I guess the kernel shouldn't concern itself with user-land, but (not being a programmer), tell me, what will happen if a "don't-talk-to-systemd" routine is added to the kernel?
Since the kernel is open source, the distros - and anyone else who wants to - will remove it from their copy, so... nothing.
I should have never bought into the 3D accelerators thing back in the 90s. Whoa! can be anything. A short term fad and "the future" can't be graded by that metric.
So how many times did the Voodoo cards bring Whoa! out? If memory serves, it was gone by the third. 3D accelerators stayed because they made it possible to filter textures and up increase the resolution of 3D apps to the point where you can actually tell what's happening on the screen. Time will tell if Oculus will become a similar necessity.
VR on the other hand made me go Whoa!. So why will you not buy one?
$600 is a lot to pay for soon-fading novelty, which is what Whoa! is. A wise consumer is not an early adopter but a bargain bin scavenger.
If it's purely about cost then you're spoilt with an overload of cheap stuff. After all this pales in comparison to what I spent on a computer 20 years ago. But we're used to everything having to be a certain cheap price these days that we forget that luxury items are in fact luxury.
And entrepreneurs are spoiled with hordes of wealthy, financially secure consumers who can afford to take risks since they aren't risking their entire entertainment budget on something they might not like. In societies with high income differences most people don't spend much in luxuries. They can't afford to, and even if they could, they wouldn't dare to - better save the money for the rainy day, even if the result is that the economy comes to a halt.
If it is purely physical mechanisms, then the question of ethics and responsibility get eliminated. You cannot be responsible for things you cannot control. Now, I am not arguing that physicalism is bad because it has that effect. I am arguing that accepting Physicalism if untrue or unproven (which is the current state of affairs) is bad because it has that effect.
Right. So, answer the question: why do you think it's relevant whether the basis of your thoughts, feelings and impulses is physical or not? Because nothing you've said here depends on that.
Or, to put it in other words, even if you had unlimited willpower, that willpower would still be wielded by you, based on your preferences, your thoughts and emotions. And those preferences depend on humanity's evolutionary history and your local culture, which aren't under your control, and your personal history, which is at best partially so.
If it should turn out that Physicalism is actually the correct model (unlikely, but not impossible), then we will find that basically all thoughts on morals, ethics, laws, motivation, etc. are all bogus and worthless and that all of that will have to be re-though from scratch.
I think you're confusing determinism, which is a concept in physics, with free will, which is a concept in law and philosophy. No matter what the basis of your will, you either have reasons to want the things you want, in which case your will is deterministic, or you don't, in which case it's random, or some combination of these. People are bound by their nature, just like they're bound by their skeletal structure; it's the price you pay for existing as a creature with well-defined shape, regardless of whether that shape is made of matter or the singing voices of angelic choruses.
Physicalism is completely irrelevant to the argument you're making here.
VR is about as "ready" as 3D television, which is completely over because it does not really work at this time.
According to the linked review, Oculus works okay. It's also worth noting that Oculus is not VR but an interface device for interacting with VR; the actual Virtual Reality is the computer simulation Oculus is providing the interface for. Those are still pretty primitive, but with any luck better interfaces will help kick development into higher gear.
The only way to avoid that would be to either install some sort of "parked-car-penetrating radar" on my car to warn me about people I can't see, or to drive at a walking pace in places like that.
So do so.
Or - and I know this is a radical thought - you could teach your goddamn kids to take care of themselves instead of relying on everyone else to work around them,
Or how about you, a trained adult operating dangerous machinery on public places, stop blaming your own incompetence on others, especially kids?
and if you don't, I don't automatically go to jail if I hit them through no fault of my own,
That you inisist on driving too fast is no one's fault but your own.
If a distracted pedestrian, not obeying traffic laws gets mowed down, then that is on them, 100%. Driver walks away scot-free.
This will lead to the same problem as with "stand your ground" laws: it's typically not possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the pedestrian obeyed traffick laws, so the driver will walk away.
If they cause any financial hardship on anyone for their distractedness, they own it, 100%.
Could not agree more. Physicalists are an utterly demented fundamentalist bunch that mistake their beliefs for science.
Even if this were true, why would it be relevant? Why would your thoughts, emotions and impulses being sealed inside a black box science can never penetrate rather than chemical reactions in your brain make it any easier to ignore them? And why would you have any more of a motive to do so?
Because you're asserting that artificial intelligence is infeasible in "this universe", yet natural intelligencies - us - exist. That's equivalent to claiming human beings are supernatural - that is, there's a component to human intelligence which can't be replicated by any engineering, no matter how advanced - which is an extraordinary claim.
Are you of the school of though that a theory is only valid if it explains everything and has no gray areas and leaves no unexplained things?
