On Sun, 9 Apr 2000 05:00:55 +1000, "Koroush Ghazi"
<King_of_Ki...@bigpond.com> wrote: >Actually, the city I live in - Canberra, the capital of Australia - is a >planned city. It was designed by the US architect Walter Burley-Griffin as >the winner of an international design competition.
Around 1925. Unfortunately, he had no idea of the imminent rise of the automobile. Canberra was designed for mass transport but the automobile postponed its introduction.
>Ironically his design, although beautiful, meant a sprawling city with vast >areas of open, unpopulated land. Now we are struggling to fight off the >planners who want to build a "mass-transit" system. We only have a >population of 300,000, with minimal projected growth.
>Our vehicle registration fees have risen from around $400 to $600 p.a. over >the past few years, and parking and violation fees have increased rapidly. >We are being forced onto expensive, inefficient, inconvenient public >transport so that a few environmentalists can relieve their guilty >consciences.
As you are no doubt aware, Canberra has ended up with arguably one of the worst road systems imaginable. One can never travel in a straight line from A to B. One must follow a kind of random zigzag path, sometimes in the exactly opposite direction from one's goal, on the off chance that one might eventually reach one's destination. The accident rate is not much lower than in cities that were totally unplanned.
I think the armies of experts who designed Canberra were on the payroll of either the oil companies or the manufacturers of traffic lights. The whole thing is a disaster from start to finish, with peak hour traffic congestion now rivaling that of much larger cities.
>This is despite the fact that air & water quality here is the best I've ever >experienced.
Only because of the absence of industry and powerhouses.
You're right on some things. I doubt if Canberra's true potential has been fulfilled.
However, accidents are high because the drivers are some of the worst I've ever seen. Rude, incompetent and inconsiderate. Congestion is high because we have single-lane arterial roads!
As for zig-zagging roads...try getting somewhere in Sydney and you'll find it's much worse. Try getting out of the Sydney CBD in under an hour!
I think a simple grid layout is the best for most cities.
Finally, public transport is an idea which sounds fantastic in theory, but in practice it reduces us to the lowest common denominator. If used as a secondary transport system then fine. However the greens want it to almost fully replace common use of the automobile. Fat chance.
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.forefront> wrote in message
> >Actually, the city I live in - Canberra, the capital of Australia - is a > >planned city. It was designed by the US architect Walter Burley-Griffin as > >the winner of an international design competition. > Around 1925. Unfortunately, he had no idea of the imminent rise of the > automobile. Canberra was designed for mass transport but the > automobile postponed its introduction.
> >Ironically his design, although beautiful, meant a sprawling city with vast > >areas of open, unpopulated land. Now we are struggling to fight off the > >planners who want to build a "mass-transit" system. We only have a > >population of 300,000, with minimal projected growth.
> >Our vehicle registration fees have risen from around $400 to $600 p.a. over > >the past few years, and parking and violation fees have increased rapidly. > >We are being forced onto expensive, inefficient, inconvenient public > >transport so that a few environmentalists can relieve their guilty > >consciences. > As you are no doubt aware, Canberra has ended up with arguably one of > the worst road systems imaginable. One can never travel in a straight > line from A to B. One must follow a kind of random zigzag path, > sometimes in the exactly opposite direction from one's goal, on the > off chance that one might eventually reach one's destination. The > accident rate is not much lower than in cities that were totally > unplanned.
> I think the armies of experts who designed Canberra were on the > payroll of either the oil companies or the manufacturers of traffic > lights. > The whole thing is a disaster from start to finish, with peak hour > traffic congestion now rivaling that of much larger cities.
> >This is despite the fact that air & water quality here is the best I've ever > >experienced.
> Only because of the absence of industry and powerhouses.
> Finally, public transport is an idea which sounds fantastic in theory, but > in practice it reduces us to the lowest common denominator. If used as a > secondary transport system then fine. However the greens want it to almost > fully replace common use of the automobile. Fat chance.
Where the market, as opposed to the City Councillors, designs the mass transport, the modal size of vehicle tends to be the jitney, a car or truck designed for three to eight passsengers which can carry somewhere between eight and fifteen in a pinch. This is what you see on the roads in Asia and Africa, where we do in fact have cities served by mass transport.
