This is, of course, so incomplete as to be bullshit. Thermodynamics only requires entropy to increase globally, or in closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system. Therefore any statement that entropy must increase on Earth because of the laws of thermodynamics is simply false. They easily permit locally decreasing entropy at the cost of increased global entropy. Want proof? Clean your room.
Why the hell are you posting as anonymous? The simplicity and accuracy of that paragraph combined make for a truly epic statement. I couldn't have said it any better (or anywhere near as good) myself. I can not fathom why you would seek to distance yourself from it.
I think he was implying that the human wetworks are pretty impressive to have dreamed up taking ones and zeros and making them into such marvelous things
The thing is, the human mind doesn't really do that anyway. Who do you know that programs in binary? And can you imagine a human being creating Windows Vista from scratch, in binary?
Human accomplishments, much like evolutionary progression, are cumulative. Our brains are basically simulation programs - they take data, feed it through a series of filters and rules, and then act on the output. However, since we're able to learn, each successive generation gets a different set of rules and filters, allowing us to work out new problems without first having to go back to basics. As such, it's wrong to say that the human mind created modern computers - rather, the human SPECIES created modern computers. There's a huge difference there. All of our accomplishments owe as much to natural selection and the passage of time as they do to the complexity of the human brain.
But yes, I'd agree that the human brain is an amazingly complex piece of machinery, which is impressively adaptive. If that's what he meant, then we are in 100% agreement.
And to the resolution point. I think you're thinking too literally. Show me a computer that can discern a great masterpiece from a technically proficient work.
Show me a human that can.
Even if we ignore the fact that judging masterpieces has nothing to do with resolution, your argument still makes no sense because the judgement of "masterpieces" is subjective. Show a Picasso to an African tribesman, and he'll probably use it for kindling. On the other hand, the artwork of his own people will doubtless hold great value to him, while being nearly worthless to the average westerner.
I've never heard anyone believe in your claim that God had to be more complex just because we are complex.
Then you've never argued with a creationist. EVERY argument about God eventually breaks down to the idea that a complex system such as a human being cannot be created by chance or natural selection, therefore "God".
A higher power does not imply greater complexity.
Yes, it does. If it's not more complex, then it's not a higher power. If you fail to understand simple symantics like that, I don't see how we can discuss more complex topics.
In his early Known Space stories collected in Tales of Known Space [amazon.com] Larry Niven forsaw a future 1975 (ha) where the brains of people managled in car accidents are integrated into spacecraft for guidance, allowing them to continue contributing to society even if their bodies are gone.
Some idiot who can't even handle a car ends up causing a massive accident, and Niven wants to let him drive a spaceship? Great idea! What could possibly go wrong?
On the bright side, I hear collisions at relativistic velocities are rather painless....
So I gather you disagree, from your semi-intelligible response? Did we (collective humanity) or did we not create the computer you are reading this on? Did we not bring about the technological advances that are stated in the very article you are replying (hardly) to? If so, then are we not the ultimate computer? Equipped w/ the highest resolution video, audio, CPU/logic, etc?
Nope. We also created the nuclear bomb, but we're not the ultimate explosion.
Your logic is faulty because there is no rule which states that extremely complex systems have to be created by even more complex systems. This is the same logical fallacy which creationists often advance in order to "prove" the existence of God: the idea that because humans are complex, there must be an even more complex being which created us. In reality, it is quite possible for complex systems to be created as a product of random chance, or natural selection.
As for humans being equipped with "the highest resolution video, audio, CPU/logic, etc", that's just plain silly. Computers can detect and display video at resolutions (and in light spectrums) which are undetectable by the human eye. They can detect and produce sounds which would be inaudible to us. And when it comes to raw number-crunching ability....well, don't be silly. I'd like to see you sit down and brute-force an NT LM hash in your head. Hell, I'll be generous and let you use a pen and paper!
BTW, the guy you were responding to was clearly making a joke. Lighten up.
forged from: abuse@[domain]
to: bogus@[domain]
You have issues.
If they have back scatter, they get it. If they don't have back scatter, they don't.
Hah.
abuse@gmail.com has an auto-response.
bogus@gmail.com has an auto-response.
I'm sending the e-mail right now. I wish I could see the "abuse" account's inbox in a few hours....
Re:"parks wherever the hell it wants"???
on
The DIY Tank
·
· Score: 1
I think that they're smart enough to realize that a kid that can put together a fake tank could probably put together a real one.