No, but I do think extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
This is, incidentally, an idea that is also frequently encountered in fundamentalist religion.
So is expecting others to believe your pet theories despite all available evidence being against them.
The lack of even a credible theory how strong AI could be implemented in this universe is something of a pretty strong hint though, if you take into account how much effort has gone into that.
Very little. The whole concept of a Turing machine isn't even a century old, and modern computers are still far from the raw computing power of human brain. Internet broke through in my lifetime, and ubiquitous computing - smart everything - is still just a promise on the horizon. The proverbial sunrise of the Information Age hasn't yet happened, so it's a bit early to declare the day a hoax.
The idea that humans are mind-body hybrids, with the mind only physical in that it can use certain interfaces, has some things going for it though and it is compatible with a number of different world-models, including the one where the physical universe is a simulation.
It is not, however, compatible with the fact that booze exists - that is, the observation that any disturbance in the physical state of the brain causes a disturbance in the function of the mind. And even if it was true, it wouldn't actually prove that such hybrid existence would be required for intelligence.
Quite frankly, this all sounds a lot like the old idea that soul is a little man inside you, made up of some kind of "spirit matter" - let's call it ectoplasm - and doesn't need any kind of internal structure to do its work.
Having a huge number of batteries connected to the grid also helps smooth out renewables and provide backup where the grid itself is unreliable.
No, it doesn't, because the very first accessory I'll get for any electric car I might own will be a grid smarts stripper which ensures it starts loading batteries as soon as I plug it in, and keeps them full. I'm not going to subsidy the electric company by either paying for a bigger battery pack than I need, nor replacing it more often due to the extra wear and tear. And even if I were willing to, it still wouldn't make sense to waste energy by hauling those batteries around rather than have them sit in a facility somewhere.
There's also the question of honesty: if renewables are unreliable and require battery backup, then the cost of that battery backup needs to show in the electric bill, not on car price. Unless, of course, hiding it to make renewables look better than they actually are - in other words, lying - was the whole point.
Tesla are due to announce their $35k (before tax breaks etc) model in a few days.
Does the battery pack have long enough service life that the vehicle will enter the used cars market eventually? Because it won't make much of an impact otherwise, in India or anywhere else.
"Deep learning" is not learning at all and carries zero qualities of insight or understanding. It is parameter adjustment to a sample of data.
Please explain what you mean by "insight" and "understanding" and why these are necessary qualities for something to qualify as learning? Because "parameter adjustment to a sample of data" seems to cover an awful lot of cases.
It is something that looks very well on grant applications or marketing material though.
It looks good because it gets results. Customers are generally more interested in whether a learning device acts as if it learns, not whether a philosopher thinks it "really" learns.
One reason I see why so many people get this wrong is that they do not have a lot of effective intelligence themselves and are mostly driven by an emotional system that may well be mostly mechanical.
To the best of our knowledge, every system in the human brain - including the emotional system - is completely mechanical.
What this means is that unless you have a really big plasma, if it's got anything higher in atomic number than hydrogen in it, it can't have a self sustaining reaction if it's an equilibrium thermal plasma, because it radiatively cools itself (photons escape carrying energy) faster than it heats itself via fusion reactions.
But you can still have a self sustaining reactor which captures those photons, uses some to reheat the plasma and outputs the rest as energy.
the market is going to vote with its dollars and go with what works today and is cheap!
Cheap to the investor, not necessarily cheap to humanity as a whole. Unaccounted externalities are slowly but surely making capitalism itself a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the kernel is open source, the distros - and anyone else who wants to - will remove it from their copy, so... nothing.
Has it? When did you last hear an AC say something money or power has any reason whatsoever to be afraid of?
So how many times did the Voodoo cards bring Whoa! out? If memory serves, it was gone by the third. 3D accelerators stayed because they made it possible to filter textures and up increase the resolution of 3D apps to the point where you can actually tell what's happening on the screen. Time will tell if Oculus will become a similar necessity.
I think you're confusing "smart person" and "psychic".
$600 is a lot to pay for soon-fading novelty, which is what Whoa! is. A wise consumer is not an early adopter but a bargain bin scavenger.
And entrepreneurs are spoiled with hordes of wealthy, financially secure consumers who can afford to take risks since they aren't risking their entire entertainment budget on something they might not like. In societies with high income differences most people don't spend much in luxuries. They can't afford to, and even if they could, they wouldn't dare to - better save the money for the rainy day, even if the result is that the economy comes to a halt.
Right. So, answer the question: why do you think it's relevant whether the basis of your thoughts, feelings and impulses is physical or not? Because nothing you've said here depends on that.
Or, to put it in other words, even if you had unlimited willpower, that willpower would still be wielded by you, based on your preferences, your thoughts and emotions. And those preferences depend on humanity's evolutionary history and your local culture, which aren't under your control, and your personal history, which is at best partially so.
