I'm not missing anything, there is a self worth component here that people want to ignore because *it is* superficial. The definition of what a person is, what makes 'me', 'me' and 'you', 'you', is the crux of the matter. If a person is consciousness alone, which I what I believe, then continuity or duplication is absolutely irrelevant. It doesn't matter when, or how, a consciousness exists so long as it is able to act. These are arbitrary lines drawn in the sand. However, if a person is more than consciousness, if 'personhood' is as much biological self-image or continuity (a strange abstraction to be hung up on objectively, I think it's such a mental barrier simply because it's impossible currently to have a true lapse in continuity, the closest one can come is a coma or amnesia), then we have created a problem through that definition.
And again you're apparently one of those who thinks that gradual replacement is somehow different from replacement at a stroke. I'm sorry but that's nonsense. Why isn't replacing the last neuron suicide? Because 99.9continuing% is being done by an inorganic structure? So killing the last cell isn't suicide even when it's the only one left, but killing them all to achieve THE SAME LEVEL OF FUNCTION is? Nothing more than subjective nonsense about scale, driven by subjective and arbitrary importance placed on 'continuity'. The results are exactly the same.
I submit that continuity of consciousness is irrelevant. So long as the "new" consciousness is identical to the "old", it's really a subjective matter to the consciousness itself if that's important. It doesn't bother me, and if I were killed and *identical* duplicate took over from that point, it must *necessarily* not bother him or he wouldn't be identical. So, if it bothers you, if the technology should ever become available, simply don't do it. I'd rather, paradoxical though it may be, "die" in one form in order to not die in another, than just to die altogether.
It seems very superficial to base self-identity on the continuity of physical circumstances. Why is it so important to not know your consciousness has become inorganic? Ignorance is bliss? Sorry, I think ignorance is bullshit. I would be more unlike myself trying to hide from myself (which is a mental practice all to common among humans) than just understanding my own reality. If I lose an arm, I am not less myself because I am physically different from before I lost the arm. My outlook may be different, and my capabilities would be different, but there are few physical changes achievable without malice that would ever cause me to lose my self-identity.
I think that people, and I know there are many, who share your perspective are too wrapped up in self-identity as physiology. (Which is highly ironic when put in the context of people talking about souls, but that's human subjectivity for you. If it made sense I wouldn't have to bother.) If who you are is predicated on what you look like, or what you're made of, as opposed to what you know and how you think, then you've probably missed the self-actualization bus.
Semantic bullshit. Whether something is copied instantly as a whole or a small amount at a time is completely immaterial. It's still a copy. Considering that all human tissue is replaced roughly every seven years, we're all 'copies' of ourselves already. It doesn't matter if a neuron storing information is the same neuron that received it a decade ago. It similarly doesn't matter if it's not a neuron at all. What matters is the information and the consciousness to act on it.
It's cultural, and it has nothing to do with thinking they're the master race. It actually applies to nearly all of Asia, not just China, which makes me suspect it's rooted in Confucianism.
Chinese xenophobia and attitude of cultural/racial superiority predates Master Kong. Even during the Hundred Schools of Thought era that held sway with the scholarly class in pre-Qin Dynasty China there was not one movement historically (that I know of) that challenged any of the superiority of the Chinese self-identity compared to other races/cultures. The very fact that, as you say yourself, the attitude is not unique to China among Asian cultures indicates that it likely not a result of Confucianism given that Confucianism's influence never spread much further than Korea and Vietnam (though a reasonable case can be made that it directly influenced Shintoism in Japan).
I like how concrete examples are modded down because the truth might get in the way of somebody's opinions. Way to go Slashdot leftist idealogue censorship moderators.
Solving one deficiency can occur in a separate channel and in a separate timeframe than other deficiencies and still be valuable in any sphere where development is not wholly homogeneous. Or, put more simply, where there are some people in the developing world that have all the prerequisites and still no internet, this potentially helps them (though I'm not sure how they're even expected to receive the signals).
This just in: some people are smart enough not to put weird looking things on their roofs. The fact is you don't even need LOS from origin if you have a repeating station close enough that can get LOS without looking weird. Just let the smart people figure it out and go back to playing with yourself.
(As a complete coincidence, I watched 'Pirate Radio' last night. Those people put a whole transmitter into a suitcase, rigged an antenna into an umbrella, and were microcasting coverage of the WTO protests live from that set up. I had no idea, and for that matter, neither did the authorities.)
