"2. eyepeepackets says a. "[Apple is]... slow to adapt to changing markets and technologies... I would humbly state that this may be almost exactly the opposite of truth. They got rid of the insipid floppy (good riddance), made USB what it is today practically single-handedly, FireWire. Not to mention the way the rest of the industry tends to follow Apple's footsteps in many ways: colorful cases (one could argue for or against this, I'll leave that for another discussion), the whole "Desktop Video" thing, I'll not even mention This little thing [forbes.com] (oops, I just did). I believe it is misinformed to say that Apple is behind the curve, or that they don't innovate."
Yes, you make some good points in defense of Apple and I'll agree that my statement is a bit over the top.
"3. eyepeepackets also seems to completely ignore the fact that the Mac was the "first" "personal" computer when he/she states: "It's going on twenty years since the first Macs came out and look where they are in the market -- hey, about where they were twenty or so years ago. It's simply irresponsible to even attempt to compare the marketshare they had when the first Macs came out (which, I would imagine, was somewhere around 100% of the 4 people that could afford such a thing back then) and today."
Umm, wrong, way wrong; check your history.
"4. eyepeepackets then went on to write:... Oh wait, your second-to-last statement was just flamebait, so I'll pat you on your little, patronizing head and IGNORE IT. (Mostly because of your "cranky" disclaimer!;)
Perhaps I have Apple-tinted glasses on, I'm not trying to attack anybody here, but, please, try to give Apple credit where credit is due. Even if you are wearing penguin-(or more likely, MSFT-)tinted glasses."
You're a kind soul and I thank you for your generousity. I'll go on record here and now by saying that whilst I would never allow Apple to lock me into their proprietary hardware hell, I do really appreciate the fact that they've been in the market over the past thirty years or so; in many ways they have helped keep the game interesting even if more so at some times than others.
Thanks for the interesting (well thought and well fought) reply.
From the days of the original Mac, it's this type of crap which has kept the Apple machines behind the curve, technology-wise. That is, slow to adapt to changing markets and technologies. Sure they control everything about their machines and the market, but look at the price they pay. It's going on twenty years since the first Macs came out and look where they are in the market -- hey, about where they were twenty or so years ago.
Let's just say they're content with tiny market share and pat them on their little heads and IGNORE THEM like we've been doing for, oh, about twenty years.
You're going to be making a whole little money if you're up against overseas IT workers: Chinese, Philipinos, Indians, Pakistanis, Brits, French, Germans, sheesh, the whole planet.
Bet that Indian dude undercuts you by 80% of what you expect to make.
"What I want multimonitor support for is for RPG games. You would have your normal view on one monitor and maps, stats, dialog or whatever on the other. That would be very usefull."
Yes, I do this already when mudding, but with multiple windows and virtual screens as opposed to monitors and you're right, it's very useful. The problem I see is that most game builders build to a lowest common denominator in the context of the market and the game they're building and so avoid adding features that are out of range. Personally, I'd vote for support for multiple windowed games before I'd vote for multiple monitors: it's cheaper and more effective for many types of games. But Windows can't do virtual screens out of the box so it's not a feature we'll see anytime soon unless the game is Linux/Unix only or that feature is built into a Linux/Unix version.
I can see the value of multiple monitors for vehicle simulators (spacecraft, aircraft, tanks, hovercraft, etc.) where there is actual benefit to having multiple monitors because your vision is improved. Would be awful expensive though; figure the price of additional monitors and the performance hit on the graphics card unless you had multiple cards for the multiple monitors, ouch.
But oh man, I'd love to play BattleZone with side view monitors, yum!
Joe Sixpack, Joe Public, Joe User -- all the Joes follow where the technology leads if the technology is adopted by the techies and this has always been true. That same line you're spitting out was said about television, radio, automobiles, trains, levers and wheels.
Interestingly enough, this is one of the main reasons Linux is continuing to gain in the marketplace; it's where the techies are and all the "slowbies" will follow along eventually.
Heh, you so funny. No thanks, I have more karma than I know what to do with. Sheesh, I had five level five posts on Thursday, so I'm karma fat.
