Even so, let's say that you build a neural network which does The Right Thing(tm); how do you know it's intelligent?
How do we know that humans are intelligent? Couldn't we apply the same standards to determine if a candidate AI is intelligent? We don't entirely understand how the human brain works, yet we regard ourselves as intelligent.
A neural network is neither necessary nor sufficient for intelligence, but biological neural networks are the only functioning intelligent entities we know of. Seems like emulating them is a good approach to AI. Granted, current artificial neural networks don't behave like biological neural networks. So just making current artificial networks bigger almost certainly won't do the trick. We need to make them bigger AND better.
California is missing the mark by going after auto makers. It should go after the real culprit here, carbon dioxide itself. We need to sue CO2 to stop its heat trapping ways! I see no other way to control this defiant and self-serving molecule.
I don't think it is a continuum. More like a really tall, yet discrete, family tree. If you figure 1 million years of evolution and 20 years per generation then the tree has about 50,000 generations between us and the common ancestor at the root.
If you were an investor, I'd say shut the hell up. You have no say in the matter.
Investors can get their say by selling their shares, which apparently they did.
The interests of the employees, the customers, and the community come before yours.
The interests of shareholders are not so independent from those of employees, customers and commuinity. First of all, many employees, customers and community members are also investors. Some poor guy working three minimum wage jobs could be an investor. Investors want to make money. That's the definition of investment. Seems to me, the best way to make money is to make customers happy.
due to my work, school, society demanding me to use closed MS formats
So is it microsoft or society that is removing your freedom?
It's common for consumer choices to be limited by what is popular. But usually you can get what you want if you're willing to pay more. This seems to be true of operating systems.
When he makes big donations in Inda or whatever it is a nice way of buying a good impression and some positive hype
Yeah I think this was one of the main points of the article as shown by the analogy to robber barons and fumigating fortunes. But is this really suprising? Seems to me buying favor by taking up a popular cause is common and ancient practice among businesses and politicians.
It's hilarious that Hillary would be on a crusade to protect kids from sexual content after her husband did so much to promote fellatio and marital infidelity.
Hillary says she wants to put parents "back in the driver's seat" with respect to protecting their children. But isn't her proposal an attempt to put the federal government in the driver seat?
I think little Timmy will download mature games from file sharing networks anyway.
>I think they should make tobacco totally illegal, >the use, sale, growth, purchase, etc..
yeah this approach worked really well for alcohol in the 1920s and 1930s. and today it's impossible to get heroin, marijuana and crack in this country.
what we should do instead is have the feds try to guarantee that there is an adequate supply of cigarettes for everyone. then, as with flu shots, we'd have a tough time getting them.:-)
if the government does not interfere with broadcasting at all, you get a media environment like the US
The government doesn't interfere with broadcasting in the US? Where can I get what you're smoking?! Ever heard of the FCC? How about the ol' digital broadcast mandate? or the 550k fine to Viacom over the superbowl incident? or the limits on broadcast ownership? or licensing of the broadcast spectrum?
i think it's silly to apply the monopoly laws to software because it's hard to define what a particular market is. really, who is to say what really should and shouldn't be in an OS. i think what would really squash innovation is having governments define what an OS is, or what a web browser is, or what a media player is.
i think MS should be allowed to do whatever they want with respect to bundling software. if they destroy competition, they will just push more people away from developing for Windows and more people toward Linux and alternatives. They would lose their ability to buy and steal ideas from the people who develop for windows. then maybe a killer app could come along on Apple or Linux and the tables would turn. the bigger they are the harder they fall.
I wonder what the rush is though. As technology gets better seems like it will only be easier and cheaper to send humans. In the mean time seems like robots are doing a fine job.
Or maybe just overtaxed. How much of a 70k salary does an American worker actually keep? Maybe two thirds if he's lucky. And how much in addition to the 70k does a company have to spend on health care, social security, workers comp, etc. on an American worker that it doesn't have to spend when it outsources to another country?
I think the import ban would hurt EU consumers more than it would hurt Microsoft. If EU consumers are willing to buy billions of dollars worth of MS software it must be of considerable value to them. If they had decent alternatives they would take them without needing a ban.
I don't know if $20 levy on Windows would work either. If MS can't raise the price of Windows I imagine they would find a way to pass on the cost through other products, hurting consumers also.
What about about all the folks outside the US that use google(e.g. www.google.de)? Would the US gov be interested in maintaining the foreign language sites?
How about all those other search engines that work reasonably well? Would it be fair to these other companies to have a government subsidized search engine?
The guy says 25k per person, not per household.
What a great incentive to have more children. My wife and I could pull down 200 G's with just 6 kids. Yes, and we'd all enjoy new freedom and creativity. Or maybe we'd just sit around and watch TV while robots delivered us pizza.
Why does this guy think one of our goals should be to increase the minimum wage when that would surely increase the rate at which people would be replaced by robots?
Another gem is using the lottery as a revenue source. Lottery revenues are pretty puny and hmmm, wouldn't this just worsen the concentration of wealth. Poorer folks buy lottery tickets, and the lottery winners become millionaires.
Slashdot Mirror
How do we know that humans are intelligent? Couldn't we apply the same standards to determine if a candidate AI is intelligent? We don't entirely understand how the human brain works, yet we regard ourselves as intelligent.
