Remember the boss will be pushing up the daisies one day, just like everyone else who has ever lived on this planet. Suddenly that Friday deadline doesn't seem quite so amazingly important. If it ain't gonna kill anyone, it's not worth stressing about.
Just before New Year, sources close to Google informed me a float was not on the horizon. Main reason given was that market short termism could potentially interfere with Google's longer term plans. While Google's immediate plans don't require an injection of cash, there's no need to float.
Now, I know Mitnick's explicitly asking for tales from retired hackers but what if... ...Retired hacker sees potential for making a few $s. Decides to come out of retirement. Hacks. Retires again. Sells story to Mitnick as a, now retired, hacker.
IANAL but does this then amount to incitement to perform a criminal act?
I know some people jump off cliffs to prove their manliness and others off of buildings for the sheer thrill of it. I cannot understand why someone would willingly dive into a dumpster to find their true self. And from what height are people diving? Serious injury or even death could result with an impact into solid material.
Just consider what could happen if you dived into a seemingly benign dumpster only to encounter a used drug addicts needle. The number of possible infections you could catch just don't bear thinking about.
I for one believe that this potentially lethal sport should be strictly regulated as soon as possible. Venues could be provided with deep dumpsters filled with sanitised foam cubes and safe diving platforms.
Please people, if you feel the need to dive into a public dumpster, or even your own, to 'discover' your identity, stop and think. It's just not worth the potential damage you could cause yourself and the resulting heartache for your friends and relations.
At a base level everything is made of sub-atomic particles and as such one could argue there is fundamentally no moral difference between me and my jacket. As in many philosophical discussions, semantics are, unfortunately, in danger of becoming the nub of the argument in this thread. Unfortunately I'm not a Lawyer so I can't make money by arguing over such matters as what the meaning of the word 'is' is;-)
For that full-on caffeine hit, any geek knows you have to take your coffee strong and black. #Cough# #Cough# Chokes on cereal before collapsing on the kitchen floor, tragically losing an eye on the sharp edge of the toast rack on the way down.
Hmm, actually I'm a biological entity. If I'm a machine then I've certainly passed the Turing test today (or have I if you still think I'm a machine? - but we digress)
In answer to your question, IMHO, the idea of a manufactured mechanical or electronic device ever having rights is an interesting one, but not one that I subscribe to presently. The material, per se, does not matter, it my opinion that a robot, as defined, is not life.
The problem is, I concede that the real world definition of what is sentient, what is life is difficult if not impossible. I, like others in this thread, have my own opinions on the matter.
Perhaps what makes me sentient is, to quote George Bush Snr, the fact that "I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them."
Much as I admire Alan Turing's mathematical and computational work, even he would probably admit he was not really an authority on such philosophical questions such as 'what is really sentient'. Hence it is Turing's test, not humanity's test.
The fake human emotions you refer to are actually real fake emotions. a humanoid could only have fake emotions (whether it is bluffing you or not...)
Rene' Descartes (1596-1650) whose famous statement you quote, was unlikely to have considered machine intelligence in his phillosophical musings (any philosophers please correct me if I am mistaken). Moreover, it was only his personal view of the whole existential question.
If it can think on a certain level and fool you into thinking its sentient, then for all intents and purposes its sentient.
I would agree that you may be fooled into thinking it is sentient, but not that it actually is. That's the difference between fake and real.
As an Engineer by training, I prefer impirical studies to pure thought based statements. If I sit on a chair, and do not fall onto the floor, it is reasonable to conclude that the chair is under me.
In answer to your final statement, unfortunately not a lot we don't already (rather depressingly) know already.
From the coherency of your statements, in the absence of any other scientifically provable evidence, I can reasonably conclude that you are a sentient human being, with opinions and views, and not a figment of my imagination.
The whole concept of giving machines 'rights' seems to me a dangerous and intellectually suspect one (no offence to those of the opposing view is meant by this). Just because a device can mimic sentience - interact with it's surroundings, fake emotions (and I use the word fake deliberately here) does not make it a sentient being. When you kill someone in an FPS their character may scream, writhe and 'die', but trust me, you've not actually killed a sentient being no matter how good the AI is.
Unless someone can persuade me otherwise (and I'm always open to persuasion) I cannot, and would not, differentiate between the moral rights of a pseudo-sentient robot and my hoover.
...the ultimate IT consultant. Teach it a few stock phrases such as 'Leverage your IT investment with VPN and thin client technologies', send it out on the road and wait for those orders to flood in.
Motorcyclists are half as likely to be involved in an accident as other road users. Actually, according to statistics (in the UK anyway) a motorcyclist is 200 times more likely to be involved in & seriously injured or killed in an road accident than a car driver.
I could call you a fuckwit, but I'll be polite and assume you're just an ignorant fool. Or perhaps a soon to be statistic.
I think you kindly for your clarification. One has to admit that's a significant improvement in prediction rate. An intersting statistic would be on false positives i.e. when the system predicted a tornado, or similar event, but never actually happened.<br>
Slashdot Mirror
Please see the above
er... please show me something that qualifies as an "unlimited power computing device".
Fuck their luck 'cos ain't no one never gonna make no more money at SCO.
Remember the boss will be pushing up the daisies one day, just like everyone else who has ever lived on this planet. Suddenly that Friday deadline doesn't seem quite so amazingly important. If it ain't gonna kill anyone, it's not worth stressing about.
...travesty from the industry that brought you U-571.
I'd much rather they released John Prescott and put us all out of our misery.
