From a computability point of view, the brain as an automaton device is at least as computationally powerful as a Turing machine, which is capable of simulating artificial intelligence. The brain could still be an interfacing device to something mystical, but it is known to be capable of some degree of artificial intelligence at the very least.
That said, I do agree with this point:
Some people may not be using enough of their brain to exhibit consciousness or any signs of intelligence.
In addition, I'd add:
Some machines may be powerful enough to show consciousness and intelligence, but people won't recognize it.
And, unfortunately, the best that people will ever say to approve a machine's intelligence is "my computer hates me."
Description about those groups and fields are like Java interfaces. These are just a collection of facts that allow you to prove theorems without knowing the particular implementation of an algebraic structure (e.g. natural numbers, matrices, geometry); or in the case of Java, being able to write a class method to use another class without looking at the actual source code of the other class.
A certain person meeting a pedant said, "The slave you sold me died." "By the gods," replied the other, "he never did such a thing when he was with me."
Looks like the book itself, as archived by Google, is from 1920, so this is really not news.
It has been years after Massachusetts legalized same sex marriage. Many same sex couples married in Massachusetts now realized that the piece of certificate is really redundant, saying nothing about their relationship. Some same sex couples who are having problems with their relationship are also considering a divorce. I guess if that's an easy way for the government to avoid ever possibly becoming a hindrance to somebody's happiness, then it's a good thing, although happiness is still not guaranteed without government intervention.
But gay rights group are becoming a nuisance, like evangelical religious zealots. You can't refuse participating a gay pride parade without being accused of discrimination. You said earlier how homosexuals are expected to keep their acts behind closed doors. What gives you the idea that straight couples are encouraged to bring their acts out in the open?
To be honest, in states disallowing same sex marriage, that means same sex couples would enjoy as many rights as an unmarried person like myself, which is still a lot. It's not like in the 60's when blacks are denied jobs and education.
The government should be a reflection of society's values, not a separate life form with a will of its own.
That's what many religious groups think, and you're thinking like them. And excuse me, I thought homosexuals are trying to persuade the government because of lack of society support.
People's motivation to get married is irrelevant to this discussion. To the government, the effect is simply tax, social benefits, property ownership, and census. Their vested interested in stabilizing committed couple is exactly because of those effects. There is nothing symbolically fancy about it.
(If you claim that government has a vested interested for committed couple as the basic building blocks of society, then are you saying that the government is discriminating against single person?)
I want to get this clear, so I'm asking you this question. Let's suppose the government converts all marriage to civil union and allow same sex couples to form a civil union for logistic purpose, enjoying the same right for everyone, including tax break and right of having dependents. They just won't be issuing love certificates for anyone, straight or homosexual. Obviously, besides the government because you can't legalize the way people think, there is no guarantee that same sex couple will enjoy the same kind of support, as a straight couple, from family, neighbors, or a religious institution. Not to say that they won't either, but they're on their own. Would this be good enough for you and your gay friends?
Being in a civil union with a life partner is not merely a commercially driven endeavor to procreate anymore, it is a concept based on the modern notion that two people are bound together by love.
To the government, marriage carries consequence for tax, social benefits, property ownership, parenthood, and census. It's certainly not about love. Even some married couples choose to exercise their legal personhood separately, for example by filing their own tax returns. I really don't think the legal rights of civil union is what homosexuals try to obtain.
However, if it's about love, then not even a government or church certificate will testify for you. Only the couple, homosexual or straight, will testify about their love in their own hearts.
Then, why the fuss about legalizing gay marriage? If you know your love is true, why do you need people to approve?
If you want to teach creationism in theology class then all the power to you. Hell, I'd sign my kids up for that class. It's when they start talking about teaching it in science class that I have issues.
If they teach evolution as an infallible, unquestionable truth, then they should teach it in a theology class, not in a science class. The day science stops being questionable is the day it turns into a religion.
Mac OS had cooperative multitasking, so they were time sharing but in a non-enforceable way. At the very least, it has several programs loaded to the memory at the same time. And as I said before for Windows, the programs share the same graphics interface (video card, keyboard, mouse), which is true for Mac OS as well.
