For as far back as we've been able to travel with significant speed between dissimilar ecosystems...
The problem isn't with dissimilar ecosystems. The problem is that the ecosystem that the invader finds itself in is very similar to the old one, without the checks on its proliferation the old habit contained.
Take for example infectious diseases. The new ecosystem the disease found itself in was almost exactly the same as the old one, H. sapiens, without any immune system defenses. That's why we don't see plant diseases infecting humans. The habitat is too dissimilar.
The problem is that we don't really know if the environment on earth will be different enough to prevent any martian life from thriving. In all likelihood it is, but as was pointed out before in this thread, do you want to take that risk? I don't.
If we could be sure that any martian life was based on a different substrate than earth based life, i.e. silicon, then your analogy would hold. But while we don't know what forms life can take, (which is one of the reasons we want to discover life elsewhere so we have more than one example to study) it is quite likely that it will be similar to earth based life: carbon based, DNA like genetic code, needs water, etc.
So while the biochemistry of any martian life won't be exactly the same as ours, it could very well be similar enough to cause problems.
If there is life on mars, it's not going to be too unlike these existing organisms.
How do you know this?
We have one sample of life to study. DNA based life on earth. We may have a second type, prionic, but despite (name escapes me) getting a nobel prize for it, it is still somewhat disputed that prions are alive.
All we really know about is "life as we know it". We don't know what other types of life are possible.
So while it is likely that any martian life will be similar to earth based life: carbon based, some type of DNA like molecular system, similar in size, it is by no means certain.
One of the most important reasons for finding life on Mars or anywhere else is that it would give us a second sample to study. Generalizing from one example is somewhat difficult.
You are correct that you cannot watch one show while recording another with a VCR. So when stated like that it sounds rather innovative.
But if I state it as being able to write data to a hard drive while also reading other data from that hard drive it doesn't sound all that innovative any more.
Sony doesn't own Tivo. Tivo is a publicly traded company. The following companies have invested in Tivo, (from Tivo's website) "America Online (AOL), Advance/Newhouse, CBS, Comcast Corporation, Cox Communications, DIRECTV, Discovery Communications, Encore Media Group, Liberty Media subsidiaries, Liberty Digital, NBC, Philips Electronics, Showtime Networks, SONY, TV Guide Interactive and The Walt Disney Company". As you can see, Sony is but one of a number of investors.
ReplayTV is a privately held company which is in the process of being acquired by Sonic Blue.
Tivo doesn't manufacture any units. They license their technology to others, most notably Sony and Philips.
ReplayTV had been manufacturing their own units but recently decided to switch to a licensing model as well. Panasonic is the only significant licensee I am aware of. They did recently sign an agreement with Motorola to incorporate Replay's technology in Motorola's cable set top boxes.
We need a moderation catagory of 'Clueless' for posts like the above.
Hack the flight control system of a commercial airliner and land it. =) Not over the phone...
Agreed. Yet everyone seems to like the X-Files and they make the same type of drive you nuts errors.
How many times does Mulder or Scully go into a dark room/cave/alley/... alone without calling for back up? Pull out the damm cellphone and let somebody know where you're going for christsakes!
Aliens, immortals, poltergists, are all fine but it was the details that made the show unwatchable for me. Just like TLG.
A few comments above we have, "So, let me get this straight. NASA has given up trying to explain this, they have no idea. So for informed comments, now we turn to...
Slashdot Readers
Hurrah! Please explain it for me, guys. I have a friend at NASA who would really like to know.
I thought it was funny (so did several moderators).
And now we get this obvious troll, and it is moderated as insightful.
If Windows didn't ship with a web browser, how easy would it be for the average user to find and download another browser?
While it would no doubt be difficult it is also somewhat irrelevant.
When installing the MacOS (at least the last several versions through 9.x, I haven't tried X yet) you get a choice of Netscape or IE, although IE is the default these days. Something to do with MS investing in Apple.
And the user can choose to remove either or both Netscape or IE.
I expect the situation is similar for Linux, a true choice of browsers.
With Windows you also get a choice of browsers, but you must have IE installed.
It doesn't matter that you are running out of examples, as your examples are irrelevant. And you continue to miss the point.
As to Ice-T, there was no law that said his ablum could not be published. And it was censorship. But censorship in and of itself is not illegal. Federally mandated censorship is not allowed under the US constitution.
As to Andrew Dice Clay that fact that he has other outlets is again irrelevant to the issue at hand as there is no law preventing MTV from airing Dice Clay.
Censorship is not the issue. Federally mandated restrictions on speech is.
Here is the issue in bold (kinda like raising one's voice when speaking to foreigners):Manadated limits on speech or the press are not allowed under the US constitution.
Here is the first amendment to the US constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The law as passed limits the press. Regardless of whether it is censorship or not, it is forbidden by the US constitution.
