Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why the 'Star Trek Computer' Will Be Open Source and Apache Licensed

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the so-we-can-keep-an-eye-on-the-bynars dept.

Open Source 129

psykocrime writes "The crazy kids at Fogbeam Labs have a new blog post positing that there is a trend towards advanced projects in NLP, Information Retrieval, Big Data and the Semantic Web moving to the Apache Software Foundation. Considering that Apache UIMA is a key component of IBM Watson, is it wrong to believe that the organization behind Hadoop, OpenNLP, Jena, Stanbol, Mahout and Lucene will ultimately be the home of a real 'Star Trek Computer'? Quoting: 'When we talk about how the Star Trek computer had “access to all the data in the known Universe”, what we really mean is that it had access to something like the Semantic Web and the Linked Data cloud. Jena provides a programmatic environment for RDF, RDFS and OWL, SPARQL and includes a rule-based inference engine. ... In addition to supporting the natural language interface with the system, OpenNLP is a powerful library for extracting meaning (semantics) from unstructured data - specifically textual data in an unstructured (or semi structured) format. An example of unstructured data would be the blog post, an article in the New York Times, or a Wikipedia article. OpenNLP combined with Jena and other technologies, allows “The computer” to “read” the Web, extracting meaningful data and saving valid assertions for later use.'" Speaking of the Star Trek computer, I'm continually disappointed that neither Siri nor Google Now can talk to me in Majel Barrett's voice.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

In The Words Of William Shatner (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43797963)

In the words of William Shatner: Get a fucking life.

Re:In The Words Of William Shatner (4, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798275)

I believe that should be "Get. A fucking. Life, eh?"

Re:In The Words Of William Shatner (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | about a year and a half ago | (#43800261)

In the words of Max Headroom [youtube.com] :

"W-W-What about H-H-Humble little m-m-m-me?"

Re:In The Words Of William Shatner (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43800479)

You're not William Shatner!

*cough* (0)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | about a year and a half ago | (#43797975)

LCARS24*cough*

Re:*cough* (5, Funny)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798209)

LCARS any version will never be open sourced because Paramount/CBS will never release their rights to the design.

Now the original 23rd century design, which was all voice interface and blinky lights, would be neat, but pretty damn hard to implement until we can get a computer to "recognize speech" instead of "wreck a nice beach".

Re:*cough* (5, Funny)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798317)

That was only a problem because you were trying to talk to a Klingon interface. Klingon computers interpret everything as targeting orders.

Re:*cough* (2)

cogeek (2425448) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798367)

Paramount doesn't hold the rights. Gene Roddenberry made the LCARS interface open source long ago, for anyone to use in free projects.

Re:*cough* (3, Informative)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798431)

Sorry to burst your bubble. From Wikipedia:

CBS Studios Inc. claims to hold the copyright on LCARS. Google was sent a DMCA letter to remove the Android app called tricorder [8] since its use of the LCARS interface was un-licenced. The application was later re-uploaded under a different title, but it was removed again.

Re:*cough* (0)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798487)

Claims to hold the rights, not proven. This has yet to be tested in court.

Re:*cough* (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43798877)

If you have ~$200k to perform this test, and were willing to do it, I would love you for it.

Justice is *not* cheap. :(

Takedown notice != legitimate copyright claim (4, Informative)

Phil Urich (841393) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798563)

The original post about the takedown request can be found at http://web.archive.org/web/20111130013603/http://code.google.com/p/moonblink/wiki/Tricorder [archive.org] . It says in part,

It's apparently the graphical design that's at issue, not the name. According to Wikipedia, "Gene Roddenberry's contract included a clause allowing any company able to create functioning technology to use the name". Now that GR is dead, I guess CBS believes they own swoopy curves.

Since I don't have legal weasels of my own, or the time to deal with this, that's it for Tricorder.

It's far from clear that CBS has any copyright on LCARS, it's more that any entity like CBS with enough money to throw at the legal system can get away with claiming such, and random people just have to go along with it thanks to the way our legal system works.

Re:Takedown notice != legitimate copyright claim (3, Interesting)

wickedskaman (1105337) | about a year and a half ago | (#43799475)

This makes me wonder if Kickstarting legal funds could be viable for David to have a war chest against Goliath in these kinds of IP controversies.

