You can please MOST of the people MOST of the time. Try movies like raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, or Jaws. These were adult movies that kids also loved. That is how you do it not by creating a mish mash, two movies in one fiasco like The Phantom Menace.
First of all, the idea that movie standards are higher now than in 1977 and also we are older now is a good and valid one, it just happens to not be in any way why this movie sucks.
This is why it sucked:
There were no fart jokes in Episodes 4,5,6 no one stepped in poo, and there was NEVER EVER a character you didn't understand but were supposed to. I just have NO idea what Lucas was thinking, Jar Jar Bionics is the biggest abomination in the history of film, Howard the Duck was better - I am not even kidding!!! Every time the guy was on the screen I wanted to scream - this isn't because I am 26 now, it is because I have a brain. I would have thought he sucked if I saw the movie 20 years ago, I wonder who Lucas was aiming the character at 4 year olds? If so why did have a plot that dealt with taxation and trade routes, the plot was for adults while jar Jar for toddlers - it just doesn't make any sense. I liked Watto he was cool as was Sebulba, because they weren't babbling rasta - rabbit-monkey things that fell down or broke something every two seconds. He was just a sad joke really you can't possibly imagine how bad he is. The movie is not a total waste however, anything dealing with Jedi's is cool. The movie also has what I consider the best scene in the series (the force field light saber scene if you've scene it) - chilling. The pod race is cool - except for the two-headed announcer who speaks like Howard Cossel (!!!!!) - he looked dumb, sounded dumb, says the line "That's got hurt in any universe" !!!!!!!! God why did they do this?:( He also does a little dance that was popular a few years ago.:( Jar Jar Bionics also utters the lines "Exsqueeze me" and "We in deep doo doo now" do I have to go on? This movie is worse then Independence Day, it kills me to say this but it is. Although that movie has MASSIVE faults and lame characters and illogical plot devices so does the Phantom Menace, but it has Poo Poo jokes also.
The biggest disappointment in the history of popular cinema oh God the George Lucas mythos is over.
You said: "For the longest time, PTC only supported NT on Intel hardware... that meant if you wanted to take advantage of the fast hardware that is available for x86 boxes, you HAD to go with NT. Very sad."
This is just not true, my company was running pro eng on two RiscStation NEC for three years (MIPS based), we moved to Intel because Micros~1 decided to dump NT MIPS and never really supported it in the first place.
-ShieldWolf
P.S.Pro Eng was also a Unix based app befoire that.
Descartes, however, makes a fundamental flaw in logic: he assumes his REASONING is immune to manipulation. Someone could easily be screwing with his logic process, then the only thing he knows is that he knows - he can't make the jump to reach any external conclusions. He can only show that he thinks, therefore he thinks, which is vacuous.
Though it is _possible_ to understand the behaviour via logs, but complexity makes this impractical. My argument is not that emergent behavior is bunk (althought that's the title;) ), but rather it is bunk for explaining consciousness.;)
There are actually a lot of cool theories of how the mind works that don't rely on the workings of the components of the brain (in a sense), e.g. that neuron firings are actually not important to consciousness, rather the complex quantum interplay of chemicals at receptor sites is where it originates from. There are also theories of fundamental mind. E.g. since we cannot divide the mind it is a fundamental part of the universe, like electrons, the brain may be just the transceiver. This would explain why when you damage it thought is affected. Much like if you damage a TV then the picture is affected, but NOT the signal;). Damaging portions of the brain causes various interesting aphasias, yes, but this doesn't mean that the meat of the brain explains our conscious intelligence. Don't get me wrong it is quite obvious that our thoughts, memories and abilities are stored in our brain, my argument here is for concious intelligence.
You missed my point. Emergent behaviour exists, and it produces some disturbingly real-seeming behvaiour. The problem is FROM WHOSE POINT OF VIEW? We are already concious therefore if we see something that _seems_ intelligent then we may dub it so. The question is how does the robot get the consciousness in the first place to make that decision? You see it is a lot weirder than you think;)
Thanks for the constructive criticism!;) Anyways I am talking about emergent behavious bringing about CONCIOUS beings here. Not some sort of complexity theory. If you can kindly explain how emergent behaviour brings conciousness I will gladly shut up and thank you for solving the mind/body problem.
I stated that emergent properties exist in other areas (such as car or, in your example, gas). The leap that some theorists make is that the mind can likewise be an emergent property of the tiny actions of molecules/corpuscles/quantum mechanics/etc. of the mind. You cannot make this leap. As you state an emergent property has to be explainable by all the elements under it (it simply describes the summed phenomenon of the smaller phenomena). There is no "small" mind, you can't explain the mind in terms of the elements that supposedly comprise it, that is my argument. You can either toss out the mind all together, or toss out emergentism, I do the latter.;)
The problem of other minds is a BIG problem. THE big problem actually; scientists don't like terms like 'faith'. This is why AI is such a cool subject it trancends science into philosophy.
Considering I have a degree in Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence I think I know what I am talking about here. First, there is NO program where the behavior is unexplainable from the programming, you simply have to see how the software _reacted_ to the environment. It might do something that even the programmer wasn't expecting (this happens often) but this can be explained by analysis of system logs etc. and all follows rather simple rules. Emergent behavior _seems_ like a really neat explanation of intelligence and thought, but it really just moves the question: where does it EMERGE from, and how? There are NO explanations of emergence that offer anything other than interesting analogies, e.g. a car is an emergent property of all the underlying parts - i.e. no one part is a fast moving vehicle. Okay that seems logical, but the difference is that the whole, while greater than the sum of the parts, is explained by them. This is not the case with the mind. No one knows how a conscious being arises from unconscious matter, and there are very good arguments that we may NEVER know. Not because we are not intelligent _enough_, but simple because we have intelligence in the first place.
For every domain name that you could possibly think of someone else has already, and paid for it:( - They should have done this seven years ago. The only people who have any sort of control are the government based registrars e.g. '.ca' In Canada you cannot get a '.ca' registration uless you are federally incorporated under the name XXX.ca or you own the XXX trademark .
First of all it runs on MS IIS 4.0. Even if you ignore that and say he is talking about the html of the site you still have two problems 1) That is a really stupid argument, and I doubt it is true, e.g. can I freely copy the images on the site? Are they copyrighted? In what way? 2) The site uses ASP pages which are NOT open in anyway, if he wants us to help develop his site he has to open up those ASP scripts too;)
Slashdot Mirror
You can please MOST of the people MOST of the time. Try movies like raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, or Jaws. These were adult movies that kids also loved. That is how you do it not by creating a mish mash, two movies in one fiasco like The Phantom Menace.
-ShieldWolf
First of all, the idea that movie standards are higher now than in 1977 and also we are older now is a good and valid one, it just happens to not be in any way why this movie sucks.
This is why it sucked:
There were no fart jokes in Episodes 4,5,6 no one stepped in poo, and there was NEVER EVER a character you didn't understand but were supposed to. I just have NO idea what Lucas was thinking, Jar Jar Bionics is the biggest abomination in the history of film, Howard the Duck was better - I am not even kidding!!! Every time the guy was on the screen I wanted to scream - this isn't because I am 26 now, it is because I have a brain. I would have thought he sucked if I saw the movie 20 years ago, I wonder who Lucas was aiming the character at 4 year olds? If so why did have a plot that dealt with taxation and trade routes, the plot was for adults while jar Jar for toddlers - it just doesn't make any sense. I liked Watto he was cool as was Sebulba, because they weren't babbling rasta - rabbit-monkey things that fell down or broke something every two seconds. He was just a sad joke really you can't possibly imagine how bad he is.
The movie is not a total waste however, anything dealing with Jedi's is cool. The movie also has what I consider the best scene in the series (the force field light saber scene if you've scene it) - chilling. The pod race is cool - except for the two-headed announcer who speaks like Howard Cossel (!!!!!) - he looked dumb, sounded dumb, says the line "That's got hurt in any universe" !!!!!!!! God why did they do this?
The biggest disappointment in the history of popular cinema oh God the George Lucas mythos is over.
-SheildWolf
You said: "For the longest time, PTC only supported NT on Intel hardware... that meant if you wanted to take advantage of the fast hardware that is available for x86 boxes, you HAD to go with NT. Very sad."
This is just not true, my company was running pro eng on two RiscStation NEC for three years (MIPS based), we moved to Intel because Micros~1 decided to dump NT MIPS and never really supported it in the first place.
