Microsoft know very well that all they need to do is butter up some highly placed government officials with vague promises. They will take advantage of the fact that the more highly placed those officials are, the less likelihood that they will have any meaningful kind of grasp of the issues at stake. Do you imagine that the free software organizations will be consulted about what's on offer? I doubt it personally.
What will happen is that Microsoft will craft some cosmetically tasty deal that pays lip service to open source but with hidden strings that will make the overall package fall far short of the utility of truly free software. These hidden strings will completely escape the notice of the government officials who are unlikely to be sufficiently paranoid about Microsoft's intentions and insufficiently knowledgeable about software in general.
Anyway this apparently tasty deal will be offered under the condition that it has to be agreed to within a very short time frame - possibly with extra conditions of secrecy - but in any event the overall effect will be to render it impossible for the terms to be subjected to any kind of informed public scrutiny at least until the deal has been signed.
Note that the foregoing makes no damning assumptions about the probity of the individuals concerned. It could all take place just as I've outlined with no dirty money changing hands.
We all know that the Indian mnisters & civil servants involved would much rather be seen to have cut an apparently great deal with nice, shiny, modern rich Western Microsoft than be seen to have to settle for the cheap option. After all that's the way it is: it's all about how it will seem to them, how they think they will be seen by others of their own clique, than it is about the substance of such a deal or how it will appear to a bunch of troublesome leftist intellectuals and geeky engineer types.
The problem is a fundamental one, too big to be overcome in a single small issue like this one. It is all about how societies allow themselves to be governed. It is about where we allow ministers to make grand decisions and civil servants to implement them, without adequate public accountability every step of the way.
The alarming reality is that most modern governments (even in the US, the UK and Australia and very probably in India too) are in practice no more democratic nor less high-handed and patrician now than their forebears of the early 19th Century were. This will not change anywhere until the people demand it en masse. i.e. it will require more than the geekiest 2% of the population to make a stand before anything can happen.
You arrogant little bastard. You are talking about disenfranchising a significant proportion of the country, a fraction that we will all belong to some day. I thank God that people like you are generally too stupid to know when to keep your mouths shut.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
In my case, daycare has helped. Even if I were to stay home, it would be necessary. I become depressed and dependent when I stay at home for prolonged periods of time with my daughter. I can't take care of her if I don't take care of myself. This is not an issue of self-indulgence. It's an issue of survival.
<p>If that is so, then like so many of the "me" generation, you are an utter failure as a parent.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
You forgot to mention virtually unlimited quantities of hydrocarbons from the gas giants. And perhaps an equal mass in the Oort cloud farther out. The asteroid belt also containts plenty of hydrocarbons, in carbonaceous chondrites. And plenty of metals (including currently expensive noble metals) in their reduced form since there's no oxidation in a vacuum.
Peter F Hamilton suggests in his Night's Dawn series of SF novels that Tritium mining from the gas giants would be a major driver once we have fusion technology working.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
The difference between those two scenarios isn't hard to figure out. If they think they can show that you've seen their code, they can stop you writing code. If you think you can show that they've seen your code, you can't do shit.
It pains me to have to spell it out to you, but Microsoft are powerful and can afford as many lawyers as it takes to get their own way. Because that *is* all it takes, and it's the only thing that will do. Justice has nothing to do with it.
In the US, corporations own the law. The small guy exists at their sufferance.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Peter Jackson rules. Ever seen "Braindead"? (aka."Dead Alive"). The scene where Timothy mows down a room full of zombies by walking up and down holding a lawnmower at head height is a classic!
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
E is dangerous. Lots of people have died in various ways as a direct result of taking it. Ditto heroin, crack and LSD. You don't want to believe that so you always pretend it was something else that killed them. This is called denial. Wake up to reality, boy: drugs are dumb.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
However, I doubt anyone has (or for that matter even could) predict all possible permutations of changing those variables. It might be that the aspects of the universe that we consider important would cease to be interesting, but that other aspects would become complex under some permutations. Or it might be that there are other combinations that allow for sufficient complexity for life to emerge.
