Hear hear. I have a buddy from high school who got his stuff confiscated by the FBI. He just recently (in the past 6 months) got a call saying he could pick up his stuff. It will be interested to dig through old BBS software, ACID packs, etc. on 486s with 10 MB HDDs!
Hey folks-
I have an ongoing debate with a friend. He says the armies rendered by WETA for the LOTR series weren't true to Tolkien's numbers, that they were exagerated for dramatic effect. I told him he was full of it and couldn't estimate crowds by looking. I referred him to the controversy surrounding the million man march, and how there was no final estimation on the number of people, and indeed, seemingly no research or scientific study of crowd estimation.
Anyway, is there a way to reverse the crowd drawing algorthm to estimate individuals in a crowd?
... I would choose an windowing system that did more work.
Seriously, all we are talking about is modularizing the windowing system. If the WS is as simple as possible, people are going to rely on libraries and windowing toolkits to get their work done. I guess that's already happened with GTK, etc.
Actually, it was an Indian grammarian who invented 0 in the western world. He used it to denote nouns that had 0 endings. The concept was then borrowed by mathematicians.
I disagree. I argue that they don't have the *concepts* for numerical values more than 3. The words are just pointers. It seems that you argue eveyone has the concepts, but if they don't have the words for it, then they can't express it. I say it's the other way around -- words are employed to introduce new concepts into the mind.
Yes. They are the top-crap. And then, 9 of the 10 top papers are top-10 crap. And then, 90% of the top paper is crap. There's very little in this world that's worth very much. But we have a lot of nice crap!
If you broadcast it on privately owned property, that's okay. If your broadcast it on public property, such as the sidewalk or other publicly owned property, that's against the agreement.
"Unfortunately for your argument, it is *NOT* true that Godel's theorem itself is one of those unprovable propositions. In fact, if Godel's Theorem was an unprovable proposition, it would be useless for proving anything else."
That's not my argument. My argument, which Goedel demonstrated, is that there is at least one theorem that a Turing machine is not capable of understanding (in this case, Geodel's theorem). You're right, it is proveable. Anybody with enough training can understand it. But a Turing machine is not capable of proving it. Therefore, I submit that the human mind is not a Turing machine. It might have a Turing machine, or several, it in, to solve certain problems, but it cannot *solely* be a turning machine. Otherwise we would have never discovered Goedel's theorem.
That's really interesting. I think the scientific understanding of consciousness is so limited compared to the understanding of a gene that the metaphor doesn't apply, or it proves the opposite point.
From another tack, I think the gene metaphor doesn't really do the trick. People always assumed that the mechanism of inheritance was going to be physical, whether it was DNA, or protiens, or whatever. On the other hand, people seem to assume that consciouness is *non-physical*, like a spirit or soul. I guess what I'm suggesting is that we further define the non-physical aspects of consciousness (has feelings, thoughts, sense of self), and then try to map them onto parts of the brain.
"Which success are you talking about? I haven't known of any success in explaining consciousness based on which parts of the brain use more energy when we do certain tasks."
Success as far as in, "This is Wernicke's area, this is where we put meaning together" or "This is Broca's area, this is where the brain decides how to move the parts of the mouth and throat in order to make speech". This is opposed to what came before, which was basically "We have no flipping clue, but it certainly is the brain that is thinking!"
See, before we had the entire brain, take it or leave it, accounting for consciousness as a whole, take it or leave it. Now, with brain scans and studies of lesion and stroke patients, we can identify parts of consciousness, which are directly correlated with parts of the brain. We now have thinking organs: e.g. This part handles motion, this part detects faces, this part recognizes close relatives. People who have these certain parts knocked out physically are actually missing parts of their consciousness.
"
As Doug Lenat's program Eurisko proved, Turing machines are pretty good in understanding theorems. Google it.".
As Goedel showed, there is at least one theorem that computers can't understand. Not 'can't' as in, "we don't think so", nor "maybe if we had better/faster computers they could", but can't as in demonstrably, logically proved that computers (read: turing machines) can not, will not be, and are not capable of understanding. Google it.
