He's in jail for using aliases, otherwise known as false names, otherwise known as LYING. Also I believe not using aliases was part of his parole agreement for, so he apparently lied when he agreed not to use aliases any longer.
"Uuhhmm. You guys do realize that the whole, "Muslims-only-murdered-our-ambassador-because-they-heard-there-might-be-a-video-on-the-internet-some where-that-they-might-not-like," that was all just national socialist, Obama-ganda, don't you?"
Uuhhmm, you do realize that there were protests throughout the Arab World over the video that had nothing to do with Benghazi, which is the case you're talking about, right? There were actual protests over the film. A lot of them. And I never mentioned any ambassadors in this post. Idiot.
Re: Techdirt's standard "one in a million proves all we sez".
"You (all) keep taking these rare exceptions and sheerly from the fact they exist, assert that your notions are proven!"
Interesting take on the article. What exactly did I say that Psy has "proven"?
"There's NO connection between this unique phenomenon and copyright!"
Are you really suggesting that the rampant social media remakes and remixes of Gangnam Style, all or many of which may be considered infringing, had no impact on today's popularity of the song? REALLY!?!
"IF he wants to ignore the name on a restaurant -- or his video used by others -- and argued above and elsewhere is that he couldn't prevent those -- then that's fine, within his rights in either case."
I have no idea what this is, but it isn't English....
"But that he has the choice is basically just due to luck and random factors."
You don't think much of musicians and/or artists, do you?
"I advise you all to learn how to promote yourselves -- or at least get the existing machinery to give you "the treatment" (assuming you'd sell out and take the piles of filthy money from royalties)."
This DOES indeed appear to be English...but I have no idea what it is saying, nor am I interested in taking advisories from someone without the cognitive skill to write clearly....
"That's far more important for anyone personally than worrying about copyright or its evils."
I'll keep my own counsel on what's important to me, thank you very much....
"So, Timmy"
Demeaning use of a name I don't take; ad-hom, a continuation of your unprovoked attacks from the past few days, for which you have not responded to me when I asked you to apologize. Do you care, here, finally, to demonstrate a shred of credibility and respond, or shall you shrink away yet again?
"homework assignment."
I've got more important things to do than your homework assignments....like....anything.
"Learn all you can from how "Psy" burst onto the scene, and duplicate it. Report back in a month."
Uh huh. I'll just travel to South Korea and personally duplicate exactly what Psy did, because that makes any sense at all....
Still waiting for my apology friend. I note that, despite wailing about Mike not responding to you, you've failed to respond to me, even after I answered you when you asked me a question. Care to generate a bit of credibility for yourself, or shall you slink back into the shadows?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-awareness is impossible to program...
"Except that we have the capacity to make art. We step back from the canvas and say "more red... and a little more red". How could a machine ever say to itself "a little more red"?"
Dennis: I discussed this specifically in Digilife as well :)
"How can you apply love, hate, greed, pride - to mathematics?"
Assuming there isn't a supernatural soul, and assuming we can get the biology right, we don't have to apply any of the above. They should be naturally emerging behaviors of the biology.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-awareness is impossible to program...
"This assumes that we know how love is coded within human beings. We don't, and likely never will. We don't even really know how like is coded."
True, but again, do we necessarily NEED to know how to code it? What if we can get simple cell behavior right and code a "working" human fetus and simply allow the digital fetus to grow? If we get everything, or enough correct in the math, could we grow something that naturally grows with the ability to love/like?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-awareness is impossible to program...
Well, then I'd lean on you for these kinds of discussions, since I was a psych major and sure as shit don't have the biology or CS background to actually do the damned work, but I saw this as a end-around the problem (meaning to "grow" the program as you would a fetus).
I remember in Jurassic Park when everyone wondered how the hell you'd get dinosaur DNA out of fossils. It seemed impossible. It WAS impossible, but you could get it out of preserved biting insects that had dino-blood in their gullets.
Same, albeit likely less impressive, revelation....
"By their very nature, programs are sets of mathematical instructions."
