"A.I." stirred in me an ocean of questions about consciousness, the self and sentience. Many of the conclusions and doubts I have today, have their roots in the thoughts that the movie has induced in me. Maybe it could have been better - and the short story by Aldiss is also great, but it has a different "bent" than the movie. BOTH are worthwhile, in my opinion. And we all know that opinions are like hemorrhoids, as every asshole has them, including me and you - but alas, the situation is similar to the "Blade runner" movie WRT the Philip K. Dick story/novel ("Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"). Both are great, but they are different. They are different art forms, too, so it's a bit like comparing apples to oranges, but I feel that the Dick novel is a dark masterpiece, and if you don't feel slightly nauseated but glad to have read such a deep, thought-provoking SF, you have not appreciated it completely. Still, I also like the movie.
But these are just my opinions, and any asshole has a few, as we all know.
I have given up hope to see any worthwhile SF movie, in this century. After the 70's, they have been progressively dumbed down. One of my favourite SF movies was "The Andromeda strain", from 1970 (IIRC, won't bother checking with IMDB). It was good, hard-ish SF without unnecessary drama and NO brainfarts. Then they decided to remake it as a two-part mini series last year, and obviously, they HAD TO dumb it down. Because we all know that people today are dumber than they were 30+ years ago... right? I don't hope to see such underrated gems as was "Logan's run", "Demon seed", "2001: A space odyssey" etc.
I blame the "Star Wars" saga for this. Oh, I can hear a rumble, as if a billion slashdotters rose up in horror (I have some karma to burn), but that's what I believe: "Star Wars" had little to do with SF - it should be called a costume western - and it didn't make your neurons work. But it was grand, it had interesting special effects. In brief, it was entertaining without taxing your brain. Just like any James Bond movie does. And the producers of Star Wars made gobs of money, and so, that became the blueprint for future SF movies - make them dumb and entertaining.
So today we only have pseudo-SF movies, like "Minority Report", "Battlestar Galactica" and so forth (boy, am I going to be modded down today!) but whenever someone tries to make a movie even slightly intellectually challenging, like "A.I." he/she gets vilified and suffers dismal box-office failure.
So, fuck the movie industry and fuck the dumb audience. I have no hope for a good SF movie anymore. I'll stick to books - Stephen Baxter and others are still churning good, brain-stimulating hard-SF worth my time.
It very well may be. My aunt has given up her fight with cancer, and so has the father of my ex-GF. They both have a chance, but have basically decided that their own lives aren't worth the effort. Staying positive also means being active in fighting for yourself.
Anyhow, all I am saying that you are probably right, and I never disputed your point.
To "stay positive in oncology" (that is, if cancer patients have an optimistic/positive posture) has been confirmed multiple times to be effective. And it's not purely psychosomatic, either: patients with a positive attitude are much more likely to take an active role in their therapy.
I have quite recently read about a study that confirmed this very thing, again.
And this from a guy who is totally against stuff like chakra, "meridians", "energy flows" and other such horseshit.
I am not surprised. I have been pondering the various, strong positive feedback loops involved with climatic phenomena, like the release of gigantic amounts of methane from the Siberian permafrost due to warming, the decrease of vitality and eventual death of plankton in the oceans (main source of oxygen for the planet, as well as main source of food for fish) due to increased sea temperatures, decrease of albedo due to melting of icecaps and glaciers, decrease of rainfall and consequent decrease of forests (that the Indonesian and Amazonian forests have been mercilessly burnt, doesn't help), to mention just a few. I am sure the better informed reader can add a few more of these positive feedback loops, but in my humble opinion, these are the stronger ones, and make the process of global warming unstoppable.
I mostly agree with the spirit of your post, but I would never let go of the "Citation needed"-tag. I wouldn't make it a precondition, but at least it is good to see when a certain claim is not backed by any proof of any sorts. Let me try to explain: I see my undergrad students copy/paste from Wikipedia mercilessly. OK, I may look over that, but when they also copy certain physical values or statements that in the Wikipedia article are not supported by any citation, I want them (the students) to see that.