Note that it doesn't say laws limiting speech can be passed as long as other outlets are available. Also note that is says nothing about the media of the speech. It is short and to the point. It simply says no law.
Ignoring for a moment that filtering software doesn't work, libraries are free to choose to install such software. And it may make sense to do so in the childrens section of the library.
And you probably would have the right to sue for a free speech violation in your library scenario. But you would probably run afoul of other laws for protection of minors.
So I'll ask you a question, which part of "Congress shall make no law..." don't you understand?
Oh yeah, the reason the Spice channel isn't found between CBS and NBC is that it is a pay cable channel.
Congress shall make no law... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,..."
Congress has passed a law that abridges speech and and the press.
You may not like goatse.cx but unless they are doing something illegal, they are protected.
Freedom of speech means nothing if it only applies to government approved speech. And by mandating filters the government is has stated that anything that is blocked is unapproved speech.
As part of the announcements, Apple will be selling blank DVD-Rs for $10 each. One of the arguments against DVD piracy has been the high cost of blank media. Poof!
So can I put a DVD in one machine, send via ethernet to another with a superdrive and make a copy?
Think we'll ever see something like this in a Sony?
What I'm really trying to get at is what is the minimum number of neurons needed to think. Put another way, if we subtract out everything the brain must do that isn't thinking, does it reduce the complexity needed to think?
In a similar fashion, birds were an existance proof for heavier than air flight. Flapping wings are a very complex solution to flying. Once it was determined that wings could be used only to generate lift and that thrust can come from elsewhere the problem was simplified.
We know that you do not need a complete set of functioning sensory systems to think. Helen Keller was a fine example of that. And Stephen Hawking does fine without the ability to control his muscles.
On the other hand, if one is blind or deaf those neurons are still available to think with. And don't have to deal with any sensory input.
Any AI would have the need for input. We need to determine how complex that input need be. Current computers can 'reason' about the physical world without human like senses. As a trivial example consider Mapquest. It can answer spacial questions about the world.
One of the reasons artifical vision is so difficult to implement is that there is too much info. The system can't determine what is relevant. Having an alternate mechanism to introduce info into the system simplifies the problem.
I realize that we use the same neural machinery for multiple tasks. Thus I would ask is dreaming, visualizing, etc. needed for thinking? Or is it a side effect of how one particular system, the human brain, was built.
In a round about way the point I'm trying to make is that it may be that using the complexity of the brain as a measure for what is needed for an AI is actually an upper limit because the brain has tasks other than thinking.
The brain may also have redundancies not needed in a minimal AI solution. People can get by with just one hemisphere. Does this mean we can cut our complexity estimate in half?
And that given that the brain was evolved and not engineered is there a more elegant solution to designing a thinking machine?
Are we forgetting just how much biological regulation a mouse brain has to maintain? It's not just all "calculations"....
I've often seem arguments against AI based on the complexity of the brain. Human not mouse. But the above quote shows why this may not be as large an issue as generally believed.
The question is, how much of the brain is devoted to non-thinking tasks and does this significantly reduce the number of neurons needed for thinking?
Here's one example. There is a lot of neural machinery devoted to visual processing. Yet one doesn't need to be able to see to be able to think. So can we subtract the neurons and the corresponding connections devoted to the visual system from the number of neurons needed to think?
What about the brain resources devoted to the other senses? Or those used for muscle movement?
Slashdot Mirror
I mean no one is planning on sterilizing the Earth-ships before they heard to mars.
NASA sterilizes all of its planetary probes as a matter of course.
Steve M
Are you under the impression that when the sample is returned it will be a first come first serve to get the samples?
Or is this just a rather lame troll?
NASA will control who gets what regardless of the quarentine decision.
Steve M
For as far back as we've been able to travel with significant speed between dissimilar ecosystems ...
The problem isn't with dissimilar ecosystems. The problem is that the ecosystem that the invader finds itself in is very similar to the old one, without the checks on its proliferation the old habit contained.
Take for example infectious diseases. The new ecosystem the disease found itself in was almost exactly the same as the old one, H. sapiens, without any immune system defenses. That's why we don't see plant diseases infecting humans. The habitat is too dissimilar.
The problem is that we don't really know if the environment on earth will be different enough to prevent any martian life from thriving. In all likelihood it is, but as was pointed out before in this thread, do you want to take that risk? I don't.
Steve M
A computer virus is a bad analogy.
If we could be sure that any martian life was based on a different substrate than earth based life, i.e. silicon, then your analogy would hold. But while we don't know what forms life can take, (which is one of the reasons we want to discover life elsewhere so we have more than one example to study) it is quite likely that it will be similar to earth based life: carbon based, DNA like genetic code, needs water, etc.
So while the biochemistry of any martian life won't be exactly the same as ours, it could very well be similar enough to cause problems.
Steve M
This is actually not in dispute at all. Prions are just chunks of protein.
Thanks, I was not aware of that.
Steve M
If there is life on mars, it's not going to be too unlike these existing organisms.
How do you know this?
We have one sample of life to study. DNA based life on earth. We may have a second type, prionic, but despite (name escapes me) getting a nobel prize for it, it is still somewhat disputed that prions are alive.
All we really know about is "life as we know it". We don't know what other types of life are possible.
So while it is likely that any martian life will be similar to earth based life: carbon based, some type of DNA like molecular system, similar in size, it is by no means certain.
One of the most important reasons for finding life on Mars or anywhere else is that it would give us a second sample to study. Generalizing from one example is somewhat difficult.
Steve M
You are correct that you cannot watch one show while recording another with a VCR. So when stated like that it sounds rather innovative.
But if I state it as being able to write data to a hard drive while also reading other data from that hard drive it doesn't sound all that innovative any more.
Steve M
Sony doesn't own Tivo. Tivo is a publicly traded company. The following companies have invested in Tivo, (from Tivo's website) "America Online (AOL), Advance/Newhouse, CBS, Comcast Corporation, Cox Communications, DIRECTV, Discovery Communications, Encore Media Group, Liberty Media subsidiaries, Liberty Digital, NBC, Philips Electronics, Showtime Networks, SONY, TV Guide Interactive and The Walt Disney Company". As you can see, Sony is but one of a number of investors.
ReplayTV is a privately held company which is in the process of being acquired by Sonic Blue.
Tivo doesn't manufacture any units. They license their technology to others, most notably Sony and Philips.
ReplayTV had been manufacturing their own units but recently decided to switch to a licensing model as well. Panasonic is the only significant licensee I am aware of. They did recently sign an agreement with Motorola to incorporate Replay's technology in Motorola's cable set top boxes.
We need a moderation catagory of 'Clueless' for posts like the above.
Steve M
The inside jokes (ok Yves too) were the only reasons to watch. It was a trade off between the inaccuracies and the jokes.
Did you catch that Langley was wearing a Dead Kennedys T-shirt in the finale? (I caught the Boulle reference but not the Clinton one.)
But the inaccuracies just drove me nuts.
Steve M
Hack the flight control system of a commercial airliner and land it. =) Not over the phone ...
Agreed. Yet everyone seems to like the X-Files and they make the same type of drive you nuts errors.
How many times does Mulder or Scully go into a dark room/cave/alley/... alone without calling for back up? Pull out the damm cellphone and let somebody know where you're going for christsakes!
Aliens, immortals, poltergists, are all fine but it was the details that made the show unwatchable for me. Just like TLG.
Steve M
Its funny (or sad) not flamebait!
Well it sure ain't funny. It may be a sad attempt at humor.
But I'm going with flamebait.
Steve M
A few comments above we have, "So, let me get this straight. NASA has given up trying to explain this, they have no idea. So for informed comments, now we turn to ...
Slashdot Readers
Hurrah! Please explain it for me, guys. I have a friend at NASA who would really like to know.
I thought it was funny (so did several moderators).
And now we get this obvious troll, and it is moderated as insightful.
Not so funny anymore.
Steve M
If Windows didn't ship with a web browser, how easy would it be for the average user to find and download another browser?
While it would no doubt be difficult it is also somewhat irrelevant.
When installing the MacOS (at least the last several versions through 9.x, I haven't tried X yet) you get a choice of Netscape or IE, although IE is the default these days. Something to do with MS investing in Apple.
And the user can choose to remove either or both Netscape or IE.
I expect the situation is similar for Linux, a true choice of browsers.
With Windows you also get a choice of browsers, but you must have IE installed.
Not what I would call a true choice.
Steve M
I cannot see the worth of an IBM microdrive in a Palm - no Palm generates the amount of data that would require one of these, to be honest.
Wasn't there some guy named Gates who said something similar about RAM? 640 something ...
Steve M
And MS is split?
Then theoretically the Apps Co won't care that Apple is competing with the OS Co. And thus a major barrier to OSX on Intel is gone.
Which is the whole point of the court's ruling, to foster competition in the OS market.
Think of it, OSX (Mac + Unix) and MS Office (and other apps) and cheaper hardware. I'm sure Apple is pulling for the DOJ on this one.
Steve M
It doesn't matter that you are running out of examples, as your examples are irrelevant. And you continue to miss the point.
As to Ice-T, there was no law that said his ablum could not be published. And it was censorship. But censorship in and of itself is not illegal. Federally mandated censorship is not allowed under the US constitution.
As to Andrew Dice Clay that fact that he has other outlets is again irrelevant to the issue at hand as there is no law preventing MTV from airing Dice Clay.
Censorship is not the issue. Federally mandated restrictions on speech is.
Here is the issue in bold (kinda like raising one's voice when speaking to foreigners):Manadated limits on speech or the press are not allowed under the US constitution.
Here is the first amendment to the US constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The law as passed limits the press. Regardless of whether it is censorship or not, it is forbidden by the US constitution.
Note that it doesn't say laws limiting speech can be passed as long as other outlets are available. Also note that is says nothing about the media of the speech. It is short and to the point. It simply says no law.
Ignoring for a moment that filtering software doesn't work, libraries are free to choose to install such software. And it may make sense to do so in the childrens section of the library.
And you probably would have the right to sue for a free speech violation in your library scenario. But you would probably run afoul of other laws for protection of minors.
So I'll ask you a question, which part of "Congress shall make no law ..." don't you understand?
Oh yeah, the reason the Spice channel isn't found between CBS and NBC is that it is a pay cable channel.
SteveM
And you continue to miss the point.
The governement (US) cannot put limits on how a message can be distributed. End of story. To pass such a law would be limiting the press.
As to your specific examples:
Computer shows disney.com and not goatse.cx - censorship? Yes it is censorship if there is a law that says you cannot show goatse.ex.
CNN shows Bill Clinton speak and not me - censorship? Not censorship as long as there is no law that bans CNN from showing you speaking.
As to your specific question:
The lack of coverage is not the issue. The law disallowing 'coverage' is the issue.
The constitution doesn't say congress shall pass no law ... except when it comes to the internet. It says congress shall pass no law. Period.
Steve M
From the first amendment to the US constitution:
Congress shall make no law ... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, ..."
Congress has passed a law that abridges speech and and the press.
You may not like goatse.cx but unless they are doing something illegal, they are protected.
Freedom of speech means nothing if it only applies to government approved speech. And by mandating filters the government is has stated that anything that is blocked is unapproved speech.
Steve M
What a pathetic effort.
And by the way, public institutions (in the US) have the duty to uphold the US constitution. Including the bit about free speech.
Steve M
The picture here shows the clock in the menu bar.
Steve M
As part of the announcements, Apple will be selling blank DVD-Rs for $10 each. One of the arguments against DVD piracy has been the high cost of blank media. Poof!
So can I put a DVD in one machine, send via ethernet to another with a superdrive and make a copy?
Think we'll ever see something like this in a Sony?
Steve M
Is E.M. Forster
Steve M
What I'm really trying to get at is what is the minimum number of neurons needed to think. Put another way, if we subtract out everything the brain must do that isn't thinking, does it reduce the complexity needed to think?
In a similar fashion, birds were an existance proof for heavier than air flight. Flapping wings are a very complex solution to flying. Once it was determined that wings could be used only to generate lift and that thrust can come from elsewhere the problem was simplified.
We know that you do not need a complete set of functioning sensory systems to think. Helen Keller was a fine example of that. And Stephen Hawking does fine without the ability to control his muscles.
On the other hand, if one is blind or deaf those neurons are still available to think with. And don't have to deal with any sensory input.
Any AI would have the need for input. We need to determine how complex that input need be. Current computers can 'reason' about the physical world without human like senses. As a trivial example consider Mapquest. It can answer spacial questions about the world.
One of the reasons artifical vision is so difficult to implement is that there is too much info. The system can't determine what is relevant. Having an alternate mechanism to introduce info into the system simplifies the problem.
I realize that we use the same neural machinery for multiple tasks. Thus I would ask is dreaming, visualizing, etc. needed for thinking? Or is it a side effect of how one particular system, the human brain, was built.
In a round about way the point I'm trying to make is that it may be that using the complexity of the brain as a measure for what is needed for an AI is actually an upper limit because the brain has tasks other than thinking.
The brain may also have redundancies not needed in a minimal AI solution. People can get by with just one hemisphere. Does this mean we can cut our complexity estimate in half?
And that given that the brain was evolved and not engineered is there a more elegant solution to designing a thinking machine?
Steve M
Are we forgetting just how much biological regulation a mouse brain has to maintain? It's not just all "calculations"....
I've often seem arguments against AI based on the complexity of the brain. Human not mouse. But the above quote shows why this may not be as large an issue as generally believed.
The question is, how much of the brain is devoted to non-thinking tasks and does this significantly reduce the number of neurons needed for thinking?
Here's one example. There is a lot of neural machinery devoted to visual processing. Yet one doesn't need to be able to see to be able to think. So can we subtract the neurons and the corresponding connections devoted to the visual system from the number of neurons needed to think?
What about the brain resources devoted to the other senses? Or those used for muscle movement?
Steve M
I didn't look for the /. story, but here is the web site for the silicon mouse you are referring to.
Steve M