we'll have a Palm FleX which you'd be able to fold up or roll up and put in your briefcase.
If anyone knows of a vendor of flexible memory or processors, I'd love to hear of it.
This guy did it as a project. And This guy apparently felt his effort was worth a web-photo album about his computer "Woody".
I also remember reading an article in Wired a couple of years ago about a company that was doing high end PC's what were encased in mahogany and teak and other stuff like that, but I can't find the company now. I gues it's for the executive who has everything and doesn't actually need anything.
Honestly, I think making a computer case out of clay, adobe or ceramics might be better and cheaper. Additionally, there would be a reduced fire hazard and the materials are available onsite. I also think Paper Mache might be good for laptops (weight, you know). Of course, you'd have to have a KILLER fan to keep it from bursting into flames and you'd most certainly have to keep it out of the rain, but there you go.
Nope. There is nothing in the FCC regulations that prevent you from renting a dead POTS (about $4.00 a mth) and running a LAN on your street. Speeds are totally up to you. What the FCC does regulate is your SELLING the service.
Think about it this way: I have a broadband connection between my computers in my house (WELL over the RoadRunner speed). The FCC doesn't regulate that, just the devices.
Keep in mind, if you house already has a security system, or an take one, you already have a dead POTS. That also means that most everyone else on your street already has one too (probably).
Seriously. Ask any neurologist the process of memory formation. Or recall. Or decision making. What charge goes where, what's the biochemical process that happens. We don't know. We've got parts of the puzzle but they only scattered bits, not even a good outline or theory. We haven't got a clue how the most basic processes work much less more sophisticated ones, indeed if even such a distinction exists.
I have MS (Multiple Sclerosis) so I've had a lot of discussions with neurologists and am well educated in that area besides. I completely agree. The best we can do is make educated guesses about the actual processes involved with congnition. Memory can be simulated, as can the memory retrieval process. Many AI scientists agree that the hardest part of intelligence (or simulating intelligence) is building, programatically, a lexicon that is sophisticated enough to weigh and differentiate information in context.
A baby's brain builds that context engine as it develops. When a baby is born, it knows nothing about everything. Every sight, smell, sound, touch and taste is new and different. When the baby has had enough of those things, it trys to build a context for them. A good example is taste. When you give a baby salt, it doesn't know that it tastes salty. It just knows that is tastes different than, say, sugar. As it tries out all of the different tastes, it develops a context for the taste. Two foods with salt taste different, but the baby learns that one part of that complex taste is the same. Salt. That is context.
In a programming application, we need to be able to write software that identifies those differences not just as "different" but as being comprised of common components making a whole. Their use is the context. Language is the same way. The word "and" has no meaning, but it has a function. It's meaning comes from the words surrouding it. That is it's context. Even the word "and" is comprised of other common components, specifically "a","n" and "d". A computer can look at the letters and say they are the three letters, and can look at the combination of letters, but is unlikely to be able to identify an incomplete word or horribly misspelled word without context.
Another example. If I type the word "an" but meant "and", a computer is incapable, without explicit instructions, of discerning my true meaning. We've come a long way in this area, but we've got a long way to go.
I you c n re d t is se tence, it s be ause you un ers and the context. Despite the fact that it is completely missing 7 letters and one punctuation mark. A computer can't do that and extract it's meaning without replacing the letters and then checking the grammar. It also has zero meaning to the computer because it has no lexicon to give it meaning.
Similarly, any neurologist will tell you that they have good evidence that the human brain remembers everything it's experienced. They theorize that the reason we can't remember everything is because our lexicon takes content in context and constantly reorganizes itself based on the most recent contextual information is. You can remember some very early memories because they have a special context for you, and nothing else has supersceded it in that context.
This is why memory tricks work. Mnemonic devices work because they cause your lexicon to give the items a special context that is unlikely to be supersceded. Similarly, new words in your vocabulary need to be used by you 11 times in order to become a regular part of your vocabulary. This is because your lexicon needs the context primers to become part of your frequent use set. You can't just say "phlebotomist" 11 times in a row and have it become part of your vocabulary. You need to use it in conversation, in context, to associate that word with a particular meaning when in use.
