Given some of the things done in the name of religion, I'll take science every time.
Granted, both are practiced by people and as such inherit all of the failings there of. Neither are perfect. Science recognizes this. Religion does not.
And science has to work in the real world. Religion doesn't. Thus science is self correcting. Religion is not.
I am not advocating blind faith in science or technology. But the only good solutions to our problems are those where science and technology play a big part. It is up to us to solve our problems. We should use all of the tools at our disposal.
The fact that the human brain was not developed in a top down fashion does not mean that it could not have been.
Birds can fly. Airplanes can fly. Birds evolved. Airplanes were designed and engineered.
I see no reason why there cannot exist both evolved and engineered intelligences. And I would argue that it is too soon to tell which method is the most efficient for developing an AI. Thus I would advocate exploring both avenues.
I can't speak for anybody else, but for me, cloning and genetic engineering delve into areas that will only harm the planet in the long run. This planet is already over populated with humans.
Actually, it most technologically and bio-medically advanced countries that have the lowest population growth.
I'm less sure, but believe it to be the case that it is the most technologically advanced countries that are doing the best when it come to cleaning up the environment.
The key determiner is weath. The more wealth a society has, the more time it has for dealing with issues other than the immediate needs of its people. And technology creates wealth.
There are a number of ways out of the predicament we find ourselves in. The way I see it, those that include advanced technology offer the best hope.
Essentially I think that a computer being a more rational and more prone to Vulcan like behaviour would almost certainly be a little more objective than people who judge on looks or wealth, or whatever.
While I believe that it has not been proven that emotions are a pre- or co-requisite of intelligence, there are a number of workers in the fields of AI and Cognitive Science who would disagree. David Gelenter springs to mind. (See his book The Muse in the Machine.)
So the vision of the AI as super rational mind may turn out to be a myth.
Any attempt we make at creating another intelligence is inherently 'flawed?' since we are basing this model after our own methods of thinking, therefore I dont think it will ever become a higher being, nor do I think it will be without serious flaws should anything even closely resembling intelligence that a human has, lets not even go into the way emotions influence our intelligence and our responses to well everything.
It is not clear how our intelligence is 'flawed', but let's grant that point. So assuming that our intelligence is 'flawed', is it possible to create an intelligence that is less flawed? (I would agree that a flawless intelligence is impossible -- so much for God!)
I would argue that it is possible. As an analogy, our memory is flawed. So any attempt to create an artificial memory would be flawed. Yet we have RAM, ROM, hard disks, CDs, DVDs, etc. each of which does a better job at storing information than human memory. (Note I didn't say accessing that memory. Those are different routines we haven't mastered yet.)
We can identify the 'flaws' in our intelligence and attempt to engineer around them. We can have multiple 'flawed' minds work loosely in parallel. We can use tools, (computers, genetic algorithms, etc.) to expand our abilities.
Also realize that any advances we make will evolve via Lamarkian pathways, which are much faster than the Dawinian ones we currently use (advances in genetics may see us switch as well).
Steve M
Re:Everybody take a breather
on
Microsoft Loses
·
· Score: 1
It should of course be "I've seen...".
And I did use the preview button.
Steve M
Re:Everybody take a breather
on
Microsoft Loses
·
· Score: 5
Lastly, I see you didn't dispute my assertion that much of the economic growth we have enjoyed can be attributed to Microsoft. Just in case you do decide to come back and dispute that claim. Examine the economic impact that Microsoft has on each phase of our economy before you answer including but not restricted to games, server software, internet related technologies, and application development.
I seen the MS drove the economic boom argument used over and over, and I just don't get it.
Are the people making these arguments really that naive to believe that without MS the PC and/or internet would not have happened?
Or is the argument more along the lines of that sure MS abused their monopoly position but lots of folks got rich because of it so it's ok?
And who did the analysis to show that having MS dominate led to greater economic grow than if we had had real competition? (As part of the background research for that analysis one might want to consider what happened when AT&T was broken up. There was a bit of economic growth and wealth creation that wasn't because of MS.)
