Re:Not just a dupe, not even news...
on
3D Printing On Demand
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
but none of them offer such services at a price range accessible to the average person.
if you actually click on the links in the Google search results you'll see they're nothing like the service discussed in the article. they don't allow customers to upload designs and instantly order a print. they require you to contact the printer by e-mail or phone for a quote, and unless you're ordering bulk prints it's going to be financially impractical. that's because these existing services are aimed at businesses not consumers.
it's like saying consumer CD burners weren't news when they first came out because people could already call up a CD-pressing factory and have a single CD made for them for $100. it's not even close to being the same thing.
and if you RTFA or visit the Shapeways site you'll see that the service is paired with an online community for sharing/discussing 3D designs. this is more like DeviantArt instead of just a commercial printing service.
while i don't think the effect of this particular service will be so drastic, i do think that if we event Star-Trek-style "replicators" the material economy would quickly become an anachronism. that is, if we manage to overcome the rearguard reaction to such an "anti-American" action.
i mean, just look at the situation with IP/copyright/patent law. it costs nothing to replicate digital music, movies, code, etc. but there is still a large legally enforced economy around the trade of such 'free' commodities. this is also the reason why the Google Book Search project was stonewalled by print publishers. it would have been an incredibly boon to humanity for such a digital literary repository to be published for free online, giving children/students unprecedented access to the largest corpus of human knowledge ever assembled. such a digital library would be invaluable in terms of the cultural & academic utility it would provide, possibly revolutionizing our society.
but if we couldn't eliminate the legal & economic barriers preventing such a useful and societally beneficial project form being realized, it's doubtful we'd be able to eliminate our capitalist economy by eliminating the cost of material production. unfortunately, we live in a society where corporate interest outweighs public interest. there's no way our corporate plutocrats will allow us to take away their sole source of power and privilege.
what difference does it make to the FCC whether they sell the spectrum or give it away? aside form keeping public interest in mind, they shouldn't care either way, since the money gained from selling the spectrum would not go to the FCC. AFAIK the FCC is funded the same way most government agencies are--by fiscal policy. they don't make commission on the spectrum licenses they auction off, nor do their employees.
that's sorta the whole point of having a government agency regulating the radio spectrum rather than a for-profit corporation. so unless the FCC head has ties with a particular company that is looking to buy this spectrum, i can't see how the decision to sell this part of the spectrum is financially motivated.
now, if you want to talk about war logistics contracts given to the private sector, then that's a different story.
it's much easier, and more beneficial to the public, to have parents install content filters on their children's internet devices than to censor internet access.
firstly, unlike TV/radio the government cannot regulate internet content. web sites don't have to register with the FCC or buy a broadcasting license. thousands of new pages and sites are added to the web each day. there's just no way for the FCC to keep track of all adult content. the only way to ensure children are completely cordoned off from such content is with a whitelist, and putting a whitelist on public internet access would destroy its usefulness and has great potential for abuse (see the AOL censorship controversy).
with TV & Radio, there's no easy way for parents to install content filtering software on them (at least not until the V-Chip came out for TV), so it made some sense for the FCC to censor the airwaves. this is not the situation with internet content.
too late for what? the last auction was for the 700-MHz band. ever used a wireless router? standard Wi-Fi protocols use the 2.4 GHz to 5 GHz range. WiMax has licensed spectrum profiles for 2.3 GHz, 2.5 GHz, and 3.5 GHz, though it can technically be implemented on any frequency below 66 GHz. so what does the 700 MHz auction have to do with anything?
and spectrum licenses can be revoke by the FCC, or just purchased back. ultimately, if the public decides that they don't want private corporations to control a particular block of the radio spectrum the FCC would have to carry out the wishes of the people. we are a democratic nation after all.
is that the tablet that was used in the demo video? that tablet + ILoveSketch is a pretty slick package. i'm looking to buy a tablet of my own, but i'm probably going to have to settle for an Intuos 2 or one of the other non-LCD tablets.
i've been doing graphic design for a few years, but i never got around to buying a digitizing tablet. i've been thinking about it for a while now, but this application demo has pretty much sold me on getting one. i just need to figure out which model to purchase. i'm wondering if i should get a 12x19" Intuos 2 (~$700), or a Toshiba tablet PC. what are others' experience with tablet PCs? are they a good substitute for a Wacom Tablet?
that's why i think cellular networks should just be replaced with open wireless networks. if we can get WiMax rolled out to provide coast to coast wireless internet access, we can all just use portable VoIP handsets. no carrier-restrictions, no extortionate fees, and anyone could develop their own applications that interfaced with the network.
i'd like to provide a free service where people can upload their own mp3s, which would be automatically converted to a cellphone ringtone and sent to them via SMS, and my boss also showed interest in giving out free ringtones via the label's website. but as a modestly paid web developer for a small indie record label, i don't have the money to pay for access to an e-mail to SMS gateway (or multiple gateways--one for each carrier).
there are so many potential applications for cellular networks that cannot be realized just because the carriers have such tight control over their proprietary networks. that's what their business model is based on essentially. because they control what devices can operate on their networks, they can force handset manufacturers to cripple their phones so that they can squeeze more money out of consumers.
for example, my Samsung phone has mp3 playback functionality, but the firmware won't let me use mp3s as ringtones. this forces most consumers to buy ringtones from the carrier (which costs more than the actual full-length MP3). it's completely insane. charging for SMS messages is another revenue stream that would not exist if cellphones used an open communication network like the public internet. it's like charging for e-mails or IMs.
