Those educated enough have learned to discriminate degrees and schools. Not all areas of study are equally demanding and taxing of your mental skills and not all schools push to your limits and force you to excel or get out.
History or English degree from a local university is not the same as degree in pure math or physics from Berkley, MIT etc.
Some of us had to work a LOT harder to get out "peace of paper" and in the process honed and sharpened our mental skills. Some employers value this, and some are even prepared to put their money where their mouth is and pay more. Others don't. And frankly 99% of development jobs out there do not require someone with an advanced degree from worlds top universities, nor even someone who can think, but someone cheap and obedient.
That's a really good question. Can you have human level intelligence without some sort of knowledge of good or evil. It is natural (is it?) to assume that any intelligent life form will have drive/desire to live. So, knowing that and since the life is intelligent it is reasonable to assume it would come to realize that other instances of its kind also have the same drive/desire. So, it should come to a realization that killing or destroying life goes against the desires of others to live. And here we have the basic notion of good (i.e. let others live) and bad (i.e. choose to destroy life).
It is a really good question if this knowledge is necessary among all intelligent (at least as intelligent as humans)?
Perhaps one day if we develop strong AI, we will be able to answer this question, even though the ethics of such AI in a computer (brain in a bat) is questionable. Come to think of it, how do we know God (a programmer) is not just running a simulation (universe) on us trying to answer just the same question:D?
To be precise, a square with 3 sides does not exist, because we have DEFINED a square to have 4 sides. But a square itself doesn't exist either. You don't walk down the street or through the park and say "look, a square". A square is a pure mathematical ideal, and exists as such only in our heads.
Since he has no body, so what is meant by "created in his image" is more to do with our sentience, consciousness and knowledge of good and evil. This is how we are like him. Kind of like if we were to create a sentient program, who is "in our image" but looks like a computer.
I don't know what's your issue with POSIX in OS X? The few apps I tried porting and compiling in OS X werent' that bad.
We at MKS make a port of all standard UNIX utilities for Windows (including the shells korn, bash, csh etc), and the POSIX for Windows (and UNIX services for Windows) is based on an ancient version of our product. But still porting UNIX POSIX apps to windows is way harder than for OS X (where it's mostly a breeze), and for you to say that POSIX support or compliance in Windows is better than in OS X is just silly.
You seem to be one of those people who don't get it. It's not any one individual feature, or lots of them that makes OS X polished. It's how they work together, and how usable they are (usability is all about hiding complexity or exposing the absolute minimum necessary to get something accomplished in an as intuitive way as possible).
And this is where OS X shines. When I first switched to it from years of mental abuse from Redmond, I felt naked without complexity (where is my regedit, computer icons on desktop to right click on and choose manage, where are all the dialogs popping and jumping in my face, things steeling focus, where are the problems for me to tinker with instead of you know doing things that I turned the computer on for). IT just all seemed too simple, and I was wondering, what the hell, how can you do anything with so little. I didn't realize that I was conditioned for years to expect trouble, to spend my valuable time making windows run smoothly to the point that it become an instinct and expectation. Without it I felt just wrong.
But amazingly enough, you later realize that you don't need any of those things, and that OS X just gets out of the way, and lets you do things, and enjoy your applications. And the few base services that it does provide (like spotlight, expose, spaces, etc) are there on each machine and they work well and fast. And you don't need to spend significant amount of your time baby sitting the OS and making it run fast and smoothly. It does that on its own. My OS X installation is just as fast as the first day I put it there 2 years later. Windows somehow manages to get progressively slower with time.
Taksbar now looks like dock did in Tiger 4 years ago.
Windows have drop shadow, like they do in OS X for a long time now.
Aero peek and aero flip 3d are rip off of expose.
Windows search is still not as fast, extensive and as Spotlight is in OS X.
So, yes, they have tried to re-implement OS X features, but as as all things Microsoft, they lack polish and taste:D. User experience is still noticeably not as good or as refined as in OS X, I doubt is can ever be without simplifying things at the OS core.
That's such a poor argument, because all you are really saying is that more and more people are becoming aware of what is computable.
But, on the other hand, I would define intelligence exactly the same as you, because that is the best working definition "something is intelligent if it can persuade me that it is intelligent". The intelligent entity has to persuade everyone that it is intelligent, which is always going to be heavily biased towards human types of mental ability.
