Moral philosophers will be kicking themselves the world over, having spent their lives searching for answers which they could have just picked up on a course.
Nobody knows if intelligence is caused by the interaction of molecules. The phenomen of consciousness is still unexplained. IMHO consciousness is the reason for intelligence whereas interaction of molecules is only the symptom. I think it's the most fatal mistake of orthodox sience to completely ignore the role of consciousness.
Nowhere was it stated that intelligence arose directly from the interaction between molecules; perhaps consciousness is an epiphenomenon of those interactions, and intelligence arises from that?
The human race needs mental and physical improvement? That doesn't require genetic engeneering, just some common sense. Look at the educational system - it is designed to make you dumb. But, obviously, you cannot fix the educational system by genetic engeneering. Or just watch some television. Stupid talkshows everyday ( 90% about relationship problems ). And the list goes on and on...
You're not thinking about the same sort of improvement as Stephen Hawking is. Just because you can't think outside the box (the word 'qualities' is a clue to the potential difference being qualitative) doesn't mean that "Hawking is obviously wrong".
Does anybody really want this ? Growing babies outside of the body reminds of some alien species;). I remember some claims saying that humans use only 10% of their brain/potential. Maybe learning how to use the remaining 90% should be considered more important than simply growing the brain ad infinitum.
Plenty of species not alien to our environment grow babies outside their bodies. And can you not see the difference between using 10% of your brain and using 10% of your potential? Most importantly, what does your squeamishness have to do with whether or not "Hawking is obviously wrong"?
1) It was not on the basis of personality that AC would give his lungs, but on scientific merit. If you had offered some examples of those whom you consider to be of greater scientific merit than Stephen Hawking, perhaps AC would make the same offer regarding those people.
2) I can think of a few people who would come away from an interview with me thinking that I am a complete arsehole; I don't think that I am being excessively arrogant in thinking that this would reflect more heavily on them than on myself.
3) Have you noticed that the person that became Stephen's second wife, which is brave even disregarding the slating that he got from the press over that separation, was a former nurse of his?
Never having met the man, I cannot give you my own impressions of him. But I can tell you that the reason that he does not speak about his separation, which caused many people to form negative opinions about him (because he did not defend himself against the accusations brought against him by the press), is to protect his former wife.
Prior art is only useful for stopping companies gaining patents. If they already own patents on technology that is implemented in open-source, we need a portfolio with which to fight back.
Somehow I don't see how this patent is infringing on your civil rights
Errr... Amazon can stop me selling stuff on the web using a well-known technique ('cookies') to implement a well-known concept ('credit'). Are you aware of a small debate over something called 'intellectual property'?;)
I agree completely. The American constitution was crafted in such a time when guns might have been some use in defence against a corrupt government; but nowadays they seem a little tame.
Could someone pro-guns please explain to me what use Americans' personal firearms have been against their governments' continuous erosion of the American constitution?
Perhaps what we think of as the 'laws' of physics are all wrong. Ever think of that? We are in the matrix, after all.
We'd need to be in a meta-Matrix, because it is explained to Neo when he comes out of the Matrix that his concept of reality was based on late twentieth-century earth (which they still inhabit).
Well, 60% of your heat is lost through your head, so they say (which is why you must wear a hat in winter boys!). A lobotomised brain would be an less active brain and thus a less prolific producer of heat energy, and those poor malevolent cyber-intelligences would be down on their quotas and have hell to pay.
Good point, although I can't help feeling that the simulation of earth in the late twentieth century must take up a few cycles!
Of course, The Matrix is a fictional work and so the multi-user VR system described therein is thus not qualified to be regarded as one of the greates hacks of all time. However, interestingly, if it should turn out that The Matrix is not a work of fiction - but, say, a 1st wake-up call from Neo and crew - then all the other hacks described here become fictional works.
Except that many of the hacks described were probably carried out before the war in question. But the crafting of the original AI which was then wiley enough to sort out the whole Matrix would probably outrank them in a slashdot poll.
Makes you think, doesn't it?
It certainly does. I hope the sequel peels off a few more layers (a la Existenz, which was by far the better film, IMHO).
I must be keen to lose some karma, because I'm going to take you up on this.
This may sound radical to some ppl, but I think its anti-American to view it any other way. I mean our fore-fathers started a revolution for independence from their gov't b/c of taxation w/o representation, for the most part. Pretty radical dudes.
