MS will likely do well with this initiative of theirs. Universities all over the nation are hurting for budget money.
A little bit of help from MS will go a long way in the political world to get things done. Even if it's not the smartest academic move, you'll see several universities fall for the extra money they think they can save over supporting costly Sun Solaris labs and HPUX systems (Many programs that schools like to use are in these environments, but more are moving to Linux. I know our school's at least got 10 or so severs running Linux now..)
But, since politics pay for everything at school.. Just watch. It's not the students MS has to win, they'll come if the teachers teach it. The professors (who some are staunchly Unix), are the ones who have to be won over. Saving a few dollars in the budget and getting some research money are their goals to keep their jobs, and MS is giving them that illusion here.
MS really could win, or flop, big time here.. it's gonna be interesting to the future either way.
From what I can see, many people need to be reminded it's not all HTML content, too! A particular example I can think of is telnetting- if you have employees RPGing online through IRC, or flash files from various sites. Some people I know who attempt content filtering do it only on http bound traffic!! Almost any of us/.ers could so easily find ways around this stuff.
All I gotta say is thank God for AFS permissions when it comes to content management- a few netgroups and decently thought out tree makes things SO much easier to manage.:)
Why thank you!! Good to see someone out there has a clue about Slashdot- discuss stuff, whatever it may be (hopefully on topic), and allow everyone their opinion.
I wasn't trying to be extemist or anything, just merely pointing out that there's a group effort for ciggarettes to kill- people to make them, advertise them, smoke them, continue smoking them, etc.
The crap flood is starting to get annoying, I agree, and the moderator system is getting to be a pain in the ass... Personally, I think we ought to get 10 moderation points. 5 of them for troll/offtopic/flamebait/dumbass (IE weed out frist posts, penis birds, gotse's, etc. Natlie is OK, if used appropriately in context, and is a new one.:)) and 5 positive, to get the good ones out there.
Then make the metamoderation mean something- a little more careful scrutinization of moderations, a nice form-letter email to those who slightly don't get the idea (IE this flamebait issue.. it was flamebait, I admit, but I thought it added more to the conversation than the flames..), and $rbtl the idiots who crapflood then mod it up. Start killing the idiots out there, let them post AC. ACs are all but ignored by me.
Of course, any other suggestions to wake up the system are appreciated. But thanks for your support, at least! Glad to see I'm not the only one who wants discussion out there about whatever topics we may roam to, and all opinions accepted (even if I don't agree with them.)
I sure as hell did not mean to start a flamewar here, nor to be offtopic..
Jeesh.
Yes, bullets are the items that come from guns and cause the physical damage. Yes, a gun is a utility, or co-effectant in the death of people. No, I'm not saying that people shouldn't have gun rights- I believe quite the opposite, although I have no wish to own a gun myself.
And I know that ciggarettes cause physical issues. I was merely saying that somewhere behind 99% of gun/tobacco related deaths were a brain, inhaling the intoxicants, or pulling the trigger. There are accidental deaths, but 90% of those could have been prevented using a little common sense with guns (point the damn thing in the air if not targeting something!! Unload before cleaning it, and test-shoot out any possible loaded ammunition. Sounds stupid, huh? I've had friends die that way. Not by me though, thank the Lord.)
Neither the gun nor the ciggarette jumps up and says "Damnit, I wanna kill someone!" and goes out to harm someone. However, somewhere, a person with a brain uses them in their respective deadly manners, causing death.
Sorry to offend anyone. I know you can nitpick this argument all you want. I'm not trying to flamebait or troll, but I fear there's no way to avoid it on this topic. And it's offtopic.
At any rate, appologies to all I offended.
(Oh, and by the way, our gun range targets are not people shadows. They are skeet/clay pigeons. We rednecks do indeed use guns for something other than people. Usually.)
In Missouri, you don't have to pay to get your name off that list. The AGO office here got a clue, and implemented it fairly well. It's not without hitches, of course, but it's done well.
I had JUST moved into my apartment, and JUST gotten my phone activated. First one ever, so I didn't have any past relationships, etc. I started getting calls two days later. At least two a day.
Then I signed up with the AGO's office for being put on the "no-call" list. Since then, I've gotten a couple of calls from phone companies (who are exempt from the law) and two other companies who I had business relationships with.. I didn't opt in, but they made the call legally, so I didn't complain too much.
