I'm looking casually at the netbooks, but would really like one that runs linux and will also serve (maybe with a plugin headset) as a cell phone. Then I could abandon my cheezy att cell phone which has no software worth mentioning on it and run a system where I have the controls, not whatever marketing company has paid the most to the cell companies.
Excellent question. It is not hard to imagine that there would be intelligences that differ enough from human that the Turing Test (and its relatives) would not be effective - indeed there might be types of intelligence for which it might not be meaningful. (This should not be taken as minimizing the Turing Test - I'm pretty sure nobody has found anything better as yet.) There might also be intelligences that would not even perceive such a test.
A small thought experiment: suppose that the internet as a whole (network plus all the attached machines) were to one day shift from being essentially a stupid network into a smart one - whatever that means. I take it to mean at least able to react to and solve perceived problems without being programmed by humans to do so. At least at the level of chimpanzees. Would we notice anything? Would we even be looking in the right places?
But we're not given random data at all. We grow up surrounded by human beings and human artifacts. Parents talk to babies in roughly the same way everywhere. As a result, while we have a genetic code that programs a bunch of stuff that contributes to being human, we then spend a number of years having that programming extended and fine tuned (to our surroundings, to our language and especially to our culture).
Also, I doubt that many (any?) of us really has the ability to go back and really "figure out why we act" for many actions - for some actions we may believe we know why we did things (but is that belief really true?), for many others probably not. For instance, why did you fall in love with person a rather than person b?
On the other hand, I agree completely that our intelligence is just a program - but it is a very complicated one that we are far from understanding.
I can think of a few reasons quickly - and there are probably more.
Not everyone has a high paying job. Since getting to the internet enables network shopping, paying bills online and so on, there is a real value to it (and it can save you money). But you need to get there. Sure there are internet cafes and libraries with net access, but having your own is rather nicer.
A $150 computer for me is something I could take on trips - and with a car charger (or even a solar charger) I could load it up with map info and go off into the mountains. GPSs don't usually have the kind of screen resolution that makes displaying topo maps nice.
A cheap computer is something kids could use without parents worrying too much about it breaking. Also, I wouldn't loan out a $800 machine to someone, but I might loan out a $100 machine.
These cheaper computers put pressure on manufacturers (and proprietary software vendors) to drive down prices. Even if at some prices this means parts that are not so good, it will also affect the good quality, higher price machines.
While in a couple of stores with computers (Best Buy and another whose name I don't remember) the bulk of the machines were loaded with 4Gb of memory (and running vista, of course). So, if that holds true, those joe-6-packs will soon be running machines with rather more memory.
A Canticle for Liebowitz is probably one of the top 20 or so true science fiction classics (as opposed to fantasy or weird) and is worth a read (and a reread).
Doesn't help with all the files in ~, but now you can use/configuration all you want instead of/etc. Programs will still use/etc, but for the most part you don't have to see that.
There is no reason you can't at least give a close estimate.
Sure there is. They want to sell you something so it is very much in their interest to ensure that the deal looks good (with "not expensive" being a large component of "good").
If the company is afraid of getting the numbers wrong, how can anyone be sure they're getting the numbers right when they send you a bill?
a computer game character able to jump incredible distances
I thought that the base context of the discussion was kernel and OS level code. In which case almost any bug has the potential to be a security bug at least at a denial-of-service level.
And I think I'd consider embedding a game character in the kernel to be a bug in and of itself.
Imagine if you couldn't write stories containing lesbians, because that idea was currently copyrighted. Or maybe you could use lesbians unless they behaved in one of many specific ways.
You don't have to imagine much, there is a company that seems to be trying to do exactly this by patenting plots (or storylines).
Similarly for the airplane switch if it puts the plane into some kind of automatic mode that directs it to land at one of some list of approved airports. Do that to a couple dozen planes at once and see if their unmanned landing system can cope with lots of congestion both in the airspace around the airport and with the planes on the ground.
It is worth reading both the exchanges between Lenski and the conservapediots on the main page and also the discussion page in which you see just how low they'll go to censor those they don't like and attack anyone trying to even mildly support the right of Lenski or others to speak. Reading the talk page was enough to convince me that conservapedia has nothing of interest or insight to offer even reasonable conservatives.
