Maybe you are referring to the (quite common) misinterpretation of the Church-Turing hypothesis. There is a fairly good explanation here in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I just emailed my MP (the Rt Hon Joan Ryan) to tell her what I think of this bill _and_ what I think of a government that abuses its majority and ignores the upper house whenever it wants to (which is every time).
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I've been thinking about the following for several weeks now. I just can't seem to get it out of my head.
I've been on the net since 1994, though with about a year of almost complete abstinence between 1995/1996. Before that gap I never used the web, just ftp gopher and Usenet.
After I got "reconnected"... there was a lot more web and I started using Nutscrape (on Linux, natch). I don't remember discovering Slashdot almost straight away but it seems like it's always been there. I mean, I can't remember surfing without Slashdot. When did it begin?
One of the things that frustrates me is that I can't even remember exactly what it used to look like. Same green/white colour scheme, sure, but I know it's had one or two facelifts since I started.
I wonder...did the dynamic duo ever think to archive copies of the site in its earlier incarnations, for posterity's sake? It would be bloody cool if they could put up some examples. I'd love to be reminded what Slashdot was like back in the early days. Not just the look&feel, but the news items and posts...I seem to remember there were a lot fewer professional trolls on Slashdot in those days, and even the ACs seemed more serious. Or is this just rose-tinted specs?
How about it, Rob and Jeff?
It all seems like such a long time ago now. Internet time is strange.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
So? They'd have to be either insane or insanely wealthy to throw them away. If you have a job that you mostly enjoy, and you stand to make some money if you can hang on for a couple of years, then it's not in your best interests to take a walk just because there are ideological forces within the company to which you're opposed. Better to just grin and bear it and wait till you can grab the cash. Common sense really.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
From exploitation by unscrupulous adults. From ideas inappropriate to minors. Your question is disingenuous because the answer must be obvious even to you.
For a child, the next step after seeing the pictures is experimentation. Wake up and smell the coffee, pal; it happens all the time. Even small children of opposite gender tend to play "doctors and nurses" at some point if they're left alone. And from the onset of puberty, the stakes are rather higher.
If a young teenaged boy is shown even simple pictures of naked women then it is likely to provoke desire. That's what those pictures are for. The more he sees the more he's going to think about it. Pictures which degrade women are even more dangerous because boys of that age are highly impressionable particularly about issues pertaining to gender identity and gender roles.
You think "responsible", "mature" teenagers are any different? Think again. At that age our behaviour is heavily influenced by our biology. "Responsible", "mature" teenagers often quickly turn into teenagers in trouble when temptation proves too much to handle.
Pornography != sexual abuse/assault. If a parent believes that their child is mature enough to understand the concepts therein (I'm not going to argue that porn is a purely educational tool,
Precisely. We already have educational tools, we don't need porn for that.
"Bullshit", I can hear at this point. "What happens when they go and show their friends" etc etc. Note the qualifier above, maturity. A child mature enough to understand sexual concepts is one mature enough to understand rights and wrongs, and these should be given just as thorough, if not more thorough, a treatment by their parents too.
Someone who has had a very conservative upbringing in regards to sex (it's wrong, etc) is more likely to...use the least effective or no contraception
That's a bogus, straw man argument. I said children should not be shown porn. I never said anything about appropriate formal sex education in schools, which should cover issues like contraception, sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy and its consequences etc.
Just one last question. Why do you suppose underaged teenage pregnancies happen? Answer: because two underaged teenagers had sex.
If you answered instead "because they weren't informed about contraception", that's just plain wrong, for two reasons:
(i) it's highly unlikely that any teenager outside of a religious commune is completely ignorant about contraception. And BTW, porn doesn't teach about contraception anyway.
(ii) to argue that pregancy is caused by absence of contraception,is exactly analogous to arguing that gunshot wound deaths are caused by a lack of Kevlar clothing. Shooting causes gunshot wound deaths; fucking causes pregancy. Let's try to help underaged teenagers avoid screwing up their lives by not adding fuel to the fire.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I happen to like masturbation. Anyone who doesn't is denying that pleasure is good. Why should I be ashamed of anything I do that makes me feel good and harms no one else?
No real need to be ashamed, it isn't a crime, but then again you wouldn't want to go around claiming how significant it is and how it granted you great insight (unless you happen to be completely insane like Aleister Crowley). That's the point I was making about drug use.
