Microsoft embracing open source would allow it to hurt them in the short term too. Remember how tolerable XP was? Well open source hacker A has made XP no longer need online registration. XP is free now! So is every Microsoft product. Maybe if the first hack everyone did wasn't to make the software free, companies may think about open sourcing their software to get a superior product in the long term. And you know what the second hack would be: Halo 3 cheats. With the whole code open to look through, cheating video games gets easy.
Please hold off on the hatred moderation for a post. I wouldn't be posting this if I didn't know something special. I'll keep it brief, but you can always email me at James_Sager_PA@yahoo.com.
I'm all for science, and I hope scientists can stop aging. You have to think though. Even with a cure for aging, something will inevitably kill you. And even if you could live for a real long time, you'd still encounter suffering directly or indirectly.
God is the only one who holds the promise for an eternity better than anyone can conceive. God also loves us so he wants to see us happy. Even though this world may be flawed because of evil made its way in it, we're only here for a short while. If you want to live forever, don't worry because the arrangements have already been made. Just go in life being a good individual. And the Bible makes a good read especially if you read the New Testament.
My AI page which has several links that go deeper to older write ups is at www.fossai.com
Basically I say that the better computer vision you make, the better software you can write advanced bots leading up to AI. I see AI as being something we'll naturally get to even if no one makes an effort to it: Our 3d cards are getting better, video games are making better 3d worlds, memory is getting bigger, and computer speeds are getting faster. Even if you couldn't hold AI on a current computer's memory, you have wireless internet that links up with a supercomputer to make thin client bots. So there really isn't anything in current technology that is holding us back except computer vision.
Now I am not so good in the computer vision field, but as I see it(excuse pun), there are two ways to do vision.
1) Exact matching. You model an object in 3d via CAD, a Pixar style, or using Video Trace First you database all the objects that your AI will see in its environment then you make a program that identifies objects it "sees" with computer cameras and laser range finding devices. So then the AI can reconstruct its environment in its head. Then the AI can perceive doing actions on the objects.
I'm currently not in the loop here. I can't talk to anyone at Video Trace because I'm just a person, and they don't want to let me in on their software. So I can't database my desk. So I can't make the program that would identify things.
2) Even better than exact matching is similar matching. No two people look alike besides twins, so you can't really just database in a person and say that is a human. And as humans go, there are different categories such as male and female, and some are androgynous so we can't tell their sex. Similar matching has a lot of potential in its ability to detect things like trees and rocks. Similar matching is good at an environment that is tougher to put into exact matching situations. So just from this information alone, I wouldn't start on similar matching unless you had exact matching working in a closed environment. I'm not saying that some smart individual couldn't come up with similar matching before exact matching. I'm just saying that for myself, I'd start with exact matching, and then extend it with similar matching. There are a lot of clues you can pick up on if you know exact locations of things.
And then once you have singular location vision working, you can add multi point vision working. Multi point vision would mean that if you had more robotic eyes on a scene that you'd gain more detail about it. You could even get as advanced as conflict resolution when one robotic eye thinks it sees something, but another thinks it is something different. The easiest way to think of a good application for this would be if you had a robotic car driving behind a normal semi trick and another robotic car infront of the semi. The robotic car in the back can't see past the semi to guess traffic conditions of when the semi will slow down, but the car in front of the truck can see well, so they can signal to each other information that would let the car in behind the semi truck follow closer. If you get enough eyes out there, you could really start to put together a big virtual map of the world to track people.
I wouldn't say AI that learns like humans is desirable. After all, you'd have to code in trusting algorithms to know who to listen to. I'd say AI that downloads its knowledge from a reliable source is the way to go. It is easy to see: Sit in class for years until you learn a skill, or download it all at once like Neo on training seat.
Anyway, you can do a lot with robots that have good computer vision. Thething that has to be done next is natural language understanding. So far we've discussed the AI viewing a snap shot of a scene and being able to identify the objects. Next you'll have to introduce verbs and moving.
Correct me if I am wrong, or feel free to clairify:
If I use GPL code, I must provide the GPL code that I use.
If I code my own stuff using GPL, my code isn't automatically GPL too.
So if I make an game with security through obscurity, but use GPL code, I'm fine right?
Or am I wrong, and all code I write using GPL code suddenly becomes GPL too?
Come on please. It is easier to get stuff there than to get stuff there and return it. Maybe a robot isn't perfect in its science capabilities, but it is well armed with equipment. Robots are great to go dangerous people. Which do you think is better for science: A: Robot lander crashes, retry again in a few months B: Philip Fry crashes on moon and dies a death, are we ever going to try that again?
And there is always C & D. C: Robot lander lands on Mars and completes mission. D: Philip Fry completes mission, but the return module will not leave Mars. Will we ever try that again?
AI is simple really. All you need to do is get over the vision problem. The vision problem is digitizing the world into a 3d imagination space. Once you have sensors that can digitize the world, all sorts of robots will pop up. Arguably someone may raise the point that programming a computer isn't AI, but programming is sort of like how robots learn like Neo in the Matrix. If you want a robot to learn on its own, you'll have to give it trust algorithms to know if it is being told the truth or not. You see a lot of this now still with Wikipedia. In school we're drilled that the teachers are always right so we can learn that way, but AI will learn a bit differently.
Anyway if you want a quick overview of AI done simple:www.fossai.com
So wait, I don't get you. Do you mean gasoline is going to go up another 10 cents in the next five minutes so it will be $2.10 cheaper? Or do you mean that once this technology gets found out, they'll jack the price up because it is a substitute for gasoline?
Regardless of any other premise, why should I accept your authority that God exists and Jesus is real?
I don't have a good answer for that. My authority isn't the kind that dictates stuff to others. I just know God is real, so I'm able to tell people with complete confidence that he is real. I don't have a lot more to offer. Sure you can read the Bible and learn about God yourself, but for me going past knowing God exists is a stretch.
Eh, I'm a Creationist, and I think evolution can take place.
I'm not sure how many people read my short book, but chapter 11 has one of the better explanations on how evolution fits in well with Creationism.
Now that being said, it is only a possible avenue, and could be wrong. I come with an authority in that I know that God exists, Jesus is real. Anything else I say could be wrong, but I reason the best I can.
I liked the old bottle caps that told you if you won on the spot. These new games make you enter personal information on a website before they even tell you if you won. To me it seems less of a game and more of an experiment of who is willing to be advertised more to for being paid about a nickel on average. It is more than a waste of time.
Actually not now cuz servers are down for 5 hours, but I was playing it. I'm glad WOW introduced the idea of thieves as DPS... Because in D&D thieves were just sucky in combat compared to fighters or clerics. So you have Tanks, DPS, mages and priests. It works out pretty well.
There is nudity and gore in AOC which is different than other MMORPGS, but if there is a real problem with AOC is that it may cause a lot of people to get upgrades to play. This notion of upgrading your computer to play a video game is nothing any gamers should be foreign to though. Funcom has a track record that isn't bad. I like Funcom, but I like Blizzard more.
Nothing is gonna kill WOW out right. It will still live on as a MMORPG, but people who want something new will always be bouncing to the next new game. Age of Conan is the next new game. The interesting thing is that while Blizzard is allowing WOW to stagnate instead of constantly updating it, Blizzard is working on future MMORPGS. So WOW isn't the last thing you're gonna hear from Blizzard even if it does get knocked off its mighty perch(which I doubt will happen because of just one game).
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft embracing open source would allow it to hurt them in the short term too. Remember how tolerable XP was? Well open source hacker A has made XP no longer need online registration. XP is free now! So is every Microsoft product. Maybe if the first hack everyone did wasn't to make the software free, companies may think about open sourcing their software to get a superior product in the long term. And you know what the second hack would be: Halo 3 cheats. With the whole code open to look through, cheating video games gets easy.
Please hold off on the hatred moderation for a post. I wouldn't be posting this if I didn't know something special. I'll keep it brief, but you can always email me at James_Sager_PA@yahoo.com.
I'm all for science, and I hope scientists can stop aging. You have to think though. Even with a cure for aging, something will inevitably kill you. And even if you could live for a real long time, you'd still encounter suffering directly or indirectly.
God is the only one who holds the promise for an eternity better than anyone can conceive. God also loves us so he wants to see us happy. Even though this world may be flawed because of evil made its way in it, we're only here for a short while. If you want to live forever, don't worry because the arrangements have already been made. Just go in life being a good individual. And the Bible makes a good read especially if you read the New Testament.
Blind people still think about the world in 3d. They use the sense of touch to understand what is around them.
My AI page which has several links that go deeper to older write ups is at www.fossai.com
Basically I say that the better computer vision you make, the better software you can write advanced bots leading up to AI. I see AI as being something we'll naturally get to even if no one makes an effort to it: Our 3d cards are getting better, video games are making better 3d worlds, memory is getting bigger, and computer speeds are getting faster. Even if you couldn't hold AI on a current computer's memory, you have wireless internet that links up with a supercomputer to make thin client bots. So there really isn't anything in current technology that is holding us back except computer vision.
Now I am not so good in the computer vision field, but as I see it(excuse pun), there are two ways to do vision.
1) Exact matching. You model an object in 3d via CAD, a Pixar style, or using Video Trace First you database all the objects that your AI will see in its environment then you make a program that identifies objects it "sees" with computer cameras and laser range finding devices. So then the AI can reconstruct its environment in its head. Then the AI can perceive doing actions on the objects.
I'm currently not in the loop here. I can't talk to anyone at Video Trace because I'm just a person, and they don't want to let me in on their software. So I can't database my desk. So I can't make the program that would identify things.
2) Even better than exact matching is similar matching. No two people look alike besides twins, so you can't really just database in a person and say that is a human. And as humans go, there are different categories such as male and female, and some are androgynous so we can't tell their sex. Similar matching has a lot of potential in its ability to detect things like trees and rocks. Similar matching is good at an environment that is tougher to put into exact matching situations. So just from this information alone, I wouldn't start on similar matching unless you had exact matching working in a closed environment. I'm not saying that some smart individual couldn't come up with similar matching before exact matching. I'm just saying that for myself, I'd start with exact matching, and then extend it with similar matching. There are a lot of clues you can pick up on if you know exact locations of things.
And then once you have singular location vision working, you can add multi point vision working. Multi point vision would mean that if you had more robotic eyes on a scene that you'd gain more detail about it. You could even get as advanced as conflict resolution when one robotic eye thinks it sees something, but another thinks it is something different. The easiest way to think of a good application for this would be if you had a robotic car driving behind a normal semi trick and another robotic car infront of the semi. The robotic car in the back can't see past the semi to guess traffic conditions of when the semi will slow down, but the car in front of the truck can see well, so they can signal to each other information that would let the car in behind the semi truck follow closer. If you get enough eyes out there, you could really start to put together a big virtual map of the world to track people.
I wouldn't say AI that learns like humans is desirable. After all, you'd have to code in trusting algorithms to know who to listen to. I'd say AI that downloads its knowledge from a reliable source is the way to go. It is easy to see: Sit in class for years until you learn a skill, or download it all at once like Neo on training seat.
Anyway, you can do a lot with robots that have good computer vision. Thething that has to be done next is natural language understanding. So far we've discussed the AI viewing a snap shot of a scene and being able to identify the objects. Next you'll have to introduce verbs and moving.
I've thought about AI and how it would come about:www.fossai.com
What I have reasoned is that we can manually code most everything that AI could learn.
Correct me if I am wrong, or feel free to clairify:
If I use GPL code, I must provide the GPL code that I use.
If I code my own stuff using GPL, my code isn't automatically GPL too.
So if I make an game with security through obscurity, but use GPL code, I'm fine right? Or am I wrong, and all code I write using GPL code suddenly becomes GPL too?
Robots are great to go dangerous people.
I meant: Robots are great to do dangerous jobs instead of people
Come on please. It is easier to get stuff there than to get stuff there and return it. Maybe a robot isn't perfect in its science capabilities, but it is well armed with equipment. Robots are great to go dangerous people. Which do you think is better for science: A: Robot lander crashes, retry again in a few months B: Philip Fry crashes on moon and dies a death, are we ever going to try that again?
And there is always C & D. C: Robot lander lands on Mars and completes mission. D: Philip Fry completes mission, but the return module will not leave Mars. Will we ever try that again?
I'm a big fan of robots to do stuff like this.
I'm not going to buy it, but I have a weak point for unintentional comedy.
If you strike at corruption, corruption can strike back at you.
With hookers and blackjack. Well screw the blackjack.
Someday I'll get over cringing when people use the word pimp positively.
"gun or something" - I was editing out the part where I said it could be cool to shoot at it with a potato gun or something.
Can you color the bubbles with that guy who had the colored bubble technology? It could be cool to fly a flag with this.
My first impression is that this is very cool, but like the article says... It could get annoying with advertisers. gun or something.
AI is simple really. All you need to do is get over the vision problem. The vision problem is digitizing the world into a 3d imagination space. Once you have sensors that can digitize the world, all sorts of robots will pop up. Arguably someone may raise the point that programming a computer isn't AI, but programming is sort of like how robots learn like Neo in the Matrix. If you want a robot to learn on its own, you'll have to give it trust algorithms to know if it is being told the truth or not. You see a lot of this now still with Wikipedia. In school we're drilled that the teachers are always right so we can learn that way, but AI will learn a bit differently.
Anyway if you want a quick overview of AI done simple:www.fossai.com
So wait, I don't get you. Do you mean gasoline is going to go up another 10 cents in the next five minutes so it will be $2.10 cheaper? Or do you mean that once this technology gets found out, they'll jack the price up because it is a substitute for gasoline?
I can show you a Good News Bible which is what my dad presented to me after God spoke to me "Good News".
Regardless of any other premise, why should I accept your authority that God exists and Jesus is real?
I don't have a good answer for that. My authority isn't the kind that dictates stuff to others. I just know God is real, so I'm able to tell people with complete confidence that he is real. I don't have a lot more to offer. Sure you can read the Bible and learn about God yourself, but for me going past knowing God exists is a stretch.
Eh, I'm a Creationist, and I think evolution can take place.
I'm not sure how many people read my short book, but chapter 11 has one of the better explanations on how evolution fits in well with Creationism.
Now that being said, it is only a possible avenue, and could be wrong. I come with an authority in that I know that God exists, Jesus is real. Anything else I say could be wrong, but I reason the best I can.
Too bad AC2's combat system was so bad and it failed. We'll probably never see an AC3. I was a huge fan of AC1.
Especially if the people on the calculators are just pressing +1 over and over again for 46 years.
I liked the old bottle caps that told you if you won on the spot. These new games make you enter personal information on a website before they even tell you if you won. To me it seems less of a game and more of an experiment of who is willing to be advertised more to for being paid about a nickel on average. It is more than a waste of time.
"Your theory of a donut-shaped universe is intriguing, Homer. I may have to steal it."
Actually not now cuz servers are down for 5 hours, but I was playing it. I'm glad WOW introduced the idea of thieves as DPS... Because in D&D thieves were just sucky in combat compared to fighters or clerics. So you have Tanks, DPS, mages and priests. It works out pretty well.
There is nudity and gore in AOC which is different than other MMORPGS, but if there is a real problem with AOC is that it may cause a lot of people to get upgrades to play. This notion of upgrading your computer to play a video game is nothing any gamers should be foreign to though. Funcom has a track record that isn't bad. I like Funcom, but I like Blizzard more.
Nothing is gonna kill WOW out right. It will still live on as a MMORPG, but people who want something new will always be bouncing to the next new game. Age of Conan is the next new game. The interesting thing is that while Blizzard is allowing WOW to stagnate instead of constantly updating it, Blizzard is working on future MMORPGS. So WOW isn't the last thing you're gonna hear from Blizzard even if it does get knocked off its mighty perch(which I doubt will happen because of just one game).
With God, pretty much anything is possible.
Especially to Chun Li.