IRRITADO

13 respostas a “APELO AOS MANIFESTANTES DO DIA 12”

1. 

   Pai do tecelão

   Março 9, 2011 at 10:44 pm

   Não viram por aí o meu filho?

   Responder
2. 

   Diogo

   Março 9, 2011 at 10:46 pm

   Tudo isto é de uma grande ingenuidade sua. Ainda não percebeu que a tecnologia está a destruir o emprego?

   Responder
   1. 

      daniel tecelao

      Março 9, 2011 at 11:52 pm

      Faltou dizer para a malta á rasca pôr o Passos Coelho a ir ao pote,a fome aperta!!!

      Responder
      1. 

         o teu pai

         Março 10, 2011 at 12:28 am

         Tás no pote? Naquele onde a tua mãe te cagou?

         Responder
      2. 

         hummming

         Março 10, 2011 at 3:28 am

         Olha o tecelão anda por aqui a mandar bitaites?! Ó homem você ainda consegue defender esta corja?

         Responder
         1. 

            Ratazana do Largo

            Março 10, 2011 at 6:14 am

            Consegue, pois!Se não conseguisse, não recebia.http://corta-fitas.blogs.sapo.pt/3713045.html

            Responder
3. 

   Beltrano

   Março 10, 2011 at 1:31 am

   Até que enfim, que o filho do pai confessou que classifica o acto de governar como “ir ao pote”.Isto diz muito do socialismo doméstico!O ditador e assassino líbio enviou um representante a Lisboa, taramelar com os seus “amigos”.Claro que não enviou dinheiro.Todos os portugueses sabem que a fauna governativa não gosta de dinheiro, apenas de robalos.E o primo Kadafi, agora que lhe congelam as contas no exterior, precisa de testas de ferro.Quanto às reinvindicações dos manifestantes, podem ler-se aqui: http://forcemergente.blogspot.com/2011/02/av-da-liberdade.html

   Responder
   1. 

      daniel tecelao

      Março 10, 2011 at 2:22 pm

      Esta besta,na ânsia de atacar tudo o que faz sombra á ranhosa e arruaceira direita vampiresca,nem percebe que a frase “IR AO POTE”,é do seu novissimo mentor PASSOS COELHO.Vai para dentro senão constipas-te,meu palerma!!!

      Responder
      1. 

         Teu pai

         Março 10, 2011 at 7:29 pm

         è mesmo assim filho. Força, dá neles.

         Responder
      2. 

         Beltrano

         Março 10, 2011 at 11:28 pm

         É verdade, há bestas como eu que, para pagar os salários a tempo e horas,trabalham até à exaustão.Por vezes nem tempo têm de ler a imprensa.Se assim foi, pede-me desculpa.Mas não te irrites porque, em breve, as bestas como eu acabarão e não haverá ninguém para sustentar as bestas como tu.Além do mais, é sempre um prazer dar bordoada em parasitas.

         Responder
         1. 

            daniel tecelao

            Março 11, 2011 at 2:08 am

            Eu nem devia dar-me ao trabalho de lhe responder,já que as suas questões são destituidas de qualquer conteudo,como muitos vem aqui só para dar o seu peidinho dolorido.Mas gostava de saber como é que você me sustenta.Pagar salários a tempo e horas é um dever de quem é patrão,não faz que a sua obrigação,se é que é patrão.

            Responder
4. 

   Contra-Lunáticos

   Março 13, 2011 at 2:52 pm

   Dois bons comentários ao tipo de lixeira sensacionalista por trás destes lunáticos do “a tecnologia está a roubar os empregos”:1) I have long been interested in AI and more recently reading about an idea called the singularity on the Internet: the idea that technology, specifically computing power, is improving so rapidly that were will soon live in a world of superintelligent AI. The average 2004 computer may have the equivilent intellectual capacity of a mouse, but by 2020 (or 2030 or 2010) a computer will have the processing power of a human brain, with capacities way beyond the human brain shortly thereafter. The manifesto of accelerating returns reaches its most detailed expression in The Age of Spiritual Machines by Ray Kurzweil. Most of the book is philosophy of mind, something I am familiar with having taken philosophy of mind to Masters level. The basis with which Kurtzweil argues is called physicalism: the belief that all processes are ultimately physical processes. Thus all states in humans are due to the states of their cells, specifically neurons (hormones are not mentioned: perhaps because they are too messy). The brain is thus a kind of computer. I was surprised he did not cite the bible of neural physicalism, Churchlands’ Neurophilosophy (a much better book by the way). There is a branch of AI that seeks to model computational processes after neurons called neural networking or connectionism. Software has been developed in attempt to have computers function in ways analogous to a human brain. Experiments in this area have proven fruitious, it is possible to teach neural networks to recognise patterns and learn in remarkably human way. Kurtzweil has examples of computer generated poetry and even painting that defy judgement that it is machine made. I found this section of the book interesting. Since computers are able to do so much that we previously though to be exclusively human, Kurzweil argues, we can extrapolate this trend into the future to find there will be (virtually) nothing a human can do that can’t be done by a machine. If a machine has as much processing power as a human, can do all a human can, its spiritual status is something like that of a human. It will have a mind because mind, according to physicalism-connectionism, is a byproduct of complex computational ability. This is a well known position in philosophy of mind called epiphenominalism. Although Kurtzweil doesnt use the term, his entire book is based around it. I was astonished to find that the entire basis for Kurtzweil’s position was a citing of all the things computers can do that are considered intelligent in humans. While this may be a basis for an argument that machines could be considered intelligent, it says nothing on the possibility of machine consciousness or spirituality. It is just assumed they will follow. Now I’m not saying they will not follow, it could happen IF physicalism AND connectionism AND epiphenominalism were true. But Kurtzweil never enters into any arguments about this, instead he spends much of the book providing evidence for the ongoing increasing processing power of computers. Yes, Ray, carbon nanotube computing will provide the power of the worlds current fastest computer, the NEC Earth Simulator, in a cubic millimetre. Great! But so what? Kurtzweil uses the time honoured method of developing an argument ignoring the strongest objections whilst deftly demolishing the straw men, or minor ones. I found this book remarkably lacking in any sense of spirituality. Ray’s trinity appears to be cybersex, self-promotion and money. His vision of the future is mainly through an imaginary dialogue with an imaginary female who has billions of dollars (but doesnt feel that rich – what else is new!) and some form of nanoholodeck or other, which she uses for sex (presumably with Ray). Ultimately it feels like a big promo for Ray Kurzweil Enterprises Incorporated. Lacking a direct connection with the spiritual world, is he waiting for the robots to provide it? If you’re quite geeky, drink lots of coffee and never tire of stories of the latest pentium benchmarks (ie. computers going FASTER FASTER FASTER!) you may enjoy this book. I was sorely disappointed.

   Responder
5. 

   Contra-Lunáticos

   Março 13, 2011 at 2:53 pm

   2) This was a book so torturous, so sensationalistic, it was a brutally difficult read. Unfortunately, the premises of this book are so crucially flawed for all but the most fundamentalist believer in the power of technology, it’s almost a complete waste of time.Kurzweil’s claim of thinking machines for less than $1000 within 20 years is clearly outlandish, obviously designed to make headlines. Even if the hardware continues to accelerate at his predicted rate, a somewhat dubious assumption, he doesn’t even seriously address simple software engineering issues. In fact, virtually all of his assumptions and analogies have an excessive technological zeal and don’t hold up to any real questioning; it is, after all, easy to believe you could create a human-equivilant computer if you have an extremely low opinion of human intelligence (which Kurtzweil does, apparently).I think one of the advantages of a liberal education is that it teaches you not to try to see every problem and issue within the narrow scope of your own specialty, and it gives you a certain respect for history. Kurtzweil seems to think of absolutely everything (including art and music) as purely technological developments and engineering problems, and seems to be possessed by the late-19th century belief that (technological) progress is not only inevitable but the driving force of our existance; i.e., his stated belief is that technology is simply a seamless continuation of evolution, inevitable and involuntary.If we assume human intelligence were really this trivial (in one telling example, Kurtzweil mentions the harpsichord as being obsolete in the same way as a manual typewriter – perhaps not completely untrue, but clearly not a particularly compelling analogy on which to build an arts-as-technology argument), then perhaps we could develop computers of human intelligence just by giving them a motivation for continuous self-improvement. Despite Kurzweil’s fervor, it is not so simple to say this with any real conviction. In order to predict with confidence that we can create a being of human intelligence, we would have to understand what we would be creating. Kurtzweil’s assumptions, that everything we do is technology- and progress-oriented, don’t pass logical muster for me (can you really believe that Mozart composed for some evolutionary advantage?); since he rapidly convinced me he doesn’t have any more of a clue as to the nature of life or human intelligence than the rest of us, in my opinion it makes all of his outlandish claims of being able to create somthing as good or superior unsustainable and the book superflous. ———–São dois comentários retirados daqui:http://www.amazon.com/Age-Spiritual-Machines-Computers-Intelligence/product-reviews/0140282025/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar

   Responder