Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #33436 > unrolled thread
| Started by | 1p166 <z24ba6.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-10-21 00:06 -0400 |
| Last post | 2021-10-31 22:46 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 108 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-21 00:06 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-10-21 08:27 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-10-21 08:04 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-28 02:08 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-28 09:41 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-10-29 16:39 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-30 07:39 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-29 01:14 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-10-29 16:52 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-10-29 13:08 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-10-29 22:43 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-10-30 04:32 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-30 08:21 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-01 18:50 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-10-30 13:45 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-10-30 14:54 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-10-30 21:47 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-30 23:14 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-31 01:25 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2021-10-31 04:12 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-31 00:57 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-31 13:35 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-10-31 15:47 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-01 04:44 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-11-01 13:52 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-02 00:13 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-11-01 22:05 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-03 01:26 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-11-03 07:02 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-05 00:54 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-02 00:11 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-02 06:17 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-03 00:27 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-11-02 21:46 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-03 07:26 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-03 17:18 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-03 19:58 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-03 21:34 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-04 11:05 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-04 17:19 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-04 20:13 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-04 16:11 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-04 23:27 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-05 11:40 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-05 14:09 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-05 15:53 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-11-05 09:26 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-05 17:40 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-03 21:02 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2021-11-04 00:01 -0500
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-04 11:09 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-11-04 13:49 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-04 05:01 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-11-04 13:48 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-11-04 15:46 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2021-11-04 15:26 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-04 23:51 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-05 07:37 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-11-05 08:54 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-11-05 13:49 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-04 11:08 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-03 17:18 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-10-31 01:52 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2021-10-31 10:26 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-31 22:52 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-01 18:50 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-30 08:00 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-01 18:50 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2021-11-05 17:58 +1100
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-05 17:40 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-28 01:11 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-28 09:39 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-10-28 14:25 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-28 14:49 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-29 01:07 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-10-29 08:13 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-31 00:28 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-31 13:24 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-10-28 08:15 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-29 01:36 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-29 09:59 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-10-29 16:52 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-30 01:49 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-30 07:59 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-10-30 07:53 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-01 18:50 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-02 01:04 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-02 08:34 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-02 19:09 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-02 23:58 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-11-02 21:39 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-03 08:36 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-03 11:23 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-03 08:31 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-03 17:18 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2021-11-06 19:07 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-07 12:15 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2021-11-07 13:55 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-11-07 07:59 -0800
