In this experimentagain the pupils who could type werefound to have made more gains in lan-guage usage and spelling than the nontyp-ers.

Lisa, Apple's demonstration of its leadership,in bringing technology to the knowledge worker.

[Narrator]: The Cluttered Desk, Index Card,file folders, the in-out basket, the calculator.These are the tools of the office professional's past.Since the dawn of the computer age, better machines have always meant bigger and more powerful.But the software could not accommodate the needs of office professionals who are responsiblefor the look, shape and feel of tomorrow.

Thus, the New York Public Library has CATNYP.There is BEARCAT (Kutztown University) and ALLECAT (Allegheny) andBOBCAT (NYU’s Bobst Library) and CATS (Cambridge). There is VIRGO(the University of Virginia), FRANCIS (Williams College), LUCY(Skidmore), CLIO (Columbia), CHESTER (the University of Rochester),SHERLOCK (Bualo State College), ARLO (the University of Colorado atColorado Springs), FRANKLIN (the University of Pennsylvania), andHarvard’s appropriately Eustace Tilleyish HOLLIS. There is BISON(SUNY Bualo), OASIS (the University of Iowa), ORION (UCLA),SOCRATES (Stanford), ILIAD (Butler), EUCLIDPLUS (Case Western), LUMINA(the University of Minnesota), and THE CONNELLY EXPLORER (La Salle).MELVYL (the University of California system) is named after MelvilDewey; the misspelling was reportedly intentional, meant toemphasize the dierence between Dewey’s cataloging universe andour own.

Dr Minor would read a text not for its meaning but for its words. It wasa novel approach to the task – the equivalent of cutting up a book word byword, and then placing each in an alphabetical list which helped the editorsquickly find quotations. Just as Google today ‘reads’ text as a series of wordsor symbols that are searchable and discoverable, so with Dr Minor. A manualundertaking of this kind was laborious – he was basically working as acomputer would work – but it probably resulted in a higher percentage of hisquotations making it to the Dictionary page than those of other contributors.

How will people build professional callouses if the early work that may be viewed as mundane essentials are taken over by AI systems? Do we risk living in the age of the last masters, the age of the last experts?

Envisioning the next wave of emergent AI

I think one of the the things that 00:00:27 really separates us from the high primates is that we're tool builders and I read a a study that measured the efficiency of locomotion for various species on the planet the Condor used 00:00:41 the least energy to move a kilometer and humans came in with a rather unimpressive showing about a third of the way down the list it was not not too proud of a showing for the crown of 00:00:53 creation so that didn't look so good but then somebody at Scientific American had the insight to test the efficiency of locomotion for a man on a bicycle and a man on a bicycle or human on a bicycle 00:01:07 blew the Condor away completely off the top of the charts and that's what a computer is to me what a computer is to me is it's the most remarkable tool that we've ever come up with and it's the 00:01:19 equivalent of a bicycle for our minds

You can use Danger to codify your team's norms, leaving humans to think about harder problems.

Quantum computers work by exploiting quan-tum physical effects to decrease the time required tosolve (certain) computational problems by creatingand utilizing quantum superpositions

I recall being told by a distinguishedanthropological linguist, in 1953, that he had no intention of working througha vast collection of materials that he had assembled because within a few yearsit would surely be possible to program a computer to construct a grammar froma large corpus of data by the use of techniques that were already fairly wellformalized.

level 3sscheper · 2 days agoI did an interview with Luhmann's youngest son, Clemens. He told me he was trying to get his father to switch to using a computer for the last 15 years of his life (Clemens studied computer science in America when he was 16). Luhmann's response: "If it ain't broke, why change?" According to Clemens, Luhmann felt they were distracting and refused to own one. Now... if he were getting started today I'd guess he'd probably use digital (but who knows, he may switch to using analog).

#Software #Hardware #Technology #Programming #Internet #Web Development #Data #Beginner Tutorial #Computer Science #Computers #Engineering

As Derrida writes ofthe computer, ‘I don’t feel the interposition of the machine as a sortof progress in transparency, univocity, or easiness. Rather, we areparticipating in a partly new plot’ (2005: 21). H

At the back of Dr Duncan's book on the topic, Index, A History Of The, he includes not one but two indexes, in order to make a point.

I’d fallen into the trap that the philosopher Jacques Derrida identified in an interview from the mid-nineties. “With the computer, everything is rapid and so easy,” he complained. “An interminable revision, an infinite analysis is already on the horizon.”