We have no computer programs that match this kind of processing, and as a result, we remain a long way away from true AI. However, we are taking steps towards this. We are trying to be able to give a program small pieces of information in context to build large contexts. Just like the letters, we tell a computer that the letter "q" is a letter. We are trying to program a computer to recognize now that the word "quick" has a q in it, but to recognize the word as a whole (different but similar to "quest" and "quiet", both five letter words) and let it make the connection with the letter "q" (and ideally, "u").
It's a huge undertaking, but right now, the processing time to run these programs is outrageous, and for any attempt to be useful, we need to break the speed barriers that are in place preventing us from truly making the effort. Like I said originally (actually, I think Time was trying to get across), without the speed, even if we're successful, the success is useless.
I would open up all of NASA's research on the space program to private companies. I would form strategic non-competitive partnerships with those companies, making the full resources of NASA available to them.
The current NASA funding would go toward paying the NASA staff, maintenance of facilities and services and not a single dime would be spent on anything new from a technology standpoint. I would spend every dime on scientists and consultants to private companies.
This way, there would be incentive for private firms to take up the space race again. If they could borrow a bunch of NASA scientists to help them, they'd go a lot farther more quickly.
I'd recommend something a little... heavier... if you want to post opinions about self-aware computing.
Me too if I had read anything about it anywhere else back then. Frankly, I think I've looked at Time about 10 times in the last 10 years. It was just an idiot nugget (back of the brain memory). I'm sure there have been a lot more stories by better sources, I just haven't read any yet.
Slashdot Mirror
I was saying that killing it at the source is censorship, not filtering it out.. So, I am in complete agreement. If I wasn't clear enough on that, I'm sorry..
Do you have a link to this? Any more information you have would be welcome..
If our society has too much information, why did you just add that little tidbit to my stream of conciousness? Are you trying to make my head explode?
Frankly, there is no such thing as too much information. Information is never created, knowledge is created. The information was always there (and always will be), you're just percieving more, creating knowledge of the information.
I used to know how to do this, but I forgot it as soon as I figured it out. Go figure...
What was I talking about?
Doesn't this effectively amount to censorship? I agree that we (as individuals) need to make spamming less cost effective, but just preventing people from emailing (which is what you'd have to do) is censorship, unless of course you're the govt, in which case it's "protecting national interests"...
This would be an awesome tool to block spam. If this program could look at the text of an email message and determine that it is a solicitation of some kind and then drop it into an email "pit" (you know, a folder mapped to /dev/null), that would make my life a LOT easier...
Personally, I'm really fond of Alienware's selection. They used to be the kicking-est gaming boxes on the planet. I'm not sure nowadays, but my custom box from them rocks.
I totally agree. I'm all for conserving pretty things (You won't see me advocating a Heidi Klum Hunting Season anytime soon...), however, I am much more irritated by people who do things on principle but don't extend that principle to other things in life (see the plastic shoes example). Develop a more realistic principle, and I'll be happy. Object to fur not because it kills animals, object because you're disgusted by the killing of cute animals (which is the actual principle most people hold, rather than the cruel blah blah blah line)
Let's not have a double standard folks, one will do just fine.
You're using one... :) www.whitehouse.gov
Sorry, I forget some people aren't as educated as I am:
Latin root of "Porn" - For pleasure
latin root of "graphy" - a visual depiction of infomormation.
Therefore, pornograhy is a visual depiction for pleasure.
Kozz (-2, Illiterate)
I'd actually mod you up because you're a dissenting opinion, but I can't moderate.
a small correction : ozone is O3 (O2 is oxygen)
Of course, you're right. My typo. Thanks for the pickup.
Keep in mind that pornography literally means "A visual reproduction created solely for pleasure" Wouldn't the enjoyment of watching a graph wiggle be considered porn?
Similarly, school photos of your kid in your wallet constitutes child pornography.
