I'm no fan of Windows by any stretch, and I wish it would disappear, but let's not fool ourselves, ok? Seriously, have you really had any major problems getting older software to work on Windows? Very likely no, and if you have, it's not been a regular problem. With OS X you have to INSTALL A SECOND OS on top of OSX. That's no easy task for the novice. And then it runs in an emulation layer which is quite slow. Don't lie to yourselves - Windows, Mac, and Apple focus on different markets, so this comparison is just plain stupid. Microsoft DOES have to consider a lot more tahn Apple when it builds it's OS. You have Soccer Moms and grannies who may not have a local geek to help them out, so things just have to work. You can't go around pulling the rug out from under them - they might fall and break a hip. Or just leave the party all together.
Comparing Apple to Windows is like comparing, well, uh, apples to balls of orange shit with corn and peanuts mixed in, uh, but what was my original point? Oh yeah, uh windows needs to "digest" all of the various consumer needs and uh, uh, ok windows sucks, sorry.
I would say Turing's definition of intelligence is just that, a definition. Philosophy operates in a space beyond simply defining things, so I can understand how a debate started. I would say that for the most part, Turing's definition is fine, since I have no other way of even determining whether other humans are intelligent or not other than analyzing their behavior. But since we haven't yet seen a non-biological intelligence, it still lies within the realm of possibility that the only path to intelligence (by Turing's definition) is to emulate the inner workings of currently intelligent beings. If it is possible to create a being that behaves exactly the same as a human, but is wired differently internally, then by Turing's definition it is intelligent, but it is up to the philosophers to argue (fruitlessly?) whether it's experience is anything like that of a human.
Anyway, I guess the point of this post is that definitions are just marking posts stuck in reality to give a frame of reference, but do not actually make a statement about the nature of things. This is something that confuses even the most educated of people.
Dropping the word "intelligence", and just talking about the subjective experience of a being, would you say that a computer, wired completely differently, but behaving in the same way as a human, would have the same subjective experience as a human?
I understand your explanation, but find a couple problems with it. First, by randomly picking a number between 1 and 6, you are simulating the outcome or purpose of dice, but not an actual dice throw itself. Dice are not perfectly shaped due to manufacturing inaccuracies and weight differences caused by the number of divots on each side, which may skew numbers ever so slightly. Also if include the surrounding environment with the dice (e.g. a person who throws a specific way, skewing the results significantly) How do you generate these random numbers with your simple simulation? It's shown that no algorithm random number generator is truly random. My purpose is not to attack your specific example, just pointing out that in general what you suggest is like 2d snapshot of reality - you are losing a lot of useful information that could enhance the simulation's realism.
Secondly, your example of the dice is modeling something that was designed by humans, and thus has a specific purpose, making your "outcome" based simulation easy. Before dice were invented, someone had the idea of randomly selecting a number from a range of 1-6, and your example simulates this design, not the dice themselves. Life was NOT designed (unless you believe in creationism), so there is no functionalities or purposes that can be singled out to model at a higher level. for instance, there is no such thing as a heart as a singular entity. We just draw the borders at the arteries and connective tissue to make it easy to talk about, but the heart does not exist as an isolated system. Subtle details that are left out of the simulation may have large effects over the long term if the model is allowed to play out, or may affect another part of the system in ways that are not obviously noticable. This is especially important if we decide to start using such simulations for drug testing, etc.
Can a complete description of the workings of physics be described finitely, or is the complexity of our universe infinite? i.e. is the study of physics a never ending rabbit hole of major discoveries and refactoring to new models, or will we hit the bottom eventually, and jump to a new realm that makes modern physics look like yesterday's alchemy? And to make this more relevant, at what level can we start ignoring details of our models to make a realistic simulation of life, or are all the details important? If it's the later, then we may never realistically model life. I think this question is fundamental to the whole endeavor.
This type of activity by Microsoft won't shut down projects - it will just drive them to other countries and/or underground. Projects that infringe on patents in the US will be hosted in countries where they are not infringing. OK, say the US passes a law that makes it illegal for US citizens to contribute to offshore projects that infringe on US patents. The coders go anonymous, using their handle. Bullshit like this is so easy to route around - I'm not worried.
You speak as if this open source "community" is a single entity with a leader that can take action. There is no "community" in a singular form, and with that there is no single philosophy. Some people are political, others are not. Some are commercial entities, some are not. Some are in one country, some in another, some believe in one form of licensing, some believe in another. Some only work on the Windows platform, some only work in Linux, some are multi-platform. To suggest that we, as a community, should put our foot down and stop writing windows code is to make a hell of a lot of wrong assumptions as to who the "we", the "community", are.
