“While project performance is generally evaluated in terms of the “iron triangle” of schedule, cost and quality performance, guidelines for project quality management are lacking.”(Steyn, 2008) For this purpose, several institutions and research papers addressed this issue and provided recommendations for improving information technology projects’ quality. After researching and reading many of these recommendations, I choose to discuss below three suggestions for improving the quality of IT projects.
My first preferred suggestion is to understand the level of quality expected by the project owners or stakeholders. “Customer quality expectations and acceptance criteria specify that quality is determined by the customer, not by the project manager.” (Cusolito, n.d.) Defining this understanding early on in the project helps both the project manager and team evaluate the processes and phases better and comprehend accordingly the level of commitment and effort required. Delivering a project that satisfies the customers expected quality can be interpreted as nothing but success.
My second suggestion is to follow maturity models prepared by renowned institutions like the Software Engineering Institute (SEI). SEI developed a Capability Maturity Model (CMM) for Software: “The Capability Maturity Model for Software (CMM or SW-CMM) is a reference model for appraising software process maturity and a normative model for helping software organizations progress along an evolutionary path from ad hoc, chaotic processes to mature, disciplined software processes.” (Herbsleb/Zubrow/Goldenson/Hayes/Paulk, 1997) Following such models enhances not only the quality of the final product but furthermore affects other major aspects: “sophisticated statistical analysis of data from a large software development laboratory in a Fortune 100 company showed that process maturity significantly increased quality…. Higher product quality, however, significantly reduced both development and support cost,…”.(Herbsleb/Zubrow/Goldenson/Hayes/Paulk, 1997)
CMM, being a five-level model, allowed immediate quality related categorization of the different IT companies according to the level of commitment to the defined standards.
Many other similar models are still being developed like the Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) created by the PMI’s Standards Development Program and the Documentation Maturity Model suggested by Huang and Tiley in 2003 (Huang&Tiley, 2003).
My third suggestion is to promote quality amongst top management or project owners. “Quality is the result of a carefully constructed cultural environment. It has to be the fabric of the organization, not part of the fabric.”(Crosby, n.d.) If the project stakeholders are accustomed to quality, then they will settle for nothing less. Highlighting the advantages of having quality products increases the management’s crave for quality. Accentuating the return on investment related to quality of the produced project will further improve the chances of even obtaining a bigger budget for the project at hand!
Quality of projects is what differentiates one company from another. It divides them into different levels similar to the maturity levels described above. Understanding the stakeholders expected quality enhances the chances of delivering a sign-off material project. And finally, familiarizing top management with quality products ameliorates the quality likelihood of the project. With this thought, I would like to end this by a related quote for a leader in the IT industry, Steve Jobs, when he said: “Be a yardstick of quality. Some people aren't used to an environment where excellence is expected.”(Jobs, n.d.)
References:
1. Steyn, Herman (July 27-31, 2008) A Framework for Managing Quality on System Development Projects [Research Paper] available from: IEEE Digital Library – IEEE Xplore under: PICMET 2008 Proceedings, 27-31 July, Cape Town, South Africa
2. Cusolito, Rick (n.d.) The High Cost of Low Quality [online] available from: http://www.butrain.com/Project-management-training-courses/highcost.asp?source=20669
3. James Herbsleb, David Zubrow, Dennis Goldenson, Will Hayes, and Mark Paulk (June 1997) Software Quality and the Capability Maturity Model [Research Paper] available from: ACM Digital Library - ACM 0002-0782/97/0600
4. Shihong Huang & Scott Tiley (October 12-15, 2003) Towards a Documentation Maturity Model [Research Paper] available from: ACM Digital Library - ACM 1-58113-696-X/03/0010
5. Crosby, Philip (n.d.) Quality Quotes[online] available from: http://thinkexist.com/quotations/quality/2.html
6. Jobs, Steve (n.d.) Quality Quotes[online] available from: http://thinkexist.com/quotations/quality/2.html
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Human Neurons and A.I.
If the brain is a computer and the mind its workings, is this a fitting analogy of the computer and its software? What would happen if we had dedicated computers with a huge number of neuron circuits? Would intelligence develop? Would we be able to understand it?
Human neurons became the subject of interest of many AI scientists especially when most of the used AI methods were starting to fail. Some methods were proving to be inefficient and slow in evolution, while others were being proven wrong.
Scientists interested in creating a human-brain similar system started exploring more on the idea of using neurons as a prototype to follow and extract basic elements of its success. Some suggested the invention of something similar chemically while others wanted to start by developing simulators.
However, lately the trend became to extract real neurons and try to integrate them with computer chips creating a new type of computer hardware “neuro-chips” (Than, 2006). This experiment was repeated in several labs including the Georgia Institute of Technology and University of Padua in Italy. (BBC, 1999)
Even though these attempts are still very primitive and need much enhancements and further experimentation in order to develop, however, it seems most of the efforts of the young researchers are being dedicated for such discovery. Does this mean that if we create a dedicated computer with huge number of neuron circuits that this computer will be more developed and intelligent?
Though still a controversial issue and nothing is proven yet in this sense, however, many analysts are starting to believe more and more in this approach since they are finding similarities between the human bodies in general and computers. Example: “When we talk about psychotropic drugs, we use similar metaphors—the brain as computer, a neuron as a single switch, the brain as wetware containing software”(WOLPE, n.d.).
In neural networks, the number of neuron circuits tested upon only reached “several hundreds, compared to the 10^12 neurons that our brain possesses.” (Lecture notes) The results though are encouraging; still it is rather early to start judging the effect of huge neuron circuits.
Moreover, supposing such impact is possible, lots of questions arise: will the computer then be smarter than humans? Will we be able to understand its logic?
Scientists tend to support indications that could help prove the possibility of computers overcoming the human brainpower like in the case of the famous challenge in Chess between the different companies’ computers and Gary Kasparov, the famous chess master. Whether Kasparov lost once or twice only means that in this game the computer was able at least to challenge the best minds in the field. Lots of other examples exist.
As for the question about understanding the computer logic, I believe it will be quiet hard not to understand logic we have created/programmed; that is of course unless more chemical or human body elements are introduced.
I would like to end this by saying that this topic was maybe the hardest to tackle. Lots of controversies exist and nothing is proven yet. Supporting any idea while neglecting another opposing one will only get you to half the truth. Time will only prove which ideas will prevail and if really computers will ever have some sort of intelligence.
References:
1. Than Ker (27 March 2006). Brain Cells Fused with Computer Chip
[online] available from: http://www.livescience.com/health/060327_neuro_chips.html
2. BBC News (June 2, 1999) Sci/Tech Biological computer born [online] Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/358822.stm
3. WOLPE PAUL ROOT (n.d.) Neurotechnology and Brain-Computer Interfaces- ETHICAL AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS [online] Available from:http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11083&page=58
Human neurons became the subject of interest of many AI scientists especially when most of the used AI methods were starting to fail. Some methods were proving to be inefficient and slow in evolution, while others were being proven wrong.
Scientists interested in creating a human-brain similar system started exploring more on the idea of using neurons as a prototype to follow and extract basic elements of its success. Some suggested the invention of something similar chemically while others wanted to start by developing simulators.
However, lately the trend became to extract real neurons and try to integrate them with computer chips creating a new type of computer hardware “neuro-chips” (Than, 2006). This experiment was repeated in several labs including the Georgia Institute of Technology and University of Padua in Italy. (BBC, 1999)
Even though these attempts are still very primitive and need much enhancements and further experimentation in order to develop, however, it seems most of the efforts of the young researchers are being dedicated for such discovery. Does this mean that if we create a dedicated computer with huge number of neuron circuits that this computer will be more developed and intelligent?
Though still a controversial issue and nothing is proven yet in this sense, however, many analysts are starting to believe more and more in this approach since they are finding similarities between the human bodies in general and computers. Example: “When we talk about psychotropic drugs, we use similar metaphors—the brain as computer, a neuron as a single switch, the brain as wetware containing software”(WOLPE, n.d.).
In neural networks, the number of neuron circuits tested upon only reached “several hundreds, compared to the 10^12 neurons that our brain possesses.” (Lecture notes) The results though are encouraging; still it is rather early to start judging the effect of huge neuron circuits.
Moreover, supposing such impact is possible, lots of questions arise: will the computer then be smarter than humans? Will we be able to understand its logic?
Scientists tend to support indications that could help prove the possibility of computers overcoming the human brainpower like in the case of the famous challenge in Chess between the different companies’ computers and Gary Kasparov, the famous chess master. Whether Kasparov lost once or twice only means that in this game the computer was able at least to challenge the best minds in the field. Lots of other examples exist.
As for the question about understanding the computer logic, I believe it will be quiet hard not to understand logic we have created/programmed; that is of course unless more chemical or human body elements are introduced.
