...targeting Dell by offering a better experience when it comes to media and related tasks
Oh, crap. So now Apple will also have a ``DirectMedia'' button on the front of the laptop that turns it on (when it's in the bag, and the button was pressed by a book).... AND, have no way of disabling the button (no bios option, nothing).
Is one to assume that the way to common sense logic in a machine is via linguistic/symbolic knowledge representation?
Amm... Those researchers need jobs too. Yes, I absolutely agree with your point, but unfortunately it's not a very popular point in many research circles.
I discussed this issue with a logic dude once... and what I got was that the rules of logic don't have any specific granularity... so technically, you can model neural networks, bayes nets, etc., via millions of very simple `logical' rules. Just like you're running statistical learning thing on a -computer-, the computer itself uses logic gates in the CPU to perform the computation---thus, you can model anything using logic and symbolic manipulation (sort of a lame excuse to have symbolic AI...)
...any sufficiently complex system will have things that are obviously true or false, but are not provable within the system.
What folks have completely missed is that AI isn't about truth... it's about ability and function. Newton was very wrong about gravity, yet it functioned for a while. For all we know, Relativity may be completely wrong too... but it functions for now. Ignoring the strict mathematical sense, contradictions (and truth) are irrelevant: stuff either has to work or not work, that's all AI should care about.
It's also not about symbolic rules nor logic. Brains don't have symbolic rules, yet somehow they function---which itself seems to be enough for `Intelligence'.
I think projects like Cyc, etc., are pulling AI in the wrong direction. AI is not logic, nor is it a search for "truth". Listing `rules' (generalizations) and putting it in a database does nothing towards advancing AI.
Unfortunately, however this is still a long way from sentient AI.
Not only that, it's based on an assumption that you can use symbolic rules to represent knowledge. Which is a pretty big assumption, considering that our brains don't have a list of these rules.
I got the 965 in my new Dell... seems to run `fine', even for `heavy' games like quake4. Nothing spectacularly great as with latest GeForce, but on `normal' settings in graphics level, this thing should play most games out there without issues.
I've never imagined "advertising" can -itself- be the bulk of any economy, as it appears to be online. (goog stock goes up, all tech stocks go up... and vice versa).
I think what's happening is google set themselves up as middleman, they charge folks to have ads listed on their sites... and they pay folks to have stuff appear on other sites. This naturally generates fraud (people want to get paid more)---which results in google charging more---which results in more money flowing -through- google; which no matter which way you look at it, is a `good thing' for google (especially if they make a % of that increasingly larger cash flows through their corp).
That, and their stock price goes up with popularity---and the more popular they are, the more fraud that causes, the more cash flows through, the more their stock rises.
It's a system that feeds on itself, and google is right in the middle of it.
Around 1999-2001, people realized that `advertising' business alone isn't enough; so bubble burst. Now, we have a google bubble (where google is actually making money---horay: ads are in business once again!).
I wonder how long it will take folks to realize just how much money the -other- parties (the ones buying the ads; the -most- important chunk of this economy) are making (and how many are losing?!?).
My wild guess... is that there are way more losers than winners among the ad buying masses. Once more folks realize that, Google will not be in the advertising business.
Re:Maybe in 10 more years I can watch it on Linux
on
The Future of Flash
·
· Score: 1
You'll love scifi.com then! Try it from a non-flash browser. This thing will just keep on refreshing -forever- trying to detect flash.
Ironically, this site isn't alone (and supposedly isn't `amature' either).
And why did Einstein study relativity? After all, it's just a bunch of stupid numbers. Guess what, turns out they found applications for it after it was invented... GPS is an example.
What is it about GPS that requires relativity to have been invented?
Technically, the universe could be 5 minutes old, created by a being who thought it would be amusing to have everyone think it was billions of years old (or that anything existed more than 5 minutes ago).
Well... Wolfram did write a big fat book with lots of interesting pictures about the whole thing:-D
And strangely, people really dislike him for it. I don't think he ever says -he- invented them (he just fails to provide a ton of references---like most scientific wr0ks... but then maybe his book is more of a pop-science type of book, rather than a serious research thing).
(in any case, I found it interesting that the `random' number generator in Mathematica uses one of the automatas presented in the book:-D
Just because these things can be formed inorganically doesn't mean they were.
What is life anyway? Does it have to be organic?
