The human brain doesn't "store" information at all (and thus never processes it).
This sounds like mere semantics to me. Yes, there isn't a little television screen playing that one time when you broke your arm, with a post-it note attatched saying "memory #4 April, 3, 1956". But there is a deeply encoded structure of chemical potentials, and neural connections which represents this memory. It is stored, and it is, obviously, processed. If it wasn't so, then how could this memory be subject to action and further processing?
Yes, it isn't stored like a video file is stored on your computer, or a photo in your album; but this doesn't mean it isn't stored. If it is an object of thought, it is in the brain, and if it is re-callable, it is stored.
We know from fMRI that "free will" does not exist and that "thoughts" are the brain's mechanism for justifying past actions whilst modifying the logic to reduce errors in future - a variant on back-propagation. Real-time intelligence (thinking before acting) doesn't exist in humans or any other known creature, so you won't build it by mimicking humans.
Huh? I'm not going to get into the agency (free will) debate... But if it did exist, I don't think our understanding of the brain is really up to snuff enough to allow some fMRIs to show it. If it does exist (again, I'm not getting into it), I doubt very much that it will be a little glowing ball located in the middle of your brain (again with a post-it saying "free will"), it would be live pretty much everything else, distributed across large areas of the brain, and sharing functions with other processes of the brain (like memory, limbic functions, sensory processing, etc...).
This system creates the illusion of intelligence.
This sort of statement is why I generally laugh at the whole field of cogsci and AI. Look up p-zombies. At what point is an illusion not, and if you can't actually tell the difference with any test, how can you ever saying, meaningfully, that it IS actually a mere illusion? I make an AI, a very strong AI, and it acts exactly like a human. 100% indistinguishable from a human mind, to an outside observer. Is this an illusion? How do you find out? Given a Turing test like environment, where you can't judge on surface features, how could you ever tell? Ask it, and it will say it is intelligent (just like you or me), input stimulous, and you get the same output you or me would give.
At this point illusion becomes a meaningless statement, since it is completely unprovable.
I'm not a fan of Strong AI, and doubt it is possible, but these arguments have been pretty much beaten into the ground by now. I hate to say it, but with intelligence all that matters in inputs and output, the rest is a black box. This also ignores the fact that intelligence is a dumb term, completely meaningless when applied to anything non-human. In this case, by using "intelligence" we only mean "human-like", which pretty much means it gives an expected output to a given input.
All of those do utilize artificial intelligence. AI isn't just "human computers", it is also complex algorithms and programming that can collate facts in unique ways (i.e. ways not 100% constrained initial programming), it also encompasses aspects of machine learning. Siri, Watson, and Google Now contains bits of a "weak" AI. Strong AI is making a Terminator, or Skynet, and this might be mythical (or not), there is a very lively debate going on over it. No one really refutes the efficiency, potential, and possibility of weak AI though.
Also, in full snark mode, wouldn't all "artificial" intelligence be "just artifice" by definition?
All the mind is, is a large set of pattern recognizers.
I've read theories promoting this, but I haven't seen any actual proof of it yet. When things graduate from cognitive "science" to neuroscience, I start to taken them seriously. This hasn't happened yet.
As much as I enjoy debates arising from cogsci, it is pretty much only a branch of philosophy as yet. This isn't an insult, I love philosophy (to the point of spending large amounts of time and money on it), but it hardly has the ability to make strong statements.
Further, the AI field is boring. It has succeeded with small tasks, but for its larger claims it is about as valid as practical cold fusion (its coming in 20 years, perpetually).
Problem: While people who use P2P might buy more music, they might not buy more music from big labels.
I will admit that I use P2P to demo music (30sec snippets aren't enough), and I now spend more money on music than at any previous point in my life, I haven't bought a single album from an RIAA label in over 7 years. Most of my music is from small, independent, labels or directly from bands. I'm not boycotting RIAA labels, I just legitimately haven't really found anything I like, if I found a good album, I'd buy it. Further, most of my money now goes to live music and merch, and not physical albums, or even digital downloads.
I'm older, and most RIAA labels only produce pop music, and "hip" music. I'm not in that market anymore. So none of it appeals to me, much.
Piracy (in the try-before-you-buy sense) is bad for them. It leads to greater exposure, which leads to broader spending habits, which very well might lead to smaller profits.
When I type "wiki foo" it searches for "foo" at Wikipedia. When I type "def foo" it searches for the definition of "foo" When I type "imdb foo" it searches on IMDB for the movie or show "foo" Etc...
I find this easier than using a dedicated search box, since I never have to use the mouse. Ctrl-L, and start typing, or Ctrl-N for a new tab with the "omnibar" selected. I probably have 25 or keyword searches set up, though I only use around 5 of them commonly. And with Chrome my keywords are magically on my mobile devices as well, which is a nice time saver.
I don't actually miss search bars that much. In Firefox I just use the address bar (what are they calling it these days?), and the same keywords as in Chrome, I never touch the search bar.
It is pretty silent on my PC too, and has been since I installed it when it came out. I generally do a full sweep once a year with a heavier program though, and it is always clear. I like this, Norton and Avast through up warning for innane things, like installing games, or MS Office. Avast even deleted some system files on mistake once, without letting me say no. Norton flat out refused to let me install Office once, a new, boxed, copy fresh from MS themselves.
And I'm still going to keep using it. It does detect 100% of viruses in the wild (or 99.99% according to MS and the AV testers), and it doesn't bog down my system with paranoia mode heuristics, or throw up a false positive every time I install something (or worse automatically kill, I've had Norton refuse to let me install a boxed copy of Office).
Win 8, while not as bad as a lot of people think, will be seen as a pretty dire mistake. It probably is hurting MS more than any hypothetical success in the mobile market will help them. I'm about as uncomfortable with training my folks on Win 8 as I am on any Linux DE. Win 8 is still a bit more within their expectations, but its beginning to reach.
My dad did get a virus, not too long ago. His fault, or rather his fault for letting all the kids, stepchildren, and grandkids, use his computer. His reaction was to through the whole thing in a dumpster, and get a new one. He didn't tell me this, so I was very confused when he asked me to get his data back. Computers are like toasters or microwaves, when they die, you buy a new one. This is increasingly true, as costs drop, and cloud features increase.
windows is just as complex as linux, if not more so because it is full of dialogs rather than everything being available from a single command.
