If I were running a ranch and a bunch of 20-somethings showed up on my private property, I would be taking pictures and making sure I had a weapon at hand, too.
Do you have a posted "No Tresspassing" sign, fence, or other sign of visible demarcation of property?
If not... The visitors would be in the clear until you asked them to leave.
I grew up in an area where public property (state parks) mingled with private. If you didn't want someone wandering across your land, you needed to put up a fence and signs.
If you lived in 1908 would you say that the atomic bomb is impossible in 1945?
I'm just saying that generally when people say things are impossible, they tend to be wrong over the long term even if they have died of old age long before it happens.
Also intelligence isn't fiction. Its a fact and the human brain proves that it can exist.
Maybe maybe it will take 10,000 years... Maybe more. But thats a lot of time to work with figuring it out.
Oh and they have simulated half a mouse brain on computer by the way....
Are you saying we can send objects out of our solar system and split the atom, but we won't be able to ever in thousands of years to figure out how the human brain works?
Never is a long time and if its impossible than how do you suppose the human brain works without adhering to the laws of physics?
Strong AI is all about algorithms, and nobody can tell if such algorithms exist. And anyone who talks about human-like strong AI is a crackpot (Kurzwiel is a crackpot to me for his wacky predictions), as we have yet to see a bug-like strong AI, and if it was just a problem of power we'd already have something working in that field.
I think thats where most people have it wrong. Strong AI is not an algorithm problem but rather a technical one. A human brain has trillions of neurons that much have a state calculated parallel in order to recognize patterns and send and receive responses from the central nervous system.
Writing an algorithm that actually works isn't going to matter when its going to take 5 years to simulate a human decision on our current computer systems.
One could in theory build a super computer with say one CPU for ever million neurons but you'd still need a computer that runs upwards into the billions of dollars and take the space of an aircraft carrier (not to mention the power bill).
So this is exactly why you see super computers running these simulations. The only way for SAI on the desktop to occur is when you can go to the store and buy a CPU with the equivalent of several hundred thousands of cores (most likely more).
That said, if Moore's Law does keep the chip makers in line with its self prophecy, it could be possible in 10 years to come really close to what you would need if you have a few million to spend on a supercomputer.
And simply dismissing AI as not possible at all is very a kin to saying human intelligence comes from magic or other supernatural powers.
It must conform to the laws of physics and nature and if can understand how, we can replicate it.
The sense of fulfillment you get from any hobby -- be it building model planes, or collecting bottle caps. Call me an existentialist, but you can step back from any aspect of life and ask "what's the point?" and you will generally find that there isn't one.
I think the point is that grinding is not the hobby but rather what you have to do to get things to enjoy the hobby.
It would like not be able to build your models until you've actually held down a full time job to pay for the models, paint, and glue BUT every time you went to the store to buy a model the store clerk wouldn't let you buy just any model until you finished making the same 50 of the simplest one in the store.
So grinding to me is not the hobby but rather something tacked on to the gameplay in order to make up for the fact the developers can't really think of anything dynamic to give you.
Most people don't want a second job to enjoy a hobby... Hence the reason why gold farmers are so profitable.
If you take away the grind and make the game dynamic and enjoyable 24/7 without having to kill the same things over and over again then you've got the next MMOG gold.
UO kind of did this but kind of went the wrong way with it, but WAR Online should be aiming to alleviate the grind problem by adding more player interaction and dynamism that will make any day fun to play.
AFAIK, it didn't predict anything (experimentally measurable) yet that isn't already predicted by other, simpler theories. I.e., it still fails Occam's Razor. Miserably.
Hrm? There is nothing more complex with multiple big bangs than a single one other than the fact that would just mean more of them.
Obviously, since certain things appear in the universe multiple times (planets, stars, and galaxies) it would make just as much sense that there are multiple instances where what we call "the big bang" happened. We are limited to only what we can see from our point (the observable universe) and we can't simply dismiss what we can't see doesn't exist.
Though... I'm not sure if that is what the string theorists are arguing but if we infer there was something before the big bang, then obviously other places could exist that behave in the same way and the universe is quite larger than we could possibly imagine.
any game which incorporates level advancement, gear advancement, or delegates specific abilities to specific classes will always be fundamentally flawed when it comes to pvp.
