" ?Reversible computing is absolutely the only possible way to beat this limit,? he said."
I'm not sure I agree with this statement. There's another way to make a computer process faster. Run less data through it. That's how they have improved video cards. They compress texture data to fit it through the narrow pipe and get it to the screen. Who's to say that other forms of compression will make their way into processing?
I think it's funny how he promotes this as the next generation in processors. I just don't see it that way. I mean, it'll probably help quite a bit. But I mean it's not like we'll see 2x the speed here. Some operations that generate heat won't happen as often, but under real-world conditions we won't see it happening so much that they'll be able to clock it much higher than it's at now.
I'd appreciate being corrected on this if I'm mistaken. However, the way the article reads, it doesn't sound like much more than an overhyped tweak.
"The fact is, that people don't place a value on their personal time. If it took them 6 hours to get an album, they still consider that they've saved money."
A few people would, especially the broke college students. However, if everybody was like that, then why would anybody buy overpriced water at a convenience store? Why would anybody buy coffee at Starbucks? Why would anybody buy cartons of cigarettes when they can buy the tobacco and tubes and save enormous amounts of money?
Simple. Convenience. People will pay a fair price for convenience. If it didn't work that way, the USA would be a very different place.
"Judging by the vast amount of MP3's available on Kazaa, I see no reason why they shouldn't trust people who have shown time and time again that they'll happily make copyrighted material available to everyone for free."
And if the RIAA had followed supply and demand, their customers wouldn't have built their own distribution system. Who betrayed who's trust?
Why isn't it ever as simple as "they want to make their product a good one"? You guys all gotta act like everybody at Microsoft has a dartboard with pictures of Linus on it.
"So having your head stay alive for a long time indicates that you are a robot? "
No. Being a robot means your head can be deactivated and reactivated. Robots can be turned on and off.
"Most robots today, if left alone in a cave for 400 years, would probably rust away to nothing."
Two important key words here: most and today.
"Again, my point isn't that he's not a good or interesting character, but the whole emotions issue had more to do with the previous success of Spock than because it's believable to assume that AIs will not have emotions."
Not exactly. I agree with you that Data was originally created to be a Spock'ish character. However, his emotions or lack of is not so easy to compare to Spock's. Spock's emotions were present, but heavily supressed. Data's emotions were non-existent and trying to grow. These are opposite ends of the spectrum here. Oversimplifying a bit here, Spock found human behaviour illogical. Data found it intriguing.
"Most computers, if their memory is erased, are incapable of doing anything. How could Data lose his memories but not his programming? It sounds more like conventional amnesia than anything specific to androids."
Very good point! Before I go any further here, I want to let you know I appreciate having an intelligent discussion with you here.
Interesting thing happened when I got to work this morning. Last night, my PocketPC froze to the point it wouldn't boot. I pulled the battery out to let the memory die. This morning when I came in, I put the battery back in, and the OS reloaded and everything started fresh. None of the data I put in there survived, but the machine came right back up ready to do work. This is very similar to what happened to Data. His main memory was blocked, but his basic operating stuff was still on-line, just like my PocketPC.
Something to consider about sufferers of amnesia: doctors can't flip a switch and turn that memory back on. It was as simple as that with Data. They reconnected some pathways and BOOM he was Data again.
"Right, because any two computers are compatible, especially a custom designed android and a state of the art military/exploration vessel (and let's not even get started on the old malfunctioning holodeck issue)..."
Well hold on a sec. Data's got a very powerful brain capable of learning. It's not surprising at all that he could generate the right data stream to the main computer to cause things to happen. Couple that with help from the Chief Engineer, and suddenly it's not so startling.
As for the holodeck, I agree here, that was a bit strange. Lately though, it's not so bad. When you've played Quake with a Tazmanian Devil skin, the concept of Data replicating around the holodeck all that surprising.
"They clearly had some feelings, but they also accepted without question that they were property, and could have their programming altered or erased at their owner's whim."
Would it be fair for me to say "You don't want Data here because he aspires to be human."?
"Was it just that he was a machine, and they don't like machines?"
