How about one with a extra 10% thickness/weight and having around 15 hours battery life?
I'm sure that they considered it and determined that most people did NOT want that bargain. After all, they want to sell as many of these things and make as much money as possible.
Why? It would still be thiner and lighter than v1 -- isn't that what matters most to Apple users?
My, my, you are a touchy little German, aren't you?
Go ahead a play pretend that your gross incompetence is somehow the fault of the operating system.
The only one who is a little bit stupid here is obviously you.
Obviously? Seems to me that you're the one who can't read with any significant degree of comprehension or handle very basic computer tasks.
Configuring a network should cost no time at all
Yet it took you hours. How sad and pathetic.
as I said (you seem the illiterate/dump idiot here, installing is a synonym for "configuration" as configuring is a required step of installing
You're not only a sad and pathetic little illiterate cry-baby German, you're also a LIAR.
From your original post:
My neighbour installed a WLAN card into his PC, to connect to my WLAN. Took us *hours* to configure
You describe installation and configuration are separate tasks. I did the exact same thing. So, you're both illiterate AND a liar.
Your inability to read and comprehend is not my fault. Perhaps you should take some adult basic literacy classes. You would benefit greatly from them.
My job as a consultant has NOTHING to do with WLAN configuration, what a laugh
I should hope not -- you're clearly not capable of completing even the most basic tasks. If it took you "hours" to connect a single computer a wireless network at a clients site, then your complete technical incompetence would be exposed. I'm absolutely amazed that you get any work at all. Perhaps you don't -- you've already shown yourself to be a liar.
Have fun on bashing ppl that can not use windows without a proper training first
No, I'm bashing on YOU because you claim to have the necessary technical skills to perform basic tasks. As you claim in your original post:
Every day I'm forced to use Windows on a random job
So... Your a consultant who uses Windows every day, yet you can't handle simple tasks like connecting to a network. Some "consultant" you must be!
Insulting ppl because they can not configure WLAN on a Windows PC is ridiculous.
I'm not insulting "people" because they can't configure a WLAN on windows -- I'm insulting YOU. You claim to be a "consultant" but can't perform basic tasks in an operating system you claim to use every day.
Yeah, you deserve to be insulted. Perhaps you'll stop causing your clients problems and get a job more suited to your cognitive capabilities -- like digging ditches or stocking shelves.
Dude, it is not the problem of "installing" the hardware. It is the supposed to be simple task to connect to an actual network or to set up your own one.
I see that you're also illiterate. I specifically said install and configure. When I was done, the user was connected to the network.
Incompetent? No idea. It took you 10 Minutes to set that up when you where picking up some medicals for your father? It sounds more like you are incompetent.
Wow, you really ARE illiterate! I said that it would take, at most, 10 minutes for a completely incompetent user to install and configure a wireless network card. I said it took me, in my first example, "a couple minutes". (IIRC, I shutdown the computer, added the card, started the computer, and connected to the network. Most of that time was spent waiting for the computer to shutdown and start up.)
On my mac it is... 5 seconds perhaps? If I click a bit slower... 15 seconds?
I'd love to see that. I doubt you'd even be able to get the case open in that time frame. Have you always been this stupid, or were you involved in some sort of accident?
Then perhaps you should learn german to read it properly.
Clearly, my German is better than your English. Your astonishing illiteracy is a testament to that!
And as a side note the last part I quoted from you makes you liable for a libel and defamation case.
I see your legal knowledge is on par with your technical knowledge. Good luck with your libel and defamation case, you're going to need it:)
The contention of the post is that a company's profits somehow affect the consumer's value
Not quite. What the company makes per unit is irrelevant to the consumer -- that much should be obvious -- and it's a point on which we agree. Still, this is not what the GP was trying to say.
The GP suggested that the higher profit margin/indicates/ that the higher cost isn't balanced by added value. That is, you're not getting as much as you give.
The GP wrote: "you are not getting as much as you put" -- It's not the most eloquent statement ever made, but I thought it was clear enough.
My neighbour installed a WLAN card into his PC, to connect to my WLAN. Took us *hours* to configure. Completely retarded dialogs to connect to a WLAN.
Ah, I see that you're almost completely incompetent.
A couple years ago, I stopped by the local medical supply shop to pickup an order for my father-in-law. While waiting, I installed a wireless network card for them. It took just a couple minutes. It was up and running before they had my order filled.
More to the point: Installing and configuring a wireless network card is an incredibly simple process that can be managed by even the least experienced home user in well under 10 minutes. If it took you *hours* to perform such a simple and basic task, you have absolutely no business operating a computer, let alone making a living using them.
Why should I punish myself every day by using a windows pc?
You shouldn't -- In fact, given that you're not capable of performing even simple computer-related tasks, I strongly recommend that you find work in an industry more suited to your talents.
Oh, I took a look at your website -- I can only imagine the code horrors that someone as incompetent as you has unleashed upon unsuspecting clients.
Okay, so... what sets the otherwise commodity hardware so far ahead of the rest that it qualifies as a marvel of engineering? You know, that special class typically reserved for things like the pyramids of Giza and the Palm Deira of Dubai.
From my (objective) perspective, it's a just a typical home computer -- no more marvelous or astonishing than any other.
The only 2 parts that I wanted to touch (RAM/HD) were easy to get at and swapping them out was the work of a minute once I got the case open. Furthermore, the fan vent was super easy to get access to and clean. I found the experience quite pleasant and it was the easiest disassembly I've ever had on a laptop.
You must not work on many. On the majority of notebooks I've worked on, access to RAM and HD can be had by removing a single screw -- I've seen many where removing the HD required no screws at all -- just a slide-switch.
