@echo off set http_proxy=http://yourproxyhereifapplicable rem remove the above if you don't have a proxy server:start wget http://www.northworks.biz/install_mc_shareware.exe --proxy-user =username --proxy-pass=password goto start
Look, I agree, it's nothing incredible, but it's these kind of hacks that sometimes turn into incredible things. I was just annoyed at the mentality that seemed to be saying "If it's not amazing then it's useless".
(I also don't know why so many comments have been deemed trollery.)
I'm sickened by the amount of people on here saying "... but why?".
Why?? WHY?? Because he's a GEEK, Dammit! Just because it doesn't have a buzzword associated with it, or because it's not to do with google, or didn't come out in the last 15 minutes, doesn't mean it's not cool.
plenty of plagiarism detection software out there; if the prank was really just random bits of (I assume pre-existing and public) text, then all the program need do is search google for a few random snippets, no?
I'd say that the two most profound things to happen to networking, aside from it's mere existence, are p2p and wireless. All the other things are just what's necessary in order to have a network (to a greater or lesser degree), but p2p and wireless have fundamentally changed what networking is, not just how we do it.
if all the bug is doing is responding to external stimuli, then it's really not intelligent.
There's a bit of a problem in restricting intelligence to strict definition. I mean, Skinner would have held that all humans do is respond to external stimuli, and hence he (or at least some behaviourists) would be perfectly happy to accept that we really are not intelligent, but instead are 'mere automata'.
I don't think it's possible to come up with a kind of tick list for what something must have or be capable of in order to be classed as intelligent, instead, I think intelligence is more a vague cloud of qualities, which will include things like self awareness, memory, ability to make decision, and a host of other things, but the definitionis going to be hazy at best. Given that, I think there's a lot of work to be done defining exactly what we want AI to acheive, before we an start thinking about actually building a decent AI.
Well, if all the bug is doing is responding to external stimuli, then it's really not intelligent; I mean, things like the Sony Aibo (or whatever the stupid dog thing is called) do that. The theory behind conversation being the criteria of intelligence is that it can pretty much cover any requirement you want to throw at the problem; the medium of text is incredibly versatile.
You're correct that Strong-AI would have to learn for itself, and indeed a program that could learn language just by observing, say, chat logs (like a human child does) would be incredibly impressive. But it's not going to happen in the near future, because we don't even know how children acquire language. I could go on all day about this, but if you're interested, check out Noam Chomsky, Wittgenstein, Ayer, Quine, and the philosophy of language in general.
If they can simulate something else than a virus (because I don't think viruses are intelligent) could they by this way obtain intelligence by simulating an intelligent animal?
From a philosophical perspective? Depends who you ask.
Most of the philosophers I know of are still talking about Turing's Computing, Machinery and Intelligence paper of 1950, which focuses on simulation of conversation (hence Turing Test) rather than learning systems or simulated life such as this.
JR Searle gives some pretty good reasons why, most notably in the 'Chinese Room' theory. From wiki:
Searle describes a scenario in which a person is isolated in a room. The individual receives pieces of paper marked with Chinese characters from under the door. Even though the person does not understand Chinese, if there is a formal sorting process for the characters then they can be filed into a meaningful order.
Seale holds that the person simulating writing Chinese is not actually writing Chinese because they don't understand what they're doing. In a similar way, a simulated intelligence wouldn't be self aware, and wouldn't have any intention behind it's actions.
On the other hand, people such as Turing would hold that it doesn't matter how the end result is acheived, if the end result is identical to that which it simulates, then there's no reason to suppose the machine is not intelligent.
With Searle's example though, I think it's noteworthy that with chat bots the analogy is fine, but with more advanced AI, the question of who designed the "formal sorting process" becomes crucial.
I wrote a paper on the subject of intelligent computers last year, IMHO it's not very good (it was the first essay I wrote for my degree), but if you're interested: http://puremango.co.uk/device.pdf
oh my god. that is just.... wow. you'd think that clicking something under the VIEW menu would, you know, change what you can see. Rather than changing the basic way in which the calculator works. I still can't believe this.
"Hello, Microsoft Support" "yeah, I've got a problem with the calculator" "ok" "yeah, sometimes when I type an equation in, it gives me one answer, but other times it gives me a different answer" "oh yes, that's right sir, the calculator gives you different answers depending on which buttons you can see on the screen...."
Remember the google viewer? that was exceptionally cool, but has now dissappeared, google suggest was even cooler, but still hasn't made it to the homepage.
It would be nice if google supported these projects instead of just saying "oh hey, we did this cool thing too, but don't get too attached, we're going to pull the feature in a few months without any warning. It's called free market research, chumps"...
I like the 'new' layout, but it'd be nice if it was present on the images, groups, etc pages, to have the navigation skip around all over the place is very annoying.
also, they could fit more on the sidebar; like including book search, and, well pretty much everything at http://www.google.com/options/
An ajax interface would actually kick ass here; click 'images' and it loads the image results right into the results frame.
