One of the advantages I see of this kind of detail is that a newbie (or me, really) can follow the changes and start to figure out where things in the kernel actually are. This could be good for the learning process.
Re:We (probably) won't ever actually ACHIEVE AI
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 1
AI won't be considered successful until we build HAL or Data, but the journey so far has been very useful.
Well once we do that, don't you think its probably that people will still go, "Yeah but that's still just AI, its not *REAL* intelligence"
I doubt there will ever be a fine line between when people considered it just a machine and when people considered it a thinking entity. It'll probably just revolve around social convetion... like most things xenophobic.
(nonetheless I agree, whether or not its intelligent beings, there are *incredibly* useful things being produced as side-effects of the ultimate goal)
I always thought it would be amusing to license fables, folk-tales and old, graying grandfather "when I was a child..." stories.
Something like, if you take this work and make yourself the hero and make the bad guys more evil and the challenges more overwhelming and so on, then it must be released under the fable license as well.
This show is an almost perfect low-key parody of the x-files... if you can forgive yourself for watching the WB. The entire show is done tongue-in-cheek, like watching a long term Army of Darkness... although it does slip into the occasional campy downhomeness. It does a really great job of being funny and interesting without being obvious. I left X-Files with Mulder (well I guess he came back or something but like I said...), but I'm all for SU2 now.
If C++ have you considered a cross platform gui framework like wxWindows?
Unfortunately, I don't believe KDE is cross platform to windows, but I do believe it'll run on any unix.
What database are you using if any?
SQL something:) I'd be almost retarded (yeah the jury is out) if I didn't use SQL.
I'm building an application to work like quickbooks (for kde, as if you couldn't guess). I probably shouldn't post this because its completely unusable and I don't want to give anyone the wrong impression.:) But its on topic, and I figure its a good place to beg for helpers. If you'd like to help me, I'll hook you up with the GPL'd source when you drop me an email. Especially anyone that has the gumption to maintain the sourceforge front-end.
Nobody seems to be able to say that "if and only if X and Y happen, then you have emergence."
That's the thrill of science. (And most of it...) Something nebulus on the horizon like, the seven cities of gold, you know its out there but you can't quite put your finger on it, so you cast out on various paths to see what you come up with.
Emergence is very new, as in <30 years old for really serious studies (I'm sure people were contemplating it before then, but not really analyzing it at all) I mean just as short as 100 years ago we still thought simple math would solve every problem.
This particular branch is exceptionally interesting because it seems to have character in a VAST number of disciplins and possible all of them. That the character of emergence, if boiled down, could be of pragmatic use in all sciences. Very cool (not to mention everyone's guess about emergent intellect.)
one scientist grabs the tail and thinks its a thin, long snake, another scientist grabs a tusk and thinks its a rhino, another grabs the trunk and thinks its a python...
So how does the analogy work when the elephant gets pissed at being groped and tramples all the physicists in the room?
2) Godel's proof does not say that it is impossible to know everything.
Yes it does. "____ does not know this." Insert blank with whoever claims to know everything. If they claim they know it, then they're lying. If they don't know it, then they don't know everything.
That's Godel's proof on Number Theory. (Actually his is better stated and doesn't have the semantic problems my statement does) and it goes further to say that there are an infinite number of sentences like that which NT can't know. As well as saying that any system that can "do" number theory (similar to Cook's theorem on problems) has the same failure. This includes predicate calculus, algebra, trig, analysis, etc etc etc.
3) Godel's proof only works if you are using boolean logic
Any formal logic. And he proved it for number theory not boolean logic.
This does not mean that the universe works the same way.
of course not. But any mathematical model which is a sufficient reflection of the universe will also be able to model NT as a subset of itself, and will therefore not contain certain truths...
(this means there either isn't a sufficient model for the universe or the universe contains the same peril for paradox.)
Some people choose BSD because they want to let everyone including MS decide what to do with the end software (including reselling it as their own) except they have to include the credit.
Some people choose GPL because they don't want to let everyone including MS decide to resell the end software as their own. Regardless of credit.
Some people choose a MS like EULA because they think their crap peice of software will make them a buck, when in reality if its any inkling of good, MS will probably borg it.
RMS isn't forcing anyone to write the software as GPL. I don't think he owns a gun. Even BG isn't forcing you to use windows, as much as he tries. BSD isn't forcing you to do anything either. None of them are forcing anything. The original author who chooses the license is doing all the forcing. RMS isn't forcing any of those authors. BG does a little by not allowing GPL when you use MS devel tools. Even RMS doesn't do that. Microsoft could *use* gcc if it wanted. It just couldn't edit it. So? Why would MS want to edit it anyway? It works better than most the tools they have as it is.
