...Titantic and Halo 2. 2 of the "best" in their genre...
Let me first say the use of quotes to seperate numerical sale statistics from your own opinion is commendable, I'm not trying to flame you here.
I hated both of those! I don't claim to be a movie expert, so my feelings on the Titanic is merely at average consumer level, but I'm a very avid gamer. I'd like to think that sacrificing the majority of a social life for the things has brought me at least some credible insight, and I don't think that it's stressed nearly as often as it should be that Half-Life 2 is simply THE best fps to date, hands down.
Am I going crazy? I see people all the time who are torn between purchasing Half-Life 2 or Doom 3, and I'm bewildered. I see Halo 2 get better reviews than Half-Life 2 and I shake my head in disgust. Halo 2 is a cash cow, a shadow of its former self (which was already overrated to begin with) grossly mutated by the knowledge that it's a pop-culture darling. Half-Life 2, on the otherhand, used those energies to a much more positive use, but unfortunatly, the audience is larger now. Many of the new blood didn't get to experience the magic of the first game, all they know is empty, showboating, ripoff of larry niven, microsoft-mangled Halo. I played them back to back and it seemed to me that it should be plainly obvious to even the lay man that half-life 2 was a vastly superior game, both in technical development and gameplay.
... I just wanted to get that off my shoulders.
But yes, you're absolutely right, games are much more economical in terms of quantity of entertainment. Quality, too. In many cases longer run-time can mean richer storylines and greater variety. I'm much quicker to add a game to my cd folder than a movie to my shelf for just that reason.
Disclaimer: The following post is born of pure speculation. I aknowledge the fact that I'm far too out of my league to make concrete statements as any knowledge I possess of AI development, psychology, or robotics is merely the product of an only slightly more than passing interest. The main point of this post is to incite input on the matter to further my understanding of this debate. And now our feature presentation:
As I see it, the most important part of creating a truly intelligent AI would be effectively instilling with a sense of empathy.
Real and lasting empathy can only be acheived through experience.
And the only conceiveable way (as far as I can see) to recreate that insight would be to impose upon an AI the ability to suffer in many of the same manners that we do.
At first glance, this doesn't seem like all too great a dillema, but stop to consider; what if the creator(s?) of humanity were as tangible and interacted with us to the extent that we would with these AI, and obviously quite fallable? It's a pretty safe bet that alot of the magic in that relationship would disappear.
The knowledge that we had the ability to exclude pain and other such unpleasant experiences from a robot's design, but chose to enforce them purely out of self-interest, would likely be the cause of a not insignificant level of resentment, and possibly (or perhaps even inevitably) to a large-scale uprising.
Oh, i'm not debating wether or not Linux is better than windows, don't get me wrong. That's really not a point I care to argue. Trying to do so could almost be considered flamebait 'round these parts, and i really have no interest in the jihaad, people use what they prefer. I'm just trying to say that spam and malware is never going to go away completely. Everyone seems to think there should be some magical solution to it, when really the only thing you can do is try to improve discretion on the part of the individual or organization.
Getting people to use it in the first place would likely be very difficult. These people like their poor grammar and annoying shorthand, they're lazy and don't care to reflect on proper usage. The only people that would end up using it are those who already do practice such language skills, not to say that doesn't have it's own merit, a messenger that keeps annoying people away... I'd download it.
And how many people do you know that stopped going to work because of the increased transportation expense? As long as there is some amount money to be made here, and there always will be, it's not going to go away.
If 90% of the workstations were running Linux, it would still be easier to crack one of the remaining Windows boxes via worm.
yes, but ease isn't necessarily that much of an issue, if %90 of the market were Linux machines, no one would care to crack Windows workstations at all, if the majority of the machines were harder to crack, they'd try harder to crack the majority of machines. These things are created solely to infect as many as possible, that's their whole motivation. you may eliminate a few spammers from the field, but the more dedicated and knowlegeable pushers of such trash could quite possibly increase their gains through the heavier difficulty and lack of competition. You'd simply end up with less people making more money, and just as much spam.