Heh I liked that movie. It's easier to enjoy when you see it as a comedy.;) My memory's a bit fuzzy on it, though. It's not that they hated him. If I remember correctly, Data witnessed something that got him in trouble with the Son'A. They shot him with a phaser'esque weapon and it messed him up. Something about the damage caused him to revert to a simpler mode, running entirely on 'ethics'. Sort of like booting into Safe Mode.
"Data behaved how people expect robots to act (no emotions, for example), and had little to do with how they might actually behave."
Why does Data have to represent the generic view of robots? He is a unique creation with a unique goal. I don't think it's unbelievable at all that somebody, some day, would build a robot with the goal of being human.
I have to ask: How do you feel about Johnny 5? If you feel differently about him than Data, then why? I'm just trying to understand your view a little more clearly.
" but Data has no more to do with robotics than I"
What?
Okay, I'm going to expose my nerdy side here. A few eps spring into mind that seem to fly in the face of your comment here:
- Data went to court to dispute that he was 'property' of Starfleet. As part of the case made against him, they removed his arm and turned him off.
- When he was thrown into the past via a time portal thingamabob, his head was left in San Fran for 500 years, thus saving the future yadda yadda yadda.
- Data's emotions chip made for interesting scenes in both the first and second TNG movie.
- Data's androidness was a factor in the 3rd TNG movie as well. It's what sparked the problem with the Son'A race.
- In the last TNG movie, dare I point to his brother B-4? His roboticness is what made the ending open for a rather interesting sequal.
- I recently saw an episode where Data was lost on a pre-warp planet with some radioactive material, and no memory of who he was. His 'death' in that episode was a lucky event that prevented the prime directive from being violated.
- Data's head was hooked into the Enterprise once in order to take over as the ship's computer. A glitch ocurred where some of his personality infected the computer, causing replicates to generate cat-food and duplicates of himself on the Holodeck. (Poor Worf...)
I could keep going but I think my point is more than clear. He may have been thrown in initially to fill the Spock role, but he evolved in a very different direction from our favorite pointy eared Vulcan.
He had no more to do with robotics than you? Have you removed your arm to prove you're not machine?
" I would think they're drawing a fair amount of income from their MSN portal advertising. Maybe it doesn't work for MSN?"
It doesnt' block advertising, just popups. Even if they absolutely HAD TO HAVE popups for income there, there's the little problem that people who hate popups either use Google's toolbar or another browser to avoid them.
"99% of off the shelf shopping cart systems now rely on this behaviour. This will surely alienate even more corporate customers, where the hell are Microsoft going?"
Nope. The solution is real simple: only call popups that are triggered by a mouseclick. Opera's done this for a while now, and I imagine Mozilla works similarly.
"but their ability to "borrow" technology and ideas is slightly disturbing."
Why? If it's a successful product, then they (typically) did something right with it.
Often is the case that the 'inventor' of an idea isn't the one who made a product worthwhile. Look at Palm Pilot vs. Newton. Apple invented Newton, Palm made it a mass-market device.
I could be mistaken about what you meant though, if you meant monopoly driven then I'd sort of agree. Thing is, though, Microsoft doesn't make a monopoly over everything it touches. Really, they only have monopolies in the Windows and Office markets. Everything else they have significantly less power in. Microsoft is not the sole provider of optical mice. I don't think anybody has a Microsoft network card. People swear by Dreameweaver and not Front Page. They're not even the server leader. So if your concern is that they borrow ideas and kill the creator, eh I don't think that's true in most cases without Microsoft doing something significant to make it a better product, much like Palm did.
"Maybe I'm just a grumpy old curmudgeon, but I don't see what there is to celebrate here, or what is about these little bits of code that's so "marvelous"."
If computers weren't popular enough to have viruses, we'd all still be virgins.
"'Overpaid" is an opinion. This article acts as if "overpaid" can be objectively defined."
Yes it can. Sometimes people get paid for very little contribution. If a group of photographers decides they'll never film a wedding unless they make $5k in the process, then they'll end up overpaid. CEOs work that way, and because of their rich buddy network, they never have to worry about the dreaded honest work for honest pay. Etc.
I think I agree with you that these examples can mostly be explained by supply and demand (the Athletes, for example). I'm just saying you can define being over-paid.