A neural network is neither necessary nor sufficient for intelligence, but biological neural networks are the only functioning intelligent entities we know of. Seems like emulating them is a good approach to AI. Granted, current artificial neural networks don't behave like biological neural networks. So just making current artificial networks bigger almost certainly won't do the trick. We need to make them bigger AND better.
Do all supernatural entities count in base ten?
California is missing the mark by going after auto makers. It should go after the real culprit here, carbon dioxide itself. We need to sue CO2 to stop its heat trapping ways! I see no other way to control this defiant and self-serving molecule.
I don't think it is a continuum. More like a really tall, yet discrete, family tree. If you figure 1 million years of evolution and 20 years per generation then the tree has about 50,000 generations between us and the common ancestor at the root.
Investors can get their say by selling their shares, which apparently they did.
The interests of the employees, the customers, and the community come before yours.
The interests of shareholders are not so independent from those of employees, customers and commuinity. First of all, many employees, customers and community members are also investors. Some poor guy working three minimum wage jobs could be an investor. Investors want to make money. That's the definition of investment. Seems to me, the best way to make money is to make customers happy.
Maybe nuclear could be used to prepare hydrogen for fuel cells in cars.
So is it microsoft or society that is removing your freedom?
It's common for consumer choices to be limited by what is popular. But usually you can get what you want if you're willing to pay more. This seems to be true of operating systems.
When he makes big donations in Inda or whatever it is a nice way of buying a good impression and some positive hype Yeah I think this was one of the main points of the article as shown by the analogy to robber barons and fumigating fortunes. But is this really suprising? Seems to me buying favor by taking up a popular cause is common and ancient practice among businesses and politicians.
I think it's ok if articles are lame, as long as the slashdot discussion is good. Sometimes a lame article brings up an interesting topic.
One of the strengths of a democracy is that the majority can prevent such idiotic ideas from becoming a reality.
One of the weaknesses of democracy is that a majority can impose their idiotic ideas on a minority.
Maybe internet service needs to be free
There is persistent confusion that government services are free. Of course somebody has to pay for them in the form of taxes.
They are probably really afraid That the government can offer a better service for free
I think they would be more concerned that it is free(i.e. funded through coercion) than that it is better.
It's hilarious that Hillary would be on a crusade to protect kids from sexual content after her husband did so much to promote fellatio and marital infidelity. Hillary says she wants to put parents "back in the driver's seat" with respect to protecting their children. But isn't her proposal an attempt to put the federal government in the driver seat? I think little Timmy will download mature games from file sharing networks anyway.
>I think they should make tobacco totally illegal,
:-)
>the use, sale, growth, purchase, etc..
yeah this approach worked really well for alcohol in the 1920s and 1930s. and today it's impossible to get heroin, marijuana and crack in this country.
what we should do instead is have the feds try to guarantee that there is an adequate supply of cigarettes for everyone. then, as with flu shots, we'd have a tough time getting them.
if the government does not interfere with broadcasting at all, you get a media environment like the US
The government doesn't interfere with broadcasting in the US? Where can I get what you're smoking?! Ever heard of the FCC? How about the ol' digital broadcast mandate? or the 550k fine to Viacom over the superbowl incident? or the limits on broadcast ownership? or licensing of the broadcast spectrum?
i think it's silly to apply the monopoly laws to software because it's hard to define what a particular market is. really, who is to say what really should and shouldn't be in an OS. i think what would really squash innovation is having governments define what an OS is, or what a web browser is, or what a media player is. i think MS should be allowed to do whatever they want with respect to bundling software. if they destroy competition, they will just push more people away from developing for Windows and more people toward Linux and alternatives. They would lose their ability to buy and steal ideas from the people who develop for windows. then maybe a killer app could come along on Apple or Linux and the tables would turn. the bigger they are the harder they fall.
I wonder what the rush is though. As technology gets better seems like it will only be easier and cheaper to send humans. In the mean time seems like robots are doing a fine job.
Or maybe just overtaxed. How much of a 70k salary does an American worker actually keep? Maybe two thirds if he's lucky. And how much in addition to the 70k does a company have to spend on health care, social security, workers comp, etc. on an American worker that it doesn't have to spend when it outsources to another country?
I don't know if $20 levy on Windows would work either. If MS can't raise the price of Windows I imagine they would find a way to pass on the cost through other products, hurting consumers also.
How about all those other search engines that work reasonably well? Would it be fair to these other companies to have a government subsidized search engine?
-jq
so true. middle east action is big auto subsidy. should add hefty gas tax to pay for war.
http://www.linuxcertified.com/linux-laptop-lc2000. html
http://www.atnextcom.com/linuxmain.htm
http://www.pcmall.com/pcmall/shop/detail.asp?actio n=techspec&options=TC&dpno=976204#scroll
Why does this guy think one of our goals should be to increase the minimum wage when that would surely increase the rate at which people would be replaced by robots?
Another gem is using the lottery as a revenue source. Lottery revenues are pretty puny and hmmm, wouldn't this just worsen the concentration of wealth. Poorer folks buy lottery tickets, and the lottery winners become millionaires.
uhh, the government spends less BUT individuals get to keep their money and spend more.