What is love without the need, and willingness to sacrifice?
If you're questioning the ability of a person to be willing to sacrifice for an inanimate object, consider the people that line up for the latest game console.
If you're questioning the ability of a robot to adequately simulate willingness to sacrifice, I think you lack imagination—the required technical ability might take longer than the article predicts, but the robot doesn't have to actualy be willing to sacrifice for its companion, it merely has to seem willing to sacrifice with enough accuracy of simulation to convince the companion. That seems fairly easy to me, in comparison.
What is love without emotional exposure?
This sounds like a vague question to me. What do you mean by "emotional exposure"? Are you talking about the kinds of things people feel and do when they share intimate thoughts and feelings? If so, I think it's easy to imagine a human being speaking to his (or her) robot companion about his (or her) innermost thoughts. I concede that a good robotic simulation of intimate discussion is up there with strong AI, but perhaps we don't need a good simulation if the human being in the equation is more interested in a listener than a talker.
What is love without the risk of loss?
Again, I think it's easy to imagine a human worried about losing his robotic companion, and it seems within the realm of possibility for a robot to convincingly simulate this reciprocally.
I haven't RTFA, so perhaps your response is to something I'm missing, but I don't think the summary is confusing the desire to "fuck animatronics" with "real" love. The two are orthogonal concepts and I don't see any obvious reason why someone couldn't love a robot. After all, how do you (or would you) know that your significant other loves you? It is only through his or her outward behaviour that you can surmise his or her internal state of mind. The same behaviour without the underlying love would be as convincing, right up until you find out that your spouse is a Russian spy, or something. There's no need for a robot to really feel in love—it merely has to act in love. Also, I may be a cynic in this regard, but I think "love" is nothing more than a chemical incentive to find a mate and propagate your genes. I don't think that diminishes love—it certainly doesn't diminish the endorphin rush of being with/thinking about/doing stuff for my wife—but it certainly broadens my perspective on why or with whom (or what) we may fall in love.
I can't think of anything that would be a more effective protest.
Then either you're not very imaginative or we're all screwed, 'cause that would be completely ineffective—especially if it was announced to be a one-day protest in advance! The vast majority of the IE-using crowd is going to blame the web developer, not the web browser. Many IE-users think that the little blue "e" is the internet—not a browser, but the internet itself. If, for a day, "the internet" doesn't work, and then it works the next day, what difference is that going to make?
I'd hope the class is more about how to use software than it is about how to use this software and, as such, I'd use whichever software you're more comfortable with. If you already have notes and lessons planned around the existing, old software, use that. If you have to make new notes anyway, why not introduce your class to the world of Open Source?
I think I generally agree with you--TFA (which I haven't read) seems to be spouting nonsense--but I disagree with one of your points:
Anyway, assuming that ridiculous assumption is correct, the author then makes another ridiculous assumption, that if you always say yes to dialog boxes, that means your computer is infected with all kinds of malware.
I don't understand why you think it's a ridiculous assumption that a hypothetical user who clicks yes on every dialogue box would be infected with all kinds of malware. I think I've trained myself to avoid malware pretty well, so I can't think of any good examples off the top of my head, but things like "Do you want to download our software to improve your browsing experience 1000%? Yes/No" seem like the kinds of questions that, supposing you answer Yes, get Alexa and Bonzai Buddy installed on your system.
You sound like a troll since you're so belligerent, but, in case anyone else here is legitimately wondering what it means for a Turing machine to be universal, I'll try to answer.
Basically, a Turing Machine is an abstract "computer"--it's a tape (a skinny piece of paper) that has a start but no end (it's infinitely long, but it has a start), and a read/write head that can zip up and down the tape writing, reading, and erasing symbols on the tape. The Church-Turing Thesis postulates that a computable algorithm is any algorithm that can be computed in a finite number of steps by a Turing Machine. There are some things that look like algorithms and seem like they should be computable but are in fact impossible. The classic example is the Halting Problem.
Anyway, a regular Turing Machine only computes one function--it's a single-purpose machine. A Universal Turing Machine is a Turing Machine that can simulate any other Turing Machine by interpreting a codified description of the other machine. Since every computable function is isomorphic to some Turing Machine and every Turing Machine can be simulated by a Universal Turing Machine, every computable function can be computed by a Universal Turing Machine. The computer you're using to read this is an approximation to a Universal Turing Machine (the RAM would have to be infinite in size to be a proper Turing Machine), and the codified descriptions that it interprets are the binary executables that you run on it.
