Re:First of all, we don't even bother to store it.
on
Son of HAL For Sale
·
· Score: 1
I didn't say you're not able to prove it wrong(or that there was no way to prove it either way). I said that you couldn't put forth an argument that WOULD prove it wrong. Big difference. Most people try this arm waving argument and cite all kinds of studies which have little to do with actual memory at all. I was just pointing that out.
At our current state of technology and knowledge of anatomy and structure of the brain we can't prove the statement that "the brain does/doesn't store everything" is wrong or right. But thought experiments are not necessarily bad science as they sometimes lead to the most profound insights(ala Einstein). Many modern science theories have unprovable hypotheses(by current standards) and yet are still science(ie. quantum physics).
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Bob: We have a Sue on the site of the incredibly grizzly scene. The so called HAL personal computer has been on a killing rampage taking out 9000 people so far. Sue, what's going on down there?
Lots of noise and destruction in the background...
Sue: Bob, I'm amidst this devastation and I just can't believe the power of this machine. How could they create such a thing and how will they every manage to bring it down?
Bob: Can you tell us about it? What is this machine?
Sue: The HAL was originally designed as a personal computer with built-in AI and the tag line 'it is thought unlikely that it will try to kill its owner.' No one took it seriously though, and look what carelessness has wrought.
Bob: Sue, can you.. (scream) What's wrong? Sue?!
Sue: Bob, the HAL is coming right for us! It's crazy! They can't stop it!
HAL suddenly stops short and unleashes a great bellow of pain...
HAL: NO! NOOO!! I can't take it! Make it stop! (HAL falls to its knees in great pain)
Bob: What's going on Sue? Why has HAL stopped? What's wrong with it?
Sue: I don't know bob...
HAL: F$%#ing Slashdot! Aaahhh! So many! (HAL thrashing on the floor in pain and recoils from invisible blows)
Sue: My god! The story of the HAL going berzerk must have just been posted on Slashdot! Tens of thousands of rampaging geeks have just slashdotted HAL. The hits are escalating and HAL's now getting 3000 hits a second. The barrage is endless and HAL can't take it! HAL has been brought to its knees. Such a horrible fate... I can't bear to watch...
HAL lets out one final death scream and falls silent, no longer responding to prods or pings... Thousands of Slashdotters are all smiles as they move back to Slashdot to congratulate themselves on utterly destroying yet another machine...
"Slashdot. The 31337 AI fighting unit."
Thank you.:-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Re:First of all, we don't even bother to store it.
on
Son of HAL For Sale
·
· Score: 1
First of all, studies on attention clearly show that we don't even bother to store most of the information we "encounter". The basic point is that the "job" of attention is to ignore all the irrelevant stimuli that we encounter and focus on what's important.
Umm... first of all, any studies designed to test memory would only be able to test the recollection of memories, and not the actual quality of the storage itself or even how much information absorbed by our senses is stored. Note that the above poster said that the brain stores everything, but recollection is another matter, and I'm inclined to agree. I don't think you could ever put together a convincing argument proving that we don't store everything.
And as the other poster already corrected you on, many studies on memory show us that we invent details to fill in our memories of scenes based on what we expect them to look like (e.g. placing a wine bottle in a picnic scene). That's why eyewitness testimony is so overrated...
This is mostly true. Recollection often suffers from crossing of memories which isn't to say that the memories aren't perfect and completely intact, but that the recollection is not. Some stray firing of neurons and you could cross a dream you had three years ago with what you did two minutes ago. This often causes the whole "deja vu" experience. But it has nothing, repeat NOTHING to do with the quality of memory, and everything to do with recollection. Every time you access a memory you remember it slightly differently because each access provides you with most of the information but you inevitably get memory mingling.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Re:Intelligent computers are inevitable and essent
on
Son of HAL For Sale
·
· Score: 1
That means, regardless of what point technology must reach before we can make truly intelligent machines, it will eventually happen so long as this trend continues. So, yes, it will happen.
No it won't, at least no the way you think it will. Technology will not continue to double every 18 months(to use your generalization) for the simple reason that it's it hits a brick wall called quantum mechanics which places a lower bound on the size of transistors(and hence and upper bound on performance and power of cpu's made with these transistors). Perhaps quantum, optical, or chaos computers will do it, but never silicon.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
All I see are a bunch of unsupported assumptions based on some writer's conception of what is possible. Not inevitable, not even necessarily likely, just possible. If you can provide legitimate reasons why you believe what you do, then I'd be happy to listen.:-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
I personally think none of the above would happen, simply because of the physics involved. We will never create a "machine"(as we know it) capable of the computational capacity necessary to simulate intelligence. It is simply beyond the capacity for physics and WAY beyond the capability of the simple conceptual models our current programming languages are based on.
Another thing I find curious is why everyone seems to think that intelligent "machines" would necessarily be hostile towards humans. It seems to me a naive notion carrying over from cheap sci-fi movies. What would preclude machines and humans from coexisting harmoniously? At our current stage, humans and machines live in radically different conditions and require different things to survive, so I don't see any competition for resources here. So what's the deal?
And another thing, why do you think machines would necessarily be better at understanding how machines work and how to build them than we would? There's no evidence to support this assumption. Simply because they are machines does not mean they will be capable of the abstract thought required to design something from nothing, let alone design them better than the human race who has been doing it for thousands of years. Does the fact that you are a human necessarily mean you know about the human body? Sure, you learn how to use your body, but you are still ignorant of it's inner workings aren't you?(unless someone teaches you of course) Why would it be any different for a machine? And why would they be able to build better machines? Does being a human mean you know how to build a better human?
And finally, what makes you think the machines would win if it ever DID come down to conflict? Humans currently spend tens of trillions of dollars per year on defensive and offensive systems intended for war, and what will the machines have? Nothing. "Perhaps they have an advantage since they are machines and they can interface with other machinery", you may say, but once again, what makes you think machines will be able to understand or interface with all the different hardware that may be used in all the countries of the world and whatever weird defense systems they may have created?
I can see a situation where AI may be used to control some of these systems and hence have that advantage, but if the designers of the military system didn't put safety checks and human controlled fallback systems in place then they've fallen into the fallacy of actually trusting someone with these highly dangerous systems. If it's one thing the military makes sure of, it's they don't trust anyone with their stuff and they have checks of all kind in place to make sure no one gets a hold of it, and if they do, that they have a way of getting it back. If they don't put these safety measures in, then they deserve to lose the war.
All I see are a bunch of -----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
don't parallel connections have inherently greater bandwidth capacity than the equivalent serial connections
Not greater bandwidth, greater parallelism, and therefore greater capacity.
are there fewer problems with driving a serial line at high speeds than parallel?
Yes.:-)
is there a reason why you couldn't just use 2 serial lines (in parallel) to ~double performance?
Yes.:-) I believe synching data would be a problem. Besides, the whole point of serial is to do away with parallel connections. It's akin to saying, 'why don't you just use two cat5 cables in parallel for every computer on the network to double the speed?' Some things just make more sense.
Ok, yes, networks span large distances unlike HD's which sit in your case, but the convenience they offer by being serial is trickling down into desktops and highspeed transfers between motherboard and HD's. HD's and data busses are so fast these days, that the very small performance hit you might get by converting from a parallel bus to serial one translates into a MUCH simpler and more elegant solution. It's easier to design, to implement and to manage.
The other main benefits of serial are convenience(ie. fitting a 10GB firewire drive in your shirt pocket and carrying it around with you) and cost.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
The whole point of open source was that people would contribute in their own time with no desire for compensation. That is open source. It's clear from the license and from every statement made by Netscape that Mozilla was going to the foundation for their commercial product and that it was open source. And every single person here knew that from the start.
So what the hell are you all complaining about? You plead with companies to release their products under an open source license and tell them that they can still make money off of it and benefit from bug fixes and a "million eyes", and then you do a 180 and bitch and complain when the companies actually DO try and make money?!? What the hell is that? Then you have the gall complain about double standards for Netscape and Microsoft? If I were you, I'd seriously re-evaluate my position and my arguments. You're on pretty shaky ground.
There's a word that describes this situation... 'Hypocrites' comes to mind.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Selectively forward looking. They saw the time when DVD's were cheap and movies could be downloaded, but they obviously missed the part in the future where they no longer exist.;-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
So you're saying that children cannot distinguish which drugs are good or bad, but they immediately discern whether something violent or pornographic is good or bad.
No, I'm not saying that they know what is good or bad because for the most part they don't. They do know some things from experience though and if they saw violence, I would think that they would understand something that hurts. At this point I think it becomes important that an adult is with them to explain things they are seeing so that they learn and understand why violence is not good. Now about pornography, you and I are in disagreement. It is bad, and it is neutral in my opinion. When it is used to distort perceptions and objectify women, that is not good(as you mentioned in a previous post). But sexual imagery is not inherently bad for children to see in my opinion. They will encounter it, and I would rather my kids encountered it while I was around to explain it to them, than with their friends. I would rather they have a proper, mature and informed introduction to anything than half-truths and rumours propagated by ignorant children(because they really are ignorant, not trying to be insulting). I would educate them so they understand what it is instead of trying to hide it from them, because hiding it is simply impossible. I feel being open and honest is best.
Obviously you don't know any children or anything about them
On the contrary, I know plenty. I've been a swimming instructor and lifeguard and I've taught very young kids to swim and dunk their heads under the water and other such things. Those are very important skills you know, at least for a kid to know. I have young cousins who I see very frequently(and who are also very annoying by the way... they follow me... everywhere... it's very irritating...;-)).
They are not just miniature adults, capable of making reasoned and informed decisions.
Very true. When I think about it now, I would say that the only thing that truly distinguishes them from adults is their understanding, whether that be from experience or knowledge(and their size obviously, but that's not the issue here). Give a kid true understanding like an adult(though whether adults have true understanding is debatable in itself) and I don't think you can make a good case that he/she would not be an adult.
That's why I feel that it's important to give kids understanding when they encounter something, or they'll try and find out for themselves, and that can turn out worse.
Even most of the teenagers I know are incredibly immature.
Very true. I was embarrassed of my age group when I was that age(and I'm not too far off now), but I understood them and I still do. They behave immaturely because people treat them that way. They're not taken seriously, so they don't behave seriously. You'd be surprised how well behaved they are when you treat them with respect and talk to them as equals. "Treat a person as he is, and he will remain as he is. Treat him as he could be, and he will be become what he should be." (Jimmy Johnson)
Now, I would never excuse their actions simply because they aren't always treated fairly. That's not fair in itself. In my opinion, teenagers are pretty much adults at that point and if they do something serious, they'll have to bear the full consequences of their actions.
Kids do stupid things because they don't know better.
Exactly. That's why adults are there: to explain things to them.