I refuse to let anyone else dictate to me what I'm allowed to do to myself.
There are more important things to consider than what you want.
What if it were proven that widespread hard drug use caused a drop in national GDP? Or an increase in violent crime? Or an increased incidence of serious infectious diseases? Or an increase in teenage pregnancies? Or even just a generally perceived deterioration of moral values in society?
Society has the right to protect itself by outlawing substance abuse wherever possible because drug use robs people of their ability to exercise moral judgment and inclines them to act on impulse. (Of course alcohol is included in this category. But prohibition of alcohol was already tried and it caused more trouble than it was worth because alcohol is already too widely accepted).
In the words in Captain Spock (in the movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan:
"The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few. Or the one."
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
But your original argument could be reworded to say, "Just because the EFF doesn't have infinite resources the entire open-source community deserves to suffer within the EFF's loss". <br><br> Eh? Could it hell. My original comment simply stated that if the EFF are incompetent then <i>they</i> deserve to lose. That statement made *no* reference to what the <i>open-source community</i>might deserve. See the difference?
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Yeah. Ten years ago, eh? That was about the time they ruined it (IMHO) by making too complicated with all that [sys0.syscommon.syswhatever...] clustering stuff.
The classic version 4.2 was the best I reckon. Smooth and simple. Running on a big bulky VAX 11/750 with a couple of huge RA81 drives. You could fry your breakfast on those mothers!
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
%phrase-e-overquota: system quota exceeded on use of OpenSource term.
Aha! A VMS geek! You poor fellow...do you realize the damage you are doing to your career? You have to escape from this baroque cul-de-sac of computing while there is still time. Before you are forced to cut down the tallest tree in the forest with...a herring!
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Sorry, but I completely disagree. I'm not being reactionary, just pragmatic. The EFF aren't blind; they know where we are and they (surely) know we're discussing the subject continually. They also ought to know that if they need extra pairs of hands there are plenty of us here willing to help. The only two things that could stop them from using Slashdot as a source of ideas and information are incompetence and "not-invented-here" syndrome. If they're guilty of either of those (which I doubt) then we're fscked anyway.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Correction - fraternal twins are not clones. Monozygotic ("identical") twind are clones. It is a specific biological term and was in usage long before the current practice of nuclear substitution was invented.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Maybe 97% of the Slashdot posts on copyright/DeCSS/DMCA/UCITA subjects are lame or repetitious, but the other 3% is a vital source of new ideas and intelligent debate that I don't believe for a minute they could get for free anywhere else. If the EFF aren't already keeping a close eye on Slashdot then they don't even deserve to win.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
We've had test-tube babies for more than 20 years now. and since then, all kinds of unnatural conceptions. You never see society's hatred visited upon the individuals thus born, even though the parents might receive some flak over it. I really don't think most people will care when they see that a clone is just a normal baby and when they've already had it explained to them that it's just like a twin.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Pardon me??? Let me preface this with, I am a smoker. I smoke cigarettes. Camel cigarettes to be more accurate. As mentioned above, I used to smoke a lot more than cigarettes, including cannabis and opium. Let me say this... The potential for health problems with both cannabis and opium are far less than with every-day average nicotine cigarettes.
Nicotine is an addictive drug. Smoking is a stupid habit. Who's excluding nicotine use? I'm not. Marijuana *might* be less carcinogenic than tobacco (some studies say otherwise) but even if it is, it doesn't mean its harmless. Long-term (20-year) habitual marijuana users I've known cough like 20-year cigarette smokers.
No negative health problems thus far
Bully for you, one assumes you didn't overdo it. You probably won't get any problems from the LSD now that you've stopped using it. And if you used to smoke (whatever), the risk of cancer declines each year after you've stopped. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence though, and sticking unfamiliar substances into your body is prima facie an unhealthy thing to do - drugs that suppress or overstimulate or suppress appetite, alter your cardiovascular output and blood distribution etc. Worst of all, drugs that change the way your brain works. Did you know that MDMA (also known as X, E or Ecstasy) is very toxic to an important class of cells in the brainstem? This is what causes the deaths.
You accuse hydina of being naive and patronistic, and then respond in kind.