Anyone with a brain (ok, it takes perhaps a bit more than just half) knows that the stock market, as an entity, is an idiot.
There, I said it. I expect to be modded down by Linux fanboys (which is NOT the same as intelligent Linux users, mind you. I like to think I belong to the latter).
The problem here is the same as before, actually: those who have XP, by and large don't have any interest in upgrading to Windows 7. Clearly, the people who are now running Vista, have a more compelling reason, but those are a small minority (10-15%)
I thought we already graduated this point? Have we not? You don't need a browser in order to download and install software. Moreover, you can have OEMs add IE AND Firefox (AND Opera AND Chrome etc...). The point is to make IE separately installable and sell and distribute Windows without it
May I humbly submit that a bit of money invested in public transport infrastructure, could pay off handsomely in terms of quality of life? Less people would even need cars, which would save them money. And it would help to decongest the roads, so people would get to work faster.
The huge decrease of pollution and need for fossil fuels is just an added bonus.
I don't say this works everywhere in the US, but certainly it would work in many cities.
I was talking the other day with colleagues that were pondering whether to patent an idea they had, or not. The counter-argument was that it cost substantial money to just maintain a patent - and the figures mentioned were several thousands of USD a year. IBM acquired 4000 patents in a single year. That makes me wonder how many patents are they maintaining nowadays? And if they pay, say, $5000 to maintain each, isn't that a substantial financial burden?
Google doesn't have a strategic interest for Chrome on Linux or Mac, as there IE is nonexistent. Chrome was created specifically to fight against IE. And IE exists on Windows only.
So far, Google's tactical move has worked, by chipping almost 1 percent of marketshare from IE. Firefox users aren't going to switch to Chrome (in general) but some IE users will.
I think Google is a better strategist than you are giving them credit to. Google doesn't give a shit whether there is Chrome on Mac or Linux, because those platforms are covered by Firefox and other non-Explorer browsers, and Google is fine with that. Google even sponsors Firefox, by the tune of millions of dollars.
Google has one goal in mind: increase the non-IE marketshare. IE only exists on Windows, hence Chrome only needs to be able to fight on that platform.
Now, if you don't even understand why Google needs to increase the non-IE marketshare, I can't help you.
How is it useless, when the guy who built it, used it already for a month? And it has replaced 200 supercomputer nodes, for his purpose? I'd say that's very fucking useful.
But you know what, maybe you should send him an e-mail and try to convince him how his cluster is useless. Make it a nice, insightful and intelligent e-mail, like your post.
I just removed samzenpus from the Index > Authors and now this story isn't visible on the/. frontpage. I used the Back function of my browser to come back and post:o)
The lesson here is that it shouldn't be illegal for anyone to fuck a 17yr old girl.
Have you thought this through before posting? If so, I really wonder how you have the nerve to do such a proclamation when "fucking of a 17yr old girl" ended up in pregnancy and abortion.
You jest, but take into account this true story: my buddy who was 21 at the time was in a sexual relationship with a 17 year old whose father(who was a Sheriff) allowed it, even inviting my buddy to go on camping trips with them and allowing them their own tent.
After an abortion, the relationship turned sour, and my buddy was arrested shortly afterward for statutory rape. Only his name and the crime he was being charged with appeared in the paper. Bad news given the conservative, small-town lynch-mob environment. Though the charges were dropped after he posted bail, his rep was ruined all because of a petty revenge stunt with connections to law enforcement.
Your friend's reputation was ruined because he committed a crime. Not an inconsequential one, either: pregnancy, and abortion are not funny little things to laugh at.
Slashdot Mirror
"A.I." stirred in me an ocean of questions about consciousness, the self and sentience. Many of the conclusions and doubts I have today, have their roots in the thoughts that the movie has induced in me. Maybe it could have been better - and the short story by Aldiss is also great, but it has a different "bent" than the movie. BOTH are worthwhile, in my opinion. And we all know that opinions are like hemorrhoids, as every asshole has them, including me and you - but alas, the situation is similar to the "Blade runner" movie WRT the Philip K. Dick story/novel ("Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"). Both are great, but they are different. They are different art forms, too, so it's a bit like comparing apples to oranges, but I feel that the Dick novel is a dark masterpiece, and if you don't feel slightly nauseated but glad to have read such a deep, thought-provoking SF, you have not appreciated it completely. Still, I also like the movie.