If you're in Missouri, <a href="http://ago.state.mo.us/">I strong suggest checking it out.</a> It's at http://ago.state.mo.us/ for those link paranoid. You can even sign up online- you'll get a packet in the mail a week or so later explaining everything.. it's really pretty neat, clear English, whole 9 yards. They only reissue out the "no-call" list every six months, so you could have to wait a few months, but once it's done and you're out there, people have to quit calling. Else, you get to have fun with 'em.:)
Exactly.. We need to keep in mind, as Hormel pointed out, that a trademark is a "Proper Pronoun."
A trademark should be used as such, which one could argue MS hasn't been doing. (keep in mind the enforcement stuff.) To TRULY be a trademark, MS needs to always refer to it as "Windows operating system" (OR MS Windows operating system) as it describes the OS (don't get technical nit picky here, I realize that the Windows itself isn't an OS... some don't..)
MS has been pretty good in their own materials as saying Windows operating system, IIRC. I know I've seen them do it, I don't know if they're consistent. But the fact is they've let us, the public get away with calling it just "Windows" for so long. This reminds me a lot of the Xerox issues mentioned- they don't want people saying "xeroxed". (notice the lack of capitalization.) So they enforce it. Microsoft has been allowing us to call it windows for too long.
So, as I see it, windows is 1. a generic term, and 2. Has been so misused over time that it now refers to any windows system (even X, although we're all smart enough to refer to it as X or XWindows or XWindows system or...).
Am I missing an argument here??
Oh, and you can have two trademarks the same if it's not in the same field as you pointed out.. But with Mac OS and their Windows version (stupid people call it windows.. really stupid people, obviously.) and XWindows, this is in the same field, and so... ugliness as above pursues!
It goes to the server that the person intends, but it just takes a small stop inbetween. Not, per se, spyware, but good enough for government and techie posting board's work.
I wasn't saying So about the searching. I was saying So, because we should expect it by now.
It seems to me everytime we see this stuff, the spyware is generally nested in something intended to make your life easier. Password storers, quick search buttons, etc. Yes, we complain about it every time.
But maybe we should keep this in mind, and look at those type programs to find the real offenders.
It seems to me this could be a good thing, to open up the full flood gates of complaints towards ICANN. I mean seriously, I think almost every organization affiliated with them, plus many of us (cough/.) is just about fed up with them and some of the not quite brilliant things they're doing.
Let's just hope this gets something rolling, because obviously our voices are next to unheard.
Actually, I think it'd be great on the mere fact that it brings us a little closer to a universal linux configuration.
No, I'm not talking about doing away with distro's- just with how things are configured. Each distro can have its own software, look, and feel, but really, one of the main problems right now is the fact that settings aren't in the same place for so much stuff. Start to get things a little more universal, and people will pick the one that's best for them, but not be so scared to try other linux distros because they know they'll still be able to use it.
It would also add some punch to the push to get Linux on corporate desktops- MS's main building block was the universal aspect of it, and even though it means imitating "the enemy," it gets us past the pettyness of who's best, and lets us put the OS up to show for itself.. People like a sound argument in these big decisions, not arrogance.
I do remember that it is theoretically sufficient, but not necissary. See my post in a reply above this though- there may be some catches to this which remove its credibility as sufficient.
For example, some people thought Eliza was their friend- really did. There are records of people discussing things at hours on end with Eliza.. Now you could point out these are mentally unstable people, to which I have no reply because I don't know how unstable these people were, or their intelligence levels.
Also, given the right moderator, you could have an IRC script/bot which would be able to pass the test, but upon examination of the code be shown to be nothing more than a "canned response" program that we'd not consider AI.
There are other flaws, correctible, in the Turing test which are more issues with procedure than nature. For example, asking a computer a "simple" math problem would defeat the purpose of the test- because you could tell based on the response time, and not on the answer (which the answer is supposed to be the tested aspect, as I interpret it.. I could be wrong..)
If you really want, I can try to dig up the notes and PDF them.. There were several pages of things that we had found wrong, I'd say 80% procedural, and 20% on the nature of the test, and prolly of those 95% you could easily reply to. The other 5% would likely be what I call "stalemate" questions- ones that we all have a personal opinion, and there's no clear definition of right. Because of those, some people will call the test sufficient, others won't- So, at what point of public acceptance to we consider the test valid? Sure, we'll personally consider it valid, but what level makes for legal acceptance should an "Electronic Life Rights" bill gets passed?