Maybe the problem is that we're looking for life that's similar to us---possibly breathing oxygen existing in our gravity/temperature range, and fond of water. Such life is unlikely to be present anywhere but on an identical twin planet.
That still leaves the possibility of life evolving in ways that we would consider impossible (or would not consider life at all). Maybe `they' have already found us, but consider our planet dead, since all they see are carbon blobs and no `life'.
It would actually be funny that in addition to it not playing on a CD player, they'd criple the DVD in some way to prevent it playing in DVD-ROM drives on computers (and other devices that use computer DVD drives).
In fact, they should use special DVDs that require the player to spin in the other direction to play. They'll make a fortune selling players! Hmm...
I just don't get how their mind works. Why would they think that folks would want this? How does this benefit the consumer? Why on earth would anyone buy music on DVD when you physically cannot hear sound better than what's on the CD to begin with?
I believe they -really- think that consumers -want- to be locked into something... that consumers really do want DRM to restrict their rights. Meh.
You have no idea who I socialize with, and you thus made a very bad assumption.
So, in other words, you're saying that you do socialize with folks who barely afford food, are qualified, and are unemployed, but yet claim that the job market is great? There's something wrong with your logic.
The US has some of the lowest unemployment in the world. In fact, economists hate it when it gets much lower than it is now because labor costs start to rise exponentially. Don't give me the 'they are all minimum wage jobs' line either. They are not. I don't know about your area, but around here (Pittsburgh) even a fast food restaraunt has to pay quite a bit more than minimum wage or they won't get anyone to work.
Where were you the last 5 years? The problem with such statements is that you likely only revolve in circles of employed folks, and don't socialize with folks who barely make enough to buy food (or can't find work at all).
And yes, many are qualified and know their stuff as far as `jobs' are concerned.
In Firefox, right click on the link, click on `Open Link in New Tab'.
Do this to many links that appear like they're counted.
Wait for the page to load (don't view it!).
Right click on the tab. Click `Close Tab'.
Congratulations, you have just ``clicked'' according to their definition. You also have just cost a site some $$ (and made some $$ for Google/Yahoo/Microsoft).
If you read the article, one of the things they say is how hard it is to determine the "intent" of the person clicking the ad. Are they serious shoppers, casual browsers, or even one of those teenagers who sign up for those click-for-profit type schemes. Well duh!
I often find myself clicking on many links for sites I dislike, knowing that each click is costing them money; just 'cause I feel like it:-/
Also, opening a page in a Firefox tab, and closing the tab (without viewing it), is also a pretty nice way to run up costs for some sites. And if thousands of people do this per day...
It's a silly business model these advertisers have.
Lets see... with 4 million laptops at $100 a piece, that's $400m. With that much money flowing through, you can bet that -any- administrators will be very well off (as non-prifits, they may just use 5-10% of the money for "operating expenses"---and even then, that will be -way- nicer than most other non-profits).
Most corps have to jump through major hoops to get to human trials. A delay at this stage can be very costly and -very- long (think years). There's great pressure to get human trials started (and get over with---even with side-effects). Many corps -do- rush things on purpose even if there is strong last minute negative evidense that the drug will cause harm. They just think they may get lucky (or that negative effects won't be so bad, or that maybe it was an error), or something.
Most side effects aren't a show stopper. Drug corps know that. The drug can still be given out via prescription to folks with problems much worse than the side-effects.
Now, when a corp injects humans with something -that- critical (that patients collapse a few hours after an enjection), one has to wonder why none of the animal tests have came up with anything, or what were their assumptions about the drug, etc. (and why not test on a single human first?).
This whole story smells of negligence and coverup. Very likely the drug corp had -some- idea of how badly this -could- play out in a human body (likely from animal testing), but decided not to mention those results to anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds quite similar to Solomonoffs' universal prediction.
...targeting Dell by offering a better experience when it comes to media and related tasks
Oh, crap. So now Apple will also have a ``DirectMedia'' button on the front of the laptop that turns it on (when it's in the bag, and the button was pressed by a book).... AND, have no way of disabling the button (no bios option, nothing).
Sounds like a winning strategy for Apple.
Is one to assume that the way to common sense logic in a machine is via linguistic/symbolic knowledge representation?
Amm... Those researchers need jobs too. Yes, I absolutely agree with your point, but unfortunately it's not a very popular point in many research circles.