</blockquote>
<p>
A very good point indeed, perhaps the best one made in the whole debate.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
It's not clear to me what it means to say that alternate universes "exist" if there's no chance that this universe will ever interact with them. If they are completely undetectable and have no influence on the phenomena we can see, what does it mean to say that they exist? And even if they do exist in some philosophical sense, what's the point of arguing about whether they exist if we can never resolve the question?
What it is! Here, for the sake of argument, is an objective hyper-reality:
Existence is relative. i.e. if it is theoretically possible for agent A to influence agent B then each exists to the other, even if they don't know it.
If agent A and agent B do not fulfil this criterion but both may influence or be influenced by agent C then all three exist to each other. In this way all that may be called the universe can be causally connected.
But when agent A and agent B cannot interact, neither directly nor through a chain of intermediaries, then to each the other does not exist.
However it is no use agent A saying that agent B does not exist in some more absolute sense, because agent B may well be saying the very same thing about agent A.
It is logically possible for our universe to exist, with you in it. It is also logically possible for another universe to exist that is similar to our own but which contains individuals who were never born in ours. You can deny their existence while they deny yours. But their denial does not stop you from experiencing existence. And nor does your denial prevent them from experiencing theirs.
Every universe that can exist, does exist - within its own context. Every individual that can exist, so exists in some universe. And of those potential individuals, every life that can be lived by them, is indeed lived somewhere.
Certainly, accepting this doesn't make one whit of difference to us isolated here in our own reality. But that's not the point really. Its enough just to know, terrifying though it is. Why terrifying? Because there are innumerably more ways to be fucked up than there are to be happy. And *all* of them are instantiated.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
You have completely ignored the fact that we have not only five senses but also brains capable of deductive and inductive reasoning. We can infer, from the measurements we make, other facts about the universe for which we do not possess evidence of a more direct nature. This is possible to do because the universe is at least consistent. The rules of consistency which it obeys are collectively called 'physics'.
The point raised by Xnormal is a valid one; the sine qua non of life in any form is a structure that can encode information in a stable and consistent manner but with the flexibility to react and adapt to its environment. But like energy, information is (via entropy) controlled by the laws of thermodynamics. For such information-bearing structures to be possible, both the free energy and the entropy present in the environment must fall within an acceptable range. This applies equally regardless of whether you are talking about flatworms, or humans, or Multivac, or the Squire of Gothos' incorporeal mum and dad.
IOW, regardless of the form life takes it can only exist insofar as its constituent processes are supported by those laws of physics.
Your assumption seems to be that life may take such unimaginable forms that we can't make meaningful guesses about the minimum physical requirements for life. With this I really have to disagree. Scientists and Science fiction writers have been exploring this for a century and have imagined life as two-dimensional crystals of silicate compounds in clay beds, as nucleonic compounds in the mantle of neutron stars, as quantum-entangled associations of leptons spanning the void, even as denizens of a simulated world running inside a chemical reaction. All of these were plausibly constructed within some version of physics so far consistent with what we know of our own universe.
I suspect that your reaction is symptomatic of the spirit of the times we live in, where so many now glibly reject the scientists' assertion of an objective reality in favour of something more cozy and New-Agey. If this is so I think we should all fear for our future.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
This reminds me of how John Logie Baird's first television worked. It's actually more sophisticated than that really, in that Baird's TV gated the light output by shining it through apertures in a spinning disk. But you get the picture:o)
The digits apparently floating in the air reminded me that some of the current prototype 3D TV's look a bit like this too. Plus ca change...
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Another device featured is the Phantom, a nifty creation of SensAble Technologies. It goes one step further, allowing you to trace a fingertip across the surface of a virtual object, feeling its contours, tracing edges and even allowing you to sculpt and deform what's on the screen."
<p>
I can do this already on my Linux machine. I sneezed all over the monitor screen a couple of weeks ago and the stuff has gone all hard now, so if I touch the screen I can certainly feel its contours. And if I pick hard enough I can indeed "sculpt and deform" it. In a sort of organic bas-relief effect.
<p>
It enhances air war-type games too. Imagine the scene: "Sir, I have a bogey on the screen at 12 o' clock".
<p>
I guess my wife is right, it's way past time I cleaned up in my den...
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I have this kind of setup on my desk at work (twinhead, two NEC 18" LCD screens side-by-side to give a wide desktop) but although the screens are nice the width of the bezels effectively forces you to treat it as two separate displays. It's impossible to read any window that spans the two screens as the eye loses its place as you scan along each line of text or spreadsheet row.
The suggestion was. I believe, to join LCD displays edge-to-edge so there is no gap.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
If its any consolation to you I happen to agree with you on all those points and the ones you made below in response to the maniac with the elephant gun. As a father of two I speak from a position of some experience though.
Unfortunately you'll find it becomes rather difficult in practice (i.e. when you actually have your own children) to follow through on these principles, because of the political climate in which we live (in this respect things are broadly the same in the UK as they are in the US).
You see, punishing your child will only be effective if they are upset by it. And its painful for any loving parent to have to inflict that on their child. If the punishment was successful, inevitably you will often harbour some doubts as to whether maybe you were a bit too hard on them. As a result psychologically healthy parents are all to some extent inhibited from doling out punishment.
Now if that were all, everything would be well. But unfortunately during the 1960's an idea arose which essentially states that disciplining children is always wrong. Good parents know in their hearts why this idea gained currency so easily, it is for most adherents nothing more than a reaction against the healthy sense of remorse I just spoke of. But as 1960's permissiveness took hold, society lost its backbone. In this, as in so many other things, most people no longer seem to have the stomach to face difficult moral responsibilities when there's an easy way out. And at some point since then, having acquired a wrapper of respectable post hoc rationalisation, the idea became a full-blown ideology. Nowadays people can reassure themselves that this abrogation of parental responsibility is all actually in a good and noble cause.
Is it fuck.
In the last twenty years, like many liberal ideas it has infiltrated social, health and educational policy, and has in some countries has even become enshrined in law. Although in some places you can therefore go to prison for slapping your child's rear end, that is not the most effective inhibitor to being an effective parent however. What is, is the fact that the ideology is now so widely accepted that most parents, teachers, healthcare professionals, welfare officers etc. would be shocked and offended to hear you admit that you are prepared to smack your child. Most people prefer to avoid public censure. More specifically, most people don't want to be regarded as the child-abusing monster they are made to feel they are. Unfortunately society at large no longer accepts the argument that the smack is necessary to teach an important behavioural lesson to a wilful child too young to reason with.
So whereas parents used to think twice about using physical punishment they now think thrice and more often than not they just abstain altogether. Even though many of us still know deep down that in doing so we are simply evading an unpleasant responsibility.
As everyone knows, it is in the first few years of life that our most basic behavioural patterns are given shape. If a child doesn't receive good discipline at that time it is going to be awfully difficult to change tactics later on when they are big enough to get into more serious trouble. But I'm afraid that too many parents don't realise their mistake until then and by that time it is of course far too late to do anything about it.
As for me, when I became a dad I set out at the beginning with the firm intent to dish out the odd gentle smack when necessary. But because of the current atmosphere surrounding the practice and the risk that the children might be encouraged to complain to the "thought police", I have found myself increasingly unwilling to make the effort. I have fared no better than anyone else in the end.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Strangely my old University bible (61st edition (1981) of the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics) doesn't seem to have this data. However it does list the elastic modulus, which is higher the stiffer a metal is:
Titanium: 16 million PSI
Aluminium Alloys: all at around 10 milion PSI
Ingot Iron and Plain Carbon Steel: both at 30 million PSI
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Because of the exponential nature of population growth, most of the humans who ever lived on Earth either are alive today or were alive until very recently (that therefore includes you). Therefore...
If the human race has a long future ahead of it then regardless of whether population growth slows or continues as before, all of us here today are among the very first humans in the overall history of our race from its beginning to its (unseen, distant) end. But...
The Copernican principle of mediocrity (which is basically a theory of probabilities) tells us that it is highly unlikely that we should find ourselves in such an unusual, privileged position. So...
