Trying to present CAs as the foundation of the nature seems to be an extreme case of reductionism. I am certain that it *is* possible to model the physical reality using formal frameworks (CAs, logical theories, etc.), but even if a CA-based model will ever be created, it will most likely turn out to be a very complex model of, say, a string, which will add little, if anything, to what the existing mathematical theories of the nature on the microscopic level have to say, let alone classical physics and the rest of sciences. Plus, there will be a problem of the CAs' physical interpretation - origin, structure etc.
Maybe, but you can't possible learn to play all the violins in the orchestra at the same time!
Two points: computer as a much more sophisticated "instrument" than any violin, so you potentially have a lot more freedom of expression; and, you do not have to interact with it in real time - which might be even impossible considering what you might want to achieve.
Finally, I suspect that watching AI do all the work may not be as exciting.
My interest in using a computer as a musical instrument went away quickly after my first chance of getting my hands on a PC; it was not hard to realize that there is much more to a computer than a keyboard. This is similar to looking at a computer as something more than a typewriter.
There are two aspects of using computers as tools: one is about *people working* on a computer (we can call it "Windows-style use"), the other is about a *computer doing work* ("Unix").
I have been always fascinated by the possibility of using a computer to synthesize a sound of an entire symphonic orchestra, and, eventually, being able to *record* music played by that virtual orchestra - without spending countless hours, days and months training your own physical self in the art of interacting with a mechanical device in real time.
Yeah, right, let me go and find myself an IBM/360 to get exposed to... "Seriously" - you are suggesting to ignore, what, 90% of computers in the world - hell, the one sitting on your desk.
A standardized plugin-based architecture for media encoders and decoders (such as DirectShow) is preferable - for more than one reason - to any kind of "liballcodecs.dll", IMHO.
IMHO, multi-cores are good for multitasking, which does not cover the whole problem of parallelism. Software (at least, in principle) _is_ ready: pure functional languages, for example, are perfectly suited for parallel processing; it is the lack of the CPUs with architectures that support internal concurrency (using a single core - as opposed to those providing support for multi-threading using multiple cores) that is the problem...
Care to give an example of the alledged inferiority/superiority? (Well, you already had to replace the default shell in the otherwise perfect OS.)
I do not think my questions are weird. Well, maybe they are, for those who cannot think consistently:
a BSD kernel. BSDs aren't just kernels
Repeat after me: kernel is one thing, "userland" (I hate the term) is another, they have nothing to do with each other, and so it is perfectly fine to use a BSD (or any other) kernel in gentoo or debian. By the way, my understanding is that the core technical difference between linux distributions lies in their package and configuration management, not in the choice of software (which is pretty much everything under the sun).
I played with FreeBSD back in the 4.x days (not for too long) and found it good, but, as far as I was concerned, not much different from linux; I had a romance with NetBSD for much longer, even done some minor development for it -- and then went back to Slackware, feeling good again exactly because there was virtually no package or configuration management, and my userland consisted primarily of the "random crap" -- programs compiled from sources I downloaded directly from their authors' websites. Pure LFS would serve me better, but Slackware is easier to install; essentally, I have been using it as an LFS though.
One thing that has been making me sick was exactly that supid old song of BSD fanboys about BSD's "superiority" and that it is not a kernel but an OS. So what? Debian is not a kernel either, and, again, why should I care? Why don't y'all change the tune, or, better yet, just shut up.
OK, to clarify things for you, let it me put it this way: what if I do not want kernel developers to dictate me what userland software to use ("totalitarianism"), what if I want to be able to choose from a myriad of Unix programs that are out there (the ones that you call "random crap").
Is it really true, by the way, that BSD users never use "the awful" GNU software?
The real question is where you draw the line between the userland software that is a part of the OS (and thus is subject to a stricter control by the OS developer) and the one that is not.
No it's not. The future is with (a) hardware/FPGA-implementations of specialized functions and (b) CPUs with the massive internal concurrency (which is different from multitasking multiple cores are good for).
So... Why do we need a VM in the first place? Computer hardware isn't that slow these days, but computers do seem slow -- because they run VMs, JIT-compile all the time, etc. I call it "VM hell" that we are all in. No, we, in fact, ain't need no stinkin' Java or.NET (are we).
