My name is Geoff Wozniak. I am a computer science student and general all-round electronics tinkerer (a rookie, really). I have been in a record production program as well and my nickname is indeed "Woz". No matter where I go (including the record program, 'cause we used Macs), people seem to think that we are directly related in some way. I admire all that you have done, but could you please go on record as saying we are not related and that I do not know you personally? Just want something to cite when I get asked again. Thanks!
Geoff Wozniak
Re:God this section of Slashdot gets old quick...
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 2
I agree that articles about corportions screwing you are tiresome, if not misleading, but I have to admit that it is tough for a big company to look good with all the crap they do. Small companies tend to do a lot better at looking good without lots of PR hype.
However, I would debate that this article, at least the way I see it, is not about that. It's about copyright and how, in this day and age where copying is so easy, that the law is in need of some major revision. Copying physical entities exactly is a difficult thing to do and copyright as of now is good for that. Copying books in physical form is not worth the effort and considering the benefit I get from them, I am willing to comply with copyright on that book in the form as we now have it.
Software and the digital form of such entities, however, is much different. Copying can take place in a matter of seconds and takes little to no effort. Old laws here become pointless. Anything in digital form is not difficult to distribute. People can easily obtain copies from somewhere other than a store or a small set of distributors. Now, it is simple to get a copy from a friend. Limiting this not only annoys consumers, but it binds their hands, so to speak. People like to be able to do this. It makes things easier for them. Some artists/creators of items distributable in digital form realize this and cater to it. However, most companies cling to the notion of old rules in a new medium, thinking that it will actually work.
There is far too much tension between these viewpoints. Obviously something has to be done. Trying to enforce these old laws will only result in more tension. Articles like this hopefully get people thinking about this and saying something about it. I think you were a bit hasty to judge this article as crap.
Woz gzw@home.com
Re:a couple of observations
on
RoboFly
·
· Score: 1
Sort of off topic, but RoboCop was released in 1987. RoboCop 2 was released in 1990.
Of course, neither of these choices really make sense, because you can't install an OS without a keyboard, monitor, power supply, and either a CD-ROM or floppy disk drive...
Exactly. You've almost answered your own question (to some extent). Every system starts with a CPU and a mainboard. While every part of a system is scrutinized and benchmarked (witness the plethora of hardware sites dedicated to getting every ounce of performance from stuff), if you had to pick two absolutely essential parts of the system, it would be these two.
The logical choice is a hard drive, but when you think system, you don't think hard drive. Besides, with all the OEM HDDs I've seen, most don't ship with anything (except maybe a small utility disk). Also, the simple act of throwing a CD in a mainboard box is pretty simple.
Well, let's look at who basically makes chips for video boards now-a-days:
nVIDIA
3Dfx
Matrox
ATI
S3
Diamond never produced chips, they just licensed everybody else's technology and put it on a board. STB was essentially the same. 3Dfx bought them so that they could control the pricing and production of their Voodoo chipset. Remember when it came out? There had to be zillions of people making it. It did promote massive competition, but also lead to comsumer confusion (who makes what with what chipset?).
As of now, nVIDIA and is the only company that doesn't control the manufacturing of boards with their chipsets. This means lots of companies are taking the nVIDIA chipsets and making minor alterations to them. In other words, all the TNT/TNT2 boards from Asus, Guillemot, Canopus, Creative Labs, Gainward, LeadTek and many others are essentially the same. Even with all these companies, it still boils down to the fact that it's nVIDIA vs. 3Dfx vs. Matrox vs. ATI vs. S3.
nVIDIA and 3Dfx got the ball rolling on the 3D wars because they didn't need to make hardware - all the money went to R&D and drivers. ATI and Matrox have always made their own hardware and as a result, have had a hard time pumping money into R&D to make *really good* 3D chipsets with good drivers (face it, the G400 is really damn good, but it's OpenGL is not up to snuff with nVIDIA and 3Dfx). ATI might have something with the MAXX, but on the surface, it's taking two chips to make it as good (or slightly better) than the rest. 3Dfx was doing so well, they decided it was time to stop licensing technology. They are doing pretty well for themselves, but they haven't made the kind of money nVIDIA has over the last year. However, they continue to push the chipset feature envelope.