"Opening the case" to access the RAM and HD sounds like a much more involved and unpleasant experience to me.
So no, general office folks don't care about all this stuff and get themselves an iPhone.
Isn't that my point, really? Office folks who don't really need to do work on their phone find the BB less attractive. When you need to get actual work done while on the go, the BB is the better option.
I've seen some people run two phones, hoping that their iPhone would become a viable replacement -- and ultimately drop it when they find that it is best suited as an entertainment device and not a work tool. (Attractive for long flights, not so attractive when you need to handle a few documents and manage a lot of email.)
The BB Torch offers a good balance between work and play, but the not-as-good-as-the-Bold slide-out keyboard still leaves serious users wishing for their old Bold or Curve. Touch-screens kill productivity -- and heavy business users learn that lesson quick when they switch to an iPhone or similar smartphone (often, they don't wait for the contract to expire before replacing it with the latest BB.)
That said, the BB isn't as good an entertainment device as other offerings so I would expect "business" users who don't really need or use their phone for anything other than making phone calls and catching the occasional email opting for an entertainment-oriented phone.
If BB platform becomes unattractive for lack of apps and goes belly up there will be nothing to compete for.
I still don't understand this argument. RIM never really did well in the "consumer" market, the Storm being their most notable flop. Business users, however, have always been their bread and butter, and it's an area where they still outshine the competition.
On the business front, there are tons of top-quality business-related apps. Not that you really need most of them, as the built-in software adequately meets the needs of most users. Add Documents To Go and you've got a nearly complete workstation in your pocket -- with unmatched security, top-quality hardware, award-winning email & messaging, and the best mobile keyboard around. If that wasn't enough, there are tons of other high-quality apps for various purposes that actually make you more productive like EzBillMaker, ProOnGo, numerous CC processing apps, faxing apps, specialized calculators, and more.
Quality over quantity -- that's what matters in the working world. App World also makes it very easy to spot the low-quality apps, with their "star" ratings and quick access to comments, finding a quality app that meets your needs is quick and easy. I've yet to be disappointed with any well-recommended app -- nor have I been unable to find an app to suit my various needs.
Sure, RIM may never win-over the average consumer with their boring hardware and anemic selection of fart apps, but that really isn't important to the core of their market. For getting real work done, RIMs products are still unmatched.
The number of apps is a red-herring -- just a way for the fans of iOS or Android to divert attention away from a competitor that is succeeding in a niche in which their favorite product isn't well suited. I don't really understand why people feel the need to do this -- different products are good at different things. RIM has great business products, Android has great consumer products and a diverse range of hardware, Apple has a couple shiny baubles. It's not like anyone has to "win" or anything. Diversity in the marketplace is healthy and good for everyone.
That said, on the tablet front, it's not a matter of competing in different market segments -- the Playbook is a really amazing product that both business and home users will likely find very attractive. For business users, especially existing BB users, the Playbook has an amazing set of features that make it stand out -- and it's IT friendly, paired to your already-managed BB, IT need do nothing extra. Home users will appreciate the smooth interface (even under heavy multi-tasking), solid hardware, full-web experience (which includes full Flash support), and the ability to use their (BB) phones current data plan. Check out some videos, it's a very impressive device.
I expect Android to catch-up to the Playbook before the end of the year, but Apple users aren't likely to see the iPad advance that far until v3. So I can see why Apple fans might feel threatened by RIM; it's important that their product be (or thought to be) the "best".
Suffice it to say, the death of RIM has been greatly exaggerated. The idea that they're destined to die from a lack of apps is... just silly.
Trip over the cord and pull your laptop off the coffee table once or twice
This has never happened to me or anyone I know.
Is tripping over the cable really a common problem for Mac users? Do you frequently suspend the cable a few inches above the floor across a common walk-way?
Honestly, it amazes me that this has happened to anyone -- let alone so many people that the "magsafe" connector was invented in the first place.
I pity the poor fellow who trips over his power cable so ofter that "magsafe" has become an essential feature. He must spend a lot of time at the hospital emergency room.
iPad 2 comes out next week at the same price with all the new features other vendors are having to promise will be in their still-pricier tablets when they ship--Apple is about to knife those babies in the crib
You're either psychic or a blind zealot. You, like just about everyone else, have absolutely no idea what Apple is going to show on March 2nd.
If their product history to date is any indication, the iPad 2 is going to be a rather prosaic upgrade. It'll have better hardware, obviously, and possibly some UI improvements. RIM, on the other hand, has taken the tablet UI to the next level with the Playbook -- something Apple has never done in a 2nd generation product.
Amazing UI aside, RIM has managed one of the coolest innovations with Blackberry Bridge. Tethering the Playbook to your phone gives you access to all your data and all the security you've come to expect from RIM without needing to manage an addition device. (That's very business IT department friendly.) If that wasn't enough, you don't even need an additional data plan for your tablet -- it can use your phones existing data plan. (Especially cool, you can hand off the PB to a coworker and they'll have access to all their files, email, etc. and no access to your data! If the device is lost or stolen, no need to worry -- all your info is safe from prying eyes -- it won't even be on the device!)
So, with its next-gen UI, business and pocketbook friendly tethering, excellent security, and above-par office suite the Playbook is setting the new standard for tablets. I expect Android tablets to follow RIMs lead and offer similar features and UI improvements later this year -- something Apple isn't likely to do.
If Apple doesn't break from convention with the iPad 2 and offer major changes and improvements, they're going to get destroyed on the tablet front. Check out some videos and you'll agree, the Playbook is a generation ahead of the pack.