The difference is that I'm educated and experienced on both sides of the divide (I have been a drug user and am no longer; also I trained as a biochemist). So I'm not naive and I feel quite entitled to patronize the ignorant.
Some of the most intelligent older people that I know are habitual drug users.
Some of, I'm sure. And a lot of the brightest people are alcoholics too.
More often than not, you'll find that they offer an added bit of insight that conventional logic simply wouldn't drive you towards.
You're making an unwarranted assumption here. "insight that conventional logic simply wouldn't drive you towards"? What kind of logic would, then? Drug logic? Don't make me laugh. If there is an association it doesn't necessarily imply causality in one specific direction. It's more plausible to say that creative, intelligent, sensitive people are more likely to seek refuge from stress by taking mind-altering drugs. Had you ever considered that?
I value them as friends, colleagues, and mentors. I DO look up to them, and value their opinions and insights.
It's good that you have such relationships. But don't make the mistake of assuming that drugs are responsible for their insights.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
<i>... what rights does a clone have? Are they still part of the human race?</i>
A individual cloned from an original is the same genetically as the original and therefore of the same species. What a stupid question!
<i>How exactly is their relationship to the original described (different relationship, different rights: ex: married, sibling, no affiliation)?</i>
A individual cloned from an original is the same genetically as the original and therefore they are identical twins in everyday parlance.
<i>Besides, I thought some high council on human rights met and discussed this issue (of human cloning) when Dolly was created and deemed that cloning humans was illegal.</i>
This is to be performed in one of those countries which doesn't subscribe to such agreements. There are plenty of such places, I think St. Kitts in the Caribbean is one of them.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Hey, don't go linking open source with drug use. Open Source is for people who like to get things done. I have respect for Open Source d00dz. Drugs are for lamers who can't deal with the real world. I have no respect for them, only pity.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you are referring to the (quite common) misinterpretation of the Church-Turing hypothesis. There is a fairly good explanation here in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Yeah, but even a 16-year-old Norwegian boy could crack that key in a few seconds. Duh!
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I just emailed my MP (the Rt Hon Joan Ryan) to tell her what I think of this bill _and_ what I think of a government that abuses its majority and ignores the upper house whenever it wants to (which is every time).
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
D'oh! You did it again.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I've been thinking about the following for several weeks now. I just can't seem to get it out of my head.
I've been on the net since 1994, though with about a year of almost complete abstinence between 1995/1996. Before that gap I never used the web, just ftp gopher and Usenet.
After I got "reconnected"... there was a lot more web and I started using Nutscrape (on Linux, natch). I don't remember discovering Slashdot almost straight away but it seems like it's always been there. I mean, I can't remember surfing without Slashdot. When did it begin?
One of the things that frustrates me is that I can't even remember exactly what it used to look like. Same green/white colour scheme, sure, but I know it's had one or two facelifts since I started.
I wonder...did the dynamic duo ever think to archive copies of the site in its earlier incarnations, for posterity's sake? It would be bloody cool if they could put up some examples. I'd love to be reminded what Slashdot was like back in the early days. Not just the look&feel, but the news items and posts...I seem to remember there were a lot fewer professional trolls on Slashdot in those days, and even the ACs seemed more serious. Or is this just rose-tinted specs?
How about it, Rob and Jeff?
It all seems like such a long time ago now. Internet time is strange.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
So? They'd have to be either insane or insanely wealthy to throw them away. If you have a job that you mostly enjoy, and you stand to make some money if you can hang on for a couple of years, then it's not in your best interests to take a walk just because there are ideological forces within the company to which you're opposed. Better to just grin and bear it and wait till you can grab the cash. Common sense really.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Dang! So that's where my other slipper went!
Just wait till I get a-hold of that dog...
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Protect the child? From what? From who? Why?
From exploitation by unscrupulous adults. From ideas inappropriate to minors. Your question is disingenuous because the answer must be obvious even to you.
For a child, the next step after seeing the pictures is experimentation. Wake up and smell the coffee, pal; it happens all the time. Even small children of opposite gender tend to play "doctors and nurses" at some point if they're left alone. And from the onset of puberty, the stakes are rather higher.
If a young teenaged boy is shown even simple pictures of naked women then it is likely to provoke desire. That's what those pictures are for. The more he sees the more he's going to think about it. Pictures which degrade women are even more dangerous because boys of that age are highly impressionable particularly about issues pertaining to gender identity and gender roles.