Did we learn something? As far as I can tell we're back where we started.
Well, to paraphrase someone famous (perhaps Edison?), we've learned another way that doesn't work. It sounds like the author of the proof has used a faulty syllogism. Perhaps the syllogism can be patched up such that the rest of the proof plus the patched syllogism equals a correct proof.
OK, I'm obviously completely ignorant, but it would seem that my main point--that boycotting Lenovo will do nothing--is only strengthened by the fact that the military has been in power for the last 45 years and will evidently remain in power for the foreseeable future.
I admit to speaking from ignorance regarding the expected length of the political turmoil in, I guess it's Myanmar, not Burma?, but I meant the immediate problem of monks getting shot, rather than the overarching problem of Myanmar finding a government that its people are happy with. I doubt the current Malevolent Dictator For Life can go about shooting monks for 7+ years without some kind of retaliation from the rest of the world. (Hmm... there I go switching from cynicism to blinding optimism!)
This is cynical of me, but your private little boycott is not going to do the monks any good. If you buy a new Thinkpad now, it'll outlast the problem in Burma. Just buy another one. Lenovo has always produced Thinkpads, it's just that IBM doesn't support them directly anymore. Thinkpads are still the most reliable laptops in the market.
Ian
Re:The more I learn about JavaScript...
on
GWT in Action
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The more I learn about JavaScript, the more I like it as a language.
I'm not really sure I see the point of GWT, given that JavaScript is actually a more powerful language at this point.
I agree with you that Javascript is a nicer language than Java and more powerful to boot, but I'm using GWT for one big reason: dead code elimination. The GWT compiler takes advantage of the static analysis possibilities in Java and the closed-world nature of a web page and produces dramatically optimized Javascript. The resulting code is obfuscated, which reduces download time, and has all the dead code eliminated, which reduces download time. Also, for broken interpreters, like the one in IE, a smaller script executes faster, on top of downloading more quickly.
I guess what I'm saying is that GWT brings a compiler to Javascript and that has many benefits. For the GWT compiler, Java is to Javascript as C is to assembler in a C compiler. Generally speaking a C compiler produces better machine code than someone writing assembler by hand. The same is true for the GWT compiler--its output runs faster than a comparable programme hand-written in Javascript.
My 9 year old girl is great at math, without this.
While I feel some sympathy for your general point, this anecdote about your daughter is completely irrelevant. If you RTFA, you'll see that it's not until middle school that girls start to express that "math is hard". The problem is a social one. Girls aren't supposed to be good at math. Girls that are good at math are nerdy and geeky, rather that popular or sexy. I'm a guy, so I won't pretend to understand the social constructs in a middle-school girls' clique, but I think it's a safe bet that "nerdy" is mutually exclusive with "popular" and that most people would rather be popular than nerdy (I say most people rather than most girls because I'm sure this applies to guys as well).
This math book might not be taking the right approach. Perhaps, years from now, when more studies have been conducted, we'll have a better understanding of why girls suddenly stop participating in math and science, and maybe then we'll have some evidence that this book is going in completely the wrong direction. However, with the knowledge that's currently available, it seems that girls start focusing on being popular and the current set of math books cast math in a decidedly non-popular light. She's at least trying to correct that. She's trying to fix the problem from within the system. The results will be interesting, whether it's a success or a failure.
Are we gonna ever have a 2.7.xx developmental branch?
Not in the foreseeable future--Linus has decided not to do this. I would have thought you'd heard about this because the decision was made a long time ago and nobody's ever hinted that anyone's mind has changed.
how long are we going to keep adding features and breaking things in the stable branch?
Your question doesn't make sense. 2.6.x is not a "stable branch". You're using old terminology. Linus has decided that 2.6.x is the new development platform. The distros are free to create 2.6.x.y versions that are stable. I would have thought you'd heard about this because the decision was made a long time ago and nobody's ever hinted that anyone's mind has changed.
why doesn't Linus hand over the 2.6 to another maintainer like he did for 2.4 and begin a developmental branch to try out new stuff?
