Let's try again. It happened that on the table, column had the number 24, and the other 48. And then there was 1 and 2. 1023 and 2046, blah blah.
Is there a necessary condition now?
When you were a kid, you didn't know shit about the world. The teacher passed out pointed out green leaves and you, in your infantile mind, saw no necessity for it to be so. Now having learnt about chlorophyll, you do.
So were you unintelligent before? After?
A computer too can discover and learn about such things, in rather limited and specific instances. It matters not whether you want to call it intelligence or not. This is already reality.
You are just lucky to be living in a time when this distinction can still be maintained, largely.
I see. So you are basically trying to extend the truism "fake intelligence is not intelligence". You are pretending the argument about intelligence is an argument about fakery.
Turing was attempting to advance the argument about intelligence with an operational definition. Whether you agree with the definition of or not, it appears that you would rather take on faith the idea that "it can all be faked".
If you really believed that, then it appears to me that you believe in ineluctable truths. You may as well believe that there's a pink dragon in your room and nobody can convince you otherwise.
It's not like there aren't any forgetful humans. Are they less human becuase they can't remember specific things that you think they should?
It's interesting to note that having claimed that humans are distinct from computers, you acknowledge now that there is a circumstance in which you can't tell them apart.
So the question to you now is this: Is shoving bits around one of those circumstances? Why or why not?
But whereas Yahoo! Inc. is capable of identifying the geographical origin of the site which is visited, as from the IP address of the caller, which therefore should provide them with the means to prohibit surfers calling from France, by whatever means are appropriate, from accessing the services and sites to be viewed on screens in France, and in some cases tele-discharging and reproduction of the contents, or of any other initiative justified by the nature of the site
visited, will be susceptible of receiving in France, a criminal qualification and/or constitute a manifestly illegal nuisance within the meaning of article 808 and 809 of the New Code of Civil Procedure, which is manifestly the case of the exhibition of uniforms, insignia, emblems reminiscent of those which worn or exhibited by the Nazis;
I guess the judge must nogt have heard of proxies. You know proxies? Those things that some countries
require ISPs to have to censor content?
The problem as I see it is that if you are licensed to see it, then the seller must demostrate proof of licensing. He or she must endeavour to collect your identification and maintain a database of licensees wherein he can check if some particular individual is licensed or not. Nobody at Microsoft (for example) does this - instead the burden of proof of licensing lies in the customer.
If one sells CDs like one sells fries, then I find it hard to appreciate how one can claim to have sold the rights to the customer. WHO did you just sell to and how did you ensure that you did not sell the same thing twice, since rights can only be granted once?
I would love to see companies actually start living up to their obligation as the licensors to the rights. If they actually did this, then one can actually see if their business model works.
IMO, it's not a business model if fraud and misrepresentation is involved.
It is an observation that in general books produced not by the original authors aren't
as good as the original ones. You may suppose this is becuase of puritanical reasons. It isn't really. I have tried to read Benford/Bear/Brin continuations of Foundation, as well as Lee/Clarke's continuation of Rama. (Why do you think I actually mentioned them? Becuase I tried!) Gave up halfway - not worth the effort. But YMMV.
Re:Silmarillion, Seven Percent Solution, and other
on
Dune: House Harkonnen
·
· Score: 2
I'll say yes to that. It has to be enjoyable, preferably with the same style and extending its universe in a coherent fashion. An example is Dan Simmons' Hyperion, and Fall of Hyperion. Two books of wholly different styles, but hanging together nicely. I can't imagine anyone else coming in to write consistently within that universe.
IMHO, novels are defined by the author who wrote them. That is why I have ignored the Benford/Bear/Brin additions to the Foundation novels, the Lee/Clarke sequels to A Rendevous with Rama. With Dune, even the sequels don't compare, in terms of literary quality and insight. For me, the series has ended. It does not matter one bit if Brian Herbert wants to milk the series for all its worth. The genius and spirit of the original is just not there anymore.
Well that too. But you see, these astronauts spent 6 months getting to Mars, and they did not even try to do some science from space before heading down? Smart people always plan. Even if they did not, Houston in Earth would. What was their excuse for heading down to surface that quickly?
It is not the bad physics which bothers me. It is the idea of trying to be realistic, getting it wrong, which results in a ridiculous story that gets me.
It is not the idea that Mars can sustain a breathable atmosphere. That can be ignored. It is the idea that these smart scientists did so little to deserve the label of "smart scientists".
If they did everything they could, but failed becuase of mysterious circumstances, that would make for a fine rousing story. But these guys were bumbling idiots. An astronaut in similar circumstances wqould not do what they did. This spoils the characterization. It makes the "left to die" plot device trite and banal. And the gimmicky nature of the central plot device becomes apparent, which spoils the suspension of belief we were willing to grant it initially.
You can detect such a vast amount of breathable air from orbit, or while you are halfway there. They had six months to get there and they never bothered to do spectroscopy, which part of the reason why they went in the first place?
And even if the oxygen detecters were gone, the pressure should have been detectable. They were wearing pressure suits for goodness sake - any such decent suit should be able to detect external pressure!
You don't get it. Full realism is not to be expected, but the key plot idea, aka the gimmick must be coherent.
In the Matrix, the idea is VR. This makes it the perfect excuse for the eye-popping, outlandish special effects.
In the Terminator, the idea is a relentless killing machine sent back through time. Sounds stupid, but once you accept the premise, the idea of a soldier being sent back as a protector and Father of the future leader is not crazy.
In Back To The Future, the gimmick is a car that is a Time Machine, sent back to the 1950s. Once you accept this fantastic idea, it stands to reason that if broken, you could not fix such a machine in the 1950s, when you could in 1980s. Everything else follows or is an elaboration of that premise.
In Red Planet, we have a bunch of intelligent scientists sent to investigate a supposedly oxygen depleted planet. They do everything - discuss sex, talk about God, fly through space etc except try to accomplish their mission. At least, in Star Trek, Data would announce that the the neutronium detector was broken and no telemetry of the planetary composition was possible.
Is the idea that the bacteria produced enough oxygen to envelope Mars entirely. OK - let's pretend that it is possible. Still these bunch of scientists approaching the planet to find the cause of the supposed oxygen depletion never bother to do basic simple spectroscopy to discover this, until they had to take off their helmets to breathe to discover it!
Whoever wrote the script had no idea about how science is done. Scientists are not technical workers who go to Mars to fix an oxygen problem like plumbers turning up in your home to fix a leaky pipe. They are curious people who will go to great lengths to VERIFY that Mars does indeed have no oxygen before embarking on such a trip. And you think they would do something so simple as to point a spectrometer or send probe to get close to it first!
You are right, but the original poster is also right.
You see, even if you could solve all the Minesweeper problems (which I seriously doubt you can without guessing), it is not the same as the Minesweeper Consistency problem.
This is a math question folks. So the math geeks all should be careful, just like the original article should have but did not, by giving a false impression that solving minesweeper is solving P=NP.
There is nothing new here folks. We just found a new NP Complete problem. How does that help us towards the P=NP puzzle? Nothing!
Slashdot Mirror
Is there a necessary condition now?
When you were a kid, you didn't know shit about the world. The teacher passed out pointed out green leaves and you, in your infantile mind, saw no necessity for it to be so. Now having learnt about chlorophyll, you do.
So were you unintelligent before? After?
A computer too can discover and learn about such things, in rather limited and specific instances. It matters not whether you want to call it intelligence or not. This is already reality.
You are just lucky to be living in a time when this distinction can still be maintained, largely.
Why and why not?
Turing was attempting to advance the argument about intelligence with an operational definition. Whether you agree with the definition of or not, it appears that you would rather take on faith the idea that "it can all be faked".
If you really believed that, then it appears to me that you believe in ineluctable truths. You may as well believe that there's a pink dragon in your room and nobody can convince you otherwise.
Joking aside, you can prove that a bunch of parallel turing machines is itself a turing machine. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
It's interesting to note that having claimed that humans are distinct from computers, you acknowledge now that there is a circumstance in which you can't tell them apart.
So the question to you now is this: Is shoving bits around one of those circumstances? Why or why not?
Please answer the question.
How do you know that *I* am a human and not a bot?
Oh wait --
I guess the judge must nogt have heard of proxies. You know proxies? Those things that some countries require ISPs to have to censor content?
