Sorry but the patent trolls who sue everybody will make you sign a NDA making your work closed source if you make hardware. So the days of having it in the kernel are over.
You realize you're commenting on a story about Intel, right? You know, the company that has Linux kernel developers writing open source drivers for their chipsets.
You just have to not activate the feature yourself. On the other hand, your peers will be relieved to have a more natural communication. I had a professor that while speaking with anyone never makes eye contact, looking to a corner of the ceiling... I cannot describe how disturbing that was.
Because no government would ever abuse such powers, turning into a totalitarian regime without hope of reverting back to democracy, right[U+2e2e]
If you want to take the risk, then you're really stupid. Unless for you it is not a risk, but the objective. Then you're waaaay more stupid than I thought.
I think it is time for you to stop lying to yourself.
Why do you think I'm lying to myself? And why do you think this very sentence is not best applied to you?
Everyone and I mean every single person on this earth is born selfish. Toddlers are a perfect example of this. We have to be taught to share.
I agree with you on this. It is somehow confusing to read this on the same paragraph where you say I'm lying to myself.:p
Given this, since you, by your own admission have no motivation to do selfless good to others, you are not going to bother. Every human activity is governed by motivations.
Where the fuck did you read me "admitting to have no motivation to do good"?
I am sorry but you just don't get it. Christianity, in a nutshell is about loving your neighbour as yourself.
Tell that to the Westboro Baptist Church.
I don't care how much self-delusional talk you might speak to yourself,
Oh! The irony is strong in this one!
every human has a hole in their heart.
Speak for your fucking self. It is so annoying how so many people project their own characteristics onto others. "I am miserable, therefore everybody must be secretly miserable, they just lie to themselves". No, you are wrong, get over it.
Many people try to fill that hole with money, possession, food, drink, drugs, sex, new experiences etc... but none of that works.
First, let me explain that your "hole" was created by your societal expectations, given the culture you're inserted in. Then, the rest of your sentence I fully agree. Although I'm an atheist, I have a deep respect for the Buddhists, because despite the supernatural crap, their understanding of our human condition is pretty solid. They get it right.
Do you think I was born a christian?
Nobody is born Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, or anything, simply because newborns lack the symbolic structures to understand the concept. But you pretty surely grown into a Christian, because of cultural exposure. Or do you think if you were born in, say, Bangladesh, you would be a Christian?
Do you think I never doubted or had to make a personal decision of faith?
No, too few people are so stupid to never doubt, but too many are stupid enough to take important things on faith.
If you think your life is so completely unique and that nobody would get why you are you and why you are an atheist, go read the book of Ecclesiastes. The author of that book tried everything you could imagine. He indulged in all sorts of pleasures but in the end he realized that none of it filled that hole in his heart. No earthly possession or experience can. Once you let that sink in, go read the gospels. Maybe start with John.
Almost two decades ago I read your Bible from cover to cover. Several years later I got to read some other books (for instance the one that tells the story of Jesus' youth) that didn't make into it, because Emperor Constantine had a specific political agenda. I also studied about some other religions, though I haven't read the Quran yet. From time to time I receive Mormons for a chat; they gave me the Book of Mormon.
Now tell me, have you ever studied something outside Christianity?
First read "The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice", by Christopher Hitchens, then come say how altruistic she was.
About atheist altruistic endeavors, you won't see many of them because: 1. the majority of atheists (myself included) are not organized in groups; 2. we don't publicize our good deeds in name of $DEITY, we don't publicize them at all.
Still, there are some atheist groups, such as the one in Austin, TX, that organizes these kinds of actions. You just have to look for it.
I'm pretty sure that even catholics still believe in free will but atheists like you don't.
You sure seem to think you know something about me, but clearly you don't. Free will is a complex matter, and I'm not in the mood for going into details. So cutting to the chase, for all practical purposes my subjective experience of reality seems to support free will.
So who is the drone?
By your butt-hurt tone, I guess that would be you.
My point is that praying is a quick fix for the guilt of not doing anything. You see people in need and think "I should do something", and then you "pray for Gawd" and you feel good again! You feel good, not the people that you thought you should help. So if this is the kind of person you are (and you know the majority of those 1.1 billion I mentioned are like that) then yes, you are a drone.
If you do believe in free will then perhaps you should have a discussion with one of those prominent atheists like Dawkins who do not. To him, you are just another drone.
Perhaps you don't understand his position? As I said, it is a complex subject, and can be analyzed in different levels, possibly leading to some confusion. I would suggest a closer study of his arguments, and Sam Harris' as well.
Could you elaborate on why LibreOffice is so much worse than OpenOffice? I use LibreOffice mostly for opening documents, or making some spreadsheets, so I have no idea what you're talking about (I mean, I'm no poweruser, for any serious documents I use TeX).
Suppose you have a file "X" in a hard disk, then you ''cat/dev/random >X; rm -f X', then you hammer the disk, and throw it into a volcano. I guess you will not be able to retrieve the information from that hard disk anymore.
