A lot of the problems we see with software today are due to the complexity of the hardware and software systems on which it is built. For the most part there are way too many variable to keep in your head at once to make sure they are all coherent.
Right. AI is a software problem, not a hardware problem. That's not to say that current hardware could run the software should it ever be devised, but once we know what the software is we can build the hardware that will run it. So, how do we come up with the software if we don't have the hardware to run it? It's called philosophy.
Surely these students surf the web from home? Are you suggesting many of them use FF et alia? If so, I'd say schools and universities skew the results up for IE, because when these folks are in the real world they will be using something other than IE.
is this verdict. Between the First Amendment and the Fourth I'm not sure that this is remotely constitutional. I could see the point if the person involved filed rape charges, but then it would be a case about rape, not obscenity. Totally stupid.
I already have a national ID card which lets me vote, I have a PAN number which tracks literally every economic transaction of significance I make. They know everything about my vehicles and my travel arrangements.
Now, they're going to pay someone to build a system which correlates all this into some useless information. It'll take six years to build & cost tons of money for the government, half of which will end up being passed under the table as kickbacks and the rest with the contractors. Eventually, the system will be built and works fairly decently, but has no information about anyone who does not really volunteer it first-hand.
It'll be done, but completely useless. Some people will become rich and... as the general attitude will be "I want less corruption or more opportunity to participate in it". A complete waste of tax payer's money, but not quite the invasion of my privacy that most people imagine.
But hell yeah, I'm going to protest. Even their incompetence can't be depended up on:)
"Some say that recent reports that Steve Jobs may have had a liver transplant, still not confirmed by the company, now makes one of Apple's assertions from January â" that Jobs was suffering only from a hormonal imbalance â" seem like a deliberate untruth."
Really? You know IGF-1 is produced in the liver right? Lack of IGF-1 can affect weight. It's directly related to growth hormone. So, at worst, we're talking misdirection here, not deliberate untruth.
Well, it's a useful distraction since it doesn't address the main issue: competition. If they meekly go along with this bill, which will change nothing, they look like they are becoming more consumer friendly and the politicians look like heroes. Win-win, right?
But, uh, how about you introduce competition or conditions that encourage competition first and then see what happens? If you find collusion,etc, later, then add more laws/regulation. This is a band-aid. How about we address the real problem?
Wow, in the 50's it was any day now; 70's real soon now; 90's became 50 years; now 2010 we're at 100. That's a heck of a curve. In 100 years we'll be at only 200 years away!
Your quotes around security reasons are probably unwarranted. The research in question could probably also be used to create ICBMs. At least that's the only reason that would seem justified.
it's useless. China in general is poorly connected to the rest of the world (chokepoints are handy for censorship), and if the botnet is centered in China, then the rest of the world could easily blackhole China. I call bullshit, alarmist rhetoric.
No. I haven't read much Rorty. He's seemed a bit sensationalist and not attuned to the subtleties of more technical discussions. But to be fair, I haven't given him a chance and my impression is second hand at best. Do you have any recommendations?
I can't do full justice here to my assertion that "many flavors of continental philosophy have gone so far in that direction that they have undermined any possibility of authority at all (even truth)." Well beginning with Marx truth is subverted by the means of production (i.e. what appears to be true does so because of the means of production); Nietzsche suggests truths are the result of the imposition of the conditions that allow the strong to thrive on the weak; Heidegger provides what he considers a more fundamental interpretation of truth but in his later work it seems that what can be seen as true is determined by the particular epoch of impersonal being; Derrida mashes all of this up with a dash of Kierkegaard and creates deconstrucion(ism) which is probably the most evasive resistance to any authority (except perhaps some sort of idiosyncratic authenticity unintelligible to others). From there spring a lot of the resistance philosophies like post-colonialism, feminism, etc. We can't forget Foucault and his analysis of the subtleties of power's construction of truth throughout history. Finally Levinas' elevation of the Other above truth where the Other is the divine or something of the divine. Obviously this is very schematic and probably very controversial. I don't think you'd find another person who would agree with all of those characterizations but it's not a bad starting point.
I wish we remembered, since Darwinism is still misused to tragic ends. Socioeconomic Darwinism is still flaunted among the extreme libertarian/Randian/. crowd, even if it is a dire fallacy which lead to some serious negative consequences. those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
I completely agree. Nothing really annoys me more than the glib espousal of Socieconomic Darwinism. The crowd you mentioned tend to be ignorant and very vocal. But I think it is also important not to "suppress" an idea because it leads to a negative outcome. Much of the last fifty years of ethics in continental philosophy has been spent deliberately constructing an ethics that will prevent another holocaust (or any type of justification of the previous one). Granted the holocaust was evil and any ethics that allows it is questionable, but many flavors of continental philosophy have gone so far in that direction that they have undermined any possibility of authority at all (even truth). Obviously this is counter-productive because without any authority everything is permissible and you are back where you started again.
Slashdot Mirror
:-)
Ok, no *good* Project Manager plans in hours. A day is the minimum and usually weeks work best.
Have you seen Jessica Simpson lately?
http://www.bannedinhollywood.com/jessica-simpson-mom-jeans-belly-contractor-fat-at-chili-cookoff/
A lot of the problems we see with software today are due to the complexity of the hardware and software systems on which it is built. For the most part there are way too many variable to keep in your head at once to make sure they are all coherent.
Right. AI is a software problem, not a hardware problem. That's not to say that current hardware could run the software should it ever be devised, but once we know what the software is we can build the hardware that will run it. So, how do we come up with the software if we don't have the hardware to run it? It's called philosophy.
Sadly, you are correct, but it's still stupid. ;-)
Surely these students surf the web from home? Are you suggesting many of them use FF et alia? If so, I'd say schools and universities skew the results up for IE, because when these folks are in the real world they will be using something other than IE.
It'd be interesting if someone actual brought a case of obscenity for violence. I wonder what would happen?
is this verdict. Between the First Amendment and the Fourth I'm not sure that this is remotely constitutional. I could see the point if the person involved filed rape charges, but then it would be a case about rape, not obscenity. Totally stupid.
I think I know how this will work out.
I already have a national ID card which lets me vote, I have a PAN number which tracks literally every economic transaction of significance I make. They know everything about my vehicles and my travel arrangements.
Now, they're going to pay someone to build a system which correlates all this into some useless information. It'll take six years to build & cost tons of money for the government, half of which will end up being passed under the table as kickbacks and the rest with the contractors. Eventually, the system will be built and works fairly decently, but has no information about anyone who does not really volunteer it first-hand.
It'll be done, but completely useless. Some people will become rich and ... as the general attitude will be "I want less corruption or more opportunity to participate in it". A complete waste of tax payer's money, but not quite the invasion of my privacy that most people imagine.
But hell yeah, I'm going to protest. Even their incompetence can't be depended up on :)
++
I wish I had mod points today.
And she was only demoted from an assistant principal to a teacher? Not charged as a sex offender? Ridiculous.
++
"Some say that recent reports that Steve Jobs may have had a liver transplant, still not confirmed by the company, now makes one of Apple's assertions from January â" that Jobs was suffering only from a hormonal imbalance â" seem like a deliberate untruth."
Really? You know IGF-1 is produced in the liver right? Lack of IGF-1 can affect weight. It's directly related to growth hormone. So, at worst, we're talking misdirection here, not deliberate untruth.
Well, it's a useful distraction since it doesn't address the main issue: competition. If they meekly go along with this bill, which will change nothing, they look like they are becoming more consumer friendly and the politicians look like heroes. Win-win, right?
But, uh, how about you introduce competition or conditions that encourage competition first and then see what happens? If you find collusion,etc, later, then add more laws/regulation. This is a band-aid. How about we address the real problem?
Wow, in the 50's it was any day now; 70's real soon now; 90's became 50 years; now 2010 we're at 100. That's a heck of a curve. In 100 years we'll be at only 200 years away!
Your quotes around security reasons are probably unwarranted. The research in question could probably also be used to create ICBMs. At least that's the only reason that would seem justified.
If not, who cares? Even if all of their homework is correct, they will still fail the exam...
Well, the NSA allegedly has done all of those but eventually you just have to say screw it.
it's useless. China in general is poorly connected to the rest of the world (chokepoints are handy for censorship), and if the botnet is centered in China, then the rest of the world could easily blackhole China. I call bullshit, alarmist rhetoric.
No. I haven't read much Rorty. He's seemed a bit sensationalist and not attuned to the subtleties of more technical discussions. But to be fair, I haven't given him a chance and my impression is second hand at best. Do you have any recommendations?
I can't do full justice here to my assertion that "many flavors of continental philosophy have gone so far in that direction that they have undermined any possibility of authority at all (even truth)." Well beginning with Marx truth is subverted by the means of production (i.e. what appears to be true does so because of the means of production); Nietzsche suggests truths are the result of the imposition of the conditions that allow the strong to thrive on the weak; Heidegger provides what he considers a more fundamental interpretation of truth but in his later work it seems that what can be seen as true is determined by the particular epoch of impersonal being; Derrida mashes all of this up with a dash of Kierkegaard and creates deconstrucion(ism) which is probably the most evasive resistance to any authority (except perhaps some sort of idiosyncratic authenticity unintelligible to others). From there spring a lot of the resistance philosophies like post-colonialism, feminism, etc. We can't forget Foucault and his analysis of the subtleties of power's construction of truth throughout history. Finally Levinas' elevation of the Other above truth where the Other is the divine or something of the divine. Obviously this is very schematic and probably very controversial. I don't think you'd find another person who would agree with all of those characterizations but it's not a bad starting point.
I wish we remembered, since Darwinism is still misused to tragic ends. Socioeconomic Darwinism is still flaunted among the extreme libertarian/Randian /. crowd, even if it is a dire fallacy which lead to some serious negative consequences. those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
I completely agree. Nothing really annoys me more than the glib espousal of Socieconomic Darwinism. The crowd you mentioned tend to be ignorant and very vocal. But I think it is also important not to "suppress" an idea because it leads to a negative outcome. Much of the last fifty years of ethics in continental philosophy has been spent deliberately constructing an ethics that will prevent another holocaust (or any type of justification of the previous one). Granted the holocaust was evil and any ethics that allows it is questionable, but many flavors of continental philosophy have gone so far in that direction that they have undermined any possibility of authority at all (even truth). Obviously this is counter-productive because without any authority everything is permissible and you are back where you started again.
If it allows me to do an end-run around paying for cable in the long run it's probably worth it.
Sorry, but I'm going to have to assume your ignorance is do to innate retardation given that last post.