Re:Takedown notice != legitimate copyright claim (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43801729)

You've never heard of the "donate to so-and-so's legal fund" requests? Same thing without gifts for the people donating.

Re:*cough* (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798589)

Now the original 23rd century design, which was all voice interface and blinky lights, would be neat, but pretty damn hard to implement until we can get a computer to "recognize speech" instead of "wreck a nice beach".

Oh but we *have* that already... Never mind the error rate.... Ever called an IVR based phone tree? Yea, they can recognize speech *just* fine. Personally I go for the DTMF interface, it's usually faster.

Speech recondition that is speaker independent generally has to be vocabulary constrained. It's usually easy to tell the difference between "Yes" and "No" but if the speaker says anything else, it's going to go off the rails pretty quick. The more things you are listening for, the less confidence you are going to have between all the options.... That's why these systems are always prompting you to say certain words and phrases. If you want large vocabularies, you will need to either train the system to be speaker dependent, train the speakers to be consistent or be able to live with incorrect detections.

"He's too far Jim!".. or was that "He's Foo Bar Jim!"? I guess that one doesn't matter..

Re:*cough* (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year and a half ago | (#43799217)

LCARS was the coolest looking shitty UI anyways. Honestly. It only looked awesome because there was limitations on how detailed you could get a picture broadcasted in 480i. That and pastel colors on black made them stand out. When you get right down to it, TV is artful entertainment first and foremost. I seriously doubt LCARS was based on any recommendations by those in UI design. But then again, this was before the .COM rise in 1997.

Re:*cough* (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43799497)

Yeah, the LCARS UI wouldn't really 'work', but the touch interface depicted was 20 years ahead of it's time, which is generally good enough for a sci-fi show.

Meanwhile the Star Trek movies still had big red buttons and low-res 1980s computer displays.

Tool to condense forum posts into a wiki? (2)

WillAdams (45638) | about a year and a half ago | (#43797983)

I've spent more time than I care to remember moving content from:

http://www.shapeoko.com/forum [shapeoko.com]

to

http://www.shapeoko.com/wiki [shapeoko.com]

Why can't it be automated?

Re:Tool to condense forum posts into a wiki? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798149)

Of course it can, and it doesn't need a supercomputer. A competent programmer could do it with a 386.

Re:Tool to condense forum posts into a wiki? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43798153)

An incompetent programmer would need at least a Pentium-III

Re:Tool to condense forum posts into a wiki? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43798303)

And Visual Basic.....

Re:Tool to condense forum posts into a wiki? (1)

bratwiz (635601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43799937)

A competent programmer could do this with an abacus or a slide-rule.

Re:Tool to condense forum posts into a wiki? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798213)

A truly competent programmer could do this in CP/M.

Re:Tool to condense forum posts into a wiki? (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798285)

A truly competent programmer could do this with butterflies.

Re:Tool to condense forum posts into a wiki? (1)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798331)

A competent programmer has already done this with a quantum computer.

Re:Tool to condense forum posts into a wiki? (1)

m.ducharme (1082683) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798469)

Isn't there an EMACS command to do this?

Re:Tool to condense forum posts into a wiki? (0)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798781)

A truly competent programmer could do this with butterflies.

Isn't there an EMACS command to do this?

Wrapping this up, for those who haven't see it: Real Programmers [xkcd.com]

[ C-x M-c M-butterfly ]

Re:Tool to condense forum posts into a wiki? (2)

sensei moreh (868829) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798413)

My first computer ran CP/M. Fell free to play on my lawn

Re:Tool to condense forum posts into a wiki? (1)

DutchUncle (826473) | about a year and a half ago | (#43799585)

My first computer ran CP/M.

Newbie. IBM 1130.

Re:Tool to condense forum posts into a wiki? (1)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | about a year and a half ago | (#43799599)

i spent several years of my life learning cp/m convinced that each product bill produced would never amount to anything. I was mostly right.
swap to disk. that was magic.
I finally learned you can ALWAYS count on IBM to make the wrong choice. As did I. If it wasn't for Linux, I'd probably still be programming in REXX.

Re:Tool to condense forum posts into a wiki? (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43800517)

Bead Shuffling Abacus user here. Also had a Math-Co-Processing slide rule.

