It really depends on how you define your "system". There are many closed systems, many are very trivial. For example, the number 1 can be thought of as a simple, closed system. More interestingly, a closed jar that contains a single ant and placed in a dark cupboard is a closed system. As for the brain, then I'll agree with you. It is very hard to constrain the brain such that it defines a closed system.
Having said that, I have always wondered whether Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem was just another form of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The "formal" definition of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem states that given a closed formal system there exists statements that can be expressed by the rules of that system, but which can not be proven within the system itself. Most notably, he proved that Newtonian mathematics is an incomplete system, so there exists true statements that can not be proven systematically by only using Newtonian mathematics.
Unless the job you end up with is directly related to your Masters thesis (which is highly improbable), then you are no better than a fresh BS grad.
I did my masters in Computer Vision where I built an ASIC that simulated parts of the interface between the retina and the visual cortex. I ended up working as an ASIC designer at a big, well-known Canadian-based graphics chip company. It's fun work, but not at all related to the theoretical part of my research. I still enjoy it, and the pay is good, but I don't see myself doing this for a long time. Of course, I've been saying this for a while, and it's been 7 years already.
I wish I can find a job related to my research, but that's very very hard.
I was hoping they were implementing the Opera back/forward action, where the page is simply redrawn...
I'm hoping the mouse gesture extension adopts that. Mouse gestures in Firefox are currently horribly implemented.
Re:Better AI: do you really want it?
on
A Gamer's Manifesto
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
However, this is also a good example why too good enemy AI can be bad for gameplay.
Unfortunately, many game designers don't understand what AI in games is all about. It's not about making enemy units smarter so they can kill you faster, since that, as you noted, makes the game boring. The main purpose of AI in games should be to improve immersion and suspension of reality, so you can enjoy the game more.
For example, in many games enemy units are triggered once you are within a certain distance from them. They will start shooting at you, but once you step outside this invisible circle, they simply turn around as if nothing happened. In this case, improved AI shouldn't be the ability to shoot more accurately, but rather to be able to detect motion at further distances, and react realistically.
You misunderstood my point. My point is that I don't see Google heading towards being another Portal a la Altavista, Yahoo and MSN. It does have a great variety of services, but they are not being marketed as a portal, at least not in my eyes. And, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.
It seems to be always "Let's do a bit more, only different!"
Well, people thought that the search engine wars were over, and the market was over-saturated. Google changed this. Nothing wrong with doing a bit more and differently. I think Google knows quite well that if they stand still and stop innovating, the market will catch up, and bigger companies like MS can wrestle them out. That's why they're constantly trying to be a step ahead of competition. Seems to be working so far. Is it a sustainable approach? I'm not sure, but for the short term it looks like it.
No, the iPod's a music player.
Exactly the same way the Monalisa is a bunch of brush strokes. By itself, the little white gadget known as the iPod is as you describe it. And, had it been marketed that way, it would've spectacularly failed. It's all about marketing, and how the customer perceives how your product will fill a void in her life. It doesn't have to be true, but as long as the customer believes it to be, she will buy. To that extent, the iPod is much more than an MP3 player. It is a statement of lifestyle. Even with cellphones that play MP3s, many people will still buy iPods because of the impact it has on how they see and feel about their own lifestyle. The "cool" factor, if you will.
We're talking about portable music players, not wishy-washy concepts.
Marketing is definitely not a wishy-washy concept. The way a product is marketed defines the product itself. As a music player, the iPod will die, nobody argues with that. But, as a business, the iPod will thrive because people who buy iPods are buying something more than just a music player.
if they exist in five years it'll either be as an also-ran or as something other than a search engine company.
They are already more than just a search engine company. With all those rumours about the Google OS flying around, it seems certain that they are on a crash course with MS. I don't think they will ever drop their $1B search business though.
Google's slowly working its way to becoming a portal
I disagree. I don't see the kind of business that Yahoo or Altavista had.
All we need is about $60 worth of additional hardware... and we're looking at something that can contain MP3s the same way an iPod can.
Again, I disagree. You make the same mistake that most people make. The iPod is more than just a music player. It's a whole new way of making business. What the iPod managed to do that other music players couldn't is to create a market and a complete ecosystem around it. This starts with the iTMS, and expands to all the iPod-enabled accessories from stereo systems, to FM tuners, cameras, voice recorders and even automobile integration. This is the genius behind the iPod. Integrating MP3 playback into a cellphone will do nothing to the iPod.
What's the use of this article? Seriously, who would pay $1,020 USD for a PVR when you can buy a plug-and-play one from DishNetwork or DirecTV for under $300? Sure, you have more control over it, it has more features that you'll probably never use, and you get to brag about it. But, IMHO, it's not worth the extra cost.
Now, HTPCs are the next big thing. Unfortunately, brewing your own is still a pain in the butt. What needs to be done to remedy this is the following:
An easy to install/use software. The article mentions KnoppMyth which is a great start. There should be more efforts like it. The idea is to allow anyone to salvage an old machine that has been lying in the closet for 1 year, install the software (which includes the OS) and start recording. No additional tweaking! The machine should boot to a MythTV-like menu.
