I just read it and having played eve-online, it's plausible, and made me remember some of what playing it felt like. Boring mining, anger at being killed for no reason, and the strange feeling that you would cheat anyone, just for a challenge.
Anyone know if you can view and edit two pages side by side like you can in Word?
You can view with the 'Page Preview' and that will let you layout the pages in a grid style. I didn't see how to edit, but I have 1.9.49 so maybe its changed.
I really liked Savage, but never played NS. (I don't want to deal with Steam.) How would you compare the two?
PS. -
Battlefield 2 is supposed to have a similar commander/troops type structure:
"Enhanced team play features allow players to enter the action on the front lines as part of a formal squad, or work behind the scenes in Commander Mode to direct the strategic assaults of their teammates."
Macromedia always seemed like a good company: they implemented security, and competed on technical merit rather then lock-in strategies. Guess thats changing. Maybe Flash will go the RealPlayer route.
Macromedia Central (now dead/ignored) was an attempt to make flash usable for desktop app.'s and is different from just the player that a browser uses. It would load the local application, check for updates on the web, manage purchases of the software, etc., or so the theory went. In windows it needs to be installed on its own, then you could get flash app.s that run in it -- I don't know about osX.
It feels like a security hole that can allow software to be run outside of a sandbox environment.
Thats what seems so strange to me: why restrict flash to a sandbox by default (when systems like the JVM don't) and then bundle 3rd party junk-ware?
I looked at flash and was happy to see that a flash *.swf file saved and run localy, can't do anything more then when its on the web... unless it's saved to a folder with a 'command' subfolder and batch/scripts in it for each command. Much better then an java applet saved and run locally, which can do anything.
If I want to use one of these APIs to create something cool for my own website or my own education and entertainment, should I ask Yahoo/Google for money? Wake up.
Would you give it back to the company and help tailor it to their needs? Thats what the companies want. Amazon offers cash for people who do this with web services, while Yahoo! & Google don't.
You probably work for a corporation. Your computer was made by big corporations. You can't go shopping without some of your money going to corporations. If you have a problem with this "evil" in the world, move to the country and become a subsistance farmer.
"everybody works for the enemy sometimes" - a lawyer
you don't make changes by running away, you make them (in part) by talking about them.
The GPL version of open source is not going to work...
Since the grandparent was talking about hardware, I think you meant: The GPL version of open source hardware is not going to work...
There might be an argument that expensive research would be hard in a GPL/Hardware environment, but not for the common standards. ie. generic i386 hardware could be GPL'ed with no competitive disadvantage. People pay for many aspects of hardware: price, availability, reliability, service, documentation & support, etc... and those things can all turn a profit without a proprietary design.
Toaster makers aren't hampered by a lack of secret/proprietary designs, the market is just not as profitable, or innovative, without them.
Motivation
If a pretty poster and a cute saying is all it takes to motivate you, you probably have a very easy job. The kind robots will be doing soon.
...even if he were having a conversation with a computer
Passing the Turing test does not qualify as proof of consciousness -- thats one of the points of the argument.
...he'd not admit that the computer is intelligent just because it is made out of the wrong stuff.
Since we know humans are conscious, and generally accept that animals are, he thinks the 'stuff' might be important. Is that so outrageous? The Chinese room argument does not premise that the right 'stuff' is needed, and that Searle goes on to try and argue that point in other papers is no argument against this.
Many philosophers spend years on creating stupid, non-sensical arguments before publishing. It seems to be a professional affliction of that particular discipline.
sure. no one writes bad software, right? there are wastes of labor in every difficult endeavor.
Fair enough. You don't have to agree, but I think its a better argument then it gets credit for, so...
That's the nature of the Turing test.
The point of the argument is that passing the Turing test does not prove consciousness. If it walks like a duck (etc...) it may be a duck, or it may be a digital movie.
But something does.
Insisting on the point in question doesn't work: we know humans understand (being human ourselves) but don't know which other things are conscious. We generally agree that animals are, but why computers? Because of how they behave is giving the Turing test answer, but its not proof.
Does anybody understand the tax code? Why should software be any different?
Thats funny, but it misses the point. Knowing how to do a task is not the conscious understanding humans have. Saying software 'understands' may be a reasonable abbreviation, but its not accurate. (and that was the point of the original poster)
You are free to believe in it if you like, but sooner or later, you will have to defend your position against a computer that will insist that if you don't admit the possibility that it is self-aware and intelligent, well, it is just going to assert that you aren't either.
heh. I insist that you acknowledge me as being a Penguin. (arguments don't work by insisting, they work by convincing.)
Searle's argument is arbitrary and ad hoc.
Thats a cheap shot. Searle spent years discussing his argument before he published, and years afterwards addressing objections.
None of that has anything to do with Searle.
True. This is pragmatic work, not the wild claims of AI reasearchers that Searle was answering.
Although the individual in the Chinese room does not understand Chinese, perhaps the person and the room considered together as a system, do. Searle's reply to this is that someone might in principle memorise the rule book; they would then be able to interact as if they understood Chinese, but would still just be following a set of rules, with no understanding of the significance of the symbols they are manipulating.
With logic you need to know something certain to build off of.