I've pondered this myself and have thought the best solution for a balanced PVP would simply to give the player the ability to create a end game player from the get go.
Say give the player 1500 points which he can build a character and purchase skills, abilities, and stats (similar to a Warhammer 40K or Fantasy Battle Game) where in theory all players are equal or have the ability to be equal from the get go.
Then base the game around player interaction and question rather than gear and leveling.
ReiserFS is maybe created by a murderer, but that doesn't mean it's bad.
True, the Nazis actively funded the V2 rocket project and even used slave labor in the process, but it doesn't mean we should have shot all the scientists and burned all the research papers.
If we did... We'd probaly never had made it to the moon.
I am against any sort of control by government busy-bodies. Don't like it, go elsewhere, like russia.
Would it be ok for the USPS, FedEx, UPS, and DHL to all practice opening your packages and throwing out stuff to make it easier (cheaper) to deliver your package?
If they all did it or you only had one of them in your area then you don't have much of an alternative do you?
With corporations with more money in the bank than the GDP of many small nations, I think its time we start treating them as governments too and have some sort of restriction on how they behave.
Otherwise, one could only imagine they'd have no qualms encouraging the regular government giving them power to search your house without a warrant if it made them a quarterly profit.
BTW and kind of off topic... Do you know why oil is 136 a barrel? It is because speculative corporations like Goldman Sachs are driving the market trying to get $200 a barrel. So the next time you fill up your gas tank, thank those unregulated futures speculators.
I'm all for the free market, but when corporations behave like governments and as de facto monopolies then they either need to be regulated or dissolved into smaller yet competing bodies.
I dunno. Current passwords and security simply prevent casual access.
I mean... Take OS X for exampole. Just pop in the install CD and you can enable the root account and reset the system password. There are plenty of 3rd party apps for windows that do the same thing (actually I'm sure MS even provides some tools on MSDN for admins).
You could setup a password required to boot from CD or another drive, but if you have physical access to the machine you can usually take out the hard drive and put it in another machine.
My point is... Having a finger print or facial recognition security system is no more secure than a passworded computer that the person (obviously) has physical access too. If they are sitting at your desk and able to type in a password or put in a picture, its already too late.
In an open cubicle area sometimes this is rather difficult to stop, but usually people notice someone unfamiliar putting gummy bears on the finger print scanner or photocopy of someone else image in front of the camera.
At which point you should be asking how they got the front desk without a badge... And if its a coworker they'd probaly be able to social engineer the password anyways from sticky notes or watching their coworker.
Like most security measures... Its there to keep honest people honest.
And about that last comment... Biometrics are usually used in conjunction with the old password system. So if something did happen to your face or hands, you could still get in with the original password by typing the old fashioned way.
An insightful comment if ever I read one, but I'm afraid you're a few generations late. As a society we gave up believing in government, institutions of power or authority, religeon, civic responsibility and most all notions of tradition, and adopted instead a belief in individuality and self-fullfilment.
Umm... You do realize that private businesses have never caused a war (on their own at least) that resulted in deaths of thousands and in worst case millions of persons.
Relying on government or religious organizations 100% results in situations where a handful of people having the power to do very evil things without anyone else being able to do anything about it. You know... Crusades, inquisitions, gulags, concentration camps and every other bad thing either religious or governmental organization has pushed on their fellow man throughout history.
This has made people very cynical for good reason. You should never trust any power of authority because it is thought that 1 out of every 100 persons could be a sociopath (meaning they feel no altruism) and that means that your chances of getting someone who has an agenda that is not good for the rest of population is high.
That said, corporations wielding the same power as governments doesn't appeal to me either. However, its currently the government that makes them so powerful. If they so choose they could break up Microsoft, the cell phone monopolies, oil companies, and almost infinite list of mega corporations that have GDP larger than Poland.
The corporations use congress and the presidency to pass legislation that benefits them and only them at the expense of rest of mankind. Simply giving the current government more power to do what it wants will only result in more powerful corporations.
Of course that would require more changes than society is willing to handle (reformed congress into a parliament system with porporational representation and lobbying reform) so arguing about it is a moot point.
I haven't played the game, FWIW, but that's what I imagine a game with those constraints would be like.
Base building as it is with RTS games is outdated and mostly tedious since most build orders will be used by most players eventually regardless of possible counter strategies and so on.
I haven't played they game either but I've noticed a shift in recent RTS games from moving away form resources gathering to other types of game play mechanics.
Personally, I think the Total War point based system works or a more strategic level game (such as Hearts of Iron) make resources part of the game but not tedious or the same each time you play.
He really doesn't seem to look any younger or stay the same age either. He does look a bit better than smokers of his age, but not by a whole lot, in my opinion.
According to him his Type II Diabetes appears to have gone away for the time being... At least the symptoms part of it.
AI is our generation's flying car. It's what we see in the future, not what will be.
I don't know. I think AI is economically easier and desirable to acheive than a flying car.
The internet was predicted about the same time, but no one really paid attention but because it was economically viable and actually desirable (no drunk drivers or grandma's driving 300mph into buildings with a missile) it came about.
Secondly, AI in any form is desirable. From something as simple as filtering data, to more advanced like picking stocks, and the final goal of actually being a companies CEO is what many companies are investing in right now.
Of course no one is building a super intelligent CEO in a box as of now, but many companies are developing programs that are borderline AI with dealings with choosing their best investments especially the larger financial firms with those who manage mutual funds.
Now they don't call them AI at this point but they are approaching and I would wager that when it becomes viable, people will be building MBA's in a box to determine strategic decisions.
Although new developments are happening faster and faster, the energy to generate them (money) is getting greater and greater.
Short term. Thats what inflation does on its own.
Long term. Technology actually saves costs and increases productivity. A single scientist today with a desktop computer and the internet is more productive than 100 in 1908 with slide rules and a large library.
If nothing else, those scientists in 1908 had to deal with the time in looking up materials in their reference sources, do very complex calculations by hand, and if they needed to correspond with their peers they had to deal with the postal service and transatlantic journeys if their letters needed to reach their friends across the pond.
So while the costs appear to increase (probaly due to inflation and energy costs) productivity increases just as fast if not faster.
And speaking of energy crisis... I believe the current crisis will actually benefit alternative technologies and actually force companies to really consider more efficient ways of using and eventually creating their own energy.
Imagine if you would a world were solar cells or so efficient you don't need to even have to bother with a real power grid. In reality, I don't think the singularity will be created by a bunch of nerds with fancy algorithms but by corporations who create technologies out of competitive necessity.
I'm not sure about the God part, but the singularity is something that is being observed and hypothesized by what we see happening but not by conjecture.
A Strong AI isn't something that people just want, but is economically the most logical route for corporations to pursue (in order to save money) so that it would happen anyways even if the nerds didn't say anything about it.
Otherwise, I argue that if a singularity doesn't happen eventually we'll all die anyways so we won't be arguing about the issue.
And by dead... I mean everyone. If a singularity does not happen the sun will burn out some day and we'll be hit with meteors long before then so without something like a singularity we don't really have much hope now do we?
I would argue that without Christianity there would never have been western civilization as we know leading towards technological advancement that would lead to the technological singularity.
In a sense... Had Christianity not came about and caused the downfall of the Roman Empire we would still be using slave labor for most tasks today and not had the need for technological advancements.
Lets imagine you can upload your mind into a machine.
It will not be you. It will be a copy. You will still be the one that dies afterwards.
What if you slowly replace each brain cell that dies with a synthetic replica of a brain? Eventually, your mind will be synthetic or a machine, but if that machine is not you at what point do you loose your consciousness?
We all have brain cells die all the time and grow new ones without (at least observantly to ourselves) loosing our concisenesses (more so than other after a night of drinking) so can you tell me through this method what could go wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
If I were running a ranch and a bunch of 20-somethings showed up on my private property, I would be taking pictures and making sure I had a weapon at hand, too.
Do you have a posted "No Tresspassing" sign, fence, or other sign of visible demarcation of property?
If not... The visitors would be in the clear until you asked them to leave.
I grew up in an area where public property (state parks) mingled with private. If you didn't want someone wandering across your land, you needed to put up a fence and signs.
Hypothetically, they would use some process to start it, and then feed back in as it goes
A gasoline/hydrogen hybrid?
Actually, I think that is what they left out here is that there is something else to make this thing move.
You could use the waste energy from the gasoline to break water down into hydrogen and oxygen and switch back and forth like a hybrid.
But it seems rather round about.
Mouse brain simulated on computer
In 2007 no less...
If you lived in 1908 would you say that the atomic bomb is impossible in 1945?
I'm just saying that generally when people say things are impossible, they tend to be wrong over the long term even if they have died of old age long before it happens.
Also intelligence isn't fiction. Its a fact and the human brain proves that it can exist.
Maybe maybe it will take 10,000 years... Maybe more. But thats a lot of time to work with figuring it out.
Oh and they have simulated half a mouse brain on computer by the way....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6600965.stm
"Da red wunz go fasta!"
Ignorantia legis non excusat
True, but chances are your jury won't know how to speak Latin or know about the law either.
How does 'never' sound?
Are you saying we can send objects out of our solar system and split the atom, but we won't be able to ever in thousands of years to figure out how the human brain works?
Never is a long time and if its impossible than how do you suppose the human brain works without adhering to the laws of physics?
Magic?
Strong AI is all about algorithms, and nobody can tell if such algorithms exist. And anyone who talks about human-like strong AI is a crackpot (Kurzwiel is a crackpot to me for his wacky predictions), as we have yet to see a bug-like strong AI, and if it was just a problem of power we'd already have something working in that field.
I think thats where most people have it wrong. Strong AI is not an algorithm problem but rather a technical one. A human brain has trillions of neurons that much have a state calculated parallel in order to recognize patterns and send and receive responses from the central nervous system.
Writing an algorithm that actually works isn't going to matter when its going to take 5 years to simulate a human decision on our current computer systems.
One could in theory build a super computer with say one CPU for ever million neurons but you'd still need a computer that runs upwards into the billions of dollars and take the space of an aircraft carrier (not to mention the power bill).
So this is exactly why you see super computers running these simulations. The only way for SAI on the desktop to occur is when you can go to the store and buy a CPU with the equivalent of several hundred thousands of cores (most likely more).
That said, if Moore's Law does keep the chip makers in line with its self prophecy, it could be possible in 10 years to come really close to what you would need if you have a few million to spend on a supercomputer.
And simply dismissing AI as not possible at all is very a kin to saying human intelligence comes from magic or other supernatural powers.
It must conform to the laws of physics and nature and if can understand how, we can replicate it.
The sense of fulfillment you get from any hobby -- be it building model planes, or collecting bottle caps. Call me an existentialist, but you can step back from any aspect of life and ask "what's the point?" and you will generally find that there isn't one.
I think the point is that grinding is not the hobby but rather what you have to do to get things to enjoy the hobby.
It would like not be able to build your models until you've actually held down a full time job to pay for the models, paint, and glue BUT every time you went to the store to buy a model the store clerk wouldn't let you buy just any model until you finished making the same 50 of the simplest one in the store.
So grinding to me is not the hobby but rather something tacked on to the gameplay in order to make up for the fact the developers can't really think of anything dynamic to give you.
Most people don't want a second job to enjoy a hobby... Hence the reason why gold farmers are so profitable.
If you take away the grind and make the game dynamic and enjoyable 24/7 without having to kill the same things over and over again then you've got the next MMOG gold.
UO kind of did this but kind of went the wrong way with it, but WAR Online should be aiming to alleviate the grind problem by adding more player interaction and dynamism that will make any day fun to play.
AFAIK, it didn't predict anything (experimentally measurable) yet that isn't already predicted by other, simpler theories. I.e., it still fails Occam's Razor. Miserably.
Hrm? There is nothing more complex with multiple big bangs than a single one other than the fact that would just mean more of them.
Obviously, since certain things appear in the universe multiple times (planets, stars, and galaxies) it would make just as much sense that there are multiple instances where what we call "the big bang" happened. We are limited to only what we can see from our point (the observable universe) and we can't simply dismiss what we can't see doesn't exist.
Though... I'm not sure if that is what the string theorists are arguing but if we infer there was something before the big bang, then obviously other places could exist that behave in the same way and the universe is quite larger than we could possibly imagine.
Well, I'd certainly hope Fallout 3 would continue development seeing neither Activision nor Vivendi have anything to do with that game. ;)
Is there really a point to having a 3d avatar?
For entertainment purposes and interactivity... Yes.
But the immersion factor hasn't been met with success at this point so IRC works just fine if your only concern is transferring text.
any game which incorporates level advancement, gear advancement, or delegates specific abilities to specific classes will always be fundamentally flawed when it comes to pvp.
I've pondered this myself and have thought the best solution for a balanced PVP would simply to give the player the ability to create a end game player from the get go.
Say give the player 1500 points which he can build a character and purchase skills, abilities, and stats (similar to a Warhammer 40K or Fantasy Battle Game) where in theory all players are equal or have the ability to be equal from the get go.
Then base the game around player interaction and question rather than gear and leveling.
ReiserFS is maybe created by a murderer, but that doesn't mean it's bad.
True, the Nazis actively funded the V2 rocket project and even used slave labor in the process, but it doesn't mean we should have shot all the scientists and burned all the research papers.
If we did... We'd probaly never had made it to the moon.
I am against any sort of control by government busy-bodies. Don't like it, go elsewhere, like russia.
Would it be ok for the USPS, FedEx, UPS, and DHL to all practice opening your packages and throwing out stuff to make it easier (cheaper) to deliver your package?
If they all did it or you only had one of them in your area then you don't have much of an alternative do you?
With corporations with more money in the bank than the GDP of many small nations, I think its time we start treating them as governments too and have some sort of restriction on how they behave.
Otherwise, one could only imagine they'd have no qualms encouraging the regular government giving them power to search your house without a warrant if it made them a quarterly profit.
BTW and kind of off topic... Do you know why oil is 136 a barrel? It is because speculative corporations like Goldman Sachs are driving the market trying to get $200 a barrel. So the next time you fill up your gas tank, thank those unregulated futures speculators.
I'm all for the free market, but when corporations behave like governments and as de facto monopolies then they either need to be regulated or dissolved into smaller yet competing bodies.
I dunno. Current passwords and security simply prevent casual access.
I mean... Take OS X for exampole. Just pop in the install CD and you can enable the root account and reset the system password. There are plenty of 3rd party apps for windows that do the same thing (actually I'm sure MS even provides some tools on MSDN for admins).
You could setup a password required to boot from CD or another drive, but if you have physical access to the machine you can usually take out the hard drive and put it in another machine.
My point is... Having a finger print or facial recognition security system is no more secure than a passworded computer that the person (obviously) has physical access too. If they are sitting at your desk and able to type in a password or put in a picture, its already too late.
In an open cubicle area sometimes this is rather difficult to stop, but usually people notice someone unfamiliar putting gummy bears on the finger print scanner or photocopy of someone else image in front of the camera.
At which point you should be asking how they got the front desk without a badge... And if its a coworker they'd probaly be able to social engineer the password anyways from sticky notes or watching their coworker.
Like most security measures... Its there to keep honest people honest.
And about that last comment... Biometrics are usually used in conjunction with the old password system. So if something did happen to your face or hands, you could still get in with the original password by typing the old fashioned way.
An insightful comment if ever I read one, but I'm afraid you're a few generations late. As a society we gave up believing in government, institutions of power or authority, religeon, civic responsibility and most all notions of tradition, and adopted instead a belief in individuality and self-fullfilment.
Umm... You do realize that private businesses have never caused a war (on their own at least) that resulted in deaths of thousands and in worst case millions of persons.
Relying on government or religious organizations 100% results in situations where a handful of people having the power to do very evil things without anyone else being able to do anything about it. You know... Crusades, inquisitions, gulags, concentration camps and every other bad thing either religious or governmental organization has pushed on their fellow man throughout history.
This has made people very cynical for good reason. You should never trust any power of authority because it is thought that 1 out of every 100 persons could be a sociopath (meaning they feel no altruism) and that means that your chances of getting someone who has an agenda that is not good for the rest of population is high.
That said, corporations wielding the same power as governments doesn't appeal to me either. However, its currently the government that makes them so powerful. If they so choose they could break up Microsoft, the cell phone monopolies, oil companies, and almost infinite list of mega corporations that have GDP larger than Poland.
