I think Larry Niven's idea of impact armor is cooler: lightweight material that is flexible until it's elastic limit is exceeded, at which time it instantaneously hardens into material stronger than steel. Nifty. Looks like Sinclair Molecule Chain may not be that far off either. Now if only we could figure out the General Products Hulls!
Everone has heard the stories of moonshine making someone go blind. I currently live in a country where alcohol is very expensive and laborers drink specially imported 'perfume' instead of Guinness. Sadly, it accounts for many methanol poisoning cases.
The worst I've heard of though was about a truck carrying perfume crashing in India several years back and 200+ people dying from drinking the loot they made off with. I guess it was the scented kind of perfume, and not the potable kind...
I think attempting to blow up a building or hijack a plane or murder someone is still a crime even if the attempt fails. Maybe it's just that it is frightening and robs you of your peace of mind.
Well it sure isn't going to be M$ that rolls out a sentient OS within 5 years. Anticipate users' needs? How about the need for a OS that is actually secure? Or actually stable?
I only see the faintest glimmer of predictive functionality in the most popular software out there. When the OS can watch across multiple applications, recognize when I do the same 6 commands in Photoshop followed by the same 6 commands in Excel followed by the same 6 commands in Dreamweaver over and over again and anticipate my desire to automate the task as opposed to indulging my private pursuit of carpel tunnel syndrome, then - and only then - will I buy any of this nonsense about sentient computers.
Here's what's inexorable: data-sharing over the Internet, absolutely free.
The only people who are going to make money charging users to send information to one another - whether that data happens to be music, video, pr0n, email or web pages - are ISPs.
If Kazaa follows through on the fee-based line of thinking, it will become quickly and intimately familiar with the very sad flavor-of-the-month story of Napster.
If you want to figure out who would would want to do this mapping and why, the first thing to do is figure out who would derrive benefit from it.
So, who benefits from mapping IPs of linux systems? M$ would be on the shortlist, along with the government and a few other undesirables like advertising firms, major telcos/ISPs, and perhaps major entities with a Linux interest. Anyone care to provide a more thorough list?
The best games I've played have the same merits as the best movies I've seen: they tell a great story. Little compares with the feeling of a movie or game that really sweeps you into the world of the story. And great storytelling is a very fine art indeed. Storytelling is, perhaps, the oldest of all arts, and I think that's why both movies and games are immensely popular worldwide.
Who needs bio-plastic when it is now possible to recycle virtually all organic material, from plastics and car tires to sewage, turkey guts and medical waste? With thermal depolymerization waste is a profit center instead of an operating cost, and landfills and sewer systems are transformed into oil wells.
Can anyone bring us up to speed on where the replication of TiVo functionality on home computers stands? Seems like with today's video cards it would just be a matter of software, in which case a free utility would be handy dandy - although I suppose some of those cards are more expensive than a TiVo...
"I really like music. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to learn how to play any instruments. It would be really great if someone could create an instrument that would play itself. That would allow me to create all kinds of great music without having to do anything."
A sadly misguided and futile attempt to refute the logic in my prior statement. Muscial instruments are tools. Expertise in tool use facilitates artistic expression. I happen to be a extremely skilled guitarist, but I didn't build my guitar, amps, or any of my digital recording equipment.
What you're not understanding is that there are many levels of tools within tools when it comes to software. You might as well complain that people don't code in assembly language. "If you really want to get into it, then learn the tools. If you don't have the time to develop the skills, then you don't have time to develop a quality product." By your logic, people who only use C as tool don't really get into coding enough to develop a quality product. Again, irrelevent and simply unintelligent.
"Computers have made this kind of development accessible not because of processing power, but because of the low cost."
Computers have made amateur music and video production possible for both reasons, both reducable to newfound availablilty and accessibilty of tools. I've made both music and video on home computers (I created one of the more popular Star Wars fan films several years ago). I didn't have to write the code for Adobe Premier to learn to use it well, and I certainly didn't have to put a few lines into the code myself to achieve the results I wanted - all the necessary tools were already there in Adobe's superbly designed GUI toolset.
Get a brain. Think more, frag less. You'll make fewer enemies that way.
I think a terrific mod would be a _comprehensive_ editor capabable of generating levels, models, weapons, tweaking engine physics, altering game rules (a la Civ 3), scripting events, creating voicepacks, and so on that required no coding _whatsoever_. This would open the doors to many people who are eager to use tools and make creative contributions, but who don't have the time to develop skills necessary to do so through raw coding.
Like many other game and technology enthusiasts, I am pathetically lacking in any ability to code whatsoever. I understand the merits of and have great admiration for the programmers who give us creations like Half Life and Unreal. However, I don't think one necessarily _must_ have coding skills to make creative contributions in this arena.
If I like painting and creating art for others to enjoy, am I useless without understanding the chemistry of my paints? Plenty of great works of art come from people whose expertise is in using the tools, not inventing them. Maybe we're not that far along in the evolution of software tools, but the principle is the same. In the years prior to GUIs computers were for a small clique of specialists. It's fun being in a special club, but it was sure nice for millions of other people when computers became accessible tools.
