You, calling upon logic and willpower to change human nature as a whole, will never make it happen.
If it's possible for an individual, it's possible for the human race as a whole...I'm not saying it will happen anytime soon, just noting that it is possible to change human nature.
I would argue that each individual would benefit from challenging this so-called human nature. So I will continue to do what I can, trying to point out that just because something is today, doesn't mean it can't be changed.
But since it appears to be human nature to disregard or mock most things I say, I'm not expecting much.
IIRC, at least one of Lamarck's theories was discredited by anthropologists/biologists because he postulated that if a creature developed a (non-inherited) trait which was beneficial, that trait would be passed on to offspring directly. This is not the case.
(As mentioned in another post,) Lamarkian evolution applies to humans. If I invent something that provides a survival advantage, I can pass it on to others (doesn't even have to be my offspring) through writing.
Hackers (of Lamo's type) are interested in finding the truth. Expressing the truth should not be against the law.
If expressing the truth causes problems for society, the most efficient way of dealing with the problems (so they don't recur) is to acknowledge the truth and discuss it out in the open, so that (hopefully) motivation for those causing the problems will decrease, or (at least) society will be better informed and better able to cope with the problems.
that's assuming that you know a lot of people who do nothing but talk or post on the weblog the stuff they buy.
Yes. The economic argument would then be: advertising costs money, and is often perceived as deceptive. If money spent on advertising is spent on improving product quality, or lowering the price, or responding to customer feedback, your product will (given cheap, easy, uncensored, and universal access to a communications medium such as the internet) develop a reputation and sell itself (at a lower cost to you than your competition).
As for fake customers, I would take my chances on being able to pick them out myself, or that someone else would spot them and report them. At least you would have a chance to ask the fake customers questions about the product, which is more than you can do with advertising as it exists today...
Since humans can make use of Lamarckian (sp?) evolution (due to written language), geeks can propogate more important things than genes. Geeks can reproduce by implanting geeky ideas in the children of the cool kids.
Evolution is wasteful and unsuccessful in many cases. Maybe we can improve upon it.
If we can search all possible paths in parallel in simulation (or at least, more paths than physical evolution would be able to explore), we may discover solutions to a particular problem that evolution would not have solved as quickly.
I guess my point is that clever search algorithms are, philosophically speaking, a hack (like the algorithms used to calculate the epicycles of ancient astronomy) - search algorithms that have to prioritize possible search paths may help us in the short run, but in the long run we may have been better off devoting a lot more resources to figuring out ways to search massively in parallel.
We should also have suicide centers so those of us who realize we're useless and evolutionary dead ends may kill ourselves more efficiently, thereby saving hospital resources spent on botched suicides, mental health care, etc.
Exhaustive search would be the obvious way to find a true global maximum in this sort of problem, but often the cost-per-tuple of evaluating the fitness function is non-trivial.
So as resource constraints decrease (or perhaps with quantum or biological computing), exhaustive search will become more practical?
You can do cool things like "splice" together different parts of surviving offspring's instruction sequences in order to find a sequence that combines the best features of each of its parents (this simulates sexual reproduction).
Genetic algorithms should be quicker than real life sexual reproduction. A program can produce all possible combinations of the genes of two parents and measure the survival fitness of each...in real life, resource or other constraints apply.
Maybe one day they'll make patent applications available as a web service with a published xml schema so people can more easily write clients that will distribute applications to volunteers for review, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you arguing for a more powerful electoral college?
You, calling upon logic and willpower to change human nature as a whole, will never make it happen.
If it's possible for an individual, it's possible for the human race as a whole...I'm not saying it will happen anytime soon, just noting that it is possible to change human nature.
I would argue that each individual would benefit from challenging this so-called human nature. So I will continue to do what I can, trying to point out that just because something is today, doesn't mean it can't be changed.
But since it appears to be human nature to disregard or mock most things I say, I'm not expecting much.
Humans can change their nature. Through logic, willpower, technology (such as genetic engineering)...