We currently don't consider animals too intelligent because they are not intelligent in relations to us (not relative to us, but how much they can relate to us and fulfill out human expectations). Animals do solve problems, make tools, show signs of limited abstract thinking, yet most of us will happily eat them for lunch and not feel guilty about it the least.
It's the same with artificial forms of intelligence. The intelligent entity will have to work hard to persuade us that it can fulfill our expectations, but if it does we will have no alternative but to recognize that it is intelligent.
But even then, most people will have objections that the thing is conscious, has feelings or should have rights (same as with animals, we just don't want to think of them that way, since we currently eat them).
As you have so eloquently put it, overpriced is a matter of perception. If you don't see the value in the product, and think the price is not fare, then you don't buy it.
Some of us see the value, and are ready to pay the small price. I have priced the same Dell configured as my Mac Pro (I eventually built 2 times 2.8 GHz Xeons (8 core), 32 GB of RAM, nVidia 8800 GT, 4 internal hard drives for 2 TB of storage, 30'' Apple cinema display, but I bought memory and hard drives later) and it ends up costing more. And with Dell you get a plastic case, and the computer sounds like a helicopter taking off (a guy at my work has one similarly configured), and even worse you get to run Windows on your Dell.
My Mac Pro is whisper quiet, aluminum case, very accessible, and that matters a lot to me (I used to build my own "quiet" PCs and used to spend $5000 on them, and never got something as quiet and as powerful).
So for CAD$7000 I got my dream machine, and since I'm a developer and spend 16 hours a day next to my computer, it matters a lot to me what kind of computer it is.
Well that goes without saying. I work for a company that make bash, ksh, zsh , csh etc for Windows (among other products), and a port of slew of UNIX command line utilities including our own vanilla vi, so I use UNIX shells even on Windows.
On my Macs at home, I always have terminal window open. It's the best way to interact with the computer.
But UNIX terminal is not unique to Mac. It's available on any UNIX, I was talking about compelling applications that are unique to Mac. Some people mention Final Cut Pro, but I find Adobe Video Production Suite to be more capable.
But what got me over to Mac and OS X is that it's an incredibly well put together machine, great UNIX OS that can run Photoshop and that is does indeed just work (as advertised).
And people who mention "failed" when talking about hardware completely miss the point of what people mean when they say "overall build quality". It's really the refinement taken to extreme, rather than shear build quality. It's attention to detail, the fact that someone has thought about every single little detail of your laptop case, keyboard, trackpad, position of ports, how it feels in your hand, on your lap, how sturdy and solid it feels, how it doesn't have million things written on each key etc. or on the chassis, and the fact that it is built from metal, etc.
It's the kind of thing (refinement) that allows say BMW to charge 2 times as much for their sedans than some other manufacturers for the same class of car. And obviously only the person that cares and sees the value in these things will choose one over the other.
I don't know about the vastly overpriced bit. I think Apple charges a fair price for the hardware, and no one as of yet has come up with something as well put together and stylish and sturdy or classy as Macbook Pro, or Mac Pro at ANY price.
Even if I were in a market for Windows laptop, I would still buy a Macbook Pro. I don't know of a single Mac specific application on the other hand that would make me choose mac over PC. But, on the other hand, overall user experience is completely different in OS X and coupled with Apple hardware is quite a pleasant experience. As a matter of fact, I can't remember the last time I enjoyed my computer so much as my current Mac Pro (perhaps when I was a child and had an Amiga), and that tells you something.
and then type it up in latex at home. I find typing on a computer in "live" class setting is distracting and takes so much away from active mental participation that aids in learning. You are so much better off taking notes and asking questions while the material is being presented.
If you really care about having a readable, electronic archive of your lecture notes, then type it up in LaTeX later on in the evenings if you still have energy and time left.
Just yesterday I picked a huge phone book off my porch and carried it over to the garbage with a good dose of loud cursing as to why would anyone print this garbage in today's day and age.
There is a huge difference between inherent rights and guaranteed rights (like freedom of speech which is guaranteed by the constitution and enforced by the government).
If we define a right as the sovereignty to act without permissions of others, then yes, you have the inherent right to get an internet connection, but there doesn't have to be anyone who is willing to provide one for you (no matter how much you want to pay for one).