No. I am just saying that often "less natural" means "more successful". Natural languages were designed by, well, ancient people (to put it politically correctly), so they are not necessarily suited for today's practices.
And, I do not see any problem making mathematical notation non-ambiguous. This is what the mathematical logic, as the foundation of mathematics, has essentially achieved (incidentally, by switching from the use of the natural language to using formalized notation. Therefore, I see no point in going back to natural languages (unless, maybe, you want to teach programming those who lack the ability to use symbolic notation - which, I am afraid, would do no good to them, to you, or to programming).
If math, for example, stuck with the natural language, we'd still be in the ancient Egypt era (as far as math is concerned). It turned out, it was the abstract (algebraic) notation that was the key, at some point. This may be just as important in programming.
How about teaching the first-semester students using the creepy (MIT) Scheme. That's what I would call "abuse".
Imperative programming is still by far the most natural, practical - and popular (which is also important) - style of programming, and that is for a reason; teaching C.S. using exotic languages is indeed crippling the minds, which should be made illegal.)
C is not a light bulb. Way too often I hear that someone "invented" a programming language or an OS (as in: "L. Torvalds invented Linux"). Programming languages (and OSes) are designed, not invented. To invent something means to find, through a long series of trials and errors or, sometimes, luck, a way of doing something that nobody knew how to do before; it is right in the middle between "to discover" and "to design". You could probably say, though, that certain constructs in C (as in other languages) - as ways of achieving certain goals - were "invented".
Is it a 1-dimensional parameter - that can be reversed without breaking the laws of physics (with a positron being an electron moving backwards in time); or is it one of the 4 dimensions of the spacetime that, therefore, depends on the frame of reference; or, is it the growth of entropy?
Slashdot Mirror
Trying to present CAs as the foundation of the nature seems to be an extreme case of reductionism. I am certain that it *is* possible to model the physical reality using formal frameworks (CAs, logical theories, etc.), but even if a CA-based model will ever be created, it will most likely turn out to be a very complex model of, say, a string, which will add little, if anything, to what the existing mathematical theories of the nature on the microscopic level have to say, let alone classical physics and the rest of sciences. Plus, there will be a problem of the CAs' physical interpretation - origin, structure etc.
> quicker to just learn to play the violin
Maybe, but you can't possible learn to play all the violins in the orchestra at the same time!
Two points: computer as a much more sophisticated "instrument" than any violin, so you potentially have a lot more freedom of expression; and, you do not have to interact with it in real time - which might be even impossible considering what you might want to achieve.
Finally, I suspect that watching AI do all the work may not be as exciting.
My interest in using a computer as a musical instrument went away quickly after my first chance of getting my hands on a PC; it was not hard to realize that there is much more to a computer than a keyboard. This is similar to looking at a computer as something more than a typewriter.
There are two aspects of using computers as tools: one is about *people working* on a computer (we can call it "Windows-style use"), the other is about a *computer doing work* ("Unix").
I have been always fascinated by the possibility of using a computer to synthesize a sound of an entire symphonic orchestra, and, eventually, being able to *record* music played by that virtual orchestra - without spending countless hours, days and months training your own physical self in the art of interacting with a mechanical device in real time.
> Seriously
Yeah, right, let me go and find myself an IBM/360 to get exposed to... "Seriously" - you are suggesting to ignore, what, 90% of computers in the world - hell, the one sitting on your desk.
How can this be serious (or insightful).
Indeed.
I remember working on (an emulator of) a "computer with a dynamic architecture"... way back when.
A standardized plugin-based architecture for media encoders and decoders (such as DirectShow) is preferable - for more than one reason - to any kind of "liballcodecs.dll", IMHO.
IMHO, multi-cores are good for multitasking, which does not cover the whole problem of parallelism. Software (at least, in principle) _is_ ready: pure functional languages, for example, are perfectly suited for parallel processing; it is the lack of the CPUs with architectures that support internal concurrency (using a single core - as opposed to those providing support for multi-threading using multiple cores) that is the problem...
their inferior userlands
Care to give an example of the alledged inferiority/superiority? (Well, you already had to replace the default shell in the otherwise perfect OS.)
I do not think my questions are weird. Well, maybe they are, for those who cannot think consistently:
a BSD kernel. BSDs aren't just kernels
Repeat after me: kernel is one thing, "userland" (I hate the term) is another, they have nothing to do with each other, and so it is perfectly fine to use a BSD (or any other) kernel in gentoo or debian. By the way, my understanding is that the core technical difference between linux distributions lies in their package and configuration management, not in the choice of software (which is pretty much everything under the sun).
I played with FreeBSD back in the 4.x days (not for too long) and found it good, but, as far as I was concerned, not much different from linux; I had a romance with NetBSD for much longer, even done some minor development for it -- and then went back to Slackware, feeling good again exactly because there was virtually no package or configuration management, and my userland consisted primarily of the "random crap" -- programs compiled from sources I downloaded directly from their authors' websites. Pure LFS would serve me better, but Slackware is easier to install; essentally, I have been using it as an LFS though.
One thing that has been making me sick was exactly that supid old song of BSD fanboys about BSD's "superiority" and that it is not a kernel but an OS. So what? Debian is not a kernel either, and, again, why should I care? Why don't y'all change the tune, or, better yet, just shut up.
OK, to clarify things for you, let it me put it this way: what if I do not want kernel developers to dictate me what userland software to use ("totalitarianism"), what if I want to be able to choose from a myriad of Unix programs that are out there (the ones that you call "random crap").
Is it really true, by the way, that BSD users never use "the awful" GNU software?
Did not think so...
The real question is where you draw the line between the userland software that is a part of the OS (and thus is subject to a stricter control by the OS developer) and the one that is not.
Actually, some prefer "random crap" to totalitarianism.
Lemme guess...
BSD?
Just use Java or .NET on it.
No it's not. The future is with (a) hardware/FPGA-implementations of specialized functions and (b) CPUs with the massive internal concurrency (which is different from multitasking multiple cores are good for).
So... Why do we need a VM in the first place? Computer hardware isn't that slow these days, but computers do seem slow -- because they run VMs, JIT-compile all the time, etc. I call it "VM hell" that we are all in. No, we, in fact, ain't need no stinkin' Java or .NET (are we).
Paper? Why use paper when you have a computer. Just wondering. Unless, it's a toilet paper, of course - nothing can replace that.
No. I am just saying that often "less natural" means "more successful". Natural languages were designed by, well, ancient people (to put it politically correctly), so they are not necessarily suited for today's practices.
And, I do not see any problem making mathematical notation non-ambiguous. This is what the mathematical logic, as the foundation of mathematics, has essentially achieved (incidentally, by switching from the use of the natural language to using formalized notation. Therefore, I see no point in going back to natural languages (unless, maybe, you want to teach programming those who lack the ability to use symbolic notation - which, I am afraid, would do no good to them, to you, or to programming).
> Hear me out. ... "lalala"
That's why nobody listens to lispers.
(I like Lisp.)
If math, for example, stuck with the natural language, we'd still be in the ancient Egypt era (as far as math is concerned). It turned out, it was the abstract (algebraic) notation that was the key, at some point. This may be just as important in programming.
... Or like anything that make sense at all.
How about teaching the first-semester students using the creepy (MIT) Scheme. That's what I would call "abuse".
Imperative programming is still by far the most natural, practical - and popular (which is also important) - style of programming, and that is for a reason; teaching C.S. using exotic languages is indeed crippling the minds, which should be made illegal.)
Yes! Let's write a device driver in HTML! Or XSLT.
> "K&R invented C."
C is not a light bulb. Way too often I hear that someone "invented" a programming language or an OS (as in: "L. Torvalds invented Linux"). Programming languages (and OSes) are designed, not invented. To invent something means to find, through a long series of trials and errors or, sometimes, luck, a way of doing something that nobody knew how to do before; it is right in the middle between "to discover" and "to design". You could probably say, though, that certain constructs in C (as in other languages) - as ways of achieving certain goals - were "invented".
So, what *is* time?
Is it a 1-dimensional parameter - that can be reversed without breaking the laws of physics (with a positron being an electron moving backwards in time); or is it one of the 4 dimensions of the spacetime that, therefore, depends on the frame of reference; or, is it the growth of entropy?
Is that what you call Darwin?