Whenever a company comes up with something like this, I have to wonder if somebody really is putting LSD in our water supply.
Whenever a company comes up with something like this, it's another sign that nobody needs to... people are nuts enough already.
:)
(BTW, I was surpised to see this on/. -- it's been plugged quite a lot in TV commercials here in Australia over the last six months or more, I would have thought that this would have already been posted if it interested people...)
But now step backward from your techy knowledge and think about it from a pure users perspective. Now why can't I put colors in my email??? Whats really so bad or difficult about them?
In case you start depending on them.
In my explanations, I usually use the "lowest common denominator" argument -- the fact that this email may need to be read on any machine the world over, and the majority of those machines support a very limited set of features.
Because other companies send me word files in word 2002 format with nested tables and other funky objects that "strings" doesn't work on?
If all those other companies jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?
... dang, my mother's old "peer group pressure" argument doesn't really work anymore.:) Seriously, it really comes down to inertia and (lack of) interoperability, two things that MS do their best to make work in their favour, and problems that can only be overcome if enough people do 'stand out from the crowd'.
Yeah, but the $15K guys might be putting crap in too, with the extra money being distributed to friends, or to militant unions/the Mob/local government kickbacks/etc. How can you tell, apart from asking people who have dealt with them before?
A tobacco company (BAT, IIRC) recently lost a lawsuit against a smoker with lung cancer here in Australia because their "Document Retention Policy" involved using many shredders on internal evidence they had been forced to collect for a previous lawsuit by someone else. The case couldn't be decided on the facts, because the facts were currently landfill/compost, so the judge found against the tobacco company.
And then, of course, there's Enron & Arthur Andersen.:)
I'm willing to agree with your viewpoint about functionality, until it's *MY* consciousness at stake.
The proof is in the pudding... and I'll let someone else beta test the machine.:)
I've always said that consciousness is like a hall of mirrors. By it's very nature we cannot see or understand it, because we are using it as the tool to examine itself. It's like a blind spot in the whole rational process of our minds.
Yes -- I think most variants of the qualia question are essentially meaningless, because they ask us to talk about something that cannot by its definition be defined or communicated.
As much as I know that the only possible answer is that we are mere machines, very intelligent machines, but mere machines; as much as I know that on some level, I can never fully accept that, and I don't think you can either.
I have no problem with machines having free will, for some value of free will. I can't conceive of anything dualist -- except to the extent that the mind may manifest itself in some other way in the myriad number of dimensions that have been postulated to exist (are we up to 11 now?), and even then I fit that within the 'physical' universe that (as far as I can tell) encompasses everything. I also believe that phenomenon to (eventually) be susceptible to some for of scientific investigation, when the time comes.
I'm not as 'hard-core' as the full-on functionalist materialists, but I am happy to accept a materialist nature to existence.
BTW: I'm not saying I'm right here, just stating my beliefs. I'm agnostic, so I have to muse about the nature of being in some other way.:) (I always say that I only came out of my Philosophy courses with one belief left -- "What is, is." And that's because I only did a BA, and didn't hang around for the postgrad stuff, otherwise I would have lost that too.:)
You seem to keep saying that anything that isn't science isn't worth looking at. Well, you should know, that science without philosophy is nearly as bad, or perhaps worse than philosophy without science.
I think I'm pushing the science agenda here because I found a lot of (historical) philosophy not to be overly scientific -- but you're right, neither is anything without the other (except interesting data or postulates, sometimes interesting enough in and of themselves to spend a lifetime on:)
I enjoyed, particularly, studying the philosophy of science, and (having had a pretty digital upbringing:) lean towards the instrumentalist viewpoints that the models aren't necessarily correct,or even accurate, WRT the actual universe they describe, but that they do give us a very accurate way of predicting what will appear to us to happen.
Philosophy on its own is not worthless, but the sort of philosophy that ends up disappearing up its own arse, happy in the knowledge that its unproven and unprovable, may as well be.:) What good does it do us if its eternal status is "Might be true, can't tell either way"? (Unless, of course, it actually does prove useful 750 years down the track....)
All my philosophy books are packed away, so I'm winging it on this one... and only addressing the issue raised by the story, I'd need to read up to get any more general than this.
I'd assume that the qualia would be qualitatively the same/similar for the teleported identity, assuming an exact similarity of experience. (i.e. the new identity will experience things *just as* the old one would have, but those qualia will be modified by the experiences over time (and the state) of that new identity.) Besides, if those two identities are separated, there would be no way for them to compare qualia anyway (see Nagel); thus it becomes purely a matter for conjecture rather than something that can actually be settled by testing.
(It's been a while since I've graced my local university, so I'm not communicating that very clearly, apologies...:)
If consciousness and identity can't be tested by scientific exploration like any other knowledge, then they have no place in science at all, and philosophers in general may as well give up and go home. (And, indeed, most of them would be better served by doing so -- it's a profession with a lot of hot air and little actual science.) Still, that shouldn't stop people at least making the effort.
