Being a student I can tell you I don't like cell phone interruptions either. Luckily the vibrate on my phone is quiet enough so not even someone sitting right next to me can hear it. I do want to point out that in my case, it's not always a student's cell phone that interrupts the class. The professors forget too.
As for me, I never change away from vibrate so I never forget to change it to vibrate. I also turn it off during tests.
I think you're thinking of things to specifically. Think about the human mind. It's utterly insane in speed, yet completely analog. Digital systems cannot yet grasp anywhere near the computing power of the human brain, yet they can beat the brain in any single (non-fuzzy) pursuit (such as chess). The human brain accels at fuzzy (yes, fuzzy) calculations such as identifying faces. It's quite possible we'll never be able to make a computer faster at identifying faces than the human brain without directly stealing our algorithm because it's the single thing we're best at.
So, we can identify faces really, really well. So well that:) looks like a face despite the fact that it seriously shouldn't. Well, guess what? What if we change identifying faces into identifying something else? Perhaps a computer can identify things in data using fuzzy logic very easily--- what could we do with that? Now we'll always need the truly quasi-100% accurate side unless we're relying on a self-evaluating true AI, so I'm not arguing with that.
Looking back, this isn't really a response to what you wrote, but moreover it's a thing that I type after I drank alcohol, but I think it stands on its own merit. Anyway a lot of research is needed and I'm, sure we can agree on that. It'a certainly interesting.
But a quantity can represent something qualitative. To be honest, all I tried was the Lineage 2 beta test, and merely observed everything else. In each, you advance in levels and your character becomes more powerful. "More powerful" means you do more damage each time you click, and do less damage each time someone else clicks. You don't, say, change the landscape. You don't, say, add a city just as important as the initial ones. You don't, say, destroy cities. (Sieging doesn't begin to count)
So obviously yes, things deal with numbers, but I want the equivalent in a MMORPG of the ability in a FPS to selectively destroy parts of the levels. I want the upper level characters to be able to drastically shape the universe, not do random insane slaughtering.
I'll be interested in MMOGs as soon as they drop the notion that "progress" means making your character's number's higher. Unless I can advance in a non-quantitative manner, I don't really want to pay a monthly fee. That said, I want a game to come out that I want to play. I hope these games have a future.
Let me ask you, when someone comes up to you and says "I work at Microsoft" , what is your first reaction?
I have a standard reaction for these kinds of companies. It typically goes "Fuck you. You either have no sense or no spine. Either way you're a poor excuse for a human. Bye."
It feels real great saying it, because as a person that's about all you can do: let the people who are making the corporation exist realize that they are in fact the cause of the problem, whether or not they agree with the actions.
234 million transistors is not a lot compared to the 2+ billion transitor designs out there being developed. While those designs are likely on a 60 nm process or smaller, I can't help but think the cell seems fat on the 90 nm process. Anyone know why this is?
I must say that Microsoft and Mac OS are not direct competitors. That would be like a local vendor of fruit in one state being in competition with the local vendor of fruit in another state. Sure you can pick up all your stuff and move, but you probably have other reasons besides the fruit vendor. In this particular case I'll stay in my current state because I have a choice between several fruit venders, where as in the other state there is only one.
Err, wouldn't that mean that the event horizon only exists on one plane? IE as long as you weren't in that plane you could go right up to a black hole and poke it with a stick?
Nah, it's a 2d object in any intersecting plane, just as a planet or star is, aka a 3d object, or else I don't have a clue what's going on any more.
Just as long as you aren't claiming exclusivity. A fusor can orbit a fusor after all, making neither a planet, just pointing out that orbiting a fusor by itself doesn't mean much. Could a black hole be considered a fusor?
Excuse me, what's the difference between the traditional blue collar jobs such as these, and IT, aside from the fact that IT deals with computers? I know, I know, education. That's slowly becoming the norm now, however, and most of the work done in IT comes from familiarity (which is gained on task), not education.
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to insult anyone. I personally wouldn't know the first thing about being a janitor. I have, however, served an IT position without any education in the field.
Oh yes the program does run fine, I just don't know the proper place to put all the files myself. I don't want to have it sitting under my home directory.
I'd really like to use it but as a linux user who isn't an expert, I can't install this software. The readme mentions two different ways to install Sunbird, of course both mention scripts which don't actually exist (mozilla-installer and mozilla). All I'm left with is a bunch of.so's and executables.
