You assume that human thought is the only form of intelligence.
Just as birds have developed a sense of where thermals rise from the earth, an intelligent machine could develop a sense of how to make a machine more efficient.
If we as humans didn't degrade with advanced age, imagine what one individual could be capable of learning. Now extand that to include if this person never had to sleep. Imagine being able to design changes that would be able to improve your mental acuity. Then with that improved acuity, you could find another way to improve yourself.
Without the eventuality of death, genetics could be replaced with memetics. One can see a need to change himself or herself and that change takes place.
Living with the knowledge that you're not going to die from old age in and of itself would be enough to change human conciousness and therefore intelligence, we're not even capable of imagining how an intelligent machine would think.
We're so fragmented in our beliefs we're in worse shape than either the Demoratic or Republican party.
The democrats have the skeletons in the closet of the Eco-Whackos and the Tax payer funded abortion nuts and the republicans have to deal with the shove-the-bible-down-your-throat-whether-you-like- it-or-not crowd.
We've got to deal with Script Kiddies and "Hack the planet" losers who make us look like pimple faced sexually depraved twits.
We have nothing which unites us. Democrats have th "Help The Poor" and the Republicans have the "Lower Taxes" drums to beat and there is nothing that unites us.
Are we geeks first or last? Would you vote for politician X if s/he agreed with you on every computer/technology related issue but differed with you on abortion, gun control, or environmental policy?
How about if Politician Y agreed with you on all of those social issues, but disagreed with you on regulating the internet?
Linus owns the Linux trademark. The way I see it, if Linus tacks on some type of compatibility designation like "Linux 1.0 Compliant" for certain distros then many will feel like they have no choice for consumer type OSes than to follow Linus' lead.
You can still fork the code for embedded products or linux appliances, but if you're marketing a Consumer or Server OS then you'd better not be the oddball who isn't Linux 1.0 compliant.
The goal shouldn't be to "beat Microsoft" in this market. I do service work for a few schools and the teachers are probably the worst of all users whom I've encountered.
Just yesterday, the school I was at had a stack of service request forms and nearly half of them were because one idiot teacher saw that some kids had deleted an alias from the desktop and thought that the computers were broken.
These people aren't going to embrace linux. They've struggled long and hard to be able to turn on and turn off Windows and MacOS machines. Most of them don't have the desire or the ability to learn to use linux.
It's already known that linux can compete with M$ in the server arena. We won't be able to, nor should we want to bankrupt M$. The goal is to have as many choices as possible. MacOS, Linux, *BSD, Windows (whatever), BeOS, and straight old fashioned *NIX are all acceptable OSes for a given task.
M$ will be around in some form or another for the forseeable future, because so many business and governments have invested their futures in it's products. What we need as an atmosphere of healthy and honest competition.
Instead of talking about how stable the new release is, or how many new features they've included many makers of distros only talk about how the new version is the easiest ever to install.
Do you have any idea why every new version of existing distros seem to emphasize their idiot-friendliness? And do you think it's good or bad?
If you deed your house to your children, and they to theirs, there is no "time limit" after which the house becomes public property and any random homeless person can just walk into your living room and make himself at home. That would be absurd.
In some states "squatters rights" can be more important than ownership. IANAL, and I don't know all of the provisions but if someone "squats" in your abandoned house for 20 or 30 years ad you do nothing about it, then you can't arbitrarily evict them.
No, I sound like someone who cares more about the QUALITY AND STABILITY of linux more than I care about it's proliferation. I want linux to be better, not just preinstalled on more boxes.
Why rush to get something to market? Let linux mature naturally. Don't let the rush for commercial viability (money) in the clueless newbie market drive it.
Linux isn't a silver bullet to slay the M$ werewolf. One of two things will happen if we let linux mature. Either 1, it'll become the most stable OS for the market AND the tools will become available to make it suitable for grandmothers and uncles and it'll be the natural heir apparant to that market, or 2, M$ will feel the heat and improve their OS so well that people won't be waiting for an excuse to jump ship and go to linux.
Do you want to improve the computing market or just hurt M$?
What I like about Linux is it's it's speed,stability and flexibility. I don't care as much about ease of use. It's people like us who drove the linux revolution. Grandmothers and uncles didn't and WON'T. It's those people who will continue to use Windows and MacOS for everything.
It irks me that on mandrake's homepage all of their reviews center around how easy Mandrake is for the linux newcomer. I don't CARE about that. I want to know about stability, speed and new features.
I didn't mind a text menu based installer, I didn't need X to install. I'm sure that many of you feel the same way.
Linux developers should be more worred about SERVERS! When you get server quality stability and speed, then you can trickle down to the desktop market.
Look at M$, WinNT was for servers only. Now Win2K is using that base (with several thousand bugs added) to bring many of the features of NT to the desktop. THAT's what Debian, Redhat, Caldera, SuSE and Mandrake should be doing.
