I was actually mostly objecting to his notion that:
"Just because one tiny part of one division supports Linux... "
This is incorrect.
"OSS is a new and very tiny part of IBM's busines"
Also incorrect (more like corporate "core strategy", but whatever)
So, I disagree with the basis for the conclusions (facts all wrong), and also disagree with the conclusions (personal opinion, but I differ). That's all.:)
PS
IBM has commited that all of its hardware will run Linux. The customer can still choose MS, but at least they have the choice of using nothing but Linux when they buy IBM hardware (and, I'm sure even more profitable than hardware for IBM, services)
From the lips of (then) CEO Lou Gerstner: either IBM supports Linux as a whole or IBM does not. The decision was made, and IBM (the _whole_ company) officially supports Linux.
This does not mean they won't sell MS stuff, if that's what the customer wants, but Linux _is_ officially supported by IBM at the corporate level.
I think a more likely explanation was posted several comments above (it's more likely that this group, of which IBM happens to be a member, decided to go into this direction. It doesn't necessarily imply anything about IBM's stand on Linux).
I'd like to ammend this, this is offensive to me and I don't have any religious affiliation.
Blanket statements like that are fundamentally unfair and necessarily BS.
It's really no different from any other generalizations (including racists remarks).
Seriously, you don't need a convoluted theory to explain the stupid, morally corrupt actions of a CEO (we've hand plenty, and I'm sure that a representative share of these scum-bag CEOs has come from all groups of people).
I think in reality IBM is more tied to New York because of its research facilities there (I think there's 3 big ones, one in San Jose, CA, another in mainland China, and one in NY).
Basically, IBM could chance the official place it is headquartered much more easily than they could up and move their research facility there ( hell, isn't changing your headquarters what corporations do to avoid taxes? ).
I'm not so sure that in general (and specifically with IBM, since it really is a multinational by any definition) being incorporated someplace means much.
Well, but because of the very nature of GPL, if there a compelling enough reason to change things, you change them. Also, no one can stop you from doing so, since the software you're emulating / have to talk to is also GPL.
I'm not sure I see a "monopoly", (when I think about it, it seems more like a "democracy" in software use; a proprietary lock down of your data and programs where you can't help or even know what the software does and how it does it, is more like a "dictatorship").
It is often said, at least (and this does seem to be the case), that in OSS, all else is equal (being GPL software) and we end up with a true meritocracy; may the best software win -- as voted by number of users / developers.
I guess that's the "democratic" nature of the GPL as I see it....:)
In my mind the difference is that although out of convenience / necessity we end up with a single source tree, it is constantly changing, and by the very nature of using the software, we all vote as to how this source tree we're agreeing to looks like (maybe like in the real world, the constitution in guaranteeing freedom limits certain actions -- my stopping you from speaking you mind, for example -- but the important thing is that we -- ideally -- agree on the rules that govern us by voting).
Isn't $1B the amount IBM claims to have invested in Linux? (the cost, I guess that it took to get Linux on par with SCO -- from SCO's point of view anyways).
Just looked it up, it was covered here on/. 1 Billion dollars -- it'd still seem sorta amateurish if that's what they based their losses on....
I have to agree, and wanted to add that the other reason this makes sense is that the Telcos are in the tentative position that they don't actually provide what we want; they don't produce the content that makes getting online worthwhile/necesary/fun whatever.
I get on the net to chat with people, look at homepages, do banking, look at pictures, read and post on Slashdot etc. etc.
None of these are things that the Telcos actually create or provide; they just help me get there. They are (at the moment) a necessary middle man between my home PC and the outside world. This role has made sense in the past, but now...
I am not an expert in the technical parts of this (though everything you said your post makes sense to me), but I do see this as a necessity that is becoming artificial, and may be made obsolete by the advance of technology (here's hoping anyways).
Maybe the only real problem (as you suggest in your title) will be political, and the sometimes persistent view that once you've made a profit, you're entitled to your business model -- no matter how obsolete.
a) what does this have to do with communism? It has everything to do with a corporation/industry that charges money yet doesn't provide anything of value (well, _do_ they actually provide any value might be another of phrasing the question. Is any of this sinking in yet?)
b) Communism didn't work? I'd love to have a discussion about this (everything most people "know" about communism has nothing to with communism and everything to do with the fact that *all* communist countries were also totalitarian and "basket case" -- that is 3rd world or worse -- economies to begin with). Either way, the merits/problems of communism are a red herring thrown up by someone with nothing else to say, and totally off topic (in this disucussion).