The corporations use congress and the presidency to pass legislation that benefits them and only them at the expense of rest of mankind. Simply giving the current government more power to do what it wants will only result in more powerful corporations.
Of course that would require more changes than society is willing to handle (reformed congress into a parliament system with porporational representation and lobbying reform) so arguing about it is a moot point.
I haven't played the game, FWIW, but that's what I imagine a game with those constraints would be like.
Base building as it is with RTS games is outdated and mostly tedious since most build orders will be used by most players eventually regardless of possible counter strategies and so on.
I haven't played they game either but I've noticed a shift in recent RTS games from moving away form resources gathering to other types of game play mechanics.
Personally, I think the Total War point based system works or a more strategic level game (such as Hearts of Iron) make resources part of the game but not tedious or the same each time you play.
For the next seventy-two hours... you will be subjected to even more worthless Slashdot stories than usual.
Believe it!
He really doesn't seem to look any younger or stay the same age either. He does look a bit better than smokers of his age, but not by a whole lot, in my opinion.
According to him his Type II Diabetes appears to have gone away for the time being... At least the symptoms part of it.
AI is our generation's flying car. It's what we see in the future, not what will be.
I don't know. I think AI is economically easier and desirable to acheive than a flying car.
The internet was predicted about the same time, but no one really paid attention but because it was economically viable and actually desirable (no drunk drivers or grandma's driving 300mph into buildings with a missile) it came about.
Secondly, AI in any form is desirable. From something as simple as filtering data, to more advanced like picking stocks, and the final goal of actually being a companies CEO is what many companies are investing in right now.
Of course no one is building a super intelligent CEO in a box as of now, but many companies are developing programs that are borderline AI with dealings with choosing their best investments especially the larger financial firms with those who manage mutual funds.
Now they don't call them AI at this point but they are approaching and I would wager that when it becomes viable, people will be building MBA's in a box to determine strategic decisions.
Although new developments are happening faster and faster, the energy to generate them (money) is getting greater and greater.
Short term. Thats what inflation does on its own.
Long term. Technology actually saves costs and increases productivity. A single scientist today with a desktop computer and the internet is more productive than 100 in 1908 with slide rules and a large library.
If nothing else, those scientists in 1908 had to deal with the time in looking up materials in their reference sources, do very complex calculations by hand, and if they needed to correspond with their peers they had to deal with the postal service and transatlantic journeys if their letters needed to reach their friends across the pond.
So while the costs appear to increase (probaly due to inflation and energy costs) productivity increases just as fast if not faster.
And speaking of energy crisis... I believe the current crisis will actually benefit alternative technologies and actually force companies to really consider more efficient ways of using and eventually creating their own energy.
Imagine if you would a world were solar cells or so efficient you don't need to even have to bother with a real power grid. In reality, I don't think the singularity will be created by a bunch of nerds with fancy algorithms but by corporations who create technologies out of competitive necessity.
I'm not sure about the God part, but the singularity is something that is being observed and hypothesized by what we see happening but not by conjecture.
A Strong AI isn't something that people just want, but is economically the most logical route for corporations to pursue (in order to save money) so that it would happen anyways even if the nerds didn't say anything about it.
Otherwise, I argue that if a singularity doesn't happen eventually we'll all die anyways so we won't be arguing about the issue.
And by dead... I mean everyone. If a singularity does not happen the sun will burn out some day and we'll be hit with meteors long before then so without something like a singularity we don't really have much hope now do we?
I would argue that without Christianity there would never have been western civilization as we know leading towards technological advancement that would lead to the technological singularity.
In a sense... Had Christianity not came about and caused the downfall of the Roman Empire we would still be using slave labor for most tasks today and not had the need for technological advancements.
Lets imagine you can upload your mind into a machine.
It will not be you. It will be a copy. You will still be the one that dies afterwards.
What if you slowly replace each brain cell that dies with a synthetic replica of a brain? Eventually, your mind will be synthetic or a machine, but if that machine is not you at what point do you loose your consciousness?
We all have brain cells die all the time and grow new ones without (at least observantly to ourselves) loosing our concisenesses (more so than other after a night of drinking) so can you tell me through this method what could go wrong?