Death to Papa Smurf

Papa Smurf will soon be no more

This past Saturday I got to dress up as a Lithuanian gangster. Or the President of Latvia. Not quite sure.

I attended our college's educational foundation art auction.  I was allowed to attend as I donated a piece. Here it is:

"Informal Relations" copyright 2004 by John Kurman

There were about 20-30 pieces donated by students, faculty, and artists. I'm told that a good deal is get 50 cents on the dollar of the asking price is not too shabby. Mine was valued at $300 and sold for $160. Nto to put a sour note on it, but that works out, by my calculations, labor and materials to about $4.69/hour for the piece, had I received the monies. Brilliant fucking career move, Johnny.

Ah, but I did have a fun time at the auction. All of my children (my student aides) were there as volunteer art handlers/docents/auction spotters.

Here are some pictures:

Me and my student aide Vicki 

Mark, Caitlyn, Me

Art Handler Gang Signs!

Me, Sculptor Mike Brown

Urszula, about to suit up to handle the art

Caitlyn gets a reward for good behavior

3/1/11 Addendum to e abbott. Yes, the beard is disappearing...

Death to Papa Smurf

2050CE: A Fable

It is generally thought that in 1801CE the English scientist Thomas Young first performed the Double Slit experiment. In your universe, maybe...

Young set up this elegantly simple demonstration of allowing a light to pass through either one hole, or two holes that were side by side. In doing so, he attempted to see whether light was a particle, a corpuscular thing as Newton surmised, or if light was a wave traveling through some marvelous aether. The answer was both, but not at the same time. Still stranger was, the choice could be, or was, or will be made after the light had passed through the hole(s).

Richard Feynman was able to describe this, and many other fascinating things, by invoking something called the Feynman path integral. This bit of mathematical legerdemain is also referred as the "sum over histories" method, although I refer to it as the "sum over futures" method. And you should to, if you know what is good for you.

What has this to do with the year 2050CE?

Granted, that was a long time ago, but bear with me.

There are, it turns out, certain pivotal years, which, as the great physicist Mark Everett once stated, are "uchronal, they remain constant throughout all transreal states". Which is to say, certain important events occur regardless of the universe they occur in. Or more specifically, the parachronic sample space contains a very large but finite amount of alternatives, which is just as well, as having to divide everything by infinity just produces nonsense.

Mark's father, Hugh Everett (Many Worlds Interpretation) suspected as much, but could never quite get the math down. Fortunately for this correspondent (and you as well, gentle reader) living in the best of all possible worlds means the Mark postponed his lucrative rock n' roll career and finished his father's great work.

Which means we know that the years 10,380 BCE, 6,212 BCE, 512BCE, 38CE, 512CE, 1848CE, 2050CE,... just to name a few, remain temporally invariant. Interesting, that. And still not quite explained.

But I digress. Year 2050CE. In the vast majority of scenarios, Earth is not a world anymore. It is a welfare planet.

Population pegged out at 9 billion, with perhaps ten million haves, the rest a brutally suppressed permanent have-nots. Every square inch of arable land devoted to agriculture. No more wilderness. No more wild animals. China, India, Brazil, parts of North America: vast desert. Africa, a war grave. The Arctic permanently ice free. It is a miracle almost all nukes have been accounted for and stashed in Canada, which enjoys its hegemonic superpower status. After the collapse, the forward thinking United States military (who would have thought? as in who would have thought the KGB would be the enlightened element with the former Soviet Union?) turned most of their stuff over to Canada, the one bright spot in an otherwise dismal decade. Killer robots. Helper robots.

No jobs, or no skilled jobs at any rate, as the robots and computers do all that brainy stuff. Few unskilled jobs, save for environmental remediation. On the mystery front, the remains of President Palin finally located in the Cheyenne Mountain complex. The cut marks on her bones indicating she was one of the last to be eaten. Rank hath its privileges.

Within the celebrity network, Paris Hilton, Jr. is scheduled for her fifth litter (sired off of Ashton Kutcher GM SEED), to be donated to the Oil Trust for liquifaction. Oil is currently $1,250,000 a barrel (except that price is in yuan). A Vlad Teppes clone is to be resurrected for a year on Death Match. And the world's largest TV will be moved to its new home in Novo Beijing. The last known modified white tiger man hunted down, shot, and stuffed  within Bharat Forever (formerly known as Alaska).