That's the whole point of this submission (your reply could have been summarized: "wow, it's not immediately obvious to me how this might work so I'll spout off and declare it as unreasonable")
You mentioned infratructure. That's the point, dummy. What if we each personally owned all the infrastructure needed? Is the only way to do things is to set things up so that 1 entity that owns (in perpetuity) the basic infrastructure?
It's hard to imagine, I know, but the fact of the matter is that to connect to the internet I not only pay money but I have to provide some of my own hardware (modem, router, firewall, etc. etc.).
What if that's all that's needed in the future? (ie wireless communities? The only other thing we'd need is right for public use of whatever frequencies we need for this). And maybe it doesn't have to be wireless.
Like just about every other post along this vein that I've come across, saying that it isn't practical today doesn't refute the idea. Saying that some investment in infrastruture will/may be needed doesn't refute the idea.
And it is not about getting a free lunch. I payed for the juice, I payed for the hardware, I payed the taxes that were use to lay down/maintain the (maybe needed maybe not) basic infrastructure. And I do this not to talk to the telcos or the goverment, but to other people.
So why is there no way to make this work without a Telco? (that is to say, do you understand the question now?)
I was amazed too at the majority of posts: it seems that the culture of consumerism is so ingrained that people can't even _imagine_ something taking place without gorging some industrialist somewhere ("Civilization as we know it isn't possible without an international conglomerate providing everything" seems to be the thinking).
Depressing, actually.
The "Nerds across America" post on slashdot earlier did get me to wondering if the Telcos are actually needed anymore (I wasn't sure in my mind, but I was wondering about their obsolecence, if they were in the same boat as the RIAA).
I'd mod you up if I had the points.
Productivy apps existed before MS (didn't Lotus _invent_ the spreadsheet?, and high quality word processor existed for DOS and I'm sure before that on Unix).
In fact, it seems that all the cool tech came out of universities and pretty much out of everywhere else except Microsoft (this internet thing, P2P, the web/web browsers, MP3s and music mobility, etc. etc. etc.).
In fact, given MSs history, it amazes me that people still think MS may have some vision for the future of computing; historically they've been pretty clueless about predicting trends or introducing anything new of their own making (the Tech Review actually calls, accurately IMHO, MS "the company reknowned for its inability to innovate")
The home PC revolution is credited to IBM (there were other home computers before, but it took the credibility of an IBM name brand for the average Joe to take it seriously; before then PCs were regarded as geeky hobbist toys to play games on). I'm sure someone will argue that it was the clone makers that drove PC prices into the dirt that made adoption of PCs widespread, and I am sure this is true, but it was IBM who made people feel like they needed one at home to "get work done".
I don't think the world has been "pushed" along because of Microsoft, at least in any area or in any form that I can think of (hey maybe someone can point out what contributions MS _has_ done in the realm of general computing, 'cuz seriously I know of none).
I think it can be more succesfully argued that, on top of everything else, MS has actually hurt (and continues to hurt) innovation -- providing substandard software and killing any competitve enviroment where a software house with a better idea/implementation would be allowed to compete on the merits of the quality of its software.
So, without MS I think we'd likely be doing cooler things, with better and cheaper software.
Ok, maybe this is really splitting hairs, but given how many McDonald's restaurants there are around the world, how can _anyone_ (inlcuding Ronald McDonald himself) say that the 50 Billionth hamburger was sold in New York (or in *any* given location).
Sorry, I'm just curious if this was explained in any way that the statement could have meaning.
I think IBM (and all other corporate supporters) have very selfish reasons to use Linux.
I think it's more important to IBM (and pretty much all other computer companies) to not have to be stuck under MS' thumb. That's the value of Linux -- it's a way out from being ruled/taxed/backstabbed by Microsoft.
I don't think IBM's support (or corporate support in general) of Linux is as tenuous as you suggest. Hell, given how much money IBM makes from Linux (and how quickly other companies are falling over themselves to get on the money making bandwagon), it's a real stretch that IBM might abandon Linux on a whim, or even without a massive fight.
I also don't understand how you think that GPL could be a victim here, except a victim of FUD (and misinformation/deceiving the public is something that MS has traditionally been very good at)
I have to admit that axiom 3 treads into deep water for me, but I can tell you that the point of the excercise is that you don't know Chinese. Once you learn Chinese from the handbook as you suggest, you become a native Chinese speaker, which sort of defeats the thought experiment.
But, as you mention:
[...] but I fail to see how that rules out syntax at a much lower level providing the rules which semantics sit on top of with language sitting on top of that.
This would be, I think, like programming in the biological nature of the brain, and starting from there.