Say what you want about the Atari 2600 version of Pac-man -- while okay, just wasn't pac-man. (Not because of the limitations of the system, see this homebrew 4k Pac-man done right.
E.T., on the other hand is an excellent game. It's a complex and involved adventure that is challenging without being frustrating and extraordinarily well developed. The controls are very responsive, collision detection is pixel-perfect, and the NPC sprites are bright and colorful. As an added bonus, the game is loaded with secrets to find.
If there is any flaw in the game at all, I haven't found it. The only change I would make would be to OR CXP0FB and CXPPMM against 0x40 a scanline before completing drawing E.T. so that you could walk "in front" of the wells and baddies. (I'd bet this one change would have turned the so-called "worst game ever" into a "top 10 best")
since when using Explorer is considered difficult?
The average user has an enormous amount of difficulty using explorer. When I teach beginner classes, I spend between 3 and 4 days on navigating the file system -- with a review day scheduled later -- sometimes, it's still not enough.
Just as an example, "File" to anyone over 30 immediately calls to mind "the manila folder with paper in it". It's a real mental struggle for them to associate the little folder icon with a folder and not a file.
As if the students didn't struggle enough, Microsoft has gone out of their way to make it even less intuitive; hiding file extensions and the path by default, magic folders like "my documents" that don't map visually to their actual location in the hierarchy, etc. Their latest mucking around in Vista and 7 just introduces new problems.
Because of the absurdity, people go to great lengths to avoid explorer. Have a naive user copy a word document to a floppy or flash drive. I'll bet a nickel that the user opens the file in word and clicks 'save as'. I don't know how many times I've heard a user claim that all their files were stored in "Microsoft" and wanted to know how to "get them into their outlook" to email them.
Don't expect people to be able to use explorer. It's gone from an "essential" to an "advanced" skill.
Your first post in this thread took issue with someone else who suggested that the Chineese mind does not prove that a computational AI is impossible.
Searle isn't arguing against AI in general, only against "computational AI". He makes no claims about Strong AI other than to say that programs are insufficient. (This should be evident from A4, C2, and C3)
Here's the important bit:
I think that the rules for manipulating symbols defines the meaning of those symbols, even if meaning for them is absent initially.
When you talk about the "rules for manipulating symbols" you're talking about "rules of syntax", which you're mistaking for semantics. (This might resolve many of your objections.)
While not the best example (Searle offers a similar one), consider teaching someone to do long division by rote -- that is, without them knowing what numbers are or what they represent. With a set of tables and rules, they can do division (See Turing on this). However, the answers will remain just as meaningless as the operation itself. The process and the answers are only meaningful to you, as you have the semantic context (which cannot be derived from the syntax alone). To add to that, it is only division in so far as you attribute division to the process (it is not intrinsically division any more than our and-gate earlier was intrinsically and).
Our poor student would be engaging in meaningless symbol manipulation -- just like a computer.
When people create programs, they do so with an operating environment in mind, the operating environment itself is designed with underlying hardware in mind.
Remember your Church and Turing. It doesn't matter if the program is 6502 assembly, a set of relays, a mechanical contrivance, or a set of water pipes. Implementation doesn't matter, which is why I don't make a distinction between a "program" and a "running program". We can continue with the assumption that "programs" refer to "running programs" if you like.
Searle put it this way: "the wall behind my back is right now implementing the Wordstar program, because there is some pattern of molecule movements that is isomorphic with the formal structure of Wordstar."
Back to the quote. Having introduced the term "rules of syntax" earlier, it seems prudent to also add "rules of semantics" here. The programmer in your quote assumes some "rules of semantics" to create a meaningful program -- but those rules, again, are extrinsic. Your programmer could just as easily create a valid, if meaningless, program by obeying and applying the rules of syntax alone. More to the point, they could create the exact same program with either method. (Though in the latter case by virtue of some happy accident, but that's an irrelevant matter of practicality.)
When actually run, semantics are added to the system by the underlying hardware.
Of course, with the above in mind, there isn't a distinction we need to make between a "program running on hardware" and "a program". I defined a program in an earlier post as "a collection of formal symbol manipulations" for this very reason.
If you still hold this point on your reply, I'd like you to expand on this idea a bit further. I honestly don't see how semantics are added to the system in a running program.
A program without any semantics is just meaningless symbols. Meaningless symbols, trivially, don't constitute a mind.
On this point, we're not in disagreement. A program, lacking semantics, is meaningless symbol manipulation. (The point of contention seems to be whether or not programs have intrinsic semantics.)
Which leads us to A3: Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics.
Given syntax alone (symbols, grammar, rules) semantics cannot be derived.
(This is why, of the first three axioms, A3 is really
I'm sorry, your understanding is so unimaginably poor that I can't even begin to correct you.
This is one of many completely absurd statements you made in your last post that show your complete and total lack of understanding:
I understand all too well: Searle doesn't like the idea that machines might be his equal, so he invents convoluted arguments for why this can't be.
Why is this so ridiculous? Because Searle isn't arguing against the possibility of artificial minds! Had you done ANY reading on the subject, you'd already know this.
To make matters worse, I've already taken the time to explain this to you. This is nothing more than willful ignorance on your part.
I have better things to do with my time than dialog with someone who is unable or unwilling to learn about the topic.
A3 (Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics). Not only is this what Searle set out to prove in the first place,
You start off okay. This is what the Chinese Room illustration was intended to explain. The illustration was not intended to "prove" this (it's an axiom) only to make the point clear. (I agree that it doesn't do the best job, like a slashdot car analogy.)
and not only is it quite unprovable (how would you go about proving something is not conscious, if behaviour isn't a trustworthy clue?), but it also doesn't imply that the Chinese Room doesn't have what it takes.