OK, i just popped open OO.org to verfy your claims. here's what i found:
templates - check.
slide transitions/animations - check.
plain and simple editing - check.
unless you're just trolling, you might make a more convincing case if you actually listed specific complaints instead of, oh i dunno, pulling things out of your ass? honestly, there are a lot of things to get used to when switching from MS Office to OO.org (i spent most of my life using MS Office), and that transition can be pretty frustrating. but don't blame your own inability to adapt (or to even try to adapt) on the software.
neither MS Office, nor OO.org are perfect. personally, i've had problems with both of them. but so far i haven't heard a single legitimate complaint leveled against OO.org. so i have to conclude that these groundless criticisms are just knee-jerk reactions to having to adapt to a new office suite application.
the only problem i've had to OO.org is trying to make PDF documents with complex layouts using tables with varying column/row spans. but i've had the exact same problem in Word. all WYSIWYG editors have quirks like these, and i can't say that one is better than the other.
the hell are you talking about? i'm still running OO.org 2.3.1 and it supports kerning just as Word does.
maybe you should stop using a fixed-width font like Courier/Fixedsys?
Re:Sorry, Loebner Has Done Nothing for AI
on
Loebner Talks AI
·
· Score: 1
well, aren't there two types of artificial neural nets, one specifically used in AI and another for cognitive modeling? there's no need for AI neural nets to recreate all of the functions of an actual biological neural network, whereas cognitive modeling neural nets do try to realistically simulate the biological processes of the brain (ie. the release of dopamine and its effects).
as i understand it, AI neural nets have been successfully implemented for speech recognition, adaptive control, and image analysis. sure, these are application-specific neural nets and they in no way resemble how the human brain works, but they do show that neural nets are a viable direction of research for practical AI. of course, if we want to create "true" AI then it may be important to use cognitive modeling to better understand how the brain actually works, and no doubt such research will contribute to more advanced AI neural nets in the future.
the point is, true intelligence seems to be an emergence phenomenon. you can't create true AI by simply simulating the emergent behaviors such as linguistic communication. the best you can hope to achieve through such efforts is creating the digital equivalent of a talking parrot. it may give the impression of intelligence at first, but under closer scrutiny it becomes abundantly clear that it's all just a trained act.
artificial neural nets at least try to create an adaptive system, which is the basis of machine learning. it may be a while before we can create an artificial neural net as complex as a cockroach brain, but this bottom-up approach shows more promise than the top-down approach that turing-test-related research aims at achieving.
Re:Sorry, Loebner Has Done Nothing for AI
on
Loebner Talks AI
·
· Score: 1
yea, the turing test sounds like a good idea at first, but i think it's fundamentally flawed. turing has made huge contributions to society and human knowledge, but the turing test has lead AI research down a dead end.
human communication is an extremely high level cognitive ability that is learned over time. we are the only animal that demonstrate this level of intelligence, and even with humans, if speech is not learned within a small window of mental development, that individual will never learn how to communicate properly.
so while verbal communication is certainly a sign of intelligence, it's not a prerequisite, and we need to focus on achieving a more rudimentary understanding of intelligence before trying to tackle such lofty goals.
IMO neural nets seem like the way to go. if we can mimic the intelligence of a cockroach then we'll have have achieved a huge breakthrough in AI. and from there, we can start to think about scaling up. but otherwise this is like trying to build a stealth bomber before you even understand the mechanics of flight.
yea, while i appreciate ingenuity (on Sony's part, not MS doing this years later), the Wii-mote interface seems a much better solution--at least until MS can reduce the processor overhead to a reasonable level. for now though, using a hand-held device to track physical gestures seems like the most viable option.
it's not necessarily a problem with using optical sensors (the Wii uses IR to track user gestures also), but the web-cam approach is too encumbered at the moment by the need for more advanced machine vision. perhaps if they can develop small IR-LEDs that you can strap to your finger tips that would eliminate the problems with recognizing skin tones in different lighting conditions.
good point. and why is an economics major in charge of ICANN? shouldn't TLDs and IPs be managed by a more technical-minded organization? i'd be much more comfortable with an organization similar to the W3C managing these things. at least W3C serves as an open forum for how the web should be run, but ICANN seems run more like a commercial organization, with no transparency (generous use of NDAs & no public disclosure), and seemingly abuses its regulatory power to help commercial corporations like VeriSign to make a ton of money whilst disregarding public interest.
i'm not experienced or knowledgeable enough as a programmer to recommend a curriculum, but i have taken several programming classes in high school, college, and even some private tutoring sessions. and even though i love programming, and it's a hobby of mine, i really hated some of the classes i took, and they bored me to death.
if you want to go over basics, teach the students basic computing theory like the parent post suggests. i found my intro programming class in college (Java) to be much more interesting than my earlier programming classes (BASIC, LOGO, VBScript in Excel). the college course covered things like binary arithmetic, memory management, OOP, etc. these are fundamentals of computing theory, but they are things that many self-taught programmers miss. so even though i'd already had some experience with a Java-like language and was familiar with the C-style syntax, i still learned a lot in the class. and because Java is a much more powerful language than LOGO/BASIC, it was actually fun to mess around with after school at home.
a general mentality in the U.S. is to underestimate the intelligence of students. if you keep expecting very little out of your students, that's what you'll get. they'll probably get bored with the class and also internalize these low expectations so they may give up if confronted with real challenges. however, if you demand more from students and engage them with challenging assignments, it will give them the opportunity to flex their mind, push themselves further, and just learn more in general. what's more, when they overcome real challenges they will feel better about themselves and be more confident in the face of future challenges, not to mention they will find the class much more rewarding.
having students follow line by line instructions to essentially type out a pre-written program is not only boring, but it doesn't teach things like analytical thinking and problem solving skills that are crucial a programmer. and, unlike math or physics, computer programming has many immediate practical applications. teachers should take advantage of this quality and assign students to write useful programs, which are generally funner to code.
