Oh fuck... I stop using preview and look where it gets me! Let me repeat that post:
The best description of a "soul" from a scientific/mathematical standpoint that I've ever read was in Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach. Describing how the soul arises out of inanimate manner is basically the thesis of the book, though it's broad enough that it takes a while to get there. Worth the journey, though, in my opinion. He just came out with a new book on the same point that sounds a lot more succinct: I Am A Strange Loop. Haven't read it yet, though.
If you're interested in consciousness from a scientific/mathematical standpoint, I can't recommend his stuff highly enough.
Having spent some time bringing old computers to Africa, I can say it's a very complex issue. Seems like most unsolved problems are, unfortunately. It is certainly true that sending old computers over there is pretty much useless, and from the article, possibly outright bad.
I'll just say this: in the project I worked with, it wasn't so much that then needed computers as it was they needed the infrastructure to support them. I mean "infrastruture" on many levels: security to keep them from being stolen, the power grid staying up enough to use them consistently, the teachers in the schools being taught (one-on-one, hands on) how to use them in classrooms, support staff for repairs and usage issues, etc.
There is such a need and desire, and good people, yet progress is stymied by disfunction on so many levels. Trying to accomplish things in Africa reminds one just how lucky we are in a relatively clockwork society. So much that we take for granted is nearly impossible without the social mechanics in place. Doesn't matter how smart you are, if the world around you is dysfunctional, good luck.
The project I was part of has been amazingly successful, mainly because it's relatively small in scope, and there is a huge focus on follow-through. We would routinely have to push aside much more advanced equipment that failed because of lack of follow through. I don't know for sure, but I imagine this is true in other domains too: sending over "stuff", be it computers or food, is not nearly as valuable as sending over people who can plant the seeds of a more functional society.
Your take is absolutely correct. A place I worked got a letter from NCR once we got big enough. It basically said: "You are in the computer industry, therefore you are almost surely violating some of our patents. Either cough up x% of your revenue, or we'll go to court and find out which patents you're violating."
I have a lot of respect for good ideas, but I tend to agree with Derek Sivers take on ideas vs. execution. (You'll have to scroll down to the part where it says "be an executioner").
So as specific advice I'd say: make the game yourself. If it's beyond your skills, get people to go in on it with you as a team. Hire them if you must. If the idea is really good, it should be worth executing, right? Take your idea as far as you can. Go beyond a "rough as nails" demo and into the space of a great indie game. Get it on Steam or some other distribution network.
Eventually, if you make a company that executes things well, or if you find your way to the top of such a company, then your ideas will be worth a lot more because you'll have the ability to execute them. For starters I think that the only way to see if your ideas are truly worth something is to execute them yourself. Be your own first believer.
This is such a common problem -- nearly every 16:9 screen I have seen in someone's home is playing video at the wrong aspect ratio! It's absolutely nutty to me that in the interest of getting a better picture, people are often ending up with a worse picture by almost any measure.
I've tried to help people out with it, showing them the different modes and such. Even if they get it, getting them to actually switch ratios between different source material is another matter. Usually they just accept it stretched, or cut off, or whatever. That's all fine if they're happy, but it's a bit odd to spend so much money on these things when you're not particularly discriminating. For example, I buy Two Buck Chuck because I can't really tell the difference with finer wine.
In the end, it's pretty much unforgivable that there was no system developed by manufacturers for the introduction of 16:9 TVs and signals that would auto-format the content to the proper aspect ratio. There absolutely had to have been a way to make it so that regular people didn't have to worry about it. As it is, it's like fingernails on chalkboard when I see TV at someone else's house.
I essentially agree with you, but what is unfortunate is that if you talk like that you'll almost surely get sidelined and/or fired. Seen it happen several times. Unless you're the CEO (this guy is, so it works) being a straight-shooting loudmouth is often employment suicide. If you stand up, things don't actually get better, you just disappear and the same-old-same-old continues. Maybe if more people stood up together it would work? But the majority have bills and such that keep them from rocking the boat.
I doubt it. The pay rates have absolutely changed many times since the code was written. Without extraordinary evidence I refuse to believe the pay rate change would be that difficult. This is just a lame excuse.
The very article you link to specifies further down the page that Crick's use of the word "dogma" was incorrect and troublesome. I think the original poster was correct.
Yeah, but come on: just about everyone we're talking about here does know about the contract and what it stipulates. The company providing the clone is already getting their fireproof suits on for the lawsuits because everyone knows that the contract does not allow installation on non-Apple hardware.
