You simply didn't stay in long enough. I felt the same way for the first week, then I started *seeing* why I kept coming back. Can't explain it, reinstall it, and surf for a month. Then you make the decision. Keep in mind that it's not a *game*.
Go read a book on neural networks. In fact, read several. Don't read Crick's, it doesn't apply here. Read books on how the brain works. for a simple text that touches (just touches - the book is under 400 pages) on everything (without going into the real mechanics), find one called 'Wet Mind: The New Cognitive Neuroscience'. I can't explain what these networks do to you here on slashdot. It will suffice to say that you are what you are because you were made that way, i.e., you were wired that way. You were wired a particular way at birth, and now your wiring has been changed by your experiences. That's called learning. If you find fault with that, it's because you were trained to. Go read the books.
What I meant by that first statement is simply that if our brains weren't wired how they are, we couldn't be the people we are. This is also what I meant by 'emergent properties'. There is no dualism. That's the point.
Indoctrination is why you are even questioning me. If you had bothered to read any books on the subject, you'd see that what you are displaying to us all on/. now is simply what you were taught to think - your brain's network was trained to think that way. Hence, doctrine and indoctrination. There are nothing subtle about any of it.
When you bring soul into it, you bring religion into it, and yes, I do expect someone on slashdot in a discussion which changed from 'misleading eyeball transplant' to neural networks and the connection with mind, to consider the idea that we are not 'luminous beings' but instead are something lesser and less grandiose. Petrified doctrine and dogma is exactly what you have expressed, which is not the ability to learn, but to believe.
Case in point concerning those philosophical subtleties - have you ever wondered why you wonder? Apparently not.
If I didn't have anything to contribute to the discussion then why did you bother to reply?
Personality is an emergent property of an immensely complicated collection of neural networks. We're machines, and given the technology (ignore the biology), we will be able to reproduce ourselves mechanically (no bad sex pun intended).
Any sufficiently robust collection of neural nets, whatever the body, when it achieves presence of mind and self-awareness, must be termed a 'person', because it will see itself as one.
You are a person because you have the presence of mind to truly believe you are, and AI (which will no longer be artificial, it'll be real intelligence at that point), no matter what body it is given, will believe this of itself and must also be termed 'person' and 'individual'. (-1, redundant)
When a brain is put into a mechanical body, and that brain has the sensory awareness to do so, it will tell us it is a person. And we can do nothing but step back, admire or deplore our technical means, and agree. Our current bodies are not, have never, and will never be a prerequisite for personhood. Our brains dictate to us who we are.
So to sum up: You are not your foot and you are not your penis. Your head may be up your ass, but although I have seen people who seemed to be flexible enough, I have never seen such a thing actually done. You are a property of your brain, nothing more, nothing less. I hate to have to burst your philosophical bubbles, but the reason for the development of western philosophy in the first place was a lack of understanding, particularly of this very topic. Within the next 15-20 years, western philosophy will be turned on its side and we will all be wondering what we have been thinking for 2000 years.
I may be an American, but the moment a true AI appears, the worst egg will be on American's faces, whether it's our creation or not, because we will be the most intolerant of all peoples toward the new class. I pray it's not done here, for our new children's sake.
Oh yeah, to stay on topic: the post title was a little misleading, definitely, but I agree with another poster: the Pakistani will have a new view of India in less than a generation - as soon as those currently in power are replaced by their children. Let's hope for three things:
1. The Indian government sees this kind of thing as a way to foster good will between India and Pakistan, and perhaps offers these services as a method of doing it,
2. those who are currently in power don't screw things up for the great-grandchildren by running off in their currently stupid directions, and
3. Those of us in developed countries will learn from them.
Naw.. Godwin's law is bigger then that. It also works on mailing lists and sites like slashdot (where millions of people go for no reason other than grazing and Nazing, no rhyme intended).
But you're right, you con't invoke it yourself, it has to be invoked on you!
Uh... I must be missing something. Once GPLd, always GPLd, correct? That's a pretty broad, blanketing effect. If I patent some software, then GPL any portion of it, I just GPLd my patent, so sorry for my luck.
If someone GPLs something already covered under someone else's patent, then that software is illegal, because it wasn't their work to release under the GPL in the first place. It's not the community who'll pay for it, it's the offender, because once it's out, it's out, there's nothing you can do about it, especially since it's the true author of that work who retains copyright. Or, in this case, he who released it claiming someone else's copyright. Double-whammy for He Who Violates, huh?
I don't see how the patent protection is even needed in these cases, as those 3rd parties can't possibly be considered liable for an illegal act committed by a single individual (or other entity), but instead expect all individuals to act in good faith. That's what it boils down to - many single entities, supposedly acting in good faith. Any FS/OSS project accepting that contribution has to also accept that entity's word that it is their work, under their copyright. If that word is misrepresented, that's fraud, and the OSS project in question is just as much a victim as the original owner of the work. Triple-whammy.
IANAL, but when I contribute, I do it the right way, by giving my own work. When others give of themselves, I expect the same. If I were lied to, I was lied to, and I would never ever accept another contribution from that person again. In addition, all of that person's contributions would have to be pulled from any of my projects. That gets to be a daunting prospect for projects like Apache! But, the only one who belongs in court is He Who Violated (tm).
Read the individual licenses of the codecs. Find one that states that you can't give it to your friend. Most of them (all those I have bothered to read) have said that they are redistributable but can't be cracked (in a nutshell).
It's not copyright violation (or a violation of the DMCA) if you don't take it apart to see how it works. Of course, if you did that and wrote a work-alike, you'd be reverse-engineering, and that at least USED to be perfectly legal.
Actually, the offenders who have been caught haven't had the balls to defend themselves. The copyright holders haven't had to drag their butts to court at all, excepting in a very few well-publicized cases - see MySQL vs. NuSphere.
The thing is, if the offender is caught red-handed, there are two punishments OTHER than money the copyright holder can go for:
1. stop distributing 2. release code
.. both of these can flat kill a company like KISS. Imagine if M$ were caught copying Linux's network stack. To kill a company's flagship product by catching them stealing GPLd code can be equal to killing that company.
The idea is to show that there is continuous public review of the code, and that there is no real way to add malicious or illegal code into the kernel unnoticed. It's no show managers that their systems are plenty legal with the SCO tax.
... because it reflects the type of people they hire. Doh't let anyone fool you, these candidates (especially the presidential candidates) know what is going on in their offices. They who's cousin to hire to make a website, for example.
Are we going to be in a position to do innovation on this infrastructure, or are we going to be locked into obsolete thinking that the DNS was never intended to do anything other than what it was originally supposed to do?
Does this not strike anyone else as the reason WHY technologies fail? "Yes, that bicycle there was built for one, but it can handle 14!!!! Jesus, the last thing DNS needs is feature bloat!!
Slashdot Mirror
You simply didn't stay in long enough. I felt the same way for the first week, then I started *seeing* why I kept coming back. Can't explain it, reinstall it, and surf for a month. Then you make the decision. Keep in mind that it's not a *game*.
That's cool as hell. Do you think you can get them to give you the specs for the new stuff? I'd buy the card in a heartbeat if it did three things:
1. cheap
2. open specs
3. beats my voodoo5 (yeah, I know - not that hard today)
Yeah... I'm a little curious about that, too. I don't know it and I don't know anyone else who does!
show us?
Go read a book on neural networks. In fact, read several. Don't read Crick's, it doesn't apply here. Read books on how the brain works. for a simple text that touches (just touches - the book is under 400 pages) on everything (without going into the real mechanics), find one called 'Wet Mind: The New Cognitive Neuroscience'. I can't explain what these networks do to you here on slashdot. It will suffice to say that you are what you are because you were made that way, i.e., you were wired that way. You were wired a particular way at birth, and now your wiring has been changed by your experiences. That's called learning. If you find fault with that, it's because you were trained to. Go read the books.