But these are just my opinions, and any asshole has a few, as we all know.
I have given up hope to see any worthwhile SF movie, in this century. After the 70's, they have been progressively dumbed down. One of my favourite SF movies was "The Andromeda strain", from 1970 (IIRC, won't bother checking with IMDB). It was good, hard-ish SF without unnecessary drama and NO brainfarts. Then they decided to remake it as a two-part mini series last year, and obviously, they HAD TO dumb it down. Because we all know that people today are dumber than they were 30+ years ago... right? I don't hope to see such underrated gems as was "Logan's run", "Demon seed", "2001: A space odyssey" etc.
I blame the "Star Wars" saga for this. Oh, I can hear a rumble, as if a billion slashdotters rose up in horror (I have some karma to burn), but that's what I believe: "Star Wars" had little to do with SF - it should be called a costume western - and it didn't make your neurons work. But it was grand, it had interesting special effects. In brief, it was entertaining without taxing your brain. Just like any James Bond movie does. And the producers of Star Wars made gobs of money, and so, that became the blueprint for future SF movies - make them dumb and entertaining.
So today we only have pseudo-SF movies, like "Minority Report", "Battlestar Galactica" and so forth (boy, am I going to be modded down today!) but whenever someone tries to make a movie even slightly intellectually challenging, like "A.I." he/she gets vilified and suffers dismal box-office failure.
So, fuck the movie industry and fuck the dumb audience. I have no hope for a good SF movie anymore. I'll stick to books - Stephen Baxter and others are still churning good, brain-stimulating hard-SF worth my time.
It very well may be. My aunt has given up her fight with cancer, and so has the father of my ex-GF. They both have a chance, but have basically decided that their own lives aren't worth the effort. Staying positive also means being active in fighting for yourself.
Anyhow, all I am saying that you are probably right, and I never disputed your point.
First of all, all of those flavors were available for Vista as well.
And that's the news. It's not like your post shook the very foundations of the submitted article.
To "stay positive in oncology" (that is, if cancer patients have an optimistic/positive posture) has been confirmed multiple times to be effective. And it's not purely psychosomatic, either: patients with a positive attitude are much more likely to take an active role in their therapy.
I have quite recently read about a study that confirmed this very thing, again.
And this from a guy who is totally against stuff like chakra, "meridians", "energy flows" and other such horseshit.
I am not surprised. I have been pondering the various, strong positive feedback loops involved with climatic phenomena, like the release of gigantic amounts of methane from the Siberian permafrost due to warming, the decrease of vitality and eventual death of plankton in the oceans (main source of oxygen for the planet, as well as main source of food for fish) due to increased sea temperatures, decrease of albedo due to melting of icecaps and glaciers, decrease of rainfall and consequent decrease of forests (that the Indonesian and Amazonian forests have been mercilessly burnt, doesn't help), to mention just a few. I am sure the better informed reader can add a few more of these positive feedback loops, but in my humble opinion, these are the stronger ones, and make the process of global warming unstoppable.
I mostly agree with the spirit of your post, but I would never let go of the "Citation needed"-tag. I wouldn't make it a precondition, but at least it is good to see when a certain claim is not backed by any proof of any sorts. Let me try to explain: I see my undergrad students copy/paste from Wikipedia mercilessly. OK, I may look over that, but when they also copy certain physical values or statements that in the Wikipedia article are not supported by any citation, I want them (the students) to see that.
That sounds almost as good as Shitass Perfuckers (at 1.11).
And to be honest, Microsoft really CAN afford it :oD
I don't think they'll fire him. After all, who the fuck would employ this dolt? MS will keep him out of compassion pity.
Anyone with a brain (ok, it takes perhaps a bit more than just half) knows that the stock market, as an entity, is an idiot.