I am an Apple software/hardware user, but I still fall on the freedom side of the fence. So I'm okay with clone makers. The law may or may not agree with me. In any case, if people start installing on non-Apple systems, they'll probably just raise the price or something. Apple's got their numbers worked out and if the rules change, they'll redo their numbers.
Why would any god paradox apply to aliens? Nobody said the aliens are all powerful, so the standard paradox doesn't apply. I'd agree it's unlikely that aliens are visiting earth, but I don't see any reason to think it's impossible.
I'll agree there was uncertainty, but I maintain that I thought at the time it was unlikely that Iraq had WMDs, and I know I was not the only one. You seem intent on claiming it's all hindsight, but some people have different interpretations of the data. I remember distinctly being shocked by the "prove you don't have WMDs" mantra that was going around at the time. How can you "prove" that other than letting inspectors in, which he did, and which we weren't satisfied with? The whole thing seemed Kafkaesque to me in the moment. After the first gulf war and a decade or so of sanctions, it made no sense for him to encourage a war with the US. And as far as I could tell, he wasn't trying to. But it seemed we wanted a war no matter what, and that scared me. The fact that some people seem to claim it was nearly inevitable is double scary.
You may never believe what I'm saying, but I know there were plenty of people, with reasonable uncertainty, who did not think Iraq had WMDs. The side that _was_ certain about their claims was the side that claimed he did have WMDs, and they were wrong. So I'm not sure "certainty" is quite so clear cut as it seems.
Sorry, I'm overposting now, but I really am baffled by your position that nobody thought Iraq was clean before the war. Do you recall that Bill O'Reilly, in March 2003, said that "if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again."
Do you think he said that out of thin air? Or is it possible that someone was arguing at the time that there were no WMDs?
Hindsight bullshit? That's some pretty wild speculation. Would you like me to forward you the email exchanges I was having with the war hungry members of my family back in 2002? How would you like some photos of the war protests going on in my hometown? You can probably dig up some of my posts from back then too.
As to not responding in time to avoid your criticism, sorry that I went out for the day to enjoy my life.
Here's my wild speculation: it sounds like you were fooled by the administration and the complicit American media, and that bugs you so much that you don't want to admit anyone else could have not been fooled. But you're wrong. We all make bad calls sometimes; learn from it and get over it. If a few million people learn to see through propaganda, maybe we can avoid such a colossal fuck up in the future.
When the media obviously parrots everything the administration says on such a serious issue without question, as you've basically said was the case, doesn't it behoove you to look a little further? I'm just a regular guy who reads Google news; there were plenty of reports of the UN inspectors saying there were no WMDs. I think the real question is why _you_ think this information was so hard to come by when it was right out there for me and so many war protesters at the time. I suppose people only see what they want to see?
What's bullshit? Sure, the vast majority believed in WMDs. Like I said maybe 2/3. You want 3/4? 4/5? Fine. But there were still plenty of war protests going on and people speaking out against the invasion; people who were willing to listen to UN inspectors and other nations. Where were you? Did you dismiss all of that? Or if you don't recall the dissent, you really should diversify your sources of information. Google news is a start, as they include non-US perspectives.
What are you talking about? He said he didn't have any, and (after dicking around a bit) he let in UN weapons inspectors, and they said he didn't have any. The the US ignored this info, fabricated their own with faulty intelligence, and invaded.
I don't like Saddam at all, but I knew, as did a large portion of Americans who were listening to more than just the US administration, that Iraq did not have WMDs and that an invasion was a bad idea. I had arguments to this effect with many people at the time, but about 2/3 of the nation was in a rabid war frenzy. I'd say about 1/2 still are.
Our nation fucked up -- please stop trying to rewrite history.
As someone who has been involved with both sides of an affiliate program myself, I tend not to agree with your assessment. The company I worked for did an amazingly good job of keeping spammers from promoting our products. We had people on this continuously. These aren't random folks, they're people who we are paying (i.e. have an ongoing legal business relationship with) to bring customers to us. You can damn well bet it's our responsibility to make sure they act appropriately: they're our employees (claims of "independent contractor" notwithstanding).
I think that a reasonable legal framework for applying pressure to companies that benefit from spammers is warranted. I would have been glad to work under such a framework myself. Really, there's no excuse.
...just because "bad boys" get more women doesn't mean that all (or most) women like bad boys. I know plenty of girls who prefer good guys. And every good guy I know who puts in a little effort dips their wick plenty. It's probably true that good guys tend towards longer term relationships, and thus they have fewer different girls, but who cares? Personally I find sex improves with familiarity.
This article is just more of the contest mentality that makes most people feel crappy about themselves. There's a lot of good people out there, more than enough for everyone. Be good, be yourself, be assertive with your attraction. Assume until you're told otherwise that the girl wants you too. Don't worry about what others think of your sex life; just have a good time with your partner.
I don't know man, that doesn't sound entirely honest to me. While I think that the music and film industries are terribly inefficient and the product overpriced, it's just not right to make use of someone elses work if they request payment for it and you refuse. In that case you just don't make use of their product.
Sure, you can get the "benefits" some other way -- say by finding artists who give music away freely, or by writing songs yourself. And then hey, you could give your songs away. A good model for this is open source software. I have a lot more respect for Stallman, Torvalds, de Icaza, and Wall than I do for random kids throwing up crackz on pirate bay. I think it's fairly obvious who is retaining the moral high ground.
I understand that copyright infringement is not theft, but that doesn't mean that copyright infringement is good. Let's say the record companies and movie studios went away. And you were dealing directly with the people who spent their time creating stuff. Would you still look in their face and say you weren't willing to pay for their stuff but you were going to use it anyway? Would you say this to a friend? Do you expect that if this attitude was widespread that it would encourage the useful arts and sciences?
I thought that designing nuclear weapons was relatively easy -- gun type, at least. I thought the hard part was gathering and enriching the uranium in large enough quantities. It's not so much a knowledge limitation as a means limitation? How important are "plans" when you can pull a Hiroshima level explosion with relatively basic tech? It doesn't need to be the most efficient weapon. I'd be more worried about theft of weapons grade radioactive materials.
But what do I know... I just read Wikipedia a lot:)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh fuck... I stop using preview and look where it gets me! Let me repeat that post:
The best description of a "soul" from a scientific/mathematical standpoint that I've ever read was in Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach. Describing how the soul arises out of inanimate manner is basically the thesis of the book, though it's broad enough that it takes a while to get there. Worth the journey, though, in my opinion. He just came out with a new book on the same point that sounds a lot more succinct: I Am A Strange Loop. Haven't read it yet, though.
If you're interested in consciousness from a scientific/mathematical standpoint, I can't recommend his stuff highly enough.
Cheers.
The best description of a "soul" from a scientific/mathematical standpoint that I've ever read was in Hofstadter's . Describing how the soul arises out of seemingly nothing is basically the thesis of the book, though it's broad enough that it takes a while to get there. Worth the journey, though, in my opinion. He just came out with a new book on the same point that sounds a lot more succinct: I Am A Strange Loop. Haven't read it yet, though.
If you're interested in consciousness from a scientific/mathematical standpoin, I can't recommend his stuff highly enough.
Cheers.
Dude, lose the girlfriend. If she's so quick to pull one over on them, pulling one over on you probably isn't far behind.
Good luck!
Good thoughts... thanks.
Having spent some time bringing old computers to Africa, I can say it's a very complex issue. Seems like most unsolved problems are, unfortunately. It is certainly true that sending old computers over there is pretty much useless, and from the article, possibly outright bad.
I'll just say this: in the project I worked with, it wasn't so much that then needed computers as it was they needed the infrastructure to support them. I mean "infrastruture" on many levels: security to keep them from being stolen, the power grid staying up enough to use them consistently, the teachers in the schools being taught (one-on-one, hands on) how to use them in classrooms, support staff for repairs and usage issues, etc.
There is such a need and desire, and good people, yet progress is stymied by disfunction on so many levels. Trying to accomplish things in Africa reminds one just how lucky we are in a relatively clockwork society. So much that we take for granted is nearly impossible without the social mechanics in place. Doesn't matter how smart you are, if the world around you is dysfunctional, good luck.
The project I was part of has been amazingly successful, mainly because it's relatively small in scope, and there is a huge focus on follow-through. We would routinely have to push aside much more advanced equipment that failed because of lack of follow through. I don't know for sure, but I imagine this is true in other domains too: sending over "stuff", be it computers or food, is not nearly as valuable as sending over people who can plant the seeds of a more functional society.
That's my quick brain dump on this topic.
Your take is absolutely correct. A place I worked got a letter from NCR once we got big enough. It basically said: "You are in the computer industry, therefore you are almost surely violating some of our patents. Either cough up x% of your revenue, or we'll go to court and find out which patents you're violating."
I have a lot of respect for good ideas, but I tend to agree with Derek Sivers take on ideas vs. execution. (You'll have to scroll down to the part where it says "be an executioner").