So, if no ISP wants to sell you an internet connection (because they don't like you for what ever reason), who do you complain to? There is no law that says you must have internet connection?
It's already being determined whether you like it or not. ISP throttle bittorrent traffic routinely because "it's used to transfer illegal content". The determination is made wholesale based on protocol used and not even on content, and worst of all determination is made by ISP, and not someone you would expect has the jurisdiction to make a judgement of what is "legal", like government agency (i.e. you have private organization telling you what is legal and what is not as it is right now).
Your freedom of speech is guaranteed by your government and not something that is a natural outcome of competition between business entities. Many corporations would happily take it away from you (and may have tried). I just don't believe the stupidity of your opinion. The obvious contradiction in your logic is not evident to you?
Your agreement is between you and your service provider, an agreement to which you agreed. It's only when you were asked to agree to something that takes your guaranteed right as a citizen that you might have a case.
Unfortunately, there is no right to access the internet in USA (unlike recently discussed case of Finland where it is a right), nor a right to own and operate web server.
the "government takeover" of the Internet (by the way Internet is an entity larger than USA and its government), by government takeover of the FCC, and indirectly government takeover of the Internet by disallowing anyone to prevent any illegal practices that might ensue.
For the type of server a small organization needs (LDAP directory, mail, even web content etc) you don't need a beefy XServe or Mac Pro. You can get away with Mac Mini and with its really low power consumption. For SOHO outfits that adds toward considerable savings on a yearly basis. Enough to pay for Mac Mini.
Slashdot Mirror
Those educated enough have learned to discriminate degrees and schools. Not all areas of study are equally demanding and taxing of your mental skills and not all schools push to your limits and force you to excel or get out.
History or English degree from a local university is not the same as degree in pure math or physics from Berkley, MIT etc.
Some of us had to work a LOT harder to get out "peace of paper" and in the process honed and sharpened our mental skills. Some employers value this, and some are even prepared to put their money where their mouth is and pay more. Others don't. And frankly 99% of development jobs out there do not require someone with an advanced degree from worlds top universities, nor even someone who can think, but someone cheap and obedient.
That's a really good question. Can you have human level intelligence without some sort of knowledge of good or evil. It is natural (is it?) to assume that any intelligent life form will have drive/desire to live. So, knowing that and since the life is intelligent it is reasonable to assume it would come to realize that other instances of its kind also have the same drive/desire. So, it should come to a realization that killing or destroying life goes against the desires of others to live. And here we have the basic notion of good (i.e. let others live) and bad (i.e. choose to destroy life).
It is a really good question if this knowledge is necessary among all intelligent (at least as intelligent as humans)?
Perhaps one day if we develop strong AI, we will be able to answer this question, even though the ethics of such AI in a computer (brain in a bat) is questionable. Come to think of it, how do we know God (a programmer) is not just running a simulation (universe) on us trying to answer just the same question :D?
To be precise, a square with 3 sides does not exist, because we have DEFINED a square to have 4 sides. But a square itself doesn't exist either. You don't walk down the street or through the park and say "look, a square". A square is a pure mathematical ideal, and exists as such only in our heads.
Calculation power is definitely not infinite. Not even close. See for example:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.physics.princeton.edu%2F~mcdonald%2Fexamples%2FQM%2Flloyd_nature_406_1047_00.pdf&ei=Ecb-SvfWFePJlQeLutzXDA&usg=AFQjCNEV27F7MDCHtNnKOdxoCM70Ft0tUg&sig2=359LLUl4JOfYCNJxV2Q13A
Since he has no body, so what is meant by "created in his image" is more to do with our sentience, consciousness and knowledge of good and evil. This is how we are like him. Kind of like if we were to create a sentient program, who is "in our image" but looks like a computer.
I don't know what's your issue with POSIX in OS X? The few apps I tried porting and compiling in OS X werent' that bad.
We at MKS make a port of all standard UNIX utilities for Windows (including the shells korn, bash, csh etc), and the POSIX for Windows (and UNIX services for Windows) is based on an ancient version of our product. But still porting UNIX POSIX apps to windows is way harder than for OS X (where it's mostly a breeze), and for you to say that POSIX support or compliance in Windows is better than in OS X is just silly.