That is based upon the mistaken assumption that all systems have similar bugs and similar vulnerabilities.
I'm not assuming that at all, but show me a totally flawless operating system and gladly eat my words. To assume that they wouldn't adapt to
different bugs and vulnerabilities is naive. Security can be improved, but so can cracking. These people aren't stupid, they're just assholes.
Precisely my point, though that sort of conformity is only natural anyway. It's also effecient in certain ways, developers don't have to spend more money in order to to cross-platform unless they already have a following large enough to back that sort of concern. It's a boon to software development. However, said boon also applies to those who write malware, which has been around in some form or another since before windows was even a glint in Bill Gates' eye.
Virtualy all these Zombie PC's run on a Microsoft OS
Of course they do, it's the most common operating system. I don't think that if another operating system were to gain popularity above Windows, they wouldn't find some way to exploit it as well. The problem wouldn't be solved if everyone switched to Linux or OSX, because the fact remains that there will always be people who just don't know how to make their computers secure. Not all problems in IT rest on the shoulders of crazy ol' Bill.
Finally, someone's making a franchise game based on a movie AND a toy at the SAME TIME! I think we all know this is going to turn out fantastic! *rolls eyes*
You can already make hydrogen from water and electricity. This is nothing new.
I'm well aware that it's nothing new, they simply plan to put it all together in a neat little package so people can supplement their fuel supply.
as for the number crunching part, I found that very educational. I wasn't aware of those figures, thanks.
United Nuclear, on the other hand, is likely very aware of them, which is probably why they want to provide the solar and wind generators to supplement the fuel supply, i'm sure they have some other solutions on a larger scale too, I don't know, I don't claim to have all the answers.
concerning the argument for electric cars, the reason this particular project caught my eye is that I live in Alaska, and electric cars just aren't practical here because of the extreme temperatures. Plus, it's a module that can be applied to a normal engine, and if done right, will be much more cost effective, at least at the initial expense, than purchasing an entire electric car.
One of my hopes for the project, though i don't beleive they mentioned it specificly in their blurb, is for an easily interchangeable system, wherin one could switch between gasoline and hydrogen at the press of a button.
way to not read before replying. compression isn't an issue. placing a tank of compressed hydrogen in a car is foolhardy. First of all, 4% hydrogen in the atmosphere is combustable and 8% is explosive, it's just not safe. Secondly, Hydrogen just plain doesn't compress well, you wouldn't end up with enough to run a car practically. It's bonded to another chemical in order to be safe and easier to store.
Admittedly, i've never played with the stuff, and don't proclaim to know just how they manage to fit more hydrogen in a tank that already has a bunch of stuff in it than an empty tank, but evidently it's a much better way to go about it.
Bad form to reply to myself, i know. But i just noticed how one could interperet my post as stating it would be a free fuel. When i was talking about the generators, i'm well aware of the fact (as is united nuclear) that a standard at-home hydrogen generator will not produce enough fuel to meet the constant demand for transportation. I beleive there are also plans for hydrogen stations and the like. The point of the home unit is an auxilliary supply, to cut regular costs and for emergencies.
I would like to make it clear that this reply is not me posting anonymously. Though I appreciate the support given in the body of the post, it's title is a bit extreme. Unfortunatly, Mr. Anonymous, the validity of the points you make are sure be undermined by it.
Not once in my post did i use the words free, or environmentally safe, i have no delusions of a utopian society where everyone has free power. It'd be nice, hell yeah, but it's never gonna happen.
what i DID say was alternative. the important thing about hydrogen fuel and the so forth is that it's much further from finite than the oil we currently use, this means that it will at least be cheaper, but of course you're still going to have people capitalizing on it.
An effective alternative fuel/energy source may be closer than you think. United Nuclear currently has in development what appears to be a practical and safe hydrogen fuel adaptor for a standard internal combustion engine.