Article should read 'Free of accurate content'.
Mohammed going to the mountain. Or, considering we're talking about RMS travelling to India, perhaps it's the other way round.
Just before New Year, sources close to Google informed me a float was not on the horizon. Main reason given was that market short termism could potentially interfere with Google's longer term plans. While Google's immediate plans don't require an injection of cash, there's no need to float.
In which case, the only sensible solution is for the entire Network Working Group to have their asses sued off, back dated to '87.
Jeez, the nerve of some of these bastards, grossly infringing a patent years before it even exists.
Dear Jim
Can you fix it for me to screw money out of Linux users so that my stock prices will rise in time for Christmas.
Yours faithfully
Darl McBride (aged 47)
Now, I know Mitnick's explicitly asking for tales from retired hackers but what if...
...Retired hacker sees potential for making a few $s. Decides to come out of retirement. Hacks. Retires again. Sells story to Mitnick as a, now retired, hacker.
IANAL but does this then amount to incitement to perform a criminal act?
I know some people jump off cliffs to prove their manliness and others off of buildings for the sheer thrill of it. I cannot understand why someone would willingly dive into a dumpster to find their true self. And from what height are people diving? Serious injury or even death could result with an impact into solid material.
Just consider what could happen if you dived into a seemingly benign dumpster only to encounter a used drug addicts needle. The number of possible infections you could catch just don't bear thinking about.
I for one believe that this potentially lethal sport should be strictly regulated as soon as possible. Venues could be provided with deep dumpsters filled with sanitised foam cubes and safe diving platforms.
Please people, if you feel the need to dive into a public dumpster, or even your own, to 'discover' your identity, stop and think. It's just not worth the potential damage you could cause yourself and the resulting heartache for your friends and relations.
I was one of those Beagles.
My research suggests a reduction of only 235,394 programmers.
At a base level everything is made of sub-atomic particles and as such one could argue there is fundamentally no moral difference between me and my jacket. As in many philosophical discussions, semantics are, unfortunately, in danger of becoming the nub of the argument in this thread. Unfortunately I'm not a Lawyer so I can't make money by arguing over such matters as what the meaning of the word 'is' is ;-)
What's wrong with that? It's how it's pronounced by the natives...
For that full-on caffeine hit, any geek knows you have to take your coffee strong and black. #Cough# #Cough# Chokes on cereal before collapsing on the kitchen floor, tragically losing an eye on the sharp edge of the toast rack on the way down.
Hmm, actually I'm a biological entity. If I'm a machine then I've certainly passed the Turing test today (or have I if you still think I'm a machine? - but we digress)
In answer to your question, IMHO, the idea of a manufactured mechanical or electronic device ever having rights is an interesting one, but not one that I subscribe to presently. The material, per se, does not matter, it my opinion that a robot, as defined, is not life.
The problem is, I concede that the real world definition of what is sentient, what is life is difficult if not impossible. I, like others in this thread, have my own opinions on the matter.
Perhaps what makes me sentient is, to quote George Bush Snr, the fact that "I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them."
Much as I admire Alan Turing's mathematical and computational work, even he would probably admit he was not really an authority on such philosophical questions such as 'what is really sentient'. Hence it is Turing's test, not humanity's test.
The fake human emotions you refer to are actually real fake emotions. a humanoid could only have fake emotions (whether it is bluffing you or not...)
Rene' Descartes (1596-1650) whose famous statement you quote, was unlikely to have considered machine intelligence in his phillosophical musings (any philosophers please correct me if I am mistaken). Moreover, it was only his personal view of the whole existential question.
If it can think on a certain level and fool you into thinking its sentient, then for all intents and purposes its sentient.
I would agree that you may be fooled into thinking it is sentient, but not that it actually is. That's the difference between fake and real.
As an Engineer by training, I prefer impirical studies to pure thought based statements. If I sit on a chair, and do not fall onto the floor, it is reasonable to conclude that the chair is under me.
In answer to your final statement, unfortunately not a lot we don't already (rather depressingly) know already.
From the coherency of your statements, in the absence of any other scientifically provable evidence, I can reasonably conclude that you are a sentient human being, with opinions and views, and not a figment of my imagination.
The whole concept of giving machines 'rights' seems to me a dangerous and intellectually suspect one (no offence to those of the opposing view is meant by this). Just because a device can mimic sentience - interact with it's surroundings, fake emotions (and I use the word fake deliberately here) does not make it a sentient being. When you kill someone in an FPS their character may scream, writhe and 'die', but trust me, you've not actually killed a sentient being no matter how good the AI is.
Unless someone can persuade me otherwise (and I'm always open to persuasion) I cannot, and would not, differentiate between the moral rights of a pseudo-sentient robot and my hoover.
...the ultimate IT consultant. Teach it a few stock phrases such as 'Leverage your IT investment with VPN and thin client technologies', send it out on the road and wait for those orders to flood in.
Motorcyclists are half as likely to be involved in an accident as other road users.
Actually, according to statistics (in the UK anyway) a motorcyclist is 200 times more likely to be involved in & seriously injured or killed in an road accident than a car driver.
I could call you a fuckwit, but I'll be polite and assume you're just an ignorant fool. Or perhaps a soon to be statistic.
Misread this and thought SCO were going to sue DOS developers.
I think you kindly for your clarification. One has to admit that's a significant improvement in prediction rate. An intersting statistic would be on false positives i.e. when the system predicted a tornado, or similar event, but never actually happened.<br>