I can't believe noone has mentined this. I don't think this is a matter so much of Kodak's failure as it is the success of Canon. In fact, despite the new huge market, all companies are having trouble competing with Canon; they have dominated the entire field, particularly in the upper end DSLR field. As was stated earlier, Kodak has primarily a film company, so it has had to scramble (due to the shrinking of the film market) to compete with other companies that were already in the business of making cameras.
Write-Once-Read-Many technology used in many applications for because of the integrity of the data and the accepted legal admissibility of files stored using the technology. In the case of ?Ablative" or "True" WORM, data written to a disk is actually etched into the surface of the platter creating a permanent record. Another form, CCW WORM is based on Magneto/Optical technology. CCW achieves the WORM characteristic through special MO media that signals the optical drive not to rewrite media sectors. An advantage of CCW media is that it conforms to ISO standards, allowing it to be read with drives from any manufacturer adhering to the standard. WORM records are unalterable with the exception of destroying the platter. Legal documents, research information, historical records, etc., are all examples of information that require permanent storage.
Obviously this is very strongly dependant on what you are looking for. You shouldn't be in a library if you want modern day technical books, you should be in a book store at the least. This should be obvious without spending 1/2 a day searching.
This strategy generally works better for Computer Engineers rather then Computer Scientists because what you are really learning with Assembly tends to be how the hardware functions. In fact if you are going to learn assembly, you could spend just another month and learn the basics of computer architecture. I feel like that is what really helped me de-mystify the computing process: the ability to trace back all the way to elementary physical processes, and see the computer as a almost a physical entity rather than a magical black box.
For an example of this, you can see Patt and Patel's "Introduction to Computing Systems:From bits and gates, to C and beyond." I took and TA for a course that uses this book.
Opera is very fast, I have never had a speed problem with it, except when I made the history unlimtied and uped the cache size. If you do that start-up time and general speed definately suffer, but all you have to do is lower the cache size and it'll speed up again. This is not to say that Opera doesn't have it's bad points: it doesn't draw some pages correctly, when it does draw pages, before its finished they are often distorted. But other than that its a great piece of software. Extremely customizable. If you are a "power browser" (keyboard) you will love it.
This is silly. So you are going to drink Coke until you happen to watch one of the movies that they paid to be in? Will that be the point of personal insult?
In reality, with almost no exception, ALL large corporations do this. In fact, we can generalize a bit here and say that with almost no exception big corporations will do whatever it takes to make more money. Thats the kind of thinking and management that got them there.
Thus is the nature of capitalism, but it has its pros and cons just like any system. We accept (or so is the assumption) that the American Dream we can see wafting across the yonder horizon is worth being annoyed by marketing at every corner and shat on by large corporations that control our government.
Exactly, I think most people that haven't tried to create some sort of intelligence system first hand have a hard time grasping how difficult this problem really is. Even breaking the functions down to simple tasks like language processing doesn't really help. Our systems are nowhere NEAR as robust as the capabilty of the human mind.
You really gain an appreciation for the capacity, size, and complexity of the human brain. Or maybe its really an appreciation for the vast span of time of the evolution of life. But the bottom line is, we are not there yet, we're not close, and we are not 20 years from it either.
Altough, thats not to say that we will never make it. I think within 100 years we will be able to mimick a person, but to create something with creative thought and imagination and the ability to really have genuine interesting "thought" on the human level is still easily, at least several hundred years away. Well, in my opinion of course, trying to predict that far in the future is usually doomed to failure no matter what, particularly in this day and age.
" but we know that *we* are not and would hate to have someone assume so about us"
I think thats exactly his point. unless you believe in some sort of soul, or something that is beyond the physical, we ARE automatons, we're just more complex.. there is no line that seperates us from the rest of the world.
It doesn't sound like you spent 20 years with computers, it sounds like you spent 20 years maintaining them. "working with computers" is a really broad field, and its actually one of the smartest things you could have done, and could be doing right now.
I don't think that what everyone is saying about the "brute force" methods is true, the software in the chess computers has a lot of very intricate and complex AI code...
neural networks for example:
http://www.ieee-nns.org/
its not the same tic-tac-toe game tree that you did for you CS class.
The comment about not learning is most definately not true. The computer uses its ability to "brute force" as an advantage, but the technology which is being used in computers like Deep Blue and Fritz are not just game trees. Modern day AI most definatley can "learn" and adapt. Most notable are artificial neural networks which mimic the human brain structure and constantly adapt the weight system by comparing inputs and outputs with what is expected.
Think about it.. if the code was completely determnistic, as soon as Kramnik won one match he could just play the exact same set of moves and win again.
Slashdot Mirror
they forgot a very important piece of information: the percentage of total servers accounted for by these systems.
armed with this statistic and the age old mathematical operation of *division* one could make these results meaningful.
in other news, a new study finds that red heads are much less likely to commit violent crimes. Data for left-handed people is also encouraging.
why offtopic? he is a troll, just trying to help =/
I can't believe noone has mentined this. I don't think this is a matter so much of Kodak's failure as it is the success of Canon. In fact, despite the new huge market, all companies are having trouble competing with Canon; they have dominated the entire field, particularly in the upper end DSLR field. As was stated earlier, Kodak has primarily a film company, so it has had to scramble (due to the shrinking of the film market) to compete with other companies that were already in the business of making cameras.