So as specific advice I'd say: make the game yourself. If it's beyond your skills, get people to go in on it with you as a team. Hire them if you must. If the idea is really good, it should be worth executing, right? Take your idea as far as you can. Go beyond a "rough as nails" demo and into the space of a great indie game. Get it on Steam or some other distribution network.
Eventually, if you make a company that executes things well, or if you find your way to the top of such a company, then your ideas will be worth a lot more because you'll have the ability to execute them. For starters I think that the only way to see if your ideas are truly worth something is to execute them yourself. Be your own first believer.
Best of luck.
This is such a common problem -- nearly every 16:9 screen I have seen in someone's home is playing video at the wrong aspect ratio! It's absolutely nutty to me that in the interest of getting a better picture, people are often ending up with a worse picture by almost any measure.
I've tried to help people out with it, showing them the different modes and such. Even if they get it, getting them to actually switch ratios between different source material is another matter. Usually they just accept it stretched, or cut off, or whatever. That's all fine if they're happy, but it's a bit odd to spend so much money on these things when you're not particularly discriminating. For example, I buy Two Buck Chuck because I can't really tell the difference with finer wine.
In the end, it's pretty much unforgivable that there was no system developed by manufacturers for the introduction of 16:9 TVs and signals that would auto-format the content to the proper aspect ratio. There absolutely had to have been a way to make it so that regular people didn't have to worry about it. As it is, it's like fingernails on chalkboard when I see TV at someone else's house.
Bah.
I essentially agree with you, but what is unfortunate is that if you talk like that you'll almost surely get sidelined and/or fired. Seen it happen several times. Unless you're the CEO (this guy is, so it works) being a straight-shooting loudmouth is often employment suicide. If you stand up, things don't actually get better, you just disappear and the same-old-same-old continues. Maybe if more people stood up together it would work? But the majority have bills and such that keep them from rocking the boat.
Cheers.
I doubt it. The pay rates have absolutely changed many times since the code was written. Without extraordinary evidence I refuse to believe the pay rate change would be that difficult. This is just a lame excuse.
The very article you link to specifies further down the page that Crick's use of the word "dogma" was incorrect and troublesome. I think the original poster was correct.
Cheers.
The data I'd be more worried about giving to a company are my home movies... if you catch my drift.
Yeah, but come on: just about everyone we're talking about here does know about the contract and what it stipulates. The company providing the clone is already getting their fireproof suits on for the lawsuits because everyone knows that the contract does not allow installation on non-Apple hardware.
I am an Apple software/hardware user, but I still fall on the freedom side of the fence. So I'm okay with clone makers. The law may or may not agree with me. In any case, if people start installing on non-Apple systems, they'll probably just raise the price or something. Apple's got their numbers worked out and if the rules change, they'll redo their numbers.
Cheers.
Why would any god paradox apply to aliens? Nobody said the aliens are all powerful, so the standard paradox doesn't apply. I'd agree it's unlikely that aliens are visiting earth, but I don't see any reason to think it's impossible.
Cheers.
Thanks for the response.
I'll agree there was uncertainty, but I maintain that I thought at the time it was unlikely that Iraq had WMDs, and I know I was not the only one. You seem intent on claiming it's all hindsight, but some people have different interpretations of the data. I remember distinctly being shocked by the "prove you don't have WMDs" mantra that was going around at the time. How can you "prove" that other than letting inspectors in, which he did, and which we weren't satisfied with? The whole thing seemed Kafkaesque to me in the moment. After the first gulf war and a decade or so of sanctions, it made no sense for him to encourage a war with the US. And as far as I could tell, he wasn't trying to. But it seemed we wanted a war no matter what, and that scared me. The fact that some people seem to claim it was nearly inevitable is double scary.
You may never believe what I'm saying, but I know there were plenty of people, with reasonable uncertainty, who did not think Iraq had WMDs. The side that _was_ certain about their claims was the side that claimed he did have WMDs, and they were wrong. So I'm not sure "certainty" is quite so clear cut as it seems.
Cheers.
Sorry, I'm overposting now, but I really am baffled by your position that nobody thought Iraq was clean before the war. Do you recall that Bill O'Reilly, in March 2003, said that "if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again."
Do you think he said that out of thin air? Or is it possible that someone was arguing at the time that there were no WMDs?
How many people actually believed that he had nothing?
At the very least, me and Hans Blix.
Why do you have such a hard time accepting that you and the US majority were wrong?