I discussed this issue with a logic dude once... and what I got was that the rules of logic don't have any specific granularity... so technically, you can model neural networks, bayes nets, etc., via millions of very simple `logical' rules. Just like you're running statistical learning thing on a -computer-, the computer itself uses logic gates in the CPU to perform the computation---thus, you can model anything using logic and symbolic manipulation (sort of a lame excuse to have symbolic AI...)
...any sufficiently complex system will have things that are obviously true or false, but are not provable within the system.
What folks have completely missed is that AI isn't about truth... it's about ability and function. Newton was very wrong about gravity, yet it functioned for a while. For all we know, Relativity may be completely wrong too... but it functions for now. Ignoring the strict mathematical sense, contradictions (and truth) are irrelevant: stuff either has to work or not work, that's all AI should care about.
It's also not about symbolic rules nor logic. Brains don't have symbolic rules, yet somehow they function---which itself seems to be enough for `Intelligence'.
I think projects like Cyc, etc., are pulling AI in the wrong direction. AI is not logic, nor is it a search for "truth". Listing `rules' (generalizations) and putting it in a database does nothing towards advancing AI.
Unfortunately, however this is still a long way from sentient AI.
Not only that, it's based on an assumption that you can use symbolic rules to represent knowledge. Which is a pretty big assumption, considering that our brains don't have a list of these rules.
How the 965 compares to those...
I got the 965 in my new Dell... seems to run `fine', even for `heavy' games like quake4. Nothing spectacularly great as with latest GeForce, but on `normal' settings in graphics level, this thing should play most games out there without issues.
You're likely right.
I've never imagined "advertising" can -itself- be the bulk of any economy, as it appears to be online. (goog stock goes up, all tech stocks go up... and vice versa).
I think what's happening is google set themselves up as middleman, they charge folks to have ads listed on their sites... and they pay folks to have stuff appear on other sites. This naturally generates fraud (people want to get paid more)---which results in google charging more---which results in more money flowing -through- google; which no matter which way you look at it, is a `good thing' for google (especially if they make a % of that increasingly larger cash flows through their corp).
That, and their stock price goes up with popularity---and the more popular they are, the more fraud that causes, the more cash flows through, the more their stock rises.
It's a system that feeds on itself, and google is right in the middle of it.
Around 1999-2001, people realized that `advertising' business alone isn't enough; so bubble burst. Now, we have a google bubble (where google is actually making money---horay: ads are in business once again!).
I wonder how long it will take folks to realize just how much money the -other- parties (the ones buying the ads; the -most- important chunk of this economy) are making (and how many are losing?!?).
My wild guess... is that there are way more losers than winners among the ad buying masses. Once more folks realize that, Google will not be in the advertising business.
You'll love scifi.com then! Try it from a non-flash browser. This thing will just keep on refreshing -forever- trying to detect flash.
Ironically, this site isn't alone (and supposedly isn't `amature' either).
And why did Einstein study relativity? After all, it's just a bunch of stupid numbers. Guess what, turns out they found applications for it after it was invented... GPS is an example.
What is it about GPS that requires relativity to have been invented?
Technically, the universe could be 5 minutes old, created by a being who thought it would be amusing to have everyone think it was billions of years old (or that anything existed more than 5 minutes ago).
Well... Wolfram did write a big fat book with lots of interesting pictures about the whole thing :-D
:-D
And strangely, people really dislike him for it. I don't think he ever says -he- invented them (he just fails to provide a ton of references---like most scientific wr0ks... but then maybe his book is more of a pop-science type of book, rather than a serious research thing).
(in any case, I found it interesting that the `random' number generator in Mathematica uses one of the automatas presented in the book
...who has invested BILLIONS into this drug
I always wonder where do those BILLIONS go? As far as I know, most researchers don't make millions of dollars a year.
The equipment? Why is equipment so expensive ('cause of the patents maybe???).
Chemicals? Why are they expensive? (ground up diamonds and gold dust?).
Some expensive process that's patented? (microarray?)
The ``staff'' (the 50 other people in the company for every researcher)?
Maybe if phrama wasn't such a big business machine, things wouldn't be so damn expensive?
Just curious...
Just because these things can be formed inorganically doesn't mean they were.
What is life anyway? Does it have to be organic?