Do you have any idea the kind of hackish maneuver you have do to share keyboard event with another program in DOS? You have to modify and chain the interrupt vector for keyboard IRQ and cross finger that the next interrupt handler doesn't unload itself in the future. There is no way to tell, and thankfully many such programs never exit until the computer is reset (there is no rebooting).
I still maintain that DOS is not an OS. It's a bunch of library functions for disk I/O and loading executable images; that's about it. Even the previous generation non-smart cellphone have more proper OS than DOS.
An operating system does go between hardware and application (it's an attribute of it), but it has to do a lot more. Not everything that goes between application and hardware is an operating system. For example, a game's soundblaster driver is not an OS. A lot of things have firmware, which runs on the hardware of the device. A device driver typically talks to the firmware, so the firmware indeed sits between hardware and the application. But firmware is not an OS.
Textbooks typically depict an OS to go between application and hardware, but any textbook would tell you that an OS manages the sharing of resources on a computer, in text. You are probably the kind of person who only looks at pretty pictures in a textbook or the opening sentence of each chapter.
When you claim to be informing us of something and we can easily spot a red herring, how do we not know the rest of it is better disguised red herrings?
Critical thinking skills, my friend. You expect people to spoon feed you on Slashdot? If you want, you can independently verify all my claims instead of arguing against my use of red herring, which I call a red herring because the statement about Vista apparently has nothing to do about the rest of what I said. And I'm not free to state my opinion? Bush damn it, but someone even mod me flamebait because of my opinion that they disagree with but have no spine to argue against. Anyway, your argument tactic is called "directed towards the person," or ad hominem, argument.
I can say that your definition is unrelated to every recognized definition of an OS I have ever seen
What do you think an OS is then?
Furthermore, what kind of computer you have been studying? Microcomputers and FPGAs? Because resource sharing is really what MULTICS, one of the very first OS and the grandfather of all OSes, is all about. Without the need to share resources (multitask) there really is no reason to arbitrate resource sharing. Many embedded OSes are also resource sharing and multitasking, such as VxWorks and QNX. Many hardware engineers program on bare metal instead (i.e. without OS) because their process is the only one that ever runs on the hardware.
Now that I've shown understanding of electrical engineering, can we be friends now?
I don't know what you think an OS is, but let me tell you what it is. Operating system is a layer in the computing platform that arbitrates the sharing of resources among several processes which run under it. Game that comes with its own device driver does not necessarily qualify for an OS. For the same reason, I don't consider DOS an OS because it doesn't arbitrate the sharing of computing resource. It never needed to because all DOS programs monopolize the computing resource on that computer.
Windows has always had an API which allows cooperative multitasking and sharing of, at the very minimum, GUI resources. Windows 3.0 introduced a 386 enhanced mode which runs a 32-bit virtual machine hypervisor that makes Windows fully capable of preemptive scheduling of MS-DOS programs, although it's still vulnerable to ill-behaved 16-bit Windows programs. Windows 3.1 came with more device drivers, relying only on MS-DOS for networking and networked drives. In Windows 95, each WIN32 application has their own address space that is isolated from the 16-bit programs. However, since its UI framework (USER.EXE) is still a 16-bit program, misbehaving WIN16 programs are still able to bring WIN32 to its knee. That does not negate the fact that Windows 95 is managing the sharing of pretty much all computing resources, though poorly.
That said, Windows Vista almost disqualifies as an OS because the OS itself utilizes most of the resources on the computer, leaving little for application programs.
It's not unusual for an OS to exit back to its underlying platform. Did you know that Minix (the OS that inspired Linux) can exit back to the boot loader, and Solaris (Sun OS) can exit back to OpenBoot (similar to OpenFirmware), much like how Windows 3.0, 3.1 and 95 exit back to DOS?
If you randomize pixel in any way before applying mosaic, adding noise or just randomly permute the pixels around, then what you get in the mosaic is going to be the same colored blocks that look like a solid colored strip. That's because mosaic computes the average of the pixel values that fall under the block, which would be the same for all blocks if randomness is evenly distributed.
However, if you apply mosaic first and then randomize the blocks after, then the result looks much more like mosaic and yet is irreversible.
Now, by feeding off the teat of Google, there is NO WAY that we will ever be competitive.
Think about it as an injured Olympics athlete on life support for the moment. It's up to you whether you want to take physical therapy and resume an athletic career, or stay on the wheel chair forever.
Google to Yahoo is like Vlasic to Wal-Mart in your example. Google is the supplier, and Yahoo the distributor. Establishing a distribution channel is the hard part, so Wal-Mart had an upper hand to threaten the termination of the non-exclusive deal because that would significantly affect Vlasic the supplier by undercutting its product distribution.
Yahoo in the Google ads deal already has its own distribution channel and even its own supply of ads. Yahoo is more like Wal-Mart, who carries its own Sam's Club breakfast cereal in addition to well-known brands such as Kellogg's and Quaker.
What about Dirac being a wavelet based codec that has inter-frame motion compensation? Wavelet is superior to DCT-based codec, like mpeg-1, 2, and h.264. Dirac's inter-frame encoding is also something that motion JPEG 2000 doesn't have.
It is evident that evolution must be taught in school, not as an objective truth, but so people will learn it enough to find flaws in it. However, many schools teach evolution as if it's the Ten Commandments, which should never be the way science is taught.
Of course it can. All you need is for one of those gods to get a priesthood significantly more powerful than the others and you've set the stage for that priesthood wiping out the competition.
If God is able to wipe out other gods, then that apparently shows He is the one true God. That still doesn't say anything about polytheism inspiring monotheism. Throughout history, every champion in some chronic competition recedes to a new champion after him. That is not the case for the Christian-Judeo God.
Sadly, this is true. People just won't shut the fuck up when it comes to their pet religion.
Then I'll pray that God breaks you until you're willing to listen.
Sumerian is polytheistic, and there is no way polytheism can inspire monotheism. Why have only one God who exclaims himself exclusively when you can have many? Again, the Book of the Dead is clearly polytheistic, but the First Commandment is what? "You shall have no other gods before me."
Consider the bible as other people's testimony about God. Even if you discredit the bible as being corrupted, there are still many living people who will testify about God to you.
The only one difference with people living today, and the people who lived during the period of Old Testament, is that we are living under God's grace, which is really undeserved favor from God to sacrifice Himself for our wrong doing. Otherwise human's sinful nature has not changed much over time. Although you're living with the privilege of grace, you appear to be rejecting grace because you think it is unfair to those who didn't enjoy it. That seems silly to me.
Slashdot Mirror
From a computability point of view, the brain as an automaton device is at least as computationally powerful as a Turing machine, which is capable of simulating artificial intelligence. The brain could still be an interfacing device to something mystical, but it is known to be capable of some degree of artificial intelligence at the very least.
That said, I do agree with this point:
In addition, I'd add:
And, unfortunately, the best that people will ever say to approve a machine's intelligence is "my computer hates me."
Description about those groups and fields are like Java interfaces. These are just a collection of facts that allow you to prove theorems without knowing the particular implementation of an algebraic structure (e.g. natural numbers, matrices, geometry); or in the case of Java, being able to write a class method to use another class without looking at the actual source code of the other class.
Abstract algebra is exactly that, abstraction.
Looks like the book itself, as archived by Google, is from 1920, so this is really not news.
It has been years after Massachusetts legalized same sex marriage. Many same sex couples married in Massachusetts now realized that the piece of certificate is really redundant, saying nothing about their relationship. Some same sex couples who are having problems with their relationship are also considering a divorce. I guess if that's an easy way for the government to avoid ever possibly becoming a hindrance to somebody's happiness, then it's a good thing, although happiness is still not guaranteed without government intervention.
But gay rights group are becoming a nuisance, like evangelical religious zealots. You can't refuse participating a gay pride parade without being accused of discrimination. You said earlier how homosexuals are expected to keep their acts behind closed doors. What gives you the idea that straight couples are encouraged to bring their acts out in the open?
To be honest, in states disallowing same sex marriage, that means same sex couples would enjoy as many rights as an unmarried person like myself, which is still a lot. It's not like in the 60's when blacks are denied jobs and education.
That's what many religious groups think, and you're thinking like them. And excuse me, I thought homosexuals are trying to persuade the government because of lack of society support.
People's motivation to get married is irrelevant to this discussion. To the government, the effect is simply tax, social benefits, property ownership, and census. Their vested interested in stabilizing committed couple is exactly because of those effects. There is nothing symbolically fancy about it.
(If you claim that government has a vested interested for committed couple as the basic building blocks of society, then are you saying that the government is discriminating against single person?)
I want to get this clear, so I'm asking you this question. Let's suppose the government converts all marriage to civil union and allow same sex couples to form a civil union for logistic purpose, enjoying the same right for everyone, including tax break and right of having dependents. They just won't be issuing love certificates for anyone, straight or homosexual. Obviously, besides the government because you can't legalize the way people think, there is no guarantee that same sex couple will enjoy the same kind of support, as a straight couple, from family, neighbors, or a religious institution. Not to say that they won't either, but they're on their own. Would this be good enough for you and your gay friends?
To the government, marriage carries consequence for tax, social benefits, property ownership, parenthood, and census. It's certainly not about love. Even some married couples choose to exercise their legal personhood separately, for example by filing their own tax returns. I really don't think the legal rights of civil union is what homosexuals try to obtain.
However, if it's about love, then not even a government or church certificate will testify for you. Only the couple, homosexual or straight, will testify about their love in their own hearts.
Then, why the fuss about legalizing gay marriage? If you know your love is true, why do you need people to approve?
If they teach evolution as an infallible, unquestionable truth, then they should teach it in a theology class, not in a science class. The day science stops being questionable is the day it turns into a religion.
Mac OS had cooperative multitasking, so they were time sharing but in a non-enforceable way. At the very least, it has several programs loaded to the memory at the same time. And as I said before for Windows, the programs share the same graphics interface (video card, keyboard, mouse), which is true for Mac OS as well.
Do you have any idea the kind of hackish maneuver you have do to share keyboard event with another program in DOS? You have to modify and chain the interrupt vector for keyboard IRQ and cross finger that the next interrupt handler doesn't unload itself in the future. There is no way to tell, and thankfully many such programs never exit until the computer is reset (there is no rebooting).
I still maintain that DOS is not an OS. It's a bunch of library functions for disk I/O and loading executable images; that's about it. Even the previous generation non-smart cellphone have more proper OS than DOS.
An operating system does go between hardware and application (it's an attribute of it), but it has to do a lot more. Not everything that goes between application and hardware is an operating system. For example, a game's soundblaster driver is not an OS. A lot of things have firmware, which runs on the hardware of the device. A device driver typically talks to the firmware, so the firmware indeed sits between hardware and the application. But firmware is not an OS.
Textbooks typically depict an OS to go between application and hardware, but any textbook would tell you that an OS manages the sharing of resources on a computer, in text. You are probably the kind of person who only looks at pretty pictures in a textbook or the opening sentence of each chapter.
Critical thinking skills, my friend. You expect people to spoon feed you on Slashdot? If you want, you can independently verify all my claims instead of arguing against my use of red herring, which I call a red herring because the statement about Vista apparently has nothing to do about the rest of what I said. And I'm not free to state my opinion? Bush damn it, but someone even mod me flamebait because of my opinion that they disagree with but have no spine to argue against. Anyway, your argument tactic is called "directed towards the person," or ad hominem, argument.
What do you think an OS is then?
Furthermore, what kind of computer you have been studying? Microcomputers and FPGAs? Because resource sharing is really what MULTICS, one of the very first OS and the grandfather of all OSes, is all about. Without the need to share resources (multitask) there really is no reason to arbitrate resource sharing. Many embedded OSes are also resource sharing and multitasking, such as VxWorks and QNX. Many hardware engineers program on bare metal instead (i.e. without OS) because their process is the only one that ever runs on the hardware.
Now that I've shown understanding of electrical engineering, can we be friends now?
You don't like the irony?
Out of all the things I said, you picked the red herring and neglected everything else that has merit. You must be a technology fan-person.
