It may be low-brow humour with lots of terrible puns and corny sight gags, but my favourite comedy was still voted the funniest film ever.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/9525372/Airplane-funniest-film-ever-research-finds.html
[Thinking to himself]
Ted Striker: I've got to concentrate...
[his thoughts echo]
Ted Striker: concentrate... concentrate... I've got to concentrate... concentrate... concentrate... Hello?... hello... hello... Echo... echo... echo... Pinch hitting for Pedro Borbon... Manny Mota... Mota... Mota...
Sunday, September 09, 2012
Friday, June 22, 2012
Good keys, what are they like? « Thomas Kejser's Database Blog
Stupid numeric single-column auto-incrementing identities. Those are good keys. In a warehouse model anyway....
However, in SQL, identity columns sometimes do get reused/refilled.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6738732/why-are-my-sql-server-identity-values-being-reused
And when using integer identities, be sure that the number of rows do not exceed the limits of integer.
The max limit is 2,147,483,647. Hopefully your company is successful enough to get this many sales transactions.
If they're expected to do, use bigint.
The max limit is 9,223,372,036,854,775,807.
Good keys, what are they like? « Thomas Kejser's Database Blog
However, in SQL, identity columns sometimes do get reused/refilled.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6738732/why-are-my-sql-server-identity-values-being-reused
And when using integer identities, be sure that the number of rows do not exceed the limits of integer.
The max limit is 2,147,483,647. Hopefully your company is successful enough to get this many sales transactions.
If they're expected to do, use bigint.
The max limit is 9,223,372,036,854,775,807.
Good keys, what are they like? « Thomas Kejser's Database Blog
Thursday, June 21, 2012
John Searle and Chinese Rooms
John Searle, possibly a distant relative of mine, is an American philosopher who describes the concept of the "Chinese Room".
In 1980, Searle presented the "Chinese room" argument, which purports to prove the falsity of strong AI.[39] (Familiarity with the Turing test is useful for understanding the issue.) Assume you do not speak Chinese and imagine yourself in a room with two slits, a book, and some scratch paper. Someone slides you some Chinese characters through the first slit, you follow the instructions in the book, write what it says on the scratch paper, and slide the resulting sheet out the second slit. To people on the outside world, it appears the room speaks Chinese—they slide Chinese statements in one slit and get valid responses in return—yet you do not understand a word of Chinese. This suggests, according to Searle, that no computer can ever understand Chinese or English, because, as the thought experiment suggests, being able to 'translate' Chinese into English does not entail 'understanding' either Chinese or English: all which the person in the thought experiment, and hence a computer, is able to do is to execute certain syntactic manipulations
Basically it says that computers will never gain conciousness or understanding, though they can have the appearance of such and simulate enough of it to fool most people. This is the concept of Strong AI. This is due to the fact that they have no physical or chemical attributes that could replicate conciousness, as the brain has.
There is no physical law, Searle insists, that can see the equivalence between a personal computer, a series of ping-pong balls and beer cans, and a pipe-and-water system all implementing the same program.
He describes the concepts of Brute facts versus institutional facts. A Brute fact is that, according to standards of measures (and Google), the height of Mount Everest is 29, 029 feet. An institutional fact is that LeBron James has scored over 2,000 points in seven consecutive seasons.
The appropriately programmed computer with the right inputs and outputs would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense human beings have minds.
The Chinese room (and all modern computers) manipulate physical objects in order to carry out calculations and do simulations. AI researchers Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon called this kind of machine a physical symbol system. It is also equivalent to the formal systems used in the field of mathematical logic. Searle emphasizes the fact that this kind of symbol manipulation is syntactic (borrowing a term from the study of grammar). The computer manipulates the symbols using a form of syntax rules, without any knowledge of the symbol's semantics (that is, their meaning).
To turn a computer into a true intelligence, it would have to be less programmed syntactically and driven more by semantic learning or understanding.
Does Google have true intelligence? Or is it just part of a system that makes someone with true intelligence smarter, or makes us think we are smarter based on the most common brute and institutional facts?
The speed at which human brains process information is (by some estimates) 100 billion operations per second.
The IBM Sequoia is currently the world's fastest computer, at 16.32 petaflops, or 1015 floating-point operations per second. That's about 15 quadrillion operations per second. 15,000,000,000,000,000 as opposed to 100,000,000,000.