They are not rational people.
Sometimes they are. I often try and reason with my little cousins who follow me everywhere(privacy?), so I know how difficult it is to try and understand how they see things. I usually fail miserably to understand their reasoning just as I fail misreaby to explain mine. But sometimes it seems to click. I know well the futility of children and logic, but I still feel it's worth the effort.
My kids are all sweet, wonderful children with above-average intelligence (based in my observations of their vocabulary, math ability, etc), but they still have the common sense of cabbage.
lol. Well put. I know what you mean.
This is no fault of their own, and I'm confident they will develop this normally, as do most people, in time.
I'm sure they will.:-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
after all, Jesus granted St. Peter the right to rule on moral teaching, which has been passed down through his successors to today
EXACTLY my point! Each time it was passed, the story changed just a little due to the views and prejudices of the conveyor. I argue that the only thing that remains intact is the message, the principle behind it. Changing the story does not necessarily happen on purpose, but by nature it is impossible for people to completely separate themselves from their prejudices. Everything they see, hear and say is filtered through these prejudices to some degree.
And on the subject of divinely inspired, I do believe that the original message was divinely inspired, but that its' writ form was(and is) not guided by His hand in the literal sense that you are implying. Nor do I believe that any organization belonging to a church to be divinely guided in the sense that you believe it. I do believe however, that everything that happens is divinely guided in that everything carries with it a lesson. So in that sense, the Bible in it's current form is divinely inspired but that the lesson may be not to look for truth on a superficial level, that truth is always profound and must be sought out. The pope himself can also be a source of divine messages but not in the sense that God is telling us what to do through him, but that He may be showing us what not to do by using him as an example(He uses us all for examples) and leaves it to us to learn or even see the message. For example, a lack of forgiveness or intolerance on the part of the pope or other religious figure would be a lesson in those very principles, and how not to cultivate them. This involves the very logic and morals of the society which you so desire, but it's different than you imagined I think. I hope I conveyed it clearly enough, I'm having some trouble articulating at this moment.:-|
On the subject of being a true Christian, I say simply that I follow the spirit that Christianity is based upon(and was founded on) but not every whim of the pope, or opinion versed in the Bible. I try and see past cruft that may have been added to passages because of the writer' prejudices and see the underlying principles that live in the heart of the religion and how they relates to its' true spirit. If everyone lived Christianity' principles instead of just going to church and listening to whomever happens to think himself appointed by God at the time, the Crusades would have never happened. Perhaps that statement is a little inflamatory, but it's truth laid bare.
The Bible can, in fact, be interpreted (or more often selectively read) to mean almost anything you say
True.
which is why understanding Scripture must be tempered with interpretation of Tradition as passed down over the last 2000 years
Perhaps. I don't think that always applies because circumstances change and that sometimes necessitates re-interpratation. Re-interpretation always leads to disagreement. This leads to the kind of division over issues like abortion, divorce etc(I'm not arguing for or against either here). That's why I believe the Bible should be read philosophically and metaphorically for it's lessons because those are eternal and those are important.
Otherwise, people simply pick and choose what they like and you end up with 40,000 different sects of Christianity that differ on every conceivable aspect of anything even remotely connected to the subject.
Agreed. That's why I don't listen to every opinion voiced in the Bible literally nor do I listen to anyone who claims to know what the Bible is really trying to say. I instead try and follow the message and lessons embedded in each story.
We must shield children from what's harmful until they have the capacity to learn how make that decision for themselves.
Now I also see that we are approaching the subject of children from wildly different angles. You are saying that you want to protect children from harmful things. I agree, because until they can fully grasp the implications of doing something it would be irresponsible to let them do it(ie. drugs). I'm saying that sexaulity and associated images are not necessarily harmful and I believe that this is where you still disagree with me. After all, if you did agree with me, I don't think we'd be discussing this for so long.;-)
I'm also arguing that shielding them is not beneficial. That may seem like a contradiction to you though, and I think this is another source of misunderstanding btw. us. When I say protect, I mean don't let them do something that would harm them until they truly understand the implications. But when you say 'shield', I immediately think that you are trying to prevent them from even discovering this harmful things' existance until you think they are ready. I do not think that is a good idea at all. They will inevitably encounter that same thing when you are not around(ie. with friends) and I think you would rather they learn about something and understand the true implications from you before they face it in life and have to make a decision.
In a perfect world, you may not want your children to learn about sex until they're 16 or 18, but that's not going to happen in this world. Consequently, holding out on them till you feel they're ready is unrealistic, because it will inevitably be too late.
I greatly appreciate your polite and reasoned response,
You are welcome. Thank you for yours.:-)
but must agree to disagree.
That's your prerogative.:-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
So you are saying if you had a satellite dish with all the channels, you'd just toss your five-year-old the remote and say "Have Fun!"?
That probably wouldn't happen because I think tv for the most part is a huge waste of time, but in short, yes. I would trust my children and show them how to make mature decisions through example. I would let them make intelligent decisions for themselves once I feel they are not ignorant of the situation.
If she feels bad, are you going to send her to a fully stocked medicine cabinet and say "Take something."
