And here all along I was told it was from angels farting.
Re:But is it truely learning?
on
AI Monkey Robot
·
· Score: 1
No, I dont think it is truly learning. That is the problem that I see with everything people try to put off as "AI" right now. From what I can tell, none of it is intelligence, it's really pattern recognition mapped onto some basic function. If it were really the robot having some sort of cognitive action in here, the only things going on in the robot's circutry would be some basic things it likes, some basic things it doesn't like, and the ability to somehow trace what it likes and doesnt like to its actions and happenings in its environment, most likely through chronological proximity. It wouldn't be getting to the next rung because it knows these equations, it would be getting to the rung purely on estimation by realizing "if i reach this far for a rung this far away, I fall. Falling hurts." from there it would go in two directions - either stop trying to get across or keep going, depending on whether or not it has an incentive to get across. There shouldn't be any physics equations or ability to tell exact distances unless the robot supplies them itself.
I think there is plenty of new talent, but there are myriad other posts in this topic that list them, I didn't bother. If you want a list, Orson Scott Card is still writing, though he is past his prime. Same with John Varley, to the extent of my knowledge. I happen to like Jeff Noon a lot, although his writing is not particularly deep - but Vurt is a good recreation read.
We're losing all the old great masters of science fiction. I guess this is inevitable, but modern science fiction just isn't the same
The great masters of Science Fiction have been gone for a century now. Of course, they're not gone, they are exactly as present in the literary world as they were when they were still alive. No great books have up and disappeared from the earth that I can remember.
Netscape 4.7 already has an option of Only accept cookies from the same server as the page being viewed which is what I think you are refering to.
I think what you mean is the "Only accept cookies which get sent back to the originating server" option. My understanding of this option is not that it filters out cookies which didnt come from the server that made the webpage, but that it rejects cookies that dont go back to the server that sent them. In this case, since the cookies are coming from doubleclick.net, that option would not filter them out.
They already open source some of their stuff but I dont see them completely rewriting their business model around an OS that they intended to distribute proprietarily from the beginning.
So yes, Be might go open source.
But only if, say, Microsoft leeched away all their market share until they were bought out by AOL and their last lash at the Empire before they crawled into their cave to lick their wounds was to go open source.
They're trying to drum up business, kids, not trying to bandwagon GNU/Linux. Not everything in the world revolves around everybody's favorite unix wannabe.
Allowing infinite virtual space could easily be done. Remember that plan to put users inside a huge hamster ball? Use a giant clear plastic ball with cameras surrounding it. As a computer system "tracks the feet, dude" to sense the motion of the user, they send information to motors which rotate the sphere to keep the user on the bottom of it.
Alterenately, make the sphere contain touch sensitive panels, and program the system to rotate the sphere to keep the average height of the panels recieving input as low as possible. Of course, that would be disorienting as the ground would always be sloped up, whether the user is walking up or down or straight along. However, that nature of the sphere could be turned into a good thing - keep the sphere rotated so that the user feels like he or she is on an incline. Still no way to do stairs, but at least a reasonable attempt at simulating hills is possible.
Of course, in this case, the user's VR apparatus would have to communicate with the computer via a radio link. Which leads to the possibility of just putting motion sensers on the user's joints and having them transmit the data back.
If the sphere doesn't work, how about a series of treadmill belts arranged horizontally to form another huge treadmill belt - a bit complicated, but if the US navy can build robots with wheels arranged around a larger wheel for added mobility, we can pull of recursive treadmills.
>If you take any two unrelated issues, you can >find people who support all 4 possible options.
ALL 4 possible options? I've found that if you ask 100 people who think about issues, you'll get 100 different answers. (Of course, if you ask 100 people who watch Dateline on NBC to learn about issues, you'll get 1 answer. I'm going to ignore section of our society that's driven like a herd of cattle to the slaugtherhouse by the media, though.) Any given issue other than, say, "Should I drink my pop with a straw or a sippy cup?" is too complex to break its answers down into a few options.
As for left and right, those are terms I don't like, because they are arbitrarily made and most people dont make a distinction on anything in politics unless they are told to, anyway (example: no distinction between fascism and stalinist/maoist communism. another example: just about 0 people in the United States realize that their country is, in fact, NOT a democracy. (it's a republic. the difference matters.))
Now for my obligatory 2 cents on the article and feeble attempt at not getting moderated to death for being offtopic: To me the saddest thing about the death of Disney's dream for EPCOT is that it was the consummation of the death of his idealism, in so many ways. Yes, there was no room for pluralism of any kind in his ideas, but he was still searching, and he still envisioned a better life for everyone (who is white). Yes, I am ripping on Disney hardcore - but I'd still like to see his idealism keep on going. It's betteer than the Y2K doomsday krap we get thrown at us nowadays.
Komplex is a group of programmers who seem to have gotten some computrons out of Java.
