Our problem is that each time computers advance, we take away from them by saying that whatever they are able to do now is not thinking.
Furthermore, we take that away from people also: since computers can now do X, it means that X isn't thinking, and it also isn't thinking when people do X, as was mistakenly thought before we figured out a way to do it with computers.
All computation is a form of thinking. When a vending machine gives you a snack, it performed thinking. Moreover, it exercised free will.
Even if the Schrodinger equation does purport to describe the real behavior, the problem with the article is that it assumes that the parallel superimposed states are accessible to us on a small scale, but not on a macroscopic scale.
But in fact, aren't they theoretical states? When it's time to observe a particle or whatever, we don't see all the states. We see one, and we just can't predict which one.
So we cannot observe a cat in two states such as "dead" and "alive" because we can't do that for a quantum particle either.
The parallel universes (PU) interpretation of QM gives a plausible intuitive explanation why. Maybe the Schroedinger equation is solved fully, but across PUs. Since PUs are available, the solution is unhindered by computational complexity (assuming P = NP, which is probably the case).
Cheap and fast splitting of reality into unlimited numbers of branches of parallel futures trumps P = NP.
Another problem with the whole thing is that (supposing the evolution of behavior in the universe to be a computation) the objects in a computed simulation are not aware that the simulation is going faster or slower, because their time is also simulated. If a simulation has to pause and solve an instance of an NP-hard problem, the entities being simulated do not perceive this extra passage of time: that is happening in the simulator's time, not in simulated time!
because these app providers are skimming money from the drivers. To hell with them; they deserve to be curtailed because of their greed and their stupid system that is vulnerable to such a crackdown.
There should be a true peer-to-peer system that doesn't skim any money, based on some light-weight "tracker" servers whereby clients can make initial contact.
Everything open source, too.
Then there is no place where to send a cease-and-desist letter. Shut down one tracker, four more open up elsewhere. Perhaps even operated in the cloud somewhere, in another country or whatever.
Make it so that anyone can add 100 lines of PHP to their server to add contact node to their server.
Come on, in an age where you can get any movie, music, warez or pr0n with complete impunity on a global scale, Seattle, of all authorities, is gonna stand between you and getting a ride with someone? It simply does not compute.
Git is absolutely not a good first version control system for people who are clueless about version control. (Such as, evidently, your developers).
Git requires prior experience with at least two simpler version control systems. In git, you often run into scenarios that require you to understand its complicated repository representation so that you can choose the best steps to unravel them, based on understanding the ramifications of each approach.
The implementation of git is not hidden from the user behind a robust set of "no brainer" use cases.
The decentralized model alone will confuse the heck out of workers with no prior version control experience.
Use a system that has a centralized server from which working copies are checked out, like Subversion.
For instance, the publisher could start a blog in which they call the librarian "Mr. Poopy Pants".
That is essentially the equivalent of what he did to them.
If I think that some publisher's output is poor, that is my opinion. It is not libel. You can't sue people for having standards (even completely vague ones that change daily) and for claiming that some things don't measure up to those standard (in no objective way).
Libel would be if I claim that, say, the publisher cheated someone out of ten thousand dollars, when in fact that is false.
The dot com bust hit the IT sectory specifically, and followed a huge bubble in which tons of people were found in unnecessary jobs fueled by the gush of easy start-up money.
I don't agree. Even if it says somewhere that there is free support, it's an obvious TGTBT claim that only an idiot would believe and get irate at, if that idiot knows that the program was free.
I think these people do not know that the program was free. They think someone in their organization (maybe an IT person) paid for it, and the support goes with that.
With big, complex, multi-user applications, you can't assume that the person calling the support line is the one who selected and deployed the application, or that the person who did select and deploy the application made it clear to everyone that it's free.
Slashdot Mirror
Fortran is a plastic shovel with a rolled up newspaper for a handle.
If it chooses what target to select and makes the call on whether to attack the target, it is autonomous.
If a human chooses the target and makes the strike call, the machine is not autonomous.
Complete no brainer.
A sucker is born every minute, I guess.
Of course the computer is thinking.
Our problem is that each time computers advance, we take away from them by saying that whatever they are able to do now is not thinking.
Furthermore, we take that away from people also: since computers can now do X, it means that X isn't thinking, and it also isn't thinking when people do X, as was mistakenly thought before we figured out a way to do it with computers.
All computation is a form of thinking. When a vending machine gives you a snack, it performed thinking. Moreover, it exercised free will.
Even if the Schrodinger equation does purport to describe the real behavior, the problem with the article is that it assumes that the parallel superimposed states are accessible to us on a small scale, but not on a macroscopic scale.
But in fact, aren't they theoretical states? When it's time to observe a particle or whatever, we don't see all the states. We see one, and we just can't predict which one.
So we cannot observe a cat in two states such as "dead" and "alive" because we can't do that for a quantum particle either.
The parallel universes (PU) interpretation of QM gives a plausible intuitive explanation why. Maybe the Schroedinger equation is solved fully, but across PUs. Since PUs are available, the solution is unhindered by computational complexity (assuming P = NP, which is probably the case).
Cheap and fast splitting of reality into unlimited numbers of branches of parallel futures trumps P = NP.
Another problem with the whole thing is that (supposing the evolution of behavior in the universe to be a computation) the objects in a computed simulation are not aware that the simulation is going faster or slower, because their time is also simulated. If a simulation has to pause and solve an instance of an NP-hard problem, the entities being simulated do not perceive this extra passage of time: that is happening in the simulator's time, not in simulated time!
It is obvious from the internals of systemd that it's designed and written by B grade talent.
because these app providers are skimming money from the drivers. To hell with them; they deserve to be curtailed because of their greed and their stupid system that is vulnerable to such a crackdown.
There should be a true peer-to-peer system that doesn't skim any money, based on some light-weight "tracker" servers whereby clients can make initial contact.
Everything open source, too.
Then there is no place where to send a cease-and-desist letter. Shut down one tracker, four more open up elsewhere. Perhaps even operated in the cloud somewhere, in another country or whatever.
Make it so that anyone can add 100 lines of PHP to their server to add contact node to their server.
Come on, in an age where you can get any movie, music, warez or pr0n with complete impunity on a global scale, Seattle, of all authorities, is gonna stand between you and getting a ride with someone? It simply does not compute.
Smells like a cover-up.
Public results? Anyone can take your work and use it for something profitable, while you scrape for grants to continue.
Klingon shower sex.
I use Google+, and Chrome, and Google Apps, Mail, AdWords, etc.
Google loves me as a result and respects my privacy.
Bribes, prostitutes, extravagance ... all require anonymous, untraceable forms of money.
If politicians didn't require it, governments would have banned cash long ago.
If you have a lower history of traffic violations and a lower insurance claims record than a robot, you should pay less, and vice versa.
it is NOT secure!!!
Secure communication means that only you or your friend on the other end can disclose secrets, not the service in betwen.
If you run a truly secure e-mail service and Uncle Sam wants keys, the correct response is "sorry, can't help you; we do not have any keys".
for going to the movies with Dr. Sheldon Cooper!
Git is absolutely not a good first version control system for people who are clueless about version control. (Such as, evidently, your developers).
Git requires prior experience with at least two simpler version control systems. In git, you often run into scenarios that require you to understand its complicated repository representation so that you can choose the best steps to unravel them, based on understanding the ramifications of each approach.
The implementation of git is not hidden from the user behind a robust set of "no brainer" use cases.
The decentralized model alone will confuse the heck out of workers with no prior version control experience.
Use a system that has a centralized server from which working copies are checked out, like Subversion.
Yawn!
I wrote:
If I think that some publisher's output is poor, that is my opinion. It is not libel.
Ah, in the United States perhaps. But if I express that opinion in Canada, it might in fact be defamation. Oops!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_defamation_law
True North Strong and Free, indeed ...
For instance, the publisher could start a blog in which they call the librarian "Mr. Poopy Pants".
That is essentially the equivalent of what he did to them.
If I think that some publisher's output is poor, that is my opinion. It is not libel. You can't sue people for having standards (even completely vague ones that change daily) and for claiming that some things don't measure up to those standard (in no objective way).
Libel would be if I claim that, say, the publisher cheated someone out of ten thousand dollars, when in fact that is false.
Nobody would be dumb enough to be seen with that, especially around airports. So your luggage is safe.
The dot com bust hit the IT sectory specifically, and followed a huge bubble in which tons of people were found in unnecessary jobs fueled by the gush of easy start-up money.
How can you even compare.
:)
A little PC board with a soldered-on Intel chip, which itself has pins ...
I don't agree. Even if it says somewhere that there is free support, it's an obvious TGTBT claim that only an idiot would believe and get irate at, if that idiot knows that the program was free.
I think these people do not know that the program was free. They think someone in their organization (maybe an IT person) paid for it, and the support goes with that.
With big, complex, multi-user applications, you can't assume that the person calling the support line is the one who selected and deployed the application, or that the person who did select and deploy the application made it clear to everyone that it's free.
Time does not run the same way backward as it does forward. It, like, runs forward and does not run backward.