I know this isn't the place to ask for tech support so I'm not asking for any. I'm just saying they didn't make it obvious to me how to install Sunbird.
Finding a bug due to some ass not doing bounds checking is one thing. Finding it several times a week is another. Is this quantity of bugs permissible? How many security holes can an online game of chess have before it's no longer safe? In an OS?
I hope people will at least be taken aback when we get security fixes for longhorn that we've already had for XP (that is, fixing the problems already patched in XP which weren't fixed or even noticed in the longhorn release). Also if there's a single new (in new code) array bounds error in longhorn then they haven't done their job. They should know better by now.
Ok, so we can bash them when the exact same thing happens for the next version, right? I mean we forgive them for everything XP and before, then hit them then? At what point is fixing errors not enough?
Well, by the msn homepage (NOT searchpage-- if you want to compare that, you might as well write the search URL mainly) I currently see.. NEWS! SPORTS! FLASH! PICTUERS! ANOTHER FORM! Weeee!! If only google could offer all this.. umm..crap?
If you want to move one step closer to the search on both then we're comparing search.msn.com to the google URL. I'm giving this one to google.
Every component of matter has an anti, correct? Light itself is a wave/matter combination, notably photons. However, what I read says that photos are their own anti. Does this mean I have no hope of making a flashlight which makes things darker? Is it possible for two photons moving in different directions to cancel eachother out (destructive interference)?
This is a question I've had. A while ago I was given a new word by a teacher. I could have sworn she said "decronym", as it made sense, however that is not a word. The meaning of the word was so good that there must be a correct word out there for it.
The meaning I was told is a decronym is a word which becomes an acronym, after the fact. Such as in this case, "PATRIOT" existed for a long time and the word itself was (well, abused) by finding words to exactly fit it. The example we had in class was "BASIC", which originally stood for nothing but was then given the ol' beginner's all-purpose symbolic instruction code. This one was actually better than PATRIOT in that they called the language Basic, using this context, before it stood for anything.
Anyone know what I'm talking about? Does such a word actually exist? If not, can we make it now?
If evolution is true, then the things that we call "order" and "intelligence" are just a higher function of chaos (the inevitable byproduct of randomness).
True statement. *golf clap*
On an even higher level, there is no reason to believe that we are actually designing anything, we are merely exciting our neurons (if they exist) into believing we have perceived that we are performing an action (which in this case is mental, which brings us back to the alleged neurons) that we call designing.
Well, that's a cross between the truth *clap* and your own interpretation for the purposes of this particular argument. Whether or not reality actually is real isn't an argument of science vs religion. It could go either way on either side. This doesn't hold up.
If evolution is true, then intelligence will happen regardless of what we do, and we have no reason to believe that we have anything to do with it whatsoever, or could influence it in any way at all if we did.
The first part is mostly true, the second part is not. Given infinite circumstance (a general assumption), yes, intelligence will happen. However we're not given infinite circumstance now. Now, we're given: Earth, 2005 AD. Will intelligence develop by itself in a time span we can appreciate? No. Can we push it along? Sure, why not. Can we stop it over infinite circumstance? No.
It's understandable but questionable. If we make one with a biological computer, is it suddenly not artificial? If it is, why is it granted it may be identical to a born and raised one (animal vs human doesn't matter)? What if it's a processor able to exactly imitate an intelligence through atomic simulation? Intelligence is already abstract so who needs the physical part of it at all? Is this really any less "real"? Perhaps "detached". I'd like someone (or group) to define actual intelligence once and for all so we can compare anything to actual intelligence. "Artificial" does not float my boat when it has the potential to be equal to myself in every respect, or better. It seems like the simpler of people are attempting to use artificial as a derogatory term rather than anything else.
The bottom line is in theory a powerful enough computer can exactly model my atomic structure and recreate my brain perfectly, give it stimulus, and determine exactly how I would react. Also an exact copy could be made (again in theory) by piecing together real atoms one by one with a (currently undeveloped) technique to maintain an electrical state. If either of these are artificial, then so am I. The only thing I have going for me is I wasn't made in a lab, though I might as well have been. I wouldn't know:P
Slashdot Mirror
I don't like OS X.
Being a student I can tell you I don't like cell phone interruptions either. Luckily the vibrate on my phone is quiet enough so not even someone sitting right next to me can hear it. I do want to point out that in my case, it's not always a student's cell phone that interrupts the class. The professors forget too.