All in all I think the MS made us rich so leave them alone argument is both flimsy and beside the point. MS is a Monopoly. MS abused its monopoly position. (This is fact - pending appeal.) MS should pay the price.
What you have to realize is that most readily accesable parallel universes will be very similar to our universe. Thus we would expect that similar events would occur in each. So this is not as great a plot hole as it may first appear.
I thought the business model of the time travel company (name?) didn't make any sense, and that bugged me more than the speculative physics. I also thought that the technology was rather advanced for the time period, it should have been set 20 or so years into the future.
I agree that Timeline was a light weight novel. More of a snack then a whole meal. And I didn't feel that all of the characters really worked. Still I enjoyed it and it made a flight from LA to Philly seem a bit faster.
Actually, the book is based on real, if highly speculative, science.
The part about time travel and multiple universes is based on the book, The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch, a physicist from Oxford University. I don't believe that Deutsch proves his case but the book is quite interesting (and quite out there).
You can get this book at Fatbrain or at your local library.
It probably takes an ocean world for life to appear spontaneously.
Why would it take an ocean? I would think at all you would need is a large enough body of water to support the required chemical reactions. Along with the right chemicals of course. A smaller body of water might be preferable as it would keep the chemicals in closer proximity.
...they've found these microbes that thrive in 115F environments and eat iron and secrete sulphuric acid...
An interesting popular book on this subject is Dark Life by Michael Ray Taylor. Taylor is a caver that worked with scientists to discover a number of previously unknown lifeforms. The book also discusses the so-called Martian fossils.
Thanks for the letter. It is refreshing to see that someone understands the issues and is willing to work to fix the system.
That said, I will continue to shop elsewhere until such time that you put your money, or should I say patents, where you mouth is.
In order to show that you are really serious about this I propose that you do one or both of the following.
Suggestion number one, announce that you will not enforce the one click patent. You can keep and enforce any other patents. This is the most high profile patent you have, and will send a strong message to everyone involved that you really mean what you say about reform.
Alternatively, you can announce that you will only enforce your business method and software patents for 3 to 5 years (you choose). You don't even have to do it retroactively. Put up a web page showing the patents you hold and the date you will let them expire. Again this will send a clear message that you are serious about this.
For the second option I suggest that you invite others to follow your lead. In addition to a prior art database there could also be a database of voluntary patent expiration dates.
Thanks again Jeff, and I look forward to your taking action.
... anybody who remains opposed to Bezos after this resolution of the matter...
There has been no resolution to this matter. All that has happened is that Jeff Bezos has shown that he understands the issues and is willing to work to correct the problems. But he still holds the patents and is enforcing them.
Before I will go back to shopping at Amazon I need more than this. Here are two suggestions.
Bezos can show that he is truly serious by announcing that Amazon will not now or ever enforce that one click patent. He can keep and enforce any other patents he has.
Alternately, Bezos can announce that he will only enforce Amazon patents for three years. After which anyone can use them.
But until he does something like this it's all just talk.
Cut the crap and toe the line.
A pretty chilling statement. Should we just rollover anytime we disagree with something? In my real world I work to change things for (what I believe is) the better.
So, please pardon my confusion, where does their posession of l0phtcrack become an issue here?
This issue is this. In addition to the other charges, they were charged with possession of 10phtcrack.
Now it seems that these people are crackers, and that a number of the charges are valid. As it has been pointed out else where, the possession charge will most likely be plea bargined away.
But what if it isn't?
What if we are dealing with clueless lawyers and a clueless judge, and they are found guilty of possesing 10phtcrack. Would this not then set a precedent that could be used in other cases where the only charge was possession of 10phtcrack? Could it not also be used as a precedent to show that possession of so called 'hacking' tools in general is a crime? Especially in light of the furor over the recent DOS attacks?
And it's not such a leap to see how this could be used a precedent to make possession of other types of software illegal. (You honor, as was demonstrated int he case of Smith vs. Jones, the state can restrict access to software it considers harmful... ). Can you say deCSS? Can you say crypto?