I had an idea a few years back before there really were any 3D MMORPGs. I still don't think that something like this has been implemented: My idea is to take a standard gaming graphics engine, maybe one of the quake ones, and add functionality that allows you to walk through portals. Once you walk through a portal, you will connect to another server. With enough servers you could have a pretty large world.
The portals could be made more seamless by automatically connecting the user to the other server once the portal is in view (the portal doesn't have to be a door - it could also be a plane in space), and then rendering data from both servers while both worlds are in view. Depending on bandwidth issues, you could make it perfectly seamless.
Now everyone can truly have their own dominion in a virtual space. It could get interesting when OSS developers start innovating. You could have secret underground worlds, and new types of artifacts or characters appearing; bots, sex worlds, all kinds of stuff...
to shop at small operations and locally owned stores and chains. Here in Southern California there are Trader Joe's and Henry's stores, both relatively pleasent shopping experiences. Even they are getting a bit too commercial for my taste though. I feel like I am in some failed pavlovian experiment everytime I go into a large supermarket. The executives who run these publicly traded companies use a behavioral approach, instead of asking "what would I like if I were shopping here". Ruins the whole thing.
Is there an actual industry term for that smiley voice that women do in ads... the one that has the tone of a mother saying "koochy-koochy-koo" or "I'm so proud of you" in a fake way to a child? I HAAAAAAATE that voice. I'm living in China right now, and they are even worse about using that voice in ads. argh
You know, that brings up an interesting application for these electronics. You could make one of these into a keygrabber by laying one on top of another touch screen. Hmm, the criminal possibilities are endless...
What does one do if he, using his real name, posted a drug related comment to the usenet in his less wise days? Cross his fingers and hope that the employer doesn't find it?
Hey everyone, shutup already about the ads!! If you complain too much about the products, point out it's flaws, and uncover the fact that the article is a farce, then you will nullify the effect of the advertisement. We will then see things like the tagging system go away, and more heavy comment moderation from Slashdot editors.
Ok, I admit that it would help if the ad wasn't written by a 12 year old and the product wasn't an overpriced piece of junk made by a mousepad company.
Re:Public Health Warning - Tourist Advisary
on
Green Geek Beer
·
· Score: 1
Singularity event? By this you mean achieving the technically impossible? The steps needed to get from where we are now to self replicating robots likely requires thousands upon thousands of of scientific discoveries and engineering advances. Almost every advance is built upon the millions of advances made by the world-wide scientific community in the past. Self replicating nanobots are not something that a single team working in secret will surprise us with. I assure you, if China or anyone else had the capability of building such things, the required volumes of knowlege and skills they would have hiding under their belt would have been applied to many other technologies as well.
What do you mean by "singularity event" anyway? Are you referring to the same singularity as that predicted by Tipler and the transhumanists? I think that their meaning is transcending the human form through technology. The creation of anobots play into this transformation in their sci-fi fantasy, but are not a singularity in itself.
It is telling that you talk about this "singularity event" as if it's inevitable and it's a part of the everyday lexicon. I suggest you read a bit on "peak oil". Just search for it on google. Economic turbulence and war will likely disrupt any possiblities of exponential technological growth in the next half century.
So following your analogy, who are these outsiders with boomsticks who are far more technically advanced than us primitive tribesmen, the good Witch Doctor Kurzweil and myself? Are you suggesting some lost space-faring or alternate-dimension transcending branch of the human race? Or aliens?
Why don't we start making regulations for all the flying car traffic while we're at it? How many children and houses have to be destroyed in overhead crashes before we do something about it? And what about all the countries near the base of the space elevator? What if that thing comes down? I certainly wouldn't want that in MY backyard. How about:
* Overpopulation from immortality * Quantum computers used to hack encryption * Dilithium crystal polition from warp drives
Come on! If you are aware of the current state of nano-tech? We've got nano-bottle brushes, nano-gears, nano-slotcar motors, nano-tubes. i.e. we've got nano-progress, zilch. We are a LONG FUCKING WAY from any real problems with this tech, in fact so far off that we will likely encounter problems with other technology before nanotech ever bites us. Worrying about this is like worrying about opening a worm-hole and letting dinosaurs back onto the earth because some physicist wrote a book about time-travel.
We've got a few dozen other issues 1000 times more likely to kill us. Sci-Fi fantasy is an ESCAPE from reality, not reality itself.
Actually, Indians invented chess, then called Chaturanga, in what is now the Pakistani province of Sindh. The Persians made a more modern revision, called Shatranj.
