The people buying toasters tomorrow won't be planning on hooking them up to a network either. But those toasters will have IP stacks running in them, simply because the cost of adding that feature will approach zero as time goes on, but the value of having exclusive control over yet another avenue of delivering advertising to your home will remain.

Perhaps I'm being cynical and there's other reasons to put computers in toasters. However, the fact remains, a simple microcontroller is still cheaper than something that can run a full OS like Linux. The price gap is closing, though, and to suggest that this has nothing to do with the growing adoption of full-featured SoCs is ridiculous. That's been the whole saga of computers: as they get cheaper, they get squeezed into more and more places.

The popular adoption of personal computers, by ordinary people, in their own homes was one instance of a significant shift in the role computers played in society. Perhaps the popular adoption of smartphones will be seen as another such significant shift. It seems like the ubiquity of IP-networking in devices traditionally not associated with the Internet will likely also be seen as another significant shift. The main difference will be that instead of adding a large population of people to the Internet, we'll be adding a large population of odd devices. I'm not sure how that will be really useful, but then again many people had difficulty seeing just how the Internet would be useful to common people also.

I still own my Dallas Semiconductor TINI. Runs Java, 40MHz, same size as a stick of RAM, and it's about ten years old. A decade ago, this was the realm of Java.

And assembly.

... Mostly assembly.

Now that is arcane knowledge.

Ordinarily, I'd agree. Too many "but on the Internet" patents granted, businesses started, etc.

This is where I'll disagree. Sure, there's been small computers for a while. However, this is the first time these small computers are both cheap enough to be in too many places and complex enough to run a common free OS that provides an IP networking stack. Previously, small computers that could speak IP were too costly to be ubiquitous, and small computers that were cheap enough to be ubiquitous were too simple to speak IP. There really is a first time for many things, and I believe that right now is the first time for the ubiquity of small computers that speak IP.

Curently, GP's score stands at 4, Interesting:
50% Interesting
30% Overrated
20% Informative

I don't see any troll mods. Are you sure you replied to the correct post?

I don't get it.

I read Herbert's Dune in print several years after I first read it as an monospace-font plaintext digital document. I didn't feel the typesetting really added much value at all. I feel that the ASCII version I first read was at least 99% as valuable as the typeset version.

That being said, I do enjoy collecting paper books. I've got nearly all of Dostoevsky's works on paper. I wouldn't be quite as proud of a digital collection. This has more to do with sentimentality than typesetting, though. Honestly, if I could've acquired his works sans typesetting for half the cost, I would've jumped at the opportunity. I understand that there's more that goes into a book than just what the author writes, but I question the value of all these extras. People on here have been claiming that distribution accounts for maybe 10% of the cost of a printed book. I'm pretty confident that the author gets nowhere near 90%. The typesetting, the editing, the marketing, everything else... really, how much is this worth to the average reader? I'm pretty sure I could live without that crap if the savings were passed along to the buyer.

The arguments against the inevitability of strong AI mostly revolve around these points. You seem like someone that doesn't believe that the development of strong AI is inevitable. I'm of the opposite opinion. Let's explore.

So, let's say out understanding of the human brain never really advances past its current point. Let's say we never really "understand" how the human brain works. Let's say we continue developing medical imaging technology, eventually reaching a point where we can image a human brain with sufficient temporal and spatial resolution to record its entire physical structure. Where each neuron is, and which other neurons it's connected to. This doesn't give us any meaningful understanding of the brain or how it works, but it does give us a blueprint.

Let's say we never figure out any magical algorithms for AI. Let's say we never figure out how to get artificial neural networks to sufficiently mimic biological ones. Let's say we continue developing computer technology, eventually reaching a point where we can do lots and lots of ordinary calculations per second. Enough to run much larger, higher-fidelity physical simulations than the ones we do today. This doesn't give us any sort of thinking machines, but it does let us simulate the existence of the human brain, as described by the aforementioned blueprint.

Now, you're saying that the brain is not the mind, so you probably wouldn't expect this simulation to produce any mind-like behavior. That's entirely possible, and it may indeed be true that the mind is not contained entirely within the brain. However, I don't see any reason to suspect that the mind isn't contained entirely within the human body. Consequently, wouldnt' expanding our blueprint to include the rest of the human body get around this little problem? If it's reasonable to expect that we will one day be able to map the brain, isn't it no less reasonable that we'd be able to map the whole body?

That addresses your first point, I believe. Your second point I can't really comment on, because I'm not familiar with Peter Russell's work. I'm also not aware that Reductionism and Materialism are archaic. I was under the impression that they were the very basis for empiricism and science. If you're suggesting that there's some sort of non-physical or supernatural mechanisms at play when it comes to the brain, then I'm afraid you're stepping beyond the realm of science and into the world of non-natural philosophy.

In any case, could you elaborate on this? Am I way off in my characterization of your position? If not, any comment?

I live in NJ. There's not a single E0 station in NJ, according to that site. (NJ doesn't have pump-labelling requirements, so it might be a lack of data and not a lack of E0 fuel).

Good thing I left my Husqvarna saw in Maine when I moved back down here.

All my computers are HP. I used to build my own, but then I realized that HP sells pre-built systems for cheaper than I can get components. No complaints here.

No, sugar beets make more sense.

But the corn lobby is bigger, so...

So then instead of dropping a blade across the neck, drop a massive anvil directly on the head. Wile E. Coyote style. I'm being serious.

Fascinating! Thanks for the great reply as well as the great link. This is why slashdot still kicks ass :)

See the neologism "islamist". Usually synonymous with "islamic militant, extremist, or radical."

Even the non-offensive usage of the word is absurd. We don't call fundamentalist evangelical christians "christianists".

Please see my post (#47076051) under the reply theskipper wrote to you.