That's the issue, that this could be the slippery slope to making the possession of software illegal. Regardless of how it is used. And that scares the hell out of me.
Sony won't release an MP3 player because that could conceivably hurt it's music division.
Sony has released a digital music player, the Music Clip, which apparently can play MP3s, according to this post.
Sony's Playstation division has released in Japan and will release in the US this year a game console that plays DVDs, which will take sales from their video division.
This shows how Sony's interest is not the consumer's interest.
The only time that the consumer's interests and any corporation's interests overlap is when it is profitable for the corporation. This is as true for Sony as it is for any corporation.
Just another reason that you can't trust everything you read on/.
I don't have one and was basing my comment on the linked thread, in which a Music Clip owner directly contradicts your statement, claiming that he did have to convert his MP3s. I guess he didn't read the manual.
How come you didn't write anything in the Music Clip thread?
I think pity is a pretty strong word...I'd feel sadness at best I think.
Perhaps sadness is a better word...
And I think you're correct about the ignorance is bliss thing. Those were the people I was refering to.
Most people don't openly discuss their religion or spirituality, especially when discussing 'scientific' topics. Thus when one does encounter it, it is usually highly polarized, and no where near the part of the spectrum I reside.
So in a sense I'm guilty as charged. I made an argument about a specific subset of people, those both closed minded and religious, but phrased it in a general fashion (which was no doubt highly inflammatory to those of a religious nature). Thanks for pointing that out.
What I was really trying to say was that I feel sadness (and pity too I think) for people that shy away from the awe (and terror) of the universe and use religion to do so.
I pity people who feel superior for this reason. Your arrogance doesn't impress me.
The old problem with the emotional aspect of a statement being lost when it is rendered in text.
I don't feel superior. Nor was I trying to be arrogant. I can see how it could be read that way.
The point I was trying to make is that I do feel the awe, the immensity, the glory if you will of the universe. This is my spiritual side. But I am comfortable knowing that there is more out there than I can know; that I don't have all the answers. But I think that I would be unture to myself if I tried to rap things up by postulating a god to provide these answers.
Note that when I say 'I' above I mean it. This is a personal thing. In my original post I just wanted to show that even though we had similar experiences, we came to rather different conclusions. You are more than welcome to your beliefs. (I only have problems when others try to force their beliefs on me, but that's another story.)
But I do feel pity that others can't join me at the edge of that abyss. I think that it is the most intellectually invigorating place in the universe. I do think people 'dumb it down' when they use god as an explanition. And I want people to experience the awe that I do.
If this is arrogance then so be it. If this puts me at one end of the spectrum then I'm glad to be there.
When I was a teenager I also became an atheist. I too looked into eastern mysticisms (I still enjoy Zen).
Then I went to college and studied physics (got a BS as well). I still have a profound sense of awe when contemplating the universe and everything in it, especially mind. The fact that we can use simple equations to describe the universe continues to astonish me.
And I'm still an atheist.
Now there are many things that I can't explain. But I feel no discomfort at that. I see no reason to invoke a god of any sort to tie up all the loose ends.
Why is the universe? Why is mind? Some people find questions like these terrifying. An infinite mental abyss they teeter on the edge of. I find the edge both facinating and excilerating and pity those that use a curtain of religion to it hide behind.
I'm sorry, but learning ANY kind of abstract communication requires a conciousness.
I'm not so sure. Bees use abstract communication, the waggle dance, to communicate the direction and size of food sources and new nest sites. Humans have built model bees and have been able to communicate with bees using this 'language'.
Despite this, very few of the scientists that study bees, nor most of the general public (yours truly included) would argue that bees demonstrate conciousness.
The Ape Language debate is a fascinating one, and makes for some fun reading.
Most linguists do dispute the claims that apes have language. At the same time most also grant that apes can use words and phrases and are using symbols to communicate.