You assume that the problem scales linearly, when there's no reason to make such an assumption. For example, if you can build a toy motor-boat, does that mean you can also build a supertanker, or an aircraft carrier? If you can build a model rocket, can you go out and make a heavy lifter for NASA?
His creation demonstrates that he is curious, creative, and intelligent, sure, but it says nothing about his ability to build tanks.
What it shows is that he's capable of solving problems and thinking innovatively.
Exactly.
Re:"parks wherever the hell it wants"???
on
The DIY Tank
·
· Score: 1
"So sonny, what do you know about building armored vehicles?"
"Well, if you would just look over there on the parking lot..."
"So you want to send our soldiers into battle protected by a plywood box? Right. We're sure to win THAT contract..."
"parks wherever the hell it wants"???
on
The DIY Tank
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
It's not a tank, it's a friggin' plywood box on treads, with a nerf gun attached to it. I mean, ok, it seems like a fun project, but the guy didn't really do anything special here. It's easy to build a tracked vehicle, and sticking a big green plywood box on it is even easier. It's also pretty pointless. If you're going to build a tank, at least incorporate a bit of armour in it. Otherwise, what's the point?
Heckuva job, Brownie! More optimistically, I hope that their algorithms could predict the 4 or 5 "wild"- fires in Southern California which are all started mysteriously(on the same day) "in season."
What's your guess? Blackwater, with black helicopters, in the forest? I'm going with Col. Mustard, with the candle-stick, in the grasslands.
The one proviso for them is that its a one time purchase, if you lose the file somehow you can't redownload it. If you can deal with that I definitely recommend it, its easy and so far problem free.
I don't see why people expect to be able to re-download a file in the first place. If you buy a physical CD and then your house burns down, do you expect the music label to send you a replacement CD?
I mean, sure, it's a nice feature to have, but I'd never depend on it anyway. Just make backups.
Ok let me be more specific, when in this post 9/11 world, has the government presented evidence in its claims and crusades.
Well:
1) They presented plenty of evidence for Al Qaeda being behind 9/11.
2) They presented plenty of evidence for the Taliban harbouring Al Qaeda.
3) They presented plenty of evidence to show that Iraq had posessed "weapons of mass destruction", and that they had never satisfactorily shown that those weapons were destroyed.
4) They presented plenty of evidence to show that Iraq had repeatedly violated the ceasefire agreement.
etc, etc, etc.
Also, you need to keep in mind that one single solitary government official is not "The Government", no matter how impressive his title may sound.
But yeah, other than that, they NEVER show any evidence of anything! Bastards!
Personally, I've never really been scared by any of the things our government keeps telling me I should be terrorized by, but what really scares me is the bleak future I see for my kids and their kids...caused by our own Orwellian, all-powerful government.
Yeah, I soooooo hear ya on that one! You know what else scares me? Clowns. The government keeps saying that there's nothing to fear from clowns, but I know The Truth! Those colourful costumes and goofy makeup are the perfect disguises for Secret Service death squads, prowling our neighbourhoods and looking to assassinate or brainwash anyone they see purchasing organic tomatoes. It's downright terrifying!
I'm glad to see that there's other right-minded folk like me on here! Keep up the good work Mr. Transporter!
Okay, "good" by reasonable standards of conduct within the context of the surrounding society. Happy now?:)
Yes:)
I'm not sure that inverse extremism is progress, and may even eventually lead to another mad dog.
Agreed, that's always a problem, but it's still better than leaving the original "mad dog" alive. Also, the kind of speech-repression we see in Germany is actually pretty normal for most of the world - the EU as a whole has "anti-hate-speech" laws, as does Canada, and Australia. The US is pretty much the only nation in the world which recognizes freedom of speech as an unlimited right (with the exception of libel and public mischief) so blaming Germany's attitude against Nazi rhetoric on what we did after WW2 isn't exactly fair.
But we're no longer willing to actually shoot that mad dog. Now we wave a stick and say Nice Doggie and hope it won't bite us, and keep backing away and letting it push us closer to the edge of the cliff, and someday we're going to fall off.
Yep. I've always liked the phrase "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' while reaching for a bigger stick". Unfortunately, too many westerners think that diplomacy IS the stick. Fostering such delusions is a very good way to get mauled.
Well, maybe on a very small/localized scale. But as a whole, modern Christianity is middle-aged and fat and comfortable with its place in the world, not exactly the conditions that lead to a widespread jihad.:)
Definitely. I know that a "Christian Jihad" isn't likely, I was just saying that it wouldn't take much for it to happen. Considering the attitude that most American Christians have toward Atheists, I think I'm justifiably paranoid:) I don't think that Christianity will ever revert to the level of modern-day Islam, but at the same time, the possibility does worry me.
I mean, if Bush could muster the national purpose to turn an attack by a rogue group into an invasion of not one, but TWO countries, certainly going against the spirit of our own signing of the UN Treaty, then, he could have bent a few rules, and been that figurehead again, and mounted a national effort to rebuild New Orleans.
Sure, he could, but he shouldn't have to. 9/11 was a failure of the military and intelligence agencies - a federal government responsibility. New Orleans was a failure of the municipality, or, at worst a state responsibility. It was deffinitely a case of the people reaping the fruits of their indifference - if they had bothered to elect a good mayor, and properly fund their police force, the whole situation would have turned out a lot different. The federal government should have never needed to step in, except to provide limited support as requested by the state and municipality.
My position, as I've posted elsewhere, I believe, is that these are bad for reasons other than safety. The constant push for more and more surveillance is bad for personal liberties everywhere. The system, especially in tactical forms like this little beast, is rife with potential for abuse and is often used specifically because of that capability. These will do no actual work in crime prevention, but will be used instead for (great word by the way) scaremongering of people specifically to control populations within a particular geographic area.
Ah. I think your account should have a Warning attached to it:
"This account does no actual work toward enriching discussions, but is used primarily for scaremongering of people specifically to turn populations against new technologies."
Seriously, I wonder how long it will be before they have to pass a special law making it against the law to shoot these things down?
A special law? Do you have any idea how many existing laws you'd break by shooting down one of these over a populated area? Last I checked the unsafe discharge of a firearm, destruction of government property, and public endangerment are all illegal in most cities/states.
Not to mention that the Department of Homeland Security would probably drop by, looking to "get to know you" in the biblical sense....
Not to disagree with your entire point, but why should we assume walking without falling is easier than higher-order brain functions?
It's certainly possible that self awareness and "intelligence" were easy for evolution to tack-on once the rest of the structure was there. But it's also silly to assume that we can create intelligence and self awareness WITHOUT the rest of the structure.
As ahabswhale already pointed out, "your perception defines your reality". The first step of teaching computers to think will likely be teaching them how to acquire, analyze, understand, and react to incoming data, much like we react to input from our eyes, ears, noses, etc. Maybe once we've solved that issue, adding intelligence into the mix will be a breeze, but we're still a ways off from achieving even the first step.
Yikes. I would not have thought even such a small percentage of American Muslims would hold such hostile beliefs, if only because people are people everywhere, and most are at least tolerably "good" by reasonable standards of conduct.
You're guilty of defining "good" by modern perceptions:) If you look at the world around you, you'll find that people have much different definitions for that word. Even in our own history, it's had a much different meaning. The founding fathers of the US created a nation-state guaranteeing it's citizens more freedom than anywhere at any time in the history of mankind, so they were good, right? Yet many of them were slave owners, and ALL of them would have laughed at the idea of a woman being given the right to vote. Does that make them evil?
It's not that most Muslims are "evil" - they're simply regressive. Their social structure, their religious beliefs, and their moral code are, for the most part, where western society was 300 years ago, and due to the structure of their religion there's little chance that they will ever go through a "reformation" like the Christian faith did. However, it's the feedback generated by their social group which encourages "extremist" behaviour, and not any personal failing on the part of individuals.
One of the comments gets it right, tho: Muslims have to shoot their own mad dog. Until they're willing to do so, they will always be perceived as "the religion of hate", even tho a significant majority of Muslims are perfectly reasonable, peaceful people.
Agreed, but we can certainly help them along, just like we have with various other cultures throughout history. The German people may have eradicated Nazism in the end, and the Japanese overthrown Shintoism, but neither of those events would have occurred without our.... "encouragement".
It took Christianity many centuries and a lot of bloodshed to figure this out. Islam is a younger, thus less-mature religion, and still in the throes of "US vs THEM", where keeping a mad dog to defend your camp still seems like a good idea.
Even Christianity is not immune from this. Take a look at some of the Evangelical churches in the US - they're as nutty as any middle-eastern Imam. All it would take is for a few of their preachers to start advocating violent revolution, and you've got yourself a Christian Jihad. Now, granted that's not likely to happen, but history has shown over and over again that it doesn't take much to turn a popular and peaceful political or religious movement into a violent war-machine. I tend to keep a weary eye on anyone who professes fanatical belief, regardless of which faith they happen to follow.
