And how do you distinguish between this "remembering" and "true intelligence"?
If you can't distinguish between the two,
either the definition or criteria your are using are insufficient, or the things are functionally
equivalent.
Therefore, if you can't distinguish between someone who is intelligent and a machine that
is claimed to be intelligent, what's the difference? As far as can be ascertained, they
are both intelligent.
If it smells like a duck, tastes like a duck, looks like a duck, and cannot be distinguished from a duck in any way, is it a duck? I would say yes.
If it has an intelligent and coherent response to any possible thing you might say, why is it not intelligent?
Arguments like "but it can't learn" don't hold water. If it wasn't able to learn from
prior experience and/or context, then it has not been able to construct an intelligent and coherent response to you.
The Turing Test is an extremely simple and revolutionary way of describing what it means to be intelligent.
The article itself reminded me of yet another SF book, Dragon's Egg by Robert L. Forward.
From the publisher:
In a moving story of sacrifice and triumph, human scientists establish a relationship with intelligent lifeforms--the cheela--living on Dragon's Egg, a neutron star where one Earth hour is equivalent to hundreds of their years. The cheela culturally evolve from savagery to the discovery of science, and for a brief time, men are their diligent teachers . . .
The neutron star ventures close enough to Earth that we send a manned probe out to orbit it and study it. I know life on a neutron star sounds fantastic, but the author claims the science still holds up.
I don't speak for everyone else? So, you're saying that you don't want the election to be over yet? Don't equate the desire to see the issue resolved and not caring as being the same thing.
I said nothing about the election being unimportant. I simply said I think everyone (Americans included), want this decided. And quickly.
The election of the US president is very important, because it does have a global impact. It is especially important for Americans everywhere and non-Americans living within the US (as you seem to indicate you are part of).
However, even though something can be extremely important, hearing about it incessantly for months on end becomes tiring. The similarity of the two major candidates certainly doesn't help the situation.
Regardless of how it's resolved, the resolution is what everyone is waiting for. Even you.
Why doesn't he get a nice breakroom with a foosball table when he's actually doing
somthing physical all day long. Programmers don't get tired, they slack more and more as
the day goes on. PLBTH!
Because the work is different.
I've worked as as a in a saw mill and as a garbage collector, and 6 years in the software industry. Manual labour is different. I enjoy both.
Writing code is fun and allows
creativeness. But often when I go home, I don't
want to do a heck of a lot.
Manual labour can be fun, in that you can let your brain go into neutral. You come home physically exhausted, but you feel good. You feel like doing
other things.
Someone working at a computer needs different kinds of breaks compared to people performing manual labour.
>
What kind of government is Linux? >Anarchist or Libertarian
Anarchy means social structure without government or law and order. When was the last time anyone besides Linus committed a kernel change to the 2.4 kernel?
Sounds like centralized control to me.
Re:There are no NP problems, only NP solutions.
on
Does P = NP?
·
· Score: 1
For P and NP, though, problems are classified according to the best solution available to them.
Therefore, if a P time solution is found to an NP problem, then that problem moves from being an NP problem to being a P problem.
Re:I must be a dumb CS graduate then
on
Does P = NP?
·
· Score: 3
Given an instance of a graph G=(V,E), partition G into disjoint subsets V1, V2,... Vk such that for 1 <= i <= k, the subgraph induced by Vi is a complete graph (a clique).
Now, you want to minimize k, the number of cliques.
But, considering the number of NP-Hard/NP-Complete problems out there, it's not surprising that you haven't heard of it.
From the Rijndael FAQ:
Can't you give it another name ? (Propose it as a tweak !) Dutch is a wonderful language. Currently we are debating about the names "Herfstvrucht", "Angstschreeuw" and "Koeieuier". Other suggestions are welcome of course. Derek Brown, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, proposes "bob".
I second the call for "bob"! (although I would've supported "peter", too)
That has absolutely nothing to do with my statement. Please read it again.
You seem to be under the illusion that just because I state that recognizing processors!=scalability, that I am an NT bigot. Not so. I frequently balk at having to log onto an NT machine.
Anyone that doesn't believe that Linux scales, is mistaken.
I don't see the correlation. Linux was able to recognize a bunch of processors. Congrats.
Detecting and utilizing those processors efficiently are two different things. Scalability is a function of a heck of a lot more variables than recognizing the number of processors available.
When talking about this subject, I can't help but consider the effects of demographics. As described in David Foot's book Boom Bust & Echo 2000, the baby boomers, by far the most influential demographic cohort, have entered their saving years. They see retirement not that far off. As a result, they are investing their money, which means high demand for investments. But if supply fails to increase at the same rate, simple economics dictates that prices must rise.
Although the book is based upon Canadian demographics, the author does note that the demographic profile of Canada and the United States are somewhat similar. Definitely an amazing read for anyone who is interested in investing.
The point of the comment to which you were replying was that this would be unlikely in free software, because there would be many more people looking at the modified code. If Ken Thompson's backdoor had been distributed to thousands of kernel hackers around the world when he came up with it, someone would have noticed.
But, according to this scenario, the suspect code never appears in any source code. It only exists in binary form inside the compiler (and login). The beauty of this is that it will self propagate itself, and it won't matter how many eyes look at the code (free or not), because the code isn't present.
Granted, you need an "infected" compiler to start with...but thereafter all subsequent compilers that are compiled are also infected. Binary distributions and/or cross-compilers to bootstrap particular architectures would also become infected.
I'm a bit skeptical about this backdoor possibility in official versions of the kernel (or gcc or some other important piece of free s/w). People have been suggesting it for years, but it's never actually happened.
Never actually happened, eh? Taken from the Jargon Dictionary entry for Back Door:
Historically, back doors have often lurked in systems longer than anyone expected or planned, and a few have become widely known. Ken Thompson's 1983 Turing Award lecture to the ACM admitted the existence of a back door in early Unix versions that may have qualified as the most fiendishly clever security hack of all time. In this scheme, the C compiler contained code that would recognize when the `login' command was being recompiled and insert some code recognizing a password chosen by Thompson, giving him entry to the system whether or not an account had been created for him.
Normally such a back door could be removed by removing it from the source code for the compiler and recompiling the compiler. But to recompile the compiler, you have to use the compiler -- so Thompson also arranged that the compiler would recognize when it was compiling a version of itself, and insert into the recompiled compiler the code to insert into the recompiled `login' the code to allow Thompson entry -- and, of course, the code to recognize itself and do the whole thing again the next time around! And having done this once, he was then able to recompile the compiler from the original sources; the hack perpetuated itself invisibly, leaving the back door in place and active but with no trace in the sources.
Anyone have any indication as to whether the merged corporate entity has plans to go public? With the success IPOs for various Linux companies, I think they have got to be at least entertaining the idea. I've used FreeBSD since 2.0.5, and I know I'd be on board in a heartbeat...
With Linus working at Transmeta, and Linus recently having submitted patches to the FreeBSD kernel (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/i38 6/i386/mplock.s), isn't it not a distinct possibility that Transmeta is using a BSD? Would it be because of the commercial appeal of using a BSD-style license?
Slashdot Mirror
And how do you distinguish between this "remembering" and "true intelligence"?
If you can't distinguish between the two, either the definition or criteria your are using are insufficient, or the things are functionally equivalent.
Therefore, if you can't distinguish between someone who is intelligent and a machine that is claimed to be intelligent, what's the difference? As far as can be ascertained, they are both intelligent.
If it smells like a duck, tastes like a duck, looks like a duck, and cannot be distinguished from a duck in any way, is it a duck? I would say yes.
Not quite. Certain classes of problems are provably unsolvable, such as the famous Halting Problem.
More correctly, you could say that any problem that can be solved, can be solved by a Turing Machine.
If it has an intelligent and coherent response to any possible thing you might say, why is it not intelligent?
Arguments like "but it can't learn" don't hold water. If it wasn't able to learn from prior experience and/or context, then it has not been able to construct an intelligent and coherent response to you.
The Turing Test is an extremely simple and revolutionary way of describing what it means to be intelligent.
From the publisher:
The neutron star ventures close enough to Earth that we send a manned probe out to orbit it and study it. I know life on a neutron star sounds fantastic, but the author claims the science still holds up.
Definitely gets a thumbs up from me...
I said nothing about the election being unimportant. I simply said I think everyone (Americans included), want this decided. And quickly.
The election of the US president is very important, because it does have a global impact. It is especially important for Americans everywhere and non-Americans living within the US (as you seem to indicate you are part of).
However, even though something can be extremely important, hearing about it incessantly for months on end becomes tiring. The similarity of the two major candidates certainly doesn't help the situation.
Regardless of how it's resolved, the resolution is what everyone is waiting for. Even you.
*Sigh*
Because the work is different.
I've worked as as a in a saw mill and as a garbage collector, and 6 years in the software industry. Manual labour is different. I enjoy both.
Writing code is fun and allows creativeness. But often when I go home, I don't want to do a heck of a lot.
Manual labour can be fun, in that you can let your brain go into neutral. You come home physically exhausted, but you feel good. You feel like doing other things.
Someone working at a computer needs different kinds of breaks compared to people performing manual labour.
I checked their website, but couldn't find the article online.
Anarchy means social structure without government or law and order. When was the last time anyone besides Linus committed a kernel change to the 2.4 kernel?
Sounds like centralized control to me.
Therefore, if a P time solution is found to an NP problem, then that problem moves from being an NP problem to being a P problem.
Now, you want to minimize k, the number of cliques.
But, considering the number of NP-Hard/NP-Complete problems out there, it's not surprising that you haven't heard of it.
Can't you give it another name ? (Propose it as a tweak !)
Dutch is a wonderful language. Currently we are debating about the names "Herfstvrucht", "Angstschreeuw" and "Koeieuier". Other suggestions are welcome of course. Derek Brown, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, proposes "bob".
I second the call for "bob"! (although I would've supported "peter", too)
You seem to be under the illusion that just because I state that recognizing processors!=scalability, that I am an NT bigot. Not so. I frequently balk at having to log onto an NT machine.
Anyone that doesn't believe that Linux scales, is mistaken.
I don't see the correlation. Linux was able to recognize a bunch of processors. Congrats.
Detecting and utilizing those processors efficiently are two different things. Scalability is a function of a heck of a lot more variables than recognizing the number of processors available.
Can it not still be a "free sample", even if you do ask for it?
The crux of what he's trying to do seems to be:
"has the right to [...] use [...] in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender."Thereby getting around any reverse engineering /intellectual property arguments DC is making.
In my experience, it has seemed that the Battle.Net Beta servers have been up alot more recently than they were at the beginning. Which is promissing.
Either their servers are getting better, or people have just been getting bored with the small game and poor server uptimes....
When talking about this subject, I can't help but consider the effects of demographics. As described in David Foot's book Boom Bust & Echo 2000, the baby boomers, by far the most influential demographic cohort, have entered their saving years. They see retirement not that far off. As a result, they are investing their money, which means high demand for investments. But if supply fails to increase at the same rate, simple economics dictates that prices must rise.
Although the book is based upon Canadian demographics, the author does note that the demographic profile of Canada and the United States are somewhat similar. Definitely an amazing read for anyone who is interested in investing.
Anyone else notice that the entire article is (perhaps detrimentally) placed within a framework of Babylon 5 episode titles?
Mmmmmm....Geeky
But, according to this scenario, the suspect code never appears in any source code. It only exists in binary form inside the compiler (and login). The beauty of this is that it will self propagate itself, and it won't matter how many eyes look at the code (free or not), because the code isn't present.
Granted, you need an "infected" compiler to start with...but thereafter all subsequent compilers that are compiled are also infected. Binary distributions and/or cross-compilers to bootstrap particular architectures would also become infected.
Never actually happened, eh? Taken from the Jargon Dictionary entry for Back Door:
Historically, back doors have often lurked in systems longer than anyone expected or planned, and a few have become widely known. Ken Thompson's 1983 Turing Award lecture to the ACM admitted the existence of a back door in early Unix versions that may have qualified as the most fiendishly clever security hack of all time. In this scheme, the C compiler contained code that would recognize when the `login' command was being recompiled and insert some code recognizing a password chosen by Thompson, giving him entry to the system whether or not an account had been created for him.
Normally such a back door could be removed by removing it from the source code for the compiler and recompiling the compiler. But to recompile the compiler, you have to use the compiler -- so Thompson also arranged that the compiler would recognize when it was compiling a version of itself, and insert into the recompiled compiler the code to insert into the recompiled `login' the code to allow Thompson entry -- and, of course, the code to recognize itself and do the whole thing again the next time around! And having done this once, he was then able to recompile the compiler from the original sources; the hack perpetuated itself invisibly, leaving the back door in place and active but with no trace in the sources.
Anyone have any indication as to whether the merged corporate entity has plans to go public? With the success IPOs for various Linux companies, I think they have got to be at least entertaining the idea. I've used FreeBSD since 2.0.5, and I know I'd be on board in a heartbeat...
This URL is probably referencing the same material you saw on TV. There is also a picture of their new ergonomic keyboard. Enjoy
With Linus working at Transmeta, and Linus recently having submitted patches to the FreeBSD kernel (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/i38 6/i386/mplock.s), isn't it not a distinct possibility that Transmeta is using a BSD? Would it be because of the commercial appeal of using a BSD-style license?