"Strong AI" is the name of a philosophical position regarding artificial intelligence. Namely, that a hypothetical AI is "actually" thinking. "Weak AI" is the position that a hypothetical AI is "just" computing.
In any event, the algorithms for "creating" an AI are well understood. You basically need four things: (1) A rule mining algorithm to mine rules from empirical data, (2) an "introspection algorithm" that periodically examines the rules mined for validity, an "insight algorithm" that comes up with (possible) rules (the introspection algorithm checks these for validity as well), and a loop to execute (1), (2), and (3) as well as relevant rules when demanded by the input.
Rule mining algorithms are slow. Introspection doesn't have to be, especially if the AI is in a position to actively find an answer. Insight is difficult to quantify. We'd like the AI's insight skills to improve through time, so presumably the rules generating the rules would have to be modifiable by the AI itself, either by using the same syntax as the "empirical rules" or through the use of a genetic algorithm. Slow, either way.
But these algorithms are slow. Very slow. It takes humans years to learn to communicate, and we have billions of years of evolution behind us. Moore's law can't keep up.
I'm emailing her about it as I type this. I suggest other Californians do the same. She has betrayed an unheard of level of ignorance on the subject of "intellectual property" and should seriously reconsider her position. People in the 45th Congressional district should email her as well.
He didn't avoid the point. His response was that DRM prevents legal instances of copying, whereas speed limits don't prevent legal driving. It could have been phrased better, but he was on the spot and had to respond to a really stupid analogy.
Unless you pull the engine and transmission out, you're just going to end up with a Viper with a Type-R sticker on it. They're already tweaked for maximum efficiency given the drive train.
First, calm down. I'm not going to waste my time with a troll.
Second, Apple didn't need to DRM OS X because it only ran on what was then a different and (occassionally) superior platform. Apple was, and is, a hardware company. Maybe this doesn't make sense to you, but Apple is now trying to sell a superior x86 platform. That is, OS X is what makes their x86 boxes different (perhaps the whiny mac fanboys among us would say 'better'). Apple's hardware can do everything a generic box can, and more. OS X gives them an edge, and they don't want to lose it.
Yet, there's little reason to think that DRM was completely unnecessary before. I know plenty of people with pirated versions of Tiger on their G4's and G5's. Apple has never cared about small scale piracy. Large scale piracy of OS X, on the other hand, would cripple Apple.
Third, your point about developers is fair enough. But it's not Apple's fault VM makers only provide a BIOS interface instead of including EFI. The EFI specifications are public. Once that's taken care of, Apple and the VM makers will cross the encrypted binaries bridge.
Uh, because before the transition to Intel Macs, OS X didn't have encrypted binaries. Ignoring the 20+ year history of non-DRM is dumb, especially when there are extenuating circumstances as I mentioned in the rest of my footnote.
And yet, look how innocuous encrypted binaries in OS X are. They don't stop legitimate users from doing anything they'd like. It stays completely out of the user's way. I can see why some people would complain, but I still see Apple as a hardware company.
On a personal level, I'm fairly confident he meant it. Witness the lack of DRM on all but the most expensive Apple software[1], the slowly expanding rights granted to iTunes Store users (retroactively, in fact), and so on. Indeed, DRM gets in the user's way, and Jobs comissioned two operating systems designed to avoid exactly that.[2] However, he was clearly posturing when he said that in a public statement.
[1] Yes, I know some OS X programs are AES encrypted so they won't run on generic hardware. Call me a fanboy, but I don't blame him. Back when the G3/4/5 series was better (at times) than x86 hardware, the computer itself acted as a dongle. I'm sure Apple would have loved to continue that trend, but they got screwed by IBM. I would still love to see a PowerMac running a POWER5 or POWER6 chip.
[2] In the "average" use case. But OS X is still really flexible. As I type this, I have gentoo compiling to run on OS X.
No, he's saying that the classical encryption model (Alice, Bob, and Carlos with his perv stash) doesn't apply to DRM schemes. DVDs are clearly encrypted. The content maker's assumption when modelling this encryption scheme are that the DVD and the DVD player together make up Alice, and that Bob is the viewer. But Bob, as a matter of fact, has complete control over Alice. Hence we get crap like trusted computing, in an attempt to keep Alice's and Bob's roles distinct.
I doubt none but the whiniest slashdotters care about "getting infiltrated" -- just look at Roland P.'s "contributions". Sure, there are some complaints, but in the end, I think most people come here for the comments. Even abusing Digg doesn't bother me much, though I can see why it would bother Digg community members.