With all this going on, it seems hard to believe that competition is going to dwindle and technology will let up. There are five major companies competeing here and it's a war of chipsets. Each is starting to branch off into it's own philosophy of development. nVIDIA is pushing T&L whereas 3Dfx is pushing the T-buffer and full screen anti-aliasing with massive FPS. Matrox is doing the Environment bump Mapping with Dual Head display (they are tending to push more video board enhancements rather than pure 3D). ATI still needs to learn more about 3D IMO, and S3 is, well, S3:-)
I don't think nVIDIA will attempt to make it's own hardware any time soon. They made too much money recently. However, if they did, it wouldn't kill the chipset war. The competition lies in the chipset makers, not the companies selling boards. As long as nVIDIA and 3Dfx are still duking it out, we'll continue to have 6 month product turnover in he 3D market.
...but it won't really be taken advantage of until software is written to take full advantage
Does anyone else find this trend annoying? Having hardware that has all kinds of special instructions? OK, for CPUs, I suppose it is understandable, but for memory? Do you really mean software to take advantage of the i820/i840 chipsets?
Sounds like they are trying to patent the discovery of some new information. Is that going to hold up? Don't forget, just because you have filed for a patent doesn't mean you will get it.
If they are trying to patent methods to obtaining the information (which is probably the case, as they have 6000 submissions) then I can see some of these patents being granted. That's what patents are for, even if you don't like that idea.
However, if they are patenting the infomation itself, that's an entirely different beanstalk. This would have not only far reaching implications in medicine, but any science as well.
Here in Canada, our patent act says that an invention (something you patent) is "any new and useful art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement in any art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter", Canada Patent Act, s2. Does information seem to fall into this category? Doesn't look like it. However, if they word it right, you never know what might come of these patent applications.
Algorithms themselves are not patentable, but if you can word your patent right to include the use of some hardware (i.e., something tangible) then it is possible to get a patent with that algorithm in it. Algorithms are processes (recall you can patent a process), but not something that is tangible or sellable. Information is pretty similar, though it is not a process nor is it something tangible. But is it sellable? If you argue on these grounds, you might end up getting a patent. I'm not in favour of it one bit, but I'm not in control of it either. These are just somethings to consider.
I was a loner and bitter toward most everyone all of the time. I did go out every now and then, but it was just to get my kicks from people I thought were idiots and get out aggressions at the same time. I was also gutless when it came to talking to anyone I found interesting (this was the same throughout all of high school).
When I met Beata (whom I now live with and love very much), I did something I hadn't done before: I looked into her eyes and just talked with her. And I listened. Long story made short, we fell in love and have been together for a little over 2 years. Needless to say, I am very happy with life, even being only 25.
All of what was said in the above article is true. You have to talk and listen. These are by far the most important. You also have to call her/him back when you are interested. They won't know if you don't. And for crying out loud, look into their eyes. They really are the window to the soul. (Don't forget to mention that their eyes look good, if you find them attractive =)
Oh yes, and don't follow the above as a formula. People are not formulaic, so why take that approach?
What if everybody starts changing their hardware address to this deadbeef0001? If it really changes the hardware address, isn't gonna affect the operation on the LAN (ie, no cards can have the same hardware address)?
Is this actually changing the hardware address or is it just masking it? I tried it and it changed, but upon a reboot went back to the old value (which tells me it's wired inthere somewhere).
This is exactly why I think AI is a bad term. As someone mentioned earlier, general intelligence is much too hard to symbolize.
The thing is, AI really isn't that different from regular programming. It's just that, because it plays a game or solves puzzles instead of replacing characters, we call it "intelligence". AI is more about trying to find a way to program those little tricks and shortcuts that we take in our own mind.