I don't know why it wouldn't be valid to model the biology/physiology of the brain, and start from there. The only thing I can think of, is that we probably don't know how to do this yet: how do you program a computer to understand the color blue the same way we do (for us, it's more than a word, it has innate content that is directly tied to the biology of our eyes, and how our brains interpret it. To machine, would the color blue ever be anything other than a specific frequency of light? It's much more than that to the human mind.) Remembering Block's arguments, I think he argued that it wasn't that we don't know how to do this to a computer yet (like I think), but that it just wasn't possible.
If I remeber the argument correctly (and this came from Block, whom I'm actually more familiar with -- hey he was a prof. at MIT, if you're still in the area he might be offering some classes), the conclusion was that much of our intelligence is closely tied to the bilogical nature of our brains, which can't be replicated with pure syntax (again: axiom 3, the finer details of, I admit, go deeper than I know how to swim right now!).
I will say this though, I'm going to re read some of my notes -- I am curious about what John Searle took as basically obvious (Axiom 3). The papers by Block and Searle do also have other interesting paradoxes, and generally included generous space devoted to counter arguments presented by other philosophers -- some of it very interesting.
I'm at the point where the most I can do is point to what they've written (I have to do more reading/brooding myself!).
I'll post a reply if I can dig up a good explanation that I understand to Axiom 3....
I see what you mean, and I'm not sure how this fits into the humand minds = semantics, and computer programs = syntax.
After I got home I looked up John Searle's paper (title "Is the Brain's Mind a Computer Program?") and found three axioms that he lists:
1) Computer programs are formal (syntactic) 2) Human minds have mental content (semantics) 3) Syntax by itself is neither consitutive nor sufficient for semantics
So you're argument to get around the Chinese Room argument violates axiom 3.
In all honesty, I have not spent enough time thinking about the innate properties of semantics to decide if I agree or disagree with axiom 3, though John Searle actually puts it as:
"At one level this principle is true by definition... The point is that there is a distinction between formal elements, which have no intrinsic content, and those phenomena that have intrinsic content"
Either way, this is a basic premise to all of this. If axiom 3 is false and someone takes the time, then a computer could be "programmed" for semantics, and then could use the same thinking mechanisms we do, which is what you're suggesting.
But, that's if it is possible to create semantics out of syntax. The kicker is that if it isn't (as it seems to the case), then the drastic (in my mind) conclusion is that there is something innately biological about our intelligence, and the problems to be solved by AI are much deeper than "just coming up with the right computer program".
Re:I'm more than a little skeptical of Minksy
on
AI Going Nowhere?
·
· Score: 1
Knowing this was/., I should have been more precise in my workding.
I am not putting forward that we have souls and therefore have an innate intelligence that machines will forever lack.
It is the very current and scientific arguments of Strong AI vs. Weak AI. Strong AI makes the claim that we only need to be very clever in writing a program so that it will be a mind in the same sense that humands have minds. This is the notion that I'm attacking (though it's the sort of thing that appealed to me until I forced to think about it).
So, I'm saying that this is not the case, the Chinese Room illustrates this nicely, and the reason AI is going nowhere is that the way we build machines right now, it is not possible to simply "program in" a mind.
The basic way we build computers will have to chance if we really do want to build human-like intelligence into these machines -- that won't happen until we have *some* inkling as to how our own human/biological intelligence works. That's why I stated that the problems aren't even in the realm of technology yet: it's not a question of "how do we build this" is a question of "we don't know how this stuff even works, so how can we replicate it"
What I can see as a sort of middle ground is that it seems our cutesy, baby steps in AI have at least let us try out theories as to how the "mechanics" of the human mind work, so it's possible that the breakthrough will be simultaneos (we understand the human mind when we stumble across a way of modeling it successfullY).
I'm afraid you completely missed the point I was trying to make in my first post! (or, I completely failed in getting it across. I guess I just *assumed* that no one would think I would be suggesting what you thought I was suggesting -- it is BS and hence my flaimbait status).
Bummer, because I think this is a fascinating topic, and one in which I know I hold an unpopular view (though not completely ignorant, I've thought about this). Oh well.:P
In my undertanding of the arguments of the Chinese Room (and I side with Ned Block more than John(?) Searle), it is that there is a difference between a system that only knows how to manipulate rules and symbols (like say any machine that we can build) and a system that has an innate attachment of meaning to the symbols that are being manipulated.
Put another way, the fact that we might agree that our minds are in fact biological machines does not mean that mechanical machines have minds in the same way our brains do. There is something more that goes on in the humand mind (understanding, an attachment of meaning to the symbols we manipulate when we speak, for instance) that does not take place in a computer program (any computer program), which necessarily only manipulates rules (pre written by intelligent programers) to give the illusion of intelligence.
