There is more than one solution satisfying a positively curved GR universe with even curvature. One of these would be the solid surface of a hypersphere. Of course the "centre" of the hypersphere doesn't exist in our four-dimensional spacetime. But then, the throat of a wormhole or an "open" black hole doesn't exist in our four-dimensional spacetime either. Even so, it is (as you suggest) fairly unlikely that wormholes or tunnels between rotating blackholes would ever cross each other.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I don't think the question is meaningful. The term "dimension" doesn't mean quite the same thing when applied to fractal geometries as it does when applied to spacetimes.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I don't know if that's necessarily true. Whether zero or 10 to the -120th, it may not really matter either in terms of consequences or even from a theoretical standpoint. The universe's starting conditions are de facto inexplicable: they have the values they do simply because that's just the way they happened to come out in our universe. Since I know of no theory in which lambda is the result of other still more fundamental parameters, I think this might be one of those starting conditions that (putting the Cosmological Anthropic Principle aside for a moment) took purely random values.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
There can only be two answers to the question of why the universe is flat:
(i) Some chance combination of initial starting conditions at the big bang which cannot be further explained - this universe just happened to be like that.
(ii) A universe with a higher degree of curvature would have been unlikely to produce intelligent life either because it would have failed to produce enough baryonic matter or because it would have collapsed too soon for life to evolve, or because it would have cooled down too fast for life to evolve.
Cosmology is at least more straightforward if you know your Barrow and Tipler;o)
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
ROTFLMAO! (I always wanted to know what a large-scale space warping accident sounded like)
BTW if anybody's interested: this other recent paper about the Boomerang results states explains why the size of the small CMB ripples confirms that inflation must have taken place.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Hey, I've been trying to get a straight answer out of someone about that exact issue for several years now. I always got a different (and incomplete) answer depending on who I spoke to. Your answer puts it all together at last. Thanks!
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
But I should stop short of referring to that global meta-organism as conscious. Consider: Would it have "experience"? Would it be able to act under its own will? We haven't even managed to agree upon what those terms mean when applied to humans. Do *we*, in fact qualify under those criteria, or is consciousness just the private illusion of any data processing system?
Can a unitary consciousness be composed of other smaller independent but interacting consciousnesses? If so, what does that say about the neurons in our brain? Could Penrose (*choke*) have been right? Personally I don't think so; it would be stretching the meaning of the term "consciousness" beyond the point where the definition becomes too broad to have any useful meaning. It might be better to invent a new term.
Certainly most people would understand what you mean if you said that the whole world (or any nation come to that) had a "soul". But this is hardly any better.
To expand upon your point: If a world can have a state of mind, and a nation and a tribe too, then also a city, town, village, family...or even a married couple. Which levels really possess a single soul or consciousness, or even a unique and unitary point of view? Even worse: where are the boundaries which separate one level from the next? Not even at your own skin, because (although I stop short of Penrose's suggestion of conscious neurons) as Dennett points out, the human mind is a Gestalt of independent, monomaniac demons. The identity you refer to as "me" is just a convenient fiction demanded by those demons' shared use of the same body.
That Gestalt appears to speak for itself only because some of its number have agreed to cooperate to make this possible. But the same can be said of any nation state with a centralised government. Or any group of people with an official spokesman for that matter.
I don't truly imagine that any collection of people is really conscious. It seems to me that only human individuals are really "in-dividual". Everything beyond that level is just an amorphous field of information processing which doesn't have any well-defined boundaries. Kind of like The Force:o)
Some may protest that a social group can't constitute a consciousness, because causality resides at the level of individuals. Yet such an appeal would be misleading because just as history can be explained in terms of the circumstances and reactions of individuals, an individual human's behaviour can be explained in terms of stimuli and responses in neural cell assemblies each of which has its own preprogrammed agenda.
Maybe it's partly the fact of being trapped inside our own heads with a clear "inside=self" and "outside=other" that gives us a point of view and thus makes us appear (privately to ourselves) to be conscious.
BTW: Sorry for rambling, and I'm especially sorry if my own position appears unclear. I'm still trying to sort it all out in my own mind...
See my.sig:o)
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
...total energy of the flat universe was and remains zero (this is how you create the whole Universe from nothing without violating the law of energy conservation).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it isn't precisely zero.