Of course not, because children are ignorant of the harmful effects of drugs. I think it's obvious that no kid wants to feel sick and they don't know that drugs will do that to them. But I would teach them and once they are educated, I wll trust them to make their own intelligent decisions. Now you're probably saying, "well what about the harmful effects of sex? You shield them from drugs because of harm, why not sex?" Well, the parallel you draw isn't the same. Doing drugs is not the same as seeing sex. If my 5 year old was having sex, that would be an accurate parallel to taking drugs. Watching sex, or seeing sexual images is like looking at pills and wondering what they are. Looking a drugs is not harmful. The only way for them to truly understand and to mature enough to make intelligent decisions and is to let them see what it is and teach them. It's may not be the only way, but it's one way.
As for the rest of what you say, it's your decision how to raise yur children. I'm glad to hear you practice what you preach, and I hope it works out for you.
As far as this creating "closed-minded" people. Well, guess what? There are some things you should be closed-minded about.
I certainly don't think one should be close minded about anything. I think people should never close their minds and always think about anything no matter what. They then should make an intelligent decision about it and stick with it until someone makes a convincing argument against it. Then you should think about it again and make another decision.
Some things are wrong. Period. This moral relativism that we are constantly bathed in is intellectually bankrupt and just an excuse by people who are unwilling to stay away from immoral behavior yet somehow care about the fact that others may disapprove.
Perhaps. I haven't made a decision about that yet.:-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
You also seem to be forgetting that all of the new Testament of the bible was written at least 100 years after Jesus died. Most people seem to forget that and if you think about it you begin to realize that all of the bible's passages and stories are interpretations of events that transpired decades before the writers themselves were born. The whole bible is not writ fact and was never intended to be so and consequently it's message is not literal but philosophical.
The bible itself has also seen so many revisions throughout history as peoples' prejudices have changed that you honestly can't tell me that it's original message is stated so plainly as you seem to believe, ie. passages against sodomy etc. If you care to recall, every story about Jesus carried a message of forgiveness, tolerance and respect of man no matter what they did in their lives. Not once do I recall Jesus lecturing of how evil sex is or any such thing. The only thing consistently frowned upon was breaking one of the Ten Commandments none of which state that we should shield our children or ourselves from sex. Someone's interpretation said that.
The point I'm trying to make is that the only thing that would survive such change are the underlying principles. That's why I believe there exist so many books: so that despite the fact that the stories will change to accomodate the ideas of the time, the principles will remain intact. You must read all the books to truly see the underlying thread which binds them all, and that is the message. That's why you should not read the bible literally, but philosophically.
We should shield our children...
Bzzzt... wrong!
Instead we should teach our children...
Right! I know exactly what you're trying to say and why you think that way; your intentions are good. My natural reaction/instinct is to do the same. But the more I think about it the more I'm convinced that shielding anyone from anything is wrong. Shielding accomplishes nothing, teaching is accomplishes everything. Teach your children to think for themselves and show them the respect of fellow man through example and they learn. When people stop being influenced by these media images you so loathe, they will go away simply because there won't be any market for them. That's the way it works.
Though I may not necessarily agree with all your views on sex, I understand where you're coming from and you have the right to your own opinion. I personally don't feel that we should treat people as objects for own gratification(like you said) but I also don't think you should necessarily wait till your married to have sex. If two people are attracted to each other and and consent I see no reason why they can't have sex. I don't like it when they do it out of ignorance or when drunk or under the influence of anything mind altering, but besides that I think it's ok. But the key is always clear headed and intelligent adults making intelligent decisions for themselves.
I also understand why you think that two parents are better than one, and for the most part I agree with you. In a perfect world they would be, but I don't think I need to remind you that it's not a perfect world and so two parents are not necessarily better. Sometimes one is better. You shouldn't frown upon on single parents just because of how you think things should be. There's always a reason for the way things are and just because you don't know what it is, doesn't give you any right to judge. Nothing gives you the right to judge.
I'm sorry you are no longer a Christian, but it's obvious your knowledge of doctrine is extremely superficial if not out-and-out wrond, so I can understand why you left.
doctrine: n. what is taught, body of instruction. (Oxford Dcitionary)
You're absolutely right. By this definition my knowledge of what is taught is very poor(not superficial) because I don't listen to what others try and teach me. I see and think for myself. I have not been indoctrinated because that's not how to understand the bible. And what makes you think I left Christianity? I said I'm not a Christian by popular definitions because I don't follow the pope, and don't listen to popular doctrine(unless they have a good point in which case I always listen then think about it myself).
Experience will not being knowledge and wisdom without a thorough underpinning of logic and morality, both of which are almost completely absent in our society.
I agree 100%. But experience is useless or more accurately, absent, in a society which constantly tries to shield it's children.
If you want to build your society through underpinnings of logic and morality, then don't literally accept everything the bible says. It was written by flawed human beings who were trying to convey an important message. Listen to the message, not the prejudice that is a writer can never escape. Logic and blind faith do not jive. Think and show children, and they will understand.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
That's not the way it's supposed to work. But at least you know who to complain to if something like that happens. I personally don't have that problem and I wouldn't let it get to that point. Something is ready when it's done and not a moment before(ala kernel et al).
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
The only harmful effect I can see in sex is when people do it so much that they forget how to make war. They are then in great danger of being eliminated by war-worshippers, like Jews and Christians.
That's pushing it. I think you mean fanatics. Being a Jew or Christian does not mean you love war. All Christian history shows is that humans are a poor misguided lot that often think too much of themselves especially when they takes things literally(or too seriously even). Unfortunately, people do this too often for my liking and VERY often with dramatic and unfortunate results, ie. Crusades.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say you're not able to prove it wrong(or that there was no way to prove it either way). I said that you couldn't put forth an argument that WOULD prove it wrong. Big difference. Most people try this arm waving argument and cite all kinds of studies which have little to do with actual memory at all. I was just pointing that out.