I guess my point is that there is a difference, and it isn't enough to create a machine that mimics (and it will only mimic, since it lacks meaning to anything it does) some form of intelligent behavior. In my mind, the Chinese Room was a good example of this: it is not enough to have all the necessary outward appearance of knowledge of Chinese for any understanding of the language to take place. That's the key difference between a room that can go successfully through all of the motions of speaking Chinese (even though you and I inside that room have no idea what we're saying) and a Chinese speaker speaking in Chinese (who actually understands the content of the conversation).
Some other people pointed out (and it's covered by Ned Block in his papers) that we might say "wait, it's the whole system that understands Chinese", though I think if you stop to think about it it doesn't buy you anything: at no point does any part of the system attach any meaning to any of the Chinese characters.
PS Moderators: Flaimbait? I'm saying that we've been blindly trying to mimic intelligence when the real question that we haven't solved is: What do we mean by intelligence?... What needs to happen before we can design true AI is some more fundamental understanding of what our own human intelligence is, and how it works.....
I guess I see the fundamental problems with AI as being not (yet) technical in nature, that we're not there yet.
I disagree on your assesment of the Chinese Room, even taken together as a whole system, there is not understanding at any level as to the semantics (the ture meanings of the symbols being manipulated), even if you look at the system as a whole. It is still just a system of rules that is blindly manipulating rules, and it is not the same as a native speaker of Chinese (who does attach meaning, or actually understands the significance of the conversation). This is not the case with the Chinese Room, even taken as a whole, so my point still stands.
Obviously I meant "ape" to mean... you know what I mean. Given that I've stated that I've come to understand what we talk about as intelligence to be innately biological, I attach much more intelligence to an Ape than any machine yet designed.
Re:What about my AIBO?
on
AI Going Nowhere?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You're making the same leap of faith that most people make (and I now think is incorrect): The human (or Dog) mind is a biological computer therefore an IBM with the right software is also a mind in the same sense.
It doesn't work this way, and yes, there is a difference. Having an outward appearance of intelligence is not enough to show intelligence. Read Searle and Block's discussions on the Chinese Room argument -- it's a fascinating and eye opening read (I think it was Block that -- quite convincingly, IMHO -- makes the case that most of our intelligence is innately biological, and "strong AI" not even possible with what we know today).
IMHO one of the problems with AI is that we don't even know what human intelligence is, and until there is a fundamental advance (not technological but in our understanding of our human/biological mind) then it seems to me the most we can hope for are machines that mindlessly ape intelligent behavior, but are not intelligent in any but very superficial ways or by very loose definitions.
Something that mimics the outward appearance of intelligence is a far cry from what, hopefully we'll be capable of in the (probably still distant?) future.
In what way is it unjust? It's an ancient right, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution...
The legality, morality and fairness of issues are separate things. When people say stuff like "it's only immoral until the US Government says so" they're usually joking!:)
Sorry to nitpick your typo, because surely you meant to say:
"In some countries with a form of free market capitalism, like the United States.."
Besides, what is the economic cost of propping up inefficient, outdated and (in the case of the RIAA, actually unnecesary) industries?
The buggy whip analogy is very appropiate -- that hypothetical situation where improvements to society stand in the way of some industry's profits -- and the private industry wins! This is the ridiculous situation we're in now. That's the point of the analogy, and it's germane and accurate.
Yeah, you can either make a permanent config file, a permanent home (even on a dos partition), install the compressed image to hardrive (700MB), or do a full install like you mentioned (I think 1.7 GB).
I have only tried the permanent config and home folder, but I think it even comes with a script to install for you on to the hardrive....
On a related note, Sony DVD players (well, all in one home theater boxes, which I've been looking at for the past two years or so) used to not play CDR/CDRWs/MP3s etc. I assumed it was because Sony was also a Music / Movie distributor/producer / whatnot and didn't want to encourage copying of its own content (I had to return the Sony unit when I realized it wouldn't let me play anything I'd burned myself, even music CDs. I looked, and at the time _all_ the Sony models at Fry's were this way). Two or three weeks ago I saw the Sony units (they're usually really good looking and I covet!), this time promimently advertising the fact that they could play CDR/CDRW/MP3s/etc (too bad, this came too late for me since I like their units).
Maybe hardware is really just more important to Sony than the other divisions?
Slashdot Mirror
I was actually mostly objecting to his notion that:
... "
:)
"Just because one tiny part of one division supports Linux
This is incorrect.