When this is released, they'll also be distributing hydrogen generators, enabling the average consumer to extract the gas from water at virtually no expense by using the electricity provided by such devices as wind turbines and solar panels. Such an event would provide silicon valley with a much wider niche in the industry, should they elect to go that route.
This one's for real, folks! United Nuclear is a fairly high-profile company involved in everything from rocket science to personal defense systems.
"they could give you a very tough time defending against such a claim, for the simple reason that they have more money and lawyers than you do"
Applying this logic to the actual topic on hand, I don't think anyone has to worry for Google.
Slashdot Mirror
Y'know... shadow moses island was supposedly in alaska....
Let me first say the use of quotes to seperate numerical sale statistics from your own opinion is commendable, I'm not trying to flame you here.
I hated both of those! I don't claim to be a movie expert, so my feelings on the Titanic is merely at average consumer level, but I'm a very avid gamer. I'd like to think that sacrificing the majority of a social life for the things has brought me at least some credible insight, and I don't think that it's stressed nearly as often as it should be that Half-Life 2 is simply THE best fps to date, hands down.
Am I going crazy? I see people all the time who are torn between purchasing Half-Life 2 or Doom 3, and I'm bewildered. I see Halo 2 get better reviews than Half-Life 2 and I shake my head in disgust.
Halo 2 is a cash cow, a shadow of its former self (which was already overrated to begin with) grossly mutated by the knowledge that it's a pop-culture darling. Half-Life 2, on the otherhand, used those energies to a much more positive use, but unfortunatly, the audience is larger now. Many of the new blood didn't get to experience the magic of the first game, all they know is empty, showboating, ripoff of larry niven, microsoft-mangled Halo. I played them back to back and it seemed to me that it should be plainly obvious to even the lay man that half-life 2 was a vastly superior game, both in technical development and gameplay.
But yes, you're absolutely right, games are much more economical in terms of quantity of entertainment. Quality, too. In many cases longer run-time can mean richer storylines and greater variety. I'm much quicker to add a game to my cd folder than a movie to my shelf for just that reason.
And now our feature presentation:
As I see it, the most important part of creating a truly intelligent AI would be effectively instilling with a sense of empathy. Real and lasting empathy can only be acheived through experience. And the only conceiveable way (as far as I can see) to recreate that insight would be to impose upon an AI the ability to suffer in many of the same manners that we do.
At first glance, this doesn't seem like all too great a dillema, but stop to consider; what if the creator(s?) of humanity were as tangible and interacted with us to the extent that we would with these AI, and obviously quite fallable? It's a pretty safe bet that alot of the magic in that relationship would disappear.
The knowledge that we had the ability to exclude pain and other such unpleasant experiences from a robot's design, but chose to enforce them purely out of self-interest, would likely be the cause of a not insignificant level of resentment, and possibly (or perhaps even inevitably) to a large-scale uprising.
Oh, i'm not debating wether or not Linux is better than windows, don't get me wrong. That's really not a point I care to argue. Trying to do so could almost be considered flamebait 'round these parts, and i really have no interest in the jihaad, people use what they prefer. I'm just trying to say that spam and malware is never going to go away completely. Everyone seems to think there should be some magical solution to it, when really the only thing you can do is try to improve discretion on the part of the individual or organization.
Getting people to use it in the first place would likely be very difficult. These people like their poor grammar and annoying shorthand, they're lazy and don't care to reflect on proper usage. The only people that would end up using it are those who already do practice such language skills, not to say that doesn't have it's own merit, a messenger that keeps annoying people away... I'd download it.
And how many people do you know that stopped going to work because of the increased transportation expense? As long as there is some amount money to be made here, and there always will be, it's not going to go away.
yes, but ease isn't necessarily that much of an issue, if %90 of the market were Linux machines, no one would care to crack Windows workstations at all, if the majority of the machines were harder to crack, they'd try harder to crack the majority of machines. These things are created solely to infect as many as possible, that's their whole motivation. you may eliminate a few spammers from the field, but the more dedicated and knowlegeable pushers of such trash could quite possibly increase their gains through the heavier difficulty and lack of competition. You'd simply end up with less people making more money, and just as much spam.
