amarsrivastava
The Ultimate Freedom Manifesto
(1) First, let us figure out what is to be really figured out (as against what we have been spoon-fed since childhood on life, job, career, business, etc)! (2) Secondly, let us choose what is the real game to be played (as against what it seductively appears to be - the allure of escaping from something or chasing something, etc)! (3) Thirdly, realize that nothing needs be figured out and nothing needs to be done, except the freest pursuit of your freest choices (as against what a typical life offers us with a routine menu of mundane choices)!
3 posts
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Last Seen Blogs
gaemkyuu
Astoria
kawaiieditsstuff
Kawaii Edits Stuff
bitchesgate3
Queen Bae'zel
everythingscomingupaces
"Oh hey Billy, we thought you were dead. :)"
Text
Future of Computers
The term Ubiquitous Computing indicates that computers would be almost omnipresent in almost all objects around us.....
The wiki entry states:
This paradigm is also described as pervasive computing,[1]ambient intelligence,[2] or "everyware".[3]
Each term emphasizes slightly different aspects. When primarily concerning the objects involved, it is also known as physical computing, the Internet of Things, haptic computing,[4] and "things that think".
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquitous_computing
0 notes
Text
History of Computers
Checking out some milestones in development of computers.
Came across this video “Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science“ - a talk by Stanford Professor Donald Knuth.
A most interesting excerpt from Research paper “ Making the history of computing. The history of computing in the history of technology and the history of mathematics. Liesbeth De Mol, Maarten Bullynck “ which can be downloaded from here:
DONALD KNUTH'S TEARS – A CRISIS IN THE HISTORY OF COMPUTING?
In 2007 Martin Campbell-Kelly published an analysis of the evolution in the historiography of computing, “The history of the history of software”.57 Central to the paper is a table in which he lists publications on the history of software starting in 1967 and ending in 2004. Each publication is assigned one of four classification types: T(echnology), S(upplyside industry), I(institutional,social, political) and A(pplications) and it is observed that whereas initially all papers are assigned the label T, later on there are no more T publications to be found. This development is applauded by Campbell-Kelly, identifying the more technical publications as being of the “low-hanging fruit variety58” and concludes that:
“[T]he subject matter has broadened. In the 1960s and 1970s, people wrote about technology -- code and software engineering practices. Starting in the 1980s, people began to write about software as an economic activity. [...] In the 1990s, especially, we began to see books that set software in a much broader institutional, social, or political setting. [...] It is only in the past 10 years that scholars also began to look at applications. [...] Thus, over time, software history has evolved from narrow technical studies, through supply-side and economic studies, to broad studies of applications.”
Initially the paper did not result in much debate. It was only when Donald Knuth, famous computer scientist and strong advocate of the history of computing, publicly expressed his feelings about the paper on several occasions, that the community of historians of computing started a serious discussion. During his Kailath lecture at Stanford University titled “Let's not dumb down the history of computing” (2014), Knuth explained that: “when I was reading [the] page [explaining the table] I broke down and started to cry and I finished reading it only with great difficulty because tears had made my glasses wet”. Addressing Campbell-Kelly in his talk Knuth said:
“Do you not see any blind spots in your outlook when your table 1 shows 68 % class T articles in the first 20 years and 0 % class T in the last 5 years? And then you say the table shows how the subject matter has broadened. It has not broadened it has totally shifted. All we get nowadays is dumbed down [...] Thank Goodness historians of mathematics have not [....] entirely abandonened writing articles that contain formulas or explain scientific ideas rather than just sticking to things like the strategies a mathematician has used to get into academy or something.[...] I'm sure that business histories are as difficult to write as technical histories and they are no doubt also as valuable to business man as technical histories are valuable to technicians. But you seem to be celebrating the fact that nobody writes technical CS history at all anymore. When you speak of obvious holes you are thinking of obvious holes in business history and you mention the video game industry for example [...] The lack of anything even close to describing these techniques [invented in the video game industry] and how they were discovered and under what constraints they were discovered seems to be a much more obvious hole but you show no indication even to admit its existence.”
Knuth's talk was picked up by Thomas Haigh who initiated a vivid internal discussion on the SIGCIS mailing list. Haigh eventually published his take on the discussion in a Viewpoint written for the reputed computer science journal Communications of the ACM.
Other links:
1) https://www.livescience.com/20718-computer-history.html
2) http://christinapierre.weebly.com/history-of-computers.html
3) https://medium.com/history-of-computer-science/brief-history-of-the-computer-science-a13c6fbe5873
4) http://computeressentials.weebly.com/top-10-events.html
0 notes
Text
What is the origin of it all?
I am staring at an observable universe and nothing is make sense. Absolutely nothing.
Yes, there is an infinite collection of randomly labelled objects in innumerable variety of communication symbols. This exciting universe is certainly a rich collection of objects with infinite variety of matter and diverse ways to dissect and segregate even the internals of matter.
About the origin of matter, many theories abound, including the famous Big Bang theory. The question that is popularly asked is, “What is the origin of universe?.” It is an interesting question, but is it the most fundamental question?
If, as per one estimate there are a few billion galaxies, then what could be our estimate regarding the number of universes out there? What is the implication of having an unknown number of universes with unknown number of planets having different life-forms with varying intelligences?
People from any sufficiently advanced civilization in any other part of this or other universe may be indistinguishable from how many of us might imagine God to be! Forget about universes, this particular instance of reality, that you and I are part of, could be anything - for example, we could part of a computer game or a research lab of an advanced civilization!
Let us look at some contemporary thought. If you search for “possible origins of the universe“, these are some of the articles that show up on Google:
The Origin of the Universe by Professor Stephen W. Hawking: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html
Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory Explained (Infographic) at space.com: http://www.space.com/24781-big-bang-theory-alternatives-infographic.html
Theories of the Universe on infoplease.com: http://www.infoplease.com/cig/theories-universe/scientific-origins-universe.html
Cosmogony Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony
Origins of the Universe on National Geographic: http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/universe/origins-universe-article/
Stars and the origins of the Universe: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/edexcel/waves_universe/stars_origins_universerev1.shtml
As per the first item listed above, Professor Stephen W. Hawking spoke on this subject and concluded:
“Despite having had some great successes, not everything is solved. We do not yet have a good theoretical understanding of the observations that the expansion of the universe is accelerating again, after a long period of slowing down. Without such an understanding, we cannot be sure of the future of the universe. Will it continue to expand forever? Is inflation a law of Nature? Or will the universe eventually collapse again? New observational results and theoretical advances are coming in rapidly. Cosmology is a very exciting and active subject. We are getting close to answering the age old questions. Why are we here? Where did we come from?”
The professor, in the entire speech, gives us a comprehensively rich intellectual discourse, but, at the end, no answers.
In this seemingly infinite thread of existence, that we are part of, what should we be really questioning, studying or pursuing?
How about the following questions:
1) What is the origin of existence (not just this universe)?
2) What is the origin of consciousness?
3) What is the origin of thought?
4) Was there any kind of existence, any level of consciousness or any medium of thought even before matter was created in this universe?
5) Is mind merely a part of brain, or something much more?
Have we been asking the right questions? Let us challenges ourselves!
What questions come in your mind?
To be continued....
0 notes