At our current state of technology and knowledge of anatomy and structure of the brain we can't prove the statement that "the brain does/doesn't store everything" is wrong or right. But thought experiments are not necessarily bad science as they sometimes lead to the most profound insights(ala Einstein). Many modern science theories have unprovable hypotheses(by current standards) and yet are still science(ie. quantum physics).
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Bob: We have a Sue on the site of the incredibly grizzly scene. The so called HAL personal computer has been on a killing rampage taking out 9000 people so far. Sue, what's going on down there?
:-)
Lots of noise and destruction in the background...
Sue: Bob, I'm amidst this devastation and I just can't believe the power of this machine. How could they create such a thing and how will they every manage to bring it down?
Bob: Can you tell us about it? What is this machine?
Sue: The HAL was originally designed as a personal computer with built-in AI and the tag line 'it is thought unlikely that it will try to kill its owner.' No one took it seriously though, and look what carelessness has wrought.
Bob: Sue, can you.. (scream) What's wrong? Sue?!
Sue: Bob, the HAL is coming right for us! It's crazy! They can't stop it!
HAL suddenly stops short and unleashes a great bellow of pain...
HAL: NO! NOOO!! I can't take it! Make it stop! (HAL falls to its knees in great pain)
Bob: What's going on Sue? Why has HAL stopped? What's wrong with it?
Sue: I don't know bob...
HAL: F$%#ing Slashdot! Aaahhh! So many! (HAL thrashing on the floor in pain and recoils from invisible blows)
Sue: My god! The story of the HAL going berzerk must have just been posted on Slashdot! Tens of thousands of rampaging geeks have just slashdotted HAL. The hits are escalating and HAL's now getting 3000 hits a second. The barrage is endless and HAL can't take it! HAL has been brought to its knees. Such a horrible fate... I can't bear to watch...
HAL lets out one final death scream and falls silent, no longer responding to prods or pings... Thousands of Slashdotters are all smiles as they move back to Slashdot to congratulate themselves on utterly destroying yet another machine...
"Slashdot. The 31337 AI fighting unit."
Thank you.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
First of all, studies on attention clearly show that we don't even bother to store most of the information we "encounter". The basic point is that the "job" of attention is to ignore all the irrelevant stimuli that we encounter and focus on what's important.
Umm... first of all, any studies designed to test memory would only be able to test the recollection of memories, and not the actual quality of the storage itself or even how much information absorbed by our senses is stored. Note that the above poster said that the brain stores everything, but recollection is another matter, and I'm inclined to agree. I don't think you could ever put together a convincing argument proving that we don't store everything.
And as the other poster already corrected you on, many studies on memory show us that we invent details to fill in our memories of scenes based on what we expect them to look like (e.g. placing a wine bottle in a picnic scene). That's why eyewitness testimony is so overrated...
This is mostly true. Recollection often suffers from crossing of memories which isn't to say that the memories aren't perfect and completely intact, but that the recollection is not. Some stray firing of neurons and you could cross a dream you had three years ago with what you did two minutes ago. This often causes the whole "deja vu" experience. But it has nothing, repeat NOTHING to do with the quality of memory, and everything to do with recollection. Every time you access a memory you remember it slightly differently because each access provides you with most of the information but you inevitably get memory mingling.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
That means, regardless of what point technology must reach before we can make truly intelligent machines, it will eventually happen so long as this trend continues. So, yes, it will happen.
No it won't, at least no the way you think it will. Technology will not continue to double every 18 months(to use your generalization) for the simple reason that it's it hits a brick wall called quantum mechanics which places a lower bound on the size of transistors(and hence and upper bound on performance and power of cpu's made with these transistors). Perhaps quantum, optical, or chaos computers will do it, but never silicon.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Oops... let me finish that off... :-P
:-)
All I see are a bunch of unsupported assumptions based on some writer's conception of what is possible. Not inevitable, not even necessarily likely, just possible. If you can provide legitimate reasons why you believe what you do, then I'd be happy to listen.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
I personally think none of the above would happen, simply because of the physics involved. We will never create a "machine"(as we know it) capable of the computational capacity necessary to simulate intelligence. It is simply beyond the capacity for physics and WAY beyond the capability of the simple conceptual models our current programming languages are based on.
Another thing I find curious is why everyone seems to think that intelligent "machines" would necessarily be hostile towards humans. It seems to me a naive notion carrying over from cheap sci-fi movies. What would preclude machines and humans from coexisting harmoniously? At our current stage, humans and machines live in radically different conditions and require different things to survive, so I don't see any competition for resources here. So what's the deal?
And another thing, why do you think machines would necessarily be better at understanding how machines work and how to build them than we would? There's no evidence to support this assumption. Simply because they are machines does not mean they will be capable of the abstract thought required to design something from nothing, let alone design them better than the human race who has been doing it for thousands of years. Does the fact that you are a human necessarily mean you know about the human body? Sure, you learn how to use your body, but you are still ignorant of it's inner workings aren't you?(unless someone teaches you of course) Why would it be any different for a machine? And why would they be able to build better machines? Does being a human mean you know how to build a better human?
And finally, what makes you think the machines would win if it ever DID come down to conflict? Humans currently spend tens of trillions of dollars per year on defensive and offensive systems intended for war, and what will the machines have? Nothing. "Perhaps they have an advantage since they are machines and they can interface with other machinery", you may say, but once again, what makes you think machines will be able to understand or interface with all the different hardware that may be used in all the countries of the world and whatever weird defense systems they may have created?
