Anonymous Bushworshipper Coward, how many times will you waste more of our time insisting I "get a life"? My full life includes the lazy sport of trollblasting. I'm at the top of the Cheney Leagues, but with a lower lawyer count.
I suppose that after MS gets through the next round of SW patents / monopoly action by the EU, all those "annoying regional dialects" will be "standardized" into "Mein Computer".
Apparently, just to look at 5-year-old aerial photos of his Texas estate. No wonder he's always reclearing the brush out there: "I saw thet thar brush on the Google, so it mus' be true!"
This clown is spending a $TRILLION a year on the military, launching killer spy satellites with 1-inch rez, and he's using Google to check his estate? He's lying again: he asked someone why anyone would possibly use "the Intarwebs" when they could watch football or rob Grandma Millie instead, and they suggested Googling images of his estate. Some 29-year-old virgin WH staffer giggled when he repeated that, so he told us it was true.
Thanks for the insight. I hadn't realized that Bush lying about having read the Stranger this past Summer was just a coded message to some military constituency that he'd seen Jarhead. Even though I saw at least a half-dozen mass media stories considering the question of whether/why.
I hope the corporate mass media is as doomed as is Bush, and both are as doomed as was Meursault.
Yes, it is clear that creating the Internet required a lot more than just inventing it. Creating it took funding, coordination, leadership and vision beyond the technical work in the labs. In all of which Al Gore took the initiative.
Stupid Anonymous Republican Coward trolls never invented anything, never created anything, never had any vision beyond spouting insane, anonymous Republican hatred. So of course they can't understand the value of Gore's initiative in creating the Internet. Like their hero, Bush, they take initiative only by stealing it, to do nothing but destroy.
If only TrollMod poison were as directly applicable. Do the TrollMods, who showed up first, hate Gore, America, or the Internet more? Or does the shuffling horde of Bush zombies just eat any brains that say "Bush" but aren't already zombies?
Does anyone believe that if Al Gore were president 2000-2004 (and maybe still), that there would be any significant global anxiety about US governance of the Internet, compared with the terror Bush has spread since being installed in the office?
BTW, here's some poison for the trolls who will insist on repeating the Republican lie that Gore claimed to have invented the Internet, when he simply took some credit for the work he did in government to ensure its inventors succeeded. Compare that to the guy who understands the Internet as well as he understands Camus.
Government propaganda is illegal in the US. Yet another reason to impeach Bush, or at least impeach Rumsfeld. A Congress acting in oversight of the Executive Branch compliance with laws would already have forced Bush to fire Rumsfeld, even if just because of his Iraqmire. But this Republican criminal gang is all in it together.
He's not necessarily a bad guy, though I do remember him sitting dead wrong on many issues, especially in the 1980s. He's just dumb as a bag of hammers, with an affable personality that got him re/elected. Of course his Wikipedia page a decade into his retirement makes him look decent. Watch him on TV sometime - he's popping up again, probably an example of "real Republicans" as mass media corporations struggle to reclaim the damaged brand from the Bush image. Right underneath the spongy grampa surface is a... spongy dolt.
Typical Dutch freedom and simple clarity of ownership. I guess MS hasn't been able to bully the Netherlands into submission. I wonder what the Danish version says?
You're talking to a "philosopher" right now:). I even have (undergrad) scholastic credits to prove it;). But I dropped out to become an engineer - which I've been for over a decade, and had been before, as a hobby. A "software engineer", though the network engineering was a necessary minor. All of which has given me consistent insights into philosophy of intelligence (epistemology) and engineering it.
Pro philosophers don't mix well with engineers because philosophers are jealous of the money, job security, and even dates that engineers get. And also probably jealous of engineers' often getting certain knowledge of whether their work is "working", or just BS'ing their coworkers.
At least that's what I think. And it works for me;).
Is it a USB stick, like I said, and like all the results on that Google page, that sends TV data into the USB socket?
My specs for this class of device are pretty loose, because I don't care about the other specs. Any device which fits in the USB stick form factor and sends TV into the USB socket is interesting. I don't care whether it receives VHF, DVB-T, RF/coax, or other signal sources, though I'm interested in which one it does. Just so long as its a USB stick that receives TV data and sends it into a USB port.