The main bone of contention, as you pointed out, is grammer. (The ability to grasp only "the lowest level concepts" is to be expected, these are apes after all!) The work that Sue Savage-Rumbaugh and her team have done with the bonobo Kanzi appears to demonstrate that apes can handle rudimentary grammer. Kanzi can grasp the meanings of sentences that use the same words but different word orders. A trivial example is the sentence pair, "Kanzi come tickle Sue" vs "Sue come tickle Kanzi". (Further examples can be found in Kanzi, The Ape at the Brink of the Human Mind by Sue Savage-Rumbaugh and Roger Lewin.) Similar work has been done with dolphins.
The fact that you post these kinds of comments shows that you aren't really interested in the stories at all.
I won't try to argue logically with you, because it would be a waste of bandwidth. Because you don't give a shit about/., you just get your jollies knowing you can be disruptive.
The claim that you are protesting something is really quite funny.
This will be much more important when we start to get one to one encryption. It is within fair use to purchase a CD and lend it to a friend, but what if an EvilCD (TM) will only play on your EvilCD player. This law makes it illegal to tell somebody how to modify the EvilCD (or the friend's EvilCD player) to play the EvilCD on a friend's player, even though it is legal to modify the EvilCD or the player under fair use.
This has already happened with DVD technology. It was called DIVX. It was cooked up by Circuit City and some a group of lawyers. They reportedly had lost over $200M before pulling the plug last year.
After 'purchasing' a DIVX disk, you had one 24 hour period (many have been 48 hours, but jist of this is correct) of unlimited viewing. After that, if you wanted to watch it again, you had to pay an additional one time fee. The initial purchase price was ~$5 and the one time fee to unlock it forever was ~$15 - $20.
The 'EvilCD' feature was that the disk would only play in the machine it was registered to. The machine was connected via phone line to the DIVX center which checked to see if it could be played on that machine. So if I bought a DIVX disk, I could play it on my living room DIVX player, but not my bedroom player, unless I paid for it again.
Now while DIVX is dead, the same technology has been incorporated in the only high definition DVD player I am aware of, which was shown as a demo unit at last years CES show. So the EvilCD threat is still out there.
Slashdot Mirror
And a human brain simply executes the laws of physics.
Try to choose to do something that violates the laws of physics. Not having much success are you?
Humans are machines. Very complicated machines. But machines never the less. They can only do what their design allows them to.
Steve M
Given some of the things done in the name of religion, I'll take science every time.
Granted, both are practiced by people and as such inherit all of the failings there of. Neither are perfect. Science recognizes this. Religion does not.
And science has to work in the real world. Religion doesn't. Thus science is self correcting. Religion is not.
I am not advocating blind faith in science or technology. But the only good solutions to our problems are those where science and technology play a big part. It is up to us to solve our problems. We should use all of the tools at our disposal.
Steve M
The fact that the human brain was not developed in a top down fashion does not mean that it could not have been.
Birds can fly. Airplanes can fly. Birds evolved. Airplanes were designed and engineered.
I see no reason why there cannot exist both evolved and engineered intelligences. And I would argue that it is too soon to tell which method is the most efficient for developing an AI. Thus I would advocate exploring both avenues.
Steve M
I can't speak for anybody else, but for me, cloning and genetic engineering delve into areas that will only harm the planet in the long run. This planet is already over populated with humans.
Actually, it most technologically and bio-medically advanced countries that have the lowest population growth.
I'm less sure, but believe it to be the case that it is the most technologically advanced countries that are doing the best when it come to cleaning up the environment.
The key determiner is weath. The more wealth a society has, the more time it has for dealing with issues other than the immediate needs of its people. And technology creates wealth.
There are a number of ways out of the predicament we find ourselves in. The way I see it, those that include advanced technology offer the best hope.
Steve M
Essentially I think that a computer being a more rational and more prone to Vulcan like behaviour would almost certainly be a little more objective than people who judge on looks or wealth, or whatever.
While I believe that it has not been proven that emotions are a pre- or co-requisite of intelligence, there are a number of workers in the fields of AI and Cognitive Science who would disagree. David Gelenter springs to mind. (See his book The Muse in the Machine.)
So the vision of the AI as super rational mind may turn out to be a myth.