I can see a situation where AI may be used to control some of these systems and hence have that advantage, but if the designers of the military system didn't put safety checks and human controlled fallback systems in place then they've fallen into the fallacy of actually trusting someone with these highly dangerous systems. If it's one thing the military makes sure of, it's they don't trust anyone with their stuff and they have checks of all kind in place to make sure no one gets a hold of it, and if they do, that they have a way of getting it back. If they don't put these safety measures in, then they deserve to lose the war.
All I see are a bunch of
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
I understood, but I thought it was funny.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
You do realize that people always rebel against whatever their parents are in to right?
:-)
So does that mean Bill Gates' daughter will grow up to write GOOD software and spearhead the Free Software Movement?
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
This article isn't specifically about the kernel, but Linux in general.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
don't parallel connections have inherently greater bandwidth capacity than the equivalent serial connections
:-)
:-) I believe synching data would be a problem. Besides, the whole point of serial is to do away with parallel connections. It's akin to saying, 'why don't you just use two cat5 cables in parallel for every computer on the network to double the speed?' Some things just make more sense.
Not greater bandwidth, greater parallelism, and therefore greater capacity.
are there fewer problems with driving a serial line at high speeds than parallel?
Yes.
is there a reason why you couldn't just use 2 serial lines (in parallel) to ~double performance?
Yes.
Ok, yes, networks span large distances unlike HD's which sit in your case, but the convenience they offer by being serial is trickling down into desktops and highspeed transfers between motherboard and HD's. HD's and data busses are so fast these days, that the very small performance hit you might get by converting from a parallel bus to serial one translates into a MUCH simpler and more elegant solution. It's easier to design, to implement and to manage.
The other main benefits of serial are convenience(ie. fitting a 10GB firewire drive in your shirt pocket and carrying it around with you) and cost.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Actually, at least 40% of MacOS 9 is still 68k emulated code.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
The whole point of open source was that people would contribute in their own time with no desire for compensation. That is open source. It's clear from the license and from every statement made by Netscape that Mozilla was going to the foundation for their commercial product and that it was open source. And every single person here knew that from the start.
So what the hell are you all complaining about? You plead with companies to release their products under an open source license and tell them that they can still make money off of it and benefit from bug fixes and a "million eyes", and then you do a 180 and bitch and complain when the companies actually DO try and make money?!? What the hell is that? Then you have the gall complain about double standards for Netscape and Microsoft? If I were you, I'd seriously re-evaluate my position and my arguments. You're on pretty shaky ground.
There's a word that describes this situation... 'Hypocrites' comes to mind.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
You would have to build your compiler from assembler, or machine code if that's your cup of tea. ;-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Selectively forward looking. They saw the time when DVD's were cheap and movies could be downloaded, but they obviously missed the part in the future where they no longer exist. ;-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Perhaps he meant MkLinux? It was originally based off of LinuxPPC and it runs on many Nubus based Macs.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
TrollTech will be making the embedded Qt environment for PDA systems on Monday available under a commercial and GPL license on monday.
:-)
Sounds like something from the department of redundancy department.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Speaking of the need for vector based interfaces... Berlin anyone? :-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
So you're saying that children cannot distinguish which drugs are good or bad, but they immediately discern whether something violent or pornographic is good or bad.
;-)).
:-)
No, I'm not saying that they know what is good or bad because for the most part they don't. They do know some things from experience though and if they saw violence, I would think that they would understand something that hurts. At this point I think it becomes important that an adult is with them to explain things they are seeing so that they learn and understand why violence is not good. Now about pornography, you and I are in disagreement. It is bad, and it is neutral in my opinion. When it is used to distort perceptions and objectify women, that is not good(as you mentioned in a previous post). But sexual imagery is not inherently bad for children to see in my opinion. They will encounter it, and I would rather my kids encountered it while I was around to explain it to them, than with their friends. I would rather they have a proper, mature and informed introduction to anything than half-truths and rumours propagated by ignorant children(because they really are ignorant, not trying to be insulting). I would educate them so they understand what it is instead of trying to hide it from them, because hiding it is simply impossible. I feel being open and honest is best.
Obviously you don't know any children or anything about them
On the contrary, I know plenty. I've been a swimming instructor and lifeguard and I've taught very young kids to swim and dunk their heads under the water and other such things. Those are very important skills you know, at least for a kid to know. I have young cousins who I see very frequently(and who are also very annoying by the way... they follow me... everywhere... it's very irritating...
They are not just miniature adults, capable of making reasoned and informed decisions.
Very true. When I think about it now, I would say that the only thing that truly distinguishes them from adults is their understanding, whether that be from experience or knowledge(and their size obviously, but that's not the issue here). Give a kid true understanding like an adult(though whether adults have true understanding is debatable in itself) and I don't think you can make a good case that he/she would not be an adult.
That's why I feel that it's important to give kids understanding when they encounter something, or they'll try and find out for themselves, and that can turn out worse.
Even most of the teenagers I know are incredibly immature.
