There are too many know-nothing rednecks beating the "free-markets RULE!" drum, without understanding a couple of basic facts about capitalism.
Pure capitalism requires
free (voluntary) trade
perfect information
no externalities
I'm a rabid advocate of free trade, because I'm a rabid advocate of liberty. But I can also see how the powerful abuse their power to enslave the weak, and would just as soon do so even more. Need I remind you of the DMCA? The history of the labor movement? These guys didn't just throw people in jail for tampering with their business models, they had people killed!
The cheerleaders for so-called "free market capitalism" really need to be out there campaigning for perfect information and eliminating unpriced externalities, but I don't see that happening much.
Don't forget that most of residents of the Northeast US and the West Coast as well are also "bum hick yokels". Deluded, elitist bum hick yokels who think they aren't but I ask you, would anyone who isn't a "bum hick yokel" actually watch Survivor? QED.
Yeah, maybe he got suckered, but it was his baby; he bears the primary responsibility. He must go. Maybe he can get a job afterwards with Adobe, or the MPAA.
Until the DMCA is repealed, I will not spend one penny in the state of Utah, I will avoid patronizing any businesses based in Utah unless they take high-profile action against Orrin and/or the DMCA, and I *will* contribute substantially to the campaign funds of Orrin's opponents. I have already boycotted Adobe to the tune of $2000 so far this week, and I intend to continue until they publicly come down against the DMCA. It's not enough for them to just silently avoid using it, not now. It's too late for that.
1) All were right-handed 2) Left-handed = Right Brained is not accurate. Roughly 70% (or more) left-handed individuals are left-hemisphere dominant for language.
Either way you look at it, it's potentially a flaw in the study. (1) Boys are more likely to be left-handed than girls are. This is not a cause of increased right-hemisphere involvement in language, but probably an effect of whatever the "true" cause is. (2) left-handed people have more right-hemisphere involvement in language function than do righties. As you say, 70% of lefties are leftside-dominant -- but 90% of righties are.
You must be joking. You think people watche this crap for the dialogue? BWAHAHA. It's like this:
Big Brother had boring video on the web. Loft Story had naked babes, and real amateur porn.
Isn't that reason enough?
Re:ORBS/MAPS has forced me to learn my mail system
on
ORBS Forks
·
· Score: 2
I almost wonder if I should let them complete their junk email exchange (only after hours, when I don't need my line) just to help purge their queues (?).
No. That's the price of running the open relay. Maybe someday they'll notice the huge queues and fix the problem.
The recipients typically can't block mail from open relays. Doing that requires rulesets in the mail server that process based on the IP address the incoming SMTP connection is coming from. That requires root access to the ISP's mail servers.
False. End users can check the IP addresses in the postmarks on the envelope. I do it automatically without root access. Anything that came through an open-relay gets automatically filed in a Spam folder, which I check rarely.
There's a indirect influence on judicial decisions. Most of those federal judges are jonesing for a big office in Washington. They won't get one unless they rule the way the president wants them to. So they have an incentive to watch which way the wind blows.
It is a Truth. It's a statement about the limits of knowledge (akin to Godel's statements about the limitations of computation) not about the limits of engineering. All the engineering you want to imagine can prove that you and I have identical brain states, but you still haven't proven that they mean the same thing to each of us, or that I feel the same way about my brain state as you do, et cetera. Even when you put the brains in vats and provide identical environments...
All you can do is use Occam's razor to assert it on pragamatic grounds (and I would agree with you, frankly) but at the bottom of it is still a religious decision.
I already filter email from various mailing lists and other quasi-spam opt-in operations like the Wall Street Journal Interactive. I run it from a procmail rule for example
:0 Hbf * ^TOtopica.com | ${DETAG}
I tried to post the code, but the lameness filter dinged it. Figgers. The first genuinely useful thing I've done in years, and Slashdot deems it "lame."
Yeah, but Searle's point was that even if you *could* make it fast, and even if it *did* pass the Turing test, it still wouldn't be intelligent. So Searle was postulating a very fast Room.
Subjective perceptual experience is a private experience and can neither be verified nor falsified. What I believe, or what Searle believes about whether the constructed waterfall has reflective ability is inconsequential -- unless -- I use my beliefs about your lack of interior experience to justify torture and mistreatment. "After all", I reason, "niggers don't think. They can't really experience pain the way I do. They ain't human. They ain't got souls. They sure do fake it good, though! Look at 'im squirm when I burn 'im!"
No, I think we have to assume that if it squawks like a duck, it may as well be one.
Good point. It's been a decade since I read the book, but IIRC, he said it was unknowable _because_ it's of a level of complexity greater than my ability to understand it. Well, that's only an argument that I can't know it, not that it can't be known by the computer who shall come after me.
(See, whenever somebody starts in with the "unknowable" stuff, they're this far from making faith-based statements that are completely unable to be falsified and so, are straight out of the realm of science and into metaphysics. Sort of a Godwin's law for philosophers.)
And the assumption that something must be understood to be created is either naive or disingenuous. Humans have been making scientific progress for centuries with No Fucking Clue what they were doing except that "gee, this seems to work better than that". It's only after the fact, in many cases, that a cogent theory is formulated.
Amusingly enough, assuming for the moment that Penrose is right and conciousness is unknowable, then we might just create a machine intelligence which we believe (and it believes) is conscious, but
simply be wrong
. Irony of ironies, we would be completely unaware of our error because, tada! Consciousness is unknowable.
Whoops. I guess that also means I might be wrong about your consciousness or (gasp!) my own. Ok, from here we go straight into linguistic philosophy, and rather than rehashing it, I'm going to recommend late Wittgenstein as there really hasn't been anything much better since.
Make your own. It's pretty easy, and in Potsdam, I think it would be a neccessity. I would experiment with making the dough, shaping the rings, letting them raise/ferment, and then pop them all (but two) in the freezer. Then you could pull out a couple of frozen proto-bagels, boil and bake them, and have a fresh bagel in about a half-hour...
The speed isn't a fair criticism. If you automated the Chinese Room, it would be quite fast. The criticism is that, well, if the Chinese Room did actually work, does it matter that the people in the room don't know it? Do the neurons in your brain know anything? Do they know that they are producing "intelligence?" No. So why should the putative ignorance of the lackeys in the Chinese Room be expected to prove that there is no "intelligence" in the Room?
Once again, a world-famous, brilliant guy, who gets stuck on some trivial mental block. Anne Robinson would have a field day.
Bingo. Give the man a cookie. Too bad I already posted and can't moderate you up... Hint, hint.
So how does a guy who is unquestionably brilliant manage to spend months of his life constructing a book with an argument this screwed up? No, don't answer the question. There's probably a semi-dead cat hanging in the balance.
I've formed opinions about a great many things, and some of those opinions contradict what a lot (or all) of my friends and family think, but I reached them myself...
Are you sure? Didn't you actually just integrate multiple conflicting beliefs fed to you by a variety of external sources in such a way as to minimize the pain of holding conflicting things in mind simultaneously? Presuming you have some special intellectual independence from the world is hubris.
Penrose argued (in a nutshell) that (1) intelligence may be driven by quantum events (2) quantum events are nondeterministic (3) computers are deterministic Ergo, computers can never be intelligent, QED.
Ok, where should we start to demolish this argument? Heck, you can probably do it yourself now.
Slashdot Mirror
Pure capitalism requires
free (voluntary) trade
perfect information
no externalities
I'm a rabid advocate of free trade, because I'm a rabid advocate of liberty. But I can also see how the powerful abuse their power to enslave the weak, and would just as soon do so even more. Need I remind you of the DMCA? The history of the labor movement? These guys didn't just throw people in jail for tampering with their business models, they had people killed!
The cheerleaders for so-called "free market capitalism" really need to be out there campaigning for perfect information and eliminating unpriced externalities, but I don't see that happening much.
Don't forget that most of residents of the Northeast US and the West Coast as well are also "bum hick yokels". Deluded, elitist bum hick yokels who think they aren't but I ask you, would anyone who isn't a "bum hick yokel" actually watch Survivor? QED.
You arbitrarily decide which laws you want to obey every day, and you tell me that I shouldn't? I am a man, not a sheep.
Orrin Hatch sponsored this bill.
Yeah, maybe he got suckered, but it was his baby; he bears the primary responsibility. He must go. Maybe he can get a job afterwards with Adobe, or the MPAA.
Until the DMCA is repealed, I will not spend one penny in the state of Utah, I will avoid patronizing any businesses based in Utah unless they take high-profile action against Orrin and/or the DMCA, and I *will* contribute substantially to the campaign funds of Orrin's opponents. I have already boycotted Adobe to the tune of $2000 so far this week, and I intend to continue until they publicly come down against the DMCA. It's not enough for them to just silently avoid using it, not now. It's too late for that.
Hey, the NYPD needed 21 bullets to take down stone sober, unarmed, Amadou Diallo. Apparently the HPD have better aim.
Maybe if a female had posted the article, she would at least have managed proper English grammar.
'Women's Brains Are Different From Those Of Men.'
1) All were right-handed 2) Left-handed = Right Brained is not accurate. Roughly 70% (or more) left-handed individuals are left-hemisphere dominant for language.
Either way you look at it, it's potentially a flaw in the study.
(1) Boys are more likely to be left-handed than girls are. This is not a cause of increased right-hemisphere involvement in language, but probably an effect of whatever the "true" cause is. (2) left-handed people have more right-hemisphere involvement in language function than do righties. As you say, 70% of lefties are leftside-dominant -- but 90% of righties are.
Now, it's not only the name of the law that will send Jenna Bush to jail if she looks cross-eyed at a cop, it's the new slogan for Windows! Cool.
So run a query already. That's what the thing is made for.
You must be joking. You think people watche this crap for the dialogue? BWAHAHA. It's like this:
Big Brother had boring video on the web. Loft Story had naked babes, and real amateur porn.
Isn't that reason enough?
I almost wonder if I should let them complete their junk email exchange (only after hours, when I don't need my line) just to help purge their queues (?).
No. That's the price of running the open relay. Maybe someday they'll notice the huge queues and fix the problem.
The recipients typically can't block mail from open relays. Doing that requires rulesets in the mail server that process based on the IP address the incoming SMTP connection is coming from. That requires root access to the ISP's mail servers.
False. End users can check the IP addresses in the postmarks on the envelope. I do it automatically without root access. Anything that came through an open-relay gets automatically filed in a Spam folder, which I check rarely.
Haven't we had court cases that ruled that "framing" someone else's content was not permitted?
How fast would I get a letter from microsoft if I put up a proxy server that inserted "slashdot tags" in MSNBC's content?
There's a indirect influence on judicial decisions. Most of those federal judges are jonesing for a big office in Washington. They won't get one unless they rule the way the president wants them to. So they have an incentive to watch which way the wind blows.
It is a Truth. It's a statement about the limits of knowledge (akin to Godel's statements about the limitations of computation) not about the limits of engineering. All the engineering you want to imagine can prove that you and I have identical brain states, but you still haven't proven that they mean the same thing to each of us, or that I feel the same way about my brain state as you do, et cetera. Even when you put the brains in vats and provide identical environments...
All you can do is use Occam's razor to assert it on pragamatic grounds (and I would agree with you, frankly) but at the bottom of it is still a religious decision.
I already filter email from various mailing lists and other quasi-spam opt-in operations like the Wall Street Journal Interactive. I run it from a procmail rule for example
:0 Hbf
* ^TOtopica.com
| ${DETAG}
I tried to post the code, but the lameness filter dinged it. Figgers. The first genuinely useful thing I've done in years, and Slashdot deems it "lame."
If I send you email, I didn't give anybody permission to dick with my intellectual property. It doesn't matter what agreement you signed.
Yeah, but Searle's point was that even if you *could* make it fast, and even if it *did* pass the Turing test, it still wouldn't be intelligent. So Searle was postulating a very fast Room.
Subjective perceptual experience is a private experience and can neither be verified nor falsified. What I believe, or what Searle believes about whether the constructed waterfall has reflective ability is inconsequential -- unless -- I use my beliefs about your lack of interior experience to justify torture and mistreatment. "After all", I reason, "niggers don't think. They can't really experience pain the way I do. They ain't human. They ain't got souls. They sure do fake it good, though! Look at 'im squirm when I burn 'im!"
No, I think we have to assume that if it squawks like a duck, it may as well be one.
(See, whenever somebody starts in with the "unknowable" stuff, they're this far from making faith-based statements that are completely unable to be falsified and so, are straight out of the realm of science and into metaphysics. Sort of a Godwin's law for philosophers.)
And the assumption that something must be understood to be created is either naive or disingenuous. Humans have been making scientific progress for centuries with No Fucking Clue what they were doing except that "gee, this seems to work better than that". It's only after the fact, in many cases, that a cogent theory is formulated.
Amusingly enough, assuming for the moment that Penrose is right and conciousness is unknowable, then we might just create a machine intelligence which we believe (and it believes) is conscious, but
- simply be wrong
. Irony of ironies, we would be completely unaware of our error because, tada! Consciousness is unknowable.Whoops. I guess that also means I might be wrong about your consciousness or (gasp!) my own. Ok, from here we go straight into linguistic philosophy, and rather than rehashing it, I'm going to recommend late Wittgenstein as there really hasn't been anything much better since.
Make your own. It's pretty easy, and in Potsdam, I think it would be a neccessity. I would experiment with making the dough, shaping the rings, letting them raise/ferment, and then pop them all (but two) in the freezer. Then you could pull out a couple of frozen proto-bagels, boil and bake them, and have a fresh bagel in about a half-hour...
The speed isn't a fair criticism. If you automated the Chinese Room, it would be quite fast. The criticism is that, well, if the Chinese Room did actually work, does it matter that the people in the room don't know it? Do the neurons in your brain know anything? Do they know that they are producing "intelligence?" No. So why should the putative ignorance of the lackeys in the Chinese Room be expected to prove that there is no "intelligence" in the Room?
Once again, a world-famous, brilliant guy, who gets stuck on some trivial mental block. Anne Robinson would have a field day.
Bingo. Give the man a cookie. Too bad I already posted and can't moderate you up... Hint, hint.
So how does a guy who is unquestionably brilliant manage to spend months of his life constructing a book with an argument this screwed up? No, don't answer the question. There's probably a semi-dead cat hanging in the balance.
I've formed opinions about a great many things, and some of those opinions contradict what a lot (or all) of my friends and family think, but I reached them myself...
Are you sure? Didn't you actually just integrate multiple conflicting beliefs fed to you by a variety of external sources in such a way as to minimize the pain of holding conflicting things in mind simultaneously? Presuming you have some special intellectual independence from the world is hubris.
Penrose argued (in a nutshell) that (1) intelligence may be driven by quantum events
(2) quantum events are nondeterministic
(3) computers are deterministic
Ergo, computers can never be intelligent, QED.
Ok, where should we start to demolish this argument? Heck, you can probably do it yourself now.