Linus thought he'd give something new a try. Everyone's working together on the current tree and, if anyone's interested (like, say, a distro), they're free to take a 2.6.x edition and make a 2.6.x.y series of stable kernels. I would have thought you'd heard about this because the decision was made a long time ago and nobody's ever hinted that anyone's mind has changed.
It could even be responsible for the public's acceptance of no gold standard for the dollar. They're not demanding to know what the reference point of "one dollar" is.
And of course it's the Federal Reserve that can print endless money for the war in Iraq, thank to the lack of a gold standard.
I was agreeing with you completely until you said that. There can be no reference point for "one dollar". A currency system lifts the burden of a barter system from its users. Without the dollar, you'd have to bake bread and swap it for internet connectivity, or something. How much bandwidth can you get for a loaf of bread? The same question applies to the dollar. Currency is a tangible way to represent the virtual concept of value. There is no unitary value of value so there can be no fixed unitary value for a currency. A free-floating currency values itself according to what its users think it's worth, which is, IMHO, the only sane way to value a virtual concept.
I'm not a lawyer, but it would depend on how they worded the application of the GPL to their code. Many GPL'd applications are licensed under GPL version 2 "or any later version", but some aren't (most notably the Linux kernel). If they applied the GPL with the "or any later version" clause, then, yes, you can release your code under GPL v3. Otherwise no, you have to wait for them to do that. Of course, if you release a GPL v3 version of QT4 and Trolltech doesn't, then I think you would have effectively forked QT.
I'd say the average punter would be better served without the GNU to confuse them. Remember the CBC audience is not the slashdot crowd.
That's exactly why I called it a nit pick--my main point was that GPL stands for "General Public License" not "GNU Public License" and so TFA actually got it right. Although, to answer your question, I think the ??? might be something like "Free and Open Source Software", which is, again, something the "average punter" might be better served by leaving out.
Actually, the only nit I could pick in calling it the "general public license" is the capitalization. If you go read the GNU page on the GPL, you'll find they call it the GNU General Public License.
Hey, it's me--I clicked submit by mistake after I realized my comment was utterly stupid. If I could, I'd delete the post from Slashdot. I'd prefer if it was modded into oblivion....
My first reaction was to agree with you, and after consideration I still do, but I had a flickering "What If?" moment. So, playing Devil's Advocate here, consider this: what are the follow-on consequences of presenting pseudoscience as a valid alternative to real science in a classroom? It's quite obvious that ruining a child's education is not nearly as terrible as killing that child (and, if my education was any good, the Nazis figured out how to make murder especially terrible). But consider that the Nazi's murdered a finite number of people. Instituting statewide support of pseudoscience could, in the long term,
I agree that the general public won't buy into environmentally-friendly transportation until the choice is also wallet friendly, but I think the problem of making it environmentally friendly is much more difficult. If nothing else, the government can impose a gas tax to make environmentally-unfriendly vehicles wallet-unfriendly, too. Now, I'm Canadian and we don't have the same degree of separation between the National and Provincial governments as the Americans seem to have, so maybe my ideas don't work everywhere. If taxing gas consumption doesn't work, it can always be made illegal. I guess my point is that there's lots of ways to cause financial pain--the big problem is avoiding environmental pain.
Air pollution is reduced overall, but the added cost of the electrical engine may not make up for the forgone cost of gas.
Uh, in the big picture I don't give a damn if the extra financial cost of the extra electrical components outweigh the financial savings of reduced gas consumption. The point is the environment, not the wallet.
Additionally, how good is it going to be to have a mound of spent batteries laying around in landfills?
This is a good question. Perhaps the increased environmental burden of dealing with batteries will outweigh the decreased environmental burden of reduced emissions. If that's the case, then we need to look elsewhere, or find a more environmentally-efficient means of portably storing energy.
One thing that I think is not acceptable yet is printing. Within the last few months, I got my vanilla laser printer working on my linux box. It was a truly nasty and time-consuming process. This is not a case where you can blame patents and proprietary interfaces, etc., either. The printer is a Brother HL-1440. Brother hired the CUPS developers to write GPL'd linux drivers. The problem is mainly just that the linux implementation of CUPS is a disaster.