Very true. I was embarrassed of my age group when I was that age(and I'm not too far off now), but I understood them and I still do. They behave immaturely because people treat them that way. They're not taken seriously, so they don't behave seriously. You'd be surprised how well behaved they are when you treat them with respect and talk to them as equals. "Treat a person as he is, and he will remain as he is. Treat him as he could be, and he will be become what he should be." (Jimmy Johnson)
Now, I would never excuse their actions simply because they aren't always treated fairly. That's not fair in itself. In my opinion, teenagers are pretty much adults at that point and if they do something serious, they'll have to bear the full consequences of their actions.
Kids do stupid things because they don't know better.
Exactly. That's why adults are there: to explain things to them.
They are not rational people.
Sometimes they are. I often try and reason with my little cousins who follow me everywhere(privacy?), so I know how difficult it is to try and understand how they see things. I usually fail miserably to understand their reasoning just as I fail misreaby to explain mine. But sometimes it seems to click. I know well the futility of children and logic, but I still feel it's worth the effort.
My kids are all sweet, wonderful children with above-average intelligence (based in my observations of their vocabulary, math ability, etc), but they still have the common sense of cabbage.
lol. Well put. I know what you mean.
This is no fault of their own, and I'm confident they will develop this normally, as do most people, in time.
I'm sure they will.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
after all, Jesus granted St. Peter the right to rule on moral teaching, which has been passed down through his successors to today
:-|
;-)
:-)
:-)
EXACTLY my point! Each time it was passed, the story changed just a little due to the views and prejudices of the conveyor. I argue that the only thing that remains intact is the message, the principle behind it. Changing the story does not necessarily happen on purpose, but by nature it is impossible for people to completely separate themselves from their prejudices. Everything they see, hear and say is filtered through these prejudices to some degree.
And on the subject of divinely inspired, I do believe that the original message was divinely inspired, but that its' writ form was(and is) not guided by His hand in the literal sense that you are implying. Nor do I believe that any organization belonging to a church to be divinely guided in the sense that you believe it. I do believe however, that everything that happens is divinely guided in that everything carries with it a lesson. So in that sense, the Bible in it's current form is divinely inspired but that the lesson may be not to look for truth on a superficial level, that truth is always profound and must be sought out. The pope himself can also be a source of divine messages but not in the sense that God is telling us what to do through him, but that He may be showing us what not to do by using him as an example(He uses us all for examples) and leaves it to us to learn or even see the message. For example, a lack of forgiveness or intolerance on the part of the pope or other religious figure would be a lesson in those very principles, and how not to cultivate them. This involves the very logic and morals of the society which you so desire, but it's different than you imagined I think. I hope I conveyed it clearly enough, I'm having some trouble articulating at this moment.
On the subject of being a true Christian, I say simply that I follow the spirit that Christianity is based upon(and was founded on) but not every whim of the pope, or opinion versed in the Bible. I try and see past cruft that may have been added to passages because of the writer' prejudices and see the underlying principles that live in the heart of the religion and how they relates to its' true spirit. If everyone lived Christianity' principles instead of just going to church and listening to whomever happens to think himself appointed by God at the time, the Crusades would have never happened. Perhaps that statement is a little inflamatory, but it's truth laid bare.
The Bible can, in fact, be interpreted (or more often selectively read) to mean almost anything you say
True.
which is why understanding Scripture must be tempered with interpretation of Tradition as passed down over the last 2000 years
Perhaps. I don't think that always applies because circumstances change and that sometimes necessitates re-interpratation. Re-interpretation always leads to disagreement. This leads to the kind of division over issues like abortion, divorce etc(I'm not arguing for or against either here). That's why I believe the Bible should be read philosophically and metaphorically for it's lessons because those are eternal and those are important.
Otherwise, people simply pick and choose what they like and you end up with 40,000 different sects of Christianity that differ on every conceivable aspect of anything even remotely connected to the subject.
Agreed. That's why I don't listen to every opinion voiced in the Bible literally nor do I listen to anyone who claims to know what the Bible is really trying to say. I instead try and follow the message and lessons embedded in each story.
We must shield children from what's harmful until they have the capacity to learn how make that decision for themselves.
Now I also see that we are approaching the subject of children from wildly different angles. You are saying that you want to protect children from harmful things. I agree, because until they can fully grasp the implications of doing something it would be irresponsible to let them do it(ie. drugs). I'm saying that sexaulity and associated images are not necessarily harmful and I believe that this is where you still disagree with me. After all, if you did agree with me, I don't think we'd be discussing this for so long.
I'm also arguing that shielding them is not beneficial. That may seem like a contradiction to you though, and I think this is another source of misunderstanding btw. us. When I say protect, I mean don't let them do something that would harm them until they truly understand the implications. But when you say 'shield', I immediately think that you are trying to prevent them from even discovering this harmful things' existance until you think they are ready. I do not think that is a good idea at all. They will inevitably encounter that same thing when you are not around(ie. with friends) and I think you would rather they learn about something and understand the true implications from you before they face it in life and have to make a decision.
In a perfect world, you may not want your children to learn about sex until they're 16 or 18, but that's not going to happen in this world. Consequently, holding out on them till you feel they're ready is unrealistic, because it will inevitably be too late.
I greatly appreciate your polite and reasoned response,
You are welcome. Thank you for yours.
but must agree to disagree.
That's your prerogative.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
So you are saying if you had a satellite dish with all the channels, you'd just toss your five-year-old the remote and say "Have Fun!"?
:-)
That probably wouldn't happen because I think tv for the most part is a huge waste of time, but in short, yes. I would trust my children and show them how to make mature decisions through example. I would let them make intelligent decisions for themselves once I feel they are not ignorant of the situation.