" Paying them millions because they can throw a ball only fuels consumerism. "Did you watch the game on Sunday? Wow!" mindless sheep.."
I'm not a sports fan, but I feel compelled to dispute this one. When a athletes perform for a large audience, lots of revenue is generated. The Superbowl comes to mind. "We'll pay you two million dollars for 30-seconds of ad space!"
How fair would it be if the athletes generating this income for their owners, TV networks, and a slew of other places only made 60k a year? If their playing is generating millions of dollars of profit for everybody else, why shouldn't they get a slice of it?
They're not making millions of dollars a year because they can throw a ball, they're making all that money because they're attracting an audience.
Details of that new income figure were a little light. Anybody got a more detailed explanation of what he meant by that, or should I chalk it up as "ooo people'll wanna make 150k, I'll get their vote!"
Can't say I'm terribly worried about mishaps relating to this type of technology. We've been working with Microwaves for a very long time. I'm sure a reasonably safe system can be developed and launched cheaply. I'm more concerned with construction on the moon. Seems like it'd be a PITA to both construct and maintain. Do we really want to put our energy dependency in a very difficult to reach place? What if an angry country figures out a way to fire a missile up there?
"Making some digital media available online is not new."
I see this style of argument used a lot these days. Folks, what makes a creation important is not who did it first, rather it's who made it useful. Some caveman invented the hammer, but the dude who invented the handle for it is the one I'd remember.
Seriously, stop harping over who did it first. If it was great when they invented it, then how come they weren't as successful with it as a competitor? They deserve credit too.
"I note that the history of this article starts in 1996 . . . one year after Rendition's Verite chip became the first consumer add-on 3D accelerator."
Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but it wasn't until 3DFX hit the market that it became a mainstream gaming card. Creative Labs didn't invent the sound card, but they sure made that market blossom.
"I don't think they are going 3D necessarily, as much as they are going digital. There are a lot of tools that will assist 2D animation."
I'm not sure that's how the article reads. Check this:
"Endangered species: Traditional Disney 2-D animation like Brother Bear might be going into hibernation... Big-budget 2-D disappointments such as Treasure Planet have led to morale-depleting layoffs..."
Treasure Planet was 2-D, but a good chunk of it was 3D as well. I really think they intended to mean non-Pixar style movies. It's hard to tell, though, as this article seems to be more about speculation than fact.
"Simplest way to think of it is that Disney is probably going to start using roughly the same technology as Flash animations."
I'd be surprised if they weren't doing that already today. Vector based formats are infinitely scalable, remarkably clean, and can be drawn by hand. If they weren't already using technology like that, I'd be really really curious as to why.
"CG is nice, but I don't think they should completely eradicate the old way."
Even though I'm a 3D artist, I must say I agree with you. I wonder if anybody at Disney (any of the PHBs rather) has ever seen Animatrix. If they had any appreciation for the artform, they'd reconsider their view. All those movie segments were animated and drawn in dramatically different ways. And, most importantly, it *worked*. If those movies had all looked like the Final Fantasy-esque technique used in Flight of the Osiris, a huge chunk of the intrigue of those movies would simply have disappeared.
Why? Because drawing by hand is about as close as drawing straight from your imagination as you can get. With CG, you have to rationalize your style in 3D form. That's a bit of an oversimplification, but it takes your creative look and applies rules to it.
Now, there's nothing that says you can't have unique style to 3D. I've seen some rather interesting and impressive attempts at it. I saw one 3D movie that was made by using a series of filters that made it look water-colored. Cool effect, but I have a seriously difficult time imagining how the Animatrix Movie with the skateboarding kid in highschool would have been done in 3D. (Sorry, the title of it escapes me.)
Hmm. I guess there's a silver lining though. Maybe if everything is pushed through 3D, it'll force new creative styles to surface. Just wish it wasn't at the cost of a whole media.
Slashdot Mirror
"You really can get anything on ebay."
Hey look! D_EvilBuahhahaha1969's latest bid is up to one million dollars!
" ?Reversible computing is absolutely the only possible way to beat this limit,? he said."
I'm not sure I agree with this statement. There's another way to make a computer process faster. Run less data through it. That's how they have improved video cards. They compress texture data to fit it through the narrow pipe and get it to the screen. Who's to say that other forms of compression will make their way into processing?
I think it's funny how he promotes this as the next generation in processors. I just don't see it that way. I mean, it'll probably help quite a bit. But I mean it's not like we'll see 2x the speed here. Some operations that generate heat won't happen as often, but under real-world conditions we won't see it happening so much that they'll be able to clock it much higher than it's at now.
I'd appreciate being corrected on this if I'm mistaken. However, the way the article reads, it doesn't sound like much more than an overhyped tweak.
"The fact is, that people don't place a value on their personal time. If it took them 6 hours to get an album, they still consider that they've saved money."
A few people would, especially the broke college students. However, if everybody was like that, then why would anybody buy overpriced water at a convenience store? Why would anybody buy coffee at Starbucks? Why would anybody buy cartons of cigarettes when they can buy the tobacco and tubes and save enormous amounts of money?
Simple. Convenience. People will pay a fair price for convenience. If it didn't work that way, the USA would be a very different place.
"Judging by the vast amount of MP3's available on Kazaa, I see no reason why they shouldn't trust people who have shown time and time again that they'll happily make copyrighted material available to everyone for free."
And if the RIAA had followed supply and demand, their customers wouldn't have built their own distribution system. Who betrayed who's trust?
Why isn't it ever as simple as "they want to make their product a good one"? You guys all gotta act like everybody at Microsoft has a dartboard with pictures of Linus on it.
Oh boy. Guess I gotta put my nerd hat back on. :D
;) My memory's a bit fuzzy on it, though. It's not that they hated him. If I remember correctly, Data witnessed something that got him in trouble with the Son'A. They shot him with a phaser'esque weapon and it messed him up. Something about the damage caused him to revert to a simpler mode, running entirely on 'ethics'. Sort of like booting into Safe Mode.
"So having your head stay alive for a long time indicates that you are a robot? "
No. Being a robot means your head can be deactivated and reactivated. Robots can be turned on and off.
"Most robots today, if left alone in a cave for 400 years, would probably rust away to nothing."
Two important key words here: most and today.
"Again, my point isn't that he's not a good or interesting character, but the whole emotions issue had more to do with the previous success of Spock than because it's believable to assume that AIs will not have emotions."
Not exactly. I agree with you that Data was originally created to be a Spock'ish character. However, his emotions or lack of is not so easy to compare to Spock's. Spock's emotions were present, but heavily supressed. Data's emotions were non-existent and trying to grow. These are opposite ends of the spectrum here. Oversimplifying a bit here, Spock found human behaviour illogical. Data found it intriguing.
"Most computers, if their memory is erased, are incapable of doing anything. How could Data lose his memories but not his programming? It sounds more like conventional amnesia than anything specific to androids."
Very good point! Before I go any further here, I want to let you know I appreciate having an intelligent discussion with you here.
Interesting thing happened when I got to work this morning. Last night, my PocketPC froze to the point it wouldn't boot. I pulled the battery out to let the memory die. This morning when I came in, I put the battery back in, and the OS reloaded and everything started fresh. None of the data I put in there survived, but the machine came right back up ready to do work. This is very similar to what happened to Data. His main memory was blocked, but his basic operating stuff was still on-line, just like my PocketPC.
Something to consider about sufferers of amnesia: doctors can't flip a switch and turn that memory back on. It was as simple as that with Data. They reconnected some pathways and BOOM he was Data again.
"Right, because any two computers are compatible, especially a custom designed android and a state of the art military/exploration vessel (and let's not even get started on the old malfunctioning holodeck issue)..."
Well hold on a sec. Data's got a very powerful brain capable of learning. It's not surprising at all that he could generate the right data stream to the main computer to cause things to happen. Couple that with help from the Chief Engineer, and suddenly it's not so startling.
As for the holodeck, I agree here, that was a bit strange. Lately though, it's not so bad. When you've played Quake with a Tazmanian Devil skin, the concept of Data replicating around the holodeck all that surprising.
"They clearly had some feelings, but they also accepted without question that they were property, and could have their programming altered or erased at their owner's whim."
Would it be fair for me to say "You don't want Data here because he aspires to be human."?
