The ARPANET was composed of packet routers called IMPs, and a host-to-host higher layer of software called NCP (Network Control Program). The first messages sent over the ARPANET (between UCLA and SRI) were sent a month before the "lo(gin)" story that's being told here. Ben Barker of BBN and Marty Thrope sent messages between TTYs attached to these IMPs to test them shortly after #2 was plugged in. That didn't involve NCP, but neither did Kline's attempt -- it was just a hack to shove bits across without NCP. (I think NCP was not actually defined until almost a year later.) So if you want to count "long-distance communication between nodes" it was earlier, if you want to count "kludged up host-host" it was 40 years today, and if you want to count "actual ARPANET protocols" we get to have this celebration again in a couple years.
Bidil prescriptions should have been based on genetic markers. On the other hand, it's hard to do a credible whole-genome analysis for this sort of thing without a good theory in the first place.
Actually, the autopilot can take off, fly the complex route, and land at the destination airport all without human control. It will also avoid other aircraft on the way.
Actually, it can't do all that. It can't operate the landing gear, flaps, or speedbrakes, and it doesn't have automatic TCAS ability (see the 737-Legacy collision in Brazil)*. And that "complex route" is programmed in by the human pilot.
I may not have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I'm an engineer who tests flight control systems and avionics/autopilots for a living. I'm also a private pilot with business jet and airliner simulator time.
*The A380 just (as in the past couple months) certified an autopilot/flight-director to TCAS mode. This appears to be the only such certified system.
Actually, I think you are right about lowering the landing gear. Flaps are not absolutely necessary (but are generally necessary for a non-emergency). However, if the system is fully armed (APPR mode, AP1 + AP2, Auto-throttle, Auto-brake), the FMS will complete the landing: the spoilers will deploy, and on the ground the thrust reversers activate, and brakes apply automatically. I suspect that the FMS will not go into approach mode without pilot consent. But I don't have any turbine time.
Of course a human enters the flight plan (or at least approves it -- maybe you can download it, at least on the ground, now, not sure), but flight (route) plans are normally composed by a computer.
The current story isn't so much about automation (that was not in use, anyway), except in the mind of the public that is generally terrified of aviation as a matter of course. I think you know more of the details of what the current capabilities are in the fleets today, that being your profession. The interesting thing is how both pilots badly misjudged how distracted they would become while assuming that together they would not lose situational awareness.
Some fancy auto pilots will alert when the flight vector has been achieved.
However most autopilots in a basic mode will simply just make sure a plane maintains heading and elevation.
Your comments are accurate for the kind of auto-pilots that are common in general aviation ("little airplanes"), but that's not what advanced avionics systems on modern jetliners are like. They are highly automated and can take off, fly a complex route, and land at the destination airport without human control They also automatically see and avoid other airplanes that present a traffic conflict enroute.
I don't think they navigate around bad weather or taxi, though.
You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Autopilots don't just "do everything", they don't make decisions or navigate themselves. The pilots input the desired course, the pilots monitor and arm/disarm the autopilot, the pilots make all of the decisions. Autopilots are not do-all AIs; they're more like a glorified cruise control.
Actually, the autopilot can take off, fly the complex route, and land at the destination airport all without human control. It will also avoid other aircraft on the way.
They don't automatically navigate around bad weather or taxi to and from the runway, though.
[...] emacs' ability to manage multiple windows (by which I mean buffers in this post, not separate X windows), and I still think it offers most all the benefits of 10/GUI! [...] called a keyboard. [...] people who are designing windowing systems should at least be familiar with how emacs worked. (Maybe emacs borrowed it from lisp machines? I don't know). Granted, keyboards aren't exactly multi-touch (except for modifier keys like SHIFT), but keyboards do utilize the ability to move several fingers at once to achieve high-bandwidth input.
I've been using emacs since the late 1970s, and I love this 10GUI idea. Emacs predated bitmapped displays and window systems, so it included its own tiled window system. The Lisp Machine also had a tiled window system (no desktop), and the most common way of using it was for the active application to occupy the entire screen. Input was a three-button mouse and bucky-bits keyboard. 10GUI reminds me a lot of this interaction mode, which I really did like.