I think you're confusing determinism, which is a concept in physics, with free will, which is a concept in law and philosophy. No matter what the basis of your will, you either have reasons to want the things you want, in which case your will is deterministic, or you don't, in which case it's random, or some combination of these. People are bound by their nature, just like they're bound by their skeletal structure; it's the price you pay for existing as a creature with well-defined shape, regardless of whether that shape is made of matter or the singing voices of angelic choruses.
Physicalism is completely irrelevant to the argument you're making here.
According to the linked review, Oculus works okay. It's also worth noting that Oculus is not VR but an interface device for interacting with VR; the actual Virtual Reality is the computer simulation Oculus is providing the interface for. Those are still pretty primitive, but with any luck better interfaces will help kick development into higher gear.
So do so.
Or how about you, a trained adult operating dangerous machinery on public places, stop blaming your own incompetence on others, especially kids?
That you inisist on driving too fast is no one's fault but your own.
This will lead to the same problem as with "stand your ground" laws: it's typically not possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the pedestrian obeyed traffick laws, so the driver will walk away.
Wall Street will veto a law like that.
And it was: people who prioritised ensuring they'd survive their stupid mistakes outcompeted people who prioritised making sure others wouldn't.
Every now and then I get a horrible feeling that conservatives actually believe the ridiculous bullshit they write.
Even if this were true, why would it be relevant? Why would your thoughts, emotions and impulses being sealed inside a black box science can never penetrate rather than chemical reactions in your brain make it any easier to ignore them? And why would you have any more of a motive to do so?
Why would I need to explain it?
Because you're asserting that artificial intelligence is infeasible in "this universe", yet natural intelligencies - us - exist. That's equivalent to claiming human beings are supernatural - that is, there's a component to human intelligence which can't be replicated by any engineering, no matter how advanced - which is an extraordinary claim.
No, but I do think extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
So is expecting others to believe your pet theories despite all available evidence being against them.
Yes, you could. That would basically end up collecting taxes through inflation rather than explicitly, but is perfectly doable.
People still haven't fully made the leap of abstraction from gold standard to fiat currency.
Yes, it does. It will simply result in a different set of problems which may be better or worse than the current system.
Doublethink is the price of conservatism.
So the details you remember from long ago support your political beliefs. How strange.
You do realize you could simply disallow or limit collect calls from jail?
The elephant in the room is GOP. It's the right wing that's causing this problem, and most others.
"Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!"
Very little. The whole concept of a Turing machine isn't even a century old, and modern computers are still far from the raw computing power of human brain. Internet broke through in my lifetime, and ubiquitous computing - smart everything - is still just a promise on the horizon. The proverbial sunrise of the Information Age hasn't yet happened, so it's a bit early to declare the day a hoax.
It is not, however, compatible with the fact that booze exists - that is, the observation that any disturbance in the physical state of the brain causes a disturbance in the function of the mind. And even if it was true, it wouldn't actually prove that such hybrid existence would be required for intelligence.
Quite frankly, this all sounds a lot like the old idea that soul is a little man inside you, made up of some kind of "spirit matter" - let's call it ectoplasm - and doesn't need any kind of internal structure to do its work.
No, they're intentionally - and rightly, in my opinion - ignoring it to focus on the lie before them.
No, it doesn't, because the very first accessory I'll get for any electric car I might own will be a grid smarts stripper which ensures it starts loading batteries as soon as I plug it in, and keeps them full. I'm not going to subsidy the electric company by either paying for a bigger battery pack than I need, nor replacing it more often due to the extra wear and tear. And even if I were willing to, it still wouldn't make sense to waste energy by hauling those batteries around rather than have them sit in a facility somewhere.
There's also the question of honesty: if renewables are unreliable and require battery backup, then the cost of that battery backup needs to show in the electric bill, not on car price. Unless, of course, hiding it to make renewables look better than they actually are - in other words, lying - was the whole point.
Does the battery pack have long enough service life that the vehicle will enter the used cars market eventually? Because it won't make much of an impact otherwise, in India or anywhere else.
Then how do you explain human brain? Nature magic?
Please explain what you mean by "insight" and "understanding" and why these are necessary qualities for something to qualify as learning? Because "parameter adjustment to a sample of data" seems to cover an awful lot of cases.
It looks good because it gets results. Customers are generally more interested in whether a learning device acts as if it learns, not whether a philosopher thinks it "really" learns.
To the best of our knowledge, every system in the human brain - including the emotional system - is completely mechanical.
But you can still have a self sustaining reactor which captures those photons, uses some to reheat the plasma and outputs the rest as energy.
Cheap to the investor, not necessarily cheap to humanity as a whole. Unaccounted externalities are slowly but surely making capitalism itself a problem.