"OSS is a new and very tiny part of IBM's busines"
Also incorrect (more like corporate "core strategy", but whatever)
So, I disagree with the basis for the conclusions (facts all wrong), and also disagree with the conclusions (personal opinion, but I differ). That's all.
PS
IBM has commited that all of its hardware will run Linux. The customer can still choose MS, but at least they have the choice of using nothing but Linux when they buy IBM hardware (and, I'm sure even more profitable than hardware for IBM, services)
Not quite correct.
From the lips of (then) CEO Lou Gerstner: either IBM supports Linux as a whole or IBM does not. The decision was made, and IBM (the _whole_ company) officially supports Linux.
This does not mean they won't sell MS stuff, if that's what the customer wants, but Linux _is_ officially supported by IBM at the corporate level.
I think a more likely explanation was posted several comments above (it's more likely that this group, of which IBM happens to be a member, decided to go into this direction. It doesn't necessarily imply anything about IBM's stand on Linux).
I'd like to ammend this, this is offensive to me and I don't have any religious affiliation.
Blanket statements like that are fundamentally unfair and necessarily BS.
It's really no different from any other generalizations (including racists remarks).
Seriously, you don't need a convoluted theory to explain the stupid, morally corrupt actions of a CEO (we've hand plenty, and I'm sure that a representative share of these scum-bag CEOs has come from all groups of people).
I think in reality IBM is more tied to New York because of its research facilities there (I think there's 3 big ones, one in San Jose, CA, another in mainland China, and one in NY).
Basically, IBM could chance the official place it is headquartered much more easily than they could up and move their research facility there ( hell, isn't changing your headquarters what corporations do to avoid taxes? ).
I'm not so sure that in general (and specifically with IBM, since it really is a multinational by any definition) being incorporated someplace means much.
Well, but because of the very nature of GPL, if there a compelling enough reason to change things, you change them. Also, no one can stop you from doing so, since the software you're emulating / have to talk to is also GPL.
.... :)
I'm not sure I see a "monopoly", (when I think about it, it seems more like a "democracy" in software use; a proprietary lock down of your data and programs where you can't help or even know what the software does and how it does it, is more like a "dictatorship").
It is often said, at least (and this does seem to be the case), that in OSS, all else is equal (being GPL software) and we end up with a true meritocracy; may the best software win -- as voted by number of users / developers.
I guess that's the "democratic" nature of the GPL as I see it
In my mind the difference is that although out of convenience / necessity we end up with a single source tree, it is constantly changing, and by the very nature of using the software, we all vote as to how this source tree we're agreeing to looks like (maybe like in the real world, the constitution in guaranteeing freedom limits certain actions -- my stopping you from speaking you mind, for example -- but the important thing is that we -- ideally -- agree on the rules that govern us by voting).
No?
Isn't $1B the amount IBM claims to have invested in Linux? (the cost, I guess that it took to get Linux on par with SCO -- from SCO's point of view anyways). Just looked it up, it was covered here on /. 1 Billion dollars -- it'd still seem sorta amateurish if that's what they based their losses on ....
I have to agree, and wanted to add that the other reason this makes sense is that the Telcos are in the tentative position that they don't actually provide what we want; they don't produce the content that makes getting online worthwhile/necesary/fun whatever.
...
I get on the net to chat with people, look at homepages, do banking, look at pictures, read and post on Slashdot etc. etc.
None of these are things that the Telcos actually create or provide; they just help me get there. They are (at the moment) a necessary middle man between my home PC and the outside world. This role has made sense in the past, but now
I am not an expert in the technical parts of this (though everything you said your post makes sense to me), but I do see this as a necessity that is becoming artificial, and may be made obsolete by the advance of technology (here's hoping anyways).
Maybe the only real problem (as you suggest in your title) will be political, and the sometimes persistent view that once you've made a profit, you're entitled to your business model -- no matter how obsolete.
a) what does this have to do with communism? It has everything to do with a corporation/industry that charges money yet doesn't provide anything of value (well, _do_ they actually provide any value might be another of phrasing the question. Is any of this sinking in yet?)
b) Communism didn't work? I'd love to have a discussion about this (everything most people "know" about communism has nothing to with communism and everything to do with the fact that *all* communist countries were also totalitarian and "basket case" -- that is 3rd world or worse -- economies to begin with). Either way, the merits/problems of communism are a red herring thrown up by someone with nothing else to say, and totally off topic (in this disucussion).
