My point is that the genomic argument isn't relevant for addressing the objection that the brain is a system too complex to describe in any amount of code.

Even referencing the genome weakens the argument if you're using it to describe complexity. The genome is more of a bootstrap code than it is a descriptor of the system itself.

My understanding is that Kurzweil is looking at the brain as an existing system to be simulated, and Myers is saying that it is actually a long process that begins at the formation of a few cells and proceeds through exposure to its environment and its own chemistry. That the meaning of the system is actually bound up as much in that growth process as it is in the chemistry. That even the things that we see as redundancies may (or may not) be significant.

Both of these people are way smarter than I am. So like any good slashdotter, I feel compelled to criticize one of them to make myself feel better.

The major flaw I can see in his response (which I think was addressed by Myers) is

He even underlined it. The problem is that the brain doesn't just spring into existence fully formed and THEN get exposed to the environment. The brain starts out as a few cells and is constantly exposed to the environment as it develops. I think this was a major point in Myers response and RK just blew right past it.

The gp didn't say that this was a problem for Java or Eclipse. He/She just said it was a problem for "pay once, own forever."

GP might have been saying "it's a good thing in this case, otherwise everyone would have been screwed."

General Turgidson: "Mister President! We must not allow... a NERD gap!"

No.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_ove_pro_ppp-economy-overall-productivity-ppp

And http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod4.nr0.htm

And ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ForeignLabor/flsgdp.txt

And http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20572828/

If you've read this book can you verify the claims I've read that it hardly mentions Unix development pre-Stallman? Or that it fails to mention the pre-gui PC days of DOS?

I'm thinking of giving it a read, but I don't want to waste my time if the author pretends that Stallman was the progenitor of the shell prompt.

To me, the point of having something super portable is that "on site" means on a train, in a car, at a soccer game, at the library.

No spare bt keyboards just hanging about there.

And the on-screen keyboard just does not cut it in a pinch. Try to fire up vi or emacs to edit an apache config on an iPad or iPhone using the on-screen keyboard. Ugh.

Okay, I guess that's all I have to say about that.

I guess I'm a little late getting back on this, but a bt keyboard means now you've got to carry around a keyboard AND an iPad. I use a netbook as a VNC client and while it makes an abysmal ebook reader, it is just awesome at VNC and everything else you need a keyboard for.

To top things off, the bt keyboard that apple peddles for use with the iPad is made of aluminum and will scratch the crap out of the iPad if you jam them in a backpack together. So now you need the iPad, keyboard and a sleeve for at least one of them.

I want to be convinced that the iPad is swell because I'd like a good excuse to get one, but heck if I can see a compelling case if I'm already well served by a good phone and a netbook.

It's hard to chicken-shit unless you're a chicken.

Without a (convenient) keyboard? I'm skeptical, but open to discussion.

No, I hate shitty guis too. I'm just getting tired of the Apple Thought Police. The Jon Stuart "Appholes" rant summed up my growing dislike for what Apple is becoming.

I like a lot about the iPhone, and I hate a lot about it too. The thing that pisses me off is that if I try to fix the parts I don't like, I need Steve's permission, or someone may break down MY front door.

Yuck.

You and me both.

Well maybe not the solution to *all* ills. Just the iPhone's ills.

Don't worry, I thought it was a good one.

This story should be tagged om-nom-nom.