I prefer the examples of TOS - half back half white people, for instance.
Still, in a way I apparently cannot articulate well enough to effectively communicate, this episode crossed a threshold and it wasn't subject matter, it was story telling.
It was hard fail. I'm still more interested in Orville than Discovery, though.
>I'm confident they couldn't fuck it up from here anymore.
I like your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter... but you're wrong in your conclusion.
They didn't fuck up. They created a show designed to be generally bland and inoffensive while checking as many boxes on the SJW list as possible, because their core audience mindlessly gobbles that shit up. Star Trek is not pushing any limits with that core group, it's a safe space / echo chamber.
I think it'll fail because I don't think that core audience is enough to sustain the show (especially since you have to buy in to their proprietary and otherwise pointless streaming service), but I could be wrong.
Started in episode 1, where they defined a hermaphroditic species as comprised solely of males. I guess basic biology isn't a big thing with arts majors.
However, the biggest self-contained problem in the episode was failing to realize that the hermaphroditic species in question was not a valid option for telling their story. That's also a basic biology thing but it also spills over into a few other disciplines.
Where they failed even as artistic types was in failing to see that the example they used was so fantastically ill-suited as to ruin any hope of communicating their point. If you're preaching, it's generally recognized that 'preaching to the choir' isn't very productive, and that's all this episode accomplished.
It certainly didn't tell a compelling story, and it failed to make sense on so many levels it was like watching Voyager again.
>Orville gets the "feel" of the original ST shows a lot more even though it has it's own problems.
Yep. Though I found it a bit cartoonish (not unexpectedly), I enjoyed the first two episodes immensely. The third however was offensively preachy and they completely avoided anything like common sense or logic (or an engaging story) in pursuit of their message agenda.
For now I remain on the Orville train, but a lot of good will was burned by S01E03.
>Then there was Enterprise that had that lousy theme song that was just plain irritating.
As a general rule, I categorize people who complain about the Enterprise theme as 'people who are impossible to please'.
There was nothing wrong with that theme except that it wasn't the orchestral piece you were expecting. There was a LOT wrong with Enterprise... and like Voyager, most of it was predictable from the pilot script.
Eventually entropy will destroy the universe. Even if you've survived normal human mortality, the end of the Earth, and the end of the Sun (etc, etc, etc)... ultimately absolutely nothing you've ever achieved will have any significance whatsoever.
These guys had fun doing something difficult just to do it, and they didn't hurt anybody else in the process. THAT is actually the most significant thing you can manage in our universe. Just deal with the fact that you're less important than they are and get on with the remainder of your meaningless existence.
>I think because, as nerds, we've all actually... DONE IT.
So long ago, too. I've actually forgotten what my setup was, though I doubt it was archival quality (not that you can tell with VHS's sub-broadcast quality to start with). I probably just had a coax connection to a capture card and manually trimmed the raw file before leaving it to encode over the next few days.
It was the kind of thing I did once, to preserve a family video, and then after the experience vowed was not worth the effort and I'd rather pay a conversion service in future.
>some days I begin to think that the reason we haven't seen sure signs of alien civilizations in our galaxy is because they did the same stupid shit that we're doing right now, and fucked up their own planet so bad that they all went extinct.
A sad thought, but as convergent evolution is a thing I can see it being true. We're the way we are because it's something that works. Competition, reproduction, expansion, predation... all just part of life. Nature doesn't care about enlightened self interest because Nature's just what we call the mindless effects of interesting chemistry on wet, gas-cloaked rocks.
I remain hopeful we'll manage to overcome the issue.
>If you truly believe global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions is occurring, and you truly believe it's going to cause mass extinction in less than 100 years, then you want to prevent it in the most effective and expeditious method we have available - nuclear power.
I wouldn't mind something like the Toshiba 4s reactor popping up all over the place - distributed 'neighbourhood' nuclear power that's safe, robust, and difficult for terrorists to target.
> That takes about 2-3 days to "propagate" so a VISA card would allow you to make 1 transaction every 2-3 days. Blockchains allow you to do 1 transaction every ~10 minutes.
That's comparing apples to oranges.