However, that DECS guy is a giant pompous asshole. Posting on his online magazine and letting his arguments stand on their own doesn't satisfy him. He comes here to "debate" -- which always turns into him using ad hominem when people make points he can't counter. Transparent "Well you must be too fucking dumb to understand my argument"-kinds of ad hominem. I read slashdot because of the interesting mix of serious and troll posts. DECS can't do either well. He is a tedious little turd,.. Funnily enough, the mods don't seem to disagree.
Cantor was a funny guy. His naive conception of sets lead to Russell's Paradox -- a serious problem. The Axiom of Choice is provable for finite sets, but not true in all infinite models of set theory. It certainly isn't intuitive.
Cantor was no crack pot. His work on trigonometric series (that is, Fourier analysis) lead naturally to his work in set theory. He was well respected and should have had thicker skin.
Weyl, Brouwer, Poincare were constructivist mathematicians. In broad strokes it means that they reject the law of the excluded middle and everything that implies it. Including the Axiom of Choice. They had very good reasons for wanting to do this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(mathe matics). (In short, it comes down to philsophical realism and anti-realism)
In short, none were crack pots. It was a serious debate with real consequences for the field. And it's not really over.
No, you're not. You're laying off more than 500 workers. Mathematicaly, the two statements are not the same.
Yeah yeah yeah. Mathematics isn't going to tell you how to interpret a natural language expression. The best mathematics can do is suggest natural formalizations of your interpretation and give you a framework within which to evaluate sentences.
Coming up with a formalization which satisfies the GP's interpretation is trivial. (Hint: Use strong induction).
Mathematics doesn't like it when it's applied as a thin veneer to cement arbitrary opinions.
Computing the order of an algorithm is conceptually straight forward. The most important thing to remember is that for a non-zero constant c and a function f(n), O(c * f(n)) = O(f(n)).
This property lets you get rid of terms we aren't interested in. We are only interested in terms that depend on the size of the input.
Suppose we have an m * n matrix, and we want to compute its additive inverse. A straightforward way to do that is to simply run down each of the rows and computing each entry's additive inverse.
In Ruby-like pseudocode:
define main(matrix)
foreach row in matrix.rows
foreach entry in row
minus(entry)
end
end end
define minus(x)
x = -x end
Each time we invoke minus, it takes a (we can assume) constant amount time c. Note that c doesn't depend on the size of the matrix. minus will get called n times for each row (since there are n columns), and there are m rows. So the algorithm is O(cmn) = O(mn). Note that, actually, the for loops incur some overhead (incrementing a counter, checking a condition, and so on), making it so that each row actually takes longer to compute than c*m operations. But since the difference is constant, I ignored it.
I have a team member whose coding skills are stuck in 1998 and he writes stuff (on the intranet) that uses all kinds of proprietary IE crap. Every time IE gets an upgrade, or my company implements some new security patch, he has to test everything. Yet he always ridicules others who write using standards claiming that "IE is the company standard browser!". What a fool. Some people never learn.
PHP is a tool for a specific purpose. Directly embedding code in HTML text. You can argue that PERL, Ruby, Python, Java,.Net, etc are better for this. But, none of them really do that (exception being ASP.NET)
Perl can do it too. Look up Template::Toolkit on the CPAN. Mason does it too, if i recall.
Well, maybe, or maybe not. I don't agree with iminplaya's argument. But the first amendment is a change to the Constitution. If iminplaya's arguments were to have any weight (they don't), then copyright would be unconstitutional, specifically because the First Amendment made them so.
That is to say, later amendments do have more weight than earlier amendments, or even the original body of the Constitution.
This is the mechanism through which black people were constitutionally recognized as full human beings, for instance.
That's a great little non-sequitor there. I like how you managed to insinuate that I don't understand any of the "points of the whole FSM thing". Bringing Christianity into it only complicates matters when formulating a response. There are many controversial avenues I could have persued. Getting modded insightful is definitely a plus.
Unfortunately, your troll only gets a 2/5. Your fundamentals are strong, but you need to work on subtlety.
Slashdot Mirror
"Strong AI" is the name of a philosophical position regarding artificial intelligence. Namely, that a hypothetical AI is "actually" thinking. "Weak AI" is the position that a hypothetical AI is "just" computing.