Support for cheaper hardware. You don't really need a P4 or an Opteron processor for that.
Support for a remote control. NO KEYBOARD OR MOUSE.
Support for many peripherals like TV Tuner cards, DVD burners, hard drives, etc.
A cheap, good looking case. Most HTPC cases cost over $150. That is almost as expensive as the machine itself (assuming it HAS been in your closet for a year). A good, perhaps plastic, case is needed.
I know those are not easy, and it's hard to support every combination of hardware out there. But the efforts so far are so fragmented. There is room for improvement.
Actually, they're not to bad on complexity. Most of the chip complexity comes from constantly pushing the boundaries of performance. Even then, a majority of the tricky work is actually done in the software drivers.
GPUs are not complex? Then why do we only have a very small number of companies making them? And, what tricky work is done in software? Shading? Bump mapping? All of the big functions are performed in hardware.
A 3S200 is not that small of a chip.
It is a small chip when you're talking about GPUs. Xilinx states that it contains 200,000 system gates. If you have ever worked with FPGAs, you'll know that typically only a max of 75% of the resources can be used if you would like to be able to route your FPGA and still maintain decent clock speeds. This leaves around 150,000 gates. At an average of 4 transistors/gate, this is equivalent to ~600,000 transistors. Compare this with the latest offering from NVidia and ATI, which are pushing the 300 million transistor mark. So, you need 500 FPGAs to get the equivalent resources (at a reduced horse power).
GPUs can NOT be programmed onto FPGAs. At least, not in an economically feasible fashion.
He's right on the fact that most games are starting to look identical. That is a fact that can't be denied. The reason is the lack of imagination by game developers. But this problem is evident in almost every industry. When the movie 'Titanic' came out, it was followed by a number of similarly themed movies. Same thing happened with 'Gladiator', 'LoTR', etc.. Same thing with MP3 players, PDAs, and other gadgets. People just try to capitalize on the current craze. When that fades, someone, somewhere, will come up with a new idea that will be the next big thing. It's just how the world works.
He's wrong, though, on claiming that the gaming industry is poised to collapse. That is just silly. The main reason is that every few years, you get a new generation of gamers who were too young to enjoy games like HL2, and now drive the sales back up. Plus, we are still years away from achieving the real-time photo-realism that he is claiming. Moreover, once that is achieved, focus will follow on different areas like improving the physical interaction, or making those dumb monsters a bit smarter.
As usual, Dvorak doesn't bring anything new to the table, and is too short sighted to see into the future. He doesn't really have the background or experience to predict the future of the gaming market, and his own kids seem to agree with that.
Those look like pretty nice savings, but are they actually sufficient to warrant the switch over to a slower machine?
In the company I work in, we mainly use our desktop machines for email, document viewing/editing and web browsing. Everything else is done by logging on to more powerful linux and Sun servers. At a head count of approximately 3000 people, the power savings start to look favourable.
I started using Skype over a year ago, and I find it awesome. Most of the time (not always, mind you) it is crystal clear. There are times when there is a lag, but that usually lasts for a minute and then resolves itself. Overall, I think it's the best VoIP software out there.
I had one problem with it though, and that is a recent one. To use SkypeOut, you have to buy credits. Now, I used to be able to simply charge credit to my credit card and it will virtually instantly appear in my account. Recently, though, Skype switched to using some English company to handle this (Moneybookers London, or something like that), and this shows up on my credit card as a cash withdrawal, which triggers another $10 charge. With the abundance of alternatives, this might drive me away from Skype.
Slashdot Mirror
Having said that, I have always wondered whether Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem was just another form of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
His actual paper can be found here.
I did my masters in Computer Vision where I built an ASIC that simulated parts of the interface between the retina and the visual cortex. I ended up working as an ASIC designer at a big, well-known Canadian-based graphics chip company. It's fun work, but not at all related to the theoretical part of my research. I still enjoy it, and the pay is good, but I don't see myself doing this for a long time. Of course, I've been saying this for a while, and it's been 7 years already.
I wish I can find a job related to my research, but that's very very hard.
You're still talking about brains, rights?
For the exact same reasons (INSERT FAVOURITE OS HERE)-users bash (INSERT ANY OTHER OS HERE)-users.
Something to do with human nature, and the "I told you so" gene.
Oh, wait a sec ...
I'm hoping the mouse gesture extension adopts that. Mouse gestures in Firefox are currently horribly implemented.
Unfortunately, many game designers don't understand what AI in games is all about. It's not about making enemy units smarter so they can kill you faster, since that, as you noted, makes the game boring. The main purpose of AI in games should be to improve immersion and suspension of reality, so you can enjoy the game more.
For example, in many games enemy units are triggered once you are within a certain distance from them. They will start shooting at you, but once you step outside this invisible circle, they simply turn around as if nothing happened. In this case, improved AI shouldn't be the ability to shoot more accurately, but rather to be able to detect motion at further distances, and react realistically.
[Google] does have a great variety of services, but they are not being marketed as a portal
Well, with Google releasing their personalized homepage, I stand corrected.
