"...computers will have the same level of consciousness..."
Depending on the definition, they already do. Remember that the solution to any problem is defined in part by the definition of the problem.
"At that point...."
You are mixing up two different things in your post: consciousness and cognition are not the same.
Human attempts at A.I. to date have been crippled by poor definitions and excessive anthropomorphism, the latter being extremely arrogant since we have yet to understand the human processes but yet insist upon making our models based upon our poor understanding.
A.I. to date could be described as a thick base of hubris, three quarts of myopia, two pints of ignorance, and twenty bushels of exceptionally bad definitions. Mix until the results resemble something completely silly and all participants fall over in a daze, declaring it can't ever be done.
"...they could lose the Windows trademark. If Microsoft were smart..."
Perhaps they are being smart. Consider this: If Microsoft were to lose it would provide them a face-saving excuse to rename their upcoming OS release to something other than Windows, which has become synonymous with poorly performing computer software which has outrageous security vulnerabilities, exorbitant TCO due to stability and security problems, etc., etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
Maybe they'll even name the new release "Lindex" and grab some of the Linux mojo whilst implying a cleaner product.
Well, yes, there are alternatives
on
Alternatives to Cars?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I personally haven't owned a car since 1986. I did own a motorbike for two years but sold it off and went back to bicycles when I noticed I was starting to get fat.
I bicycle year 'round, never have to worry about exercising; get lots of excitement dodging cars, peds and cougars; and, at 49 I'm in better shape than most everyone else I see except for younger bicyclists.:)
It's doable: dress apropriately for the weather, put fenders on the bicycle, and always be ultra-aware when on the road -- the cars try to kill you from all directions.
I run Opera (IDs as IE) on a Slackware-based IBM laptop. Here is today's hijack string my Opera user got in his shell as I was browsing sites for heat pipes from a Google search:
Never played Pirates, but I can list a number of old PC games I'd repurchase if they had their graphics modernized, their A.I. beefed up, etcetera:
Battlezone: Truely great game from Activision.
Jane's: I liked their Fighter Anthology and the WWII flight sim was slick too (period music was seriously cool.)
Panzer Commander: Really enjoyed the first person view standing up in the turret checking out the terrain with field glasses. This one also had a great editor which was most useful in making really hard-to-beat scenarios, possibly the best part of the game in some ways.
Dungeon Master: Okay, this one really dates me, but on the Atari ST this one creeped me out more than a few times and was a challenge. Loved the first person view too.
Anyone else think there's money to be made by brushing up old favorites/best sellers and putting them back on the shelves?
Jay Smiley from Los Angeles, California applied for and received a U.S. patent on the phrase, "really sucks" and henceforth anyone or any thing using this phrase will be required to pay royalties to Mr. Smiley.
When asked about the potentialities of this type of patent, a spokesperson for the U.S. Patent Office replied off the record, "Hey, it's business and business is in the business of making a profit. As Teddie Roosevelt once said, the business of America is business. So, you don't like it move to commie China ya little faggot -- this country is all about our freedom to make a profit and nothing else matters, at all, ever."
Ummm, a slide rule maybe? If that's what he's thinking of then it was a bad choice: a slide rule implies the use of logic to arrive at a truthful solution whilst this dude is using a straw man to arrive at a bogus pile of poo, metaphorically speaking.
Give me software which allows me to set my email receiving/reading tools to only receive/read email which I have solicited, all others get bounced back or thrown in the bitbucket. Call it a spam firewall or whatever.
Come to think of it, I did see an ad recently which was touting just such a product (I hope they make several fortunes with it too.)
*bonk* Woos! It's just a fookin' game, so don't blame da MUD for your addictive personality: Yo mama was a probably a crack ho and yo daddy shudda bot stock in Coors.
...that you would be better served in a lab environment by using Linux over Sun. Here are the issues:
1. Cost - Obvious: Lintel hardware and software costs are _MUCH_ lower.
2. Maintenance - Lintel is again cheaper and easier to manage overall in a lab environment.
3. Tools - This is the major determining factor in my opinion. The tools available on Solaris are outdated and generally suck. In my past experience with Solaris, I found myself replacing the Sun tools with GNU tools and other open source software to the point that it was faster just to do a complete Linux install on a PC than to putz around with Solaris for days getting one box setup. This even though the base Solaris installs were being done with jumpstart. Replacing all those crappy Solaris tools with good GNU tools and other free software took some serious time.