Music and film are great examples of realms of creativity that have been made accessible by computers. Just look at the music and movies being produced by amateurs using home computers these days.
So while some game editors like Unreal's are cool, they are far from complete. I like to hope that one day soon a hallmark of all great games will be a fantastic editor. I suppose the ultimate goal of an editor would be to allow users to create an entire game. I doubt this would really threaten game developers or reduce their role to just engine-creators, but it certainly might provide increase the need for them to make games with good stories, fewer bugs, and better overall polish.
We've seen many articles we've recently about space, including the recent Shuttle tragedy and the successful launch of the Mars Express, as well as the X-prize. Throughout, I continue to see an emphasis on the importance of reusable equipment. Can someone give a comprehensive explanation for why lifting technology needs to be reusable?
It seems like 30 years ago we did pretty well with expendable rockets. Since each shuttle mission costs hundreds of millions, is it really worth it? Why not invest in the development of a 'cheap' single-use lifting technology, like a successor for Soyuz? Even if each rocket cost $100 million wouldn't it still save lots of money, and wouldn't it mean much larger payloads could be delivered?
It'll be like when I was a kid again, when movies only cost $1! I hope it catches on in the US too. Then studios will have to go back to counting the number of tickets sold a a meaningful measure of a film's success instead of box office receipts. I've always hated that new movies like Harry Potter and Spiderman are seen as 'more successful' just because they made 10% more money than Star Wars. Star Wars did it when movies cost 1/5 as much!
I have to say that I was disappointed in the music in the first two films, if only for the reason that it is not memorable in an epic John Williams sort of way. I mean, if 99% of people can up and hum the theme to Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark, then surely the film version one of the greatest works of 20th century literature should have a tune you can remember well enough to hum...
I find it hypocritical that the Economist singles out the IT industry (without defining IT at all) for 'unsustainable growth'. Can someone name me an industry with indefinitely sustainable growth potential? Given that western societies are wholly dependent upon growth-based economies, it seems to me that the real target for criticisms of unsustainability should be growth-based economics itself.
It's one thing to know what something isn't; it's quite another to know what it is. I think it's clear that running a search and performing arithmetic are functions to simple to have emergent properties resembling intelligence. So then what properties would have to emerge? What are the properties of intelligence?
In my admittedly ignorant view, intelligence largely boils down to three closely related things:
1. Noise filtration.
Humans and animals - even simple ones - can prioritize what sensory input to process. This is how we pick objects out of the background visually, sonically, and - in humans - abstractly from conceptual landscapes.
2. Pattern recognition.
Correctly identifying patterns within chaotic data streams are where biological computers (brains) excel, thanks probably to massively parallel processing and phenomenally well designed algorithms courtesy of natural selection. Listening to one person's voice in a crowd requires both (a) ignoring all other sound, and (b)correctly identifying and processing the relevant data coming in, including information about context. Current Voice Recognition technology, for example, is poor despite massive number crunching because algorithms for noise filtering and pattern recognition are crude. Note also that pattern recognition is 4-dimensional: we recognize things in motion, not just standing still (read "behavior").
3. Information inference.
Current software doens't allow computers to handle a lack of data very well. If information is missing, brains fill in the gaps and make inferences efficiently and effectively. Sometimes this goes wrong, as when you mistakenly think you see something out of the corner of your eye. But mostly we get this right, hence the brain's accurate and effortless construction of motion from still frames flashed 24 times per second on a movie screen.
A simple test of these qualifiers is anticipation. When software can filter noise, recognize patterns, and infer information well enough to demonstrate the faculty of anticipation, then we will be making steps towards genuine AI.
Why not just release a new level every week or two and keep players in suspense? Charge $3 and people can buy as much or as little as they want. It works with TV cliffhangers as long as you have the one important ingredient whose absence is destroying games from mega-studios just like movies: good writing.
Eye candy can't make a bad game or movie good, it can only make a good one great.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Larry Niven's idea of impact armor is cooler: lightweight material that is flexible until it's elastic limit is exceeded, at which time it instantaneously hardens into material stronger than steel. Nifty. Looks like Sinclair Molecule Chain may not be that far off either. Now if only we could figure out the General Products Hulls!
The worst I've heard of though was about a truck carrying perfume crashing in India several years back and 200+ people dying from drinking the loot they made off with. I guess it was the scented kind of perfume, and not the potable kind...
I don't know how many slashdot readers have ever actually done any real lab science, but in my experience just about all of it is hands-on.
I only see the faintest glimmer of predictive functionality in the most popular software out there. When the OS can watch across multiple applications, recognize when I do the same 6 commands in Photoshop followed by the same 6 commands in Excel followed by the same 6 commands in Dreamweaver over and over again and anticipate my desire to automate the task as opposed to indulging my private pursuit of carpel tunnel syndrome, then - and only then - will I buy any of this nonsense about sentient computers.
The only people who are going to make money charging users to send information to one another - whether that data happens to be music, video, pr0n, email or web pages - are ISPs.