I have the itchy feeling that that's too low a level to be looking for the basic building blocks of consciousness. As a metaphor, look at the circulatory system. Our basic units for desribing its functions are the heart with its chambers, and veins, etc. We don't really need to get to the cellular level to get the gist of it.
It seems to me, and this is totally a gut feeling, that the basic 'units of consciousness' will be in nueral superstructers. I'm actually a supporter of a top down approach -- trying to tear apart things that are apparent to us in our consciousness --Woah! How about getting a definition of consciousness first -- and then trying to find what neurons are responsible for them. We're had more success this way -- finding which parts of the brain light up when we use language, recognize faces, solve math problems, etc.
Furthermore, all the models of nuerons thinking use them as logic gates. That seems to imply to me that some consciousness researchers think the brain is a huge Turing machine -- again, this doesn't seem right to me, because Goedel's Theorem, as I understand, shows there are things a Turing machine can't compute. And if humans can understand Goedel's theorem, we must have something qualitatively different than a Turing machine up there.
You can buy a beige box 'upgrade' machine in my locality for $150. All you need is hard drives.
I would put in a master drive and a cd drive for booting and loading the system. Then, get 5x250GB drives. Make a software RAID out of them. At ~$150/ea., total for for machine is $900.
Now, for extra security, *make the same machine*, and put it on a buddy's/relative's broadband line for nightly rsyncs (do the first rsync on the home LAN, though;). Give them free techsupport, or backup space on the box, etc.
Total cost, $1800. Offsite backup, esp. on different power grid and internet backbone, is a lifesaver.
I think it's nigh-impossible for a team of content creators to come up with a satisfying backdrop to any MMORPG. I think they should make the things totally open, with a lot of controllable NPC (soldiers, farmers, etc), and let the players *create their own stories and histories* -- alliances, empires, betrayals, collapses, romances, etc. That's about all the human race does anyway.
All those explorers were financed by royalty to set up colonies in order to make them money. None of them cared about exploration or learning or science. They may have paid lip service to those ideas, or at best saw them as a means to making more money. All they wanted was to enrich the kingdom.
Contrastly, space exploration is sold as a purely scientific pursuit-of-knowledge endeavour. We are not staking out territory in space, nor are we enslaving martians on rock plantations.
Slashdot Mirror
Hear hear. I have a buddy from high school who got his stuff confiscated by the FBI. He just recently (in the past 6 months) got a call saying he could pick up his stuff. It will be interested to dig through old BBS software, ACID packs, etc. on 486s with 10 MB HDDs!
Queue Tolkein racism text. Throw in a little extra sexism, please.
OMG! We're seeding the Great Reef Fires of 2007!
I have an ongoing debate with a friend. He says the armies rendered by WETA for the LOTR series weren't true to Tolkien's numbers, that they were exagerated for dramatic effect. I told him he was full of it and couldn't estimate crowds by looking. I referred him to the controversy surrounding the million man march, and how there was no final estimation on the number of people, and indeed, seemingly no research or scientific study of crowd estimation.
Anyway, is there a way to reverse the crowd drawing algorthm to estimate individuals in a crowd?
Seriously, all we are talking about is modularizing the windowing system. If the WS is as simple as possible, people are going to rely on libraries and windowing toolkits to get their work done. I guess that's already happened with GTK, etc.
Actually, it was an Indian grammarian who invented 0 in the western world. He used it to denote nouns that had 0 endings. The concept was then borrowed by mathematicians.
I disagree. I argue that they don't have the *concepts* for numerical values more than 3. The words are just pointers. It seems that you argue eveyone has the concepts, but if they don't have the words for it, then they can't express it. I say it's the other way around -- words are employed to introduce new concepts into the mind.
THe INCAS ALSO devleoped zero independently. I'm not sure about the dates, so I don't know who got it first. But we happened to get from the Indians.
Horizontally, television has an analogue signal. How would you quantify that?
OK, but we won the flag war ;)
Yes. They are the top-crap. And then, 9 of the 10 top papers are top-10 crap. And then, 90% of the top paper is crap. There's very little in this world that's worth very much. But we have a lot of nice crap!
