"The answer is simple: reduce federal power to the Constitutional maximum."
This is the classic conundrum of "Who guards the guards?"
If the problem so far is that the current members of the federal government are no longer exercising restraint, we can't trust them to take a step back. They can't do their own reducing. Thus, we need another organization to reign in the powers of the federal government. OK, now what keeps that group in check? Well, we need another group to watch that group...
"Once again, the post-office will become the king of high latency high bandwidth. Hollywood should quake in their boots over this, not on-line file sharing."
This kind of networking has probably been going on unabated during the whole P2P revolution. However, I don't think anyone who was getting songs off of napster will now start hooking up with people to trade data over the post office. For one, you are now entering a realm of federal bad mojo. The post office has a long history of traking down and punishing any kind of shady dealings happening in the post office. Compare this with the untraceable wild west of anonymous internet P2P networks, with no legal precedent.
" If these things are inexpensive enough ond can imagine peer-to-peer postal networks popping up. Say you record half of something on on DVD, and you send it to someone. They send you back half of something, and then you send the other half and so-on. tit for tat."
That involves a lot of busy work that the computer used to be doing for you while you slept. I'm sorry, I can't see anyone taking that up except for compulsive nerds trying to complete their collection.
What kind of computer device would you classify this as -- a PDA or a tablet computer? What do you use it for, and what *can* you use it for? Would it be a suitable device to replace the ever-trustworthy and reliable pen and paper for a compulsive writer? How about the coffee house sketchbook for the art student?
Any self-respecting paranoid knows you don't use aluminum precisely *because* it amplifies certain frequencies. That's why you use tin foil for your hats.
OK, this machinima festival is at the Museum of the Moving Image over in Astoria, eh? Well, guess what? There *is* no MotMI in Astoria, Ohio! This story is a total fraud!
Can there be true things or real events that we have no way of knowing whether or not they are real? If you answer "no," I think the logical extension of your reasoning is that intelligence is infinite -- everything real, or all of reality, is knowable, that is, accessible to the intellect. You know, I don't know what that means.
I don't know where you are getting this God fixation from. In all of my grandparent posts and arguments, I've never brought up God. In fact, I stated that an honest and open-minded inquiry into intelligence would be a different project than the fundamentalists who a proposes teaching ID in school. All I'm saying is some intelligence. I'm not saying omniscient, or omnipotent, or anything like that.
"Non sequitor. As a quick counter-argument, an intelligent designer could be eternal
In that case, the Intelligent Designer himself would be God."
Why does that follow? Are you claiming that God is the only thing that can be eternal? Why couldn't some other force in the universe be eternal?
"The important point is whether the beginning was due to an intelligent designer (ie, God), or not. If not, I would call it a "natural" start of the Universe, though even if you want to say it's supernatural, that doesn't make it the same as a God."
It seems you are stating here that any intelligent designer is the same as a God. Well, it doesn't have to be. The definition of a God from various religions carries a lot of extra baggage that we can't assume here -- things like God being just, God loving the universe or people, God caring a lot about people. An intelligence being or system that happened to have created the universe as we know it need not have any anthropomorphic characteristics, other than the intelligence.
Here's a question. Would you say that human beings are a natural phenomena? Since we have intelligence, intelligence is therefore a natural phenomenon. So, why wouldn't intelligence at the beginning of the universe be a natural phenomenon? Are you saying that the universe has to go from simple to complex, or that intelligence *must* arise out of non-intelligent systems?
"When you ask where intelligent designers come from you are inexorably led to supernatural creators."
Non sequitor. As a quick counter-argument, an intelligent designer could be eternal (and certainly need not be anthropomorphic, aside from the 'mind' or 'intelligence' aspect), which would negate the need for and endless hall of creators.
In any case, all 'creation' is supernatural, including the Big Bang. Questions like 'what came before the Big Bang' cannot have any answers based on naturalism, because the Big Bang was the beginning of nature itself.
"If ID wanted to operate like SETI it would have to start with some hypothesis about how God would behave and then look for evidence of it. But that's futile, since God is supposed to have unlimited powers and an unknowable will. Anything you see at all is compatible with such a hypothesis."
You are going a little too far here. The phrase "Intelligent Design" does not have the word "God" in there at all. Also, people disagree about the properties of God -- it could be a limited God like Zeus or Thor.