I'm talking about file structure. I've been using Linux on-and-off for years and I'm still not 100% sure of where everything is, and what every directory is actually for. It isn't unfamiliarity, its just arcane for using it as a PC and not a server. Windows was pretty much made for people like my parents, Linux was made for servers, and running workstations. More specifically, its ancient Unix roots are showing.
I don't know about Darktable yet, I bookmarked it to try later. It does look pretty good though. But you have to admit that most Linux programs aren't made in the same way as Windows or OS X programs. Win/Mac programs are made for users first and foremost, they spend lots of money on usability and aesthetics. Linux programs, for the most part, are made by freelance nerds, for the use of nerds. It isn't familiarity, Linux is supposed to be functional, while Mac/Win are supposed to be easy. My parents (and increasingly me, as I age) will always pick the latter.
Yes, Linux is the kernel, but this doesn't matter one bit to most people. An OS is it UI and conventions, to 99% of the population. None of the normal people I associate with know what a kernel is. None of them probably care. They want something that mimics the properties of Windows or OS X, and can run all that software they like, or their friends run.
I'm not saying Linux is bad. I love Linux, and I agree with most of your statements. The Linux kernel is an absolutely awesome thing. But, I'm not talking about the internal merits of various kernels, I'm talking about usability, and ease of use for normal folk. Familiarity is a big part of this, yes, a person new to computers should have no problem picking it up, but most people don't want to re-train themselves to do something they've been doing for years in a different way, for the same results.
if you are really complaining about too much choice with linux, then you need to sit back and think about what you really want, because you are free to try them all and they won't cost you a dime
I don't mind. But my father would. Why go through 3 distros or DEs, when you can just buy a Windows PC or a Mac? I actually find it a fun passtime to try various distros and DEs, but I'm a nerd. I don't mind trying to figure out new things (as long as it isn't Unity or Gnome Shell), I've pretty much played and worked on every OS out there now. But, I'm not my dad, who still can't figure out what "tabs" are, or that you can have more than one windows open, or what "drag and drop" means.
I think we're talking cross purposes here. I'm not saying Linux will, or should die. I'm just saying that it isn't really ready for a family computer yet. I hope Linux lives a long time, and I hope that people like those running the Ubuntu and Mint projects keep forcing things to improve, on a user level. I hope that Valve and Blizzard do start supporting Linux development, hopefully spurring more publishers to hop on. In my fantasy world, Linux would share 1/3 of the market with Windows and OS X, and devs would focus on cross comparability instead of lock-in and DRM.
Or it could be because sexuality is a pretty complicated thing. While you have the majority of people who are "straight", and a minority of people who are just "gay", within both groups you have a ton of variation. How many "straight" people have had at least one homosexual encounter? Impure thoughts? How many of either group are actually "bisexual"? Where do gay people who are "closeted" and only have sex with the opposite sex fall? Where do people who can't figure it out yet fall (in high school in the early-mid 90's being gay was the big thing for some crowds, and now most of these people are happily married and straight). Pretty much every girl I know has had sexual encounters with another girl, but identify as straight. In my male acquaintances this is less common, but still it isn't terribly uncommon.
Also where do various nontraditional gender identifications fall? You identify as a woman, but are biologically male, and still only have sex with females? Or in the case of my dad's neighbor, you were born male, had operations and hormones to become female, but still only sleep with your wife of 20 years?
Sexuality is a thorny and hugely complicated subject. Any study will differ based on definitions, and sampling.
most honest researchers avoid the subject since the radical gay activists savagely attack anyone who publishes studies which run counter to gay dogma.
Who actually gives a shit how many gay people there are in the world? Why does it matter to anyone? I suppose I'm the wrong person to ponder this, since I don't actually care one bit, what people do in their bedrooms, consensually, is no business of mine. As long as people are happy, I don't care.
I am happy that there is a "gay dogma" but not a "intolerance" dogma. Which is odd, since last I checked the intolerant crowd was much louder than the other bunch.
I agree, the Blizzard news is very nice. I am hopeful that between Blizzard and Valve they start pulling more people towards Linux. While I don't think Linux is "there" yet, I would love to see more major players in the OS market, and the old nerd in me really wants the "year of the Linux Desktop" to come, just so/. shuts up about it.
I haven't really checked out Darktable, and I will read up on it. Lightroom (and Aperture, more so) are really kind of crap products. They work, I spend ungodly hours in Lightroom and get very good results, but I don't really enjoy a second of it. I feel like I'm fighting Lightroom more than my own mostly sub-par photography skills. Maybe Gimp has made some strides, but last I used it (about a year and a half ago) it still wasn't quite there yet, especially if your using it to get money. I can get past the UI, even if manipulation doesn't feel as smooth as Photoshop, but it isn't really matching the technology arms race. The content aware stuff Adobe has is pretty awesome. Further whats dragging The Gimp down, much like Linux office suites, is compatibility and the fact that they are fighting a de facto standard. Businesses want Photoshop skills, not Image Manipulation skills. The Gimp has improved, a lot, over the years, and is perfectly usable for most normal applications, but it has a hard time competeing with something people are required to use (just like Libre Office versus MS Office, except the Gimp is actually a better bit of software than LO),
The problem is that the RTFM stuff works with users like me and you. It utterly fails with people like my Mom and Dad, and around 50 of my non-techie friends. They don't grasp the basic conventions, much less the sort of stuff you need to think about in a config file. Hell, my dad, despite years of my time, still doesn't get hierarchical directory structures, which is probably one of the most basic things in computers. If he doesn't get the simplicity of Windows structures, how is he ever going to understand the arcane hodgepodge of *nix structure? OS X has the same problem, but it is well enough developed for end users that you probably will never had to dig into any of them.
The one large strength of Linux in trying to gain acceptance is that there isn't A Linux, there are Linux' (yes, I'm mangling this, but for the sake of simplicity bear with me). You have Debian, then you have Ubuntu. The "hardcore" enthusiasts still to Debian, and improve it, and all that trickles down to the "softcore" land of Ubuntu. This is fine. What is needed though is something that is purely for users. If we want acceptance we have to alienate the Linux people to some extent, since what my Dad wants in a computer is very different than what most Linux nerds want. This is the primary hurdle. All of Linux' problems, from a typical users point of view, spring from the fact that Linux is for nerds by nerds. I know how to use a computer, so I don't really care how well you conceal the "scary" bits. But for most people those bits are just plain scary.
The last paragraph was a bit facetious. Yes, certain corporations in certain fields love Linux. But certain corporations that most people like, hate it. Netflix, Microsoft, etc... People don't want to run a server, or manage code or databases, they want to watch crappy movies, play games, and listen to music. These companies either hate, or are apathetic to Linux. I've heard the phrase "Linux users expect free, so they won't pay" too many times, its an actual meme. Yes, the Humble Bundle shows that Linux people are willing to pay, but its hard to kill a meme with facts.
So, in order to make Windows 8 USABLE, you have to run around and find third party apps and haxies to turn in back into Windows 7?
Have Windows 8, have had it installed for around a week, and have no problems using it. Its about as useful as Windows 7, with some exceptions. One exception, actually; the "All Apps" thing is annoying. I was dubious, but my old HD failed, so I had to reinstall, so I figured I'd give it a shot, since it cost $15 ($30, plus I got a discount for buying a netbook with Windows on it a month or so ago). Haven't had a single issue, and it took all of 30 minutes to get used to.
Well, two issues, Creative has some of the worst support in the known universe, but I doubt that is Microsoft's fault.
This is like Vista all over again... a big huff, but over pretty much nothing. I ran Vista for its entire lifetime, and had a single BSOD (I had two with Windows 7, which is still the best thing MS has offered). I do have some philosophical, and aesthetic issues over the "Metro" (what are we supposed to call it now?) interface, but it us perfectly usable. It has some upsides over the old "Start" menu, even, like the ability to group programs better.
The worst thing about it is that I completely forget that its there, and just use my computer like normal, only hopping into it when I normally would hop into the traditional start. All those slick tiles are pretty much completely useless to me.
The OS itself, ignoring the UI, is damn nice though, a bit more responsive than 7, it wakes quick, and it completely removed all the stange glitches I had with waking with a USB Wifi dongle (had to unplug it before waking, on 7), it also stopped being sporadically annoying with network sharing. The new Task Manager is nice, and the new move/copy dialogue is awesome.
In short, and I will be called a shill for this, it isn't half bad.
Lovely. That's fine for you; but what about the OTHER 95% of Windows 8 purchasers that DON'T know how to do all that? (And yes, there are plenty of people that couldn't find and/or install the proper apps and find and/or change the proper settings).
That said, you have a point here. I fear the day when my Mom or Dad need a new computer, one with Win 8 pre-installed. Its too different, so they will never know whats happening, and I'm going to have to spend a year on the phone walking them through trivial operations again.
Win 8 is very much change for the sake of change. Perhaps there is a reason behind it, since it seems that making the desktop less desktopy was the going thing in Linux land too (Gnome Shell, Unity). I'm not sure why this is the fad now... But I don't like it. Win 8 would be much better on a tablet or phone, I actually wouldn't mind owning one (too happy with my Nexus 7 to consider it, though), but it seems a bit tacked on and superfluous on a desktop. Its like having two OSs smashed on top of each other, which leads to some issues. Why the hell do "apps" handle differently than anything else? Is putting a little red "X" on them to hard, or is it somehow more logical for me to "grab" an invisible edge and drag? It might make sense with touch, but not really (Google Now is a pain, I identically open it 5 times a day trying to drag something up from the bottom middle).
Someone big needs to jump into the desktop area with both feet and Linux will win.
Not really. Linux still lacks 3rd party support, and without that, no matter how big the push, it will fail. Yes, more use would spur 3rd party development, but without 3rd party support getting more use would be a nasty uphill battle.
Also, no matter how much/. users rant about Linux being usable now, it still doesn't really compete with OS X or Windows 7-8 in that arena yet. I install various flavors of Linux every year just to see if they are ready to replace Windows (and previously OS X, before I retired those boxes), at least on our non-business computers (no Lightroom or Photoshop, no go for me, nothing 100% comparable with Office, no go for my girlfriend), and non-gaming computer. Linux has made improvements, but it still isn't ready. I still have to dip into the CLI from time to time, I still have to use software designed by programmers, for programmers (ugly, horrible UI, no concept of user-friendly, or differing work-flows), I still had to edit some configs to get basic sound to work and to set up network sharing with a diverse LAN (sharing between Linux boxes, with different distros, three Windows boxes with different versions, and an OS X box/htpc). The biggest distro, and biggest DE took massive steps to kill usability (Bigger than Windows 8, even), and the other major DE is so arcane than I still haven't figured it fully out in 10 years.
Yes, there are other DEs and Distros, but this confuses most people. They don't want to bother with spending the first month getting their computer functional.
Worse is the community. Yes, thanks to Ubuntu there some nice Linux nerds out there, but you still get elitist wankers telling you to RTFM, or "learn the hard way". Far more than there are in Windows or Mac land, at least.
I wish Linux was there. But the only thing that would ever make it get there is to basically kill itself and is ideals. It needs to take away some freedom, it needs to simplify and focus not on engineers and programmers, but slick form-and-substance applications, it needs to settle on a standard UI, and a standard distro. That UI and Distro need to stop giving a shit what Linux users want, and how RMS feels about things. It has to stop caring about "freedom" at the expense of usability and compatibility. All of this would cost money, so it also has to stop caring about being free, probably. Open Source ethics would be a liability too, since it scares the nice capitalists who make computing useful.
"Magically" is right; unless you've got a never-released track, how could the RIAA possibly know it was illegal? (Disclosure: I work for Google, but not on Music Match)
Its amazing what those RIAA elves can do...
Seriously though, I wouldn't doubt it if the RIAA, or one of their contractors, have a database of hashes from popular, or highly distributed rips. They probably never could 100% know, but that doesn't really matter to them. I'm probably being paranoid, since there are a number of factors that would have to happen for labels to be able to prosecute based on Google's data. The first being the flavor of deal Google has with the labels, the second being how willing Google would be willing to share data (such as hashes) with them. The third would be the very strange legality of this whole thing. Would sharing track information (but not data) with Google be considered illegal distribution? AFAIK no one has ever been prosecuted for merely having pirated tracks, so as for how useful this information would be, is a bit questionable.
Isn't that exactly what Google Music is doing now?
Not with CDs though, it supposedly will scan your music library, and add it to your "cloud" for free, without actually uploading anything.
I haven't tried it yet, since I'm a bit paranoid that something that I didn't obtain legally back in college might still be hiding in my library, which will magically flag me as a bad person, so the RIAA can take all my money and leave me in a cardboard box... out of the spirit of fairness, of course.