Steve M
Any attempt we make at creating another intelligence is inherently 'flawed?' since we are basing this model after our own methods of thinking, therefore I dont think it will ever become a higher being, nor do I think it will be without serious flaws should anything even closely resembling intelligence that a human has, lets not even go into the way emotions influence our intelligence and our responses to well everything.
It is not clear how our intelligence is 'flawed', but let's grant that point. So assuming that our intelligence is 'flawed', is it possible to create an intelligence that is less flawed? (I would agree that a flawless intelligence is impossible -- so much for God!)
I would argue that it is possible. As an analogy, our memory is flawed. So any attempt to create an artificial memory would be flawed. Yet we have RAM, ROM, hard disks, CDs, DVDs, etc. each of which does a better job at storing information than human memory. (Note I didn't say accessing that memory. Those are different routines we haven't mastered yet.)
We can identify the 'flaws' in our intelligence and attempt to engineer around them. We can have multiple 'flawed' minds work loosely in parallel. We can use tools, (computers, genetic algorithms, etc.) to expand our abilities.
Also realize that any advances we make will evolve via Lamarkian pathways, which are much faster than the Dawinian ones we currently use (advances in genetics may see us switch as well).
Steve M
It should of course be "I've seen ...".
And I did use the preview button.
Steve M
Lastly, I see you didn't dispute my assertion that much of the economic growth we have enjoyed can be attributed to Microsoft. Just in case you do decide to come back and dispute that claim. Examine the economic impact that Microsoft has on each phase of our economy before you answer including but not restricted to games, server software, internet related technologies, and application development.
I seen the MS drove the economic boom argument used over and over, and I just don't get it.
Are the people making these arguments really that naive to believe that without MS the PC and/or internet would not have happened?
Or is the argument more along the lines of that sure MS abused their monopoly position but lots of folks got rich because of it so it's ok?
And who did the analysis to show that having MS dominate led to greater economic grow than if we had had real competition? (As part of the background research for that analysis one might want to consider what happened when AT&T was broken up. There was a bit of economic growth and wealth creation that wasn't because of MS.)
All in all I think the MS made us rich so leave them alone argument is both flimsy and beside the point. MS is a Monopoly. MS abused its monopoly position. (This is fact - pending appeal.) MS should pay the price.
Steve M
What you have to realize is that most readily accesable parallel universes will be very similar to our universe. Thus we would expect that similar events would occur in each. So this is not as great a plot hole as it may first appear.
I thought the business model of the time travel company (name?) didn't make any sense, and that bugged me more than the speculative physics. I also thought that the technology was rather advanced for the time period, it should have been set 20 or so years into the future.
I agree that Timeline was a light weight novel. More of a snack then a whole meal. And I didn't feel that all of the characters really worked. Still I enjoyed it and it made a flight from LA to Philly seem a bit faster.
Steve M
Actually, the book is based on real, if highly speculative, science.
The part about time travel and multiple universes is based on the book, The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch, a physicist from Oxford University. I don't believe that Deutsch proves his case but the book is quite interesting (and quite out there).
You can get this book at Fatbrain or at your local library.
Steve M
Why would it take an ocean? I would think at all you would need is a large enough body of water to support the required chemical reactions. Along with the right chemicals of course. A smaller body of water might be preferable as it would keep the chemicals in closer proximity.
An interesting popular book on this subject is Dark Life by Michael Ray Taylor. Taylor is a caver that worked with scientists to discover a number of previously unknown lifeforms. The book also discusses the so-called Martian fossils.
Get it at your local library or at Fatbrain.
Steve M
Thanks for the letter. It is refreshing to see that someone understands the issues and is willing to work to fix the system.
That said, I will continue to shop elsewhere until such time that you put your money, or should I say patents, where you mouth is.
In order to show that you are really serious about this I propose that you do one or both of the following.
Suggestion number one, announce that you will not enforce the one click patent. You can keep and enforce any other patents. This is the most high profile patent you have, and will send a strong message to everyone involved that you really mean what you say about reform.
Alternatively, you can announce that you will only enforce your business method and software patents for 3 to 5 years (you choose). You don't even have to do it retroactively. Put up a web page showing the patents you hold and the date you will let them expire. Again this will send a clear message that you are serious about this.
For the second option I suggest that you invite others to follow your lead. In addition to a prior art database there could also be a database of voluntary patent expiration dates.
Thanks again Jeff, and I look forward to your taking action.
Steve M
There has been no resolution to this matter. All that has happened is that Jeff Bezos has shown that he understands the issues and is willing to work to correct the problems. But he still holds the patents and is enforcing them.
Before I will go back to shopping at Amazon I need more than this. Here are two suggestions.
Bezos can show that he is truly serious by announcing that Amazon will not now or ever enforce that one click patent. He can keep and enforce any other patents he has.
Alternately, Bezos can announce that he will only enforce Amazon patents for three years. After which anyone can use them.
But until he does something like this it's all just talk.
Cut the crap and toe the line.
A pretty chilling statement. Should we just rollover anytime we disagree with something? In my real world I work to change things for (what I believe is) the better.
Steve M
Theme from the Banana Splits?
So, please pardon my confusion, where does their posession of l0phtcrack become an issue here?
... ). Can you say deCSS? Can you say crypto?
This issue is this. In addition to the other charges, they were charged with possession of 10phtcrack.
Now it seems that these people are crackers, and that a number of the charges are valid. As it has been pointed out else where, the possession charge will most likely be plea bargined away.
But what if it isn't?
What if we are dealing with clueless lawyers and a clueless judge, and they are found guilty of possesing 10phtcrack. Would this not then set a precedent that could be used in other cases where the only charge was possession of 10phtcrack? Could it not also be used as a precedent to show that possession of so called 'hacking' tools in general is a crime? Especially in light of the furor over the recent DOS attacks?
And it's not such a leap to see how this could be used a precedent to make possession of other types of software illegal. (You honor, as was demonstrated int he case of Smith vs. Jones, the state can restrict access to software it considers harmful
That's the issue, that this could be the slippery slope to making the possession of software illegal. Regardless of how it is used. And that scares the hell out of me.
Steve M
Sony won't release an MP3 player because that could conceivably hurt it's music division.
Sony has released a digital music player, the Music Clip, which apparently can play MP3s, according to this post.
Sony's Playstation division has released in Japan and will release in the US this year a game console that plays DVDs, which will take sales from their video division.
This shows how Sony's interest is not the consumer's interest.
The only time that the consumer's interests and any corporation's interests overlap is when it is profitable for the corporation. This is as true for Sony as it is for any corporation.
SteveM
Just another reason that you can't trust everything you read on /.
I don't have one and was basing my comment on the linked thread, in which a Music Clip owner directly contradicts your statement, claiming that he did have to convert his MP3s. I guess he didn't read the manual.
How come you didn't write anything in the Music Clip thread?
Steve M
You left out this /. story obout the Sony Music Clip MP3 player that doesn't play MP3s.
SteveM
I think pity is a pretty strong word...I'd feel sadness at best I think.
Perhaps sadness is a better word...
And I think you're correct about the ignorance is bliss thing. Those were the people I was refering to.
Most people don't openly discuss their religion or spirituality, especially when discussing 'scientific' topics. Thus when one does encounter it, it is usually highly polarized, and no where near the part of the spectrum I reside.
So in a sense I'm guilty as charged. I made an argument about a specific subset of people, those both closed minded and religious, but phrased it in a general fashion (which was no doubt highly inflammatory to those of a religious nature). Thanks for pointing that out.
What I was really trying to say was that I feel sadness (and pity too I think) for people that shy away from the awe (and terror) of the universe and use religion to do so.
Steve M
I pity people who feel superior for this reason. Your arrogance doesn't impress me.
The old problem with the emotional aspect of a statement being lost when it is rendered in text.
I don't feel superior. Nor was I trying to be arrogant. I can see how it could be read that way.
The point I was trying to make is that I do feel the awe, the immensity, the glory if you will of the universe. This is my spiritual side. But I am comfortable knowing that there is more out there than I can know; that I don't have all the answers. But I think that I would be unture to myself if I tried to rap things up by postulating a god to provide these answers.
Note that when I say 'I' above I mean it. This is a personal thing. In my original post I just wanted to show that even though we had similar experiences, we came to rather different conclusions. You are more than welcome to your beliefs. (I only have problems when others try to force their beliefs on me, but that's another story.)
But I do feel pity that others can't join me at the edge of that abyss. I think that it is the most intellectually invigorating place in the universe. I do think people 'dumb it down' when they use god as an explanition. And I want people to experience the awe that I do.
If this is arrogance then so be it. If this puts me at one end of the spectrum then I'm glad to be there.
Steve M
When I was a teenager I also became an atheist. I too looked into eastern mysticisms (I still enjoy Zen).
Then I went to college and studied physics (got a BS as well). I still have a profound sense of awe when contemplating the universe and everything in it, especially mind. The fact that we can use simple equations to describe the universe continues to astonish me.
And I'm still an atheist.
Now there are many things that I can't explain. But I feel no discomfort at that. I see no reason to invoke a god of any sort to tie up all the loose ends.
Why is the universe? Why is mind? Some people find questions like these terrifying. An infinite mental abyss they teeter on the edge of. I find the edge both facinating and excilerating and pity those that use a curtain of religion to it hide behind.
Steve M
I'm sorry, but learning ANY kind of abstract communication requires a conciousness.
I'm not so sure. Bees use abstract communication, the waggle dance, to communicate the direction and size of food sources and new nest sites. Humans have built model bees and have been able to communicate with bees using this 'language'.
Despite this, very few of the scientists that study bees, nor most of the general public (yours truly included) would argue that bees demonstrate conciousness.
Steve M
The Ape Language debate is a fascinating one, and makes for some fun reading.
Most linguists do dispute the claims that apes have language. At the same time most also grant that apes can use words and phrases and are using symbols to communicate.
The main bone of contention, as you pointed out, is grammer. (The ability to grasp only "the lowest level concepts" is to be expected, these are apes after all!) The work that Sue Savage-Rumbaugh and her team have done with the bonobo Kanzi appears to demonstrate that apes can handle rudimentary grammer. Kanzi can grasp the meanings of sentences that use the same words but different word orders. A trivial example is the sentence pair, "Kanzi come tickle Sue" vs "Sue come tickle Kanzi". (Further examples can be found in Kanzi, The Ape at the Brink of the Human Mind by Sue Savage-Rumbaugh and Roger Lewin.) Similar work has been done with dolphins.
Steve M
Bullshit.
/., you just get your jollies knowing you can be disruptive.
The fact that you post these kinds of comments shows that you aren't really interested in the stories at all.
I won't try to argue logically with you, because it would be a waste of bandwidth. Because you don't give a shit about
The claim that you are protesting something is really quite funny.
Steve M
This will be much more important when we start to get one to one encryption. It is within fair use to purchase a CD and lend it to a friend, but what if an EvilCD (TM) will only play on your EvilCD player. This law makes it illegal to tell somebody how to modify the EvilCD (or the friend's EvilCD player) to play the EvilCD on a friend's player, even though it is legal to modify the EvilCD or the player under fair use.
This has already happened with DVD technology. It was called DIVX. It was cooked up by Circuit City and some a group of lawyers. They reportedly had lost over $200M before pulling the plug last year.
After 'purchasing' a DIVX disk, you had one 24 hour period (many have been 48 hours, but jist of this is correct) of unlimited viewing. After that, if you wanted to watch it again, you had to pay an additional one time fee. The initial purchase price was ~$5 and the one time fee to unlock it forever was ~$15 - $20.
The 'EvilCD' feature was that the disk would only play in the machine it was registered to. The machine was connected via phone line to the DIVX center which checked to see if it could be played on that machine. So if I bought a DIVX disk, I could play it on my living room DIVX player, but not my bedroom player, unless I paid for it again.
Now while DIVX is dead, the same technology has been incorporated in the only high definition DVD player I am aware of, which was shown as a demo unit at last years CES show. So the EvilCD threat is still out there.
Steve M