Smallpox vaccine date(s) (Was: Who Knew ?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2021-11-11 20:12 +0000
Re: Smallpox vaccine date(s) (Was: Who Knew ?) Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-11-11 20:21 +0000
Re: Smallpox vaccine date(s) (Was: Who Knew ?) "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2021-11-11 15:52 -0500
Re: Smallpox vaccine date(s) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-11 21:19 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-02 08:31 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2021-10-31 00:18 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-31 00:06 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-10-31 07:55 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-10-31 22:46 -0400
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-04 11:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sm0euu$8se$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33547 |
On 04/11/2021 01:02, 1p166 wrote: > On 11/3/21 3:26 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: >> On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:27:54 -0400 >> 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote: >> >>> The Big Money people had this figured out LONG >>> ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli >>> understood the utility of cultivating those >>> fake "sides". >> >> Sadly this and all above it is all too true - the lessons of >> Machiavelli and Sun Tzu are well understood by the major players and have >> been polished for centuries into a smooth art. In a similar vein I fairly >> recently re-read Orwell's 1984 and found it shockingly simplistic and >> naive, >> that was a sobering discovery. > > It used to be the politicians/priesthood, but then > the ADVERTISERS came - and post-WW2 undertook what > you might call the "science of salesmanship", lots > of psych experiments designed to yield objective > data. What motivates people, in what ways, how much, > how long ... they made manipulation a science. And > then the politicians/priesthood (esp evangelicals) > borrowed all that data. > Black magic, meet science. > I'll rec a somewhat old book to you - it can still > be had. It was writ in the late 50s by a polymath > named Jaques Ellul and called "The Technological > Society". It was not about computers - it was about > the growth of science-informed psychological > manipulation by State and private entities. The > original was in French, but the English translation > is perfectly readable, albeit with some rather odd > wording at times. > > Hmm ... I wonder what Obama's "Brain Initiative" was > REALLY supposed to find out :-) > > >> The indoctrination for it starts in the earliest school with "What's >> your favourite colour" and gets strengthened outside the classroom with >> "Who do you support". >> >> I remain thankful that Hermann Göring's astute observation on the >> ease of raising war fever is not widely utilised today - I remain >> slightly >> suspicious about the Falkland's War being a field test of the >> principle, it >> was certainly a good demonstration if not. >> > > Goebbels ... Goring's interests rarely strayed from killing > people ....... > > Goebbels was a very GOOD propagandist ... but fortunately > his instincts and insights were mostly limited to German > culture. His stuff never translated very well. > > But if Goebbels had the wealth of scientific data the > Mad Men compiled ... > > Anyway, the MS/Apple "duality" is a sort of deliberate > scam. You pick a side and are encouraged to feel all > superior about it, hurl distain at "those OTHERS". > Meanwhile the big investors buy stock in BOTH companies > and encourage the 'competition' illusion. > And I hold stock in the big investors. > Besides we Linux people know WE are the best :-) From a certain technological point of view, yes. But it ain't the only point of view. -- Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-03 17:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <RvzgJ.30519$Kw9.21879@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #33528 |
On 2021-11-03, 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote: > MS is heavily invested in Apple and vice-versa. > Check it out, you can confirm that. Back in the '80s, M$ made Apple an outright gift of $150 million. Apple was the only thing keeping the Department of Justice off Microsoft's back, so Apple had to be kept alive, but weak. Unfortunately for M$, Apple didn't remain weak. > The "sides" > are all for show, a way of goading consumers > and pushing out competitors. Swear your loyalty > to Winders or Mac ! So EXCITING to choose a side. > > The Big Money people had this figured out LONG > ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli > understood the utility of cultivating those > fake "sides". The more things change, the more they remain the same. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Life is perverse. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | It can be beautiful - X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | but it won't. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lily Tomlin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-31 01:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87bl3591w9.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #33473 |