This is the error in your reasoning. A3 has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness or minds.
A3 depends on the concept of "mental content" defined in A2, and is thus actually a conclusion
Again, A3 has NOTHING to do with minds, "mental content", or consciousness. I'm going to guess that you're problem here stems from a poor or improper understanding of semantics.
A4 is unprovable. I know that I have a mind, but I can't possibly know that you do,
This misses the point. All you need to accept A4 is that you have a brain and that your brain is the cause of your mind. So, for at least one case, a brain is capable of causing a mind. (This is weaker than Searle's claim, but doesn't invalidate the argument, only limits what it can demonstrate to just you and your mind.)
except from your behaviour - which, according to Searle, is insufficient to judge the matter.
On this point, the CR illustration is useful, though it quickly devolves into philosophical hand-waving (no worse than your solipsism above, and for the same reasons).
C3 doesn't follow from the premises. Even if we assume that it takes special magical powers to cause a mind (as Searle suggests), there's no way of knowing that these are the only way of causing a mind
How can you accept C2 with this assumption? Searle makes no magical claims. "causal power" only refers to the ability of your brain to cause your mind -- whatever could cause minds in other systems must have an equivalent capability. He posits nothing mystical, he only offers a term so that we can talk about this capability and its nature. In this case, to show that by whatever means your brain causes your mind, it's not a program.
Sure. It's always fun watching what kind of mental gymnastics someone will end up performing in defence of a ludicrous argument.
I think that it's abundantly clear that you simply don't understand the argument well enough to call it ludicrous.
Then again, if I though Searle was positing some magical explanation for conciousness, I'd think it ludicrous as well. Of course, he's not. That's just your poor understanding.
A few things I couldn't seem to work in to this reply:
1) Forth also crossed my mind in the course of this discussion. You may be interested in an old IOCCC entry called "First and Third Almost Forth" http://www.ioccc.org/1992/buzzard.2.design
2) When you write "it doesn't mean we can't produce a program which, when actually run... doesn't produce understanding." I get the impression that you think that C1 has much broader implications than Searle intended. I'd like to clarify that the CRA is in no way an argument against the production of artificial minds in general -- only to a specific approach to their production.
3) When you write "in many cases the meaning is defined in terms of the meanings it ascribes to the program it's using." I think we can get to this in a discussion of A3. For now, suffice it to say that any such semantic would exist only within the context of the extrinsic semantics already applied to the formal system. (Think of it as a derived semantic [my term, sorry] -- this is how I got to thinking about Forth -- anyway, it would remain extrinsic as it only gets its meaning by virtue of the extrinsic semantics applied to the syntactic statement of which it is composed.)
Ok, I'll accept that a program, by itself, has no meaning except that which is applied to it. If that is true, then obviously a program by itself (this is a really strong restriction) can't produce understanding
A1 doesn't even ask you to go that far, only to accept that programs are purely syntactic. If you accept your stronger statement, I think we can both agree to A1, with your restriction fully in place.
I have some issues with what A2 actually means, but that's a definitional issue. It may be relevant if you want to argue that the meaning a simple circuit ascribes to a switch being off is or is not a mental content of that circuit. But that's just devolving to silliness...
I agree. Though I will point out that all A2 says about the nature of minds is that they have "mental contents" (a terrible choice of words.) This is easy to agree to, for those possessed of mind. As I punned before, it seems "self evident".
A3 is the most contentious point, and gets both the least and most attention (I explain this below). I'll restate it here, just for clarity.
A3: Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics.
This deals neither with programs nor minds, which is a great relief . When I first read it years ago, I found it at once both obvious and insightful. I don't know if you agree to this or not, so I'll not go too far with it.
According to Searle, A3 is the point he intended to make with the Chinese Room illustration. Had he made this statement in 1980 (or directly in 1984) instead of ten years later, he could have saved everyone a lot of trouble!
I don't think the Chinese room actually corresponds to A3.
(I don't mean to pull this out of context, but I couldn't decide if it went more with the sentence above or below.)
I'll be the first to admit that it is, quite possibly, the worst way to illustrate A3 ever. It worked for him, but he knew what he intended before he wrote it!
Some of the problems you raise in your earlier post, for example, I will readily agree are valid within the context of the illustration, but don't really address A3. The CR illustration can easily appear unrelated to the argument he intended to make. (It hurts far more than it helps). I can agree with you on that point, or at least say that I understand your perspective here. It's one of the reasons I prefer to focus on the axioms rather than the illustration -- it's too easy to get distracted by irrelevant details.
Most of the arguments you see against the CRA focus exclusively on the illustration, and not his axioms. (This is what I meant when I said that A3 is both the mos
Slashdot Mirror
How about one with a extra 10% thickness/weight and having around 15 hours battery life?
I'm sure that they considered it and determined that most people did NOT want that bargain. After all, they want to sell as many of these things and make as much money as possible.
Why? It would still be thiner and lighter than v1 -- isn't that what matters most to Apple users?
My, my, you are a touchy little German, aren't you?
Go ahead a play pretend that your gross incompetence is somehow the fault of the operating system.
The only one who is a little bit stupid here is obviously you.
Obviously? Seems to me that you're the one who can't read with any significant degree of comprehension or handle very basic computer tasks.
Configuring a network should cost no time at all
Yet it took you hours. How sad and pathetic.
as I said (you seem the illiterate/dump idiot here, installing is a synonym for "configuration" as configuring is a required step of installing
You're not only a sad and pathetic little illiterate cry-baby German, you're also a LIAR.
From your original post:
My neighbour installed a WLAN card into his PC, to connect to my WLAN. Took us *hours* to configure
You describe installation and configuration are separate tasks. I did the exact same thing. So, you're both illiterate AND a liar.
Your inability to read and comprehend is not my fault. Perhaps you should take some adult basic literacy classes. You would benefit greatly from them.
My job as a consultant has NOTHING to do with WLAN configuration, what a laugh
I should hope not -- you're clearly not capable of completing even the most basic tasks. If it took you "hours" to connect a single computer a wireless network at a clients site, then your complete technical incompetence would be exposed. I'm absolutely amazed that you get any work at all. Perhaps you don't -- you've already shown yourself to be a liar.
Have fun on bashing ppl that can not use windows without a proper training first
No, I'm bashing on YOU because you claim to have the necessary technical skills to perform basic tasks. As you claim in your original post:
Every day I'm forced to use Windows on a random job
So ... Your a consultant who uses Windows every day, yet you can't handle simple tasks like connecting to a network. Some "consultant" you must be!
Insulting ppl because they can not configure WLAN on a Windows PC is ridiculous.
I'm not insulting "people" because they can't configure a WLAN on windows -- I'm insulting YOU. You claim to be a "consultant" but can't perform basic tasks in an operating system you claim to use every day.
Yeah, you deserve to be insulted. Perhaps you'll stop causing your clients problems and get a job more suited to your cognitive capabilities -- like digging ditches or stocking shelves.
Dude, it is not the problem of "installing" the hardware. It is the supposed to be simple task to connect to an actual network or to set up your own one.
I see that you're also illiterate. I specifically said install and configure. When I was done, the user was connected to the network.
Incompetent? No idea. It took you 10 Minutes to set that up when you where picking up some medicals for your father? It sounds more like you are incompetent.
Wow, you really ARE illiterate! I said that it would take, at most, 10 minutes for a completely incompetent user to install and configure a wireless network card. I said it took me, in my first example, "a couple minutes". (IIRC, I shutdown the computer, added the card, started the computer, and connected to the network. Most of that time was spent waiting for the computer to shutdown and start up.)
On my mac it is ... 5 seconds perhaps? If I click a bit slower ... 15 seconds?
I'd love to see that. I doubt you'd even be able to get the case open in that time frame. Have you always been this stupid, or were you involved in some sort of accident?
Then perhaps you should learn german to read it properly.
Clearly, my German is better than your English. Your astonishing illiteracy is a testament to that!
And as a side note the last part I quoted from you makes you liable for a libel and defamation case.
I see your legal knowledge is on par with your technical knowledge. Good luck with your libel and defamation case, you're going to need it :)
The contention of the post is that a company's profits somehow affect the consumer's value
Not quite. What the company makes per unit is irrelevant to the consumer -- that much should be obvious -- and it's a point on which we agree. Still, this is not what the GP was trying to say.
The GP suggested that the higher profit margin /indicates/ that the higher cost isn't balanced by added value. That is, you're not getting as much as you give.
The GP wrote: "you are not getting as much as you put" -- It's not the most eloquent statement ever made, but I thought it was clear enough.
My neighbour installed a WLAN card into his PC, to connect to my WLAN. Took us *hours* to configure. Completely retarded dialogs to connect to a WLAN.
Ah, I see that you're almost completely incompetent.
A couple years ago, I stopped by the local medical supply shop to pickup an order for my father-in-law. While waiting, I installed a wireless network card for them. It took just a couple minutes. It was up and running before they had my order filled.
More to the point: Installing and configuring a wireless network card is an incredibly simple process that can be managed by even the least experienced home user in well under 10 minutes. If it took you *hours* to perform such a simple and basic task, you have absolutely no business operating a computer, let alone making a living using them.
Why should I punish myself every day by using a windows pc?
You shouldn't -- In fact, given that you're not capable of performing even simple computer-related tasks, I strongly recommend that you find work in an industry more suited to your talents.
Oh, I took a look at your website -- I can only imagine the code horrors that someone as incompetent as you has unleashed upon unsuspecting clients.
Okay, so ... what sets the otherwise commodity hardware so far ahead of the rest that it qualifies as a marvel of engineering? You know, that special class typically reserved for things like the pyramids of Giza and the Palm Deira of Dubai.
From my (objective) perspective, it's a just a typical home computer -- no more marvelous or astonishing than any other.
If they say that the story was "hyped up" enough times it will magically become true.
an absolute engineering marvel
Now THAT'S what I call reality distortion!
Actually, it was $920 with dents and bumps on the case, and a DVD drive that didn't work because of rough handling.
Neat. Even broken Apple products are over-priced. I really feel bad for the idiot who bought your old machine.
The only 2 parts that I wanted to touch (RAM/HD) were easy to get at and swapping them out was the work of a minute once I got the case open. Furthermore, the fan vent was super easy to get access to and clean. I found the experience quite pleasant and it was the easiest disassembly I've ever had on a laptop.
You must not work on many. On the majority of notebooks I've worked on, access to RAM and HD can be had by removing a single screw -- I've seen many where removing the HD required no screws at all -- just a slide-switch.
"Opening the case" to access the RAM and HD sounds like a much more involved and unpleasant experience to me.
This contention, that a consumer is getting a bad deal if the producer makes a profit, is very strange.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the parent post. Go read it again. This time, pay attention.
So no, general office folks don't care about all this stuff and get themselves an iPhone.
Isn't that my point, really? Office folks who don't really need to do work on their phone find the BB less attractive. When you need to get actual work done while on the go, the BB is the better option.
I've seen some people run two phones, hoping that their iPhone would become a viable replacement -- and ultimately drop it when they find that it is best suited as an entertainment device and not a work tool. (Attractive for long flights, not so attractive when you need to handle a few documents and manage a lot of email.)
The BB Torch offers a good balance between work and play, but the not-as-good-as-the-Bold slide-out keyboard still leaves serious users wishing for their old Bold or Curve. Touch-screens kill productivity -- and heavy business users learn that lesson quick when they switch to an iPhone or similar smartphone (often, they don't wait for the contract to expire before replacing it with the latest BB.)
That said, the BB isn't as good an entertainment device as other offerings so I would expect "business" users who don't really need or use their phone for anything other than making phone calls and catching the occasional email opting for an entertainment-oriented phone.
If BB platform becomes unattractive for lack of apps and goes belly up there will be nothing to compete for.
I still don't understand this argument. RIM never really did well in the "consumer" market, the Storm being their most notable flop. Business users, however, have always been their bread and butter, and it's an area where they still outshine the competition.
On the business front, there are tons of top-quality business-related apps. Not that you really need most of them, as the built-in software adequately meets the needs of most users. Add Documents To Go and you've got a nearly complete workstation in your pocket -- with unmatched security, top-quality hardware, award-winning email & messaging, and the best mobile keyboard around. If that wasn't enough, there are tons of other high-quality apps for various purposes that actually make you more productive like EzBillMaker, ProOnGo, numerous CC processing apps, faxing apps, specialized calculators, and more.
Quality over quantity -- that's what matters in the working world. App World also makes it very easy to spot the low-quality apps, with their "star" ratings and quick access to comments, finding a quality app that meets your needs is quick and easy. I've yet to be disappointed with any well-recommended app -- nor have I been unable to find an app to suit my various needs.
Sure, RIM may never win-over the average consumer with their boring hardware and anemic selection of fart apps, but that really isn't important to the core of their market. For getting real work done, RIMs products are still unmatched.
The number of apps is a red-herring -- just a way for the fans of iOS or Android to divert attention away from a competitor that is succeeding in a niche in which their favorite product isn't well suited. I don't really understand why people feel the need to do this -- different products are good at different things. RIM has great business products, Android has great consumer products and a diverse range of hardware, Apple has a couple shiny baubles. It's not like anyone has to "win" or anything. Diversity in the marketplace is healthy and good for everyone.
That said, on the tablet front, it's not a matter of competing in different market segments -- the Playbook is a really amazing product that both business and home users will likely find very attractive. For business users, especially existing BB users, the Playbook has an amazing set of features that make it stand out -- and it's IT friendly, paired to your already-managed BB, IT need do nothing extra. Home users will appreciate the smooth interface (even under heavy multi-tasking), solid hardware, full-web experience (which includes full Flash support), and the ability to use their (BB) phones current data plan. Check out some videos, it's a very impressive device.
I expect Android to catch-up to the Playbook before the end of the year, but Apple users aren't likely to see the iPad advance that far until v3. So I can see why Apple fans might feel threatened by RIM; it's important that their product be (or thought to be) the "best".
Suffice it to say, the death of RIM has been greatly exaggerated. The idea that they're destined to die from a lack of apps is ... just silly.
It is not clear when they did this.
At least a few months before you posted your comment. It's not like they changed the price after you hit submit.
.the minimum fee you can charge is $2.99.
I can only assume that you've imagined this.
There are lot's of BB apps that cost less than $2.99 -- some 1.99 some 0.99 and some are free.
Trip over the cord and pull your laptop off the coffee table once or twice
This has never happened to me or anyone I know.
Is tripping over the cable really a common problem for Mac users? Do you frequently suspend the cable a few inches above the floor across a common walk-way?
Honestly, it amazes me that this has happened to anyone -- let alone so many people that the "magsafe" connector was invented in the first place.
I pity the poor fellow who trips over his power cable so ofter that "magsafe" has become an essential feature. He must spend a lot of time at the hospital emergency room.
iPad 2 comes out next week at the same price with all the new features other vendors are having to promise will be in their still-pricier tablets when they ship--Apple is about to knife those babies in the crib
You're either psychic or a blind zealot. You, like just about everyone else, have absolutely no idea what Apple is going to show on March 2nd.
If their product history to date is any indication, the iPad 2 is going to be a rather prosaic upgrade. It'll have better hardware, obviously, and possibly some UI improvements. RIM, on the other hand, has taken the tablet UI to the next level with the Playbook -- something Apple has never done in a 2nd generation product.
Amazing UI aside, RIM has managed one of the coolest innovations with Blackberry Bridge. Tethering the Playbook to your phone gives you access to all your data and all the security you've come to expect from RIM without needing to manage an addition device. (That's very business IT department friendly.) If that wasn't enough, you don't even need an additional data plan for your tablet -- it can use your phones existing data plan. (Especially cool, you can hand off the PB to a coworker and they'll have access to all their files, email, etc. and no access to your data! If the device is lost or stolen, no need to worry -- all your info is safe from prying eyes -- it won't even be on the device!)
So, with its next-gen UI, business and pocketbook friendly tethering, excellent security, and above-par office suite the Playbook is setting the new standard for tablets. I expect Android tablets to follow RIMs lead and offer similar features and UI improvements later this year -- something Apple isn't likely to do.
If Apple doesn't break from convention with the iPad 2 and offer major changes and improvements, they're going to get destroyed on the tablet front. Check out some videos and you'll agree, the Playbook is a generation ahead of the pack.
