While I'm not nearly conversant enough in modern French sociology to debate the finer points, I feel the need to point out that individual incidents that make the news are not enough to make a blanket claim as to the every day state of affairs, or justification for characterizing an entire segment of a society. Your line of reasoning would seem to indicate that your stance is more closely defined as bigotry instead of carefully considered concern.
The crewmen loading torps thing seems stupid to me. Yeah, I know we even had footage in II and VI of crewmen preping torpedo bays for firing, but aside from Nicholas Meyer fleshing out his submarine battle allegories, I didn't see the point. All that shit should be automated (though I guess there's precedence for manual weapons controls going back to TOS in an episode where were shown that the the phaser controls were actually in a separate room that was manned by technicians; though that seemed to be later always controlled from the bridge).
I'm pretty sure that the Enterprise D could hit any target with phasers in almost a 360 sphere (they had those strips on the top and bottom of the saucer section that seemed to be some sort of really long phaser array). Visualizing it I can imagine there were a few angles that might be blind spots, though.
Thing that always bugged me was that aside from Star Trek 2 and 6, even in-universe the characters displayed "2-dimensional thinking" in regards to ship tactics (though saying that and thinking at the same time, I remember in All Good Things, Riker's Enterprise did some 3-d maneuvering as well).
If you have not watched or read Ghost in the Shell, GitS2: Innocence, Stand Alone Complex, or SAC: 2nd Gig you will get spoiled by reading the text below
***SPOILER WARNING***
You're almost correct, at least if you're talking about Stand Alone Complex (as I'm assuming since you referred to the Tachikoma).
In SAC (which is different from the manga and the movies in a number of details, making them essentially different fictional timelines), you cannot transfer consciousness between bodies safely. This is kind of confusing because we see Motoko in several different bodies, but paying close attention you see that they're actually remotes (even the statue in the second to last episode of season 1). The manga and the movies mostly hold to this as well (though its been a long while since I watched Innocence). Any time someone needs a new body in GitS universe they need to have their cyberbrains relocated to the new body (see Motoko getting a new body in SAC: Season 1). The technology apparently exists to enable brains to survive for rather long amounts of time (see the tachikoma walkabout episode) outside of their bodies. Ghost Dubbing, is really the only thing that allows you to move a ghost itself from one brain to another, but has a high lethality rate and only makes copies.
As for the tachikoma, Batou certainly trusted them, and aside from Mokoto and Togusa, the rest of Section 9 seemed to like them just fine. Plus, it's an important detail to note that they weren't destroyed, just sent back to the research lab they came from (though from the 3 remaining by the end of the series, we learn others were disassembled, some apparently enjoying it; though they seem none the worse for wear when they return in 2nd Gig). The point there being that Motoko couldn't see past the fact that her machines weren't being singleminded weapons, but had in fact begun to develop emergent characteristics for some reason. It's not until the tachikoma sacrifice themselves to save Batou that she realizes what might have occurred, and it's not until the end of 2nd Gig where they actually go against the Major's specific orders and come up with another (better?) plan all on their own someone actually comes out and says (Proto, interfaced with them at the time) that they may, indeed, have Ghosts.
Sorry for the rant. I find GitS in all its incarnations to be fascinating is all.
I dunno, I think its only slightly less appropriate than trying to gauge the probability of a platter starting to get "bad" sectors. My thought on this, too, is that the manufacturers aren't totally ignorant on this issue, so there must be some sort of thought process going on that will prevent them from getting a word of mouth that says "this product sucks!" I am perhaps too idealistic.
Even if the lifespan is 10x less than the thought experiment suggests, that's still about 3-4x the warranty length of today's consumer level hard drives.
But how is a machine programmed to sufficiently "mimic" self awareness in any way discernible from an actual self-aware machine? There's no test that can be used by a random observer that could separate the two, so long as the mimicry is sufficiently capable. Furthermore, unless one can empirically measure some emergent property like self-awareness, humans are nothing more than a group of cells that adequately satisfy a set behavioral traits you've decided are necessary for self-awareness. As you might be able to tell, I'm tend to lean towards the "like a duck" camp.
That the chance that you are god is small. As machines begin to possess more complex AI and can potentially look like humans, the question will become "is this a very intelligent machine or is this a very intelligent colony of cells". If you can assume that the random human walking down the sidewalk is sentient, how is the random intelligent machine that behaves similarly enough to that random human any different? This is assuming we ignore unscientific silliness like invoking a "soul" that only humans possess but is undetectable to science.
