Indeed. Bad to the company, very good for the CEO. Of course, a move like that requires the absence of all personal honor and integrity, but the way to get to such a C-level position already makes sure to weed out anybody that does not qualify in this sense.
This is however really the most demented way to do it, because only those that are good at what they do (and hence have other prospects) will leave. The ones staying will include all that have no prospects. Do this several times and you may as well close down the department and re-start from scratch.
Why again are the people that make such decisions so much money? Oh right, because they know how to give the appearance of knowing how to do their job.
What does a limitation on scientific proof have to do with what happens in reality? Science does not define what is real. It only defines what can be proven scientifically to be real. It even has a hypothesis (Goedel's incompleteness) that states this, but cannot be proven itself. Throwing around terminology you do not understand does not make you look smart, it makes you look dumb.
Incidentally, you may well be wrong on that unfalsifiability. But since you obviously have no clue what you are talking about, I will overlook that, as you have nothing worthwhile to contribute anyways.
Ah, yes, it is? And it has a more generic meaning these days? I though you were trying to be funny. Apparently you have some reality-perception issue instead.
Their purpose in life is to reproduce and get eaten. In nature, that is exactly what happens to them. I really see no problem with doing it to them in industrial production. Of course, I do hope not to get reincarnated as a chicken next time, but we will see.
You are an idiot if you think I do that. I am arguing with half a century of research that has found nothing at all that can create or explain human-level intelligence or consciousness and I am arguing that this is a rather strong indicator that both are be created by physical processes in the brain may be a faulty assumption.
Incidentally, about the only path left by physics to create intelligence and consciousness is some quantum "magic" and I do not think "magic" has a place in science.
You confuse "Science!" and "God". The only thing that is in everything is the second. Science has no problems with gray areas and unknown things. Religion has.
Indeed. And I have to say that all these experiments to even only create intelligence (if that is possible separately from consciousness) are highly interesting. So far, absolutely everything in that direction has failed completely (not counting "weak AI", as it is something that does not require understanding, consciousness or general intelligence) and at the same time having even a tiny glimmer of general intelligence ("strong AI") would be extremely valuable in a large number of fields and hence there has been a high-effort search going on for more than half a century now.
While I do think that at this time it is still a possibility that a physicalist world model is actually accurate, I think it is a really small possibility. Too many indicators to the contrary and no indicators in favor at all. That is also what makes accepting physicalism as truth at this time a religious act, not a scientific one. The actual scientific facts say that it is unclear.
The real problem here is people using "Science!" as a surrogate for religion, but fail to understand that it can actually not fill that role. They then use the same flawed approaches from religion (accepting things as truth without conclusive proof, for example) and are doing anything but science. A really funny thing is that they are even using the same argumentation techniques as fundamentalist religious people. "It is obvious that God exists" becomes "it is obvious that Physics describes everything" or "anybody that believes anything else is superstitious". They are defending and arguing for belief while claiming to do science.
Funny, because there is zero evidence for your stance as well. And you do not understand science at all. You seem to think that something that has no scientific explanation cannot exist. That is not how science works. Science makes statements about things that are known and limits itself to that and leaves the rest open for future discoveries.
We do have a few indicators though: No intelligence is observable except in humans. Consciousness is completely unexplained (there is no mechanism for it in Physics at this time and a significant extension of Physics would be needed to explain it), yet clearly real. Consciousness and intelligence are only observable together, which is often conveniently ignored, because it breaks physicalist expectations.
As to "information processing" taking place in the brain, sure. It also takes place in your smartphone and a lot of other places. There is a fundamental difference between "intelligence" and "information processing" though. One can do the other, but not the other way round. At least now about 60 years of fundamental CS research has not even identified a glimmer of real intelligence that could be created artificially. It would be extremely useful to have it. Oh sure, there is weak AI, but that is just mechanical automation. It has no insight, it is not general and it cannot learn anything except parameters for a pre-defined model.