If Kazaa follows through on the fee-based line of thinking, it will become quickly and intimately familiar with the very sad flavor-of-the-month story of Napster.
So, who benefits from mapping IPs of linux systems? M$ would be on the shortlist, along with the government and a few other undesirables like advertising firms, major telcos/ISPs, and perhaps major entities with a Linux interest. Anyone care to provide a more thorough list?
Thought they both work very well, I believe 'auto-proctology' would be more correct... :)
A sadly misguided and futile attempt to refute the logic in my prior statement. Muscial instruments are tools. Expertise in tool use facilitates artistic expression. I happen to be a extremely skilled guitarist, but I didn't build my guitar, amps, or any of my digital recording equipment.
What you're not understanding is that there are many levels of tools within tools when it comes to software. You might as well complain that people don't code in assembly language. "If you really want to get into it, then learn the tools. If you don't have the time to develop the skills, then you don't have time to develop a quality product." By your logic, people who only use C as tool don't really get into coding enough to develop a quality product. Again, irrelevent and simply unintelligent.
"Computers have made this kind of development accessible not because of processing power, but because of the low cost."
Computers have made amateur music and video production possible for both reasons, both reducable to newfound availablilty and accessibilty of tools. I've made both music and video on home computers (I created one of the more popular Star Wars fan films several years ago). I didn't have to write the code for Adobe Premier to learn to use it well, and I certainly didn't have to put a few lines into the code myself to achieve the results I wanted - all the necessary tools were already there in Adobe's superbly designed GUI toolset.
Get a brain. Think more, frag less. You'll make fewer enemies that way.
Like many other game and technology enthusiasts, I am pathetically lacking in any ability to code whatsoever. I understand the merits of and have great admiration for the programmers who give us creations like Half Life and Unreal. However, I don't think one necessarily _must_ have coding skills to make creative contributions in this arena.
If I like painting and creating art for others to enjoy, am I useless without understanding the chemistry of my paints? Plenty of great works of art come from people whose expertise is in using the tools, not inventing them. Maybe we're not that far along in the evolution of software tools, but the principle is the same. In the years prior to GUIs computers were for a small clique of specialists. It's fun being in a special club, but it was sure nice for millions of other people when computers became accessible tools.
Music and film are great examples of realms of creativity that have been made accessible by computers. Just look at the music and movies being produced by amateurs using home computers these days.
So while some game editors like Unreal's are cool, they are far from complete. I like to hope that one day soon a hallmark of all great games will be a fantastic editor. I suppose the ultimate goal of an editor would be to allow users to create an entire game. I doubt this would really threaten game developers or reduce their role to just engine-creators, but it certainly might provide increase the need for them to make games with good stories, fewer bugs, and better overall polish.
It seems like 30 years ago we did pretty well with expendable rockets. Since each shuttle mission costs hundreds of millions, is it really worth it? Why not invest in the development of a 'cheap' single-use lifting technology, like a successor for Soyuz? Even if each rocket cost $100 million wouldn't it still save lots of money, and wouldn't it mean much larger payloads could be delivered?
Only compared to Keanu Reeves' Neo.
Grow a brain, friend. Nuclear power is as dirty as it gets.
All your base are belong to us.
It'll be like when I was a kid again, when movies only cost $1! I hope it catches on in the US too. Then studios will have to go back to counting the number of tickets sold a a meaningful measure of a film's success instead of box office receipts. I've always hated that new movies like Harry Potter and Spiderman are seen as 'more successful' just because they made 10% more money than Star Wars. Star Wars did it when movies cost 1/5 as much!
In my admittedly ignorant view, intelligence largely boils down to three closely related things:
1. Noise filtration.
Humans and animals - even simple ones - can prioritize what sensory input to process. This is how we pick objects out of the background visually, sonically, and - in humans - abstractly from conceptual landscapes.
2. Pattern recognition.
Correctly identifying patterns within chaotic data streams are where biological computers (brains) excel, thanks probably to massively parallel processing and phenomenally well designed algorithms courtesy of natural selection. Listening to one person's voice in a crowd requires both (a) ignoring all other sound, and (b)correctly identifying and processing the relevant data coming in, including information about context. Current Voice Recognition technology, for example, is poor despite massive number crunching because algorithms for noise filtering and pattern recognition are crude. Note also that pattern recognition is 4-dimensional: we recognize things in motion, not just standing still (read "behavior").
3. Information inference.
Current software doens't allow computers to handle a lack of data very well. If information is missing, brains fill in the gaps and make inferences efficiently and effectively. Sometimes this goes wrong, as when you mistakenly think you see something out of the corner of your eye. But mostly we get this right, hence the brain's accurate and effortless construction of motion from still frames flashed 24 times per second on a movie screen.
A simple test of these qualifiers is anticipation. When software can filter noise, recognize patterns, and infer information well enough to demonstrate the faculty of anticipation, then we will be making steps towards genuine AI.
Eye candy can't make a bad game or movie good, it can only make a good one great.