I might have linked to a Froogle search, but I was just trying to clarify the "USB-TV" term I used in my post requesting people's experiences with such devices. The search results showed the kinds of devices I meant, so it worked.
I'm amused by people complaining that my link didn't help them find a device they'd want, when I was interested in excluding people with that lack of experience from my request.
I asked whether anyone had tried a USB-TV device, and linked to clarify the kind of device I meant in case I was using an unfamiliar term (which I made up, perhaps serendipitously).
I thought the risk was that someone without experience would just follow the Google link and copy back from one of those sites.
The uselessness of my link in your finding a device you like is not my concern. Finding people's actual experiences with these devices is my concern.
Actually, it is a mind/body duality problem, even if researchers don't realize (or admit) that it is. The philosophical notion of the "disembodied mind" is purely idealized, just as in AI simulations, along with artifacts of the idealization (like quantization). The philosophical analysis over the centuries of this problem has produced quite a lot of understanding of intelligence, which need not be limited to "natural" applications.
To engineers, philosophy often looks like a useless pursuit, without rigor, where "anything can be true". That's wrong. And now that engineers are finally catching up to philosophers in the tools and subjects of their mutual research, engineers can use philosophy to reduce the waste of time spent reinventing philosophy in our AI rigs, by just using what we've already learned about intelligence.
That's why I made the point about models, feedback and intelligence being applicable to natural and artificial intelligence equally.
Because I didn't want to exclude the users of others by picking one. Googling for the name of a class of object is the closes we have to URIs on the Web.
"Intelligence" is the accuracy of the model of the environment, including changes over time. That intelligence requires interaction of the model with the environment, even if merely sensing the environment. Degrees of intelligence reflect the scope of the environment in the model, or the precision, or accuracy beyond mere registration of existence. One way to test the sense of the environment is to change the environment, and sense the change.
There is no reason artificial intelligence can't be intelligent the same way as is biological intelligence. In fact, as people have guessed for a long time, AI has less limits on the degrees of intelligence, as well as on the changes to the environment it can make to sense the feedback.
The flow of sensed info to the model is a limit on the intelligence, but good models can compensate. Likewise, the flow of change back to the environment.
The ability to tell how intelligent is the intelligence in question depends on the feedback from the intelligence to the environment, where it can be sensed by other intelligences.
Again, this is just as true of AI as it is of natural intelligence.
"Embodied intelligence" is redundant - all the AI is embodied, even if just in networked processors and storage. But to date, its bodies have effected little change on the environment. And practically none of those changes are fed back to sensors feeding the AI. Closing that loop is the most important step in creating actual intelligence that we can recognize. After that, it's just a question of degree.
Now the sense of "My Computer" is revealed for certain: it undeniably refers to "Microsoft's computer", that Microsoft forgives you for using.
Does anyone believe that Microsoft would sell any copies of an OS that forced you to pay for a new copy just because you upgrade to a better computer, without the force of its monopoly? Probably because all the MS bloatware makes your old one run too slow.
MS abused its monopoly by illegally bundling Internet Explorer. And by anticompetitively blackmailing HW vendors into bundling Windows with their PCs. The Federal government said it would take action to rein in the rampant monopoly. Of course that never happened, not with the Bush Department of Justice that prefers monopolies to competition. Now MS is dropping its mask, and forcing users to pay Microsoft whenever they upgrade their PC - even though we get no extra value from MS for our money. But we'll have to anyway, because Microsoft's market dominance is a monopoly.
Superstars? How about just hiring a programmer who can both solve programming problems and feedback their estimates and progress so they're manageable? Years of working for idiots who can't tell the difference has trained programmers to just get through their day without getting fired, and do the interesting stuff with open source on their own time. The good programmers are safely embedded in longterm employment, and a world of half-assers stumbles around pretending they can do work that they barely understand. Which they then insist on writing from scratch, rather than reusing all the objects and source already available - and reinventing all the same bugs and design problems.
Damn Netscape, with its "public betas" and HTML "programming", has ruined whatever "discipline" the programming industry used to have.
As I said, you really know nothing about politics, government or rights. Inalienable rights don't change over time, though governments' protection of them certainly does. That's the very essence of politics. Those rights come from our essential humanity, not society in general's "opinion" - as if a nonhuman can have "think".
And we're watching as the US goes through our political process to change the Patriot Acts that some minority gamed our system to enact, so we can better protect our rights. In a direct election, where parties are merely the gaming part of the system - unlike in the UK, where parties are an essential part of the structure. Which does indeed extend to the monarch's powers over you subjects, whether you like it or not.
Rights are inalienable and universal. Governments are produced by the people. When governments get out of line, the people can kick them out, or become ungovernable.
I know it's the role of the American to explain these facts about politics, government and human nature to you UK'ers, but I wish you'd just keep up with the last 200 years of lessons.
You know how the US kicked the UK king out of here, and created a government to protect our inalienable rights? Enshrined in this "Constitution" by which we make that government work?
You know how I talked about those universal inalienable rights (originally a European realization), then talked about how in the US we made our government protect ours?
Maybe you didn't. You should read more.
And you apparently don't know that the UK PM is not elected "like the US". The UK's parliamentary system is even more partisan than in the US (amazingly enough), as the PM is chosen by their party, the party which has a majority (or leads a majority coalition) in Parliament. British subjects (of the Queen, these days) don't vote for PM. And apparently, even when more unpopular than the US president, for the same reasons, British subjects can't get rid of them, either.
We the people don't decide what rights we think we should have. We have inalienable rights by virtue of our humanity. We decide which rights our government will protect, and how.
So don't lecture me about politics or government. Read my posts, and the laws, and probably Paine's "Rights of Man" before you exercise your right to say something ignorant in public.
Slashdot Mirror
Then he said "we have never been stay the course", and ""the us doesn't torture". Oh, did you say "China"? I thought you were talking about Tony Snow. I'm sure if you asked Snowjob if he were getting fired^Wpromoted after the Republican catastrophe^Wvictory at the polls next week, he'd tell you he never worked for Bush, and we never invaded Iraq.
Are you too dense to eat the troll poison, I helpfully offered only a click away?
Anonymous Bushworshipper Coward, how many times will you waste more of our time insisting I "get a life"? My full life includes the lazy sport of trollblasting. I'm at the top of the Cheney Leagues, but with a lower lawyer count.
Thanks for another easy point!
I suppose that after MS gets through the next round of SW patents / monopoly action by the EU, all those "annoying regional dialects" will be "standardized" into "Mein Computer".
Apparently, just to look at 5-year-old aerial photos of his Texas estate. No wonder he's always reclearing the brush out there: "I saw thet thar brush on the Google, so it mus' be true!"
This clown is spending a $TRILLION a year on the military, launching killer spy satellites with 1-inch rez, and he's using Google to check his estate? He's lying again: he asked someone why anyone would possibly use "the Intarwebs" when they could watch football or rob Grandma Millie instead, and they suggested Googling images of his estate. Some 29-year-old virgin WH staffer giggled when he repeated that, so he told us it was true.
Thanks for the insight. I hadn't realized that Bush lying about having read the Stranger this past Summer was just a coded message to some military constituency that he'd seen Jarhead. Even though I saw at least a half-dozen mass media stories considering the question of whether/why.
I hope the corporate mass media is as doomed as is Bush, and both are as doomed as was Meursault.
Yes, it is clear that creating the Internet required a lot more than just inventing it. Creating it took funding, coordination, leadership and vision beyond the technical work in the labs. In all of which Al Gore took the initiative.
Stupid Anonymous Republican Coward trolls never invented anything, never created anything, never had any vision beyond spouting insane, anonymous Republican hatred. So of course they can't understand the value of Gore's initiative in creating the Internet. Like their hero, Bush, they take initiative only by stealing it, to do nothing but destroy.
Moderation +2
20% Insightful
30% Overrated
30% Underrated
If only TrollMod poison were as directly applicable. Do the TrollMods, who showed up first, hate Gore, America, or the Internet more? Or does the shuffling horde of Bush zombies just eat any brains that say "Bush" but aren't already zombies?