IMHO a very basic program that is fun for students is a Tic-Tac-Toe game that has perfect AI. not only will it teach students to think analytically (to come up with the AI algorithm), but it demonstrates the practical uses of computer programming. and although i was never taught this in school, i think socket programming presents a lot of potentially interesting applications that would be fun for students. even if you're just teaching VB, you could teach students how to use the Winsock library to initiate TCP/IP connections. break the class up into groups and have each group work together to write a chat or IM client.
but one of my favorite early programming projects was trying to hack TetriNET. i did this by writing a simple proxy program to monitor the traffic between the TetriNET client and the server. and through logical deduction, experimentation, and persistence, i was able to reverse engineer the TetriNET protocol, which at the time was very insecure. this allowed me to do fun things like clear all the blocks on my screen, draw pictures using the blocks, give myself power-ups, drop blocks on the other player's screen on command, etc. it was a little mischievous perhaps, but it also taught me a lot about reverse engineering, security, and increased my interest in programming.
what exactly does that have to do with media convergence?
a more appropriate example involving the iPod would be its evolution from: portable music player -> portable media player -> iPhone
other examples of specialized technology being replaced by generalized technology include: the PSP: PMP + handheld gaming + internet tablet the DSi also follows a similar trend Smart Phones: PDA + PMP + Phone
just because one device sells better than another with less features doesn't change the fact that there's an observable overall trend of technological convergence right now (and throughout the history of technology). technological progress isn't determined by the whims of fashion or consumer fads. TVs won't replace computers any more than cellphones will replace computers. that's just common sense.
there's no inherent reason for the government to be incompetent. but it's always those who want to cut down on public infrastructure and social welfare programs that are incompetent themselves. of course when you elect such people into government they make a complete mess of things and use their own incompetence as an excuse to hand these roles over to the private sector.
i mean, how can you put people who don't believe in public infrastructure in charge of public infrastructure? it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
exactly. there will be a convergence of the TV with the PC, but it's not the PC that will be replaced. you replace specialized hardware with generalized hardware, not the other way around.
right now we have a bunch of redundant communication networks and hardware appliances. we have radios, telephones, and TV all using very specialized communications networks, and all running on application-specific hardware. but with the widespread adoption of broadband internet access, there's no need to have different communications infrastructure for sending audio data for radios, audio data for telephones, and video and audio data for TV, when all of this data can be transmitted digitally over the internet. soon all of these parallel technologies will be merged into the more generalized/flexible internet.
it's more efficient to run a single generalized data network like the internet than having a bunch of parallel application specific networks because it allows for better allocation of resources and eliminates redundant infrastructure. not only that, but the internet is also an open/democratic network (at least while there's net neutrality). like the computer for which the internet was originally developed, it gives users complete freedom of access, which is a stark contrast with the closed proprietary networks of traditional radio/TV/telecom. this decentralization of media distribution allows independent artists, musicians, film producers, etc. to reach billions of users around the globe without having to go through the traditional distribution channels which are tightly controlled by a handful of media conglomerates.
it's become harder and harder for big TV networks like NBC or radio networks such as Clear Channel to act as the gatekeepers of information. because of this, we're seeing a free culture developing where cultural contribution isn't a privilege reserved for major label artists, Hollywood studios, or corporate execs that have up until now decided what the public watches on TV. neither Apple nor anyone else is going to convince consumers to go back to the cultural bondage of pre-internet media.
a LCD TV is simply an LCD monitor with a built-in tuner card. why buy a TV and a set-top box when you can just have an HTPC or media center pc that can be used to check e-mail, surf the web, burn DVDs, play games, etc., etc.? a computer with a tuner card can watch both, regular TV as well as internet video streams like Miro (Democracy Player). it just doesn't make sense to replace the computer with a locked down and functionally crippled equivalent.
i imagine that once open wireless internet access becomes a common public infrastructure across the country we'll start seeing AM/FM radio being replaced by portable smart devices that can stream internet radio. people want freedom of choice, so that's the direction that media convergence will take.
no, no, no. that's not how it works. they're no-bid contracts handed out to companies with close ties to, or have curried favor with, high position government official. and there's no such thing as cost "overruns" when it's a cost-plus contract. the more the contractor spends, the more they're paid. and with tax-payers footing the bill and no government oversight, what could possible go wrong?
i'm sick of U.S. ISPs & telecoms' charge more for less business model which is getting the U.S. left in the dust by Europe and Asia. enough is enough. personally, i'd rather see most of the UHF spectrum appropriate for WiMax use being reserved for the deployment of open public wireless networks. there are so many potential applications for ubiquitous public wi-fi once the infrastructure is in place.
the first thing to go will be the cellular networks. with all of the telecoms except for T-mobile, Verizon, and Qwest cooperating with NSA spying, i'd much rather make calls over an encrypted VoIP connection. heck, with open wi-fi access handset makers would finally be free to implement more advanced mobile features like video calls using VVoIP. and with municipal wi-fi, the public would actually have a say in how the network is run. instead of overselling and then throttling user connections and using packet shaping to manipulate usage, the infrastructure would just be upgraded to meet demand.