What really constitutes the "intelligence" we are trying to make artificially? We have robots programmed to react to sensory input. So the fact that it reacts makes it...? Would an intelligent program be one that helped me find problems while I'm debugging?
Many AI problems relate to one common trait: How do I eliminate a lot of the useless paths I could follow to achieve this goal?
Damn, I have to go to class. Anyway, these are things I am thinking about....
These are very good goals, and sometimes very difficult to achieve (for instance, the travelling salesman problem).
Abstract: Problem Solving with no discrete answers
This is an example of weighing the pros and the cons, but what are the criteria? Do you look deeper than the fact that they are all people and are deserve to live? (theoretically:) ) When do you want computers making ethical decisions? (A computer as a judge?)
Reverse Turing test
Neat idea. Still need natural language capabilities and ability to adapt as well as creativity. Should the computer be told what kind of questions to ask?
Some of what you are suggesting is good because it tackles "real-world"/practical problems. Solving these first would help lead to the larger goal of an more "intelligent" program or environment.
I would love to have a nice AI helper program for debugging, myself:-)
Hold a Turing Test that has only computers or only humans answering and don't tell the judges. See if you get some judges saying "That was a computer for sure.", or vice versa.
This raises yet another issue with the test -- a human can very easily give responses like a computer, thus fooling the judges. Is that fair? Maybe some humans are like computers with their answers.
In fact, one time a participant was talking about Shakespeare, and was a complete expert on the subject. The human jugde was conviced he was a computer because his answers were so exact!
This brings up an interesting point about the Turing Test -- when you were on IRC, you had no idea you were not talking to a machine. Thus, even though it did not have sophisticated knowledge or natural language abilities, you still believed it was human.
However, with the Turing Test, the judges know some of the entries are not humans and thus ask questions that would indeed flush out a computer based on the responses. They are looking for the culprit because they are told one is there.
The Turing Test has long been discounted as a bad goal of AI research, although people have been doing Turing Test "auditions" for years.
The problem with the Turing Test is that it tries to make a computer human and that's not really what AI is all about - it's more about trying to solve problems using various techniques in order to make programs useful. (Maybe making a computer human is not all that useful;) )
The problem is that the program only needs to pass 5 minutes worth of conversation. That's a pretty narrow goal. Technically, it's not really artificial intelligence at this point - it's just a ruse (however, it's still extremely diffucult to program natural language capabilities and have "common sense" -- two goals that are themselves not bad ones to do research in).
Douglas R. Hofstadter wrote an interesting article about this - he had a conversation with a program named Nicolai (I think). It was quite amusing - the program spits out some very interesting answers.:-)
Anyway, no one has yet succeeded at this and if you feel you can get a program to imitate a human for 5 minutes, go right ahead. You'll earn that $100K:-)
That's funny, but I took the MIA (Music Industry Arts) program for record production at Fanshawe College before coming here to UWO for CompSci, but that's exactly what I though (except we used Macs. They didn't crash so much, but still weren't great).
Once I'm done school, I aim to start work on professional quality audio programs for Linux - possibly even during school, assuming I have the time.
I would very much like to chat with you about this. No email address is given and your homepage link doesn't seem to work. Can you contact me, please? Thanks. gzw@home.com
Agreed. Computers aren't easy to use. What I like about Linux is that it doesn't try to sugar coat things. That's one of the reasons I want to use it.
Unfortunately, the computer does have to be exceedingly simple and functional in order for it to be useful in a classroom setting. There is nothing more distracting than having the tools you are using to give a lecture die on you halfway through. It completely interrupts the flow.
The last time I tried StarOffice, it was a beast of a program to start up. Perhaps it's different now (but based on the response to my post, I'll give it another shot. Thanks everybody!:), but one requirement is that a prof can come in, turn on the computer and have a PowerPoint presentation going in under 2 minutes. This can be done on the lowest grade computers we have (P166's) as of right now.
Also, I would have to do something about mounting a floppy, unless StarOffice does that for me too.