It is highly unlikely that we are among the first humans, therefore it is highly unlikely that we have a long future ahead of us.
It's not that suprising really. There are plenty of things that could kill us all off, not all of them are even of our own making. Some of them, like superovas in the stellar neighborhood, would still wipe us all out even if we'd spread out into the solar system and the nearest stars.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Slashdot Mirror
What will happen is that Microsoft will craft some cosmetically tasty deal that pays lip service to open source but with hidden strings that will make the overall package fall far short of the utility of truly free software. These hidden strings will completely escape the notice of the government officials who are unlikely to be sufficiently paranoid about Microsoft's intentions and insufficiently knowledgeable about software in general.
Anyway this apparently tasty deal will be offered under the condition that it has to be agreed to within a very short time frame - possibly with extra conditions of secrecy - but in any event the overall effect will be to render it impossible for the terms to be subjected to any kind of informed public scrutiny at least until the deal has been signed.
Note that the foregoing makes no damning assumptions about the probity of the individuals concerned. It could all take place just as I've outlined with no dirty money changing hands.
We all know that the Indian mnisters & civil servants involved would much rather be seen to have cut an apparently great deal with nice, shiny, modern rich Western Microsoft than be seen to have to settle for the cheap option. After all that's the way it is: it's all about how it will seem to them, how they think they will be seen by others of their own clique, than it is about the substance of such a deal or how it will appear to a bunch of troublesome leftist intellectuals and geeky engineer types.
The problem is a fundamental one, too big to be overcome in a single small issue like this one. It is all about how societies allow themselves to be governed. It is about where we allow ministers to make grand decisions and civil servants to implement them, without adequate public accountability every step of the way.
The alarming reality is that most modern governments (even in the US, the UK and Australia and very probably in India too) are in practice no more democratic nor less high-handed and patrician now than their forebears of the early 19th Century were. This will not change anywhere until the people demand it en masse. i.e. it will require more than the geekiest 2% of the population to make a stand before anything can happen.
You arrogant little bastard. You are talking about disenfranchising a significant proportion of the country, a fraction that we will all belong to some day. I thank God that people like you are generally too stupid to know when to keep your mouths shut.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
<p>If that is so, then like so many of the "me" generation, you are an utter failure as a parent.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
You forgot to mention virtually unlimited quantities of hydrocarbons from the gas giants. And perhaps an equal mass in the Oort cloud farther out. The asteroid belt also containts plenty of hydrocarbons, in carbonaceous chondrites. And plenty of metals (including currently expensive noble metals) in their reduced form since there's no oxidation in a vacuum.
Peter F Hamilton suggests in his Night's Dawn series of SF novels that Tritium mining from the gas giants would be a major driver once we have fusion technology working.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
The difference between those two scenarios isn't hard to figure out. If they think they can show that you've seen their code, they can stop you writing code. If you think you can show that they've seen your code, you can't do shit.
It pains me to have to spell it out to you, but Microsoft are powerful and can afford as many lawyers as it takes to get their own way. Because that *is* all it takes, and it's the only thing that will do. Justice has nothing to do with it.
In the US, corporations own the law. The small guy exists at their sufferance.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Peter Jackson rules. Ever seen "Braindead"? (aka."Dead Alive"). The scene where Timothy mows down a room full of zombies by walking up and down holding a lawnmower at head height is a classic!
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
That website is objective? What exactly is your definition of objective, then? Oh I see - it means that it reflects *your* opinions.
The posters on that site are nothing but a bunch of sad wasters.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
E is dangerous. Lots of people have died in various ways as a direct result of taking it. Ditto heroin, crack and LSD. You don't want to believe that so you always pretend it was something else that killed them. This is called denial. Wake up to reality, boy: drugs are dumb.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I think you meant "epithet". I hope you didn't mean "epitath".If you really meant "epitath" then one of us needs a dictionary.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
What it is! Here, for the sake of argument, is an objective hyper-reality:
Existence is relative. i.e. if it is theoretically possible for agent A to influence agent B then each exists to the other, even if they don't know it.