All I'm suggesting is that should be a criteria or definition of intelligence (otherwise how could we know that we are intelligent, or any other animal is intelligent, or a signal is from an intelligent civilization), and we could apply that theory to the origins of the universe. Tests we could perform from those criteria could prove or disprove intelligent influence or causation in the origin of the universe, which would make this undertaking scientific. We could come up with either:
"Based on our understanding of intelligence, there is absolutely no evidence of phenomena arising out of intelligence before life arose on Earth." OR "In the early stages of the universe, there seem to be indications of phenomena of what we would call intelligence."
"Alhtough, I'd also like to find out how they plan on asking since no one speaks sandscrit/cuneiform anymore (or whatever language was used back then). We may be able to read it, but I don't think anyone actually speaks it."
Submit your *written* questions on a clay tablet or animal skin.
Well, I'm not particularly attached to the argument either, but all I want to say is that there is no logical reason why there cannot be an intelligent creator -- even something like a creative 'force' that is somehow intelligent also. It doesn't have to be a being, or an old white guy on a cloud.
Another logical alternative is that an intelligent force, one that generated or originated the universe as we know it, is eternal. About a century ago a fair number of astronomers assumed that the universe was infinite -- no beginning, no end, either in time or space, just going on and on forever. The argument 'But where did the originator come from' is not *necessarily* a valid critique because we have no reason to assume that there can be no infinite phenomena.
Well, my point is that it is possible that there is an intelligent designer that we could scientifically detect. Just humor me and follow me down this thought experiment:
Imagine we had a definition for intelligence based on radio signal analysis, and we had detected several alien civiliations and confirmed this by later contacting them. Then, we apply the 'intelligence test' to the background radiation of the Big Bang, and guess what? The Big Bang has all the hallmarks of a signal from an intelligent source. That would leave us will several alternatives:
Our criteria for detecting intelligence is flawed.
There are some phenomena which look like they are intelligently generated but they actually are not (I.E. Pulsars were originally called 'LGM' stars, because researchers suspected that the regular pulses were actually signals from Little Green Men).
The Big Bang was generated from an intelligent source, or perhaps the universe itself is somehow that intelligence
Now, if that last option would turn out to be the case, I don't think we could investigate this intelligene that originated or generated the universe scientifically. But we could know *scientifically* whether or not this was the case.
If it is actually true that there are intelligent designers all the way down (and why not? A lot of astronomers at the turn of the 20th century held that the universe was infinite, which is another way of saying 'goes all the way down'), I would like to find out.
I know there are a lot of religious fundamentalists that are pushing ID just to get their religion in schools, but...
In the abstract, looking for an intelligent creator is no different than SETI. Whether we are looking for signs of intelligence in radio waves coming from other stars/planets, or signs of intelligence in, say, the background radiation from the Big Bang, there is nothing theoretically wrong or unscientific with that line of inquiry.
Let me re-iterate that this would be a different project than what they fundamentalists are trying to do with ID. Also note that the argument against open-minded search for intelligence 'elsewhere' would somehow legitimate the fundamentalists' project is itself an anti-knowledge argument.
But, keep in mind that no branch of science or study has an operational definition of intelligence or design -- tasks that seem relatively simple, such as face recognition, or navigating a forest path, are incredibly difficult for AI and robotics. We have no definition of intelligence, much less self-awareness or any other 'human' traits. A serious study into the question of intelligence would be an interesting line of inquiry.
"This logo will look cheap and dated 5 years from now, I guarantee it. I would prefer a more "timeless" logo, closer to monochromatic, two-dimensional. Something that could be sketched with a pen, yet be completely unique and recognizable."
Personally, I like the 3-dimensional shiny brushed metal icons. Computer graphics have an easy time drawing these types of images; they are very simple as far as their composition and they scale easily (they are actually simple 2-D images). Computer images have an easy time doing shiny, artificial-looking objects -- you'll notice this if you watch any CG attempts at natural images, such as Toy Story or Final Fantasy. I say forget trying to emulate other mediums on the computer. See how far you can go using something native to the computer.
You are right. However, I just wish that there was common acknowledgement that 'standard' was just a dialect, and that people who don't speak it aren't stupid; they just grew up somewhere else. Oftentimes proponents talk about the corruption of language, and how speaking this one dialect will be the savior of the language, clear communication, and society in general. Get of your high horse. Language isn't dying, we just need a standard that all groups learn.
You are right. However, I just wish that there was common acknowledgement that 'standard' was just a dialect, and that people who don't speak it aren't stupid; they just grew up somewhere else. Oftentimes proponents talk about the corruption of language, and how speaking this one dialect will be the savior of the language, clear communication, and society in general. Get of your high horse. Language isn't dying, we just need a standard that all groups learn.