Like the language of 'and', 'or', 'not' and 'if' ? Philosophy of logic starts with uncertain language, and deals with real people making common errors, as well as formal axiomatic systems.
Know why Godel made his proof? Because he was certain that numbers were real things; the same as physical objects. Its not about "building castles in the sky."
Quite frankly, I'm surprised that Google don't understand this better. If pages didn't degrade gracefully, the Google search engine itself would not be possible.
XMLHttpRequest won't be ditched/broken in the next browser cycle, in part because Google uses it... they are defining the next generation of graceful degrading. You can't get new features without doing this. Conversely, if they degraded service for browsers without XMLHttpRequest, its compatibility could be broken with a new 'extended' version.
Slashdot Mirror
I just read it and having played eve-online, it's plausible, and made me remember some of what playing it felt like. Boring mining, anger at being killed for no reason, and the strange feeling that you would cheat anyone, just for a challenge.
periods go inside the quotes
Thanks. I was wondering why people kept saying 23 channels.
You can view with the 'Page Preview' and that will let you layout the pages in a grid style. I didn't see how to edit, but I have 1.9.49 so maybe its changed.
PS. - Battlefield 2 is supposed to have a similar commander/troops type structure:
Macromedia always seemed like a good company: they implemented security, and competed on technical merit rather then lock-in strategies. Guess thats changing. Maybe Flash will go the RealPlayer route.
It feels like a security hole that can allow software to be run outside of a sandbox environment.
Thats what seems so strange to me: why restrict flash to a sandbox by default (when systems like the JVM don't) and then bundle 3rd party junk-ware?
Sure it can be, but by default they made Flash more safe, and less usable for general desktop applications.
Strange for a company which is now bundling other - questionable - software with it.
I looked at flash and was happy to see that a flash *.swf file saved and run localy, can't do anything more then when its on the web... unless it's saved to a folder with a 'command' subfolder and batch/scripts in it for each command. Much better then an java applet saved and run locally, which can do anything.
Would you give it back to the company and help tailor it to their needs? Thats what the companies want. Amazon offers cash for people who do this with web services, while Yahoo! & Google don't.
Why would Yahoo make this hard to find?
"everybody works for the enemy sometimes" - a lawyer
you don't make changes by running away, you make them (in part) by talking about them.
Since the grandparent was talking about hardware, I think you meant: The GPL version of open source hardware is not going to work...
There might be an argument that expensive research would be hard in a GPL/Hardware environment, but not for the common standards. ie. generic i386 hardware could be GPL'ed with no competitive disadvantage. People pay for many aspects of hardware: price, availability, reliability, service, documentation & support, etc... and those things can all turn a profit without a proprietary design.
Toaster makers aren't hampered by a lack of secret/proprietary designs, the market is just not as profitable, or innovative, without them.
Motivation
If a pretty poster and a cute saying is all it takes to motivate you, you probably have a very easy job. The kind robots will be doing soon.
Why is the plan to *buy* a solution? Maybe we could reform the patent system rather then paying off the companies.
Passing the Turing test does not qualify as proof of consciousness -- thats one of the points of the argument.
Since we know humans are conscious, and generally accept that animals are, he thinks the 'stuff' might be important. Is that so outrageous? The Chinese room argument does not premise that the right 'stuff' is needed, and that Searle goes on to try and argue that point in other papers is no argument against this.
Many philosophers spend years on creating stupid, non-sensical arguments before publishing. It seems to be a professional affliction of that particular discipline.
sure. no one writes bad software, right? there are wastes of labor in every difficult endeavor.
ps - i use flippers
Fair enough. You don't have to agree, but I think its a better argument then it gets credit for, so...
That's the nature of the Turing test.
The point of the argument is that passing the Turing test does not prove consciousness. If it walks like a duck (etc...) it may be a duck, or it may be a digital movie.
But something does.
Insisting on the point in question doesn't work: we know humans understand (being human ourselves) but don't know which other things are conscious. We generally agree that animals are, but why computers? Because of how they behave is giving the Turing test answer, but its not proof.
Thats funny, but it misses the point. Knowing how to do a task is not the conscious understanding humans have. Saying software 'understands' may be a reasonable abbreviation, but its not accurate. (and that was the point of the original poster)
heh. I insist that you acknowledge me as being a Penguin. (arguments don't work by insisting, they work by convincing.)
Searle's argument is arbitrary and ad hoc.
Thats a cheap shot. Searle spent years discussing his argument before he published, and years afterwards addressing objections.
None of that has anything to do with Searle.
True. This is pragmatic work, not the wild claims of AI reasearchers that Searle was answering.
Like the language of 'and', 'or', 'not' and 'if' ? Philosophy of logic starts with uncertain language, and deals with real people making common errors, as well as formal axiomatic systems.
Know why Godel made his proof? Because he was certain that numbers were real things; the same as physical objects. Its not about "building castles in the sky."
Your thinking of Rhetoric, not Philosophy.
XMLHttpRequest won't be ditched/broken in the next browser cycle, in part because Google uses it... they are defining the next generation of graceful degrading. You can't get new features without doing this. Conversely, if they degraded service for browsers without XMLHttpRequest, its compatibility could be broken with a new 'extended' version.
ya right. will SCO be sued for barratry, or are lawyers smart enough to cover-their-ass and harass with a plausible-but-bs case?