Re:Tool to condense forum posts into a wiki? (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43800511)

Do it yourself. It can be automated with a few scripts, would probably take me the lesser part of an hour. If you actually learned how to use computers, i.e., program, instead of just using pre-made functionality, then your life would be a lot easier. Blame your elementary school. Mine taught me BASIC on an Apple IIe when I was 8.

Hell, once I moved a whole forum once using JavaScript and a bit of Perl. Hit a page, then hit the "Quote" buttons on all posts to get at the BBCode, snag the textarea's text and strip off the quote tags, POST to a Perl script including the poster's username to insert the data in the SQL database. Trigger an "Administrative Edit" on the post and save via PHP to get the smilies re-encoded... Tens of Thousands of times over the course of a week. The client didn't think about exporting before using a hosted phpBB forum, and the host wouldn't give up a database dump, so I made one. Probably could stream line that one-off process a bit more, but it was a one-off. Just some piddling crap strung together that anyone who knows how to use a computer should be able to do.

If you never learn to code, you will never be able to fully use computers.

Re:Tool to condense forum posts into a wiki? (1)

WillAdams (45638) | about a year and a half ago | (#43801357)

I write scripts in TeX and AppleScript for my day job, thank you.

I don't see an available tool or technique that'll take 80 search results for ``driveshaft'': http://www.shapeoko.com/forum/search.php?keywords=driveshaft [shapeoko.com]

and condense, reformat,discard redundant / off-topic mentions and create a structured page like: http://www.shapeoko.com/wiki/index.php/Drive_Shaft [shapeoko.com]

There's also 138 matches for ``drive shaft'': http://www.shapeoko.com/forum/search.php?keywords=drive+shaft [shapeoko.com] (and I'm sure someone mis-spelled it as well).

Yes, I could script auto-adding or concatenating 218 pages, but that's not any more useful than any of the responses to my initial post.

+1 for Apache (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43798047)

I'd rather have this software developed in the open at Apache than closed in directories called "Secret business I.P." at Google or worse, Facebook. It's good to see its potential, and would also act as a warning what can be concluded from bits and pieces of personal, private details people tend to give away.

So Java then (1)

LukeWebber (117950) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798099)

I'm OK with it as long as it's not in freakin' PHP or JavaScript.

Re:So Java then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43798245)

Javascript is actually a very powerful language. Just because idiots don't know how to use it properly (and many frameworks encourage this behaviour) doesn't mean the language itself is bad.

Re:So Java then (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798483)

Just because idiots don't know how to use it properly .. doesn't mean the language itself is bad.

Yes, it does. I was walking down the street one day, and a guy named Larry Wall stepped on my foot. He refused to apologize.

I vowed vengeance, and told him I was going to mis-learn his language. "No. No, no!" he protested, but it was too late, as my temper does not cool easily. I followed through on my threat: I spent about 10 minutes trying to learn perl, but I only got as far as learning how to write a few things, and never bothered to proceed to the part of the lessons where one reads Perl.

This caused Perl to become a bad language.

Guido, if you ever step on my foot, apologize. Or else.

No, that is not what we mean. (5, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798101)

'When we talk about how the Star Trek computer had âoeaccess to all the data in the known Universeâ, what we really mean is that it had access to something like the Semantic Web and the Linked Data cloud.

The Enterprise computer was not hampered by being in another galaxy, nor was Voyager's computer hampered by being in the Delta Quadrant. They had local copies of all the data at all times.

Re:No, that is not what we mean. (1)

Ambvai (1106941) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798219)

Were there any storylines where that actually came into play? It would've been an interesting bit of foresight to implement that.

Re:No, that is not what we mean. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43798277)

Depending on how you view it, the "Genesis Project" in Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock.

Re:No, that is not what we mean. (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798461)

Every episode of Voyager. There was a significant time delay even with subspace communications.
Also, in TNG: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/11001001_(episode) [memory-alpha.org]
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701-D)_library_computer [memory-alpha.org]
And in TNG, they traveled to far reaching places on occasion, with no failure in new data queries.
And there was Data, who had the complete neural imprints and electronic records of every colonist of Omicron Theta embedded in his positronic "brain".