I don't know what you think an OS is, but let me tell you what it is. Operating system is a layer in the computing platform that arbitrates the sharing of resources among several processes which run under it. Game that comes with its own device driver does not necessarily qualify for an OS. For the same reason, I don't consider DOS an OS because it doesn't arbitrate the sharing of computing resource. It never needed to because all DOS programs monopolize the computing resource on that computer.
Windows has always had an API which allows cooperative multitasking and sharing of, at the very minimum, GUI resources. Windows 3.0 introduced a 386 enhanced mode which runs a 32-bit virtual machine hypervisor that makes Windows fully capable of preemptive scheduling of MS-DOS programs, although it's still vulnerable to ill-behaved 16-bit Windows programs. Windows 3.1 came with more device drivers, relying only on MS-DOS for networking and networked drives. In Windows 95, each WIN32 application has their own address space that is isolated from the 16-bit programs. However, since its UI framework (USER.EXE) is still a 16-bit program, misbehaving WIN16 programs are still able to bring WIN32 to its knee. That does not negate the fact that Windows 95 is managing the sharing of pretty much all computing resources, though poorly.
That said, Windows Vista almost disqualifies as an OS because the OS itself utilizes most of the resources on the computer, leaving little for application programs.
It's not unusual for an OS to exit back to its underlying platform. Did you know that Minix (the OS that inspired Linux) can exit back to the boot loader, and Solaris (Sun OS) can exit back to OpenBoot (similar to OpenFirmware), much like how Windows 3.0, 3.1 and 95 exit back to DOS?
If you randomize pixel in any way before applying mosaic, adding noise or just randomly permute the pixels around, then what you get in the mosaic is going to be the same colored blocks that look like a solid colored strip. That's because mosaic computes the average of the pixel values that fall under the block, which would be the same for all blocks if randomness is evenly distributed. However, if you apply mosaic first and then randomize the blocks after, then the result looks much more like mosaic and yet is irreversible.
Think about it as an injured Olympics athlete on life support for the moment. It's up to you whether you want to take physical therapy and resume an athletic career, or stay on the wheel chair forever.
Google to Yahoo is like Vlasic to Wal-Mart in your example. Google is the supplier, and Yahoo the distributor. Establishing a distribution channel is the hard part, so Wal-Mart had an upper hand to threaten the termination of the non-exclusive deal because that would significantly affect Vlasic the supplier by undercutting its product distribution.
Yahoo in the Google ads deal already has its own distribution channel and even its own supply of ads. Yahoo is more like Wal-Mart, who carries its own Sam's Club breakfast cereal in addition to well-known brands such as Kellogg's and Quaker.
It's called "trusted tester."
What about Dirac being a wavelet based codec that has inter-frame motion compensation? Wavelet is superior to DCT-based codec, like mpeg-1, 2, and h.264. Dirac's inter-frame encoding is also something that motion JPEG 2000 doesn't have.
It is evident that evolution must be taught in school, not as an objective truth, but so people will learn it enough to find flaws in it. However, many schools teach evolution as if it's the Ten Commandments, which should never be the way science is taught.
If God is able to wipe out other gods, then that apparently shows He is the one true God. That still doesn't say anything about polytheism inspiring monotheism. Throughout history, every champion in some chronic competition recedes to a new champion after him. That is not the case for the Christian-Judeo God.
Then I'll pray that God breaks you until you're willing to listen.
More ashamed of some people who claim to be Christians to accomplish their political propaganda, like war in Iraq.
Sumerian is polytheistic, and there is no way polytheism can inspire monotheism. Why have only one God who exclaims himself exclusively when you can have many? Again, the Book of the Dead is clearly polytheistic, but the First Commandment is what? "You shall have no other gods before me."
Consider the bible as other people's testimony about God. Even if you discredit the bible as being corrupted, there are still many living people who will testify about God to you.
The only one difference with people living today, and the people who lived during the period of Old Testament, is that we are living under God's grace, which is really undeserved favor from God to sacrifice Himself for our wrong doing. Otherwise human's sinful nature has not changed much over time. Although you're living with the privilege of grace, you appear to be rejecting grace because you think it is unfair to those who didn't enjoy it. That seems silly to me.
Try the pstricks package.