4. Fun factor - Linux is considerably more fun to use overall; it's much more flexible, has a greater variety of software and runs on stock, generic PC hardware, thus providing the lab users with many options on what to do and how to do it.
5. Fear factor - Solaris is considerably more "bitchy" than any Linux box I've ever used. Read this to say "less tolerant" if the word bitchy sounds too vague. Also found that the information provided by the Sun tools in the logs was generally less useful (more obscure) and often required much digging through documentation. I often found myself complaining about "dinosaur UNIX" and making comparisons to my sweetly humming Slackware boxen.
I guess that about sums it up: "Dinosaur UNIX" vs. "State-of-the-Art Lintel"
As a happy owner of an IBM laptop/notebook PC for four years, these are the things I'm most interested in seeing in my next laptop/notebook (and you can be sure it will be an IBM):
1. 16 or 17" UXGA LCD (preferrably 17")
2. RAM expandable to 1 GB (graphics work eats RAM)
3. Lighted keyboard
4. Onboard LAN (both wire and wireless)
5. CD/CDRW/DVD combo drive
6. Minimum 60 GB HD internal
7. Quality sound/graphics
8. NO restrictions on what OS I choose to run
I've seen the newer laptops from Sony/Toshiba, etc. but my experience tells me they aren't solid performers over time whereas my IBM machine has performed like the energizer bunny -- it just keeps on going (and going and going.)
Save the fancy tricks, just give me a solid machine with the above listed items and I'll buy it.
Don't you mean to use the word "ethical" instead of moral? Perhaps you don't understand the difference between morality and ethics.
There are plenty of people in the world (a huge number of them being the "see the religion on my shoulder" types) who are highly moral, but unethical scum.
Here are definitions:
Moral - decisions you make which only directly effect you.
Ethical - decisions you make which have effects on others as well as yourself.
Grossly over-simplified but useful all the same for illustrating the difference between the two.
When at work and not working (various good reasons, to be sure) I'm working as the infamous DeathKitten, keeping the old marsh clear of trolls and hags!
But seriously, keeping the marsh orderly is hard work at times. *nod-slash-smile*
No, MS tried to get ahead of everyone else by naming it "XP" but unfortunately clever marketing ploys such as this never work for MS. Or do they? *ponder*
But seriously, here are some thoughts on your reply.
"We humans have a very nice, cushy, arrogant view of human creativity. I see it in movies, where the humans win over the 'calculating machines' by creativity or love or some hogwash like that. Scifi's traditionally very bad about this as well."
Hmm, that's rather out of left field. I didn't mention anything about scifi.
"My degree is in psychology with a tendency toward physiology. The brain is a deterministic machine -- or at least, as deterministic as anything else. This hypothesis is as strong as nearly anything else in science: it fits the data well, and has yet to be proven false."
Oh, you mean the field which changes it's "hypothesis" every 18 months or so, tries to use negative proofs as a means of supporting a positive ("...has yet to be proven false.") and is by definition, not a science at all? If you're wanting to argue against the point made in my post, this paragraph hurts your position more than it helps.
"A statement like "computers can't be creative" has the assumption (correct me if I'm wrong) that a deterministic, calculating, "pure-logic" machine like a computer isn't capable of producing the same level of creative work as a human. I would argue that a human is just as deterministic as a computer, though the calculation and logic functions in a very different fashion."
Humans aren't computers even though they may have "deterministic" characteristics. Also, humans use any number of different "logics" during the course of a day, most of which are not the same type of logic used by computers. For example, if you try to use a philosopher's symbolic logic when arguing with your girlfriend, you're not going to do very well. If, on the other hand, you use "girlfriend logic" when arguing with her you will do well, "girlfriend logic" being the inclusion of allowances for emotions and values which can't be represented well in logic systems developed out of math foundations but which are necessary when dealing with humans.