Try to think before you post:
That's the whole point of this submission (your reply could have been summarized: "wow, it's not immediately obvious to me how this might work so I'll spout off and declare it as unreasonable")
You mentioned infratructure. That's the point, dummy. What if we each personally owned all the infrastructure needed? Is the only way to do things is to set things up so that 1 entity that owns (in perpetuity) the basic infrastructure?
It's hard to imagine, I know, but the fact of the matter is that to connect to the internet I not only pay money but I have to provide some of my own hardware (modem, router, firewall, etc. etc.).
What if that's all that's needed in the future? (ie wireless communities? The only other thing we'd need is right for public use of whatever frequencies we need for this). And maybe it doesn't have to be wireless.
Like just about every other post along this vein that I've come across, saying that it isn't practical today doesn't refute the idea. Saying that some investment in infrastruture will/may be needed doesn't refute the idea.
And it is not about getting a free lunch. I payed for the juice, I payed for the hardware, I payed the taxes that were use to lay down/maintain the (maybe needed maybe not) basic infrastructure. And I do this not to talk to the telcos or the goverment, but to other people.
So why is there no way to make this work without a Telco? (that is to say, do you understand the question now?)
I was amazed too at the majority of posts: it seems that the culture of consumerism is so ingrained that people can't even _imagine_ something taking place without gorging some industrialist somewhere ("Civilization as we know it isn't possible without an international conglomerate providing everything" seems to be the thinking). Depressing, actually. The "Nerds across America" post on slashdot earlier did get me to wondering if the Telcos are actually needed anymore (I wasn't sure in my mind, but I was wondering about their obsolecence, if they were in the same boat as the RIAA). I'd mod you up if I had the points.
Yeah, we did progress beyond a command line but it was due to Apple and not MS.
I have to disagree.
Productivy apps existed before MS (didn't Lotus _invent_ the spreadsheet?, and high quality word processor existed for DOS and I'm sure before that on Unix).
In fact, it seems that all the cool tech came out of universities and pretty much out of everywhere else except Microsoft (this internet thing, P2P, the web/web browsers, MP3s and music mobility, etc. etc. etc.).
In fact, given MSs history, it amazes me that people still think MS may have some vision for the future of computing; historically they've been pretty clueless about predicting trends or introducing anything new of their own making (the Tech Review actually calls, accurately IMHO, MS "the company reknowned for its inability to innovate")
The home PC revolution is credited to IBM (there were other home computers before, but it took the credibility of an IBM name brand for the average Joe to take it seriously; before then PCs were regarded as geeky hobbist toys to play games on). I'm sure someone will argue that it was the clone makers that drove PC prices into the dirt that made adoption of PCs widespread, and I am sure this is true, but it was IBM who made people feel like they needed one at home to "get work done".
I don't think the world has been "pushed" along because of Microsoft, at least in any area or in any form that I can think of (hey maybe someone can point out what contributions MS _has_ done in the realm of general computing, 'cuz seriously I know of none).
I think it can be more succesfully argued that, on top of everything else, MS has actually hurt (and continues to hurt) innovation -- providing substandard software and killing any competitve enviroment where a software house with a better idea/implementation would be allowed to compete on the merits of the quality of its software.
So, without MS I think we'd likely be doing cooler things, with better and cheaper software.
Just my opinion.
Ok, maybe this is really splitting hairs, but given how many McDonald's restaurants there are around the world, how can _anyone_ (inlcuding Ronald McDonald himself) say that the 50 Billionth hamburger was sold in New York (or in *any* given location).
Sorry, I'm just curious if this was explained in any way that the statement could have meaning.
I think IBM (and all other corporate supporters) have very selfish reasons to use Linux.
I think it's more important to IBM (and pretty much all other computer companies) to not have to be stuck under MS' thumb. That's the value of Linux -- it's a way out from being ruled/taxed/backstabbed by Microsoft.
I don't think IBM's support (or corporate support in general) of Linux is as tenuous as you suggest. Hell, given how much money IBM makes from Linux (and how quickly other companies are falling over themselves to get on the money making bandwagon), it's a real stretch that IBM might abandon Linux on a whim, or even without a massive fight.
I also don't understand how you think that GPL could be a victim here, except a victim of FUD (and misinformation/deceiving the public is something that MS has traditionally been very good at)
I have to admit that axiom 3 treads into deep water for me, but I can tell you that the point of the excercise is that you don't know Chinese. Once you learn Chinese from the handbook as you suggest, you become a native Chinese speaker, which sort of defeats the thought experiment.
....
But, as you mention:
[...] but I fail to see how that rules out syntax at a much lower level providing the rules which semantics sit on top of with language sitting on top of that.
This would be, I think, like programming in the biological nature of the brain, and starting from there.