I guess the hardest fact I have to deal with is that I must assume that anyone using the facilities my department provides does not know anything about computers and are not willing to learn (a hard fact that demonstrates itself over and over again - the number of times I've heard disappointment in the voice of those who I have told "In order for that to work, you have to..." is disappointing, to say the least).
However, I'm grateful for the advice given so far. A hearty "Thank you" to all.
That would be nice - professors knowing what they are doing.:-)
Here at UWO, many professors have this ego thing. "They" are professors so they "must" know what they are doing. It is never their fault, only the "stupid" system. Because they "already know so much", they are impossible to teach to (and are unwilling to learn). It's a very difficult situation for us in Instructional Media Services who are just trying to be helpful in order for things to work as smoothly as possible.
[Funny story - just had the Western Linux Users Group Installfest yesterday and the last person we tried to install Linux for was a CompSci networking prof. Without a doubt, the worst install of the day. He had no clue (although he assumed he did) and made the entire ordeal painful. The guys eventually gave up, essentially saying "Screw you".]
OK, I'm kinda done ranting. I hope some UWO profs are reading this (go ahead and email me!:-)
As for point 2, you're already being far too technical for those who prepare presentations. You're going to have to believe me on this one. People can't even use the web to transfer their presentations to the classroom machines - they still insist on using floppies (ARGH! I say. ARGH!)
I'm talking classroom computers here - not network servers run by information departments (for the record).
At UWO (University of Western Ontario), I administer the computers for use in classrooms. These are computers professors will bring in material and do their presentations on. [aside - we have one class, called "SuperPsych" which has over 1000 students in it every year and we use all sorts of media to present class material - videos, movies, slide shows, etc.]
To cut a long story short, the primary program, without a doubt, is PowerPoint. This is the only reason I can't convince my boss to move to using Linux on the machines. He's sympathetic to Linux, but they *need* to run PowerPoint Presentations without a problem. (not that Windows does that, but hey - whaddya gonna do?:-) WINE is not something we are looking into. If Windows was on the machine, people would complain Linux was on there. No, really. People are very whiny about things. I have a few stories...
To me, Linux meets all the requirments for use in the classroom for those who are not even remotely computer literate (CompSci profs ask where the mouse plugs in - regardless of the label that says "Mouse"). I can set it up to boot seamlessly, easy to login to, look pretty, find programs quickly and run Emacs (for the CompSci people). The only thing it can't do is run a PowerPoint presentation.
I've got 20+ machines that I have to administer. Can't do it remotely with Windows without it being a big pain in the ass. That really sucks, because more machines are coming and the campus is big == lots of running around. Linux would be a dream to run.
Please get PowerPoint to work on it. Better yet, make a program that can do what PowerPoint does only better and can convert PowerPoint to it's format *extremely* easily. I have time to do such a thing after I graduate (approx. two years).
Also cheers to anything that makes your gut bigger 'cause you're too lazy to get off your ass and do a little walking or something.
Now, if it ejected the user at random intervals, that would be entertaining.
Btw, I'm sure this is just some guy who thought a Lay-Z-Boy computer setup would be cool, discovered it's pretty cheap to do and got his best friend from the Commodore 64 days to pose for him after he made it. If that boy is reading this, here's some advice: Don't put people in your product shots. Also, use a studio for the pictures, not your place of dwelling. And loose the sweatpants! (but be sure to replace them with something else...)
I agree as well. SGI could really cut down on overhead by adding all their cool IRIX stuff to the Linux kernel and then abandoning IRIX altogether. That way they can focus on hardware and they have a cheap OS that is maintained for them. Maybe the prices of their workstations will drop.
Plus, Linux on an SGI box would make it a helluva lot easier for me to get that Indy up and running at work:-)
Slashdot Mirror
My name is Geoff Wozniak. I am a computer science student and general all-round electronics tinkerer (a rookie, really). I have been in a record production program as well and my nickname is indeed "Woz". No matter where I go (including the record program, 'cause we used Macs), people seem to think that we are directly related in some way. I admire all that you have done, but could you please go on record as saying we are not related and that I do not know you personally? Just want something to cite when I get asked again. Thanks!