Ack!
These ... truths ... they conflict with my preconceptions ... must ... watch more ... Glenn Beck ...
Say what you want about the Atari 2600 version of Pac-man -- while okay, just wasn't pac-man. (Not because of the limitations of the system, see this homebrew 4k Pac-man done right.
E.T., on the other hand is an excellent game. It's a complex and involved adventure that is challenging without being frustrating and extraordinarily well developed. The controls are very responsive, collision detection is pixel-perfect, and the NPC sprites are bright and colorful. As an added bonus, the game is loaded with secrets to find.
If there is any flaw in the game at all, I haven't found it. The only change I would make would be to OR CXP0FB and CXPPMM against 0x40 a scanline before completing drawing E.T. so that you could walk "in front" of the wells and baddies. (I'd bet this one change would have turned the so-called "worst game ever" into a "top 10 best")
A few links for the uninformed:
http://www.randomterrain.com/atari-2600-memories-et.html
http://2600connection.atari.org/et.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsF7q_hA6Z8
Best quote from the above link: "If you can't get out of the wells, you suck at video games"
Since you likely lost the manual more than 25 ago, check out this "How to beat home video games" tutorial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-pzdPLfy9Y
since when using Explorer is considered difficult?
The average user has an enormous amount of difficulty using explorer. When I teach beginner classes, I spend between 3 and 4 days on navigating the file system -- with a review day scheduled later -- sometimes, it's still not enough.
Just as an example, "File" to anyone over 30 immediately calls to mind "the manila folder with paper in it". It's a real mental struggle for them to associate the little folder icon with a folder and not a file.
As if the students didn't struggle enough, Microsoft has gone out of their way to make it even less intuitive; hiding file extensions and the path by default, magic folders like "my documents" that don't map visually to their actual location in the hierarchy, etc. Their latest mucking around in Vista and 7 just introduces new problems.
Because of the absurdity, people go to great lengths to avoid explorer. Have a naive user copy a word document to a floppy or flash drive. I'll bet a nickel that the user opens the file in word and clicks 'save as'. I don't know how many times I've heard a user claim that all their files were stored in "Microsoft" and wanted to know how to "get them into their outlook" to email them.
Don't expect people to be able to use explorer. It's gone from an "essential" to an "advanced" skill.
I couldn't work this bit in:
Your first post in this thread took issue with someone else who suggested that the Chineese mind does not prove that a computational AI is impossible.
Searle isn't arguing against AI in general, only against "computational AI". He makes no claims about Strong AI other than to say that programs are insufficient. (This should be evident from A4, C2, and C3)
Here's the important bit:
I think that the rules for manipulating symbols defines the meaning of those symbols, even if meaning for them is absent initially.
When you talk about the "rules for manipulating symbols" you're talking about "rules of syntax", which you're mistaking for semantics. (This might resolve many of your objections.)
While not the best example (Searle offers a similar one), consider teaching someone to do long division by rote -- that is, without them knowing what numbers are or what they represent. With a set of tables and rules, they can do division (See Turing on this). However, the answers will remain just as meaningless as the operation itself. The process and the answers are only meaningful to you, as you have the semantic context (which cannot be derived from the syntax alone). To add to that, it is only division in so far as you attribute division to the process (it is not intrinsically division any more than our and-gate earlier was intrinsically and).
Our poor student would be engaging in meaningless symbol manipulation -- just like a computer.
When people create programs, they do so with an operating environment in mind, the operating environment itself is designed with underlying hardware in mind.
Remember your Church and Turing. It doesn't matter if the program is 6502 assembly, a set of relays, a mechanical contrivance, or a set of water pipes. Implementation doesn't matter, which is why I don't make a distinction between a "program" and a "running program". We can continue with the assumption that "programs" refer to "running programs" if you like.
Searle put it this way: "the wall behind my back is right now implementing the Wordstar program, because there is some pattern of molecule movements that is isomorphic with the formal structure of Wordstar."
Back to the quote. Having introduced the term "rules of syntax" earlier, it seems prudent to also add "rules of semantics" here. The programmer in your quote assumes some "rules of semantics" to create a meaningful program -- but those rules, again, are extrinsic. Your programmer could just as easily create a valid, if meaningless, program by obeying and applying the rules of syntax alone. More to the point, they could create the exact same program with either method. (Though in the latter case by virtue of some happy accident, but that's an irrelevant matter of practicality.)
When actually run, semantics are added to the system by the underlying hardware.
Of course, with the above in mind, there isn't a distinction we need to make between a "program running on hardware" and "a program". I defined a program in an earlier post as "a collection of formal symbol manipulations" for this very reason.
If you still hold this point on your reply, I'd like you to expand on this idea a bit further. I honestly don't see how semantics are added to the system in a running program.
A program without any semantics is just meaningless symbols. Meaningless symbols, trivially, don't constitute a mind.
On this point, we're not in disagreement. A program, lacking semantics, is meaningless symbol manipulation. (The point of contention seems to be whether or not programs have intrinsic semantics.)
Which leads us to A3: Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics.
Given syntax alone (symbols, grammar, rules) semantics cannot be derived.
(This is why, of the first three axioms, A3 is really
I'm sorry, your understanding is so unimaginably poor that I can't even begin to correct you.
This is one of many completely absurd statements you made in your last post that show your complete and total lack of understanding:
I understand all too well: Searle doesn't like the idea that machines might be his equal, so he invents convoluted arguments for why this can't be.