Do moderators just click at anything that sounds historical?
As others have commented, this list should probably be described as Arabic inventions, and not Islamic.
Also, I notice that the tone of the Slashdot story and the comments in this article is rather antagonistic and condescending. I am reminded of Chris Rock's standup routine, when he talks about how white people viewed Colin Powell's possible run for presidency:
"Whenever Colin Powell is on the news, white people give him the same compliments: 'How do you feel about Colin Powell?', 'He speaks so well! He's so well spoken. I mean he really speaks so well!' Like that's a compliment, shit. 'He speaks so well' is not a compliment, okay? 'He speaks so well' is some shit you say about retarded people that can talk. What do you mean he speaks so well? He's a fucking educated man, how the fuck you expect him to sound, you dirty motherfucker? 'He speaks so well.' What are you talking about? What voice were you expecting to come out of his mouth? 'Imma drop me a bomb today', 'Imma be Pwez o dent!'."
While important, the quality of the projection should not be the focus when trying to draw people to a theatre. The commodification/McDonaldization of movie theatres is the problem. Most theatres in the US are mega-plexes, with the front lobby and each theatre looking exactly the same no matter what city you go to in the US. The theatre needs more character and intrigue.
For example, if you go to Westwood in Los Angeles, the theatres look like opera houses, and are ornate and spacious. There is palpable excitement in the crowd on opening night for a new film. I saw a movie at a pizza restaurant/theatre in DC a while back. The tables were set on tiers. Sitting in a comfy chair eating pizza while watching a movie in a theatre is an awesome experience. Lastly, I saw Saving Private Ryan in Amsterdam. The theatre was also very ornate. Some people dressed up for the occasion. A choir dressed in WW2 uniforms sang before the movie and during intermission. During intermission, you could go to the lobby or a number of lounges to have a cocktail or some champagne.
If some maverick theatre owner was willing to turn movie-watching into an EXPERIENCE again, then I might think about attending, but right now I have no interest in being pumped in and out of a suburban money making machine.
Slashdot Mirror
that was my point...
I'm no fan of Windows by any stretch, and I wish it would disappear, but let's not fool ourselves, ok? Seriously, have you really had any major problems getting older software to work on Windows? Very likely no, and if you have, it's not been a regular problem. With OS X you have to INSTALL A SECOND OS on top of OSX. That's no easy task for the novice. And then it runs in an emulation layer which is quite slow. Don't lie to yourselves - Windows, Mac, and Apple focus on different markets, so this comparison is just plain stupid. Microsoft DOES have to consider a lot more tahn Apple when it builds it's OS. You have Soccer Moms and grannies who may not have a local geek to help them out, so things just have to work. You can't go around pulling the rug out from under them - they might fall and break a hip. Or just leave the party all together.
Comparing Apple to Windows is like comparing, well, uh, apples to balls of orange shit with corn and peanuts mixed in, uh, but what was my original point? Oh yeah, uh windows needs to "digest" all of the various consumer needs and uh, uh, ok windows sucks, sorry.
I would say Turing's definition of intelligence is just that, a definition. Philosophy operates in a space beyond simply defining things, so I can understand how a debate started. I would say that for the most part, Turing's definition is fine, since I have no other way of even determining whether other humans are intelligent or not other than analyzing their behavior. But since we haven't yet seen a non-biological intelligence, it still lies within the realm of possibility that the only path to intelligence (by Turing's definition) is to emulate the inner workings of currently intelligent beings. If it is possible to create a being that behaves exactly the same as a human, but is wired differently internally, then by Turing's definition it is intelligent, but it is up to the philosophers to argue (fruitlessly?) whether it's experience is anything like that of a human.
Anyway, I guess the point of this post is that definitions are just marking posts stuck in reality to give a frame of reference, but do not actually make a statement about the nature of things. This is something that confuses even the most educated of people.
Dropping the word "intelligence", and just talking about the subjective experience of a being, would you say that a computer, wired completely differently, but behaving in the same way as a human, would have the same subjective experience as a human?
LS
I understand your explanation, but find a couple problems with it. First, by randomly picking a number between 1 and 6, you are simulating the outcome or purpose of dice, but not an actual dice throw itself. Dice are not perfectly shaped due to manufacturing inaccuracies and weight differences caused by the number of divots on each side, which may skew numbers ever so slightly. Also if include the surrounding environment with the dice (e.g. a person who throws a specific way, skewing the results significantly) How do you generate these random numbers with your simple simulation? It's shown that no algorithm random number generator is truly random. My purpose is not to attack your specific example, just pointing out that in general what you suggest is like 2d snapshot of reality - you are losing a lot of useful information that could enhance the simulation's realism.