If you broadcast it on privately owned property, that's okay. If your broadcast it on public property, such as the sidewalk or other publicly owned property, that's against the agreement.
If you're using windows, you can switch your mouse to a left-handed mouse, and get the functionality you want.
So DRM smells like fried electronics?
That's not my argument. My argument, which Goedel demonstrated, is that there is at least one theorem that a Turing machine is not capable of understanding (in this case, Geodel's theorem). You're right, it is proveable. Anybody with enough training can understand it. But a Turing machine is not capable of proving it. Therefore, I submit that the human mind is not a Turing machine. It might have a Turing machine, or several, it in, to solve certain problems, but it cannot *solely* be a turning machine. Otherwise we would have never discovered Goedel's theorem.
From another tack, I think the gene metaphor doesn't really do the trick. People always assumed that the mechanism of inheritance was going to be physical, whether it was DNA, or protiens, or whatever. On the other hand, people seem to assume that consciouness is *non-physical*, like a spirit or soul. I guess what I'm suggesting is that we further define the non-physical aspects of consciousness (has feelings, thoughts, sense of self), and then try to map them onto parts of the brain.
Yes, but close to 75% of all those PHP Projects are a DVD/CD cataloging system.
Success as far as in, "This is Wernicke's area, this is where we put meaning together" or "This is Broca's area, this is where the brain decides how to move the parts of the mouth and throat in order to make speech". This is opposed to what came before, which was basically "We have no flipping clue, but it certainly is the brain that is thinking!"
See, before we had the entire brain, take it or leave it, accounting for consciousness as a whole, take it or leave it. Now, with brain scans and studies of lesion and stroke patients, we can identify parts of consciousness, which are directly correlated with parts of the brain. We now have thinking organs: e.g. This part handles motion, this part detects faces, this part recognizes close relatives. People who have these certain parts knocked out physically are actually missing parts of their consciousness.
" As Doug Lenat's program Eurisko proved, Turing machines are pretty good in understanding theorems. Google it.".
As Goedel showed, there is at least one theorem that computers can't understand. Not 'can't' as in, "we don't think so", nor "maybe if we had better/faster computers they could", but can't as in demonstrably, logically proved that computers (read: turing machines) can not, will not be, and are not capable of understanding. Google it.
It seems to me, and this is totally a gut feeling, that the basic 'units of consciousness' will be in nueral superstructers. I'm actually a supporter of a top down approach -- trying to tear apart things that are apparent to us in our consciousness --Woah! How about getting a definition of consciousness first -- and then trying to find what neurons are responsible for them. We're had more success this way -- finding which parts of the brain light up when we use language, recognize faces, solve math problems, etc.
Furthermore, all the models of nuerons thinking use them as logic gates. That seems to imply to me that some consciousness researchers think the brain is a huge Turing machine -- again, this doesn't seem right to me, because Goedel's Theorem, as I understand, shows there are things a Turing machine can't compute. And if humans can understand Goedel's theorem, we must have something qualitatively different than a Turing machine up there.
Can anyone give me a rough formula of wattage/# of devices?
Now, for extra security, *make the same machine*, and put it on a buddy's/relative's broadband line for nightly rsyncs (do the first rsync on the home LAN, though ;). Give them free techsupport, or backup space on the box, etc.
Total cost, $1800. Offsite backup, esp. on different power grid and internet backbone, is a lifesaver.
I think it's nigh-impossible for a team of content creators to come up with a satisfying backdrop to any MMORPG. I think they should make the things totally open, with a lot of controllable NPC (soldiers, farmers, etc), and let the players *create their own stories and histories* -- alliances, empires, betrayals, collapses, romances, etc. That's about all the human race does anyway.
this site shows random pictures on google image search based on naming conventions of digital cameras.
"Glen" looks like he does in above photo, and claims to be 30. I am *not* looking forward to the big 30. Either that or Glen has some serious issues.
Contrastly, space exploration is sold as a purely scientific pursuit-of-knowledge endeavour. We are not staking out territory in space, nor are we enslaving martians on rock plantations.