There should be no distinction made between chemical addictions (cigarettes, heroin, booze, &c.) and "psychological" addictions (gambling, gaming, &c.). When you get down to brass tacks, all of this involves chemical reactions within your body. The same chemical reactions that drive a person to do more cocaine are the reactions that drive a person to play RtCW despite having other obligations. There are people that have control over their behavior; they just choose not to modify it.
By saying things like: "Oh, other people have kicked the habit, you must be weak" is an example of the reverse causal fallacy, where you try to disprove a trend that operates over populations by pointing to individual exceptions. People whom are addicted to "x" should all be viewed in the same light. All of them suffer from impaired judgement and make life-choices based on that impaired judgement.
The definition of an addiction should be something like: "Any repeated behavior that cannot be stopped by the addicit, despite his/her knowledge that it is negatively impacting all other aspects of his/her life." Basically, you focus on ONE thing to the detriment of everything else in your life, deespite knowing that what you continue to do is unhealthy.
But, this is part of a general 'revolving door' phenomenon between business and government: work in one area of the private sector, retire, join the government, work on legislation for that area. This is problematic because it leads to the legislation being skewed towards that business (and away from the consumer), and makes the government appear more insular.
One has to wonder what effect this person's tenure with Microsoft will have on his job performance; much in the same way that we had to wonder about Dick Cheney's Haliburton/Enron/oil industry ties when he was coming up with the administration's energy policy. It's a valid concern and one that should be raised.
Stillsuits were probably popularized (dunno if the first occurance was) in the series Dune by Frank Herbert. They are body suits that collect bodily excretions, extract the water, and enable the wearer to drink the recycled water. Well-suited for living on the desert planet of Arakkis.
But the advantage of having some semblance of a democracy is that we don't have to have a bloody (literally) war with the government. Take away the power and give it to someone else.
Then wait for the new government to become corrupt.
People have a fundamental separation between themselves and the government. (This is part of a general human trait, to categorize others into various groups and view them as "other") But, the essence of a democracy is that the government is the people. There is no separation between us and the government -- the power is derived from a manadate from the masses, to paraphrase Monty Python.
Although the immediate threat to Felton et al. might be debatable, can't a judge rule that a law, as written, is unconstitutional WITHOUT there being any person undergoing prosecution under that law?
Otherwise, it looks like we need a new sacrificial lamb to get sued under the DMCA.
Not to step on toes here, but I thought that the above question was good, but phrased a bit awkwardly:
Dr. Felton, do you think that a scientist who is working on research that may come into conflict with the DMCA or similar legislature will choose to work at a non-US university to avoid legal trouble?
In the same vein, do you think that laws like the DMCA will prevent scientists from foreign countries from coming to the US to do research?
What has been the tenor of the lawsuit with respect to the RIAA, what has their attitude been? For example, has the RIAA offered concessions, or have they been confident in their position?
As long as I'm not violating their Acceptable Use Policy, and I'm not overly burdening the network, what goes on behind my cable modem should not concern them.
There are legitimate reasons for sharing over 802.11.
They wouldn't have had to process the insurance papers had the "blue-collar schlubs" not chosen to vent whatever angst they have on his father's antiques.
Just because you are working-class does not imbue you with dignity; if they have a problem with UPS work conditions, they take it up with the management. That's why God created unions. Making the customers upset makes their situation worse.
UPS is a terrible service: they are always late, overpriced, and destructive. I have NEVER had a good experience with them. I'm shipping my pee in jars soon!
Yes there are things that are more important, news-wise. However, just because a story isn't as important as another one doesn't mean that the reporter should half-ass the story.
And, for the uninitiated to Robert Wilson's lovely books, "fnord" is a Pavlovian device used by various spooky groups. Looking at the word "fnord" gives the reader a general sense of unease and disquiet. In addition, they don't actually *see* the word. So, as an example:
fnord Microsoft today....
Hence, the reader gets a general sense of uneasiness reading "Microsoft".
Not exactly. In the room situation, the human is merely the executor of the rules. The rules themselves are what encapsulate the language. However, the question is whether language is sufficient for intelligence. I don't think so. Let me see if I can't make my point clearer:
Let's say I memorize all the rules of Chinese. And I hold a conversation in Chinese with a native speaker. A native speaker of English then asks me if I understood the conversation. I would answer, in English, "no". I don't know Chinese at all. In this case, language has been divorced from intelligence, rendering the Turing Test moot. Yes, you could develop a system that had (near-) native fluency and that would be an amazing achievement. BUT (!) this would not NECESSARILY be an achievement of artificial intelligence. Testing intelligence is still a ways away.
For those of you advocating the "grin-and-bear-it" attitude, I have a question: Do these new searches and security measures actually improve security?
I don't think it does: insane, murderous people will always find a way to get evil done. Humans are amazingly resourceful, and can find their way around pretty much any obstacle. When you build the proverbial "better mousetrap", the world may beat a path to your door, but you also make a smarter mouse.
The solution is not beefing up security and making every citizen a suspect; rather, it is in removing the fertile grounds of madness.
Ah, but that's the crux of the problem that Searle was addressing: that in the Chinese Box, you are simply manipulating symbols. It's by operating on those symbols that you create some output. It's completely devoid of understanding.
The problem, therefore, is in the encoding of knowledge -- are a set of rules an symbols enough to encapsulate intellegence? Searle says no, and I agree with that.
Searle's Chinese Box is, in my opinion, a strong refutation of the Turing test. Let's say that one could memorize all of the rules for Chinese, and you could hold a conversation in it, fooling native Chinese speakers into thinking you're actually Chinese. Now I ask you, in English, if you have any idea what you just said; you would say "no", because you're just following the rules you memorized.
Language is much more than the sounds (phonology) and structure of those sounds (syntax). It encodes meaning and provides a way of tranmitting that meaning to someone else. There is this "meaning" component (semantics) that computers cannot seem to grasp. However, since language is such a human trait, we end up anthropomophizing anything that can speak somewhat coherently. The Turing test fails as a test of intelligence because things that are obviously not intelligent pass the test.
No matter what security measures you implement, no matter how tightly you regulate people's thoughts and actions, there will always be a way around those restrictions. Everyone who works in security should know this.
I will not give up my freedom for your peace of mind.
Again, making the virtual world more like the real world. Anyone remember the Simpsons' episode where Marge could get the kids to do yard work, but as soon as they saw the yard work simulator they wanted to do that?
Slashdot Mirror
There should be no distinction made between chemical addictions (cigarettes, heroin, booze, &c.) and "psychological" addictions (gambling, gaming, &c.). When you get down to brass tacks, all of this involves chemical reactions within your body. The same chemical reactions that drive a person to do more cocaine are the reactions that drive a person to play RtCW despite having other obligations. There are people that have control over their behavior; they just choose not to modify it.
By saying things like: "Oh, other people have kicked the habit, you must be weak" is an example of the reverse causal fallacy, where you try to disprove a trend that operates over populations by pointing to individual exceptions. People whom are addicted to "x" should all be viewed in the same light. All of them suffer from impaired judgement and make life-choices based on that impaired judgement.
The definition of an addiction should be something like: "Any repeated behavior that cannot be stopped by the addicit, despite his/her knowledge that it is negatively impacting all other aspects of his/her life." Basically, you focus on ONE thing to the detriment of everything else in your life, deespite knowing that what you continue to do is unhealthy.
Why is it that whenever I buy a computer, something like this happens where it will be obsolete in a few years? Nothing like buy a $2k paperweight!
But, this is part of a general 'revolving door' phenomenon between business and government: work in one area of the private sector, retire, join the government, work on legislation for that area. This is problematic because it leads to the legislation being skewed towards that business (and away from the consumer), and makes the government appear more insular.
One has to wonder what effect this person's tenure with Microsoft will have on his job performance; much in the same way that we had to wonder about Dick Cheney's Haliburton/Enron/oil industry ties when he was coming up with the administration's energy policy. It's a valid concern and one that should be raised.
Stillsuits were probably popularized (dunno if the first occurance was) in the series Dune by Frank Herbert. They are body suits that collect bodily excretions, extract the water, and enable the wearer to drink the recycled water. Well-suited for living on the desert planet of Arakkis.
Here here!
But the advantage of having some semblance of a democracy is that we don't have to have a bloody (literally) war with the government. Take away the power and give it to someone else.
Then wait for the new government to become corrupt.
Repeat as necessary.
People have a fundamental separation between themselves and the government. (This is part of a general human trait, to categorize others into various groups and view them as "other") But, the essence of a democracy is that the government is the people. There is no separation between us and the government -- the power is derived from a manadate from the masses, to paraphrase Monty Python.
Although the immediate threat to Felton et al. might be debatable, can't a judge rule that a law, as written, is unconstitutional WITHOUT there being any person undergoing prosecution under that law?
Otherwise, it looks like we need a new sacrificial lamb to get sued under the DMCA.
Star Trek VIX - " The Vapo Rub"
I think the third arm and the ability to fly would tip me off that an individual has been "modified". ;)
Not to step on toes here, but I thought that the above question was good, but phrased a bit awkwardly:
Dr. Felton, do you think that a scientist who is working on research that may come into conflict with the DMCA or similar legislature will choose to work at a non-US university to avoid legal trouble?
In the same vein, do you think that laws like the DMCA will prevent scientists from foreign countries from coming to the US to do research?
What has been the tenor of the lawsuit with respect to the RIAA, what has their attitude been? For example, has the RIAA offered concessions, or have they been confident in their position?
As long as I'm not violating their Acceptable Use Policy, and I'm not overly burdening the network, what goes on behind my cable modem should not concern them.
There are legitimate reasons for sharing over 802.11.
buggy code to tell me when my code is buggy.
They wouldn't have had to process the insurance papers had the "blue-collar schlubs" not chosen to vent whatever angst they have on his father's antiques.
Just because you are working-class does not imbue you with dignity; if they have a problem with UPS work conditions, they take it up with the management. That's why God created unions. Making the customers upset makes their situation worse.
UPS is a terrible service: they are always late, overpriced, and destructive. I have NEVER had a good experience with them. I'm shipping my pee in jars soon!
Yes there are things that are more important, news-wise. However, just because a story isn't as important as another one doesn't mean that the reporter should half-ass the story.
Check out this link on CNN.com:
a r. wars.trailer/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Movies/11/05/st
Apparently journalism now consists of checking out web boards and reprinting what you see there.
Not exactly. In the room situation, the human is merely the executor of the rules. The rules themselves are what encapsulate the language. However, the question is whether language is sufficient for intelligence. I don't think so. Let me see if I can't make my point clearer:
Let's say I memorize all the rules of Chinese. And I hold a conversation in Chinese with a native speaker. A native speaker of English then asks me if I understood the conversation. I would answer, in English, "no". I don't know Chinese at all. In this case, language has been divorced from intelligence, rendering the Turing Test moot. Yes, you could develop a system that had (near-) native fluency and that would be an amazing achievement. BUT (!) this would not NECESSARILY be an achievement of artificial intelligence. Testing intelligence is still a ways away.
For those of you advocating the "grin-and-bear-it" attitude, I have a question: Do these new searches and security measures actually improve security?
I don't think it does: insane, murderous people will always find a way to get evil done. Humans are amazingly resourceful, and can find their way around pretty much any obstacle. When you build the proverbial "better mousetrap", the world may beat a path to your door, but you also make a smarter mouse.
The solution is not beefing up security and making every citizen a suspect; rather, it is in removing the fertile grounds of madness.
I'd hate to be stuck between Microsoft and COPA.
Ah, but that's the crux of the problem that Searle was addressing: that in the Chinese Box, you are simply manipulating symbols. It's by operating on those symbols that you create some output. It's completely devoid of understanding.
The problem, therefore, is in the encoding of knowledge -- are a set of rules an symbols enough to encapsulate intellegence? Searle says no, and I agree with that.
Searle's Chinese Box is, in my opinion, a strong refutation of the Turing test. Let's say that one could memorize all of the rules for Chinese, and you could hold a conversation in it, fooling native Chinese speakers into thinking you're actually Chinese. Now I ask you, in English, if you have any idea what you just said; you would say "no", because you're just following the rules you memorized.
Language is much more than the sounds (phonology) and structure of those sounds (syntax). It encodes meaning and provides a way of tranmitting that meaning to someone else. There is this "meaning" component (semantics) that computers cannot seem to grasp. However, since language is such a human trait, we end up anthropomophizing anything that can speak somewhat coherently. The Turing test fails as a test of intelligence because things that are obviously not intelligent pass the test.
Salon has an article on its front page addressing these same issues. Check it out.
No matter what security measures you implement, no matter how tightly you regulate people's thoughts and actions, there will always be a way around those restrictions. Everyone who works in security should know this.
I will not give up my freedom for your peace of mind.
Again, making the virtual world more like the real world. Anyone remember the Simpsons' episode where Marge could get the kids to do yard work, but as soon as they saw the yard work simulator they wanted to do that?