Lordy.. this topic alone could be a very intriguing story in Slashdot, let alone just the thread we have. And I bet there are plenty of people out there who'd provide so much insight that I never saw- part of the reason I keep coming back here..
The AC, while flaming, did bring up a good point. The reason we tore apart the Turing test was to set the stage for further discussion (which as he pointed out, was the purpose.) The main issues with it were that it was sufficient, but not necessary- it's theoretically possible to have an intelligent being (replace with sentient, morally considerable, whatever you please to put in context) that would not pass the Turing test.
Seeing as the roots of computers can't communicate with us, what makes you really think that the first true AI on a computer/machine will be able to communicate with us? I'd think likely it would sit there thinking.. and if wise, not talk to us. I certainly ain't the brightest in the world, and I think we can all agree that there are less fortunate people who don't have a basic knowledge of almost anything.. If you look at the odds, chances are the first person that the AI would observe (another non-necissary attribute) would turn it off from conversing with us in some manner. This assumes that the AI is rather sophisticated in its intelligence. If we have a child-like mind, however, it gets much more difficult..
Other problems with the Turing test is that it leaves great room for interpretation- there were some people who thought that Eliza was their friend, honest to goodness, and considered it to pass. Most of us would look at that and assume (in a sense, correctly) that it was an IRC bot. Additionally, the questioning method allows a person to determine if it's a machine or person by means of the answer, instead of it's content (which was the intention.)
Some people in the class pointed to modern IRC bots as possible threats to the test's validity- there are some good ones out there that are really nothing more than canned answers, but could potentially pass the test given the right moderator in the right mindset. I'm talking about the bots we can agree are not AI when you look at the code. (Theoretically, you could argue back at me that any AI could be called a canned answer program based on code, where I'd have to bite the bullet.. I dunno how to respond to that one.)
The schoolbook criticism isn't devistating to the sufficiency of the test, but it certainly does do some damage in my eyes. I think, however, should we ever discover an AI form, the test will not be needed, but rather the AI will pretty clearly be AI without a test, or won't be at all. Even in the case of the childish mind, I'm believing it will exceed our expectations.
You have a good point.. how do we define accurate?
I can draw up a 100% accurate timeline for the next N years, you pick the N:
Year 1: Someone dies, someone's born.
Year 2: Someone dies, someone's born.
...
Year N: Someone dies, someone's born.
He says that an Artificial Electric Lifeform gets basic rights.. or something like that. Ok, how do we determine the lifeform is one? (I had a full ethics class on that one, and we didn't even scratch the surface of things. Day 1 we tore the Turing Test apart, proved it was more pathetic than my predictions above.) Better yet, what are the rights? The program can't be kill -9ed by anyone other than root? Hell, we could have those rights granted in a law aimed at stopping electronic sabotage of other companies, particularly web servers.
Nostradamus did get a few predictions eerily correct, but most of his are either 1. Way Off, or 2. So vague that it's damn near impossible for them not to end up true. IMHO, this list falls into the same category- Use vague terms, define those terms as you like, and wham, it's true.
I'm not saying this guy lacks any credibility, but I'm not impressed with the little that I saw. and the good point was made that these are the same folks who brought you the "hyperlink patent." (he may not be associated with that, but somewhere up the chain he gets tied to the morons, and they influence him at least slightly.)
Heck.. Does anyone see something in there that's already true? Perhaps the Leisure for intelligent programs- as in expansion packs for the game Sims??
They wouldn't care about the spam- but anyone who contacts them gets pretty switfly investigated, especially in our post 9/11 world.
And yes, I'd prolly get in big trouble too. I'd have to consider pretty closely the benefits of getting some of that crap stopped... When I first got online, I was extremely sheepish.. I've learned since, but it doesn't matter, my name's already out to every spammer in the world.
As I make new accounts and new rules, spam still comes at me. So.. what's better.. getting in trouble but finally being able to have an email account where you can distinguish the real mail from the spam (because of the volume), or not?
That could be a fun one too.. set up an email address in your domain, set forwarding on the account by rule/filter/whatever equiv for your email system so that it goes to uce@fbi.gov or whatever that spam collector address was. Or find a higher up address to send to, even. (Like an employee for the FBI who has no SSN, Name, DOB...) Just add a little script to tag into the email before forwarding that says "This person was inquiring about you.. thought you'd be interested.."