You think "responsible", "mature" teenagers are any different? Think again. At that age our behaviour is heavily influenced by our biology. "Responsible", "mature" teenagers often quickly turn into teenagers in trouble when temptation proves too much to handle.
Pornography != sexual abuse/assault. If a parent believes that their child is mature enough to understand the concepts therein (I'm not going to argue that porn is a purely educational tool,
Precisely. We already have educational tools, we don't need porn for that.
"Bullshit", I can hear at this point. "What happens when they go and show their friends" etc etc. Note the qualifier above, maturity. A child mature enough to understand sexual concepts is one mature enough to understand rights and wrongs, and these should be given just as thorough, if not more thorough, a treatment by their parents too.
Someone who has had a very conservative upbringing in regards to sex (it's wrong, etc) is more likely to...use the least effective or no contraception
That's a bogus, straw man argument. I said children should not be shown porn. I never said anything about appropriate formal sex education in schools, which should cover issues like contraception, sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy and its consequences etc.
Just one last question. Why do you suppose underaged teenage pregnancies happen? Answer: because two underaged teenagers had sex.
If you answered instead "because they weren't informed about contraception", that's just plain wrong, for two reasons:
(i) it's highly unlikely that any teenager outside of a religious commune is completely ignorant about contraception. And BTW, porn doesn't teach about contraception anyway.
(ii) to argue that pregancy is caused by absence of contraception,is exactly analogous to arguing that gunshot wound deaths are caused by a lack of Kevlar clothing. Shooting causes gunshot wound deaths; fucking causes pregancy. Let's try to help underaged teenagers avoid screwing up their lives by not adding fuel to the fire.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Nah, Magic Smoke. You know, the stuff in CPU's that makes them work...
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Yeah. Didn't do IBM much good, though.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
No real need to be ashamed, it isn't a crime, but then again you wouldn't want to go around claiming how significant it is and how it granted you great insight (unless you happen to be completely insane like Aleister Crowley). That's the point I was making about drug use.
I refuse to let anyone else dictate to me what I'm allowed to do to myself.
There are more important things to consider than what you want.
What if it were proven that widespread hard drug use caused a drop in national GDP? Or an increase in violent crime? Or an increased incidence of serious infectious diseases? Or an increase in teenage pregnancies? Or even just a generally perceived deterioration of moral values in society?
Society has the right to protect itself by outlawing substance abuse wherever possible because drug use robs people of their ability to exercise moral judgment and inclines them to act on impulse. (Of course alcohol is included in this category. But prohibition of alcohol was already tried and it caused more trouble than it was worth because alcohol is already too widely accepted).
In the words in Captain Spock (in the movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan:
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Obviously you're not mature enough to have a child yet. Notice I don't claim that you haven't gone and had one anyway...
A parent who starts showing pornography to their children ought to be locked up in order to protect the child.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
But your original argument could be reworded to say, "Just because the EFF doesn't have infinite resources the entire open-source community deserves to suffer within the EFF's loss".
<br><br>
Eh? Could it hell. My original comment simply stated that if the EFF are incompetent then <i>they</i> deserve to lose. That statement made *no* reference to what the <i>open-source community</i>might deserve. See the difference?
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Yeah. Ten years ago, eh? That was about the time they ruined it (IMHO) by making too complicated with all that [sys0.syscommon.syswhatever...] clustering stuff.
The classic version 4.2 was the best I reckon. Smooth and simple. Running on a big bulky VAX 11/750 with a couple of huge RA81 drives. You could fry your breakfast on those mothers!
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
%phrase-e-overquota: system quota exceeded on use of OpenSource term.
Aha! A VMS geek! You poor fellow...do you realize the damage you are doing to your career? You have to escape from this baroque cul-de-sac of computing while there is still time. Before you are forced to cut down the tallest tree in the forest with...a herring!
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
slashdot.com isn't really being used for anything, it only redirects to www.liason.com.
Bah. Can you say "cybersquatting"? I think we should encourage andover to sue. This is *not* like the etoys case.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
ROTFLMAO! The best bit is when she offered to help him get hold of a copy of the DeCSS software!
