I'm using/. to practice my English so your humorous observation will always be used to remember how to ask a question in the past tense correctly. I should even thank you:)
Writing in the board:
Why didn't anyone invite me?
Why didn't anyone invite me?
Why didn't anyone invite me?
The brain is a very, very complicated organ that is still being mapped. We don't even know exactly what part of the brain is responsible for what. It changes, it is a complex matter.
We understand how the muscles work. We know that if they act one way or the other, the person's leg will move one way or the other.
We don't understand how the neurons interact with each other. The consciousness is the sum of the work of those cells we don't understand. So,
there's just a lot of neurons and they're complicated but there's no consciousness to be seen.
This seems rather obvious.
And then, you say 'maybe we can give this thing we don't know what is and we don't know for sure how to define for robots'. Ok, maybe. Maybe there's a FSM above us judging our actions. Maybe.
The study is authored by Holger Nielsen and Masao Ninomiya, who argue that the very particles the LHC produces will prevent the accelerator from ever being used. Harvard post-doc and CERN collaborator Kevin Black relates their argument to the grandfather paradox - that a particle like the Higgs boson goes back in time and prevents its own birth (i.e. the future changes the events of the present).
...and...
As evidence, they provide the failed Superconducting Super Collider, which Congress canned in 1993 after spending $2 billion on the project.
Australia is not alone either. I think there is a "race to the bottom" between the US, UK, and Australia as far as this goes anyways.
I live in Brazil and there's a law being discussed to do almost the same thing they are doing in Australia. I might be wrong, but it seems to me there's a general race towards government control of the net (wich has been widely discussed here before).
The vast majority of Australians think the Internet needs filtering.
Also, I've read a Scientific American issue about privacy in the computer age and many studies showed that Privacy in general is a dying concept. People just don't care about it anymore.
It says that, given that we exist, our universe must be the way it is.
You're right. It seems that Caroline Miller was talking about other extensions of the original idea which carry the same name. From wikipedia:
The anthropic principle has led to more than a little confusion and controversy, partly because several distinct ideas carry this label. All versions of the principle have been accused of providing simplistic explanations which undermine the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. The invocation of either multiple universes or an intelligent designer are highly controversial, and both ideas have received criticism for being untestable and therefore outside the purview of contemporary science.
The Anthropic Principle is based on the underlying belief that the universe was created for our benefit. Unfortunately for its adherents, all of the reality-based evidence at our disposal contradicts this belief. In a non-anthropocentric universe, there is no need for multiple universes or supernatural entities to explain life as we know it.
I think Occam's razor fits just right here. If we don't need a zillion universes, why would we say they exist?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm using /. to practice my English so your humorous observation will always be used to remember how to ask a question in the past tense correctly. I should even thank you :)
Writing in the board:
Why didn't anyone invite me?
Why didn't anyone invite me?
Why didn't anyone invite me?
Nah, I'm a foreigner. Me English not good.
It was far more nerdy to brag about how you programmed your computer or calculator to compute Pi to the 100th decimal place.
Or, you could have programmed your computer or calculator with the Pi language, which would be even more nerdy.
Around the years of the dot-com boom, successful nerds were driving Ferraris and going to cool parties.
Damn, I spent all this time playing online MUDs. Why nobody invited me?
We understand how the muscles work. We know that if they act one way or the other, the person's leg will move one way or the other.
We don't understand how the neurons interact with each other. The consciousness is the sum of the work of those cells we don't understand. So,
there's just a lot of neurons and they're complicated but there's no consciousness to be seen.
This seems rather obvious.
And then, you say 'maybe we can give this thing we don't know what is and we don't know for sure how to define for robots'. Ok, maybe. Maybe there's a FSM above us judging our actions. Maybe.
We can't. We're stuck in the joke horizon.
The study is authored by Holger Nielsen and Masao Ninomiya, who argue that the very particles the LHC produces will prevent the accelerator from ever being used. Harvard post-doc and CERN collaborator Kevin Black relates their argument to the grandfather paradox - that a particle like the Higgs boson goes back in time and prevents its own birth (i.e. the future changes the events of the present).
...and...
As evidence, they provide the failed Superconducting Super Collider, which Congress canned in 1993 after spending $2 billion on the project.
That would be lame. Imagine this dialogue:
Nerd guy: 'And then, we will be stuck in the event horizon and...'
Beautiful girl: 'Damn... So I have to use all the time that I have to make sex to all those non-nerd guys over there. Bye!'
...that the LHC's generated particles from the future will not let it function.
but informative you are not.
Is that you, master Yoda?
Australia is not alone either. I think there is a "race to the bottom" between the US, UK, and Australia as far as this goes anyways.
I live in Brazil and there's a law being discussed to do almost the same thing they are doing in Australia. I might be wrong, but it seems to me there's a general race towards government control of the net (wich has been widely discussed here before).
as apposed to countries like china or any asian or middle eastern country, which are just beacons of freedom
No, they are 'the bottom'.
The vast majority of Australians think the Internet needs filtering.
Also, I've read a Scientific American issue about privacy in the computer age and many studies showed that Privacy in general is a dying concept. People just don't care about it anymore.
Australia is the only one without a Space Agency, which impacts on many aspects of ordinary life,
So, how does the lack of a Space Agency impact your cricket matches?
Does Akira die frozen in the end? That would amuse the fans.
It says that, given that we exist, our universe must be the way it is.
You're right. It seems that Caroline Miller was talking about other extensions of the original idea which carry the same name. From wikipedia:
The anthropic principle has led to more than a little confusion and controversy, partly because several distinct ideas carry this label. All versions of the principle have been accused of providing simplistic explanations which undermine the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. The invocation of either multiple universes or an intelligent designer are highly controversial, and both ideas have received criticism for being untestable and therefore outside the purview of contemporary science.
The latest iteration of string theory provides a natural explanation for the anthropic principle.
And now, quoting Caroline Miller:
The Anthropic Principle is based on the underlying belief that the universe was created for our benefit. Unfortunately for its adherents, all of the reality-based evidence at our disposal contradicts this belief. In a non-anthropocentric universe, there is no need for multiple universes or supernatural entities to explain life as we know it.
I think Occam's razor fits just right here. If we don't need a zillion universes, why would we say they exist?
Great one! I found one link to the translated petition: http://www.usm.maine.edu/~phillips/candle.html
Can you use the internet? Imagine using a p2p network... you compile the files and give the .obj back to the linker. This could take ages.
Everyday I walk 20 minutes to get to work. I could take the bus - wich would take just as long, and would cost me much more.
So, how long until walking is prohibited? It seems pretty unfair to me, looking this way.
If you get many slow machines and a slow network, it'll actually take longer to compile - and you'll still be able to happily say that.
You only get to be a real nerd after you understand why String Theory is lame. I was not aware of that in High School.
'I know you did it.'
Giggling: Com'on, big boy, I know you did it! Tell me! Tell me everything!
Not so obligatory link: http://xkcd.com/221/
I was just trying to be funny. FAIL. Of course.