"Was it just that he was a machine, and they don't like machines?"
Heh I liked that movie. It's easier to enjoy when you see it as a comedy.
"Data behaved how people expect robots to act (no emotions, for example), and had little to do with how they might actually behave."
Why does Data have to represent the generic view of robots? He is a unique creation with a unique goal. I don't think it's unbelievable at all that somebody, some day, would build a robot with the goal of being human.
I have to ask: How do you feel about Johnny 5? If you feel differently about him than Data, then why? I'm just trying to understand your view a little more clearly.
" but Data has no more to do with robotics than I"
What?
Okay, I'm going to expose my nerdy side here. A few eps spring into mind that seem to fly in the face of your comment here:
- Data went to court to dispute that he was 'property' of Starfleet. As part of the case made against him, they removed his arm and turned him off.
- When he was thrown into the past via a time portal thingamabob, his head was left in San Fran for 500 years, thus saving the future yadda yadda yadda.
- Data's emotions chip made for interesting scenes in both the first and second TNG movie.
- Data's androidness was a factor in the 3rd TNG movie as well. It's what sparked the problem with the Son'A race.
- In the last TNG movie, dare I point to his brother B-4? His roboticness is what made the ending open for a rather interesting sequal.
- I recently saw an episode where Data was lost on a pre-warp planet with some radioactive material, and no memory of who he was. His 'death' in that episode was a lucky event that prevented the prime directive from being violated.
- Data's head was hooked into the Enterprise once in order to take over as the ship's computer. A glitch ocurred where some of his personality infected the computer, causing replicates to generate cat-food and duplicates of himself on the Holodeck. (Poor Worf...)
I could keep going but I think my point is more than clear. He may have been thrown in initially to fill the Spock role, but he evolved in a very different direction from our favorite pointy eared Vulcan.
He had no more to do with robotics than you? Have you removed your arm to prove you're not machine?
ILM did an awesome job with his animitronics.
" I would think they're drawing a fair amount of income from their MSN portal advertising. Maybe it doesn't work for MSN?"
It doesnt' block advertising, just popups. Even if they absolutely HAD TO HAVE popups for income there, there's the little problem that people who hate popups either use Google's toolbar or another browser to avoid them.
"99% of off the shelf shopping cart systems now rely on this behaviour. This will surely alienate even more corporate customers, where the hell are Microsoft going?"
Nope. The solution is real simple: only call popups that are triggered by a mouseclick. Opera's done this for a while now, and I imagine Mozilla works similarly.
"but their ability to "borrow" technology and ideas is slightly disturbing."
Why? If it's a successful product, then they (typically) did something right with it.
Often is the case that the 'inventor' of an idea isn't the one who made a product worthwhile. Look at Palm Pilot vs. Newton. Apple invented Newton, Palm made it a mass-market device.
I could be mistaken about what you meant though, if you meant monopoly driven then I'd sort of agree. Thing is, though, Microsoft doesn't make a monopoly over everything it touches. Really, they only have monopolies in the Windows and Office markets. Everything else they have significantly less power in. Microsoft is not the sole provider of optical mice. I don't think anybody has a Microsoft network card. People swear by Dreameweaver and not Front Page. They're not even the server leader. So if your concern is that they borrow ideas and kill the creator, eh I don't think that's true in most cases without Microsoft doing something significant to make it a better product, much like Palm did.
"now we can build BSODs into hardware!"
Can we get some modern Windows jokes pls? I think I heard this on Nick@Nite once.
"Maybe I'm just a grumpy old curmudgeon, but I don't see what there is to celebrate here, or what is about these little bits of code that's so "marvelous"."
If computers weren't popular enough to have viruses, we'd all still be virgins.
"'Overpaid" is an opinion. This article acts as if "overpaid" can be objectively defined."
Yes it can. Sometimes people get paid for very little contribution. If a group of photographers decides they'll never film a wedding unless they make $5k in the process, then they'll end up overpaid. CEOs work that way, and because of their rich buddy network, they never have to worry about the dreaded honest work for honest pay. Etc.
I think I agree with you that these examples can mostly be explained by supply and demand (the Athletes, for example). I'm just saying you can define being over-paid.
" Paying them millions because they can throw a ball only fuels consumerism. "Did you watch the game on Sunday? Wow!" mindless sheep.."
I'm not a sports fan, but I feel compelled to dispute this one. When a athletes perform for a large audience, lots of revenue is generated. The Superbowl comes to mind. "We'll pay you two million dollars for 30-seconds of ad space!"
How fair would it be if the athletes generating this income for their owners, TV networks, and a slew of other places only made 60k a year? If their playing is generating millions of dollars of profit for everybody else, why shouldn't they get a slice of it?
They're not making millions of dollars a year because they can throw a ball, they're making all that money because they're attracting an audience.
"World Trade Center - Sep 2001
Washington DC - Sep 2001"
Niether of those broke our backs the same way a nation-wide power outage would.
"Yeah, cos that's much easier than firing a missile into America... :-)"
Name one place within the United States you could hit with a missile that'd break our backs like knocking out our main power supply.
Details of that new income figure were a little light. Anybody got a more detailed explanation of what he meant by that, or should I chalk it up as "ooo people'll wanna make 150k, I'll get their vote!"
Can't say I'm terribly worried about mishaps relating to this type of technology. We've been working with Microwaves for a very long time. I'm sure a reasonably safe system can be developed and launched cheaply. I'm more concerned with construction on the moon. Seems like it'd be a PITA to both construct and maintain. Do we really want to put our energy dependency in a very difficult to reach place? What if an angry country figures out a way to fire a missile up there?
"Making some digital media available online is not new."
I see this style of argument used a lot these days. Folks, what makes a creation important is not who did it first, rather it's who made it useful. Some caveman invented the hammer, but the dude who invented the handle for it is the one I'd remember.
Seriously, stop harping over who did it first. If it was great when they invented it, then how come they weren't as successful with it as a competitor? They deserve credit too.
"I note that the history of this article starts in 1996 . . . one year after Rendition's Verite chip became the first consumer add-on 3D accelerator."
Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but it wasn't until 3DFX hit the market that it became a mainstream gaming card. Creative Labs didn't invent the sound card, but they sure made that market blossom.
I'm not sure that's how the article reads. Check this:
Treasure Planet was 2-D, but a good chunk of it was 3D as well. I really think they intended to mean non-Pixar style movies. It's hard to tell, though, as this article seems to be more about speculation than fact.
"Simplest way to think of it is that Disney is probably going to start using roughly the same technology as Flash animations."
I'd be surprised if they weren't doing that already today. Vector based formats are infinitely scalable, remarkably clean, and can be drawn by hand. If they weren't already using technology like that, I'd be really really curious as to why.
"CG is nice, but I don't think they should completely eradicate the old way."
Even though I'm a 3D artist, I must say I agree with you. I wonder if anybody at Disney (any of the PHBs rather) has ever seen Animatrix. If they had any appreciation for the artform, they'd reconsider their view. All those movie segments were animated and drawn in dramatically different ways. And, most importantly, it *worked*. If those movies had all looked like the Final Fantasy-esque technique used in Flight of the Osiris, a huge chunk of the intrigue of those movies would simply have disappeared.
Why? Because drawing by hand is about as close as drawing straight from your imagination as you can get. With CG, you have to rationalize your style in 3D form. That's a bit of an oversimplification, but it takes your creative look and applies rules to it.
Now, there's nothing that says you can't have unique style to 3D. I've seen some rather interesting and impressive attempts at it. I saw one 3D movie that was made by using a series of filters that made it look water-colored. Cool effect, but I have a seriously difficult time imagining how the Animatrix Movie with the skateboarding kid in highschool would have been done in 3D. (Sorry, the title of it escapes me.)
Hmm. I guess there's a silver lining though. Maybe if everything is pushed through 3D, it'll force new creative styles to surface. Just wish it wasn't at the cost of a whole media.
"Welcome brothers to the DRM "revolution"!
Just like the desktop UI, Microsoft did not invent DRM.
..looks like most of the CDs I own. Big splotch here, bit splatter there...
"And just think, what if THEY are on the GOOD SIDE?"
Quite difficult to imagine there. These aren't people trying to free anybody.