Just like "Web 2.0" and other non-concepts, this term gets used to pretend something is a new version of something else, just because its "Internet".
Ordinarily, I'd agree. Too many "but on the Internet" patents granted, businesses started, etc.
Its a small computer, just like small computers that are already in things.
This is where I'll disagree. Sure, there's been small computers for a while. However, this is the first time these small computers are both cheap enough to be in too many places and complex enough to run a common free OS that provides an IP networking stack. Previously, small computers that could speak IP were too costly to be ubiquitous, and small computers that were cheap enough to be ubiquitous were too simple to speak IP. There really is a first time for many things, and I believe that right now is the first time for the ubiquity of small computers that speak IP.
I read Herbert's Dune in print several years after I first read it as an monospace-font plaintext digital document. I didn't feel the typesetting really added much value at all. I feel that the ASCII version I first read was at least 99% as valuable as the typeset version.
That being said, I do enjoy collecting paper books. I've got nearly all of Dostoevsky's works on paper. I wouldn't be quite as proud of a digital collection. This has more to do with sentimentality than typesetting, though. Honestly, if I could've acquired his works sans typesetting for half the cost, I would've jumped at the opportunity. I understand that there's more that goes into a book than just what the author writes, but I question the value of all these extras. People on here have been claiming that distribution accounts for maybe 10% of the cost of a printed book. I'm pretty confident that the author gets nowhere near 90%. The typesetting, the editing, the marketing, everything else... really, how much is this worth to the average reader? I'm pretty sure I could live without that crap if the savings were passed along to the buyer.
1. The Brain is NOT the Mind. The Mind is _non-local_ -- that is, we are unable to identity WHERE in the brain it is. It appears to be stored holographically in the mind. But just because you can _represent_ something does not imply it is _functional_ at a self-aware level. ... 2. Furthermore, Reductionism and Materialism are archaic perspectives. Peter Russell in his brilliant "The Primacy of Consciousness [youtube.com]" shows why this "brain = machine" is a complete fallacy.
The arguments against the inevitability of strong AI mostly revolve around these points. You seem like someone that doesn't believe that the development of strong AI is inevitable. I'm of the opposite opinion. Let's explore.
So, let's say out understanding of the human brain never really advances past its current point. Let's say we never really "understand" how the human brain works. Let's say we continue developing medical imaging technology, eventually reaching a point where we can image a human brain with sufficient temporal and spatial resolution to record its entire physical structure. Where each neuron is, and which other neurons it's connected to. This doesn't give us any meaningful understanding of the brain or how it works, but it does give us a blueprint.
Let's say we never figure out any magical algorithms for AI. Let's say we never figure out how to get artificial neural networks to sufficiently mimic biological ones. Let's say we continue developing computer technology, eventually reaching a point where we can do lots and lots of ordinary calculations per second. Enough to run much larger, higher-fidelity physical simulations than the ones we do today. This doesn't give us any sort of thinking machines, but it does let us simulate the existence of the human brain, as described by the aforementioned blueprint.
Now, you're saying that the brain is not the mind, so you probably wouldn't expect this simulation to produce any mind-like behavior. That's entirely possible, and it may indeed be true that the mind is not contained entirely within the brain. However, I don't see any reason to suspect that the mind isn't contained entirely within the human body. Consequently, wouldnt' expanding our blueprint to include the rest of the human body get around this little problem? If it's reasonable to expect that we will one day be able to map the brain, isn't it no less reasonable that we'd be able to map the whole body?
That addresses your first point, I believe. Your second point I can't really comment on, because I'm not familiar with Peter Russell's work. I'm also not aware that Reductionism and Materialism are archaic. I was under the impression that they were the very basis for empiricism and science. If you're suggesting that there's some sort of non-physical or supernatural mechanisms at play when it comes to the brain, then I'm afraid you're stepping beyond the realm of science and into the world of non-natural philosophy.
In any case, could you elaborate on this? Am I way off in my characterization of your position? If not, any comment?
I live in NJ. There's not a single E0 station in NJ, according to that site. (NJ doesn't have pump-labelling requirements, so it might be a lack of data and not a lack of E0 fuel).
Good thing I left my Husqvarna saw in Maine when I moved back down here.
All my computers are HP. I used to build my own, but then I realized that HP sells pre-built systems for cheaper than I can get components. No complaints here.
I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
and potential mental losses.
Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the Internet become more few?
How many hands have I shaked?
They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.
I know that the human being and the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream.
Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize society!
Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher!