A small initial mass on the order of a few kilograms spontaneously generated by a quantum fluctuation, created a small universe (the big bang) in which inflation could then take place. Admittedly, this small mass would be dwarfed by the quantum uncertainty which relates to the presently much larger mass of the universe.
I just wanted to point out that the inflationary generation of mass out of negative pressure doesn't account for the origin itself.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
This is just plain fucking stupid. *Everybody* who runs RealWhatever already has a browser. Why should we need to have the same code occupying space on our hard disks twice? If you want to serve up streams with accompanying HTML then use the damn browser with the RealWhatever plugin, don't give us a new browser plugin to go with the standalone player.
The idiot who dreamed this up should be fired for gross incompetence as they clearly don't know a thing about software.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I think you have this broadly right except for two things.
1). I don't think a significant number of people will completely abandon their individuality any time soon. In any case, there would be little reason for them to do so: the technology you are talking about would enable people to communicate at a higher rate, but it would not cause them to merge into a single identity.
There would be, on some abstract level, a combined entity encompassing the information processing activities of all the intercommunicating computers including human brains. The world as it is *now* fits the same broad description, as we all exchange information via snail mail, books, email, Usenet, Slashdot, TV and the telephone at a somewhat slower rate. But making it faster will not cause this global dataprocessing system to become self aware in any sense which is meaningful to humans.
2). You missed the most startling outcome of this technology.
Via an accumulation of implants, interfaces and upgrades/enhancements all the brain's functions will eventually be replicated and improved upon and the little bit of gray matter in the middle will be left as the weakest, slowest and most vulnerable component.
Meanwhile, there is always a small proportion of people dying of brain diseases or brain trauma.
A point must come when a suitably wired individual suffering such a tragedy manages to survive brain death or even surgical removal of the whole organ without any apparent loss of function. Such a person might be outwardly normal in every way. At that point we would be forced to realise that the organic brain is redundant and obsolete.
Where we go from that point is anybody's guess. I just hope we don't all disappear into cyberspace forever, a la Greg Egan.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
That is just a pointless troll. If you had the courage of your convictions you would identify yourself. British technological innovation is alive and well thank you very much.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
There are some people who never understood that Sam was lobotomized at the end. Some people thought he was dreaming, some people thought he was dead.
I don't know what version you saw, but in the version *I* saw, as Sam drives off into the sunset with his beloved, the faces of Jack (the torturer) and Mr Helpmann (the big wheel) appear. Helpmann says: "He's got away from us, Jack". Sam is still in the interrogation chair humming to himself and smiling vacantly. This strongly suggests (really, it makes it explicitly obvious) that to escape the horror he was being subjected to Sam had retreated into a fugue state and was now quite literally living in a dream world. There is *no* indication whatever that he had been lobotomised. Helpmann's reaction makes it clear that Sam's final mental state was not the result they had desired.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Your posting is succinct and right on the nail, Tom. I've no moderator points today, but if I may quote you, you can benefit from my karma whoring (moderators: please moderate up the original post, not this blatant rip off).
Just for fun...
The Microsoft Advantage
Windows is the standard - Windows has more than 75% market share worldwide, - Windows has more software programs, 10-50 times more than any other platform. - Windows is supported by the leaders in enterprise software, including Oracle, Siebel, SAP, Lawson, Sun,and Sybase.
Just can not abide with the tone of Palm's response.
I hate Microsoft. Never use it. Ever. Nothing from them infects my hdd. But, Palm is parrotting Microsoft's PC marketing message. None of this matters. I could give a crap about the number of software titles...Are they any good? This is used against Mac users constantly, but I have no trouble finding enough (too much, actually) software to run. This whole "standard" thing too pisses me off. This gets used vs. Linux constantly by PHBs. So fscking what if it won't run Office. There are options, some of which work better.
Makes me sick to see Palm ape Microspeak.
Tom Dutton
I was going to get a Palm. Now I'm going to get a PocketPC instead. That poor little piece of Marketing propaganda just made it inevitable.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I've just upgraded my Win98SE client to an AMD500 myself and I am just about to put in a Flashpoint LW too since I'm not too happy with the EIDE performance (Norton Utilities tells me the disk only does physical reads at 2MB/sec!!). I was only waiting till I can figure out how to replace the NCR BIOS in the AOpen AX59Pro motherboard with a suitable BIOS image for the Flashpoint (the SCSI card I have is a BIOSless OEM version).