I would like to end this by saying that this topic was maybe the hardest to tackle. Lots of controversies exist and nothing is proven yet. Supporting any idea while neglecting another opposing one will only get you to half the truth. Time will only prove which ideas will prevail and if really computers will ever have some sort of intelligence.
References:
1. Than Ker (27 March 2006). Brain Cells Fused with Computer Chip
[online] available from: http://www.livescience.com/health/060327_neuro_chips.html
2. BBC News (June 2, 1999) Sci/Tech Biological computer born [online] Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/358822.stm
3. WOLPE PAUL ROOT (n.d.) Neurotechnology and Brain-Computer Interfaces- ETHICAL AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS [online] Available from:http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11083&page=58
Plagiarism (short)
I did not write the paragraphs above. I just copied them from “”...
How would you feel if you knew that you were evaluating someone’s work based on plagiarized input? How would you feel if your thoughts and research results were referenced to another person? How would you feel if you found out that one of the icons of your society based his achievements and past on false foundations?
According to the Gallup Organization (October 6-9, 2000), the top two problems facing the country today are:1) Education and 2) Decline in Ethics (both were ranked over crime, poverty, drugs, taxes, guns, environment, and racism, to name a few). (Plagiarism.org 2007)
The fact that ethics declined dramatically during the past years is clearly visible in many aspects of our daily life, one of which is Plagiarism. Nowadays, we are encountering more and more cases related to this ethical scourge.
Two examples came with President Putin’s and Professor Robinson’s cases. (Tozer 2002; The St. Petersburg Times n.d.) Even though each comes from a different background and is involved in different aspects of society, however, they share a common trait being influential individuals in their communities. Loosing people’s trust and confidence for some is worth reconsidering actions, while for others seemed indifferent. Again referring to these two cases, one finds Mr. Robinson’s statement rather unconcerned:” I am obviously disappointed to be leaving Monash at such an exciting time in its development, however I have every confidence that the Deans will continue with the enormous progress we have already made together.”(Tozer 2002) He never admits his betrayal of human ethics but rather refers to the “enormous progress” he has helped accomplish with his fellow deans.
While in President Putin’s case plagiarism was part of his path to becoming a political leader. In this regard, one finds it rather common related to a field where ethics and humanity in general are long lost.
Let us all hope that whatever influence such people and there peers have had on us will only make us more attached to our ethics and helps us fight back plagiarism and promote the necessity of punishing such acts regardless of ones position.
References:
1. Gallup Organization (October 6-9 2000) Facts About Plagiarism
[Internet] www.Plagiarism.org. Available from: http://www.plagiarism.org/facts.html
2. Tozer, Kate (11 July, 2002) Vice-chancellor resigns over plagarism claims
[online] ABC Online. Available from: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s604692.htm
3. The St. Petersburg Times (n.d.) Putin Faces Plagiarism Accusation[online] http://www.sptimes.ru/. Available from: http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=17128
How would you feel if you knew that you were evaluating someone’s work based on plagiarized input? How would you feel if your thoughts and research results were referenced to another person? How would you feel if you found out that one of the icons of your society based his achievements and past on false foundations?
According to the Gallup Organization (October 6-9, 2000), the top two problems facing the country today are:1) Education and 2) Decline in Ethics (both were ranked over crime, poverty, drugs, taxes, guns, environment, and racism, to name a few). (Plagiarism.org 2007)
The fact that ethics declined dramatically during the past years is clearly visible in many aspects of our daily life, one of which is Plagiarism. Nowadays, we are encountering more and more cases related to this ethical scourge.
Two examples came with President Putin’s and Professor Robinson’s cases. (Tozer 2002; The St. Petersburg Times n.d.) Even though each comes from a different background and is involved in different aspects of society, however, they share a common trait being influential individuals in their communities. Loosing people’s trust and confidence for some is worth reconsidering actions, while for others seemed indifferent. Again referring to these two cases, one finds Mr. Robinson’s statement rather unconcerned:” I am obviously disappointed to be leaving Monash at such an exciting time in its development, however I have every confidence that the Deans will continue with the enormous progress we have already made together.”(Tozer 2002) He never admits his betrayal of human ethics but rather refers to the “enormous progress” he has helped accomplish with his fellow deans.
While in President Putin’s case plagiarism was part of his path to becoming a political leader. In this regard, one finds it rather common related to a field where ethics and humanity in general are long lost.
Let us all hope that whatever influence such people and there peers have had on us will only make us more attached to our ethics and helps us fight back plagiarism and promote the necessity of punishing such acts regardless of ones position.
References:
1. Gallup Organization (October 6-9 2000) Facts About Plagiarism
[Internet] www.Plagiarism.org. Available from: http://www.plagiarism.org/facts.html
2. Tozer, Kate (11 July, 2002) Vice-chancellor resigns over plagarism claims
[online] ABC Online. Available from: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s604692.htm
3. The St. Petersburg Times (n.d.) Putin Faces Plagiarism Accusation[online] http://www.sptimes.ru/. Available from: http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=17128
Monday, September 22, 2008
Artificial Intelligence (A.I.)
When dynamite was discovered by Alfred Nobel (nobelprize.org, 2008), Nobel’s intentions seemed to be more directed towards helping mankind in minimizing the workload of time-consuming tasks. His main target markets were the drilling and construction industries. However, being such an asset for armies, dynamite soon became a rather deadly weapon that is still being used for killing hundreds of persons on a daily basis.
Reading the above makes one wonder about the several evolutions in the different science fields and how they affect our lives. In this regard, I would consider artificial intelligence (AI) one of the most dangerous and yet safe sciences.
AI is one of the controversial fields of modern time. Seeking to have another form of intelligence on earth that could someday trespass all its inventors’/discoverers’ own abilities is surely something to worry about. Knowing that computers have been replacing humans in many fields during the past decade makes one but wonder will they be able to replace humans as a whole? Will they reach a stage where they will feel that they can, and even need, to get rid of humans? "What we're trying to build are the mammals to compete with the big computational dinosaurs. You can imagine how the conversation went: 'They're too small. They're nothing - they're not enterprise scaled.' But the comet is coming. And when it does, we know who inherits the earth" (One Huge Computer). (Waldo, n.d.)
Let us consider the different possible dangers resulting from AI.
The first thing that comes to mind is the use of AI in producing new weapons of mass destruction. Same as with the dynamite example, advancements in technology were always reflected in the weapons’ industries – most of the time such advancements came as a result of new weapon creation funded researches.
Another effect of AI could be the result of unstable software or more specifically the presence of bugs. Let us consider the “possibility” that “smart bombs” (Harris, 2008) have certain bugs. This may lead to civilian casualties, mass destruction of cities even the death of the pilot firing the bomb himself.
What about ethics? Is it ethical to try to build a machine that could be more intelligent than such a divine race as Humans? Do we need such machine to exist? All are valid questions that are part of the big controversy surrounding AI.
However, considering the different aspects that AI has helped in, and the different solutions that were presented by its different approaches, surely everyone agrees that it is maybe the most beneficial field in terms of research results. Though results are not complete most of the times with respect to their initial aims, but lots of small discoveries on the way have made huge impacts in other different fields.
Consider the impacts of Fuzzy Logic on dishwashers; speech and image recognition systems on security checks’ systems; neural networks on air traffic and data mining systems…
Let me end this with a personal thought: I believe that it is in humans’ nature to search for new challenges and to try to understand or discover new things. Knowing this, research will continue, and especially in the two most controversial yet open-ended fields AI and medicine. Therefore, let us enjoy these evolutions and stop worrying about their consequences for these are inevitable.
Reference:
1. nobelprize.org (2008). Alfred Nobel - His Life and Work [online] available from: http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/biographical/articles/life-work/index.html
2. Waldo Jim, Sun senior staff engineer, Java Developer (n.d.) The Dangers of Technological Progress: Potential Dangers –Tim Chao, Tuam Pham, Mikhail Seregine. Available from: http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/projects-99-00/technology-dangers/future.html
3. Tom Harris. "How Smart Bombs Work". March 20, 2003 http://science.howstuffworks.com/smart-bomb.htm
Reading the above makes one wonder about the several evolutions in the different science fields and how they affect our lives. In this regard, I would consider artificial intelligence (AI) one of the most dangerous and yet safe sciences.
AI is one of the controversial fields of modern time. Seeking to have another form of intelligence on earth that could someday trespass all its inventors’/discoverers’ own abilities is surely something to worry about. Knowing that computers have been replacing humans in many fields during the past decade makes one but wonder will they be able to replace humans as a whole? Will they reach a stage where they will feel that they can, and even need, to get rid of humans? "What we're trying to build are the mammals to compete with the big computational dinosaurs. You can imagine how the conversation went: 'They're too small. They're nothing - they're not enterprise scaled.' But the comet is coming. And when it does, we know who inherits the earth" (One Huge Computer). (Waldo, n.d.)
Let us consider the different possible dangers resulting from AI.
The first thing that comes to mind is the use of AI in producing new weapons of mass destruction. Same as with the dynamite example, advancements in technology were always reflected in the weapons’ industries – most of the time such advancements came as a result of new weapon creation funded researches.
Another effect of AI could be the result of unstable software or more specifically the presence of bugs. Let us consider the “possibility” that “smart bombs” (Harris, 2008) have certain bugs. This may lead to civilian casualties, mass destruction of cities even the death of the pilot firing the bomb himself.
What about ethics? Is it ethical to try to build a machine that could be more intelligent than such a divine race as Humans? Do we need such machine to exist? All are valid questions that are part of the big controversy surrounding AI.
However, considering the different aspects that AI has helped in, and the different solutions that were presented by its different approaches, surely everyone agrees that it is maybe the most beneficial field in terms of research results. Though results are not complete most of the times with respect to their initial aims, but lots of small discoveries on the way have made huge impacts in other different fields.
Consider the impacts of Fuzzy Logic on dishwashers; speech and image recognition systems on security checks’ systems; neural networks on air traffic and data mining systems…
Let me end this with a personal thought: I believe that it is in humans’ nature to search for new challenges and to try to understand or discover new things. Knowing this, research will continue, and especially in the two most controversial yet open-ended fields AI and medicine. Therefore, let us enjoy these evolutions and stop worrying about their consequences for these are inevitable.
Reference:
1. nobelprize.org (2008). Alfred Nobel - His Life and Work [online] available from: http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/biographical/articles/life-work/index.html
2. Waldo Jim, Sun senior staff engineer, Java Developer (n.d.) The Dangers of Technological Progress: Potential Dangers –Tim Chao, Tuam Pham, Mikhail Seregine. Available from: http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/projects-99-00/technology-dangers/future.html
3. Tom Harris. "How Smart Bombs Work". March 20, 2003 http://science.howstuffworks.com/smart-bomb.htm
Algorithms & Endeavors
Do all of our endeavors lend themselves to be described as algorithms, or do some of them not fit into an algorithm?
I believe that everything happens for a reason. I believe in sciences and try to apply laws of science while analyzing everything. Sometimes it doesn't make sense to do so maybe, especially in relationships, but some other times you would be surprised of the patterns and algorithms that you discover, be it by coincidence or on purpose, that applies in similar situations.
Enough about me lets go a bit scientific. I believe to answer such question, one must think of its consequences. If all our endeavors can be lent to be described as algorithms, and algorithms can be programmed, then we will be admitting that computers will reach a stage at which they can have the same intelligence as humans and therefore passing the Turing test.
For this to happen, lots of issues are to be solved including but not limited to: Natural Language Processing, Knowledge Representation,…
Therefore the question is really if computers will ever be as smart as humans? Here I have to refer to what Alan Turing says: “We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty there that needs to be done” (Turing, n.d.).
If I am asked to answer with yes or no, I have to say yes. It is our job (scientists) to make this happen. I know it is not in the near future, but it is not that far away. Just think of the fact that people dreamt about studying in a virtual classroom some ten years ago, while today it seems like a normal result of the technology evolution.
Going back to the main question, it is illogical to say that some things cannot be lent to be described as algorithms. If this was the case, then there are things that happen for no reason or better say no “known” reason. If the reasoning is not obvious now, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It is mainly because of the shortcomings of our knowledge of the world that some things cannot be explained.
Digging deeper into this thought, I researched in order to find some unanswered questions or endeavors that cannot be related to an algorithm in any field. I found lots. Most of these, however, were related to mathematics, medicine, religion, and surely computer science. My thought on this is as follows: mathematics, medicine and computer science are fields that still are evolving and therefore it is a normal thing to find such. In other words, algorithms will be found sooner or later. As for religion, it seems a bit more difficult to categorize with others. It is maybe the field which is most controversial.
Miracles! Can you explain miracles? How Jesus gave life back to one of the people as mentioned in the bible? How the Prophet Mohammed “disappeared” or was drawn up to heavens? Lots of these questions started popping up.
Well, I am also a believer and I think some things are not meant to be discovered. Some mighty power, known as “GOD” to most, has the answers to such questions and only time will reveal how much more are humans allowed to evolve.
In short, I believe in algorithms controlling even the simplest interaction in the world. All uncovered “mysteries” will someday be simple facts. After all, “without mysteries, life would be very dull indeed. What would be left to strive for if everything were known?” (Lint, n.d.)
References:
1. Turing Alan (n.d.) Alan Turing Quotes [Online] Available from: http://thinkexist.com/quotes/alan_turing/
2. De Lint Charles (n.d.) Charles de Lint Quotes [Online] Available from: http://thinkexist.com/quotes/charles_de_lint/
I believe that everything happens for a reason. I believe in sciences and try to apply laws of science while analyzing everything. Sometimes it doesn't make sense to do so maybe, especially in relationships, but some other times you would be surprised of the patterns and algorithms that you discover, be it by coincidence or on purpose, that applies in similar situations.
Enough about me lets go a bit scientific. I believe to answer such question, one must think of its consequences. If all our endeavors can be lent to be described as algorithms, and algorithms can be programmed, then we will be admitting that computers will reach a stage at which they can have the same intelligence as humans and therefore passing the Turing test.
For this to happen, lots of issues are to be solved including but not limited to: Natural Language Processing, Knowledge Representation,…
Therefore the question is really if computers will ever be as smart as humans? Here I have to refer to what Alan Turing says: “We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty there that needs to be done” (Turing, n.d.).
If I am asked to answer with yes or no, I have to say yes. It is our job (scientists) to make this happen. I know it is not in the near future, but it is not that far away. Just think of the fact that people dreamt about studying in a virtual classroom some ten years ago, while today it seems like a normal result of the technology evolution.
Going back to the main question, it is illogical to say that some things cannot be lent to be described as algorithms. If this was the case, then there are things that happen for no reason or better say no “known” reason. If the reasoning is not obvious now, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It is mainly because of the shortcomings of our knowledge of the world that some things cannot be explained.
Digging deeper into this thought, I researched in order to find some unanswered questions or endeavors that cannot be related to an algorithm in any field. I found lots. Most of these, however, were related to mathematics, medicine, religion, and surely computer science. My thought on this is as follows: mathematics, medicine and computer science are fields that still are evolving and therefore it is a normal thing to find such. In other words, algorithms will be found sooner or later. As for religion, it seems a bit more difficult to categorize with others. It is maybe the field which is most controversial.
Miracles! Can you explain miracles? How Jesus gave life back to one of the people as mentioned in the bible? How the Prophet Mohammed “disappeared” or was drawn up to heavens? Lots of these questions started popping up.
Well, I am also a believer and I think some things are not meant to be discovered. Some mighty power, known as “GOD” to most, has the answers to such questions and only time will reveal how much more are humans allowed to evolve.
In short, I believe in algorithms controlling even the simplest interaction in the world. All uncovered “mysteries” will someday be simple facts. After all, “without mysteries, life would be very dull indeed. What would be left to strive for if everything were known?” (Lint, n.d.)
References:
1. Turing Alan (n.d.) Alan Turing Quotes [Online] Available from: http://thinkexist.com/quotes/alan_turing/
2. De Lint Charles (n.d.) Charles de Lint Quotes [Online] Available from: http://thinkexist.com/quotes/charles_de_lint/
Saturday, September 20, 2008
First Post
Hi everyone,
I am Dr. Adib. I will use this Blog to post several essays, papers, projects i have prepared as part of my undergraduate and graduate studies.
Feel free to quote any of these making sure to reference accordingly.
I would love to hear your comments. Most of these "articles" were written in very tight deadlines as either HW or Assignments, or projects. Therefore, please take this aspect into consideration if you feel the need to critique the above mentioned.
One final thing, since this is the first post in this Blog I need to mention "the first" or "#1": Odai. It's an internal joke and I guess only very few ppl know about this...
Cheers,
Dr. Adib
I am Dr. Adib. I will use this Blog to post several essays, papers, projects i have prepared as part of my undergraduate and graduate studies.
Feel free to quote any of these making sure to reference accordingly.
I would love to hear your comments. Most of these "articles" were written in very tight deadlines as either HW or Assignments, or projects. Therefore, please take this aspect into consideration if you feel the need to critique the above mentioned.
One final thing, since this is the first post in this Blog I need to mention "the first" or "#1": Odai. It's an internal joke and I guess only very few ppl know about this...
Cheers,
Dr. Adib
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