As I wrote about in Digilife, in some aspects of Digital Philosophy Theory, the very nature of NATURE may be represented as a complicated set of mathematical instructions. While my book was obviously fiction, and lord knows I don't have the kind of science or math background to speak in depth on the practical applications of the theory, I tried to tackle the problem of self-awareness by a computer program in the most realistic and pragmatic way I could imagine: which was to avoid taking on the goal directly.
What the characters in the book suggested was that if you got the basic cellular math correct at the very early stages of human development (still a ridiculous task), say of an early stage fetus, and were also able to program the math for natural development of that fetus, you don't have to "program" and adult, you just let the fetus grow as naturally as you can.
The question, it seems to me, isn't whether we can program self-awareness. The question is one of the soul. If the soul as we know it exists, it likely exists outside the realm of our ability to program for it, and self-awareness as a result is a fool's errand. If a soul is really only what we call the complex result of our natural development (meaning we call it that because we don't yet understand what it is in terms of a physical, natural thing), then there is no soul to program and self-awareness becomes a math problem again, not a problem of the supernatural....
Speaking of lying, I have yet to get your response to my request regarding your un-instigated and massively hypocritical ad-hom attack on me in an earlier thread? Do you wish to demonstrate any kind of credibility, or are you refusing to respond (as you've accused Mike of doing)?
"Ootb, you're still an asshole. AJ, it is you who is not an ashhole in this aspect."
Again, I disagree. The entire purpose and method by which AJ brought Hume up (and has since run off to hide somewhere) was misleading at best. He's attempting to say Mike referenced Hume in a way he never did (again, I know exactly what comment he's referring to). In other words, he's an asshole and a liar...
On the post: Don't Promise $1 Million For Your Lost Laptop Via YouTube & Twitter If You're Not Prepared To Pay
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or do you wish to have zero credibility, AJ?
On the post: Don't Promise $1 Million For Your Lost Laptop Via YouTube & Twitter If You're Not Prepared To Pay
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Innocence Of Muslims Maker Produces Acting Waiver Signed By Cindy Garcia
Re: Citation for lying
Anything else Tristan?
On the post: Innocence Of Muslims Maker Produces Acting Waiver Signed By Cindy Garcia
Re: Obama-ganda
Uuhhmm, you do realize that there were protests throughout the Arab World over the video that had nothing to do with Benghazi, which is the case you're talking about, right? There were actual protests over the film. A lot of them. And I never mentioned any ambassadors in this post. Idiot.
On the post: Psy Elects Not To Go Legal Over Gangnam Style Restaurant
Re: Techdirt's standard "one in a million proves all we sez".
Interesting take on the article. What exactly did I say that Psy has "proven"?
"There's NO connection between this unique phenomenon and copyright!"
Are you really suggesting that the rampant social media remakes and remixes of Gangnam Style, all or many of which may be considered infringing, had no impact on today's popularity of the song? REALLY!?!
"IF he wants to ignore the name on a restaurant -- or his video used by others -- and argued above and elsewhere is that he couldn't prevent those -- then that's fine, within his rights in either case."
I have no idea what this is, but it isn't English....
"But that he has the choice is basically just due to luck and random factors."
You don't think much of musicians and/or artists, do you?
"I advise you all to learn how to promote yourselves -- or at least get the existing machinery to give you "the treatment" (assuming you'd sell out and take the piles of filthy money from royalties)."
This DOES indeed appear to be English...but I have no idea what it is saying, nor am I interested in taking advisories from someone without the cognitive skill to write clearly....
"That's far more important for anyone personally than worrying about copyright or its evils."
I'll keep my own counsel on what's important to me, thank you very much....
"So, Timmy"
Demeaning use of a name I don't take; ad-hom, a continuation of your unprovoked attacks from the past few days, for which you have not responded to me when I asked you to apologize. Do you care, here, finally, to demonstrate a shred of credibility and respond, or shall you shrink away yet again?
"homework assignment."
I've got more important things to do than your homework assignments....like....anything.
"Learn all you can from how "Psy" burst onto the scene, and duplicate it. Report back in a month."
Uh huh. I'll just travel to South Korea and personally duplicate exactly what Psy did, because that makes any sense at all....
On the post: How The Video Game Industry Was Launched 40 Years Ago... Thanks To Infringement
Re: "based on infringement"? -- Okay...