Now I'm wondering if it's worth the trouble - if it crashes Linux then Win98 doesn't stand a chance.
I'd surely appreciate it if you could post more details about your hardware configuration. You should include everything - the tech specs from the RAM's datasheet, your PSU's power rating, the precise markings on your CPU, the make model and revision of your motherboard etc. etc.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Fair enough, but if it was meant as propaganda it failed miserably. I didn't notice any sort of agenda. Usually when there is one I do.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:Asymmetry=bias, intentional or not
on
Tech Stocks Tumble
·
· Score: 2
don't rage against C|NET because their site is hard to read and usually boring when you do read it. No, I just quit visiting them.
Well, that puts you squarely in a tiny minority of Slahdot readers. Whenever C|Net or any other mainstream or mainstream tech new site publishes a piece which is anti-hacking, anti-open-source, anti-privacy or anti-freedom, Slashdot almost explodes with resentment and the offending site gets bombarded. It seems that balance *is* expected of other news sites. It would be hypocritical in the extreme to suggest that Slashdot should be exempt from this requirement.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I've got news for you: Battlefield Earth has nothing whatever to do with Scientology, it's just a pure and simple old fashioned pulp sci-fi story. So is the Mission:Earth series. All the characters in both stories are simple good/evil stereotypes. Much like the original Star Wars movie. If there's any sort of message in these tales, it's only that White Hats rule, Black Hats suck, and the good guy always wins.
I particularly enjoyed the Mission:Earth series. The bad guy (Soltan) was so crafty in everything he did, and the good guy was so squeaky clean, it really makes you wonder about Hubbard. Question is, did he *really* write these himself? I'm sure that some of the volumes were published after his death.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
FWIW, I think Rob should just grit his teeth and accept that for the sake of balance and journalistic integrity there are some stories that need to be reported even if they aren't intrinsically interesting.
Specifically, if he is going to allow stories about how XYZ Corp's IPO went through the roof then he should report it when the same stock falls through the floor. Surely this is self-evident?
We are mostly tech workers here, and a sudden withdrawal of finance from the industry is bound to affect us eventually in some way. Most of us aren't motivated to go and read the dry pronouncements of the Wall Street Journal. In fact there must be more than a few of us who don't get to hear about it if it doesn't get reported on Slashdot! So if we don't get to read about it here, then where?
Come on Rob, it seems like you're not facing up to your responsibilities. You're a media mogul now and the public is depending on you for the full story.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Here are some things worth considering. First, most people are not normal. Normal is abnormal. The reason Revenge of the Nerds was such a great movie for most people is more people can relate to being outcasts than can relate to being popular. How many `popular' kids were there in your entire High School? Maybe 1% of the entire school population? The rest of us were outcasts.
Now you're just being ridiculous. How can 99% of a social group be branded as outcasts by the other 1%? Being an outcast implies being a member of an underprivileged minority.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Does anybody remember a low-budget BBC sci-fi drama from the 1980's called Star Cops? The programme's theme song was by Justin Hayward from the Moody Blues.
Anyway, the main character (a detective called Nathan Spring who was sent out to police a small base on the moon) had this really neat PDA that he called "Box". It was a computer, internet terminal, telephone, diary etc. all rolled into one, and it had a voice interface. And a kind of personality too.
I seem to remember in the end it self-destructed in order to take out some bad guy and save Nathan's life.
Ever since then I've been waiting for these devices to appear. I can't be bothered with handheld computers as they are now, the interface is just too narrowband. I want my own Box.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Now hold on just a minute. I went and read the stuff on the W.A.V.E site and it lists "early warning signs" and "imminent warning signs" for violence, and it may be worrisome that some individuals may be wrongly singled out for attention on the basis of nothing more than presumption, but I saw *nothing* about geeks and I saw *nothing" in any of these lists of behaviours that I'd consider to be especially geekish. Therefore I see no reason why self-appointed geeks in W.A.V.E schools should consider themselves to be at particular risk from this experiment in social engineering.