You seem to be one of those people who don't get it. It's not any one individual feature, or lots of them that makes OS X polished. It's how they work together, and how usable they are (usability is all about hiding complexity or exposing the absolute minimum necessary to get something accomplished in an as intuitive way as possible).
And this is where OS X shines. When I first switched to it from years of mental abuse from Redmond, I felt naked without complexity (where is my regedit, computer icons on desktop to right click on and choose manage, where are all the dialogs popping and jumping in my face, things steeling focus, where are the problems for me to tinker with instead of you know doing things that I turned the computer on for). IT just all seemed too simple, and I was wondering, what the hell, how can you do anything with so little. I didn't realize that I was conditioned for years to expect trouble, to spend my valuable time making windows run smoothly to the point that it become an instinct and expectation. Without it I felt just wrong.
But amazingly enough, you later realize that you don't need any of those things, and that OS X just gets out of the way, and lets you do things, and enjoy your applications. And the few base services that it does provide (like spotlight, expose, spaces, etc) are there on each machine and they work well and fast. And you don't need to spend significant amount of your time baby sitting the OS and making it run fast and smoothly. It does that on its own. My OS X installation is just as fast as the first day I put it there 2 years later. Windows somehow manages to get progressively slower with time.
Taksbar now looks like dock did in Tiger 4 years ago.
Windows have drop shadow, like they do in OS X for a long time now.
Aero peek and aero flip 3d are rip off of expose.
Windows search is still not as fast, extensive and as Spotlight is in OS X.
So, yes, they have tried to re-implement OS X features, but as as all things Microsoft, they lack polish and taste :D. User experience is still noticeably not as good or as refined as in OS X, I doubt is can ever be without simplifying things at the OS core.
IF you look in Firefox add-ons/plugins it will be listed as
"Shockwave for Director 11.5.2.602"
whereas regular flash player is listed as
"Shockwave Flash 10.0.32.18"
I don't think 450,000,000 desktops out there have a shockwave player installed? I doubt it is that popular.
That's such a poor argument, because all you are really saying is that more and more people are becoming aware of what is computable.
But, on the other hand, I would define intelligence exactly the same as you, because that is the best working definition "something is intelligent if it can persuade me that it is intelligent". The intelligent entity has to persuade everyone that it is intelligent, which is always going to be heavily biased towards human types of mental ability.
We currently don't consider animals too intelligent because they are not intelligent in relations to us (not relative to us, but how much they can relate to us and fulfill out human expectations). Animals do solve problems, make tools, show signs of limited abstract thinking, yet most of us will happily eat them for lunch and not feel guilty about it the least.
It's the same with artificial forms of intelligence. The intelligent entity will have to work hard to persuade us that it can fulfill our expectations, but if it does we will have no alternative but to recognize that it is intelligent.
But even then, most people will have objections that the thing is conscious, has feelings or should have rights (same as with animals, we just don't want to think of them that way, since we currently eat them).
As you have so eloquently put it, overpriced is a matter of perception. If you don't see the value in the product, and think the price is not fare, then you don't buy it.
Some of us see the value, and are ready to pay the small price. I have priced the same Dell configured as my Mac Pro (I eventually built 2 times 2.8 GHz Xeons (8 core), 32 GB of RAM, nVidia 8800 GT, 4 internal hard drives for 2 TB of storage, 30'' Apple cinema display, but I bought memory and hard drives later) and it ends up costing more. And with Dell you get a plastic case, and the computer sounds like a helicopter taking off (a guy at my work has one similarly configured), and even worse you get to run Windows on your Dell.
My Mac Pro is whisper quiet, aluminum case, very accessible, and that matters a lot to me (I used to build my own "quiet" PCs and used to spend $5000 on them, and never got something as quiet and as powerful).
So for CAD$7000 I got my dream machine, and since I'm a developer and spend 16 hours a day next to my computer, it matters a lot to me what kind of computer it is.
Obviously, this is not true for everyone.
Well that goes without saying. I work for a company that make bash, ksh, zsh , csh etc for Windows (among other products), and a port of slew of UNIX command line utilities including our own vanilla vi, so I use UNIX shells even on Windows.