Secondly, your example of the dice is modeling something that was designed by humans, and thus has a specific purpose, making your "outcome" based simulation easy. Before dice were invented, someone had the idea of randomly selecting a number from a range of 1-6, and your example simulates this design, not the dice themselves. Life was NOT designed (unless you believe in creationism), so there is no functionalities or purposes that can be singled out to model at a higher level. for instance, there is no such thing as a heart as a singular entity. We just draw the borders at the arteries and connective tissue to make it easy to talk about, but the heart does not exist as an isolated system. Subtle details that are left out of the simulation may have large effects over the long term if the model is allowed to play out, or may affect another part of the system in ways that are not obviously noticable. This is especially important if we decide to start using such simulations for drug testing, etc.
LS
Can a complete description of the workings of physics be described finitely, or is the complexity of our universe infinite? i.e. is the study of physics a never ending rabbit hole of major discoveries and refactoring to new models, or will we hit the bottom eventually, and jump to a new realm that makes modern physics look like yesterday's alchemy? And to make this more relevant, at what level can we start ignoring details of our models to make a realistic simulation of life, or are all the details important? If it's the later, then we may never realistically model life. I think this question is fundamental to the whole endeavor.
LS
Are you really sure that cognitive processes, or for that matter all that goes into making a functioning consciousness only involves symbolic systems?
LS
This type of activity by Microsoft won't shut down projects - it will just drive them to other countries and/or underground. Projects that infringe on patents in the US will be hosted in countries where they are not infringing. OK, say the US passes a law that makes it illegal for US citizens to contribute to offshore projects that infringe on US patents. The coders go anonymous, using their handle. Bullshit like this is so easy to route around - I'm not worried.
LS
You speak as if this open source "community" is a single entity with a leader that can take action. There is no "community" in a singular form, and with that there is no single philosophy. Some people are political, others are not. Some are commercial entities, some are not. Some are in one country, some in another, some believe in one form of licensing, some believe in another. Some only work on the Windows platform, some only work in Linux, some are multi-platform. To suggest that we, as a community, should put our foot down and stop writing windows code is to make a hell of a lot of wrong assumptions as to who the "we", the "community", are.
LS
I had an idea a few years back before there really were any 3D MMORPGs. I still don't think that something like this has been implemented: My idea is to take a standard gaming graphics engine, maybe one of the quake ones, and add functionality that allows you to walk through portals. Once you walk through a portal, you will connect to another server. With enough servers you could have a pretty large world.
The portals could be made more seamless by automatically connecting the user to the other server once the portal is in view (the portal doesn't have to be a door - it could also be a plane in space), and then rendering data from both servers while both worlds are in view. Depending on bandwidth issues, you could make it perfectly seamless.
Now everyone can truly have their own dominion in a virtual space. It could get interesting when OSS developers start innovating. You could have secret underground worlds, and new types of artifacts or characters appearing; bots, sex worlds, all kinds of stuff...
LS
to shop at small operations and locally owned stores and chains. Here in Southern California there are Trader Joe's and Henry's stores, both relatively pleasent shopping experiences. Even they are getting a bit too commercial for my taste though. I feel like I am in some failed pavlovian experiment everytime I go into a large supermarket. The executives who run these publicly traded companies use a behavioral approach, instead of asking "what would I like if I were shopping here". Ruins the whole thing.
LS
Is there an actual industry term for that smiley voice that women do in ads... the one that has the tone of a mother saying "koochy-koochy-koo" or "I'm so proud of you" in a fake way to a child? I HAAAAAAATE that voice. I'm living in China right now, and they are even worse about using that voice in ads. argh
LS
You know, that brings up an interesting application for these electronics. You could make one of these into a keygrabber by laying one on top of another touch screen. Hmm, the criminal possibilities are endless...
What does one do if he, using his real name, posted a drug related comment to the usenet in his less wise days? Cross his fingers and hope that the employer doesn't find it?
Hey everyone, shutup already about the ads!! If you complain too much about the products, point out it's flaws, and uncover the fact that the article is a farce, then you will nullify the effect of the advertisement. We will then see things like the tagging system go away, and more heavy comment moderation from Slashdot editors.
Ok, I admit that it would help if the ad wasn't written by a 12 year old and the product wasn't an overpriced piece of junk made by a mousepad company.
what is a pillarc?
http://maxxuss.org/index.html
Also, a prepatched copy of OS X can be found in usenet archives...