You misunderstood my point. My point is that I don't see Google heading towards being another Portal a la Altavista, Yahoo and MSN. It does have a great variety of services, but they are not being marketed as a portal, at least not in my eyes. And, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.
It seems to be always "Let's do a bit more, only different!"
Well, people thought that the search engine wars were over, and the market was over-saturated. Google changed this. Nothing wrong with doing a bit more and differently. I think Google knows quite well that if they stand still and stop innovating, the market will catch up, and bigger companies like MS can wrestle them out. That's why they're constantly trying to be a step ahead of competition. Seems to be working so far. Is it a sustainable approach? I'm not sure, but for the short term it looks like it.
No, the iPod's a music player.
Exactly the same way the Monalisa is a bunch of brush strokes. By itself, the little white gadget known as the iPod is as you describe it. And, had it been marketed that way, it would've spectacularly failed. It's all about marketing, and how the customer perceives how your product will fill a void in her life. It doesn't have to be true, but as long as the customer believes it to be, she will buy. To that extent, the iPod is much more than an MP3 player. It is a statement of lifestyle. Even with cellphones that play MP3s, many people will still buy iPods because of the impact it has on how they see and feel about their own lifestyle. The "cool" factor, if you will.
We're talking about portable music players, not wishy-washy concepts.
Marketing is definitely not a wishy-washy concept. The way a product is marketed defines the product itself. As a music player, the iPod will die, nobody argues with that. But, as a business, the iPod will thrive because people who buy iPods are buying something more than just a music player.
And, no. I don't own an iPod :)
They are already more than just a search engine company. With all those rumours about the Google OS flying around, it seems certain that they are on a crash course with MS. I don't think they will ever drop their $1B search business though.
Google's slowly working its way to becoming a portal
I disagree. I don't see the kind of business that Yahoo or Altavista had.
All we need is about $60 worth of additional hardware ... and we're looking at something that can contain MP3s the same way an iPod can.
Again, I disagree. You make the same mistake that most people make. The iPod is more than just a music player. It's a whole new way of making business. What the iPod managed to do that other music players couldn't is to create a market and a complete ecosystem around it. This starts with the iTMS, and expands to all the iPod-enabled accessories from stereo systems, to FM tuners, cameras, voice recorders and even automobile integration. This is the genius behind the iPod. Integrating MP3 playback into a cellphone will do nothing to the iPod.
I don't see that you have subscribed to Slashdot. So, why are you browsing this "ad-infested" site?
Seriously, people should drop this "ad-supported" argument. You either fully embrace it, or stop repeating it.
... named 'Dupe'.
Now, HTPCs are the next big thing. Unfortunately, brewing your own is still a pain in the butt. What needs to be done to remedy this is the following:
I know those are not easy, and it's hard to support every combination of hardware out there. But the efforts so far are so fragmented. There is room for improvement.
Did they file for a patent yet?
GPUs are not complex? Then why do we only have a very small number of companies making them? And, what tricky work is done in software? Shading? Bump mapping? All of the big functions are performed in hardware.
A 3S200 is not that small of a chip.
It is a small chip when you're talking about GPUs. Xilinx states that it contains 200,000 system gates. If you have ever worked with FPGAs, you'll know that typically only a max of 75% of the resources can be used if you would like to be able to route your FPGA and still maintain decent clock speeds. This leaves around 150,000 gates. At an average of 4 transistors/gate, this is equivalent to ~600,000 transistors. Compare this with the latest offering from NVidia and ATI, which are pushing the 300 million transistor mark. So, you need 500 FPGAs to get the equivalent resources (at a reduced horse power).
GPUs can NOT be programmed onto FPGAs. At least, not in an economically feasible fashion.
To nitpick, that should be the World Wrestling Federation
Look again:
... have ganged up once again to protect thier version of ...
He's wrong, though, on claiming that the gaming industry is poised to collapse. That is just silly. The main reason is that every few years, you get a new generation of gamers who were too young to enjoy games like HL2, and now drive the sales back up. Plus, we are still years away from achieving the real-time photo-realism that he is claiming. Moreover, once that is achieved, focus will follow on different areas like improving the physical interaction, or making those dumb monsters a bit smarter.
As usual, Dvorak doesn't bring anything new to the table, and is too short sighted to see into the future. He doesn't really have the background or experience to predict the future of the gaming market, and his own kids seem to agree with that.
In the company I work in, we mainly use our desktop machines for email, document viewing/editing and web browsing. Everything else is done by logging on to more powerful linux and Sun servers. At a head count of approximately 3000 people, the power savings start to look favourable.
What part of the world do you live in where they sell tigers in pet stores?!
Pick the other one.
I had one problem with it though, and that is a recent one. To use SkypeOut, you have to buy credits. Now, I used to be able to simply charge credit to my credit card and it will virtually instantly appear in my account. Recently, though, Skype switched to using some English company to handle this (Moneybookers London, or something like that), and this shows up on my credit card as a cash withdrawal, which triggers another $10 charge. With the abundance of alternatives, this might drive me away from Skype.
No. APPL is trading at $0.01.