Geoff Wozniak
I agree that articles about corportions screwing you are tiresome, if not misleading, but I have to admit that it is tough for a big company to look good with all the crap they do. Small companies tend to do a lot better at looking good without lots of PR hype.
However, I would debate that this article, at least the way I see it, is not about that. It's about copyright and how, in this day and age where copying is so easy, that the law is in need of some major revision. Copying physical entities exactly is a difficult thing to do and copyright as of now is good for that. Copying books in physical form is not worth the effort and considering the benefit I get from them, I am willing to comply with copyright on that book in the form as we now have it.
Software and the digital form of such entities, however, is much different. Copying can take place in a matter of seconds and takes little to no effort. Old laws here become pointless. Anything in digital form is not difficult to distribute. People can easily obtain copies from somewhere other than a store or a small set of distributors. Now, it is simple to get a copy from a friend. Limiting this not only annoys consumers, but it binds their hands, so to speak. People like to be able to do this. It makes things easier for them. Some artists/creators of items distributable in digital form realize this and cater to it. However, most companies cling to the notion of old rules in a new medium, thinking that it will actually work.
There is far too much tension between these viewpoints. Obviously something has to be done. Trying to enforce these old laws will only result in more tension. Articles like this hopefully get people thinking about this and saying something about it. I think you were a bit hasty to judge this article as crap.
Woz
gzw@home.com
Sort of off topic, but RoboCop was released in 1987. RoboCop 2 was released in 1990.
Geoff Wozniak
gzw@home.com
Of course, neither of these choices really make sense, because you can't install an OS without a keyboard, monitor, power supply, and either a CD-ROM or floppy disk drive...
Exactly. You've almost answered your own question (to some extent). Every system starts with a CPU and a mainboard. While every part of a system is scrutinized and benchmarked (witness the plethora of hardware sites dedicated to getting every ounce of performance from stuff), if you had to pick two absolutely essential parts of the system, it would be these two.
The logical choice is a hard drive, but when you think system, you don't think hard drive. Besides, with all the OEM HDDs I've seen, most don't ship with anything (except maybe a small utility disk). Also, the simple act of throwing a CD in a mainboard box is pretty simple.
Geoff Wozniak
gzw@home.com
Diamond never produced chips, they just licensed everybody else's technology and put it on a board. STB was essentially the same. 3Dfx bought them so that they could control the pricing and production of their Voodoo chipset. Remember when it came out? There had to be zillions of people making it. It did promote massive competition, but also lead to comsumer confusion (who makes what with what chipset?).
As of now, nVIDIA and is the only company that doesn't control the manufacturing of boards with their chipsets. This means lots of companies are taking the nVIDIA chipsets and making minor alterations to them. In other words, all the TNT/TNT2 boards from Asus, Guillemot, Canopus, Creative Labs, Gainward, LeadTek and many others are essentially the same. Even with all these companies, it still boils down to the fact that it's nVIDIA vs. 3Dfx vs. Matrox vs. ATI vs. S3.
nVIDIA and 3Dfx got the ball rolling on the 3D wars because they didn't need to make hardware - all the money went to R&D and drivers. ATI and Matrox have always made their own hardware and as a result, have had a hard time pumping money into R&D to make *really good* 3D chipsets with good drivers (face it, the G400 is really damn good, but it's OpenGL is not up to snuff with nVIDIA and 3Dfx). ATI might have something with the MAXX, but on the surface, it's taking two chips to make it as good (or slightly better) than the rest. 3Dfx was doing so well, they decided it was time to stop licensing technology. They are doing pretty well for themselves, but they haven't made the kind of money nVIDIA has over the last year. However, they continue to push the chipset feature envelope.