right now we have an opportunity to break free from the monopolies held by the telecoms and ISPs. if we don't seize this opportunity and simply let the UHF spectrum be bought up by the telecoms & ISPs, then we'll just be stuck in the same situation all over again. communication networks are a natural monopoly; that cannot be changed. but that doesn't mean that consumers have to keep getting shafted by the telecom & ISP companies. we purport to be members of a democratic society, so its our democratic prerogative to make sure the government serves public interest. in this case it means collectively taking control of a limited public resource like the UHF spectrum rather than let it fall into the hands of selfish commercial interests who would exploit it for profit without consideration for public good.
we shouldn't encourage students to go into a field of study that they find boring just because it might make them a lot of money in the future. that's not the kind of academic culture we ought to be fostering. and i don't really see this problem as necessarily due to schools not enticing students enough to excel at math. to me it's part of a more fundamental problem with our society. increasingly, we're developing an anti-intellectual culture in the U.S., and a decline in mathematical achievement is just one small symptom of this cultural crisis.
when you live in a culture that glamorizes ignorance, shuns intellectuals, and holds reason & rationality in contempt, you have a society that promotes anti-intellectualism. and that has serious societal consequences. for instance, look at who's leading the nation. look at the recent controversies related to teaching Intelligent Design in public schools. and look at the large segment of the population still in denial about Global Warming. the stifling of mathematical achievement is just the tip of the iceberg.
part of this is due to the rise of religious fundamentalism in our society. that has resulted in the abandonment of science & reason for irrational and reactionary beliefs. that's why you have people who believe in private industry PR campaigns over scientific data collected by disinterested intergovernmental research panels. we've become a society that reviles any kind of rational thought or intelligence, so of course academic achievement is in decline.
it's interesting that this is called the "World Bank" as if it's some kind of intergovernmental financial organization and has been given the power to dictate the domestic policies of entire nations. however, the World Bank operates without transparency, is not subject to public oversight, and its executive directors are not elected nor government appointed. it's technically a "non-profit" organization, but the reigns of power are held by industry heads who use it to advance their own financial interests, often at the cost of developing nations who have pretty much no say in the World Bank's decisions.
it's scary how much power and influence the neo-cons have been able to acquire while completely bypassing the democratic process. it's no wonder more and more people are questioning the legitimacy of the World Bank as well as the IMF.
that's the problem with a proprietary network. the telecoms that own the network can do & charge whatever they want to whoever they want.
personally, i prefer the open and public nature of the internet/WWW which allow companies big and small, and even individuals, to develop applications over the network, encouraging innovation. just look at the progress that's been made over the years transforming the internet from a slow and limited communications network primarily used for browsing simple text documents (gopher, e-mails, early HTML pages) to a rich digital ecosystem used for gaming, VoIP, streaming video, instant messaging, complex web applications, and more.
developments in cellular communications have been comparatively modest (at least in the U.S.). this is because handset makers need to acquire the permission of cellular carriers to use their networks and are prohibited from developing new and potentially useful applications on the cellular networks. the business model of the telecoms also relies on intentionally crippling consumer handset to lock down the network.
i think once public wi-fi access become a ubiquitous part of basic public infrastructure the cellular networks will simply become a redundant and comparatively crippled communications network made obsolete by the wireless internet. the idea that some people are being charged by the minute for wireless internet access (what year is this?) is completely ridiculous. with public wi-fi access there will be no more double-dipping, no extortionate fees, and no unexpected $10,000 phone bills for uploading a few vacation photos.
technologically, there's no reason why we shouldn't already be making video phone calls the same way we can initiate video chats over the internet. and with a nationwide wireless infrastructure we would also start seeing internet radios for cars or as a feature on portable media players. and who needs OnStar when you can get a cheap GPS receiver for your car and write a simple Google Maps mashup?
i've always been curious how those e-mail to SMS gateways worked. back in the 2.5G days i came upon a few websites that charged people to download.mmf (SMAF/polyphonic) ringtones. basically you had to give the website your credit card info + cellphone number + service provider (i think), and then the ringtone or wallpaper that you purchased would be sent to your phone in an MMS text message from that website.
i never could get myself to pay $2-3 for midi or polyphonic-quality ringtones, especially for songs i already owned, so i ended up just creating a WAP site where i uploaded wallpapers and ringtones that i converted myself and downloaded them to my phone via the WAP browser. i even managed to get short polyphonic ringtones onto my phone even though they weren't officially supported (probably due to the handset's limited storage space).
but anyone who's used a WAP browser knows how clumsy and constrained they were. WAP connections also set a limit on the maximum file size you could download from the internet, which was 1 MB i think--perhaps even less. it would have been much more preferable to allow users to browse the site with a standard web browser and have downloads sent to their phones in an MMS message. but i never could figure out how that was done.
that's an interesting idea. Sony could get together with the major game publishers and establish a standardized player model format. you would be able to customize the model in the PS3's Home interface, and then load the 3D avatar into games as your player model. each game would render the model differently (different lighting system, character sizes, graphical style, etc.) but the basic features would still be recognizable as your Home avatar.
i don't own a PS3, so I've never used Home, but they could also make a 3D environment like a virtual city where different parts of the city are their own minigame--making the Home network a game development platform where the games are directly integrated into the virtual city. this might not appeal to the big gaming studios, but it could allow independent developers to create their own online games that would be free for download or playable for a small fee. this would really change the current console game publishing/distribution paradigm. heck, i'd get a PS3 just so that i could develop my own online game that could be shared with millions of other users.
