both man made, both designed to do different things.
transport ppl, move matter, power things etc.
automobiles/combustion engines are just as flexible in there use as computers.
Apples == oranges.
An apple is a fruit, and so is an orange.
Both grow naturally, and both taste different.
One's citric and tart, the other is sugary and sweet, etc.
Apples can be prepared just as many ways as oranges.
Just because two things are comparable along a strictly limited range of criteria does not make them the same thing. Cars are not the same things as computers, and knowing about the theoretic properties of one does not teach you much about the other.
I read only a small fraction of Pennrose before deciding that he was a bigot. There is no intellectually honest reason to invoke wierd physics to explain the operations of the human brain.
Computers are probably going to continue to increase in computational power until they exceed the abilities of the human brain. They definitely are going to be involved in solving quite a few of the problems that we have now, yes. I dunno who was saying that this meant all the worlds problems would be solved and history would be over.
My understanding of computing with DNA at this time is that it requires the simultaneous presence of all possible solutions to the problem, and is therefore a lousy solution for most hard problems. (I've read that all of the possible circuits in a 100-node TSP encoded as DNA would fill the solar system, for instance).
Admittedly, I *just* started working with DNA computation about a week ago. Please correct me if I'm missing something.
Assuming the human brain is a universal Turing machine, which is a BIG assumption.
The brain is quite predictable on the micro-scale. It is a complex, large, massively parallel, but ultimately deterministic system. It definitely could be simulated and predicted on a UTM. In fact, a UTM could simulate the interactions of several brains.
It never ceases to amaze me how deeply ignorant and arrogant run-of-the-mill so-called computer scientists are.
And it never cease to amaze me the lengths to which non-CS people will go to keep up the obviously-incorrect argument that consciousness is some type of special unique property that only human beings are capable of exhibiting.
This means that everything they do is utterly predictable.
There are algorithms that no one can predict whether they will halt or not, and there are algorithms which can be implemented and run but no one yet knows what the outcome will be. Theoretically they are predictable, practically they aren't.
. The very essence of being conscious is an ability to behave in a random fashion, also known as free will.
Only prejudice leads people to state that human beings aren't predictable. The physical human brain operates in a predictable fashion and your consciousness is 100% dependant upon the physical actions of your brain. On a theoretic level, you are no less predictable than the Adleman function of 17.
Re:Check your source...
on
The Regulon
·
· Score: 1
There used to be a mitigating factor for the free flow of information, at least in the News Media... that of "Journalistic Integrity".
Sounds like more of the "back in the good ol' days we had VALUES" talk. Sorry, but it seems to me that mainstream media has at least as much integrity and objectivity today as they ever did. Which is to say, quite a bit more than most "independant media" sources.
Re:Brave New World may come true yet
on
The Regulon
·
· Score: 1
It's been since high school since I've read BNW. I have absolutely no memory of it being about information overload, however.
Yes, but my point is that the gross number of new CDs you are buying because of Napster probably cannot make up monetarily for the money that is being lost as a result of Napster.
My understanding is that major merchants factor in the money lost given a certain percentage of shop-lifting when they price items for sale. One shoplifted item means that you must sell X copies of that item to break even on both the actual value that has been stolen (this won't matter with Napster) and the lost opportunity cost (the profit that they aren't going to make on that item that has been stolen). One stolen item sets the merchant back by X purchases of that item.
Everytime 1 person leeches a CD from Napster, the record company doesn't lose any actual value (the music is copied, so no merchandise is lost) but they do lose the opportunity cost. So they must sell at least one copy of the CD that was leeched just to break even on the lost opportunity cost before they can realize a profit.
So consider that there must *at least* be a 1:2 leech:purchase ratio on Napster in order for it to generate profit. Then consider the fact that 1 purchaser probably can't buy as many CDs in a week as 1 leech can copy in a day. Then consider what you think the leech:purchaser ratio on Napster actually is (I worked for 2 years as a labop in a major university computing lab. Katz's stats are way out of whack with my experience there.)