Only problem is, I'm a really lousy troll. Oh well, maybe I need to go to troll school or something. I'll check O-Reilly's and see if they have a "Trolling Slashdot in a Nutshell" or something similar.
I've yet to notice any coorelation between a topic and the number of troll/flamebait/offtopic responses, so just grab a topic, count the number of whatever responses and factor the result in whatever way you want.
Thanks for the very interesting response. My thoughts below.
> So, applying an 18 month Moore's Law doubling time, > We have 7 to 22 years until human equivalent > machines become affordable, plus however long it > will take to program them and/or let them learn on > their own. This will be in the range of 0 to 7 > years.
Yes, this is a possible timeline assuming that developing a functional A.I. is based on the human model of intelligence. I think this is mistaken. Definition time, so here goes.
Traditionally, A.I. has been defined as functional intelligence based on the human intelligence model, as much as we can understand what _is_ human intelligence. But do we need to use the human model to get functional artificial (created) intelligence? I don't think so. In fact, I think the usage of the human model for the creation of A.I. has been an interesting exercise in collective masturbation; stimulating and amusing maybe, but not very satisfying when one considers the results.
I suggest maybe we need to further define what we mean when we use "artificial intelligence" and so I propose this forking of the term: When refering to attempts to replicate human intelligence with machines, we use the term "A.H.I." or Artificial Human Intelligence and when we're refering to attempts to create intelligence on machines without using the human model we use the term "A.M.I." or Artificial Machine Intelligence.
Wnen you look at these two different problem sets, it becomes immediately obvious (at least to me) that there is a magnitude of difference in the complexity of the problem sets between creating a functional A.H.I. and creating a functional A.M.I. Where A.H.I. requires building a human mind in a machine to achieve success, A.M.I. merely requires that the machine be intelligent enough to accomplish some specific set of tasks or goals. In other words, the A.M.I. does not need to be as smart as a Plato, only as smart as a lab rat: Successful A.M.I. doesn't require all the complexity of A.H.I. to achieve the goal of functional intelligence.
I suspect the I.B.M. researchers working on what I'm referring to as A.M.I. are using basically the same definition; they are already claiming they've achieved machine self-awareness, a key element required for building complexity in a thinking machine capable of independent, constructive actions.
> Once you get more-than-human equivalent > machines, the Moore's Law time constant will shrink > as they design their successors faster and > faster. In another 3 years (18 months + 9 months > + 4.5 months +...) you will either reach a > Singularity or smack into some fundamental limit > of the universe that prevents further progress. > > To sum up, The End of Life as We Know It is due > in about 10 to 32 years unless (a) there is a > limit to technology, especially in computers, > that we hit before the singularity, or (b) we > sufficiently mess up our civilization to stop > or set back progress; i.e. nuclear war, someone > crosses the flu and ebola viruses, etc.
I'm not at all sure we'll ever get more-than-human equivalent machines using A.H.I., but I'm sure we'll get different-than-human equivalents using A.M.I.
To digress a bit into a different but related problem I'm currently working on, the problem of contextual self-awareness. This is most interesting when examined from the two different perspectives of A.H.I. and A.M.I. Where A.H.I. requires tremendous amounts of data from multiple sources be retrieved and sorted, analyzed and sorted again, catagorized and sorted again, stored and sorted again and again and again when retrieved for processing (thinking process), A.M.I. requirements for data are much, much simpler for all steps involved.
Anyway, enough for now. To sum up this post in a sentence: We may never see successful artifical human intelligence (AHI) in a machine, but we'll see artifical machine intelligence (AMI) in machines very, very soon. In fact, I suspect it's aready extant and coming soon to a machine near you.
...and while we have your ear, you should probably know that your job/profession is very likely going to be replaced with self-aware, self-monitoring, self-repairing computer systems/networks within the next five years. The good news is that the job market shows great growth for lawn care technicians and entry level meat packing plant chicken corpse scrubbers.