Re:No, that is not what we mean. (2)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798495)

Also, there wasn't really any foresight. TNG was started before the Internet was in the mainstream consciousness (especially Hollywood consciousness), and Encarta CDs were the "current" computer version of an encyclopedia, so scaling that up in Sci-Fi would turn into "a computer database that has everything pre-loaded".

Re:No, that is not what we mean. (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798227)

It is called caching, and is already possible. My phone has all the KNOWN DATA that I want, in less than 16GB (well, almost- it is time for a new SD card)

Re:No, that is not what we mean. (2)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798345)

Except in this case, the Enterprise computer cached the entire available knowledge of the Federation whenever it got the chance. It was like a souped-up archive.org with regard to data.

Re:No, that is not what we mean. (2)

WillAdams (45638) | about a year and a half ago | (#43801385)

There was actually explict mention of this in one of the books --- whenever 2 Federation ships meet their computers synch w/ each other --- can't recall it being a plot point though.

Re:No, that is not what we mean. (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about a year and a half ago | (#43799349)

My phone has the entire text contents of the Wikipedia installed on it. It's about a 10GB download and the Android app is free. It takes up part of the 32GB external sd card. I'm sure glad I didn't buy a Google branded phone (Google hates SD slots.)

Re:No, that is not what we mean. (1, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798235)

The Trek computes being open sourced certainly explains how everybody from the Ferengi to the Kazon could take control (also known as the "Invader Friendly Operating System").

Re:No, that is not what we mean. (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about a year and a half ago | (#43799433)

nah: that's Windows - it leaks atmosphere all the time.

reminds me about a short story I read in which enterprise D was under attack by the borg when they're saved by the Windows Activation Ship. Seems the borg were using an pirated copy and the lawyers shut em down.

Re:No, that is not what we mean. (1)

RoknrolZombie (2504888) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798337)

As well as a magical process by which new data was miraculously transferred across billions of miles of space in just shy of an instant. Star fleet just added this info and we're 2,000,000 light years away? No problem...it'll be available by tomorrow.

Re:No, that is not what we mean. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43798395)

Data transfer at the quantum level, using entangled particles should be instantaneous across any distance.

Re:No, that is not what we mean. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43798425)

Erm... see: Subspace Communication. It's faster-than-light ...

Re:No, that is not what we mean. (1)

ewibble (1655195) | about a year and a half ago | (#43799213)

Its clear that Voyager they could not communicate with earth (:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunters_%28Star_Trek:_Voyager%29) is an episode where they found communications array and where finally able get letters from home. So previously they couldn't transfer a letter from home however they the computer could access the all the knowledge in the universe.

Anyway this is fiction so it doesn't have to make sense.

Re:No, that is not what we mean. (2)

westlake (615356) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798597)

The Enterprise computer was not hampered by being in another galaxy... They had local copies of all the data at all times

The Enterprise computer knew what it needed to know to serve the plot. No information lost, corrupted or concealed. No conflicts in interpretation. The perfect machine for a culture turned self-righteous and complacent, without doubts or uncertainties.

gonna have to talk to Jordi about this (1)

Main Gauche (881147) | about a year and a half ago | (#43799443)

Did the transporter just drop me into the middle of some poetry jam?

The crazy kids again eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43798163)

Writing a marketing post about yourself in the third person: inherently deceptive.

soulskill: learn to use the mouise, dude! (1)

swschrad (312009) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798185)

you pick it up, face the back, and say, "Computer..."

Re:soulskill: learn to use the mouise, dude! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43799201)

Mouise? Do you mean mousse?

And this means???? (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798197)

From somebody who spent a few hours working a show with Gene Roddenberry before his ashes got the cosmic brush off... Having run film clips and sound for his famed "lecture" on Star Trek's past and how that changed our future, I thought he was nuts (1987).

Science Fiction has foreseen future events, but it is NOT an accurate representation of what is going to happen. So how on earth (or in space for that matter) can we tell what software will be used in the future for some yet to be designed hardware? Add to this that we are not even sure when or even if such a theoretical machine will ever exist and how can we figure any kind of useful debate will come from this?