Under those circumstances, VISA would allow you to do multiple transactions based on your queried bank balance with a 2-3 day delay on use of newly deposited funds. Per person.
Bitcoin, the most famous blockchain, is limited to a few TPS for ALL users.
Yeah, without Firefox, Safari, and Opera... it's really a pointless study unless you're merely looking for documented empirical backing for common knowledge.
Of course, the study was sponsored by Google. I'm willing to concede it was likely a fair study for what it studied, but I'd bet the scope was limited to make Chrome look better.
> Either a way needs to be found to cull old/irrelevant data
Which isn't terribly difficult. You choose a balance between history length and security. Periodically you have a checkpoint, and you accept the point-in-time state of the ledger as your new root state. Some people can keep several (or all) checkpoints if they wish, but so long as the majority agree on the most recent checkpoint, it's all good. 'Blockchain' people aren't interested in anything that doesn't go back to the genesis block, so it won't happen.
The real problem is that by the time you've worked around all the inherent problems with a blockchain... you've had to give up everything that makes it a blockchain so you don't have a blockchain anymore, you have VISA. And VISA already exists.
I'd bother with a more detailed, logical discussion but you are obviously incapable of that due to your partisan blinders (at best) and outright stupidity (at worst).
The problem is that you also expose your information just by existing, unless everyone else you interact with ALSO abstains from the use of social media.
And you probably have a credit card, and a driver's license. Maybe you entered a contest once.
I try to stay out as best I can, but last year someone else tagged me in a photo and now I am easily Googled. Of course, there were already shadow profiles of me out there, but now they have my face, and who knows how many public sources of faces they'll be scanning 10 years from now?
Privacy is gone, because morons can't give up on the idea that the world needs to know what they ate for breakfast this morning.
C'mon... we all learn as kids, "two wrongs don't make a right".
A second similar crime wouldn't cancel out the first. If you have any evidence election laws were violated by Hillary Clinton, she can be investigated TOO.
However, as she's not the POTUS, I expect that it would be a lower priority investigation.
Anything 'multimedia' should get a placeholder that needs to be clicked before it even starts to download, never mind play.
Anything cross-site should be blocked - scripts, images, style sheets... I don't care. Host it on your own server or proxy it or it shouldn't display. And in addition to being hosted on the same site, a script shouldn't be allowed to request resources from any site but the one it is loaded from.
Cookies... I can't think of a good way to stop cookies from being used as trackers except to have it be standard that they use plain language tags and browsers offer a pop-up to show the cookies the site you're currently on is using or has placed on your system, along with the ability to delete any values you want.
I know Bing and other search engines exist, but at least in the West we're pretty much at a place where Google is the gateway to knowledge on the Internet. There's a reason 'google' is an English verb now.
I'd be perfectly fine with them developing data mining tools for law enforcement to look for links to items that are actionable at a local level, but when Google drops something from search results, they're acting as a state censor.
I'm not entirely comfortable with Google doing something other than more-or-less blind indexing based on general parameters. It might be their right in the legal sense but that doesn't necessarily make it right in the philosophical sense, even if I dislike and disagree with the people they're currently affecting.
>Using silicone semi brute strength to emulate "meat" may be infeasible as we are rapidly reaching silicone's physical limit.
Have a look into memristors, a new toy that could be very useful for making artificial brains.
Then consider that nature 'figured out' how to be more efficient by using more switches with lower thresholds and taking the average, while we tend to juice transistors to ensure a strong '1' or '0'.
And finally... silicon. Silicone is not particularly useful in computers except as a sealant and sometime adhesive or vibration damper.:)
>we still can't define what intelligence is. We have it - we arrogantly proclaim - but we don't know exactly what it is, and we have not the slightest idea how it works.
But we know something we vaguely define as 'intelligence' seems to exist, and we believe we live in a universe with consistent laws of physics (at least on local scales). We know we can, in theory, replicate what already exists. We have good reason to believe that an intelligent review of the processes - if we can figure them out - can be used to improve them.
How frustrating to know something is both possible and believe it is desirable, but to know absolutely nothing about how to figure out how to do it!