In North America the only form of transport like this is the airport taxis of New York, which operate on the same principle, though illegally. In general both our laws and our policies are directed at suppressing precisely this kind of transport, in order to strengthen the market for the private taxi and enhance the role of the oversized bus and train.
This seems suboptimal -- if not directly counter to good policy.
>You're right on some things. I doubt if Canberra's true potential has been >fulfilled.
>However, accidents are high because the drivers are some of the worst I've >ever seen. Rude, incompetent and inconsiderate. Congestion is high because >we have single-lane arterial roads!
>As for zig-zagging roads...try getting somewhere in Sydney and you'll find >it's much worse. Try getting out of the Sydney CBD in under an hour!
>I think a simple grid layout is the best for most cities.
>Finally, public transport is an idea which sounds fantastic in theory, but >in practice it reduces us to the lowest common denominator. If used as a >secondary transport system then fine. However the greens want it to almost >fully replace common use of the automobile. Fat chance.
We have excellent public transport here in Kingston upon Thames, which is part of Greater London. However most people seem to prefer to clog up the roads with their cars, buses being mainly used by the elderly & school children. Particularly annoying are all those poseurs in 4 x 4 vehicles trying to manoeuvre in narrow streets of double parked cars.
If we are to tackle all the problems of pollution and congestion some of the variety of green ideas should be tried out in different cities to test effectiveness. In fact different solutions will depend on perceived urgency, culture, city planning, finance etc.
In London the carrot & stick approach might be best. Cheaper bus fares. Some traffic lanes only available for multiple occupancy vehicles. That sort of thing.
There is a public health issue in places like the USA where it is almost impossible to walk around some neighbourhoods because it is all designed for the automobile, yet people increasingly are dying from obesity related illness. Jean
>"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.forefront> wrote in message >news:38f8fcd4.5657904@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net... >> On Sun, 9 Apr 2000 05:00:55 +1000, "Koroush Ghazi" >> <King_of_Ki...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> >Actually, the city I live in - Canberra, the capital of Australia - is a >> >planned city. It was designed by the US architect Walter Burley-Griffin >as >> >the winner of an international design competition. >> Around 1925. Unfortunately, he had no idea of the imminent rise of the >> automobile. Canberra was designed for mass transport but the >> automobile postponed its introduction.
>> >Ironically his design, although beautiful, meant a sprawling city with >vast >> >areas of open, unpopulated land. Now we are struggling to fight off the >> >planners who want to build a "mass-transit" system. We only have a >> >population of 300,000, with minimal projected growth.
>> >Our vehicle registration fees have risen from around $400 to $600 p.a. >over >> >the past few years, and parking and violation fees have increased >rapidly. >> >We are being forced onto expensive, inefficient, inconvenient public >> >transport so that a few environmentalists can relieve their guilty >> >consciences. >> As you are no doubt aware, Canberra has ended up with arguably one of >> the worst road systems imaginable. One can never travel in a straight >> line from A to B. One must follow a kind of random zigzag path, >> sometimes in the exactly opposite direction from one's goal, on the >> off chance that one might eventually reach one's destination. The >> accident rate is not much lower than in cities that were totally >> unplanned.
>> I think the armies of experts who designed Canberra were on the >> payroll of either the oil companies or the manufacturers of traffic >> lights. >> The whole thing is a disaster from start to finish, with peak hour >> traffic congestion now rivaling that of much larger cities.
>> >This is despite the fact that air & water quality here is the best I've >ever >> >experienced.
>> Only because of the absence of industry and powerhouses.
Watch reply address for anti-spamming-- Green Futures
I have to ride Denver-Bouder express bus. This 2 year old bus has a 10-90% air recirculation system. Driver can set his own air and open a side window for fresh. The rest have to suffer.
The driver can mis set the a/c or forget to turn it on or set it to 90% recirculate. And the light rail is the same way except there they also use "air fresheners." Boy, what a combo, recirculated air and a man made smell, too. I gave up the light rail part of my commute to ride a second commuter bike four miles each way through the dense traffic. Now I have fresh air, but I have to worry about being run over by a public transit bus. Unlike trucks, not too many trucks on the streets, the buses don't cut me any slack.
Why does not public transit work? Smells bad. Recirculated air. And this is no exaggeration, a couple of years ago I got on the express bus, summer day, a/c set to full recirculate as it works better that way to keep temp down, full load of passengers, water condensing on windows so bad it looked like a shower stall. Well, I caught the worse summer cold in my life. That bus smelled like the inside of a kid's gym locker. No joke. And I sat next to the driver with his OPEN side vent, but that did not save me.
Smells are a big part of public transit. And they are getting worse. eof
> I have to ride Denver-Bouder express bus. This 2 year old bus has a 10-90% > air recirculation system. Driver can set his own air and open a side window > for fresh. The rest have to suffer.
> The driver can mis set the a/c or forget to turn it on or set it to 90% > recirculate. And the light rail is the same way except there they also use > "air fresheners." Boy, what a combo, recirculated air and a man made smell, > too. I gave up the light rail part of my commute to ride a second commuter > bike four miles each way through the dense traffic. Now I have fresh air, > but I have to worry about being run over by a public transit bus. Unlike > trucks, not too many trucks on the streets, the buses don't cut me any slack.
> Why does not public transit work? Smells bad. Recirculated air. And this > is no exaggeration, a couple of years ago I got on the express bus, summer > day, a/c set to full recirculate as it works better that way to keep temp > down, full load of passengers, water condensing on windows so bad it looked > like a shower stall. Well, I caught the worse summer cold in my life. That > bus smelled like the inside of a kid's gym locker. No joke. And I sat next > to the driver with his OPEN side vent, but that did not save me.
> Smells are a big part of public transit. And they are getting worse. > eof
No-one advocating public transport would think of it smelling bad. Likewise, no-one in 1900 advocating automobiles thought of traffic jams. It is hard to anticipate the bugs in a system one is proposing.
*John McCarthy, j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU, wrote on 18 Apr 2000:
[...]
> No-one advocating public transport would think of it smelling bad. > Likewise, no-one in 1900 advocating automobiles thought of traffic > jams. It is hard to anticipate the bugs in a system one is > proposing.
Well, Dr. McCarthy, you pioneered artificial intelligence -- you had better take some responsibility for AI and its "bugs."
Where do you stand, Dr. McCarthy? Can you sing like Edith Piaf, "Je ne regrette rien," or does your career entail our extinction?
> -- > John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 > http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ > He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
-- Why do so many of the Greats of AI have four-letter names? Alan, Andy, Bart, Bill, Dave, Doug, Drew, Hans, Harv, Jeff, *John, Jorn, Kurt, Mark, Marv, Matt, Matz, Ment, Mike, Neil, Nick, Nils, Noam, Paul, Pete, Phil, Push, Ross, Seth, Vern.
"Arthur T. Murray" wrote: > Well, Dr. McCarthy, you pioneered artificial intelligence -- you > had better take some responsibility for AI and its "bugs."
Perhaps ... but what I can't figure is why you don't give us a running Web Demo. There is a directory waiting for it at http://robustai.net/mentifex/index.htm
Seth Russell Http://RobustAi.net/Ai/Conjecture.htm
Is porting this "mind" program to lisp a project which is in need of doing? Because, offhand, this looks interesting, not too hard, and i wouldn't mind doing it myself.
>Is porting this "mind" program to lisp a project which is in need >of doing? Because, offhand, this looks interesting, not too hard, >and i wouldn't mind doing it myself.
In the process maybe you could enlighten us others, regarding the innovative (intellectual) highlights of this mindmaker thingie. Mr wrong number of letters Arthur doesn't seem inclined to...
>Is porting this "mind" program to lisp a project which is in need >of doing? Because, offhand, this looks interesting, not too hard, >and i wouldn't mind doing it myself.
In the process maybe you could enlighten us others, regarding the innovative (intellectual) highlights of this mindmaker thingie. Mr wrong number of letters Arthur doesn't seem inclined to...
> Is porting this "mind" program to lisp a project which is in need > of doing? Because, offhand, this looks interesting, not too hard, > and i wouldn't mind doing it myself.
Anybody who can Webify their PD AI "Mind" code should maybe submit it to Seth Russell for installation in his "Web Demo" site at http://robustai.net/mentifex/index.htm -- or wherever else Seth makes some room for robust GOFAI. (Thank you to Seth from Arthur.)
> dave
Dear Dossier: Maybe the PD AI is really going to proliferate now!
Dear Patrick Bagge: I am trying to err on the side of too much information, not too little. I can't do the Java -- any volunteer(s)?
-- Come one, come all AI hackers and mindmakers on 5-10 Aug 2001 to http://www.geocities.com/mentifex/ijcpdai.html : IJCPDAI-01 the International Joint Conference on PD Artificial Intelligence to be held sub rosa in the coffee houses and 'Net cafes of Seattle WA USA.
> Is porting this "mind" program to lisp a project which is in need > of doing? Because, offhand, this looks interesting, not too hard, > and i wouldn't mind doing it myself.
Hmmm ... I wonder what it would take to get LISP going at RobustAI.Net which is an NT with a low budget.
Seth Russell Http://RobustAi.net/Ai/SymKnow.htm Http://RobustAi.net/Ai/Conjecture.htm
af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes: > John McCarthy (j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU) wrote: > : No-one advocating public transport would think of it smelling bad.
> McCarthy is correct. His 200,000 nuclear reactor <paradise> is > unworkable for this reason as well.
That there would be bugs was inevitable. That they would be bearable and preferable to no transport was likely, and so it turned out.
The same is the case for very large scale use of nuclear power.
John McCarthy wrote: > af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
> > John McCarthy (j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU) wrote: > > : No-one advocating public transport would think of it smelling bad.
> > McCarthy is correct. His 200,000 nuclear reactor <paradise> is > > unworkable for this reason as well.
> That there would be bugs was inevitable. That they would be bearable > and preferable to no transport was likely, and so it turned out.
> The same is the case for very large scale use of nuclear power.
> -- > John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 > http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ > He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Nudds must be objecting to 200,000 one-gigawatt nuclear units providing power on the grounds that 200 one-terawatt ones could do it more efficiently.
--------------------------------------------------------------- $1 uranium = ca. $102 petroleum = ca. $73 natural gas. Electricity? Hydrogen? No, the indirect nukemobile runs on the fifth element, ~boron~. More at http://members.xoom.com/I2M/boron_blast.html. ---------------------------------------------------------------
<gfutu...@gfutures.demon.co.yuk> wrote: >If we are to tackle all the problems of pollution and congestion some of >the variety of green ideas should be tried out in different cities to >test effectiveness. In fact different solutions will depend on perceived >urgency, culture, city planning, finance etc.
Not necessary. As I wrote in another post, taxing land value solves all these problems. If people aren't trying to get as much land as possible under their homes and businesses in financial self defense, there's no sprawl, and the density is sufficient to support good public transit. One solution fits all, and nothing else can possibly work. The subsidy to land ownership will inevitably defeat any attempt to undo its ill effects.
: Nudds must be objecting to 200,000 one-gigawatt nuclear units : providing power on the grounds that 200 one-terawatt ones could : do it more efficiently.
Cowan isn't impressed by the scale of the disasters so far. He would like to see them 1000 times larger.
1. AI isn't close to human level (HL) yet. I don't think we can really know what HL will be like till we get a lot closer.
2. You can't get people to seriously discuss policy until HL is closer. The present discussants, e.g. Bill Joy, are just chattering.
3. People are not distinguishing HL AI from programs with human-like motivational structures. It would take a special effort, apart from the effort to reach HL intellignece to make AI systems wanting to rule the world or get angry with people or see themselves as oppressed. We shouldn't do that.
4. Je ne regrette rien.
5. To get so many four letter names you had to use some nicknames.
Thank you, Dr. McCarthy, for letting me be this footnote to AI history. -Arthur T. Murray, menti...@scn.org, d.o.b. 13 July 1946 Dallas TX USA.
*John McCarthy, j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU, wrote on Good Friday 21 Apr 2000:
> 1. AI isn't close to human level (HL) yet. I don't think we > can really know what HL will be like till we get a lot closer. > 2. You can't get people to seriously discuss policy until HL is > closer. The present discussants, e.g. Bill Joy, are just chattering.
> 3. People are not distinguishing HL AI from programs with human-like > motivational structures. It would take a special effort, apart from > the effort to reach HL intelligence to make AI > systems wanting to rule the world or get angry with people or see > themselves as oppressed. We shouldn't do that.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/7256/mind4th.html Mind.Forth is not the "special effort" that you would advise against. Rather it is the sincere effort of this B.A. in Latin and Greek to answer religious questions on the nature of the brain-mind-soul by trying to see how far we can go in AI before reaching a "Do Not Trespass".
> 4. Je ne regrette rien.
I thought I would regret my post if it backfired, but you are gracious.
> 5. To get so many four letter names you had to use some nicknames.
Yes, but everybody immediately assumed correctly that *John was you.
> -- > John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 > http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ > He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
-- Why do so many of the Greats of AI have four-letter names? Alan, Andy, Bart, Bill, Dave, Doug, Drew, Hans, Harv, Jeff, *John, Jorn, Kurt, Mark, Marv, Matt, Matz, Ment, Mike, Neil, Nick, Nils, Noam, Paul, Pete, Phil, Push, Ross, Seth, Vern.
Vernor Vinge seems to be one of those who supposes that sufficient computer power will guarantee human level AI. I don't agree. New ideas are needed. -- John Mccarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
> Vernor Vinge seems to be one of those who supposes that sufficient > computer power will guarantee human level AI. I don't agree. New > ideas are needed.
A basic understanding of human intelligence would be in order. Our understanding, while vastly greater than it was just a mere two decades ago, is pretty much still in the dark ages. The renaissance looms...
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when John McCarthy would say:
>Vernor Vinge seems to be one of those who supposes that sufficient >computer power will guarantee human level AI. I don't agree. New >ideas are needed.
Douglas Hofstadter's work on AI, particularly, "Creative Analogies and Fluid Concepts," suggests that it may be more difficult still.
Particularly in the area of analogy, the things that humans do seem remarkably difficult to turn into algorithms.
Hofstadter may not be the be-all and end-all of AI research, but when he can come up with such intractable problems, it should at least be a bit suggestive...
Computers are pretty good at doing search; _useful_ comparison is more than a little thorny.
I would _not_ accuse Vinge of the supposition that you suggest; "sufficient cycles" are _not_ sufficient unless there are suitable algorithms to go along with them.
The nearest that we get to that is in the area of neural nets, and while they offer scalability, all they do, at this point, is pattern recognition. Symbol processing, the _usual_ strength of computers, and the way that humans communicate abstraction, seem afar off in that arena, and not particularly compatible with neural-like constructs. -- "Many companies that have made themselves dependent on [the equipment of a certain major manufacturer] (and in doing so have sold their soul to the devil) will collapse under the sheer weight of the unmastered complexity of their data processing systems." -- Edsger W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17, Number 5 cbbro...@hex.net - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
I was at a seminar on robot intelligence at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in 1968 where ne of the moderators opened up with a jovial "We thought we ought to get to work on this stuff before the robots are here at the table voting with us." That was a generation ago now.
Vinge's paper above is more of the same kind of stupidity. I think the generic name for this bumf is Californication.
There is no Singularity in the future. There are a hundred small singularities in the past. It's now about 250 years since a thread-cutting machine could make a better screw than a master machinist at his lathe. Machines have been better ot arithmetic for much of that same period, at bookkeeping for perhaps 110 years, at chess for three, is it now?
So what?
There have certainly been major drafts through the hallways of our thought about what it is to be human, but they have not had much to do with the power of machines. The Somme and the Holocaust have had major impacts on our view of ourselves, essentially destroying the 19th century religious view of "Man" after Darwin, and perhaps Marx and Freud, had nibbled away at the foundations. The machine-gun and the railway were technologies of this change, but humanity has suffered through mass effects before, Tamerlane or the Plagues being examples.
I do not doubt Vinge' assertion that machines will have greater intellectual power than humans in the very near future. It just strikes me as a rather uninteresting observation. They aren't riding horses or carrying composite bows and short swords.
