because evolution would be the only way to create such an undoubtedly complex system
I agree with this statement, but I think you're seeing evolution from a limited perspective. The basis of evolution is Darwinian natural selection, which applies to virtually every system in nature, right down to subatomic physics. Protons and electrons are "more successful" than pions because they're more stable.
It all comes down to which patterns are best at replicating themselves, and in an age of ideas, some patterns are getting absurdly complex quite quickly. Look at how quickly and effectively the market has pushed the limits of what corporations can and will do to make money ("good things" and "bad things" both). This is a huge system, tangled with billions of human beings, which are in turn huge systems composed of trillions of cells, which in turn etc, etc.
What Vinge mentions several times (and I think is key) is the factor that human competitiveness plays in this. As we run into more and more barriers which are problematic for human intelligence, there will be more and more pressure, evolutionary pressure in a sense, to develop systems that can do what people do on an intellectual level. It's only a matter of time (possibly centuries or millenia) before we are able to glean enough information from the workings of a human brain to make a system with similar capabilities. It doesn't have to function like a human brain, it doesn't necessarily even need to be self-aware (although that's a vague statement, given we don't really understand what self-awareness even is). What's really being driven towards is just something that can, in a sense, solve problems better than we can.
One of the biggest factors here has to got to be generality. Even if a paper doesn't rock the boat too much, a simple, general principle that applies to many fields of physics will be cited much more often.
I once decided to "mod" my case with a.22 and a couple of.45s. After the system was reassembled complete with bullet holes, a guy actually asked me, "Was your computer inside the case when you shot it?"
(PS - Just curious, when did Moore cancel, and do you know why? I just haven't heard anything about it, and couldn't find anything online about it)
My guess is that he's a filmmaker, not a debater. He takes the time to check his facts, but that doesn't necessarily mean he has the ability to keep them all perfectly brimming in his brain as is necessary when entering a first-class debate. Personally, I would never agree to appear on television debating with someone who's been shown to have blatantly lied in the past. The fact is, whoever plays the trump "facts" looks better on TV. It doesn't really matter if those facts are true or not, as the following rebuttal will never receive as much attention as the initial debate. Case in point, the ignorant masses who still carry on about the "lies" in BfC that have been long since shown to be truth.
It really irritates me that we still have so many sophists among us that assume that ability to debate one's point and look good on television equates to the validity of their standpoint. People slavering for Moore to be assaulted by trained, right-wing dobermans with records that are clearly tarnished, with no outstanding rebuttals should maybe, possibly instead focus on his polished work that has actually had the time and effort invested to be fact-checked with a nano-toothed comb.
This was my thought exactly. I love the idea of buying digital music. I hate the DRM restrictions that every vendor places on it. Now there's exactly one place I can go to get the best of both worlds. I can't imagine this hurting their sales in any appreciable way, but if nothing else, it's going to net them at least a few customers (until they fix their encryption, anyway).
Whilst is is unPC to earn money, money buys you time and a quality of time you spend. Don't waste the opportunity to increase the quality of the time you have.
While I completely agree with this, there's just something slimy about saying "write proprietary software if you want to be rich rich rich and live a happy life." There's nothing necessarily wrong with closed-source software, but there's certainly nothing necessarily right with it either.
And I could think of a great way to decrease the quality of time I have: Sell out on my personal values/beliefs for a bunch of money. That's essentially what the letter is saying to that young man: "Your beliefs are admirable, but seriously, stop thinking that and start making money."
On a side note, the only money I've made from programming was made from an open-source project. So...
There is a big difference between a rocket and a submarine, the biggest being that rockets have a history of blowing up in the air. Where there's wind. Ever wonder why we don't invest in blasting our millions of gallons of radioactive waste into space instead of just leaving it in leaky containers?
Finally, Natick handed out grants to study how certain herbs might enhance endurance and mental alertness. Dave Gangemi, the director of Clemson University's Institute for Nutraceutical Research, received a three-year, $900,000 grant to examine the effects of echinacea and other plants. He believes extracts from the herb can be added to rations -- and that should give soldiers an extra oomph.
In other news, echinacea outlawed in the US: DEA agents storm natural food stores.
Slashdot Mirror
because evolution would be the only way to create such an undoubtedly complex system
I agree with this statement, but I think you're seeing evolution from a limited perspective. The basis of evolution is Darwinian natural selection, which applies to virtually every system in nature, right down to subatomic physics. Protons and electrons are "more successful" than pions because they're more stable.