You need to study constitutional law. IANAL, but I have taken a class or two on the US Constitution and constitutional law.
This is not affecting all, it's just affecting state funded libraries. A state can attach just about any restrictions on their funds that they wish. They're not making it illegal, if a library can get enough donations to do without state money they can keep non-filtered access.
It's a bad idea, but this still has nothing to do with the constitution.
I've got a question, that I was just waiting for the right Mormon to come along and answer.
I don't know if it's true or simply anti-mormon propaganda, but I remember hearing that according to Mormon mythology, Black people have dark skin as a punishment for not choosing sides in that "war in heavan" that was waged.
How highly do you value the first ammendment ? Should Utah or any other state be allowed to restrict it because they don't like you to see certain things and their approach to preventing anyone seeing these pages is to stop anyone seeing various other completely safe pages.
This is NOT a constitutional or first amendment issue. They're not trying to filter everyone's connections. Whether or not you like it, they do have the right to attach conditions to the money that the state gives to libraries.
This bill could just as easily cut funding to any library that has more than say, 10 copies of Mein Kampf.
Filtering doesn't work. Though the idea may be misbegotten, it is still the right of a state to control it's money in any way that it sees fit.
Only if you are actually part of the mormons these are not laws but ideas that they cary and ideas that really don't have much purpose.
Utah does have restrictions on purchasing Alcohol. You can delude yourself into thinking that it's for some reason other than because of the Mormons.
Geez you do know don't you that access to most of the good porn sites is usually something you have to pay for don't you?
There's this little thing called the USENET, I've downloaded gigabytes of porn from the usenet. I never paid a dime. There's more to the internet than "the web".
When you deal in first Ammendment issues you are dealing on the *FEDERAL* level of government and that means you have to take your cues from federal authorities and the laws that they make.
You are the one who does not understand, they aren't making it a criminal offense, they are just going to withdraw funding from any library that doesn't filter. This is completely legal, there are the constitutional principals of the carrot and the stick. When the stick is forbidden, the carrot can be used.
How do you think that the federal government has been able to sustain the 21 year old drinking age? Because they tie federal highway funds to the condition that states make it so. Same thing that they did with the 55mph speed limit.
Utah is not a country in and of it's own right and it dosn't get the right to change the constitution on a whim.
This is NOT a constitutional issue. You can look at all of the porn you want at home, on your unfiltered internet connection. If you go to a publicly funded library, you have to deal with a filtered connection while you're in Utah.
One of the many reasons why, I'm glad I'm not in Utah.
We're not talking about an Austrailian-style universal filtering system, just in libraries. If you don't like it, don't go to the library.
As I've said before, filtering is a bad idea, and it doesn't work very well, but if that's what the people of Utah want, that's what they'll get.
The Mormon capitol of the world. Whether you share their beliefs or not, you have to respect them.
No Smoking, No Boozing, No Coffee, no Tea, No Pre-Marital Sex and many other rules that may seem arcane to outsiders.
I would have a very serious problem if my tax dollars were going directly to perform abortions. The people of Utah seem to have a problem with their tax dollars going to give people access to porn.
We all know that filtering doesn't work. Too many legitimate sites are blocked. And although I'd prefer a decision like this be done on a community by community basis, the people of Utah are within their rights to do this. Boneheaded idea or not.
iCrave should patent "streaming television broadcasts over the internet" in pretty much the same way that Amazon had their one click shopping patent. Then when these companies try to stream their broadcasts, SMACK THEM with a patent infringement lawsuit.
Slashdot Mirror
Your assumptions are flawed in the following way.
You assume that human thought is the only form of intelligence.
Just as birds have developed a sense of where thermals rise from the earth, an intelligent machine could develop a sense of how to make a machine more efficient.
If we as humans didn't degrade with advanced age, imagine what one individual could be capable of learning. Now extand that to include if this person never had to sleep. Imagine being able to design changes that would be able to improve your mental acuity. Then with that improved acuity, you could find another way to improve yourself.
Without the eventuality of death, genetics could be replaced with memetics. One can see a need to change himself or herself and that change takes place.
Living with the knowledge that you're not going to die from old age in and of itself would be enough to change human conciousness and therefore intelligence, we're not even capable of imagining how an intelligent machine would think.
LK
Two Words,
DEEP BLUE.
One of the major problems with RTS AI is that the computer has to balance the needs of graphics, with the processing needs of the AI.
If the computer had 20 times more CPU power to plan and execute strategy the AI would be better.
The hardware is a big stumbling block that we must overcome before the software can make that quantum leap.
LK
I don't think it would be possible, Unions tend to value length of membership over skill or ability. With geeks that mentality can't be adopted.
LK
We're so fragmented in our beliefs we're in worse shape than either the Demoratic or Republican party.
- it-or-not crowd.
The democrats have the skeletons in the closet of the Eco-Whackos and the Tax payer funded abortion nuts and the republicans have to deal with the shove-the-bible-down-your-throat-whether-you-like
We've got to deal with Script Kiddies and "Hack the planet" losers who make us look like pimple faced sexually depraved twits.
We have nothing which unites us. Democrats have th "Help The Poor" and the Republicans have the "Lower Taxes" drums to beat and there is nothing that unites us.
Are we geeks first or last? Would you vote for politician X if s/he agreed with you on every computer/technology related issue but differed with you on abortion, gun control, or environmental policy?
How about if Politician Y agreed with you on all of those social issues, but disagreed with you on regulating the internet?
If it were me, I'd hold my nose and vote for Y.
What central theme can unite us as geeks?
LK
Linus owns the Linux trademark. The way I see it, if Linus tacks on some type of compatibility designation like "Linux 1.0 Compliant" for certain distros then many will feel like they have no choice for consumer type OSes than to follow Linus' lead.
You can still fork the code for embedded products or linux appliances, but if you're marketing a Consumer or Server OS then you'd better not be the oddball who isn't Linux 1.0 compliant.
LK
The goal shouldn't be to "beat Microsoft" in this market. I do service work for a few schools and the teachers are probably the worst of all users whom I've encountered.
Just yesterday, the school I was at had a stack of service request forms and nearly half of them were because one idiot teacher saw that some kids had deleted an alias from the desktop and thought that the computers were broken.
These people aren't going to embrace linux. They've struggled long and hard to be able to turn on and turn off Windows and MacOS machines. Most of them don't have the desire or the ability to learn to use linux.
It's already known that linux can compete with M$ in the server arena. We won't be able to, nor should we want to bankrupt M$. The goal is to have as many choices as possible. MacOS, Linux, *BSD, Windows (whatever), BeOS, and straight old fashioned *NIX are all acceptable OSes for a given task.
M$ will be around in some form or another for the forseeable future, because so many business and governments have invested their futures in it's products. What we need as an atmosphere of healthy and honest competition.
LK
I think that he meant "What about the rest of the billionaires, why aren't they donating any money to education?"
Not, "What about the rest of *THIS* guy's money?"
LK
Instead of talking about how stable the new release is, or how many new features they've included many makers of distros only talk about how the new version is the easiest ever to install.
Do you have any idea why every new version of existing distros seem to emphasize their idiot-friendliness? And do you think it's good or bad?
LK
Please excuse my mis-spelling of Idiocy.
LK
If you can't copyright the alphabet you shouldn't be able to patent the genome of any living thing.
I can see a patent for extinct animals, but for creatures that still walk the earth, it's laughable.
If they can get a patent on the human genome, what's to stop them from imposing a license fee on every birth?
LK
If you deed your house to your children, and they to theirs, there is no "time limit" after which the house becomes public property and any random homeless person can just walk into your living room and make himself at home. That would be absurd.
In some states "squatters rights" can be more important than ownership. IANAL, and I don't know all of the provisions but if someone "squats" in your abandoned house for 20 or 30 years ad you do nothing about it, then you can't arbitrarily evict them.
LK
When did Morotola buy Metrowerks?
LK
The recent attacks have been very effective ammunition for the people who want to have control on people using the internet.
Maybe, I'm a little paranoid, but when something like this happens, I ask myself "Who benefits?".
Who gets a bigger budget out of the whole thing? Who gets more power to investigate because of it?
Is that enough of an incentive in your mind?
I don't believe that these DoS attacks were committed by some highly organized cracker group.
LK
LISTEN TO YOURSELF, you sound like a troll.
No, I sound like someone who cares more about the QUALITY AND STABILITY of linux more than I care about it's proliferation. I want linux to be better, not just preinstalled on more boxes.
Why rush to get something to market? Let linux mature naturally. Don't let the rush for commercial viability (money) in the clueless newbie market drive it.
Linux isn't a silver bullet to slay the M$ werewolf. One of two things will happen if we let linux mature. Either 1, it'll become the most stable OS for the market AND the tools will become available to make it suitable for grandmothers and uncles and it'll be the natural heir apparant to that market, or 2, M$ will feel the heat and improve their OS so well that people won't be waiting for an excuse to jump ship and go to linux.
Do you want to improve the computing market or just hurt M$?
LK
What I like about Linux is it's it's speed ,stability and flexibility. I don't care as much about ease of use. It's people like us who drove the linux revolution. Grandmothers and uncles didn't and WON'T. It's those people who will continue to use Windows and MacOS for everything.
It irks me that on mandrake's homepage all of their reviews center around how easy Mandrake is for the linux newcomer. I don't CARE about that. I want to know about stability, speed and new features.