Its mind boggling, but true. I'm not saying that they are technically incapable of doing it, it just isn't even something they would ever think of, or even know they could do. They don't have the very basic knowledge of computers that we take for granted. I can switch between 4 operating systems in a day without any issues, while some of my friends can't handle new software or even just the movement of a single GUI element. This is because I "get" computers, I've been on them for 20 years, building them for 15, I get the underlying concepts, and thus the surface stuff flows freely. Most people don't.
My friend who works on jets didn't grow up on computers, and didn't really use them until the late 90's early 00's. She see's them differently than I do. She see's them as something that can do task "A" and task "B", and I see them as a big collection of hardware, logic, buses, APIs, drivers, etc... A computer is an information toaster to her. And most other people I know.
Car analogy: Its like the difference between a driver and a good mechanic.
Some of us here don't hate Windows. Actually some of us actually haven't taken sides on the Great OS Wars. I rather like some versions of Windows. Win7 was damn good, as good as any of the competitors. As was XP, for its time. Win8, like Vista, isn't nearly as bad as the internet wants it to be (not perfect, flawed but perfectly usable). At various times, I've had all three running in the same house on different machines. And at various times of my life, I've preferred each of them over the others.
Windows has been a mature OS for a long time. Barring last week, I haven't had a BSOD, or minor system crash, over the full lifetime of Win7. My old Vista box had a similar record. I haven't had a malware or virus problem in over 10 years. I really haven't had any driver problems since the first days of Vista, with the exclusion of changing out hardware (which is still a problem in Linux, and pretty much moot in OS X). Last weeks problem would have killed any Desktop OS, since it was traceable to hardware failure (the PCB on my HDD has scorch marks = drive corrupted and dead). I have some driver issues now, since I switched to Win8 out of curiosity and a low price ($14), and Creative's support process is atrocious.
OS X was a bigger pain, with its updates introducing pointlessly minor API changes, forcing you to either forgo upgrading software, or buy the newest version, every year. Linux still isn't quite ready to be considered 100% painfree computing, either. Its coming closer, and has been for the last decade and a half, but it still isn't quite ready. Don't get me wrong, some distros are VERY usable (Mint, Ubuntu, and OpenSuSe, which is my flavor of choice). I would use them if the software was there, and if that software was to the same standards as Mac or Windows software. Currently I need Lightroom, Photoshop, and a robust office suite with good revision control. This pretty much means Linux isn't an option (barring dual boots, which is just annoying, or VMs, which is also a bit annoying). Currently none of these areas are well implemented on Linux. No, Gimp sucks, and LibreOffice has serious compatibility issues and sucks at certain things (Google Docs is actually a bit better, which is a depressing statement).
Also, gaming. You need Windows since it is the most common OS, and thus the one devs shoot for, not because Windows is better for it. If OS X was suddenly the most popular, or Linux, that would be the gaming OS with the best driver support and ports.
This isn't, again, to say that Windows is perfect. It just works best for me, at this particular moment. This could, and probably will, change again. The point isn't that one OS is better, it is that they are all equally good, but fit different needs, expectations, and work styles.
I don't much like Microsoft, but that doesn't make Windows less competent.
I'm not arguing the point, there are plenty of "hardcore" games on consoles, obviously; and obviously consoles currently dominate the market. The OP is probably around my age (mid-30s), and is somewhat stuck in the golden age of PC gaming, when consoles were 100% casual.
Judging from recent experience, most people in my age group are still completely clueless about computers, and somewhat scared of them. This isn't just true of morons, but also of some of the smartest people I know (pilots, doctors, and some engineers). I have friends who can completely disassemble a $100 million fighter jet, who are frightened of changing a graphics card.
This is why consoles will always be the dominant platform. Or will be until people stop being frightened of computers, and actually understand them.
That said, I still find PC gaming to be superior, from an actual performance, play, and technological point of view. This doesn't mean they are better for people, or should kill consoles. But if you have a good PC, there is no reason to ever buy a console, ignoring exclusivity. If given a choice between one or the other, ignoring other factors, the PC will always win based on merit (and cost effectiveness).
This is one reason I actually quit the psych program while in college, I was trying to specialize in the pure research aspects, but was pretty much forced to coexist with the softer aspects. A lot of these people didn't even have a basic understanding of science, and their world-view was very different than mine (feelings expose truth, as opposed to empiricism). Our program tried to channel people into three areas (therapy/abnormal, experimental, and industrial), but it really didn't help. It also didn't help that psych is now the most highly populated department in many colleges, which leads to things being a bit messy. Our department was very beauracatic, with very little personal support, and thus geared, on a organizational level, to what most students were interested in (the soft, human aspects), and was pretty clueless about the actual science students.
I don't get the passion on this topic. Play what you want, on what you want. I don't see myself getting a new console for a long time, since there is no point. I already own a PC with decent hardware, and most of the games I like, or genres I like are also on the PC as well as on consoles. I'm also not young anymore, so there aren't any games I need to own anymore (perhaps thats just because Squar...Squenix sucks now), so consoles aren't as seductive.
If I didn't own my PC, or still inexplicably thought PCs are made of forbidden magic (sorry, bad parental tech support day), a console would fulfill my needs nicely.
Though, to go back to your point, yes, PCs have problems (not that I've run across any on your list in the last 10 years), but your forgetting the first years of the 360, and its rings of doom. I'm guessing the next generation of consoles will also be problematic in the beginning, and might be moving towards a level of consumer hostility that some people won't really want to tolerate. Who knows?
What is a "hardcore gaming console"? The PS3 or 360? They are commodity hardware, there is nothing "hardcore" about them. My aging PC is "harder core" than them, most PCs you can buy cheap at Fry's are "harder core" these days.
What the hell do you mean by "hardcore" anyway? That is a term that long since lost pretty much all of its meaning.
Both India and China are considered developing countries, and members of the BRIC nations (the "I" and the "C", respectively). This means that they are rapidly growing and developing, and are pretty much expected to be joining us "first worlders" in the next decade or two, in both economy and standard of living.
Slashdot Mirror
The human brain doesn't "store" information at all (and thus never processes it).
