Do you really think that people just change requirements on a whim without any thought to the impact on time and budget? Maybe the cost of not changing the requirements would be more costly because you're no longer solving the business problem the way it needs to be solved.
To use your analogy, rebuilding the bridge might be worth it if large ships (read: lots of money) now need to get through.
"it would be perfect for medical devices like pacemakers, implanted defibrillators, or other implanted devices that would otherwise require surgery to replace or repair."
I was working with this stuff for a game developer 5 or 6 years ago. The goal was a little different than simple compression since they wanted a better way to transition between multiple versions of the same object, each having a different resolution. Hugues Hoppe at Microsoft Research has a bunch of papers on the subject publ;ished at SIGGRAPH in the mid-90s.
You often need to balance the ideal (using CSS to make a very flexible layout) with the real (browser incompatiblities and client requirements), so making a page perfectly liquid and viewable at any resolution is not as easy as simply using CSS correctly (i.e., without pixel-specific layouts).
In any case, it's still a good idea to make sure the page looks and works as desired at certain key resolutions (800x600 being an important one for now) in certain key browsers (IE on Windows usually being the big one) at various reasonable font sizes. As technology changes, browser wars advance, etc. what needs to be tested will change.
Did anyone else ever play two tetris games at the same time? One with the left hand and one with the right? The Windows version is the best implementation I've found for doing this since you can play two player, the controls are in pretty good positions for each hand, and you can turn off the "penalize other player" option.
The important part is not that robots look humanoid, but rather look and move in a way people will ascribe human-like qualities to them. Take a Furby for example. It is not humanoid, but looks and acts in a way that people will read things into what it does in such a way that it takes on human-like characteristics.
Version 8 of UBASIC has the high precision real and complex arithmetic (up to 2600 digits) of previous versions, but adds exact rational arithmetic and arithmetic of polynomials with complex, rational, or modulo p coefficients, as well as string handling and limited list handling capabilities. In addition UBASIC has context-sensitive on-line documentation (read ubhelp.doc for information).
It doesn't give the greatest performance it the world, but I've used to for everything from prime searching to looking for narcissistic numbers.
If you look at this closely, it's just subtracting 1 from an N-bit number until it's all 0, then counting down through all N-1 bit numbers,... until there are no more bits. For example:
I particularly like a related, albeit less useful, plan of sending two robots to the moon, each covered in logos of various large companies. The plan was to finance the trip by selling the pictures the robots would take of each other.
A) A perfect AI isn't "only a mirror of human thought and behavior." There are plenty of attributes humans have that we do not want (most) AI programs/machines to have, like losing concentration, making mistakes, and forgetting things. Granted, maybe some of these "undesirable" attributes are needed for intelligence, but maybe that's not really what we should be aiming for.
B) I don't understand your argument. So what if doing something allows doing it over again? Anything we create doesn't have to be the final or best version.
I think it's much more useful to view AI's goals to be tool creation, not human-reconstruction.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really think that people just change requirements on a whim without any thought to the impact on time and budget? Maybe the cost of not changing the requirements would be more costly because you're no longer solving the business problem the way it needs to be solved.
To use your analogy, rebuilding the bridge might be worth it if large ships (read: lots of money) now need to get through.
And what if it's used like the article suggests?
"it would be perfect for medical devices like pacemakers, implanted defibrillators, or other implanted devices that would otherwise require surgery to replace or repair."
I was working with this stuff for a game developer 5 or 6 years ago. The goal was a little different than simple compression since they wanted a better way to transition between multiple versions of the same object, each having a different resolution. Hugues Hoppe at Microsoft Research has a bunch of papers on the subject publ;ished at SIGGRAPH in the mid-90s.
You often need to balance the ideal (using CSS to make a very flexible layout) with the real (browser incompatiblities and client requirements), so making a page perfectly liquid and viewable at any resolution is not as easy as simply using CSS correctly (i.e., without pixel-specific layouts).
In any case, it's still a good idea to make sure the page looks and works as desired at certain key resolutions (800x600 being an important one for now) in certain key browsers (IE on Windows usually being the big one) at various reasonable font sizes. As technology changes, browser wars advance, etc. what needs to be tested will change.
I think my dog understands what that clip was saying. Too bad I don't understand it or my dog.
Did anyone else ever play two tetris games at the same time? One with the left hand and one with the right? The Windows version is the best implementation I've found for doing this since you can play two player, the controls are in pretty good positions for each hand, and you can turn off the "penalize other player" option.
The important part is not that robots look humanoid, but rather look and move in a way people will ascribe human-like qualities to them. Take a Furby for example. It is not humanoid, but looks and acts in a way that people will read things into what it does in such a way that it takes on human-like characteristics.
It doesn't give the greatest performance it the world, but I've used to for everything from prime searching to looking for narcissistic numbers.
If you look at this closely, it's just subtracting 1 from an N-bit number until it's all 0, then counting down through all N-1 bit numbers, ... until there are no more bits. For example:
100 -> 011 -> 010 -> 001 -> 000
-> 11 -> 10 -> 01 -> 00
-> 1 -> 0
-> NULL
Rodney Brooks published a similar idea: Fast Cheap, and Out of control in 1989. (This is different than the movie.)
I particularly like a related, albeit less useful, plan of sending two robots to the moon, each covered in logos of various large companies. The plan was to finance the trip by selling the pictures the robots would take of each other.
The prime number theorem approximates the number of primes < 10^617 as approx. 7*10^612
1
pi(x) ~ x/(log x - 1) where x = 10^617 and log is the natrual log
See http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/howmany.shtml#
A) A perfect AI isn't "only a mirror of human thought and behavior." There are plenty of attributes humans have that we do not want (most) AI programs/machines to have, like losing concentration, making mistakes, and forgetting things. Granted, maybe some of these "undesirable" attributes are needed for intelligence, but maybe that's not really what we should be aiming for.
B) I don't understand your argument. So what if doing something allows doing it over again? Anything we create doesn't have to be the final or best version.
I think it's much more useful to view AI's goals to be tool creation, not human-reconstruction.