It looks to me like it's only Jon Katz who's hell bent on associating geekdom with psychological instability and violent crime.
BTW, there *are* other free democratic societies in the world where this sort of social responsibility to one another is taken for granted. It's really only in the US that the idea of personal liberty is worshipped to the extent that issues of safety and security are ignored.
W.A.V.E needn't be Nazism. It depends on how it's implemented. I suppose at bottom it basically depends upon whether the people doing the implementation are closet Nazis or not.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Slashdot Mirror
There is more than one solution satisfying a positively curved GR universe with even curvature. One of these would be the solid surface of a hypersphere. Of course the "centre" of the hypersphere doesn't exist in our four-dimensional spacetime. But then, the throat of a wormhole or an "open" black hole doesn't exist in our four-dimensional spacetime either. Even so, it is (as you suggest) fairly unlikely that wormholes or tunnels between rotating blackholes would ever cross each other.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I don't think the question is meaningful. The term "dimension" doesn't mean quite the same thing when applied to fractal geometries as it does when applied to spacetimes.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I don't know if that's necessarily true. Whether zero or 10 to the -120th, it may not really matter either in terms of consequences or even from a theoretical standpoint. The universe's starting conditions are de facto inexplicable: they have the values they do simply because that's just the way they happened to come out in our universe. Since I know of no theory in which lambda is the result of other still more fundamental parameters, I think this might be one of those starting conditions that (putting the Cosmological Anthropic Principle aside for a moment) took purely random values.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
There can only be two answers to the question of why the universe is flat:
;o)
(i) Some chance combination of initial starting conditions at the big bang which cannot be further explained - this universe just happened to be like that.
(ii) A universe with a higher degree of curvature would have been unlikely to produce intelligent life either because it would have failed to produce enough baryonic matter or because it would have collapsed too soon for life to evolve, or because it would have cooled down too fast for life to evolve.
Cosmology is at least more straightforward if you know your Barrow and Tipler
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
ROTFLMAO! (I always wanted to know what a large-scale space warping accident sounded like)
BTW if anybody's interested: this other recent paper about the Boomerang results states explains why the size of the small CMB ripples confirms that inflation must have taken place.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Hey, I've been trying to get a straight answer out of someone about that exact issue for several years now. I always got a different (and incomplete) answer depending on who I spoke to. Your answer puts it all together at last. Thanks!
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Exactly.
:o)
.sig :o)
But I should stop short of referring to that global meta-organism as conscious. Consider: Would it have "experience"? Would it be able to act under its own will? We haven't even managed to agree upon what those terms mean when applied to humans. Do *we*, in fact qualify under those criteria, or is consciousness just the private illusion of any data processing system?
Can a unitary consciousness be composed of other smaller independent but interacting consciousnesses? If so, what does that say about the neurons in our brain? Could Penrose (*choke*) have been right? Personally I don't think so; it would be stretching the meaning of the term "consciousness" beyond the point where the definition becomes too broad to have any useful meaning. It might be better to invent a new term.
Certainly most people would understand what you mean if you said that the whole world (or any nation come to that) had a "soul". But this is hardly any better.
To expand upon your point: If a world can have a state of mind, and a nation and a tribe too, then also a city, town, village, family...or even a married couple. Which levels really possess a single soul or consciousness, or even a unique and unitary point of view? Even worse: where are the boundaries which separate one level from the next? Not even at your own skin, because (although I stop short of Penrose's suggestion of conscious neurons) as Dennett points out, the human mind is a Gestalt of independent, monomaniac demons. The identity you refer to as "me" is just a convenient fiction demanded by those demons' shared use of the same body.
That Gestalt appears to speak for itself only because some of its number have agreed to cooperate to make this possible. But the same can be said of any nation state with a centralised government. Or any group of people with an official spokesman for that matter.
I don't truly imagine that any collection of people is really conscious. It seems to me that only human individuals are really "in-dividual". Everything beyond that level is just an amorphous field of information processing which doesn't have any well-defined boundaries. Kind of like The Force
Some may protest that a social group can't constitute a consciousness, because causality resides at the level of individuals. Yet such an appeal would be misleading because just as history can be explained in terms of the circumstances and reactions of individuals, an individual human's behaviour can be explained in terms of stimuli and responses in neural cell assemblies each of which has its own preprogrammed agenda.