In any event, the algorithms for "creating" an AI are well understood. You basically need four things: (1) A rule mining algorithm to mine rules from empirical data, (2) an "introspection algorithm" that periodically examines the rules mined for validity, an "insight algorithm" that comes up with (possible) rules (the introspection algorithm checks these for validity as well), and a loop to execute (1), (2), and (3) as well as relevant rules when demanded by the input.
Rule mining algorithms are slow. Introspection doesn't have to be, especially if the AI is in a position to actively find an answer. Insight is difficult to quantify. We'd like the AI's insight skills to improve through time, so presumably the rules generating the rules would have to be modifiable by the AI itself, either by using the same syntax as the "empirical rules" or through the use of a genetic algorithm. Slow, either way.
But these algorithms are slow. Very slow. It takes humans years to learn to communicate, and we have billions of years of evolution behind us. Moore's law can't keep up.
Interesting. I though Sonny Bono was the namesake of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.
I'm emailing her about it as I type this. I suggest other Californians do the same. She has betrayed an unheard of level of ignorance on the subject of "intellectual property" and should seriously reconsider her position. People in the 45th Congressional district should email her as well.
http://www.house.gov/formbono/issue.htm
He didn't avoid the point. His response was that DRM prevents legal instances of copying, whereas speed limits don't prevent legal driving. It could have been phrased better, but he was on the spot and had to respond to a really stupid analogy.
Don't forget a Type-R sticker.
Unless you pull the engine and transmission out, you're just going to end up with a Viper with a Type-R sticker on it. They're already tweaked for maximum efficiency given the drive train.
First, calm down. I'm not going to waste my time with a troll.
Second, Apple didn't need to DRM OS X because it only ran on what was then a different and (occassionally) superior platform. Apple was, and is, a hardware company. Maybe this doesn't make sense to you, but Apple is now trying to sell a superior x86 platform. That is, OS X is what makes their x86 boxes different (perhaps the whiny mac fanboys among us would say 'better'). Apple's hardware can do everything a generic box can, and more. OS X gives them an edge, and they don't want to lose it.
Yet, there's little reason to think that DRM was completely unnecessary before. I know plenty of people with pirated versions of Tiger on their G4's and G5's. Apple has never cared about small scale piracy. Large scale piracy of OS X, on the other hand, would cripple Apple.
Third, your point about developers is fair enough. But it's not Apple's fault VM makers only provide a BIOS interface instead of including EFI. The EFI specifications are public. Once that's taken care of, Apple and the VM makers will cross the encrypted binaries bridge.
Uh, because before the transition to Intel Macs, OS X didn't have encrypted binaries. Ignoring the 20+ year history of non-DRM is dumb, especially when there are extenuating circumstances as I mentioned in the rest of my footnote.
And yet, look how innocuous encrypted binaries in OS X are. They don't stop legitimate users from doing anything they'd like. It stays completely out of the user's way. I can see why some people would complain, but I still see Apple as a hardware company.
On a personal level, I'm fairly confident he meant it. Witness the lack of DRM on all but the most expensive Apple software[1], the slowly expanding rights granted to iTunes Store users (retroactively, in fact), and so on. Indeed, DRM gets in the user's way, and Jobs comissioned two operating systems designed to avoid exactly that.[2] However, he was clearly posturing when he said that in a public statement.
[1] Yes, I know some OS X programs are AES encrypted so they won't run on generic hardware. Call me a fanboy, but I don't blame him. Back when the G3/4/5 series was better (at times) than x86 hardware, the computer itself acted as a dongle. I'm sure Apple would have loved to continue that trend, but they got screwed by IBM. I would still love to see a PowerMac running a POWER5 or POWER6 chip.
[2] In the "average" use case. But OS X is still really flexible. As I type this, I have gentoo compiling to run on OS X.
No, he's saying that the classical encryption model (Alice, Bob, and Carlos with his perv stash) doesn't apply to DRM schemes. DVDs are clearly encrypted. The content maker's assumption when modelling this encryption scheme are that the DVD and the DVD player together make up Alice, and that Bob is the viewer. But Bob, as a matter of fact, has complete control over Alice. Hence we get crap like trusted computing, in an attempt to keep Alice's and Bob's roles distinct.
(sorry if this got double posted)
I doubt none but the whiniest slashdotters care about "getting infiltrated" -- just look at Roland P.'s "contributions". Sure, there are some complaints, but in the end, I think most people come here for the comments. Even abusing Digg doesn't bother me much, though I can see why it would bother Digg community members.