With all this going on, it seems hard to believe that competition is going to dwindle and technology will let up. There are five major companies competeing here and it's a war of chipsets. Each is starting to branch off into it's own philosophy of development. nVIDIA is pushing T&L whereas 3Dfx is pushing the T-buffer and full screen anti-aliasing with massive FPS. Matrox is doing the Environment bump Mapping with Dual Head display (they are tending to push more video board enhancements rather than pure 3D). ATI still needs to learn more about 3D IMO, and S3 is, well, S3
I don't think nVIDIA will attempt to make it's own hardware any time soon. They made too much money recently. However, if they did, it wouldn't kill the chipset war. The competition lies in the chipset makers, not the companies selling boards. As long as nVIDIA and 3Dfx are still duking it out, we'll continue to have 6 month product turnover in he 3D market.
Geoff Wozniak
gzw@home.com
...but it won't really be taken advantage of until software is written to take full advantage
Does anyone else find this trend annoying? Having hardware that has all kinds of special instructions? OK, for CPUs, I suppose it is understandable, but for memory? Do you really mean software to take advantage of the i820/i840 chipsets?
Geoff Wozniak
gzw@home.com
Patent laws are juristictional, not international. In Canada, patents last for 20 years, FYI.
Geoff Wozniak
gzw@home.com
Sounds like they are trying to patent the discovery of some new information. Is that going to hold up? Don't forget, just because you have filed for a patent doesn't mean you will get it.
If they are trying to patent methods to obtaining the information (which is probably the case, as they have 6000 submissions) then I can see some of these patents being granted. That's what patents are for, even if you don't like that idea.
However, if they are patenting the infomation itself, that's an entirely different beanstalk. This would have not only far reaching implications in medicine, but any science as well.
Here in Canada, our patent act says that an invention (something you patent) is "any new and useful art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement in any art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter", Canada Patent Act, s2. Does information seem to fall into this category? Doesn't look like it. However, if they word it right, you never know what might come of these patent applications.
Algorithms themselves are not patentable, but if you can word your patent right to include the use of some hardware (i.e., something tangible) then it is possible to get a patent with that algorithm in it. Algorithms are processes (recall you can patent a process), but not something that is tangible or sellable. Information is pretty similar, though it is not a process nor is it something tangible. But is it sellable? If you argue on these grounds, you might end up getting a patent. I'm not in favour of it one bit, but I'm not in control of it either. These are just somethings to consider.
Geoff Wozniak
gzw@home.com
I was a loner and bitter toward most everyone all of the time. I did go out every now and then, but it was just to get my kicks from people I thought were idiots and get out aggressions at the same time. I was also gutless when it came to talking to anyone I found interesting (this was the same throughout all of high school).
When I met Beata (whom I now live with and love very much), I did something I hadn't done before: I looked into her eyes and just talked with her. And I listened. Long story made short, we fell in love and have been together for a little over 2 years. Needless to say, I am very happy with life, even being only 25.
All of what was said in the above article is true. You have to talk and listen. These are by far the most important. You also have to call her/him back when you are interested. They won't know if you don't. And for crying out loud, look into their eyes. They really are the window to the soul. (Don't forget to mention that their eyes look good, if you find them attractive =)
Oh yes, and don't follow the above as a formula. People are not formulaic, so why take that approach?
Geoff Wozniak
gzw@home.com
What if everybody starts changing their hardware address to this deadbeef0001? If it really changes the hardware address, isn't gonna affect the operation on the LAN (ie, no cards can have the same hardware address)?
Is this actually changing the hardware address or is it just masking it? I tried it and it changed, but upon a reboot went back to the old value (which tells me it's wired inthere somewhere).
Just some thoughts.
Geoff Wozniak
gzw@home.com
This is exactly why I think AI is a bad term. As someone mentioned earlier, general intelligence is much too hard to symbolize.
The thing is, AI really isn't that different from regular programming. It's just that, because it plays a game or solves puzzles instead of replacing characters, we call it "intelligence". AI is more about trying to find a way to program those little tricks and shortcuts that we take in our own mind.
What really constitutes the "intelligence" we are trying to make artificially? We have robots programmed to react to sensory input. So the fact that it reacts makes it...? Would an intelligent program be one that helped me find problems while I'm debugging?
Many AI problems relate to one common trait: How do I eliminate a lot of the useless paths I could follow to achieve this goal?
Damn, I have to go to class. Anyway, these are things I am thinking about....
Woz
Intelligence: Problem Solving
:) ) When do you want computers making ethical decisions? (A computer as a judge?)
:-)
Creativity: Problem Solving with a twist
These are very good goals, and sometimes very difficult to achieve (for instance, the travelling salesman problem).
Abstract: Problem Solving with no discrete answers
This is an example of weighing the pros and the cons, but what are the criteria? Do you look deeper than the fact that they are all people and are deserve to live? (theoretically
Reverse Turing test
Neat idea. Still need natural language capabilities and ability to adapt as well as creativity. Should the computer be told what kind of questions to ask?
Some of what you are suggesting is good because it tackles "real-world"/practical problems. Solving these first would help lead to the larger goal of an more "intelligent" program or environment.
I would love to have a nice AI helper program for debugging, myself
Woz
Hold a Turing Test that has only computers or only humans answering and don't tell the judges. See if you get some judges saying "That was a computer for sure.", or vice versa.
This raises yet another issue with the test -- a human can very easily give responses like a computer, thus fooling the judges. Is that fair? Maybe some humans are like computers with their answers.
In fact, one time a participant was talking about Shakespeare, and was a complete expert on the subject. The human jugde was conviced he was a computer because his answers were so exact!
Yet another problem....
Woz
This brings up an interesting point about the Turing Test -- when you were on IRC, you had no idea you were not talking to a machine. Thus, even though it did not have sophisticated knowledge or natural language abilities, you still believed it was human.
:-)
However, with the Turing Test, the judges know some of the entries are not humans and thus ask questions that would indeed flush out a computer based on the responses. They are looking for the culprit because they are told one is there.
Ignorance really can be bliss, can't it?
Woz
The Turing Test has long been discounted as a bad goal of AI research, although people have been doing Turing Test "auditions" for years.
;) )
:-)
:-)
The problem with the Turing Test is that it tries to make a computer human and that's not really what AI is all about - it's more about trying to solve problems using various techniques in order to make programs useful. (Maybe making a computer human is not all that useful
The problem is that the program only needs to pass 5 minutes worth of conversation. That's a pretty narrow goal. Technically, it's not really artificial intelligence at this point - it's just a ruse (however, it's still extremely diffucult to program natural language capabilities and have "common sense" -- two goals that are themselves not bad ones to do research in).
Douglas R. Hofstadter wrote an interesting article about this - he had a conversation with a program named Nicolai (I think). It was quite amusing - the program spits out some very interesting answers.
Anyway, no one has yet succeeded at this and if you feel you can get a program to imitate a human for 5 minutes, go right ahead. You'll earn that $100K
Woz
It's called "Karma".
Woz
You're probably right that OOP is not the culprit. I wouldn't doubt that the lack of OO analysis and design lead to lots of bad OO programming.
It's too bad Object Orientation is so good but has become a buzzword.
Woz
That's funny, but I took the MIA (Music Industry Arts) program for record production at Fanshawe College before coming here to UWO for CompSci, but that's exactly what I though (except we used Macs. They didn't crash so much, but still weren't great).
Once I'm done school, I aim to start work on professional quality audio programs for Linux - possibly even during school, assuming I have the time.
I would very much like to chat with you about this. No email address is given and your homepage link doesn't seem to work. Can you contact me, please? Thanks. gzw@home.com
Agreed. Computers aren't easy to use. What I like about Linux is that it doesn't try to sugar coat things. That's one of the reasons I want to use it.
:), but one requirement is that a prof can come in, turn on the computer and have a PowerPoint presentation going in under 2 minutes. This can be done on the lowest grade computers we have (P166's) as of right now.
Unfortunately, the computer does have to be exceedingly simple and functional in order for it to be useful in a classroom setting. There is nothing more distracting than having the tools you are using to give a lecture die on you halfway through. It completely interrupts the flow.
