Yea, you know a lot of psychopathic serial killers released their frustrations now and then on cats and small animals.
Because that was a better alternative at the time than on people. Sorta filled the same role that a digital city where you can kill people and cops (GTA anyone?) does.
This is not a rebuttal to your statement, as I think you're inclined to agree with me, however I thought I might clear up a common misconception.
Psychopaths typically start small, like you said, and then escalate their behaviour up to the nasty stuff. It tends to be a cycle of doing something and fantasising about doing something. The mistake is to assume that the fantasising isn't "bad", or is somehow desirable compared to the physical acts. This isn't usually the case, as typically fantasising only makes them want to do it "for real" more.
Source: Some forensic psychologist whose talk I attended years ago.
If you acknowledge the equivalence between "consistent and objective answers" and "truth"...
I don't. I'm talking about consistent and objective answers in terms of "What happens to the boiling point when we do this? Oh, it goes down.", that's different from truth in terms of giving us an account of how our universe works.
The difference in a scientist is not that they do not have opinions as well, but that they do have a process to arrive at the same answers given the same data regardless of opinion and that they do understand this process and can use it at will. Well, in practice it doe not work quite that well and there are a number of corrupt scientists, that will, e.g. lie in order to get funding or attention.
It's not just a matter of "corruption". It's frequently the case that any set of results will have multiple possible interperetations. Which of those you then use to explain the data will depend on your background and your worldview.
I remember being quite into the Might and Magic games at the time, but I had gameplay issues even with those!
I always found the idea of having a party of characters that somehow all stood on the same spot and moved as a single unit quite strange. It was difficult to think of it as an actual group of people, maybe more appropriate some sort of bizarre shapeshifter "FORM OF... A RANGER!".
My main problem with Oblivion was that the world was so homogeneous compared to Morrowind. It just felt *small*. Morrowind, despite it's earlier engine, manages to have more striking scenery. I'd go so far as to call it beautiful.
Scientists are people too, with their own beliefs and prejudices. If you read Kuhn (which you absolutely should do if you like science) you'll see how this is important to scientific process.
There is nothing "magical" about scientists that makes them better than normal people. Indeed, there is no transcendental property to the scientific method that makes it some kind of unique window to "truth". It's just a tool that we use to try to get consistent and objective answers to questions about the universe.
(nevermind that even the authors of that study themselves admitted that they were unable to pin down a causative agent for the alleged damage)
Determining the aetiology of diseases can be very difficult. We still don't know how many common diseases are caused. This does not mean that they don't exist.
I could write a quick program on my laptop that took input from the webcam and performed some sort of function on it. I could show the input and the output in little windows on the screen, and then the code as it runs the program to show its "thoughts". This would not be a demonstration of my computer having a conscious experience of perceiving and cogitating.
I get the impression that the Mac platform is used a lot by scientists as their "office" computer. Internet, writing, running modelling software etc. It might just be my field, but over 50% of the people I've seen presenting talks at conferences etc. have brought MacBooks with them (including a surprising number of MacBook Airs, who'd have thought they'd be able to sell those at all?).
I do wonder whether it might be a "cliquey" thing though, and not general to all scientific research. I guess being able to get grants to cover your computer equipment might encourage you to splash out on the prettiest stuff too.
Controlling equipment, however, seems much more likely to require Windows or some kind of bespoke OS.
"Also note, the important part of the brain is the structure. As long as it's kept intact, the memories and personality remain intact as well."
Oh Jesus...
No. Just no.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, you know a lot of psychopathic serial killers released their frustrations now and then on cats and small animals. Because that was a better alternative at the time than on people. Sorta filled the same role that a digital city where you can kill people and cops (GTA anyone?) does.
This is not a rebuttal to your statement, as I think you're inclined to agree with me, however I thought I might clear up a common misconception.
Psychopaths typically start small, like you said, and then escalate their behaviour up to the nasty stuff. It tends to be a cycle of doing something and fantasising about doing something. The mistake is to assume that the fantasising isn't "bad", or is somehow desirable compared to the physical acts. This isn't usually the case, as typically fantasising only makes them want to do it "for real" more.
Source: Some forensic psychologist whose talk I attended years ago.
If you acknowledge the equivalence between "consistent and objective answers" and "truth"...
I don't. I'm talking about consistent and objective answers in terms of "What happens to the boiling point when we do this? Oh, it goes down.", that's different from truth in terms of giving us an account of how our universe works.
The difference in a scientist is not that they do not have opinions as well, but that they do have a process to arrive at the same answers given the same data regardless of opinion and that they do understand this process and can use it at will. Well, in practice it doe not work quite that well and there are a number of corrupt scientists, that will, e.g. lie in order to get funding or attention.
It's not just a matter of "corruption". It's frequently the case that any set of results will have multiple possible interperetations. Which of those you then use to explain the data will depend on your background and your worldview.
I remember being quite into the Might and Magic games at the time, but I had gameplay issues even with those!
I always found the idea of having a party of characters that somehow all stood on the same spot and moved as a single unit quite strange. It was difficult to think of it as an actual group of people, maybe more appropriate some sort of bizarre shapeshifter "FORM OF... A RANGER!".
My main problem with Oblivion was that the world was so homogeneous compared to Morrowind. It just felt *small*. Morrowind, despite it's earlier engine, manages to have more striking scenery. I'd go so far as to call it beautiful.
Scientists are people too, with their own beliefs and prejudices. If you read Kuhn (which you absolutely should do if you like science) you'll see how this is important to scientific process.
There is nothing "magical" about scientists that makes them better than normal people. Indeed, there is no transcendental property to the scientific method that makes it some kind of unique window to "truth". It's just a tool that we use to try to get consistent and objective answers to questions about the universe.
(nevermind that even the authors of that study themselves admitted that they were unable to pin down a causative agent for the alleged damage)
Determining the aetiology of diseases can be very difficult. We still don't know how many common diseases are caused. This does not mean that they don't exist.
Just yesterday I installed Wizardry 8
That is the first game I ever returned to the store for "sucking".
Damn those no-good raisins! We would have gotten away with it if it weren't for them!
Do I even need to ask which philosopher it is that you believe is not spouting "nonsense"?
I could write a quick program on my laptop that took input from the webcam and performed some sort of function on it. I could show the input and the output in little windows on the screen, and then the code as it runs the program to show its "thoughts". This would not be a demonstration of my computer having a conscious experience of perceiving and cogitating.
A fruit fly is bigger than a fruit fly's brain however, that'd be a better place to start.
Firefox running with NoScript
Just to whinge for a moment, Firefox+NoScript really get on my tits. Seems like it wants to add a new update to one or the other every bloody day.
Mouse Organ Sketch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9nGyPz9uT0
Since you're the last living 4-digit. HANG IN THERE!
I get the impression that the Mac platform is used a lot by scientists as their "office" computer. Internet, writing, running modelling software etc. It might just be my field, but over 50% of the people I've seen presenting talks at conferences etc. have brought MacBooks with them (including a surprising number of MacBook Airs, who'd have thought they'd be able to sell those at all?).
I do wonder whether it might be a "cliquey" thing though, and not general to all scientific research. I guess being able to get grants to cover your computer equipment might encourage you to splash out on the prettiest stuff too.
Controlling equipment, however, seems much more likely to require Windows or some kind of bespoke OS.
Not to be pedantic, but music is one of the arts, you know?
"consulting the indices"
Looks to me like they just don't want the documents ruined by loads of people browsing through them aimlessly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier
But ANY sound can be broken down into sinusoidal components.
Yeah, that's why judgements are made in court on a case-by-case basis.
or...
gb2wikipedia
Are you sure your university doesn't give you a login to use to access journals off-campus?
"Also note, the important part of the brain is the structure. As long as it's kept intact, the memories and personality remain intact as well." Oh Jesus... No. Just no.
But will they have Airwolf, lasers and the head of Keith Moon? http://m.assetbar.com/achewood/uuacdNd5L
http://m.assetbar.com/achewood/uuacmn9vC This is why.
Wow, your PC is older than most of the people on Slashdot (mental age).
Or this Peter Serafinowicz sketch, it's all coming true!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGGOn-H7s3Q
In that case why is it continuous with the glare that's on areas that aren't the screen?