I'm not a neuroscientist. As far as I know, injecting bone marrow stem cells (and retinal pigment) or even embryonic stem cells into the eyeballs of people with macular degeneration seems to have a positive effect on their condition. Are the nerves in the eye more likely to respond to such therapy than nerves in the spine? If so, why?
This is the best long thread I've had the pleasure of participating in on slashdot. So civil! So reasonable! Usually things would devolve to ad hominem attacks at this point. Instead, you treat me to "you're certainly entitled to your opinion." Refreshing!
In any case, I concede that this "if you like your plan" quote is misleading at best. Deliberately so, if I had to guess. Perhaps the context in which I heard it made me more willing to overlook the bullshit quotient that characterizes it. At the time Obama made this statement, the national dialog consisted in part of "death panel" alarmism and allegations of a federal takeover of healthcare services. I took Obama's words to be little more than a reassurance that while yes, things would be changing, no, people's worst fears were unfounded. In that context, under such an interpretation, his lie was a small one. However, it's not fair of me to assume that everyone interpreted his statement the same way I did. My sympathies go out to those that put their faith in Obama and took his words at face value only to be surprised by the very real disappearance of their insurance policies.
Conversely, the policy offered to me by my employer was also discontinued (due to the ACA, I was told). However, it was replaced by one that's virtually indistinguishable. If my experience isn't unique, and many policies were similarly discontinued (due to the ACA) but replaced by nearly-identical ones, that would mean that Obama's words were technically false. However, if that were the extent of the negative impact of the ACA (and I'm not suggesting that it is, merely pointing out how it could be perceived as such), would it really be worth all this commotion? Perhaps people that find themselves in a position similar to mine dismiss this entire dialog outright because they don't believe that people are actually losing coverage in any meaningful sense. I can at least speak for myself and say that I don't know how many people have truly been impacted by this legislation. There's a lot of contradictory and extreme claims coming from both sides of the debate, many of which are literally incredible. It's not even easy to trust "pure" statistics in such an environment. After all, even if everyone's insurance had been affected exactly the same way as mine (technically discontinued, but actually replaced by an indistinguishable one), statistics could be produced to suggest a 100% total elimination of the pre-ACA health insurance regime. In a climate where both sides are more interested in winning the debate more than arriving at a well-informed comprimise, is it any surprise that independent-minded people are hesitant to buy into any of this shit?
In any case, I grant that I'm too willing to forgive Obama on this point. I suppose that it's in large part because I've found his other failures to be so egregious that I feel that I can't be troubled to get worked up about what (to me) amounts to a molehill in comparison.
The only possible reason to disagree with the ACA would be out of ignorance, I'm sure.
You can't possibly think that's what I mean, since I myself openly stated that I think the ACA is shitty. There's countless reasons to disagree with the ACA. If the "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan" quote is your biggest problem with this legislation, then you're not looking too closely.
News flash -- Obama still lied. If he hadn't repeated that lie so often, he might not have won reelection.
News flash -- All politicians running for national office, both Democrat and Republican, do nothing but lie to gain or retain office. I never said Obama was an honest man, or that he kept his campaign promises. I merely pointed out that of all the things to point out as lies, the particular quote you're hung up on is relatively excusable. It's at least true in spirit to a large extent, since "if you like your plan [and your plan is not worthless, and your plan does not cripple risk pooling, and your plan continues to be profitable for your insurer, and your insurer remains solvent], you can keep your plan" would have actually been true (but too much of a mouthful to be a convenient sound byte). To get hung up that Obama didn't spell out the implied fine print regarding the ACA while overlooking his other failures and lies (say, his claims of heading the most transparent administration in American history while at the same time continuing to expand the opaque NSA surveillance apparatus) suggests you have no perspective regarding the magnitude of a lie.
Also, I caution you to be wary of your Republican friends as well. Your tone betrays your critical stance regarding Democrats, which is healthy only if balanced. I hope that you don't cheerlead for their primary opposition with the best of intentions only to find yourself supporting what amounts to be the other side of the same coin. There were those independent voters who were so disgruntled with Bush's Republicans that they eventually became supporters of Obama's Democrats. It wasn't long before many of them realized that they had been fooled again.
I know maternity coverage for men sounds crazy, much like AIDS coverage for celibate individuals who don't share needles, or transfusion coverage for Jehovah's Witnesses. Apparently you're new to the ideas of risk and risk pooling, and I'm afraid that an explanation of those is beyond the scope of a slashdot thread. Let's just say that the requirement for maternity coverage cannot alone explain the termination of any healthcare plans, since there's no prohibition against adding maternity coverage to plans that previously didn't offer any.
Your idea of "perfectly good" is at odds with reality. Just because you think a plan that allows the insurer to drop the covered with no notice is "perfectly good" doesn't mean that it is. People covered by such plans (and then dropped by such plans) put significant strain on the healthcare industry, much like other uninsured or underinsured individuals. The ACA outlaws such plans and forces people to get "real" health insurance, insurance that will actually cover them when they need it. There are other shitty plans that the ACA outlaws as well that are just as objectively shitty as these. The ACA doesn't outlaw "perfectly good" plans. I eagerly await any counterexample to my claim. Show me one of these "perfectly good" policies that was outlawed by ACA, along with the specific provision of the ACA that outlaws it, and I will in turn show you the reasoning behind said provision, and consequently why said policy is (or was) shit.
That being said, the ACA is retarded. It forces Americans to give their money to for-profit companies. Any mandatory insurance should be nationalized, be it healthcare, auto liability, etc.
You know, I'm no fan of Obama. He's been found to be full of shit on countless occasions. He's failed to keep his promises more often than not. He sucks as much as any other Democrat or Republican president before him.
That being said, I'm inclined to give him a free pass on the point you bring up. Honestly, I don't think it was unreasonable for him to believe that people covered by really shitty healthcare plans didn't actually like those plans. In hindsight, I suppose that was a stupid belief to have; of course people liked those plans, simply because those were the plans they had. That those plans would drop coverage the minute they actually needed it is irrelevant. People are not rational, they're stupid. That's the only thing Obama was guilty of when it comes to the quote you mention: forgetting the sheer number of imbeciles in this country.
He should've said "If you like your health care plan and your healthcare plan isn't totally worthless, you can keep it."
Slashdot Mirror
Just like "Web 2.0" and other non-concepts, this term gets used to pretend something is a new version of something else, just because its "Internet".
Ordinarily, I'd agree. Too many "but on the Internet" patents granted, businesses started, etc.
Its a small computer, just like small computers that are already in things.
This is where I'll disagree. Sure, there's been small computers for a while. However, this is the first time these small computers are both cheap enough to be in too many places and complex enough to run a common free OS that provides an IP networking stack. Previously, small computers that could speak IP were too costly to be ubiquitous, and small computers that were cheap enough to be ubiquitous were too simple to speak IP. There really is a first time for many things, and I believe that right now is the first time for the ubiquity of small computers that speak IP.
Curently, GP's score stands at 4, Interesting:
50% Interesting
30% Overrated
20% Informative
I don't see any troll mods. Are you sure you replied to the correct post?
I don't get it.
I read Herbert's Dune in print several years after I first read it as an monospace-font plaintext digital document. I didn't feel the typesetting really added much value at all. I feel that the ASCII version I first read was at least 99% as valuable as the typeset version.
That being said, I do enjoy collecting paper books. I've got nearly all of Dostoevsky's works on paper. I wouldn't be quite as proud of a digital collection. This has more to do with sentimentality than typesetting, though. Honestly, if I could've acquired his works sans typesetting for half the cost, I would've jumped at the opportunity. I understand that there's more that goes into a book than just what the author writes, but I question the value of all these extras. People on here have been claiming that distribution accounts for maybe 10% of the cost of a printed book. I'm pretty confident that the author gets nowhere near 90%. The typesetting, the editing, the marketing, everything else... really, how much is this worth to the average reader? I'm pretty sure I could live without that crap if the savings were passed along to the buyer.
1. The Brain is NOT the Mind. The Mind is _non-local_ -- that is, we are unable to identity WHERE in the brain it is. It appears to be stored holographically in the mind. But just because you can _represent_ something does not imply it is _functional_ at a self-aware level.
...
2. Furthermore, Reductionism and Materialism are archaic perspectives. Peter Russell in his brilliant "The Primacy of Consciousness [youtube.com]" shows why this "brain = machine" is a complete fallacy.
The arguments against the inevitability of strong AI mostly revolve around these points. You seem like someone that doesn't believe that the development of strong AI is inevitable. I'm of the opposite opinion. Let's explore.
So, let's say out understanding of the human brain never really advances past its current point. Let's say we never really "understand" how the human brain works. Let's say we continue developing medical imaging technology, eventually reaching a point where we can image a human brain with sufficient temporal and spatial resolution to record its entire physical structure. Where each neuron is, and which other neurons it's connected to. This doesn't give us any meaningful understanding of the brain or how it works, but it does give us a blueprint.
Let's say we never figure out any magical algorithms for AI. Let's say we never figure out how to get artificial neural networks to sufficiently mimic biological ones. Let's say we continue developing computer technology, eventually reaching a point where we can do lots and lots of ordinary calculations per second. Enough to run much larger, higher-fidelity physical simulations than the ones we do today. This doesn't give us any sort of thinking machines, but it does let us simulate the existence of the human brain, as described by the aforementioned blueprint.
Now, you're saying that the brain is not the mind, so you probably wouldn't expect this simulation to produce any mind-like behavior. That's entirely possible, and it may indeed be true that the mind is not contained entirely within the brain. However, I don't see any reason to suspect that the mind isn't contained entirely within the human body. Consequently, wouldnt' expanding our blueprint to include the rest of the human body get around this little problem? If it's reasonable to expect that we will one day be able to map the brain, isn't it no less reasonable that we'd be able to map the whole body?
That addresses your first point, I believe. Your second point I can't really comment on, because I'm not familiar with Peter Russell's work. I'm also not aware that Reductionism and Materialism are archaic. I was under the impression that they were the very basis for empiricism and science. If you're suggesting that there's some sort of non-physical or supernatural mechanisms at play when it comes to the brain, then I'm afraid you're stepping beyond the realm of science and into the world of non-natural philosophy.
In any case, could you elaborate on this? Am I way off in my characterization of your position? If not, any comment?
I live in NJ. There's not a single E0 station in NJ, according to that site. (NJ doesn't have pump-labelling requirements, so it might be a lack of data and not a lack of E0 fuel).
Good thing I left my Husqvarna saw in Maine when I moved back down here.
All my computers are HP. I used to build my own, but then I realized that HP sells pre-built systems for cheaper than I can get components. No complaints here.
No, sugar beets make more sense.
But the corn lobby is bigger, so...
So then instead of dropping a blade across the neck, drop a massive anvil directly on the head. Wile E. Coyote style. I'm being serious.
Fascinating! Thanks for the great reply as well as the great link. This is why slashdot still kicks ass :)
See the neologism "islamist". Usually synonymous with "islamic militant, extremist, or radical."
Even the non-offensive usage of the word is absurd. We don't call fundamentalist evangelical christians "christianists".
Please see my post (#47076051) under the reply theskipper wrote to you.
By George W. Bush
I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
and potential mental losses.
Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the Internet become more few?
How many hands have I shaked?
They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.
I know that the human being and the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream.
Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize society!
Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher!
(emphasis mine)
I'm not a neuroscientist. As far as I know, injecting bone marrow stem cells (and retinal pigment) or even embryonic stem cells into the eyeballs of people with macular degeneration seems to have a positive effect on their condition. Are the nerves in the eye more likely to respond to such therapy than nerves in the spine? If so, why?
christians and islamists
Don't you mean christians and muslims? Or christianists and islamists? Why the inconsistency?
I was thinking more along the lines of Super Sonic Car (along the same lines as the Concorde SST being a Super Sonic Transport).
But I guess we'll never know.
And couldn't you actually post what it stands for instead of linking to some other site?!
If you aired ALF on your network you'd crush your competition! Or you'd be craving cat.
This is the best long thread I've had the pleasure of participating in on slashdot. So civil! So reasonable! Usually things would devolve to ad hominem attacks at this point. Instead, you treat me to "you're certainly entitled to your opinion." Refreshing!
In any case, I concede that this "if you like your plan" quote is misleading at best. Deliberately so, if I had to guess. Perhaps the context in which I heard it made me more willing to overlook the bullshit quotient that characterizes it. At the time Obama made this statement, the national dialog consisted in part of "death panel" alarmism and allegations of a federal takeover of healthcare services. I took Obama's words to be little more than a reassurance that while yes, things would be changing, no, people's worst fears were unfounded. In that context, under such an interpretation, his lie was a small one. However, it's not fair of me to assume that everyone interpreted his statement the same way I did. My sympathies go out to those that put their faith in Obama and took his words at face value only to be surprised by the very real disappearance of their insurance policies.
Conversely, the policy offered to me by my employer was also discontinued (due to the ACA, I was told). However, it was replaced by one that's virtually indistinguishable. If my experience isn't unique, and many policies were similarly discontinued (due to the ACA) but replaced by nearly-identical ones, that would mean that Obama's words were technically false. However, if that were the extent of the negative impact of the ACA (and I'm not suggesting that it is, merely pointing out how it could be perceived as such), would it really be worth all this commotion? Perhaps people that find themselves in a position similar to mine dismiss this entire dialog outright because they don't believe that people are actually losing coverage in any meaningful sense. I can at least speak for myself and say that I don't know how many people have truly been impacted by this legislation. There's a lot of contradictory and extreme claims coming from both sides of the debate, many of which are literally incredible. It's not even easy to trust "pure" statistics in such an environment. After all, even if everyone's insurance had been affected exactly the same way as mine (technically discontinued, but actually replaced by an indistinguishable one), statistics could be produced to suggest a 100% total elimination of the pre-ACA health insurance regime. In a climate where both sides are more interested in winning the debate more than arriving at a well-informed comprimise, is it any surprise that independent-minded people are hesitant to buy into any of this shit?
