After reading that I felt the way people looked after watching the movie 'swordfish' in the theaters. A profound WTF? look on their faces as they left the theater. Like him or not, Steve has managed to do what others have not. In business, if you're making money they call that 'doing it right'.
Dr Spok told millions of Americans the 'right' way to raise their kids. Turns out he got rich doing it wrong too. According to the investors, Apple is doing it right, management style be damned. I don't even like Apple products but they appeal to a certain percentage of the world in a way that makes them popular. I fail to see how that is doing it wrong.
Ms Spears is doing it wrong but Steve seems to have a pretty firm grip on the clue bat.
I know what you mean, but I've been submitting my 'specially formatted' weekly report from Writer for about 6 months. No one has noticed yet, so it has not messed up their 'must do it our way' formats for Word.
OO will open a much larger.csv file than Excel, albeit truncated but at least it opens it. As I'm learning more about the less used features of OO I'm liking it more and more. My wife wants to brush up on MS Office skills while job hunting. I had to brush off an XP disk, do updates, install XP Office Pro, do updates, make note to go for eye exam after trying to read product key 43 times, and so forth so she could practice. 10 minutes into her first session she asked what the difference was. 10 minutes later she asked how much OO costs. When I said free her jaw dropped. So far, she can't tell the difference except for minor things on the menu arrangement. She was one of the users that didn't get the formatting of Word in the first place. After showing her how to import/export/save/open documents between the formats she has not asked another question.
It always applies to other companies. The thought process it takes to create software services is what I believe should be the approach to network services. If each little group of employees is walled off the basic network, and their access outside that playpen restricted to what they need, any major error inside the playpen is less likely to corrupt the whole network. Much like a city's services are configured. Everyone needs water, electric, sewage, trash service, roads etc. If you trip the breaker in your office, the next office building is unaffected just as they are normally unaffected if your toilet overflows. In that way each can do pretty much whatever they like and all remain unharmed. I'm not saying that your hobby of cultivating anthrax is going to fly for very long, but short of that... well, you can (more or less) grow what you want in your window-box garden. You can walk down the street to the park, just not through everyone's backyards.
The idea is not to restrict people, but restrict damaging elements from hopping around your network.
While I see your point, you assume that sans drugs and alcohol those same artists would have gone on to contribute handily to the world? Seems a big assumption considering their proven self destructive habits. Those who die young leave a legacy that seems sad and short, but the trouble is those who did not die young did not necessarily go on to make huge and wild success of life. I think they are often called one-hit wonders. (time for a rick roll?) The number of musicians who have lost to drugs or alcohol is statistically no more significant than non-musicians who have lost it with drugs or alcohol. Part of the point. The squeaky wheel and burned out lights always get the attention.
However it is that the chemicals in our bodies cause us to function, there are some things that just seem to preclude others. You'll find that getting sober was the first step to the end of many artist's careers.
and there will be plenty of folk who can be pessimistic about this, but I'm having trouble with doing that. It's free, being improved, and already works as good or better than MS office for more than 99.9% of the needs of myself and my family as well as most people I know. Those are not empirical numbers (just a good guess) but I remain impressed. What are the downsides to this? I'm not trolling, just wanting to know what they are.
"The BBC are reporting on a grisly trade lying behind the booming business for replacement body parts in medical procedures. According to Colbert, the number one threat to America is BEARS! These biological terrorists need to be stopped before the American Dollar is ruined.... oh wait
Is this the appropriate point to give you a link to a music/drug study which actually points to a Rick Astley video? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I believe similar holds true for the ear of the listener. I simply did not have to hand any drug related information on pop divas. The Rolling Stones' Kieth Richards appears to have died about a decade ago but the chemicals are keeping his body animated. Grace Slick (Jefferson Starship) reports that alcohol is a wonderful preservative. it also appears that Ms Spears suffers in the social graces department. There are plenty of examples, but the Toxic Twins just seemed most appropriate. Damn, no word counter on here...
It doesn't even have to be that simplistic. When I'm working on projects I tend to drink less even if I have the same opportunities to drink beer. Productivity decreases with alcohol, even on personal projects. If you mix into that the fact that for most people drinking is a social thing, there is even less productivity. Serious science takes concentration and attention to detail. Now, lets try to get a correlation to good music and drugs/beer? Aerosmith anyone?