It is my impression (founded on things I've read in various places, but which have disappeared in the fog) that Darwin's theory was well developed when Wallace proposed much the same thing, but that Darwin did then hurry things along in order to get his ideas out in front of people first. But even so, it took a while for the notion to catch on and the "Origin of Species" was a sufficiently persuasive read that it swept all before it.
Sexual intercourse is meant to be an act performed in private for the two parties that love and care for each other deeply enough to create a stronger bond.
Interesting statement. "meant" - by whom? Who says it should be performed in private (except people nowadays)?
You're assuming quite a bit, I suspect. I, on the other hand, know for sure that the FSM meant for sexual intercourse to be performed in large tubs of grated parmesan cheese by dozens of people at once.
I'd like to see something like this, with every delta (so to speak) marked with the author - but with a further provision that no bill could be passed except as an emergency bill (with special rules about emergencies) without at least a three month public comment period - and that adding a rider would restart that comment period. Would it slow things down? Of course, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.
On the down side, loopholes for special circumstances often become standard procedure if it suits people, so everything would then end up an "emergency".
Anyone know the last time this tactic was used? Oh yeah, Nazi Germany. Somehow I doubt it was the last time the tactic was used. Though not necessarily with "terrorists" as the representatives of ickiness.
OPEC knows perfectly well that the oil will eventually dry up completely, and it's really in their interest to keep the rest of the world hooked as long as possible. I suspect that the people making the decisions in OPEC are more or less like the people making decisions everywhere and are going to go for the quick buck. This is likely to be a choice that effectively keeps the oil flowing for the shortest time possible instead of the longest.
It might be better to avoid stories from people (justechn, roland p, etc) that just link to their websites. Especially those that require registration.
Slashdot should not be giving these guys (and their like) the free publicity that they figure they deserve.
But this is exactly the kind of thing that should be taken seriously. Sadly, it will probably not be used much to protect children who may need it, but will instead be used to protect politicians, the well heeled but disliked and so on.
It is a pretty obvious way to choke out free speech - at least free speech about persons. The question would have to be "Will it pass the Supremes?" and I'd not want to bet either way on that.
Mine either, but I'm sure I could write a Ruby interpreter in Javascript (maybe even a quasi-compiler that translated Ruby to Javascript then ran the Javascript). Don't know that I'd want to.
Every home OS that MS has released since win 95 has been aweful when it was first released. Then gradually updates come out, HW gets better, and devolopers learn all the tricks.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm looking casually at the netbooks, but would really like one that runs linux and will also serve (maybe with a plugin headset) as a cell phone. Then I could abandon my cheezy att cell phone which has no software worth mentioning on it and run a system where I have the controls, not whatever marketing company has paid the most to the cell companies.
Ah, but what is a quarter worth these days. A dime!
How do you know they are not thinking now?
Excellent question. It is not hard to imagine that there would be intelligences that differ enough from human that the Turing Test (and its relatives) would not be effective - indeed there might be types of intelligence for which it might not be meaningful. (This should not be taken as minimizing the Turing Test - I'm pretty sure nobody has found anything better as yet.) There might also be intelligences that would not even perceive such a test.
A small thought experiment: suppose that the internet as a whole (network plus all the attached machines) were to one day shift from being essentially a stupid network into a smart one - whatever that means. I take it to mean at least able to react to and solve perceived problems without being programmed by humans to do so. At least at the level of chimpanzees. Would we notice anything? Would we even be looking in the right places?
But we're not given random data at all. We grow up surrounded by human beings and human artifacts. Parents talk to babies in roughly the same way everywhere. As a result, while we have a genetic code that programs a bunch of stuff that contributes to being human, we then spend a number of years having that programming extended and fine tuned (to our surroundings, to our language and especially to our culture).
Also, I doubt that many (any?) of us really has the ability to go back and really "figure out why we act" for many actions - for some actions we may believe we know why we did things (but is that belief really true?), for many others probably not. For instance, why did you fall in love with person a rather than person b?
On the other hand, I agree completely that our intelligence is just a program - but it is a very complicated one that we are far from understanding.