On 30 Oct 2021 21:47:01 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > > Le 30-10-2021, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> a écrit : > >> Anyway, Gates said it the same day he invented the internet and > > By the guy who invented the internet, you are speaking of Bill Gates, > not someone else? Since when does he invent internet? > >> mentioned, that no one would ever need more than 640 KB of computer >> memory. > > Making this mistake didn't change history, it only render the use of DOS > more difficult. Should I really had added a smiley? Thought it was obvious enough I didn't meant it. -- Andreas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-31 10:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnsnsrpr.277.sc@scarpet42p.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #33482 |
Le 31-10-2021, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> a écrit : > On 30 Oct 2021 21:47:01 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: >> >> Le 30-10-2021, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> a écrit : >> >>> Anyway, Gates said it the same day he invented the internet and >> >> By the guy who invented the internet, you are speaking of Bill Gates, >> not someone else? Since when does he invent internet? >> >>> mentioned, that no one would ever need more than 640 KB of computer >>> memory. >> >> Making this mistake didn't change history, it only render the use of DOS >> more difficult. > > Should I really had added a smiley? Thought it was obvious enough I > didn't meant it. I was surprised by your answer, but sometimes I read impressive stuff by people who rewrite the past that I wasn't sure. More precisey, for the second sentence, I knew it was a joke, but I wasn't sure for the first. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 1p166 <z24ba6.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-31 22:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pMKdnehsVskdy-L8nZ2dnUU7-cHNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33483 |
On 10/31/21 6:26 AM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > Le 31-10-2021, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> a écrit : >> On 30 Oct 2021 21:47:01 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: >>> >>> Le 30-10-2021, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> a écrit : >>> >>>> Anyway, Gates said it the same day he invented the internet and >>> >>> By the guy who invented the internet, you are speaking of Bill Gates, >>> not someone else? Since when does he invent internet? >>> >>>> mentioned, that no one would ever need more than 640 KB of computer >>>> memory. >>> >>> Making this mistake didn't change history, it only render the use of DOS >>> more difficult. >> >> Should I really had added a smiley? Thought it was obvious enough I >> didn't meant it. > > I was surprised by your answer, but sometimes I read impressive stuff by > people who rewrite the past that I wasn't sure. More precisey, for the > second sentence, I knew it was a joke, but I wasn't sure for the first. Ask Bill's LAWYERS and they'll probably assert he DID invent the internet and computers and Linux and most everything else so he can sue competitors into oblivion :-) Gates is a very sharp computer guy - but his real gift is BUSINESS. That little clause he sneaked in to his old contract with IBM was pure genius.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-01 18:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <DFWfJ.129563$Tr6.24480@fx47.iad> |
| In reply to | #33490 |
On 2021-11-01, 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote: > Gates is a very sharp computer guy - If by "computer guy" you mean marketing, eye candy... anything but programming, where he's definitely mediocre. > but his real gift is BUSINESS. Agreed. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Life is perverse. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | It can be beautiful - X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | but it won't. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lily Tomlin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-30 08:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sliqhp$jss$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33460 |
On 29/10/2021 17:52, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2021-10-29, 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote: > >> Fortunately, it doesn't look like time travel can >> be realized in the real world. > > Too bad. I'd love go to back and see to it that > Bill Gates' parents never met. > And end up in a world run by IBM and Gary Kildall? -- "Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) " Alan Sokal
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-01 18:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <FFWfJ.129565$Tr6.31630@fx47.iad> |
| In reply to | #33467 |
On 2021-10-30, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 29/10/2021 17:52, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> On 2021-10-29, 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote: >> >>> Fortunately, it doesn't look like time travel can >>> be realized in the real world. >> >> Too bad. I'd love go to back and see to it that >> Bill Gates' parents never met. > > And end up in a world run by IBM and Gary Kildall? Why not? I doubt it could be worse. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult. X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy. / \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-05 17:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <u91f5i-ei1.ln1@aretha.foo> |
| In reply to | #33460 |
Groovy hepcat Charlie Gibbs was jivin' in comp.os.linux.misc on Sat, 30
Oct 2021 03:52 am. It's a cool scene! Dig it.
> On 2021-10-29, 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:
>
>> Fortunately, it doesn't look like time travel can
>> be realized in the real world.
>
> Too bad. I'd love go to back and see to it that
> Bill Gates' parents never met.
What makes you think they did? I mean..., they must have been together
in the same place at one point; but that doesn't mean they met (in the
social sense). Money changing hands in return for a service could've
been the entire basis of their relationship. :)
--
----- Dig the NEW and IMPROVED news sig!! -----
-------------- Shaggy was here! ---------------
Ain't I'm a dawg!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-05 17:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Y%dhJ.1369$SW5.938@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #33579 |
On 2021-11-05, Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> wrote: > Groovy hepcat Charlie Gibbs was jivin' in comp.os.linux.misc on Sat, 30 > Oct 2021 03:52 am. It's a cool scene! Dig it. > >> On 2021-10-29, 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote: >> >>> Fortunately, it doesn't look like time travel can >>> be realized in the real world. >> >> Too bad. I'd love go to back and see to it that >> Bill Gates' parents never met. > > What makes you think they did? I mean..., they must have been together > in the same place at one point; but that doesn't mean they met (in the > social sense). Money changing hands in return for a service could've > been the entire basis of their relationship. :) If Bill's parents had already realized their offspring's dream of SaaS (Sex as a Service), perhaps there might be an ongoing stream of payments somewhere. Let's find the audit trail. :-) -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Life is perverse. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | It can be beautiful - X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | but it won't. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lily Tomlin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 1p166 <z24ba6.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-28 01:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <WPOdneLNxuV1ref8nZ2dnUU7-aXNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33437 |
On 10/21/21 3:27 AM, Pancho wrote: > On 21/10/2021 05:06, 1p166 wrote: >> Ah ... a Dr. Who #3 ... computers with lots of big >> spinney tape drives and circuits big enough to fix >> with solder and jumper-wires :-) > > I learnt, circa #3, that a computer with computational intelligence > comparable to a human brain would be the size of London. Probably including the suburbs too ... Thing is, nobody knew The Trick then, and still don't. "Consciousness" or even a really good emulation is STILL well beyond the horizon. There's some kind of quasi-chaotic thing that creates "consciousness", a weird pattern. We don't seem very close to finding it. Emulating it in hard/soft-ware even further. There are lots of humans with hydrocephalic brain damage - not much cortex left - who STILL have average or even superior IQ. This does suggest "pattern" and "connections" over pure neuron numbers. A few years ago there was a Brit sci-fi series about sophisticated, but ultimately mindless, quality androids. Their inventor impressed a few with a sort of fractal thought pattern that produced intelligence, "consciousness", "self-awareness", "real people", as an emergent property. I don't think the writers were so far off. Never diss emergent properties of complex systems. > An older me would figure they would have had a serious problem with > communication between the widely separated parallel computational units, > but what do I know compared to the Doctor. The data transmission issue IS real. The old Cray supercomputers, "These ARE the small ones", were hand-wired for the fastest point-2-point data transmission. It was an issue even way back then. The speed of electricity, even light, was an issue 30 years ago. We kinda got around it by packing more and more onto single multi-cpu chips. Short xmission distances. But, there are limits ... Neurons are SLOW, very slow, compared to electronics. Yet they manage to produce "self", "self-awareness". in a sub-cubic-foot unit. It's the pattern they work upon that's important. To sum it up, the hardware is probably capable of "self" even now, or in the near future. But "The Trick" eludes us.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-28 09:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sldnkq$o7a$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33443 |
On 28/10/2021 06:11, 1p166 wrote:
> Never diss emergent properties of complex systems.
Well indeed, Of course as everybody knows, the world *as we know it* is
an emergent property of consciousness...
I trump your Cartesian Realism with Transcendental Idealism!
--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."
- Leo Tolstoy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-28 14:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sle8ch$ipn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33443 |
On 28/10/2021 06:11, 1p166 wrote: > > A few years ago there was a Brit sci-fi series > about sophisticated, but ultimately mindless, > quality androids. Their inventor impressed a > few with a sort of fractal thought pattern > that produced intelligence, "consciousness", > "self-awareness", "real people", as an emergent > property. I don't think the writers were so > far off. > Yep it was called Humans, the series touched on the watershed moment of android development, the singularity... The point where androids will be able to satisfy the "Pancho" test. The test will be passed test if a standard examiner is unable to tell if he has shagged a real woman or an android. FWIW the series was originally Swedish "Real Humans". The first series was good, but went rapidly downhill afterwards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-28 14:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sle9om$rtl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33450 |
On 28/10/2021 14:25, Pancho wrote: > > The point where androids will be able to satisfy the "Pancho" test. The > test will be passed test if a standard examiner is unable to tell if he > has shagged a real woman or an android. My ex passed that years before I left her... -- "Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will let them."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 1p166 <z24ba6.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-29 01:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <QI2dnfhzrME2HOb8nZ2dnUU7-c3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33450 |
On 10/28/21 9:25 AM, Pancho wrote: > On 28/10/2021 06:11, 1p166 wrote: > >> >> A few years ago there was a Brit sci-fi series >> about sophisticated, but ultimately mindless, >> quality androids. Their inventor impressed a >> few with a sort of fractal thought pattern >> that produced intelligence, "consciousness", >> "self-awareness", "real people", as an emergent >> property. I don't think the writers were so >> far off. >> > > Yep it was called Humans, the series touched on the watershed moment of > android development, the singularity... > > The point where androids will be able to satisfy the "Pancho" test. The > test will be passed test if a standard examiner is unable to tell if he > has shagged a real woman or an android. > > FWIW the series was originally Swedish "Real Humans". The first series > was good, but went rapidly downhill afterwards. Ah yes, "Humans" ... but I think it died after the second season. IMHO it'd done all it could do with that particular premise. Never saw the Swedish version. But the idea that "sentience", "personhood", was less pure hardware than it was a way of USING said hardware ... a pattern, a meme ... struck a chord. There's something to that. I mentioned hydrocephalic children for a reason. Some have surprisingly little grey matter left. Their scans reveal devastation, what's left of their cortexes is more on the scale of chimps. Yet, many attained normal+ capabilities. This points to an organizational/connectional key, beyond mere hardware. There are several beasties with bigger brains than ours - but they just don't have "it". Whatever "it" is seems to have showed up around the time of Homo Hablis. H.Sapiens ... maybe not so much that we were generally intellectually superior, but just "badder" than the competitors. Quick, aggressive, somewhat xenophobic - we dominated the "trolls" and "ogres" and such in the end. Resistance is futile. Then we turned on each other ... which also seems to be a significant evolutionary prompter. Having to outwit your own - or else - that's evolutionary pressure. ANYway ... if we can find "it", that pattern, real AI might be possible with a lot less hardware than we currently envision.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-29 08:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <slh33b$hte$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33453 |
On 10/28/21 22:07, 1p166 wrote: > On 10/28/21 9:25 AM, Pancho wrote: >> On 28/10/2021 06:11, 1p166 wrote: >> >>> >>> A few years ago there was a Brit sci-fi series >>> about sophisticated, but ultimately mindless, >>> quality androids. Their inventor impressed a >>> few with a sort of fractal thought pattern >>> that produced intelligence, "consciousness", >>> "self-awareness", "real people", as an emergent >>> property. I don't think the writers were so >>> far off. >>> >> >> Yep it was called Humans, the series touched on the watershed moment >> of android development, the singularity... >> >> The point where androids will be able to satisfy the "Pancho" test. >> The test will be passed test if a standard examiner is unable to tell >> if he has shagged a real woman or an android. >> >> FWIW the series was originally Swedish "Real Humans". The first series >> was good, but went rapidly downhill afterwards. > > Ah yes, "Humans" ... but I think it died after the > second season. IMHO it'd done all it could do with > that particular premise. > > Never saw the Swedish version. > > But the idea that "sentience", "personhood", was > less pure hardware than it was a way of USING > said hardware ... a pattern, a meme ... struck > a chord. There's something to that. > > I mentioned hydrocephalic children for a reason. > Some have surprisingly little grey matter left. > Their scans reveal devastation, what's left of > their cortexes is more on the scale of chimps. > Yet, many attained normal+ capabilities. This > points to an organizational/connectional key, > beyond mere hardware. > > There are several beasties with bigger brains than > ours - but they just don't have "it". Whatever "it" > is seems to have showed up around the time of Homo > Hablis. H.Sapiens ... maybe not so much that we were > generally intellectually superior, but just "badder" > than the competitors. Quick, aggressive, somewhat > xenophobic - we dominated the "trolls" and "ogres" > and such in the end. Resistance is futile. Then we > turned on each other ... which also seems to be a > significant evolutionary prompter. Having to outwit > your own - or else - that's evolutionary pressure. We are unable to discuss the curious matter of "personhood" with creatures on this planet with larger brains due to disparate means of communnication, In an Antarctic dive the diver was adopted by a Leopard seal which may