By the by: the Doomsday Argument suggests that we may simply not have the time to build anything approximating our intelligence anyway.. :-)

http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/inv/investigations.html

Good lord, finally. Someone with some sense.

That's *seven* patients. Seven. How is that a representative study?

"For example, patient PP3 reported after low-intensity stimulation of one site [...], "I felt a desire to lick my lips" and at a higher intensity[...], "I moved my mouth, I talked, what did I say?" Similar results were found in patient PP1 for hand [...] and foot [...] movements. Patient PP2 reported, after stimulation in BA 40 [...], that she felt "like a will to move" her chest (12). The same words were later used for another site with respect to the arm [...]."

So seven people has some spastic movements, reported feeling movement, and the intention to move based on electrical stimulation. This is that paper's conclusion: "Our study suggests that motor intention and awareness are emerging consequences of increased parietal activity before movement execution. The subjective (and potentially illusory) feeling that we are executing a movement does not arise from movement itself, but it is generated by prior conscious intention and its predicted consequences."

That's it. It's not conclusive. It doesn't explain anything except a very small, very isolated aspect that doesn't do anything to explain what consciousness is: only that electrical stimulation forces certain aspects of motor movement intention on brain-damaged patients.

It's not even thought-consciousness, but interaction with the rest of the body.

You're projecting the results of that study way the hell beyond what it actually means..

A neuroscientist? Really?

Who? Where do you work? What staff directory are you on--right now--that I can independently find, and contact you at?

It's simple science, really: as a scientists, do you really expect any of us to just take your word that you are one, without any way to verify your lofty claims?

Geez, someone mod parent up. He's right: we can't even define human intelligence or consciousness, which is why philosophers are still involved in doing so.

So, having a discussion with the assumption that an A.I. is coming, even in the distant future, is just pure uninformed science fiction.

Subjects like this, and medical advice stories here on Slashdot are just ridiculous: a whole pile of people talking shit, about shit, getting nowhere, and pretending at the end of the day that it's a given tha some kind of hyperintelligent being is already on its way.

Pure religio-scifi uninformed crap.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Humans don't even know what intelligence or consciousness is. Why do you think philosophers are still involved in defining these things? There are NO definitions without hand-wavy look-the-other-way weasel words. That is, there is NO scientifically sound definition of consciousness. Period. Therefore there can't even be a test to find out if anything (including a human) is actually conscious.

And here you and others are talking about a single measurable number of bits of information and "synapses" that "if we could just simulate" then suddenly intelligence would be emergent.

This is speculation, and not even informed speculation at that. What makes you think your assumptions are even remotely correct? If blah, then.. suddenly.. intelligence!

If you want to know state-of-the-art science w.r.t. consciousness, and specifically why it is that we don't actually know even where to begin to *define* it, find the five-DVD set called, coincidentally, "Consciousness."

The fact is, that NO empirical science is possible in the areas of simulating consciousness and human intelligence because we don't even know what they are.

Okay: define consciousness.

Without this definition, there's really no point in even having this discussion.

Yea I did. The end user is only entering into a contract per-app with the third-party vendor. If Apple isn't exercising any of the rights granted them by the GPL, that's really up to them. Therefore the NDA is pointless from our perspective. (And if Apple tries to break the GPL in the future, then the only loser is the third-party vendor.. we're all immune. :)

And everyone wins: a version of BIND that allows an overlay of master records based on secondary queries. You look something up, the authoritative query goes out to the replacements, the fallback position is the root nameservers.

Then, you can participate in OpenDNS or OpenNIC or whatever you want, *and* participate in the base DNS network as well. Plus, if you ever decide someone is being naughty, you can just overlay them with a whiteout (and you get rid of every domain-squatter-searcher you want to get rid of,) or you can simply override domain squatters with the original rightful owner.

Plus, the extortion money you currently pay? You can get rid of it basically for free. Set up a domain in the overlay instead.

I just managed to find the iTunes App Store license agreement. It says the license is whatever the third party and the end-user agree to. Therefore it's just a shitty hardware Tivo-isation and isn't in violation of the GPL at all.

Haha.. amusing.

It looks like the App Store says you are bound by the license that exists between the end-user and the third-party-product provider.

Looks like this means that the binary itself can be redistributed and Apple doesn't sublicense it, and that means it's just plain useless if the iPhone won't run it once it is redistributed. :) How amusing.

That's a hardware lock. That has nothing to do with the GPLv2 and is not a circumvention: it just means that the binary is useless anywhere else. But you're allowed to redistribute the binary no problem.

*If* Apple prevents you from redistributing the binary itself, by contract, then they are in violation. If not, then they aren't, and it's just a shitty hardware platform.

If parent is correct, then Apple is sublicensing a GPL'd Program in violation of section 4, and so is the author. The way Red Hat gets around this is by preventing people from using their trademark "Red Hat." They are in a bit of a grey area and people don't care because of CentOS and Scientific Linux.

Incorrect. The "Program" isn't the source code. Otherwise it wouldn't say in section 1 "The Program's source code". Therefore, you are not allowed to sublicense The Program in a way that takes away your rights under the GPL--which include the right to redistribute The Program to anyone you see fit. If Apple's store prevents you from redistributing by the terms of an agreement or contract, you are violating the GPL.

Incorrect, incorrect, incorrect.

You're right, but you don't seem to know why you're right. Since the redistributor is Apple, and not the developer, it would seem to me that the person who is restricting the rights inside the GPL is actually the one more at fault: so Apple is also breaking the GPL.

Meanwhile, if the authors have signed a contract with Apple which agrees to Apple's iphone store terms, *and* they claim they are adhering to the terms of the GPL, and Apple restricts distribution of the GPL-covered executable *in violation of the GPL* then they are either in breach of contract with Apple, or are breaking the GPL, or some combination of both.

They are telling the end-user the program (which is the binary compiled version, which is a derivative of the source code) is covered by the GPL, but since the GPL says the binary can be freely redistributed, and if Apple does in fact restrict redistribution further, then the GPL is being violated.

So.. it's not even the spirit of the GPL which is being violated. It's section 2.. 3.. 4.. 5.. and 6. :-)