> Assuming a purely physical apparatus could attain all these is neither supported by our current understanding of Physics nor does it have any scientific base. It is a belief. And, as it turns out, the follower of this belief ("physicalists") use pretty much the same faulty argumentation techniques so common with religious fanatics.
There you go again - the third time in this discussion by my rough count. You deride the idea that physical processes could create intelligence as a product of the faith of religious fanatics. This universe runs on the laws of physics. Claiming anything else is... the product of the faith of a religious fanatic.
If you don't believe in physical laws, you should be having this discussion with your preferred religious authority, and not with us here on Slashdot.
>The reality is we are more hardware limited than software limited.
Well, I'm not sure it's fair to call it 'software' anyway. It's more like 'firmware', in that the organization of the hardware is the basic 'OS'. And there may be some process going on in a brain that is so much more efficient than attempting to model it in a computer that it's effectively beyond us until we do manage to mimic a biological brain in hardware.
>you basically seem to imply that consciousness is an "emergent property" of complexity
Nope. I outright state it is a result of a physical mechanism we do not understand as yet.
>you do not understand Physics at all.
You seem to think intelligence is a product of the supernatural... which means you don't understand reality as thoroughly as you should if you want to participate in this discussion.
>You also seem to be lacking the basic knowledge required to actually understand the references you gave.
>stop pretending your anti-science quasi-religious fundamentalist beliefs are science
Project much? What the hell is wrong with you? You're the one making supernatural claims, not I.
>"Nature did it with meat" has no scientific basis.
Wow. So the fact that we can observe evolution and our fellow humans, make predictions, test them... 'no scientific basis'.
> All Science has is interface observations. And even a child these days knows that what you can observe on the outside of a box is not necessarily created on the inside.
Right back to YOUR belief of 'magic inside'.
I shall quote you back to yourself: "Seriously, stop pretending your anti-science quasi-religious fundamentalist beliefs are science. They are not."
Slashdot Mirror
I prefer the examples of TOS - half back half white people, for instance.
Still, in a way I apparently cannot articulate well enough to effectively communicate, this episode crossed a threshold and it wasn't subject matter, it was story telling.
It was hard fail. I'm still more interested in Orville than Discovery, though.
>I'm confident they couldn't fuck it up from here anymore.
I like your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter... but you're wrong in your conclusion.
They didn't fuck up. They created a show designed to be generally bland and inoffensive while checking as many boxes on the SJW list as possible, because their core audience mindlessly gobbles that shit up. Star Trek is not pushing any limits with that core group, it's a safe space / echo chamber.
I think it'll fail because I don't think that core audience is enough to sustain the show (especially since you have to buy in to their proprietary and otherwise pointless streaming service), but I could be wrong.
>The biggest problem with it
Started in episode 1, where they defined a hermaphroditic species as comprised solely of males. I guess basic biology isn't a big thing with arts majors.
However, the biggest self-contained problem in the episode was failing to realize that the hermaphroditic species in question was not a valid option for telling their story. That's also a basic biology thing but it also spills over into a few other disciplines.
Where they failed even as artistic types was in failing to see that the example they used was so fantastically ill-suited as to ruin any hope of communicating their point. If you're preaching, it's generally recognized that 'preaching to the choir' isn't very productive, and that's all this episode accomplished.
It certainly didn't tell a compelling story, and it failed to make sense on so many levels it was like watching Voyager again.
>Orville gets the "feel" of the original ST shows a lot more even though it has it's own problems.
Yep. Though I found it a bit cartoonish (not unexpectedly), I enjoyed the first two episodes immensely. The third however was offensively preachy and they completely avoided anything like common sense or logic (or an engaging story) in pursuit of their message agenda.
For now I remain on the Orville train, but a lot of good will was burned by S01E03.
>Then there was Enterprise that had that lousy theme song that was just plain irritating.
As a general rule, I categorize people who complain about the Enterprise theme as 'people who are impossible to please'.
There was nothing wrong with that theme except that it wasn't the orchestral piece you were expecting. There was a LOT wrong with Enterprise... and like Voyager, most of it was predictable from the pilot script.
Eventually entropy will destroy the universe. Even if you've survived normal human mortality, the end of the Earth, and the end of the Sun (etc, etc, etc)... ultimately absolutely nothing you've ever achieved will have any significance whatsoever.
These guys had fun doing something difficult just to do it, and they didn't hurt anybody else in the process. THAT is actually the most significant thing you can manage in our universe. Just deal with the fact that you're less important than they are and get on with the remainder of your meaningless existence.
>I think because, as nerds, we've all actually... DONE IT.
So long ago, too. I've actually forgotten what my setup was, though I doubt it was archival quality (not that you can tell with VHS's sub-broadcast quality to start with). I probably just had a coax connection to a capture card and manually trimmed the raw file before leaving it to encode over the next few days.
It was the kind of thing I did once, to preserve a family video, and then after the experience vowed was not worth the effort and I'd rather pay a conversion service in future.
If you could disrupt the cloud with a new outside-the-box AI resulting in a paradigm shift...
>some days I begin to think that the reason we haven't seen sure signs of alien civilizations in our galaxy is because they did the same stupid shit that we're doing right now, and fucked up their own planet so bad that they all went extinct.
A sad thought, but as convergent evolution is a thing I can see it being true. We're the way we are because it's something that works. Competition, reproduction, expansion, predation... all just part of life. Nature doesn't care about enlightened self interest because Nature's just what we call the mindless effects of interesting chemistry on wet, gas-cloaked rocks.
I remain hopeful we'll manage to overcome the issue.
>If you truly believe global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions is occurring, and you truly believe it's going to cause mass extinction in less than 100 years, then you want to prevent it in the most effective and expeditious method we have available - nuclear power.
I wouldn't mind something like the Toshiba 4s reactor popping up all over the place - distributed 'neighbourhood' nuclear power that's safe, robust, and difficult for terrorists to target.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
An AI company is any company where AI is their product - they don't have to organize themselves a certain way or even be successful.
Everything else is a company that uses AI.
> That takes about 2-3 days to "propagate" so a VISA card would allow you to make 1 transaction every 2-3 days. Blockchains allow you to do 1 transaction every ~10 minutes.
That's comparing apples to oranges.
Under those circumstances, VISA would allow you to do multiple transactions based on your queried bank balance with a 2-3 day delay on use of newly deposited funds. Per person.
Bitcoin, the most famous blockchain, is limited to a few TPS for ALL users.
Yeah, without Firefox, Safari, and Opera... it's really a pointless study unless you're merely looking for documented empirical backing for common knowledge.
Of course, the study was sponsored by Google. I'm willing to concede it was likely a fair study for what it studied, but I'd bet the scope was limited to make Chrome look better.
> Either a way needs to be found to cull old/irrelevant data
Which isn't terribly difficult. You choose a balance between history length and security. Periodically you have a checkpoint, and you accept the point-in-time state of the ledger as your new root state. Some people can keep several (or all) checkpoints if they wish, but so long as the majority agree on the most recent checkpoint, it's all good. 'Blockchain' people aren't interested in anything that doesn't go back to the genesis block, so it won't happen.
The real problem is that by the time you've worked around all the inherent problems with a blockchain... you've had to give up everything that makes it a blockchain so you don't have a blockchain anymore, you have VISA. And VISA already exists.
Because you're a moron.
I'd bother with a more detailed, logical discussion but you are obviously incapable of that due to your partisan blinders (at best) and outright stupidity (at worst).
The problem is that you also expose your information just by existing, unless everyone else you interact with ALSO abstains from the use of social media.
And you probably have a credit card, and a driver's license. Maybe you entered a contest once.
I try to stay out as best I can, but last year someone else tagged me in a photo and now I am easily Googled. Of course, there were already shadow profiles of me out there, but now they have my face, and who knows how many public sources of faces they'll be scanning 10 years from now?
Privacy is gone, because morons can't give up on the idea that the world needs to know what they ate for breakfast this morning.
C'mon... we all learn as kids, "two wrongs don't make a right".
A second similar crime wouldn't cancel out the first. If you have any evidence election laws were violated by Hillary Clinton, she can be investigated TOO.
However, as she's not the POTUS, I expect that it would be a lower priority investigation.