Admittedly, they aren't making office suites or anything here, but I still think it shows that there may be some untapped use in Java.
The beautiful thing about Java and the point that everybody seems to be missing is that you compile it once and it works anywhere on any machine that has the power to run the app and a VM installed. I don't think anybody can shoot that down with a comparison to C.
Yes, they could have, but then they would have to go through the effort of porting it to every other system they wanted it to run on whereas now it works just fine on anything with a bytecode interpreter.
I'll admit, its slow on my machine, but then again, so is anything written in Scheme. You can't have everything.
C'mon boy, you've installed X, you can handle this.
No, really, I think it would be easy to make a network neighbourhood type client that runs under Samba. It would have to be a separate system run by the server, but it is true, that mountin 1500 computers is not very wise. The client could check the server's dynamically updated list of computers, display them in a Windows sytle view (even with the cute computer icon!) and mount them when you want to access them.
I ain't coding it because I know jack about unix programming, though, and I have a long time to go before I am competent to be doing projects like that.
it seems like this could be handled with a program on the main server that generates a script whenever a computer plugs in or logs out, and having clients run that script through crond or somesuch.
In the article they quote him as saying this technology is dangerous and he is conducting these experiments at least partially to show how this tenchnology could create a big brother scenario.
To me it seems a bit like he's putting the bullets in the tower-shooter's gun to prove that that would be a bad idea. It shows that that's a bad idea, but that doesnt redeem the fact that you just put bullets in a tower shooter's gun and handed it over to him.
Something that is integral to MacOS which I would like to see extended to be more useful is the voice-output. It's relatively easy to use some software on a mac with the monitor turned off. Voice-input is getting better, too.
I dont think this is a problem with HTML standards like a lot of people are making it out to be. It's a matter of making a text-only version of a website (which would take what - half a day on a fairly large site? c'mon guys! it's mostly cut 'n pasting out all the JavaScript and image tags). After that is done, all that is better designed voice input and output systems and support for it in software.
Of course, I can see AOL whining about something this easy since their programmers are too lazy to even make a "turn IMs off" button which activates the already existing "$IM_OFF" command.
I could see taking criteria like that and starting a project for Open Source programers similar to what the Hornet Archive was for the demoscene - a searchable directory listing of stuff with each entry having a small blurb about platform, language, maybe a 10 word abstract, and a link to the actual stuff, and have the coordinators review everything and make sure it fits a standard format and check to see the code works.
Though I can't see many hackers wanting their contribution to the Open Source community being reading/reviewing code rather than making/modifying it.
Most anyone who has used computers and windows 98 generally can figure out that msnp32.dll shouldn't spontaneously disappear.
However, that doesn't take much computer savvy, nor does it take much of an anti-microsoft view. Most computer users want to know they can run the latest games and HAVE to have sofware that is 100% compatible with their company's software (ever noticed people runnign and screaming because the company has Word 2000 and they have Word 97? yes, that's not at all a problem for most anyone who is reading this, but most computer users have never heard of/.) That makes a lot of OSes (BeOS, OS/2) not an option.
Macs just have a bad rap. I've never understood that, for just about anyone's uses but those of a programmer, Macs are, in my opinion, beautiful machines. And I talked to a Mac representative a few months ago and I guess that they intend to make Macs as fun to hack on as PC's, so that wont be a problem soon, either. On top of that, macs still suffer from the first problem a bit. (and incompatibility really starts to matter more when you go cross platform)
For just about everyone, linux/unix arent options either. Most computer users I know nowadays can't even handle a command line interface. If they can't handle "dir/p" how can you expect them to deal with "ls -l | more"?
Or it could just be that the people who made the software wanted to put their name on it, which I consider fine considering they/did/ make it. It's the name of the company, not the distro (coincidentally, the distro is named after the company/group, too)
It's kinda like how it's okay to port software with "GNU" in its name to non-GNU operating systems. . .
Slashdot Mirror
And here all along I was told it was from angels farting.
No, I dont think it is truly learning. That is the problem that I see with everything people try to put off as "AI" right now. From what I can tell, none of it is intelligence, it's really pattern recognition mapped onto some basic function.
If it were really the robot having some sort of cognitive action in here, the only things going on in the robot's circutry would be some basic things it likes, some basic things it doesn't like, and the ability to somehow trace what it likes and doesnt like to its actions and happenings in its environment, most likely through chronological proximity. It wouldn't be getting to the next rung because it knows these equations, it would be getting to the rung purely on estimation by realizing "if i reach this far for a rung this far away, I fall. Falling hurts." from there it would go in two directions - either stop trying to get across or keep going, depending on whether or not it has an incentive to get across. There shouldn't be any physics equations or ability to tell exact distances unless the robot supplies them itself.
I think there is plenty of new talent, but there are myriad other posts in this topic that list them, I didn't bother. If you want a list, Orson Scott Card is still writing, though he is past his prime. Same with John Varley, to the extent of my knowledge. I happen to like Jeff Noon a lot, although his writing is not particularly deep - but Vurt is a good recreation read.
You can't expect them to seem so cutting edge when they're writing with what is now an established genre rather than something new and quirky.
Of course, they're not gone, they are exactly as present in the literary world as they were when they were still alive. No great books have up and disappeared from the earth that I can remember.
Netscape 4.7 already has an option of Only accept cookies from the same server as the page
being viewed which is what I think you are refering to.
I think what you mean is the "Only accept cookies which get sent back to the originating server" option.
My understanding of this option is not that it filters out cookies which didnt come from the server that made the webpage, but that it rejects cookies that dont go back to the server that sent them. In this case, since the cookies are coming from doubleclick.net, that option would not filter them out.
Hey, at least they didn't ask us to vote on the best singing voice.
They already open source some of their stuff but I dont see them completely rewriting their business model around an OS that they intended to distribute proprietarily from the beginning.
So yes, Be might go open source.
But only if, say, Microsoft leeched away all their market share until they were bought out by AOL and their last lash at the Empire before they crawled into their cave to lick their wounds was to go open source.
They're trying to drum up business, kids, not trying to bandwagon GNU/Linux. Not everything in the world revolves around everybody's favorite unix wannabe.
The real bottleneck is in the keyboard/mouse!
Allowing infinite virtual space could easily be done. Remember that plan to put users inside a huge hamster ball? Use a giant clear plastic ball with cameras surrounding it. As a computer system "tracks the feet, dude" to sense the motion of the user, they send information to motors which rotate the sphere to keep the user on the bottom of it.
Alterenately, make the sphere contain touch sensitive panels, and program the system to rotate the sphere to keep the average height of the panels recieving input as low as possible. Of course, that would be disorienting as the ground would always be sloped up, whether the user is walking up or down or straight along. However, that nature of the sphere could be turned into a good thing - keep the sphere rotated so that the user feels like he or she is on an incline. Still no way to do stairs, but at least a reasonable attempt at simulating hills is possible.
Of course, in this case, the user's VR apparatus would have to communicate with the computer via a radio link. Which leads to the possibility of just putting motion sensers on the user's joints and having them transmit the data back.
If the sphere doesn't work, how about a series of treadmill belts arranged horizontally to form another huge treadmill belt - a bit complicated, but if the US navy can build robots with wheels arranged around a larger wheel for added mobility, we can pull of recursive treadmills.
>find people who support all 4 possible options.
ALL 4 possible options? I've found that if you ask 100 people who think about issues, you'll get 100 different answers. (Of course, if you ask 100 people who watch Dateline on NBC to learn about issues, you'll get 1 answer. I'm going to ignore section of our society that's driven like a herd of cattle to the slaugtherhouse by the media, though.) Any given issue other than, say, "Should I drink my pop with a straw or a sippy cup?" is too complex to break its answers down into a few options.
As for left and right, those are terms I don't like, because they are arbitrarily made and most people dont make a distinction on anything in politics unless they are told to, anyway (example: no distinction between fascism and stalinist/maoist communism. another example: just about 0 people in the United States realize that their country is, in fact, NOT a democracy. (it's a republic. the difference matters.))
Now for my obligatory 2 cents on the article and feeble attempt at not getting moderated to death for being offtopic: To me the saddest thing about the death of Disney's dream for EPCOT is that it was the consummation of the death of his idealism, in so many ways. Yes, there was no room for pluralism of any kind in his ideas, but he was still searching, and he still envisioned a better life for everyone (who is white). Yes, I am ripping on Disney hardcore - but I'd still like to see his idealism keep on going. It's betteer than the Y2K doomsday krap we get thrown at us nowadays.
I've been planning to get some speed out of my pentium-133 while im bored and on winter break by using dry ice packs instead of a cooling fan.
I'm still working on how to do it using liquid nitrogen without destroying the computer.
Komplex is a group of programmers who seem to have gotten some computrons out of Java.
Admittedly, they aren't making office suites or anything here, but I still think it shows that there may be some untapped use in Java.
The beautiful thing about Java and the point that everybody seems to be missing is that you compile it once and it works anywhere on any machine that has the power to run the app and a VM installed. I don't think anybody can shoot that down with a comparison to C.
Spacewar on the TI-85? If you could post the code for that program somewhere, i would kill to get my hands on it.
--or is it for zShell?
Yes, they could have, but then they would have to go through the effort of porting it to every other system they wanted it to run on whereas now it works just fine on anything with a bytecode interpreter.
I'll admit, its slow on my machine, but then again, so is anything written in Scheme. You can't have everything.
Because that ain't the Linux Way.