Oh yea, this is star trek.. Home to the group that thinks some group of two bit "B" list actors are somehow for tellers of the future

Re:And this means???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43798971)

Yikes. Someone sure has a stick up their butt.

Re:And this means???? (3, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43800571)

From somebody who spent a few hours working a show with Gene Roddenberry before his ashes got the cosmic brush off... Having run film clips and sound for his famed "lecture" on Star Trek's past and how that changed our future, I thought he was nuts (1987).

Science Fiction has foreseen future events, but it is NOT an accurate representation of what is going to happen. So how on earth (or in space for that matter) can we tell what software will be used in the future for some yet to be designed hardware? Add to this that we are not even sure when or even if such a theoretical machine will ever exist and how can we figure any kind of useful debate will come from this?

Oh yea, this is star trek.. Home to the group that thinks some group of two bit "B" list actors are somehow for tellers of the future

Your argument from authority is unappealing. The components of a computing system similar to a fictitious one have been identified. The likelihood of their software licensing approach is being projected based upon current component licensing and development plans. We do not think the "B" list actors knew what the "techno-babble" they were spouting meant.

However, when we create devices that are similar to the fictitious devices, we can and will make comparisons. The Hypo-spay exists. Tablet Computers exist. Food replication systems are in development. 3D TV exists. We launched a rocket similar to Jules Verne's to the moon. Eventually the rockets we send to Mars and/or the Moon will land vertically Delta-V style, like Verne's rocket did (so they can take off again). Cars can apply brakes when proximity alarms go off -- Cars can even drive themselves now, like in Sleeper; They can parallel park too! Applications for Mars Colonization are being accepted...

Stop for a moment and think about current technologies. Now extrapolate a bit. Extrapolate a bit further. Write a story about it. Marvel as some of your ideas weren't actually bat-shit insane after all. Some are more accurate than others. I think you need to re-evaluate your life. The future they did not "predict", happened the way they said it would despite your claim to the contrary...

Oh, Great! (1)

Bodhammer (559311) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798201)

What tools are the Borg supposed to use then?


(Oh wait - Googleplex, nevermind...)

Re:Oh, Great! (0)

mcl630 (1839996) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798369)

Don't you mean Microsoft?

Bill Gates Borg [google.com]

Re:Oh, Great! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43798713)

We can only hope. That way, when their Exchange license expires, they'll be unable to send messages or organize meetings.

Re:Oh, Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43800639)

What a contemporary joke you have made. Hey, did you know that emacs is so fat, the distribution takes over eight megabytes? Now tell me something funny about OS/2.

Voice Search and Medical Tricorder (1)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798223)

Google's 'Star Trek computer' voice search [watoday.com.au] is cool, but Siri is already here. Scanadu's Scout, "the first Medical Tricorder" [mashable.com] could be another Trek-inspired innovation that will make the world a better place.

Re:Voice Search and Medical Tricorder (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798283)

but Siri is already here.

But it's going to be a *really* long delay involved in getting the data back to Apple's servers when you are a light year away from earth when you try and connect with Siri... (grin) I'm thinking that's going to make Siri system pretty much useless before you get halfway to Mars..

Re: Voice Search and Medical Tricorder (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43798939)

siri is big iron powered, yes.

however, if you note on many TNG (and even voyager) episodes, starfleet vessels have a big honking big iron computer core, and a lot of dumb terminals all over the place.

things like PADDs and tricorders have some minimal processing power (even being abused to half-assedly fill in for vital ship functions when slaved together ad-hoc in both a TNG episode, and in a voyager episode, when the big iron either fails catastrophically or is stolen), but for the most part make heavy use of the interna subspace com system array of the starship to leverage the ship's big iron.

in terms of extended cannon, the starfleet data network makes use of local "akamai like" cache servers on dedicated installations (see TOS "memory core alpha", and pals.) as well as local cached copies on board the starship itself for normal data queries. this helps compartmentalize data queries, and keep subspace data transfers to a minimum. this is why the ship's computer doesnt fall on its face when blown to the other side of the galaxy, where top speed bidirectional communication has a 140 year latency. (70 each way, IIRC for voyager.) (or longer, such as the TNG episode where they get sent to sparklie glittery fairyland where thoughts somehow have impact on reality.)

siri works now on considerably less iron than these fictional starships carry around in thier bellies, so expecting siri queries to go over the starfleet comnet is ridiculous. (the big iron in the starship's main function is to calculate motion vectors for superluminal travel, which is a very tall order. siri like voice recognition would be a whimsically easy task in comparison, even when resolving thousands of simultaneous queries.)

and congratulations: you just made a casual watcher of the series look like a diehard trekie. (gawd i feel so dirty..)

Re: Voice Search and Medical Tricorder (1)

l0n3s0m3phr34k (2613107) | about a year and a half ago | (#43801063)

Big iron is right...if I remember through the haze of ages long ago, my tech manual said the cores in Enterprise-D are huge, and there's three of them. Three decks high, so..10x3, or whatever the deck heights exactly are. So, I imagine like 20-30 of the old school Cray mainframes stacked on top of each other. What would be interesting is to figure how much processing power we could stuff into a similar form factor right now. How far could we push a compact data center into a 30ftx6ft tube? Power not being a problem, allowing ventilation shafts for heat control and human access.

Re:Voice Search and Medical Tricorder (1)

lennier (44736) | about a year and a half ago | (#43799237)

Scanadu's Scout, "the first Medical Tricorder" [mashable.com] could be another Trek-inspired innovation that will make the world a better place.

They have a tricorder? Well that's it. The gloves are off. Listen up everybody - we're going to a quadcorder.

Semantic Web (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43798253)

Oh noes. A Semantic Web fanboi.

Cluestick - the future won't involve the Semantic Web.

Like all the Star Trek Enterprises, it will never fly except in your fantasies.

WHY GOD WILL ONLY SAVE CHRISTIANS !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43798397)

Be definition, you heathen !! Hope you like your weather HOT HOT HOT !!

Wasn't it Majel Barrett's voice in the I/O demo? (1)

Phil Urich (841393) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798489)

I swear that when they demonstrated voice search with Google Now on desktops during Google I/O last week, the computer read out the resulting query in Majel Barrett's voice.

Wasn't it Majel Barrett's voice in the I/O demo? (0)

Phil Urich (841393) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798503)

I swear the demonstration of Google Now voice search at Google I/O last week had Majel Barrett's voice reading back the search query.

M5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43798513)

we all know how M5 turned out....

Re:M5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43798677)

Um, they [wikipedia.org] started filming a fun TV show there?

And in an ironic twist... (2)

Tarlus (1000874) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798551)

And in a ironic twist, the algorithms used to manifest a cup of Earl Grey tea will be closed and patented.

Re:And in an ironic twist... (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about a year and a half ago | (#43798639)

Yea, but by the time they have a machine built to make the cup of tea, the patent will have expired...

How will the patent trolls go after all the bittorrent client's that download that one or will the existence of a hot cup of Earl Grey be enough to get you sued?

Re: And in an ironic twist... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43799041)

The real issue is the political anre regulatory stalemate about weather or not molecular pattern replicators should be a household item or not, due to the fact that you can create phasers cheaply and discretely with one.

How can the future be peaceful and safe, if just anyone could walk up to a pattern replicator and say "I'll take 3 tricobalt devices, a type 12 compression phaser rifle, and a rack of subspace interphasic antipersonel mines please.", without even the slightest of overhead!
(/snark about all the hoopla over plastic guns)

Re: And in an ironic twist... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43799301)

Sure, you can create a phaser discretely. The real question is, do you have the engineering skills to build it?

Re: And in an ironic twist... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43799387)

this is the startek future we are talking about here1 the one where you can get a heuristically computer generated world with realistic physics simulations and realistic physical representations of objects, just from a few adjectives and a delcarative statement in the holodeck!

Do you honestly think that you couldnt get access to sensor logs of such devices, and tell the computer to heuristically extrapolate the construction based on that known data?

all you would need are a few friends with tricorders, some snazz with encrypted data channels, and a local replicator program you want synthesized.

"computer, local pattern codename "LulZer rifle" please."

the whole point of discrete and ubiquitus omni-fabrication is that you dont NEED to have full working engineering knowledge, just the manufacturing pattern template. being digital data, i would expect such patterns to be quite abundant and widely circulated.

Add in cases where a simple sensor scan can be heuristically analyzed for structural elements and compositional data, and a tricorder becomes a very powerful tool indeed.

Re: And in an ironic twist... (2)

l0n3s0m3phr34k (2613107) | about a year and a half ago | (#43801089)

The replicators on startrek often couldn't replicate highly "advanced chemicals", such as trilithium and other random made up plot devices. At one point they where described as only holding certain patterns, and could go and find new ones on demand. In federation space they usually had to be regulated and inspected to try and stop whoever from making nasty things. I don't really recall it being used on a wide-scale, federation starships notwithstanding. I'm assuming the computing power and energy requirements of Enterprise-D's replicators wasn't found outside said starships. A consumer grade could probably not make correct quantum states to make startrek-style energy sources. Good enough to just do molecular-level replication, pushing atoms into a matrix at the speed of light so it just "appears". I can see us making this too, with meta material nano lenses, lasers passing through a medium grabbing the needed atoms out. It would probably have to be re-calibrated often, and the better the computer running it the better the device would be.

Apache? no. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43798683)

Non copy left licenses will only result in huge vendors like IBM cannibalizing the code into proprietary projects like Watson. The rise of the apache license has been the biggest dumping of the open source community by vendors who want to take without giving back in kind.

Re:Apache? no. (1)

sonamchauhan (587356) | about a year and a half ago | (#43801235)

Some developers like liberal copyright licenses too.

devouring an internet full of unstructured data (2)

Alsee (515537) | about a year and a half ago | (#43799211)

the natural language interface with the system, OpenNLP is a powerful library for extracting meaning (semantics) from unstructured data... An example of unstructured data would be the blog post, an article in the New York Times, or a Wikipedia article.

Warning: Other examples of "unstructured data" include 4chan and Conservapedia.

-

Apache BattleOffice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43799291)

I recall the Apache OpenOffice guys were indeed considering adding Klingon.

Google (1)

posthxc1982 (2539048) | about a year and a half ago | (#43799581)

'When we talk about how the Star Trek computer had “access to all the data in the known Universe” it's called Google.

Google vs. ST:TNG computer (1)

dcsmith (137996) | about a year and a half ago | (#43799595)

Apparently the ST:TNG computer couldn't even handle Boolean queries, much less queries with semantic awareness...

TROI: Computer, search for the term Darmok in all linguistic databases for this sector.
COMPUTER: Searching. Darmok is the name of a seventh dynasty emperor on Kanda Four. A mytho-historical hunter on Shantil Three. A colony on Malindi Seven. A frozen dessert on Tazna Five. A
TROI: Stop search. Computer, how many entries are there for Darmok?
COMPUTER: Forty seven.
.
.
.
DATA: Computer, search for the term Tanagra. All databases.
COMPUTER: Searching. Tanagra. The ruling family on Gallos Two. A ceremonial drink on Lerishi Four. An island-continent on Shantil Three
TROI: Stop. Shantil Three. Computer, cross-reference the last entry with the previous search index.
COMPUTER: Darmok is the name of a mytho-historical hunter on Shantil Three.
TROI: I think we've got something.

Re: Google vs. ST:TNG computer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43799661)

that just shows that the crew is incompetent, not that the computer cant do a boolean tuple search.

in fact, it does exactly that when they query "search all databases(exclude all NOT "this sector(CurrentSector)")"+"darmok"+"tanagra".

but this was before the internet, where john q public and his buddies Joe shmoe and Bob anyman became aware of logically structured search queries. the writers had to hold the audience's hands, even though that makes the bridge officers look ragingly retarded for trying to sort through a jumbled mountain of google results for a simple one word query.

Re: Google vs. ST:TNG computer (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43799819)

Uh... no. STTNG was definitely *NOT* before the Internet.

It was, however, before Eternal September.

Re: Google vs. ST:TNG computer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43800413)

Ok, fine.

before the "modern" internet, as defined by the currently prevailing mesh of hypertext protocol interinked page heuristics, aggregated public search engines, and inexpensive anytime access for anyone, basically anywhere.

the "internet", as a nonprofit, college data exchange internetwork was certainly well in existence before TNG, and was probably in existence toward the end of the TOS. (if not, very close. arpanet is quite old indeed, and the coldwar was a major impetus for its creation, and decentralized design for fault tolerance reasons.)