I think they picked two things that don't go well together and blamed the lack of one for the existence of the other. I've seen some evidence that shows good artists are all depressed whackjobs. Of course theoretical physicists have had some social issues too. There are correlations to other things, but we don't quite understand what they are. I think the human brain/body has a lot to do with the chemicals floating around inside it, and definitely when you remove the chemicals they stop working but exactly how they all interact is still a bit more mysterious than saying beer has a direct effect on good science.
I agree with you completely. I was there too. I saw that MS took over not because Office is better than what was available, but because it came bundled with the OS. The prevailing thought of the day was why pay twice for a spreadsheet? MS bullied their way into the office desktop. It DID require bigger hardware. Access had easter eggs in it that were bigger than the competition's product!
Here is my pass, and an additional 100 pounds Sterling. Now, just travel around London for the next 7 days, sightseeing or whatever you like. When you are done, mail it back to me. Wow, now that is a really good tourism plan. What? Why am I being arrested at the airport? No, I did not rob a bank. No, I am not muslim. Oh, that's why? hmmmm
Or better, stick it inside someone else's bag and you look like you were traveling with them. The downfall of all of this is that there is no physical link between the tag and any human being. This is just stupid. Tracking people will not work, and will ONLY inconvenience the stupid criminals and honest people. When will governments learn?
What you say is indeed true, but they have found a way to target individual objects without the requirement of complex vision systems. This might be a step forward in several areas of robotics. If you have a robot that is traveling back and forth in a hospital carrying supplies to various points, having to identify each parcel or tray with tags is complex. It would be much easier to do this in some universal way, and laser tag might be that way.
In general, it is not much good for a roomba unless you are using it to tell the roomba 'this way stairs lie' or something like that. In either case, the process of identification for a robot may have been simplified in this case. Remember that robotics presents a LOT of problems that we solve on a daily basis and take for granted as easy when in fact they are very difficult. Just doing the holy grail of robotics (get a beer from the fridge) is far more difficult than you might believe. This is perhaps one way to do so, even though it lacks some elegance at the moment.
I did not say I want to steal MS stuff, or pay nothing. What I said was I don't want to pay MS prices for DRM and spyware infected software that is no better than freely available software. No, I do not push the limits of what software can do for the most part, so on the edges of functionality of F/OSS software where others find problems, I generally never get there, and almost never see any functionality issues. You should note that the vast majority of MS users never hit the bleeding edge of functionality of those products either. I still see powerpoint files attached to emails that have fewer than 25 words on them. No point in embedding data in the email like MS allows, or linking to the conference data... no, just put it all in a huge-ass ppt file and let everyone open that.. because sure, EVERYONE is using powerpoint, right?
I do not hate MS's guts. I hate their business practices of embrace and extinguish, of lock-in, of forced upgrades, of slack security updates, of... well, the point is that having to pay for that kind of service just seems FUCKING STUPID. If I have to suffer some problems along the way, I'd rather use some software that is just as good and costs me way less. All the contributions I make are IMO worth what I paid. That is to say that I donate based on the value to me of the product rather than some arbitrary value based on the MS yacht fund requirements. - that might have been harsh, but it's not too far off. No matter how you compare them F/OSS software stacks up nicely against anything else when value/cost is a heavily weighting factor.
but I use Linux because I don't want to pay MS for anything. ever. again.
Sure, I pay donations to those software projects that I use, but it's affordable, and upgrades are free of DRM, spyware, and other nasties that I don't want to have to pay for. For me and my family, Linux works just as good if not better than MS products. That is why we use Linux.
Fun? The Internet is fun no matter what OS is on the machine you are using. Paying to use a program seems rather ignorant at the prices MS charges. On Linux I never get a genuine advantage check BS window. Thats fun.
Linden Labs did in fact release an API, and several interfaces have been quite interesting. One was allowing you to run your SL character from a webpage. I did not delve into the API too deeply, but it is there.
This will be more than interesting. I hope that they have all the legal advice and tech advice necessary to pull the fingernails off of the **AA legal team, one at a time, no pain killers.
Multicasting to clients in your own LAN/WAN infrastructure is not a big idea, it's common sense. When you can expect 15% or more to want the same streams. There are reasons that multicast is not used: they will not have complete control of subscribers to the multicast. Even if the build the set-top box that receives the multicast stream and reports back, interception anywhere in the middle is posslble. Multicast streaming for current cable system content means 'giving' it away... unless all the data is encrypted. If the encryption is strong enough, there is no need to serve the content from a central point, and non-encrypted data need not work, sooo use P2P so that your central network is not having to support the streaming data and then customers whose boxes are used end up paying for the P2P bandwidth.
goes something like this: 57 movies in the on-demand line up. Say 100 subscribers per neighborhood on average. Each one gets about 1/10 of the chunks of every movie. So on your box, while you only have 1/10 of the chunks, the other 90% are close by and none of the P2P traffic went past the local router. Using P2P the cable company can put an on-demand video store in every neighborhood and never have to pay for huge centralized servers for it, nor support the bandwidth to get the data from outside the local router where the data will be used. Locate the tracker on that local router segment.. viola!
Once implemented, they hobble all other P2P and all is handily taken care of.
how large Eddie's memory requirements had become? I'd like to find out more about the programming and backend logic/memory requirements/usage. Interestingly, a cockroach can survive on it's own (small brain), but a 4 year old human cannot. AI of this level is hardly a life form. So, even an experiment that would die if not looked after takes a 'super computer' ?
Perhaps not a good way to put things, but 4 years old is not very interactive on a pragmatism scale.
Eddie has to know very little about locomotion and physical world interaction for SL, not to mention that whole zero need for voice recognition. People type pretty badly, but it limits what they say as well, thus bounding the domain of interactions.
This story seems to indicate that even minimal success with AI here requires HUGE memory/computational capacities, and that is not very promising.
I know that not everyone is Einstein smart, but it does not take a rocket scientist to know that mixing assembler in the house will cause divide by zero errors.
He'll have to learn the difference between NOP and Abstain
Nowhere in the "xxx programming for dummies" books does it talk about kissing babies.
Impeaching a president is nothing like getting funding for your pet project, though the process might seem familiar.
Well, imagination is a great thing but I've not yet seen anything that even comes close to that kind of imitation of a human. Not even close. It takes max of two questions to figure it out that it is a machine. The scope of what the facsimile is programmed with/for can be outstripped quickly.
It will be quite some time before we have conversational intelligence out of AI systems. Retrieval speeds on Google searches are good, but at conversational pace, sifting through the information for some trace of relevance to the conversation is still going to be stilted and slow. Even then, finding some relevant response to a topic is not something that people do well.
We each have a sphere of stuff that we are familiar with. It is a human trait to act in one of several ways when conversation goes beyond that:
- walk away/ignore - talk out of our asses like we do know when clearly we don't - quietly observe to learn what others know - change the subject
That as an example of what current AI conversation applications are not capable of.
In the case of an AI answering machine making a meeting appointment, it would only take one odd question, like: how about those cowboys? to throw the process out of whack if you did not know that you were talking to a machine.
AI does not thread thought and memories in the same way that we do, and this is part of what humans call humor.. when the story being told mismatches the thread/plot that we have in our heads. That depends hugely on the experience of the human involved, and the depth of their retained knowledge. both of these are missing in AI systems, and current technology will not allow for faking it past some limited point. The ability to switch to another 'almost' related conversation is something that AI cannot do without great memory stores, fast search/retrieval etc.
Imagine it like this: every sentence in a conversation is essentially a chess move. The game of chess has a finite bounded domain. A conversation with a human does not. The problem is far greater than a mimicry.
You can (IMO) ignore this guy as uninformed, or more dangerously, misinforming the legislative processes.
"You have to start with the first proposition," Cotton says, "which is: should we collectively be concerned about the fact that 50 to 75 percent of the total bandwidth of broadband ISPs is today taken up by P2P traffic which is in fact overwhelmingly pirated? I have to tell you, I think the answer to that is yes." Lets see some facts and resources here? Prove it was pirated! I dare you.
He goes further; P2P protocols themselves disrupt the Internet by passing bandwidth costs from content owners onto ISPs. Cotton told the FCC in a recent filing, "P2P applications shift the costs of centralized storage and distribution to end users and their broadband network providers." Obviously, he thinks that we, the end users, have not paid for the use of the bandwidth? WTF? Perhaps he believes that Google should pay for ALL OF THE INTERNET since they index it? Or maybe Facebook should pay for their 15% of the Internet in North America? This is just double speak so they can end up double-dipping. If they are able to establish clear end to end connections for content distribution then it will clearly be easier to determine who they want to litigate against for illegal content and bandwidth usage. They WANT the Internet to be a series of trucks running through tubes they build and control all the way to your eyesockets.
You know that I think you're a Mac fanboi, and I'd almost agree with you, but the iPhone is still too expensive, and has more functionality than many want while having too little functionality for others. The point is that it was hyped to be the alpha and omega of phone products for the technologically savvy user. FAIL
When manufacturers start making devices that can be upgraded easily, like getting new tires for your 12 speed bike, then I think things will change. Apple has hyped their products as much or more than anyone else and they are technically, aesthetically, and pragmatically no better than other products. In enough cases, they are inferior products for particular groups of users. Everything you said about the iPhone, someone else can say about their brand of favorite phone. That's the point, there is no one-size-fits-all tech. Manufacturers should design for that situation in my view. An example:
The correct apple phone is the mPhone. M for modifiable.
The basic model is a GSM phone/PDA - option for more memory - option for network protocols (various phone networks) - option for better camera/worse camera/no camera - option for Music player features - options for video player features - options for....
The point is that the equipment should be options, not various models. We will see multiple models being sold for a long time because it is the incentive to upgrade, and repeat the huge tech purchase you made with the first one. So you can talk about how much you like the iPhone, but it still is not the fit for everyone. If it was, there would not be so many people unlocking them.
You have it exactly right. It's about money, not fairness, or legality. Legality changes when they can pay enough legislators to make their business model look fair and legal.
Glickman, the **AA, and any of their illk has a conflict of interest when they talk about net neutrality and filtering. He has only greed for motivation, not doing things right or even fair.
When he starts talking about how to get EVERYONE higher bandwidth AND better Internet experiences without filters or DRM... then and ONLY then are they worth listening to. They are not trying to help anyone but themselves, and perhaps that is how it should be, but we need to make sure that our legislators do NOT believe that he speaks for the average user, ISP, or Internet based business.
The guy dressed like jesus on 49th street wearing a sandwich board declaring the end is near can be spotted by anyone as a crank. Glickman is a different kind of crank and the writing on his sandwich board promises huge sums to those who would enact laws in his favor, not just eternal bliss in the afterlife.
The way I feel about it, every municipality should operate their own WAN/infrastructure and sell access on it to cable companies and ISPs so that even little guys can compete. The monopolies granted to large corporations in various areas are completely hobbling the fight for net neutrality. When they no longer have an infrastructure to claim as their problem, they cease to have any say. yes, I know this idea is fraught with problems, but leaving the infrastructure in the hands of monopolists (successful ones or not) is the way to net non-neutrality. The **AA are trying to hold on to their choke hold of distribution and cable companies currently have a choke hold on broadband distribution. When infrastructure ownership is neutral, so will the net be.
There are several very good reasons that this idea is news. First because tech companies continuously fail to recognize that there are ALWAYS people that don't want the latest and greatest crap, no matter how bleeding edge it is. Second, those that bought iWhatevers and then the price dropped never even got a reach-around, so to speak. Third, there is now a special cellular service that specializes in doing all the tech stuff for you and the phone has BIG number buttons on it. Fourth there are a LOT of cheap talk-only phones and plans out there for a reason yet all we hear about is the new stuff with all the bells and whistles on it.
The basis of the story is that we are being sold a lot of hype. Any particular age group or group of people is only being used to say that it's not just one person, or one town. It's happening all over the place. Technology is not a one-size-fits-all proposition.
Eventually the MS vs. GNU/Linux vs. Mac story will sort itself out, and fanbois will stop telling the other side's fanbois that they are wrong. What works for some doesn't work for all. That would be why there are so many types of personal vehicles on the road, to bring the car analogy into it.
This idea will be news until tech manufacturers get it. some day you'll walk into a technology store and the phones will be separated into groups where one is the simple function group, next is a nice mix, and then some high end stuff... each with ranges of pricing. Sure, they kind of do that now but you need assistance to figure out what is easy to operate, or what has features in the plan that you don't want. Eventually tech sales will be comoditized. Today we are still treated as though we are buying a custom made suit, or a piece of art.