Write-Once-Read-Many technology used in many applications for because of the integrity of the data and the accepted legal admissibility of files stored using the technology. In the case of ?Ablative" or "True" WORM, data written to a disk is actually etched into the surface of the platter creating a permanent record. Another form, CCW WORM is based on Magneto/Optical technology. CCW achieves the WORM characteristic through special MO media that signals the optical drive not to rewrite media sectors. An advantage of CCW media is that it conforms to ISO standards, allowing it to be read with drives from any manufacturer adhering to the standard. WORM records are unalterable with the exception of destroying the platter. Legal documents, research information, historical records, etc., are all examples of information that require permanent storage.
-www.pegasus-ofs.com/glossary.htm
nt
The console must also double as a server.
even better.
Obviously this is very strongly dependant on what you are looking for. You shouldn't be in a library if you want modern day technical books, you should be in a book store at the least. This should be obvious without spending 1/2 a day searching.
This strategy generally works better for Computer Engineers rather then Computer Scientists because what you are really learning with Assembly tends to be how the hardware functions. In fact if you are going to learn assembly, you could spend just another month and learn the basics of computer architecture. I feel like that is what really helped me de-mystify the computing process: the ability to trace back all the way to elementary physical processes, and see the computer as a almost a physical entity rather than a magical black box.
For an example of this, you can see Patt and Patel's "Introduction to Computing Systems:From bits and gates, to C and beyond." I took and TA for a course that uses this book.
see, now you went to the other extreme. You are arguing too much of a doomsday scenario, IMO.
Opera is very fast, I have never had a speed problem with it, except when I made the history unlimtied and uped the cache size. If you do that start-up time and general speed definately suffer, but all you have to do is lower the cache size and it'll speed up again.
This is not to say that Opera doesn't have it's bad points: it doesn't draw some pages correctly, when it does draw pages, before its finished they are often distorted. But other than that its a great piece of software. Extremely customizable. If you are a "power browser" (keyboard) you will love it.
except for the thumbnails that it uses in image search!
if you were really desperate you could just browse through those all day.
There is already a program that does this actually, a little bit of a nuisance, but you can try it out: www.vanquish.com
This is silly. So you are going to drink Coke until you happen to watch one of the movies that they paid to be in? Will that be the point of personal insult? In reality, with almost no exception, ALL large corporations do this. In fact, we can generalize a bit here and say that with almost no exception big corporations will do whatever it takes to make more money. Thats the kind of thinking and management that got them there. Thus is the nature of capitalism, but it has its pros and cons just like any system. We accept (or so is the assumption) that the American Dream we can see wafting across the yonder horizon is worth being annoyed by marketing at every corner and shat on by large corporations that control our government.
how hard is it to type in the title of the story into google news?
thats not what they're for??
thats hilarious.. you win.
Exactly, I think most people that haven't tried to create some sort of intelligence system first hand have a hard time grasping how difficult this problem really is.
Even breaking the functions down to simple tasks like language processing doesn't really help. Our systems are nowhere NEAR as robust as the capabilty of the human mind.
You really gain an appreciation for the capacity, size, and complexity of the human brain. Or maybe its really an appreciation for the vast span of time of the evolution of life. But the bottom line is, we are not there yet, we're not close, and we are not 20 years from it either.
Altough, thats not to say that we will never make it. I think within 100 years we will be able to mimick a person, but to create something with creative thought and imagination and the ability to really have genuine interesting "thought" on the human level is still easily, at least several hundred years away. Well, in my opinion of course, trying to predict that far in the future is usually doomed to failure no matter what, particularly in this day and age.
" but we know that *we* are not and would hate to have someone assume so about us" I think thats exactly his point. unless you believe in some sort of soul, or something that is beyond the physical, we ARE automatons, we're just more complex.. there is no line that seperates us from the rest of the world.
It doesn't sound like you spent 20 years with computers, it sounds like you spent 20 years maintaining them. "working with computers" is a really broad field, and its actually one of the smartest things you could have done, and could be doing right now.
UT has a class dedicated to the study of Tolkien's languages.
Your turn to porn when you are sad?
I don't think that what everyone is saying about the "brute force" methods is true, the software in the chess computers has a lot of very intricate and complex AI code... neural networks for example: http://www.ieee-nns.org/ its not the same tic-tac-toe game tree that you did for you CS class.
The comment about not learning is most definately not true. The computer uses its ability to "brute force" as an advantage, but the technology which is being used in computers like Deep Blue and Fritz are not just game trees. Modern day AI most definatley can "learn" and adapt.
Most notable are artificial neural networks which mimic the human brain structure and constantly adapt the weight system by comparing inputs and outputs with what is expected.
Think about it.. if the code was completely determnistic, as soon as Kramnik won one match he could just play the exact same set of moves and win again.
In fact, there are more possible board positions then there are atoms in the universe...