Seriously though, I've always like this kind of thing. For example, the performance monitor graph is endlessly interesting to me. The modem lights on my roadrunner is interesting to me. I'd like something more interesting than the hourglass icon. One that fills up as the work is completed would be great. It would tell me how much longer I have to wait.
Global warming is a self correcting phenomenon. Yes, we may be accelerating the process, but it's essentially self correcting.
Ozone is created (primarily) in our atmosphere by sunlight hitting high altitude free floating water molecules, which break up into hydrogen and Ozone (O^2). The hole in the Ozone layer allowed sunlight to pour through onto the Antarctic ice cap, sublimating (look it up) ice into water vapor. The increase in water vapor allows larger amounts of water to make it to the higher altitudes where the high energy photons break it up into ozone, closing the hole.
Similarly, ice caps melt, causing water and clouds to form, the clouds shield the earth from sunlight, the temperature drops and ice forms again. We start the cycle all over again.
Of course, I'm not a scientist, but it makes sense to me and I've always thought this was true. With the exception of sunlight, the Earth is essentially a closed system, self reparing. The Earth is essentially a Raid Sunlight Motel: Energy checks in, but it doesn't check out.
Moreover, those nutty-crunchy-granola grannies who stand at the corner of Saks 5th Avenue protesting Fur and Leather don't seem to realize that hey, those plastic shoes they're wearing came from animals too, just 10,000 years deceased.
Most of the environmentalist bunk over the past few decades is exactly that: bunk. It generally hasn't been well thought out. -Why- do we care if the left-handed spotted ocelot is wiped out? There is no reason we should care. We're on the top of the food chain. We have no natural predators (except tigers, but we've pretty much taken care of THAT, and again, why do we care, except that they're pretty?). The Earth is at our disposal. I challenge anybody to point to one single endangered species that if we it wiped out, its dissapearance would significantly affect Mom and Dad Public's life. Whales? Whalers would be affected (and maybe the perfume industry, but they don't use whale oil any more), but there aren't a whole lot of whalers out there. Last time I checked, it was illegal to whale anyway (more run away envrionmentalism). Go on, find me one. And don't tell me the Cow is endangered.. You might just change my mind.
George Carlin had a point which I think applies here: euphemisms are basically an attempt by people to salve their conciences. Same thing with environmentalism (in general, there ARE exceptions). Environmentalist causes are by and large taken up by guilty, rich, well-fed white people. If you doubt this, take a look at the protestors on the corner. How many of them need a bath or a meal (except by choice: I know many envrionmentalists who need a bath, and most vegetarians need a steak, but it's not because they don't have the resources, it's because they choose it)? Almost none. They have the time to protest because they can afford it. They have the time. You don't see many homeless people protesting, because they're too busy trying to get a meal and a bath. I can tell you this because despite being a well fed white man myself, I have personal, visceral, experience with the "transient lifestyle". (Quoth George Carlin: "If you want to know what a moronic word 'lifestyle' is, all you have to do is realize that in a technical sense, Attila the Hun had an 'active, outdoor lifestyle'" Take my advice, homelessness is a crime of violence. Avoid it if you can.
This technique has proven to be highly ineffective, which is why govt protectees don't get helmets, just long BP vests. Traditionally, head shots (despite what Half-Life would lead you to believe) and actually rarely fatal, just debilitating. A torso shot is more likely to kill you with one shot, ironically.
If you have a firearm, try this: Get a small watermelon (about the size of a head), suspend it from the limb of a tree and start it swinging. Then take 4 strides away from it, turn and shoot it. Then try again. Keep in mind, the melon is swining in a predicable arc, not an erratic motion like the head of a panicked potential victim.
I just posted as a reply to another poster, but this thought seems completely unrelated to what I was saying there, so here's another one.
.38's that want to take your money.
Science Fiction novels have latched on to this idea vigorously. One of the best ideas would be smart armor for soldiers (even civilians...). When the fabric is struck by enough kinetic force, the fabric goes rigid, dispersing the force across a larger area. Bullet-proof vests made out of this kind of material could prevent even MINOR injury from relatively large sidearms.
From a civilian application, you would be able to buy ballistic protective shirts, pants, jackets etc that look fashionable, but protect you from the jerks with knives and
It would be an interesting social exercise. If you outfitted every civilian in a city with clothing that completely protected the wearer from knives and small arms (handheld firearms), would crime dissapear? What would a mugger use to compel someone to give over their wallet? Gas? Sprays? Biologicals?
Would the criminal of the future wield a Windex sprayer full of some mysterious liquid and say "Gimme your wallet, or I'll give you the Black Plague!" Basically, what I'm asking is do you think that crime would escalate or give up?
I realize that people say "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." (which, by they way, I think is a stupid statement. Of course only outlaws would have guns. They're outlaws because they have guns. Duh!), but what if the guns were rendered useless? Even new guns?
I completely agree. Some things definately do NOT need to be 'smart' or otherwise "enhanced". On the other hand, some things that are enhanced would be great. I'd love to be able to pay a parking ticket right on the ticket. When paid, the ticket changes to a reciept.
Flags that were smart would be cool. Smart fabrics in general are neat because they have the potential to require less closet space. It would be very cool to wear a suit that could change color from business grey or green to funeral black. You wouldn't have to go home to go to the wake of a coworker. Similarly, road workers outfits could change color from the usual to International Emergency Orange (yes, that color has a name)when they're on the job. Smart curtains would be neat, ones that can change color when you want to redecorate, or change opacity on demand (this already exists in windows, though).
I'd hate to see a "smart" glove (I don't want my clothes to know where my hands have been), or a smart beer can (unless it can make more beer). I certainly don't need a smart door, but a smart key would be great (one key for you car, house, garage, desk at work etc...), unless you lose it, then you'd need a backup.
Come to think of it, I can't think of many things that wouldn't be better if it were "enhanced", but those few things definately DON'T need to be enhanced.
Yep, you're absolutely right. It may not be the same company, but it's definately the same concept.
After my earlier post, I think I'm going to make an adobe case for my iMac. It sure would beat the heck out of Ruby.....
It would be really cool to see Sony or some other company come up with a thin, flexible PDA. The technology is already there, save for the touch screen part of it.
Two companies, Flexible Circuits and E-Ink have the circuits and display parts down. All we need now is a flexible processor and flexible memory, and we'll have a Palm FleX which you'd be able to fold up or roll up and put in your briefcase.
If anyone knows of a vendor of flexible memory or processors, I'd love to hear of it.
This guy did it as a project. And This guy apparently felt his effort was worth a web-photo album about his computer "Woody".
I also remember reading an article in Wired a couple of years ago about a company that was doing high end PC's what were encased in mahogany and teak and other stuff like that, but I can't find the company now. I gues it's for the executive who has everything and doesn't actually need anything.
Honestly, I think making a computer case out of clay, adobe or ceramics might be better and cheaper. Additionally, there would be a reduced fire hazard and the materials are available onsite. I also think Paper Mache might be good for laptops (weight, you know). Of course, you'd have to have a KILLER fan to keep it from bursting into flames and you'd most certainly have to keep it out of the rain, but there you go.
POTS are not unshielded.
Nope. There is nothing in the FCC regulations that prevent you from renting a dead POTS (about $4.00 a mth) and running a LAN on your street. Speeds are totally up to you. What the FCC does regulate is your SELLING the service.
Think about it this way: I have a broadband connection between my computers in my house (WELL over the RoadRunner speed). The FCC doesn't regulate that, just the devices.
Keep in mind, if you house already has a security system, or an take one, you already have a dead POTS. That also means that most everyone else on your street already has one too (probably).
Right on all counts.
Seriously. Ask any neurologist the process of memory formation. Or recall. Or decision making. What charge goes where, what's the biochemical process that happens. We don't know. We've got parts of the puzzle but they only scattered bits, not even a good outline or theory. We haven't got a clue how the most basic processes work much less more sophisticated ones, indeed if even such a distinction exists.