You know, even mentioning that idea, I'm suprised I haven't gotten a knock at my door already..:)
You've got a good point though- I would imagine that.gov addresses get blacklisted, but on the otherhand I know some people at the state level who get spam at their addresses. So we'd at least get rid of the so-stupid-they-can't-spam-right people..:)
How about we put FBI and CIA email addresses up, or *.gov, and see how long until the spammers are raided?? I bet it could even be before that first spam gets out if we use the right addresses/web links..
I bet that time period for harvesting goes down pretty quick..:)
I'm suprised to hear this from you all. Our campus is fairly exclusively HP printers- well over a hundred of the puppies. Some of them are in labs where people print out their assignments during the day and some guy prints out the works of shakespeare at night- they get pretty heavily used.
Through all of this though, we've not had but one or two lemons that I've seen in the past several years. HP's been pretty nice about replacing those. The print quality on some gets a bit crappy when the toner runs low, but that's easy to fix. Occasional paper jam, but in general the hardware's been pretty reliable. The Unix machines love printing to the lpr server with jetdirects on the other end, and windows machines tolerate it pretty well- a few rare exceptions based on printer driver conflicts.. MS's fault there typically.
Some of the home printers are crap, but the business machines seem to be great. I think they know where the money is there (A business which buys the big expensive printers, plus jetdirects after that, will amount to more than 100 customers getting home cheapo printers..)
Folgers, however.. I always wondered what they did with all the cow patties from that field next door..
If you can explain to me why professors have a hard-on for giving exams on V-Day and the day after, I would certainly appreciate it..
Big one earlier today, then two more tomorrow.. talk about shooting what should be a romantic night out right down the darned drain..
Well.. I know two people who didn't get the shaft like us: Rob and Kathleen. Good luck guys, don't party too hard tonight. I'm sure you all will be in my mind as I do row reduction on stupid matrices tomorrow (linear algebra.. waited till the last second to take it.:)).
Hrmm.. I wonder if the prof would take CowboyNeal as an answer on number 4... (begrudgingly goes back to studying simple stuff..)
IANAL either, but your points 1 and 2 sum up to exactly #3 that we're starting to see from the MS crowd and have seen from other crowds before (Unix, particularly HPUX): Subscription Licensing
Believe it or not, I think this is a decent thing for us- people will see 5 payments over 5 years as more value than 1 payment of the total sum of the previous plan (inflation ignored here..) Just one of them psychological dealy mebobers..
So, now they're paying MORE (cough) for the same thing, and they're finally fed up of being leached. What's the next choice? Reduce cost. What is an apparent solution: Yup. Linux. BSD. Even Mac for God's sake (I dunno about their costs, but it won't matter if they're fed up with MS). So let's let MS go after this. I think we'll like it.
(POST NOTE: I finally interpreted your "the annual subscription" part as the words that you wrote.. God forbid I do something in an intelligent manner, making this redundant, but I think this is more of a major point than you let on. Sorry...)
I would agree, but I can only see two reasons why they don't want to do this..
1. They seem to like exclusive area licenses. (why go exclusive?? You can get more money out of two groups non-exclusive, I'd think, but I know people will pay good money for exclusive licensing..) As the article said (or perhaps another article), they're testing this year with the Swiss to see if they can geographically limit the access.
2. The costs. How much bandwidth would they eat up?? Gobs. And heaven knows that it already costs the IOC a fortune to run the Olympics, and they likely wouldn't be able to recoop all of the costs on something like this. While the host city pays for a lot of this stuff, I imagine eventually they'd draw the line.. Kinda like the $300 some million dollar opening ceremonies.
Personally, I don't want to see live streaming. I want to see archived streaming. Two events at the same time that you're interested in really sucks, and typically that means the network's gonna cover a third event you don't give a damn about.
Just my ideas, but I realize they may be inherently flawed.
Slashdot Mirror
MS will likely do well with this initiative of theirs. Universities all over the nation are hurting for budget money.
A little bit of help from MS will go a long way in the political world to get things done. Even if it's not the smartest academic move, you'll see several universities fall for the extra money they think they can save over supporting costly Sun Solaris labs and HPUX systems (Many programs that schools like to use are in these environments, but more are moving to Linux. I know our school's at least got 10 or so severs running Linux now..)
But, since politics pay for everything at school.. Just watch. It's not the students MS has to win, they'll come if the teachers teach it. The professors (who some are staunchly Unix), are the ones who have to be won over. Saving a few dollars in the budget and getting some research money are their goals to keep their jobs, and MS is giving them that illusion here.
MS really could win, or flop, big time here.. it's gonna be interesting to the future either way.
From what I can see, many people need to be reminded it's not all HTML content, too! A particular example I can think of is telnetting- if you have employees RPGing online through IRC, or flash files from various sites. Some people I know who attempt content filtering do it only on http bound traffic!! Almost any of us /.ers could so easily find ways around this stuff.
:)
All I gotta say is thank God for AFS permissions when it comes to content management- a few netgroups and decently thought out tree makes things SO much easier to manage.
Why thank you!! Good to see someone out there has a clue about Slashdot- discuss stuff, whatever it may be (hopefully on topic), and allow everyone their opinion.
:)) and 5 positive, to get the good ones out there.
I wasn't trying to be extemist or anything, just merely pointing out that there's a group effort for ciggarettes to kill- people to make them, advertise them, smoke them, continue smoking them, etc.
The crap flood is starting to get annoying, I agree, and the moderator system is getting to be a pain in the ass... Personally, I think we ought to get 10 moderation points. 5 of them for troll/offtopic/flamebait/dumbass (IE weed out frist posts, penis birds, gotse's, etc. Natlie is OK, if used appropriately in context, and is a new one.
Then make the metamoderation mean something- a little more careful scrutinization of moderations, a nice form-letter email to those who slightly don't get the idea (IE this flamebait issue.. it was flamebait, I admit, but I thought it added more to the conversation than the flames..), and $rbtl the idiots who crapflood then mod it up. Start killing the idiots out there, let them post AC. ACs are all but ignored by me.
Of course, any other suggestions to wake up the system are appreciated. But thanks for your support, at least! Glad to see I'm not the only one who wants discussion out there about whatever topics we may roam to, and all opinions accepted (even if I don't agree with them.)
I sure as hell did not mean to start a flamewar here, nor to be offtopic..
Jeesh.
Yes, bullets are the items that come from guns and cause the physical damage. Yes, a gun is a utility, or co-effectant in the death of people. No, I'm not saying that people shouldn't have gun rights- I believe quite the opposite, although I have no wish to own a gun myself.
And I know that ciggarettes cause physical issues. I was merely saying that somewhere behind 99% of gun/tobacco related deaths were a brain, inhaling the intoxicants, or pulling the trigger. There are accidental deaths, but 90% of those could have been prevented using a little common sense with guns (point the damn thing in the air if not targeting something!! Unload before cleaning it, and test-shoot out any possible loaded ammunition. Sounds stupid, huh? I've had friends die that way. Not by me though, thank the Lord.)
Neither the gun nor the ciggarette jumps up and says "Damnit, I wanna kill someone!" and goes out to harm someone. However, somewhere, a person with a brain uses them in their respective deadly manners, causing death.
Sorry to offend anyone. I know you can nitpick this argument all you want. I'm not trying to flamebait or troll, but I fear there's no way to avoid it on this topic. And it's offtopic.
At any rate, appologies to all I offended.
(Oh, and by the way, our gun range targets are not people shadows. They are skeet/clay pigeons. We rednecks do indeed use guns for something other than people. Usually.)
They don't. People kill themselves, by choosing to smoke them, and to continue doing so.
"Guns kill people." Same case. It's not the gun, it's the person using it.
.
Damnit.. that was supposed to be plain ol' text, not code..
Thanks wheel mouse.. sorry folks.
.
In Missouri, you don't have to pay to get your name off that list. The AGO office here got a clue, and implemented it fairly well. It's not without hitches, of course, but it's done well.
:)
I had JUST moved into my apartment, and JUST gotten my phone activated. First one ever, so I didn't have any past relationships, etc. I started getting calls two days later. At least two a day.
Then I signed up with the AGO's office for being put on the "no-call" list. Since then, I've gotten a couple of calls from phone companies (who are exempt from the law) and two other companies who I had business relationships with.. I didn't opt in, but they made the call legally, so I didn't complain too much.