Anything 'multimedia' should get a placeholder that needs to be clicked before it even starts to download, never mind play.
Anything cross-site should be blocked - scripts, images, style sheets... I don't care. Host it on your own server or proxy it or it shouldn't display. And in addition to being hosted on the same site, a script shouldn't be allowed to request resources from any site but the one it is loaded from.
Cookies... I can't think of a good way to stop cookies from being used as trackers except to have it be standard that they use plain language tags and browsers offer a pop-up to show the cookies the site you're currently on is using or has placed on your system, along with the ability to delete any values you want.
I know Bing and other search engines exist, but at least in the West we're pretty much at a place where Google is the gateway to knowledge on the Internet. There's a reason 'google' is an English verb now.
I'd be perfectly fine with them developing data mining tools for law enforcement to look for links to items that are actionable at a local level, but when Google drops something from search results, they're acting as a state censor.
I'm not entirely comfortable with Google doing something other than more-or-less blind indexing based on general parameters. It might be their right in the legal sense but that doesn't necessarily make it right in the philosophical sense, even if I dislike and disagree with the people they're currently affecting.
>Using silicone semi brute strength to emulate "meat" may be infeasible as we are rapidly reaching silicone's physical limit.
Have a look into memristors, a new toy that could be very useful for making artificial brains.
Then consider that nature 'figured out' how to be more efficient by using more switches with lower thresholds and taking the average, while we tend to juice transistors to ensure a strong '1' or '0'.
And finally... silicon. Silicone is not particularly useful in computers except as a sealant and sometime adhesive or vibration damper. :)
>we still can't define what intelligence is. We have it - we arrogantly proclaim - but we don't know exactly what it is, and we have not the slightest idea how it works.
But we know something we vaguely define as 'intelligence' seems to exist, and we believe we live in a universe with consistent laws of physics (at least on local scales). We know we can, in theory, replicate what already exists. We have good reason to believe that an intelligent review of the processes - if we can figure them out - can be used to improve them.
How frustrating to know something is both possible and believe it is desirable, but to know absolutely nothing about how to figure out how to do it!
> Assuming a purely physical apparatus could attain all these is neither supported by our current understanding of Physics nor does it have any scientific base. It is a belief. And, as it turns out, the follower of this belief ("physicalists") use pretty much the same faulty argumentation techniques so common with religious fanatics.
There you go again - the third time in this discussion by my rough count. You deride the idea that physical processes could create intelligence as a product of the faith of religious fanatics. This universe runs on the laws of physics. Claiming anything else is... the product of the faith of a religious fanatic.
If you don't believe in physical laws, you should be having this discussion with your preferred religious authority, and not with us here on Slashdot.
>The reality is we are more hardware limited than software limited.
Well, I'm not sure it's fair to call it 'software' anyway. It's more like 'firmware', in that the organization of the hardware is the basic 'OS'. And there may be some process going on in a brain that is so much more efficient than attempting to model it in a computer that it's effectively beyond us until we do manage to mimic a biological brain in hardware.
A set of known unknowns?
>Makes you look pretty dumb....
You're proving yourself a rambling idiot.
>you basically seem to imply that consciousness is an "emergent property" of complexity
Nope. I outright state it is a result of a physical mechanism we do not understand as yet.
>you do not understand Physics at all.
You seem to think intelligence is a product of the supernatural... which means you don't understand reality as thoroughly as you should if you want to participate in this discussion.
>You also seem to be lacking the basic knowledge required to actually understand the references you gave.
I see you're a fan of Joseph Goebbels.
>stop pretending your anti-science quasi-religious fundamentalist beliefs are science
Project much? What the hell is wrong with you? You're the one making supernatural claims, not I.
>"Nature did it with meat" has no scientific basis.
Wow. So the fact that we can observe evolution and our fellow humans, make predictions, test them... 'no scientific basis'.
> All Science has is interface observations. And even a child these days knows that what you can observe on the outside of a box is not necessarily created on the inside.
Right back to YOUR belief of 'magic inside'.
I shall quote you back to yourself: "Seriously, stop pretending your anti-science quasi-religious fundamentalist beliefs are science. They are not."