Please show me a photo of an atom, and not a computer model guessing what one looks like. Until then, forget that whole atomic theory of matter and go back to your earth, water, wind, and fire.
Almost all online retailers and probably most all band websites allow you to preview samples from albums. For free. No rental neede The RIAA is no altruistic group of angels, but there are way too many tired, lame excuses and justifications that do more harm than good and far, far outnumber any honest points.
I think you overestimate the human ego. I don't know about you, but I'd be perfectly happy to give up the mundane task of driving to an intelligent machine if it can do it better than I can. That frees me up to read the paper on the drive to work, or countless other more useful things I could be doing if I didn't have to constantly keep my eyes on the road.
I do agree with you on one point, but not for the reason you do: the problem of control. If there's any reason that an intelligent driving system wouldn't take off it would be because there isn't a human in control, so who gets blamed when something does go wrong? How would insurance companies handle this? Do our rates go down because we now have a machine in control that does a better job than we do? Do our rates go up if somehow there is an accident, even though it wasn't due to human error? Will people even accept an artificially intelligent driving machine if it has a less than completely, 100% reliable and error free record?
My gut reaction tells me probably not, because when something goes wrong, people look for someone to blame. If you can't blame the driver, do we blame the company that makes the IDS? If someone dies in an accident involving one of these systems, do we hold the company liable for it, even if it reduces the number of overall auto fatalities by, say, 90%? 95%? What level of imperfection are people prepared to accept? Is there ANY level that would be acceptable when you take the control out of the hands of humans, who we know and accept to be imperfect and therefore don't expect to be?
Just like..... well, everything else. Technology is always expensive at first, then later it gets cheaper. This is called "progress". Imagine that. If not for the early adopters, we'd never be seeing the cheaper spawns a few years later.
You still have the option of just not purchasing that hot Madonna album at all and spending your money on something else completely unrelated. Whether your money is going to the Weird Al CD that's priced lower or to something else entirely, in either case it's NOT going to the Madonna album. If they double the price of it, there are a lot of people who just won't buy the album, period. Jack the price up too much and the demand for it will definitely go down, regardless of the monopoly on that work.
What makes you think that a sufficiently complicated computer isn't conscious? What about a monkey? A dog? A cow? An insect? A worm? Keep going down and find the point where you say "ok, this is conscious, but this isn't." We can't yet even come up with a rigorous definition of consciousness yet. Jeff Hawkins has some very interesting theories though.
Why is religion protected from criticism any more than any other belief system like economics or politics? What makes religion automatically deserving of respect, especially when it contradicts reality?
Almost anyone can buy a car with the funds. Even without a license in some places, as someone said in a post way above. To legally operate a car, however, requires a valid license that shows (in theory) that you've received some kind of training in the safe operation of the car because you're operating it on public infrastructure. Maybe the same kind of licensing should be in place for operating computers connected to the internet, also a public infrastructure. No, I don't know the details of how this would work or how it would be enforced, nor shall I try to.:P
When questioned about what solidified the single-impact theory for him, MacLeod stated, "It just occurred to me, it's so simple.... THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!"
I'll join that. I've yet to see any kind of response to his book yet, positive or negative. Anyone know of any? I'm currently reading for my second time right now, and his framework seems solid.
Sorry, but no. In the human brain, the hardware IS the software. The patterns that the brain wires itself up in physically determine how it "runs". The analogy between a brain and computer can be useful, but it is only an analogy. Wire the brain up in a different way and you've fundamentally changed the "software" that is running. How the brain is wired up is determined by genetics for the most general wiring up, and also by all your experiences throughout your entire life that make up your memories. That physics and chemistry arise as the product of the mind is an assertion, not a fact.
If you think that you can separate the "software" of the brain from the hardware, then can you point to where that software is stored?
Slashdot Mirror
Congrats on your generator passing the Turing test. :)
And, from our point of view, just what would it look like if it did look like the Earth was orbiting the sun instead?
Yeah right, and you guys can kiss his black ass.
Dammit, it was supposed to include this link. I fail it for not previewing. :-l
O RLY?
Please show me a photo of an atom, and not a computer model guessing what one looks like. Until then, forget that whole atomic theory of matter and go back to your earth, water, wind, and fire.
Almost all online retailers and probably most all band websites allow you to preview samples from albums. For free. No rental neede The RIAA is no altruistic group of angels, but there are way too many tired, lame excuses and justifications that do more harm than good and far, far outnumber any honest points.
I do agree with you on one point, but not for the reason you do: the problem of control. If there's any reason that an intelligent driving system wouldn't take off it would be because there isn't a human in control, so who gets blamed when something does go wrong? How would insurance companies handle this? Do our rates go down because we now have a machine in control that does a better job than we do? Do our rates go up if somehow there is an accident, even though it wasn't due to human error? Will people even accept an artificially intelligent driving machine if it has a less than completely, 100% reliable and error free record?
My gut reaction tells me probably not, because when something goes wrong, people look for someone to blame. If you can't blame the driver, do we blame the company that makes the IDS? If someone dies in an accident involving one of these systems, do we hold the company liable for it, even if it reduces the number of overall auto fatalities by, say, 90%? 95%? What level of imperfection are people prepared to accept? Is there ANY level that would be acceptable when you take the control out of the hands of humans, who we know and accept to be imperfect and therefore don't expect to be?
Apparently, their grammar check could use a bit more advertising...
Saw it?
Apparently it's not as clear cut as it seems.
Just like..... well, everything else. Technology is always expensive at first, then later it gets cheaper. This is called "progress". Imagine that. If not for the early adopters, we'd never be seeing the cheaper spawns a few years later.
You still have the option of just not purchasing that hot Madonna album at all and spending your money on something else completely unrelated. Whether your money is going to the Weird Al CD that's priced lower or to something else entirely, in either case it's NOT going to the Madonna album. If they double the price of it, there are a lot of people who just won't buy the album, period. Jack the price up too much and the demand for it will definitely go down, regardless of the monopoly on that work.
Zing. :P
What makes you think that a sufficiently complicated computer isn't conscious? What about a monkey? A dog? A cow? An insect? A worm? Keep going down and find the point where you say "ok, this is conscious, but this isn't." We can't yet even come up with a rigorous definition of consciousness yet. Jeff Hawkins has some very interesting theories though.
Prove that you or I are conscious and more than just an incredibly complicated series of IF..THEN statements. :)
Abusing them is, hence the state of things today.
It's ok because most people here are pretty adept at "computing" with only one hand anyway.
Airsoft minigun loaded with metal BBs.
Why is religion protected from criticism any more than any other belief system like economics or politics? What makes religion automatically deserving of respect, especially when it contradicts reality?
Almost anyone can buy a car with the funds. Even without a license in some places, as someone said in a post way above. To legally operate a car, however, requires a valid license that shows (in theory) that you've received some kind of training in the safe operation of the car because you're operating it on public infrastructure. Maybe the same kind of licensing should be in place for operating computers connected to the internet, also a public infrastructure. No, I don't know the details of how this would work or how it would be enforced, nor shall I try to. :P
When questioned about what solidified the single-impact theory for him, MacLeod stated, "It just occurred to me, it's so simple.... THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!"
I think you've found your own problem. :P
I'll join that. I've yet to see any kind of response to his book yet, positive or negative. Anyone know of any? I'm currently reading for my second time right now, and his framework seems solid.
If you think that you can separate the "software" of the brain from the hardware, then can you point to where that software is stored?