But you say that is not the case for the mind, because supposedly we have this "metaphysical backup", which you call soul, that keeps all the information, even if the medium (body) is damaged. If that was the case, you would be able to consciously reroute information through other ways. For instance, if you get a brain damage specifically and only on the naming areas, that shouldn't be a problem, right? You still have that information on your "meta-backup"! You should still be able to route that information to your motor areas, to vocalize it or write it down.
Only problem is it never happened. Or perhaps I'm just not aware of it, could you point me to a credible instance of that happening?
You are still not specifying a rationale of how this would come to be, given your premises.
It would take a lot of time to explain this, that's the reason I pointed you to the TED talks. But if you want I may give you the links, so you don't have to search for the videos.
And, "emerge" is not a causal explanation, regardless of how frequently it used to handwave such without being such.
That's something orthogonal to the discussion at hand. We don't need to know the causes of something to observe that it indeed happens.
Sounds like direct intentional design of a functional, physically-reassignable (hence "resurrectable") soul to me.
It would be nice if that was true, but actually all the evidence we have so far is to the opposite of that. Brain disorders such as Alzheimer's (and dementia in general), Parkinson's, as well as injuries leading to comas, locked-in syndrome, etc., all show that our consciousness depends directly on our body. Supposing you had something that was not body-bound, you would expect that knowledge (memories) could be rerouted, but that doesn't happen. When you injure one part of your brain, that information is forever lost.
This is just like an optical illusion, just a consequence of how our 'hardware' processes information. One hypothesis of how our conscious minds emerge is based on the constance of our internal organs (proprioception), which perceptually change much less than our body's exterior (visual and somatosensory perception) while we age.
My take on this: when you sync your proprioception with your visual perception, you allow the exchange of properties (in this case location) between the two entities (self and external object). Just like it happens when you look at phantom limbs as reflections of real ones on a mirror, and you can actually feel the phantom.
For more on these, look for a TED talk by Dr. Antonio Damasio (about consciousness) and Dr. Ramachandran (phantom limbs).
Slashdot Mirror
I started reading "My sister" and immediately thought "hookers accepting bitcoin! neat!"
Please, don't "wait and see". Do something. Right now you are not the programmer, you are the code.
I never bought them, but I had to help friends and relatives to make the darn things work. I can't believe you were lucky enough not to.
The winmodems certainly make me wish it never happened.
Yep, I agree.
Now I know how they glue it together.
Sorry but the patent trolls who sue everybody will make you sign a NDA making your work closed source if you make hardware. So the days of having it in the kernel are over.
You realize you're commenting on a story about Intel, right? You know, the company that has Linux kernel developers writing open source drivers for their chipsets.
Good luck putting your rifle against a drone.
Apply it a forth time, just to make sure.
[comment encrypted with 4ROT13]
You just have to not activate the feature yourself. On the other hand, your peers will be relieved to have a more natural communication. I had a professor that while speaking with anyone never makes eye contact, looking to a corner of the ceiling... I cannot describe how disturbing that was.
Wow, you picked exactly two that were not their inventions... was that on purpose? But let me help you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=list+of+technologies+invented+by+nasa
The first link should be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies
If all propaganda programs delivered as much technology as this (allegedly) one, I wouldn't mind them at all.
Is it impossible for you to realize you're wrong? No. Do I have any hope it will happen? I don't think so.
And you know, there is this figure of speech called "hyperbole", used to emphasize an idea, perhaps you should study it.
So it's good we kept on the subject of "stupid", others might learn from your mistake.
Because no government would ever abuse such powers, turning into a totalitarian regime without hope of reverting back to democracy, right[U+2e2e]
If you want to take the risk, then you're really stupid. Unless for you it is not a risk, but the objective. Then you're waaaay more stupid than I thought.
I think it is time for you to stop lying to yourself.
Why do you think I'm lying to myself? And why do you think this very sentence is not best applied to you?
Everyone and I mean every single person on this earth is born selfish. Toddlers are a perfect example of this. We have to be taught to share.
I agree with you on this. It is somehow confusing to read this on the same paragraph where you say I'm lying to myself. :p
Given this, since you, by your own admission have no motivation to do selfless good to others, you are not going to bother. Every human activity is governed by motivations.
Where the fuck did you read me "admitting to have no motivation to do good"?
I am sorry but you just don't get it. Christianity, in a nutshell is about loving your neighbour as yourself.
Tell that to the Westboro Baptist Church.
I don't care how much self-delusional talk you might speak to yourself,
Oh! The irony is strong in this one!
every human has a hole in their heart.
Speak for your fucking self. It is so annoying how so many people project their own characteristics onto others. "I am miserable, therefore everybody must be secretly miserable, they just lie to themselves". No, you are wrong, get over it.
Many people try to fill that hole with money, possession, food, drink, drugs, sex, new experiences etc... but none of that works.
First, let me explain that your "hole" was created by your societal expectations, given the culture you're inserted in. Then, the rest of your sentence I fully agree.
Although I'm an atheist, I have a deep respect for the Buddhists, because despite the supernatural crap, their understanding of our human condition is pretty solid. They get it right.
Do you think I was born a christian?
Nobody is born Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, or anything, simply because newborns lack the symbolic structures to understand the concept. But you pretty surely grown into a Christian, because of cultural exposure. Or do you think if you were born in, say, Bangladesh, you would be a Christian?
Do you think I never doubted or had to make a personal decision of faith?
No, too few people are so stupid to never doubt, but too many are stupid enough to take important things on faith.
If you think your life is so completely unique and that nobody would get why you are you and why you are an atheist, go read the book of Ecclesiastes. The author of that book tried everything you could imagine. He indulged in all sorts of pleasures but in the end he realized that none of it filled that hole in his heart. No earthly possession or experience can. Once you let that sink in, go read the gospels. Maybe start with John.
Almost two decades ago I read your Bible from cover to cover. Several years later I got to read some other books (for instance the one that tells the story of Jesus' youth) that didn't make into it, because Emperor Constantine had a specific political agenda. I also studied about some other religions, though I haven't read the Quran yet. From time to time I receive Mormons for a chat; they gave me the Book of Mormon.
Now tell me, have you ever studied something outside Christianity?
And just for completion, the Latin singular of data is datum.
0.1" = 2.54mm .2".
0.2" = 5.08mm
4 - 2.54 = 1.46 > 1.08, therefore they should have said
Therefore fuck you imperial units.
First read "The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice", by Christopher Hitchens, then come say how altruistic she was.
About atheist altruistic endeavors, you won't see many of them because:
1. the majority of atheists (myself included) are not organized in groups;
2. we don't publicize our good deeds in name of $DEITY, we don't publicize them at all.
Still, there are some atheist groups, such as the one in Austin, TX, that organizes these kinds of actions. You just have to look for it.
I'm pretty sure that even catholics still believe in free will but atheists like you don't.
You sure seem to think you know something about me, but clearly you don't. Free will is a complex matter, and I'm not in the mood for going into details. So cutting to the chase, for all practical purposes my subjective experience of reality seems to support free will.
So who is the drone?
By your butt-hurt tone, I guess that would be you.
My point is that praying is a quick fix for the guilt of not doing anything. You see people in need and think "I should do something", and then you "pray for Gawd" and you feel good again! You feel good, not the people that you thought you should help. So if this is the kind of person you are (and you know the majority of those 1.1 billion I mentioned are like that) then yes, you are a drone.
If you do believe in free will then perhaps you should have a discussion with one of those prominent atheists like Dawkins who do not. To him, you are just another drone.
Perhaps you don't understand his position? As I said, it is a complex subject, and can be analyzed in different levels, possibly leading to some confusion. I would suggest a closer study of his arguments, and Sam Harris' as well.
Mother Teresa didn't have drones.
Yep, they weren't hers. The Catholic Church is the one owning around 1.1 billion drones.
Could you elaborate on why LibreOffice is so much worse than OpenOffice? I use LibreOffice mostly for opening documents, or making some spreadsheets, so I have no idea what you're talking about (I mean, I'm no poweruser, for any serious documents I use TeX).
Suppose you have a file "X" in a hard disk, then you ''cat /dev/random >X; rm -f X', then you hammer the disk, and throw it into a volcano. I guess you will not be able to retrieve the information from that hard disk anymore.
But you say that is not the case for the mind, because supposedly we have this "metaphysical backup", which you call soul, that keeps all the information, even if the medium (body) is damaged. If that was the case, you would be able to consciously reroute information through other ways. For instance, if you get a brain damage specifically and only on the naming areas, that shouldn't be a problem, right? You still have that information on your "meta-backup"! You should still be able to route that information to your motor areas, to vocalize it or write it down.
Only problem is it never happened. Or perhaps I'm just not aware of it, could you point me to a credible instance of that happening?
You are still not specifying a rationale of how this would come to be, given your premises.
It would take a lot of time to explain this, that's the reason I pointed you to the TED talks. But if you want I may give you the links, so you don't have to search for the videos.
And, "emerge" is not a causal explanation, regardless of how frequently it used to handwave such without being such.
That's something orthogonal to the discussion at hand. We don't need to know the causes of something to observe that it indeed happens.
I replied to the wrong post, this should be a reply to you.
But I'll add to it.
Sounds like direct intentional design of a functional, physically-reassignable (hence "resurrectable") soul to me.
It would be nice if that was true, but actually all the evidence we have so far is to the opposite of that. Brain disorders such as Alzheimer's (and dementia in general), Parkinson's, as well as injuries leading to comas, locked-in syndrome, etc., all show that our consciousness depends directly on our body. Supposing you had something that was not body-bound, you would expect that knowledge (memories) could be rerouted, but that doesn't happen. When you injure one part of your brain, that information is forever lost.
This is just like an optical illusion, just a consequence of how our 'hardware' processes information. One hypothesis of how our conscious minds emerge is based on the constance of our internal organs (proprioception), which perceptually change much less than our body's exterior (visual and somatosensory perception) while we age.
My take on this: when you sync your proprioception with your visual perception, you allow the exchange of properties (in this case location) between the two entities (self and external object). Just like it happens when you look at phantom limbs as reflections of real ones on a mirror, and you can actually feel the phantom.
For more on these, look for a TED talk by Dr. Antonio Damasio (about consciousness) and Dr. Ramachandran (phantom limbs).