have seen it as an injured member of the young of its own species. We have heard many tales of dolphins helping people who fall into waters and as well tales of dolphine raping their own species using gang tactics and seemingly attempting seduction of human females, So don't dismiss the possibily of self-hood existing in the so-called lower animals. I think that some self-awareness is a survival mechanism as are these paragraphs. And we do a lot with the neurons in the autonomic nervous system which the the brain connection to the mostly "unconscious" functions which keep us more or less "alive". > > ANYway ... if we can find "it", that pattern, real > AI might be possible with a lot less hardware than > we currently envision. bliss - 'Nearly any fool can use a Linux computer. Many do.' After all here I am... -- bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 1p166 <z24ba6.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-31 00:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <N5ydnWp6T8bshuP8nZ2dnUU7-dnNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33457 |
On 10/29/21 11:13 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > On 10/28/21 22:07, 1p166 wrote: >> On 10/28/21 9:25 AM, Pancho wrote: >>> On 28/10/2021 06:11, 1p166 wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> A few years ago there was a Brit sci-fi series >>>> about sophisticated, but ultimately mindless, >>>> quality androids. Their inventor impressed a >>>> few with a sort of fractal thought pattern >>>> that produced intelligence, "consciousness", >>>> "self-awareness", "real people", as an emergent >>>> property. I don't think the writers were so >>>> far off. >>>> >>> >>> Yep it was called Humans, the series touched on the watershed moment >>> of android development, the singularity... >>> >>> The point where androids will be able to satisfy the "Pancho" test. >>> The test will be passed test if a standard examiner is unable to tell >>> if he has shagged a real woman or an android. >>> >>> FWIW the series was originally Swedish "Real Humans". The first >>> series was good, but went rapidly downhill afterwards. >> >> Ah yes, "Humans" ... but I think it died after the >> second season. IMHO it'd done all it could do with >> that particular premise. >> >> Never saw the Swedish version. >> >> But the idea that "sentience", "personhood", was >> less pure hardware than it was a way of USING >> said hardware ... a pattern, a meme ... struck >> a chord. There's something to that. >> >> I mentioned hydrocephalic children for a reason. >> Some have surprisingly little grey matter left. >> Their scans reveal devastation, what's left of >> their cortexes is more on the scale of chimps. >> Yet, many attained normal+ capabilities. This >> points to an organizational/connectional key, >> beyond mere hardware. >> >> There are several beasties with bigger brains than >> ours - but they just don't have "it". Whatever "it" >> is seems to have showed up around the time of Homo >> Hablis. H.Sapiens ... maybe not so much that we were >> generally intellectually superior, but just "badder" >> than the competitors. Quick, aggressive, somewhat >> xenophobic - we dominated the "trolls" and "ogres" >> and such in the end. Resistance is futile. Then we >> turned on each other ... which also seems to be a >> significant evolutionary prompter. Having to outwit >> your own - or else - that's evolutionary pressure. > > We are unable to discuss the curious matter of "personhood" > with creatures on this planet with larger brains due to disparate > means of communnication, In an Antarctic dive the diver was > adopted by a Leopard seal which may have seen it as an injured > member of the young of its own species. We have heard many tales > of dolphins helping people who fall into waters and as well tales > of dolphine raping their own species using gang tactics and > seemingly attempting seduction of human females, > > So don't dismiss the possibily of self-hood existing > in the so-called lower animals. I think that some self-awareness > is a survival mechanism as are these paragraphs. > > And we do a lot with the neurons in the autonomic > nervous system which the the brain connection to the mostly > "unconscious" functions which keep us more or less "alive". >> >> ANYway ... if we can find "it", that pattern, real >> AI might be possible with a lot less hardware than >> we currently envision. > > bliss - 'Nearly any fool can use a Linux computer. Many do.' After all > here I am... But can you CHANGE it ? PROGRAM it ? Make it do more than the apps you downloaded ? :-) Ask people how car works. They'll say "You turn the key and it starts". The reality is that the sci/tech/engineering from the tires up in to MAKING it work is absolutely brain-boggling. THAT'S how a car works. I've taken a few stabs at figuring out how CPUs actually work. Sorry, but I lose it at the decoder/ALU steps. The people who figured that out were GENIUS. Maybe when I'm retired I'll have the time to study it, follow the reasoning until I could actually build a Z-80 or 6502. I'd be happy with an i4004. Thing is, the original designers were under PRESSURE, "We need this by November or we'll all go broke" kind of pressure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-31 13:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slm5e8$h1a$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33480 |
On 31/10/2021 04:28, 1p166 wrote:
> I've taken a few stabs at figuring out how CPUs actually
> work. Sorry, but I lose it at the decoder/ALU steps. The
> people who figured that out were GENIUS. Maybe when I'm
> retired I'll have the time to study it, follow the
> reasoning until I could actually build a Z-80 or 6502.
> I'd be happy with an i4004.
Really? Its all pretty easy since the basic logic is simply gates, and
bistables.