Does anyone believe that if Al Gore were president 2000-2004 (and maybe still), that there would be any significant global anxiety about US governance of the Internet, compared with the terror Bush has spread since being installed in the office?
BTW, here's some poison for the trolls who will insist on repeating the Republican lie that Gore claimed to have invented the Internet, when he simply took some credit for the work he did in government to ensure its inventors succeeded. Compare that to the guy who understands the Internet as well as he understands Camus.
Government propaganda is illegal in the US. Yet another reason to impeach Bush, or at least impeach Rumsfeld. A Congress acting in oversight of the Executive Branch compliance with laws would already have forced Bush to fire Rumsfeld, even if just because of his Iraqmire. But this Republican criminal gang is all in it together.
He's not necessarily a bad guy, though I do remember him sitting dead wrong on many issues, especially in the 1980s. He's just dumb as a bag of hammers, with an affable personality that got him re/elected. Of course his Wikipedia page a decade into his retirement makes him look decent. Watch him on TV sometime - he's popping up again, probably an example of "real Republicans" as mass media corporations struggle to reclaim the damaged brand from the Bush image. Right underneath the spongy grampa surface is a... spongy dolt.
Typical Dutch freedom and simple clarity of ownership. I guess MS hasn't been able to bully the Netherlands into submission. I wonder what the Danish version says?
Orrin Hatch has been the dumbest man in Congress for years. Ever since Alan Simpson retired, anyway.
You're talking to a "philosopher" right now :). I even have (undergrad) scholastic credits to prove it ;). But I dropped out to become an engineer - which I've been for over a decade, and had been before, as a hobby. A "software engineer", though the network engineering was a necessary minor. All of which has given me consistent insights into philosophy of intelligence (epistemology) and engineering it.
;).
Pro philosophers don't mix well with engineers because philosophers are jealous of the money, job security, and even dates that engineers get. And also probably jealous of engineers' often getting certain knowledge of whether their work is "working", or just BS'ing their coworkers.
At least that's what I think. And it works for me
Is it a USB stick, like I said, and like all the results on that Google page, that sends TV data into the USB socket?
My specs for this class of device are pretty loose, because I don't care about the other specs. Any device which fits in the USB stick form factor and sends TV into the USB socket is interesting. I don't care whether it receives VHF, DVB-T, RF/coax, or other signal sources, though I'm interested in which one it does. Just so long as its a USB stick that receives TV data and sends it into a USB port.
I might have linked to a Froogle search, but I was just trying to clarify the "USB-TV" term I used in my post requesting people's experiences with such devices. The search results showed the kinds of devices I meant, so it worked.
I'm amused by people complaining that my link didn't help them find a device they'd want, when I was interested in excluding people with that lack of experience from my request.
I asked whether anyone had tried a USB-TV device, and linked to clarify the kind of device I meant in case I was using an unfamiliar term (which I made up, perhaps serendipitously).
I thought the risk was that someone without experience would just follow the Google link and copy back from one of those sites.
The uselessness of my link in your finding a device you like is not my concern. Finding people's actual experiences with these devices is my concern.
Actually, it is a mind/body duality problem, even if researchers don't realize (or admit) that it is. The philosophical notion of the "disembodied mind" is purely idealized, just as in AI simulations, along with artifacts of the idealization (like quantization). The philosophical analysis over the centuries of this problem has produced quite a lot of understanding of intelligence, which need not be limited to "natural" applications.
To engineers, philosophy often looks like a useless pursuit, without rigor, where "anything can be true". That's wrong. And now that engineers are finally catching up to philosophers in the tools and subjects of their mutual research, engineers can use philosophy to reduce the waste of time spent reinventing philosophy in our AI rigs, by just using what we've already learned about intelligence.
That's why I made the point about models, feedback and intelligence being applicable to natural and artificial intelligence equally.
Because I didn't want to exclude the users of others by picking one. Googling for the name of a class of object is the closes we have to URIs on the Web.
What's the problem?
Radio? Has anyone tried out one of these USB-stick TV receivers?