If agent A and agent B do not fulfil this criterion but both may influence or be influenced by agent C then all three exist to each other. In this way all that may be called the universe can be causally connected.
But when agent A and agent B cannot interact, neither directly nor through a chain of intermediaries, then to each the other does not exist.
However it is no use agent A saying that agent B does not exist in some more absolute sense, because agent B may well be saying the very same thing about agent A.
It is logically possible for our universe to exist, with you in it. It is also logically possible for another universe to exist that is similar to our own but which contains individuals who were never born in ours. You can deny their existence while they deny yours. But their denial does not stop you from experiencing existence. And nor does your denial prevent them from experiencing theirs.
Every universe that can exist, does exist - within its own context. Every individual that can exist, so exists in some universe. And of those potential individuals, every life that can be lived by them, is indeed lived somewhere.
Certainly, accepting this doesn't make one whit of difference to us isolated here in our own reality. But that's not the point really. Its enough just to know, terrifying though it is. Why terrifying? Because there are innumerably more ways to be fucked up than there are to be happy. And *all* of them are instantiated.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Please.
You have completely ignored the fact that we have not only five senses but also brains capable of deductive and inductive reasoning. We can infer, from the measurements we make, other facts about the universe for which we do not possess evidence of a more direct nature. This is possible to do because the universe is at least consistent. The rules of consistency which it obeys are collectively called 'physics'.
The point raised by Xnormal is a valid one; the sine qua non of life in any form is a structure that can encode information in a stable and consistent manner but with the flexibility to react and adapt to its environment. But like energy, information is (via entropy) controlled by the laws of thermodynamics. For such information-bearing structures to be possible, both the free energy and the entropy present in the environment must fall within an acceptable range. This applies equally regardless of whether you are talking about flatworms, or humans, or Multivac, or the Squire of Gothos' incorporeal mum and dad.
IOW, regardless of the form life takes it can only exist insofar as its constituent processes are supported by those laws of physics.
Your assumption seems to be that life may take such unimaginable forms that we can't make meaningful guesses about the minimum physical requirements for life. With this I really have to disagree. Scientists and Science fiction writers have been exploring this for a century and have imagined life as two-dimensional crystals of silicate compounds in clay beds, as nucleonic compounds in the mantle of neutron stars, as quantum-entangled associations of leptons spanning the void, even as denizens of a simulated world running inside a chemical reaction. All of these were plausibly constructed within some version of physics so far consistent with what we know of our own universe.
I suspect that your reaction is symptomatic of the spirit of the times we live in, where so many now glibly reject the scientists' assertion of an objective reality in favour of something more cozy and New-Agey. If this is so I think we should all fear for our future.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
The latter post which you replied to is from A-r-m-e Marie, not A-n-n-e Marie who posted the multi-column story. Look again.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I don't know why they don't just remove the "Extrans" option since it hasn't worked for about a year now. Sigh.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
This reminds me of how John Logie Baird's first television worked. It's actually more sophisticated than that really, in that Baird's TV gated the light output by shining it through apertures in a spinning disk. But you get the picture :o)
The digits apparently floating in the air reminded me that some of the current prototype 3D TV's look a bit like this too. Plus ca change...
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
<p>
I can do this already on my Linux machine. I sneezed all over the monitor screen a couple of weeks ago and the stuff has gone all hard now, so if I touch the screen I can certainly feel its contours. And if I pick hard enough I can indeed "sculpt and deform" it. In a sort of organic bas-relief effect.
<p>
It enhances air war-type games too. Imagine the scene: "Sir, I have a bogey on the screen at 12 o' clock".
<p>
I guess my wife is right, it's way past time I cleaned up in my den...
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I'm sure the developer concerned would be delighted to hear your opinion that his efforts are trivial.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I have this kind of setup on my desk at work (twinhead, two NEC 18" LCD screens side-by-side to give a wide desktop) but although the screens are nice the width of the bezels effectively forces you to treat it as two separate displays. It's impossible to read any window that spans the two screens as the eye loses its place as you scan along each line of text or spreadsheet row.