I have MS (Multiple Sclerosis) so I've had a lot of discussions with neurologists and am well educated in that area besides. I completely agree. The best we can do is make educated guesses about the actual processes involved with congnition. Memory can be simulated, as can the memory retrieval process. Many AI scientists agree that the hardest part of intelligence (or simulating intelligence) is building, programatically, a lexicon that is sophisticated enough to weigh and differentiate information in context.
A baby's brain builds that context engine as it develops. When a baby is born, it knows nothing about everything. Every sight, smell, sound, touch and taste is new and different. When the baby has had enough of those things, it trys to build a context for them. A good example is taste. When you give a baby salt, it doesn't know that it tastes salty. It just knows that is tastes different than, say, sugar. As it tries out all of the different tastes, it develops a context for the taste. Two foods with salt taste different, but the baby learns that one part of that complex taste is the same. Salt. That is context.
In a programming application, we need to be able to write software that identifies those differences not just as "different" but as being comprised of common components making a whole. Their use is the context. Language is the same way. The word "and" has no meaning, but it has a function. It's meaning comes from the words surrouding it. That is it's context. Even the word "and" is comprised of other common components, specifically "a","n" and "d". A computer can look at the letters and say they are the three letters, and can look at the combination of letters, but is unlikely to be able to identify an incomplete word or horribly misspelled word without context.
Another example. If I type the word "an" but meant "and", a computer is incapable, without explicit instructions, of discerning my true meaning. We've come a long way in this area, but we've got a long way to go.
I you c n re d t is se tence, it s be ause you un ers and the context. Despite the fact that it is completely missing 7 letters and one punctuation mark. A computer can't do that and extract it's meaning without replacing the letters and then checking the grammar. It also has zero meaning to the computer because it has no lexicon to give it meaning.
Similarly, any neurologist will tell you that they have good evidence that the human brain remembers everything it's experienced. They theorize that the reason we can't remember everything is because our lexicon takes content in context and constantly reorganizes itself based on the most recent contextual information is. You can remember some very early memories because they have a special context for you, and nothing else has supersceded it in that context.
This is why memory tricks work. Mnemonic devices work because they cause your lexicon to give the items a special context that is unlikely to be supersceded. Similarly, new words in your vocabulary need to be used by you 11 times in order to become a regular part of your vocabulary. This is because your lexicon needs the context primers to become part of your frequent use set. You can't just say "phlebotomist" 11 times in a row and have it become part of your vocabulary. You need to use it in conversation, in context, to associate that word with a particular meaning when in use.
We have no computer programs that match this kind of processing, and as a result, we remain a long way away from true AI. However, we are taking steps towards this. We are trying to be able to give a program small pieces of information in context to build large contexts. Just like the letters, we tell a computer that the letter "q" is a letter. We are trying to program a computer to recognize now that the word "quick" has a q in it, but to recognize the word as a whole (different but similar to "quest" and "quiet", both five letter words) and let it make the connection with the letter "q" (and ideally, "u").
It's a huge undertaking, but right now, the processing time to run these programs is outrageous, and for any attempt to be useful, we need to break the speed barriers that are in place preventing us from truly making the effort. Like I said originally (actually, I think Time was trying to get across), without the speed, even if we're successful, the success is useless.
I would open up all of NASA's research on the space program to private companies. I would form strategic non-competitive partnerships with those companies, making the full resources of NASA available to them.
The current NASA funding would go toward paying the NASA staff, maintenance of facilities and services and not a single dime would be spent on anything new from a technology standpoint. I would spend every dime on scientists and consultants to private companies.
This way, there would be incentive for private firms to take up the space race again. If they could borrow a bunch of NASA scientists to help them, they'd go a lot farther more quickly.
JMHO.
I'd recommend something a little... heavier... if you want to post opinions about self-aware computing.
Me too if I had read anything about it anywhere else back then. Frankly, I think I've looked at Time about 10 times in the last 10 years. It was just an idiot nugget (back of the brain memory). I'm sure there have been a lot more stories by better sources, I just haven't read any yet.