Luddite and neo-Luddite arguments

It is crazy to think that computers are going to become something so complex as Ray Kruzweil and Bill Joy are talking about. I fell like both of them are talking about very extreme cases but one day it might be possible that these kind of things could happen. I think that Bill Joy tends to right except for the idea that one day these machines might take over the world we live. Many of the things that Ray Kruzweil well mentioned aren't very likely to take over the life we live rather they enhance that we already experience. Some of the things Kruzweil do seem very strange though and I personally wouldn't want to experience them but one day they may just become popular culture like he is saying.

Societies concern should be on the use and ethics behind many of things that come out. For instance the internet was a great invention but many bad things get connected to it like credit card theft, identity theft, child predators and a constant stream of advertisement. I think that it the future may people will use these things for their own purposes and will take way from the purpose of the kinds that are invented. Imagine having a image cast onto your retina like Kruzweil but in the corner of your vision having a Coca-Cola or Visa ad in your sight every where you go.

AI Testing

I always thought that when IBM started to roll out Deep Blue of February of 1996 computers have gotten a lot of press for now being "intelligent." I very rarely think that a computer could be intelligent.

The turing test isn't an effective way of determining a computer's intelligence because the test often limits what a person has the ability to say. Sometimes during these test people aren't allowed to try and stump these computers. To me a intelligent being is thing or someone I can have a conversation that makes progress. Maybe a more effective test would to have someone try to learn about history from one of these machines or get taught a math problem with Q&A during the session. It seems like all the chatbots out now are only good at relating what it is you have to say with other world in a huge database or changing around the syntax of worlds. Intelligence is the ability to grasp concepts or ideas that are not already known. If a computer isn't programed to know what an apple is it should be able to draw a picture of this in it's own "mind." It should be able to understand what an apple tastes like from the description a human gives it, or better yet, from another computer. It should also be able to some remotely related to the key aspect that distinct us from other animals: communication and understanding of ideas. The Turing Test can't weigh these kinds of distinctions. The difference between a computer having computer like comprehension and linguistic skills with human like inteligence is too broad of a gap for a simple test like the Turing Test. It should also be pointed out that this testing method was composed over 50 yeas ago. I think that now, in todays technological world, the test for AI intelligence should have a much higher standard to be met.

Danish Cartoons of Mahammad

After reading the cartoons and learning the feeling behind them I don't believe that they were as much of an exercise of free speech as they were discrimination against the Muslim faith. I've always felt that there is always grounds to disagree with a person's faith, especially America where we value the right to choose a religion. It seems like many times political cartoonist get away with many controversial cartoons because the art is often very faceless and excepted. I don't think this would go quietly in the states though and certainly wouldn't make it into a national newspaper. It seems though that on the Internet bad things like this can have powerful followings unfortunately.

Some people say that Muslims, especially non-Danish Muslims, have no right telling Danish officials that they should censor or punish the people that made these cartoons. But where would be be if countries just ignored each others religions and didn't respect their believes. Countries have a duty to represent their country as a positive nation that promotes goodwill and officials not making a stance on an issue so dear to Muslims as their religion doesn't promote prosperity and fellowship between nations.

Although what happened was wrong and the cartoonists and publishers of the cartoons shouldn't have done it Muslims shouldn't hold offensive protests against the Danish. Muslims shouldn't burn the Danish flag like they are in this photo. I understand their anger and frustration but there are never grounds to this or cause violence.

I think that some people on both sides of the argument were in the wrong. For countries to reach common ground they've got to be willing to hear out the other side and hold resect for their opinion.

Net Neutrality

I am totally for net neutrality. I think that looking at different things such the telephone and television a person can start to understand the difference between the two, and the advantage of having the internet be equal.

With telephones it is rather easy to get good and cheep telephone provider plans. My brother and dad go back and forth telling each other about lower and lower plans. With televisions I think it is much different. Usually it is very hard to get a decent television bill because only a few companies are able to compete for your business. To get basic cable with about 40 or 50 channels it's around 40 dollars.

That's why I think the internet must be kept open. It isn't right to have a large company dictate terms between another large company and decide in essence how many people choose a product or a web site based on how fast it goes. I think that is an unfair advantage. What is really bothersome about the topic is that in large newspapers and websites that the focus is on the politics about the issue and not resolving the issue. Most articles are full of statements by congressmen about "how they feel" and statistics who voted how. I want to know about net neutrality. For the general public this mostly is out of their consciousness because it is out of their interest and that is troublesome with some as special as the Internet.

Web 2.0

There were a lot of cool mash ups and some really weird ones. These three were my favorites:

http://www.mapulator.com/
This is a map up that combines Goggle maps and network utilities such as traceroute and whois. It was really interesting to get a visual of how the web works by seeing it on a map. Sometimes it doesn't work because the computer doesn't get all or any of the locations.

http://www.wikimapia.org/
This is a site that combines with Google maps that lets anyone without being registured or anything to make little books that when clicked on give a description of the site or building. I liked it a lot. Most of the time it is a definition straight from Wikipedia but sometimes it's just people that let the world know "this is my house."

http://www.sergeychernyshev.com/maps.html
This map up simply puts Google maps right along side Yahoo maps. You really get to see differences in the two maps and especially in the satellites see which is more up to date. You also quickly realize that Google's is way better.

It also shows a very distinct difference between the two imagery machines in the views of New Orleans before and after Katrina from the looks of it. I think that Google had the post-Katria pictures but I'm not sure. I read in the Chronicle that they took them off the web for a while because they weren't up to Google's standards of picture quality but it seems they put them back up.