Hindsight bullshit? That's some pretty wild speculation. Would you like me to forward you the email exchanges I was having with the war hungry members of my family back in 2002? How would you like some photos of the war protests going on in my hometown? You can probably dig up some of my posts from back then too.
As to not responding in time to avoid your criticism, sorry that I went out for the day to enjoy my life.
Here's my wild speculation: it sounds like you were fooled by the administration and the complicit American media, and that bugs you so much that you don't want to admit anyone else could have not been fooled. But you're wrong. We all make bad calls sometimes; learn from it and get over it. If a few million people learn to see through propaganda, maybe we can avoid such a colossal fuck up in the future.
Cheers.
When the media obviously parrots everything the administration says on such a serious issue without question, as you've basically said was the case, doesn't it behoove you to look a little further? I'm just a regular guy who reads Google news; there were plenty of reports of the UN inspectors saying there were no WMDs. I think the real question is why _you_ think this information was so hard to come by when it was right out there for me and so many war protesters at the time. I suppose people only see what they want to see?
Cheers.
What's bullshit? Sure, the vast majority believed in WMDs. Like I said maybe 2/3. You want 3/4? 4/5? Fine. But there were still plenty of war protests going on and people speaking out against the invasion; people who were willing to listen to UN inspectors and other nations. Where were you? Did you dismiss all of that? Or if you don't recall the dissent, you really should diversify your sources of information. Google news is a start, as they include non-US perspectives.
Cheers.
What are you talking about? He said he didn't have any, and (after dicking around a bit) he let in UN weapons inspectors, and they said he didn't have any. The the US ignored this info, fabricated their own with faulty intelligence, and invaded.
I don't like Saddam at all, but I knew, as did a large portion of Americans who were listening to more than just the US administration, that Iraq did not have WMDs and that an invasion was a bad idea. I had arguments to this effect with many people at the time, but about 2/3 of the nation was in a rabid war frenzy. I'd say about 1/2 still are.
Our nation fucked up -- please stop trying to rewrite history.
As someone who has been involved with both sides of an affiliate program myself, I tend not to agree with your assessment. The company I worked for did an amazingly good job of keeping spammers from promoting our products. We had people on this continuously. These aren't random folks, they're people who we are paying (i.e. have an ongoing legal business relationship with) to bring customers to us. You can damn well bet it's our responsibility to make sure they act appropriately: they're our employees (claims of "independent contractor" notwithstanding).
I think that a reasonable legal framework for applying pressure to companies that benefit from spammers is warranted. I would have been glad to work under such a framework myself. Really, there's no excuse.
Cheers.
...just because "bad boys" get more women doesn't mean that all (or most) women like bad boys. I know plenty of girls who prefer good guys. And every good guy I know who puts in a little effort dips their wick plenty. It's probably true that good guys tend towards longer term relationships, and thus they have fewer different girls, but who cares? Personally I find sex improves with familiarity.
This article is just more of the contest mentality that makes most people feel crappy about themselves. There's a lot of good people out there, more than enough for everyone. Be good, be yourself, be assertive with your attraction. Assume until you're told otherwise that the girl wants you too. Don't worry about what others think of your sex life; just have a good time with your partner.
Cheers.
I don't know man, that doesn't sound entirely honest to me. While I think that the music and film industries are terribly inefficient and the product overpriced, it's just not right to make use of someone elses work if they request payment for it and you refuse. In that case you just don't make use of their product.
Sure, you can get the "benefits" some other way -- say by finding artists who give music away freely, or by writing songs yourself. And then hey, you could give your songs away. A good model for this is open source software. I have a lot more respect for Stallman, Torvalds, de Icaza, and Wall than I do for random kids throwing up crackz on pirate bay. I think it's fairly obvious who is retaining the moral high ground.
I understand that copyright infringement is not theft, but that doesn't mean that copyright infringement is good. Let's say the record companies and movie studios went away. And you were dealing directly with the people who spent their time creating stuff. Would you still look in their face and say you weren't willing to pay for their stuff but you were going to use it anyway? Would you say this to a friend? Do you expect that if this attitude was widespread that it would encourage the useful arts and sciences?
Think about it. Cheers.
I thought that designing nuclear weapons was relatively easy -- gun type, at least. I thought the hard part was gathering and enriching the uranium in large enough quantities. It's not so much a knowledge limitation as a means limitation? How important are "plans" when you can pull a Hiroshima level explosion with relatively basic tech? It doesn't need to be the most efficient weapon. I'd be more worried about theft of weapons grade radioactive materials.
:)
But what do I know... I just read Wikipedia a lot