That's your problem right there. There are no rules of formal grammar. We don't have and English Language Authority like the French do. what is called 'standard' or 'formal' or 'proper' grammar is simply dialects of the educated class in large cities, such as London, Melbourne, New York and Chicago. It's the same 'street talk' that your kids are making up as they go along, expect it happens in the halls of academia, and the editing rooms of newspapers.
At best it's simply one educated ethnic group claiming that their dialect isn't really a dialect at all, but the best, most pure form of English. At worst, it's used to make fun of people who speak other dialects, such as Appalacians, Manhattenites, American blacks, Southerners, etc. by claiming someone who doesn't speak your dialect is stupid.
I would suggest you check out the Stephen Pinker's seminal _The Language Instinct_. In it, he describes how all slang follows incredibly complex grammatical rules. Here's a gem: How do you know that 'Abso-fucking-lutely' is correct, whereas 'Ab-fucking-solutely' isn't? In fact, slang is just a derogatory term for the language of other generations and ethnic groups.
Actually no. I was wondering whether WOW has a rank of 'commander'. Blizzard's TOS states that you can't have titles in your player's name, but CmdrTaco says Blizzard allows titles that aren't used as such in the game. For instance, players have "mr" in their names, but mister is not an in-game title. So, they seem to allow titles in names so long as they aren't official in-game titles.
So, if "Commander" is an actual title in WOW, I might agree with Blizzard's objection, but certainly not its execution.
Obviously 'Cmdr' is not a title, but is 'Commander' a title? I could come down on the side of blizzard on this one.
Also, it sounds like MMORPGs will need a system of goverment that is more responsive to the people, as opposed to the absolute dictatorship that has traditionally governed online worlds. People who live in democracies aren't going to want to inhabit a dystopia with an arbitrary government when they go online.
Slashdot Mirror
"The answer is simple: reduce federal power to the Constitutional maximum."
This is the classic conundrum of "Who guards the guards?"
If the problem so far is that the current members of the federal government are no longer exercising restraint, we can't trust them to take a step back. They can't do their own reducing. Thus, we need another organization to reign in the powers of the federal government. OK, now what keeps that group in check? Well, we need another group to watch that group...
"Once again, the post-office will become the king of high latency high bandwidth. Hollywood should quake in their boots over this, not on-line file sharing."
This kind of networking has probably been going on unabated during the whole P2P revolution. However, I don't think anyone who was getting songs off of napster will now start hooking up with people to trade data over the post office. For one, you are now entering a realm of federal bad mojo. The post office has a long history of traking down and punishing any kind of shady dealings happening in the post office. Compare this with the untraceable wild west of anonymous internet P2P networks, with no legal precedent.
" If these things are inexpensive enough ond can imagine peer-to-peer postal networks popping up. Say you record half of something on on DVD, and you send it to someone. They send you back half of something, and then you send the other half and so-on. tit for tat."
That involves a lot of busy work that the computer used to be doing for you while you slept. I'm sorry, I can't see anyone taking that up except for compulsive nerds trying to complete their collection.
Bludgeoned to death by my own grandson?! Argh, the irony! Can nothing stop this cruel cycle of violence?
"...one of the best sentences in all of English literature: '4 legs good, 2 legs bad'"
How about "All animals are equal, some are more equal than others?"
I'm getting from you that it mostly a browser PDA. But do you think it would run other types of applications, not just AJAX in the browser?
What kind of computer device would you classify this as -- a PDA or a tablet computer? What do you use it for, and what *can* you use it for? Would it be a suitable device to replace the ever-trustworthy and reliable pen and paper for a compulsive writer? How about the coffee house sketchbook for the art student?
Any self-respecting paranoid knows you don't use aluminum precisely *because* it amplifies certain frequencies. That's why you use tin foil for your hats.
OK, this machinima festival is at the Museum of the Moving Image over in Astoria, eh? Well, guess what? There *is* no MotMI in Astoria, Ohio! This story is a total fraud!
Seriously, can we get a little context?
A: You wouldn't know.
Can there be true things or real events that we have no way of knowing whether or not they are real? If you answer "no," I think the logical extension of your reasoning is that intelligence is infinite -- everything real, or all of reality, is knowable, that is, accessible to the intellect. You know, I don't know what that means.