On my Macs at home, I always have terminal window open. It's the best way to interact with the computer.
But UNIX terminal is not unique to Mac. It's available on any UNIX, I was talking about compelling applications that are unique to Mac. Some people mention Final Cut Pro, but I find Adobe Video Production Suite to be more capable.
But what got me over to Mac and OS X is that it's an incredibly well put together machine, great UNIX OS that can run Photoshop and that is does indeed just work (as advertised).
And people who mention "failed" when talking about hardware completely miss the point of what people mean when they say "overall build quality". It's really the refinement taken to extreme, rather than shear build quality. It's attention to detail, the fact that someone has thought about every single little detail of your laptop case, keyboard, trackpad, position of ports, how it feels in your hand, on your lap, how sturdy and solid it feels, how it doesn't have million things written on each key etc. or on the chassis, and the fact that it is built from metal, etc.
It's the kind of thing (refinement) that allows say BMW to charge 2 times as much for their sedans than some other manufacturers for the same class of car. And obviously only the person that cares and sees the value in these things will choose one over the other.
I don't know about the vastly overpriced bit. I think Apple charges a fair price for the hardware, and no one as of yet has come up with something as well put together and stylish and sturdy or classy as Macbook Pro, or Mac Pro at ANY price.
Even if I were in a market for Windows laptop, I would still buy a Macbook Pro. I don't know of a single Mac specific application on the other hand that would make me choose mac over PC. But, on the other hand, overall user experience is completely different in OS X and coupled with Apple hardware is quite a pleasant experience. As a matter of fact, I can't remember the last time I enjoyed my computer so much as my current Mac Pro (perhaps when I was a child and had an Amiga), and that tells you something.
and then type it up in latex at home. I find typing on a computer in "live" class setting is distracting and takes so much away from active mental participation that aids in learning. You are so much better off taking notes and asking questions while the material is being presented.
If you really care about having a readable, electronic archive of your lecture notes, then type it up in LaTeX later on in the evenings if you still have energy and time left.
Just yesterday I picked a huge phone book off my porch and carried it over to the garbage with a good dose of loud cursing as to why would anyone print this garbage in today's day and age.
There is a huge difference between inherent rights and guaranteed rights (like freedom of speech which is guaranteed by the constitution and enforced by the government).
If we define a right as the sovereignty to act without permissions of others, then yes, you have the inherent right to get an internet connection, but there doesn't have to be anyone who is willing to provide one for you (no matter how much you want to pay for one).
So, if no ISP wants to sell you an internet connection (because they don't like you for what ever reason), who do you complain to? There is no law that says you must have internet connection?
I think what he means is that most of the world will just route around your broken internet, and continue to function unaffected.
Charged by megabyte? Megabyte? Are you crazy. If telcos have their way, you will be charged by a bit or character. They do that now for text messages.
It's already being determined whether you like it or not. ISP throttle bittorrent traffic routinely because "it's used to transfer illegal content". The determination is made wholesale based on protocol used and not even on content, and worst of all determination is made by ISP, and not someone you would expect has the jurisdiction to make a judgement of what is "legal", like government agency (i.e. you have private organization telling you what is legal and what is not as it is right now).
Your freedom of speech is guaranteed by your government and not something that is a natural outcome of competition between business entities. Many corporations would happily take it away from you (and may have tried). I just don't believe the stupidity of your opinion. The obvious contradiction in your logic is not evident to you?
Your agreement is between you and your service provider, an agreement to which you agreed. It's only when you were asked to agree to something that takes your guaranteed right as a citizen that you might have a case.
Unfortunately, there is no right to access the internet in USA (unlike recently discussed case of Finland where it is a right), nor a right to own and operate web server.
With comments like these:
http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=1&cpage=128
I think it's game over for net neutrality in the USA.
the "government takeover" of the Internet (by the way Internet is an entity larger than USA and its government), by government takeover of the FCC, and indirectly government takeover of the Internet by disallowing anyone to prevent any illegal practices that might ensue.
For the type of server a small organization needs (LDAP directory, mail, even web content etc) you don't need a beefy XServe or Mac Pro. You can get away with Mac Mini and with its really low power consumption. For SOHO outfits that adds toward considerable savings on a yearly basis. Enough to pay for Mac Mini.