RMS is the sort of person who will stand to his principles to the point of absurdity (GNU/Linux, lol) and I would not be surprised if one of RMS's principles is "dressing up for formal occasions is stupid." (Which is not an unreasonable position to hold.)
So yes, he's being impolite, but I think that saying it's because he's full of himself is to miscontrue the situation slightly.
This is news for NERDS, not news for techies. There's more to being a nerd than just liking technology. Another common characteristic is an antiauthoritarian sense of humor where "silly" things are put into ordinarily serious situations. For instance, said comedic device was very popular on Monty Python, a nerd standby.
No, by passing something in as a homework assignment (or proffessional project) they are claiming it to be their own. That is because the whole point of being a student/professor/proffesional is to do your own work; that is what they are grading/paying you for.
To contrast, blogs make no such claim. All they're doing is saying "hay guyz, here's some stuff some guy did."
What's the difference between being recorded in someone's brainmeat and being recorded on a hard drive or a video tape or whatever they use? The only difference is that a video camera is more efficient.
I'm a bit uncertain about the civil liberties implications of CCTV too, but frankly, if it's just a slight optimization of what is already acceptable, then what's the problem?
If nothing else, Logan's Run was referenced on Family Guy, which probably helps remind the young'ns of it. I'm 19 myself and am aware of the film although I haven't actually seen it.
The point of "Free Software" is not to promote the community, it is to promote Richard Stallman's slightly peculiar definition of freedom. Promoting the community seems to be more of an Open Sourcey thing.
Well, it's kind of about greed. In its ideal formulation, capitalism is based around a group of well-informed persons acting in their own interests. (In combination with trade and private property and some other stuff.) Arguably, there's a difference between greed and self-interest, but the distinction is very subtle.
To be more accurate, they are continuing the series from Superman II. Superman III and IV are being ignored.
Although checking Wikipedia, it says that the first two movies are only going to be used as a "vague backstory" and thus it is not intended to be a direct sequel.
There's kind of a difference between "free will" and being "not-pre-determined." The time when a radioactive nucleus decays isn't pre-determined, but you'd have to have a pretty peculiar definition of free will to say that atoms have it.
Hmm. Maybe Nanotech needs an Asimov. I mean, the word "robot" was invented to refer to technology gone too far, and yet nowadays it's treated as something "pretty neat" and futuristic. We need someone willing to beat the shit out of the Frankenstein Complex.
There is a literary device called a double entendre, where through the careful choice of words, a sentence is constructed with two different interpretations: a primary one which is literal and generally benign, and a secondary one which implies something a bit naughtier. The act of saying one thing but meaning the other is a practice very common in literature, politics, and (most relevantly to this particular example) joke-telling.
Mr. Identity's particular example of a double entendre is rather interesting, in that the primary meaning of a man telling "baby" that his IQ will be higher in due time doesn't actually make much sense. Indeed, the secondary meaning, that of discussing penis size, is far more meaningful. Of course, this how double entrendres tend to work; most people write double entendres so as to deliver the ironic second meaning, and thus the primary meaning can often go undeveloped.
That said, there is some ambiguity to the secondary meaning as well. Does the text refer to a "grower," a person whose penis size increases dramatically during arousal, or does it refer to a person who is still in the stages of penile development? The latter would fit more with the story, but the style of writing implies a slightly older person whose penis has long ago stopped growing. I think that the "grower" interpretation was closer to the author's goal, but at the same time, I doubt he cared very much. The joke was simple enough that deeper analysis is silly, and anyone who doesn't get the joke to begin with is an idiot.:)
Up to a point. However, the Presidency is not one of those functions. The purpose of the executive branch is to execute laws. Laws govern people, not states, therefore states shouldn't be an issue. The Legislature is where you have to take into consideration states, (thus the Senate) because it's possible to write a law which restricts the states's ability to govern. But once the law is written and it passes into the executive branch's hands, there's not a whole lot for states to do worry about. What's done is done.
I don't find it sad. In the future, absolutely everything will be done by robots anyway. Japan's shrinking birth rates, unwillingness to take care of older generations and irrational fear of foreigners will just allow them to be early adaptors for the future of robotics.
Yes, but you still need a reason to create the robots in the first place. Why would anyone want to create a robot which can go against you? The only sensible thing to do would be to program it with an intrinsic desire to not hurt humans and do whatever purpose you want it to do.
I suppose I might be projecting my views onto the story; yes, Asimov is good at just showing the story without actively editorializing. But still, I got the impression that Dr. Calvin was kind of meant to be Asimov's voice in the story to some degree, and she was "relatively" comfortable with the idea of robots taking over the world.
Yes, but I'm not of the opinion that Asimov ever portrayed "the human race being reduced to animals in a robot zoo" as being a bad thing. In the particular stories in I, Robot where he directly touches upon the idea of robots entering politics, ("Evidence" and "The Inevitable Conflict") he's sort of nervously optimistic on the subject. In Evidence, he very clearly states that robot overlords would be awesome, and in The Inevitable Conflict he's a bit grimmer, but I still don't think it's depicted as a "bad" thing. Yes, humanity loses control of their destinies, but... so? These aren't shitty "I'm gonna go run around in circles because I don't know what the fuck I'm doing" robots like in Runaround. If they run into a situation where they have to harm a human, they will just pick the least harmful option and deal with it. These are smart robots. Asimov (or Dr. Calvin at least) seems to present it as ultimately a good thing.
Regarding your main claim, I dunno. There's certainly a recurring theme about how strict rules can be rather brittle in real life, but I think you're reading too much into it.
I think that the overall idea of the three laws is a good idea, though. If you make a robot with a "general purpose intelligence," you're going to have to hard-wire some sort of ethics into it so as to make sure it acts in the best interests of its end-user. You can't just tell the robot, "Oh, go read Nicomachean Ethics or whatever" and hope for the best. Just because a robot knows ethics doesn't mean it'll actually feel like doing what it's told. You need to actually make it want to be ethical, and that's where hardwiring comes in.
Slashdot Mirror
RMS is the sort of person who will stand to his principles to the point of absurdity (GNU/Linux, lol) and I would not be surprised if one of RMS's principles is "dressing up for formal occasions is stupid." (Which is not an unreasonable position to hold.)
So yes, he's being impolite, but I think that saying it's because he's full of himself is to miscontrue the situation slightly.
This is news for NERDS, not news for techies. There's more to being a nerd than just liking technology. Another common characteristic is an antiauthoritarian sense of humor where "silly" things are put into ordinarily serious situations. For instance, said comedic device was very popular on Monty Python, a nerd standby.
No, by passing something in as a homework assignment (or proffessional project) they are claiming it to be their own. That is because the whole point of being a student/professor/proffesional is to do your own work; that is what they are grading/paying you for.
To contrast, blogs make no such claim. All they're doing is saying "hay guyz, here's some stuff some guy did."
What's the difference between being recorded in someone's brainmeat and being recorded on a hard drive or a video tape or whatever they use? The only difference is that a video camera is more efficient.
I'm a bit uncertain about the civil liberties implications of CCTV too, but frankly, if it's just a slight optimization of what is already acceptable, then what's the problem?
If nothing else, Logan's Run was referenced on Family Guy, which probably helps remind the young'ns of it. I'm 19 myself and am aware of the film although I haven't actually seen it.
George Lucas writes terrible dialogue, but he was very fortunate to get actors (and directors) who were capable of working around that.
The point of "Free Software" is not to promote the community, it is to promote Richard Stallman's slightly peculiar definition of freedom. Promoting the community seems to be more of an Open Sourcey thing.
Well, it's kind of about greed. In its ideal formulation, capitalism is based around a group of well-informed persons acting in their own interests. (In combination with trade and private property and some other stuff.) Arguably, there's a difference between greed and self-interest, but the distinction is very subtle.
To be more accurate, they are continuing the series from Superman II. Superman III and IV are being ignored.
Although checking Wikipedia, it says that the first two movies are only going to be used as a "vague backstory" and thus it is not intended to be a direct sequel.
There's kind of a difference between "free will" and being "not-pre-determined." The time when a radioactive nucleus decays isn't pre-determined, but you'd have to have a pretty peculiar definition of free will to say that atoms have it.
The first law trumps the second. :)
Hmm. Maybe Nanotech needs an Asimov. I mean, the word "robot" was invented to refer to technology gone too far, and yet nowadays it's treated as something "pretty neat" and futuristic. We need someone willing to beat the shit out of the Frankenstein Complex.
