What advantages do teams have? in what? over who? when? If they have
any use at all,
what language is good for them? How do programming teams interact?
It sounds fun. I'm not sure I want to get work done so much as talk,
but programming is fun.
-the advantages of teams in general is the organization of effort.
-with 10 people doing 10 things in their own individually chosen
-directions, you get 10 little things done. with 10 people doing 10
-things in a team, you get 1 big thing done that's 10 times as large.
-(some things that can be done can only be done as big things; i.e
-not everything is scalar in a practical sense). and that's not even
-including synergy. perhaps i should have said, the "coalition
-/coalescence" of effort, as the organization of it is a different
-matter. that's a harder animal to tackle. it also applies to
-computing itself. why is programming useful? because of its
-organization. why is a CPU useful? because of its organization.
-why is an organization useful? why are systems effective? is the
-universe a system? is it thusly a matter of reciprocality? (as
-affected and affecter are two sub-systems of the universe)
-a team's advantage is in accomplishing a goal that all members
-agree to accomplish. this may involve compromising on their
-own goals just enough to do something close but similar that can
-actually get done. but it gets more complex than that as a lot of
-people join programming teams to make money and put bread on
-the table. the economy becomes the team. and then you get into
-game theory and realize that sometimes just because a system
-falls into a certain order doesn't mean it's the most mutually
-beneficial way of doing things.
-a programming team wouldn't have an advantage "over"
-somebody unless it's a competing company. but then those
-companies also have teams so it wouldn't be having a team
-per se that gives an advantage "over" them. although teams
-of programmers would have advantage over every would-be
-single programmer that would want to program a competing
-product. but do those people even count? they're not in the
-arena.
-even with a programming team, what language to use depends on
-what the goal is. although it also depends on the preconceptions
-of ill-informed higher-ups. i'm not prepared to say, though, that
-some programming languages aren't more amenable to
-team-work than others.
I'd start to discuss state property in appertanance to city property.
What are some properties of the state?
-what states have more than cities: power. universality. levels of
-beaurocracy. global relevance. size. superordination. time.
You would have to introduce a computer to a (finite?) way of
expressing language, provided it *expresses* at rates over time that
do not exceed its input (impression), and limited by the complexity
bound of the architecture. Tangent: architecture complexity.
-hmm. expression vs. impression rates represents symmetry in flow.
-conservation of information. complexity of architecture is static.
-so i wonder what dimension that affects. the only thing I can think of
-is that regardless of your flow control if your architecture is too
-simple then people will realize that it's not sentient. they may realize
-that anyway but they'd be less entertained. basically, your computer
-would be less effective at achieving its goals in a complex arena. but
-not all arenas are complex. (people are, yes.)
In order to recreate 'propositional knowledge', you have to tell it.
Accumulating could amount to hashing video feed over time. What do
you know about what's on the screen? Naturally, as symbols are
logical, the video would have to be of something you want from it,
even if it's high spirits.
-i don't fully understand this logic and i don't fully agree with it so i
-won't comment.
I am less concerned about the audio, but maybe video is just one way
of learning. What information do the mic inputs convey from a spoken
voice? (And how do you summarize that?)
-it's probably easier to gather information from audio. but then you can
-gather more at a time from video (with more holistic requirements). but
-then if you're measuring how much you can gather per byte of input
-stream (thus putting 'at a time' into the von neuman computing arena or
-perhaps bandwidth allowance) then it's hard to say (as video requires
-more bytes per sense-time).
-to summarize, mic inputs convey a) one's voice (it's part of why people
-fall in love..), b) words and sentences; semantic content; formal
-(or informal) facts (already in propositional form) (depending on the
-the theoretical limits for AI speech recognition), c) intonation and
emphasis
-of those words (largely requires understanding of the psyche for
-interpretation). but i'm not going to say that a computer can necessarily
-understand psyche (or one's voice); it's cosmic.
-also, words can express facts from anywhere at any time. video
-expresses an event or a state at one particular place at one
-one particular time. so, even though the facts of words are
-compressed (assimilated semiotically, symbolic, serialized), they can
-give you a lot more factual context on a global scale with which
-to understand the behavior of people everywhere, and moreso their
-words, such as the words in this newsgroup, which you like to participate
in.
And what results are on video summaries are there so far? I would
start with difference primitives on video. How does the same work for
voice?
-i don't understand the last two sentences.
-as for video you should understand solidity, classical mechanics and
-perspective to get some sort of objectivity in its interpretation. perhaps
-color also. (the next higher level of contextual understandig/objectivity
-can only come from words and/or the "cross-sum" of countless videos.
-try an encyclopedia.)
Of course, human understanding may come across the difference in form
of artifacts of hardware, but of course, the crossing operation is non-
trivial to perform, audio and video. I'm not mentioning smell because
crossing it sounds risky. Whaddya know.
-risky? interesting. how would you get smell input anyway?
Now creation and recreation *decompose* into creation and time, spec.
real iteration., but where I'm from, creation and time are known to
cross means; if I have inferred correctly so far, you want a computer
to recreate. If so, you want creation in act to tell a story. I
think it's more fun to make them up than tell computers, and if we're
by them, can we tell a story on a newsgroup? Who understands best in
the cross-sum of { Newsgroup, Newsgroup + task, Computer }? Who wants
to define cross-sum?
-you're the only one fusing newsgroups and computers. and i'm the only
-one that's paying attention, so i guess the answer is either you, or I.
-you're asking /us/ to define cross-sum? suspiciously flippant.
