Presumably because the existence of an infinite number of universes doesn't necessitate an infinite number of available _routes_ (ie. wormholes) between universes.
Also, it's entirely possible (if the universe is infinitely large) for there to _be_ an infinite number of wormholes out there and us not bump into them yet.
One thing that rarely seems to be brought up in these discussions is that the increased computing power increases the speed of development. Having a machine with infinite processing power does not magically lead to sentience. But it _does_ lead to the ability to run an infinite number of simulations, which is really useful in trying to develop sentience.
Similarly, your "blank brain" would only be the latest step in the field. You'd be able to accelerate it's development by hooking it up to the knowledge-base computers & things you developed along the way...
...is whether HUMANS are doing anything more than 'simulating intelligence'. It sometimes seems like the definition is "If we do it, it's intelligence - if they do it, it's just simulating".
Given that we can't really prove that humans are intelligent, it gives us pretty murky ground to say that machines are not...
Yup. There'd be an icky, icky period while the world learns how to deal economically with 100% unemployment. However, once that's sorted out, it could be quite a pleasant world to live in (one possibility is not dissimilar to ST:TNG where all needs are met, and people are motivated to work by personal drive rather than money).
Another popular view (Kurtzweil?) holds that, as machines get smarter, we'll be increasingly able to integrate them into ourselves. Paraphrasing something I heard somewhere (:) - they won't get smarter than us, because there will cease to be an 'us' and a 'them'...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the US economic system relies on fear and uncertainty. People never have 'enough' because they don't have security.
To take just your one example, if everybody had paid sick leave, they wouldn't have to make that choice. (And they'd go home instead of infecting the rest of their workmates).
For years Australia had what I consider a healthy balance between capitalism and socialism - people were provided the basics (subsidized education, welfare, fairly secure employment, health etc.), and worked for the rest. This worked well, and for years Australia was one of the best places in the world to live.
Sadly, our current Prime Minister is in love with the American approach and is dragging us in that direction. What's the point in being the richest nation in the world if most of the population is too stressed, exhausted and nervous to enjoy it?
A native speaker has generally learnt most of their english skills through interacting with other people. In many cases, they are actually less likely to get the nuances of a language (grammar, spelling, etc.) right than someone who learnt english as a second language, simply because ESL students _study_ the language rather han obsorbing it by osmosis...
It would've been nice if they'd paired the naming with Thunderbird though: Firebird and Thunderbird worked well. Firefox and Thunderbird, not so much. Possibly they could even name the products something that gives some hint as to their use, while they're at it...
Generally, that comes after you're well known. I'm pretty sure "Pepsi" used to be called "Pepsi Cola". Coke still says "Coca-cola" on the can, even if it's shortened in daily conversation.
Once everyone knows who you are THEN you can go to a cryptic name like "KFC", but before then you're just throwing away potential clients.
There are, of course, exceptions. If you genuinely have a 'killer app', you can call it what you want and people will beat their path to your door. Or you can take the MacDonalds approach and shove your product until everyone's face until it sticks. But by and large...
I think the complaint is that KDE's naming leaves it up to the distribution to tell the user what a program actually DOES (which is a great way to create inconsistency).
Especially when KDE has, and has used, the elegant approach of just slapping a "K" on the front of words: names like KWrite, KSpread, KPresenter, KChart KFormula, KOffice all tell you what they do. So why go with cryptic names like "Kugar" or "Krita"?
(Note: I'm not solely picking on KDE here: "The GIMP" and "Epiphany" are completely useless (titlewise) compared to their windows equivalents "Photoshop" and "Internet Explorer".)
Knowing Joss Whedon's other work, I'd say he thought it through already. Just because the explanations weren't given time to hit the screen, don't assume they weren't prepared...
As you say, _historically_ that has been the case. But I doubt we've tried out every type of society yet. I could be wrong, but I think generally egalitarian societies (and a number of others) have tended to frown upon sex. Maybe all it takes for a high-class courtesan class to appear is a greater acceptance of sex. Or complete eradication of STDs. Or something else we haven't seen yet...