Once you have - and I have - been shown how to combine gates to make
things like shift registers and adders and RAM, it isn't really that hard.
--
"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and
higher education positively fortifies it."
- Stephen Vizinczey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-28 08:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sleeqh$6aj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33443 |
On 10/27/21 22:11, 1p166 wrote: > On 10/21/21 3:27 AM, Pancho wrote: >> On 21/10/2021 05:06, 1p166 wrote: >>> Ah ... a Dr. Who #3 ... computers with lots of big >>> spinney tape drives and circuits big enough to fix >>> with solder and jumper-wires :-) >> >> I learnt, circa #3, that a computer with computational intelligence >> comparable to a human brain would be the size of London. > > Probably including the suburbs too ... > > Thing is, nobody knew The Trick then, and > still don't. "Consciousness" or even a really > good emulation is STILL well beyond the horizon. > > There's some kind of quasi-chaotic thing that > creates "consciousness", a weird pattern. We > don't seem very close to finding it. We are unable to examine the wetware while it is functioning, except in rare circumstances such as brain surgery then only get surface expressions so that we know one lobe is connected to vocalization and another to movement of one limb or the other. We can figure out where memory resides but no the exact storage methods. > > Emulating it in hard/soft-ware even further. > > There are lots of humans with hydrocephalic brain > damage - not much cortex left - who STILL have average > or even superior IQ. This does suggest "pattern" > and "connections" over pure neuron numbers. Absolutely and why? More neurons in the autonomic portion on your CNS than anywhere else so subcubic foot may not apply. I was astounded to learn of the people with hardly any brain left and actually met online a person with such damage with lots of symptoms but whho managed to work for a living. But the development of self and self awareness is doubtless of survival value as is the development of the enlarged brain and the specialised part like the neo-cortex. However equally important I am sure is the input from the senses in the rest of the body. But maybe it lies in the unreliabily of the mechanisms which maintain and edit memories so that we recall our failures with great precision but our successes are usually and in memory inflated. > > A few years ago there was a Brit sci-fi series > about sophisticated, but ultimately mindless, > quality androids. Their inventor impressed a > few with a sort of fractal thought pattern > that produced intelligence, "consciousness", > "self-awareness", "real people", as an emergent > property. I don't think the writers were so > far off. > > Never diss emergent properties of complex systems. Never doubt it. Most of my software is smarter than me in some senses but no hardware ever hit it own power on button. > >> An older me would figure they would have had a serious problem with >> communication between the widely separated parallel computational >> units, but what do I know compared to the Doctor. Quite a bit but you are confined to the moment and to the 4 dimen > > The data transmission issue IS real. > > The old Cray supercomputers, "These ARE the small > ones", were hand-wired for the fastest point-2-point > data transmission. It was an issue even way back then. > The speed of electricity, even light, was an issue 30 > years ago. We kinda got around it by packing more and > more onto single multi-cpu chips. Short xmission > distances. But, there are limits ... > > Neurons are SLOW, very slow, compared to electronics. > Yet they manage to produce "self", "self-awareness". > in a sub-cubic-foot unit. It's the pattern they work > upon that's important. > > To sum it up, the hardware is probably capable of > "self" even now, or in the near future. But "The > Trick" eludes us. Electronic hardware might have enough computing power but it lacks sensory input affording survival value and all the millions of years of refinement of the integrated body and mind by the genus homo, all for survival and reproduction. Including the development of simple technologies such as fire which permitted cooking which permitted the size of the jaw to decrease and the size of the cranium to enlarge. bliss -- bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 1p166 <z24ba6.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-10-29 01:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jtidnSNWeJbvFeb8nZ2dnUU7-cnNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #33452 |
