Art and utilitarianism are not necessarily mutualy exclusive. One might argue, instead, that art that actualy does something useful is more deserving of the word than much of what traditional is attached to the word.
They are not mutually exclusive, but your second statement is ridiculous. A display-only sword is better than one which is meant to be used? A house which is not meant to be lived in is better than one which is? Absurd. Certainly a craft attains its hightest or purest expression in art, but what is the purpose of a sword? To hang on a wall? To take into battle? If it is for display only, is it really a sword? What is its utility if it is too valuable to use? But in any case, this is why there are schools of thought on the subject - nobody is right. I suggest three books - The Picture of Dorian Gray (Oscar Wilde), From Bauhaus to Our House (Tom Wolfe), and The Voices of Silence (Andre Malraux).
All right, listen up. Manholes are big pipes. Pipes are round. pipes are easy to manufacture in one piece and very strong. Plus, when transported in quantity on flatbed trucks, they provide the opportunity for an exciting highway experience if the truck gets in an accident (as seen in Toy Story 2).
Of course we have some new characters that weren't there before, (@, etc.) but the rest pretty much stayed the same.
Not to nitpick, but I think the @ symbol has actually been in use for quite some time. Actually we've lost some symbols - cents, for one, various fractions for another.
Well, the one time I watched TV in the past six years (for more than a minute) was the morning of 9/11. I don't miss it. In fact, seeing it every once in a while now is like culture shock. I think I'm one of the few Americans who has never seen Survivor, or whatever the other reality shows are. Or the Sopranos. Or Buffy. etc. What else am I missing? probably a lot! Now that's cool!
Which brings up something I've enjoyed wondering about over the years - when the reasons or mechanisms behind the events are explained, such as Morpheus telling us all about the Matrix, why can't he simply be mistaken? It's not like he's omniscient. Ok, sure, it would be too complex for that to be part of the story in the movie. But really, there's no reason for him to be accurate in every detail. At the very least, this helps me enjoy the movie, take the action at face value, not get wrapped up in logical contradictions, and not judge the probability of the events based upon Morpheus's explanation.
If you were zapped back to 1750 you'd probably be able to tell people about aeroplanes, tungsten light bulbs, telephones, computers etc. but you would be hard to build any of them from scratch. Would anyone believe you?
.. and women voters, and gay people, and ballpoint pens, and post-it notes, and bikinis, humans walking on the moon, and beowulf clusters, and the RIAA, etc. they'd probably kill you as the insane, blasphemy-spouting spawn of satan you know you are.
Because many new technologies are created through an iterative process of throwing failed prototypes away in no way implies any kind of natural selection. The inventor already has a criteria for what they want the product to do, and therefore has a picture (information) of how it shouldbehave.
But of course, technologies couldn't possibly be created, could they, no they just inexplicably evolve, just like humans. Excuse me I need to go find a ratchet tree now.
I think it's fair to say that most new things we create are a combination of slight variations on things that already exist. The use of the word "evoloution" to describe this situation is obviously a metaphor. But even biological might be considered that as well because the actual mechanism is hidden from us; it's not like we can reproduce or observe it in the lab, except at a micro level (such as for bacteria or other animals with very short lifespans). In addition, in particular, the actual source or mechanism behind genetic diversity is a slight mystery - why are there so many species? Darwin never addressed that question, despite the fact that his big book was called the origin of species. The source of diversity of software and businesses is somewhat more obvious - business opportunity, human creativity, etc. Gould argues that the purpose of evolution is species diversity, ie, the survival of life itself, rather than the opposite view that sees each species or each individual as an approximation of the ultimate or perfect, form of life. The former is without a master plan, the latter requires one. In the big picture, the reason there are good or at least widely accepted standards and conventions in games, in business, in software, in everything - is trial and error. Sure, on the micro level the reason one particular thing is created and tried is human ingenuity - combining old things in to something new (the clever person) or pulling it out of thin air entirely (the genius), but up there there sure is no master plan. The reasons for success (selection) are complex - from having the right idea in the right environment (a company with money, for instance, willing to entertain the idea), luck (company in the right place at the right time), market acceptance, press, lack of strong competitors, etc. A lot like biological evolution, I think. It's an appropriate metaphor. And I'll have to add that unlike today, the Church was not concerned about the evolution mechanism per se, in Darwin's time - it was the idea that there wasn't a master plan that caused consternation, for how can an omniscient, omnipotent God lack a master plan?
What truly scares me, is the possibility of only the rich being able to afford genetic "enhancements".
