Edison just patented the idea of running current through a wire to make it hot and glow in that way. He wasn't original in that aspect, it was one of basic science demonstrations to burn up a wire with electricity. He just patented it for use of lighting, but he did not have a working lightbulb or anything else beyond the common science demo. Then when someone else invented de glass lightbulb to prevent oxidation, he claimed his wire glowing patent and became rich and famous.
I think Edison became rich and famous because he patented the bulb as a whole (next to the bamboo wire, the socket and I don't know what). He patented everything, unlike e.g. Swan. And even more important, he invented the complete industry, meters, switches, up to the whole steamengine power plant delivering 110V DC to the customers. Again Swan didn't do that. Swan lit a house by means of a waterwheel. Interesting, but not exactly an industry.
It never ceases to amaze me how scientists always think that, if there is life out there, it's as limited as us in creativity/science/life/etc.
They are trying to find out how others may see us, so we know what to look for ourselves. If you just assume this superintelligence can do everything already and not question how, than it's not possible to learn from it, duplicate a result or make a prediction, hence then it's not science. Then it's a interesting as a sf book.
I remember Jeff Hawkins asking why people always say that. His argument is that people consider themselves experts on brains because they have one, but they really don't have a clue of how they work. And hence it is impossible from such an argument to conclude that robots will never be able to match or surpass that brain.
> I've heard they filed a patent for tattooing ads on the inside of peoples eyelids. . That's nonsense. They only do that if you want to blink for free.
We've had slaves since antiquity. Their intelligence was well beyond that of our robots now. And we were not afraid of them either.
And as far as sexrobots are concerned, men are willing to jump onto a $29.95 silicone ass with painted pubic hair just as easily. It need not to be intelligent.
> That most of our scientific advances were made with experiments > that would now be classified as cruel. . Most? How can you tell? In fact in WWII countless extremely cruel experiments were applied to a seemingly unlimited supply of human guinea pigs. Apperently the only thing good that came out of that was a book with beautiful color drawings of sliced heads. However, they could have created that book without the sacrifices and the horror, too. But after the war, when data was needed, many of the experiments had to be repeated with volunteers (i.e. hypothermia), because the German data was useless from a scientific point of view.
My bank lets me change my password 3 times a month. Then if I forget it they create a new password that I have to collect (personally) in an other city 200 miles away. Now, that's secure, because after a few times you just don't bother anymore to use your internet account at all.
This is done for decades already. It all started with yellow parts out of solidified resin, which had almost no use in mechanical prototype testing. Now, so many techniques exist and parts now can be made within hours that have mechanical properties pretty much equal to the offspring that will be produced in the injection molding proces later on. Metal parts can indeed be cast using the lost wax, but it is also possible to laser sinter metal powder in a single batch. The professional machines can produce beautiful things.
I wonder what this means for the free money making industry. At the moment 'compensation' is calculated at 25 EUR for each portable music player and 0.15 EUR/GB for a harddisk recorder.
Poor thing. It's a little off topic, but my high school teacher (also a she) learned me that a steam engine will only work in a vertical position. That's because steam is hotter than air and can only travel upwards. Then again, my education does only provide for a marginal income.
I assume the pattern to be the program. This pattern is then acted upon by the rules of this simple 2,3 cellular automaton. I think the combination of bits and rules creates the universal machine. Please explane if I'm wrong.
> Something as complex as an eye or a brain could be created with such limited initial parametes . I doubt that to be true, because Wolfram writes: . > And in Alex Smith's construction the Turing machine "tape" (i.e., memory) must be filled with an infinite pattern of bits. . So, infinite is not so limited. The key point in the story (as far as I understand) is that this pattern can be created without the need for a universal computer. But that doesn't mean that you'll only need a few parameters to start with.
