Those are called political and budget pressure by managers who have no clue on engineering ---
Software uploaded with out testing ? There is no way they could have gotten this far with out testing. I am sure there is no engineer in Japan that does not test thoroughly. Actually Japanese code is famous for being of the best quality -
This was caused by politics, bureaucracy and plain bad management.
This is awesome - I hope it does not end up like the segway.
Im sure it can be made to be reliable for commercial / military purposes. This can allow soldiers to jump over any obstacle and attack from any angle- awesome -
What I mean is that, as expensive as it looks, if it can replace some chores currently needing a helicopter it could be competitive. Like electric tower / bridge inspections, rescue in difficult terrain and, of curse, military scouting and attacking.
Am I getting this wrong ? This implies that there is a one dark net thing, but the DarkNet is a generic term describing any anonymous / encrypted network.
There are many Dark Nets and precisely because of their secretive nature its very difficult to shut them down. Try shutting down Free-net / Tor! - good luck.
I think the author is misunderstanding / giving the false impression that there is a "DarkNet" and that it is controlled by someone/goverment and that that someone can turn it off.
Else whats the point of this poll about shutting down the dark net when it can not be shut down and no one is responsible for all of it-
I feel the intention of this is to blame it on some one and then start conspiracy theories on why was he/it invented it -
I cant say if Intel has done illegal things to AMD-... but I am and old trooper and I remember that back in the days when windows dominated and Laptops where too expensive, AMD and Intel bet very differently for the future, and AMD lost.
Around 2000 - 2005 Intel decided to go mobile and came up with "Centrino", when desktops still outsold laptops. In that day, it was the risky move.
Then, at the same time, AMD decided 64 bits whats the future and came with Athlon! Along with new OSes like Linux, I though that was the future.... it wasn't -... just plain bad decisions -
You are very right, but you need to say it this way:
We all agree that nothing does not exists (If you don’t agree, don’t bother reading the rest and go buy the book.), then, thinking what would happen if the universe didn't exist is absurd.
So, we exist. Then, the real question is: Why does the universe and us exist as we are, and not otherwise ?
From there we can also ask: On what does it depend, or whom ??
It is interesting how this looks like the socialist/communist crap of the 70's. Sure, let that 99% percent of people that know zip about economy run the country.
Sorry but capitalism is what makes the US the most powerful country in the world, along with Europe. Sure there are a lot of poor people, unfortunately, as the Davis-Moore thesis will tell you, they are necessary for the system to work. No, it isn’t fare or just, that’s the way it is. We need to understand that rich people make money, jobs, we need them, and they use the Exchange Market to make money.
It might not be perfect, but that’s the best we have. Perfect does not exist, at least perfection where we all make "enough" or equivalent money. That’s just stupid. Why would someone excel in such society?? Enough" according to who?? For great ideas to work, great benefits must be earned. Who assigns those benefits?: the stock market.
Do they really know what are they dealing with?? Haven’t they heard about the huge trade deficit we have?? How could the US be the most powerful country if we have a trade deficit?? How could the dollar be the safest currency with a deficit, haven’t they taught you that a currency deficit means devaluation??
Well, the US and the dollar succeed because the US does not make things it makes ideas: It makes Steves jobs and Bills Gates. The US is all about trading ideas, or in other words, by selling the stocks of the companies with ideas.
Note that the so called trade deficit is only a partial view of the balance of payments. Talking about a trade deficit in isolation of the other accounts means that we don’t understand modern economy. Countries today are not about what they sell. Today we live from speculation and betting on the future ideas. If you are a Marxist, then forget it and keep yourself the middle ages. If not, note that the balance of payments is ALWAYS balanced in the US by the financial accounts, including INVESTMENT, much of which is not plain debt, but investment where in case of failure means no liability for the US.
" Return the Power of Coining Money to the U.S " " Limit the Size, Scope and Power of Banks "
Well we might just as well implement full fledged communism, and let China overtake us. Do you want to know how china succeeded:
"Reduce the value of the coin and let if float according to basket of currencies" "Enable private property and banks, begin the stock market.."
Sounds familiar?? No wonder they are overtaking us.
I am sorry if I touched a personal feeling. Let's not make this personal.
I understand intel introduced the first programmable integrated circuit, and that is the same technology used in all computers today. Now, we can argue that the colossus or that Charles Babbage invented the computer, but INTEL, IBM or AMD are getting the royalties for any PC today.
Same with the phone, we can argue that Graham Bell didn't invent the telephone, still the BELL company and it's little baby bells, like Bellcore, are responsible for developing most of the telephony technology and standards used today..... I worked there, and they get the royalties.... finally, well I guess that's not the point. Point is that today still the US is where more than half of all the scientific and technical publications originate. Now, I AM NOT A U.S. CITIZEN and I don't live there anymore. Still, those are the facts and, as sad as that makes me feel too I know that we better learn from it.