If you're in Missouri, <a href="http://ago.state.mo.us/">I strong suggest checking it out.</a> It's at http://ago.state.mo.us/ for those link paranoid. You can even sign up online- you'll get a packet in the mail a week or so later explaining everything.. it's really pretty neat, clear English, whole 9 yards. They only reissue out the "no-call" list every six months, so you could have to wait a few months, but once it's done and you're out there, people have to quit calling. Else, you get to have fun with 'em.
.
I stand corrected..
/me removes head from ass to remind self to proofread before posting. pronoun.. adjective.. yeah, that was dumb.
Adjective is what I meant.. I hope you can figure that out by the rest of my mini-rant. Thanks yerricde, for pointing that out!
Exactly.. We need to keep in mind, as Hormel pointed out, that a trademark is a "Proper Pronoun."
A trademark should be used as such, which one could argue MS hasn't been doing. (keep in mind the enforcement stuff.) To TRULY be a trademark, MS needs to always refer to it as "Windows operating system" (OR MS Windows operating system) as it describes the OS (don't get technical nit picky here, I realize that the Windows itself isn't an OS... some don't..)
MS has been pretty good in their own materials as saying Windows operating system, IIRC. I know I've seen them do it, I don't know if they're consistent. But the fact is they've let us, the public get away with calling it just "Windows" for so long. This reminds me a lot of the Xerox issues mentioned- they don't want people saying "xeroxed". (notice the lack of capitalization.) So they enforce it. Microsoft has been allowing us to call it windows for too long.
So, as I see it, windows is 1. a generic term, and 2. Has been so misused over time that it now refers to any windows system (even X, although we're all smart enough to refer to it as X or XWindows or XWindows system or...).
Am I missing an argument here??
Oh, and you can have two trademarks the same if it's not in the same field as you pointed out.. But with Mac OS and their Windows version (stupid people call it windows.. really stupid people, obviously.) and XWindows, this is in the same field, and so... ugliness as above pursues!
.
It goes to the server that the person intends, but it just takes a small stop inbetween. Not, per se, spyware, but good enough for government and techie posting board's work.
I wasn't saying So about the searching. I was saying So, because we should expect it by now.
It seems to me everytime we see this stuff, the spyware is generally nested in something intended to make your life easier. Password storers, quick search buttons, etc. Yes, we complain about it every time.
But maybe we should keep this in mind, and look at those type programs to find the real offenders.
It seems to me this could be a good thing, to open up the full flood gates of complaints towards ICANN. I mean seriously, I think almost every organization affiliated with them, plus many of us (cough /.) is just about fed up with them and some of the not quite brilliant things they're doing.
Let's just hope this gets something rolling, because obviously our voices are next to unheard.
The link's just hosed. Try this:
- N-Dump.htm
http://belps.freewebsites.com/Stock-Scammers/Pump
-Dan
The "protective device" is actually the proprietary cartridge connection format that interfaces the GBA.
Stupid, I know, but that's what it is. Reverse engineering be damned...
.
Actually, I think it'd be great on the mere fact that it brings us a little closer to a universal linux configuration.
No, I'm not talking about doing away with distro's- just with how things are configured. Each distro can have its own software, look, and feel, but really, one of the main problems right now is the fact that settings aren't in the same place for so much stuff. Start to get things a little more universal, and people will pick the one that's best for them, but not be so scared to try other linux distros because they know they'll still be able to use it.
It would also add some punch to the push to get Linux on corporate desktops- MS's main building block was the universal aspect of it, and even though it means imitating "the enemy," it gets us past the pettyness of who's best, and lets us put the OS up to show for itself.. People like a sound argument in these big decisions, not arrogance.
.
I do remember that it is theoretically sufficient, but not necissary. See my post in a reply above this though- there may be some catches to this which remove its credibility as sufficient.
For example, some people thought Eliza was their friend- really did. There are records of people discussing things at hours on end with Eliza.. Now you could point out these are mentally unstable people, to which I have no reply because I don't know how unstable these people were, or their intelligence levels.
Also, given the right moderator, you could have an IRC script/bot which would be able to pass the test, but upon examination of the code be shown to be nothing more than a "canned response" program that we'd not consider AI.
There are other flaws, correctible, in the Turing test which are more issues with procedure than nature. For example, asking a computer a "simple" math problem would defeat the purpose of the test- because you could tell based on the response time, and not on the answer (which the answer is supposed to be the tested aspect, as I interpret it.. I could be wrong..)
