One of my theories is brains predict possible futures (by modelling reality in parallel), and consciousness is what happens when a brain recursively tries to simulate and predict itself.
Wouldn't that be an application of Baysian Estimation?
You may enjoy this book if you haven't already.
if any country other than yours gets an early monopoly on AI, you can bet they are going to use it to kick your country's ass.
I can think of one country that wouldn't kick the US's ass (in a military confrontation) or any one else's if it's citizens solved the Strong AI problem.
I think you should re-read your self defense law. You have to be imminently threatened by bodily harm in order to legally shoot a person in self defense. Presenting your gun in a threating matter would probably be ok (unless you live in DC) if someone was breaking in, but pulling the trigger just because they are standing there would not be.
Also, talk to your HR guy about charging the books as training. Most companies will buy people about 2 books a year to learn new stuff if you take the initiative and tell them what you want to learn.
Also, by extension of your and GP's logic, we ought never to create any technology for anyone because nearly *any* technology is dual use. e.g. Hitler used IBM equipment designed for census taking to more methodically account for and exterminate his victims.
Also, the internet protocol you're enjoying right now was offspring from a DARPA project. Does that offend your morals? If not, is it the sense of separation due to time the thing which allows you to even get on the Internet? I'm not saying we shouldn't create technology, but I am saying that I would never sell a calculator to a person whom I *know* would use it to exert unjustified violence upon another person. I believe in self defense vehemently, I just don't think that what the US is doing with it's technology can be called self defense.
No the Internet protocol does not bother me. Technology does not bother me. A gun is a perfectly fine piece of technology if used properly. It's when the improper use is so blatantly obvious that I balk. Yes, I am one of those "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" kind of thinkers. I will not lay responsibility on an object but the person using the object.
To sum it all up, I would have no problem working for DARPA if our government would drop its interventionist foreign policy and its Big Brother domestic policy.
I totally agree. Who wants to become a real life Dr. Robert Stadler for a government which doesn't care about the moral application of good science? We would essentially be making the tools to shackle ourselves.
No. Thank. You.
You see, the majority of government, for the majority of people, is not going to hell. The majority of people saw the NSA wiretaps as the government doing something, that's why it didn't hurt Bush's reelection. They think the war in Iraq was proper although they might believe it was mismanaged or manipulated to start it. I personally think it was 8 years too late. Clinton should have went in back in 1995 and Al Qeada wouldn't have thought our reaction to 9/11 would be blowing up another asperin factory in the Sudan. But that's another story.
You see the problem is that the majority of people no longer believe in the Constitution or even know what it says. My idea of hell is a government that doesn't follow the law by which the populace gives it's consent to be governed. They are breaking law. When I break the law I get smacked with it. The government gets off the hook because no one within the government, and not even the citizens being ruled over, are calling their shit.
The problem is, the road to hell leads to different places for different people. Your hell might be another persons paradise or you thinking that we are almost there might be interpreted by someone else as sitting a the cross roads figuring out which way to go. In all, it (hell, or the idea of it) is an opinion that someone holds but this opinion can vary greatly. It is apparent that the majority of people think we either aren't on our road to hell, or we are driving the opposite direction and going away from it.
The problem is that my idea of hell is being coerced by force. The government employs this tactic to no end these days. What it comes down to is not an objective look at what hell is to me, or what hell is to you. The government is breaking the Objective law set out in the Constitution. Now the law has some subjective value, sure. But the fact that the government is breaking the law by which it has right to govern has little to do if people 'feel like' they are in hell or not. Those rules were put there to restrain government from ever causing people so much grief. What really gets my goat is that they have tools to change the law, but dare not do it because of the out rage it would cause, so they just passively skirt the issue and call it a "living document". Bullshit. You don't like what's in there, change it or follow it, or consider the right to govern revoked.
A consumer can demand whatever he wants for his money, and it's up to the companies to provide however they see fit, or if they choose to not provide it, then so be it. As long as there is demand for some product, some one will create the supply or there won't be a market. This implosion you are talking about is the same implosion for the typewriter and traditional print media industry. Companies don't need protection and neither do engineers. If you feel like you need the protection, that tells me what kind of company your work at and what kind of engineer you are.
The quote from the another article is: "Ozzie said that since many open-source
programmers aren't beholden to shareholders they potentially represent
a more formidable force in the market."
So some one at Microsoft's finally said it, and it's believable from my
stand point. What kills big successful companies is generally not poor
engineering on the part of the engineers, but the fact that the
engineers are beholden to marketing and upper management. Seems to
correlate with what we know about the innovator's dilemma doesn't it?
You may raise the argument that it's marketing and upper management's
job to decide what will sell and what won't, but how many engineers do
you know that aren't objective enough to judge their own ideas. An
engineers job is to judge with his skills the best course of action in
order to make the best product possible. I'm not saying that there
doesn't need to be leadership, but I think most companies are to
salary heavy where there is no value-add to the product.
Gold is a rare metal and thus will always be scare enough to have an objective value. If the government can make one piece of paper, say a $1 bill, as cheaply as a $100 bill, there is no objective value.
What you haven't said is that the government is stealing from you when the print more money. They are quite literally reducing the value of the money in your pocket and in your bank account, and they know they are doing it. If you are ok with that, there really is no reason to argue because we are of different moral opinions on how government should work.
The currency of most countries is undergoing inflation, while things like the stocks and oil are pretty much staying at the same level when you convert the value to gold.
I think you missed the point. In a free market prices of commodities rarely ever go up, they are driven down by competition, which drive technology to make things cheaper. Food is a commodity. Why do you think the price is rising? Because some currencies are worth less now than they were before. So do I even have to ask who is driving down the value of the US dollar?
But you are right, since the US went off the gold standard, the price of gold has been irrelevant to the Dollar. That is the problem.
Do something yourself if you think development and science are so easy.
I'm pretty sure if it was beyond revolutionary and economically feasible then it would be along faster than you can spit "I want it, and I don't know how it works, but I want it now!"
Or would you rather they make something that can't turn a profit, and just have the government subsidize it?
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't that be an application of Baysian Estimation?
You may enjoy this book if you haven't already.
I can think of one country that wouldn't kick the US's ass (in a military confrontation) or any one else's if it's citizens solved the Strong AI problem.
Vodka is just sitting around mars on the ground? Where do we buy the tickets...
All Americans suck because they attempt to rewire their homes.
I think you should re-read your self defense law. You have to be imminently threatened by bodily harm in order to legally shoot a person in self defense. Presenting your gun in a threating matter would probably be ok (unless you live in DC) if someone was breaking in, but pulling the trigger just because they are standing there would not be.
Also, talk to your HR guy about charging the books as training. Most companies will buy people about 2 books a year to learn new stuff if you take the initiative and tell them what you want to learn.
Also, the internet protocol you're enjoying right now was offspring from a DARPA project. Does that offend your morals? If not, is it the sense of separation due to time the thing which allows you to even get on the Internet? I'm not saying we shouldn't create technology, but I am saying that I would never sell a calculator to a person whom I *know* would use it to exert unjustified violence upon another person. I believe in self defense vehemently, I just don't think that what the US is doing with it's technology can be called self defense.
No the Internet protocol does not bother me. Technology does not bother me. A gun is a perfectly fine piece of technology if used properly. It's when the improper use is so blatantly obvious that I balk. Yes, I am one of those "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" kind of thinkers. I will not lay responsibility on an object but the person using the object.
To sum it all up, I would have no problem working for DARPA if our government would drop its interventionist foreign policy and its Big Brother domestic policy.
I totally agree.
Who wants to become a real life Dr. Robert Stadler for a government which doesn't care about the moral application of good science? We would essentially be making the tools to shackle ourselves.
No. Thank. You.
Touché
common people, that shit should be modded +1 funny.
Bzzzz wrong! Educate yourself.
Or at the very least site a link to back your statement up. I did a quick google search and didn't find much.
A consumer can demand whatever he wants for his money, and it's up to the companies to provide however they see fit, or if they choose to not provide it, then so be it. As long as there is demand for some product, some one will create the supply or there won't be a market. This implosion you are talking about is the same implosion for the typewriter and traditional print media industry. Companies don't need protection and neither do engineers. If you feel like you need the protection, that tells me what kind of company your work at and what kind of engineer you are.
Just wait till BigBrother comes along and demands you use his hardware and software... Then you might think differently...
I don't see a reason why not.
I found this little thing: http://dia2code.sourceforge.net/examples.html I thought it was interesting that they actually do code generation of 'virtual' functions in C.
The quote from the another article is: "Ozzie said that since many open-source programmers aren't beholden to shareholders they potentially represent a more formidable force in the market." So some one at Microsoft's finally said it, and it's believable from my stand point. What kills big successful companies is generally not poor engineering on the part of the engineers, but the fact that the engineers are beholden to marketing and upper management. Seems to correlate with what we know about the innovator's dilemma doesn't it? You may raise the argument that it's marketing and upper management's job to decide what will sell and what won't, but how many engineers do you know that aren't objective enough to judge their own ideas. An engineers job is to judge with his skills the best course of action in order to make the best product possible. I'm not saying that there doesn't need to be leadership, but I think most companies are to salary heavy where there is no value-add to the product.
Gold is a rare metal and thus will always be scare enough to have an objective value. If the government can make one piece of paper, say a $1 bill, as cheaply as a $100 bill, there is no objective value.
What you haven't said is that the government is stealing from you when the print more money. They are quite literally reducing the value of the money in your pocket and in your bank account, and they know they are doing it. If you are ok with that, there really is no reason to argue because we are of different moral opinions on how government should work.
It's not so much damn them to hell, but a why break a product that is perfectly fine the way it is, and only sell it after you have broken it.
Doesn't make a lick of sense to me but I don't buy cars I can't fix either...
The currency of most countries is undergoing inflation, while things like the stocks and oil are pretty much staying at the same level when you convert the value to gold.
I think you missed the point. In a free market prices of commodities rarely ever go up, they are driven down by competition, which drive technology to make things cheaper. Food is a commodity. Why do you think the price is rising? Because some currencies are worth less now than they were before. So do I even have to ask who is driving down the value of the US dollar?
But you are right, since the US went off the gold standard, the price of gold has been irrelevant to the Dollar. That is the problem.
If I were you I'd try to get on 60 minutes or something...
Do something yourself if you think development and science are so easy.
I'm pretty sure if it was beyond revolutionary and economically feasible then it would be along faster than you can spit "I want it, and I don't know how it works, but I want it now!"
Or would you rather they make something that can't turn a profit, and just have the government subsidize it?
I wonder if they blame Blair or Bush for their calamity... Both complaints are plausible...
What about publicly owned companies?
As fellow person on the internet, I postulate that this will be cracked in no more than 6 months.