At least I learned that, according to this guy in Florida, the "Information Age is over." Apparently we are now in the "Age of Connectivity." I'm glad he let us know -- I would have still been looking for information!
A computer might not be able to understand the proof, but that shouldn't be held against it--after all, most of the people who discuss it don't understand it either.
Isn't that kind of the point, though? The way a computer "doesn't understand" the proof is different than the way many humans "don't understand" the proof. After all, those humans are discussing the proof in the first place, which is something a computer can not do.
I think the parent poster's sig -- a quote from Picasso -- put it well: "[computers] only give answers." They can't ask questions (unless they are explicitly told to). Therefore it would seem that they can't really participate in, for example, a discussion about Godel's theorem, and come out having learned some knew knowledge that would let them better understand what they are missing.
In my opinion, the issue has something to do with subjectivity and awareness. Although I can't claim to know first-hand whether a computer has subjective experience, all current indications seem to be that even the most complex neural networks do not, whereas all current indications seem to be that even the simplest living organisms do.
Re:Progress? Or reinventing the wheel?
on
The Future Of 3D
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It takes a computer days to produce what a polaroid can do in minutes.
I suppose the same could be said of a painter.
Seriously, the more I see about photo realism the more I wonder how much more effective it would be to just edit real photographs taken by a decent photographer.
Effective for what purpose? I'm a photographer, but I realize the merits of other art forms. Often, editing an existing photograph won't give you the results you want to achieve. 3D modeling gives you the opportunity to create your own worlds, independent of what you're able to capture with any kind of camera.
3D modeling and other forms of computer art are just other media artists can use to create. And in the world of art, having more media available never hurt anyone.
I'm all for photo realism in animation, but for stills it seems like a waste of perfectly good film.
I'm not sure what this means. Do you have a better cause that this perfectly good film could be used for? I suppose it could be given to "decent photographers" to shoot images to be subsequently photoshopped to make "photo-realistic" stills. Which would be great, because then you'd have computer artists having to work their ideas around the images they're given from the photographer (whom they probably don't even talk to) rather than being allowed to create images from scratch if they want.
Not that photoshopped photographs are necessarily bad, by any means. But to say that all computer-rendered stills should have been done as some collaboration between a decent photographer and a photoshop artist is simply naive, from an artist's perspective.
Oh, and by the way, I must agree with the posts that named this among the most pointless of articles slashdot has ever linked to.
I don't know if it's exactly what you're looking for, but I bought a case the other day from Chenming (http://www.chenming.com.tw). I haven't put anything in it yet, but I've been impressed with it so far.
It's beige, and although not completely simple, it's got some nice features like an easy-access door (with a lock), an internal hard drive bay that slips out easily and locks in place, room for 5 fans (2 standard), and so on. The model I got (ATX-601 AW, the "workstation tower"), was around $85 for case and 300W power supply.
Slashdot Mirror
Sensationalism at its finest.
At least I learned that, according to this guy in Florida, the "Information Age is over." Apparently we are now in the "Age of Connectivity." I'm glad he let us know -- I would have still been looking for information!
A computer might not be able to understand the proof, but that shouldn't be held against it--after all, most of the people who discuss it don't understand it either.
Isn't that kind of the point, though? The way a computer "doesn't understand" the proof is different than the way many humans "don't understand" the proof. After all, those humans are discussing the proof in the first place, which is something a computer can not do.
I think the parent poster's sig -- a quote from Picasso -- put it well: "[computers] only give answers." They can't ask questions (unless they are explicitly told to). Therefore it would seem that they can't really participate in, for example, a discussion about Godel's theorem, and come out having learned some knew knowledge that would let them better understand what they are missing.
In my opinion, the issue has something to do with subjectivity and awareness. Although I can't claim to know first-hand whether a computer has subjective experience, all current indications seem to be that even the most complex neural networks do not, whereas all current indications seem to be that even the simplest living organisms do.
I suppose the same could be said of a painter.
Seriously, the more I see about photo realism the more I wonder how much more effective it would be to just edit real photographs taken by a decent photographer.
Effective for what purpose? I'm a photographer, but I realize the merits of other art forms. Often, editing an existing photograph won't give you the results you want to achieve. 3D modeling gives you the opportunity to create your own worlds, independent of what you're able to capture with any kind of camera.
3D modeling and other forms of computer art are just other media artists can use to create. And in the world of art, having more media available never hurt anyone.
I'm all for photo realism in animation, but for stills it seems like a waste of perfectly good film.
I'm not sure what this means. Do you have a better cause that this perfectly good film could be used for? I suppose it could be given to "decent photographers" to shoot images to be subsequently photoshopped to make "photo-realistic" stills. Which would be great, because then you'd have computer artists having to work their ideas around the images they're given from the photographer (whom they probably don't even talk to) rather than being allowed to create images from scratch if they want.
Not that photoshopped photographs are necessarily bad, by any means. But to say that all computer-rendered stills should have been done as some collaboration between a decent photographer and a photoshop artist is simply naive, from an artist's perspective.
Oh, and by the way, I must agree with the posts that named this among the most pointless of articles slashdot has ever linked to.
It's beige, and although not completely simple, it's got some nice features like an easy-access door (with a lock), an internal hard drive bay that slips out easily and locks in place, room for 5 fans (2 standard), and so on. The model I got (ATX-601 AW, the "workstation tower"), was around $85 for case and 300W power supply.