This is one thing where I would have agreed with you several months ago, but I now have to partially disagree. The CUPS interface is still hideous and confusing (and this is why I only partially disagree), but I recently purchased a Xerox Phaser 6120 and CUPS found it automagically. Admittedly, this may have been the perfect printer to try because it came with.ppd files on the installation CD and some HTML files explaining how to configure CUPS to see my shiny new printer, but it worked flawlessly the first time without having to apply the steps outlined in the HTML help. I'm running CUPS 1.2.9 and the printer is plugged into my network with an ethernet cable. I navigated to CUPS' "Add a printer" page and it had auto-detected my printer so all I had to do was click a button to say "Yes, configure it". It was a thing of beauty.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're questioning the ability of a person to be willing to sacrifice for an inanimate object, consider the people that line up for the latest game console.
If you're questioning the ability of a robot to adequately simulate willingness to sacrifice, I think you lack imagination—the required technical ability might take longer than the article predicts, but the robot doesn't have to actualy be willing to sacrifice for its companion, it merely has to seem willing to sacrifice with enough accuracy of simulation to convince the companion. That seems fairly easy to me, in comparison.
This sounds like a vague question to me. What do you mean by "emotional exposure"? Are you talking about the kinds of things people feel and do when they share intimate thoughts and feelings? If so, I think it's easy to imagine a human being speaking to his (or her) robot companion about his (or her) innermost thoughts. I concede that a good robotic simulation of intimate discussion is up there with strong AI, but perhaps we don't need a good simulation if the human being in the equation is more interested in a listener than a talker.
Again, I think it's easy to imagine a human worried about losing his robotic companion, and it seems within the realm of possibility for a robot to convincingly simulate this reciprocally.
I haven't RTFA, so perhaps your response is to something I'm missing, but I don't think the summary is confusing the desire to "fuck animatronics" with "real" love. The two are orthogonal concepts and I don't see any obvious reason why someone couldn't love a robot. After all, how do you (or would you) know that your significant other loves you? It is only through his or her outward behaviour that you can surmise his or her internal state of mind. The same behaviour without the underlying love would be as convincing, right up until you find out that your spouse is a Russian spy, or something. There's no need for a robot to really feel in love—it merely has to act in love. Also, I may be a cynic in this regard, but I think "love" is nothing more than a chemical incentive to find a mate and propagate your genes. I don't think that diminishes love—it certainly doesn't diminish the endorphin rush of being with/thinking about/doing stuff for my wife—but it certainly broadens my perspective on why or with whom (or what) we may fall in love.
Ian
Then either you're not very imaginative or we're all screwed, 'cause that would be completely ineffective—especially if it was announced to be a one-day protest in advance! The vast majority of the IE-using crowd is going to blame the web developer, not the web browser. Many IE-users think that the little blue "e" is the internet—not a browser, but the internet itself. If, for a day, "the internet" doesn't work, and then it works the next day, what difference is that going to make?
Ian
I'd hope the class is more about how to use software than it is about how to use this software and, as such, I'd use whichever software you're more comfortable with. If you already have notes and lessons planned around the existing, old software, use that. If you have to make new notes anyway, why not introduce your class to the world of Open Source?
Ian
Chris Comer is, according to TFA, a woman, not a man.
Ian
I agree with you completely and find your vitriol to be hilarious. Do you think your post says more about Ford or NASA?
Thanks for the laugh
Ian
I think I generally agree with you--TFA (which I haven't read) seems to be spouting nonsense--but I disagree with one of your points:
I don't understand why you think it's a ridiculous assumption that a hypothetical user who clicks yes on every dialogue box would be infected with all kinds of malware. I think I've trained myself to avoid malware pretty well, so I can't think of any good examples off the top of my head, but things like "Do you want to download our software to improve your browsing experience 1000%? Yes/No" seem like the kinds of questions that, supposing you answer Yes, get Alexa and Bonzai Buddy installed on your system.
Ian
Only if you don't believe in determinism.
I think you'd have a hard time finding a Scotsman that would refer to his kilt as a skirt.
Ian
You sound like a troll since you're so belligerent, but, in case anyone else here is legitimately wondering what it means for a Turing machine to be universal, I'll try to answer.
Basically, a Turing Machine is an abstract "computer"--it's a tape (a skinny piece of paper) that has a start but no end (it's infinitely long, but it has a start), and a read/write head that can zip up and down the tape writing, reading, and erasing symbols on the tape. The Church-Turing Thesis postulates that a computable algorithm is any algorithm that can be computed in a finite number of steps by a Turing Machine. There are some things that look like algorithms and seem like they should be computable but are in fact impossible. The classic example is the Halting Problem.
Anyway, a regular Turing Machine only computes one function--it's a single-purpose machine. A Universal Turing Machine is a Turing Machine that can simulate any other Turing Machine by interpreting a codified description of the other machine. Since every computable function is isomorphic to some Turing Machine and every Turing Machine can be simulated by a Universal Turing Machine, every computable function can be computed by a Universal Turing Machine. The computer you're using to read this is an approximation to a Universal Turing Machine (the RAM would have to be infinite in size to be a proper Turing Machine), and the codified descriptions that it interprets are the binary executables that you run on it.
Hope that helps,
Ian
Well, to paraphrase someone famous (perhaps Edison?), we've learned another way that doesn't work. It sounds like the author of the proof has used a faulty syllogism. Perhaps the syllogism can be patched up such that the rest of the proof plus the patched syllogism equals a correct proof.
Ian
OK, I'm obviously completely ignorant, but it would seem that my main point--that boycotting Lenovo will do nothing--is only strengthened by the fact that the military has been in power for the last 45 years and will evidently remain in power for the foreseeable future.
Ian
I admit to speaking from ignorance regarding the expected length of the political turmoil in, I guess it's Myanmar, not Burma?, but I meant the immediate problem of monks getting shot, rather than the overarching problem of Myanmar finding a government that its people are happy with. I doubt the current Malevolent Dictator For Life can go about shooting monks for 7+ years without some kind of retaliation from the rest of the world. (Hmm... there I go switching from cynicism to blinding optimism!)
Ian
This is cynical of me, but your private little boycott is not going to do the monks any good. If you buy a new Thinkpad now, it'll outlast the problem in Burma. Just buy another one. Lenovo has always produced Thinkpads, it's just that IBM doesn't support them directly anymore. Thinkpads are still the most reliable laptops in the market.
Ian
I agree with you that Javascript is a nicer language than Java and more powerful to boot, but I'm using GWT for one big reason: dead code elimination. The GWT compiler takes advantage of the static analysis possibilities in Java and the closed-world nature of a web page and produces dramatically optimized Javascript. The resulting code is obfuscated, which reduces download time, and has all the dead code eliminated, which reduces download time. Also, for broken interpreters, like the one in IE, a smaller script executes faster, on top of downloading more quickly.
I guess what I'm saying is that GWT brings a compiler to Javascript and that has many benefits. For the GWT compiler, Java is to Javascript as C is to assembler in a C compiler. Generally speaking a C compiler produces better machine code than someone writing assembler by hand. The same is true for the GWT compiler--its output runs faster than a comparable programme hand-written in Javascript.
Ian
While I feel some sympathy for your general point, this anecdote about your daughter is completely irrelevant. If you RTFA, you'll see that it's not until middle school that girls start to express that "math is hard". The problem is a social one. Girls aren't supposed to be good at math. Girls that are good at math are nerdy and geeky, rather that popular or sexy. I'm a guy, so I won't pretend to understand the social constructs in a middle-school girls' clique, but I think it's a safe bet that "nerdy" is mutually exclusive with "popular" and that most people would rather be popular than nerdy (I say most people rather than most girls because I'm sure this applies to guys as well).
This math book might not be taking the right approach. Perhaps, years from now, when more studies have been conducted, we'll have a better understanding of why girls suddenly stop participating in math and science, and maybe then we'll have some evidence that this book is going in completely the wrong direction. However, with the knowledge that's currently available, it seems that girls start focusing on being popular and the current set of math books cast math in a decidedly non-popular light. She's at least trying to correct that. She's trying to fix the problem from within the system. The results will be interesting, whether it's a success or a failure.
Ian
Not in the foreseeable future--Linus has decided not to do this. I would have thought you'd heard about this because the decision was made a long time ago and nobody's ever hinted that anyone's mind has changed.