Slashdot Mirror
but none of them offer such services at a price range accessible to the average person.
if you actually click on the links in the Google search results you'll see they're nothing like the service discussed in the article. they don't allow customers to upload designs and instantly order a print. they require you to contact the printer by e-mail or phone for a quote, and unless you're ordering bulk prints it's going to be financially impractical. that's because these existing services are aimed at businesses not consumers.
it's like saying consumer CD burners weren't news when they first came out because people could already call up a CD-pressing factory and have a single CD made for them for $100. it's not even close to being the same thing.
and if you RTFA or visit the Shapeways site you'll see that the service is paired with an online community for sharing/discussing 3D designs. this is more like DeviantArt instead of just a commercial printing service.
while i don't think the effect of this particular service will be so drastic, i do think that if we event Star-Trek-style "replicators" the material economy would quickly become an anachronism. that is, if we manage to overcome the rearguard reaction to such an "anti-American" action.
i mean, just look at the situation with IP/copyright/patent law. it costs nothing to replicate digital music, movies, code, etc. but there is still a large legally enforced economy around the trade of such 'free' commodities. this is also the reason why the Google Book Search project was stonewalled by print publishers. it would have been an incredibly boon to humanity for such a digital literary repository to be published for free online, giving children/students unprecedented access to the largest corpus of human knowledge ever assembled. such a digital library would be invaluable in terms of the cultural & academic utility it would provide, possibly revolutionizing our society.
but if we couldn't eliminate the legal & economic barriers preventing such a useful and societally beneficial project form being realized, it's doubtful we'd be able to eliminate our capitalist economy by eliminating the cost of material production. unfortunately, we live in a society where corporate interest outweighs public interest. there's no way our corporate plutocrats will allow us to take away their sole source of power and privilege.
what difference does it make to the FCC whether they sell the spectrum or give it away? aside form keeping public interest in mind, they shouldn't care either way, since the money gained from selling the spectrum would not go to the FCC. AFAIK the FCC is funded the same way most government agencies are--by fiscal policy. they don't make commission on the spectrum licenses they auction off, nor do their employees.
that's sorta the whole point of having a government agency regulating the radio spectrum rather than a for-profit corporation. so unless the FCC head has ties with a particular company that is looking to buy this spectrum, i can't see how the decision to sell this part of the spectrum is financially motivated.
now, if you want to talk about war logistics contracts given to the private sector, then that's a different story.
it's much easier, and more beneficial to the public, to have parents install content filters on their children's internet devices than to censor internet access.
firstly, unlike TV/radio the government cannot regulate internet content. web sites don't have to register with the FCC or buy a broadcasting license. thousands of new pages and sites are added to the web each day. there's just no way for the FCC to keep track of all adult content. the only way to ensure children are completely cordoned off from such content is with a whitelist, and putting a whitelist on public internet access would destroy its usefulness and has great potential for abuse (see the AOL censorship controversy).
with TV & Radio, there's no easy way for parents to install content filtering software on them (at least not until the V-Chip came out for TV), so it made some sense for the FCC to censor the airwaves. this is not the situation with internet content.
too late for what? the last auction was for the 700-MHz band. ever used a wireless router? standard Wi-Fi protocols use the 2.4 GHz to 5 GHz range. WiMax has licensed spectrum profiles for 2.3 GHz, 2.5 GHz, and 3.5 GHz, though it can technically be implemented on any frequency below 66 GHz. so what does the 700 MHz auction have to do with anything?
and spectrum licenses can be revoke by the FCC, or just purchased back. ultimately, if the public decides that they don't want private corporations to control a particular block of the radio spectrum the FCC would have to carry out the wishes of the people. we are a democratic nation after all.
is that the tablet that was used in the demo video? that tablet + ILoveSketch is a pretty slick package. i'm looking to buy a tablet of my own, but i'm probably going to have to settle for an Intuos 2 or one of the other non-LCD tablets.
i've been doing graphic design for a few years, but i never got around to buying a digitizing tablet. i've been thinking about it for a while now, but this application demo has pretty much sold me on getting one. i just need to figure out which model to purchase. i'm wondering if i should get a 12x19" Intuos 2 (~$700), or a Toshiba tablet PC. what are others' experience with tablet PCs? are they a good substitute for a Wacom Tablet?
that's why i think cellular networks should just be replaced with open wireless networks. if we can get WiMax rolled out to provide coast to coast wireless internet access, we can all just use portable VoIP handsets. no carrier-restrictions, no extortionate fees, and anyone could develop their own applications that interfaced with the network.
i'd like to provide a free service where people can upload their own mp3s, which would be automatically converted to a cellphone ringtone and sent to them via SMS, and my boss also showed interest in giving out free ringtones via the label's website. but as a modestly paid web developer for a small indie record label, i don't have the money to pay for access to an e-mail to SMS gateway (or multiple gateways--one for each carrier).
there are so many potential applications for cellular networks that cannot be realized just because the carriers have such tight control over their proprietary networks. that's what their business model is based on essentially. because they control what devices can operate on their networks, they can force handset manufacturers to cripple their phones so that they can squeeze more money out of consumers.
for example, my Samsung phone has mp3 playback functionality, but the firmware won't let me use mp3s as ringtones. this forces most consumers to buy ringtones from the carrier (which costs more than the actual full-length MP3). it's completely insane. charging for SMS messages is another revenue stream that would not exist if cellphones used an open communication network like the public internet. it's like charging for e-mails or IMs.