I don't know where you are getting this God fixation from. In all of my grandparent posts and arguments, I've never brought up God. In fact, I stated that an honest and open-minded inquiry into intelligence would be a different project than the fundamentalists who a proposes teaching ID in school. All I'm saying is some intelligence. I'm not saying omniscient, or omnipotent, or anything like that.
"Non sequitor. As a quick counter-argument, an intelligent designer could be eternal
In that case, the Intelligent Designer himself would be God."
Why does that follow? Are you claiming that God is the only thing that can be eternal? Why couldn't some other force in the universe be eternal?
"The important point is whether the beginning was due to an intelligent designer (ie, God), or not. If not, I would call it a "natural" start of the Universe, though even if you want to say it's supernatural, that doesn't make it the same as a God."
It seems you are stating here that any intelligent designer is the same as a God. Well, it doesn't have to be. The definition of a God from various religions carries a lot of extra baggage that we can't assume here -- things like God being just, God loving the universe or people, God caring a lot about people. An intelligence being or system that happened to have created the universe as we know it need not have any anthropomorphic characteristics, other than the intelligence.
Here's a question. Would you say that human beings are a natural phenomena? Since we have intelligence, intelligence is therefore a natural phenomenon. So, why wouldn't intelligence at the beginning of the universe be a natural phenomenon? Are you saying that the universe has to go from simple to complex, or that intelligence *must* arise out of non-intelligent systems?
"When you ask where intelligent designers come from you are inexorably led to supernatural creators."
Non sequitor. As a quick counter-argument, an intelligent designer could be eternal (and certainly need not be anthropomorphic, aside from the 'mind' or 'intelligence' aspect), which would negate the need for and endless hall of creators.
In any case, all 'creation' is supernatural, including the Big Bang. Questions like 'what came before the Big Bang' cannot have any answers based on naturalism, because the Big Bang was the beginning of nature itself.
"If ID wanted to operate like SETI it would have to start with some hypothesis about how God would behave and then look for evidence of it. But that's futile, since God is supposed to have unlimited powers and an unknowable will. Anything you see at all is compatible with such a hypothesis."
You are going a little too far here. The phrase "Intelligent Design" does not have the word "God" in there at all. Also, people disagree about the properties of God -- it could be a limited God like Zeus or Thor.
All I'm suggesting is that should be a criteria or definition of intelligence (otherwise how could we know that we are intelligent, or any other animal is intelligent, or a signal is from an intelligent civilization), and we could apply that theory to the origins of the universe. Tests we could perform from those criteria could prove or disprove intelligent influence or causation in the origin of the universe, which would make this undertaking scientific. We could come up with either:
"Based on our understanding of intelligence, there is absolutely no evidence of phenomena arising out of intelligence before life arose on Earth."
OR
"In the early stages of the universe, there seem to be indications of phenomena of what we would call intelligence."
"Alhtough, I'd also like to find out how they plan on asking since no one speaks sandscrit/cuneiform anymore (or whatever language was used back then). We may be able to read it, but I don't think anyone actually speaks it."
Submit your *written* questions on a clay tablet or animal skin.
Well, I'm not particularly attached to the argument either, but all I want to say is that there is no logical reason why there cannot be an intelligent creator -- even something like a creative 'force' that is somehow intelligent also. It doesn't have to be a being, or an old white guy on a cloud.
Another logical alternative is that an intelligent force, one that generated or originated the universe as we know it, is eternal. About a century ago a fair number of astronomers assumed that the universe was infinite -- no beginning, no end, either in time or space, just going on and on forever. The argument 'But where did the originator come from' is not *necessarily* a valid critique because we have no reason to assume that there can be no infinite phenomena.
Imagine we had a definition for intelligence based on radio signal analysis, and we had detected several alien civiliations and confirmed this by later contacting them. Then, we apply the 'intelligence test' to the background radiation of the Big Bang, and guess what? The Big Bang has all the hallmarks of a signal from an intelligent source. That would leave us will several alternatives:
- Our criteria for detecting intelligence is flawed.
- There are some phenomena which look like they are intelligently generated but they actually are not (I.E. Pulsars were originally called 'LGM' stars, because researchers suspected that the regular pulses were actually signals from Little Green Men).
- The Big Bang was generated from an intelligent source, or perhaps the universe itself is somehow that intelligence
Now, if that last option would turn out to be the case, I don't think we could investigate this intelligene that originated or generated the universe scientifically. But we could know *scientifically* whether or not this was the case.If it is actually true that there are intelligent designers all the way down (and why not? A lot of astronomers at the turn of the 20th century held that the universe was infinite, which is another way of saying 'goes all the way down'), I would like to find out.