I was referring specifically as "the internet" as a cultural pheomenon, which coincides with the arrival of the Eternal September. Not as the existence of a TCP/IP v4 global internetwork for information exchange.

(you know, what al gore was instrumental in causing. ;) )

Re:Google vs. ST:TNG computer (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year and a half ago | (#43800083)

the ST:TNG computer couldn't even handle Boolean queries

That, or Troi was too dumb to effectively operate the computer. I've got an opinion on which of those is more likely...

Re:Google vs. ST:TNG computer (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43800633)

Whatever dude, Troi was just nearly computer illiterate. Geordi ran boolean searches and "cross references" all the time. Hell, it even created a sentient hologram once just to give Data a challenging case of who-dun-it, Moriarty figured out he was in a star-ship and wanted to stop playing the game and be told WTF was going on and have his own life... Yeah, a system with that degree of complexity can't run a boolean search. Look, we've already got enough compute power the world over that if you ran a distributed AI program on all the hardware and connected it to the Internet it would have more than the complexity of a human brain (when you factor in RAM and GHz vs that of a human). A system as big and complex as the Enterprise with all that processing power -- IMO, it's a wonder that every star ship wasn't sentient in that series -- A failure of Roddenberry's understanding of cybernetics, if you ask me.

Would you settle for the voice of Rommie? (2)

DutchUncle (826473) | about a year and a half ago | (#43799627)

Or perhaps you remember the Dumarest stories, each of which had a Cyber with "the trained voice which contained no irritant factors" . . .

Seriously, there must be enough audio of Majel Barrett to synthesize a decent copy. Sounds like an open source Kickstarter to me.

Majel Forever! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43799825)

Ok, I'm only going to say this once. If it's going to be the future according to Star Trek. Then all computers have to sound like Majel!!!!! It's been that way for almost 50 years, it's set in stone. I've thought about this for years, even before she passed away. We need to digitize EVERYTHING SHE EVER SAID and make a standard open source dig chip that all computers, phones, tv's, microwaves, cars...everything has to sound like her. She's the voice of the computer!
Siri can go @#!% it.

Way too early, and assuming way to much (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43800311)

No.

It's patently absurd to say we "know" what technology a Star Trek class computer will be built upon. Even assuming that some successful FOSS model will be the design space of the system is... overreaching at best, and blissful ignorance of the problem at worst.

The Star Trek computers were not merely able to understand free-form speech, access vast databases, and resolve linguistic irregularities, assumptions, and unbounded problem areas. In some cases the crew asked the computer whether the computer was even able to solve certain problems, and the computer figured out for itself whether it could or not. This is a primitive form of self-awareness.

I suggest that the Star Trek computers were displaying signs of full-fledged intellingence, even in TOS. By the time of TNG the computer was able to project Minuet as a fully realized personality. By the time of Voyager the computer supported an independent personality, in control of it's own power switch, in the form of the ship's doctor.

No amount of wishful thinking, handwaving, and quoting of buzzwords like NLP, Big Data, Semantic Web, and Apache, and the like, can bridge the yawning gulf between what those systems and technologies bring, versus what the Star Trek computers were doing. True artificial intelligence is still decades to centuries down the road.

TFA comes from too much Star Trek movie hype (2)

cstacy (534252) | about a year and a half ago | (#43800589)

WARNING: Fatal exposure in 69 minutes!

A know it all computer should be called ORAC (1)

Zubinix (572981) | about a year and a half ago | (#43800735)

I like my all knowing computers to constantly remind humans of their insignificance and gross inferiority. No computer personified this more than ORAC from the 1980's British Sci-Fi "Blake's 7".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoHkaFDTiD8 [youtube.com]

and remember "modesty would be dishonesty" for such an intelligence!

And not a single f was given (1)

tgv (254536) | about a year and a half ago | (#43800761)

To my joy, I notice that no-one actually tries to support or refute the claims from the OP. And that's a good thing. It is talk from someone who considers himself visionary because he says something very 2.0 based upon acronyms and projects he doesn't understand. The kind of tech in OpenNLP has been around for 20 years now, and adding a few components that can brokerage and leverage and whateverage unstructured data is not going to improve it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?