Your question doesn't make sense. 2.6.x is not a "stable branch". You're using old terminology. Linus has decided that 2.6.x is the new development platform. The distros are free to create 2.6.x.y versions that are stable. I would have thought you'd heard about this because the decision was made a long time ago and nobody's ever hinted that anyone's mind has changed.
Linus thought he'd give something new a try. Everyone's working together on the current tree and, if anyone's interested (like, say, a distro), they're free to take a 2.6.x edition and make a 2.6.x.y series of stable kernels. I would have thought you'd heard about this because the decision was made a long time ago and nobody's ever hinted that anyone's mind has changed.
Ian
I was agreeing with you completely until you said that. There can be no reference point for "one dollar". A currency system lifts the burden of a barter system from its users. Without the dollar, you'd have to bake bread and swap it for internet connectivity, or something. How much bandwidth can you get for a loaf of bread? The same question applies to the dollar. Currency is a tangible way to represent the virtual concept of value. There is no unitary value of value so there can be no fixed unitary value for a currency. A free-floating currency values itself according to what its users think it's worth, which is, IMHO, the only sane way to value a virtual concept.
Ian
I'm not a lawyer, but it would depend on how they worded the application of the GPL to their code. Many GPL'd applications are licensed under GPL version 2 "or any later version", but some aren't (most notably the Linux kernel). If they applied the GPL with the "or any later version" clause, then, yes, you can release your code under GPL v3. Otherwise no, you have to wait for them to do that. Of course, if you release a GPL v3 version of QT4 and Trolltech doesn't, then I think you would have effectively forked QT.
Ian
That's exactly why I called it a nit pick--my main point was that GPL stands for "General Public License" not "GNU Public License" and so TFA actually got it right. Although, to answer your question, I think the ??? might be something like "Free and Open Source Software", which is, again, something the "average punter" might be better served by leaving out.
Ian
Actually, the only nit I could pick in calling it the "general public license" is the capitalization. If you go read the GNU page on the GPL, you'll find they call it the GNU General Public License.
Ian
Hey, it's me--I clicked submit by mistake after I realized my comment was utterly stupid. If I could, I'd delete the post from Slashdot. I'd prefer if it was modded into oblivion....
Damn, am I ever embarrassed.
Ian
My first reaction was to agree with you, and after consideration I still do, but I had a flickering "What If?" moment. So, playing Devil's Advocate here, consider this: what are the follow-on consequences of presenting pseudoscience as a valid alternative to real science in a classroom? It's quite obvious that ruining a child's education is not nearly as terrible as killing that child (and, if my education was any good, the Nazis figured out how to make murder especially terrible). But consider that the Nazi's murdered a finite number of people. Instituting statewide support of pseudoscience could, in the long term,
I agree that the general public won't buy into environmentally-friendly transportation until the choice is also wallet friendly, but I think the problem of making it environmentally friendly is much more difficult. If nothing else, the government can impose a gas tax to make environmentally-unfriendly vehicles wallet-unfriendly, too. Now, I'm Canadian and we don't have the same degree of separation between the National and Provincial governments as the Americans seem to have, so maybe my ideas don't work everywhere. If taxing gas consumption doesn't work, it can always be made illegal. I guess my point is that there's lots of ways to cause financial pain--the big problem is avoiding environmental pain.
Ian
Uh, in the big picture I don't give a damn if the extra financial cost of the extra electrical components outweigh the financial savings of reduced gas consumption. The point is the environment, not the wallet.
This is a good question. Perhaps the increased environmental burden of dealing with batteries will outweigh the decreased environmental burden of reduced emissions. If that's the case, then we need to look elsewhere, or find a more environmentally-efficient means of portably storing energy.
Ian
This is one thing where I would have agreed with you several months ago, but I now have to partially disagree. The CUPS interface is still hideous and confusing (and this is why I only partially disagree), but I recently purchased a Xerox Phaser 6120 and CUPS found it automagically. Admittedly, this may have been the perfect printer to try because it came with .ppd files on the installation CD and some HTML files explaining how to configure CUPS to see my shiny new printer, but it worked flawlessly the first time without having to apply the steps outlined in the HTML help. I'm running CUPS 1.2.9 and the printer is plugged into my network with an ethernet cable. I navigated to CUPS' "Add a printer" page and it had auto-detected my printer so all I had to do was click a button to say "Yes, configure it". It was a thing of beauty.
Ian