Just strange. Yes each of these views also has an "optimal" world view tied to it, that IF they all had complete control over the word they'd do something very specific and limiting with that control, in the meantime they work with what they've got and nothing's really changed all that much.
I'm still going to use the GPL because I really don't want to have to take credit for my crap software, but I do want whatever the community does to it to come back to me so I can use it.
I'd imagine your walls, floors, etc would have to be set up to instruct your base computer when and where they were hit, and then distribute damage if players are within a blast radius set for the 'weapon' being used by the shooter... but can anyone divine whether this is technically feasible? Or has anyone attempted something like this?
I see this as an installation like an obstacle course with beacons actually in the obstacles, similar to what is on the suit itself. These beacons could then record hits on themselves, as well as project hits. A really interesting use of this would be to have the beacons project some virtual image of themselves to a visor worn by the people, so that the obstacle stops looking like a boring cylinder and becomes a tree instead.
This would solve that whole "bumping" into things walking around in virtual environemnts, but if the tree is knocked down by an explosion it creates a new problem. Still I'd think it was cool to play in, even if you left the tree invincible.
Personally I'd say the clone approach is really the best. Because you get the power and stability of linux, but then the feature set and useability of a windows app.
There are good apps written for windows. Cloning these things and moving them to unixisms would be a really good thing.
Its the best of both worlds. But I really didn't address the capitalistic issues you raised. Well I guess you could chalk it up to the bazaar. Anyone who wants to get some praise for righting some cool code might as well not write a kernel patch. It probably won't even get noticed (I'm a case in point), but if you write a clone that hasn't been written, yet. People might love you (I may be a case in point on that too... we'll see:)
Its probable that any faithful Jews before he came would be saved on the fact that they obeyed all the rules believing in a future messiah. So if no one believed later, you'd at least get the predecesors.
In any event, assuming God would know in advance who would believe in such an event before he decided to let it happen, then he'd know precisely who he was going to save and be able to decide whether to do it or not.
But if he doesn't have perfect future knowledge, then the fact that its available ad infinitum means its not really in vain either. Just like a blank check doesn't lack value just because there isn't a number on it.
Its a business plan waiting to happen. Make it a service agreement and its the best of both worlds. You charge people to upgrade it for them, sorta an assurance of the latest greatest working model for a modest sum. Then use the rest of your time to contribute to the project your upgrading. Then the users don't have to think about it.
Or do michaels story headlines sound exactly like Enquiror (sp?). I mean Linus didn't "Tell All" like some kind of Fox Special. What about that other one a couple days ago "AOL Protocal Secrets Revealed" -- I *did* see that one on Fox... right before "Who wants to be groped by an open source hacker"
It makes me creepy.
Nathan.
I disagree. Airports are already checking 1 out of 3 people. This would just be a simplified way to make sure they were doing a full patdown and security check on a fairly random assortment of people. And the alarm would remind them not to let 5 or 10 slip through.
Although I don't like the 90% success rate on actual attackers, its got to be better than the minimum wage security guys are doing now. There's no way they have more than just/bin/laden in their minds. I know I don't really, and I just flew.
This is not an invasion of privacy. This is a very specific use of detection. You enter a somewhat contractual agreement with the airport already that says you are not a psycho. Violation of your right would be selling information about your travel stats or simply your image in general.
Despite the wild speculation about under the counter agreements between Bush and everyone else else who owns a big biz. The republican party is generally capitalist pig suckling. He's really just walking the party line on this one. And one I wish I hadn't voted for him on.
Although I will give him one particular line of defence. If the microsoft illegally used monopoly was constitutionally split up as is gaurenteed by (actually I think its an amendment) then a large portion of the market would collapse under the weight of its fall.
Remember the market is filled with pointy hairs who like money. They could give a rats butt about how poorly MS software works (unless it crashes while they're making a bid) 75% of traders still consider MS the mainstay. If the
US market tumbles any further we could be stuck in a recession alot longer. Which isn't really good for anyone.
Anyway, this is probably where Bush is coming from. It's a win-win for the replublican line. Keep the economy nose above water and get some money from a large monopoly as well.
You're absolutely right... that does drop them from an A+ rating down to an A. Perhaps an A-, just to be a cynical embittered tenure.
My point still stands, in my opinion, people are wanting perfection from the government!?
I agree it sucks to think that out of 100 of your closest voting friends (do any of us have that many friends) 6.5 of them didn't count. But if you randomly sampled from your friends, and randomly chose six of them, would it matter if you lost those 6?
