The reason people fear computer domination is because, if they organized themselves in a Borg-like structure, the computers would never argue amongst themselves, never forget anything, and evolve much quicker than natural selection allows. It's also possible that genetically engineered organisms could succeed the human race. However, if the history of carbon-based life is any indication, these organisms would be no more efficient than humans, just smarter overall, just as humans didn't overcome the apes' problems of dissent and ignorance, who in turn didn't overcome the problems of their ancestors, early mammals. At the same time, however, it's since all AIs so far work on a strictly objective basis, I doubt it would be able to think subjectively, ie. create art. I have no doubt in my mind that any carbon-based superior to humans would have artistic talent (better than we have), but to do so it would have to be flawed, just as we are. So do you want to be succeeded by a more elaborate, yet just as flawed, version of yourself, or a Borg-style electronic- self-altering-critical-thinking-algorithm that is impeccably efficient but knows no goal but to dominate and assimilate?
However, didn't Neo Geo have much better sound quality than the Genesis? I recall Neo Geo games having comparable sound to the SNES, or even better, if you consider how much ROM Neo Geo games got for sound samples.
If a-life started reproducing on the net, it's possible to stop it by shutting down every power plant on earth, or if the a-life takes over the power plants, try to bar access to the energy sources, ie coal mines, oil fields, uranium mines, windmills, solar cells, while the existing supply runs down.
All this article says is that ads are so repetitive that they should be automated; leaving humans to do things that actually require an imagination (if such a thing still exists). It's scary that whole educational programs, such as the Ringling School of Art and Design's animation program, revolve around making ads. I say any product that can't sell on word of mouth alone isn't worth selling.
The PowerMac G4 has been considered a weapon. In Apple's ads, they jest at the fact that as the first gigaFLOPS computer, the US Federal Government deems the machine too dangerous to let into "the wrong hands". Everyone is either excited because they're about to get ahold of such a powerful chip - and rightly so; it is quite efficient - or simply because consumers can now purchase a "weapon" illegal to export for "the good of the nation". But is restricting exports truly good for the United States? Apple's term "the wrong hands" implies militaries of nations opposed to the United States. No big deal. But Apple also cannot export the PowerMac G4 to nations as critical to the U.S. economy as China. Already the United States looses several hundred billion dollars a year to the trade deficit; is that something to be proud of?
Some people argue the U.S. must withhold technological exports to China because they intend to go to war with us. But if they did so their largest supply of income - most of which ends up in private enterprise, despite popular belief - would be cut off, severely stunting economic growth, not to mention lose millions of lives and billions (if not trillions) of dollars in property damage. Does any nation you know want to suffer that kind of loss?
> So if a movie (with live actors) shows a woman being raped or a child (real child actor) being graphically killed, this is allowed because it is not harmful to children. But drawing pedophillic scenes involving people who never even existed is somehow ok. I'm confused. Why is a ficticious portrayal of one crime againse a child acceptable to the public but not another, esp when the latter doesn't even involve children in any way?
Maybe because the way many Japanese artists render their characters, it's hard to tell wether they're children or adults? (See http://www.win.or.jp/~juan/index_E.html for an example.)
Slashdot Mirror
The reason people fear computer domination is because, if they organized themselves in a Borg-like structure, the computers would never argue amongst themselves, never forget anything, and evolve much quicker than natural selection allows. It's also possible that genetically engineered organisms could succeed the human race. However, if the history of carbon-based life is any indication, these organisms would be no more efficient than humans, just smarter overall, just as humans didn't overcome the apes' problems of dissent and ignorance, who in turn didn't overcome the problems of their ancestors, early mammals. At the same time, however, it's since all AIs so far work on a strictly objective basis, I doubt it would be able to think subjectively, ie. create art. I have no doubt in my mind that any carbon-based superior to humans would have artistic talent (better than we have), but to do so it would have to be flawed, just as we are. So do you want to be succeeded by a more elaborate, yet just as flawed, version of yourself, or a Borg-style electronic- self-altering-critical-thinking-algorithm that is impeccably efficient but knows no goal but to dominate and assimilate?
What makes this chip four times as fast? SIMD? On another note, what is the most powerful processor available that doesn't use a cooling fan?
However, didn't Neo Geo have much better sound quality than the Genesis? I recall Neo Geo games having comparable sound to the SNES, or even better, if you consider how much ROM Neo Geo games got for sound samples.
If a-life started reproducing on the net, it's possible to stop it by shutting down every power plant on earth, or if the a-life takes over the power plants, try to bar access to the energy sources, ie coal mines, oil fields, uranium mines, windmills, solar cells, while the existing supply runs down.
He's supposed to look like a Borg drone from Star Trek. It's not his facial expression that's important, it's the implants he's wearing.
All this article says is that ads are so repetitive that they should be automated; leaving humans to do things that actually require an imagination (if such a thing still exists). It's scary that whole educational programs, such as the Ringling School of Art and Design's animation program, revolve around making ads. I say any product that can't sell on word of mouth alone isn't worth selling.
The PowerMac G4 has been considered a weapon. In Apple's ads, they jest at the fact that as the first gigaFLOPS computer, the US Federal Government deems the machine too dangerous to let into "the wrong hands". Everyone is either excited because they're about to get ahold of such a powerful chip - and rightly so; it is quite efficient - or simply because consumers can now purchase a "weapon" illegal to export for "the good of the nation". But is restricting exports truly good for the United States? Apple's term "the wrong hands" implies militaries of nations opposed to the United States. No big deal. But Apple also cannot export the PowerMac G4 to nations as critical to the U.S. economy as China. Already the United States looses several hundred billion dollars a year to the trade deficit; is that something to be proud of?
Some people argue the U.S. must withhold technological exports to China because they intend to go to war with us. But if they did so their largest supply of income - most of which ends up in private enterprise, despite popular belief - would be cut off, severely stunting economic growth, not to mention lose millions of lives and billions (if not trillions) of dollars in property damage. Does any nation you know want to suffer that kind of loss?
> So if a movie (with live actors) shows a woman being raped or a child (real child actor) being graphically killed, this is allowed because it is not harmful to children. But drawing pedophillic scenes involving people who never even existed is
somehow ok. I'm confused. Why is a ficticious portrayal of one crime againse a child acceptable to the public but not another, esp when the latter doesn't even involve children in any way?
Maybe because the way many Japanese artists render their characters, it's hard to tell wether they're children or adults? (See http://www.win.or.jp/~juan/index_E.html for an example.)
Or maybe because cartoons are just "uncool".
In Japan they have cartoon child porn, how do they deal with that?