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I've been moderated unfairly! Someone's using moderator points to support a point of view I reckon.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Sorry, but I completely disagree. I'm not being reactionary, just pragmatic. The EFF aren't blind; they know where we are and they (surely) know we're discussing the subject continually. They also ought to know that if they need extra pairs of hands there are plenty of us here willing to help. The only two things that could stop them from using Slashdot as a source of ideas and information are incompetence and "not-invented-here" syndrome. If they're guilty of either of those (which I doubt) then we're fscked anyway.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Correction - fraternal twins are not clones. Monozygotic ("identical") twind are clones. It is a specific biological term and was in usage long before the current practice of nuclear substitution was invented.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Maybe 97% of the Slashdot posts on copyright/DeCSS/DMCA/UCITA subjects are lame or repetitious, but the other 3% is a vital source of new ideas and intelligent debate that I don't believe for a minute they could get for free anywhere else. If the EFF aren't already keeping a close eye on Slashdot then they don't even deserve to win.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
We've had test-tube babies for more than 20 years now. and since then, all kinds of unnatural conceptions. You never see society's hatred visited upon the individuals thus born, even though the parents might receive some flak over it. I really don't think most people will care when they see that a clone is just a normal baby and when they've already had it explained to them that it's just like a twin.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Pardon me??? Let me preface this with, I am a smoker. I smoke cigarettes. Camel cigarettes to be more accurate. As mentioned above, I used to smoke a lot more than cigarettes, including cannabis and opium. Let me say this... The potential for health problems with both cannabis and opium are far less than with every-day average nicotine cigarettes.
Nicotine is an addictive drug. Smoking is a stupid habit. Who's excluding nicotine use? I'm not. Marijuana *might* be less carcinogenic than tobacco (some studies say otherwise) but even if it is, it doesn't mean its harmless. Long-term (20-year) habitual marijuana users I've known cough like 20-year cigarette smokers.
No negative health problems thus far
Bully for you, one assumes you didn't overdo it. You probably won't get any problems from the LSD now that you've stopped using it. And if you used to smoke (whatever), the risk of cancer declines each year after you've stopped. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence though, and sticking unfamiliar substances into your body is prima facie an unhealthy thing to do - drugs that suppress or overstimulate or suppress appetite, alter your cardiovascular output and blood distribution etc. Worst of all, drugs that change the way your brain works. Did you know that MDMA (also known as X, E or Ecstasy) is very toxic to an important class of cells in the brainstem? This is what causes the deaths.
You accuse hydina of being naive and patronistic, and then respond in kind.
The difference is that I'm educated and experienced on both sides of the divide (I have been a drug user and am no longer; also I trained as a biochemist). So I'm not naive and I feel quite entitled to patronize the ignorant.
Some of the most intelligent older people that I know are habitual drug users.
Some of, I'm sure. And a lot of the brightest people are alcoholics too.
More often than not, you'll find that they offer an added bit of insight that conventional logic simply wouldn't drive you towards.
You're making an unwarranted assumption here. "insight that conventional logic simply wouldn't drive you towards"? What kind of logic would, then? Drug logic? Don't make me laugh. If there is an association it doesn't necessarily imply causality in one specific direction. It's more plausible to say that creative, intelligent, sensitive people are more likely to seek refuge from stress by taking mind-altering drugs. Had you ever considered that?
I value them as friends, colleagues, and mentors. I DO look up to them, and value their opinions and insights.
It's good that you have such relationships. But don't make the mistake of assuming that drugs are responsible for their insights.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Don't be daft.
<i>... what rights does a clone have? Are they still part of the human race?</i>
A individual cloned from an original is the same genetically as the original and therefore of the same species. What a stupid question!
<i>How exactly is their relationship to the original described (different relationship, different rights: ex: married, sibling, no affiliation)?</i>
A individual cloned from an original is the same genetically as the original and therefore they are identical twins in everyday parlance.
<i>Besides, I thought some high council on human rights met and discussed this issue (of human cloning) when Dolly was created and deemed that cloning humans was illegal.</i>
This is to be performed in one of those countries which doesn't subscribe to such agreements. There are plenty of such places, I think St. Kitts in the Caribbean is one of them.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Hey, don't go linking open source with drug use. Open Source is for people who like to get things done. I have respect for Open Source d00dz. Drugs are for lamers who can't deal with the real world. I have no respect for them, only pity.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction