just because it can pass the turing test does not mean the machine demonstrates real intelligence! in fact, just what is intelligence / conciousness? if we can't define it, how can we hope to produce it?
nope, i just can't see your point.. sure there may be chemical or biological differences but four legs work, three don't, fishy things will have gills, flying things, two wings and feathers and so on..
if there were alternatives, nature would be using them..
Sure, Hollywood loves to portray aliens as weird, mostly very ugly and very different, meanwhile, I think that actually real aliens are more likely to be quite similar to terrestrial life. After all, we evolved into these forms as a matter of effectiveness and survival. We reflect our conditions more than I think we understand. Therefore, given that physics is physics no matter where in the universe you are, I think people will look like people, horses like horses, fish like fish and so on...
of course, more highly evolved beings likely have more style too...
Sure, my reasoning could be used either way, however, that doesn't invalidate my point. It is not at all misleading to put the blame on ambition and greed. The problem as I see it is we can't speak the truth when it comes to financial or political success. It's simply wrong to cheat to win, and, in the end, ineffective. Unethical behavior will cause a dark future, and not technology.
and not a 'techno-biological' failure. The future's darkness comes from a tyrannical plutocracy which misuses the technology, which could have just as easily been used to save mankind. It is in fact an outgrowth of current economics and politics, not technology. Please, get your stories straight.
.. now that would be a lot research! Why do we just waste all that effort? Why not publish all papers on the web, even at the high school level?
We produce a work just to pass a course or test, and then we never use that report, or term paper again. Odd how we can recycle tin cans but waste the labors of mind.
Re:type width has nothing to do with technology ..
on
Are 80 Columns Enough?
·
· Score: 1
Indeed you might... however, from what I've read, it seems that only an exceptional few, and the young, take advantage of the new 'channels' that technology offers
to make my case in a point, how many old folks 'text'? see...? no?
I'll try once more.
technology can only succeed as an extension of human activity, successful tech is so because it empowers a human activity, from this perspective, it can be seen that teletypes could have had more, or less characters per column, but eighty was chosen because it offered the best human performance, not the best 'technical' performance
in other words, best is not based on maximal specifications but on a technology's ability to conform to human abilities
so, unless there are MMI studies which demonstrate a more efficient column width, I assume most systems will maintain current column / page widths
... rather, it's all about psychology, the machines could have displayed more text easily but not the readers mind or the eye. Indeed, as others have pointed here there's a lot more to this issue than simple technological evolvement. IMHO, technology that fails to follow humanology most often fails.
I won't pay for compressed, overprocessed, overpriced downloads, what I will pay for is flac files at a dime a pop, indeed, when it's cheaper and easier to download than to share or rip, then, and only then, will music "sales" reach their true porential levels.
The way I see it, artists need to dump the middlemen and sell directly to the public. Neither artists, nor audiences need anything to be between them at all, in fact.
IMHO, the time has come for wikipedia to return to its origins before it's too late. What made it work was its openness, now people think it can be "saved" by closing it up?
In truth, the biggest problem with wikipedia has nothing to do with wikipedia. The problem is us, especially our greed. Article after article has become slanted by those with a special, i.e. greedy, interest. Many controversial issues have already been editoralized into one-sided oblivion.
Top down is not going to help, so I say avoid the temptation to let the "experts" decide what we should be able to freely consider.
imho, the problem is that science is supposed to study the apparently unprovable ~ if science only consisted of the proven, hypothesis wouldn't even exist, therefore, nor would your science
1) I spend how much on HIGH speed access, then I'm going to throttle it? Not! 2) I spend how much time on privacy and security, then I'm going to broadcast? Not! 3) I spend how much time tuning and tweaking Linux, but no device driver? Not!
Personally, I don't trust public access points for outgoing private information. Ever.
Please, sign me off the fing airwaves, AFAIC, hardwired is the only way to fly.
Win2k is has been patched right up. Patches and updates for components like.net run-times will continue to receive official support. Scanners will be updated as will browsers. IMHO, simply keeping up to date and running the appropriate scanners and root kit revealers will keep Win2k more secure than newer, less well known OSs.
What will kill Win2k is most likely an inability to support higher performance real-time hardware and software. I have already seen systems that won't even boot Win98, OS9, etc.
It seems to me that it's only ridiculous to you because you are in denial. There's no requirement not to own a computer either. I should be able to freely choose whether or not to. Just as I should be freely able to choose to have MS Windows preinstalled. As well, we should be free to choose from the large number of competing products that should exist if the market was indeed free.
However, we are here not because the market is free, but because it is not free.
There is no escaping the clearly obvious. Our commerce is taxed, our currencies controlled and our markets closely regulated. How is this free enterprise I ask you?
As well, all the reading, without comprehension or contemplation, does little good. Perhaps if the government of the people was more for the people, the people would be more for the government?
As well, when corporations spend time and money influencing laws and lawmakers, they do so to control enterprise. I say to you sir, that if the government was not controlling enterprise, then enterprise wouldn't bother trying to control governments.
Once again I hear the usual cries of, "if you don't like it, don't buy it" and "it's a free market."
No, it's not a free market, and no, there is no choice! This is the simple truth of it for most people.
When the principles of free enterprise are corrupted and perverted to the profit of the privileged, it is the people who must pay the price their masters set.
Shed your tears not for the dollars lost, but rather for the freedoms spent.
Slashdot Mirror
just because it can pass the turing test does not mean the machine demonstrates real intelligence! in fact, just what is intelligence / conciousness? if we can't define it, how can we hope to produce it?
"when legendary game programmer John Carmack speaks," Why have I never heard of him?
;~|
Me neither! What, with all these stroggs running around, who's got time for gossip?
~ praise JC and pls pass over the BFG
evolution maybe? if others could, why haven't they?
nope, i just can't see your point .. sure there may be chemical or biological differences but four legs work, three don't, fishy things will have gills, flying things, two wings and feathers and so on ..
..
if there were alternatives, nature would be using them
Sure, Hollywood loves to portray aliens as weird, mostly very ugly and very different, meanwhile, I think that actually real aliens are more likely to be quite similar to terrestrial life. After all, we evolved into these forms as a matter of effectiveness and survival. We reflect our conditions more than I think we understand. Therefore, given that physics is physics no matter where in the universe you are, I think people will look like people, horses like horses, fish like fish and so on ...
...
of course, more highly evolved beings likely have more style too
Sure, my reasoning could be used either way, however, that doesn't invalidate my point. It is not at all misleading to put the blame on ambition and greed. The problem as I see it is we can't speak the truth when it comes to financial or political success. It's simply wrong to cheat to win, and, in the end, ineffective. Unethical behavior will cause a dark future, and not technology.
and not a 'techno-biological' failure. The future's darkness comes from a tyrannical plutocracy which misuses the technology, which could have just as easily been used to save mankind. It is in fact an outgrowth of current economics and politics, not technology. Please, get your stories straight.
.. now that would be a lot research! Why do we just waste all that effort? Why not publish all papers on the web, even at the high school level?
We produce a work just to pass a course or test, and then we never use that report, or term paper again. Odd how we can recycle tin cans but waste the labors of mind.
Indeed you might ... however, from what I've read, it seems that only an exceptional few, and the young, take advantage of the new 'channels' that technology offers
...? no?
...
to make my case in a point, how many old folks 'text'? see
I'll try once more.
technology can only succeed as an extension of human activity, successful tech is so because it empowers a human activity, from this perspective, it can be seen that teletypes could have had more, or less characters per column, but eighty was chosen because it offered the best human performance, not the best 'technical' performance
in other words, best is not based on maximal specifications but on a technology's ability to conform to human abilities
so, unless there are MMI studies which demonstrate a more efficient column width, I assume most systems will maintain current column / page widths
now, if you could re-engineer the eye
... rather, it's all about psychology, the machines could have displayed more text easily but not the readers mind or the eye. Indeed, as others have pointed here there's a lot more to this issue than simple technological evolvement. IMHO, technology that fails to follow humanology most often fails.
like not having medical insurance!
the problem is doctors addicted to affluence
and therefore, one distinct advantage it has over traditional encylopedias is in its ability to reflect changing beliefs and controversies
personally i'm tired of "either or" type thinking, in fact, I use each and every resource
I won't pay for compressed, overprocessed, overpriced downloads, what I will pay for is flac files at a dime a pop, indeed, when it's cheaper and easier to download than to share or rip, then, and only then, will music "sales" reach their true porential levels.
The way I see it, artists need to dump the middlemen and sell directly to the public. Neither artists, nor audiences need anything to be between them at all, in fact.
Personally, I think it's great to see some dramatic interaction, go kids go, i always say.
Thanks to all you folks, and your excellent efforts, my systems rock!
Although it may be adaptive, as a strain or population, surely no one is claiming that individual virus are able to change in any way?
Imho, science has no place for such literary free license.
IMHO, the time has come for wikipedia to return to its origins before it's too late. What made it work was its openness, now people think it can be "saved" by closing it up?
In truth, the biggest problem with wikipedia has nothing to do with wikipedia. The problem is us, especially our greed. Article after article has become slanted by those with a special, i.e. greedy, interest. Many controversial issues have already been editoralized into one-sided oblivion.
Top down is not going to help, so I say avoid the temptation to let the "experts" decide what we should be able to freely consider.
Disprovable. ~ Capable of being disproved or refuted.
So what you're saying is that science is "the study of what is capable of being disproved or refuted."
Sounds to me like you shouldn't be explaining this stuff.
imho, the problem is that science is supposed to study the apparently unprovable ~ if science only consisted of the proven, hypothesis wouldn't even exist, therefore, nor would your science
... a theory
string theory is just that
1) I spend how much on HIGH speed access, then I'm going to throttle it? Not!
2) I spend how much time on privacy and security, then I'm going to broadcast? Not!
3) I spend how much time tuning and tweaking Linux, but no device driver? Not!
Personally, I don't trust public access points for outgoing private information. Ever.
Please, sign me off the fing airwaves, AFAIC, hardwired is the only way to fly.
Win2k is has been patched right up. Patches and updates for components like .net run-times will continue to receive official support. Scanners will be updated as will browsers. IMHO, simply keeping up to date and running the appropriate scanners and root kit revealers will keep Win2k more secure than newer, less well known OSs.
What will kill Win2k is most likely an inability to support higher performance real-time hardware and software. I have already seen systems that won't even boot Win98, OS9, etc.
if you want to build better games, listen to players
how many companies spend millions on research but don't listen?
It seems to me that it's only ridiculous to you because you are in denial. There's no requirement not to own a computer either. I should be able to freely choose whether or not to. Just as I should be freely able to choose to have MS Windows preinstalled. As well, we should be free to choose from the large number of competing products that should exist if the market was indeed free.
However, we are here not because the market is free, but because it is not free.
There is no escaping the clearly obvious. Our commerce is taxed, our currencies controlled and our markets closely regulated. How is this free enterprise I ask you?
As well, all the reading, without comprehension or contemplation, does little good. Perhaps if the government of the people was more for the people, the people would be more for the government?
As well, when corporations spend time and money influencing laws and lawmakers, they do so to control enterprise. I say to you sir, that if the government was not controlling enterprise, then enterprise wouldn't bother trying to control governments.
Once again I hear the usual cries of, "if you don't like it, don't buy it" and "it's a free market."
No, it's not a free market, and no, there is no choice! This is the simple truth of it for most people.
When the principles of free enterprise are corrupted and perverted to the profit of the privileged, it is the people who must pay the price their masters set.
Shed your tears not for the dollars lost, but rather for the freedoms spent.
sooner or later everyone pays the price.
DRM will hurt everyone, consumers and corporations.
For a society so consciousness of the value of freedom,
it truly surprises me that we're selling it out so quickly.
imho, commercial OS's are just fascistware
open unix rocks, and so does freedom