GP apparently has "robot" confused with "android" or "robot possessing complex AI". Of course, this is similar to the problem that AI faces in that once a machine can accomplish something that previously would have been considered to be an "intelligent" behavior, the bar gets moved again.
Though attempting to avoid spoilers for Babylon 5 may be outdated at this point, I'll just point out that if the term "ancient" means the standard Minbari "A thousand years ago when Valen came", then it's entirely possible that the text could be in English, given that Valen knew English (or, at least, Earth Standard).
Fairly certain that from MS's point of view,.Net apps are considered a "native Windows apps". You and I know this isn't necessarily the case in the wild, but I feel like quibbling this morning;)
Works great if you can get their management chain to support a no-phone-call-helpdesk. Doesn't seem to happen a lot, though.
Funny thing I saw happen once, when we moved people to a new "self-help" system and web-ticket entering for new users. They nominated one person in their group to enter all their tickets, because they couldn't be bothered to put in their own. While amusing, one has to wonder if anyone ever looked at the reports and noticed that from that particular group, 80%+ of the problem reports came from one person.
Intuitive? What does that mean? Most often it means "stuff isn't grouped like I'm used to it being grouped in Windows." That's not intuitive, that's habitual.
Actually, rotating phone coverage I've seen work great in a number of organizations. If there isn't a dedicated tier-1 incoming call screen in front of the hands-on techs, divvying up the phone coverage allows time for people to actually get things done (not to mention take a breather from having to talk to users).
"Smart. So when I come up with a process that eliminates 10% of daily trouble ticket volume, I'm gonna get penalized for it at the end of the year. Brilliant idea, Einstein."
Slashdot Mirror
While I'm not nearly conversant enough in modern French sociology to debate the finer points, I feel the need to point out that individual incidents that make the news are not enough to make a blanket claim as to the every day state of affairs, or justification for characterizing an entire segment of a society. Your line of reasoning would seem to indicate that your stance is more closely defined as bigotry instead of carefully considered concern.
Wow... you sound really authoritative, but it seems like you really don't know what you're talking about.
Did you then tell her to learn how to do it herself if she's so keen on having it done on her schedule?
Wasn't there a very short-run remake of that series sans Leonard Nimoy done recently?
Anyway, In Search of... wasn't PBS quality, though entertaining.
The crewmen loading torps thing seems stupid to me. Yeah, I know we even had footage in II and VI of crewmen preping torpedo bays for firing, but aside from Nicholas Meyer fleshing out his submarine battle allegories, I didn't see the point. All that shit should be automated (though I guess there's precedence for manual weapons controls going back to TOS in an episode where were shown that the the phaser controls were actually in a separate room that was manned by technicians; though that seemed to be later always controlled from the bridge).
There's already a Trek MMO in development. Google for it, it shouldn't be hard to find. A few years out, though.
I'm pretty sure that the Enterprise D could hit any target with phasers in almost a 360 sphere (they had those strips on the top and bottom of the saucer section that seemed to be some sort of really long phaser array). Visualizing it I can imagine there were a few angles that might be blind spots, though.
Thing that always bugged me was that aside from Star Trek 2 and 6, even in-universe the characters displayed "2-dimensional thinking" in regards to ship tactics (though saying that and thinking at the same time, I remember in All Good Things, Riker's Enterprise did some 3-d maneuvering as well).
***SPOILER WARNING***
If you have not watched or read Ghost in the Shell, GitS2: Innocence, Stand Alone Complex, or SAC: 2nd Gig you will get spoiled by reading the text below
***SPOILER WARNING***
You're almost correct, at least if you're talking about Stand Alone Complex (as I'm assuming since you referred to the Tachikoma).
In SAC (which is different from the manga and the movies in a number of details, making them essentially different fictional timelines), you cannot transfer consciousness between bodies safely. This is kind of confusing because we see Motoko in several different bodies, but paying close attention you see that they're actually remotes (even the statue in the second to last episode of season 1). The manga and the movies mostly hold to this as well (though its been a long while since I watched Innocence). Any time someone needs a new body in GitS universe they need to have their cyberbrains relocated to the new body (see Motoko getting a new body in SAC: Season 1). The technology apparently exists to enable brains to survive for rather long amounts of time (see the tachikoma walkabout episode) outside of their bodies. Ghost Dubbing, is really the only thing that allows you to move a ghost itself from one brain to another, but has a high lethality rate and only makes copies.
As for the tachikoma, Batou certainly trusted them, and aside from Mokoto and Togusa, the rest of Section 9 seemed to like them just fine. Plus, it's an important detail to note that they weren't destroyed, just sent back to the research lab they came from (though from the 3 remaining by the end of the series, we learn others were disassembled, some apparently enjoying it; though they seem none the worse for wear when they return in 2nd Gig). The point there being that Motoko couldn't see past the fact that her machines weren't being singleminded weapons, but had in fact begun to develop emergent characteristics for some reason. It's not until the tachikoma sacrifice themselves to save Batou that she realizes what might have occurred, and it's not until the end of 2nd Gig where they actually go against the Major's specific orders and come up with another (better?) plan all on their own someone actually comes out and says (Proto, interfaced with them at the time) that they may, indeed, have Ghosts.
Sorry for the rant. I find GitS in all its incarnations to be fascinating is all.
I dunno, I think its only slightly less appropriate than trying to gauge the probability of a platter starting to get "bad" sectors. My thought on this, too, is that the manufacturers aren't totally ignorant on this issue, so there must be some sort of thought process going on that will prevent them from getting a word of mouth that says "this product sucks!" I am perhaps too idealistic.
er, make that 20x (I was shooting for 10 years, as warranties for consumer-grade hdds are 2-3 years last I looked)
Even if the lifespan is 10x less than the thought experiment suggests, that's still about 3-4x the warranty length of today's consumer level hard drives.
But how is a machine programmed to sufficiently "mimic" self awareness in any way discernible from an actual self-aware machine? There's no test that can be used by a random observer that could separate the two, so long as the mimicry is sufficiently capable. Furthermore, unless one can empirically measure some emergent property like self-awareness, humans are nothing more than a group of cells that adequately satisfy a set behavioral traits you've decided are necessary for self-awareness. As you might be able to tell, I'm tend to lean towards the "like a duck" camp.
That the chance that you are god is small. As machines begin to possess more complex AI and can potentially look like humans, the question will become "is this a very intelligent machine or is this a very intelligent colony of cells". If you can assume that the random human walking down the sidewalk is sentient, how is the random intelligent machine that behaves similarly enough to that random human any different? This is assuming we ignore unscientific silliness like invoking a "soul" that only humans possess but is undetectable to science.
Ask yourself if you have a clear-cut, foolproof, unambiguous way to determine if any random person on the street is sentient.
GP apparently has "robot" confused with "android" or "robot possessing complex AI". Of course, this is similar to the problem that AI faces in that once a machine can accomplish something that previously would have been considered to be an "intelligent" behavior, the bar gets moved again.
Sadly the U of MN (where Gopher was written) no longer has a Gopher node.
Though attempting to avoid spoilers for Babylon 5 may be outdated at this point, I'll just point out that if the term "ancient" means the standard Minbari "A thousand years ago when Valen came", then it's entirely possible that the text could be in English, given that Valen knew English (or, at least, Earth Standard).
Fairly certain that from MS's point of view, .Net apps are considered a "native Windows apps". You and I know this isn't necessarily the case in the wild, but I feel like quibbling this morning ;)
As I said to the other guy, I think you place far too much confidence in management's ability to implement such a thing.
I think you're giving management a little too much credit by assuming they'd put both those "1"s together and get "2".
You have wisdom, friend.
Works great if you can get their management chain to support a no-phone-call-helpdesk. Doesn't seem to happen a lot, though.
Funny thing I saw happen once, when we moved people to a new "self-help" system and web-ticket entering for new users. They nominated one person in their group to enter all their tickets, because they couldn't be bothered to put in their own. While amusing, one has to wonder if anyone ever looked at the reports and noticed that from that particular group, 80%+ of the problem reports came from one person.
Intuitive? What does that mean? Most often it means "stuff isn't grouped like I'm used to it being grouped in Windows." That's not intuitive, that's habitual.
Actually, rotating phone coverage I've seen work great in a number of organizations. If there isn't a dedicated tier-1 incoming call screen in front of the hands-on techs, divvying up the phone coverage allows time for people to actually get things done (not to mention take a breather from having to talk to users).
As I said to the fella down below:
"Smart. So when I come up with a process that eliminates 10% of daily trouble ticket volume, I'm gonna get penalized for it at the end of the year. Brilliant idea, Einstein."