Re:But did Kubrick write the meta-science?
on
Review: A.I.
·
· Score: 1
Well, I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm curious to know how David was created/designed? Does the movie explain any of this? For example, for a robot to feel emotion, actually feel it, not just react to situations/words/etc, then that robot would have to have been made differently than the robots we have today...Not just more advanced or whatever, but totally different. Take for example John Searle's Chinese Room Argument. No matter how advanced the program that runs the robot is, it only reacts to stimuli - it can't really think for itself..ie: it has syntax, but not semantics. Humans have both..
So back to my question, does the movie explain how these robots were/are created/designed? I imagine not as that would be too much for most people to comprehend, but still, I would be curious to know.
I'd be curious to know what kind of evidence (other than "hard evidence," since we certainly know there is none of that) you have for thinking there's primitive life on Europa and Ganymede?
...
The Moon probably never had much water; but then I suspect that unusual events were involved in the formation of Earth's moon (ie, that it was not formed by the exact same processes that formed the major rocky planets and the Galilean moons and endowed them with water.)
Uh..no kidding? If, when you say "unusual events," you mean "a catastrophic collision between two huge objects (one being the Earth, the other being a Mars-sized object)," then I would have to say that most of the scientific community would agree with you.
Ok..I'm not even that upset that they did the same story over..What's getting me is that everytime i pull up/. (which is growing less and less often) i see the same old thing..Not necessarily the same exact story (although it's happening more and more lately..) but the same general stuff...These stupid [miniature/massive amounts of data on a] hard drive posts are getting redundant/used/beaten to death..I'm not even sure if this story is about that type of stuff because I don't even want to go through the trouble of reading it. But seriously..Slashdot cannot be that starved for stories...Just give me access to the submission bin - I'm sure I can find something of more interest.
Then again, perhaps I'm the only one who's sick of these stories.
Wow, I sincerely and honestly hope that you didn't mean to say:
> If something is scientifically possible, then it should automatically be moral and good
To assume that everything "scientifically possible" is good is a serious mistake. I'm not going to debate whether or not this case is morally right or wrong, but I do think that it can lead to dangerous territory.
Well, money is certainly a big worry of theirs, but an even bigger worry is actually getting elected in the upcoming election. In other words, politicians will start listening when 18-24 year olds actually start voting..until then, they couldn't "give two shits" as you put it.
I don't know exactly how this got rated so high, but the answer is pretty self-explanatory.
How can you justify trading with a Chinese Communist government, still unapologetic about human rights violations (i.e. Tienemen Square), when you won't trade with Fidel Castro's Communist Cuba for the same reason?
Because we can't really afford not to trade with China from an economic (and military) standpoint. As for Cuba, we do not need to trade with them for any particular reason, they don't export anything we couldn't get somewhere else (except great cigars..*sigh*). Not only do we not *need* to trade with Cuba, the Government for some reason still things banning trade with them will do some good. The ban is old, essentially worthless as it's not really hurting Fidel at all, and really, they're just being stupid by not lifting it. Perhaps they are too proud to admit it didn't really do alot to stop Fidel and his Communist government.
then why no lift those same embargoes against Cuba?
As I said above..we don't really *need* to trade with them..
Standing on moral ground until the market is large enough just looks very hypocritical.
And yes, you are correct, it does look hypocritical..Welcome to the US, have a nice stay.
Honestly, I can't see how they can determine how much wasted resources is too much..Like matty said, what about these search engines like yahoo..don't they do the same thing (except perhaps on a smaller scale) ?
In other words, where do you draw the line between acceptable and not acceptable..or can you?
To be honest, they can probably get away with this - especially with the new team they've hired. There are many people that still don't use the internet so they won't care what DoubleClick does..Then there are the millions upon millions of people who use the internet (read: AOL) and don't have any idea what DoubleClick wants to do and they don't care; they are all for whatever someone tells them to be for because they don't know better..Then there are the people who are/. users and the like who have some sense of what is going on here.
The problem is, we (the/. users) are far out-numbered I'm afraid, and there are just not enough people out there opposing it..
I realize that when/. was first created the only place Rob could get the domain was through NSI..but I'd be curious to know whether or not he (read: andover) will change (or at least lean towards it) registrars?
> The posts being objected to are nothing but a regurgitation of copyrighted material or links to copyrighted material. Not necessarily...I believe only one post (that was listed in the MS e-mail) actually "regurgitated" the copyrighted material, the rest were just links to outside sites..In other words, MS has a case for the one comment that actually has a copy of the text. As for the rest, MS can suck a fat one, they have no case (against slashdot)
> Asking for them to be removed is not censorship. Oh yes..it is - and if they get away with it, it will certainly set an unhealthy precedent. Would you like a large corporation to contact you, threatening to sue if you don't remove links from your website just because they don't agree with the the pages linked? I doubt it...
We all know that radar has it's limited capabilities (such as the ones listed above) and one of these is that radar likes round things.. Thus planes are built in such away (without round[ed] edges) to avoid detection from radar.
Is it possible that we're missing anything out there (especially relatively close stuff) using radar because of the objects shape?
Granted, we probably pick the object up on another wave length (visible light, radio, gamma, x-ray, etc), but it should be pointed out that radar does have it's negatives.
Actually, I did read the article..(as much as was possible with the free-subscription). My point was that this isn't the first time they've bounced radar waves off of things to get a picture.
Firs question: Why are we just now getting radar images of these asteroids? Too much debris? Or are the asteroids too small to be able to record until now (arecibo)?
Second question: Is this really that important of a discovery?
While I can understand where you're coming from, I don't think you can equate the two (napster and used cd's/books/etc). In order to equate the two, one of two things would have to happen:
When stores sell used cd's/books, what they would really be selling is copies of the original work (or copies of copies).
Everytime a mp3 is downloaded from computer1 to computer2, the mp3 is erased from computer1
Obviously, neither of these are going to happen. The thing with napster is when you download a song, you are copying it from their computer to yours - NOT moving ('mv') it.
Just a guess, but many languages (other than english) spell bank with a c..
The article on cnn.com says "For '.banc,' NSI recommends that a 'core group' of global banking industry representatives be appointed as registry gatekeepers."
Perhaps they're trying to be politically/internationally correct
It's one thing to have 10 telescopes spread out across the United States and have them all linked. It's quite another to have individuals all over the world with their own personal telescopes all linked together.
The idea of creating VLA's (very large array's) is nothing new. Even the idea of setting up a VLA that covers the whole earth has been around for a while.
However, there is one HUGE problem: TIME.
There are two problems with time. The first is, that, while I live in Florida (EST), it is not the same time [technically] for me as it is for someone in Maine (also EST) seeing as how we are at different latitude. This problem could probably be easily overcome, however the second problem, which is not as easy, is that clocks do not keep exact time. If I were to set to clocks to the exact same time (which would be hard in itself), before long, they would have varied times. Without everyone having the exact same time, correctly analyzing the data collected by the dishes will be near impossible. And so, we have a problem: how often would we all have to reset our clocks to put them all in sync.
If someone can figure this out, we should have no problems using the whole globe as one big telescope. Good luck
Actually, the Arecibo radio dish is 305 meters. In any event, while Arecibo is certainly an important radio dish, it also has problems. The biggest being the fact that Arecibo cannot track things across the sky. It only has a limited time window each day to collect data from a certain spot. This is obviously a problem, as it's not possible to build radio dishes of this size and allow them to move.
This is where Very Large Array's come in (which is what all of these dishes will create). The great thing about VLA's is that they can, with the use of computers, collect data over a very large area. Take for example the VLA in Siccoro, New Mexico. It has 27 dishes, each 85 meters in diameter shaped essentially like this:
OO \/ OO \/ O | O | O
(this is obviously a scaled-down version..but you get the idea)
And each of these "arms" is about 12 miles long. It is then possible to take all of the data collected from each of the dishes and spit out information. In other words, it acts as one dish, miles and miles across that is able to track things as they "move" across the sky.
There were an incredibly large number of songs in the movie so of course it would be impossible to get them all on one soundtrack, however, I was flipping through the TV channels and I saw John Cusack on MTV..TRL or something, anyway, he was talking about that and said that they'd be coming out with a second soundtrack shortly..So if your song isn't on this soundtrack, perhaps you'll have better luck with the next one.
This looks like it could be a pretty decent movie, but I can't say that I've ever heard anything about it. Appears that it's based off a book according to the website. Anyone read it?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm curious to know how David was created/designed? Does the movie explain any of this? For example, for a robot to feel emotion, actually feel it, not just react to situations/words/etc, then that robot would have to have been made differently than the robots we have today...Not just more advanced or whatever, but totally different. Take for example John Searle's Chinese Room Argument. No matter how advanced the program that runs the robot is, it only reacts to stimuli - it can't really think for itself..ie: it has syntax, but not semantics. Humans have both..
So back to my question, does the movie explain how these robots were/are created/designed? I imagine not as that would be too much for most people to comprehend, but still, I would be curious to know.
~Steve
--
I'd be curious to know what kind of evidence (other than "hard evidence," since we certainly know there is none of that) you have for thinking there's primitive life on Europa and Ganymede?
...
The Moon probably never had much water; but then I suspect that unusual events were involved in the formation of Earth's moon (ie, that it was not formed by the exact same processes that formed the major rocky planets and the Galilean moons and endowed them with water.)
Uh..no kidding? If, when you say "unusual events," you mean "a catastrophic collision between two huge objects (one being the Earth, the other being a Mars-sized object)," then I would have to say that most of the scientific community would agree with you.
~Steve
--
Ok..I'm not even that upset that they did the same story over..What's getting me is that everytime i pull up /. (which is growing less and less often) i see the same old thing..Not necessarily the same exact story (although it's happening more and more lately..) but the same general stuff...These stupid [miniature/massive amounts of data on a] hard drive posts are getting redundant/used/beaten to death..I'm not even sure if this story is about that type of stuff because I don't even want to go through the trouble of reading it. But seriously..Slashdot cannot be that starved for stories...Just give me access to the submission bin - I'm sure I can find something of more interest.
Then again, perhaps I'm the only one who's sick of these stories.
~Steve
--
Wow, I sincerely and honestly hope that you didn't mean to say:
> If something is scientifically possible, then it should automatically be moral and good
To assume that everything "scientifically possible" is good is a serious mistake. I'm not going to debate whether or not this case is morally right or wrong, but I do think that it can lead to dangerous territory.
~Steve
--
Well, money is certainly a big worry of theirs, but an even bigger worry is actually getting elected in the upcoming election. In other words, politicians will start listening when 18-24 year olds actually start voting..until then, they couldn't "give two shits" as you put it.
~Steve
--
I don't know exactly how this got rated so high, but the answer is pretty self-explanatory.
How can you justify trading with a Chinese Communist government, still unapologetic about human rights violations (i.e. Tienemen Square), when you won't trade with Fidel Castro's Communist Cuba for the same reason?
Because we can't really afford not to trade with China from an economic (and military) standpoint. As for Cuba, we do not need to trade with them for any particular reason, they don't export anything we couldn't get somewhere else (except great cigars..*sigh*). Not only do we not *need* to trade with Cuba, the Government for some reason still things banning trade with them will do some good. The ban is old, essentially worthless as it's not really hurting Fidel at all, and really, they're just being stupid by not lifting it. Perhaps they are too proud to admit it didn't really do alot to stop Fidel and his Communist government.
then why no lift those same embargoes against Cuba?
As I said above..we don't really *need* to trade with them..
Standing on moral ground until the market is large enough just looks very hypocritical.
And yes, you are correct, it does look hypocritical..Welcome to the US, have a nice stay.
~Steve
--
Honestly, I can't see how they can determine how much wasted resources is too much..Like matty said, what about these search engines like yahoo..don't they do the same thing (except perhaps on a smaller scale) ?
In other words, where do you draw the line between acceptable and not acceptable..or can you?
~Steve
--
To be honest, they can probably get away with this - especially with the new team they've hired. There are many people that still don't use the internet so they won't care what DoubleClick does..Then there are the millions upon millions of people who use the internet (read: AOL) and don't have any idea what DoubleClick wants to do and they don't care; they are all for whatever someone tells them to be for because they don't know better..Then there are the people who are /. users and the like who have some sense of what is going on here.
/. users) are far out-numbered I'm afraid, and there are just not enough people out there opposing it..
The problem is, we (the
I'm tired - time for bed...
~Steve
--
I realize that when /. was first created the only place Rob could get the domain was through NSI..but I'd be curious to know whether or not he (read: andover) will change (or at least lean towards it) registrars?
~Steve
--
> The posts being objected to are nothing but a regurgitation of copyrighted material or links to copyrighted material.
Not necessarily...I believe only one post (that was listed in the MS e-mail) actually "regurgitated" the copyrighted material, the rest were just links to outside sites..In other words, MS has a case for the one comment that actually has a copy of the text. As for the rest, MS can suck a fat one, they have no case (against slashdot)
> Asking for them to be removed is not censorship.
Oh yes..it is - and if they get away with it, it will certainly set an unhealthy precedent. Would you like a large corporation to contact you, threatening to sue if you don't remove links from your website just because they don't agree with the the pages linked? I doubt it...
~Steve
--
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, B, A, select, start...
awwww yeah, 30 lives.
oh how I miss the good old days..
~Steve
--
We all know that radar has it's limited capabilities (such as the ones listed above) and one of these is that radar likes round things.. Thus planes are built in such away (without round[ed] edges) to avoid detection from radar.
Is it possible that we're missing anything out there (especially relatively close stuff) using radar because of the objects shape?
Granted, we probably pick the object up on another wave length (visible light, radio, gamma, x-ray, etc), but it should be pointed out that radar does have it's negatives.
~Steve
--
Actually, I did read the article..(as much as was possible with the free-subscription). My point was that this isn't the first time they've bounced radar waves off of things to get a picture.
~Steve
--
Firs question: Why are we just now getting radar images of these asteroids? Too much debris? Or are the asteroids too small to be able to record until now (arecibo)?
Second question: Is this really that important of a discovery?
Nothing really earth-shattering here..move along.
~Steve
--
Obviously, neither of these are going to happen. The thing with napster is when you download a song, you are copying it from their computer to yours - NOT moving ('mv') it.
~Steve
--
Honestly..There are some good points here, and some stuff that needs to be said, but what is with the name calling? How old are these two? 5?
I mean..come on..I understand both the points they're trying to make..but <sarcasm>can we be a little more childish?</sarcasm>
> Seems like just yesterday that there was a flaw in the mirror, and it couldn't see.
Actually, Hubble has always been able to see. The flaw in the mirror only held it from performing as well as NASA had expected it to.
> Why do they want to mispell bank?
Just a guess, but many languages (other than english) spell bank with a c..
The article on cnn.com says "For '.banc,' NSI recommends that a 'core group' of global banking industry representatives be appointed as registry gatekeepers."
Perhaps they're trying to be politically/internationally correct
~Steve
--
ack..radio dishes..NOT telescopes
It's one thing to have 10 telescopes spread out across the United States and have them all linked. It's quite another to have individuals all over the world with their own personal telescopes all linked together.
The idea of creating VLA's (very large array's) is nothing new. Even the idea of setting up a VLA that covers the whole earth has been around for a while.
However, there is one HUGE problem: TIME.
There are two problems with time. The first is, that, while I live in Florida (EST), it is not the same time [technically] for me as it is for someone in Maine (also EST) seeing as how we are at different latitude. This problem could probably be easily overcome, however the second problem, which is not as easy, is that clocks do not keep exact time. If I were to set to clocks to the exact same time (which would be hard in itself), before long, they would have varied times. Without everyone having the exact same time, correctly analyzing the data collected by the dishes will be near impossible. And so, we have a problem: how often would we all have to reset our clocks to put them all in sync.
If someone can figure this out, we should have no problems using the whole globe as one big telescope. Good luck
Actually, the Arecibo radio dish is 305 meters. In any event, while Arecibo is certainly an important radio dish, it also has problems. The biggest being the fact that Arecibo cannot track things across the sky. It only has a limited time window each day to collect data from a certain spot. This is obviously a problem, as it's not possible to build radio dishes of this size and allow them to move.
This is where Very Large Array's come in (which is what all of these dishes will create). The great thing about VLA's is that they can, with the use of computers, collect data over a very large area. Take for example the VLA in Siccoro, New Mexico. It has 27 dishes, each 85 meters in diameter shaped essentially like this:
OO
\/
OO
\/
O
|
O
|
O
(this is obviously a scaled-down version..but you get the idea)
And each of these "arms" is about 12 miles long. It is then possible to take all of the data collected from each of the dishes and spit out information. In other words, it acts as one dish, miles and miles across that is able to track things as they "move" across the sky.
> At least they all still have the Mars Face...
:/
Well, unfortunately that has been disproven.
However, they recently found a smiley face on mars.
Sheesh..it's amazing how we look so far into things.
There were an incredibly large number of songs in the movie so of course it would be impossible to get them all on one soundtrack, however, I was flipping through the TV channels and I saw John Cusack on MTV..TRL or something, anyway, he was talking about that and said that they'd be coming out with a second soundtrack shortly..So if your song isn't on this soundtrack, perhaps you'll have better luck with the next one.
This looks like it could be a pretty decent movie, but I can't say that I've ever heard anything about it. Appears that it's based off a book according to the website. Anyone read it?