A New Name

[Poem58]

I'd have went with a name and designation. Amiga 1200, Atari ST, Ferrari 350, Persil White, Nokia 1100.

Pandora 600, OpenPandora Series 1, OP 1 etc

OP-1 (added a dash)

I like that. Simple, to the point name that is easily recognizable while searching and makes future iteration easy to name (OP-2, OP-3, etc.)

 

[lulzfish]

OP-0

Makes it C / C++ compatible.

 

[rabidpoobear]

OP-0

Makes it C / C++ compatible.

Well I usually iterate starting at the end of an array and traversing to the beginning
for (int i = array.length-1; i > -1; i--)

So let's just figure out how many pandora versions we're going to make and decrement the version number each release!

 

[fiori_musicali]

[ ... ] I'm pretty sure you're just too cynical about people's intentions. When I look up information (which is pretty much all I do all day) I do it to further my knowledge so I can discuss a topic. I'm not pretending to be an expert, I'm attempting to become one. Or at least elevate my understanding above a layman's. I think that's a noble goal, whether or not you'll call me a copy machine. [ ... ]

I may be cynical, but in my view not unfoundedly so. Also, if you present a vast amount of information relying on sources, you should omit "I think" because that is dishonest (generally speaking, not implying that Shaun specifically would).

Learning is a noble goal, but again I'm cynical about whether people will actually learn more than before the easy access to information that the Internet currently provides. The other possibility is that they reduce the process into learning to seek references (which currently is effortless) instead of learning to contain it in memory.

What you speak of sounds to me like an altogether different thing than what irks me about the new Internet generation of renaissance geniuses who consider themselves ready and able to debate anything from history to culture and arts to advanced modern science, only because they can type in keywords.

I posit that if you take the Internet away from these Wikipedia professors and sit down to talk with them, most will go back to sounding like an elementary school student. Which is fine, until they start lying to me.

 

[VRAndy]

You think. Yeah... Not Wikipedia.

This is one of those comments that tells you more about the person making the comment than he intended.

 

[fiori_musicali]

You think. Yeah... Not Wikipedia.

This is one of those comments that tells you more about the person making the comment than he intended.

That would be just too easy to backfire, just like it was for you to turn that over, so I digress.

 

[Pleng]

Pandora P-500

 

[Monk]

OP2007

No, wait - OP2008

No, hangon - OP2009

Maybe OP2010?

 

[Monk]

Learning is a noble goal, but again I'm cynical about whether people will actually learn more than before the easy access to information that the Internet currently provides. The other possibility is that they reduce the process into learning to seek references (which currently is effortless) instead of learning to contain it in memory.

I have SO been trying to keep out of this because it seems like the potential for mud-slinging is limitless. One could say that your avatar is not helping because it lends an air of snootish snobbery to the proceedings which may not be intentional, and you could retort quite easily something about my lack of avatar and so on and so forth.

But it's the line about memory that got me intruiged, and wondering if an actual conversation couldn't be made of this. It seems to me that there's a divide here between "memory" in fleshy icky grey matter that happens to be situated in the skull and "memory" as in data storage "out there" on the net. Learning to retrieve information is something I was taught long ago as being superior to learning to remember "facts", many of which (historically) will turn out to have little or no value in ones life. It therefore struck me as interesting that someone seemed to be viewing "internal memory" as of higher value than "external memory" in today's culture, when we are heading towards more and more technology in our daily lives, not less. How does this compare to, say, an athlete who has artifical legs, or who plays basketball from their wheelchair, and so on?*

It'd sad, but I feel the need to add a "disclaimer" of sorts.

Sadly, I "get" the idea that young people (mostly? Soley?) might be tempted to look up and parrot what they read online without actually UNDERSTANDING what they've written, or being sure of its veracity. They don't, frankly, interest me much but I certainly am not arguing either that they don't exist or that they should be forgiven - all I'm interested with is whether "internal memory" is truly and definitively better than "external memory" - especailly if the "external memory" requires more intelligence to use?

Ta

*Sources - aside from my own generic "growing up", these thoughts have been specifically influenced by the writings of Terry Prachett and Isaac Asimov, although I did not look up and refer to either on this occasion, using just "internal memory" instead
I suspect that "The Science of DiscWorld" #3 or possibly #2 would contain the strongest source material for the "Internet as external memory" concept, though I can't say the authors phrased it quite like that (tho my grey matter suggests they said something pretty close, if not exactly so).

 

[latiosu]

Craiginator

But maybe it's not that new...

 

[Bosbeetle]

I'll just call it bob, mwoehahahahaha

 

[fiori_musicali]

Hello Monk, and thanks for your conscise reply.

I have SO been trying to keep out of this because it seems like the potential for mud-slinging is limitless.

Don't worry, I won't sling mud at anyone for posting civil replies.

One could say that your avatar is not helping because it lends an air of snootish snobbery to the proceedings which may not be intentional, [...]

The portrait in my avatar is Girolamo Frescobaldi, an Italian renaissance/baroque era composer whose life spanned from 1583 to 1643, best known from his numerous keyboard works for organ and cembalo (harpsichord), and whose probably most famous work was Fiori musicali ("musical colours") which young J.S. Bach is known to have copied by hand for he valued this work very much. Impression of snobbery is unintentional and unfortunate.

But it's the line about memory that got me intruiged, and wondering if an actual conversation couldn't be made of this. [ ... ] It therefore struck me as interesting that someone seemed to be viewing "internal memory" as of higher value than "external memory" in today's culture, when we are heading towards more and more technology in our daily lives, not less.

The issue is dishonesty, to which there are two aspects; In academic world it's considered rude not to give credit where it is due by providing references when citing sources. Giving recognition promotes maintaining healthier and more motivated atmosphere, while contributing to writing more accurate history. The other aspect is reality (as in truth), which should have intrinsic value. If you intentionally give the impression that you possess more knowledge, insight or expertise (my apologies if that sound redundant, but they can be considered distinct things) than you in reality do, it's an act of lying, which should be socially despicable and potentially detrimental to a serious discussion. Nobody seems to care about this, whereas I see it as a bigger, more fundamental problem related to maintaining quality standards on communication as the common protocol for sharing information (or just interacting in general).

You have certainly heard the phrase "Google motherfucker, do you know it?", or any substantially identical variation of the suggestion that essentially says: "Instead of conversing this with us, use the search engine." Now, this is in itself a completely neutral instruction which most definitely has its places. The other side of the coin is that I have been gravely disappointed for the lack willingness from some people to engage in actual interactive exchange of ideas - generating flow of thought - that would have been possible if they didn't rather toss me the passive solution. These instances have been on very specific topics on which I indeed could have "looked it up", but was more interested in having an evolving, multi-threaded and branching conversation on the topic and then ten more.

I admit that I am a bit old-fashioned (or just quirky), but I hold dear to me the ideal of independence from external bodies of information. From an ideal into an application (to reality), it could be translated principally into "Value information, take with you as much as you can carry, but don't become assimilated into that which you don't", of which one derivation could be "Don't identify yourself with the exterior" (as in, confusing internal and external memory). The extremities would of course be unconventional (or crazy, if you will), and the idea being presented in them is only for the sake of clearer conceptualization.

How does this compare to, say, an athlete who has artifical legs, or who plays basketball from their wheelchair, and so on?

Regarding my ideal, the circumstances don't change much anything. You do what you can with what you have. You also don't go on the Internet to pretend to be a professional (undisabled) NBA player in order to raise your status.

[ ... ] all I'm interested with is whether "internal memory" is truly and definitively better than "external memory" - especailly if the "external memory" requires more intelligence to use?

It depends on your personal values. Though I can argue in defense of my own viewpoint, I think only God knows what is "better", if such a division is possible. Whether using the external memory requires more intelligence, whether it is "the right" kind of intelligence (and in what contexts? future? after that?), and whether it's the only natural way to go from here, is an interesting question. I believe that the human brain's capacity will be augmented by electronics in the future. What that means, where we go from there, and what are the possible regrets that we could face ("Don't you wish we invested more skill points in that one attribute instead of this other" etc.), is open for speculation. What we do know is that life is known to have overcome obstacles notoriously well in the past.

*Sources - aside from my own generic "growing up", these thoughts have been specifically influenced by the writings of Terry Prachett and Isaac Asimov, although I did not look up and refer to either on this occasion, using just "internal memory" instead
I suspect that "The Science of DiscWorld" #3 or possibly #2 would contain the strongest source material for the "Internet as external memory" concept, though I can't say the authors phrased it quite like that (tho my grey matter suggests they said something pretty close, if not exactly so).

You satire is appreciated, and to walk the walk I admit to being an active dictionary user. Mostly just checking if the meanings of the words are what I have empirically been lead to believe. Everything is, of course. Just look at my face: I know my shit.

 

[Tensuke]

Aside from Craiginator(excellent name btw), I like the idea of using Greek/Roman/scientist type names. Such as Copernicus, suggested earlier, or maybe Archimedes, Galileo, Sagan...Of course for the Pandora 2.

 

[rokdcasbah]

Pandora's a good name for small electronic things because it calls to mind a box crammed full of "stuff". Like the line of Korg Pandoras:
http://www.korg.com/...uct.aspx?pd=290
They're pretty nice, too. And pretty soon I'm gonna have both kinds of Pandora