So sad. But, hey, seeing as (thanks to Dr. Mark Everett) our wormhole technologies allows us to live in the Best of all possible worlds, I'm not so sad after all.

BTW, next week, Tuesday evening, from 7pm on, I plan to be making an appearance in Sam's Pub, 1200 W Lankhmar Street, Spiral City, Alterra, NGC6264. If you happen to be within a few million light years of me, stop by for a beer and a chat!

Political Affiliations

I call myself a liberal because it pisses off certain brittle-minded tiny-limbed meatslappers who persist in trying to make liberal a disparaging word. If calling myself a progressive, or a socialist, or even a communist causes them to have a debilitating stroke from a fit of apoplectic rage, I'd call myself that.

But, of course, I'm a moderate.

In fact, I rather detest the idea of cataloguing something as complex as a human being onto a one-dimensional mapping such as "Left-Right". And look where that came from, out of the French Revolution, not exactly the best thing to use as an an example for anything.

For that matter, those silly magazine quiz political tests which lump you onto a two-dimensional surface (economic and social axes) are equally a waste of time. No one is that consistent, or that cartoonish (with perhaps the exemption of people who enjoy simplistic worldviews and the people who love them - on the next Jerry Springer). Those silly things want to lump you down with some really creepy people with bad personal hygiene. I certainly would not put up with it. When you think about it, a pigeon hole is a nasty, cramped, shit covered little hole.

And, an expansion of political identity into higher dimensions would seem to be the way to go, but the problem is, once again, people are rarely that consistent. They change over time (indeed the universe itself changes over time, so one wonders how even maintaining the status quo is somehow not just a complete infantile fantasy). There do seem to be some common sense ideas on higher dimensional axes to investigate. You've perhaps a Progress vs. Tradition axis. An Individualism vs. Altruism axis. And Anarchy vs Control axis. An Equality vs. Merit axis. Perhaps even a Competition vs. Cooperation axis.

I doubt all but a very few unfortunates could be boxed down onto a segment of this political hyperspace.

So, I'll just call myself a liberal, and fuck you if you don't like it.

Now, then, let's consider who those who are not liberals have got in the stable for the 2012 Presidential Elections.

CPAC provided no help. The terminally bugfuck crazy Michelle Bachmann? Actually, I kind of enjoy seeing her to see how what is clearly the mad cow disease she has contracted is spreading. Last I saw she had acquired a hazy film of insane chimpanzee glaze in her eyes. It's only a matter of time before she starts clubbing small children that are within reach of her.

Ron Paul? Rand Paul? Maybe if Congress passes a law making inhaling household cleaners and automotive products mandatory. (Catch us all up to speed with them).

Donald Trump? He's just a hairy little faex. He's completely feculent. Pizza mogul Herman Cain? Well, #1, Godfather's Pizza sucks a fat soggy turd.  And #2, Herman Cain is an asshole.

Let me repeat that for the search engine spiders.

Herman Cain is an asshole.

NO, come one, seriously! CPAC!!!!??? CPAC was for chronic masturbators. CPAC was, is Political Bukkake Theater. (You've heard of Political Kabuki Theater? Welcome to  a whole 'nother show!)  Fuck CPAC.

Here's the real list:

Mitt Romney: Boring. Has been. What have you done for me lately? He may be the one the Republicans get stuck with, but he's got the whole vacillation problem going on. Not to mention a woodenness that make Al Gore look like a genuinely warm human being. Plus, he's got the branding issue with his chosen faith. He'd have done only slightly worse becoming a Scientologist. Or a Randian.

Mitch Daniels: Looks too much like Dan Quayle, who basically made it so that even if you are a Hoosier with a 3,000 IQ, you're, well, from Indiana. I know. As a Hoosier, I'm just glad people have bad memories. Plus, Daniels doesn't reckon the amount of luck involved in his state's budget surplus, which, oops, ain't there anymore, now that Obama's stimulus money is gone.  Daniels didn't exactly display any amazing fucking brilliant business acumen when he sold the Indiana Tollroad to Spaniard businessmen for a pittance. Plus, he's the smart conservative's (yes, they do exist) choice, which means the kiss of death from the Party of Fuck You.


