On 8/23/2011 11:42 PM, Julian Leviston wrote:
Sorry for being potentially rude. It's fairly ironic that I would talk about
this stuff given that I'm by no means authoritative for what is and isn't
appropriate here.
It's my understanding, however, that "just anything" isn't an appropriate topic
for conversation relating to what would be the fundamentals of new computing.
Game engines - unless they somehow exhibit some form of underutilized or
little-understood abstracted understanding codified in a programming artifact
that is pervasive in requirement but rare in actual implementation - are most
likely going to simply be the general run of the mill computing, not something
that is in some way foundational to what may be a new form of computation.
ok, I think I get this now...
like, it is not "fundamentals of new computing" as in "basic ideas for
what the future of computing might be like" but rather something like
"basic principles which could be used to rebuild computing in some new
way" ?...
so, say a topic like "will people more likely use Firefox or Chrome?" or
"will Linux or Windows eventually win the day?" or "is x86 or ARM a
better architecture?" or ... have the downfall in that they don't
express much "new" or "world changing" but rather amount mostly to the
results of aggregate decisions by "the masses".
ok, yeah, this is a little awkward, as my way of seeing things I think
tends to be a little more "here and now", like the "pink plane" in the
video linked to with Alan talking about things (started trying to write
a response about this video before, but came to the opinion that my
response was lame, so didn't bother sending it, but it was still an
interesting video).
so, one could instead deal with more conceptual/hypothetical matters
like, say, "what if I had a microchip in my hat that allowed be to watch
youtube videos while still looking like I was watching the teacher?..."
well, maybe, never-mind the ethical question of trying to look like one
is paying attention when really they are watching "teh ponies" or
reading posts on 4chan or similar, vs the more honest option of just
pulling out a laptop and headphones, or trying to pay attention.
but, maybe, topics more plausible or relevant? (the above for
illustration only).
This requirement of appropriateness can't readily be codified or rigidified
unfortunately. Ironically if it could it most likely wouldn't be the precursor
to the foundations of a new computing... because intelligence - in the form of
involving not just the mind but incorporating the entire human being -
multidisciplinary approaches and involving the emotions and bod as well - is
indubitably one of the requirements for this new computing. It needs to spring
from deep understanding and not just a surface level attention.
well, yes, ok. a "topic code" would likely be too stifling anyways, sort
of like in some usenet groups (such as "comp.lang.c") where people can
get really fussy about any topic not explicitly covered in ISO9899:1999
or similar and getting into arguments over the meaning of words and
interpretation of phrases and similar. sadly... it is much worse in this
regard in groups like "sci.math" or "sci.physics" from what I have seen,
so I don't generally go around there... (since there, one is apparently
supposed to know the answer before posting a question...).
however, yes, holistic thinking is a difficult area (vs seeing things as
their various independent aspects, or breaking reality down into little
pieces for weighting and analysis).
so, pardon as I sometimes "fail to see the forest for the trees"...
J
On 24/08/2011, at 3:37 PM, BGB<[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:54 PM, Julian Leviston wrote:
I usually just leave off commenting, but I personally don't think this is
appropriate for this list.
fair enough, mostly just trying to find where the lines of appropriateness
are...
sorry for any inconvenience.
so, I guess what I have determined so far:
programming languages are ok;
hardware is sometimes ok (provided it does not run x86 or ARM, like alternative
HW only);
physics and biology are ok;
FOSS game engines are not ok (unless the topic is voxels or metaverse or
similar? like a few weeks ago);
internet is maybe ok (browsers/... seem ok);
...
hmm...
well, maybe the pattern will be understood eventually?...
maybe some sort of description of what is and is not ok would make sense, like
a description of the bounds of appropriateness or what constitutes a valid
topic or similar?...
Blog: http://random8.zenunit.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/random8r
Learn: http://sensei.zenunit.com/
New video up now at http://sensei.zenunit.com/
real fastcgi rails deploy process! Check it out now!
links: errm... these don't make sense, I am not sure I get the intention here.
the first 2 links seem to just contain assorted comments with little apparent
relation between them.
On 24/08/2011, at 2:38 PM, BGB<[email protected]> wrote:
sorry, I don't know if anyone here will find any of this interesting.
removed, as apparently it was not interesting.
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