This sounds like mere semantics to me. Yes, there isn't a little television screen playing that one time when you broke your arm, with a post-it note attatched saying "memory #4 April, 3, 1956". But there is a deeply encoded structure of chemical potentials, and neural connections which represents this memory. It is stored, and it is, obviously, processed. If it wasn't so, then how could this memory be subject to action and further processing?
Yes, it isn't stored like a video file is stored on your computer, or a photo in your album; but this doesn't mean it isn't stored. If it is an object of thought, it is in the brain, and if it is re-callable, it is stored.
We know from fMRI that "free will" does not exist and that "thoughts" are the brain's mechanism for justifying past actions whilst modifying the logic to reduce errors in future - a variant on back-propagation. Real-time intelligence (thinking before acting) doesn't exist in humans or any other known creature, so you won't build it by mimicking humans.
Huh? I'm not going to get into the agency (free will) debate... But if it did exist, I don't think our understanding of the brain is really up to snuff enough to allow some fMRIs to show it. If it does exist (again, I'm not getting into it), I doubt very much that it will be a little glowing ball located in the middle of your brain (again with a post-it saying "free will"), it would be live pretty much everything else, distributed across large areas of the brain, and sharing functions with other processes of the brain (like memory, limbic functions, sensory processing, etc...).
This system creates the illusion of intelligence.
This sort of statement is why I generally laugh at the whole field of cogsci and AI. Look up p-zombies. At what point is an illusion not, and if you can't actually tell the difference with any test, how can you ever saying, meaningfully, that it IS actually a mere illusion? I make an AI, a very strong AI, and it acts exactly like a human. 100% indistinguishable from a human mind, to an outside observer. Is this an illusion? How do you find out? Given a Turing test like environment, where you can't judge on surface features, how could you ever tell? Ask it, and it will say it is intelligent (just like you or me), input stimulous, and you get the same output you or me would give.
At this point illusion becomes a meaningless statement, since it is completely unprovable.
I'm not a fan of Strong AI, and doubt it is possible, but these arguments have been pretty much beaten into the ground by now. I hate to say it, but with intelligence all that matters in inputs and output, the rest is a black box. This also ignores the fact that intelligence is a dumb term, completely meaningless when applied to anything non-human. In this case, by using "intelligence" we only mean "human-like", which pretty much means it gives an expected output to a given input.
All of those do utilize artificial intelligence. AI isn't just "human computers", it is also complex algorithms and programming that can collate facts in unique ways (i.e. ways not 100% constrained initial programming), it also encompasses aspects of machine learning. Siri, Watson, and Google Now contains bits of a "weak" AI. Strong AI is making a Terminator, or Skynet, and this might be mythical (or not), there is a very lively debate going on over it. No one really refutes the efficiency, potential, and possibility of weak AI though.
Also, in full snark mode, wouldn't all "artificial" intelligence be "just artifice" by definition?
All the mind is, is a large set of pattern recognizers.
I've read theories promoting this, but I haven't seen any actual proof of it yet. When things graduate from cognitive "science" to neuroscience, I start to taken them seriously. This hasn't happened yet.
As much as I enjoy debates arising from cogsci, it is pretty much only a branch of philosophy as yet. This isn't an insult, I love philosophy (to the point of spending large amounts of time and money on it), but it hardly has the ability to make strong statements.
Further, the AI field is boring. It has succeeded with small tasks, but for its larger claims it is about as valid as practical cold fusion (its coming in 20 years, perpetually).
Problem: While people who use P2P might buy more music, they might not buy more music from big labels.
I will admit that I use P2P to demo music (30sec snippets aren't enough), and I now spend more money on music than at any previous point in my life, I haven't bought a single album from an RIAA label in over 7 years. Most of my music is from small, independent, labels or directly from bands. I'm not boycotting RIAA labels, I just legitimately haven't really found anything I like, if I found a good album, I'd buy it. Further, most of my money now goes to live music and merch, and not physical albums, or even digital downloads.
I'm older, and most RIAA labels only produce pop music, and "hip" music. I'm not in that market anymore. So none of it appeals to me, much.
Piracy (in the try-before-you-buy sense) is bad for them. It leads to greater exposure, which leads to broader spending habits, which very well might lead to smaller profits.
Add keywords, just like in Firefox?
When I type "wiki foo" it searches for "foo" at Wikipedia.
When I type "def foo" it searches for the definition of "foo"
When I type "imdb foo" it searches on IMDB for the movie or show "foo"
Etc...
I find this easier than using a dedicated search box, since I never have to use the mouse. Ctrl-L, and start typing, or Ctrl-N for a new tab with the "omnibar" selected. I probably have 25 or keyword searches set up, though I only use around 5 of them commonly. And with Chrome my keywords are magically on my mobile devices as well, which is a nice time saver.
I don't actually miss search bars that much. In Firefox I just use the address bar (what are they calling it these days?), and the same keywords as in Chrome, I never touch the search bar.
It doesn't work, or you don't have any malware.
It is pretty silent on my PC too, and has been since I installed it when it came out. I generally do a full sweep once a year with a heavier program though, and it is always clear. I like this, Norton and Avast through up warning for innane things, like installing games, or MS Office. Avast even deleted some system files on mistake once, without letting me say no. Norton flat out refused to let me install Office once, a new, boxed, copy fresh from MS themselves.
They flunked, and they deserved to flunk.
And I'm still going to keep using it. It does detect 100% of viruses in the wild (or 99.99% according to MS and the AV testers), and it doesn't bog down my system with paranoia mode heuristics, or throw up a false positive every time I install something (or worse automatically kill, I've had Norton refuse to let me install a boxed copy of Office).
Win 8, while not as bad as a lot of people think, will be seen as a pretty dire mistake. It probably is hurting MS more than any hypothetical success in the mobile market will help them. I'm about as uncomfortable with training my folks on Win 8 as I am on any Linux DE. Win 8 is still a bit more within their expectations, but its beginning to reach.
My dad did get a virus, not too long ago. His fault, or rather his fault for letting all the kids, stepchildren, and grandkids, use his computer. His reaction was to through the whole thing in a dumpster, and get a new one. He didn't tell me this, so I was very confused when he asked me to get his data back. Computers are like toasters or microwaves, when they die, you buy a new one. This is increasingly true, as costs drop, and cloud features increase.
Eh, when I was young, I managed to make a lot of people uncomfortable in a lot of strange places too.
touche.
windows is just as complex as linux, if not more so because it is full of dialogs rather than everything being available from a single command.
I'm talking about file structure. I've been using Linux on-and-off for years and I'm still not 100% sure of where everything is, and what every directory is actually for. It isn't unfamiliarity, its just arcane for using it as a PC and not a server. Windows was pretty much made for people like my parents, Linux was made for servers, and running workstations. More specifically, its ancient Unix roots are showing.
I don't know about Darktable yet, I bookmarked it to try later. It does look pretty good though. But you have to admit that most Linux programs aren't made in the same way as Windows or OS X programs. Win/Mac programs are made for users first and foremost, they spend lots of money on usability and aesthetics. Linux programs, for the most part, are made by freelance nerds, for the use of nerds. It isn't familiarity, Linux is supposed to be functional, while Mac/Win are supposed to be easy. My parents (and increasingly me, as I age) will always pick the latter.
Yes, Linux is the kernel, but this doesn't matter one bit to most people. An OS is it UI and conventions, to 99% of the population. None of the normal people I associate with know what a kernel is. None of them probably care. They want something that mimics the properties of Windows or OS X, and can run all that software they like, or their friends run.
I'm not saying Linux is bad. I love Linux, and I agree with most of your statements. The Linux kernel is an absolutely awesome thing. But, I'm not talking about the internal merits of various kernels, I'm talking about usability, and ease of use for normal folk. Familiarity is a big part of this, yes, a person new to computers should have no problem picking it up, but most people don't want to re-train themselves to do something they've been doing for years in a different way, for the same results.
if you are really complaining about too much choice with linux, then you need to sit back and think about what you really want, because you are free to try them all and they won't cost you a dime
I don't mind. But my father would. Why go through 3 distros or DEs, when you can just buy a Windows PC or a Mac? I actually find it a fun passtime to try various distros and DEs, but I'm a nerd. I don't mind trying to figure out new things (as long as it isn't Unity or Gnome Shell), I've pretty much played and worked on every OS out there now. But, I'm not my dad, who still can't figure out what "tabs" are, or that you can have more than one windows open, or what "drag and drop" means.
I think we're talking cross purposes here. I'm not saying Linux will, or should die. I'm just saying that it isn't really ready for a family computer yet. I hope Linux lives a long time, and I hope that people like those running the Ubuntu and Mint projects keep forcing things to improve, on a user level. I hope that Valve and Blizzard do start supporting Linux development, hopefully spurring more publishers to hop on. In my fantasy world, Linux would share 1/3 of the market with Windows and OS X, and devs would focus on cross comparability instead of lock-in and DRM.
Or it could be because sexuality is a pretty complicated thing. While you have the majority of people who are "straight", and a minority of people who are just "gay", within both groups you have a ton of variation. How many "straight" people have had at least one homosexual encounter? Impure thoughts? How many of either group are actually "bisexual"? Where do gay people who are "closeted" and only have sex with the opposite sex fall? Where do people who can't figure it out yet fall (in high school in the early-mid 90's being gay was the big thing for some crowds, and now most of these people are happily married and straight). Pretty much every girl I know has had sexual encounters with another girl, but identify as straight. In my male acquaintances this is less common, but still it isn't terribly uncommon.
Also where do various nontraditional gender identifications fall? You identify as a woman, but are biologically male, and still only have sex with females? Or in the case of my dad's neighbor, you were born male, had operations and hormones to become female, but still only sleep with your wife of 20 years?
Sexuality is a thorny and hugely complicated subject. Any study will differ based on definitions, and sampling.
most honest researchers avoid the subject since the radical gay activists savagely attack anyone who publishes studies which run counter to gay dogma.
Who actually gives a shit how many gay people there are in the world? Why does it matter to anyone? I suppose I'm the wrong person to ponder this, since I don't actually care one bit, what people do in their bedrooms, consensually, is no business of mine. As long as people are happy, I don't care.
I am happy that there is a "gay dogma" but not a "intolerance" dogma. Which is odd, since last I checked the intolerant crowd was much louder than the other bunch.
I agree, the Blizzard news is very nice. I am hopeful that between Blizzard and Valve they start pulling more people towards Linux. While I don't think Linux is "there" yet, I would love to see more major players in the OS market, and the old nerd in me really wants the "year of the Linux Desktop" to come, just so /. shuts up about it.
I haven't really checked out Darktable, and I will read up on it. Lightroom (and Aperture, more so) are really kind of crap products. They work, I spend ungodly hours in Lightroom and get very good results, but I don't really enjoy a second of it. I feel like I'm fighting Lightroom more than my own mostly sub-par photography skills. Maybe Gimp has made some strides, but last I used it (about a year and a half ago) it still wasn't quite there yet, especially if your using it to get money. I can get past the UI, even if manipulation doesn't feel as smooth as Photoshop, but it isn't really matching the technology arms race. The content aware stuff Adobe has is pretty awesome. Further whats dragging The Gimp down, much like Linux office suites, is compatibility and the fact that they are fighting a de facto standard. Businesses want Photoshop skills, not Image Manipulation skills. The Gimp has improved, a lot, over the years, and is perfectly usable for most normal applications, but it has a hard time competeing with something people are required to use (just like Libre Office versus MS Office, except the Gimp is actually a better bit of software than LO),
The problem is that the RTFM stuff works with users like me and you. It utterly fails with people like my Mom and Dad, and around 50 of my non-techie friends. They don't grasp the basic conventions, much less the sort of stuff you need to think about in a config file. Hell, my dad, despite years of my time, still doesn't get hierarchical directory structures, which is probably one of the most basic things in computers. If he doesn't get the simplicity of Windows structures, how is he ever going to understand the arcane hodgepodge of *nix structure? OS X has the same problem, but it is well enough developed for end users that you probably will never had to dig into any of them.
The one large strength of Linux in trying to gain acceptance is that there isn't A Linux, there are Linux' (yes, I'm mangling this, but for the sake of simplicity bear with me). You have Debian, then you have Ubuntu. The "hardcore" enthusiasts still to Debian, and improve it, and all that trickles down to the "softcore" land of Ubuntu. This is fine. What is needed though is something that is purely for users. If we want acceptance we have to alienate the Linux people to some extent, since what my Dad wants in a computer is very different than what most Linux nerds want. This is the primary hurdle. All of Linux' problems, from a typical users point of view, spring from the fact that Linux is for nerds by nerds. I know how to use a computer, so I don't really care how well you conceal the "scary" bits. But for most people those bits are just plain scary.
The last paragraph was a bit facetious. Yes, certain corporations in certain fields love Linux. But certain corporations that most people like, hate it. Netflix, Microsoft, etc... People don't want to run a server, or manage code or databases, they want to watch crappy movies, play games, and listen to music. These companies either hate, or are apathetic to Linux. I've heard the phrase "Linux users expect free, so they won't pay" too many times, its an actual meme. Yes, the Humble Bundle shows that Linux people are willing to pay, but its hard to kill a meme with facts.
So, in order to make Windows 8 USABLE, you have to run around and find third party apps and haxies to turn in back into Windows 7?
Have Windows 8, have had it installed for around a week, and have no problems using it. Its about as useful as Windows 7, with some exceptions. One exception, actually; the "All Apps" thing is annoying. I was dubious, but my old HD failed, so I had to reinstall, so I figured I'd give it a shot, since it cost $15 ($30, plus I got a discount for buying a netbook with Windows on it a month or so ago). Haven't had a single issue, and it took all of 30 minutes to get used to.
Well, two issues, Creative has some of the worst support in the known universe, but I doubt that is Microsoft's fault.
This is like Vista all over again... a big huff, but over pretty much nothing. I ran Vista for its entire lifetime, and had a single BSOD (I had two with Windows 7, which is still the best thing MS has offered). I do have some philosophical, and aesthetic issues over the "Metro" (what are we supposed to call it now?) interface, but it us perfectly usable. It has some upsides over the old "Start" menu, even, like the ability to group programs better.
The worst thing about it is that I completely forget that its there, and just use my computer like normal, only hopping into it when I normally would hop into the traditional start. All those slick tiles are pretty much completely useless to me.
The OS itself, ignoring the UI, is damn nice though, a bit more responsive than 7, it wakes quick, and it completely removed all the stange glitches I had with waking with a USB Wifi dongle (had to unplug it before waking, on 7), it also stopped being sporadically annoying with network sharing. The new Task Manager is nice, and the new move/copy dialogue is awesome.
In short, and I will be called a shill for this, it isn't half bad.
Lovely. That's fine for you; but what about the OTHER 95% of Windows 8 purchasers that DON'T know how to do all that? (And yes, there are plenty of people that couldn't find and/or install the proper apps and find and/or change the proper settings).
That said, you have a point here. I fear the day when my Mom or Dad need a new computer, one with Win 8 pre-installed. Its too different, so they will never know whats happening, and I'm going to have to spend a year on the phone walking them through trivial operations again.
Win 8 is very much change for the sake of change. Perhaps there is a reason behind it, since it seems that making the desktop less desktopy was the going thing in Linux land too (Gnome Shell, Unity). I'm not sure why this is the fad now... But I don't like it. Win 8 would be much better on a tablet or phone, I actually wouldn't mind owning one (too happy with my Nexus 7 to consider it, though), but it seems a bit tacked on and superfluous on a desktop. Its like having two OSs smashed on top of each other, which leads to some issues. Why the hell do "apps" handle differently than anything else? Is putting a little red "X" on them to hard, or is it somehow more logical for me to "grab" an invisible edge and drag? It might make sense with touch, but not really (Google Now is a pain, I identically open it 5 times a day trying to drag something up from the bottom middle).
Eh... I'm ranting. Sorry.
,
Someone big needs to jump into the desktop area with both feet and Linux will win.
Not really. Linux still lacks 3rd party support, and without that, no matter how big the push, it will fail. Yes, more use would spur 3rd party development, but without 3rd party support getting more use would be a nasty uphill battle.
Also, no matter how much /. users rant about Linux being usable now, it still doesn't really compete with OS X or Windows 7-8 in that arena yet. I install various flavors of Linux every year just to see if they are ready to replace Windows (and previously OS X, before I retired those boxes), at least on our non-business computers (no Lightroom or Photoshop, no go for me, nothing 100% comparable with Office, no go for my girlfriend), and non-gaming computer. Linux has made improvements, but it still isn't ready. I still have to dip into the CLI from time to time, I still have to use software designed by programmers, for programmers (ugly, horrible UI, no concept of user-friendly, or differing work-flows), I still had to edit some configs to get basic sound to work and to set up network sharing with a diverse LAN (sharing between Linux boxes, with different distros, three Windows boxes with different versions, and an OS X box/htpc). The biggest distro, and biggest DE took massive steps to kill usability (Bigger than Windows 8, even), and the other major DE is so arcane than I still haven't figured it fully out in 10 years.
Yes, there are other DEs and Distros, but this confuses most people. They don't want to bother with spending the first month getting their computer functional.
Worse is the community. Yes, thanks to Ubuntu there some nice Linux nerds out there, but you still get elitist wankers telling you to RTFM, or "learn the hard way". Far more than there are in Windows or Mac land, at least.
I wish Linux was there. But the only thing that would ever make it get there is to basically kill itself and is ideals. It needs to take away some freedom, it needs to simplify and focus not on engineers and programmers, but slick form-and-substance applications, it needs to settle on a standard UI, and a standard distro. That UI and Distro need to stop giving a shit what Linux users want, and how RMS feels about things. It has to stop caring about "freedom" at the expense of usability and compatibility. All of this would cost money, so it also has to stop caring about being free, probably. Open Source ethics would be a liability too, since it scares the nice capitalists who make computing useful.
"Magically" is right; unless you've got a never-released track, how could the RIAA possibly know it was illegal? (Disclosure: I work for Google, but not on Music Match)
Its amazing what those RIAA elves can do...
Seriously though, I wouldn't doubt it if the RIAA, or one of their contractors, have a database of hashes from popular, or highly distributed rips. They probably never could 100% know, but that doesn't really matter to them. I'm probably being paranoid, since there are a number of factors that would have to happen for labels to be able to prosecute based on Google's data. The first being the flavor of deal Google has with the labels, the second being how willing Google would be willing to share data (such as hashes) with them. The third would be the very strange legality of this whole thing. Would sharing track information (but not data) with Google be considered illegal distribution? AFAIK no one has ever been prosecuted for merely having pirated tracks, so as for how useful this information would be, is a bit questionable.
Isn't that exactly what Google Music is doing now?
Not with CDs though, it supposedly will scan your music library, and add it to your "cloud" for free, without actually uploading anything.