I think my ideal GUI would be like 10GUI with the big flatpad in front of the keyboard, along with a 3D mouse for certain applications. I would still want keyboard controls for navigating the app space and inside the apps (menus).
The obvious extension to 10GUI is to add "planes": there is more than one level of horizontal windows, stacked. There would be two kinds of this: planes attached to apps, and global planes. (And of course you want the traditional "workspaces" where the entire desktop is a tile that you can slide around in X/Y.)
(I am not running Snow Leopard yet, but mentioned this bug to a friend who upgraded and was playing around with hard drives, and indeed, he discovered that he lost most of his backups for the year!)
I never got people who were talking about using a Mac as "switching". Like you would suddenly not use the operating system you have been using for the past 20 years by buying a computer that runs something different.
I don't understand it at all: Emacs runs great on the Mac, too!
A "design patent" is something very different from a "patent". A design patent protects the look of something. So, you can't have a big white page with the Google logo and the same arrangement of buttons on it. Big deal.
The Google logo is explicitly *not* part of the patent -- the patent is for *any* logo, few buttons, and links.
" It's hard to say why this domain name was the first registered back on March 15, 1985,"
I'd guess maybe because Symbolics was the original MIT spinoff Lisp machine company, and during the 80s Lisp was the Artificial Intelligence language poised to become THE lingua franca for computing, everywhere.
[...]
I still miss that future we didn't get to see.
Some of your details are a little off, but you are conceptually accurate. I lived that future, and since then I've felt like I've been transported back to the stone knives and bearskins, and Spock is nowhere in sight.
symbolics.com is actually older than any currently registered edu domain, beating Berkeley by a month. nordu.net was registered a couple months prior to symbolics.
I'm not sure about.mil or deprecated.arpa domains - they are hard to check up on.
The.ARPA domains predated the.COM domains. They were not "registered" per se, they were just the pre-DNS HOSTS file names with ".ARPA" appended to them.
First off, there are domain names like cars.com that one might have surmised would be very valuable -- and would not have been name squatting. How is this not "what the domain name system is for"?
I was at MIT, BBN, Symbolics, and various other places back then and was a "network liaison" (administrator) on the ARPANET. (I did an obscure early implementation of DNS, too.)
At the very beginning, it didn't occur to us that domain names would be traded as they are today, or that cybersquatting would be allowed. Toplevel names were supposed to be the names of organizations, and domain names were like host names (MIT-MC became MC.MIT.EDU). More abstract names (like "ftp" or "library" or "daily-scifi") might occur in the leaves, but not at toplevel.
There were rules about who was allowed to register domain names; it was not a free-for-all where anyone could obtain a.COM domain. To qualify for a.COM, you had to represent that you were a multinational corporation with some large number of hosts (and that didn't mean consumer class personal computers, yet) coming on the network. To get a.ORG you had to be certified as a non-profit organization, and to get a.NET you had to be some kind of ISP. If you were just a small company, or an individual, you were supposed to register for a locality domain name (such as joeswidgets.boston.ma.us). (My own personal US domain was one of the first of those, actually.) The domain registration rules loosened up very soon after: I registered some other early.COM domains for small US-only companies about six months after SYMBOLICS.COM was registered.
At some point, more or less anything could get registered. People such as myself were well positioned all along to just grab all the good names long before there was anyone else around. We could have all been millionaires, if we'd had the foresight to be unscrupulous cheaters. It's not that we didn't realize that cybersquatting would be lucrative. It just seemed like it would be a wrong and unethical thing to do, if you actually got away with it. I guess our imaginations failed in that respect. I guess we were chumps.
Even before the Internet, we discussed how people might utilize "the worldnet" and what kind of problems would occur. But mostly we thought about it very much like how we viewed our familiar ARPANET -- it would be like the research network we were accustomed to except a little less idealized, with many more people and lots of random personal email and stuff. Spam had yet to be invented. There was no online ordering of books or goods. The grapes in my local grocery store did not have a URL on the label. There were no URLs yet! There was no web. Domain squatting or other infrastructure gaming was unimaginable: surely only properly validated names would be registered. And anyway, the DNS was never supposed to be the way that end users would locate services, anyway. There were supposed to be high level directory services, with DNS just an implementation detail. Directories never happened like was envisioned, and search engines were invented, instead. So to some degree that has finally happened now: many people just type things at Google and use bookmarks, and never really think much about domain names. And who actually types "cars.com" into a browser and expects any particular useful result?