I didn't mind a text menu based installer, I didn't need X to install. I'm sure that many of you feel the same way.
Linux developers should be more worred about SERVERS! When you get server quality stability and speed, then you can trickle down to the desktop market.
Look at M$, WinNT was for servers only. Now Win2K is using that base (with several thousand bugs added) to bring many of the features of NT to the desktop. THAT's what Debian, Redhat, Caldera, SuSE and Mandrake should be doing.
LK
You need to study constitutional law. IANAL, but I have taken a class or two on the US Constitution and constitutional law.
This is not affecting all, it's just affecting state funded libraries. A state can attach just about any restrictions on their funds that they wish. They're not making it illegal, if a library can get enough donations to do without state money they can keep non-filtered access.
It's a bad idea, but this still has nothing to do with the constitution.
LK
Apparantly the majority of Utah voters are Mormons(I could be mistaken though), and if they want something, they get it.
The political climate in Utah is heavily influenced by what Mormons want.
LK
If you're talking about the confederate battle flag, I say that it's up to the state to determine what is appropriate.
I personally find it to be in poor taste, but I don't live in any state where that's an issue so my opinion is not important.
LK
Unrelated issues. If you want to discuss the validity of the NRA's positions that's fine, but it has NOTHING to do with this story.
This is not the CDA all over again, the people in Utah are going to withdraw funding from any library that isn't going to follow their rules.
This is not making something a criminal offense, this is controlling the purse strings.
LK
I've got a question, that I was just waiting for the right Mormon to come along and answer.
I don't know if it's true or simply anti-mormon propaganda, but I remember hearing that according to Mormon mythology, Black people have dark skin as a punishment for not choosing sides in that "war in heavan" that was waged.
Is that true?
LK
How highly do you value the first ammendment ? Should Utah or any other state be allowed to restrict it because they don't like you to see certain things and their approach to preventing anyone seeing these pages is to stop anyone seeing various other completely safe pages.
This is NOT a constitutional or first amendment issue. They're not trying to filter everyone's connections. Whether or not you like it, they do have the right to attach conditions to the money that the state gives to libraries.
This bill could just as easily cut funding to any library that has more than say, 10 copies of Mein Kampf.
Filtering doesn't work. Though the idea may be misbegotten, it is still the right of a state to control it's money in any way that it sees fit.
LK
Only if you are actually part of the mormons these are not laws but ideas that they cary and ideas that really don't have much purpose.
Utah does have restrictions on purchasing Alcohol. You can delude yourself into thinking that it's for some reason other than because of the Mormons.
Geez you do know don't you that access to most of the good porn sites is usually something you have to pay for don't you?
There's this little thing called the USENET, I've downloaded gigabytes of porn from the usenet. I never paid a dime. There's more to the internet than "the web".
When you deal in first Ammendment issues you are dealing on the *FEDERAL* level of government and that means you have to take your cues from federal authorities and the laws that they make.
You are the one who does not understand, they aren't making it a criminal offense, they are just going to withdraw funding from any library that doesn't filter. This is completely legal, there are the constitutional principals of the carrot and the stick. When the stick is forbidden, the carrot can be used.
How do you think that the federal government has been able to sustain the 21 year old drinking age? Because they tie federal highway funds to the condition that states make it so. Same thing that they did with the 55mph speed limit.
Utah is not a country in and of it's own right and it dosn't get the right to change the constitution on a whim.
This is NOT a constitutional issue. You can look at all of the porn you want at home, on your unfiltered internet connection. If you go to a publicly funded library, you have to deal with a filtered connection while you're in Utah.
One of the many reasons why, I'm glad I'm not in Utah.
We're not talking about an Austrailian-style universal filtering system, just in libraries. If you don't like it, don't go to the library.
As I've said before, filtering is a bad idea, and it doesn't work very well, but if that's what the people of Utah want, that's what they'll get.
LK
The Mormon capitol of the world. Whether you share their beliefs or not, you have to respect them.
No Smoking, No Boozing, No Coffee, no Tea, No Pre-Marital Sex and many other rules that may seem arcane to outsiders.
I would have a very serious problem if my tax dollars were going directly to perform abortions. The people of Utah seem to have a problem with their tax dollars going to give people access to porn.
We all know that filtering doesn't work. Too many legitimate sites are blocked. And although I'd prefer a decision like this be done on a community by community basis, the people of Utah are within their rights to do this. Boneheaded idea or not.
LK
iCrave should patent "streaming television broadcasts over the internet" in pretty much the same way that Amazon had their one click shopping patent. Then when these companies try to stream their broadcasts, SMACK THEM with a patent infringement lawsuit.
That's what I'd do.
LK
No, you dumb ass Ebert's alive, Gene Siskel is dead.
I too have grown weary of Katz, but at least get your facts straight.
LK