/. now is simply what you were taught to think - your brain's network was trained to think that way. Hence, doctrine and indoctrination. There are nothing subtle about any of it.
What I meant by that first statement is simply that if our brains weren't wired how they are, we couldn't be the people we are. This is also what I meant by 'emergent properties'. There is no dualism. That's the point.
Indoctrination is why you are even questioning me. If you had bothered to read any books on the subject, you'd see that what you are displaying to us all on
When you bring soul into it, you bring religion into it, and yes, I do expect someone on slashdot in a discussion which changed from 'misleading eyeball transplant' to neural networks and the connection with mind, to consider the idea that we are not 'luminous beings' but instead are something lesser and less grandiose. Petrified doctrine and dogma is exactly what you have expressed, which is not the ability to learn, but to believe.
Case in point concerning those philosophical subtleties - have you ever wondered why you wonder? Apparently not.
If I didn't have anything to contribute to the discussion then why did you bother to reply?
-1 troll. This discussion is over.
No, there's no 'I', but there *is* an 'M' and an 'E'!
I actually think you're all nuts. ;)
Personality is an emergent property of an immensely complicated collection of neural networks. We're machines, and given the technology (ignore the biology), we will be able to reproduce ourselves mechanically (no bad sex pun intended).
Any sufficiently robust collection of neural nets, whatever the body, when it achieves presence of mind and self-awareness, must be termed a 'person', because it will see itself as one.
You are a person because you have the presence of mind to truly believe you are, and AI (which will no longer be artificial, it'll be real intelligence at that point), no matter what body it is given, will believe this of itself and must also be termed 'person' and 'individual'. (-1, redundant)
When a brain is put into a mechanical body, and that brain has the sensory awareness to do so, it will tell us it is a person. And we can do nothing but step back, admire or deplore our technical means, and agree. Our current bodies are not, have never, and will never be a prerequisite for personhood. Our brains dictate to us who we are.
So to sum up: You are not your foot and you are not your penis. Your head may be up your ass, but although I have seen people who seemed to be flexible enough, I have never seen such a thing actually done. You are a property of your brain, nothing more, nothing less. I hate to have to burst your philosophical bubbles, but the reason for the development of western philosophy in the first place was a lack of understanding, particularly of this very topic. Within the next 15-20 years, western philosophy will be turned on its side and we will all be wondering what we have been thinking for 2000 years.
I may be an American, but the moment a true AI appears, the worst egg will be on American's faces, whether it's our creation or not, because we will be the most intolerant of all peoples toward the new class. I pray it's not done here, for our new children's sake.
Oh yeah, to stay on topic: the post title was a little misleading, definitely, but I agree with another poster: the Pakistani will have a new view of India in less than a generation - as soon as those currently in power are replaced by their children. Let's hope for three things:
1. The Indian government sees this kind of thing as a way to foster good will between India and Pakistan, and perhaps offers these services as a method of doing it,
2. those who are currently in power don't screw things up for the great-grandchildren by running off in their currently stupid directions, and
3. Those of us in developed countries will learn from them.
1 and 2 are possible.
Anyone capable of pulling meteors toward *anything* with a tractor beam deserves his doctorate ;)
Then how'd you know how to respond ? ;)
No need to answer. Mystery is good.
Albannach? Cait' a bheil sibh, no, co às a tha sibh? Agus, a bheil Gàidhlig agaibh?
SDL supports joysticks. Multiples, at that, if IIRC.
If we could get that integrated in QT, for instance - that would be cool. It'd be SO easy to get the whole world supported.
Sorry, that's pronounced 'not-zing'. I really really didn't mean to rhyme. ... and what's with this '2-minute' thing? It's a correction, dammit!
Oh yeah, Slashdot doesn't let you correct yourself - you can only be correctly corrected by others!
Naw.. Godwin's law is bigger then that. It also works on mailing lists and sites like slashdot (where millions of people go for no reason other than grazing and Nazing, no rhyme intended).
But you're right, you con't invoke it yourself, it has to be invoked on you!
Uh...
I must be missing something. Once GPLd, always GPLd, correct? That's a pretty broad, blanketing effect. If I patent some software, then GPL any portion of it, I just GPLd my patent, so sorry for my luck.
If someone GPLs something already covered under someone else's patent, then that software is illegal, because it wasn't their work to release under the GPL in the first place. It's not the community who'll pay for it, it's the offender, because once it's out, it's out, there's nothing you can do about it, especially since it's the true author of that work who retains copyright. Or, in this case, he who released it claiming someone else's copyright. Double-whammy for He Who Violates, huh?
I don't see how the patent protection is even needed in these cases, as those 3rd parties can't possibly be considered liable for an illegal act committed by a single individual (or other entity), but instead expect all individuals to act in good faith. That's what it boils down to - many single entities, supposedly acting in good faith. Any FS/OSS project accepting that contribution has to also accept that entity's word that it is their work, under their copyright. If that word is misrepresented, that's fraud, and the OSS project in question is just as much a victim as the original owner of the work. Triple-whammy.
IANAL, but when I contribute, I do it the right way, by giving my own work. When others give of themselves, I expect the same. If I were lied to, I was lied to, and I would never ever accept another contribution from that person again. In addition, all of that person's contributions would have to be pulled from any of my projects. That gets to be a daunting prospect for projects like Apache! But, the only one who belongs in court is He Who Violated (tm).
I hope I just made sense.
Your link points to the cygwin version.
Do you changes clothes while making the "chee-chee-cha-cha-choh" transformation sound?
No, but I will now!
I second that. It was pretty good ;)
I have not read the EULAs of all the codecs, but many of them ARE redistributable in binary form.
Read the individual licenses of the codecs. Find one that states that you can't give it to your friend. Most of them (all those I have bothered to read) have said that they are redistributable but can't be cracked (in a nutshell).
It's not copyright violation (or a violation of the DMCA) if you don't take it apart to see how it works. Of course, if you did that and wrote a work-alike, you'd be reverse-engineering, and that at least USED to be perfectly legal.
Actually, the offenders who have been caught haven't had the balls to defend themselves. The copyright holders haven't had to drag their butts to court at all, excepting in a very few well-publicized cases - see MySQL vs. NuSphere.
.. both of these can flat kill a company like KISS. Imagine if M$ were caught copying Linux's network stack. To kill a company's flagship product by catching them stealing GPLd code can be equal to killing that company.
The thing is, if the offender is caught red-handed, there are two punishments OTHER than money the copyright holder can go for:
1. stop distributing
2. release code
Kinda make you respect the GPL a little more, eh?
IANAL, but that's what I'd do.
WHAT morning news???? I ain't seen NOTHIN on this that I didn't get from /.
The idea is to show that there is continuous public review of the code, and that there is no real way to add malicious or illegal code into the kernel unnoticed. It's no show managers that their systems are plenty legal with the SCO tax.
... because it reflects the type of people they hire. Doh't let anyone fool you, these candidates (especially the presidential candidates) know what is going on in their offices. They who's cousin to hire to make a website, for example.
Jesus, people!!???!!
IT'S JUST A MOVIE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTERTAINMENT!!!! You are NOT supposed to walk away with a fucking degree!!
Where'zat? What source m aterial? I don't recall anyone ever mentioning source material for Dark City anywhere - I musta missed it.
Are we going to be in a position to do innovation on this infrastructure, or are we going to be locked into obsolete thinking that the DNS was never intended to do anything other than what it was originally supposed to do?
Does this not strike anyone else as the reason WHY technologies fail? "Yes, that bicycle there was built for one, but it can handle 14!!!! Jesus, the last thing DNS needs is feature bloat!!