IIRC, at least one of Lamarck's theories was discredited by anthropologists/biologists because he postulated that if a creature developed a (non-inherited) trait which was beneficial, that trait would be passed on to offspring directly. This is not the case.
(As mentioned in another post,) Lamarkian evolution applies to humans. If I invent something that provides a survival advantage, I can pass it on to others (doesn't even have to be my offspring) through writing.
I wish we could have some way of identifying people who were informed on topics that most of you have no clue about.
The way is to read the response. Requiring information about who said something before judging it is an example of an ad hominem argument.
Aren't we (humans) now experiencing Lamarckian evolution? A useful technology that someone invents is passed on by writing...
His intent was to show that the security the organizations thought was adequate was not.
If someone points out to you that your alarm system isn't working properly, do you thank them and fix it, or try to get them arrested first?
Hackers (of Lamo's type) are interested in finding the truth. Expressing the truth should not be against the law.
If expressing the truth causes problems for society, the most efficient way of dealing with the problems (so they don't recur) is to acknowledge the truth and discuss it out in the open, so that (hopefully) motivation for those causing the problems will decrease, or (at least) society will be better informed and better able to cope with the problems.
The content will come from Time Warner.
it's a perfectly natural process.
We have the ability to override natural processes.
that's assuming that you know a lot of people who do nothing but talk or post on the weblog the stuff they buy.
Yes. The economic argument would then be: advertising costs money, and is often perceived as deceptive. If money spent on advertising is spent on improving product quality, or lowering the price, or responding to customer feedback, your product will (given cheap, easy, uncensored, and universal access to a communications medium such as the internet) develop a reputation and sell itself (at a lower cost to you than your competition).
As for fake customers, I would take my chances on being able to pick them out myself, or that someone else would spot them and report them. At least you would have a chance to ask the fake customers questions about the product, which is more than you can do with advertising as it exists today...
Since humans can make use of Lamarckian (sp?) evolution (due to written language), geeks can propogate more important things than genes. Geeks can reproduce by implanting geeky ideas in the children of the cool kids.
Would consumers be better off relying on word-of-mouth advertising?
Oh yeah, capitalism doesn't care about the well-being of consumers as much as the well-being of those who supply the goods.
How do you learn about new products?
Sales?
Word of mouth, or through a search.
If they can make something that will push boxes so humans don't have to, that'll work.
Evolution is wasteful and unsuccessful in many cases. Maybe we can improve upon it.
If we can search all possible paths in parallel in simulation (or at least, more paths than physical evolution would be able to explore), we may discover solutions to a particular problem that evolution would not have solved as quickly.
I guess my point is that clever search algorithms are, philosophically speaking, a hack (like the algorithms used to calculate the epicycles of ancient astronomy) - search algorithms that have to prioritize possible search paths may help us in the short run, but in the long run we may have been better off devoting a lot more resources to figuring out ways to search massively in parallel.
Everything will be connected. More options, more convenience, more knowledge.
So, you need an interface to program in a pattern for it to follow. Or maybe you could teach it by pushing it around first...
We should also have suicide centers so those of us who realize we're useless and evolutionary dead ends may kill ourselves more efficiently, thereby saving hospital resources spent on botched suicides, mental health care, etc.
Exhaustive search would be the obvious way to find a true global maximum in this sort of problem, but often the cost-per-tuple of evaluating the fitness function is non-trivial.
So as resource constraints decrease (or perhaps with quantum or biological computing), exhaustive search will become more practical?
Well, that's one possible search strategy. I say use massive parallelism to simultaneously explore all possible solutions.
You can do cool things like "splice" together different parts of surviving offspring's instruction sequences in order to find a sequence that combines the best features of each of its parents (this simulates sexual reproduction).
Genetic algorithms should be quicker than real life sexual reproduction. A program can produce all possible combinations of the genes of two parents and measure the survival fitness of each...in real life, resource or other constraints apply.
It has more to do with a baby bird learning how to fly than birds evolving wings.
Maybe one day they'll make patent applications available as a web service with a published xml schema so people can more easily write clients that will distribute applications to volunteers for review, etc.