Amen brother.
Okay. This may sound radical to you, but disagreeing with (your concept of) the American point of view on this issue is not particularly radical. You need to get out a bit (in a global sense).
Your forefathers wrote the right to bear arms into their constitution because they wanted to protect themselves from tyranny similar to that practised by their former government.
So... tell me again, why they didn't protect the rights of Native Americans to bear arms so that they could protect themselves against invading Europeans?
The answer, in a word? 'Amen', brother.
Hamish
p.s. Can anyone in America explain to me in what way people are more empowered against a government gone wrong (such as one which violates the constitution) by the right to bear arms? (disclaimer: This is a genuine question, I don't want this to turn into an you-vs-us discussion. I think that my own country's record with respect to human rights and arms is appalling).
I meant, of course: Creating a process by which the most efficient method of converting chemical into electrical energy involves the use of humans, despite the laws of physics: now that was a hack!
Surely a simple lobotomy would have sufficed? In fact it would doubtless have a more elegant solution, since the whole Neo-rebellion thing could have been avoided.
Using humans to process chemical energy into electrical, despite the laws of physics: now that was a hack!
Off the top of my head, I'd say this is rather like the question of firearms, and I'd say that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is even more applicable for software than for guns.
Why? When was the last time you saw a gun with virus-like properties?
As far as I can see liability for breaking the law lies with the person whose intent it was to break it. If the that is the author of some software (eg, a program deliberately designed to spread a virus) then so be it, but if the author produces a tool with multiple functions (eg. BO2K) then he's no more guilty than a man who makes a knife.
"a program deliberately designed to spread a virus" - AKA a virus.
There are of course some tricky cases. For instance a friend of mine once wrote a virus as an exercise and gave it a slightly nasty payload. He never intended to release it, but unfortunately a copy got loose on his hard drive and infected several other machine before it was wiped out. If that had well and truly escaped, and done serious damage, where would the liability lie for that ? or is it a natural hazard ? Possibly there is no criminal liability in that case, but merely civil negligence by failing to contain the virus ?
Why anyone would give a virus a 'slightly nasty payload' without malicious intent I have no idea. It isn't much more a 'natural hazard' than a bullet flying toward a crowd is a 'natural hazard'.
It may not have been Stallman's intention to allow FTP/HTTP as the medium for source distribution, but I would defy him to point out where it is prohibited:
...Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange...
FTP is certainly customarily used for source exchange, and every network has a physical layer.
Furthermore, where is Stallman intending to draw the line? I'll bet there are plenty of PCs around the world without CD-ROM drives. Similarly, if I make my modifications available on DVD-ROM, or 5 1/4-inch floppy, would that be acceptable?
Version 3 of the GPL should be altered so that the source provider must make it available in the format of the recipient's choice. If the latter party asks for something ridiculous (such as 8-inch disks) it would cost them considerably more to obtain it.
"I'm very scarred" means that you have many marks where injured tissue has healed. (alonso: I pointed this out because it tickled me and I wanted to share the humour. I am not being critical, as I have no doubt that you speak my native language better than I speak yours).
gzip is concerned primarily with compression, and France (where I believe Mandrakesoft is based) is one of the few places in which crypto laws are more restrictive than the US.
How ironic that the word should stem from a word meaning freedom! I suppose that licen[cs]es outside the context of software are often more like 'permits' than legal agreements designed to restrict one's freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but if I hire someone to build me a deck the deck is mine. If I hire someone to write me code, the code is mine. It's the same damn thing.
Oh, really? So if I hire someone to steal your car, then your car is mine?
Hamish
Full MARX for crap puns.
You brandish non-sequiturs with such ease that I wonder whether or not you have ever had the formal training to which you appear to allude.
Ownership of property, particularly intellectual property, is not a cut-and-dried issue. Neither is money an accurate way of measuring productivity.
If you choose to declare your life as worthless, go right ahead. Seek death long enough and you'll find it I'm sure.
You think that measuring the value of your life in terms other than fiscal equates with wanting to die? I feel very sorry for you.
Hamish
Oh dear.
Moral philosophers will be kicking themselves the world over, having spent their lives searching for answers which they could have just picked up on a course.
You daft bastard.
Nobody knows if intelligence is caused by the interaction of molecules. The phenomen of consciousness is still unexplained. IMHO consciousness is the reason for intelligence whereas interaction of molecules is only the symptom. I think it's the most fatal mistake of orthodox sience to completely ignore the role of consciousness.
;). I remember some claims saying that humans use only 10% of their brain/potential. Maybe learning how to use the remaining 90% should be considered more important than simply growing the brain ad infinitum.
Nowhere was it stated that intelligence arose directly from the interaction between molecules; perhaps consciousness is an epiphenomenon of those interactions, and intelligence arises from that?
The human race needs mental and physical improvement? That doesn't require genetic engeneering, just some common sense. Look at the educational system - it is designed to make you dumb. But, obviously, you cannot fix the educational system by genetic engeneering. Or just watch some television. Stupid talkshows everyday ( 90% about relationship problems ). And the list goes on and on...
You're not thinking about the same sort of improvement as Stephen Hawking is. Just because you can't think outside the box (the word 'qualities' is a clue to the potential difference being qualitative) doesn't mean that "Hawking is obviously wrong".
Does anybody really want this ? Growing babies outside of the body reminds of some alien species
Plenty of species not alien to our environment grow babies outside their bodies. And can you not see the difference between using 10% of your brain and using 10% of your potential? Most importantly, what does your squeamishness have to do with whether or not "Hawking is obviously wrong"?
Hamish
1) It was not on the basis of personality that AC would give his lungs, but on scientific merit. If you had offered some examples of those whom you consider to be of greater scientific merit than Stephen Hawking, perhaps AC would make the same offer regarding those people.
2) I can think of a few people who would come away from an interview with me thinking that I am a complete arsehole; I don't think that I am being excessively arrogant in thinking that this would reflect more heavily on them than on myself.
3) Have you noticed that the person that became Stephen's second wife, which is brave even disregarding the slating that he got from the press over that separation, was a former nurse of his?
Never having met the man, I cannot give you my own impressions of him. But I can tell you that the reason that he does not speak about his separation, which caused many people to form negative opinions about him (because he did not defend himself against the accusations brought against him by the press), is to protect his former wife.
Prior art is only useful for stopping companies gaining patents. If they already own patents on technology that is implemented in open-source, we need a portfolio with which to fight back.
Hamish
Somehow I don't see how this patent is infringing on your civil rights
;)
Errr... Amazon can stop me selling stuff on the web using a well-known technique ('cookies') to implement a well-known concept ('credit'). Are you aware of a small debate over something called 'intellectual property'?
Hamish
Wrong on two counts:
1) To analogise is not to equate.
2) The point is not 'bad service' but 'ethical abuse of intellectual property'.
I agree completely. The American constitution was crafted in such a time when guns might have been some use in defence against a corrupt government; but nowadays they seem a little tame.
Could someone pro-guns please explain to me what use Americans' personal firearms have been against their governments' continuous erosion of the American constitution?
Hamish
Perhaps what we think of as the 'laws' of physics are all wrong. Ever think of that? We are in the matrix, after all.
We'd need to be in a meta-Matrix, because it is explained to Neo when he comes out of the Matrix that his concept of reality was based on late twentieth-century earth (which they still inhabit).
Hamish
Well, 60% of your heat is lost through your head, so they say (which is why you must wear a hat in winter boys!). A lobotomised brain would be an less active brain and thus a less prolific producer of heat energy, and those poor malevolent cyber-intelligences would be down on their quotas and have hell to pay.
Good point, although I can't help feeling that the simulation of earth in the late twentieth century must take up a few cycles!
Of course, The Matrix is a fictional work and so the multi-user VR system described therein is thus not qualified to be regarded as one of the greates hacks of all time. However, interestingly, if it should turn out that The Matrix is not a work of fiction - but, say, a 1st wake-up call from Neo and crew - then all the other hacks described here become fictional works.
Except that many of the hacks described were probably carried out before the war in question. But the crafting of the original AI which was then wiley enough to sort out the whole Matrix would probably outrank them in a slashdot poll.
Makes you think, doesn't it?
It certainly does. I hope the sequel peels off a few more layers (a la Existenz, which was by far the better film, IMHO).
Hamish
Okay. This may sound radical to you, but disagreeing with (your concept of) the American point of view on this issue is not particularly radical. You need to get out a bit (in a global sense).