Why is this so ridiculous? Because Searle isn't arguing against the possibility of artificial minds! Had you done ANY reading on the subject, you'd already know this.
To make matters worse, I've already taken the time to explain this to you. This is nothing more than willful ignorance on your part.
I have better things to do with my time than dialog with someone who is unable or unwilling to learn about the topic.
Repeat after me: Social Security hasn't got anything to do with our budget deficit.
You say that like facts actually matter to these "people". I see variations on this conversation all the time:
You can keep trying, just don't expect facts to have any influence on their beliefs.
A3 (Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics). Not only is this what Searle set out to prove in the first place,
You start off okay. This is what the Chinese Room illustration was intended to explain. The illustration was not intended to "prove" this (it's an axiom) only to make the point clear. (I agree that it doesn't do the best job, like a slashdot car analogy.)
and not only is it quite unprovable (how would you go about proving something is not conscious, if behaviour isn't a trustworthy clue?), but it also doesn't imply that the Chinese Room doesn't have what it takes.
This is the error in your reasoning. A3 has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness or minds.
A3 depends on the concept of "mental content" defined in A2, and is thus actually a conclusion
Again, A3 has NOTHING to do with minds, "mental content", or consciousness. I'm going to guess that you're problem here stems from a poor or improper understanding of semantics.
A4 is unprovable. I know that I have a mind, but I can't possibly know that you do,
This misses the point. All you need to accept A4 is that you have a brain and that your brain is the cause of your mind. So, for at least one case, a brain is capable of causing a mind. (This is weaker than Searle's claim, but doesn't invalidate the argument, only limits what it can demonstrate to just you and your mind.)
except from your behaviour - which, according to Searle, is insufficient to judge the matter.
On this point, the CR illustration is useful, though it quickly devolves into philosophical hand-waving (no worse than your solipsism above, and for the same reasons).
C3 doesn't follow from the premises. Even if we assume that it takes special magical powers to cause a mind (as Searle suggests), there's no way of knowing that these are the only way of causing a mind
How can you accept C2 with this assumption? Searle makes no magical claims. "causal power" only refers to the ability of your brain to cause your mind -- whatever could cause minds in other systems must have an equivalent capability. He posits nothing mystical, he only offers a term so that we can talk about this capability and its nature. In this case, to show that by whatever means your brain causes your mind, it's not a program.
Sure. It's always fun watching what kind of mental gymnastics someone will end up performing in defence of a ludicrous argument.
I think that it's abundantly clear that you simply don't understand the argument well enough to call it ludicrous.
Then again, if I though Searle was positing some magical explanation for conciousness, I'd think it ludicrous as well. Of course, he's not. That's just your poor understanding.
A few things I couldn't seem to work in to this reply:
1) Forth also crossed my mind in the course of this discussion. You may be interested in an old IOCCC entry called "First and Third Almost Forth" http://www.ioccc.org/1992/buzzard.2.design
2) When you write "it doesn't mean we can't produce a program which, when actually run ... doesn't produce understanding." I get the impression that you think that C1 has much broader implications than Searle intended. I'd like to clarify that the CRA is in no way an argument against the production of artificial minds in general -- only to a specific approach to their production.
3) When you write "in many cases the meaning is defined in terms of the meanings it ascribes to the program it's using." I think we can get to this in a discussion of A3. For now, suffice it to say that any such semantic would exist only within the context of the extrinsic semantics already applied to the formal system. (Think of it as a derived semantic [my term, sorry] -- this is how I got to thinking about Forth -- anyway, it would remain extrinsic as it only gets its meaning by virtue of the extrinsic semantics applied to the syntactic statement of which it is composed.)
Ok, I'll accept that a program, by itself, has no meaning except that which is applied to it. If that is true, then obviously a program by itself (this is a really strong restriction) can't produce understanding
A1 doesn't even ask you to go that far, only to accept that programs are purely syntactic. If you accept your stronger statement, I think we can both agree to A1, with your restriction fully in place.
I have some issues with what A2 actually means, but that's a definitional issue. It may be relevant if you want to argue that the meaning a simple circuit ascribes to a switch being off is or is not a mental content of that circuit. But that's just devolving to silliness...
I agree. Though I will point out that all A2 says about the nature of minds is that they have "mental contents" (a terrible choice of words.) This is easy to agree to, for those possessed of mind. As I punned before, it seems "self evident".
A3 is the most contentious point, and gets both the least and most attention (I explain this below). I'll restate it here, just for clarity.
A3: Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics.
This deals neither with programs nor minds, which is a great relief . When I first read it years ago, I found it at once both obvious and insightful. I don't know if you agree to this or not, so I'll not go too far with it.
According to Searle, A3 is the point he intended to make with the Chinese Room illustration. Had he made this statement in 1980 (or directly in 1984) instead of ten years later, he could have saved everyone a lot of trouble!
I don't think the Chinese room actually corresponds to A3.
(I don't mean to pull this out of context, but I couldn't decide if it went more with the sentence above or below.)
I'll be the first to admit that it is, quite possibly, the worst way to illustrate A3 ever. It worked for him, but he knew what he intended before he wrote it!
Some of the problems you raise in your earlier post, for example, I will readily agree are valid within the context of the illustration, but don't really address A3. The CR illustration can easily appear unrelated to the argument he intended to make. (It hurts far more than it helps). I can agree with you on that point, or at least say that I understand your perspective here. It's one of the reasons I prefer to focus on the axioms rather than the illustration -- it's too easy to get distracted by irrelevant details.
Most of the arguments you see against the CRA focus exclusively on the illustration, and not his axioms. (This is what I meant when I said that A3 is both the mos