I think most people who say it's all easy and all that are ignorant. If you're connected to the internet you need protection like Avast, Windows Defender, Windows Firewall, you'll also need to be sure they are enabled and you'll need to let them search your system now and then. Then you'll need to know that apparently inert files like wmv, mov and perhaps pdf and jpg can actually be used as exploits and shouldn't be opened in your browser. Then you should not log in as an administrator (did you ever bother to change that?). Then you should not have children that click OK to get rid of every popup they see. You should not use IE6. Not use anything before XP. Be sure XP is updated. Do you ever create a spreadsheet to find out what mix of programs you need to cover a large part of protection agains virii, worms, trojans, spyware, etc.? All programs have their key strengths and may be rated as very good or excellent, but is that still useful if that rating covers the category BIOS virii only? As I have read McAfee and Norton are used to test new virii before they are released. And that they perform so poor to catch new ones as a result of that.
I don't, and probably I've made some mistakes above. But then again. I don't bother to get very interested in it actually. Think of it this way. You buy a new car, but without brakes. Then you have buttons to press, gears to add, electrical connections to make, press your own oil out of raw seeds and do lots of other things before your brakes function. The manual mentions none of them. The only thing you have is a pdf by McAfee and the NCSA talking about the number of people without brakes.
Same for me. Until I was given a free copy of Kaspersky from my provider. It's like looking at your own intestines after having spent a 6 year period in the rainforests of Borneo.
- Hello Sir. My name is Sanjeeb. How may I help you? Hi, I have trouble logging in to... - Can you give me your employee number, Sir? Sure, it's 0052975 - Thank, you. Now, how are you doing, Sir? I'm fine, thank you - Did you have a nice weekend, Sir? Yes, thank you. Listen, I have trouble... - Hmm... let me see. I will make a trouble ticket for you, Sir. Is that alright with you? Yeah, I assume... - Thank you, Sir. Is there anything else I can do for you, Sir No, that will be all, thank you. - Have a nice day, Sir
Slashdot Mirror
I think Edison became rich and famous because he patented the bulb as a whole (next to the bamboo wire, the socket and I don't know what). He patented everything, unlike e.g. Swan. And even more important, he invented the complete industry, meters, switches, up to the whole steamengine power plant delivering 110V DC to the customers. Again Swan didn't do that. Swan lit a house by means of a waterwheel. Interesting, but not exactly an industry.
What an incredible rude remark to make!
> Not terribly impressive. But maybe evolution will take care of that.
I hope you mean a giant astroid.
I remember Jeff Hawkins asking why people always say that. His argument is that people consider themselves experts on brains because they have one, but they really don't have a clue of how they work. And hence it is impossible from such an argument to conclude that robots will never be able to match or surpass that brain.
You can not excel in all fields. They already do in pollution:
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/greener-electronics-microsoft.pdf
> I've heard they filed a patent for tattooing ads on the inside of peoples eyelids.
.
That's nonsense. They only do that if you want to blink for free.
I don't understand any of it. I've constructed my own proof:
surfing + E8 = theory of everything
We know that surfing isn't a theory of everything. If surfing is not, then E8 must be.
(I hope to get 5 points informative with that.)
He also required the printer to have a blue pen the could fill in large surfaces.
We've had slaves since antiquity. Their intelligence was well beyond that of our robots now. And we were not afraid of them either.
And as far as sexrobots are concerned, men are willing to jump onto a $29.95 silicone ass with painted pubic hair just as easily. It need not to be intelligent.
The general public didn't care for the computer either, until it could do MSN.
> That most of our scientific advances were made with experiments
> that would now be classified as cruel.
.
Most? How can you tell? In fact in WWII countless extremely cruel experiments were applied to a seemingly unlimited supply of human guinea pigs. Apperently the only thing good that came out of that was a book with beautiful color drawings of sliced heads. However, they could have created that book without the sacrifices and the horror, too. But after the war, when data was needed, many of the experiments had to be repeated with volunteers (i.e. hypothermia), because the German data was useless from a scientific point of view.