On the post: Cambridge Proposes New Centre To Study Ways Technology May Make Humans Extinct
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-awareness is impossible to program...
Dennis: I discussed this specifically in Digilife as well :)
On the post: Cambridge Proposes New Centre To Study Ways Technology May Make Humans Extinct
Re:
Assuming there isn't a supernatural soul, and assuming we can get the biology right, we don't have to apply any of the above. They should be naturally emerging behaviors of the biology.
On the post: Cambridge Proposes New Centre To Study Ways Technology May Make Humans Extinct
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-awareness is impossible to program...
True, but again, do we necessarily NEED to know how to code it? What if we can get simple cell behavior right and code a "working" human fetus and simply allow the digital fetus to grow? If we get everything, or enough correct in the math, could we grow something that naturally grows with the ability to love/like?
On the post: Kevin Durant Sued Over 'Durantula' Trademark Despite Not Using It
Re:
On the post: Cambridge Proposes New Centre To Study Ways Technology May Make Humans Extinct
Re: Re: Re: Self-awareness is impossible to program...
On the post: Cambridge Proposes New Centre To Study Ways Technology May Make Humans Extinct
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-awareness is impossible to program...
We're back to the question of a supernatural soul, otherwise the obvious answer is "the exact same way it's coded within human beings"....
On the post: Cambridge Proposes New Centre To Study Ways Technology May Make Humans Extinct
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-awareness is impossible to program...
I remember in Jurassic Park when everyone wondered how the hell you'd get dinosaur DNA out of fossils. It seemed impossible. It WAS impossible, but you could get it out of preserved biting insects that had dino-blood in their gullets.
Same, albeit likely less impressive, revelation....
On the post: Cambridge Proposes New Centre To Study Ways Technology May Make Humans Extinct
Re: Re: Re: Self-awareness is impossible to program...
It seems to me that this assumption requires to other assumptions.
1. True randomness could not be built into an AI system
2. We cannot program our AI to adapt new, self-generated code (behavior) based on experience.
I would disagree with both of these assumptions....
On the post: Cambridge Proposes New Centre To Study Ways Technology May Make Humans Extinct
Re: Self-awareness is impossible to program...
As I wrote about in Digilife, in some aspects of Digital Philosophy Theory, the very nature of NATURE may be represented as a complicated set of mathematical instructions. While my book was obviously fiction, and lord knows I don't have the kind of science or math background to speak in depth on the practical applications of the theory, I tried to tackle the problem of self-awareness by a computer program in the most realistic and pragmatic way I could imagine: which was to avoid taking on the goal directly.
What the characters in the book suggested was that if you got the basic cellular math correct at the very early stages of human development (still a ridiculous task), say of an early stage fetus, and were also able to program the math for natural development of that fetus, you don't have to "program" and adult, you just let the fetus grow as naturally as you can.
The question, it seems to me, isn't whether we can program self-awareness. The question is one of the soul. If the soul as we know it exists, it likely exists outside the realm of our ability to program for it, and self-awareness as a result is a fool's errand. If a soul is really only what we call the complex result of our natural development (meaning we call it that because we don't yet understand what it is in terms of a physical, natural thing), then there is no soul to program and self-awareness becomes a math problem again, not a problem of the supernatural....
On the post: Chris Dodd: Bogus Facebook 'Copyright' Declaration Proves Everyone Loves Copyright
Re: Re: You're flat LYING here:
/Godwin
On the post: Chris Dodd: Bogus Facebook 'Copyright' Declaration Proves Everyone Loves Copyright
Re: You're flat LYING here:
On the post: Members Of The Republican Study Committee Do Twitter Q&A, Ignore Every Single Question About Fixing Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Members Of The Republican Study Committee Do Twitter Q&A, Ignore Every Single Question About Fixing Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, I disagree. The entire purpose and method by which AJ brought Hume up (and has since run off to hide somewhere) was misleading at best. He's attempting to say Mike referenced Hume in a way he never did (again, I know exactly what comment he's referring to). In other words, he's an asshole and a liar...
On the post: Members Of The Republican Study Committee Do Twitter Q&A, Ignore Every Single Question About Fixing Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>