As for me, I never change away from vibrate so I never forget to change it to vibrate. I also turn it off during tests.
I think you're thinking of things to specifically. Think about the human mind. It's utterly insane in speed, yet completely analog. Digital systems cannot yet grasp anywhere near the computing power of the human brain, yet they can beat the brain in any single (non-fuzzy) pursuit (such as chess). The human brain accels at fuzzy (yes, fuzzy) calculations such as identifying faces. It's quite possible we'll never be able to make a computer faster at identifying faces than the human brain without directly stealing our algorithm because it's the single thing we're best at.
:) looks like a face despite the fact that it seriously shouldn't. Well, guess what? What if we change identifying faces into identifying something else? Perhaps a computer can identify things in data using fuzzy logic very easily--- what could we do with that? Now we'll always need the truly quasi-100% accurate side unless we're relying on a self-evaluating true AI, so I'm not arguing with that.
So, we can identify faces really, really well. So well that
Looking back, this isn't really a response to what you wrote, but moreover it's a thing that I type after I drank alcohol, but I think it stands on its own merit. Anyway a lot of research is needed and I'm, sure we can agree on that. It'a certainly interesting.
But a quantity can represent something qualitative. To be honest, all I tried was the Lineage 2 beta test, and merely observed everything else. In each, you advance in levels and your character becomes more powerful. "More powerful" means you do more damage each time you click, and do less damage each time someone else clicks. You don't, say, change the landscape. You don't, say, add a city just as important as the initial ones. You don't, say, destroy cities. (Sieging doesn't begin to count)
So obviously yes, things deal with numbers, but I want the equivalent in a MMORPG of the ability in a FPS to selectively destroy parts of the levels. I want the upper level characters to be able to drastically shape the universe, not do random insane slaughtering.
I'll be interested in MMOGs as soon as they drop the notion that "progress" means making your character's number's higher. Unless I can advance in a non-quantitative manner, I don't really want to pay a monthly fee. That said, I want a game to come out that I want to play. I hope these games have a future.
Let me ask you, when someone comes up to you and says "I work at Microsoft" , what is your first reaction?
I have a standard reaction for these kinds of companies. It typically goes "Fuck you. You either have no sense or no spine. Either way you're a poor excuse for a human. Bye."
It feels real great saying it, because as a person that's about all you can do: let the people who are making the corporation exist realize that they are in fact the cause of the problem, whether or not they agree with the actions.
Are you sure that's not just a childish snub to the countries that we're deciding are not allowed to have nuclear power?
We have infantile brats running this country.
234 million transistors is not a lot compared to the 2+ billion transitor designs out there being developed. While those designs are likely on a 60 nm process or smaller, I can't help but think the cell seems fat on the 90 nm process. Anyone know why this is?
I must say that Microsoft and Mac OS are not direct competitors. That would be like a local vendor of fruit in one state being in competition with the local vendor of fruit in another state. Sure you can pick up all your stuff and move, but you probably have other reasons besides the fruit vendor. In this particular case I'll stay in my current state because I have a choice between several fruit venders, where as in the other state there is only one.
Err, wouldn't that mean that the event horizon only exists on one plane? IE as long as you weren't in that plane you could go right up to a black hole and poke it with a stick?
Nah, it's a 2d object in any intersecting plane, just as a planet or star is, aka a 3d object, or else I don't have a clue what's going on any more.
Now now, you can clearly see Canada's road.
Just as long as you aren't claiming exclusivity. A fusor can orbit a fusor after all, making neither a planet, just pointing out that orbiting a fusor by itself doesn't mean much. Could a black hole be considered a fusor?
maybe the cleaners
Excuse me, what's the difference between the traditional blue collar jobs such as these, and IT, aside from the fact that IT deals with computers? I know, I know, education. That's slowly becoming the norm now, however, and most of the work done in IT comes from familiarity (which is gained on task), not education.
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to insult anyone. I personally wouldn't know the first thing about being a janitor. I have, however, served an IT position without any education in the field.
Well, I don't know about you, but I can't afford to fight them in court.
I think that was Mr. Gates point. If you dump Microsoft and use everything else, you lose interoperability with Microsoft products.
Oh, the humanity.
Oh yes the program does run fine, I just don't know the proper place to put all the files myself. I don't want to have it sitting under my home directory.