On 10/28/21 11:15 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > On 10/27/21 22:11, 1p166 wrote: >> On 10/21/21 3:27 AM, Pancho wrote: >>> On 21/10/2021 05:06, 1p166 wrote: >>>> Ah ... a Dr. Who #3 ... computers with lots of big >>>> spinney tape drives and circuits big enough to fix >>>> with solder and jumper-wires :-) >>> >>> I learnt, circa #3, that a computer with computational intelligence >>> comparable to a human brain would be the size of London. >> >> Probably including the suburbs too ... >> >> Thing is, nobody knew The Trick then, and >> still don't. "Consciousness" or even a really >> good emulation is STILL well beyond the horizon. >> >> There's some kind of quasi-chaotic thing that >> creates "consciousness", a weird pattern. We >> don't seem very close to finding it. > > We are unable to examine the wetware while it is > functioning, except in rare circumstances such as brain > surgery then only get surface expressions so that we know > one lobe is connected to vocalization and another to > movement of one limb or the other. We can figure out > where memory resides but no the exact storage methods. In part it's the "quantum problem" ... all ways of observing the system in action ALTER the system. It's a perpetually moving target. >> >> Emulating it in hard/soft-ware even further. >> >> There are lots of humans with hydrocephalic brain >> damage - not much cortex left - who STILL have average >> or even superior IQ. This does suggest "pattern" >> and "connections" over pure neuron numbers. > > Absolutely and why? More neurons in the autonomic > portion on your CNS than anywhere else so subcubic foot may > not apply. I was astounded to learn of the people with hardly > any brain left and actually met online a person with such > damage with lots of symptoms but whho managed to work for a > living. Clearly you need "enough" neurons. But how they all connect, the patterns, are the all-important feature. Even a city sized computer, lacking "it", the proper organizational meme, wouldn't achieve "personhood". > But the development of self and self awareness > is doubtless of survival value as is the development of > the enlarged brain and the specialised part like the > neo-cortex. However equally important I am sure is the > input from the senses in the rest of the body. > > But maybe it lies in the unreliabily of the > mechanisms which maintain and edit memories so that > we recall our failures with great precision but our > successes are usually and in memory inflated. > >> >> A few years ago there was a Brit sci-fi series >> about sophisticated, but ultimately mindless, >> quality androids. Their inventor impressed a >> few with a sort of fractal thought pattern >> that produced intelligence, "consciousness", >> "self-awareness", "real people", as an emergent >> property. I don't think the writers were so >> far off. >> >> Never diss emergent properties of complex systems. > > Never doubt it. Most of my software is smarter than > me in some senses but no hardware ever hit it own power on > button. Oh, THAT's easily fixed. :-) >>> An older me would figure they would have had a serious problem with >>> communication between the widely separated parallel computational >>> units, but what do I know compared to the Doctor. > > Quite a bit but you are confined to the moment and to the 4 dimen >> >> The data transmission issue IS real. >> >> The old Cray supercomputers, "These ARE the small >> ones", were hand-wired for the fastest point-2-point >> data transmission. It was an issue even way back then. >> The speed of electricity, even light, was an issue 30 >> years ago. We kinda got around it by packing more and >> more onto single multi-cpu chips. Short xmission >> distances. But, there are limits ... >> >> Neurons are SLOW, very slow, compared to electronics. >> Yet they manage to produce "self", "self-awareness". >> in a sub-cubic-foot unit. It's the pattern they work >> upon that's important. >> >> To sum it up, the hardware is probably capable of >> "self" even now, or in the near future. But "The >> Trick" eludes us. > > Electronic hardware might have enough computing > power but it lacks sensory input affording survival value and > all the millions of years of refinement of the integrated > body and mind by the genus homo, all for survival and reproduction. > Including the development of simple technologies such as fire > which permitted cooking which permitted the size of the jaw > to decrease and the size of the cranium to enlarge. You can arrange for the "sensory input" both in virtual emulations or real-world-walking-around apps. The trick is "it" ... the way to organize thinking to achieve "personhood". We don't know what "it" is. If we did, proper AI could surely be achieved with a lot less hardware than we currently believe. The current approaches to AI involve emulating neural networks. It does bear some fruit - IF you can bring enough hardware and speed into the equation. The thing is that electronic circuits are NOT organic brain tissue. Trying to do it "our way" may not be the best approach. Organics and electronics each have their own set of strengths and weaknesses. Maybe doing it "our way" is a big WASTE of cycles ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web