That is based upon the mistaken assumption that all systems have similar bugs and similar vulnerabilities.
I'm not assuming that at all, but show me a totally flawless operating system and gladly eat my words. To assume that they wouldn't adapt to different bugs and vulnerabilities is naive. Security can be improved, but so can cracking.
These people aren't stupid, they're just assholes.
Precisely my point, though that sort of conformity is only natural anyway. It's also effecient in certain ways, developers don't have to spend more money in order to to cross-platform unless they already have a following large enough to back that sort of concern. It's a boon to software development. However, said boon also applies to those who write malware, which has been around in some form or another since before windows was even a glint in Bill Gates' eye.
Of course they do, it's the most common operating system. I don't think that if another operating system were to gain popularity above Windows, they wouldn't find some way to exploit it as well. The problem wouldn't be solved if everyone switched to Linux or OSX, because the fact remains that there will always be people who just don't know how to make their computers secure. Not all problems in IT rest on the shoulders of crazy ol' Bill.
Yeah, and it's not "Ovaltine" It's Rich Chocolatey Ovaltine
Finally, someone's making a franchise game based on a movie AND a toy at the SAME TIME! I think we all know this is going to turn out fantastic! *rolls eyes*
I'm well aware that it's nothing new, they simply plan to put it all together in a neat little package so people can supplement their fuel supply.
as for the number crunching part, I found that very educational. I wasn't aware of those figures, thanks.
United Nuclear, on the other hand, is likely very aware of them, which is probably why they want to provide the solar and wind generators to supplement the fuel supply, i'm sure they have some other solutions on a larger scale too, I don't know, I don't claim to have all the answers.
concerning the argument for electric cars, the reason this particular project caught my eye is that I live in Alaska, and electric cars just aren't practical here because of the extreme temperatures. Plus, it's a module that can be applied to a normal engine, and if done right, will be much more cost effective, at least at the initial expense, than purchasing an entire electric car.
One of my hopes for the project, though i don't beleive they mentioned it specificly in their blurb, is for an easily interchangeable system, wherin one could switch between gasoline and hydrogen at the press of a button.
Admittedly, i've never played with the stuff, and don't proclaim to know just how they manage to fit more hydrogen in a tank that already has a bunch of stuff in it than an empty tank, but evidently it's a much better way to go about it.
Bad form to reply to myself, i know. But i just noticed how one could interperet my post as stating it would be a free fuel. When i was talking about the generators, i'm well aware of the fact (as is united nuclear) that a standard at-home hydrogen generator will not produce enough fuel to meet the constant demand for transportation. I beleive there are also plans for hydrogen stations and the like. The point of the home unit is an auxilliary supply, to cut regular costs and for emergencies.
I would like to make it clear that this reply is not me posting anonymously. Though I appreciate the support given in the body of the post, it's title is a bit extreme. Unfortunatly, Mr. Anonymous, the validity of the points you make are sure be undermined by it.
what i DID say was alternative. the important thing about hydrogen fuel and the so forth is that it's much further from finite than the oil we currently use, this means that it will at least be cheaper, but of course you're still going to have people capitalizing on it.
When this is released, they'll also be distributing hydrogen generators, enabling the average consumer to extract the gas from water at virtually no expense by using the electricity provided by such devices as wind turbines and solar panels.
Such an event would provide silicon valley with a much wider niche in the industry, should they elect to go that route.
This one's for real, folks! United Nuclear is a fairly high-profile company involved in everything from rocket science to personal defense systems.
"they could give you a very tough time defending against such a claim, for the simple reason that they have more money and lawyers than you do" Applying this logic to the actual topic on hand, I don't think anyone has to worry for Google.