I don't know why it wouldn't be valid to model the biology/physiology of the brain, and start from there. The only thing I can think of, is that we probably don't know how to do this yet: how do you program a computer to understand the color blue the same way we do (for us, it's more than a word, it has innate content that is directly tied to the biology of our eyes, and how our brains interpret it. To machine, would the color blue ever be anything other than a specific frequency of light? It's much more than that to the human mind.) Remembering Block's arguments, I think he argued that it wasn't that we don't know how to do this to a computer yet (like I think), but that it just wasn't possible.
If I remeber the argument correctly (and this came from Block, whom I'm actually more familiar with -- hey he was a prof. at MIT, if you're still in the area he might be offering some classes), the conclusion was that much of our intelligence is closely tied to the bilogical nature of our brains, which can't be replicated with pure syntax (again: axiom 3, the finer details of, I admit, go deeper than I know how to swim right now!).
I will say this though, I'm going to re read some of my notes -- I am curious about what John Searle took as basically obvious (Axiom 3).
The papers by Block and Searle do also have other interesting paradoxes, and generally included generous space devoted to counter arguments presented by other philosophers -- some of it very interesting.
I'm at the point where the most I can do is point to what they've written (I have to do more reading/brooding myself!).
I'll post a reply if I can dig up a good explanation that I understand to Axiom 3
I see what you mean, and I'm not sure how this fits into the humand minds = semantics, and computer programs = syntax.
... The point is that there is a distinction between formal elements, which have no intrinsic content, and those phenomena that have intrinsic content"
After I got home I looked up John Searle's paper (title "Is the Brain's Mind a Computer Program?") and found three axioms that he lists:
1) Computer programs are formal (syntactic)
2) Human minds have mental content (semantics)
3) Syntax by itself is neither consitutive nor sufficient for semantics
So you're argument to get around the Chinese Room argument violates axiom 3.
In all honesty, I have not spent enough time thinking about the innate properties of semantics to decide if I agree or disagree with axiom 3, though John Searle actually puts it as:
"At one level this principle is true by definition
Either way, this is a basic premise to all of this. If axiom 3 is false and someone takes the time, then a computer could be "programmed" for semantics, and then could use the same thinking mechanisms we do, which is what you're suggesting.
But, that's if it is possible to create semantics out of syntax. The kicker is that if it isn't (as it seems to the case), then the drastic (in my mind) conclusion is that there is something innately biological about our intelligence, and the problems to be solved by AI are much deeper than "just coming up with the right computer program".
Knowing this was /., I should have been more precise in my workding.
:P
I am not putting forward that we have souls and therefore have an innate intelligence that machines will forever lack.
It is the very current and scientific arguments of Strong AI vs. Weak AI. Strong AI makes the claim that we only need to be very clever in writing a program so that it will be a mind in the same sense that humands have minds. This is the notion that I'm attacking (though it's the sort of thing that appealed to me until I forced to think about it).
So, I'm saying that this is not the case, the Chinese Room illustrates this nicely, and the reason AI is going nowhere is that the way we build machines right now, it is not possible to simply "program in" a mind.
The basic way we build computers will have to chance if we really do want to build human-like intelligence into these machines -- that won't happen until we have *some* inkling as to how our own human/biological intelligence works. That's why I stated that the problems aren't even in the realm of technology yet: it's not a question of "how do we build this" is a question of "we don't know how this stuff even works, so how can we replicate it"
What I can see as a sort of middle ground is that it seems our cutesy, baby steps in AI have at least let us try out theories as to how the "mechanics" of the human mind work, so it's possible that the breakthrough will be simultaneos (we understand the human mind when we stumble across a way of modeling it successfullY).
I'm afraid you completely missed the point I was trying to make in my first post! (or, I completely failed in getting it across. I guess I just *assumed* that no one would think I would be suggesting what you thought I was suggesting -- it is BS and hence my flaimbait status).
Bummer, because I think this is a fascinating topic, and one in which I know I hold an unpopular view (though not completely ignorant, I've thought about this). Oh well.
In my undertanding of the arguments of the Chinese Room (and I side with Ned Block more than John(?) Searle), it is that there is a difference between a system that only knows how to manipulate rules and symbols (like say any machine that we can build) and a system that has an innate attachment of meaning to the symbols that are being manipulated.
... What needs to happen before we can design true AI is some more fundamental understanding of what our own human intelligence is, and how it works .....