I know there are a lot of religious fundamentalists that are pushing ID just to get their religion in schools, but...
In the abstract, looking for an intelligent creator is no different than SETI. Whether we are looking for signs of intelligence in radio waves coming from other stars/planets, or signs of intelligence in, say, the background radiation from the Big Bang, there is nothing theoretically wrong or unscientific with that line of inquiry.
Let me re-iterate that this would be a different project than what they fundamentalists are trying to do with ID. Also note that the argument against open-minded search for intelligence 'elsewhere' would somehow legitimate the fundamentalists' project is itself an anti-knowledge argument.
But, keep in mind that no branch of science or study has an operational definition of intelligence or design -- tasks that seem relatively simple, such as face recognition, or navigating a forest path, are incredibly difficult for AI and robotics. We have no definition of intelligence, much less self-awareness or any other 'human' traits. A serious study into the question of intelligence would be an interesting line of inquiry.
You are writing the above as a pubic hair wig?
"This logo will look cheap and dated 5 years from now, I guarantee it. I would prefer a more "timeless" logo, closer to monochromatic, two-dimensional. Something that could be sketched with a pen, yet be completely unique and recognizable."
You mean you want logos like this?
Personally, I like the 3-dimensional shiny brushed metal icons. Computer graphics have an easy time drawing these types of images; they are very simple as far as their composition and they scale easily (they are actually simple 2-D images). Computer images have an easy time doing shiny, artificial-looking objects -- you'll notice this if you watch any CG attempts at natural images, such as Toy Story or Final Fantasy. I say forget trying to emulate other mediums on the computer. See how far you can go using something native to the computer.
"1 Tb of data is approximately 125 GB."
Uh, a terabyte is either 1,000 or 1,024 GB.
I miss-posted this to my original comment.
You are right. However, I just wish that there was common acknowledgement that 'standard' was just a dialect, and that people who don't speak it aren't stupid; they just grew up somewhere else. Oftentimes proponents talk about the corruption of language, and how speaking this one dialect will be the savior of the language, clear communication, and society in general. Get of your high horse. Language isn't dying, we just need a standard that all groups learn.
You are right. However, I just wish that there was common acknowledgement that 'standard' was just a dialect, and that people who don't speak it aren't stupid; they just grew up somewhere else. Oftentimes proponents talk about the corruption of language, and how speaking this one dialect will be the savior of the language, clear communication, and society in general. Get of your high horse. Language isn't dying, we just need a standard that all groups learn.
"...rules of formal grammar..."
That's your problem right there. There are no rules of formal grammar. We don't have and English Language Authority like the French do. what is called 'standard' or 'formal' or 'proper' grammar is simply dialects of the educated class in large cities, such as London, Melbourne, New York and Chicago. It's the same 'street talk' that your kids are making up as they go along, expect it happens in the halls of academia, and the editing rooms of newspapers.
At best it's simply one educated ethnic group claiming that their dialect isn't really a dialect at all, but the best, most pure form of English. At worst, it's used to make fun of people who speak other dialects, such as Appalacians, Manhattenites, American blacks, Southerners, etc. by claiming someone who doesn't speak your dialect is stupid.
I would suggest you check out the Stephen Pinker's seminal _The Language Instinct_. In it, he describes how all slang follows incredibly complex grammatical rules. Here's a gem: How do you know that 'Abso-fucking-lutely' is correct, whereas 'Ab-fucking-solutely' isn't? In fact, slang is just a derogatory term for the language of other generations and ethnic groups.
"I believe the above answers your question."
Actually no. I was wondering whether WOW has a rank of 'commander'. Blizzard's TOS states that you can't have titles in your player's name, but CmdrTaco says Blizzard allows titles that aren't used as such in the game. For instance, players have "mr" in their names, but mister is not an in-game title. So, they seem to allow titles in names so long as they aren't official in-game titles.
So, if "Commander" is an actual title in WOW, I might agree with Blizzard's objection, but certainly not its execution.
Obviously 'Cmdr' is not a title, but is 'Commander' a title? I could come down on the side of blizzard on this one.
Also, it sounds like MMORPGs will need a system of goverment that is more responsive to the people, as opposed to the absolute dictatorship that has traditionally governed online worlds. People who live in democracies aren't going to want to inhabit a dystopia with an arbitrary government when they go online.