"I say the problem is in the algorithms. I've seen properly trained computers draw brand new Picassos and compose fugues as good as anything from Bach. "Oh," the critics would say, "they're just taking the input data and modifying it and reproducing it.""
I heard of computers programmed to mimic human actions, but I've never heard of a computer which can make something "new" based only upon it's desire to do so, because they simply can't do anything without being told to do so, at least not yet -- there isn't in existance a human made computer which comes close to the raw thinking capacity of any one human on this planet. Even a newborn baby has more raw computing power than the most powerful supercomputer we've yet made.
"Yes. Yes they are. And so are you. That's why we have a concept of 'inspiration.' Of 'derivative works.' That's why each song that's written, each house that's designed, isn't a completely new, off-the-wall creation. That's why we can categorize things into 'styles' and 'genres.'"
Most songs are "deriative" because of the simplicity of our musical scales -- they are only so many ways to put the notes together that sound pleasantly coherent to the listener, it's not a good example to use to make your point. We as humans categorize things in order to be able to talk in generalizations about groups of items which have certain similarities and I don't follow why you interject that here, it seems unconnected to your argument.
"A properly trained (read: programmed) computer could generate levels for your-game-of-choice that would be on par with a human designer. And chances are good the computer would take some directions that the human wouldn't have thought of."
Yes, you point out the flaw in your argument: computers are programmed, specifically told what to do. Humans on the other hand, are trained with generalized and then specific knowledge a
Slashdot Mirror
now we get nose spam too.
Two points.
"...computers will have the same level of consciousness..."
Depending on the definition, they already do. Remember that the solution to any problem is defined in part by the definition of the problem.
"At that point...."
You are mixing up two different things in your post: consciousness and cognition are not the same.
Human attempts at A.I. to date have been crippled by poor definitions and excessive anthropomorphism, the latter being extremely arrogant since we have yet to understand the human processes but yet insist upon making our models based upon our poor understanding.
A.I. to date could be described as a thick base of hubris, three quarts of myopia, two pints of ignorance, and twenty bushels of exceptionally bad definitions. Mix until the results resemble something completely silly and all participants fall over in a daze, declaring it can't ever be done.
Long what from Micro who?
"...they could lose the Windows trademark. If Microsoft were smart..."
Perhaps they are being smart. Consider this: If Microsoft were to lose it would provide them a face-saving excuse to rename their upcoming OS release to something other than Windows, which has become synonymous with poorly performing computer software which has outrageous security vulnerabilities, exorbitant TCO due to stability and security problems, etc., etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
Maybe they'll even name the new release "Lindex" and grab some of the Linux mojo whilst implying a cleaner product.
I personally haven't owned a car since 1986. I did own a motorbike for two years but sold it off and went back to bicycles when I noticed I was starting to get fat.
:)
I bicycle year 'round, never have to worry about exercising; get lots of excitement dodging cars, peds and cougars; and, at 49 I'm in better shape than most everyone else I see except for younger bicyclists.
It's doable: dress apropriately for the weather, put fenders on the bicycle, and always be ultra-aware when on the road -- the cars try to kill you from all directions.
Also consider moving closer to your work.
I run Opera (IDs as IE) on a Slackware-based IBM laptop. Here is today's hijack string my Opera user got in his shell as I was browsing sites for heat pipes from a Google search:
Warning: Actions not found: addBookmark, viewBookmark, copy, undefined-key, find, findAgain, history, loadImages, openURL, mailNew, new, openFile, print, exit, reload, saveAs, paste, delete, cut, undo, historyItem, back, forward, abort, PageUp, PageDown
Didn't bother to determine which site did this as it doesn't bother me, but it was interesting to see.
Never played Pirates, but I can list a number of old PC games I'd repurchase if they had their graphics modernized, their A.I. beefed up, etcetera:
Battlezone: Truely great game from Activision.
Jane's: I liked their Fighter Anthology and the WWII flight sim was slick too (period music was seriously cool.)
Panzer Commander: Really enjoyed the first person view standing up in the turret checking out the terrain with field glasses. This one also had a great editor which was most useful in making really hard-to-beat scenarios, possibly the best part of the game in some ways.
Dungeon Master: Okay, this one really dates me, but on the Atari ST this one creeped me out more than a few times and was a challenge. Loved the first person view too.