To go back to my original point, if an exact copy of me behaves exactly as I would in all circumstances, who are you (or I?) to say that it is not me -- especially if the original was destroyed in the process? It's a functionalist viewpoint, but then I tend to take the view that consciousness is as consciousness does. If some entity claims to be conscious, and exhibits behaviour consonant with that claim, why should I not believe it?
(Dragging in the whole 'other minds' problem here I guess...)
Well it just exposes the whole idea of consciousness and identity as flawed.
All our ideas of consciousness and identity are just that -- ideas. If they are proven to be false by experimental evidence, then we have some pretty major re-adjustment to do... but that's no reason to ignore the reality of the evidence (if that's the way it works out).
(Actually, "just" is probably inappropriate up there, as these ideas underlay everything in our lives... but you know what I mean:)
And on the other end they would reconstruct your matter based on that data. But what if recreating one of you, they would recreate two of you.... But my self-preservation instinct doesn't like that idea, and I bet neither does yours.
What could possibly be more self-preserving than being able to keep backups?:)
Here in Australia, income tax is federal, sales tax is federal. Of course, the Federal Government is supposed to be distributing all of the money from the sales tax to the states, but we can be pretty sure that won't be happening with any great speed -- there's pork-barrelling to be done!
Hunh? If sales remain the same from one year to the next, how have "Sales have been hurt"?
Inflation -- $13bn in 2000 is not the same as $13bn in 2001, if both are converted to some nominal (e.g. 1995) dollar figure.
Besides, this is cited in the midst of a capitalist structure in which *any* business that makes less profit one year than it did previously is perceived as having failed. Doesn't matter if it still made heaps of money, just matters that it didn't make even more money this year than it ever had before. Doesn't really accord with my understanding of money, but then I know very little about business, thankfully.:)
Just throwing out a question here... does anyone know of a relatively lightweight proxy -- Junkbuster fork or otherwise -- that supports HTTP 1.1 without also providing HTML filtering, thus holding up delivery of the page?
I had a look a while back, but didn't really find anything that made me want to shift from Junkbuster.
Slashdot Mirror
Whenever a company comes up with something like this, I have to wonder if somebody really is putting LSD in our water supply.
/. -- it's been plugged quite a lot in TV commercials here in Australia over the last six months or more, I would have thought that this would have already been posted if it interested people...)
Whenever a company comes up with something like this, it's another sign that nobody needs to... people are nuts enough already.
:)
(BTW, I was surpised to see this on
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a large intestine filled with meat.
But now step backward from your techy knowledge and think about it from a pure users perspective. Now why can't I put colors in my email??? Whats really so bad or difficult about them?
In case you start depending on them.
In my explanations, I usually use the "lowest common denominator" argument -- the fact that this email may need to be read on any machine the world over, and the majority of those machines support a very limited set of features.
Yes.
QuickTime Streaming Server
RTP/RTSP Tutorial
Because other companies send me word files in word 2002 format with nested tables and other funky objects that "strings" doesn't work on?
:) Seriously, it really comes down to inertia and (lack of) interoperability, two things that MS do their best to make work in their favour, and problems that can only be overcome if enough people do 'stand out from the crowd'.
If all those other companies jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?
... dang, my mother's old "peer group pressure" argument doesn't really work anymore.
Duke Nukem Forever
:)
hits the shelves
... and Satan rides to work on a snowplow?
Yeah, but the $15K guys might be putting crap in too, with the extra money being distributed to friends, or to militant unions/the Mob/local government kickbacks/etc. How can you tell, apart from asking people who have dealt with them before?
to hell with them
:)
A somewhat mediaeval punishment, but can we send them there now instead of waiting for nature to take its course?
The best book on programming for the layman is "Alice in Wonderland"; but that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.
A tobacco company (BAT, IIRC) recently lost a lawsuit against a smoker with lung cancer here in Australia because their "Document Retention Policy" involved using many shredders on internal evidence they had been forced to collect for a previous lawsuit by someone else. The case couldn't be decided on the facts, because the facts were currently landfill/compost, so the judge found against the tobacco company.
:)
And then, of course, there's Enron & Arthur Andersen.
I hope I don't live near the goatse.cx guy...
I'd generalise that to:
The tendency to blindly worship things... is far too common.
I'm willing to agree with your viewpoint about functionality, until it's *MY* consciousness at stake.
:)
:) (I always say that I only came out of my Philosophy courses with one belief left -- "What is, is." And that's because I only did a BA, and didn't hang around for the postgrad stuff, otherwise I would have lost that too. :)
The proof is in the pudding... and I'll let someone else beta test the machine.
I've always said that consciousness is like a hall of mirrors. By it's very nature we cannot see or understand it, because we are using it as the tool to examine itself. It's like a blind spot in the whole rational process of our minds.
Yes -- I think most variants of the qualia question are essentially meaningless, because they ask us to talk about something that cannot by its definition be defined or communicated.
As much as I know that the only possible answer is that we are mere machines, very intelligent machines, but mere machines; as much as I know that on some level, I can never fully accept that, and I don't think you can either.
I have no problem with machines having free will, for some value of free will. I can't conceive of anything dualist -- except to the extent that the mind may manifest itself in some other way in the myriad number of dimensions that have been postulated to exist (are we up to 11 now?), and even then I fit that within the 'physical' universe that (as far as I can tell) encompasses everything. I also believe that phenomenon to (eventually) be susceptible to some for of scientific investigation, when the time comes.
I'm not as 'hard-core' as the full-on functionalist materialists, but I am happy to accept a materialist nature to existence.
BTW: I'm not saying I'm right here, just stating my beliefs. I'm agnostic, so I have to muse about the nature of being in some other way.
You seem to keep saying that anything that isn't science isn't worth looking at. Well, you should know, that science without philosophy is nearly as bad, or perhaps worse than philosophy without science.
:)
:) lean towards the instrumentalist viewpoints that the models aren't necessarily correct,or even accurate, WRT the actual universe they describe, but that they do give us a very accurate way of predicting what will appear to us to happen.
:) What good does it do us if its eternal status is "Might be true, can't tell either way"? (Unless, of course, it actually does prove useful 750 years down the track....)
I think I'm pushing the science agenda here because I found a lot of (historical) philosophy not to be overly scientific -- but you're right, neither is anything without the other (except interesting data or postulates, sometimes interesting enough in and of themselves to spend a lifetime on
I enjoyed, particularly, studying the philosophy of science, and (having had a pretty digital upbringing
Philosophy on its own is not worthless, but the sort of philosophy that ends up disappearing up its own arse, happy in the knowledge that its unproven and unprovable, may as well be.
Can I refer you to Daniel Dennett? :)
:)
All my philosophy books are packed away, so I'm winging it on this one... and only addressing the issue raised by the story, I'd need to read up to get any more general than this.
I'd assume that the qualia would be qualitatively the same/similar for the teleported identity, assuming an exact similarity of experience. (i.e. the new identity will experience things *just as* the old one would have, but those qualia will be modified by the experiences over time (and the state) of that new identity.) Besides, if those two identities are separated, there would be no way for them to compare qualia anyway (see Nagel); thus it becomes purely a matter for conjecture rather than something that can actually be settled by testing.
(It's been a while since I've graced my local university, so I'm not communicating that very clearly, apologies...
That's a matter of perspective.
If consciousness and identity can't be tested by scientific exploration like any other knowledge, then they have no place in science at all, and philosophers in general may as well give up and go home. (And, indeed, most of them would be better served by doing so -- it's a profession with a lot of hot air and little actual science.) Still, that shouldn't stop people at least making the effort.
To go back to my original point, if an exact copy of me behaves exactly as I would in all circumstances, who are you (or I?) to say that it is not me -- especially if the original was destroyed in the process? It's a functionalist viewpoint, but then I tend to take the view that consciousness is as consciousness does. If some entity claims to be conscious, and exhibits behaviour consonant with that claim, why should I not believe it?
(Dragging in the whole 'other minds' problem here I guess...)
Well it just exposes the whole idea of consciousness and identity as flawed.
:)
All our ideas of consciousness and identity are just that -- ideas. If they are proven to be false by experimental evidence, then we have some pretty major re-adjustment to do... but that's no reason to ignore the reality of the evidence (if that's the way it works out).
(Actually, "just" is probably inappropriate up there, as these ideas underlay everything in our lives... but you know what I mean
And on the other end they would reconstruct your matter based on that data. But what if recreating one of you, they would recreate two of you.... But my self-preservation instinct doesn't like that idea, and I bet neither does yours.
:)
What could possibly be more self-preserving than being able to keep backups?
Here in Australia, income tax is federal, sales tax is federal. Of course, the Federal Government is supposed to be distributing all of the money from the sales tax to the states, but we can be pretty sure that won't be happening with any great speed -- there's pork-barrelling to be done!
Hunh? If sales remain the same from one year to the next, how have "Sales have been hurt"?
:)
Inflation -- $13bn in 2000 is not the same as $13bn in 2001, if both are converted to some nominal (e.g. 1995) dollar figure.
Besides, this is cited in the midst of a capitalist structure in which *any* business that makes less profit one year than it did previously is perceived as having failed. Doesn't matter if it still made heaps of money, just matters that it didn't make even more money this year than it ever had before. Doesn't really accord with my understanding of money, but then I know very little about business, thankfully.
Yes, and if those hackers try hard enough, it could be almost as bad as Code Red & Nimda.
Turn down the brightness on your monitor. :)
And I'm sure those ugly little buggers actually like to be licked
:) (Fast cars spring to mind, jumping mental tracks...)
Hey, if you're a toad, you take your thrills where you can get them.
Does the caching layer introduce any overhead? (I'm sure it can be switched off, but does it introduce compromises into the design of the rest of it?)
:)
I'll have a look, anyway -- I may have discarded it for providing way more than I needed
Just throwing out a question here... does anyone know of a relatively lightweight proxy -- Junkbuster fork or otherwise -- that supports HTTP 1.1 without also providing HTML filtering, thus holding up delivery of the page?
I had a look a while back, but didn't really find anything that made me want to shift from Junkbuster.