The only obstacle I see to this line of reasoning is 1) Is it necessary to recoup the opportunity cost when you aren't losing any actual cost? and 2) Are the leeches appearing on Napster people who would otherwise just not buy CDs?
The math isn't adding up quite right on my end. Someone with a more solid background in economics please comment on this:
For every 1 CD a user leeched off Napster, there would have to be a >1 number of CD purchases inspired by Napster to make up for the missed gains. The number of CDs that 1 leech can leech in a week is greater than the number of CDs that 1 purchaser can purchase in a week, (forget about subtracting the number of CDs that would have been bought anyway without Napster for a minute) and there is no way in bloody hell you are going to tell me that there is even a 1:1 leech:purchaser ratio on Napster.
So how can Napster possibly increase record sales? It doesn't add up....
I can't stand this overly consumerist driven culture which is constantly tring to get us to buy the latest SUV to distract us from the environmental damage being done by our own consumer gluttony.
How are we being distracted? Environmental concerns are voiced on a daily basis in mainstream and corporate-owned media. Environmentalist-oriented marketing is unavoidable in our society. Far from being distracted, we are having our noses rubbed in it.
Its all about power and greed in the end.
No, it's about 250 million ordinary human beings who each individually would like to be able to put their kids through college. They are the ones screwing things up, not Mr. Rich Fat Cat.
Whatever happened to old-fashioned desire to listen to good tunes by good artists without all the 'Brittany Spears' marketing hype thrown in?
1) 40 million teenage girls apparently consider Brittany Spears to be a "good artist."
Who the hell are we to tell them they are wrong? Maybe they think our music is crap, too.
2) Basic rule of marketing: No amount of hype will sell something that people don't already want. You cannot manufacture demand. Brittany Spears is not the product of hype, she's the product of doing research to find out what teenage girls are naturally into and then selling it to them.
Intellectual property is theft as surely as property itself is theft.
From that point of view, charging people for the labour you perform is theft as well. Hmmm, interesting....
Fanzines, books, tshirts - this goes against the beliefs of bands that are trying to convince people that mass consumption of needless/useless items is bad.
If books are a needless/useless item, what is music?
Uhm...when does Steve give us the balance sheet for the record company and its expenses? And why did his friends not read the damn contract before they signed it?
Uhm, I'm not an expert in this field, but I'm going to guess that letting each individual in a team choose their own personal method of quality control is probably a recipe for inefficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
a car is a tool, and so is a computer.
both man made, both designed to do different things.
transport ppl, move matter, power things etc.
automobiles/combustion engines are just as flexible in there use as computers.
Apples == oranges.
An apple is a fruit, and so is an orange.
Both grow naturally, and both taste different.
One's citric and tart, the other is sugary and sweet, etc.
Apples can be prepared just as many ways as oranges.
Just because two things are comparable along a strictly limited range of criteria does not make them the same thing. Cars are not the same things as computers, and knowing about the theoretic properties of one does not teach you much about the other.
I read only a small fraction of Pennrose before deciding that he was a bigot. There is no intellectually honest reason to invoke wierd physics to explain the operations of the human brain.
Computers are probably going to continue to increase in computational power until they exceed the abilities of the human brain. They definitely are going to be involved in solving quite a few of the problems that we have now, yes. I dunno who was saying that this meant all the worlds problems would be solved and history would be over.
Admittedly, I *just* started working with DNA computation about a week ago. Please correct me if I'm missing something.
The brain is quite predictable on the micro-scale. It is a complex, large, massively parallel, but ultimately deterministic system. It definitely could be simulated and predicted on a UTM. In fact, a UTM could simulate the interactions of several brains.
It never ceases to amaze me how deeply ignorant and arrogant run-of-the-mill so-called computer scientists are.
And it never cease to amaze me the lengths to which non-CS people will go to keep up the obviously-incorrect argument that consciousness is some type of special unique property that only human beings are capable of exhibiting.
...that I have an infinite amount of tape right here in my pocket.
What?!? The ideas this book covers are taught in every CS program at every university in the world.