Genetic engineering won't affect humanity because only the rich can afford it, and poor people have way more kids.
Until and unless a society is engineered by force (the original use of the term 'social engineering' by the way), it's clear that human genetic engineering will remain out of the reach of the vast majority of the world, which is poor and can hardly afford the most basic material needs.
But they still have more kids than rich people.
What we need in the world is more: 1) empathy, and 2) people to take responsibility for their actions. I guess I'm not much of a materialist.
There is a fundamental difference between design and code, but not between high and low level programming languages. This difference is that design does not exist. In other words, you cannot extract design from code as the reverse of the process of translating a design into code. It doesn't make sense. not yet anyway, not in the general sense.
Right, so your NLP needs a POV. it needs a model of the universe skewed and distorted from one perspective. It needs to be prejudiced and have preconceived notions of things. It needs therapy, and, on occasion, drugs and maybe a prison term or at least a good talking to. Wow, are you sure you want to continue this work?
Yes... yes, and what was cool about that time was that the invention of a flying machine was "in the air" - lots and lots of people were trying (and many not surviving). It seemed like it was only a matter of time... and once it is done, many people all of a sudden seem to be able to do it. Few inventions are truly isolated, and the myth of the lone brilliant inventor is... just a myth, but they play a key role . So though I said the work of the previous thinkers don't detract from "the inventor", it also goes the other way, of course, something we're hardly recognizing in society today- that we do, in fact, stand on the shoulders of giants.
It would seem to me that anyone attempting to create an invention that appears on a "to invent" list of this sort would not be an innovator.
People had the idea of flying machines long before the Wright brothers came along and invented one - and you know what? it didn't involve feathers or an archimedes screw. And people had the idea of mechanical musical instruments long before any were invented, but they were often imagined to be similar to mechanical musicians playing existing or modified instruments rather than, say, an electronic synthesizer.
The point is, having the general idea doesn't in any way diminish the innovation of the actual workable implementation; the ancients who imagined themselves flying like birds using some aparatus doesn't at all take away from the Wright brothers.
That would be like saying that an obscure spoken language needs a killer novel so people around the world start learning the language. Uh, not.
Linux doesn't need a killer app. It needs a user experience that is orders of magnitude better than anything else that exists. ( I was about to write it needs a killer user experience... but that just didn't seem, well, you know...
Such a user experience will be like the original Macintosh - when you see it and try it, it should literally open your eyes.
It is commonly held that a species becoming extinct is bad. Does it therefore follow that creating a new species through genetic engineering is good? If not, why not?
species extinction is a symptom, and the concern is about the search for the reason. Creating a new species through genetic engineering would be good for science, or at the very least, good as a bad example. As for whether it is good in the global sense, well, is artificial selection a substitute for natural selection? Nope.
Um. No moving parts? eXtreme accuracy? shooting around corners w/ mirrors? I think they'd come with Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin modes, too.
Re:First, human self-knowledge
on
AI in Sci-Fi
·
· Score: 1
What's missing in all the sci-fi scenarios is the necessity, before an AI can be built, that humans first understand themselves.
Not necessarily. To draw an analogy, people have been breeding livestock and plants without understanding of the underlying genetics.
Close.. close. Notice he said "built". If those people intended to build plants and livestock, then they would certainly need excruciatingly detailed information. However, to grow is an entirely different prospect. I have no doubt that an AI of sorts can be "grown" by analogy, at some point in the (far) future, and that is entirely different than building. It's quite possible that such an AI may not be able to be dissected and understood by us humans. We've seen that the most effective AI we can do today must be "trained" rather than created purely from first principles and a logical deconstruction of the universe, and this only makes sense. Nothing of any great complexity is built.
If the goal is indeed to prove that there are an infinite number of twin primes demonstrating the existence of any finite number of them, however large, is no step at all.
This reminds me of a greasemonkey buddy of mine in high school. I was taking calculus at the time and he said "I've seen calculus. It's all bullshit, it's just a bunch of x's and y's."
You need at least 16 bits per channel, preferably 32 (in floating-point format). Photoshop can load 16-bpc images but 99% of its tools are disabled until you convert the image down to 8-bpc. In other words: the 16-bpc mode is there just for marketing.
I think FilmGimp, er I mean CinePaint can do 16 bpc
The digitalcamera needs to capture at that depth for it to be useful....
I can't belive my ears when I hear a salesperson pitching an LCD as a gaming display, and I can't believe my eyes when the sheep actually LOOKS at the LSD-flashback-inducing thing, nods, and shells out the $700.
How true, how true. A $700 display is only good for solitaire. (ok, sarcasm.) But you know, PC users were slaving in front of 60 Hz monitors and under flurescent lights for so long their brains are all fried. anything is better than that. As a Mac user I'd come over and the sight of that would nearly level me. With pounding eyeballs I'd ask how can you work under these conditions? But between the iron chains, electric shocks, OS reinstalls, BSODs, leeches, Wizards, and that general feeling of being just one click away from the Inferno, the whole monitor thing just didn't move them. that must be why there are so many PC games involving demons and chaos.
Mass transit remains one of the big areas for many folks where you just can't live without cash- this would be a big improvement over digging in the couch for exact change... "
Yes, especially since you won't need to carry the couch with you on the train.
Slashdot Mirror
They are not mutually exclusive, but your second statement is ridiculous. A display-only sword is better than one which is meant to be used? A house which is not meant to be lived in is better than one which is? Absurd. Certainly a craft attains its hightest or purest expression in art, but what is the purpose of a sword? To hang on a wall? To take into battle? If it is for display only, is it really a sword? What is its utility if it is too valuable to use? But in any case, this is why there are schools of thought on the subject - nobody is right. I suggest three books - The Picture of Dorian Gray (Oscar Wilde), From Bauhaus to Our House (Tom Wolfe), and The Voices of Silence (Andre Malraux).
All right, listen up. Manholes are big pipes. Pipes are round. pipes are easy to manufacture in one piece and very strong. Plus, when transported in quantity on flatbed trucks, they provide the opportunity for an exciting highway experience if the truck gets in an accident (as seen in Toy Story 2).
Not to nitpick, but I think the @ symbol has actually been in use for quite some time. Actually we've lost some symbols - cents, for one, various fractions for another.
Well, the one time I watched TV in the past six years (for more than a minute) was the morning of 9/11. I don't miss it. In fact, seeing it every once in a while now is like culture shock. I think I'm one of the few Americans who has never seen Survivor, or whatever the other reality shows are. Or the Sopranos. Or Buffy. etc. What else am I missing? probably a lot! Now that's cool!
Which brings up something I've enjoyed wondering about over the years - when the reasons or mechanisms behind the events are explained, such as Morpheus telling us all about the Matrix, why can't he simply be mistaken? It's not like he's omniscient. Ok, sure, it would be too complex for that to be part of the story in the movie. But really, there's no reason for him to be accurate in every detail. At the very least, this helps me enjoy the movie, take the action at face value, not get wrapped up in logical contradictions, and not judge the probability of the events based upon Morpheus's explanation.
.. and women voters, and gay people, and ballpoint pens, and post-it notes, and bikinis, humans walking on the moon, and beowulf clusters, and the RIAA, etc. they'd probably kill you as the insane, blasphemy-spouting spawn of satan you know you are.
Because many new technologies are created through an iterative process of throwing failed prototypes away in no way implies any kind of natural selection. The inventor already has a criteria for what they want the product to do, and therefore has a picture (information) of how it shouldbehave.
But of course, technologies couldn't possibly be created, could they, no they just inexplicably evolve, just like humans. Excuse me I need to go find a ratchet tree now.
I think it's fair to say that most new things we create are a combination of slight variations on things that already exist. The use of the word "evoloution" to describe this situation is obviously a metaphor. But even biological might be considered that as well because the actual mechanism is hidden from us; it's not like we can reproduce or observe it in the lab, except at a micro level (such as for bacteria or other animals with very short lifespans). In addition, in particular, the actual source or mechanism behind genetic diversity is a slight mystery - why are there so many species? Darwin never addressed that question, despite the fact that his big book was called the origin of species. The source of diversity of software and businesses is somewhat more obvious - business opportunity, human creativity, etc. Gould argues that the purpose of evolution is species diversity, ie, the survival of life itself, rather than the opposite view that sees each species or each individual as an approximation of the ultimate or perfect, form of life. The former is without a master plan, the latter requires one. In the big picture, the reason there are good or at least widely accepted standards and conventions in games, in business, in software, in everything - is trial and error. Sure, on the micro level the reason one particular thing is created and tried is human ingenuity - combining old things in to something new (the clever person) or pulling it out of thin air entirely (the genius), but up there there sure is no master plan. The reasons for success (selection) are complex - from having the right idea in the right environment (a company with money, for instance, willing to entertain the idea), luck (company in the right place at the right time), market acceptance, press, lack of strong competitors, etc. A lot like biological evolution, I think. It's an appropriate metaphor. And I'll have to add that unlike today, the Church was not concerned about the evolution mechanism per se, in Darwin's time - it was the idea that there wasn't a master plan that caused consternation, for how can an omniscient, omnipotent God lack a master plan?