OK, i just popped open OO.org to verfy your claims. here's what i found:
unless you're just trolling, you might make a more convincing case if you actually listed specific complaints instead of, oh i dunno, pulling things out of your ass? honestly, there are a lot of things to get used to when switching from MS Office to OO.org (i spent most of my life using MS Office), and that transition can be pretty frustrating. but don't blame your own inability to adapt (or to even try to adapt) on the software.
neither MS Office, nor OO.org are perfect. personally, i've had problems with both of them. but so far i haven't heard a single legitimate complaint leveled against OO.org. so i have to conclude that these groundless criticisms are just knee-jerk reactions to having to adapt to a new office suite application.
the only problem i've had to OO.org is trying to make PDF documents with complex layouts using tables with varying column/row spans. but i've had the exact same problem in Word. all WYSIWYG editors have quirks like these, and i can't say that one is better than the other.
the hell are you talking about? i'm still running OO.org 2.3.1 and it supports kerning just as Word does.
maybe you should stop using a fixed-width font like Courier/Fixedsys?
well, aren't there two types of artificial neural nets, one specifically used in AI and another for cognitive modeling? there's no need for AI neural nets to recreate all of the functions of an actual biological neural network, whereas cognitive modeling neural nets do try to realistically simulate the biological processes of the brain (ie. the release of dopamine and its effects).
as i understand it, AI neural nets have been successfully implemented for speech recognition, adaptive control, and image analysis. sure, these are application-specific neural nets and they in no way resemble how the human brain works, but they do show that neural nets are a viable direction of research for practical AI. of course, if we want to create "true" AI then it may be important to use cognitive modeling to better understand how the brain actually works, and no doubt such research will contribute to more advanced AI neural nets in the future.
the point is, true intelligence seems to be an emergence phenomenon. you can't create true AI by simply simulating the emergent behaviors such as linguistic communication. the best you can hope to achieve through such efforts is creating the digital equivalent of a talking parrot. it may give the impression of intelligence at first, but under closer scrutiny it becomes abundantly clear that it's all just a trained act.
artificial neural nets at least try to create an adaptive system, which is the basis of machine learning. it may be a while before we can create an artificial neural net as complex as a cockroach brain, but this bottom-up approach shows more promise than the top-down approach that turing-test-related research aims at achieving.
yea, the turing test sounds like a good idea at first, but i think it's fundamentally flawed. turing has made huge contributions to society and human knowledge, but the turing test has lead AI research down a dead end.
human communication is an extremely high level cognitive ability that is learned over time. we are the only animal that demonstrate this level of intelligence, and even with humans, if speech is not learned within a small window of mental development, that individual will never learn how to communicate properly.
so while verbal communication is certainly a sign of intelligence, it's not a prerequisite, and we need to focus on achieving a more rudimentary understanding of intelligence before trying to tackle such lofty goals.
IMO neural nets seem like the way to go. if we can mimic the intelligence of a cockroach then we'll have have achieved a huge breakthrough in AI. and from there, we can start to think about scaling up. but otherwise this is like trying to build a stealth bomber before you even understand the mechanics of flight.
yea, while i appreciate ingenuity (on Sony's part, not MS doing this years later), the Wii-mote interface seems a much better solution--at least until MS can reduce the processor overhead to a reasonable level. for now though, using a hand-held device to track physical gestures seems like the most viable option.
it's not necessarily a problem with using optical sensors (the Wii uses IR to track user gestures also), but the web-cam approach is too encumbered at the moment by the need for more advanced machine vision. perhaps if they can develop small IR-LEDs that you can strap to your finger tips that would eliminate the problems with recognizing skin tones in different lighting conditions.
good point. and why is an economics major in charge of ICANN? shouldn't TLDs and IPs be managed by a more technical-minded organization? i'd be much more comfortable with an organization similar to the W3C managing these things. at least W3C serves as an open forum for how the web should be run, but ICANN seems run more like a commercial organization, with no transparency (generous use of NDAs & no public disclosure), and seemingly abuses its regulatory power to help commercial corporations like VeriSign to make a ton of money whilst disregarding public interest.
i'm not experienced or knowledgeable enough as a programmer to recommend a curriculum, but i have taken several programming classes in high school, college, and even some private tutoring sessions. and even though i love programming, and it's a hobby of mine, i really hated some of the classes i took, and they bored me to death.
if you want to go over basics, teach the students basic computing theory like the parent post suggests. i found my intro programming class in college (Java) to be much more interesting than my earlier programming classes (BASIC, LOGO, VBScript in Excel). the college course covered things like binary arithmetic, memory management, OOP, etc. these are fundamentals of computing theory, but they are things that many self-taught programmers miss. so even though i'd already had some experience with a Java-like language and was familiar with the C-style syntax, i still learned a lot in the class. and because Java is a much more powerful language than LOGO/BASIC, it was actually fun to mess around with after school at home.
a general mentality in the U.S. is to underestimate the intelligence of students. if you keep expecting very little out of your students, that's what you'll get. they'll probably get bored with the class and also internalize these low expectations so they may give up if confronted with real challenges. however, if you demand more from students and engage them with challenging assignments, it will give them the opportunity to flex their mind, push themselves further, and just learn more in general. what's more, when they overcome real challenges they will feel better about themselves and be more confident in the face of future challenges, not to mention they will find the class much more rewarding.
having students follow line by line instructions to essentially type out a pre-written program is not only boring, but it doesn't teach things like analytical thinking and problem solving skills that are crucial a programmer. and, unlike math or physics, computer programming has many immediate practical applications. teachers should take advantage of this quality and assign students to write useful programs, which are generally funner to code.