Haley Barbour: Boss Hogg!!! He's got the KKK vote locked up solid. If they can run him with a orangutan that waves a loaded pistol and gives everyone the finger, he's got the vote of everyone south of I-70, ... probably, but, is that enough? I don't think so. Not lessen' he can rid the Real America of all those darkies in the urban hoods... which, oh, was that over the top? Hmm.

Herman Cain is an asshole!

Newt Gingrich: You know, I kind of admire the rancid old assfuck the same way I admire Mao. He just doesn't get it. It's monumentally stupendous how he doesn't get it. But he does try. Using the same tactics of fear and divisiveness that Mao used, well at least he tries. But he'll never be a monster. Besides, he screwed himself up the ass in 1996. And besides, have you seen him lately? The guy looks like a used condom. And by that I mean he looks like a wrinkled up latex wrapper partially filled with dead sperm. Pretty much sums up Newt.

Who's left? Pawlenty, Santorum, Huckabee? Boring. Oatmeal.


PALIN? Wow. Pretty sad. Not much interest. Maybe, if Wisconsin governor Wanker, I mean Walker, continues to fuck up Wisconsin's finances (the way he did Milwaukee County's when he was commissioner), and gets all hard ass with the middle class, he just might be a conservative hero and lock it all in!

But in the meantime, I have a suggestion. More interest in the primaries can be generated if you set it up as a series of Death Cage matches, but for real. You know, Thunderdome, but for real. And orangutans with automatic weapons!  And cannibalism!

Herman Cain is an asshole!

(2/25/11 Note to readers. Above essay was modified for stylistic purposes, just in case you noticed).

Machines of Loving Grace

I'm ashamed to say I've not read much in the way of poetry or great classics. One of the few books of poetry I read was "The Pill Versus the Springhill Mine Disaster" by Richard Brautigan. There is a poem in there which I reproduce with attribution.

 All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace

I'd like to think (and

the sooner the better!)

of a cybernetic meadow

where mammals and computers

live together in mutually

programming harmony

like pure water

touching clear sky.

I like to think

   (right now, please!)

of a cybernetic forest

filled with pines and electronics

where deer stroll peacefully

past computers

as if they were flowers

with spinning blossoms.

I like to think

   (it has to be!)

of a cybernetic ecology

where we are free of our labors

and joined back to nature,

returned to our mammal brothers and sisters,

and all watched over

by machines of loving grace.

copyright 1968 by Richard Brautigan      

From a craft standpoint, it's not really that good of a poem. From a visionary standpoint, I'd say Brautigan rivaled Stanislaw Lem in clairvoyance. (If you are unaware of Lem, go to the library and check out The Cyberiad for starters). I'm not entirely sure that Brautigan coined the term "machines of loving grace". I would not be at all surprised if it goes back to Mark Twain. I seem to recall a dystopian SF short story by that title (or perhaps it just employed the phrase). The story was about how people had become completely dependent upon machines, to the point where they were just fat blobs waited upon hand and foot by mechanical creatures - coddled and swaddled so much that they had no exposure to any form of Nature or even their fellow human beings. Thus unable to breed, or breed successfully, or thrive, humanity is pampered out of existence.

In retrospect, the story was arrogantly flawed. There is no doubt that we as a species would allow ourselves to be pampered thus, but the idea that so much energy and resources would be devoted to these overgrown infants defies any realistic expectations. At the very least, the Universe would come up with a way to bollox the whole operation - resulting in either our demise as a species, or at least a very sobering return to a more challenging way of life.

But thoughts of our relationship with technology have bugged me of late. No, I'm not thinking of the Jeopardy! games with IBM's Watson. That is, big-picture-wise, hardly the news item the media wishes to inflate it into. We are years, decades away from an artificial intelligence, perhaps even never (though I am loathe to say that, seeing as predictions of impossibilities are almost always wrong).

No, I'm thinking more along the lines of how we always, always overestimate the impacts of our technology. Case(s) in point: Alfred Nobel believed that his explosives would deter men from making war. Hiram Maxim, inventor of the machine gun, declared that his invention would "make war impossible". Jules Verne stated that with the submarine, war would become impossible. Orville Wright: "The aeroplane...will have a tendency to make war impossible". Marconi: "the coming of the wireless era... will make war impossible". 