Look it up sometime, I'll make a wager your country of 5 million people regularly loses 100,000+ votes or whatever it is you may do with 5 million people.
That's a 2% margin of error. Which is a really good margin of error. If the US has 250 million people then losing 5 million votes is also 2% (I have no idea how many people are in the US, but I'm pretty sure 250 million is close)
So if you think 5 million is ABSOLUTELY killer, let me ask you this... when was the last time you scored a 98% on a very long, very repetitive, very dull test?
Slashdot Mirror
One of the advantages I see of this kind of detail is that a newbie (or me, really) can follow the changes and start to figure out where things in the kernel actually are. This could be good for the learning process.
Well once we do that, don't you think its probably that people will still go, "Yeah but that's still just AI, its not *REAL* intelligence"
I doubt there will ever be a fine line between when people considered it just a machine and when people considered it a thinking entity. It'll probably just revolve around social convetion... like most things xenophobic.
(nonetheless I agree, whether or not its intelligent beings, there are *incredibly* useful things being produced as side-effects of the ultimate goal)
Nathan.
Something like, if you take this work and make yourself the hero and make the bad guys more evil and the challenges more overwhelming and so on, then it must be released under the fable license as well.
This show is an almost perfect low-key parody of the x-files... if you can forgive yourself for watching the WB. The entire show is done tongue-in-cheek, like watching a long term Army of Darkness... although it does slip into the occasional campy downhomeness. It does a really great job of being funny and interesting without being obvious. I left X-Files with Mulder (well I guess he came back or something but like I said...), but I'm all for SU2 now.
C++, yes.
If C++ have you considered a cross platform gui framework like wxWindows?
Unfortunately, I don't believe KDE is cross platform to windows, but I do believe it'll run on any unix.
What database are you using if any? :) I'd be almost retarded (yeah the jury is out) if I didn't use SQL.
SQL something
Nathan.
That's the thrill of science. (And most of it...) Something nebulus on the horizon like, the seven cities of gold, you know its out there but you can't quite put your finger on it, so you cast out on various paths to see what you come up with.
Emergence is very new, as in <30 years old for really serious studies (I'm sure people were contemplating it before then, but not really analyzing it at all) I mean just as short as 100 years ago we still thought simple math would solve every problem.
This particular branch is exceptionally interesting because it seems to have character in a VAST number of disciplins and possible all of them. That the character of emergence, if boiled down, could be of pragmatic use in all sciences. Very cool (not to mention everyone's guess about emergent intellect.)
Nathan.
So how does the analogy work when the elephant gets pissed at being groped and tramples all the physicists in the room?
Nathan.
Yes it does. "____ does not know this." Insert blank with whoever claims to know everything. If they claim they know it, then they're lying. If they don't know it, then they don't know everything.
That's Godel's proof on Number Theory. (Actually his is better stated and doesn't have the semantic problems my statement does) and it goes further to say that there are an infinite number of sentences like that which NT can't know. As well as saying that any system that can "do" number theory (similar to Cook's theorem on problems) has the same failure. This includes predicate calculus, algebra, trig, analysis, etc etc etc.
3) Godel's proof only works if you are using boolean logic
Any formal logic. And he proved it for number theory not boolean logic.
This does not mean that the universe works the same way.
of course not. But any mathematical model which is a sufficient reflection of the universe will also be able to model NT as a subset of itself, and will therefore not contain certain truths ...
(this means there either isn't a sufficient model for the universe or the universe contains the same peril for paradox.)
Nathan.
Some people choose BSD because they want to let everyone including MS decide what to do with the end software (including reselling it as their own) except they have to include the credit.
Some people choose GPL because they don't want to let everyone including MS decide to resell the end software as their own. Regardless of credit.
Some people choose a MS like EULA because they think their crap peice of software will make them a buck, when in reality if its any inkling of good, MS will probably borg it.
RMS isn't forcing anyone to write the software as GPL. I don't think he owns a gun. Even BG isn't forcing you to use windows, as much as he tries. BSD isn't forcing you to do anything either. None of them are forcing anything. The original author who chooses the license is doing all the forcing. RMS isn't forcing any of those authors. BG does a little by not allowing GPL when you use MS devel tools. Even RMS doesn't do that. Microsoft could *use* gcc if it wanted. It just couldn't edit it. So? Why would MS want to edit it anyway? It works better than most the tools they have as it is.
Just strange. Yes each of these views also has an "optimal" world view tied to it, that IF they all had complete control over the word they'd do something very specific and limiting with that control, in the meantime they work with what they've got and nothing's really changed all that much.