Maybe it's partly the fact of being trapped inside our own heads with a clear "inside=self" and "outside=other" that gives us a point of view and thus makes us appear (privately to ourselves) to be conscious.
BTW: Sorry for rambling, and I'm especially sorry if my own position appears unclear. I'm still trying to sort it all out in my own mind...
See my
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
...total energy of the flat universe was and remains zero (this is how you create the whole Universe from nothing without violating the law of energy conservation).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it isn't precisely zero.
A small initial mass on the order of a few kilograms spontaneously generated by a quantum fluctuation, created a small universe (the big bang) in which inflation could then take place. Admittedly, this small mass would be dwarfed by the quantum uncertainty which relates to the presently much larger mass of the universe.
I just wanted to point out that the inflationary generation of mass out of negative pressure doesn't account for the origin itself.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Okay then smartass, let's hear you explain how homophobia leads to porn. I'm waiting...
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
This is just plain fucking stupid. *Everybody* who runs RealWhatever already has a browser. Why should we need to have the same code occupying space on our hard disks twice? If you want to serve up streams with accompanying HTML then use the damn browser with the RealWhatever plugin, don't give us a new browser plugin to go with the standalone player.
The idiot who dreamed this up should be fired for gross incompetence as they clearly don't know a thing about software.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I think you have this broadly right except for two things.
1). I don't think a significant number of people will completely abandon their individuality any time soon. In any case, there would be little reason for them to do so: the technology you are talking about would enable people to communicate at a higher rate, but it would not cause them to merge into a single identity.
There would be, on some abstract level, a combined entity encompassing the information processing activities of all the intercommunicating computers including human brains. The world as it is *now* fits the same broad description, as we all exchange information via snail mail, books, email, Usenet, Slashdot, TV and the telephone at a somewhat slower rate. But making it faster will not cause this global dataprocessing system to become self aware in any sense which is meaningful to humans.
2). You missed the most startling outcome of this technology.
Via an accumulation of implants, interfaces and upgrades/enhancements all the brain's functions will eventually be replicated and improved upon and the little bit of gray matter in the middle will be left as the weakest, slowest and most vulnerable component.
Meanwhile, there is always a small proportion of people dying of brain diseases or brain trauma.
A point must come when a suitably wired individual suffering such a tragedy manages to survive brain death or even surgical removal of the whole organ without any apparent loss of function. Such a person might be outwardly normal in every way. At that point we would be forced to realise that the organic brain is redundant and obsolete.
Where we go from that point is anybody's guess. I just hope we don't all disappear into cyberspace forever, a la Greg Egan.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
(all together now) Oh, stick it up your ass.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
That is just a pointless troll. If you had the courage of your convictions you would identify yourself. British technological innovation is alive and well thank you very much.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
You shouldn't be too surprised. After all, the Defense Department also funded research into "remote sensing".
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
There are some people who never understood that Sam was lobotomized at the end. Some people thought he was dreaming, some people thought he was dead.
I don't know what version you saw, but in the version *I* saw, as Sam drives off into the sunset with his beloved, the faces of Jack (the torturer) and Mr Helpmann (the big wheel) appear. Helpmann says: "He's got away from us, Jack". Sam is still in the interrogation chair humming to himself and smiling vacantly. This strongly suggests (really, it makes it explicitly obvious) that to escape the horror he was being subjected to Sam had retreated into a fugue state and was now quite literally living in a dream world. There is *no* indication whatever that he had been lobotomised. Helpmann's reaction makes it clear that Sam's final mental state was not the result they had desired.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I was going to get a Palm. Now I'm going to get a PocketPC instead. That poor little piece of Marketing propaganda just made it inevitable.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I've just upgraded my Win98SE client to an AMD500 myself and I am just about to put in a Flashpoint LW too since I'm not too happy with the EIDE performance (Norton Utilities tells me the disk only does physical reads at 2MB/sec!!). I was only waiting till I can figure out how to replace the NCR BIOS in the AOpen AX59Pro motherboard with a suitable BIOS image for the Flashpoint (the SCSI card I have is a BIOSless OEM version).
Now I'm wondering if it's worth the trouble - if it crashes Linux then Win98 doesn't stand a chance.