My bank lets me change my password 3 times a month. Then if I forget it they create a new password that I have to collect (personally) in an other city 200 miles away. Now, that's secure, because after a few times you just don't bother anymore to use your internet account at all.
This is done for decades already. It all started with yellow parts out of solidified resin, which had almost no use in mechanical prototype testing. Now, so many techniques exist and parts now can be made within hours that have mechanical properties pretty much equal to the offspring that will be produced in the injection molding proces later on. Metal parts can indeed be cast using the lost wax, but it is also possible to laser sinter metal powder in a single batch. The professional machines can produce beautiful things.
I didn't see the cell phones fit with transistors and batteries, but the hexagonal silicone thingies convinced me completely that this is possible
I wonder what this means for the free money making industry. At the moment 'compensation' is calculated at 25 EUR for each portable music player and 0.15 EUR/GB for a harddisk recorder.
Poor thing. It's a little off topic, but my high school teacher (also a she) learned me that a steam engine will only work in a vertical position. That's because steam is hotter than air and can only travel upwards. Then again, my education does only provide for a marginal income.
I assume the pattern to be the program. This pattern is then acted upon by the rules of this simple 2,3 cellular automaton. I think the combination of bits and rules creates the universal machine. Please explane if I'm wrong.
> Something as complex as an eye or a brain could be created with such limited initial parametes
.
I doubt that to be true, because Wolfram writes:
.
> And in Alex Smith's construction the Turing machine "tape" (i.e., memory) must be filled with an infinite pattern of bits.
.
So, infinite is not so limited. The key point in the story (as far as I understand) is that this pattern can be created without the need for a universal computer. But that doesn't mean that you'll only need a few parameters to start with.
> While the average reader here has never been to such a site
.
What else we need a 160 GB disk for?
I hope they come up with e-toiletpaper, too. I'm bored with the little bears.
I think most people who say it's all easy and all that are ignorant. If you're connected to the internet you need protection like Avast, Windows Defender, Windows Firewall, you'll also need to be sure they are enabled and you'll need to let them search your system now and then. Then you'll need to know that apparently inert files like wmv, mov and perhaps pdf and jpg can actually be used as exploits and shouldn't be opened in your browser. Then you should not log in as an administrator (did you ever bother to change that?). Then you should not have children that click OK to get rid of every popup they see. You should not use IE6. Not use anything before XP. Be sure XP is updated. Do you ever create a spreadsheet to find out what mix of programs you need to cover a large part of protection agains virii, worms, trojans, spyware, etc.? All programs have their key strengths and may be rated as very good or excellent, but is that still useful if that rating covers the category BIOS virii only? As I have read McAfee and Norton are used to test new virii before they are released. And that they perform so poor to catch new ones as a result of that.
I don't, and probably I've made some mistakes above. But then again. I don't bother to get very interested in it actually. Think of it this way. You buy a new car, but without brakes. Then you have buttons to press, gears to add, electrical connections to make, press your own oil out of raw seeds and do lots of other things before your brakes function. The manual mentions none of them. The only thing you have is a pdf by McAfee and the NCSA talking about the number of people without brakes.
Same for me. Until I was given a free copy of Kaspersky from my provider. It's like looking at your own intestines after having spent a 6 year period in the rainforests of Borneo.
Apparently they are used to test new virii before they are released, that's why they perform that poor.
- Hello Sir. My name is Sanjeeb. How may I help you?
Hi, I have trouble logging in to...
- Can you give me your employee number, Sir?
Sure, it's 0052975
- Thank, you. Now, how are you doing, Sir?
I'm fine, thank you
- Did you have a nice weekend, Sir?
Yes, thank you. Listen, I have trouble...
- Hmm... let me see. I will make a trouble ticket for you, Sir. Is that alright with you?
Yeah, I assume...
- Thank you, Sir. Is there anything else I can do for you, Sir
No, that will be all, thank you.
- Have a nice day, Sir