Also, can anyone tell me what the green bars to the right of each search mean? I would have guessed it was the number of results, but a search for "microsoft" yeilds nearly 3Bn web results, and only 60k news ones, but the news bar is more full than the web results. If it's relevancy, then how on earth are they judging that 60 thousand news hits are more relevant than 3 billion websites?
I doubt many people will notice once it goes live.
you kidding? this is google we're talking about, GOOGLE!! It's a revolutionary new approach to search, it's the next best thing, it's marvellous, it's hip cool and groovy, sheesh.. 'no-one will notice' indeed...
I'm not quite sure what you have in mind- distributed DNS or distributed hosting?
With distributed DNS, it's actually not a bad idea, those with higher bandwidths could end up taking the bulk of the load, but it might actually be workable. Having said that, we do have a facility for secondary DNS servers; we could just use them properly instead of having ns1.foobar.com and ns2.foobar.com pointing to the same box half the time, and the same subnet half of the rest of the time. Not exactly a dDOS resiliant solution.
With distributed hosting, I think that'd be beautiful if it was workable, but there are all sorts of considerations that when added up will mean that no-one will sign up for this kind of thing. firstly, there are obvious privacy concerns. Secondly security; when someone's website gets hacked, who shoulders the responsibility? Thirdly, legal issues if the system was international, though that could be alieviated if you had a "country of origin" flag on the content. There'd have to be some sort of redundancy, and website access times would differ greatly depending on who happened to be storing the content at the time of the request. see also freenet.sourceforge.net
Slashdot Mirror
*sigh*
way to screw up the batch file...
the ":start" bit should be on a line by itself.
whoops, that'll eat your harddrive, sorry. ./foo" to the end of the wget (minus quotes)
add "-O
for windows users via a proxy:
:starte --proxy-user
:starte
:-)
@echo off
set http_proxy=http://yourproxyhereifapplicable
rem remove the above if you don't have a proxy server
wget http://www.northworks.biz/install_mc_shareware.ex
=username --proxy-pass=password
goto start
without a proxy:
@echo off
wget http://www.northworks.biz/install_mc_shareware.ex
goto start
(save as s batch file in the same dir as wget)
download wget from www.gnu.org/software/wget/
have fun
but again, that's only learned through experience; we don't have any kind of natural fear of bright/gaudy colours, as far as I'm aware.
"most people would see something glowing and think "oh, pretty", not nessicarily "oh, dangerous"."
of course. The only reason we think of glowing things as dangerous is because we didn't in th past and people died of radiation poisoning...
a few 'typos' that redirect to google:
7 .99&hostname=www.google.com&normal_search=IP+Searc h (bugmenot^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H member login required)
www.thedinnerpartynetwork.com
www.titanium-spork.com
www.robot-dinosaur.com
find more at
http://www.domaintools.com/reverse-ip/?ip=66.102.
Look, I agree, it's nothing incredible, but it's these kind of hacks that sometimes turn into incredible things. I was just annoyed at the mentality that seemed to be saying "If it's not amazing then it's useless".
(I also don't know why so many comments have been deemed trollery.)
I'm sickened by the amount of people on here saying "... but why?".
Why?? WHY?? Because he's a GEEK, Dammit! Just because it doesn't have a buzzword associated with it, or because it's not to do with google, or didn't come out in the last 15 minutes, doesn't mean it's not cool.
*wanders off mumbling about these younguns..*
keep your voice down dammit. jeez... ;-)
"... my voice is my passport, please verify me"
if/when you do, I'd be very interested to see a copy. In the meantime, I'll be doing my own analysis, perhaps we could collaborate to a degree.
plenty of plagiarism detection software out there; if the prank was really just random bits of (I assume pre-existing and public) text, then all the program need do is search google for a few random snippets, no?
actually they are time sorted, I just didn't realise wLAN had been around so long..
oh bugger, oops.
I thought it was time sorted, so having flicked through the whole lot (and missed that one) I went backwards but when I hit win95 I stopped.
d'oh.
subject says it all really.
I'd say that the two most profound things to happen to networking, aside from it's mere existence, are p2p and wireless. All the other things are just what's necessary in order to have a network (to a greater or lesser degree), but p2p and wireless have fundamentally changed what networking is, not just how we do it.
if all the bug is doing is responding to external stimuli, then it's really not intelligent.
There's a bit of a problem in restricting intelligence to strict definition. I mean, Skinner would have held that all humans do is respond to external stimuli, and hence he (or at least some behaviourists) would be perfectly happy to accept that we really are not intelligent, but instead are 'mere automata'.
I don't think it's possible to come up with a kind of tick list for what something must have or be capable of in order to be classed as intelligent, instead, I think intelligence is more a vague cloud of qualities, which will include things like self awareness, memory, ability to make decision, and a host of other things, but the definitionis going to be hazy at best. Given that, I think there's a lot of work to be done defining exactly what we want AI to acheive, before we an start thinking about actually building a decent AI.