Anyone else think there's money to be made by brushing up old favorites/best sellers and putting them back on the shelves?
Jay Smiley from Los Angeles, California applied for and received a U.S. patent on the phrase, "really sucks" and henceforth anyone or any thing using this phrase will be required to pay royalties to Mr. Smiley.
When asked about the potentialities of this type of patent, a spokesperson for the U.S. Patent Office replied off the record, "Hey, it's business and business is in the business of making a profit. As Teddie Roosevelt once said, the business of America is business. So, you don't like it move to commie China ya little faggot -- this country is all about our freedom to make a profit and nothing else matters, at all, ever."
Hmmmm.
"And what the heck is a triple edged sword?"
Ummm, a slide rule maybe? If that's what he's thinking of then it was a bad choice: a slide rule implies the use of logic to arrive at a truthful solution whilst this dude is using a straw man to arrive at a bogus pile of poo, metaphorically speaking.
Cheers and ciao,
Nope, was a banner ad on one of the linux news sites, probably Linux Today, Slashdot or Linux insider.
Give me software which allows me to set my email receiving/reading tools to only receive/read email which I have solicited, all others get bounced back or thrown in the bitbucket. Call it a spam firewall or whatever.
Come to think of it, I did see an ad recently which was touting just such a product (I hope they make several fortunes with it too.)
" I'm fine with it so long as I never do it."
*bonk* Woos! It's just a fookin' game, so don't blame da MUD for your addictive personality: Yo mama was a probably a crack ho and yo daddy shudda bot stock in Coors.
Here's a happy *moon* to ya from MP the OV.
Nice bit a advertising though. *pat*
...is to make people see a BSOD and think, "Yum, candy!"
...that you would be better served in a lab environment by using Linux over Sun. Here are the issues:
1. Cost - Obvious: Lintel hardware and software costs are _MUCH_ lower.
2. Maintenance - Lintel is again cheaper and easier to manage overall in a lab environment.
3. Tools - This is the major determining factor in my opinion. The tools available on Solaris are outdated and generally suck. In my past experience with Solaris, I found myself replacing the Sun tools with GNU tools and other open source software to the point that it was faster just to do a complete Linux install on a PC than to putz around with Solaris for days getting one box setup. This even though the base Solaris installs were being done with jumpstart. Replacing all those crappy Solaris tools with good GNU tools and other free software took some serious time.
4. Fun factor - Linux is considerably more fun to use overall; it's much more flexible, has a greater variety of software and runs on stock, generic PC hardware, thus providing the lab users with many options on what to do and how to do it.
5. Fear factor - Solaris is considerably more "bitchy" than any Linux box I've ever used. Read this to say "less tolerant" if the word bitchy sounds too vague. Also found that the information provided by the Sun tools in the logs was generally less useful (more obscure) and often required much digging through documentation. I often found myself complaining about "dinosaur UNIX" and making comparisons to my sweetly humming Slackware boxen.
I guess that about sums it up: "Dinosaur UNIX" vs. "State-of-the-Art Lintel"
As a happy owner of an IBM laptop/notebook PC for four years, these are the things I'm most interested in seeing in my next laptop/notebook (and you can be sure it will be an IBM):
1. 16 or 17" UXGA LCD (preferrably 17")
2. RAM expandable to 1 GB (graphics work eats RAM)
3. Lighted keyboard
4. Onboard LAN (both wire and wireless)
5. CD/CDRW/DVD combo drive
6. Minimum 60 GB HD internal
7. Quality sound/graphics
8. NO restrictions on what OS I choose to run
I've seen the newer laptops from Sony/Toshiba, etc. but my experience tells me they aren't solid performers over time whereas my IBM machine has performed like the energizer bunny -- it just keeps on going (and going and going.)
Save the fancy tricks, just give me a solid machine with the above listed items and I'll buy it.
Does this mean that some day, following a screwy bit of logical progression, I'll be able to run WindowMaker on my TI-56?
I can hardly wait! *hop*
And you, sir, are an Anonymous Coward.
"He may not be very moral..."
Don't you mean to use the word "ethical" instead of moral? Perhaps you don't understand the difference between morality and ethics.