I think you are missing an important point. I think we all agree that different countries have different advantages manufacturing different products, but this is not about manufacturing products. The U.S, unlike other nations, does not work by manufacturing products. In fact, it has a huge trade deficit, around $726 billion in 2005. In other words the U.S., by far, buys more than what it sells.
You see, the U.S. accounts are not balanced by selling products, but, incredibly, by the domestic and foreign investment in U.S. companies. That's why the Dow Jones and NASDAQ indexes are way more important in the U.S. than the trade balances, and this is why the article is so relevant.
While your example about ABS and fuel injection might imply that innovation occurs everywhere, the reality is that, by far, the U.S. has the largest number of startups and it is, by far, the largest destination of venture capital all over the world. There are exceptions, of course, but transistors, computers, cell phones, normal phones and even, the light bulb.... They all come from the U.S. and that's what makes the U.S. the largest economy in the world, not just by simply selling things. In other words, it does not matter that the Japanese are good at building electronics, or the Chinese at everything else, actually, few things are made in the U.S. at all.... That does not matter. At the end, it doesn't matter where the computer was made, for example, computer cost is mainly royalties, and most of them are going to the U.S.
In conclusion, the article is relevant because startups and new products are what drive the U.S. economy... and therefore many other things. The fact that other countries are good at making this or that is not relevant. Large economies are driven not by the money they make today, but by investments, in other words, money they make in the future, and startups are where it all begins.
That was a great question, what do we want from AI?
I don't know what will I do with a talking computer at home, but, if we could ask him/it a few questions. It could solve some of the most ancient mysteries.
We need to understand that AI is more than mimicking a human being in either behavior or speech. We need to understand that our concepts of logic, space, and time are not necessarily universal. In other words, a truly AI will definitely not act and talk like us, because it would build an entirely different concept of reality. Now, what exactly this "Reality" untransformed from our senses and interpreted through electronics is, well, nobody knows completely, that's why having an AI would be so important.
With al due respect, the design of a mind has more to do with modern philosophy than computer science. Having a glorified talking parrot just takes all our framework of reality and executes it through a computer. Question is: where does this framework came from? Why do we assume it is universal?
A truly "intelligent" AI will not only be able to talk perfect English, but it shall be able to learn German with out us having to reprogram it. It shall be able to build its own reality.
I recommend, before you code all this logic into a huge database, to read some Descartes; he will show you that it might not be universal. Then, read some Kant; he will show you that, on top, we made all that up. Finally, take a look at some phenomenologist to see how futile our efforts to disambiguate reality from our senses have been.
In conclusion, being able to talk to an AI, a truly AI with its own grasp of reality, will surely reveal a new world. But, I think we cannot do that on our own. Probably once we contact some alien beings we will be able to determine how much of this framework is made up, and how much is attached to the reality.
Ok, this might have sounded like Chinese, but it's nothing more than history of philosophy 101. Sad to see that modern science education has dived so deep that they have forgotten the basic question of what is real?
Your comment is on the spot. What a bout the people being saved?
In general, a submarine will not stand a single torpedo hit. Such a thing normally means death for the whole crew.
I would like to add that, if the U.S. gets a war with any torpedo capable nation, then, we have better things to worry than deaf whales and killed sailors.
In the other hand, discovering a way to make ballistic missile submarines invulnerable is like having missile bases all over the world... forget about space based antimissile rockets, this will be the ultimate deterrent.
If it were for environmentalist, we would still have the U.S.S.R., missiles in Cuba and Saddam would be king of Kuwait.... I rather have deaf whales, sorry, IMHO.
I bet Dr. Barach was not alone when he thought ulcers were caused by bacteria. Then again, that's not enough to make a discovery. Surely, just like him, there were hundreds others who though it was bacteria, or something else.
There is confusion in general, about who is recognized as the inventor or discoverer of something. You might think that the first person to have the idea shall be the one prized with the discovery. It normally is not like that. The reason is that, along we having the idea, you must do the research and publications that comes with an idea. Its easy to say, ulcers are caused by bacteria, or the world is round or planets move around the sun... but to prove it beyond doubt, that's the difficult, and, now days, expensive part.
This is why Columbus is credited with discovering America, not the Vikings or Chinese, that are known to have been here first, or, why Copernicus is credited with discovering that planets move around the sun, though Greeks and others knew it before, and this is why the guys who risked their life eating bacteria are the ones credited with this.
Your concerns are valid. There is the small chance that previously extinct bacteria might be trapped there. Though, I would not be that worried. First, this is not an alien, and what ever is there has been here before. Secondly, its 20,000,000 years old, though preserved in amber in form, it, and all bacteria with it, is certainly dead. Actually, I would be surprised if they can find a complete set of DNA. It's probably all in pieces.
Now, about the AIDS theory... AIDS is probably the most studied virus, and most scientists in the world, not only in the US, believe that this is a retrovirus that passed from monkeys to humans somewhere in Africa, about a hundred years ago. Actually, the origin of the two common HIV strains has been narrowed to specific species of African monkeys. The origin of HIV-2 has been established to be the sooty mangabey (Cercocebus atys), an Old World monkey of Guinea Bissau, Gabon, and Cameroon. The origin of HIV-1 is a chimpanzee subspecies: Pan troglodytes troglodytes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_origin)
If you are going to present such an extreme theory, it must be supported with extreme evidence.
"MSN could be what Windows could never be: a Net platform that allows developers to write and distribute their code quickly."
MSN ??? MSN is just a web portal that, as a 15 year developer, I had never used for anything related to software development. Don't confuse MSN with MSDN!!! Please give one example in which MSN helps a developer "write code".
"Google threatens Microsoft's position on the Internet, and could potentially lock Microsoft out of its existing distribution channels and reduce the value of Windows."
Ok editor.... Here you should ask: "What distribution channels?" To this day, Windows is shipped with new computers, and I challenge you to present any study that can correlate Google's success with declining windows shipments. Bear in mind that Microsoft's must successful products, Office and Windows, are not shipped electronically.
"Yet MSN's new prominence makes it clear that Redmond is focused on bringing a Web platform closer than ever to the operating system, analysts said."
Ok, editor. Alleging that "Redmond is focused on bringing a Web platform" because of MSN needs supporting facts; where is the analyst's study? And by the way, what "Web Platform" are we talking about?
IMHO this is a wise guy juts trying to make up a story to cash on the recent news about Ballmer swearing at Google (He succeed, it seems.). First, that has not even been confirmed, second this guy has no idea whats he talking about.
Myabe its because they want to go back to the "Deliver crap so that they will want to keep upgrading..."
They wont make the same mistake as with Windows XP and 2000: They were so stable that there was no demand for windows 2003.
Some people dont even know 2003 exists!!
So, I guess Ballmer has two options:
Change the business model to profit from real inovation, or go back to profit from people wanting to get out of buggy products.... seems they are going to go the buggy way.....
While 98% might sound good, a fatality rate of 2%, for ANY kind of manned vehicle, is ridiculous and unacceptable. Most vehicles, like boats, airplanes, and even general aviation planes, have rates much lower than 1%. A 98% failure rate, in other contexts, will mean ships sinking every day and several airplanes crashing every day.
You might argue that it can't be compared with other vehicles. I will agree, but that does not change the fact that, as a manned vehicle, this rate is bad. With that success rate, and assuming they launch a flight every week, as originally envisioned, you are looking at 1+ crashes every year.
In the other hand, we don't know the failure rate of the shuttle. There has been much speculation on that. Unfortunately, you can not just divide the failures and successes to get a ratio. With only 5 ships and less than 200 flights it's not a big enough sample set.
In conclusion, the 98% is not good, from any point of view. In the other hand, with a set of only 5 ( 3, now ) ships and less than 200 flights there is not enough data to have an accurate estimate..... but so far, it does not look good.
Don't get me wrong, the shuttle is an incredible piece of hardware. I can't imagine how a design dating from the 70's can fly 65,000 lbs of cargo into space, not including its own weight. Going from Apollos to this is like jumping from Fokker triplanes to jetfighters in a decade. But, maybe, NASA indeed overextended its goals.
I might have interpreted your post incorrectly, but it seems to indicate that the two programs have not been very successful.
While the failure ratio of the Soyuz program is not that much better from the shuttle, as a program conceived 10 years before the shuttle, it has outperformed any original expectative, both technologically and economically. There had been proposals to replace it (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html), but, even with today's technology, the added performance does not compensate for the added costs. To simply put it, it's so simple and cheap that you better build two than make a new one. Now, as any engineer will tell you, don't deceive your self, making things simple is difficult, clunky and complicated is easy.
From project goals met, the Soyuz has been an outstanding success that has lead to more than 10 different versions of the same ship.
While I can agree that it is difficult to compare the exact costs, please, Tito paid 20 million for the Launch, and believe me, they made a profit. In the other hand:
"as the average launch expenditures during its operations up to 2005 accumulates to $1.3 billion [1], a rather large figure compared to the initial projections of $10 to $20 million. The total cost of the program has been $145 billion as of early 2005 ($112 billion of which was incurred while the program was operational) and is estimated at $174 billion when the Shuttle will retire in 2010." (Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle)
In conclusion, the Soyuz has been a technological success, though, as good as it was, it is obsolete now. In the other hand, the shuttle, while it has helped test and develop newer technologies, it failed to meet the original project goals.... by far.
It's unfortunate that both countries, USA and Russia, are now stuck. One, because of a dead design that tried to meet too many people's wishes, and the other, because it has no money.
"Bill Gates himself asked Andy Grove not to invest in Go"... that is not illegal, even if he decided not to invest. He, you and I have the right to our opinions on how to invest money, and we can make it public. It was up to Grove to make up his mind.
The words you are looking for are dumping, incentives or threats. While I can agree that, if they can prove Gates made the call, it will not help him; this does not prove any illegal behavior, I'm sorry.
In addition, conspiring, is not illegal, all companies conspire against their competitors and design strategies to take them down.... It's called "Marketing". It's up to us, the consumer, to see the reality behind that and choose the right product.
While, of course, I am against MS because of the proven illegal practices, I also believe that we all share part of the blame every time we startup a widoz machine. We need to vote with action and wallets.
Excuse me but the abusive and repressive government was the reason for the crisis in the fist place.
Since Mao, the Chinese had endured corruption, ideological, social, cultural en even religious repression, with nothing they can do.
On top of that, when they finally stand up, they get shot at by the "Peoples Army".
The only reason they are succeeding today is because they are a very noble people, and the few that have been on power are releasing some pressure, just because they can't manage it any more.
After hearing some accounts of Chinese friends running between the corpses in the "Square of Peace" I feel insulted by your posting, that seems to excuse these atrocities. I'm sure that was not you intention.
Unfortunately, they will not be happy until they can practice the religion they want, talk about they want, or believe what they want. And believe me, there are people in China that will fight, and are fighting, and will die, and are dying for that.
If there is OSX running on x86 there will be a patch to run it on a PC 10 days after release.
If Microsoft could not stop people for running Linux on the Xbox, even with full control of the hardware, what can Apple do against someone making a patch to make it run on PCs..... !!!?????
Thats much easier to do, and probably you will not require a modchip, and if you think you need hardware to emulate the firmware, then someone will make the hardware mod.
In conclusion, if OSX is released for inteles, it will run in regular PC's sooner than later. I bet you there will be dual boot PC's in a few months afterwards. I hope Steve Jobs is considering that.....
I am sorry if my use of language was a little bit rough. I didn't mean any disrespect.
I understand your position. But 60 years is nothing, compared to most engineering practices.
Formal architecture has been around for like 4,000 years, naval technology almost the same, including navigation and charting. "Recent technology" like steam machines and gas machines more than 200.
Ship building, architecture... all of them had passed through several major different construction styles and design approaches. There have been as many kinds of buildings as different types of boats.
In the other hand, computer programming didn't become widely used until the Apollo program, and that was in the mid 60s, that's just 40 years ago. Even the initial space projects like Soyuz or Mercury didn't have a computer. Comparatively, to this day, there are very few different design and construction approaches, OO is almost universal, and that cant be enough.
So, I have to disagree, even 60 years is nothing compared to other human endeavors, like architecture and ship building, not even compared to airplanes.
A Classic ?, this guy is just a classic cowboy programmer with 0 project management skills.
Excuse me, but I've heard this BS for more than 15 years. Fact is that software projects are just like any other project. In my experience, in any kind of project, the success is more related to proper planning and experience than sheer building skills. This is like saying that a construction worker can learn to build a house as good as an Architect, or that the guy at the repair shop can build a car.
Problem is that software is very new, and it is evolving very quickly. We are still in the infancy of good software design tools and notations, and we still do not have the experience to make designs right all the time. But, to take the extreme position that software is different in "nature" from any other endeavor, and hence not planning and formal agreements are required, is ludicrous.
The reason that OO and C++ are so successfully is not an oddity as it seems to this guy; it's a normal result of our better understanding and more experience in software design, that is being translated into better design techniques. To put it simple, OO and C++ are successful because they let you introduce and enforce design decisions into the code, period. Why is this so important? Because, that way, the guy with the big picture has the tools to communicate this "Big Picture" to the workforce. Of course, this "Big Picture" requires years to experience to see, and for inexperienced people or small projects, these extra complications might seem unnecessary, and hence, articles like this trying to explain them.
Of course, these kinds of arguments always come from the junior programmer that was part of a failed project, and he thinks he knew "the right way" all the time. Of course, there are always all the explanations you want for failure. And let me even conceded that, yes, may be the junior programmer had the technical solution. But the reality is that in modern medium sized projects, there is no way to know all the details of the whole design at a level that could let you write the code yourself. Either you design or abstract modules at high level, to coordinate the construction at high level, or you code a module and only worry for the actual coding details for that module and leave the overall design to others.
To assume that "Coding is design" and that no formal planning is required to start working only indicates that this guy has never tried to work with more than 2 or three people, let's no add on top that programmers are especially difficult to handle.
In conclusion, this article claims of how cheap software is and how actual coding is more important than separate design only reveals the limited experience and project management skills of the Author.
Slashdot Mirror
Those are called political and budget pressure by managers who have no clue on engineering ---
Software uploaded with out testing ? There is no way they could have gotten this far with out testing. I am sure there is no engineer in Japan that does not test thoroughly. Actually Japanese code is famous for being of the best quality -
This was caused by politics, bureaucracy and plain bad management.
This is awesome - I hope it does not end up like the segway.
Im sure it can be made to be reliable for commercial / military purposes. This can allow soldiers to jump over any obstacle and attack from any angle- awesome -
What I mean is that, as expensive as it looks, if it can replace some chores currently needing a helicopter it could be competitive. Like electric tower / bridge inspections, rescue in difficult terrain and, of curse, military scouting and attacking.
Am I getting this wrong ? This implies that there is a one dark net thing, but the DarkNet is a generic term describing any anonymous / encrypted network.
There are many Dark Nets and precisely because of their secretive nature its very difficult to shut them down. Try shutting down Free-net / Tor! - good luck.
I think the author is misunderstanding / giving the false impression that there is a "DarkNet" and that it is controlled by someone/goverment and that that someone can turn it off.
Else whats the point of this poll about shutting down the dark net when it can not be shut down and no one is responsible for all of it-
I feel the intention of this is to blame it on some one and then start conspiracy theories on why was he/it invented it -
I cant say if Intel has done illegal things to AMD- ... but I am and old trooper and I remember that back in the days when windows dominated and Laptops where too expensive, AMD and Intel bet very differently for the future, and AMD lost.
Around 2000 - 2005 Intel decided to go mobile and came up with "Centrino", when desktops still outsold laptops. In that day, it was the risky move.
Then, at the same time, AMD decided 64 bits whats the future and came with Athlon! Along with new OSes like Linux, I though that was the future.... it wasn't - ... just plain bad decisions -
Ok, well I wish you take a steep dive with a WII propeller fighter and you will see why it is called a barrier ...
-Alejandro
You are very right, but you need to say it this way:
We all agree that nothing does not exists (If you don’t agree, don’t bother reading the rest and go buy the book.), then, thinking what would happen if the universe didn't exist is absurd.
So, we exist. Then, the real question is: Why does the universe and us exist as we are, and not otherwise ?
From there we can also ask: On what does it depend, or whom ??
-Alex
It is interesting how this looks like the socialist/communist crap of the 70's. Sure, let that 99% percent of people that know zip about economy run the country.
Sorry but capitalism is what makes the US the most powerful country in the world, along with Europe. Sure there are a lot of poor people, unfortunately, as the Davis-Moore thesis will tell you, they are necessary for the system to work. No, it isn’t fare or just, that’s the way it is. We need to understand that rich people make money, jobs, we need them, and they use the Exchange Market to make money.
It might not be perfect, but that’s the best we have. Perfect does not exist, at least perfection where we all make "enough" or equivalent money. That’s just stupid. Why would someone excel in such society?? Enough" according to who??
For great ideas to work, great benefits must be earned. Who assigns those benefits?: the stock market.
Do they really know what are they dealing with?? Haven’t they heard about the huge trade deficit we have?? How could the US be the most powerful country if we have a trade deficit?? How could the dollar be the safest currency with a deficit, haven’t they taught you that a currency deficit means devaluation??
Well, the US and the dollar succeed because the US does not make things it makes ideas: It makes Steves jobs and Bills Gates. The US is all about trading ideas, or in other words, by selling the stocks of the companies with ideas.
Note that the so called trade deficit is only a partial view of the balance of payments. Talking about a trade deficit in isolation of the other accounts means that we don’t understand modern economy. Countries today are not about what they sell. Today we live from speculation and betting on the future ideas. If you are a Marxist, then forget it and keep yourself the middle ages. If not, note that the balance of payments is ALWAYS balanced in the US by the financial accounts, including INVESTMENT, much of which is not plain debt, but investment where in case of failure means no liability for the US.
" Return the Power of Coining Money to the U.S "
" Limit the Size, Scope and Power of Banks "
Well we might just as well implement full fledged communism, and let China overtake us. Do you want to know how china succeeded:
"Reduce the value of the coin and let if float according to basket of currencies"
"Enable private property and banks, begin the stock market.."
Sounds familiar?? No wonder they are overtaking us.
I am sorry if I touched a personal feeling. Let's not make this personal.
I understand intel introduced the first programmable integrated circuit, and that is the same technology used in all computers today. Now, we can argue that the colossus or that Charles Babbage invented the computer, but INTEL, IBM or AMD are getting the royalties for any PC today.
Same with the phone, we can argue that Graham Bell didn't invent the telephone, still the BELL company and it's little baby bells, like Bellcore, are responsible for developing most of the telephony technology and standards used today..... I worked there, and they get the royalties.
What do you think ?
Hello Sien
I think you are missing an important point. I think we all agree that different countries have different advantages manufacturing different products, but this is not about manufacturing products. The U.S, unlike other nations, does not work by manufacturing products. In fact, it has a huge trade deficit, around $726 billion in 2005. In other words the U.S., by far, buys more than what it sells.
You see, the U.S. accounts are not balanced by selling products, but, incredibly, by the domestic and foreign investment in U.S. companies. That's why the Dow Jones and NASDAQ indexes are way more important in the U.S. than the trade balances, and this is why the article is so relevant.
While your example about ABS and fuel injection might imply that innovation occurs everywhere, the reality is that, by far, the U.S. has the largest number of startups and it is, by far, the largest destination of venture capital all over the world. There are exceptions, of course, but transistors, computers, cell phones, normal phones and even, the light bulb.... They all come from the U.S. and that's what makes the U.S. the largest economy in the world, not just by simply selling things. In other words, it does not matter that the Japanese are good at building electronics, or the Chinese at everything else, actually, few things are made in the U.S. at all.... That does not matter. At the end, it doesn't matter where the computer was made, for example, computer cost is mainly royalties, and most of them are going to the U.S.
In conclusion, the article is relevant because startups and new products are what drive the U.S. economy... and therefore many other things. The fact that other countries are good at making this or that is not relevant. Large economies are driven not by the money they make today, but by investments, in other words, money they make in the future, and startups are where it all begins.
What do you think ?
Hello PJ
That was a great question, what do we want from AI?
I don't know what will I do with a talking computer at home, but, if we could ask him/it a few questions. It could solve some of the most ancient mysteries.
We need to understand that AI is more than mimicking a human being in either behavior or speech. We need to understand that our concepts of logic, space, and time are not necessarily universal. In other words, a truly AI will definitely not act and talk like us, because it would build an entirely different concept of reality. Now, what exactly this "Reality" untransformed from our senses and interpreted through electronics is, well, nobody knows completely, that's why having an AI would be so important.
With al due respect, the design of a mind has more to do with modern philosophy than computer science. Having a glorified talking parrot just takes all our framework of reality and executes it through a computer. Question is: where does this framework came from? Why do we assume it is universal?
A truly "intelligent" AI will not only be able to talk perfect English, but it shall be able to learn German with out us having to reprogram it. It shall be able to build its own reality.
I recommend, before you code all this logic into a huge database, to read some Descartes; he will show you that it might not be universal. Then, read some Kant; he will show you that, on top, we made all that up. Finally, take a look at some phenomenologist to see how futile our efforts to disambiguate reality from our senses have been.
In conclusion, being able to talk to an AI, a truly AI with its own grasp of reality, will surely reveal a new world. But, I think we cannot do that on our own. Probably once we contact some alien beings we will be able to determine how much of this framework is made up, and how much is attached to the reality.
Ok, this might have sounded like Chinese, but it's nothing more than history of philosophy 101. Sad to see that modern science education has dived so deep that they have forgotten the basic question of what is real?
VMAX
Your comment is on the spot. What a bout the people being saved?
In general, a submarine will not stand a single torpedo hit. Such a thing normally means death for the whole crew.
I would like to add that, if the U.S. gets a war with any torpedo capable nation, then, we have better things to worry than deaf whales and killed sailors.
In the other hand, discovering a way to make ballistic missile submarines invulnerable is like having missile bases all over the world... forget about space based antimissile rockets, this will be the ultimate deterrent.
If it were for environmentalist, we would still have the U.S.S.R., missiles in Cuba and Saddam would be king of Kuwait.... I rather have deaf whales, sorry, IMHO.
-Vmax
Hello Phreak
I bet Dr. Barach was not alone when he thought ulcers were caused by bacteria. Then again, that's not enough to make a discovery. Surely, just like him, there were hundreds others who though it was bacteria, or something else.
There is confusion in general, about who is recognized as the inventor or discoverer of something. You might think that the first person to have the idea shall be the one prized with the discovery. It normally is not like that. The reason is that, along we having the idea, you must do the research and publications that comes with an idea. Its easy to say, ulcers are caused by bacteria, or the world is round or planets move around the sun... but to prove it beyond doubt, that's the difficult, and, now days, expensive part.
This is why Columbus is credited with discovering America, not the Vikings or Chinese, that are known to have been here first, or, why Copernicus is credited with discovering that planets move around the sun, though Greeks and others knew it before, and this is why the guys who risked their life eating bacteria are the ones credited with this.
What do you think ?
"mm... perhaps some stupid ritual of eating raw chimp meat and monkey meat?"
Very interesting theory. I didnt think about this.
I was thinking something else. I wonder what would Dr. Sigmund Freud have said about our suggestions....LOL...
-v
Hello Mr. BogaBoga
Your concerns are valid. There is the small chance that previously extinct bacteria might be trapped there. Though, I would not be that worried. First, this is not an alien, and what ever is there has been here before. Secondly, its 20,000,000 years old, though preserved in amber in form, it, and all bacteria with it, is certainly dead. Actually, I would be surprised if they can find a complete set of DNA. It's probably all in pieces.
Now, about the AIDS theory... AIDS is probably the most studied virus, and most scientists in the world, not only in the US, believe that this is a retrovirus that passed from monkeys to humans somewhere in Africa, about a hundred years ago. Actually, the origin of the two common HIV strains has been narrowed to specific species of African monkeys. The origin of HIV-2 has been established to be the sooty mangabey (Cercocebus atys), an Old World monkey of Guinea Bissau, Gabon, and Cameroon. The origin of HIV-1 is a chimpanzee subspecies: Pan troglodytes troglodytes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_origin)
If you are going to present such an extreme theory, it must be supported with extreme evidence.
Thanks
"MSN could be what Windows could never be: a Net platform that allows developers to write and distribute their code quickly."
MSN ??? MSN is just a web portal that, as a 15 year developer, I had never used for anything related to software development. Don't confuse MSN with MSDN!!!
Please give one example in which MSN helps a developer "write code".
"Google threatens Microsoft's position on the Internet, and could potentially lock Microsoft out of its existing distribution channels and reduce the value of Windows."
Ok editor.... Here you should ask: "What distribution channels?"
To this day, Windows is shipped with new computers, and I challenge you to present any study that can correlate Google's success with declining windows shipments. Bear in mind that Microsoft's must successful products, Office and Windows, are not shipped electronically.
"Yet MSN's new prominence makes it clear that Redmond is focused on bringing a Web platform closer than ever to the operating system, analysts said."
Ok, editor. Alleging that "Redmond is focused on bringing a Web platform" because of MSN needs supporting facts; where is the analyst's study? And by the way, what "Web Platform" are we talking about?
IMHO this is a wise guy juts trying to make up a story to cash on the recent news about Ballmer swearing at Google (He succeed, it seems.). First, that has not even been confirmed, second this guy has no idea whats he talking about.
Myabe its because they want to go back to the "Deliver crap so that they will want to keep upgrading..." They wont make the same mistake as with Windows XP and 2000: They were so stable that there was no demand for windows 2003. Some people dont even know 2003 exists!! So, I guess Ballmer has two options: Change the business model to profit from real inovation, or go back to profit from people wanting to get out of buggy products. ... seems they are going to go the buggy way.....
First...
"The requirements for Windows 9.x will make people turn to OS/2"
- Result, OS/2 is dead.
"The ridiculous requirements for Windows NT will increase adoption of NetWare"
- Result, NetWare died soon after.
"Novell expects the cost of upgrading to Vista will encourage many companies to turn to Linux instead."
-Result ?
It's been more than 10 years of these? Haven't we had enough?
Linux has its own niche; it is not meant to replace windoz boxes, and it will not replace them in the near future. So, who cares ?
Hello
I wonder what do you mean with 98%?
While 98% might sound good, a fatality rate of 2%, for ANY kind of manned vehicle, is ridiculous and unacceptable. Most vehicles, like boats, airplanes, and even general aviation planes, have rates much lower than 1%. A 98% failure rate, in other contexts, will mean ships sinking every day and several airplanes crashing every day.
You might argue that it can't be compared with other vehicles. I will agree, but that does not change the fact that, as a manned vehicle, this rate is bad. With that success rate, and assuming they launch a flight every week, as originally envisioned, you are looking at 1+ crashes every year.
In the other hand, we don't know the failure rate of the shuttle. There has been much speculation on that. Unfortunately, you can not just divide the failures and successes to get a ratio. With only 5 ships and less than 200 flights it's not a big enough sample set.
In conclusion, the 98% is not good, from any point of view. In the other hand, with a set of only 5 ( 3, now ) ships and less than 200 flights there is not enough data to have an accurate estimate..... but so far, it does not look good.
Don't get me wrong, the shuttle is an incredible piece of hardware. I can't imagine how a design dating from the 70's can fly 65,000 lbs of cargo into space, not including its own weight. Going from Apollos to this is like jumping from Fokker triplanes to jetfighters in a decade. But, maybe, NASA indeed overextended its goals.
What do you think ?
Hello
I might have interpreted your post incorrectly, but it seems to indicate that the two programs have not been very successful.
While the failure ratio of the Soyuz program is not that much better from the shuttle, as a program conceived 10 years before the shuttle, it has outperformed any original expectative, both technologically and economically. There had been proposals to replace it (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html), but, even with today's technology, the added performance does not compensate for the added costs. To simply put it, it's so simple and cheap that you better build two than make a new one. Now, as any engineer will tell you, don't deceive your self, making things simple is difficult, clunky and complicated is easy.
From project goals met, the Soyuz has been an outstanding success that has lead to more than 10 different versions of the same ship.
While I can agree that it is difficult to compare the exact costs, please, Tito paid 20 million for the Launch, and believe me, they made a profit. In the other hand:
"as the average launch expenditures during its operations up to 2005 accumulates to $1.3 billion [1], a rather large figure compared to the initial projections of $10 to $20 million. The total cost of the program has been $145 billion as of early 2005 ($112 billion of which was incurred while the program was operational) and is estimated at $174 billion when the Shuttle will retire in 2010."
(Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle)
In conclusion, the Soyuz has been a technological success, though, as good as it was, it is obsolete now. In the other hand, the shuttle, while it has helped test and develop newer technologies, it failed to meet the original project goals.... by far.
It's unfortunate that both countries, USA and Russia, are now stuck. One, because of a dead design that tried to meet too many people's wishes, and the other, because it has no money.
Hello Mr. LWATCDR
... that is not illegal, even if he decided not to invest. He, you and I have the right to our opinions on how to invest money, and we can make it public. It was up to Grove to make up his mind.
In the context of the post that I was referring:
"Bill Gates himself asked Andy Grove not to invest in Go"
The words you are looking for are dumping, incentives or threats. While I can agree that, if they can prove Gates made the call, it will not help him; this does not prove any illegal behavior, I'm sorry.
In addition, conspiring, is not illegal, all companies conspire against their competitors and design strategies to take them down.... It's called "Marketing". It's up to us, the consumer, to see the reality behind that and choose the right product.
While, of course, I am against MS because of the proven illegal practices, I also believe that we all share part of the blame every time we startup a widoz machine. We need to vote with action and wallets.
Long live the Commodore 64!
Wait a minute here.
"proves beyond a doubt that Bill Gates himself asked Andy Grove not to invest in Go"
Since when "asking" is illegal?
Conclusive?? I dont see any illegal behavior here. Please clarify, and, people, please dont mod posts just because they are against Microsoft.
Excuse me but the abusive and repressive government was the reason for the crisis in the fist place.
Since Mao, the Chinese had endured corruption, ideological, social, cultural en even religious repression, with nothing they can do.
On top of that, when they finally stand up, they get shot at by the "Peoples Army".
The only reason they are succeeding today is because they are a very noble people, and the few that have been on power are releasing some pressure, just because they can't manage it any more.
After hearing some accounts of Chinese friends running between the corpses in the "Square of Peace" I feel insulted by your posting, that seems to excuse these atrocities. I'm sure that was not you intention.
Unfortunately, they will not be happy until they can practice the religion they want, talk about they want, or believe what they want. And believe me, there are people in China that will fight, and are fighting, and will die, and are dying for that.
Freedom is more important than being poor.
-Ale
If there is OSX running on x86 there will be a patch to run it on a PC 10 days after release.
If Microsoft could not stop people for running Linux on the Xbox, even with full control of the hardware, what can Apple do against someone making a patch to make it run on PCs..... !!!?????
Thats much easier to do, and probably you will not require a modchip, and if you think you need hardware to emulate the firmware, then someone will make the hardware mod.
In conclusion, if OSX is released for inteles, it will run in regular PC's sooner than later. I bet you there will be dual boot PC's in a few months afterwards. I hope Steve Jobs is considering that.....
-Ale
I am sorry if my use of language was a little bit rough. I didn't mean any disrespect.
I understand your position. But 60 years is nothing, compared to most engineering practices.
Formal architecture has been around for like 4,000 years, naval technology almost the same, including navigation and charting. "Recent technology" like steam machines and gas machines more than 200.
Ship building, architecture... all of them had passed through several major different construction styles and design approaches. There have been as many kinds of buildings as different types of boats.
In the other hand, computer programming didn't become widely used until the Apollo program, and that was in the mid 60s, that's just 40 years ago. Even the initial space projects like Soyuz or Mercury didn't have a computer. Comparatively, to this day, there are very few different design and construction approaches, OO is almost universal, and that cant be enough.
So, I have to disagree, even 60 years is nothing compared to other human endeavors, like architecture and ship building, not even compared to airplanes.
A Classic ?, this guy is just a classic cowboy programmer with 0 project management skills.
Excuse me, but I've heard this BS for more than 15 years. Fact is that software projects are just like any other project. In my experience, in any kind of project, the success is more related to proper planning and experience than sheer building skills. This is like saying that a construction worker can learn to build a house as good as an Architect, or that the guy at the repair shop can build a car.
Problem is that software is very new, and it is evolving very quickly. We are still in the infancy of good software design tools and notations, and we still do not have the experience to make designs right all the time. But, to take the extreme position that software is different in "nature" from any other endeavor, and hence not planning and formal agreements are required, is ludicrous.
The reason that OO and C++ are so successfully is not an oddity as it seems to this guy; it's a normal result of our better understanding and more experience in software design, that is being translated into better design techniques. To put it simple, OO and C++ are successful because they let you introduce and enforce design decisions into the code, period. Why is this so important? Because, that way, the guy with the big picture has the tools to communicate this "Big Picture" to the workforce. Of course, this "Big Picture" requires years to experience to see, and for inexperienced people or small projects, these extra complications might seem unnecessary, and hence, articles like this trying to explain them.
Of course, these kinds of arguments always come from the junior programmer that was part of a failed project, and he thinks he knew "the right way" all the time. Of course, there are always all the explanations you want for failure. And let me even conceded that, yes, may be the junior programmer had the technical solution. But the reality is that in modern medium sized projects, there is no way to know all the details of the whole design at a level that could let you write the code yourself. Either you design or abstract modules at high level, to coordinate the construction at high level, or you code a module and only worry for the actual coding details for that module and leave the overall design to others.
To assume that "Coding is design" and that no formal planning is required to start working only indicates that this guy has never tried to work with more than 2 or three people, let's no add on top that programmers are especially difficult to handle.
In conclusion, this article claims of how cheap software is and how actual coding is more important than separate design only reveals the limited experience and project management skills of the Author.