No, we stand on the shoulders of giants.
What truly scares me, is the possibility of only the rich being able to afford genetic "enhancements".
Genetic engineering won't affect humanity because only the rich can afford it, and poor people have way more kids.
Until and unless a society is engineered by force (the original use of the term 'social engineering' by the way), it's clear that human genetic engineering will remain out of the reach of the vast majority of the world, which is poor and can hardly afford the most basic material needs.
But they still have more kids than rich people.
What we need in the world is more: 1) empathy, and 2) people to take responsibility for their actions. I guess I'm not much of a materialist.
I want to know if you were even using computers in 1990.
There is a fundamental difference between design and code, but not between high and low level programming languages. This difference is that design does not exist. In other words, you cannot extract design from code as the reverse of the process of translating a design into code. It doesn't make sense. not yet anyway, not in the general sense.
Right, so your NLP needs a POV. it needs a model of the universe skewed and distorted from one perspective. It needs to be prejudiced and have preconceived notions of things. It needs therapy, and, on occasion, drugs and maybe a prison term or at least a good talking to. Wow, are you sure you want to continue this work?
Yes... yes, and what was cool about that time was that the invention of a flying machine was "in the air" - lots and lots of people were trying (and many not surviving). It seemed like it was only a matter of time... and once it is done, many people all of a sudden seem to be able to do it. Few inventions are truly isolated, and the myth of the lone brilliant inventor is... just a myth, but they play a key role . So though I said the work of the previous thinkers don't detract from "the inventor", it also goes the other way, of course, something we're hardly recognizing in society today- that we do, in fact, stand on the shoulders of giants.
People had the idea of flying machines long before the Wright brothers came along and invented one - and you know what? it didn't involve feathers or an archimedes screw. And people had the idea of mechanical musical instruments long before any were invented, but they were often imagined to be similar to mechanical musicians playing existing or modified instruments rather than, say, an electronic synthesizer.
The point is, having the general idea doesn't in any way diminish the innovation of the actual workable implementation; the ancients who imagined themselves flying like birds using some aparatus doesn't at all take away from the Wright brothers.
More proof that you don't know what you've got till it's gone....
Uh, no. They were elected for their ability to raise money and their willingness to do whatever it takes to get elected.
We need a killer app that Windows does NOT have.
That would be like saying that an obscure spoken language needs a killer novel so people around the world start learning the language. Uh, not.
Linux doesn't need a killer app. It needs a user experience that is orders of magnitude better than anything else that exists. ( I was about to write it needs a killer user experience... but that just didn't seem, well, you know...
Such a user experience will be like the original Macintosh - when you see it and try it, it should literally open your eyes.
species extinction is a symptom, and the concern is about the search for the reason. Creating a new species through genetic engineering would be good for science, or at the very least, good as a bad example. As for whether it is good in the global sense, well, is artificial selection a substitute for natural selection? Nope.
I'd call it Q*Bit
Um. No moving parts? eXtreme accuracy? shooting around corners w/ mirrors? I think they'd come with Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin modes, too.
Not necessarily. To draw an analogy, people have been breeding livestock and plants without understanding of the underlying genetics.
Close.. close. Notice he said "built". If those people intended to build plants and livestock, then they would certainly need excruciatingly detailed information. However, to grow is an entirely different prospect. I have no doubt that an AI of sorts can be "grown" by analogy, at some point in the (far) future, and that is entirely different than building. It's quite possible that such an AI may not be able to be dissected and understood by us humans. We've seen that the most effective AI we can do today must be "trained" rather than created purely from first principles and a logical deconstruction of the universe, and this only makes sense. Nothing of any great complexity is built.
This reminds me of a greasemonkey buddy of mine in high school. I was taking calculus at the time and he said "I've seen calculus. It's all bullshit, it's just a bunch of x's and y's."
How true, how true. A $700 display is only good for solitaire. (ok, sarcasm.) But you know, PC users were slaving in front of 60 Hz monitors and under flurescent lights for so long their brains are all fried. anything is better than that. As a Mac user I'd come over and the sight of that would nearly level me. With pounding eyeballs I'd ask how can you work under these conditions? But between the iron chains, electric shocks, OS reinstalls, BSODs, leeches, Wizards, and that general feeling of being just one click away from the Inferno, the whole monitor thing just didn't move them. that must be why there are so many PC games involving demons and chaos.
Yes, especially since you won't need to carry the couch with you on the train.