"Sorry kiddo, I hate giving good people bad news." the oracle, from The Matrix
1. How to Annoy Anyone on the Planet in 3 seconds (Or less!) 2. Breeding Cookies for Fun and Profit 3. Learn Browser Crashing in 21 Days 4. Fantasy Pretend Programming for Beginners 5. Make Everyone Hate the Web in Five Easy Steps
Oy, I'm getting to be so cynical in my old age.
Note to the humor impared: This is a joke. Don't take it seriously because this is a joke. Don't be offended and flame me because this is a joke. Don't get all huffy and defend java and java script to your last dying finger twitch because this is a joke. Here it is, the definitive statement on this post: THIS IS A JOKE!
DejaGnu is a TCL/Expect testing harness provided as free software by the Gnu Project. Not sure if it has tk hooks (which would allow you to test X-based programs) so you might want to check. If you're trying to test programs on the postscript display of a Mac instead of X, well, I don't know if it would work. Also, check to be sure there is a recent version of TCL/TK and Expect for your machine before you pursue this too far.
There is also LTP, the Linux Test Project, which may be of use to you as well. (Do a Google search for "linux test" and you'll find it quick.)
If you're not a TCL programmer, you're probably not going to like DejaGnu very much. If this is the case, good luck with the GUI tool search; you can expect to spend some serious money for decent test tools. (The pun is simply there. If you look at it too long or pay too much attention to it, it may or may not vanish. Just chalk it up to some crazy cat and don't worry about it.)
You ever see the movie "Brazil?" Not the horrible horked version, but the director's cut (Terry Gilliam.) If not, you're really missing something great. Anyway, at the beginning of the film there's a short scene where a national government official is being interviewed on television and the subject is his government's war on terrorism. Here's the dialog from a draft script, the movie has very minor differences:
INTERVIEWER: Deputy minister, what do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? HELPMANN: Bad sportsmanship. A ruthless minority of people seems to have forgotten certain good old fashioned virtues. They just can't stand seeing the other fellow win. If these people would just play the game, instead of standing on the touch line heckling - INTERVIEWER: In fact, killing people - HELPMANN: - In fact, killing people - they'd get a lot more out of life. INTERVIEWER: Mr. Helpmann, what would you say to those critics who maintain that the Ministry Of Information has become too large and unwieldy...? HELPMANN: David... in a free society information is the name of the game. You can't win the game if you're a man short. INTERVIEWER: And the cost of it all, Deputy Minister? Seven percent of the gross national product... HELPMANN: I understand this concern on behalf of the tax-payers. People want value for money and a cost-effective service. INTERVIEWER: Do you think that the government is winning the battle against terrorists? HELPMANN: Oh yes. Our morale is much higher than theirs, we're fielding all their strokes, running a lot of them out, and pretty consistently knocking them for six. I'd say they're nearly out of the game. INTERVIEWER: But the bombing campaign is now in its thirteenth year... HELPMANN: Beginner's luck. INTERVIEWER: Thank you very much, Deputy Minister. HELPMANN: Thank you, David... and a very merry Christmas to you all.
Yeah, this is so disgusting. I'm embarassed for our entire nation and how this makes us, the USA, look to the rest of the civilized universe (the Register article is a good example how others are viewing this.) These Congress clowns have institutionalized graft via campaign contributions and don't care that they aren't serving the common good, they even flaunt it in our faces with this kind of crap. Doesn't seem to matter if they're Dems or Pubs, we get the same results regardless. Almost every one of them has been bought by someone or another.
I'm fed up with this BS to the point of supporting publicly-funded campaigns. Anyone running for elected office who takes so much as a penny either directly or indirectly from anyone else (business or individual) while running for or serving in elected office wins a minimum ten year "office" with Jerome, the ButtBuddy from Hell, cell block#. This means hard time in a standard prison, not some cushy "Club Fed" type facility with golf courses, tennis courts, etc.
They should also be prohibited by both law and severe penalty from going to work (directly or indirectly) for any company or in any industry which gained favor by a bill submitted, co-authored, co-sponsored, or voted favorably on. Lastly, they should never, ever be allowed to work lobbying for any company or industry before the elected body in which they served.