C'mon boy, you've installed X, you can handle this.
No, really, I think it would be easy to make a network neighbourhood type client that runs under Samba. It would have to be a separate system run by the server, but it is true, that mountin 1500 computers is not very wise. The client could check the server's dynamically updated list of computers, display them in a Windows sytle view (even with the cute computer icon!) and mount them when you want to access them.
I ain't coding it because I know jack about unix programming, though, and I have a long time to go before I am competent to be doing projects like that.
"The philosophy is laugh in the face of danger. Oops, wrong one. 'Do it yourself.' That's it." -linus
it seems like this could be handled with a program on the main server that generates a script whenever a computer plugs in or logs out, and having clients run that script through crond or somesuch.
I like "autonomous" best. . . thats how i've always felt about the Open Source community. So let's all call it "Autoware" or start forcing people to refer to freeware as "gratisware" at large, loose, unloosed, escaped, fancy-free, uncommitted, unattatched, foot-loose, uninhibited, expansive, unrepressed, unsuppressed, unreserved, exempt, immune, privileged, special, excused, released, unrestrained, unrestricted, unlimited, unqualified, unconstrained, dissoluted, libertine, licentious, licentiate, profligate, loose, lax, unprincipled, unconscionable, unscrupulous, wanton, wild, rampant, riotous, abandoned, uncontrolled, ungoverned, madcap, wildcat, reinless, unreined, unchecked, uncurbed, unbridled, uncircumscribed, unconfined, unbound, uncontained, unconstricted, independent, autonomous, self-governing, soverign, absolute, substantive, undominated, unregulated, ungoverned, autonomous, unencumbered, unburdened, unhampered, unhindered, unimpeded, unobsructed, unstemmed, unsupressed, unstifled, untrammeled, disburdened, disencumbered, rid, unblocked, unclogged, unplugged, unstopped.
In the article they quote him as saying this technology is dangerous and he is conducting these experiments at least partially to show how this tenchnology could create a big brother scenario.
To me it seems a bit like he's putting the bullets in the tower-shooter's gun to prove that that would be a bad idea. It shows that that's a bad idea, but that doesnt redeem the fact that you just put bullets in a tower shooter's gun and handed it over to him.
If anything, it's hypocritical.
I always thought that was an amazing possibility.
Something that is integral to MacOS which I would like to see extended to be more useful is the voice-output. It's relatively easy to use some software on a mac with the monitor turned off. Voice-input is getting better, too.
I dont think this is a problem with HTML standards like a lot of people are making it out to be. It's a matter of making a text-only version of a website (which would take what - half a day on a fairly large site? c'mon guys! it's mostly cut 'n pasting out all the JavaScript and image tags). After that is done, all that is better designed voice input and output systems and support for it in software.
Of course, I can see AOL whining about something this easy since their programmers are too lazy to even make a "turn IMs off" button which activates the already existing "$IM_OFF" command.
I could see taking criteria like that and starting a project for Open Source programers similar to what the Hornet Archive was for the demoscene - a searchable directory listing of stuff with each entry having a small blurb about platform, language, maybe a 10 word abstract, and a link to the actual stuff, and have the coordinators review everything and make sure it fits a standard format and check to see the code works.
Though I can't see many hackers wanting their contribution to the Open Source community being reading/reviewing code rather than making/modifying it.
You expect too much out of most comptuer users.
/.) That makes a lot of OSes (BeOS, OS/2) not an option.
/p" how can you expect them to deal with "ls -l | more"?
Most anyone who has used computers and windows 98 generally can figure out that msnp32.dll shouldn't spontaneously disappear.
However, that doesn't take much computer savvy, nor does it take much of an anti-microsoft view. Most computer users want to know they can run the latest games and HAVE to have sofware that is 100% compatible with their company's software (ever noticed people runnign and screaming because the company has Word 2000 and they have Word 97? yes, that's not at all a problem for most anyone who is reading this, but most computer users have never heard of
Macs just have a bad rap. I've never understood that, for just about anyone's uses but those of a programmer, Macs are, in my opinion, beautiful machines. And I talked to a Mac representative a few months ago and I guess that they intend to make Macs as fun to hack on as PC's, so that wont be a problem soon, either. On top of that, macs still suffer from the first problem a bit. (and incompatibility really starts to matter more when you go cross platform)
For just about everyone, linux/unix arent options either. Most computer users I know nowadays can't even handle a command line interface. If they can't handle "dir
Or it could just be that the people who made the software wanted to put their name on it, which I consider fine considering they /did/ make it. It's the name of the company, not the distro (coincidentally, the distro is named after the company/group, too)
It's kinda like how it's okay to port software with "GNU" in its name to non-GNU operating systems. . .
Can't anything be done for the common good of all?
This seems almost as despicable to me as the idea of Mayo Clinic saying only they get to use dialysis machines.