I didn't put a time-line on it; I have no idea how long it will take.
Cool. Sorry, I'm just getting tired of people predicting breakthroughs around every corner.
Robotics is an entirely different issue. There are already robots that can walk and run. Granted, there are none that can handle obstacles as well as a human but these problems will get worked out in time. There's no reason to think otherwise.
You're right, and I was thinking of this as I was hitting the "submit" button - the problems with robotics is mainly one of adequate sensory input, which is a separate issue. Still - it's an example of how far off we are in so many ways. The processing of signals from sensory organs, whether eyes, ears, tactile sensors, taste buds, or sonar-receptors, is one of the most fundamental aspects of multi-cellular life. If we haven't even managed to create a machine which can adequately move around on a rugged landscape, then we've got a LONG way to go before we make one that can input, interpret, analyze, and react to data even as well as a cockroach, let alone a human being.
But yes, given time, I have no doubt that we will create some sort of artificial life. I doubt it'll run on the X86 instruction set though:)
Your statements are based on the faulty premise that computers will never be able to learn, or at least learn as well as a human....
We're just fancy bio-computers. Once we understand how that really works, we're be able to replicate it and (probably) improve on it.
Sure, but we're the product of billions of years of evolution. What makes you think that we'll be able to replicate or even approximate the human thought process any time soon? Hell, we're having problems even getting computers/machines to work out simple things like moving limbs without falling over, or reacting in order to avoid being hit by an object, but you think we're going to be able to teach them to use higher-order brain functions? Sorry, but it won't happen any time soon.
Or, if you prefer a religious reply: we're the result of God's divine intervention, and can never hope to match His work;)
Absolutely nothing at all. Except the fact that killing "terrorists" (the definition of which is "anyone US soldiers shoot at") is far far more important to the government than exploring the planets.
But sure, you want to stay in your pre-ordained topical rut, then pray for mod points and mod me offtopic. As if I care.
Actually, I thought maybe you were making some intelligent point that I had missed completely. I see that I was mistaken. Thanks for clearing that up.
I've got a hell of lot more faith in China, or even a reformed USSR's ability to reach either goal first, and that depresses me immensely. The USA just ain't what it used to be.
The USSR is gone - dead - kaput, and China can't even put a car on the market which doesn't fold up like a pop-can on impact with a baby carriage. Your prediction makes about as much sense as a football bat.
Look on the bright side, though: no matter how much you may think the US has declined, you've quite clearly become the world-leaders in pessimism. Now if only you could find a market for it.....I KNOW! More Michael Moore Movies!
Slashdot Mirror
Human accomplishments, much like evolutionary progression, are cumulative. Our brains are basically simulation programs - they take data, feed it through a series of filters and rules, and then act on the output. However, since we're able to learn, each successive generation gets a different set of rules and filters, allowing us to work out new problems without first having to go back to basics. As such, it's wrong to say that the human mind created modern computers - rather, the human SPECIES created modern computers. There's a huge difference there. All of our accomplishments owe as much to natural selection and the passage of time as they do to the complexity of the human brain.
But yes, I'd agree that the human brain is an amazingly complex piece of machinery, which is impressively adaptive. If that's what he meant, then we are in 100% agreement.
Show me a human that can.
Even if we ignore the fact that judging masterpieces has nothing to do with resolution, your argument still makes no sense because the judgement of "masterpieces" is subjective. Show a Picasso to an African tribesman, and he'll probably use it for kindling. On the other hand, the artwork of his own people will doubtless hold great value to him, while being nearly worthless to the average westerner.
On the bright side, I hear collisions at relativistic velocities are rather painless....
Your logic is faulty because there is no rule which states that extremely complex systems have to be created by even more complex systems. This is the same logical fallacy which creationists often advance in order to "prove" the existence of God: the idea that because humans are complex, there must be an even more complex being which created us. In reality, it is quite possible for complex systems to be created as a product of random chance, or natural selection.
As for humans being equipped with "the highest resolution video, audio, CPU/logic, etc", that's just plain silly. Computers can detect and display video at resolutions (and in light spectrums) which are undetectable by the human eye. They can detect and produce sounds which would be inaudible to us. And when it comes to raw number-crunching ability....well, don't be silly. I'd like to see you sit down and brute-force an NT LM hash in your head. Hell, I'll be generous and let you use a pen and paper!