"Intelligence" is the accuracy of the model of the environment, including changes over time. That intelligence requires interaction of the model with the environment, even if merely sensing the environment. Degrees of intelligence reflect the scope of the environment in the model, or the precision, or accuracy beyond mere registration of existence. One way to test the sense of the environment is to change the environment, and sense the change.
There is no reason artificial intelligence can't be intelligent the same way as is biological intelligence. In fact, as people have guessed for a long time, AI has less limits on the degrees of intelligence, as well as on the changes to the environment it can make to sense the feedback.
The flow of sensed info to the model is a limit on the intelligence, but good models can compensate. Likewise, the flow of change back to the environment.
The ability to tell how intelligent is the intelligence in question depends on the feedback from the intelligence to the environment, where it can be sensed by other intelligences.
Again, this is just as true of AI as it is of natural intelligence.
"Embodied intelligence" is redundant - all the AI is embodied, even if just in networked processors and storage. But to date, its bodies have effected little change on the environment. And practically none of those changes are fed back to sensors feeding the AI. Closing that loop is the most important step in creating actual intelligence that we can recognize. After that, it's just a question of degree.
Now the sense of "My Computer" is revealed for certain: it undeniably refers to "Microsoft's computer", that Microsoft forgives you for using.
Does anyone believe that Microsoft would sell any copies of an OS that forced you to pay for a new copy just because you upgrade to a better computer, without the force of its monopoly? Probably because all the MS bloatware makes your old one run too slow.
MS abused its monopoly by illegally bundling Internet Explorer. And by anticompetitively blackmailing HW vendors into bundling Windows with their PCs. The Federal government said it would take action to rein in the rampant monopoly. Of course that never happened, not with the Bush Department of Justice that prefers monopolies to competition. Now MS is dropping its mask, and forcing users to pay Microsoft whenever they upgrade their PC - even though we get no extra value from MS for our money. But we'll have to anyway, because Microsoft's market dominance is a monopoly.
Superstars? How about just hiring a programmer who can both solve programming problems and feedback their estimates and progress so they're manageable? Years of working for idiots who can't tell the difference has trained programmers to just get through their day without getting fired, and do the interesting stuff with open source on their own time. The good programmers are safely embedded in longterm employment, and a world of half-assers stumbles around pretending they can do work that they barely understand. Which they then insist on writing from scratch, rather than reusing all the objects and source already available - and reinventing all the same bugs and design problems.
Damn Netscape, with its "public betas" and HTML "programming", has ruined whatever "discipline" the programming industry used to have.
As I said, you really know nothing about politics, government or rights. Inalienable rights don't change over time, though governments' protection of them certainly does. That's the very essence of politics. Those rights come from our essential humanity, not society in general's "opinion" - as if a nonhuman can have "think".
And we're watching as the US goes through our political process to change the Patriot Acts that some minority gamed our system to enact, so we can better protect our rights. In a direct election, where parties are merely the gaming part of the system - unlike in the UK, where parties are an essential part of the structure. Which does indeed extend to the monarch's powers over you subjects, whether you like it or not.
Rights are inalienable and universal. Governments are produced by the people. When governments get out of line, the people can kick them out, or become ungovernable.
I know it's the role of the American to explain these facts about politics, government and human nature to you UK'ers, but I wish you'd just keep up with the last 200 years of lessons.
You know how the US kicked the UK king out of here, and created a government to protect our inalienable rights? Enshrined in this "Constitution" by which we make that government work?
You know how I talked about those universal inalienable rights (originally a European realization), then talked about how in the US we made our government protect ours?
Maybe you didn't. You should read more.
And you apparently don't know that the UK PM is not elected "like the US". The UK's parliamentary system is even more partisan than in the US (amazingly enough), as the PM is chosen by their party, the party which has a majority (or leads a majority coalition) in Parliament. British subjects (of the Queen, these days) don't vote for PM. And apparently, even when more unpopular than the US president, for the same reasons, British subjects can't get rid of them, either.
We the people don't decide what rights we think we should have. We have inalienable rights by virtue of our humanity. We decide which rights our government will protect, and how.
So don't lecture me about politics or government. Read my posts, and the laws, and probably Paine's "Rights of Man" before you exercise your right to say something ignorant in public.