The last time I tried StarOffice, it was a beast of a program to start up. Perhaps it's different now (but based on the response to my post, I'll give it another shot. Thanks everybody!
Also, I would have to do something about mounting a floppy, unless StarOffice does that for me too.
I guess the hardest fact I have to deal with is that I must assume that anyone using the facilities my department provides does not know anything about computers and are not willing to learn (a hard fact that demonstrates itself over and over again - the number of times I've heard disappointment in the voice of those who I have told "In order for that to work, you have to..." is disappointing, to say the least).
However, I'm grateful for the advice given so far. A hearty "Thank you" to all.
That would be nice - professors knowing what they are doing. :-)
:-)
Here at UWO, many professors have this ego thing. "They" are professors so they "must" know what they are doing. It is never their fault, only the "stupid" system. Because they "already know so much", they are impossible to teach to (and are unwilling to learn). It's a very difficult situation for us in Instructional Media Services who are just trying to be helpful in order for things to work as smoothly as possible.
[Funny story - just had the Western Linux Users Group Installfest yesterday and the last person we tried to install Linux for was a CompSci networking prof. Without a doubt, the worst install of the day. He had no clue (although he assumed he did) and made the entire ordeal painful. The guys eventually gave up, essentially saying "Screw you".]
OK, I'm kinda done ranting. I hope some UWO profs are reading this (go ahead and email me!
I did not know that about #1. Thank you.
As for point 2, you're already being far too technical for those who prepare presentations. You're going to have to believe me on this one. People can't even use the web to transfer their presentations to the classroom machines - they still insist on using floppies (ARGH! I say. ARGH!)
I'm talking classroom computers here - not network servers run by information departments (for the record).
:-) WINE is not something we are looking into. If Windows was on the machine, people would complain Linux was on there. No, really. People are very whiny about things. I have a few stories...
At UWO (University of Western Ontario), I administer the computers for use in classrooms. These are computers professors will bring in material and do their presentations on. [aside - we have one class, called "SuperPsych" which has over 1000 students in it every year and we use all sorts of media to present class material - videos, movies, slide shows, etc.]
To cut a long story short, the primary program, without a doubt, is PowerPoint. This is the only reason I can't convince my boss to move to using Linux on the machines. He's sympathetic to Linux, but they *need* to run PowerPoint Presentations without a problem. (not that Windows does that, but hey - whaddya gonna do?
To me, Linux meets all the requirments for use in the classroom for those who are not even remotely computer literate (CompSci profs ask where the mouse plugs in - regardless of the label that says "Mouse"). I can set it up to boot seamlessly, easy to login to, look pretty, find programs quickly and run Emacs (for the CompSci people). The only thing it can't do is run a PowerPoint presentation.
I've got 20+ machines that I have to administer. Can't do it remotely with Windows without it being a big pain in the ass. That really sucks, because more machines are coming and the campus is big == lots of running around. Linux would be a dream to run.
Please get PowerPoint to work on it. Better yet, make a program that can do what PowerPoint does only better and can convert PowerPoint to it's format *extremely* easily. I have time to do such a thing after I graduate (approx. two years).
Oh yeah. And cheers to anything on GeoCities.
Also cheers to anything that makes your gut bigger 'cause you're too lazy to get off your ass and do a little walking or something.
Now, if it ejected the user at random intervals, that would be entertaining.
Btw, I'm sure this is just some guy who thought a Lay-Z-Boy computer setup would be cool, discovered it's pretty cheap to do and got his best friend from the Commodore 64 days to pose for him after he made it. If that boy is reading this, here's some advice: Don't put people in your product shots. Also, use a studio for the pictures, not your place of dwelling. And loose the sweatpants! (but be sure to replace them with something else...)
I agree as well. SGI could really cut down on overhead by adding all their cool IRIX stuff to the Linux kernel and then abandoning IRIX altogether. That way they can focus on hardware and they have a cheap OS that is maintained for them. Maybe the prices of their workstations will drop.
:-)
Plus, Linux on an SGI box would make it a helluva lot easier for me to get that Indy up and running at work
Geoff