There are plenty of people in the world (a huge number of them being the "see the religion on my shoulder" types) who are highly moral, but unethical scum.
Here are definitions:
Moral - decisions you make which only directly effect you.
Ethical - decisions you make which have effects on others as well as yourself.
Grossly over-simplified but useful all the same for illustrating the difference between the two.
When at work and not working (various good reasons, to be sure) I'm working as the infamous DeathKitten, keeping the old marsh clear of trolls and hags!
But seriously, keeping the marsh orderly is hard work at times. *nod-slash-smile*
They come with a big Microsoft ad at the top of the shirt?
Nothing cool about that. *shake*
If you will remember correctly, Bush was _not_ elected, he was chosen by the Electoral College. He was not chosen by the popular vote.
No, MS tried to get ahead of everyone else by naming it "XP" but unfortunately clever marketing ploys such as this never work for MS.
Or do they? *ponder*
MS product is the CHEESE! Swiss, that is.
I'm sure those who are facing a nurse with anal thermo in hand saying, "Roll over, fella!" will consider this to be great progress, indeed!
"Oh, poppycock."
Keep poppy's cock outta this, please.
But seriously, here are some thoughts on your reply.
"We humans have a very nice, cushy, arrogant view of human creativity. I see it in movies, where the humans win over the 'calculating machines' by creativity or love or some hogwash like that. Scifi's traditionally very bad about this as well."
Hmm, that's rather out of left field. I didn't mention anything about scifi.
"My degree is in psychology with a tendency toward physiology. The brain is a deterministic machine -- or at least, as deterministic as anything else. This hypothesis is as strong as nearly anything else in science: it fits the data well, and has yet to be proven false."
Oh, you mean the field which changes it's "hypothesis" every 18 months or so, tries to use negative proofs as a means of supporting a positive ("...has yet to be proven false.") and is by definition, not a science at all? If you're wanting to argue against the point made in my post, this paragraph hurts your position more than it helps.
"A statement like "computers can't be creative" has the assumption (correct me if I'm wrong) that a deterministic, calculating, "pure-logic" machine like a computer isn't capable of producing the same level of creative work as a human. I would argue that a human is just as deterministic as a computer, though the calculation and logic functions in a very different fashion."
Humans aren't computers even though they may have "deterministic" characteristics. Also, humans use any number of different "logics" during the course of a day, most of which are not the same type of logic used by computers. For example, if you try to use a philosopher's symbolic logic when arguing with your girlfriend, you're not going to do very well. If, on the other hand, you use "girlfriend logic" when arguing with her you will do well, "girlfriend logic" being the inclusion of allowances for emotions and values which can't be represented well in logic systems developed out of math foundations but which are necessary when dealing with humans.
"I say the problem is in the algorithms. I've seen properly trained computers draw brand new Picassos and compose fugues as good as anything from Bach. "Oh," the critics would say, "they're just taking the input data and modifying it and reproducing it.""
I heard of computers programmed to mimic human actions, but I've never heard of a computer which can make something "new" based only upon it's desire to do so, because they simply can't do anything without being told to do so, at least not yet -- there isn't in existance a human made computer which comes close to the raw thinking capacity of any one human on this planet. Even a newborn baby has more raw computing power than the most powerful supercomputer we've yet made.
"Yes. Yes they are. And so are you. That's why we have a concept of 'inspiration.' Of 'derivative works.' That's why each song that's written, each house that's designed, isn't a completely new, off-the-wall creation. That's why we can categorize things into 'styles' and 'genres.'"
Most songs are "deriative" because of the simplicity of our musical scales -- they are only so many ways to put the notes together that sound pleasantly coherent to the listener, it's not a good example to use to make your point.
We as humans categorize things in order to be able to talk in generalizations about groups of items which have certain similarities and I don't follow why you interject that here, it seems unconnected to your argument.
"A properly trained (read: programmed) computer could generate levels for your-game-of-choice that would be on par with a human designer. And chances are good the computer would take some directions that the human wouldn't have thought of."
Yes, you point out the flaw in your argument: computers are programmed, specifically told what to do. Humans on the other hand, are trained with generalized and then specific knowledge a