You do know that someone figured out how to run OS X on non-apple hardware before these guys figured out how to run Windows on a Mac, right?
Singularity event? By this you mean achieving the technically impossible? The steps needed to get from where we are now to self replicating robots likely requires thousands upon thousands of of scientific discoveries and engineering advances. Almost every advance is built upon the millions of advances made by the world-wide scientific community in the past. Self replicating nanobots are not something that a single team working in secret will surprise us with. I assure you, if China or anyone else had the capability of building such things, the required volumes of knowlege and skills they would have hiding under their belt would have been applied to many other technologies as well.
What do you mean by "singularity event" anyway? Are you referring to the same singularity as that predicted by Tipler and the transhumanists? I think that their meaning is transcending the human form through technology. The creation of anobots play into this transformation in their sci-fi fantasy, but are not a singularity in itself.
It is telling that you talk about this "singularity event" as if it's inevitable and it's a part of the everyday lexicon. I suggest you read a bit on "peak oil". Just search for it on google. Economic turbulence and war will likely disrupt any possiblities of exponential technological growth in the next half century.
LS
So following your analogy, who are these outsiders with boomsticks who are far more technically advanced than us primitive tribesmen, the good Witch Doctor Kurzweil and myself? Are you suggesting some lost space-faring or alternate-dimension transcending branch of the human race? Or aliens?
LS
Why don't we start making regulations for all the flying car traffic while we're at it? How many children and houses have to be destroyed in overhead crashes before we do something about it? And what about all the countries near the base of the space elevator? What if that thing comes down? I certainly wouldn't want that in MY backyard. How about:
* Overpopulation from immortality
* Quantum computers used to hack encryption
* Dilithium crystal polition from warp drives
Come on! If you are aware of the current state of nano-tech? We've got nano-bottle brushes, nano-gears, nano-slotcar motors, nano-tubes. i.e. we've got nano-progress, zilch. We are a LONG FUCKING WAY from any real problems with this tech, in fact so far off that we will likely encounter problems with other technology before nanotech ever bites us. Worrying about this is like worrying about opening a worm-hole and letting dinosaurs back onto the earth because some physicist wrote a book about time-travel.
We've got a few dozen other issues 1000 times more likely to kill us. Sci-Fi fantasy is an ESCAPE from reality, not reality itself.
Actually, Indians invented chess, then called Chaturanga, in what is now the Pakistani province of Sindh. The Persians made a more modern revision, called Shatranj.
Do moderators just click at anything that sounds historical?
LS
As others have commented, this list should probably be described as Arabic inventions, and not Islamic.
Also, I notice that the tone of the Slashdot story and the comments in this article is rather antagonistic and condescending. I am reminded of Chris Rock's standup routine, when he talks about how white people viewed Colin Powell's possible run for presidency:
"Whenever Colin Powell is on the news, white people give him the same compliments: 'How do you feel about Colin Powell?', 'He speaks so well! He's so well spoken. I mean he really speaks so well!' Like that's a compliment, shit. 'He speaks so well' is not a compliment, okay? 'He speaks so well' is some shit you say about retarded people that can talk. What do you mean he speaks so well? He's a fucking educated man, how the fuck you expect him to sound, you dirty motherfucker? 'He speaks so well.' What are you talking about? What voice were you expecting to come out of his mouth? 'Imma drop me a bomb today', 'Imma be Pwez o dent!'."
LS
While important, the quality of the projection should not be the focus when trying to draw people to a theatre. The commodification/McDonaldization of movie theatres is the problem. Most theatres in the US are mega-plexes, with the front lobby and each theatre looking exactly the same no matter what city you go to in the US. The theatre needs more character and intrigue.
For example, if you go to Westwood in Los Angeles, the theatres look like opera houses, and are ornate and spacious. There is palpable excitement in the crowd on opening night for a new film. I saw a movie at a pizza restaurant/theatre in DC a while back. The tables were set on tiers. Sitting in a comfy chair eating pizza while watching a movie in a theatre is an awesome experience. Lastly, I saw Saving Private Ryan in Amsterdam. The theatre was also very ornate. Some people dressed up for the occasion. A choir dressed in WW2 uniforms sang before the movie and during intermission. During intermission, you could go to the lobby or a number of lounges to have a cocktail or some champagne.
If some maverick theatre owner was willing to turn movie-watching into an EXPERIENCE again, then I might think about attending, but right now I have no interest in being pumped in and out of a suburban money making machine.
LS
See the subject. Once I can read text files on an electronic ink device I'm all over e-books.
LS
How in the F*** did THAT make it through the lameness filters?!