BTW, the guy you were responding to was clearly making a joke. Lighten up.
abuse@gmail.com has an auto-response. bogus@gmail.com has an auto-response.
I'm sending the e-mail right now. I wish I could see the "abuse" account's inbox in a few hours....
His creation demonstrates that he is curious, creative, and intelligent, sure, but it says nothing about his ability to build tanks.
Exactly.
It's not a tank, it's a friggin' plywood box on treads, with a nerf gun attached to it. I mean, ok, it seems like a fun project, but the guy didn't really do anything special here. It's easy to build a tracked vehicle, and sticking a big green plywood box on it is even easier. It's also pretty pointless. If you're going to build a tank, at least incorporate a bit of armour in it. Otherwise, what's the point?
I mean, sure, it's a nice feature to have, but I'd never depend on it anyway. Just make backups.
1) They presented plenty of evidence for Al Qaeda being behind 9/11.
2) They presented plenty of evidence for the Taliban harbouring Al Qaeda.
3) They presented plenty of evidence to show that Iraq had posessed "weapons of mass destruction", and that they had never satisfactorily shown that those weapons were destroyed.
4) They presented plenty of evidence to show that Iraq had repeatedly violated the ceasefire agreement.
etc, etc, etc.
Also, you need to keep in mind that one single solitary government official is not "The Government", no matter how impressive his title may sound.
But yeah, other than that, they NEVER show any evidence of anything! Bastards!
Actually, nm, don't say it, it's too obvious....
I'm glad to see that there's other right-minded folk like me on here! Keep up the good work Mr. Transporter!
Agreed, that's always a problem, but it's still better than leaving the original "mad dog" alive. Also, the kind of speech-repression we see in Germany is actually pretty normal for most of the world - the EU as a whole has "anti-hate-speech" laws, as does Canada, and Australia. The US is pretty much the only nation in the world which recognizes freedom of speech as an unlimited right (with the exception of libel and public mischief) so blaming Germany's attitude against Nazi rhetoric on what we did after WW2 isn't exactly fair.
Yep. I've always liked the phrase "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' while reaching for a bigger stick". Unfortunately, too many westerners think that diplomacy IS the stick. Fostering such delusions is a very good way to get mauled.
Definitely. I know that a "Christian Jihad" isn't likely, I was just saying that it wouldn't take much for it to happen. Considering the attitude that most American Christians have toward Atheists, I think I'm justifiably paranoid
"This account does no actual work toward enriching discussions, but is used primarily for scaremongering of people specifically to turn populations against new technologies."
Not to mention that the Department of Homeland Security would probably drop by, looking to "get to know you" in the biblical sense....
As ahabswhale already pointed out, "your perception defines your reality". The first step of teaching computers to think will likely be teaching them how to acquire, analyze, understand, and react to incoming data, much like we react to input from our eyes, ears, noses, etc. Maybe once we've solved that issue, adding intelligence into the mix will be a breeze, but we're still a ways off from achieving even the first step.
It's not that most Muslims are "evil" - they're simply regressive. Their social structure, their religious beliefs, and their moral code are, for the most part, where western society was 300 years ago, and due to the structure of their religion there's little chance that they will ever go through a "reformation" like the Christian faith did. However, it's the feedback generated by their social group which encourages "extremist" behaviour, and not any personal failing on the part of individuals.
Agreed, but we can certainly help them along, just like we have with various other cultures throughout history. The German people may have eradicated Nazism in the end, and the Japanese overthrown Shintoism, but neither of those events would have occurred without our
Even Christianity is not immune from this. Take a look at some of the Evangelical churches in the US - they're as nutty as any middle-eastern Imam. All it would take is for a few of their preachers to start advocating violent revolution, and you've got yourself a Christian Jihad. Now, granted that's not likely to happen, but history has shown over and over again that it doesn't take much to turn a popular and peaceful political or religious movement into a violent war-machine. I tend to keep a weary eye on anyone who professes fanatical belief, regardless of which faith they happen to follow.
But yes, given time, I have no doubt that we will create some sort of artificial life. I doubt it'll run on the X86 instruction set though
Or, if you prefer a religious reply: we're the result of God's divine intervention, and can never hope to match His work
Look on the bright side, though: no matter how much you may think the US has declined, you've quite clearly become the world-leaders in pessimism. Now if only you could find a market for it.....I KNOW! More Michael Moore Movies!