If you really want, I can try to dig up the notes and PDF them.. There were several pages of things that we had found wrong, I'd say 80% procedural, and 20% on the nature of the test, and prolly of those 95% you could easily reply to. The other 5% would likely be what I call "stalemate" questions- ones that we all have a personal opinion, and there's no clear definition of right. Because of those, some people will call the test sufficient, others won't- So, at what point of public acceptance to we consider the test valid? Sure, we'll personally consider it valid, but what level makes for legal acceptance should an "Electronic Life Rights" bill gets passed?
Lordy.. this topic alone could be a very intriguing story in Slashdot, let alone just the thread we have. And I bet there are plenty of people out there who'd provide so much insight that I never saw- part of the reason I keep coming back here..
The AC, while flaming, did bring up a good point. The reason we tore apart the Turing test was to set the stage for further discussion (which as he pointed out, was the purpose.) The main issues with it were that it was sufficient, but not necessary- it's theoretically possible to have an intelligent being (replace with sentient, morally considerable, whatever you please to put in context) that would not pass the Turing test.
Seeing as the roots of computers can't communicate with us, what makes you really think that the first true AI on a computer/machine will be able to communicate with us? I'd think likely it would sit there thinking.. and if wise, not talk to us. I certainly ain't the brightest in the world, and I think we can all agree that there are less fortunate people who don't have a basic knowledge of almost anything.. If you look at the odds, chances are the first person that the AI would observe (another non-necissary attribute) would turn it off from conversing with us in some manner. This assumes that the AI is rather sophisticated in its intelligence. If we have a child-like mind, however, it gets much more difficult..
Other problems with the Turing test is that it leaves great room for interpretation- there were some people who thought that Eliza was their friend, honest to goodness, and considered it to pass. Most of us would look at that and assume (in a sense, correctly) that it was an IRC bot. Additionally, the questioning method allows a person to determine if it's a machine or person by means of the answer, instead of it's content (which was the intention.)
Some people in the class pointed to modern IRC bots as possible threats to the test's validity- there are some good ones out there that are really nothing more than canned answers, but could potentially pass the test given the right moderator in the right mindset. I'm talking about the bots we can agree are not AI when you look at the code. (Theoretically, you could argue back at me that any AI could be called a canned answer program based on code, where I'd have to bite the bullet.. I dunno how to respond to that one.)
The schoolbook criticism isn't devistating to the sufficiency of the test, but it certainly does do some damage in my eyes. I think, however, should we ever discover an AI form, the test will not be needed, but rather the AI will pretty clearly be AI without a test, or won't be at all. Even in the case of the childish mind, I'm believing it will exceed our expectations.
.
You have a good point.. how do we define accurate?
I can draw up a 100% accurate timeline for the next N years, you pick the N:
Year 1: Someone dies, someone's born.
Year 2: Someone dies, someone's born.
...
Year N: Someone dies, someone's born.
He says that an Artificial Electric Lifeform gets basic rights.. or something like that. Ok, how do we determine the lifeform is one? (I had a full ethics class on that one, and we didn't even scratch the surface of things. Day 1 we tore the Turing Test apart, proved it was more pathetic than my predictions above.) Better yet, what are the rights? The program can't be kill -9ed by anyone other than root? Hell, we could have those rights granted in a law aimed at stopping electronic sabotage of other companies, particularly web servers.
Nostradamus did get a few predictions eerily correct, but most of his are either 1. Way Off, or 2. So vague that it's damn near impossible for them not to end up true. IMHO, this list falls into the same category- Use vague terms, define those terms as you like, and wham, it's true.
I'm not saying this guy lacks any credibility, but I'm not impressed with the little that I saw. and the good point was made that these are the same folks who brought you the "hyperlink patent." (he may not be associated with that, but somewhere up the chain he gets tied to the morons, and they influence him at least slightly.)
Heck.. Does anyone see something in there that's already true? Perhaps the Leisure for intelligent programs- as in expansion packs for the game Sims??
Sigh. Move along...
They wouldn't care about the spam- but anyone who contacts them gets pretty switfly investigated, especially in our post 9/11 world.
And yes, I'd prolly get in big trouble too. I'd have to consider pretty closely the benefits of getting some of that crap stopped... When I first got online, I was extremely sheepish.. I've learned since, but it doesn't matter, my name's already out to every spammer in the world.
As I make new accounts and new rules, spam still comes at me. So.. what's better.. getting in trouble but finally being able to have an email account where you can distinguish the real mail from the spam (because of the volume), or not?