I'm still going to use the GPL because I really don't want to have to take credit for my crap software, but I do want whatever the community does to it to come back to me so I can use it.
Nathan.
I see this as an installation like an obstacle course with beacons actually in the obstacles, similar to what is on the suit itself. These beacons could then record hits on themselves, as well as project hits. A really interesting use of this would be to have the beacons project some virtual image of themselves to a visor worn by the people, so that the obstacle stops looking like a boring cylinder and becomes a tree instead.
This would solve that whole "bumping" into things walking around in virtual environemnts, but if the tree is knocked down by an explosion it creates a new problem. Still I'd think it was cool to play in, even if you left the tree invincible.
Nathan.
Give the guy a break, man, he's only GOT 10 fingers. We hope.
Holy, nutjob, batman, I think I just creamed myself.
There are good apps written for windows. Cloning these things and moving them to unixisms would be a really good thing.
Its the best of both worlds. But I really didn't address the capitalistic issues you raised. Well I guess you could chalk it up to the bazaar. Anyone who wants to get some praise for righting some cool code might as well not write a kernel patch. It probably won't even get noticed (I'm a case in point), but if you write a clone that hasn't been written, yet. People might love you (I may be a case in point on that too... we'll see :)
Nathan.
In any event, assuming God would know in advance who would believe in such an event before he decided to let it happen, then he'd know precisely who he was going to save and be able to decide whether to do it or not.
But if he doesn't have perfect future knowledge, then the fact that its available ad infinitum means its not really in vain either. Just like a blank check doesn't lack value just because there isn't a number on it.
Nathan.
Its a business plan waiting to happen. Make it a service agreement and its the best of both worlds. You charge people to upgrade it for them, sorta an assurance of the latest greatest working model for a modest sum. Then use the rest of your time to contribute to the project your upgrading. Then the users don't have to think about it.
Or do michaels story headlines sound exactly like Enquiror (sp?). I mean Linus didn't "Tell All" like some kind of Fox Special. What about that other one a couple days ago "AOL Protocal Secrets Revealed" -- I *did* see that one on Fox... right before "Who wants to be groped by an open source hacker" It makes me creepy. Nathan.
Although I don't like the 90% success rate on actual attackers, its got to be better than the minimum wage security guys are doing now. There's no way they have more than just /bin/laden in their minds. I know I don't really, and I just flew.
This is not an invasion of privacy. This is a very specific use of detection. You enter a somewhat contractual agreement with the airport already that says you are not a psycho. Violation of your right would be selling information about your travel stats or simply your image in general.
If I had another account I'd mod myself down.
Despite the wild speculation about under the counter agreements between Bush and everyone else else who owns a big biz. The republican party is generally capitalist pig suckling. He's really just walking the party line on this one. And one I wish I hadn't voted for him on.
Although I will give him one particular line of defence. If the microsoft illegally used monopoly was constitutionally split up as is gaurenteed by (actually I think its an amendment) then a large portion of the market would collapse under the weight of its fall.
Remember the market is filled with pointy hairs who like money. They could give a rats butt about how poorly MS software works (unless it crashes while they're making a bid) 75% of traders still consider MS the mainstay. If the US market tumbles any further we could be stuck in a recession alot longer. Which isn't really good for anyone.
Anyway, this is probably where Bush is coming from. It's a win-win for the replublican line. Keep the economy nose above water and get some money from a large monopoly as well.
Duhprey
You're absolutely right ... that does drop them from an A+ rating down to an A. Perhaps an A-, just to be a cynical embittered tenure.
My point still stands, in my opinion, people are wanting perfection from the government!?
I agree it sucks to think that out of 100 of your closest voting friends (do any of us have that many friends) 6.5 of them didn't count. But if you randomly sampled from your friends, and randomly chose six of them, would it matter if you lost those 6?
Thank you so much for posting this. I've never enjoyed reading anything more. Today. :)
Look it up sometime, I'll make a wager your country of 5 million people regularly loses 100,000+ votes or whatever it is you may do with 5 million people.
That's a 2% margin of error. Which is a really good margin of error. If the US has 250 million people then losing 5 million votes is also 2% (I have no idea how many people are in the US, but I'm pretty sure 250 million is close)
So if you think 5 million is ABSOLUTELY killer, let me ask you this... when was the last time you scored a 98% on a very long, very repetitive, very dull test?
This name change business was on slashback already last night.
But that lawyer business is news. Isn't it nice to sign away power of attorney?
paranoid schitzophrenic (sp?) :)
no no PS is the acronym. And getting it backwards is dyslexic.
its a slow monday