Anyway, these days FAQ stands as much for "Frequently Anticipated Questions" - it's answers to the questions people ask, and the questions they think people might or should ask...
Thought 1: Wouldn't it make more sense to empower people to contribute at their level of knowledge than use a "Can contribute"/"Can't contribute boolean?
Thought 2: Wouldn't it also be better if the tools HELPED people to develop understanding of a situation? While you can usually find help on the web, Microsoft has it all over most Linux Apps when it comes to help files, tutorials, etc.
Even the "For Dummies" series seems to realise the term is insulting. All their blurbs start with "You're no dummy but...".
I agree that the books are reader-friendly, but "the idiot-proof guide to..." would be a better term for that. You're saying that it's easy enough for anyone but you're not calling any given reader an idiot.
Don't get me wrong - this is not something that keeps me awake at night. Heck, for the most part I don't even think about the title these days. But I can certainly imagine people being a little embarrassed to be seen reading a book called "The Dummies' guide to...".
I used to love the apropos command. It was the ultimate "I'm looking for something but I'm not sure exactly what command" - kind of the google of the linux command line.
Sadly, a lot of programs these days seem to be moving away from this system towards html help. So these days, apropos might help, but mostly it doesn't.
Someday probably there'll be an XML help standard for Linux, but in the interim linux help seems to have moved backwards since the time of apropos...
I have to admit, the term 'dummies' always bothered me a bit too. I agree that picking up a book to loarn something new isn't an indication that someone is a dummy. The book titles indicates disagreement with that idea (though the books themselves don't).
There are a number of other words that would've done the job just fine without being insulting:
"The beginner's guide to..." or "The novice's guide to...", for example. Sadly the "Idiot's Guide to..." series continued this tradition.
You seem to be taking the position that the software has to work well to convince people of the benefits of freedom.
IMO, this is fallacious logic. Once you do that you're _not_ promoting freedom, you're promoting software that works well. Which is great, but beside the original point...
Actually, Lucas really _has_ changed the formula for the prequels. IMO the first trilogy did well because it had a great mix of different types of characters - naive farmboy, cynical smuggler, wise old man, etc. etc. In the new movies, most of the characters are Jedi. Jedi are stoic, monk-like characters who are very dull to watch. They were very cool in the first trilogy because of their impact on and contrast to the 'more human' characters.
Lucas seems to have lost sight of this in the new flicks.
IANAS, but I always stood that science worked by advancing theories that stood until disproved. Surely "It's errr... something we don't know about yet. Yeh, that's it!!" is considerably less useful for verificability than something that seems ludicrous but is at least testible...
What everyone seems to be forgetting is that the prototype is always far more expensive and far less efficient.
The robots you're proposing to send on these missions only exist because logic like yours was IGNORED during the development of computers.
The first computers were amazingly expensive and inefficient. But they were the necessary prototypes for technologies that those original computer designers couldn't even imagine...
Re:Spaceflight as a religious endeavour
on
The Wrong Stuff
·
· Score: 1
1. People (and pretty much every lifeform on Earth ever) are genetically predisposed to 'go forth and multiply'. It's not necessarily rational, but it _is_ an unavoidable human drive. Space is about the only place left to go forth to.
2. The reason that pretty much every lifeform on earth is genetically predisposed to go forth and multiply, is that nature has determined through experimentation that putting all your eggs in one basket is a poor survival strategy. If Earth goes FUBAR (and odds are looking disturbingly high) a backup plan is a great way to go.
3. The reason not to wait 100 years is that, while, yes, we quite probably can develop the technology we need, it'll doubtless take a long time to prepare. When your jumping out of the plane is a really poor time to be constructing a parachute...
This isn't contradictory. It's a business secret - ie. something that is in the company's interest to keep from being public knowledge.
But it's _their_ secret. They are free at any time to reevaluate the business need to keep that information confidential and reveal some or all of it to other parties.
Slashdot Mirror
Presumably because the existence of an infinite number of universes doesn't necessitate an infinite number of available _routes_ (ie. wormholes) between universes.
:)
Also, it's entirely possible (if the universe is infinitely large) for there to _be_ an infinite number of wormholes out there and us not bump into them yet.
I think.
Nope, false logic. Just because we can recognise something doesn't mean we know how to do it. I can recognise great paintings. :)
"How to do it" is what we'd be iterating for.
One thing that rarely seems to be brought up in these discussions is that the increased computing power increases the speed of development. Having a machine with infinite processing power does not magically lead to sentience. But it _does_ lead to the ability to run an infinite number of simulations, which is really useful in trying to develop sentience.
Similarly, your "blank brain" would only be the latest step in the field. You'd be able to accelerate it's development by hooking it up to the knowledge-base computers & things you developed along the way...
...is whether HUMANS are doing anything more than 'simulating intelligence'. It sometimes seems like the definition is "If we do it, it's intelligence - if they do it, it's just simulating".
Given that we can't really prove that humans are intelligent, it gives us pretty murky ground to say that machines are not...
Yup. There'd be an icky, icky period while the world learns how to deal economically with 100% unemployment. However, once that's sorted out, it could be quite a pleasant world to live in (one possibility is not dissimilar to ST:TNG where all needs are met, and people are motivated to work by personal drive rather than money).
:) - they won't get smarter than us, because there will cease to be an 'us' and a 'them'...
Another popular view (Kurtzweil?) holds that, as machines get smarter, we'll be increasingly able to integrate them into ourselves. Paraphrasing something I heard somewhere (
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the US economic system relies on fear and uncertainty. People never have 'enough' because they don't have security.
To take just your one example, if everybody had paid sick leave, they wouldn't have to make that choice. (And they'd go home instead of infecting the rest of their workmates).
For years Australia had what I consider a healthy balance between capitalism and socialism - people were provided the basics (subsidized education, welfare, fairly secure employment, health etc.), and worked for the rest. This worked well, and for years Australia was one of the best places in the world to live.
Sadly, our current Prime Minister is in love with the American approach and is dragging us in that direction. What's the point in being the richest nation in the world if most of the population is too stressed, exhausted and nervous to enjoy it?
A native speaker has generally learnt most of their english skills through interacting with other people. In many cases, they are actually less likely to get the nuances of a language (grammar, spelling, etc.) right than someone who learnt english as a second language, simply because ESL students _study_ the language rather han obsorbing it by osmosis...
It would've been nice if they'd paired the naming with Thunderbird though: Firebird and Thunderbird worked well. Firefox and Thunderbird, not so much. Possibly they could even name the products something that gives some hint as to their use, while they're at it...
Based on Joss Whedon's other work, I strongly suspect the answer was coming, but the show was axed before they had a chance to reveal it.
Generally, that comes after you're well known. I'm pretty sure "Pepsi" used to be called "Pepsi Cola". Coke still says "Coca-cola" on the can, even if it's shortened in daily conversation.
Once everyone knows who you are THEN you can go to a cryptic name like "KFC", but before then you're just throwing away potential clients.
There are, of course, exceptions. If you genuinely have a 'killer app', you can call it what you want and people will beat their path to your door. Or you can take the MacDonalds approach and shove your product until everyone's face until it sticks. But by and large...
I think the complaint is that KDE's naming leaves it up to the distribution to tell the user what a program actually DOES (which is a great way to create inconsistency).
Especially when KDE has, and has used, the elegant approach of just slapping a "K" on the front of words: names like KWrite, KSpread, KPresenter, KChart KFormula, KOffice all tell you what they do. So why go with cryptic names like "Kugar" or "Krita"?
(Note: I'm not solely picking on KDE here: "The GIMP" and "Epiphany" are completely useless (titlewise) compared to their windows equivalents "Photoshop" and "Internet Explorer".)
Knowing Joss Whedon's other work, I'd say he thought it through already. Just because the explanations weren't given time to hit the screen, don't assume they weren't prepared...
As you say, _historically_ that has been the case. But I doubt we've tried out every type of society yet. I could be wrong, but I think generally egalitarian societies (and a number of others) have tended to frown upon sex. Maybe all it takes for a high-class courtesan class to appear is a greater acceptance of sex. Or complete eradication of STDs. Or something else we haven't seen yet...
Anyway, these days FAQ stands as much for "Frequently Anticipated Questions" - it's answers to the questions people ask, and the questions they think people might or should ask...
Thought 1: Wouldn't it make more sense to empower people to contribute at their level of knowledge than use a "Can contribute"/"Can't contribute boolean?
Thought 2: Wouldn't it also be better if the tools HELPED people to develop understanding of a situation? While you can usually find help on the web, Microsoft has it all over most Linux Apps when it comes to help files, tutorials, etc.
Interesting, I immediately thought Farscape. :) Anyway, either of these shows would prove a hard act to follow, IMO...
Even the "For Dummies" series seems to realise the term is insulting. All their blurbs start with "You're no dummy but...".
I agree that the books are reader-friendly, but "the idiot-proof guide to..." would be a better term for that. You're saying that it's easy enough for anyone but you're not calling any given reader an idiot.
Don't get me wrong - this is not something that keeps me awake at night. Heck, for the most part I don't even think about the title these days. But I can certainly imagine people being a little embarrassed to be seen reading a book called "The Dummies' guide to...".
I used to love the apropos command. It was the ultimate "I'm looking for something but I'm not sure exactly what command" - kind of the google of the linux command line.
Sadly, a lot of programs these days seem to be moving away from this system towards html help. So these days, apropos might help, but mostly it doesn't.
Someday probably there'll be an XML help standard for Linux, but in the interim linux help seems to have moved backwards since the time of apropos...
I have to admit, the term 'dummies' always bothered me a bit too. I agree that picking up a book to loarn something new isn't an indication that someone is a dummy. The book titles indicates disagreement with that idea (though the books themselves don't).
There are a number of other words that would've done the job just fine without being insulting:
"The beginner's guide to..." or "The novice's guide to...", for example. Sadly the "Idiot's Guide to..." series continued this tradition.
You seem to be taking the position that the software has to work well to convince people of the benefits of freedom.
IMO, this is fallacious logic. Once you do that you're _not_ promoting freedom, you're promoting software that works well. Which is great, but beside the original point...
Actually, Lucas really _has_ changed the formula for the prequels. IMO the first trilogy did well because it had a great mix of different types of characters - naive farmboy, cynical smuggler, wise old man, etc. etc. In the new movies, most of the characters are Jedi. Jedi are stoic, monk-like characters who are very dull to watch. They were very cool in the first trilogy because of their impact on and contrast to the 'more human' characters.
Lucas seems to have lost sight of this in the new flicks.
IANAS, but I always stood that science worked by advancing theories that stood until disproved. Surely "It's errr... something we don't know about yet. Yeh, that's it!!" is considerably less useful for verificability than something that seems ludicrous but is at least testible...
What everyone seems to be forgetting is that the prototype is always far more expensive and far less efficient.
The robots you're proposing to send on these missions only exist because logic like yours was IGNORED during the development of computers.
The first computers were amazingly expensive and inefficient. But they were the necessary prototypes for technologies that those original computer designers couldn't even imagine...
1. People (and pretty much every lifeform on Earth ever) are genetically predisposed to 'go forth and multiply'. It's not necessarily rational, but it _is_ an unavoidable human drive. Space is about the only place left to go forth to.
2. The reason that pretty much every lifeform on earth is genetically predisposed to go forth and multiply, is that nature has determined through experimentation that putting all your eggs in one basket is a poor survival strategy. If Earth goes FUBAR (and odds are looking disturbingly high) a backup plan is a great way to go.
3. The reason not to wait 100 years is that, while, yes, we quite probably can develop the technology we need, it'll doubtless take a long time to prepare. When your jumping out of the plane is a really poor time to be constructing a parachute...
This isn't contradictory. It's a business secret - ie. something that is in the company's interest to keep from being public knowledge.
But it's _their_ secret. They are free at any time to reevaluate the business need to keep that information confidential and reveal some or all of it to other parties.