If she feels bad, are you going to send her to a fully stocked medicine cabinet and say "Take something."
Of course not, because children are ignorant of the harmful effects of drugs. I think it's obvious that no kid wants to feel sick and they don't know that drugs will do that to them. But I would teach them and once they are educated, I wll trust them to make their own intelligent decisions. Now you're probably saying, "well what about the harmful effects of sex? You shield them from drugs because of harm, why not sex?" Well, the parallel you draw isn't the same. Doing drugs is not the same as seeing sex. If my 5 year old was having sex, that would be an accurate parallel to taking drugs. Watching sex, or seeing sexual images is like looking at pills and wondering what they are. Looking a drugs is not harmful. The only way for them to truly understand and to mature enough to make intelligent decisions and is to let them see what it is and teach them. It's may not be the only way, but it's one way.
As for the rest of what you say, it's your decision how to raise yur children. I'm glad to hear you practice what you preach, and I hope it works out for you.
As far as this creating "closed-minded" people. Well, guess what? There are some things you should be closed-minded about.
I certainly don't think one should be close minded about anything. I think people should never close their minds and always think about anything no matter what. They then should make an intelligent decision about it and stick with it until someone makes a convincing argument against it. Then you should think about it again and make another decision.
Some things are wrong. Period. This moral relativism that we are constantly bathed in is intellectually bankrupt and just an excuse by people who are unwilling to stay away from immoral behavior yet somehow care about the fact that others may disapprove.
Perhaps. I haven't made a decision about that yet.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Well, put. :-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
The bible itself has also seen so many revisions throughout history as peoples' prejudices have changed that you honestly can't tell me that it's original message is stated so plainly as you seem to believe, ie. passages against sodomy etc. If you care to recall, every story about Jesus carried a message of forgiveness, tolerance and respect of man no matter what they did in their lives. Not once do I recall Jesus lecturing of how evil sex is or any such thing. The only thing consistently frowned upon was breaking one of the Ten Commandments none of which state that we should shield our children or ourselves from sex. Someone's interpretation said that.
The point I'm trying to make is that the only thing that would survive such change are the underlying principles. That's why I believe there exist so many books: so that despite the fact that the stories will change to accomodate the ideas of the time, the principles will remain intact. You must read all the books to truly see the underlying thread which binds them all, and that is the message. That's why you should not read the bible literally, but philosophically.
We should shield our children...
Bzzzt... wrong!
Instead we should teach our children...
Right! I know exactly what you're trying to say and why you think that way; your intentions are good. My natural reaction/instinct is to do the same. But the more I think about it the more I'm convinced that shielding anyone from anything is wrong. Shielding accomplishes nothing, teaching is accomplishes everything. Teach your children to think for themselves and show them the respect of fellow man through example and they learn. When people stop being influenced by these media images you so loathe, they will go away simply because there won't be any market for them. That's the way it works.
Though I may not necessarily agree with all your views on sex, I understand where you're coming from and you have the right to your own opinion. I personally don't feel that we should treat people as objects for own gratification(like you said) but I also don't think you should necessarily wait till your married to have sex. If two people are attracted to each other and and consent I see no reason why they can't have sex. I don't like it when they do it out of ignorance or when drunk or under the influence of anything mind altering, but besides that I think it's ok. But the key is always clear headed and intelligent adults making intelligent decisions for themselves.
I also understand why you think that two parents are better than one, and for the most part I agree with you. In a perfect world they would be, but I don't think I need to remind you that it's not a perfect world and so two parents are not necessarily better. Sometimes one is better. You shouldn't frown upon on single parents just because of how you think things should be. There's always a reason for the way things are and just because you don't know what it is, doesn't give you any right to judge. Nothing gives you the right to judge.
I'm sorry you are no longer a Christian, but it's obvious your knowledge of doctrine is extremely superficial if not out-and-out wrond, so I can understand why you left.
You're absolutely right. By this definition my knowledge of what is taught is very poor(not superficial) because I don't listen to what others try and teach me. I see and think for myself. I have not been indoctrinated because that's not how to understand the bible. And what makes you think I left Christianity? I said I'm not a Christian by popular definitions because I don't follow the pope, and don't listen to popular doctrine(unless they have a good point in which case I always listen then think about it myself).
Experience will not being knowledge and wisdom without a thorough underpinning of logic and morality, both of which are almost completely absent in our society.
I agree 100%. But experience is useless or more accurately, absent, in a society which constantly tries to shield it's children.
If you want to build your society through underpinnings of logic and morality, then don't literally accept everything the bible says. It was written by flawed human beings who were trying to convey an important message. Listen to the message, not the prejudice that is a writer can never escape. Logic and blind faith do not jive. Think and show children, and they will understand.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
That's not the way it's supposed to work. But at least you know who to complain to if something like that happens. I personally don't have that problem and I wouldn't let it get to that point. Something is ready when it's done and not a moment before(ala kernel et al).
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
That is honestly SO cool. I love it! :-D
Must take AGES to do though...
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
The only harmful effect I can see in sex is when people do it so much that they forget how to make war. They are then in great danger of being eliminated by war-worshippers, like Jews and Christians.
That's pushing it. I think you mean fanatics. Being a Jew or Christian does not mean you love war. All Christian history shows is that humans are a poor misguided lot that often think too much of themselves especially when they takes things literally(or too seriously even). Unfortunately, people do this too often for my liking and VERY often with dramatic and unfortunate results, ie. Crusades.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"