I haven't tried it yet, since I'm a bit paranoid that something that I didn't obtain legally back in college might still be hiding in my library, which will magically flag me as a bad person, so the RIAA can take all my money and leave me in a cardboard box... out of the spirit of fairness, of course.
I find that extremely hard to believe.
Its mind boggling, but true. I'm not saying that they are technically incapable of doing it, it just isn't even something they would ever think of, or even know they could do. They don't have the very basic knowledge of computers that we take for granted. I can switch between 4 operating systems in a day without any issues, while some of my friends can't handle new software or even just the movement of a single GUI element. This is because I "get" computers, I've been on them for 20 years, building them for 15, I get the underlying concepts, and thus the surface stuff flows freely. Most people don't.
My friend who works on jets didn't grow up on computers, and didn't really use them until the late 90's early 00's. She see's them differently than I do. She see's them as something that can do task "A" and task "B", and I see them as a big collection of hardware, logic, buses, APIs, drivers, etc... A computer is an information toaster to her. And most other people I know.
Car analogy: Its like the difference between a driver and a good mechanic.
Some of us here don't hate Windows. Actually some of us actually haven't taken sides on the Great OS Wars. I rather like some versions of Windows. Win7 was damn good, as good as any of the competitors. As was XP, for its time. Win8, like Vista, isn't nearly as bad as the internet wants it to be (not perfect, flawed but perfectly usable). At various times, I've had all three running in the same house on different machines. And at various times of my life, I've preferred each of them over the others.
Windows has been a mature OS for a long time. Barring last week, I haven't had a BSOD, or minor system crash, over the full lifetime of Win7. My old Vista box had a similar record. I haven't had a malware or virus problem in over 10 years. I really haven't had any driver problems since the first days of Vista, with the exclusion of changing out hardware (which is still a problem in Linux, and pretty much moot in OS X). Last weeks problem would have killed any Desktop OS, since it was traceable to hardware failure (the PCB on my HDD has scorch marks = drive corrupted and dead). I have some driver issues now, since I switched to Win8 out of curiosity and a low price ($14), and Creative's support process is atrocious.
OS X was a bigger pain, with its updates introducing pointlessly minor API changes, forcing you to either forgo upgrading software, or buy the newest version, every year. Linux still isn't quite ready to be considered 100% painfree computing, either. Its coming closer, and has been for the last decade and a half, but it still isn't quite ready. Don't get me wrong, some distros are VERY usable (Mint, Ubuntu, and OpenSuSe, which is my flavor of choice). I would use them if the software was there, and if that software was to the same standards as Mac or Windows software. Currently I need Lightroom, Photoshop, and a robust office suite with good revision control. This pretty much means Linux isn't an option (barring dual boots, which is just annoying, or VMs, which is also a bit annoying). Currently none of these areas are well implemented on Linux. No, Gimp sucks, and LibreOffice has serious compatibility issues and sucks at certain things (Google Docs is actually a bit better, which is a depressing statement).
Also, gaming. You need Windows since it is the most common OS, and thus the one devs shoot for, not because Windows is better for it. If OS X was suddenly the most popular, or Linux, that would be the gaming OS with the best driver support and ports.
This isn't, again, to say that Windows is perfect. It just works best for me, at this particular moment. This could, and probably will, change again. The point isn't that one OS is better, it is that they are all equally good, but fit different needs, expectations, and work styles.
I don't much like Microsoft, but that doesn't make Windows less competent.
I'm not arguing the point, there are plenty of "hardcore" games on consoles, obviously; and obviously consoles currently dominate the market. The OP is probably around my age (mid-30s), and is somewhat stuck in the golden age of PC gaming, when consoles were 100% casual.
Judging from recent experience, most people in my age group are still completely clueless about computers, and somewhat scared of them. This isn't just true of morons, but also of some of the smartest people I know (pilots, doctors, and some engineers). I have friends who can completely disassemble a $100 million fighter jet, who are frightened of changing a graphics card.
This is why consoles will always be the dominant platform. Or will be until people stop being frightened of computers, and actually understand them.
That said, I still find PC gaming to be superior, from an actual performance, play, and technological point of view. This doesn't mean they are better for people, or should kill consoles. But if you have a good PC, there is no reason to ever buy a console, ignoring exclusivity. If given a choice between one or the other, ignoring other factors, the PC will always win based on merit (and cost effectiveness).
This is one reason I actually quit the psych program while in college, I was trying to specialize in the pure research aspects, but was pretty much forced to coexist with the softer aspects. A lot of these people didn't even have a basic understanding of science, and their world-view was very different than mine (feelings expose truth, as opposed to empiricism). Our program tried to channel people into three areas (therapy/abnormal, experimental, and industrial), but it really didn't help. It also didn't help that psych is now the most highly populated department in many colleges, which leads to things being a bit messy. Our department was very beauracatic, with very little personal support, and thus geared, on a organizational level, to what most students were interested in (the soft, human aspects), and was pretty clueless about the actual science students.
the constant updating
Sadly consoles have this now, too.
I don't get the passion on this topic. Play what you want, on what you want. I don't see myself getting a new console for a long time, since there is no point. I already own a PC with decent hardware, and most of the games I like, or genres I like are also on the PC as well as on consoles. I'm also not young anymore, so there aren't any games I need to own anymore (perhaps thats just because Squar...Squenix sucks now), so consoles aren't as seductive.
If I didn't own my PC, or still inexplicably thought PCs are made of forbidden magic (sorry, bad parental tech support day), a console would fulfill my needs nicely.
Though, to go back to your point, yes, PCs have problems (not that I've run across any on your list in the last 10 years), but your forgetting the first years of the 360, and its rings of doom. I'm guessing the next generation of consoles will also be problematic in the beginning, and might be moving towards a level of consumer hostility that some people won't really want to tolerate. Who knows?
death of hardcore gaming consoles
What is a "hardcore gaming console"? The PS3 or 360? They are commodity hardware, there is nothing "hardcore" about them. My aging PC is "harder core" than them, most PCs you can buy cheap at Fry's are "harder core" these days.
What the hell do you mean by "hardcore" anyway? That is a term that long since lost pretty much all of its meaning.
Both India and China are considered developing countries, and members of the BRIC nations (the "I" and the "C", respectively). This means that they are rapidly growing and developing, and are pretty much expected to be joining us "first worlders" in the next decade or two, in both economy and standard of living.
Teach a man to fish etc
Start a fire for a man, he'll be warm for the night.
Start a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.