However, that DECS guy is a giant pompous asshole. Posting on his online magazine and letting his arguments stand on their own doesn't satisfy him. He comes here to "debate" -- which always turns into him using ad hominem when people make points he can't counter. Transparent "Well you must be too fucking dumb to understand my argument"-kinds of ad hominem. I read slashdot because of the interesting mix of serious and troll posts. DECS can't do either well. He is a tedious little turd,.. Funnily enough, the mods don't seem to disagree.
Mod Parent Up
Cantor was a funny guy. His naive conception of sets lead to Russell's Paradox -- a serious problem. The Axiom of Choice is provable for finite sets, but not true in all infinite models of set theory. It certainly isn't intuitive.
e matics). (In short, it comes down to philsophical realism and anti-realism)
Cantor was no crack pot. His work on trigonometric series (that is, Fourier analysis) lead naturally to his work in set theory. He was well respected and should have had thicker skin.
Weyl, Brouwer, Poincare were constructivist mathematicians. In broad strokes it means that they reject the law of the excluded middle and everything that implies it. Including the Axiom of Choice. They had very good reasons for wanting to do this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(math
In short, none were crack pots. It was a serious debate with real consequences for the field. And it's not really over.
No, you're not. You're laying off more than 500 workers. Mathematicaly, the two statements are not the same.
Yeah yeah yeah. Mathematics isn't going to tell you how to interpret a natural language expression. The best mathematics can do is suggest natural formalizations of your interpretation and give you a framework within which to evaluate sentences.
Coming up with a formalization which satisfies the GP's interpretation is trivial. (Hint: Use strong induction).
Mathematics doesn't like it when it's applied as a thin veneer to cement arbitrary opinions.
Sure do! Who said Sudoku had to be played on a 9 by 9 grid?
Sudoku is less valid than another NP problem precisely because it is quickly solvable with a conventional computer, and therefore subject to fraud.
I don't think you know what NP-Complete means...
Computing the order of an algorithm is conceptually straight forward. The most important thing to remember is that for a non-zero constant c and a function f(n), O(c * f(n)) = O(f(n)).
This property lets you get rid of terms we aren't interested in. We are only interested in terms that depend on the size of the input.
Suppose we have an m * n matrix, and we want to compute its additive inverse. A straightforward way to do that is to simply run down each of the rows and computing each entry's additive inverse.
In Ruby-like pseudocode:
define main(matrix)
foreach row in matrix.rows
foreach entry in row
minus(entry)
end
end
end
define minus(x)
x = -x
end
Each time we invoke minus, it takes a (we can assume) constant amount time c. Note that c doesn't depend on the size of the matrix. minus will get called n times for each row (since there are n columns), and there are m rows. So the algorithm is O(cmn) = O(mn). Note that, actually, the for loops incur some overhead (incrementing a counter, checking a condition, and so on), making it so that each row actually takes longer to compute than c*m operations. But since the difference is constant, I ignored it.
It's pretty much just a funny way to count.
I have a team member whose coding skills are stuck in 1998 and he writes stuff (on the intranet) that uses all kinds of proprietary IE crap. Every time IE gets an upgrade, or my company implements some new security patch, he has to test everything. Yet he always ridicules others who write using standards claiming that "IE is the company standard browser!". What a fool. Some people never learn.
Sounds like he's getting paid not to.
PHP is a tool for a specific purpose. Directly embedding code in HTML text. You can argue that PERL, Ruby, Python, Java, .Net, etc are better for this. But, none of them really do that (exception being ASP.NET)
Perl can do it too. Look up Template::Toolkit on the CPAN. Mason does it too, if i recall.
Well, maybe, or maybe not. I don't agree with iminplaya's argument. But the first amendment is a change to the Constitution. If iminplaya's arguments were to have any weight (they don't), then copyright would be unconstitutional, specifically because the First Amendment made them so.
That is to say, later amendments do have more weight than earlier amendments, or even the original body of the Constitution.
This is the mechanism through which black people were constitutionally recognized as full human beings, for instance.
Because they're running Xgrid, probably in the hopes of using unused cycles on Xeon-based PowerMacs.
iPod update on Tuesday?
Damn, I was gonna buy one tomorrow, but I'll wait. Thank you!
3/5!
Good use of pakin.org.
That's a great little non-sequitor there. I like how you managed to insinuate that I don't understand any of the "points of the whole FSM thing". Bringing Christianity into it only complicates matters when formulating a response. There are many controversial avenues I could have persued. Getting modded insightful is definitely a plus.
Unfortunately, your troll only gets a 2/5. Your fundamentals are strong, but you need to work on subtlety.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a really fucking tired meme.