-ShieldWolf
P.S.Pro Eng was also a Unix based app befoire that.
Descartes, however, makes a fundamental flaw in logic: he assumes his REASONING is immune to manipulation. Someone could easily be screwing with his logic process, then the only thing he knows is that he knows - he can't make the jump to reach any external conclusions. He can only show that he thinks, therefore he thinks, which is vacuous.
;)
Though it is _possible_ to understand the behaviour via logs, but complexity makes this impractical. My argument is not that emergent behavior is bunk (althought that's the title ;) ), but rather it is bunk for explaining consciousness. ;)
There are actually a lot of cool theories of how the mind works that don't rely on the workings of the components of the brain (in a sense), e.g. that neuron firings are actually not important to consciousness, rather the complex quantum interplay of chemicals at receptor sites is where it originates from. There are also theories of fundamental mind. E.g. since we cannot divide the mind it is a fundamental part of the universe, like electrons, the brain may be just the transceiver. This would explain why when you damage it thought is affected. Much like if you damage a TV then the picture is affected, but NOT the signal ;). Damaging portions of the brain causes various interesting aphasias, yes, but this doesn't mean that the meat of the brain explains our conscious intelligence. Don't get me wrong it is quite obvious that our thoughts, memories and abilities are stored in our brain, my argument here is for concious intelligence.
You missed my point. Emergent behaviour exists, and it produces some disturbingly real-seeming behvaiour. The problem is FROM WHOSE POINT OF VIEW? We are already concious therefore if we see something that _seems_ intelligent then we may dub it so. The question is how does the robot get the consciousness in the first place to make that decision? You see it is a lot weirder than you think ;)
Thanks for the constructive criticism! ;) Anyways I am talking about emergent behavious bringing about CONCIOUS beings here. Not some sort of complexity theory. If you can kindly explain how emergent behaviour brings conciousness I will gladly shut up and thank you for solving the mind/body problem.
I stated that emergent properties exist in other areas (such as car or, in your example, gas). The leap that some theorists make is that the mind can likewise be an emergent property of the tiny actions of molecules/corpuscles/quantum mechanics/etc. of the mind. You cannot make this leap. As you state an emergent property has to be explainable by all the elements under it (it simply describes the summed phenomenon of the smaller phenomena). There is no "small" mind, you can't explain the mind in terms of the elements that supposedly comprise it, that is my argument. You can either toss out the mind all together, or toss out emergentism, I do the latter. ;)
The problem of other minds is a BIG problem. THE big problem actually; scientists don't like terms like 'faith'. This is why AI is such a cool subject it trancends science into philosophy.
-ShieldWolf
Considering I have a degree in Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence I think I know what I am talking about here. First, there is NO program where the behavior is unexplainable from the programming, you simply have to see how the software _reacted_ to the environment. It might do something that even the programmer wasn't expecting (this happens often) but this can be explained by analysis of system logs etc. and all follows rather simple rules. Emergent behavior _seems_ like a really neat explanation of intelligence and thought, but it really just moves the question: where does it EMERGE from, and how? There are NO explanations of emergence that offer anything other than interesting analogies, e.g. a car is an emergent property of all the underlying parts - i.e. no one part is a fast moving vehicle. Okay that seems logical, but the difference is that the whole, while greater than the sum of the parts, is explained by them. This is not the case with the mind. No one knows how a conscious being arises from unconscious matter, and there are very good arguments that we may NEVER know. Not because we are not intelligent _enough_, but simple because we have intelligence in the first place.
-Jeff Rankine aka ShieldWolf
My $.02
For every domain name that you could possibly think of someone else has already, and paid for it :( - They should have done this seven years ago. The only people who have any sort of control are the government based registrars e.g. '.ca' In Canada you cannot get a '.ca' registration uless you are federally incorporated under the name XXX.ca or you own the XXX trademark .
my $.02
First of all it runs on MS IIS 4.0. Even if you ignore that and say he is talking about the html of the site you still have two problems ;)
1) That is a really stupid argument, and I doubt it is true, e.g. can I freely copy the images on the site? Are they copyrighted? In what way?
2) The site uses ASP pages which are NOT open in anyway, if he wants us to help develop his site he has to open up those ASP scripts too
00000010