Maybe the problem is that we're looking for life that's similar to us---possibly breathing oxygen existing in our gravity/temperature range, and fond of water. Such life is unlikely to be present anywhere but on an identical twin planet.
That still leaves the possibility of life evolving in ways that we would consider impossible (or would not consider life at all). Maybe `they' have already found us, but consider our planet dead, since all they see are carbon blobs and no `life'.
It would actually be funny that in addition to it not playing on a CD player, they'd criple the DVD in some way to prevent it playing in DVD-ROM drives on computers (and other devices that use computer DVD drives).
In fact, they should use special DVDs that require the player to spin in the other direction to play. They'll make a fortune selling players! Hmm...
I just don't get how their mind works. Why would they think that folks would want this? How does this benefit the consumer? Why on earth would anyone buy music on DVD when you physically cannot hear sound better than what's on the CD to begin with?
I believe they -really- think that consumers -want- to be locked into something... that consumers really do want DRM to restrict their rights. Meh.
You have no idea who I socialize with, and you thus made a very bad assumption.
:-|
So, in other words, you're saying that you do socialize with folks who barely afford food, are qualified, and are unemployed, but yet claim that the job market is great? There's something wrong with your logic.
Sorry about another bad assumption
Nah. I believe it's 'cause of the whales. Someone should really go up there and harpoon a few. Maybe even sing a whailing tune.
The US has some of the lowest unemployment in the world. In fact, economists hate it when it gets much lower than it is now because labor costs start to rise exponentially. Don't give me the 'they are all minimum wage jobs' line either. They are not. I don't know about your area, but around here (Pittsburgh) even a fast food restaraunt has to pay quite a bit more than minimum wage or they won't get anyone to work.
Where were you the last 5 years? The problem with such statements is that you likely only revolve in circles of employed folks, and don't socialize with folks who barely make enough to buy food (or can't find work at all).
And yes, many are qualified and know their stuff as far as `jobs' are concerned.
Just middle click on the link. Faster. ...
:-D Thanks!
Cool. This will save me some clicks
In Firefox, right click on the link, click on `Open Link in New Tab'.
Do this to many links that appear like they're counted.
Wait for the page to load (don't view it!).
Right click on the tab. Click `Close Tab'.
Congratulations, you have just ``clicked'' according to their definition. You also have just cost a site some $$ (and made some $$ for Google/Yahoo/Microsoft).
Advertising rocks!
Too risky- MS might use the hug to knife him in the back.
Or implant nanoprobes.
"Maatt Daaammonn"!
KHAAAAAAAN! errr...
If you read the article, one of the things they say is how hard it is to determine the "intent" of the person clicking the ad. Are they serious shoppers, casual browsers, or even one of those teenagers who sign up for those click-for-profit type schemes. Well duh!
:-/
I often find myself clicking on many links for sites I dislike, knowing that each click is costing them money; just 'cause I feel like it
Also, opening a page in a Firefox tab, and closing the tab (without viewing it), is also a pretty nice way to run up costs for some sites. And if thousands of people do this per day...
It's a silly business model these advertisers have.
Lets see... with 4 million laptops at $100 a piece, that's $400m. With that much money flowing through, you can bet that -any- administrators will be very well off (as non-prifits, they may just use 5-10% of the money for "operating expenses"---and even then, that will be -way- nicer than most other non-profits).
They don't do this on purpose.
Most corps have to jump through major hoops to get to human trials. A delay at this stage can be very costly and -very- long (think years). There's great pressure to get human trials started (and get over with---even with side-effects). Many corps -do- rush things on purpose even if there is strong last minute negative evidense that the drug will cause harm. They just think they may get lucky (or that negative effects won't be so bad, or that maybe it was an error), or something.
Most side effects aren't a show stopper. Drug corps know that. The drug can still be given out via prescription to folks with problems much worse than the side-effects.
Now, when a corp injects humans with something -that- critical (that patients collapse a few hours after an enjection), one has to wonder why none of the animal tests have came up with anything, or what were their assumptions about the drug, etc. (and why not test on a single human first?).
This whole story smells of negligence and coverup. Very likely the drug corp had -some- idea of how badly this -could- play out in a human body (likely from animal testing), but decided not to mention those results to anyone.
Worldwide, most ethanol is actually produced by sugarcane.
But corn tastes great. You can feed investors some fried corn and they'll love you for it (as some ethanol corps have done)---that, or bribes.