The suggestion was. I believe, to join LCD displays edge-to-edge so there is no gap.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Unfortunately you'll find it becomes rather difficult in practice (i.e. when you actually have your own children) to follow through on these principles, because of the political climate in which we live (in this respect things are broadly the same in the UK as they are in the US).
You see, punishing your child will only be effective if they are upset by it. And its painful for any loving parent to have to inflict that on their child. If the punishment was successful, inevitably you will often harbour some doubts as to whether maybe you were a bit too hard on them. As a result psychologically healthy parents are all to some extent inhibited from doling out punishment.
Now if that were all, everything would be well. But unfortunately during the 1960's an idea arose which essentially states that disciplining children is always wrong. Good parents know in their hearts why this idea gained currency so easily, it is for most adherents nothing more than a reaction against the healthy sense of remorse I just spoke of. But as 1960's permissiveness took hold, society lost its backbone. In this, as in so many other things, most people no longer seem to have the stomach to face difficult moral responsibilities when there's an easy way out. And at some point since then, having acquired a wrapper of respectable post hoc rationalisation, the idea became a full-blown ideology. Nowadays people can reassure themselves that this abrogation of parental responsibility is all actually in a good and noble cause.
Is it fuck.
In the last twenty years, like many liberal ideas it has infiltrated social, health and educational policy, and has in some countries has even become enshrined in law. Although in some places you can therefore go to prison for slapping your child's rear end, that is not the most effective inhibitor to being an effective parent however. What is, is the fact that the ideology is now so widely accepted that most parents, teachers, healthcare professionals, welfare officers etc. would be shocked and offended to hear you admit that you are prepared to smack your child. Most people prefer to avoid public censure. More specifically, most people don't want to be regarded as the child-abusing monster they are made to feel they are. Unfortunately society at large no longer accepts the argument that the smack is necessary to teach an important behavioural lesson to a wilful child too young to reason with.
So whereas parents used to think twice about using physical punishment they now think thrice and more often than not they just abstain altogether. Even though many of us still know deep down that in doing so we are simply evading an unpleasant responsibility.
As everyone knows, it is in the first few years of life that our most basic behavioural patterns are given shape. If a child doesn't receive good discipline at that time it is going to be awfully difficult to change tactics later on when they are big enough to get into more serious trouble. But I'm afraid that too many parents don't realise their mistake until then and by that time it is of course far too late to do anything about it.
As for me, when I became a dad I set out at the beginning with the firm intent to dish out the odd gentle smack when necessary. But because of the current atmosphere surrounding the practice and the risk that the children might be encouraged to complain to the "thought police", I have found myself increasingly unwilling to make the effort. I have fared no better than anyone else in the end.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Titanium: 16 million PSI
Aluminium Alloys: all at around 10 milion PSI
Ingot Iron and Plain Carbon Steel: both at 30 million PSI
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
...as far as I remember states that:
Because of the exponential nature of population growth, most of the humans who ever lived on Earth either are alive today or were alive until very recently (that therefore includes you). Therefore...
If the human race has a long future ahead of it then regardless of whether population growth slows or continues as before, all of us here today are among the very first humans in the overall history of our race from its beginning to its (unseen, distant) end. But...
The Copernican principle of mediocrity (which is basically a theory of probabilities) tells us that it is highly unlikely that we should find ourselves in such an unusual, privileged position. So...
It is highly unlikely that we are among the first humans, therefore it is highly unlikely that we have a long future ahead of us.
It's not that suprising really. There are plenty of things that could kill us all off, not all of them are even of our own making. Some of them, like superovas in the stellar neighborhood, would still wipe us all out even if we'd spread out into the solar system and the nearest stars.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Michael for President!
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
oh yea, and get some depends man-diapers and i'd be set.
Hell, no. Going to the "smallest room" for a crap would be a pleasure if you could take your internet connection with you!
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Yeah. Comparing it to a 19" monitor is stupid. Who'd buy a 19" monitor that only does 800x600 these days?
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
It's already been done.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction