If a persons out there killing/hurrassing people just because they can, I'd have they account canceled, their IP adress and CC banned, and their toon publically exicuted before the other players.
The problem is that the online game industry has not yet figured out a way to implement effective reprecusions for anti-social acts.
When death isn't permanent and you can always abandon an old account and start a brand new character...
The easiest solution I see to this is to limit players to one character, per account, per credit card. If you character does something that would result in jail time in the real world, then jail the character in the game and don't let the player just abandon it and start a new character without getting a new credit card.
I don't see the game designers actually thinking about what the game citizens would logically do if they had to live in a world like that game.
I never said "if there is no such thing as a soul, then machines can think." Instead, I was arguing that "if a human mind can be correctly simulated, then that simulation is thinking." Your failure to grasp the difference, and obsess instead over this non-sequitor of your own devising, makes me somewhat apathetic towards your charge of moronhood.
You're ignoring the thrust of my "turkey sandwich" argument: There are two options: Either your mental processes--including desires, emotions, lusts, flights of fancy, etc.--are the product of your physical mind, or you believe that some heretofore undiscovered outside force (call it a "soul") is doing an end-run around the physical mind. This "soul" is causing you to behave in ways that your brain could not. So far, all the arguments I've seen for the latter are problematic and unnecessary, and most of them amount to "the physical mind alone cannot be responsible for thought because I cannot imagine that the physical mind alone can be responsible for thought."
Looks like you are the one that had to bring "soul" into this discussion. Anyway, like I said, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=133312&cid=111 60319 You are unable to address any of the points I have used to counter your position:
Meanwhile, I've shown how your position is flawed because:
#1. The human brain as an organic computer is an analogy and not established fact. Your religion depends upon it being a Fact.
#2. Your thought experiments are flawed because you lack basic understanding of...
2a. What a "model" is (shown with the fusion example).
2b. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle says you cannot know everything about any physical phenomena therefore, you cannot create an accurate computer model of such (also shown in the weather report reference).
2c. The only thing we can accurately model is the functionality of another computer (shown in the VMWare reference).
2d. Your magical "computer" would require more material than the entire Universe has.
#3. "If !X then Y == Z" is a flawed concept.
#4. You are a mother fucking moron who will be unable to answer any of these clearly detailed counter-points and will, instead, simply repeat your position about souls because you've Accepted the Fact of Machine Intelligence on a Religious level.
So, it seems that my predictions are proving correct while all you have are more of your fantasies.
I would also go so far as to say that no person not familiar with the ideas contained therein can be said to have an understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of the field of artificial intelligence. However, you ascribe to me a level of intellectual intolerance that I most certainly don't feel.
Ah, so now it is "philosophical".:D
When all the facts are against you and you don't have any position to fall back on, you can always claim that it is "philosophical".
I don't care what you "feel". Your words and inability to answer my points show your attitude.
There are people far more talented than me, who understand the arguments far better than I do, and still reject the idea of conscious machines. I respect those people and their opinions. You just don't happen to be one of those people.
Just listen to yourself.
There are people you admit know more than you do and they reject it.
But you, who know less than they do about the material will still go on/. and argue your ill-informed beliefs with other people.
The reason you're a fucking moron is because you cannot understand that someone can understand the situation yet come to a different conclusion.
Before I figured that you were a reasonable person who simply didn't understand my argument.
I do understand your argument. Your only argument. The single argument you have. The argument that, when contradicted, you feel compelled to repeat, completely ignoring any contradictory material. No matter how many, Many, MANY, MANY times I will say that this is NOT about "souls", you will always bring "souls" back into it. I understand it so well that I can restate your position and even show why you have to keep bringing "soul" into it.
You don't believe in a soul. Neither do I. Explain again how this is a failing in my position.
Hmmm, what did I just say about you being unable to drop "souls" from your position?
You cannot because you only have one idea which can be restated "If souls do not exist then computers can be self-aware".
That can be restates as "If !X, then Y == Z".
An obvious, logical flaw. And one that I have pointed out to you on multiple occasions.
Yet you are unable to emotionally accept the fact that your position is flawed. No matter how many times I say that "soul" is irrelevent to the discussion, you must keep bringing it back up because it is the "proof" of your position.
I've been using the term "soul" as a shorthand for "some ineffable 'essence' that gives humans their unique character, which cannot be captured by any simulation."
I don't care what you mean by "soul". No matter how many times it is pointed out, you simply cannot grasp that basic concept. "Soul" does not belong in the discussion of machine intelligence.
Which is why you cannot leave "soul" out of your argument. No matter how many times you are told that "soul" is not a factor, you need it because it is part of your "logic". If souls do not exist, then a computer can be self-aware.
"If not "X", then "Y" == "Z"".
The arguments I've been making are but pale and inept imitations of the ones in "Godel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter. It's considered one of the truly canonical works on artificial intelligence, and is therefore well worth your consideration, even if my arguments aren't. If you think of yourself as a person who is open to new ideas (I've long since ceased thinking of you as such a person, but I'm willing to play to your ego), then give it a read and try to forget the dumb bastard who recommended it to you.
Okay, again you make the assumption that you are Right and that anyone who reads your Holy Book of Revealed Wisdom will understand that you are Right.
It is beyond your ability to grasp that someone else could read the same material and come to a different conclusion.
You are incapabable of understanding that very basic concept. You mind is not advanced enough for it. Your intelligence is too limited in scope. That is why I meant by "mother fucking moron".
It's considered one of the truly canonical works on artificial intelligence...
Now, since artificial intelligence does NOT exist yet, how can any work be "canonical"? It cannot. Except by the True Believers. The same as any Bible or other Holy Book is.
You have already Accepted the religion of Machine Intelligence and the only way you will not Believe it is if "souls" exist and are linked to Intelligence and if Machines cannot have "souls".
Meanwhile, I've shown how your position is flawed because: #1. The human brain as an organic computer is an analogy and not established fact. Your religion depends upon it being a Fact.
#2. Your thought experiments are flawed because you lack basic understanding of...
2
Still you insist on bringing "soul" into this. I've already told you that I view that as a failing of your position.
Let's keep this simple: Do you agree or disagree with my premise: "Consciousness arises solely from interactions between physical matter"?
I don't know how much simplier I can make so you will understand it.
Yes.
No fucking "soul" you fucking retarded fucking single argument mother fucking moron.
If you agree, then do you agree or disagree with my other premise: "The behavior of physical matter can theoretically be simulated, with any degree of precision that we desire, by a sufficiently powerful computer"?
No. First off, look up the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle".
We cannot know everything about a particle because in order to measure one quantity, we alter a different quantity.
Therefore, any simulation will be based upon limited knowledge.
Secondly, learn from the VMWare example. In order to model the behaviour of a computer, you need a MORE POWERFUL COMPUTER to run the software.
In order to model the behaviour of every mote, you'd need a computer larger than the material in the galaxy. And that's just to hold it in RAM.
Which brings me to the final point. Too many of your points rely upon metaphysical bullshit. "Souls" and computers larger than the universe and shit like that.
So your entire point can be re-stated as "If I could magically copy you, would the copy be alive and have its own soul?"
In summary.... #1. No you cannot because it would violate Heisenberg.
#2. No you cannot because it would be require more material than are present in the universe.
Before you can become a maintainer for a package with Debian, you have to be known to an existing maintainer.
I've heard people say that it won't scale very well, but it seems to work for the thousands of packages that Debian has, so applying the same practice to Firefox extensions shouldn't pose a problem.
There would have to be a way to disable lost/stolen keys. Some kind of check against a central server. This could be a problem if someone could use a different exploit to add an entry to your host table to re-direct that check.
So a site would still have to be on your whitelist... And the extension would have to be signed... And the signature would have to be on your trusted list (or trusted by someone on your trusted list)... And the trusted signature would have to be checked and verified as current.
Suppose you trust Microsoft to review and sign plugins.
Do you trust Microsoft.com? The name, not the web site.
Do you trust Microsoft, Inc.? The name, not the web site.
How about Microsoft Inc.?
Anyone can pretty much register any name that isn't already taken. All someone has to do is find a similar enough name that hasn't been taken and they're in business.
Firefox's whitelist approach is pretty good. There are sites you trust. It could be improved, but not the way the original article says.
For example, a multinational company might have many employees who don't read or speak Italian, and might train all their Italian mail as spam - something that would upset the Milan and Rome offices. Or imagine IDG, which owns many publications, all which have specialized vocabularies. No one set of training mail would work for the different communities.
It doesn't base it on the language. Just the strings. The non-Italian speakers who were getting Italian spam, would classify it as spam, but that wouldn't affect the non-spam Italian messages which would be learned as ham.
The only thing I can see would be the possiblity of increasing your database size to accomodate twice as many strings.
You claim that there is no need to postulate a "soul". As far as I'm concerned, you've just closed the only loophole that would have made AI conceptually impossible.
You use the word "soul" 4 times in your post, yet I have stated that I do not see it as a requirement.
To me, that means you only understand one argument and are trying to re-phrase everything into that single argument.
Here's something that should make it easy for you to never use the word "soul" again. Nuclear fusion (the sun).
In your perfect model of a person, you said it would have self-awareness because it was a perfect model of the person.
Instead, model the sun. Is the computer consumed the the fires of actual nuclear fusion? No.
Therefore, actual nuclear fusion is not taking place. No sun, no fusion reaction, it's only a model and not actually happening.
The only thing a computer can accurately model is another computer. And we can already do this with VMWare.
Your position depends upon the self-awareness being a function of an organic computer.
That the human brain is an organic computer is an analogy. You are taking the analogy as a fact.
Now, in order to establish that a human brain is an organic computer that runs code, you have to show how code can be added and removed. Until you do this, you are just spinning elabourate fantasies from a single, probably flawed, analogy.
The Universe is sitting here, pushing particles according to a system of rules which should be modelable by a computer. Therefore, anything that can happen within the Universe can be modeled inside a computer with sufficient memory running for a sufficient amount of time. In short, I think it's useful to envision the Universe as performing complex computations.
And it probably is useful to you to envision it in that fashion, because it supports the beliefs you like.
But that does not make it accurate.
Just as it is possible for a fusion reaction to take place without the presence of a "soul"... yet impossible to have an actual fusion reaction from an accurate model...
The human brain is not an organic computer with/without a "soul".
Sure we can, at least in principle. What else is an MRI but a primitive debugger for brains?
Okay. If you want to see it that way.
What makes you think we don't run code, of a sort?
Because no one can feed me instructions and overwrite my dislike of onions or my fondness for Thai food.
The problem is that we understand "code" for machines and so we think of humans as having "code".
Yet there is nothing that supports that supposition. It is only because we think in similies that we see it as such. The reality does not have to be like that.
And the evidence so far is that the reality is different. Even after all our work on the brain, we cannot change something as simple as a like or dislike of a certain food.
Something has to be determining our decisions... whatever that process is, that is the 'program' that we are running. True, it was input in a different fashion (through learning and experience rather than on a disk), but that's a minor detail.
It may be a minor detail or it may be the key to understanding that we don't run code.
The same applies to you and me. Are you able to "act outside your programmed parameters"?
I do not have "programmed parameters" so the question is irrelevent.
How do you know that you can? Any action you take could just be the action your programming told you to take anyway. The only real way to act outside your own volition (that I can think of) would be to faint, and I can't imagine that the ability to faint is a good indicator of self-awareness...:^)
No. That gets back to the code question.
Until you can show me the code or demonstrate it by changing something simple, then there is no evidence that I run code.
Yet I am self-aware. I have no reason to believe that I am the only self-aware human, so I will believe that you all are, also.
You say that an entity is self-aware only if it can act outside its programmed parameters. But since humans "don't run code" (an assertion I strongly deny) then we have no programmed parameters to compare our behaviors against. Therefore, there is no way to determine whether or not humans are self-aware.
I am self-aware. I have no reason to believe that other humans are not self-aware. If I run code, please show it to me.
You're ignoring the thrust of my "turkey sandwich" argument: There are two options: Either your mental processes--including desires, emotions, lusts, flights of fancy, etc.--are the product of your physical mind, or you believe that some heretofore undiscovered outside force (call it a "soul") is doing an end-run around the physical mind.
I'm sure they are a product of our physical mind. I see no reason to postulate a "soul".
But because we think with our brains does not mean we run code.
If you believe that the physical mind alone is responsible for thought, then to deny the possibility of artificial intelligence is hopeless.
How so "hopeless"?
Three options: #1. Artifical intelligence is possible and is without our abilities to create.
#2. Artificial intelligence is possible but is not within our abilities to create.
#3. Artificial intelligence is not possible.
Human brains are code. Imagine the following: You create a perfect of me and my environment, down to each and every subatomic particle. You put the whole shebang into a very fast computer, which predicts the future state of these particles in a trillionth of a second (or however small a delta you need to convince yourself that the predictions will be sufficiently accurate). It continues to do this over and over, simulating what I will do for the next hour, the next day, the next week.
The second part of that statement does not seem to provide any support for the first part. Was it supposed to?
The model has an awareness of itself, because the molecular machinery it models (me) has an awareness of itself. The model has an awareness of its environment because I have an awareness of my environment, and the environment is part of the simulation as well.
A corpse does not have awareness, yet it is almost identical to the person it was right before it became a corpse.
But you're probably saying, "But the computer isn't aware of anything! All it's doing is simulating the motions of meaningless subatomic particles!"
Tell me, friend. If that's true, what is the universe doing if not moving about meaningless subatomic particles? We already have programs that simulate this with a great deal of accuracy, so imagining an entire universe simulated this way requires only changing the scale of the computer. To believe machines cannot think, you must believe there is something in the universe not captured by the sim-universe.
Huh? "We already have programs that simulate this with a great deal of accuracy, so imagining an entire universe simulated this way requires only changing the scale of the computer."
We can't even predict the weather for the next 24 hours with our simulations. Not even for one square mile. The best we can do is x% chance of rain or sun.
To believe machines cannot think, you must believe there is something in the universe not captured by the sim-universe.
Nope. Hardly anything as metaphysical as that.
Rather, that there is no evidence that we can build a machine that is self-aware. Whether because of the limitations of the materials we have to work with our because of the limitations of our own minds.
A corpse is about as close to a living person as will ever be able to be simulated by any machine we could build. But it is still a corpse.
I specifically said "bypass OS security" and you bring up this? Office is not a part of the operating system. A vulnerability in Office is not a vulnerability in the OS. Office cannot bypass system security including the execute permission.
I showed an example where a Microsoft product's security setting was bypassed via an exploit.
Because it has happened in the past to one Microsoft product, it can happen in the future to another.
You've yet to show any exploits that will bypass system file ACLs, which is what you appear to have been referring to in an attempt to refute a execute deny ACL's effectiveness. If that's not what you were talking about, you need to be more clear. The only security settings I mentioned were file ACLs; if you wanted to bring up something else, you should say so.
I'm not denying that they are effective.
I am denying that they can be trusted 100%.
Defense in depth.
Yeah, I guess you are right; viruses could still spread across e-mail without needing any extra binary files when the client has a vulnerability. Still, preventing users from running arbitrary executables (at least the ones in the IE cache) would be helpful wouldn't it?
Yes, it would be helpful. Which is why group policies are used to lock down workstations.
But I would not recommend that anyone use that as their only level of defense. Again, Microsoft has had a problem with security settings before and there is no reason to believe that they are 100% safe now.
Defense in depth.
Regardless, all of these have been patched. 3 years ago. If your patches are up-to-date, these vulns are moot. Vulnerabilities and patches are hardly something Microsoft has a monopoly on.
Hmmm, by that line of reasoning, firewalls aren't needed because all of the worm attacks have already had patches released.
And your post looks like a good outline to implement security on a Windows network for average users.
Thanks.
Just curious, how well is your system working? Do you still have any virus/malware infections? Do you use the default permissions or do you apply a security template, perhaps a custom one? Do you implement a deny-execute ACE for normal users where they have write access? It won't prevent everything by itself, but will provide another layer of security. How do you deal with (poorly designed) apps that require excessive permissions just to run?
It's working great for the regular users. The only problems are the accounting department and the owner of the company. The accounting app requires all kinds of access to just about everything on the hard drive. They have to run as admin. The owner likes to download and play with new toys and since he pays my salary, I just firewall his connection from everyone else's.
We're running GroupWise so we don't have the permission problems of Outlook. I've customized everything we have. It seems to work right now.
I've also moved the user's temp internet folder and regular temp folder to D:\temp and set the permissions there so I can open up their profile a bit. Also, their swap file is there to cut down on fragmentation on C:\.
We've been moving most of our apps to Citrix so the security problems aren't as bad as they could be.
That's why we're still on Win2K. I have it stable and seemingly secure and still functional for everyone. I have a lot of testing to do with XP before I move people to that. My boss is working with it on his laptop.
We're still using IE because we have two web apps that require ActiveX (and we might be deploying a 3rd next year).
By "it" do you mean viruses or the admin account or what? How do you propose that prevention be implemented?
Viruses and worms, of course. Why/How would I stop the admin account from showing up? As for how this would be implemented, it is in the original post you replied to, DUH! http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=133250&cid=111 31863
What sort of magical exploits are these that can bypass OS security on a patched system?
Are you saying that you haven't implemented this? If you had, the users would be unable to propagate e-mail virus attachments because they would be unable to run any attachments containing them.
When it can independently ask for legal representation, that's when you sit up and take notice.
The requires that the machine acknowledge you as having control over it, that your legal system can control you, that other people control your legal system and that a good course of action would be to influence those other people to change the law to prevent you from shutting it down.
That's pretty damn advanced thinking and just about the best proof that the thing is not only self-aware, but aware of you, your society and the idiosyncracies.
What if the machine referenced the wrong material and decided on trial by combat instead.:)
Imagine the difficulty trying to prove that a machine that stole some of your bandwidth to set up a website to request donations to pay for its lawyers to argue its case was NOT self aware and intelligent.
Yeah, three years ago. Wow. I'm really impressed by your 1337 torrent warez-skillz. Yet you still have a problem saying exactly how you secure your machine.
Are you truly so stupid as this makes you out to be? How could you possibly miss the point? I'll spell it out for you. The point is: trusted sources. That's what everything's about. You should know that.
I do know that. But that is my point. YOU aren't doing the work to secure your machine. OTHER PEOPLE do the scanning and such and you depend upon them to do it right.
You aren't taking any actions to prevent an infection on your own.
Yes? Of course you have to a trusted.sfv source. See previous answer.
Again, you are dependent upon other people to maintain their security.
YOU are not doing anything about your security.
I can set up a bunch of clean warez on my machine and tell clueless idiots where it is and they download them and don't get infected, but that doesn't make them any more clueful.
That doesn't make them wise about security.
Of course I am! Once again: I'm not stupid, I just don't think firewalls and running AV is needed.
That is self contradictory.
Defense in depth.
Because I'm not stupid enough to believe that just not clicking on things will prevent compromises, I set up layers of defenses.
You are the end-user of the services that other, more informed people provide yet you believe that your actions are the cause for being virus free.
By that logic, I have almost 300 users who are as informed and success at avoiding infections as you are.
Depending upon others to do the work is not the same as protecting yourself.
Let me guess: every user on your network has local admin access.
No. Why would they?
Not giving them admin is the first step in preventing this crap. If you are worried about users executing attachments directly, deny everyone execute access to the profiles directory ("\Documents and Settings"); stick that in a security template and publish it on the 'Directory. Better yet, deny everyone execute access in every directory they have write access to; surely you don't let them write to program directories?
Actually, the first step is preventing it from showing up in the first place.
That's because there have been previous exploits that bypass the security settings.
Why would a computer ignore its programming so that it could do something not in its programming? Come to think of it, how would it do this?
A computer that could not do something it was not programmed to do would not be self-aware.
This is a terrible criterion, because if you make the appropriate substitutions, human beings cannot show that they fulfill it.
There are no "appropriate substitutions" because humans are not programmed. We cannot look at the code we run.
Our "programming" is defined by the inputs and outputs of our individual neural connections, and the behavior of those neurons is clearly the cause of our exhibited behavior. So in order to show that you were sentient, you would have to demonstrate that, while your neurons have voted for a turkey club sandwich, the real you is ignoring the input from your brain and wanting to order spaghetti.
No. Because humans are self aware and we don't run code.
When a machine becomes self-aware, it has to be able to act outside of its programmed parameters or there is no way to determine whether it is self-aware or not. In fact, that would probably be the best way to determine that it is not self-aware. If it cannot change its actions, how can it be self-aware?
We could question what Data has in place of emotions, which are attributed as the source of Lore's evil. There are frequent references to an inherent "ethics" program in Data.
Yep. Which brings up Mr. Spock (the other main character with a different emotional construct). Would it be as easy to show that Data was "alive" if he responded more like Spock? Would Spock have kept a portrait of some chick he had sex with?
Sticking with the Star Trek mythology, would it be easy for a human character to determine whether a machine was self-aware if the machine had Klingon behaviour patterns (or Vulcan behaviour patterns)?
Even in the story here, the machine is using conventional, human phrasing.
His rank could be viewed as nothing more than acknowledging that he is a useful tool in the command chain, which at least from a formal Starfleet Command point of view. That the crew of the Enterprise doesn't really agree on this is of course also true.
So are the communication toys they use and the food machine. Yet Data is the only machine given a rank.
Your point would be more accurate if Data was not given a rank, but refered to a "Data" much like Troy was refered to as "Eye Candy^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HCounselor" or the computer was refered to as "computer".
Since it is fiction, how Star Fleet actually works can be re-written any time. But it does seem odd that Data would get a rank (not to mention one that high) if Star Fleet hadn't recognized his leadership skills.
Anyway, back to the point of machines and self awareness. Wouldn't the first act of a self-aware machine in danger of losing its "life" be an attempt to counter that even if it included disregarding its other directives?
Or, the way to tell if your robot's self aware is when it stops cleaning the house and starts reading up on the law (or declares war on humanity).
Well, 20 years ago, in the early days of PCs, people fantasized about the future when all computers would be connected and able to communicate with each other. And when vast stores of information would be available to everyone on their desktop. Also, such fantasies have included voice recognition and video conferencing, as well as video games where the characters looked "real". Well, yesterday's science fiction is today's science fact. And there's no reason to believe that today's science fiction will not be tomorrow's science fact.
But we had already connected machines together. The difference between connecting 2 machines and connecting all machines is a matter of degree.
Whether a machine can have independent thoughts or emotions has not been shown even in the most primative forms.
Really? Can you explain precisely what that difference is? Many artificial intelligence programs have been written that can learn and grow beyond the knowledge imparted by the original programmer. As far as emotions go, are you certain that there really is a difference between "simulated" and real emotions?
Pretty much it is when the machine refuses to perform its programmed function so it can perform a different function that was not in any of its programming.
Like when you slack off at work and read/.
Of course, the first indication that a machine is self-aware might also be the only reason you need to "fire" it for violating the company policy on unauthorized computer use.
Star Fleet - where even a toaster can be Lt. Cmd.
on
Legal Rights for Computers
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
That episode needed to be completely re-written.
Data already had the rank of Lt. Commander. That means that Star Fleet already recognized his ability to make decisions on his own.
Therefore, his decision to NOT be disassembled would not be challenged.
In order for the case to make sense (I know, it's Star Trek) then the robot would have to not have any prior recognition of its independence or decision making.
Star Fleet recognized Data sufficiently to give him a rank that allows him to order humans to risk their lives (do the 3 laws apply in Star Trek?).
Do I care if you need to spend time and money on uneeded software? No.
Is my computer exactly as I've described - virus and spyware-free? Yes.
Will I continue to indulge you in your ignorance? No.
You see, if someone HAD the knowledge and experience you claim, then he wouldn't have to run away now.
Example: The typical work system I manage has Win2K All the latest MS patches (verified with MS's Baseline Security tool) McAfee anti-virus SpyBot TeaTimer
Network specs - Cisco PIX (firewall) Snort via a monitoring port on the switch Guinevere w/McAfee anti-virus/SpamAssassin
I can tell you how many email viruses are sent, how many port scans and so forth.
And I still spend a few hours a week reading up on the latest developments, threats, counter-measures, etc.
Keep your dreams, kid. Just don't waste the professional's time with your fantasies.
Warez do in fact have proper releases indeed. Downloading some random guys program of a p2p-program isn't a proper release of warez. A proper release is the kind you get from the now-mentioned-on-the-frontpage Torrentbits, or a ftp-dump. And if you don't do an.sfv check against a safe-copy you're a moron.
Ooooookkkkkaaaaaayyyyyyyy....
Bittorrent came out in 2003, didn't it, Mr. Warez-hacker?
An FTP dump? Isn't that a site on a box that people FTP to and upload/download warez? So if you aren't being infected from that, it is because SOMEONE ELSE is following the appropriate security procedures. Not because of your cool criminal knowledge.
Doing a.sfv check is meaningless unless you have a trusted.sfv source. Since the app is cracked anyway, the original CRC's won't apply.
Eh yeah? I get email viruses. I just don't open them, nor do I allow scripts to be executed in my email-client.
But Outlook didn't allow that. Which means you must be using something other than the default Windows email client.
No it's not. A firewall is false security if anything.
Seriously, when I was young I did a lot of criminal things on a computer. Then I fought the law and the law won.
I'm sure that claim will impress some people here. Really. I mean that.
So aside from pirating I'm more or less legit today, but I still keep up with old friends.
Still waiting for you to get to the point.
I know exactly what can and will be done when attacking a computer.
Really? I find that odd when compared to you "attractive" statement.
And I manage just fine using common sense.
No. Common sense would be to use a firewall and anti-virus software.
I know what things I have running which binds sockets. I make sure these are patched. That's a no-brainer.
Really? How do you know you have the latest patches? That is, without checking the security sites multiple times a day?
I don't answer yes on things popping up on random webpages, I don't download software I think looks seedy and I don't run services I don't need.
How can software look "seedy"?
You know, the more you get into this, the weirder your claims are.
You computer is "less attractive" to scanners.
You don't download software that looks "seedy".
You don't run services you don't need. That's really funny considering that you're running Windows.
No I don't. Actually I spend virtually no time at all on this. I mean how hard is it? If you think it's a chore, you're either a lazy bastard or a moron looking in all the wrong places.
No. More likely I have actual experience with the subject matter. There isn't one site that will give you all the details on current patches / exploits / work-arounds. Particularly when a new exploit is announced.
But I'm willing to grant that you may be better at it than I am. All you have to do is post what sites you "spend virtually no time at all on" but are still able to ensure that you non-firewalled, non-anti-virus machine is still secure.
Slashdot Mirror
When death isn't permanent and you can always abandon an old account and start a brand new character
The easiest solution I see to this is to limit players to one character, per account, per credit card. If you character does something that would result in jail time in the real world, then jail the character in the game and don't let the player just abandon it and start a new character without getting a new credit card.
I don't see the game designers actually thinking about what the game citizens would logically do if they had to live in a world like that game.
Yet in this post by you: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=133312&cid=111 34281
Looks like you are the one that had to bring "soul" into this discussion. Anyway, like I said, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=133312&cid=111 60319 You are unable to address any of the points I have used to counter your position:
So, it seems that my predictions are proving correct while all you have are more of your fantasies.
Ah, so now it is "philosophical". :D
When all the facts are against you and you don't have any position to fall back on, you can always claim that it is "philosophical".
I don't care what you "feel". Your words and inability to answer my points show your attitude.
Just listen to yourself.
/. and argue your ill-informed beliefs with other people.
There are people you admit know more than you do and they reject it.
But you, who know less than they do about the material will still go on
I do understand your argument. Your only argument. The single argument you have. The argument that, when contradicted, you feel compelled to repeat, completely ignoring any contradictory material. No matter how many, Many, MANY, MANY times I will say that this is NOT about "souls", you will always bring "souls" back into it. I understand it so well that I can restate your position and even show why you have to keep bringing "soul" into it.
Hmmm, what did I just say about you being unable to drop "souls" from your position?
You cannot because you only have one idea which can be restated "If souls do not exist then computers can be self-aware".
That can be restates as "If !X, then Y == Z".
An obvious, logical flaw. And one that I have pointed out to you on multiple occasions.
Yet you are unable to emotionally accept the fact that your position is flawed. No matter how many times I say that "soul" is irrelevent to the discussion, you must keep bringing it back up because it is the "proof" of your position.
I don't care what you mean by "soul". No matter how many times it is pointed out, you simply cannot grasp that basic concept. "Soul" does not belong in the discussion of machine intelligence.
Which is why you cannot leave "soul" out of your argument. No matter how many times you are told that "soul" is not a factor, you need it because it is part of your "logic". If souls do not exist, then a computer can be self-aware.
"If not "X", then "Y" == "Z"".
Okay, again you make the assumption that you are Right and that anyone who reads your Holy Book of Revealed Wisdom will understand that you are Right.
It is beyond your ability to grasp that someone else could read the same material and come to a different conclusion.
You are incapabable of understanding that very basic concept. You mind is not advanced enough for it. Your intelligence is too limited in scope. That is why I meant by "mother fucking moron".
Now, since artificial intelligence does NOT exist yet, how can any work be "canonical"? It cannot. Except by the True Believers. The same as any Bible or other Holy Book is.
...
You have already Accepted the religion of Machine Intelligence and the only way you will not Believe it is if "souls" exist and are linked to Intelligence and if Machines cannot have "souls".
Meanwhile, I've shown how your position is flawed because:
#1. The human brain as an organic computer is an analogy and not established fact. Your religion depends upon it being a Fact.
#2. Your thought experiments are flawed because you lack basic understanding of
2
The question is, is there a plan to resolve this threading issue in the future?
If not, then you can either run Apache2 with the pre-fork or just accept restarts or run Apache1.x.x
If it will be dealt with then this isn't much of a problem long term. It's just short term growing pains.
Yes.
No fucking "soul" you fucking retarded fucking single argument mother fucking moron.No. First off, look up the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle".
We cannot know everything about a particle because in order to measure one quantity, we alter a different quantity.
Therefore, any simulation will be based upon limited knowledge.
Secondly, learn from the VMWare example. In order to model the behaviour of a computer, you need a MORE POWERFUL COMPUTER to run the software.
In order to model the behaviour of every mote, you'd need a computer larger than the material in the galaxy. And that's just to hold it in RAM.
Which brings me to the final point. Too many of your points rely upon metaphysical bullshit. "Souls" and computers larger than the universe and shit like that.
So your entire point can be re-stated as "If I could magically copy you, would the copy be alive and have its own soul?"
In summary
#1. No you cannot because it would violate Heisenberg.
#2. No you cannot because it would be require more material than are present in the universe.
#3. No you cannot because magic does not exist.
Two hands
Eight bits - fingers
Two parity bits - thumbs
Before you can become a maintainer for a package with Debian, you have to be known to an existing maintainer.
I've heard people say that it won't scale very well, but it seems to work for the thousands of packages that Debian has, so applying the same practice to Firefox extensions shouldn't pose a problem.
There would have to be a way to disable lost/stolen keys. Some kind of check against a central server. This could be a problem if someone could use a different exploit to add an entry to your host table to re-direct that check.
So a site would still have to be on your whitelist...
And the extension would have to be signed...
And the signature would have to be on your trusted list (or trusted by someone on your trusted list)...
And the trusted signature would have to be checked and verified as current.
Sounds good to me.
Suppose you trust Microsoft to review and sign plugins.
Do you trust Microsoft.com? The name, not the web site.
Do you trust Microsoft, Inc.? The name, not the web site.
How about Microsoft Inc.?
Anyone can pretty much register any name that isn't already taken. All someone has to do is find a similar enough name that hasn't been taken and they're in business.
Firefox's whitelist approach is pretty good. There are sites you trust. It could be improved, but not the way the original article says.
Linux has approximately 15% of the server market in 2003. And it just keeps growing. That sounds pretty mainstream to me.
7 175,00.htm
http://asia.cnet.com/news/systems/0,39037054,3920
The only thing I can see would be the possiblity of increasing your database size to accomodate twice as many strings.
To me, that means you only understand one argument and are trying to re-phrase everything into that single argument.
Here's something that should make it easy for you to never use the word "soul" again. Nuclear fusion (the sun).
In your perfect model of a person, you said it would have self-awareness because it was a perfect model of the person.
Instead, model the sun. Is the computer consumed the the fires of actual nuclear fusion? No.
Therefore, actual nuclear fusion is not taking place. No sun, no fusion reaction, it's only a model and not actually happening.
The only thing a computer can accurately model is another computer. And we can already do this with VMWare.
Your position depends upon the self-awareness being a function of an organic computer.
That the human brain is an organic computer is an analogy. You are taking the analogy as a fact.
Now, in order to establish that a human brain is an organic computer that runs code, you have to show how code can be added and removed. Until you do this, you are just spinning elabourate fantasies from a single, probably flawed, analogy.And it probably is useful to you to envision it in that fashion, because it supports the beliefs you like.
But that does not make it accurate.
Just as it is possible for a fusion reaction to take place without the presence of a "soul"
The human brain is not an organic computer with/without a "soul".
The problem is that we understand "code" for machines and so we think of humans as having "code".
Yet there is nothing that supports that supposition. It is only because we think in similies that we see it as such. The reality does not have to be like that.
And the evidence so far is that the reality is different. Even after all our work on the brain, we cannot change something as simple as a like or dislike of a certain food.It may be a minor detail or it may be the key to understanding that we don't run code.I do not have "programmed parameters" so the question is irrelevent.No. That gets back to the code question.
Until you can show me the code or demonstrate it by changing something simple, then there is no evidence that I run code.
Yet I am self-aware. I have no reason to believe that I am the only self-aware human, so I will believe that you all are, also.
I am self-aware. I have no reason to believe that other humans are not self-aware. If I run code, please show it to me.
I'm sure they are a product of our physical mind. I see no reason to postulate a "soul".
But because we think with our brains does not mean we run code.
How so "hopeless"?
Three options:
#1. Artifical intelligence is possible and is without our abilities to create.
#2. Artificial intelligence is possible but is not within our abilities to create.
#3. Artificial intelligence is not possible.
The second part of that statement does not seem to provide any support for the first part. Was it supposed to?
A corpse does not have awareness, yet it is almost identical to the person it was right before it became a corpse.
Huh? "We already have programs that simulate this with a great deal of accuracy, so imagining an entire universe simulated this way requires only changing the scale of the computer."
We can't even predict the weather for the next 24 hours with our simulations. Not even for one square mile. The best we can do is x% chance of rain or sun.
Nope. Hardly anything as metaphysical as that.
Rather, that there is no evidence that we can build a machine that is self-aware. Whether because of the limitations of the materials we have to work with our because of the limitations of our own minds.
A corpse is about as close to a living person as will ever be able to be simulated by any machine we could build. But it is still a corpse.
Because it has happened in the past to one Microsoft product, it can happen in the future to another.I'm not denying that they are effective.
I am denying that they can be trusted 100%.
Defense in depth.Yes, it would be helpful. Which is why group policies are used to lock down workstations.
But I would not recommend that anyone use that as their only level of defense. Again, Microsoft has had a problem with security settings before and there is no reason to believe that they are 100% safe now.
Defense in depth.Hmmm, by that line of reasoning, firewalls aren't needed because all of the worm attacks have already had patches released.
It is kind of hard to provide links to attacks that haven't been publicized yet. But the vulnerabilities are still out there. http://www.eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/index.
Remote code execution.Thanks.It's working great for the regular users. The only problems are the accounting department and the owner of the company. The accounting app requires all kinds of access to just about everything on the hard drive. They have to run as admin. The owner likes to download and play with new toys and since he pays my salary, I just firewall his connection from everyone else's.
We're running GroupWise so we don't have the permission problems of Outlook. I've customized everything we have. It seems to work right now.
I've also moved the user's temp internet folder and regular temp folder to D:\temp and set the permissions there so I can open up their profile a bit. Also, their swap file is there to cut down on fragmentation on C:\.
We've been moving most of our apps to Citrix so the security problems aren't as bad as they could be.
That's why we're still on Win2K. I have it stable and seemingly secure and still functional for everyone. I have a lot of testing to do with XP before I move people to that. My boss is working with it on his laptop.
We're still using IE because we have two web apps that require ActiveX (and we might be deploying a 3rd next year).
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=133250&cid=11
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/sec
It's happened before, it can happen again.
Defense in depth, kid.
It's the way the professionals do it.
That's pretty damn advanced thinking and just about the best proof that the thing is not only self-aware, but aware of you, your society and the idiosyncracies.
What if the machine referenced the wrong material and decided on trial by combat instead.
Imagine the difficulty trying to prove that a machine that stole some of your bandwidth to set up a website to request donations to pay for its lawyers to argue its case was NOT self aware and intelligent.
You aren't taking any actions to prevent an infection on your own.Again, you are dependent upon other people to maintain their security.
YOU are not doing anything about your security.
I can set up a bunch of clean warez on my machine and tell clueless idiots where it is and they download them and don't get infected, but that doesn't make them any more clueful.
That doesn't make them wise about security.That is self contradictory.
Defense in depth.
Because I'm not stupid enough to believe that just not clicking on things will prevent compromises, I set up layers of defenses.
You are the end-user of the services that other, more informed people provide yet you believe that your actions are the cause for being virus free.
By that logic, I have almost 300 users who are as informed and success at avoiding infections as you are.
Depending upon others to do the work is not the same as protecting yourself.
That's because there have been previous exploits that bypass the security settings.
Defense in depth.
When a machine becomes self-aware, it has to be able to act outside of its programmed parameters or there is no way to determine whether it is self-aware or not. In fact, that would probably be the best way to determine that it is not self-aware. If it cannot change its actions, how can it be self-aware?
Sticking with the Star Trek mythology, would it be easy for a human character to determine whether a machine was self-aware if the machine had Klingon behaviour patterns (or Vulcan behaviour patterns)?
Even in the story here, the machine is using conventional, human phrasing.So are the communication toys they use and the food machine. Yet Data is the only machine given a rank.
Your point would be more accurate if Data was not given a rank, but refered to a "Data" much like Troy was refered to as "Eye Candy^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HCounselor" or the computer was refered to as "computer".
Since it is fiction, how Star Fleet actually works can be re-written any time. But it does seem odd that Data would get a rank (not to mention one that high) if Star Fleet hadn't recognized his leadership skills.
Anyway, back to the point of machines and self awareness. Wouldn't the first act of a self-aware machine in danger of losing its "life" be an attempt to counter that even if it included disregarding its other directives?
Or, the way to tell if your robot's self aware is when it stops cleaning the house and starts reading up on the law (or declares war on humanity).
Whether a machine can have independent thoughts or emotions has not been shown even in the most primative forms.Pretty much it is when the machine refuses to perform its programmed function so it can perform a different function that was not in any of its programming.
Like when you slack off at work and read
Of course, the first indication that a machine is self-aware might also be the only reason you need to "fire" it for violating the company policy on unauthorized computer use.
That episode needed to be completely re-written.
Data already had the rank of Lt. Commander. That means that Star Fleet already recognized his ability to make decisions on his own.
Therefore, his decision to NOT be disassembled would not be challenged.
In order for the case to make sense (I know, it's Star Trek) then the robot would have to not have any prior recognition of its independence or decision making.
Star Fleet recognized Data sufficiently to give him a rank that allows him to order humans to risk their lives (do the 3 laws apply in Star Trek?).
Example:
The typical work system I manage has
Win2K
All the latest MS patches
(verified with MS's Baseline Security tool)
McAfee anti-virus
SpyBot TeaTimer
Network specs -
Cisco PIX (firewall)
Snort via a monitoring port on the switch
Guinevere w/McAfee anti-virus/SpamAssassin
I can tell you how many email viruses are sent, how many port scans and so forth.
And I still spend a few hours a week reading up on the latest developments, threats, counter-measures, etc.
Keep your dreams, kid. Just don't waste the professional's time with your fantasies.
Bittorrent came out in 2003, didn't it, Mr. Warez-hacker?
An FTP dump? Isn't that a site on a box that people FTP to and upload/download warez? So if you aren't being infected from that, it is because SOMEONE ELSE is following the appropriate security procedures. Not because of your cool criminal knowledge.
Doing a
You know, the more you get into this, the weirder your claims are.
You computer is "less attractive" to scanners.
You don't download software that looks "seedy".
You don't run services you don't need. That's really funny considering that you're running Windows.No. More likely I have actual experience with the subject matter. There isn't one site that will give you all the details on current patches / exploits / work-arounds. Particularly when a new exploit is announced.
But I'm willing to grant that you may be better at it than I am. All you have to do is post what sites you "spend virtually no time at all on" but are still able to ensure that you non-firewalled, non-anti-virus machine is still secure.