I'd surely appreciate it if you could post more details about your hardware configuration. You should include everything - the tech specs from the RAM's datasheet, your PSU's power rating, the precise markings on your CPU, the make model and revision of your motherboard etc. etc.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Fair enough, but if it was meant as propaganda it failed miserably. I didn't notice any sort of agenda. Usually when there is one I do.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
don't rage against C|NET because their
site is hard to read and usually boring when you do read it. No, I just quit visiting them.
Well, that puts you squarely in a tiny minority of Slahdot readers. Whenever C|Net or any other mainstream or mainstream tech new site publishes a piece which is anti-hacking, anti-open-source, anti-privacy or anti-freedom, Slashdot almost explodes with resentment and the offending site gets bombarded. It seems that balance *is* expected of other news sites. It would be hypocritical in the extreme to suggest that Slashdot should be exempt from this requirement.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I've got news for you: Battlefield Earth has nothing whatever to do with Scientology, it's just a pure and simple old fashioned pulp sci-fi story. So is the Mission:Earth series. All the characters in both stories are simple good/evil stereotypes. Much like the original Star Wars movie. If there's any sort of message in these tales, it's only that White Hats rule, Black Hats suck, and the good guy always wins.
I particularly enjoyed the Mission:Earth series. The bad guy (Soltan) was so crafty in everything he did, and the good guy was so squeaky clean, it really makes you wonder about Hubbard. Question is, did he *really* write these himself? I'm sure that some of the volumes were published after his death.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
FWIW, I think Rob should just grit his teeth and accept that for the sake of balance and journalistic integrity there are some stories that need to be reported even if they aren't intrinsically interesting.
Specifically, if he is going to allow stories about how XYZ Corp's IPO went through the roof then he should report it when the same stock falls through the floor. Surely this is self-evident?
We are mostly tech workers here, and a sudden withdrawal of finance from the industry is bound to affect us eventually in some way. Most of us aren't motivated to go and read the dry pronouncements of the Wall Street Journal. In fact there must be more than a few of us who don't get to hear about it if it doesn't get reported on Slashdot! So if we don't get to read about it here, then where?
Come on Rob, it seems like you're not facing up to your responsibilities. You're a media mogul now and the public is depending on you for the full story.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Now you're just being ridiculous. How can 99% of a social group be branded as outcasts by the other 1%? Being an outcast implies being a member of an underprivileged minority.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
That's already been done. Haven't you seen the news video clip where that Belgian guy whacked him in the face with a cream pie?
If you haven't seen it, there's a link to it in this ZDnet article. Ironically, the video itself is hosted on MSNBC :o)
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Does anybody remember a low-budget BBC sci-fi drama from the 1980's called Star Cops? The programme's theme song was by Justin Hayward from the Moody Blues.
Anyway, the main character (a detective called Nathan Spring who was sent out to police a small base on the moon) had this really neat PDA that he called "Box". It was a computer, internet terminal, telephone, diary etc. all rolled into one, and it had a voice interface. And a kind of personality too.
I seem to remember in the end it self-destructed in order to take out some bad guy and save Nathan's life.
Ever since then I've been waiting for these devices to appear. I can't be bothered with handheld computers as they are now, the interface is just too narrowband. I want my own Box.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Now hold on just a minute. I went and read the stuff on the W.A.V.E site and it lists "early warning signs" and "imminent warning signs" for violence, and it may be worrisome that some individuals may be wrongly singled out for attention on the basis of nothing more than presumption, but I saw *nothing* about geeks and I saw *nothing" in any of these lists of behaviours that I'd consider to be especially geekish. Therefore I see no reason why self-appointed geeks in W.A.V.E schools should consider themselves to be at particular risk from this experiment in social engineering.
It looks to me like it's only Jon Katz who's hell bent on associating geekdom with psychological instability and violent crime.
BTW, there *are* other free democratic societies in the world where this sort of social responsibility to one another is taken for granted. It's really only in the US that the idea of personal liberty is worshipped to the extent that issues of safety and security are ignored.
W.A.V.E needn't be Nazism. It depends on how it's implemented. I suppose at bottom it basically depends upon whether the people doing the implementation are closet Nazis or not.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction