Frustrating. I've found that if I post something that's only two words, some doofus is only going to read one of them and post a smarmy comment about how dumb I am. If I respond and point out the second word, yet another doofus is going to read only the second word and tell me how I'm wrong about that one.
Even worse is that I find myself doing the same damn thing to others. Damn you slashdot!
[Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up] Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE. Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
My point is that the genomic argument isn't relevant for addressing the objection that the brain is a system too complex to describe in any amount of code.
Even referencing the genome weakens the argument if you're using it to describe complexity. The genome is more of a bootstrap code than it is a descriptor of the system itself.
My understanding is that Kurzweil is looking at the brain as an existing system to be simulated, and Myers is saying that it is actually a long process that begins at the formation of a few cells and proceeds through exposure to its environment and its own chemistry. That the meaning of the system is actually bound up as much in that growth process as it is in the chemistry. That even the things that we see as redundancies may (or may not) be significant.
Both of these people are way smarter than I am. So like any good slashdotter, I feel compelled to criticize one of them to make myself feel better.
The major flaw I can see in his response (which I think was addressed by Myers) is
but the information in the genome constrains the amount of information in the brain prior to the brain’s interaction with its environment.
He even underlined it. The problem is that the brain doesn't just spring into existence fully formed and THEN get exposed to the environment. The brain starts out as a few cells and is constantly exposed to the environment as it develops. I think this was a major point in Myers response and RK just blew right past it.
To me, the point of having something super portable is that "on site" means on a train, in a car, at a soccer game, at the library.
No spare bt keyboards just hanging about there.
And the on-screen keyboard just does not cut it in a pinch. Try to fire up vi or emacs to edit an apache config on an iPad or iPhone using the on-screen keyboard. Ugh.
Okay, I guess that's all I have to say about that.
I guess I'm a little late getting back on this, but a bt keyboard means now you've got to carry around a keyboard AND an iPad. I use a netbook as a VNC client and while it makes an abysmal ebook reader, it is just awesome at VNC and everything else you need a keyboard for.
To top things off, the bt keyboard that apple peddles for use with the iPad is made of aluminum and will scratch the crap out of the iPad if you jam them in a backpack together. So now you need the iPad, keyboard and a sleeve for at least one of them.
I want to be convinced that the iPad is swell because I'd like a good excuse to get one, but heck if I can see a compelling case if I'm already well served by a good phone and a netbook.
No, I hate shitty guis too. I'm just getting tired of the Apple Thought Police. The Jon Stuart "Appholes" rant summed up my growing dislike for what Apple is becoming.
I like a lot about the iPhone, and I hate a lot about it too. The thing that pisses me off is that if I try to fix the parts I don't like, I need Steve's permission, or someone may break down MY front door.
If American commercial media had anything as good as the quality of BBC News (Radio, TV or online) I would listen, watch and read it, and even put up with commercials.
I actively avoid the complete and utter crap Murdoch's medial outlets spew out.
Murdoch, if you want to make money, sell a quality product.
The BBC reflects very well on Britain. My very positive view of the country is due at least in part to the programming I've received via the BBC. Curtailing that programming would have unfortunate results far outweighing any potential benefit to Murdoch's bottom line.
You probably better off not having your uncle pestering you every time he needs his VCR clock reset.
People like that will probably blame you when their coffee maker breaks shortly after you reset their VCR clock. Really not worth the hassle.
Re:I guess you could call it a ...
on
A Requiem For Saab
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
GM and so many other corporations are having problems because they have focused on maximizing short-term profit as the absolute top priority, and either forgotten their product, or sacrificed the product (with blind cost-cutting) in the name of profit.
They have completely forgotten that producing products and services that people want to have is the way to generate profit in the long term.
I'm not a fanboi, but Apple is a great example of a company that started with the right idea, lost their way in the '90s and found it again in the '00s.
Yeah, I was just thinking that too. They're sort of like the machines in the Matrix. Google lives off of the energy generated by people who live in the Googtrix.
I don't know whether I should take the red pill or the blue pill. I really don't know which would be better. The this version of the Googtrix doesn't seem so bad to me. I worry about what things will be like when the leadership is turned over to someone more Ballmer-like.
Yeah, I know. I'm just cranky today. There is a lot I like about the iPhone. I like that it's got an iPod, the GPS and Maps have saved me a lot of time and aggravation. I get good call quality. I can actually view some web traffic cameras when I walk out to my car after work. These are the things that made me choose the iPhone over other options when I got it, and they're still good today.
It's just that while the iPhone is a really great device, it is just not a really great phone. And it makes me cranky.
Slashdot Mirror
Frustrating. I've found that if I post something that's only two words, some doofus is only going to read one of them and post a smarmy comment about how dumb I am. If I respond and point out the second word, yet another doofus is going to read only the second word and tell me how I'm wrong about that one.
Even worse is that I find myself doing the same damn thing to others. Damn you slashdot!
C'mon. It has some merit. For example, it isn't "Eat, Pray, Love."
Borrowing from IMDB:
[Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up]
Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Meh, one person's poo is another person's poi.
My point is that the genomic argument isn't relevant for addressing the objection that the brain is a system too complex to describe in any amount of code.
Even referencing the genome weakens the argument if you're using it to describe complexity. The genome is more of a bootstrap code than it is a descriptor of the system itself.
My understanding is that Kurzweil is looking at the brain as an existing system to be simulated, and Myers is saying that it is actually a long process that begins at the formation of a few cells and proceeds through exposure to its environment and its own chemistry. That the meaning of the system is actually bound up as much in that growth process as it is in the chemistry. That even the things that we see as redundancies may (or may not) be significant.
Both of these people are way smarter than I am. So like any good slashdotter, I feel compelled to criticize one of them to make myself feel better.
The major flaw I can see in his response (which I think was addressed by Myers) is
but the information in the genome constrains the amount of information in the brain prior to the brain’s interaction with its environment.
He even underlined it. The problem is that the brain doesn't just spring into existence fully formed and THEN get exposed to the environment. The brain starts out as a few cells and is constantly exposed to the environment as it develops. I think this was a major point in Myers response and RK just blew right past it.
The gp didn't say that this was a problem for Java or Eclipse. He/She just said it was a problem for "pay once, own forever."
GP might have been saying "it's a good thing in this case, otherwise everyone would have been screwed."
General Turgidson: "Mister President! We must not allow... a NERD gap!"
They are able to get as much done in a standard 7 hour day/35 hour week as most Americans do in 8 hour day/40 hour week.
No.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_ove_pro_ppp-economy-overall-productivity-ppp
And http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod4.nr0.htm
And ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ForeignLabor/flsgdp.txt
And http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20572828/
To me, the point of having something super portable is that "on site" means on a train, in a car, at a soccer game, at the library.
No spare bt keyboards just hanging about there.
And the on-screen keyboard just does not cut it in a pinch. Try to fire up vi or emacs to edit an apache config on an iPad or iPhone using the on-screen keyboard. Ugh.
Okay, I guess that's all I have to say about that.
I guess I'm a little late getting back on this, but a bt keyboard means now you've got to carry around a keyboard AND an iPad. I use a netbook as a VNC client and while it makes an abysmal ebook reader, it is just awesome at VNC and everything else you need a keyboard for.
To top things off, the bt keyboard that apple peddles for use with the iPad is made of aluminum and will scratch the crap out of the iPad if you jam them in a backpack together. So now you need the iPad, keyboard and a sleeve for at least one of them.
I want to be convinced that the iPad is swell because I'd like a good excuse to get one, but heck if I can see a compelling case if I'm already well served by a good phone and a netbook.
It's hard to chicken-shit unless you're a chicken.
Without a (convenient) keyboard? I'm skeptical, but open to discussion.
No, I hate shitty guis too. I'm just getting tired of the Apple Thought Police. The Jon Stuart "Appholes" rant summed up my growing dislike for what Apple is becoming.
I like a lot about the iPhone, and I hate a lot about it too. The thing that pisses me off is that if I try to fix the parts I don't like, I need Steve's permission, or someone may break down MY front door.
Yuck.
You and me both.
Well maybe not the solution to *all* ills. Just the iPhone's ills.
Don't worry, I thought it was a good one.
This story should be tagged om-nom-nom.
You're assuming that Google and Microsoft share cost and benefit values, which is not a valid assumption.
Cost and benefit are completely subjective, and are computed using company goals and values, which are very different for MS and GOOG.
If American commercial media had anything as good as the quality of BBC News (Radio, TV or online) I would listen, watch and read it, and even put up with commercials.
I actively avoid the complete and utter crap Murdoch's medial outlets spew out.
Murdoch, if you want to make money, sell a quality product.
The BBC reflects very well on Britain. My very positive view of the country is due at least in part to the programming I've received via the BBC. Curtailing that programming would have unfortunate results far outweighing any potential benefit to Murdoch's bottom line.
Sometimes even moderators can be funny.
You probably better off not having your uncle pestering you every time he needs his VCR clock reset.
People like that will probably blame you when their coffee maker breaks shortly after you reset their VCR clock. Really not worth the hassle.
GM and so many other corporations are having problems because they have focused on maximizing short-term profit as the absolute top priority, and either forgotten their product, or sacrificed the product (with blind cost-cutting) in the name of profit.
They have completely forgotten that producing products and services that people want to have is the way to generate profit in the long term.
I'm not a fanboi, but Apple is a great example of a company that started with the right idea, lost their way in the '90s and found it again in the '00s.
Yeah, I was just thinking that too. They're sort of like the machines in the Matrix. Google lives off of the energy generated by people who live in the Googtrix.
I don't know whether I should take the red pill or the blue pill. I really don't know which would be better. The this version of the Googtrix doesn't seem so bad to me. I worry about what things will be like when the leadership is turned over to someone more Ballmer-like.
Yeah, I know. I'm just cranky today. There is a lot I like about the iPhone. I like that it's got an iPod, the GPS and Maps have saved me a lot of time and aggravation. I get good call quality. I can actually view some web traffic cameras when I walk out to my car after work. These are the things that made me choose the iPhone over other options when I got it, and they're still good today.
It's just that while the iPhone is a really great device, it is just not a really great phone. And it makes me cranky.