There, I said it. I expect to be modded down by Linux fanboys (which is NOT the same as intelligent Linux users, mind you. I like to think I belong to the latter).
The problem here is the same as before, actually: those who have XP, by and large don't have any interest in upgrading to Windows 7. Clearly, the people who are now running Vista, have a more compelling reason, but those are a small minority (10-15%)
I thought we already graduated this point? Have we not? You don't need a browser in order to download and install software. Moreover, you can have OEMs add IE AND Firefox (AND Opera AND Chrome etc...). The point is to make IE separately installable and sell and distribute Windows without it
We like to keep a modicum of decency in these forums
No, not really.
May I humbly submit that a bit of money invested in public transport infrastructure, could pay off handsomely in terms of quality of life? Less people would even need cars, which would save them money. And it would help to decongest the roads, so people would get to work faster.
The huge decrease of pollution and need for fossil fuels is just an added bonus.
I don't say this works everywhere in the US, but certainly it would work in many cities.
Not even black tea has as much caffeine as coffee. And green tea has even much less than black tea.
Your data is inaccurate.
If cofee can do it, green tea probably can do it better with fewer side effects.
Time to sip another cup of green tea...
I was talking the other day with colleagues that were pondering whether to patent an idea they had, or not. The counter-argument was that it cost substantial money to just maintain a patent - and the figures mentioned were several thousands of USD a year. IBM acquired 4000 patents in a single year. That makes me wonder how many patents are they maintaining nowadays? And if they pay, say, $5000 to maintain each, isn't that a substantial financial burden?
And if it isn't - shouldn't it be?
Google doesn't have a strategic interest for Chrome on Linux or Mac, as there IE is nonexistent. Chrome was created specifically to fight against IE. And IE exists on Windows only.
So far, Google's tactical move has worked, by chipping almost 1 percent of marketshare from IE. Firefox users aren't going to switch to Chrome (in general) but some IE users will.
I think Google is a better strategist than you are giving them credit to. Google doesn't give a shit whether there is Chrome on Mac or Linux, because those platforms are covered by Firefox and other non-Explorer browsers, and Google is fine with that. Google even sponsors Firefox, by the tune of millions of dollars.
Google has one goal in mind: increase the non-IE marketshare. IE only exists on Windows, hence Chrome only needs to be able to fight on that platform.
Now, if you don't even understand why Google needs to increase the non-IE marketshare, I can't help you.
How is it useless, when the guy who built it, used it already for a month? And it has replaced 200 supercomputer nodes, for his purpose? I'd say that's very fucking useful.
But you know what, maybe you should send him an e-mail and try to convince him how his cluster is useless. Make it a nice, insightful and intelligent e-mail, like your post.
He's still better than timothy. His consistently worthless contributions are what eventually compelled me to create an account.
So, you have an account... and it's "Anonymous Coward"? I'm pretty sure I've seen your posts in some of tim's contributions :oD
I just removed samzenpus from the Index > Authors and now this story isn't visible on the /. frontpage. I used the Back function of my browser to come back and post :o)
So? If anything that is a birth control ad, not support for imprisonment and castration.
Where did THAT come from? Demonizing what I wrote by plain inventing shit doesn't give any weight to your argument.
The lesson here is that it shouldn't be illegal for anyone to fuck a 17yr old girl.
Have you thought this through before posting? If so, I really wonder how you have the nerve to do such a proclamation when "fucking of a 17yr old girl" ended up in pregnancy and abortion.
You jest, but take into account this true story: my buddy who was 21 at the time was in a sexual relationship with a 17 year old whose father(who was a Sheriff) allowed it, even inviting my buddy to go on camping trips with them and allowing them their own tent.
After an abortion, the relationship turned sour, and my buddy was arrested shortly afterward for statutory rape. Only his name and the crime he was being charged with appeared in the paper. Bad news given the conservative, small-town lynch-mob environment. Though the charges were dropped after he posted bail, his rep was ruined all because of a petty revenge stunt with connections to law enforcement.
Your friend's reputation was ruined because he committed a crime. Not an inconsequential one, either: pregnancy, and abortion are not funny little things to laugh at.