So there are rather strong indications that the present scientific world-model is grossly incomplete in this aspect (there are other problems too). Ignoring these indicators is something no real scientist does. It is something completely unscientific. It is, however, one of the central approaches used in fundamentalist religion: State everything that fits your beliefs as "truth" and deny or ignore everything else.
And no, I am not a "spiritualist". The proper word is "dualist", and that happens to be possible without any religion-type beliefs at all. Incidentally, unlike you, I am also not a coward.
The scientific facts about the nature of humans as sentient beings are that it is unknown how they do intelligence and consciousness and hence it is unknown whether it is a physical mechanism or not.
Physical processes (as that is what the brain does) lead to a result you don't understand so it isn't actually a result of the physical processes? You listening to yourself here?
You do not and cannot know whether that is all. It is highly unscientific to claim it.
That is why people that claim physicalism must be the truth are no better than any other religious or quasi-religious fundamentalists. They claim truth where they just have belief.
Uh-huh. There is no evidence whatsoever for non-physical explanations of anything, the brain contains hundreds of billions of cells which work together in ways we're just gaining the barest understanding of, and you think the people who believe that could be the source of intelligence are the whack-jobs?
Dude, delusional doesn't even begin to explain what you are. And before you get off on your inevitable mindless rant, do keep in mind that "somebody said so" and "I don't understand it" do not constitute evidence.
There is an important difference between "can be" and "is". And actually the indications for "can be" look worse and worse every day.
"No support" means: "You are running on unsupported hardware. Do you want to continue anyways? y/n". What they are doing is "Your hardware is unsupported. Be fucked." That one is called "sabotage".
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. Bad to the company, very good for the CEO. Of course, a move like that requires the absence of all personal honor and integrity, but the way to get to such a C-level position already makes sure to weed out anybody that does not qualify in this sense.
This is however really the most demented way to do it, because only those that are good at what they do (and hence have other prospects) will leave. The ones staying will include all that have no prospects. Do this several times and you may as well close down the department and re-start from scratch.
Why again are the people that make such decisions so much money? Oh right, because they know how to give the appearance of knowing how to do their job.
Have I misunderstood?
You have. Americans are _more_ equal than anybody else!
(Or at least they believe they are. Turns out they are just sheep, same as anybody else.)
Indeed. And they do not want anybody else to have everybodies dirty secrets!
What does a limitation on scientific proof have to do with what happens in reality? Science does not define what is real. It only defines what can be proven scientifically to be real. It even has a hypothesis (Goedel's incompleteness) that states this, but cannot be proven itself. Throwing around terminology you do not understand does not make you look smart, it makes you look dumb.
Incidentally, you may well be wrong on that unfalsifiability. But since you obviously have no clue what you are talking about, I will overlook that, as you have nothing worthwhile to contribute anyways.
The only thing it will do is to increase the motivation of spamers to hack machines to send SPAM. Filtering works pretty well, use it.
Ah, yes, it is? And it has a more generic meaning these days? I though you were trying to be funny. Apparently you have some reality-perception issue instead.
Sorry, if I can avoid Poetterix-contamination, I will.
Their purpose in life is to reproduce and get eaten. In nature, that is exactly what happens to them. I really see no problem with doing it to them in industrial production. Of course, I do hope not to get reincarnated as a chicken next time, but we will see.
"Booting" an OS has nothing to do with shoes?
The driver-situation is much better on Linux. No other reason. When systemd becomes hard to avoid, I will move to one of the xBSDs, but not before.
You can make anything bsod in a youtube video. It is pretty easy.
You are an idiot if you think I do that. I am arguing with half a century of research that has found nothing at all that can create or explain human-level intelligence or consciousness and I am arguing that this is a rather strong indicator that both are be created by physical processes in the brain may be a faulty assumption.
Incidentally, about the only path left by physics to create intelligence and consciousness is some quantum "magic" and I do not think "magic" has a place in science.
You confuse "Science!" and "God". The only thing that is in everything is the second. Science has no problems with gray areas and unknown things. Religion has.
Indeed. And I have to say that all these experiments to even only create intelligence (if that is possible separately from consciousness) are highly interesting. So far, absolutely everything in that direction has failed completely (not counting "weak AI", as it is something that does not require understanding, consciousness or general intelligence) and at the same time having even a tiny glimmer of general intelligence ("strong AI") would be extremely valuable in a large number of fields and hence there has been a high-effort search going on for more than half a century now.
While I do think that at this time it is still a possibility that a physicalist world model is actually accurate, I think it is a really small possibility. Too many indicators to the contrary and no indicators in favor at all. That is also what makes accepting physicalism as truth at this time a religious act, not a scientific one. The actual scientific facts say that it is unclear.
The real problem here is people using "Science!" as a surrogate for religion, but fail to understand that it can actually not fill that role. They then use the same flawed approaches from religion (accepting things as truth without conclusive proof, for example) and are doing anything but science. A really funny thing is that they are even using the same argumentation techniques as fundamentalist religious people. "It is obvious that God exists" becomes "it is obvious that Physics describes everything" or "anybody that believes anything else is superstitious". They are defending and arguing for belief while claiming to do science.
Funny. You seem to have run out of arguments. The difference may be that I am an actual scientist, while you confuse science and religion.
Funny that nobody besides you seems to have noticed that yet...
They said 2020. I expect them to keep to that.
Funny, because there is zero evidence for your stance as well. And you do not understand science at all. You seem to think that something that has no scientific explanation cannot exist. That is not how science works. Science makes statements about things that are known and limits itself to that and leaves the rest open for future discoveries.
We do have a few indicators though: No intelligence is observable except in humans. Consciousness is completely unexplained (there is no mechanism for it in Physics at this time and a significant extension of Physics would be needed to explain it), yet clearly real. Consciousness and intelligence are only observable together, which is often conveniently ignored, because it breaks physicalist expectations.
As to "information processing" taking place in the brain, sure. It also takes place in your smartphone and a lot of other places. There is a fundamental difference between "intelligence" and "information processing" though. One can do the other, but not the other way round. At least now about 60 years of fundamental CS research has not even identified a glimmer of real intelligence that could be created artificially. It would be extremely useful to have it. Oh sure, there is weak AI, but that is just mechanical automation. It has no insight, it is not general and it cannot learn anything except parameters for a pre-defined model.
So there are rather strong indications that the present scientific world-model is grossly incomplete in this aspect (there are other problems too). Ignoring these indicators is something no real scientist does. It is something completely unscientific. It is, however, one of the central approaches used in fundamentalist religion: State everything that fits your beliefs as "truth" and deny or ignore everything else.
And no, I am not a "spiritualist". The proper word is "dualist", and that happens to be possible without any religion-type beliefs at all. Incidentally, unlike you, I am also not a coward.
The scientific facts about the nature of humans as sentient beings are that it is unknown how they do intelligence and consciousness and hence it is unknown whether it is a physical mechanism or not.
Physical processes (as that is what the brain does) lead to a result you don't understand so it isn't actually a result of the physical processes? You listening to yourself here?
You do not and cannot know whether that is all. It is highly unscientific to claim it.
That is why people that claim physicalism must be the truth are no better than any other religious or quasi-religious fundamentalists. They claim truth where they just have belief.
Uh-huh. There is no evidence whatsoever for non-physical explanations of anything, the brain contains hundreds of billions of cells which work together in ways we're just gaining the barest understanding of, and you think the people who believe that could be the source of intelligence are the whack-jobs?
Dude, delusional doesn't even begin to explain what you are. And before you get off on your inevitable mindless rant, do keep in mind that "somebody said so" and "I don't understand it" do not constitute evidence.
There is an important difference between "can be" and "is". And actually the indications for "can be" look worse and worse every day.
I take it you have never seen Star Trek?
Debian still runs fine without the systemd malware.
"No support" means: "You are running on unsupported hardware. Do you want to continue anyways? y/n".
What they are doing is "Your hardware is unsupported. Be fucked." That one is called "sabotage".
Actually, the word you are looking for is "sabotage".
About as funny and about as legal. Though said ax may get you shot, which is a plus.