Since the main arguments were first written in the late 70s and early 80s, does the concept of a Chinese Room as being the barrier for AI still hold up?
With the cost per Gigaflip currently sitting around $1.80 (perhaps a bit more due to parts shortages from flooding and earthquakes), is it just a matter of time before we have a truly learning computer?
Or do we need to look less at the concept of a syntatically-programmed computer, and more at a physically-created, self-sustaining semantic intelligence?
As I came into work today, someone had put a copy of a June 2012 Scientific American on my desk, with an article entitled Building a Machine Brain. Before I even opened it, I had put together this posting, after looking at a wikipedia article online mentioning someone with a surname like mine, while doing a query related to semantic data modeling.
I searched for id brain in Google, to see if I could find the name of what truly determines reasoning and thought outside of the physical brian, which are the concepts of id, ego, and super-ego. I found the Wikipedia article describing Freud's concepts, but further down another article from a May, 2012 Scentific American entitled The Brain's Highways, Mapping The Last Frontier.
It's funny the paths your brain in conjunction with the internet will take you.
John Searle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1980, Searle presented the "Chinese room" argument, which purports to prove the falsity of strong AI.[39] (Familiarity with the Turing test is useful for understanding the issue.) Assume you do not speak Chinese and imagine yourself in a room with two slits, a book, and some scratch paper. Someone slides you some Chinese characters through the first slit, you follow the instructions in the book, write what it says on the scratch paper, and slide the resulting sheet out the second slit. To people on the outside world, it appears the room speaks Chinese—they slide Chinese statements in one slit and get valid responses in return—yet you do not understand a word of Chinese. This suggests, according to Searle, that no computer can ever understand Chinese or English, because, as the thought experiment suggests, being able to 'translate' Chinese into English does not entail 'understanding' either Chinese or English: all which the person in the thought experiment, and hence a computer, is able to do is to execute certain syntactic manipulations
Basically it says that computers will never gain conciousness or understanding, though they can have the appearance of such and simulate enough of it to fool most people. This is the concept of Strong AI. This is due to the fact that they have no physical or chemical attributes that could replicate conciousness, as the brain has.
There is no physical law, Searle insists, that can see the equivalence between a personal computer, a series of ping-pong balls and beer cans, and a pipe-and-water system all implementing the same program.
He describes the concepts of Brute facts versus institutional facts. A Brute fact is that, according to standards of measures (and Google), the height of Mount Everest is 29, 029 feet. An institutional fact is that LeBron James has scored over 2,000 points in seven consecutive seasons.
The appropriately programmed computer with the right inputs and outputs would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense human beings have minds.
The Chinese room (and all modern computers) manipulate physical objects in order to carry out calculations and do simulations. AI researchers Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon called this kind of machine a physical symbol system. It is also equivalent to the formal systems used in the field of mathematical logic. Searle emphasizes the fact that this kind of symbol manipulation is syntactic (borrowing a term from the study of grammar). The computer manipulates the symbols using a form of syntax rules, without any knowledge of the symbol's semantics (that is, their meaning).
To turn a computer into a true intelligence, it would have to be less programmed syntactically and driven more by semantic learning or understanding.
Does Google have true intelligence? Or is it just part of a system that makes someone with true intelligence smarter, or makes us think we are smarter based on the most common brute and institutional facts?
The speed at which human brains process information is (by some estimates) 100 billion operations per second.
The IBM Sequoia is currently the world's fastest computer, at 16.32 petaflops, or 1015 floating-point operations per second. That's about 15 quadrillion operations per second. 15,000,000,000,000,000 as opposed to 100,000,000,000.
Since the main arguments were first written in the late 70s and early 80s, does the concept of a Chinese Room as being the barrier for AI still hold up?
With the cost per Gigaflip currently sitting around $1.80 (perhaps a bit more due to parts shortages from flooding and earthquakes), is it just a matter of time before we have a truly learning computer?
Or do we need to look less at the concept of a syntatically-programmed computer, and more at a physically-created, self-sustaining semantic intelligence?
As I came into work today, someone had put a copy of a June 2012 Scientific American on my desk, with an article entitled Building a Machine Brain. Before I even opened it, I had put together this posting, after looking at a wikipedia article online mentioning someone with a surname like mine, while doing a query related to semantic data modeling.
I searched for id brain in Google, to see if I could find the name of what truly determines reasoning and thought outside of the physical brian, which are the concepts of id, ego, and super-ego. I found the Wikipedia article describing Freud's concepts, but further down another article from a May, 2012 Scentific American entitled The Brain's Highways, Mapping The Last Frontier.
It's funny the paths your brain in conjunction with the internet will take you.
John Searle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Zugzwang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Zugzwang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Zugzwang (German for "compulsion to move", pronounced [ˈtsuːktsvaŋ]) is a term usually used in chess which also applies to various other games. The term finds its formal definition in combinatorial game theory, and it describes a situation where one player is put at a disadvantage because he has to make a move when he would prefer to pass and make no move. The fact that the player must make a move means that his position will be significantly weaker than the hypothetical one in which it was his opponent's turn to move.
In business, usually it's better that customers bring sales to you rather than you selling to customers. This works with referral web sites (Facebook, LinkedIn), where friends and colleagues refer each other and encourage a larger subscriber base. It works with pyramid/MLM schemes (Amway), where the more paying recruits you have, the better the kings and queens at the top of the pyramid fare. It works with retail, where the best possibility of a sale is when someone is actually on your web site or in your store, versus when you're forced to pay to publish a newspaper ad or commercial to drive traffic and possible sales.
Referrals (letting the other person move) are the best sales to get. Instead of a 75-1 cold call to sale ratio, it could be a 4-1 referral to sale ratio.
So instead of being forced to move, ask the other person to move first.
'via Blog this'
Zugzwang (German for "compulsion to move", pronounced [ˈtsuːktsvaŋ]) is a term usually used in chess which also applies to various other games. The term finds its formal definition in combinatorial game theory, and it describes a situation where one player is put at a disadvantage because he has to make a move when he would prefer to pass and make no move. The fact that the player must make a move means that his position will be significantly weaker than the hypothetical one in which it was his opponent's turn to move.
In business, usually it's better that customers bring sales to you rather than you selling to customers. This works with referral web sites (Facebook, LinkedIn), where friends and colleagues refer each other and encourage a larger subscriber base. It works with pyramid/MLM schemes (Amway), where the more paying recruits you have, the better the kings and queens at the top of the pyramid fare. It works with retail, where the best possibility of a sale is when someone is actually on your web site or in your store, versus when you're forced to pay to publish a newspaper ad or commercial to drive traffic and possible sales.
Referrals (letting the other person move) are the best sales to get. Instead of a 75-1 cold call to sale ratio, it could be a 4-1 referral to sale ratio.
So instead of being forced to move, ask the other person to move first.
'via Blog this'
Saturday, April 14, 2012
ANU Quantum Random Number Server
ANU Quantum Random Number Server:
Random numbers generated from the silence in a vacuum to produce the Matrix.
Random numbers generated from the silence in a vacuum to produce the Matrix.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Pan's Labyrinth (2006) - Trivia - IMDb
Pan's Labyrinth (2006) - Trivia - IMDb: "Stephen King attended a screening of the film and sat next to Guillermo del Toro. According to Del Toro, King squirmed when the Pale Man chased Ofelia. Del Toro compared the experience of seeing King's reaction to winning an Oscar. "
That was a creepy movie, and if Stephen King is creeped out you know you've made a masterpiece.
'via Blog this'
http://wavesmash.blogspot.com/2007/06/stephen-king-visits-toronto-from-11th.html
That was a creepy movie, and if Stephen King is creeped out you know you've made a masterpiece.
'via Blog this'
http://wavesmash.blogspot.com/2007/06/stephen-king-visits-toronto-from-11th.html
Thursday, March 01, 2012
Microsoft Flight now available for free | Ubergizmo
Almost time to put the flight yoke and pedals back into storage... the eye candy graphics are great and the sim feeling is as-in FSX, unfortunately so are the load times for Microsoft Flight (Feb 2012 release). Getting out of the plane and walking around was kind of interesting for a couple of minutes. Something was missing though...
GTA has really ruined games for me.
While I was walking around enjoying the town I had just parked in the middle of, my plane rolled away into a tree. When I landed in the water, the plane seemed to get stuck and to takeoff I had to fly sideways on my wing. What I still can't figure out... is it a game or is it a flight simulator? Somehow I think I would find it more fun if it had missiles or a dragon or maybe some erupting volcanos to fly through.... or barring that some air and road traffic to make it feel less like a deserted apocalyptic Hawaiian island with nice building window refractions. Some kind of in-game mini-game or web browser popup to go with those load screens would be a welcome addition too.
And the hidden costs... $19.95 to open up Hawaii, $22 for 2 airplanes... sigh.
It feels like I just downloaded Smurfs on my iPad. A 1.7GB Smurfs. In-game purchases are the new revenue stream. $42 US is almost more than what I paid for my copy of FSX, and $32 more than what I paid for FS2004 at a yard sale. For $85 you can go fly a real plane for 1/2 an hour. Still, to justify buying aforementioned flight yoke and pedals, might be something I need to get. Can't complain about what you do get from the free game. I couldn't quite figure out what you're supposed to do in multiplayer mode though.
And why can't I land on an aircraft carrier? I thought this was Pearl Harbor. Maybe I haven't played it enough...
I don't think my son and his grandmother would ever get around to playing this. He prefers Tricky Truck. I don't know why parking a truck is so much fun.
What's interesting is the lack of content, well, compared to FSX anyway. FSX out of the box is a monstrous effort, with 8 pages of staff in the credits.rtf file, the entire Earth as a flight school, umpteen planes, heated seats and a ton of history. I see about a page and a half of people/contractors/external companies in the CoreContent.pak credits file, some interesting tidbits during the load screens, and 4 planes, 2 of which come with the game. Not that I'm complaining about the end product. A free flight simulator? Sign me up!
Did I mention it's free?
Kudos to the development team for keeping the flight sim dream alive at MS.
FSX, in my case anyway, is 42, 395 files and 14 GB of disk space with those add-ons. Kind of makes MS Flight feel like a Pop Cap game. 45 files and 2.2 GB? Of course, if you rename the .pak files to .zip you'll see quite a bit more xml goodness in there.... modding anyone?
Maybe it will get more interesting with my Kinect hacked into working with it....
Where is the crude humor from the warning label?
When I was into the whole flight sim thing a couple years back, I signed up for AVSIM. It was fun for a couple of days but I can't really get into flying a flight sim across an ocean for 5 hours at a stretch. Sounds like those beta testers gave MS an earful about the latest offering. Too many Mario coins.
The AVSIM community deserves special recognition for being the most childish out of the lot. Given that the Flight Sim demographic is usually in the “older” segment of society, I was incredibly surprised to see so many people carrying on like a pack of entitled children. In most cases I hate that term “entitlement” because it’s often a substitute for “I don’t like your argument so I’m going to declare it invalid by way of entitlement.” In this case though it was entirely warranted; people were screaming like Microsoft were selling out to the general public, that it was going to be a kid’s game, that because it didn’t implement big iron and VATSIM bullshit coming out the arse that it was a complete failure and so on. Personally I’m glad Microsoft stuck it to that community. There’s no pleasing them.
Good review here. Hope the next release lets you listen to real ATC conversations, opens up the world's major cities, and lets you fly underwater.
I would buy those add-ons.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Aerocrash landing
First experiences with Microsoft Flight.
It’s a Microsoft Flight Simulator product. Similar controls and feel. Load time is nice and slow on my quad-core 3ghz recommended machine.
Got my flight yoke and pedals hooked back up. Bumped up the effects to max with just a bit of lag. Flew around a few balloons. Great graphics but sky is a bit grainy.
Not sure what Multiplayer is for yet… had a couple guys talking about 45 knot winds…
I clicked on Search Bing for the first Aerocache hint. Who’s idea was it to to call an external browser anyway???
Seems like a pretty fun game and the points and achievements system really makes flying more fun.
Service Pack 1 better come out before I get the Hawaii upgrade.
Microsoft Flight Released
Microsoft didn’t quite kill off the Flight Simulator franchise, or at least I think they didn’t. Will see after the 1.7GB download installs with Windows Marketplace, Games for Windows and a couple other things. That would be now.
The sky's the limit! Now anyone can enjoy the fun, freedom and adventure of flight. Feel the power at your fingertips as you take to the skies and launch into thrilling missions and exciting challenges over the free-to-play Big Island of Hawaii. Take off today and fly into the ever-expanding world of Microsoft Flight.*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)