Taken as a theoretic algorithm-crunching entity, computers are both FSMs and Turing machines, since the two are equivalent.
There are algorithms that no one can predict whether they will halt or not, and there are algorithms which can be implemented and run but no one yet knows what the outcome will be. Theoretically they are predictable, practically they aren't.
. The very essence of being conscious is an ability to behave in a random fashion, also known as free will.
Only prejudice leads people to state that human beings aren't predictable. The physical human brain operates in a predictable fashion and your consciousness is 100% dependant upon the physical actions of your brain. On a theoretic level, you are no less predictable than the Adleman function of 17.
Sounds like more of the "back in the good ol' days we had VALUES" talk. Sorry, but it seems to me that mainstream media has at least as much integrity and objectivity today as they ever did. Which is to say, quite a bit more than most "independant media" sources.
It's been since high school since I've read BNW. I have absolutely no memory of it being about information overload, however.
My understanding is that major merchants factor in the money lost given a certain percentage of shop-lifting when they price items for sale. One shoplifted item means that you must sell X copies of that item to break even on both the actual value that has been stolen (this won't matter with Napster) and the lost opportunity cost (the profit that they aren't going to make on that item that has been stolen). One stolen item sets the merchant back by X purchases of that item.
Everytime 1 person leeches a CD from Napster, the record company doesn't lose any actual value (the music is copied, so no merchandise is lost) but they do lose the opportunity cost. So they must sell at least one copy of the CD that was leeched just to break even on the lost opportunity cost before they can realize a profit.
So consider that there must *at least* be a 1:2 leech:purchase ratio on Napster in order for it to generate profit. Then consider the fact that 1 purchaser probably can't buy as many CDs in a week as 1 leech can copy in a day. Then consider what you think the leech:purchaser ratio on Napster actually is (I worked for 2 years as a labop in a major university computing lab. Katz's stats are way out of whack with my experience there.)
The only obstacle I see to this line of reasoning is 1) Is it necessary to recoup the opportunity cost when you aren't losing any actual cost? and 2) Are the leeches appearing on Napster people who would otherwise just not buy CDs?
For every 1 CD a user leeched off Napster, there would have to be a >1 number of CD purchases inspired by Napster to make up for the missed gains. The number of CDs that 1 leech can leech in a week is greater than the number of CDs that 1 purchaser can purchase in a week, (forget about subtracting the number of CDs that would have been bought anyway without Napster for a minute) and there is no way in bloody hell you are going to tell me that there is even a 1:1 leech:purchaser ratio on Napster.
So how can Napster possibly increase record sales? It doesn't add up....
How are we being distracted? Environmental concerns are voiced on a daily basis in mainstream and corporate-owned media. Environmentalist-oriented marketing is unavoidable in our society. Far from being distracted, we are having our noses rubbed in it.
Its all about power and greed in the end.
No, it's about 250 million ordinary human beings who each individually would like to be able to put their kids through college. They are the ones screwing things up, not Mr. Rich Fat Cat.
Whatever happened to old-fashioned desire to listen to good tunes by good artists without all the 'Brittany Spears' marketing hype thrown in?
1) 40 million teenage girls apparently consider Brittany Spears to be a "good artist." Who the hell are we to tell them they are wrong? Maybe they think our music is crap, too.
2) Basic rule of marketing: No amount of hype will sell something that people don't already want. You cannot manufacture demand. Brittany Spears is not the product of hype, she's the product of doing research to find out what teenage girls are naturally into and then selling it to them.
Intellectual property is theft as surely as property itself is theft.
From that point of view, charging people for the labour you perform is theft as well. Hmmm, interesting....
If books are a needless/useless item, what is music?
Uhm...when does Steve give us the balance sheet for the record company and its expenses? And why did his friends not read the damn contract before they signed it?
I think the >12 gigs worth of pirated music on my HD speaks volumes. I haven't bought a CD in 2 1/2 years. Why buy something I can hear for free?
Uhm, I'm not an expert in this field, but I'm going to guess that letting each individual in a team choose their own personal method of quality control is probably a recipe for inefficiency.