Do I really need to go on? Pretty sad, actually. You'd think, after so many utterly failed predictions, that someone would catch on, and not say something silly like that. And yet, it's not only the theater of war where we are so comedically wrong-headed. David Nye, historian of technology, points out "Each new form of communication, from the telegraph and telephone to radio, film, television, and the internet, has been heralded as the guarantor of free speech and the unfettered movement of ideas".

Yeah, well. The techno-cheerleaders didn't count much on human behavior. Given the deluge of crap that came out of radio, TV, and film, one has to wonder how much of the promise of enlightenment and edification will occur through the internet. How many lies have been propagated over radio, TV, film,  the Internet? How much dis- and misinformation will be out there forever and ever and ever? Did any of the cheerleaders see google versus China coming, profit preferential search engines, censored search results, the Egyptian shutdown of the internet, or the vapid tweetings from the likes of that fucking shrill shriek Sarah Palin, or being wholly dependent upon Facebook for any kind of social interactions, or similar troglodytic usages...?

Chimps waving loaded guns, for the most part. That seems, on the face of it, to be where the 21st century is heading.

And so, like all abrogations of responsibility, I've got to wonder just how much we are relying on technology to save us from ourselves, when the fact of the matter is, technology is ourselves.

Was Pogo right? "We have met the enemy, and they is us"? 

Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, but no mention of Property

Conservatives will often misrepresent the intentions of the Founding Fathers with regards to property. They do so by presenting a little bit of revisionist history through finding quotes that they can take out of context, or by simply fabricating a 18th century intentions and mannerisms through the prism of modern times.

Generally, such people will present themselves as wholly reasonable. They will call themselves critical thinkers. (One has only to look at the laughable name of the Libertarian magazine "Reason" to recognize expropriation - aping an aspiration is not the same as being it).

But, for the most part, these types of Constitutional fundamentalists, these strict constructionists fail to see that there rhetorical ploy is nothing more than that logical fallacy known as a Red Herring. (In other words, there assertion actually has nothing to do with anything that can be found in the Constitution). There are usually more than one logical fallacies mixed up together, but this one will suffice.

Why do I say this? Because, quite simply the society and the people who lived in those times are completely alien to us now. Not "alien" in the sense of foreign, but "alien" in the science fiction sense of almost incomprehensible. For conservatives (Tea Partiers, etc.) to assume that they can speak for that generation of men which included the Founding Fathers is completely fucking stupid.

They lived with a mindset that was wholly medieval. They lived (and this is before the concept of "class" existed) in a hierarchical arrangement that went from God to King to Noble to Gentleman to Yeoman Farmers and Merchants to Serf to Slave. Each role was legitimate, completely natural, and eternally sanctioned and divinely approved. One had better know one's place and be prepared to suffer the consequences of attempting to exercise equality.

Yes, yes, they made noise about liberty and freedom, but those liberties and freedoms were caste specific and stratified. A slave had a certain amount of freedom which, within the confines of his category, were his to enjoy, but only thus. (A woman, no freedoms at all). And the Founding Fathers were intent upon only the slightest modifications as to personal liberties for those under them. Their vision - and it can be found in quotes taken wholly in context and understood properly only in context - was a republic run by a well-educated, well-informed, enlightened, idle, landed gentry through disinterested (and therefore incorruptible and transcendent) representation. No rabble running things for them! No dirty fingernailed, illiterate, ill-mannered filthy mob mucking things up in the halls of government. Mind your place and your tone, my man, and be thankful we exist to govern! No universal suffrage! Gentlemen only in the governing ranks, if you please! (As to one of the foremost proponents of universal suffrage, one who helped to dismantle of the early aristocracy, one has to look, not to Jefferson, but to a compatriot of his, an unpleasant man called Abraham Bishop).

Here, perhaps is a classic example of what a gentleman is, one whose appendages are wholly useless to him. The future president John Adams, on traveling to England, was asked to man the bailing pumps aboard his sailing ship, a duty to which every passenger was bound. John Adams refused. He would rather drown than perform undignified, ungentlemanly manual labor. (It was only later, through appropriate face saving narratives that our other great historical figures were seen to somehow perform labor, thus George Washington could be seen to be a hard worker, riding his horse from sunup to sundown, managing his interests through his slaves).

Universal suffrage, the ability form the common man to represent himself in government, was still some thirty to forty years in the future at the time of the signing of the Constitution. In fact, such is the complaints and grumbling of our Founding Fathers about the failure of the Revolution, that once universal suffrage had come to pass, "any common jackass could run for office".

What is unrecognized about the Revolution, perhaps the most radical and fundamental change to come about, was the transformations Americans made in their understanding of property. We went from a medieval to a modern worldview. (In fact, it can be argued that the classic "propertarianism", your standard modern bonehead Libertarian view, is nothing more than an attempt to return to feudalism - in that the social contracts regarding property take precedence over all other contracts).

In classical pre-universal-suffrage thought, property, landed property required no representation or protection. It was wholly proprietary, part of a gentleman's identity and the source of his authority. It was not a commodity, not something to be acquired through labor, nor bought nor sold upon the market. And being so, free of the caprices of the market, a gentleman was unassailably free from special interest (the incorruptibility mentioned above), and the thus perfectly suited to govern. (This philosophical position, unassailable through logical analysis, quickly fell apart under empirical - more worldly - conditions).

If property were a mere material possession, why then any jackass had an equal right to acquire it, and it (the right to property) would become, as the 1820 convention notes of the New York Republicans put it, "only one of many incidental rights of the person who possessed it", but still "insignificant and trifling" compared to "other essential rights". This, then is why there is no mention of property in any of the so-called "hallowed" texts of the conservative fundamentalists - neither the Declaration of Independence, nor the Constitution.

This no doubt, if it were ever truly comprehended by today's conservatives, if it could make it through the thick gelatinous wall of ignorance constructed around their fossilized skulls, would probably drive them into an apoplectic fit. But then, the Founding Fathers would look down on these moderns pipsqueaks anyway: peasants, proletarians, dirty filthy laborers daring to live above their station.

Glennbeckery

as in rhymes with small peckery.

I don't know should I cut that rancid asshole media creature some slack? I mean, he's just too easy to make fun of. I don't care about him anyway. I will suggest the following definition for "glennbeckery" though.

The attempt to present, in an incompetent and clumsily fraudulent authoritative manner or protocol, misleading information that will influence the weak, the timid, and the feeble-minded by means of fear and intimidation.

As opposed to the other definition I found out in the interwebs, which is "mega-assholery". Succinct, I'll give it that.

(But, you know, I think of the term more along the lines of his fake history perfesser persona. Jeez, if Obama had only known that all he needed to teach congressional law at UC was a blackboard and glasses, he could have saved himself all that effort and real scholarship. He could, have, you know, just faked it on TV. And then you've got Glenn's choice of faith. But, you know, if you want to present your bona fides as a true bugfuck crazy collapsitarian, best to pick a faith with a major branding problem).

I received in the mail a form letter that appeared to very official and federally tax related. I don't think a copyright infringement is involved here (I'm sure the corporate entity that sent it had their legal department check it out). But it appears to be something that I should be worried about.

Now, keep in mind, I've had a bullshit detector installed in my brain since I was twelve. And it has been set on maximum sensitivity. So much so, that actual facts often set the klaxons blaring and red lights to flash.

But this letter was so blatantly clumsy, I switched off my bullshit detector before it even had much of a chance to register it.

I'd post a picture of it, but it's more fun to describe it. So, you've got the standard US government IRS looks about it. The graphic format, the fold strip openings at the side, the fake form id  "FORM 11598". And then, warnings that never appear on official documents but look official appearing not once but twice: "WARNING: There is a $2,000 fine or 5 yrs imprisonment or both for any person obstructing or interfering with the delivery of this letter - US MAIL SEC.1708" It applies to all letters, but hey.

There is a little disclaimer to indicate it is not from the government so that they don't get in trouble, but disguised to look like more big guv't scary: "Business Mail - Penalty for Tampering".

And then on the back, a really big warning reiterating the Sec 1708 mail tampering shit.

And then when yo open, it, a really nice copy job of a W2 box format using the IRS fonts and with a big 2010 just like in the tax forms. And then, in 8 point type, psst, hey,  "This is not a government document".

And then it is all balloons and dancing bears after that. Arlington Nissan wants to sell me a car. Here's a big money number, $37,941 and zero cents as my available line of credit. With an additional  $15,759 and zero cents for who the fuck knows what. I guess I'm to assume that together the sum is my authorized amount, but that's for my greedy little mind to figure out.

So, they got me all palm sweaty and worried, and then, oh, no Mr. Kurman, it's good news, and we really don't give a shit about your credit history. We are pants-shittingly generous with monies that you will eventually owe us!

And now, a word from Goldbug!

The Chinese Room

This past Wednesday, I watched a NOVA episode about the upcoming Jeopardy! show series involving Watson, the supercomputer contestant. (And do I contradict myself after writing a snobby semi-tirade against popular science media presentation, and then watching NOVA? Eh, so what.)

(Three Jeopardy! episodes involving Watson as a contestant are scheduled for Feb. 14-16th, 2011).

The usual questions are of course, how can Watson play Jeopardy! Well, watch the NOVA episode. I'd rather talk about the Chinese Room.

I used to visit and occasionally contribute to a internet forum which had a participant who, had there not already been one, should have been the patron saint of lost causes. If there was a silly position to take on a subject, this guy would be a staunch proponent. If memory serves, he was an advocate for astrology, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, libertarianism, Zionism,  his own variation of Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenesis, and all sorts of other strange things. He wasn't a complete loon, but...

And I seem to recall that he had a peculiar argumentative style not unlike the cowardly and slippery method of  Socrates, in that he would never actually assert anything, but rather answer questions with questions. (I say cowardly because Socrates never actually took a stand on anything). In any case, he actually did make the assertion that computers would never be intelligent like people because a guy named John Searle provided an ironclad proof that computers could mimic human behavior but never understand it. This argument is called The Chinese Room.

John Searle in the Chinese Room 

You can either read the link, or, well, here's the short version. A kind of Rube Goldberg computer or an automaton is set up in an empty room (a black box, if you will) wherein a Chinese person can hold a conversation with it. There is a library of data and a rule book that allows any sentence or question in the Chinese language to be processed and answered. So a Chinese person can talk to the Chinese Room, and after a sufficient conversation, become convinced that he is talking to another Chinese person within the room. In other words, the computer's behavior is indistinguishable from a person's and the computer passes what is called a Turing Test, and so must be considered an intelligent being.

But here is Searle's catch. The library and rule book are not in Chinese. They could be, since this is a computer, all zeroes and ones. But for the purposes of Searle's argument, they are in English. They are in English so that Searle can take the place of the computer or automaton. He gets the Chinese statement as input, he follows the rules and accesses the data in English, to respond in Chinese as output. Searle fools the Chinese interlocutor that he understands Chinese, when in fact, Searle never understands what he is saying, just like the computer. In short, the computer does not understand.

Well, so what? You say. And justly so. Isn't this just another one of those stupid philosophical arguments? Doesn't this just show that the Turing Test doesn't cut the mustard? Doesn't this illuminate a point that anyone past the mental age of six can figure out? That appearances are deceiving? That the stuffed animal puppet is really not a real person.

Well, yes and no. It does turn out that the argument is stupid, and it all hinges on Searle's implication that just because he doesn't understand Chinese, therefore the automaton or computer doesn't either. You see, there have many objections to his argument, but the strongest is that, even though the whole process is mechanical and completely syntax driven, that no semantics, no meanings are derived out of the process. In short, the program may not understand, but the Room (automaton or mechanism or what have you, plus program) clearly does. Searle's counterpoint to that is, fine, I will memorize the whole library of data and rule book (which is all in English), and now the Room is completely inside his head. Now he can speak directly to the Chinese interlocutor, process everything in English in his head and understand not one word of Chinese.

But all this does in further illustrate the weakness of his argument. By simulating the Room inside his head, he expect us to believe that he is the Room. In other words, his mental simulations exactly duplicate the physical states of the Chinese Room. But, he is hoisted upon his own petard. His mental simulation is clearly not the same. It is a simulation. Therefore, the fact that he John Searle does not understand Chinese is not the same statement as the Chinese Room doesn't understand Chinese.

Well. okay. So what? Well, the point was that the patron saint of lost causes, invoking Searle, felt that computers could never, ever really be intelligent. Can't  they?

Watson clearly isn't. But Watson isn't just doing what the Chinese Room is doing (which is basically, the way old digital computers and their now primitive 1970s architectures did things). Watson uses an incredibly powerful technique called machine learning. Machine learning is learning by example, by trial and error. This is far more powerful than mere following of rules, because the rules (if any exist) are changeable by more and more examples. Watson can change his behavior just like people (most people).

Does this mean Watson and computers like him (it) might eventually get smart? Why not?