There is a literary device called a double entendre, where through the careful choice of words, a sentence is constructed with two different interpretations: a primary one which is literal and generally benign, and a secondary one which implies something a bit naughtier. The act of saying one thing but meaning the other is a practice very common in literature, politics, and (most relevantly to this particular example) joke-telling.
:)
Mr. Identity's particular example of a double entendre is rather interesting, in that the primary meaning of a man telling "baby" that his IQ will be higher in due time doesn't actually make much sense. Indeed, the secondary meaning, that of discussing penis size, is far more meaningful. Of course, this how double entrendres tend to work; most people write double entendres so as to deliver the ironic second meaning, and thus the primary meaning can often go undeveloped.
That said, there is some ambiguity to the secondary meaning as well. Does the text refer to a "grower," a person whose penis size increases dramatically during arousal, or does it refer to a person who is still in the stages of penile development? The latter would fit more with the story, but the style of writing implies a slightly older person whose penis has long ago stopped growing. I think that the "grower" interpretation was closer to the author's goal, but at the same time, I doubt he cared very much. The joke was simple enough that deeper analysis is silly, and anyone who doesn't get the joke to begin with is an idiot.
Up to a point. However, the Presidency is not one of those functions. The purpose of the executive branch is to execute laws. Laws govern people, not states, therefore states shouldn't be an issue. The Legislature is where you have to take into consideration states, (thus the Senate) because it's possible to write a law which restricts the states's ability to govern. But once the law is written and it passes into the executive branch's hands, there's not a whole lot for states to do worry about. What's done is done.
The point remains. The government governs people, not states.
Are you saying you don't like ponies?
Threesomes.
Know them intimately? Are you suggesting that Steve Ballmer is a pedophile? That's horrible! How could you make such an unfair claim?!
A flag of surrender... or a scythe!?
Don't worry, most of the really good content on YouTube isn't actually copyrighted by the people who post it. :)
Liberalism is egoism turned into a political movement? Aw, Ayn Rand will be so dissapointed.
I don't find it sad. In the future, absolutely everything will be done by robots anyway. Japan's shrinking birth rates, unwillingness to take care of older generations and irrational fear of foreigners will just allow them to be early adaptors for the future of robotics.
Yes, but you still need a reason to create the robots in the first place. Why would anyone want to create a robot which can go against you? The only sensible thing to do would be to program it with an intrinsic desire to not hurt humans and do whatever purpose you want it to do.
I suppose I might be projecting my views onto the story; yes, Asimov is good at just showing the story without actively editorializing. But still, I got the impression that Dr. Calvin was kind of meant to be Asimov's voice in the story to some degree, and she was "relatively" comfortable with the idea of robots taking over the world.
Yes, but I'm not of the opinion that Asimov ever portrayed "the human race being reduced to animals in a robot zoo" as being a bad thing. In the particular stories in I, Robot where he directly touches upon the idea of robots entering politics, ("Evidence" and "The Inevitable Conflict") he's sort of nervously optimistic on the subject. In Evidence, he very clearly states that robot overlords would be awesome, and in The Inevitable Conflict he's a bit grimmer, but I still don't think it's depicted as a "bad" thing. Yes, humanity loses control of their destinies, but... so? These aren't shitty "I'm gonna go run around in circles because I don't know what the fuck I'm doing" robots like in Runaround. If they run into a situation where they have to harm a human, they will just pick the least harmful option and deal with it. These are smart robots. Asimov (or Dr. Calvin at least) seems to present it as ultimately a good thing.
Regarding your main claim, I dunno. There's certainly a recurring theme about how strict rules can be rather brittle in real life, but I think you're reading too much into it.
I think that the overall idea of the three laws is a good idea, though. If you make a robot with a "general purpose intelligence," you're going to have to hard-wire some sort of ethics into it so as to make sure it acts in the best interests of its end-user. You can't just tell the robot, "Oh, go read Nicomachean Ethics or whatever" and hope for the best. Just because a robot knows ethics doesn't mean it'll actually feel like doing what it's told. You need to actually make it want to be ethical, and that's where hardwiring comes in.