Your forefathers wrote the right to bear arms into their constitution because they wanted to protect themselves from tyranny similar to that practised by their former government.
So... tell me again, why they didn't protect the rights of Native Americans to bear arms so that they could protect themselves against invading Europeans?
The answer, in a word? 'Amen', brother.
Hamish
p.s. Can anyone in America explain to me in what way people are more empowered against a government gone wrong (such as one which violates the constitution) by the right to bear arms?
(disclaimer: This is a genuine question, I don't want this to turn into an you-vs-us discussion. I think that my own country's record with respect to human rights and arms is appalling).
Oops. I usually preview, honestly I do.
I meant, of course: Creating a process by which the most efficient method of converting chemical into electrical energy involves the use of humans, despite the laws of physics: now that was a hack!
Hamish
I must disagree.
Surely a simple lobotomy would have sufficed? In fact it would doubtless have a more elegant solution, since the whole Neo-rebellion thing could have been avoided.
Using humans to process chemical energy into electrical, despite the laws of physics: now that was a hack!
Hamish
Hmm, good argument. I take it you wear a bullet-proof vest?
Hamish
Off the top of my head, I'd say this is rather like the question of firearms, and I'd say that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is even more applicable for software than for guns.
Why? When was the last time you saw a gun with virus-like properties?
As far as I can see liability for breaking the law lies with the person whose intent it was to break it. If the that is the author of some software (eg, a program deliberately designed to spread a virus) then so be it, but if the author produces a tool with multiple functions (eg. BO2K) then he's no more guilty than a man who makes a knife.
"a program deliberately designed to spread a virus" - AKA a virus.
There are of course some tricky cases. For instance a friend of mine once wrote a virus as an exercise and gave it a slightly nasty payload. He never intended to release it, but unfortunately a copy got loose on his hard drive and infected several other machine before it was wiped out. If that had well and truly escaped, and done serious damage, where would the liability lie for that ? or is it a natural hazard ? Possibly there is no criminal liability in that case, but merely civil negligence by failing to contain the virus ?
Why anyone would give a virus a 'slightly nasty payload' without malicious intent I have no idea. It isn't much more a 'natural hazard' than a bullet flying toward a crowd is a 'natural hazard'.
Just my tuppence worth (IEIANAL).
Traditional C comments (of the /* ... */ style) are annoying -- specifically in their multi-line usage -- because of problems with nesting them.
Try using #if 0...#endif to comment out blocks of code. Is there any other reason why you might want to nest comments?
Hamish
Good point. I'd better take those typewriters away from my monkeys.
Hamish
Most users do not care about source code. You guys are so geeked out, you think everyone wants source.
Most people have never come into contact with murder laws. Perhaps we should just get rid of them?
Hamish
It may not have been Stallman's intention to allow FTP/HTTP as the medium for source distribution, but I would defy him to point out where it is prohibited:
...Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange ...
FTP is certainly customarily used for source exchange, and every network has a physical layer.
Furthermore, where is Stallman intending to draw the line? I'll bet there are plenty of PCs around the world without CD-ROM drives. Similarly, if I make my modifications available on DVD-ROM, or 5 1/4-inch floppy, would that be acceptable?
Version 3 of the GPL should be altered so that the source provider must make it available in the format of the recipient's choice. If the latter party asks for something ridiculous (such as 8-inch disks) it would cost them considerably more to obtain it.
Hamish
"I'm very scarred" means that you have many marks where injured tissue has healed.
(alonso: I pointed this out because it tickled me and I wanted to share the humour. I am not being critical, as I have no doubt that you speak my native language better than I speak yours).
gzip is concerned primarily with compression, and France (where I believe Mandrakesoft is based) is one of the few places in which crypto laws are more restrictive than the US.
Hamish
Thank you for the information!
How ironic that the word should stem from a word meaning freedom! I suppose that licen[cs]es outside the context of software are often more like 'permits' than legal agreements designed to restrict one's freedom.
Hamish
Correction: Licence is spelled with two "c"s. As with many words in the language, the inflected forms are spelled with an 's'.
So, your spelling of the word 'licensing' is correct, but not 'license'. The word is spelled 'licence'.
Hamish
I would love to have moderator points right now.
Hamish