If one sells CDs like one sells fries, then I find it hard to appreciate how one can claim to have sold the rights to the customer. WHO did you just sell to and how did you ensure that you did not sell the same thing twice, since rights can only be granted once?
I would love to see companies actually start living up to their obligation as the licensors to the rights. If they actually did this, then one can actually see if their business model works.
IMO, it's not a business model if fraud and misrepresentation is involved.
I say we ditch Mir into the Sun!
It is an observation that in general books produced not by the original authors aren't as good as the original ones. You may suppose this is becuase of puritanical reasons. It isn't really. I have tried to read Benford/Bear/Brin continuations of Foundation, as well as Lee/Clarke's continuation of Rama. (Why do you think I actually mentioned them? Becuase I tried!) Gave up halfway - not worth the effort. But YMMV.
I'll say yes to that. It has to be enjoyable, preferably with the same style and extending its universe in a coherent fashion. An example is Dan Simmons' Hyperion, and Fall of Hyperion. Two books of wholly different styles, but hanging together nicely. I can't imagine anyone else coming in to write consistently within that universe.
How about virtual Strip Poker?
Well that too. But you see, these astronauts spent 6 months getting to Mars, and they did not even try to do some science from space before heading down? Smart people always plan. Even if they did not, Houston in Earth would. What was their excuse for heading down to surface that quickly?
It is not the idea that Mars can sustain a breathable atmosphere. That can be ignored. It is the idea that these smart scientists did so little to deserve the label of "smart scientists".
If they did everything they could, but failed becuase of mysterious circumstances, that would make for a fine rousing story. But these guys were bumbling idiots. An astronaut in similar circumstances wqould not do what they did. This spoils the characterization. It makes the "left to die" plot device trite and banal. And the gimmicky nature of the central plot device becomes apparent, which spoils the suspension of belief we were willing to grant it initially.
And even if the oxygen detecters were gone, the pressure should have been detectable. They were wearing pressure suits for goodness sake - any such decent suit should be able to detect external pressure!
- In the Matrix, the idea is VR. This makes it the perfect excuse for the eye-popping, outlandish special effects.
- In the Terminator, the idea is a relentless killing machine sent back through time. Sounds stupid, but once you accept the premise, the idea of a soldier being sent back as a protector and Father of the future leader is not crazy.
- In Back To The Future, the gimmick is a car that is a Time Machine, sent back to the 1950s. Once you accept this fantastic idea, it stands to reason that if broken, you could not fix such a machine in the 1950s, when you could in 1980s. Everything else follows or is an elaboration of that premise.
In Red Planet, we have a bunch of intelligent scientists sent to investigate a supposedly oxygen depleted planet. They do everything - discuss sex, talk about God, fly through space etc except try to accomplish their mission. At least, in Star Trek, Data would announce that the the neutronium detector was broken and no telemetry of the planetary composition was possible.You tell me if that is an excusable plot device.
Is the idea that the bacteria produced enough oxygen to envelope Mars entirely. OK - let's pretend that it is possible. Still these bunch of scientists approaching the planet to find the cause of the supposed oxygen depletion never bother to do basic simple spectroscopy to discover this, until they had to take off their helmets to breathe to discover it!
Whoever wrote the script had no idea about how science is done. Scientists are not technical workers who go to Mars to fix an oxygen problem like plumbers turning up in your home to fix a leaky pipe. They are curious people who will go to great lengths to VERIFY that Mars does indeed have no oxygen before embarking on such a trip. And you think they would do something so simple as to point a spectrometer or send probe to get close to it first!
The scriptwriter is an absolute moron.
Please cut the Blackhat Spy Agency some slack.
I remember playing Yahoo Chess, and I was using xboard + GNUChess too. I wonder if we ever played each other.
You see, even if you could solve all the Minesweeper problems (which I seriously doubt you can without guessing), it is not the same as the Minesweeper Consistency problem.
This is a math question folks. So the math geeks all should be careful, just like the original article should have but did not, by giving a false impression that solving minesweeper is solving P=NP.
There is nothing new here folks. We just found a new NP Complete problem. How does that help us towards the P=NP puzzle? Nothing!
Mod this up insightful!