Sorry for the rant, but I'm really steamed. Here's the dictionary.com definition for graft.
graft (2) n.
Unscrupulous use of one's position to derive profit or advantages; extortion.
Money or an advantage gained or yielded by unscrupulous means.
tr. & intr.v. grafted, grafting, grafts
To gain by or practice unscrupulous use of one's position.
...hello again Fidonet, old friend. How you be? Here, let me help you with that (whatever.)
This had better not pass into law because it's an open invitation to civil war on the net. I can't believe such stupidity makes it this far in Congress, no, wait, yes I can believe it in the context of UCITA, DRM, etc., etc., seemingly ad infinitum.
"Billions in productivity have been wasted by microsoft choosing to ship the 2 button mouse (not to mention the billions lost wasting time reinstalling your os, etc. on windows.)"
Holy shit! I've got five (5) buttons on my mouse, that must translate into trillions, no, quadrillions, no -- THE UNIVERSE IS ABOUT TO IMPLODE!
Well, I haven't yet read through all of his paper (I'll work on it) but his base proposition that super A.I. will take over the universe is a bit of a stretch considering we can't even make A.I. that can match wits with a lab rat and pull a draw.
Of course, once we can make an A.I. as smart as a lab rat, progress should be happen really, really fast thereafter, so maybe he's right.
All this reminds me of some old Chinese curse having to do with living in interesting times.
Slashdot Mirror
"2. eyepeepackets says a. "[Apple is] ... slow to adapt to changing markets and technologies... I would humbly state that this may be almost exactly the opposite of truth. They got rid of the insipid floppy (good riddance), made USB what it is today practically single-handedly, FireWire. Not to mention the way the rest of the industry tends to follow Apple's footsteps in many ways: colorful cases (one could argue for or against this, I'll leave that for another discussion), the whole "Desktop Video" thing, I'll not even mention This little thing [forbes.com] (oops, I just did). I believe it is misinformed to say that Apple is behind the curve, or that they don't innovate."
... Oh wait, your second-to-last statement was just flamebait, so I'll pat you on your little, patronizing head and IGNORE IT. (Mostly because of your "cranky" disclaimer! ;)
Yes, you make some good points in defense of Apple and I'll agree that my statement is a bit over the top.
"3. eyepeepackets also seems to completely ignore the fact that the Mac was the "first" "personal" computer when he/she states: "It's going on twenty years since the first Macs came out and look where they are in the market -- hey, about where they were twenty or so years ago. It's simply irresponsible to even attempt to compare the marketshare they had when the first Macs came out (which, I would imagine, was somewhere around 100% of the 4 people that could afford such a thing back then) and today."
Umm, wrong, way wrong; check your history.
"4. eyepeepackets then went on to write:
Perhaps I have Apple-tinted glasses on, I'm not trying to attack anybody here, but, please, try to give Apple credit where credit is due. Even if you are wearing penguin-(or more likely, MSFT-)tinted glasses."
You're a kind soul and I thank you for your generousity. I'll go on record here and now by saying that whilst I would never allow Apple to lock me into their proprietary hardware hell, I do really appreciate the fact that they've been in the market over the past thirty years or so; in many ways they have helped keep the game interesting even if more so at some times than others.
Thanks for the interesting (well thought and well fought) reply.
Actually, I'm more of a kobold today, but hey, we all have our off days.
From the days of the original Mac, it's this type of crap which has kept the Apple machines behind the curve, technology-wise. That is, slow to adapt to changing markets and technologies. Sure they control everything about their machines and the market, but look at the price they pay. It's going on twenty years since the first Macs came out and look where they are in the market -- hey, about where they were twenty or so years ago.
Let's just say they're content with tiny market share and pat them on their little heads and IGNORE THEM like we've been doing for, oh, about twenty years.
Oy, I'm really cranky today, sorry.
You're going to be making a whole little money if you're up against overseas IT workers: Chinese, Philipinos, Indians, Pakistanis, Brits, French, Germans, sheesh, the whole planet.
Bet that Indian dude undercuts you by 80% of what you expect to make.