:P
Put another way, the fact that we might agree that our minds are in fact biological machines does not mean that mechanical machines have minds in the same way our brains do. There is something more that goes on in the humand mind (understanding, an attachment of meaning to the symbols we manipulate when we speak, for instance) that does not take place in a computer program (any computer program), which necessarily only manipulates rules (pre written by intelligent programers) to give the illusion of intelligence.
I guess my point is that there is a difference, and it isn't enough to create a machine that mimics (and it will only mimic, since it lacks meaning to anything it does) some form of intelligent behavior. In my mind, the Chinese Room was a good example of this: it is not enough to have all the necessary outward appearance of knowledge of Chinese for any understanding of the language to take place. That's the key difference between a room that can go successfully through all of the motions of speaking Chinese (even though you and I inside that room have no idea what we're saying) and a Chinese speaker speaking in Chinese (who actually understands the content of the conversation).
Some other people pointed out (and it's covered by Ned Block in his papers) that we might say "wait, it's the whole system that understands Chinese", though I think if you stop to think about it it doesn't buy you anything: at no point does any part of the system attach any meaning to any of the Chinese characters.
PS Moderators: Flaimbait? I'm saying that we've been blindly trying to mimic intelligence when the real question that we haven't solved is: What do we mean by intelligence?
oh well
I guess I see the fundamental problems with AI as being not (yet) technical in nature, that we're not there yet.
... you know what I mean. Given that I've stated that I've come to understand what we talk about as intelligence to be innately biological, I attach much more intelligence to an Ape than any machine yet designed.
I disagree on your assesment of the Chinese Room, even taken together as a whole system, there is not understanding at any level as to the semantics (the ture meanings of the symbols being manipulated), even if you look at the system as a whole. It is still just a system of rules that is blindly manipulating rules, and it is not the same as a native speaker of Chinese (who does attach meaning, or actually understands the significance of the conversation). This is not the case with the Chinese Room, even taken as a whole, so my point still stands.
Obviously I meant "ape" to mean
You're making the same leap of faith that most people make (and I now think is incorrect): The human (or Dog) mind is a biological computer therefore an IBM with the right software is also a mind in the same sense.
It doesn't work this way, and yes, there is a difference. Having an outward appearance of intelligence is not enough to show intelligence. Read Searle and Block's discussions on the Chinese Room argument -- it's a fascinating and eye opening read (I think it was Block that -- quite convincingly, IMHO -- makes the case that most of our intelligence is innately biological, and "strong AI" not even possible with what we know today).
IMHO one of the problems with AI is that we don't even know what human intelligence is, and until there is a fundamental advance (not technological but in our understanding of our human/biological mind) then it seems to me the most we can hope for are machines that mindlessly ape intelligent behavior, but are not intelligent in any but very superficial ways or by very loose definitions.
Something that mimics the outward appearance of intelligence is a far cry from what, hopefully we'll be capable of in the (probably still distant?) future.
Is your business selling an OS or something else that happens to need an OS? I think that's all it boils down to.
It might not make sense for Microsoft, but I'd wager it makes sense for most other computer companies.
In what way is it unjust? It's an ancient right, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution ...
:)
The legality, morality and fairness of issues are separate things. When people say stuff like "it's only immoral until the US Government says so" they're usually joking!
"In some idealistic Libertarian fantasy land
Sorry to nitpick your typo, because surely you meant to say:
"In some countries with a form of free market capitalism, like the United States
Besides, what is the economic cost of propping up inefficient, outdated and (in the case of the RIAA, actually unnecesary) industries?
The buggy whip analogy is very appropiate -- that hypothetical situation where improvements to society stand in the way of some industry's profits -- and the private industry wins! This is the ridiculous situation we're in now. That's the point of the analogy, and it's germane and accurate.
Yeah, you can either make a permanent config file, a permanent home (even on a dos partition), install the compressed image to hardrive (700MB), or do a full install like you mentioned (I think 1.7 GB).
....
I have only tried the permanent config and home folder, but I think it even comes with a script to install for you on to the hardrive
too cool!
On a related note, Sony DVD players (well, all in one home theater boxes, which I've been looking at for the past two years or so) used to not play CDR/CDRWs/MP3s etc. I assumed it was because Sony was also a Music / Movie distributor /producer / whatnot and didn't want to encourage copying of its own content (I had to return the Sony unit when I realized it wouldn't let me play anything I'd burned myself, even music CDs. I looked, and at the time _all_ the Sony models at Fry's were this way). Two or three weeks ago I saw the Sony units (they're usually really good looking and I covet!), this time promimently advertising the fact that they could play CDR/CDRW/MP3s/etc (too bad, this came too late for me since I like their units).
Maybe hardware is really just more important to Sony than the other divisions?