Vendor lock-in is to blame. There really is no lock-in deal with low end, low functionality equipment, so they always try to sell you the latest, greatest, steaming pile of tech. Cash is supposed to be king, but no one really cares unless they can get you locked in to a 3 year contract and $15/month insurance. It's all about money still as they really don't care what you want to buy so long as you buy something with a three year contract and insurance premiums.
Slashdot Mirror
After reading that I felt the way people looked after watching the movie 'swordfish' in the theaters. A profound WTF? look on their faces as they left the theater. Like him or not, Steve has managed to do what others have not. In business, if you're making money they call that 'doing it right'.
Dr Spok told millions of Americans the 'right' way to raise their kids. Turns out he got rich doing it wrong too. According to the investors, Apple is doing it right, management style be damned. I don't even like Apple products but they appeal to a certain percentage of the world in a way that makes them popular. I fail to see how that is doing it wrong.
Ms Spears is doing it wrong but Steve seems to have a pretty firm grip on the clue bat.
I know what you mean, but I've been submitting my 'specially formatted' weekly report from Writer for about 6 months. No one has noticed yet, so it has not messed up their 'must do it our way' formats for Word.
.csv file than Excel, albeit truncated but at least it opens it. As I'm learning more about the less used features of OO I'm liking it more and more. My wife wants to brush up on MS Office skills while job hunting. I had to brush off an XP disk, do updates, install XP Office Pro, do updates, make note to go for eye exam after trying to read product key 43 times, and so forth so she could practice. 10 minutes into her first session she asked what the difference was. 10 minutes later she asked how much OO costs. When I said free her jaw dropped. So far, she can't tell the difference except for minor things on the menu arrangement. She was one of the users that didn't get the formatting of Word in the first place. After showing her how to import/export/save/open documents between the formats she has not asked another question.
OO will open a much larger
It always applies to other companies. The thought process it takes to create software services is what I believe should be the approach to network services. If each little group of employees is walled off the basic network, and their access outside that playpen restricted to what they need, any major error inside the playpen is less likely to corrupt the whole network. Much like a city's services are configured. Everyone needs water, electric, sewage, trash service, roads etc. If you trip the breaker in your office, the next office building is unaffected just as they are normally unaffected if your toilet overflows. In that way each can do pretty much whatever they like and all remain unharmed. I'm not saying that your hobby of cultivating anthrax is going to fly for very long, but short of that... well, you can (more or less) grow what you want in your window-box garden. You can walk down the street to the park, just not through everyone's backyards.
The idea is not to restrict people, but restrict damaging elements from hopping around your network.
While I see your point, you assume that sans drugs and alcohol those same artists would have gone on to contribute handily to the world? Seems a big assumption considering their proven self destructive habits. Those who die young leave a legacy that seems sad and short, but the trouble is those who did not die young did not necessarily go on to make huge and wild success of life. I think they are often called one-hit wonders. (time for a rick roll?) The number of musicians who have lost to drugs or alcohol is statistically no more significant than non-musicians who have lost it with drugs or alcohol. Part of the point. The squeaky wheel and burned out lights always get the attention.
However it is that the chemicals in our bodies cause us to function, there are some things that just seem to preclude others. You'll find that getting sober was the first step to the end of many artist's careers.
and there will be plenty of folk who can be pessimistic about this, but I'm having trouble with doing that. It's free, being improved, and already works as good or better than MS office for more than 99.9% of the needs of myself and my family as well as most people I know. Those are not empirical numbers (just a good guess) but I remain impressed. What are the downsides to this? I'm not trolling, just wanting to know what they are.
Is this the appropriate point to give you a link to a music/drug study which actually points to a Rick Astley video? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I believe similar holds true for the ear of the listener. I simply did not have to hand any drug related information on pop divas. The Rolling Stones' Kieth Richards appears to have died about a decade ago but the chemicals are keeping his body animated. Grace Slick (Jefferson Starship) reports that alcohol is a wonderful preservative. it also appears that Ms Spears suffers in the social graces department. There are plenty of examples, but the Toxic Twins just seemed most appropriate. Damn, no word counter on here...