I can think of a few reasons quickly - and there are probably more.
While in a couple of stores with computers (Best Buy and another whose name I don't remember) the bulk of the machines were loaded with 4Gb of memory (and running vista, of course). So, if that holds true, those joe-6-packs will soon be running machines with rather more memory.
some execs at Foxconn are saying, "Well... that can't be good for business."
More likely they're saying "How can we sue this guy?" and "Can we sue slashdot for publicizing this?"
A Canticle for Liebowitz is probably one of the top 20 or so true science fiction classics (as opposed to fantasy or weird) and is worth a read (and a reread).
ln -s /etc /configuration
Doesn't help with all the files in ~, but now you can use /configuration all you want instead of /etc. Programs will still use /etc, but for the most part you don't have to see that.
There is no reason you can't at least give a close estimate.
Sure there is. They want to sell you something so it is very much in their interest to ensure that the deal looks good (with "not expensive" being a large component of "good").
If the company is afraid of getting the numbers wrong, how can anyone be sure they're getting the numbers right when they send you a bill?
a computer game character able to jump incredible distances
I thought that the base context of the discussion was kernel and OS level code. In which case almost any bug has the potential to be a security bug at least at a denial-of-service level.
And I think I'd consider embedding a game character in the kernel to be a bug in and of itself.
Imagine if you couldn't write stories containing lesbians, because that idea was currently copyrighted. Or maybe you could use lesbians unless they behaved in one of many specific ways.
You don't have to imagine much, there is a company that seems to be trying to do exactly this by patenting plots (or storylines).
A question for the lawyers out there. Suppose it were B.S.'s song being sent and it were received by an alien on a planet 200 light years away.
Has the copyright expired?
Similarly for the airplane switch if it puts the plane into some kind of automatic mode that directs it to land at one of some list of approved airports. Do that to a couple dozen planes at once and see if their unmanned landing system can cope with lots of congestion both in the airspace around the airport and with the planes on the ground.
It is worth reading both the exchanges between Lenski and the conservapediots on the main page and also the discussion page in which you see just how low they'll go to censor those they don't like and attack anyone trying to even mildly support the right of Lenski or others to speak. Reading the talk page was enough to convince me that conservapedia has nothing of interest or insight to offer even reasonable conservatives.
The story goes that J.S. Haldane was asked "What has the study of biology taught you about the Creator?"
He responded :"
He seems to be inordinately fond of beetles.
"
It is my impression (founded on things I've read in various places, but which have disappeared in the fog) that Darwin's theory was well developed when Wallace proposed much the same thing, but that Darwin did then hurry things along in order to get his ideas out in front of people first. But even so, it took a while for the notion to catch on and the "Origin of Species" was a sufficiently persuasive read that it swept all before it.
Interesting statement. "meant" - by whom? Who says it should be performed in private (except people nowadays)?
You're assuming quite a bit, I suspect. I, on the other hand, know for sure that the FSM meant for sexual intercourse to be performed in large tubs of grated parmesan cheese by dozens of people at once.
I'd like to see something like this, with every delta (so to speak) marked with the author - but with a further provision that no bill could be passed except as an emergency bill (with special rules about emergencies) without at least a three month public comment period - and that adding a rider would restart that comment period. Would it slow things down? Of course, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.
On the down side, loopholes for special circumstances often become standard procedure if it suits people, so everything would then end up an "emergency".
It might be better to avoid stories from people (justechn, roland p, etc) that just link to their websites. Especially those that require registration.
Slashdot should not be giving these guys (and their like) the free publicity that they figure they deserve.
But this is exactly the kind of thing that should be taken seriously. Sadly, it will probably not be used much to protect children who may need it, but will instead be used to protect politicians, the well heeled but disliked and so on.
It is a pretty obvious way to choke out free speech - at least free speech about persons. The question would have to be "Will it pass the Supremes?" and I'd not want to bet either way on that.
Mine either, but I'm sure I could write a Ruby interpreter in Javascript (maybe even a quasi-compiler that translated Ruby to Javascript then ran the Javascript). Don't know that I'd want to.
And then too, there was Microsoft Bob.