That's interesting. I assume that the climbing method that this robot is using is not mimicking a real-life animal. Is there a snake (or other animal) that will wrap itself into a spiral around a tree trunk and then roll along its spinal axis to climb? Is it physically possible for a snake to do this? Will a snake even roll on its spinal axis on the ground? (I'm just curious.)
UNIX was influenced by punched cards in a couple of ways. The 80-column line width went from punched cards to teletypes to early (pre-bitmapped) terminals, which were the input device for UNIX in those days. Also, UNIX was developed at Bell Labs research, but Programmer's Workbench was an important early Bell Labs (the development side, not the research side) version (today you'd call it a distro) of UNIX that focused on providing a tolerable front-end interface to several old punched-card batch systems. It gave people screen, editor, and hard disk instead of keypunch and punched cards, and you could automate your build process with shell and make instead instead of using card-reader and line-printer.
In those days, UNIX ran on machines that we would consider tiny today, and so it had small input buffers, which you might say it was influenced by the 80-column punched card, or perhaps just by the 32k bytes (or 64k or 128k, if you were rich) PDP-11 system memory size. These buffer size limits were in the kernel, but easier to see in the/bin utilities.
In 1983, ComputerLand was suing companies for trademark infringement, especially BusinessLand. This is covered in an InfoWorld article, you can google for: computerland businessland infoworld
An apocryphal story says that the judge threw out the case, asking, "who are you going to sue next, Disneyland?" Disneyland is mentioned in this article, but not in the context of the decision.
Yep, exactly what I thought of when I saw this "backdoors" article. "Trusting Trust" was Ken's acceptance speech for the ACM's 1983 Turing award, and described hacking that he had contemplated before then (i.e., more than 25 years ago).
I read an article awhile back about the ability to steal the information coming from the RFID Tags on cars.Then modify a RFID tag to store that data. So when the person went through the bridge or w/e the other person was charged instead.
Then the theft victim reports the spurious use of the Electrion Toll Collection (ETC) RFID tag to the bridge keepers who add the RFID to their "stolen" list.
Then the bridge keepers review the photo of the thief, his car, and its license plate (which the bridge keepers do keep, to detect ETC scofflaws), and catch the thief red-handed. That's why you never hear about people stealing ETC tags from car windshields. Using a stolen ETC tag would be like carrying a big sign that says "I'm a thief, come arrest me. You can detect me from hundreds of feet away."
I guess this is a reason why RFID tags are scary, at least if you're a thief.
Northwestern Turkey is on the continent of Europe, most of Turkey is not. There are large parts of the European contient (like Norway and Russia) that are not in the EU. Membership in the EU does not seem to be relevant to this question.
Yes, to say it more plainly, learning to write software didn't become popular because it was cool in itself. It became popular because Bill Gates was the world's wealthiest man, and people became aware of other wealthy software entrepreneurs riding the 1990's internet economic wave. Those people who joined the ranks of the software industry didn't love software, they loved money. And when the money left the picture, so did the crowds of people.
"What is art" is a question beyond the scope of the amount of energy that I'm interested in investing in a slashdot conversation. Whether the "art of the object" (as you put it) is decoupled from the "art produced by the object" is also debatable.
"Widely appreciated" is yet another slippery slope. Consider this.
Art, even high art, is in the eye of the beholder, and is very culturally biased.
Stradivari makes a violin. It is widely hailed as art (or at least high craft). A wizard like Heifetz or Perlman plays the violin, everyone yells bravo. Art. Art even if they are playing scales, even one note. Art certainly if they are playing some classical masterwork or another.
I drag a bow across the strings. Not art, unless I practiced up some. Or unless someone interprets my performance in some dadaist surrealist sense. Maybe I'm making a profound statement about the human condition.
But back to the video game as art. I had assumed the discussion was about the game itself as the work of art, rather than the game play as the work of art. I assume this because I figured that Ebert was comparing gaming to film. Looking at the violin analogy, the the game is the instrument. The creator and the player may both be artists. In the comparison to film, the creators would be the artists - few would characterize viewers as artists, because there is no creation there.
To insist that there is no possibility that art can be found anywhere in the whole gaming pursuit strikes me as ignorant and arrogant.
Yes, I agree. Isn't the Stradivarius violin a work of art in itself? If so, isn't its art extended, isn't its ending changed in different ways, when Perlman plays it? Or Menuhin or Heifetz?
In general, I enjoy Ebert, and I'm not a gamer. I have no horse in this race.
I think Ebert's arguments here are very weak, for example:
He says "That was a foolish position to take, particularly as it seemed to apply to the entire unseen future of games." He already claims that he has not seen the past and present of gaming, it makes no sense to suppose that the future of gaming might change his mind.
He says that if you could change the ending to Romeo and Juliet, then it wouldn't be art. Consider change by addition, rather than by substitution. So Romeo and Juliet is art, but Romeo and Juliet with a bag hanging off its side is not art? What if I remove the bag, leaving the original? Have I restored its status as art? If a game contains 100 new visual masterworks and 100 new musical masterworks and a 100 levels where I frag zombies, is that art? At all?
A game is clearly a form of expression, and a media container. I don't see how you can argue that the container can never contain art.
Some scientists are great at communicating.
Some scientists are great at communicating with intelligent interested people.
Some scientists are great at communicating with intelligent people.
Some scientists are great at communicating with simpletons.
Who do you want? Richard Feynman? Ira Flato? Sanjay Gupta? Xeni Jardin? Who you want depends on what you want.
At the end of the day, I think most people ignore and deny even the simplest science, and they aren't interested in listening or thinking, so it doesn't matter how good your are at communicating.
consider the curious child. before the internet, information came from parents, teachers, library, or the local media. the internet gives access to information on any topic, and also access to people who are interested in any topic. with machine translation, book scanning, special interest forums, and freely available university lectures, it is hard for me to imagine how someone could claim that the internet does not make humanity smarter. the indifferent person will still be ignorant, but the curious person has easy access to a wealth of information that was very difficult to find before the internet.
Yes, Bill Joy wrote vi and was an important part of the UC Berkeley Computer Science Research Group around 1980, when he was hired by the startup Sun.
I'm all for sharing, but I recognize the truly great things may not come from that environment.
I'm surprised that Bill Joy would say this.
UCB CSRG and Bill Joy based BSD UNIX on work from Bell Labs. Sun based its work on Bell Labs and UCB work. Without UNIX, there would be no BSD. Without UNIX and BSD there would be no Sun Microsystems. Without UNIX, there would be no Linux. You might note that UNIX was legally encumbered, but I'm saying that BSD, Sun's systems, and Linux (truly great things) came from the UNIX environment of sharing, even with the legal restrictions.
His column broke such stories as Rivest, Shamir and Adelman on public-key cryptography, Mandelbrot on fractals, Conway on Life, and Penrose on tilings.
I believe the narrator in the video says that the high speed camera is scanning 1000x1000 pixels, and the book he is scanning has very large type, with fewer than 20 text lines per page. I imagine that this scanner can't scan normal text as fast as the Google book scanner.
Tim Bray managed the Oxford English Dictionary project - that is, computerizing the OED, back in the 80's, before anyone blazed those trails - and did lots of other cool hacking over the years. You're saying he doesn't have credibility because he hasn't sampled enough smartphones?
Sorry to beat the dead horse, but when I said in my first comment, "if you read the book," I wasn't addressing you singularly, I was addressing readers in general, who had not read the book. And I stand by my comment that I thought Stoll was goofy to be using printers and displays as loggers. Even in the 1980's, this was pretty odd.
I DID read the book. Do you remember how long ago it was published? Christ.
I read the book when it was published in 1989. The events took place in 1986. By 1989, I had been a UNIX hacker for over 10 years. It's not like computers were a brand new technology then. Note that the ARPANET TCP/IP flag day was in 1983. Remember, Stoll's hacker was breaking into LBL from Germany. It may seem like ancient history to you, but ethernet, rs232 links, and hard disks were already well-established technologies.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. That's like saying that zappos.com is an authoritative alternative to amazon.com, without mentioning that zappos is limited to shoes.
That's interesting. I assume that the climbing method that this robot is using is not mimicking a real-life animal. Is there a snake (or other animal) that will wrap itself into a spiral around a tree trunk and then roll along its spinal axis to climb? Is it physically possible for a snake to do this? Will a snake even roll on its spinal axis on the ground? (I'm just curious.)
In those days, UNIX ran on machines that we would consider tiny today, and so it had small input buffers, which you might say it was influenced by the 80-column punched card, or perhaps just by the 32k bytes (or 64k or 128k, if you were rich) PDP-11 system memory size. These buffer size limits were in the kernel, but easier to see in the /bin utilities.
An apocryphal story says that the judge threw out the case, asking, "who are you going to sue next, Disneyland?" Disneyland is mentioned in this article, but not in the context of the decision.
Yep, exactly what I thought of when I saw this "backdoors" article. "Trusting Trust" was Ken's acceptance speech for the ACM's 1983 Turing award, and described hacking that he had contemplated before then (i.e., more than 25 years ago).
Fannee Doolee hates open source, but she loves free software.
Then the theft victim reports the spurious use of the Electrion Toll Collection (ETC) RFID tag to the bridge keepers who add the RFID to their "stolen" list. Then the bridge keepers review the photo of the thief, his car, and its license plate (which the bridge keepers do keep, to detect ETC scofflaws), and catch the thief red-handed. That's why you never hear about people stealing ETC tags from car windshields. Using a stolen ETC tag would be like carrying a big sign that says "I'm a thief, come arrest me. You can detect me from hundreds of feet away."
I guess this is a reason why RFID tags are scary, at least if you're a thief.
I was thinking Pac the Vote!
Northwestern Turkey is on the continent of Europe, most of Turkey is not. There are large parts of the European contient (like Norway and Russia) that are not in the EU. Membership in the EU does not seem to be relevant to this question.
Yes, to say it more plainly, learning to write software didn't become popular because it was cool in itself. It became popular because Bill Gates was the world's wealthiest man, and people became aware of other wealthy software entrepreneurs riding the 1990's internet economic wave. Those people who joined the ranks of the software industry didn't love software, they loved money. And when the money left the picture, so did the crowds of people.
Laugha while you can, monkey boy!
"Widely appreciated" is yet another slippery slope. Consider this. Art, even high art, is in the eye of the beholder, and is very culturally biased.
Stradivari makes a violin. It is widely hailed as art (or at least high craft). A wizard like Heifetz or Perlman plays the violin, everyone yells bravo. Art. Art even if they are playing scales, even one note. Art certainly if they are playing some classical masterwork or another.
I drag a bow across the strings. Not art, unless I practiced up some. Or unless someone interprets my performance in some dadaist surrealist sense. Maybe I'm making a profound statement about the human condition.
But back to the video game as art. I had assumed the discussion was about the game itself as the work of art, rather than the game play as the work of art. I assume this because I figured that Ebert was comparing gaming to film. Looking at the violin analogy, the the game is the instrument. The creator and the player may both be artists. In the comparison to film, the creators would be the artists - few would characterize viewers as artists, because there is no creation there.
To insist that there is no possibility that art can be found anywhere in the whole gaming pursuit strikes me as ignorant and arrogant.
Yes, I agree. Isn't the Stradivarius violin a work of art in itself? If so, isn't its art extended, isn't its ending changed in different ways, when Perlman plays it? Or Menuhin or Heifetz?
I think Ebert's arguments here are very weak, for example:
A game is clearly a form of expression, and a media container. I don't see how you can argue that the container can never contain art.
Some scientists are great at communicating with intelligent interested people.
Some scientists are great at communicating with intelligent people.
Some scientists are great at communicating with simpletons.
Who do you want? Richard Feynman? Ira Flato? Sanjay Gupta? Xeni Jardin? Who you want depends on what you want.
At the end of the day, I think most people ignore and deny even the simplest science, and they aren't interested in listening or thinking, so it doesn't matter how good your are at communicating.
consider the curious child. before the internet, information came from parents, teachers, library, or the local media. the internet gives access to information on any topic, and also access to people who are interested in any topic. with machine translation, book scanning, special interest forums, and freely available university lectures, it is hard for me to imagine how someone could claim that the internet does not make humanity smarter. the indifferent person will still be ignorant, but the curious person has easy access to a wealth of information that was very difficult to find before the internet.
I'm surprised that Bill Joy would say this.
UCB CSRG and Bill Joy based BSD UNIX on work from Bell Labs. Sun based its work on Bell Labs and UCB work. Without UNIX, there would be no BSD. Without UNIX and BSD there would be no Sun Microsystems. Without UNIX, there would be no Linux. You might note that UNIX was legally encumbered, but I'm saying that BSD, Sun's systems, and Linux (truly great things) came from the UNIX environment of sharing, even with the legal restrictions.
Wow.
he's still alive.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/04/15/scott-mcnealy-can-still-dish/
no mention of obama or his administration.
Welcome to the Hall of Presidents.
I believe the narrator in the video says that the high speed camera is scanning 1000x1000 pixels, and the book he is scanning has very large type, with fewer than 20 text lines per page. I imagine that this scanner can't scan normal text as fast as the Google book scanner.
Tim Bray managed the Oxford English Dictionary project - that is, computerizing the OED, back in the 80's, before anyone blazed those trails - and did lots of other cool hacking over the years. You're saying he doesn't have credibility because he hasn't sampled enough smartphones?
Sorry to beat the dead horse, but when I said in my first comment, "if you read the book," I wasn't addressing you singularly, I was addressing readers in general, who had not read the book. And I stand by my comment that I thought Stoll was goofy to be using printers and displays as loggers. Even in the 1980's, this was pretty odd.
I read the book when it was published in 1989. The events took place in 1986. By 1989, I had been a UNIX hacker for over 10 years. It's not like computers were a brand new technology then. Note that the ARPANET TCP/IP flag day was in 1983. Remember, Stoll's hacker was breaking into LBL from Germany. It may seem like ancient history to you, but ethernet, rs232 links, and hard disks were already well-established technologies.
-Christ