Buy Refurbished Computers & More

Just as we've become super-human thanks to telephones, calendars and socks, we can continue our evolution into cyborgs in a concrete jungle with socially curated bars and mathematically incorruptible governance.

we should eagerly anticipate granting ourselves the extra abilities afforded to us by Turing machines

Stop thinking of the ideal user as some sort of honorable, frontier pilgrim; a first-class citizen who carries precedence over the lowly bot. Bots need to be granted the same permission as human users and it’s counter-productive to even think of them as separate users. Your blind human users with screen-readers need to behave as “robots” sometimes and your robots sending you English status alerts need to behave as humans sometimes.

It turns out that, given a set of constraints defining a particular problem, deriving an efficient algorithm to solve it is a very difficult problem in itself. This crucial step cannot yet be automated and still requires the insight of a human programmer.

The non-determinism is why cache invalidation — and that other hard problem, naming things — are uniquely and intractably hard problems in computer science. Computers can perfectly solve deterministic problems. But they can’t predict when to invalidate a cache because, ultimately, we, the humans who design and build computational processes, can’t agree on when a cache needs to be invalidated.

We do not publish small-scale evaluations of specific software/systems in specialist domains or particular courses in individual institutions (unless the findings have broader relevance that is explicitly drawn out in the paper).

we have anxious salarymen asking about the theft of their jobs, in the same way that’s apparently done by immigrants

We long ago admitted that we’re poor at scheduling, so we have roosters; sundials; calendars; clocks; sand timers; and those restaurant staff who question my integrity, interrupting me with a phone call under the premise of “confirming” that I’ll stick to my word regarding my reservation.

A closely-related failing to scheduling is our failure to remember, so humans are very willing to save information on their computers for later.

Robots are currently suffering extreme discrimination due to a few false assumptions, mainly that they’re distinctly separate actors from humans. My point of view is that robots and humans often need to behave in the same way, so it’s a fruitless and pointless endeavour to try distinguishing them.

As technology improves, humans keep integrating these extra abilities into our cyborg selves

She did the foundational work that led to the COBOL programming language, used in mission-critical computing systems for decades (including today)

Hans Moravec argued in 1976 that computers were still millions of times too weak to exhibit intelligence. He suggested an analogy: artificial intelligence requires computer power in the same way that aircraft require horsepower. Below a certain threshold, it's impossible, but, as power increases, eventually it could become easy.[79] With regard to computer vision, Moravec estimated that simply matching the edge and motion detection capabilities of human retina in real time would require a general-purpose computer capable of 109 operations/second (1000 MIPS).[80] As of 2011, practical computer vision applications require 10,000 to 1,000,000 MIPS. By comparison, the fastest supercomputer in 1976, Cray-1 (retailing at $5 million to $8 million), was only capable of around 80 to 130 MIPS, and a typical desktop computer at the time achieved less than 1 MIPS.

With a computer manipulating our symbols and generating their portrayals to us on a display, we no longer need think of our looking at the symbol structure which is stored—as we think of looking at the symbol structures stored in notebooks, memos, and books. What the computer actually stores need be none of our concern, assuming that it can portray symbol structures to us that are consistent with the form in which we think our information is structured.

The first indication of a change in weather was the sudden collapse of the market for specialized AI hardware in 1987. Desktop computers from Apple and IBM had been steadily gaining speed and power and in 1987 they became more powerful than the more expensive Lisp machines made by Symbolics and others. There was no longer a good reason to buy them. An entire industry worth half a billion dollars was demolished overnight.

Compusophic Systems

In 1996 and 1998, a pair of workshops at the University of Glasgow on information retrieval and human–computer interaction sought to address the overlap between these two fields. Marchionini notes the impact of the World Wide Web and the sudden increase in information literacy – changes that were only embryonic in the late 1990s.

Bob Barton [said] "The basic principle of recursive design is to make the parts have the same power as the whole." For the first time I thought of the whole as the entire computer, and wondered why anyone would want to divide it up into weaker things called data structures and procedures. Why not divide it up into little computers... Why not thousands of them, each simulating a useful structure?

Ms. Berezin held nine computer-related patents. Her Data Secretary is on display at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, Calif.