Otherwise, good luck and best wishes,
"What I want multimonitor support for is for RPG games. You would have your normal view on one monitor and maps, stats, dialog or whatever on the other. That would be very usefull."
Yes, I do this already when mudding, but with multiple windows and virtual screens as opposed to monitors and you're right, it's very useful. The problem I see is that most game builders build to a lowest common denominator in the context of the market and the game they're building and so avoid adding features that are out of range. Personally, I'd vote for support for multiple windowed games before I'd vote for multiple monitors: it's cheaper and more effective for many types of games. But Windows can't do virtual screens out of the box so it's not a feature we'll see anytime soon unless the game is Linux/Unix only or that feature is built into a Linux/Unix version.
I can see the value of multiple monitors for vehicle simulators (spacecraft, aircraft, tanks, hovercraft, etc.) where there is actual benefit to having multiple monitors because your vision is improved. Would be awful expensive though; figure the price of additional monitors and the performance hit on the graphics card unless you had multiple cards for the multiple monitors, ouch.
But oh man, I'd love to play BattleZone with side view monitors, yum!
Joe Sixpack, Joe Public, Joe User -- all the Joes follow where the technology leads if the technology is adopted by the techies and this has always been true. That same line you're spitting out was said about television, radio, automobiles, trains, levers and wheels.
Interestingly enough, this is one of the main reasons Linux is continuing to gain in the marketplace; it's where the techies are and all the "slowbies" will follow along eventually.
"What a maroon!" - Bugs Bunny
Heh, you so funny. No thanks, I have more karma than I know what to do with. Sheesh, I had five level five posts on Thursday, so I'm karma fat.
Only problem is, I'm a really lousy troll. Oh well, maybe I need to go to troll school or something. I'll check O-Reilly's and see if they have a "Trolling Slashdot in a Nutshell" or something similar.
Cheers,
Yeah, a good example is how I was modded as flamebait and you get a funny whilst riding on my original joke.
I was cheated I tell ya, cheated! *grumble*
Kant can't cant; Kant croaked.
LOL! Yeah, you're right, heh.
I've yet to notice any coorelation between a topic and the number of troll/flamebait/offtopic responses, so just grab a topic, count the number of whatever responses and factor the result in whatever way you want.
:)
Hope this helps.
Hi Daniel,
...) you will either reach a
Thanks for the very interesting response. My thoughts below.
> So, applying an 18 month Moore's Law doubling time,
> We have 7 to 22 years until human equivalent
> machines become affordable, plus however long it
> will take to program them and/or let them learn on
> their own. This will be in the range of 0 to 7
> years.
Yes, this is a possible timeline assuming that developing a functional A.I. is based on the human model of intelligence. I think this is mistaken. Definition time, so here goes.
Traditionally, A.I. has been defined as functional intelligence based on the human intelligence model, as much as we can understand what _is_ human intelligence. But do we need to use the human model to get functional artificial (created) intelligence? I don't think so. In fact, I think the usage of the human model for the creation of A.I. has been an interesting exercise in collective masturbation; stimulating and amusing maybe, but not very satisfying when one considers the results.
I suggest maybe we need to further define what we mean when we use "artificial intelligence" and so I propose this forking of the term: When refering to attempts to replicate human intelligence with machines, we use the term "A.H.I." or Artificial Human Intelligence and when we're refering to attempts to create intelligence on machines without using the human model we use the term "A.M.I." or Artificial Machine Intelligence.
Wnen you look at these two different problem sets, it becomes immediately obvious (at least to me) that there is a magnitude of difference in the complexity of the problem sets between creating a functional A.H.I. and creating a functional A.M.I. Where A.H.I. requires building a human mind in a machine to achieve success, A.M.I. merely requires that the machine be intelligent enough to accomplish some specific set of tasks or goals. In other words, the A.M.I. does not need to be as smart as a Plato, only as smart as a lab rat: Successful A.M.I. doesn't require all the complexity of A.H.I. to achieve the goal of functional intelligence.
I suspect the I.B.M. researchers working on what I'm referring to as A.M.I. are using basically the same definition; they are already claiming they've achieved machine self-awareness, a key element required for building complexity in a thinking machine capable of independent, constructive actions.
> Once you get more-than-human equivalent
> machines, the Moore's Law time constant will shrink
> as they design their successors faster and
> faster. In another 3 years (18 months + 9 months
> + 4.5 months +
> Singularity or smack into some fundamental limit
> of the universe that prevents further progress.
>
> To sum up, The End of Life as We Know It is due
> in about 10 to 32 years unless (a) there is a
> limit to technology, especially in computers,
> that we hit before the singularity, or (b) we
> sufficiently mess up our civilization to stop
> or set back progress; i.e. nuclear war, someone
> crosses the flu and ebola viruses, etc.
I'm not at all sure we'll ever get more-than-human equivalent machines using A.H.I., but I'm sure we'll get different-than-human equivalents using A.M.I.
To digress a bit into a different but related problem I'm currently working on, the problem of contextual self-awareness. This is most interesting when examined from the two different perspectives of A.H.I. and A.M.I. Where A.H.I. requires tremendous amounts of data from multiple sources be retrieved and sorted, analyzed and sorted again, catagorized and sorted again, stored and sorted again and again and again when retrieved for processing (thinking process), A.M.I. requirements for data are much, much simpler for all steps involved.
Anyway, enough for now. To sum up this post in a sentence: We may never see successful artifical human intelligence (AHI) in a machine, but we'll see artifical machine intelligence (AMI) in machines very, very soon. In fact, I suspect it's aready extant and coming soon to a machine near you.
Cheers and thanks again for the reply.
James
...and while we have your ear, you should probably know that your job/profession is very likely going to be replaced with self-aware, self-monitoring, self-repairing computer systems/networks within the next five years. The good news is that the job market shows great growth for lawn care technicians and entry level meat packing plant chicken corpse scrubbers.
"Sorry kiddo, I hate giving good people bad news." the oracle, from The Matrix
Note to the humor impaired: This is not a joke.
1. How to Annoy Anyone on the Planet in 3 seconds (Or less!)
2. Breeding Cookies for Fun and Profit
3. Learn Browser Crashing in 21 Days
4. Fantasy Pretend Programming for Beginners
5. Make Everyone Hate the Web in Five Easy Steps
Oy, I'm getting to be so cynical in my old age.
Note to the humor impared: This is a joke. Don't take it seriously because this is a joke. Don't be offended and flame me because this is a joke. Don't get all huffy and defend java and java script to your last dying finger twitch because this is a joke.
Here it is, the definitive statement on this post: THIS IS A JOKE!
I just did a quick scan of the Constitution and the First Amendment and I don't see what your point is, please explain.
DejaGnu is a TCL/Expect testing harness provided as free software by the Gnu Project. Not sure if it has tk hooks (which would allow you to test X-based programs) so you might want to check. If you're trying to test programs on the postscript display of a Mac instead of X, well, I don't know if it would work. Also, check to be sure there is a recent version of TCL/TK and Expect for your machine before you pursue this too far.
There is also LTP, the Linux Test Project, which may be of use to you as well. (Do a Google search for "linux test" and you'll find it quick.)
If you're not a TCL programmer, you're probably not going to like DejaGnu very much. If this is the case, good luck with the GUI tool search; you can expect to spend some serious money for decent test tools. (The pun is simply there. If you look at it too long or pay too much attention to it, it may or may not vanish. Just chalk it up to some crazy cat and don't worry about it.)
Best wishes,
You ever see the movie "Brazil?" Not the horrible horked version, but the director's cut (Terry Gilliam.) If not, you're really missing something great. Anyway, at the beginning of the film there's a short scene where a national government official is being interviewed on television and the subject is his government's war on terrorism. Here's the dialog from a draft script, the movie has very minor differences:
...? ... in a free society information is the name of the game. You can't win the game if you're a man short. ... ... ... and a very merry Christmas to you all.
INTERVIEWER: Deputy minister, what do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings?