Re:Not Really a Robot
on
Robotic Mold
·
· Score: 1
The article explains what's meant by saying that the "robot" will compute..." So, this thing is a "robot" in the sense that pointing at random objects and calling yourself a master of "found art" is art.
The real test is whether the entire AI can be implemented in a single Twitter.
For all we know, two lightsabers coming into contact with each other may create a form of electrostatic friction with each other that stops people from sliding the two "blades" along each other. That would make a blade guard unnecessary.
I think that a major skill component in lightsabre duels is the (Force) anticipation of when to continue pressing (to block) vs. when to withdraw your connected blades for another strike.
Sort of like the game where you put your palms against your opponents palms, horizontally in between you both, and see who can remove their hands to bitch slap first.
Doug: Uh question for Ms. Bellamy. In episode 2F09, when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib twice in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is some sort of a... [the nerds chuckle] a magic xylophone or something? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.
But we see another Protocol droid at the start of Phantom Menace, and it's just as physically awkward as C-3PO, unless that one was also built by a kid in the desert, this was the way the protocol droids were designed to operate.
Radio Shack has outlets everywhere in a galaxy far, far away....
Slashdot Mirror
The ARPANET was composed of packet routers called IMPs, and a host-to-host higher layer of software called NCP (Network Control Program). The first messages sent over the ARPANET (between UCLA and SRI) were sent a month before the "lo(gin)" story that's being told here. Ben Barker of BBN and Marty Thrope sent messages between TTYs attached to these IMPs to test them shortly after #2 was plugged in. That didn't involve NCP, but neither did Kline's attempt -- it was just a hack to shove bits across without NCP. (I think NCP was not actually defined until almost a year later.) So if you want to count "long-distance communication between nodes" it was earlier, if you want to count "kludged up host-host" it was 40 years today, and if you want to count "actual ARPANET protocols" we get to have this celebration again in a couple years.
The Airbus manual I read said that the thrust reversers deploy automatically.
Bidil prescriptions should have been based on genetic markers. On the other hand, it's hard to do a credible whole-genome analysis for this sort of thing without a good theory in the first place.
Actually, the autopilot can take off, fly the complex route, and land at the destination airport all without human control. It will also avoid other aircraft on the way.
Actually, it can't do all that. It can't operate the landing gear, flaps, or speedbrakes, and it doesn't have automatic TCAS ability (see the 737-Legacy collision in Brazil)*. And that "complex route" is programmed in by the human pilot.
I may not have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I'm an engineer who tests flight control systems and avionics/autopilots for a living. I'm also a private pilot with business jet and airliner simulator time.
*The A380 just (as in the past couple months) certified an autopilot/flight-director to TCAS mode. This appears to be the only such certified system.
Actually, I think you are right about lowering the landing gear. Flaps are not absolutely necessary (but are generally necessary for a non-emergency). However, if the system is fully armed (APPR mode, AP1 + AP2, Auto-throttle, Auto-brake), the FMS will complete the landing: the spoilers will deploy, and on the ground the thrust reversers activate, and brakes apply automatically. I suspect that the FMS will not go into approach mode without pilot consent. But I don't have any turbine time.
Of course a human enters the flight plan (or at least approves it -- maybe you can download it, at least on the ground, now, not sure), but flight (route) plans are normally composed by a computer.
The current story isn't so much about automation (that was not in use, anyway), except in the mind of the public that is generally terrified of aviation as a matter of course. I think you know more of the details of what the current capabilities are in the fleets today, that being your profession. The interesting thing is how both pilots badly misjudged how distracted they would become while assuming that together they would not lose situational awareness.
Some fancy auto pilots will alert when the flight vector has been achieved.
However most autopilots in a basic mode will simply just make sure a plane maintains heading and elevation.
Your comments are accurate for the kind of auto-pilots that are common in general aviation ("little airplanes"), but that's not what advanced avionics systems on modern jetliners are like. They are highly automated and can take off, fly a complex route, and land at the destination airport without human control They also automatically see and avoid other airplanes that present a traffic conflict enroute.
I don't think they navigate around bad weather or taxi, though.
You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Autopilots don't just "do everything", they don't make decisions or navigate themselves. The pilots input the desired course, the pilots monitor and arm/disarm the autopilot, the pilots make all of the decisions. Autopilots are not do-all AIs; they're more like a glorified cruise control.
Actually, the autopilot can take off, fly the complex route, and land at the destination airport all without human control. It will also avoid other aircraft on the way.
They don't automatically navigate around bad weather or taxi to and from the runway, though.
[...] emacs' ability to manage multiple windows (by which I mean buffers in this post, not separate X windows), and I still think it offers most all the benefits of 10/GUI! [...] called a keyboard. [...] people who are designing windowing systems should at least be familiar with how emacs worked. (Maybe emacs borrowed it from lisp machines? I don't know). Granted, keyboards aren't exactly multi-touch (except for modifier keys like SHIFT), but keyboards do utilize the ability to move several fingers at once to achieve high-bandwidth input.
I've been using emacs since the late 1970s, and I love this 10GUI idea. Emacs predated bitmapped displays and window systems, so it included its own tiled window system. The Lisp Machine also had a tiled window system (no desktop), and the most common way of using it was for the active application to occupy the entire screen. Input was a three-button mouse and bucky-bits keyboard. 10GUI reminds me a lot of this interaction mode, which I really did like.
I think my ideal GUI would be like 10GUI with the big flatpad in front of the keyboard, along with a 3D mouse for certain applications. I would still want keyboard controls for navigating the app space and inside the apps (menus).
The obvious extension to 10GUI is to add "planes": there is more than one level of horizontal windows, stacked. There would be two kinds of this: planes attached to apps, and global planes. (And of course you want the traditional "workspaces" where the entire desktop is a tile that you can slide around in X/Y.)
Would I be a bad person if I were to suggest that this would be a perfect time to upsell Time Capsules to worried Snow Leopard customers?
Yes, because Time Machine is silently deleting user's data, also!
http://rondam.blogspot.com/2009/09/time-machine-time-bomb.html
(I am not running Snow Leopard yet, but mentioned this bug to a friend who upgraded and was playing around with hard drives, and indeed, he discovered that he lost most of his backups for the year!)
Atomic Batteries to power!
Turbines to speed!
http://www.carlustblog.com/2009/05/the-batmobile-1966.html
I never got people who were talking about using a Mac as "switching". Like you would suddenly not use the operating system you have been using for the past 20 years by buying a computer that runs something different.
I don't understand it at all: Emacs runs great on the Mac, too!
(30 years, not 20, anyway...)
But does this apply to persons only? I hope we'd finally get to know the truth about McDonalds hamburgers. Or can we count them as persons?
No, only salmon-burgers from the wholesome fast food joints count.
So now, you're sure these were vegetables, not salmon, right?
I for one welcome our necrotic scaly nuclear-resonant anadromous overlords.
"CoRoT-7b" is such a dry name.
I suggest we name the planet "Adrian".
A "design patent" is something very different from a "patent". A design patent protects the look of something. So, you can't have a big white page with the Google logo and the same arrangement of buttons on it. Big deal.
The Google logo is explicitly *not* part of the patent -- the patent is for *any* logo, few buttons, and links.
But where will I buy my LISP machines from then?
Ebay. Although few people want to sell theirs.
" It's hard to say why this domain name was the first registered back on March 15, 1985,"
I'd guess maybe because Symbolics was the original MIT spinoff Lisp machine company, and during the 80s Lisp was the Artificial Intelligence language poised to become THE lingua franca for computing, everywhere.
[...]
I still miss that future we didn't get to see.
Some of your details are a little off, but you are conceptually accurate. I lived that future, and since then I've felt like I've been transported back to the stone knives and bearskins, and Spock is nowhere in sight.
According to wikipedia:
symbolics.com is actually older than any currently registered edu domain, beating Berkeley by a month.
nordu.net was registered a couple months prior to symbolics.
I'm not sure about .mil or deprecated .arpa domains - they are hard to check up on.
The .ARPA domains predated the .COM domains. They were not "registered" per se, they were just the pre-DNS HOSTS file names with ".ARPA" appended to them.
And here's some more of the story. [danweinreb.org]
[I can't mod up the OP because I already contributed]
Ok, lighten up.
First off, there are domain names like cars.com that one might have surmised would be very valuable -- and would not have been name squatting. How is this not "what the domain name system is for"?
I was at MIT, BBN, Symbolics, and various other places back then and was a "network liaison" (administrator) on the ARPANET. (I did an obscure early implementation of DNS, too.)
At the very beginning, it didn't occur to us that domain names would be traded as they are today, or that cybersquatting would be allowed. Toplevel names were supposed to be the names of organizations, and domain names were like host names (MIT-MC became MC.MIT.EDU). More abstract names (like "ftp" or "library" or "daily-scifi") might occur in the leaves, but not at toplevel.
There were rules about who was allowed to register domain names; it was not a free-for-all where anyone could obtain a .COM domain. To qualify for a .COM, you had to represent that you were a multinational corporation with some large number of hosts (and that didn't mean consumer class personal computers, yet) coming on the network. To get a .ORG you had to be certified as a non-profit organization, and to get a .NET you had to be some kind of ISP. If you were just a small company, or an individual, you were supposed to register for a locality domain name (such as joeswidgets.boston.ma.us). (My own personal US domain was one of the first of those, actually.) The domain registration rules loosened up very soon after: I registered some other early .COM domains for small US-only companies about six months after SYMBOLICS.COM was registered.
At some point, more or less anything could get registered. People such as myself were well positioned all along to just grab all the good names long before there was anyone else around. We could have all been millionaires, if we'd had the foresight to be unscrupulous cheaters. It's not that we didn't realize that cybersquatting would be lucrative. It just seemed like it would be a wrong and unethical thing to do, if you actually got away with it. I guess our imaginations failed in that respect. I guess we were chumps.
Even before the Internet, we discussed how people might utilize "the worldnet" and what kind of problems would occur. But mostly we thought about it very much like how we viewed our familiar ARPANET -- it would be like the research network we were accustomed to except a little less idealized, with many more people and lots of random personal email and stuff. Spam had yet to be invented. There was no online ordering of books or goods. The grapes in my local grocery store did not have a URL on the label. There were no URLs yet! There was no web. Domain squatting or other infrastructure gaming was unimaginable: surely only properly validated names would be registered. And anyway, the DNS was never supposed to be the way that end users would locate services, anyway. There were supposed to be high level directory services, with DNS just an implementation detail. Directories never happened like was envisioned, and search engines were invented, instead. So to some degree that has finally happened now: many people just type things at Google and use bookmarks, and never really think much about domain names. And who actually types "cars.com" into a browser and expects any particular useful result?
The article explains what's meant by saying that the "robot" will compute..."
So, this thing is a "robot" in the sense that pointing at random objects and calling yourself a master of "found art" is art.
The real test is whether the entire AI can be implemented in a single Twitter.
Fully Functional Bioengineered Tooth Grown In a Mouse
Doesn't this hurt your hand?
For all we know, two lightsabers coming into contact with each other may create a form of electrostatic friction with each other that stops people from sliding the two "blades" along each other. That would make a blade guard unnecessary.
I think that a major skill component in lightsabre duels is the (Force) anticipation of when to continue pressing (to block) vs. when to withdraw your connected blades for another strike.
Sort of like the game where you put your palms against your opponents palms, horizontally in between you both, and see who can remove their hands to bitch slap first.
Doug: Uh question for Ms. Bellamy. In episode 2F09, when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib twice in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is some sort of a... [the nerds chuckle] a magic xylophone or something? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.
Wizard.
But we see another Protocol droid at the start of Phantom Menace, and it's just as physically awkward as C-3PO, unless that one was also built by a kid in the desert, this was the way the protocol droids were designed to operate.
Radio Shack has outlets everywhere in a galaxy far, far away....