But hey, we're not running Windows 95 anymore! The current branch of windows is based on Windows NT, not Win95. But Windows NT wanted compatibility with DOS/Windows programs. And XP merged the two lines. So these special files still work, FORTY FOUR FUCKING YEARS LATER

This idea was brought into CP/M by Gary Kiddal in 1974. You could do neat things with it like copy data off the serial port into a text file, or print a textfile right from the command line! This is done in unix by having special files existing in special folders, like /dev/tty for the console or /dev/lp0 for the first printer. You can get infinite zeros from /dev/zero, random bytes from /dev/random, etc! but here's the problem: CP/M is designed for 8-bit computers with very little memory, and no hard drives. At best you've got an 8" floppy drive. So directories? you don't need 'em. Instead of directories, you just use different disks. but without directories you can't put all your special files over in a /dev/ directory. So they're just "everywhere", effectively. So if you have FOO.TXT and need to print it, you can do "PIP LST:=FOO.TXT" which copies foo.txt to the "file" LST, which is the printer. and it works where ever you are, because there are no directories! it's simple. but what about extensions? Here's the problem: programs like to name their files with the right extension. so if you're running a program and it goes "ENTER FILENAME TO SAVE LISTING TO" you could tell it LST to print it or PTP to punch it out to tape (cause it's 1974, remember?) but the program might try to put .TXT on the end of your filename! LST.TXT isn't the printer, right? Nah. It is. These special devices exist at all extensions, so that this works. so if "CON" is reserved to refer to the keyboard, so is CON.TXT and CON.WAT and CON.BUG

This means that software that deals with Internet must be actively maintained. If it is not it will become more and more useless in practice over time, however much it remains theoretically correct, not because it has bugs or security holes as such but because the environment it was designed to work in no longer exists and thus the assumptions it was built on are now incorrect.

Study: Most Teaching and Learning Uses Technology Nowadays

Engelbart embedded a set of organizing principles in his lab, which he termed "bootstrapping strategy".

Engelbart's career was inspired in December 1950 when he was engaged to be married and realized he had no career goals other than "a steady job, getting married and living happily ever after".[14] Over several months he reasoned that: he would focus his career on making the world a better place[15] any serious effort to make the world better would require some kind of organized effort that harnessed the collective human intellect of all people to contribute to effective solutions. if you could dramatically improve how we do that, you'd be boosting every effort on the planet to solve important problems – the sooner the better computers could be the vehicle for dramatically improving this capability.[14]

A lot of this would be a non issue if we had end user programming. The problem today is that 'configurability' is itself something the programmer needs to implement

1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes Reply 1 Retweet 1 Retweeted 1 Like 5 Liked 5 Direct message Omar Rizwan‏ @rsnous Feb 16 More Copy link to Tweet Embed Tweet Mute @rsnous Unmute @rsnous Block @rsnous Unblock @rsnous Report Tweet Add to other Moment Add to new Moment Replying to @rsnous @disquiet07 files are a weak lowest-common-denominator interface between programs in different languages (C, Python, Ruby, Swift, VB, bash, etc) in ecosystems with one language (iOS, JS, Lisp, Smalltalk), you often don't see files: you just persist the rich native structures of the language 4 replies 2 retweets 16 likes Reply 4 Retweet 2 Retweeted 2 Like 16 Liked 16 Direct message Gordon Brander‏ @gordonbrander 3h3 hours ago More Copy link to Tweet Embed Tweet Mute @gordonbrander Unmute @gordonbrander Block @gordonbrander Unblock @gordonbrander Report Tweet Add to other Moment Add to new Moment Replying to @rsnous @disquiet07 OTOH — lowest common denominator interfaces allow for emergent behavior. They focus all the constraints in one place, leaving the rest of the system definition open-ended. Like defining the LEGO dot, but not what shape pieces may take. 1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes Reply 1 Retweet Retweeted Like 3 Liked 3 Direct message Omar Rizwan‏ @rsnous 2h2 hours ago More Copy link to Tweet Embed Tweet Mute @rsnous Unmute @rsnous Block @rsnous Unblock @rsnous Report Tweet Add to other Moment Add to new Moment Replying to @gordonbrander @disquiet07 With files, imo the lack of structure 1. forces duplication of functions at the app level (de/serialization, cross-links, …) and 2. prevents coordination for higher-level behavior #1 here seems different from LEGO, but I can't quite articulate it in terms of your analogy 1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes Reply 1 Retweet Retweeted Like 2 Liked 2 Direct message Gordon Brander‏ @gordonbrander 2h2 hours ago Follow Follow @gordonbrander Following Following @gordonbrander Unfollow Unfollow @gordonbrander Blocked Blocked @gordonbrander Unblock Unblock @gordonbrander Pending Pending follow request from @gordonbrander Cancel Cancel your follow request to @gordonbrander More Copy link to Tweet Embed Tweet Mute @gordonbrander Unmute @gordonbrander Mute this conversation Unmute this conversation Block @gordonbrander Unblock @gordonbrander Report Tweet Add to other Moment Add to new Moment Replying to @rsnous @disquiet07 I agree. Low-level interop has a high floor, high ceiling. Higher-level interop (like Smalltalk) has lower floors, because deeper system integration. However, that deeper integration often means you end up more entangled with the system’s strengths and weaknesses.

I am a grad student. I sought help for my mental illness last year. I go to one of those 'top 10' universities in the US. Grad life is hard, I do not have a lot of support from my family, and I am socially awkward. As far as coursework and work was concerned, I was struggling to organize my work and time. I used to be a huge fan of services like Trello, RescueTime, Evernote, all those technologies out there for managing and organizing. I used notepad or MS Word for documentation and writing reports. I wrote code in Visual Studio and Anaconda's Spyder (no offense to Anaconda). That's what my friends were doing, but I guess it was not enough for me, because I tend to get very nervous when there is a lot of work, and the smallest things can push me off the edge. I need everything to be organized and neat. I discovered Emacs in May 2018. I was in a terrible place then. I thought I was never going to recover. I was just trying out different text editors to optimize my workflow when I found Emacs. The first thing that completely amazed me was org-mode: agenda, the tree structure, org-babel, everything! Then I started writing all my code in Emacs, for all my coursework and work in machine learning, game development, etc. I learned how to store links to particular lines in huge code files, so that I can access them quickly, and continue work where I had left off. I also journal, I have been journaling for 4 years, that is how I deal with my problems. I have tried many software packages for journaling, and none of them come close to what I can do in Emacs. Now I can also write lisp scripts for doing simple routine processes that would make my workflow much simpler, so that I don't have to worry about small details and concentrate on more important things. I have recovered significantly from my depression. I still feel terrible, but I can handle things with more ease because Emacs reduces a lot of unnecessary cognitive load. I wonder what I would have been if I had decided not to explore Emacs. It's true what they say, any text editor can save your files, only Emacs can save your soul.

As the power is unleashed, computers on the Semantic Web achieve at first the ability to describe, then to infer, and then to reason. The schema is a huge step, and one that will enable a vast amount of interoperability and extra functionality. However, it still only categorizes data. It says nothing about meaning or understanding.

Pill is now, and much like “mere” tools such as cellphones or computers.

Nowadays, it would be hard to find a humanist who doesn't use a com- puter in some aspect of his work. The computing humanist has evolved into a scholar who not only uses the computer in his work, but also engages with the methodological and theoretical aspects of computer use in humanities disciplines. The ways in which technology is used by humanists has diversi- fied to span everything from word processor use and web page creation to the development and use of complex software systems for analysis of a broad range of data types, including not only literary and historical texts but also databases of humanities information, images, and sound. As a result, in recent years CHum has come to serve an increasingly wide array of disci- plines and research areas - English, History, New Media, Music, Corpus Linguistics, Comlutational Linguistics, and many others - and received top- notch submissions in all of them. For most of its history, the diversity of disciplines and methodologies represented in CHum's articles enabled cross- fertilization of ideas which was highly valued by the community. However, as computer use in the humanities has come to span an increasingly broad range of activities, and as computational methodologies evolve and become more sophisticated and specialized, it has become more and more difficult to retain that diversity and at the same time provide enough articles relevant to a particular area of interest. It seems, then, that the time has come to narrow the journal's focus in order to best serve its readers

ON PIRACYComputers, by their nature, copy. Typing this line, the computer has copied the text multiple times in a variety of memory registers. I touch a button to type a letter, this releases a voltage that is then translated into digital value, which is then copied into a memory buffer and sent to another part of the computer, copied again into RAM and sent to the graphics card where it is copied again, and so on. The entire operation of a computer is built around copying data: copying is one of the most essential characteristics of computer science. One of the ontological facts of digital storage is that there is no difference between a computer program, a video, mp3-song, or an e-book. They are all composed of voltage represented by ones and zeros. Therefore they are all subject to the same electronic fact: they exist to be copied and can only ever exist as copies.

I have a lot of questions about whether any of the web-based tools we are using actually fit the mold of System A. I don’t often feel those spaces as convivial and natural. Behind the artifice of interface lay the reality of code. Is that structure humane? Is it open, sustainable, and regenerative? Does it feel good? Does the whole idea behind code generate System A or System B? I really don’t know.

speed of transistors — computerization’s fundamental building blocks — is hitting a wall.

neg­a­tive effect occurs in class­rooms where lap­tops and tablets are per­mit­ted with­out restric­tion and in class­rooms where stu­dents are only per­mit­ted to use tablets that must remain flat on the desk surface.

Advice to software development interns

Programmer Competency Matrix