In any case, I grant that I'm too willing to forgive Obama on this point. I suppose that it's in large part because I've found his other failures to be so egregious that I feel that I can't be troubled to get worked up about what (to me) amounts to a molehill in comparison.
The only possible reason to disagree with the ACA would be out of ignorance, I'm sure.
You can't possibly think that's what I mean, since I myself openly stated that I think the ACA is shitty. There's countless reasons to disagree with the ACA. If the "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan" quote is your biggest problem with this legislation, then you're not looking too closely.
News flash -- Obama still lied. If he hadn't repeated that lie so often, he might not have won reelection.
News flash -- All politicians running for national office, both Democrat and Republican, do nothing but lie to gain or retain office. I never said Obama was an honest man, or that he kept his campaign promises. I merely pointed out that of all the things to point out as lies, the particular quote you're hung up on is relatively excusable. It's at least true in spirit to a large extent, since "if you like your plan [and your plan is not worthless, and your plan does not cripple risk pooling, and your plan continues to be profitable for your insurer, and your insurer remains solvent], you can keep your plan" would have actually been true (but too much of a mouthful to be a convenient sound byte). To get hung up that Obama didn't spell out the implied fine print regarding the ACA while overlooking his other failures and lies (say, his claims of heading the most transparent administration in American history while at the same time continuing to expand the opaque NSA surveillance apparatus) suggests you have no perspective regarding the magnitude of a lie.
Also, I caution you to be wary of your Republican friends as well. Your tone betrays your critical stance regarding Democrats, which is healthy only if balanced. I hope that you don't cheerlead for their primary opposition with the best of intentions only to find yourself supporting what amounts to be the other side of the same coin. There were those independent voters who were so disgruntled with Bush's Republicans that they eventually became supporters of Obama's Democrats. It wasn't long before many of them realized that they had been fooled again.
I know maternity coverage for men sounds crazy, much like AIDS coverage for celibate individuals who don't share needles, or transfusion coverage for Jehovah's Witnesses. Apparently you're new to the ideas of risk and risk pooling, and I'm afraid that an explanation of those is beyond the scope of a slashdot thread. Let's just say that the requirement for maternity coverage cannot alone explain the termination of any healthcare plans, since there's no prohibition against adding maternity coverage to plans that previously didn't offer any.
Score:+1, Offtopic
Your idea of "perfectly good" is at odds with reality. Just because you think a plan that allows the insurer to drop the covered with no notice is "perfectly good" doesn't mean that it is. People covered by such plans (and then dropped by such plans) put significant strain on the healthcare industry, much like other uninsured or underinsured individuals. The ACA outlaws such plans and forces people to get "real" health insurance, insurance that will actually cover them when they need it. There are other shitty plans that the ACA outlaws as well that are just as objectively shitty as these. The ACA doesn't outlaw "perfectly good" plans. I eagerly await any counterexample to my claim. Show me one of these "perfectly good" policies that was outlawed by ACA, along with the specific provision of the ACA that outlaws it, and I will in turn show you the reasoning behind said provision, and consequently why said policy is (or was) shit.
That being said, the ACA is retarded. It forces Americans to give their money to for-profit companies. Any mandatory insurance should be nationalized, be it healthcare, auto liability, etc.
You know, I'm no fan of Obama. He's been found to be full of shit on countless occasions. He's failed to keep his promises more often than not. He sucks as much as any other Democrat or Republican president before him.
That being said, I'm inclined to give him a free pass on the point you bring up. Honestly, I don't think it was unreasonable for him to believe that people covered by really shitty healthcare plans didn't actually like those plans. In hindsight, I suppose that was a stupid belief to have; of course people liked those plans, simply because those were the plans they had. That those plans would drop coverage the minute they actually needed it is irrelevant. People are not rational, they're stupid. That's the only thing Obama was guilty of when it comes to the quote you mention: forgetting the sheer number of imbeciles in this country.
He should've said "If you like your health care plan and your healthcare plan isn't totally worthless, you can keep it."
Sorry, did I post to slashdot.jp by accident?