Well, if all the bug is doing is responding to external stimuli, then it's really not intelligent; I mean, things like the Sony Aibo (or whatever the stupid dog thing is called) do that. The theory behind conversation being the criteria of intelligence is that it can pretty much cover any requirement you want to throw at the problem; the medium of text is incredibly versatile.
You're correct that Strong-AI would have to learn for itself, and indeed a program that could learn language just by observing, say, chat logs (like a human child does) would be incredibly impressive. But it's not going to happen in the near future, because we don't even know how children acquire language. I could go on all day about this, but if you're interested, check out Noam Chomsky, Wittgenstein, Ayer, Quine, and the philosophy of language in general.
JR Searle gives some pretty good reasons why simulated intelligence is not real intelligence
whoops.
From a philosophical perspective? Depends who you ask.
Most of the philosophers I know of are still talking about Turing's Computing, Machinery and Intelligence paper of 1950, which focuses on simulation of conversation (hence Turing Test) rather than learning systems or simulated life such as this.
JR Searle gives some pretty good reasons why, most notably in the 'Chinese Room' theory. From wiki:
Seale holds that the person simulating writing Chinese is not actually writing Chinese because they don't understand what they're doing.
In a similar way, a simulated intelligence wouldn't be self aware, and wouldn't have any intention behind it's actions.
On the other hand, people such as Turing would hold that it doesn't matter how the end result is acheived, if the end result is identical to that which it simulates, then there's no reason to suppose the machine is not intelligent.
With Searle's example though, I think it's noteworthy that with chat bots the analogy is fine, but with more advanced AI, the question of who designed the "formal sorting process" becomes crucial.
I wrote a paper on the subject of intelligent computers last year, IMHO it's not very good (it was the first essay I wrote for my degree), but if you're interested: http://puremango.co.uk/device.pdf
Oh nothing much, except
Don't assume that "foreign to the US"="non english speaker". Even if it did, I can see no compelling reason to segregate the net
TBH, I don't really understand why you're asking this; what would anyone have to gain by this?
A lot of sites are hosted in a country other than where their target audience is, for reasons of cost mainly, but also legality.
oh my god. that is just....
wow.
you'd think that clicking something under the VIEW menu would, you know, change what you can see. Rather than changing the basic way in which the calculator works.
I still can't believe this.
"Hello, Microsoft Support"
"yeah, I've got a problem with the calculator"
"ok"
"yeah, sometimes when I type an equation in, it gives me one answer, but other times it gives me a different answer"
"oh yes, that's right sir, the calculator gives you different answers depending on which buttons you can see on the screen...."
I doubt it'll ever go live.
Remember the google viewer? that was exceptionally cool, but has now dissappeared, google suggest was even cooler, but still hasn't made it to the homepage.
It would be nice if google supported these projects instead of just saying "oh hey, we did this cool thing too, but don't get too attached, we're going to pull the feature in a few months without any warning. It's called free market research, chumps"...
ah well.
I like the 'new' layout, but it'd be nice if it was present on the images, groups, etc pages, to have the navigation skip around all over the place is very annoying.
also, they could fit more on the sidebar; like including book search, and, well pretty much everything at http://www.google.com/options/
An ajax interface would actually kick ass here; click 'images' and it loads the image results right into the results frame.
Also, can anyone tell me what the green bars to the right of each search mean? I would have guessed it was the number of results, but a search for "microsoft" yeilds nearly 3Bn web results, and only 60k news ones, but the news bar is more full than the web results.
If it's relevancy, then how on earth are they judging that 60 thousand news hits are more relevant than 3 billion websites?
you kidding? this is google we're talking about, GOOGLE!!
It's a revolutionary new approach to search, it's the next best thing, it's marvellous, it's hip cool and groovy, sheesh.. 'no-one will notice' indeed...
I'm not quite sure what you have in mind- distributed DNS or distributed hosting?
With distributed DNS, it's actually not a bad idea, those with higher bandwidths could end up taking the bulk of the load, but it might actually be workable. Having said that, we do have a facility for secondary DNS servers; we could just use them properly instead of having ns1.foobar.com and ns2.foobar.com pointing to the same box half the time, and the same subnet half of the rest of the time. Not exactly a dDOS resiliant solution.
With distributed hosting, I think that'd be beautiful if it was workable, but there are all sorts of considerations that when added up will mean that no-one will sign up for this kind of thing. firstly, there are obvious privacy concerns. Secondly security; when someone's website gets hacked, who shoulders the responsibility? Thirdly, legal issues if the system was international, though that could be alieviated if you had a "country of origin" flag on the content. There'd have to be some sort of redundancy, and website access times would differ greatly depending on who happened to be storing the content at the time of the request.
see also freenet.sourceforge.net