Natural desire for power; or, hook it to our own.
on
AI in Sci-Fi
·
· Score: 1
Two things: I think if you gave it any physical outlet at all you'd build in the ability to make things easier for itself, to watch for ways to improve how it achieves its goals. This is equivalent to a desire for power, at least as far as its goals are concerned (and almost anything could come to fall under that). So, it's possible that the old 'A.I. taking over the world' plot could be plausible.
Another solution to A.I. motivation is that they just wouldn't have any, we would just attach them to our own; we'd make them modules in our own brains, as described in a Brin story, 'Stones of Significance', (Analog, January 2000), or Ken McLeod's 'Stone Canals'.
First they came for the Jews, but I was not Jewish
on
Giant Sucking Noise
·
· Score: 1
Good thought; lower consumption forced on us
on
Giant Sucking Noise
·
· Score: 1
Increased 3rd world-level spending power forcing green manufacture? Hmm, could work. I think more likely though is that green-built stuff won't become cost effective until current-method materials are much scarcer; ie, we'll get to greenness only after the damage has already been done. But what you say is thought-provoking.
Well you've expanded on Anarchism; there are nits I
won't pick. I was trying to clarify the 'communist feel' of the GPL. Here's RMS saying what his position is; not as radical as I remembered it.
As for 'sticking it to the man' I suppose it could fit that, but I don't get the sense that was why it was created, but for social cooperation. As to not being intended to be politically subversive I'm sure that's true, nevertheless here's a good quote from Eben Moglen (FSF lawyer):
".. The problems with anarchism as a social system are also about transaction costs. But the digital revolution alters two aspects of political economy that have been otherwise invariant throughout human history. All software has zero marginal cost in the world of the Net, while the costs of social coordination have been so far reduced as to permit the rapid formation and dissolution of large-scale and highly diverse social groupings entirely without geographic limitation [32]. Such fundamental change in the material circumstances of life necessarily produces equally fundamental changes in culture. Think not? Tell it to the Iroquois. And of course such profound shifts in culture are threats to existing power relations. Think not? Ask the Chinese Communist Party. Or wait 25 years and see if you can find them for purposes of making the inquiry. "
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/anarchism. html
Anarchism is communism without rulers.
Bottom-up organized instead of top-down. In the one
or two cases (besides open source software) where it
has actually existed.
I don't have the quote but it was in one of his.plan updates in the last 6 months; Id makes more money on its own games than from licensing the engines.
" Societies exist under three forms, sufficiently distinguishable: (1) without government, as among our Indians; (2) under governments, wherein the will of everyone has a just influence, as is the case in England, in a slight degree, and in our states, in a great one; (3) under governments of force, as is the case in all other monarchies, and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. " I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."
And, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
I was able to print it out myself & bind it for
~$20 (using psnup). It's the most interesting CS book I've read in a while, introducing me to relational programming & dataflow, some distributed
computing & several other concepts. (The authors don't mind if you print it, (I've spoken to one of the authors, and, it's advertised on their site) it's some months from being published.)
I haven't read the paper but, Oz contains within
it: functional, relational, logical & OO paradigms
(anything you want really, all built on top of
a kernel language). This lets you use the best
style(s) for the task at hand; most languages
try to apply one style to everything which strains it past its strength. In Oz you can match the paradigm to each part of the problem.
And, in libstdc++ there're things like how to implement strings, what to inline or not, that they
want to change. However, it would seem to make sense
to wait for 3.2, which should be a stable ABI for
the indefinite future, and will appear shortly after 3.1.1, see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-07/msg00596.html
Cuz it's crap (examples failed when I tried them)
on
GTK-- vs. QT
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I was examining cross platform GUIs a couple years ago, and gave wxWindows a try; it's ugly (full of arbitrary little macros) and, as the subject says, when I installed it and tried their example programs, some either failed to compile (or more likely) failed to work (my memory is unclear). Overall my impression was that it was a mess. Now, that was 2 or more years ago, but I haven't heard much about wxWindows since. We went with Qt, and it's clean & fast; I prefer it even to MFC (which admittedly may not be saying much).
I'd love to see Stepanov and a couple people of his choosing get together to work on his concept-based language. Either polish up & extend C++'s template handling, or better yet start something completely new.
I don't have the link, but it was on slashdot
some time ago, how RMS was influenced by anarchist thinking. However, saying 'Marxism' is the right direction; it's as radical.
He could say exactly the same things, and be better admired for it. He just never expends any energy in trying to communicate. A couple of responses into that article I wanted to smack him
for his prissy 'you come to me' attitude. There's nothing wrong with the content of what he's saying, so there's no cause to talk in such a way as to give people cause to think he's a looney.
/. login box also shifts under Linux... (nt)
on
Mozilla M17 Is Out
·
· Score: 1
If it was illegal maybe it would make it harder;
if a politician can't take loads of money, it might make easier it to detect wrongdoing if he even *has* a lot of money. Plus he'd have to be careful how he used it, & that (perhaps) would make it less attractive & overall reduce the amount.
Or take the opposite tack, make it all legal but make it public by who & how much was given. If someone's taking money from ugly sources, that'd count against him. I guess you'd have to make the source of funding of all organizations public too (to flush out The Organization for a Happier Tomorrow's being funded by two or three big interests).
I dunno either. But I'd be happy to see it narrowed.
People go to jail, but corporations don't. All they get is fines (which by the way I swear, are considered a business expense and a tax writeoff!). Each corp. has a charter to exist granted it by the state; Nader suggests that if a corp. has a long-enough track record of evil,
(eg tobacco companies) that the state revoke its charter (the company dies or gets suspended or some such).
Also he's for taking away corporations' right to give money to politicians, which I think most people would agree with.
I have to say, the Green Party is like open-source politics; it relies on volunteers (one paid person in the whole Northeast US, as far as I can tell). If you want something done, you have to do it yourself!
I believe the radical / commieish one is the Green Party USA
http://www.greenparty.org
and the other is the association of State Green Parties, which is more normal.
http://www.greenparties.org
They're working to find a common platform to present to the world, but anyway, Ralph is not that radical.
The Green's put up with him because he's progressive enough and he's putting them on the map. But, rest assured that corporations would not all be dismembered if Ralph won. If you look at the things he's pushed for, you'll see he's been behind most of the things we consumers now take for granted; reasonable things, not radical.
Like, (I believe) the clean air act, the fact that airlines have to put you up overnight if you miss a flight due to their own screwup, other very reasonable stuff. (Maybe the freedom of information act too, but I'm not sure of that).
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/research/mercury/
Looks like prolog but fast.
blah blah blah (since slash seems hostile to n/t comments...)
... what will that equalize to?
Another solution to A.I. motivation is that they just wouldn't have any, we would just attach them to our own; we'd make them modules in our own brains, as described in a Brin story, 'Stones of Significance', (Analog, January 2000), or Ken McLeod's 'Stone Canals'.
First they came for the Jews
Increased 3rd world-level spending power forcing green manufacture? Hmm, could work. I think more likely though is that green-built stuff won't become cost effective until current-method materials are much scarcer; ie, we'll get to greenness only after the damage has already been done. But what you say is thought-provoking.
http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/linuxworldtod ay/lwt-indepth7.html
As for 'sticking it to the man' I suppose it could fit that, but I don't get the sense that was why it was created, but for social cooperation. As to not being intended to be politically subversive I'm sure that's true, nevertheless here's a good quote from Eben Moglen (FSF lawyer):".. The problems with anarchism as a social system are also about transaction costs. But the digital revolution alters two aspects of political economy that have been otherwise invariant throughout human history. All software has zero marginal cost in the world of the Net, while the costs of social coordination have been so far reduced as to permit the rapid formation and dissolution of large-scale and highly diverse social groupings entirely without geographic limitation [32]. Such fundamental change in the material circumstances of life necessarily produces equally fundamental changes in culture. Think not? Tell it to the Iroquois. And of course such profound shifts in culture are threats to existing power relations. Think not? Ask the Chinese Communist Party. Or wait 25 years and see if you can find them for purposes of making the inquiry. "
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/anarchism. html
Anarchism is communism without rulers.
Bottom-up organized instead of top-down.
In the one or two cases (besides open source software) where it has actually existed.
I don't have the quote but it was in one of his .plan updates in the last 6 months; Id makes more
money on its own games than from licensing the engines.
" Societies exist under three forms, sufficiently distinguishable: (1) without government, as among our Indians; (2) under governments, wherein the will of everyone has a just influence, as is the case in England, in a slight degree, and in our states, in a great one; (3) under governments of force, as is the case in all other monarchies, and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep.
" I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."
And,
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
nothing
This article says it best:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1018-06.htm
Plus, you could argue that Carter started the trend
to deregulation.
http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/PVR/book.html
www.mozart-oz.org
http://rinkworks.com/bookaminute
And, in libstdc++ there're things like how to implement strings, what to inline or not, that they want to change. However, it would seem to make sense to wait for 3.2, which should be a stable ABI for the indefinite future, and will appear shortly after 3.1.1, see: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-07/msg00596.html
I was examining cross platform GUIs a couple years ago, and gave wxWindows a try; it's ugly (full of arbitrary little macros) and, as the subject says, when I installed it and tried their example programs, some either failed to compile (or more likely) failed to work (my memory is unclear). Overall my impression was that it was a mess. Now, that was 2 or more years ago, but I haven't heard much about wxWindows since. We went with Qt, and it's clean & fast; I prefer it even to MFC (which admittedly may not be saying much).
I'd love to see Stepanov and a couple people of his choosing get together to work on his concept-based language. Either polish up & extend C++'s template handling, or better yet start something completely new.
I don't have the link, but it was on slashdot
some time ago, how RMS was influenced by anarchist thinking. However, saying 'Marxism' is the right direction; it's as radical.
He could say exactly the same things, and be better admired for it. He just never expends any energy in trying to communicate. A couple of responses into that article I wanted to smack him for his prissy 'you come to me' attitude. There's nothing wrong with the content of what he's saying, so there's no cause to talk in such a way as to give people cause to think he's a looney.
(slashdot won't take nt)
Or take the opposite tack, make it all legal but make it public by who & how much was given. If someone's taking money from ugly sources, that'd count against him. I guess you'd have to make the source of funding of all organizations public too (to flush out The Organization for a Happier Tomorrow's being funded by two or three big interests).
I dunno either. But I'd be happy to see it narrowed.
Also he's for taking away corporations' right to give money to politicians, which I think most people would agree with.
I have to say, the Green Party is like open-source politics; it relies on volunteers (one paid person in the whole Northeast US, as far as I can tell). If you want something done, you have to do it yourself!
www.votenader.org
http://www.greenparty.org
and the other is the association of State Green Parties, which is more normal.
http://www.greenparties.org
They're working to find a common platform to present to the world, but anyway, Ralph is not that radical. The Green's put up with him because he's progressive enough and he's putting them on the map. But, rest assured that corporations would not all be dismembered if Ralph won. If you look at the things he's pushed for, you'll see he's been behind most of the things we consumers now take for granted; reasonable things, not radical.
Like, (I believe) the clean air act, the fact that airlines have to put you up overnight if you miss a flight due to their own screwup, other very reasonable stuff. (Maybe the freedom of information act too, but I'm not sure of that).
http://www.votenader.com