HELPMANN: Bad sportsmanship. A ruthless minority of people seems to have forgotten certain good old fashioned virtues. They just can't stand seeing the other fellow win. If these people would just play the game, instead of standing on the touch line heckling -
INTERVIEWER: In fact, killing people -
HELPMANN: - In fact, killing people - they'd get a lot more out of life.
INTERVIEWER: Mr. Helpmann, what would you say to those critics who maintain that the Ministry Of Information has become too large and unwieldy
HELPMANN: David
INTERVIEWER: And the cost of it all, Deputy Minister? Seven percent of the gross national product
HELPMANN: I understand this concern on behalf of the tax-payers. People want value for money and a cost-effective service.
INTERVIEWER: Do you think that the government is winning the battle against terrorists?
HELPMANN: Oh yes. Our morale is much higher than theirs, we're fielding all their strokes, running a lot of them out, and pretty consistently knocking them for six. I'd say they're nearly out of the game.
INTERVIEWER: But the bombing campaign is now in its thirteenth year
HELPMANN: Beginner's luck.
INTERVIEWER: Thank you very much, Deputy Minister.
HELPMANN: Thank you, David
Yeah, this is so disgusting. I'm embarassed for our entire nation and how this makes us, the USA, look to the rest of the civilized universe (the Register article is a good example how others are viewing this.) These Congress clowns have institutionalized graft via campaign contributions and don't care that they aren't serving the common good, they even flaunt it in our faces with this kind of crap. Doesn't seem to matter if they're Dems or Pubs, we get the same results regardless. Almost every one of them has been bought by someone or another.
I'm fed up with this BS to the point of supporting publicly-funded campaigns. Anyone running for elected office who takes so much as a penny either directly or indirectly from anyone else (business or individual) while running for or serving in elected office wins a minimum ten year "office" with Jerome, the ButtBuddy from Hell, cell block#. This means hard time in a standard prison, not some cushy "Club Fed" type facility with golf courses, tennis courts, etc.
They should also be prohibited by both law and severe penalty from going to work (directly or indirectly) for any company or in any industry which gained favor by a bill submitted, co-authored, co-sponsored, or voted favorably on. Lastly, they should never, ever be allowed to work lobbying for any company or industry before the elected body in which they served.
Sorry for the rant, but I'm really steamed. Here's the dictionary.com definition for graft.
graft (2)
n.
Unscrupulous use of one's position to derive profit or advantages; extortion.
Money or an advantage gained or yielded by unscrupulous means.
tr. & intr.v. grafted, grafting, grafts
To gain by or practice unscrupulous use of one's position.
Heh, you're right, but I shoulda used both to be entirely correct.
Cool UID, btw. Just luck of the draw?
...hello again Fidonet, old friend. How you be? Here, let me help you with that (whatever.)
This had better not pass into law because it's an open invitation to civil war on the net. I can't believe such stupidity makes it this far in Congress, no, wait, yes I can believe it in the context of UCITA, DRM, etc., etc., seemingly ad infinitum.
Oh, man, you just GPFed the right side of my brain. I'm gonna sue your ass just as soon as I reboot.
Cheers and happy meet to the folks in Seattle.
"Billions in productivity have been wasted by microsoft choosing to ship the 2 button mouse (not to mention the billions lost wasting time reinstalling your os, etc. on windows.)"
Holy shit! I've got five (5) buttons on my mouse, that must translate into trillions, no, quadrillions, no -- THE UNIVERSE IS ABOUT TO IMPLODE!
Sorry dude, just joking around.
"...What do other Slashdot users develop in when they must use a Windows machine?"
First I develop a migrane, then I use lots of tequila. Works every time.
*comf*
Well, I haven't yet read through all of his paper (I'll work on it) but his base proposition that super A.I. will take over the universe is a bit of a stretch considering we can't even make A.I. that can match wits with a lab rat and pull a draw.
Of course, once we can make an A.I. as smart as a lab rat, progress should be happen really, really fast thereafter, so maybe he's right.
All this reminds me of some old Chinese curse having to do with living in interesting times.