To each one his own opinion.
.
That could be a fun one too.. set up an email address in your domain, set forwarding on the account by rule/filter/whatever equiv for your email system so that it goes to uce@fbi.gov or whatever that spam collector address was. Or find a higher up address to send to, even. (Like an employee for the FBI who has no SSN, Name, DOB...) Just add a little script to tag into the email before forwarding that says "This person was inquiring about you.. thought you'd be interested.."
:)
.gov addresses get blacklisted, but on the otherhand I know some people at the state level who get spam at their addresses. So we'd at least get rid of the so-stupid-they-can't-spam-right people.. :)
You know, even mentioning that idea, I'm suprised I haven't gotten a knock at my door already..
You've got a good point though- I would imagine that
.
How about we put FBI and CIA email addresses up, or *.gov, and see how long until the spammers are raided?? I bet it could even be before that first spam gets out if we use the right addresses/web links..
:)
I bet that time period for harvesting goes down pretty quick..
.
I'm suprised to hear this from you all. Our campus is fairly exclusively HP printers- well over a hundred of the puppies. Some of them are in labs where people print out their assignments during the day and some guy prints out the works of shakespeare at night- they get pretty heavily used.
Through all of this though, we've not had but one or two lemons that I've seen in the past several years. HP's been pretty nice about replacing those. The print quality on some gets a bit crappy when the toner runs low, but that's easy to fix. Occasional paper jam, but in general the hardware's been pretty reliable. The Unix machines love printing to the lpr server with jetdirects on the other end, and windows machines tolerate it pretty well- a few rare exceptions based on printer driver conflicts.. MS's fault there typically.
Some of the home printers are crap, but the business machines seem to be great. I think they know where the money is there (A business which buys the big expensive printers, plus jetdirects after that, will amount to more than 100 customers getting home cheapo printers..)
Folgers, however.. I always wondered what they did with all the cow patties from that field next door..
.
If you can explain to me why professors have a hard-on for giving exams on V-Day and the day after, I would certainly appreciate it..
:)).
Big one earlier today, then two more tomorrow.. talk about shooting what should be a romantic night out right down the darned drain..
Well.. I know two people who didn't get the shaft like us: Rob and Kathleen. Good luck guys, don't party too hard tonight. I'm sure you all will be in my mind as I do row reduction on stupid matrices tomorrow (linear algebra.. waited till the last second to take it.
Hrmm.. I wonder if the prof would take CowboyNeal as an answer on number 4... (begrudgingly goes back to studying simple stuff..)
IANAL either, but your points 1 and 2 sum up to exactly #3 that we're starting to see from the MS crowd and have seen from other crowds before (Unix, particularly HPUX): Subscription Licensing
Believe it or not, I think this is a decent thing for us- people will see 5 payments over 5 years as more value than 1 payment of the total sum of the previous plan (inflation ignored here..) Just one of them psychological dealy mebobers..
So, now they're paying MORE (cough) for the same thing, and they're finally fed up of being leached. What's the next choice? Reduce cost. What is an apparent solution: Yup. Linux. BSD. Even Mac for God's sake (I dunno about their costs, but it won't matter if they're fed up with MS). So let's let MS go after this. I think we'll like it.
(POST NOTE: I finally interpreted your "the annual subscription" part as the words that you wrote.. God forbid I do something in an intelligent manner, making this redundant, but I think this is more of a major point than you let on. Sorry...)
I would agree, but I can only see two reasons why they don't want to do this..
1. They seem to like exclusive area licenses. (why go exclusive?? You can get more money out of two groups non-exclusive, I'd think, but I know people will pay good money for exclusive licensing..) As the article said (or perhaps another article), they're testing this year with the Swiss to see if they can geographically limit the access.
2. The costs. How much bandwidth would they eat up?? Gobs. And heaven knows that it already costs the IOC a fortune to run the Olympics, and they likely wouldn't be able to recoop all of the costs on something like this. While the host city pays for a lot of this stuff, I imagine eventually they'd draw the line.. Kinda like the $300 some million dollar opening ceremonies.
Personally, I don't want to see live streaming. I want to see archived streaming. Two events at the same time that you're interested in really sucks, and typically that means the network's gonna cover a third event you don't give a damn about.
Just my ideas, but I realize they may be inherently flawed.
.