On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:41:23AM +0000, Ian Clarke spake thusly: toad, last week I think. I don't have the IRC logs hanging around.
Well, toad is big enough and ugly enough to defend his own statements.
By that argument almost none of non-symbolic AI would work since frequently it finds solutions to problems which are extremely difficult for people to decipher.But people understand how those things work and they know what they are supposed to do and they usually know when they are actually working.
As do we.
There is code in freenet which actively promotes specialization and which routes to other nodes based on their specialization betting that the chances of that node having the data are greater than others.
To the extent that there is such code, it probably shouldn't be there. It may have belonged in pre-NGR since that did tend to have simple specialization but it didn't have to worry about network latencies and things like.
> That stuff does not yet seem to be working.
What is "working"? You don't know that most of the current DNFs aren't legitimate, some probably aren't. If you want to be constructive why not join the discussion about a better way to determine Freenet's performance rather than going on and on about psuccess when we all know that it isn't a good performance measure?
Don't get me wrong, I'm patient and I know this stuff is hard. I just don't want anyone to think freenet meets expectations for a functioning network. :)
"functioning" is pretty objective, Freenet is functioning, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have much potential for improvement.
You almost confused me a second time because I was about to pull up my
datastore histogram. You asked me this question on IRC once. I'll tell you
the same thing I told you then: Linux is the "CHK" or "key" of the
information at the center of my specialization. Logistics and aircraft
maintenance is the CHK of my fathers. Networking is the CHK of my
roommates. I know what they specialize in and I route to them
appropriately when I need something in that area. If nobody specialized in
anything in the real world we would have problems.
Ok, and do you suppose a histogram of you, your father's, or your roommate's specializations would be clear cut and obvious, or do you suppose that your "common sense" knowledge would probably obscure what you perceive to be your own specialization were it to be drawn as a histogram?
No, I'm not. But I bet that when people write code for non-symbolic AI they know how the code is supposed to work and what the end result should look like.
Yes, and in this case we do too - the end result is that Freenet finds data when it exists, and the accuracy of the routing code can be measured by comparing actual to estimated response times.
> The credit card company expects their code to actually find
fraud. If it didn't appear to turn up fraud and the programmer said, "Oh, this is just non-obvious fraud" he wouldn't be taken very seriously. :)
Freenet does find stuff. Freenet doesn't always find stuff. When Freenet doesn't find stuff it isn't always Freenet's fault because sometimes the stuff doesn't exist. My last statement does not imply that any time Freenet doesn't find stuff that it isn't Freenet's fault. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
Anyway, if you want to help stop griping and join the thread about better ways to measure Freenet's performance.
Ian.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