It all comes down to which patterns are best at replicating themselves, and in an age of ideas, some patterns are getting absurdly complex quite quickly. Look at how quickly and effectively the market has pushed the limits of what corporations can and will do to make money ("good things" and "bad things" both). This is a huge system, tangled with billions of human beings, which are in turn huge systems composed of trillions of cells, which in turn etc, etc.
What Vinge mentions several times (and I think is key) is the factor that human competitiveness plays in this. As we run into more and more barriers which are problematic for human intelligence, there will be more and more pressure, evolutionary pressure in a sense, to develop systems that can do what people do on an intellectual level. It's only a matter of time (possibly centuries or millenia) before we are able to glean enough information from the workings of a human brain to make a system with similar capabilities. It doesn't have to function like a human brain, it doesn't necessarily even need to be self-aware (although that's a vague statement, given we don't really understand what self-awareness even is). What's really being driven towards is just something that can, in a sense, solve problems better than we can.
Indeed. Egan's "Permutation City" is one of the most fascinating beds of ideas about consciousness and reality I've read.
And if you liked this movie, I've got some Nigerian money that desperately needs smuggling...
One of the biggest factors here has to got to be generality. Even if a paper doesn't rock the boat too much, a simple, general principle that applies to many fields of physics will be cited much more often.
They are not immune anymore and I would not want to myself to buy any of these shares nor would I like any family members.
Hey, if you don't like your family, that's none of my business.
I once decided to "mod" my case with a .22 and a couple of .45s. After the system was reassembled complete with bullet holes, a guy actually asked me, "Was your computer inside the case when you shot it?"
Here you go.
(PS - Just curious, when did Moore cancel, and do you know why? I just haven't heard anything about it, and couldn't find anything online about it)
My guess is that he's a filmmaker, not a debater. He takes the time to check his facts, but that doesn't necessarily mean he has the ability to keep them all perfectly brimming in his brain as is necessary when entering a first-class debate. Personally, I would never agree to appear on television debating with someone who's been shown to have blatantly lied in the past. The fact is, whoever plays the trump "facts" looks better on TV. It doesn't really matter if those facts are true or not, as the following rebuttal will never receive as much attention as the initial debate. Case in point, the ignorant masses who still carry on about the "lies" in BfC that have been long since shown to be truth.
It really irritates me that we still have so many sophists among us that assume that ability to debate one's point and look good on television equates to the validity of their standpoint. People slavering for Moore to be assaulted by trained, right-wing dobermans with records that are clearly tarnished, with no outstanding rebuttals should maybe, possibly instead focus on his polished work that has actually had the time and effort invested to be fact-checked with a nano-toothed comb.
Sorry, but I've seen much higher rates of it than this.
This was my thought exactly. I love the idea of buying digital music. I hate the DRM restrictions that every vendor places on it. Now there's exactly one place I can go to get the best of both worlds. I can't imagine this hurting their sales in any appreciable way, but if nothing else, it's going to net them at least a few customers (until they fix their encryption, anyway).
Whilst is is unPC to earn money, money buys you time and a quality of time you spend. Don't waste the opportunity to increase the quality of the time you have.
While I completely agree with this, there's just something slimy about saying "write proprietary software if you want to be rich rich rich and live a happy life." There's nothing necessarily wrong with closed-source software, but there's certainly nothing necessarily right with it either.
And I could think of a great way to decrease the quality of time I have: Sell out on my personal values/beliefs for a bunch of money. That's essentially what the letter is saying to that young man: "Your beliefs are admirable, but seriously, stop thinking that and start making money."
On a side note, the only money I've made from programming was made from an open-source project. So...
There is a big difference between a rocket and a submarine, the biggest being that rockets have a history of blowing up in the air. Where there's wind. Ever wonder why we don't invest in blasting our millions of gallons of radioactive waste into space instead of just leaving it in leaky containers?
Finally, Natick handed out grants to study how certain herbs might enhance endurance and mental alertness. Dave Gangemi, the director of Clemson University's Institute for Nutraceutical Research, received a three-year, $900,000 grant to examine the effects of echinacea and other plants. He believes extracts from the herb can be added to rations -- and that should give soldiers an extra oomph.
In other news, echinacea outlawed in the US: DEA agents storm natural food stores.