I'd really like to use it but as a linux user who isn't an expert, I can't install this software. The readme mentions two different ways to install Sunbird, of course both mention scripts which don't actually exist (mozilla-installer and mozilla). All I'm left with is a bunch of .so's and executables.
I know this isn't the place to ask for tech support so I'm not asking for any. I'm just saying they didn't make it obvious to me how to install Sunbird.
Finding a bug due to some ass not doing bounds checking is one thing. Finding it several times a week is another. Is this quantity of bugs permissible? How many security holes can an online game of chess have before it's no longer safe? In an OS?
I hope people will at least be taken aback when we get security fixes for longhorn that we've already had for XP (that is, fixing the problems already patched in XP which weren't fixed or even noticed in the longhorn release). Also if there's a single new (in new code) array bounds error in longhorn then they haven't done their job. They should know better by now.
Ok, so we can bash them when the exact same thing happens for the next version, right? I mean we forgive them for everything XP and before, then hit them then? At what point is fixing errors not enough?
Well, by the msn homepage (NOT searchpage-- if you want to compare that, you might as well write the search URL mainly) I currently see.. NEWS! SPORTS! FLASH! PICTUERS! ANOTHER FORM! Weeee!! If only google could offer all this.. umm..crap?
If you want to move one step closer to the search on both then we're comparing search.msn.com to the google URL. I'm giving this one to google.
Is it better to make a windows version and a mac version than just not to use proprietary libraries and it working by default on all systems?
Every component of matter has an anti, correct? Light itself is a wave/matter combination, notably photons. However, what I read says that photos are their own anti. Does this mean I have no hope of making a flashlight which makes things darker? Is it possible for two photons moving in different directions to cancel eachother out (destructive interference)?
This is a question I've had. A while ago I was given a new word by a teacher. I could have sworn she said "decronym", as it made sense, however that is not a word. The meaning of the word was so good that there must be a correct word out there for it.
The meaning I was told is a decronym is a word which becomes an acronym, after the fact. Such as in this case, "PATRIOT" existed for a long time and the word itself was (well, abused) by finding words to exactly fit it. The example we had in class was "BASIC", which originally stood for nothing but was then given the ol' beginner's all-purpose symbolic instruction code. This one was actually better than PATRIOT in that they called the language Basic, using this context, before it stood for anything.
Anyone know what I'm talking about? Does such a word actually exist? If not, can we make it now?
If evolution is true, then the things that we call "order" and "intelligence" are just a higher function of chaos (the inevitable byproduct of randomness).
.
True statement. *golf clap*
On an even higher level, there is no reason to believe that we are actually designing anything, we are merely exciting our neurons (if they exist) into believing we have perceived that we are performing an action (which in this case is mental, which brings us back to the alleged neurons) that we call designing.
Well, that's a cross between the truth *clap* and your own interpretation for the purposes of this particular argument. Whether or not reality actually is real isn't an argument of science vs religion. It could go either way on either side. This doesn't hold up
If evolution is true, then intelligence will happen regardless of what we do, and we have no reason to believe that we have anything to do with it whatsoever, or could influence it in any way at all if we did.
The first part is mostly true, the second part is not. Given infinite circumstance (a general assumption), yes, intelligence will happen. However we're not given infinite circumstance now. Now, we're given: Earth, 2005 AD. Will intelligence develop by itself in a time span we can appreciate? No. Can we push it along? Sure, why not. Can we stop it over infinite circumstance? No.
It's understandable but questionable. If we make one with a biological computer, is it suddenly not artificial? If it is, why is it granted it may be identical to a born and raised one (animal vs human doesn't matter)? What if it's a processor able to exactly imitate an intelligence through atomic simulation? Intelligence is already abstract so who needs the physical part of it at all? Is this really any less "real"? Perhaps "detached". I'd like someone (or group) to define actual intelligence once and for all so we can compare anything to actual intelligence. "Artificial" does not float my boat when it has the potential to be equal to myself in every respect, or better. It seems like the simpler of people are attempting to use artificial as a derogatory term rather than anything else.
:P
The bottom line is in theory a powerful enough computer can exactly model my atomic structure and recreate my brain perfectly, give it stimulus, and determine exactly how I would react. Also an exact copy could be made (again in theory) by piecing together real atoms one by one with a (currently undeveloped) technique to maintain an electrical state. If either of these are artificial, then so am I. The only thing I have going for me is I wasn't made in a lab, though I might as well have been. I wouldn't know