IMHO a very basic program that is fun for students is a Tic-Tac-Toe game that has perfect AI. not only will it teach students to think analytically (to come up with the AI algorithm), but it demonstrates the practical uses of computer programming. and although i was never taught this in school, i think socket programming presents a lot of potentially interesting applications that would be fun for students. even if you're just teaching VB, you could teach students how to use the Winsock library to initiate TCP/IP connections. break the class up into groups and have each group work together to write a chat or IM client.
but one of my favorite early programming projects was trying to hack TetriNET. i did this by writing a simple proxy program to monitor the traffic between the TetriNET client and the server. and through logical deduction, experimentation, and persistence, i was able to reverse engineer the TetriNET protocol, which at the time was very insecure. this allowed me to do fun things like clear all the blocks on my screen, draw pictures using the blocks, give myself power-ups, drop blocks on the other player's screen on command, etc. it was a little mischievous perhaps, but it also taught me a lot about reverse engineering, security, and increased my interest in programming.
what exactly does that have to do with media convergence?
a more appropriate example involving the iPod would be its evolution from:
portable music player -> portable media player -> iPhone
other examples of specialized technology being replaced by generalized technology include:
the PSP: PMP + handheld gaming + internet tablet
the DSi also follows a similar trend
Smart Phones: PDA + PMP + Phone
just because one device sells better than another with less features doesn't change the fact that there's an observable overall trend of technological convergence right now (and throughout the history of technology). technological progress isn't determined by the whims of fashion or consumer fads. TVs won't replace computers any more than cellphones will replace computers. that's just common sense.
there's no inherent reason for the government to be incompetent. but it's always those who want to cut down on public infrastructure and social welfare programs that are incompetent themselves. of course when you elect such people into government they make a complete mess of things and use their own incompetence as an excuse to hand these roles over to the private sector.
i mean, how can you put people who don't believe in public infrastructure in charge of public infrastructure? it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
exactly. there will be a convergence of the TV with the PC, but it's not the PC that will be replaced. you replace specialized hardware with generalized hardware, not the other way around.
right now we have a bunch of redundant communication networks and hardware appliances. we have radios, telephones, and TV all using very specialized communications networks, and all running on application-specific hardware. but with the widespread adoption of broadband internet access, there's no need to have different communications infrastructure for sending audio data for radios, audio data for telephones, and video and audio data for TV, when all of this data can be transmitted digitally over the internet. soon all of these parallel technologies will be merged into the more generalized/flexible internet.
it's more efficient to run a single generalized data network like the internet than having a bunch of parallel application specific networks because it allows for better allocation of resources and eliminates redundant infrastructure. not only that, but the internet is also an open/democratic network (at least while there's net neutrality). like the computer for which the internet was originally developed, it gives users complete freedom of access, which is a stark contrast with the closed proprietary networks of traditional radio/TV/telecom. this decentralization of media distribution allows independent artists, musicians, film producers, etc. to reach billions of users around the globe without having to go through the traditional distribution channels which are tightly controlled by a handful of media conglomerates.
it's become harder and harder for big TV networks like NBC or radio networks such as Clear Channel to act as the gatekeepers of information. because of this, we're seeing a free culture developing where cultural contribution isn't a privilege reserved for major label artists, Hollywood studios, or corporate execs that have up until now decided what the public watches on TV. neither Apple nor anyone else is going to convince consumers to go back to the cultural bondage of pre-internet media.
a LCD TV is simply an LCD monitor with a built-in tuner card. why buy a TV and a set-top box when you can just have an HTPC or media center pc that can be used to check e-mail, surf the web, burn DVDs, play games, etc., etc.? a computer with a tuner card can watch both, regular TV as well as internet video streams like Miro (Democracy Player). it just doesn't make sense to replace the computer with a locked down and functionally crippled equivalent.
i imagine that once open wireless internet access becomes a common public infrastructure across the country we'll start seeing AM/FM radio being replaced by portable smart devices that can stream internet radio. people want freedom of choice, so that's the direction that media convergence will take.
no, no, no. that's not how it works. they're no-bid contracts handed out to companies with close ties to, or have curried favor with, high position government official. and there's no such thing as cost "overruns" when it's a cost-plus contract. the more the contractor spends, the more they're paid. and with tax-payers footing the bill and no government oversight, what could possible go wrong?
are other U.S. carriers any better?
i'm sick of U.S. ISPs & telecoms' charge more for less business model which is getting the U.S. left in the dust by Europe and Asia. enough is enough. personally, i'd rather see most of the UHF spectrum appropriate for WiMax use being reserved for the deployment of open public wireless networks. there are so many potential applications for ubiquitous public wi-fi once the infrastructure is in place.
the first thing to go will be the cellular networks. with all of the telecoms except for T-mobile, Verizon, and Qwest cooperating with NSA spying, i'd much rather make calls over an encrypted VoIP connection. heck, with open wi-fi access handset makers would finally be free to implement more advanced mobile features like video calls using VVoIP. and with municipal wi-fi, the public would actually have a say in how the network is run. instead of overselling and then throttling user connections and using packet shaping to manipulate usage, the infrastructure would just be upgraded to meet demand.
right now we have an opportunity to break free from the monopolies held by the telecoms and ISPs. if we don't seize this opportunity and simply let the UHF spectrum be bought up by the telecoms & ISPs, then we'll just be stuck in the same situation all over again. communication networks are a natural monopoly; that cannot be changed. but that doesn't mean that consumers have to keep getting shafted by the telecom & ISP companies. we purport to be members of a democratic society, so its our democratic prerogative to make sure the government serves public interest. in this case it means collectively taking control of a limited public resource like the UHF spectrum rather than let it fall into the hands of selfish commercial interests who would exploit it for profit without consideration for public good.
we shouldn't encourage students to go into a field of study that they find boring just because it might make them a lot of money in the future. that's not the kind of academic culture we ought to be fostering. and i don't really see this problem as necessarily due to schools not enticing students enough to excel at math. to me it's part of a more fundamental problem with our society. increasingly, we're developing an anti-intellectual culture in the U.S., and a decline in mathematical achievement is just one small symptom of this cultural crisis.
when you live in a culture that glamorizes ignorance, shuns intellectuals, and holds reason & rationality in contempt, you have a society that promotes anti-intellectualism. and that has serious societal consequences. for instance, look at who's leading the nation. look at the recent controversies related to teaching Intelligent Design in public schools. and look at the large segment of the population still in denial about Global Warming. the stifling of mathematical achievement is just the tip of the iceberg.
part of this is due to the rise of religious fundamentalism in our society. that has resulted in the abandonment of science & reason for irrational and reactionary beliefs. that's why you have people who believe in private industry PR campaigns over scientific data collected by disinterested intergovernmental research panels. we've become a society that reviles any kind of rational thought or intelligence, so of course academic achievement is in decline.
it's interesting that this is called the "World Bank" as if it's some kind of intergovernmental financial organization and has been given the power to dictate the domestic policies of entire nations. however, the World Bank operates without transparency, is not subject to public oversight, and its executive directors are not elected nor government appointed. it's technically a "non-profit" organization, but the reigns of power are held by industry heads who use it to advance their own financial interests, often at the cost of developing nations who have pretty much no say in the World Bank's decisions.
it's scary how much power and influence the neo-cons have been able to acquire while completely bypassing the democratic process. it's no wonder more and more people are questioning the legitimacy of the World Bank as well as the IMF.
that's the problem with a proprietary network. the telecoms that own the network can do & charge whatever they want to whoever they want.
personally, i prefer the open and public nature of the internet/WWW which allow companies big and small, and even individuals, to develop applications over the network, encouraging innovation. just look at the progress that's been made over the years transforming the internet from a slow and limited communications network primarily used for browsing simple text documents (gopher, e-mails, early HTML pages) to a rich digital ecosystem used for gaming, VoIP, streaming video, instant messaging, complex web applications, and more.
developments in cellular communications have been comparatively modest (at least in the U.S.). this is because handset makers need to acquire the permission of cellular carriers to use their networks and are prohibited from developing new and potentially useful applications on the cellular networks. the business model of the telecoms also relies on intentionally crippling consumer handset to lock down the network.
i think once public wi-fi access become a ubiquitous part of basic public infrastructure the cellular networks will simply become a redundant and comparatively crippled communications network made obsolete by the wireless internet. the idea that some people are being charged by the minute for wireless internet access (what year is this?) is completely ridiculous. with public wi-fi access there will be no more double-dipping, no extortionate fees, and no unexpected $10,000 phone bills for uploading a few vacation photos.
technologically, there's no reason why we shouldn't already be making video phone calls the same way we can initiate video chats over the internet. and with a nationwide wireless infrastructure we would also start seeing internet radios for cars or as a feature on portable media players. and who needs OnStar when you can get a cheap GPS receiver for your car and write a simple Google Maps mashup?
i've always been curious how those e-mail to SMS gateways worked. back in the 2.5G days i came upon a few websites that charged people to download .mmf (SMAF/polyphonic) ringtones. basically you had to give the website your credit card info + cellphone number + service provider (i think), and then the ringtone or wallpaper that you purchased would be sent to your phone in an MMS text message from that website.
i never could get myself to pay $2-3 for midi or polyphonic-quality ringtones, especially for songs i already owned, so i ended up just creating a WAP site where i uploaded wallpapers and ringtones that i converted myself and downloaded them to my phone via the WAP browser. i even managed to get short polyphonic ringtones onto my phone even though they weren't officially supported (probably due to the handset's limited storage space).
but anyone who's used a WAP browser knows how clumsy and constrained they were. WAP connections also set a limit on the maximum file size you could download from the internet, which was 1 MB i think--perhaps even less. it would have been much more preferable to allow users to browse the site with a standard web browser and have downloads sent to their phones in an MMS message. but i never could figure out how that was done.
that's an interesting idea. Sony could get together with the major game publishers and establish a standardized player model format. you would be able to customize the model in the PS3's Home interface, and then load the 3D avatar into games as your player model. each game would render the model differently (different lighting system, character sizes, graphical style, etc.) but the basic features would still be recognizable as your Home avatar.
i don't own a PS3, so I've never used Home, but they could also make a 3D environment like a virtual city where different parts of the city are their own minigame--making the Home network a game development platform where the games are directly integrated into the virtual city. this might not appeal to the big gaming studios, but it could allow independent developers to create their own online games that would be free for download or playable for a small fee. this would really change the current console game publishing/distribution paradigm. heck, i'd get a PS3 just so that i could develop my own online game that could be shared with millions of other users.
i'm curious; how could you tell that it was a _badger_ dick rather than, say, a weasel or ferret dick?