It doesn't even have to be that simplistic. When I'm working on projects I tend to drink less even if I have the same opportunities to drink beer. Productivity decreases with alcohol, even on personal projects. If you mix into that the fact that for most people drinking is a social thing, there is even less productivity. Serious science takes concentration and attention to detail. Now, lets try to get a correlation to good music and drugs/beer? Aerosmith anyone?
I think they picked two things that don't go well together and blamed the lack of one for the existence of the other. I've seen some evidence that shows good artists are all depressed whackjobs. Of course theoretical physicists have had some social issues too. There are correlations to other things, but we don't quite understand what they are. I think the human brain/body has a lot to do with the chemicals floating around inside it, and definitely when you remove the chemicals they stop working but exactly how they all interact is still a bit more mysterious than saying beer has a direct effect on good science.
I agree with you completely. I was there too. I saw that MS took over not because Office is better than what was available, but because it came bundled with the OS. The prevailing thought of the day was why pay twice for a spreadsheet? MS bullied their way into the office desktop. It DID require bigger hardware. Access had easter eggs in it that were bigger than the competition's product!
Here is my pass, and an additional 100 pounds Sterling. Now, just travel around London for the next 7 days, sightseeing or whatever you like. When you are done, mail it back to me. Wow, now that is a really good tourism plan. What? Why am I being arrested at the airport? No, I did not rob a bank. No, I am not muslim. Oh, that's why? hmmmm
Or better, stick it inside someone else's bag and you look like you were traveling with them. The downfall of all of this is that there is no physical link between the tag and any human being. This is just stupid. Tracking people will not work, and will ONLY inconvenience the stupid criminals and honest people. When will governments learn?
What you say is indeed true, but they have found a way to target individual objects without the requirement of complex vision systems. This might be a step forward in several areas of robotics. If you have a robot that is traveling back and forth in a hospital carrying supplies to various points, having to identify each parcel or tray with tags is complex. It would be much easier to do this in some universal way, and laser tag might be that way.
In general, it is not much good for a roomba unless you are using it to tell the roomba 'this way stairs lie' or something like that. In either case, the process of identification for a robot may have been simplified in this case. Remember that robotics presents a LOT of problems that we solve on a daily basis and take for granted as easy when in fact they are very difficult. Just doing the holy grail of robotics (get a beer from the fridge) is far more difficult than you might believe. This is perhaps one way to do so, even though it lacks some elegance at the moment.
I did not say I want to steal MS stuff, or pay nothing. What I said was I don't want to pay MS prices for DRM and spyware infected software that is no better than freely available software. No, I do not push the limits of what software can do for the most part, so on the edges of functionality of F/OSS software where others find problems, I generally never get there, and almost never see any functionality issues. You should note that the vast majority of MS users never hit the bleeding edge of functionality of those products either. I still see powerpoint files attached to emails that have fewer than 25 words on them. No point in embedding data in the email like MS allows, or linking to the conference data... no, just put it all in a huge-ass ppt file and let everyone open that.. because sure, EVERYONE is using powerpoint, right?
... well, the point is that having to pay for that kind of service just seems FUCKING STUPID. If I have to suffer some problems along the way, I'd rather use some software that is just as good and costs me way less. All the contributions I make are IMO worth what I paid. That is to say that I donate based on the value to me of the product rather than some arbitrary value based on the MS yacht fund requirements. - that might have been harsh, but it's not too far off. No matter how you compare them F/OSS software stacks up nicely against anything else when value/cost is a heavily weighting factor.
I do not hate MS's guts. I hate their business practices of embrace and extinguish, of lock-in, of forced upgrades, of slack security updates, of
but I use Linux because I don't want to pay MS for anything. ever. again.
Sure, I pay donations to those software projects that I use, but it's affordable, and upgrades are free of DRM, spyware, and other nasties that I don't want to have to pay for. For me and my family, Linux works just as good if not better than MS products. That is why we use Linux.
Fun? The Internet is fun no matter what OS is on the machine you are using. Paying to use a program seems rather ignorant at the prices MS charges. On Linux I never get a genuine advantage check BS window. Thats fun.
Linden Labs did in fact release an API, and several interfaces have been quite interesting. One was allowing you to run your SL character from a webpage. I did not delve into the API too deeply, but it is there.
Now, it's time for 'the rest of the story'....
This will be more than interesting. I hope that they have all the legal advice and tech advice necessary to pull the fingernails off of the **AA legal team, one at a time, no pain killers.
Multicasting to clients in your own LAN/WAN infrastructure is not a big idea, it's common sense. When you can expect 15% or more to want the same streams. There are reasons that multicast is not used: they will not have complete control of subscribers to the multicast. Even if the build the set-top box that receives the multicast stream and reports back, interception anywhere in the middle is posslble. Multicast streaming for current cable system content means 'giving' it away... unless all the data is encrypted. If the encryption is strong enough, there is no need to serve the content from a central point, and non-encrypted data need not work, sooo use P2P so that your central network is not having to support the streaming data and then customers whose boxes are used end up paying for the P2P bandwidth.
goes something like this: 57 movies in the on-demand line up. Say 100 subscribers per neighborhood on average. Each one gets about 1/10 of the chunks of every movie. So on your box, while you only have 1/10 of the chunks, the other 90% are close by and none of the P2P traffic went past the local router. Using P2P the cable company can put an on-demand video store in every neighborhood and never have to pay for huge centralized servers for it, nor support the bandwidth to get the data from outside the local router where the data will be used. Locate the tracker on that local router segment.. viola!
Once implemented, they hobble all other P2P and all is handily taken care of.
how large Eddie's memory requirements had become? I'd like to find out more about the programming and backend logic/memory requirements/usage. Interestingly, a cockroach can survive on it's own (small brain), but a 4 year old human cannot. AI of this level is hardly a life form. So, even an experiment that would die if not looked after takes a 'super computer' ?
Perhaps not a good way to put things, but 4 years old is not very interactive on a pragmatism scale.
Eddie has to know very little about locomotion and physical world interaction for SL, not to mention that whole zero need for voice recognition. People type pretty badly, but it limits what they say as well, thus bounding the domain of interactions.
This story seems to indicate that even minimal success with AI here requires HUGE memory/computational capacities, and that is not very promising.
I know that not everyone is Einstein smart, but it does not take a rocket scientist to know that mixing assembler in the house will cause divide by zero errors.
He'll have to learn the difference between NOP and Abstain
Nowhere in the "xxx programming for dummies" books does it talk about kissing babies.
Impeaching a president is nothing like getting funding for your pet project, though the process might seem familiar.
Well, imagination is a great thing but I've not yet seen anything that even comes close to that kind of imitation of a human. Not even close. It takes max of two questions to figure it out that it is a machine. The scope of what the facsimile is programmed with/for can be outstripped quickly.
It will be quite some time before we have conversational intelligence out of AI systems. Retrieval speeds on Google searches are good, but at conversational pace, sifting through the information for some trace of relevance to the conversation is still going to be stilted and slow. Even then, finding some relevant response to a topic is not something that people do well.
We each have a sphere of stuff that we are familiar with. It is a human trait to act in one of several ways when conversation goes beyond that:
- walk away/ignore
- talk out of our asses like we do know when clearly we don't
- quietly observe to learn what others know
- change the subject
That as an example of what current AI conversation applications are not capable of.
In the case of an AI answering machine making a meeting appointment, it would only take one odd question, like: how about those cowboys? to throw the process out of whack if you did not know that you were talking to a machine.
AI does not thread thought and memories in the same way that we do, and this is part of what humans call humor.. when the story being told mismatches the thread/plot that we have in our heads. That depends hugely on the experience of the human involved, and the depth of their retained knowledge. both of these are missing in AI systems, and current technology will not allow for faking it past some limited point. The ability to switch to another 'almost' related conversation is something that AI cannot do without great memory stores, fast search/retrieval etc.
Imagine it like this: every sentence in a conversation is essentially a chess move. The game of chess has a finite bounded domain. A conversation with a human does not. The problem is far greater than a mimicry.
Agreed, perhaps infrastructure co-ops?
You know that I think you're a Mac fanboi, and I'd almost agree with you, but the iPhone is still too expensive, and has more functionality than many want while having too little functionality for others. The point is that it was hyped to be the alpha and omega of phone products for the technologically savvy user. FAIL
....
When manufacturers start making devices that can be upgraded easily, like getting new tires for your 12 speed bike, then I think things will change. Apple has hyped their products as much or more than anyone else and they are technically, aesthetically, and pragmatically no better than other products. In enough cases, they are inferior products for particular groups of users. Everything you said about the iPhone, someone else can say about their brand of favorite phone. That's the point, there is no one-size-fits-all tech. Manufacturers should design for that situation in my view. An example:
The correct apple phone is the mPhone. M for modifiable.
The basic model is a GSM phone/PDA
- option for more memory
- option for network protocols (various phone networks)
- option for better camera/worse camera/no camera
- option for Music player features
- options for video player features
- options for
The point is that the equipment should be options, not various models. We will see multiple models being sold for a long time because it is the incentive to upgrade, and repeat the huge tech purchase you made with the first one. So you can talk about how much you like the iPhone, but it still is not the fit for everyone. If it was, there would not be so many people unlocking them.
You have it exactly right. It's about money, not fairness, or legality. Legality changes when they can pay enough legislators to make their business model look fair and legal.
Glickman, the **AA, and any of their illk has a conflict of interest when they talk about net neutrality and filtering. He has only greed for motivation, not doing things right or even fair.
When he starts talking about how to get EVERYONE higher bandwidth AND better Internet experiences without filters or DRM... then and ONLY then are they worth listening to. They are not trying to help anyone but themselves, and perhaps that is how it should be, but we need to make sure that our legislators do NOT believe that he speaks for the average user, ISP, or Internet based business.
The guy dressed like jesus on 49th street wearing a sandwich board declaring the end is near can be spotted by anyone as a crank. Glickman is a different kind of crank and the writing on his sandwich board promises huge sums to those who would enact laws in his favor, not just eternal bliss in the afterlife.
The way I feel about it, every municipality should operate their own WAN/infrastructure and sell access on it to cable companies and ISPs so that even little guys can compete. The monopolies granted to large corporations in various areas are completely hobbling the fight for net neutrality. When they no longer have an infrastructure to claim as their problem, they cease to have any say. yes, I know this idea is fraught with problems, but leaving the infrastructure in the hands of monopolists (successful ones or not) is the way to net non-neutrality. The **AA are trying to hold on to their choke hold of distribution and cable companies currently have a choke hold on broadband distribution. When infrastructure ownership is neutral, so will the net be.
reading this is like seeing a video clip of a one legged Iraqi kid with a stereo boom box playing 'Give peace a chance' ... or something like that.
There are several very good reasons that this idea is news. First because tech companies continuously fail to recognize that there are ALWAYS people that don't want the latest and greatest crap, no matter how bleeding edge it is. Second, those that bought iWhatevers and then the price dropped never even got a reach-around, so to speak. Third, there is now a special cellular service that specializes in doing all the tech stuff for you and the phone has BIG number buttons on it. Fourth there are a LOT of cheap talk-only phones and plans out there for a reason yet all we hear about is the new stuff with all the bells and whistles on it.
The basis of the story is that we are being sold a lot of hype. Any particular age group or group of people is only being used to say that it's not just one person, or one town. It's happening all over the place. Technology is not a one-size-fits-all proposition.
Eventually the MS vs. GNU/Linux vs. Mac story will sort itself out, and fanbois will stop telling the other side's fanbois that they are wrong. What works for some doesn't work for all. That would be why there are so many types of personal vehicles on the road, to bring the car analogy into it.
This idea will be news until tech manufacturers get it. some day you'll walk into a technology store and the phones will be separated into groups where one is the simple function group, next is a nice mix, and then some high end stuff... each with ranges of pricing. Sure, they kind of do that now but you need assistance to figure out what is easy to operate, or what has features in the plan that you don't want. Eventually tech sales will be comoditized. Today we are still treated as though we are buying a custom made suit, or a piece of art.
Vendor lock-in is to blame. There really is no lock-in deal with low end, low functionality equipment, so they always try to sell you the latest, greatest, steaming pile of tech. Cash is supposed to be king, but no one really cares unless they can get you locked in to a 3 year contract and $15/month insurance. It's all about money still as they really don't care what you want to buy so long as you buy something with a three year contract and insurance premiums.