For some reason it reminds me of that South Park episode where Randy Marsh steals a superconducting magnet that enables their pine box derby car to travel faster than light. I can imagine some kids trying to one up each other about how they made paper airplanes that went X feet, and then some engineer walks up and says 'yeah, well I once made a paper airplane that from Germany to Australia, bitch.'
Old Slashdot = Lack of Change. Did I really have to spell that out?
And your attempt to turn my argument against me violates causality. If all the users whining about things changing or not changing had already left, I wouldn't be whining, so I wouldn't have to leave.
The only thing worse than people who whine about New Slashdot (waaaah Idle sucks waaaah I hate kdawson waaaah why isn't there a CowboyNeal option in every poll) are the people who whine about Old Slashdot. At least the former group has to come to grips with some kind of change, regardless of how petty or minor, but dude, really, this is what you signed up for. It's not a surprise or a secret. If you don't like it, there's the door. After all, if they ever changed it, it would just be another thing for the other group with no life to whine about.
I could go to the Library of Congress and have a hundred antebellum political cartoons and presidential campaign pamphlets from the period by this time tomorrow, and there would be thrice plus as many more after that.
It's not a matter of one weekly periodical's circulation. (Not to mention that the number only seems small in contemporary terms. The whole antebellum nation was smaller than 30 million people. That's smaller than all of California today. And remember, prior to "Jacksonian Democracy" only the generally more literate, land-owning white men could vote, so those were the only ones political pamphlets and advertisements had to reach.) Every urban center had periodicals, and they were more valuable in that period than today. You can't judge them anachronistically by the modern standard of buying a paper and throwing it out an hour later. Periodicals of 18th-19th century were passed from person to person from the urban centers out into the rural areas. People sent each other clippings in the mail. I'm afraid if you're unaware of such basic social norms in the period you're unqualified to render judgment.
When was the last time you saw a balding man, or a short man, elected president?
1) Balding: Gerald Ford.
2) Short: Jimmy Carter.
Neither were the first.
(More interestingly, prior to the Civil War, for what heights were known, a man was more likely to be elected if he was not the tallest candidate. Perhaps that was because the electorate was not as superficial in that era. Interesting pattern given the demographic changes to enfranchisement over time, but I am not prepared to draw conclusions without further research.)
As for George Washington, 'no military experience of note' is far too harsh a criticism for somebody who rose to the rank of colonel and served five years before the Revolution, mostly with success and distinction. Who do you think would have been more qualified? Philip Schuyler? Artemas Ward? They were both made major generals even though they had barely seen any previous combat. The only more legitimate choice might have been Charles Lee, but he was not as politically powerful as Washington, nor was his loyalty as certain. He had both the history and attitude of a mercenary, and that rubbed revolutionary ideals the wrong way.
The take home point here is that it is overly simplistic to try to boil down political success to who looks best. It is also a mistake to think that Anonymous is looking for political success. Wikileaks might be, but Anonymous is only doing what it wants, primarily for the lulz.
I wonder if his parents would rather he were a little less resourceful if it would get them back the shed his 'invention' burned down according to TFA.
At least in the last version I could search my own comment history. Now that's broken. And when I try to revisit comments to look at replies, I have to expand everything from zero. That's fun. And most of the comment children are hidden even if they are at a threshold to be abbreviated unless you expand all the comment parents. So I've changed the full threshold to 2. Sorry, version 3 sucks ass. 2 might have been slow and buggy, but it didn't completely inconvenience me by design. 3 does.
He is doing it correctly, you're the one assuming that a growth trend will remain fixed, sorry, but the real world doesn't work that way, no matter how hard environmentalists try to pretend it does.
There are Neo-Druidic groups that use it for a purpose related to its design (which may or may not overlap with its 'intended purpose' as that is lost to history and only guessed at by archaeology and anthropology), so yes.
Sorry, but no. The Antikythera mechanism has been reproduced severaltimes in fully functional form and 'used' by those reproducing it.
You would also do well to read your own link, depending on whose definition you're using 'henges' may not have been, categorically, tools at all. Some had astrological functions, others appear not to have had anything more than local topographical significance, which really doesn't make them tools any more than the landscaping at a community park.
Never did I say rootkit==backdoor. The parent I was replying to was saying that Sony wouldn't do a thing that opened the PS3 to malware writers, and the rootkit, by *your* own example "assisting some viruses in the process" did exactly... what? The same thing. Before. Do you get it yet?
So, the short summary of that agenda-driven polemic appears to be that you agree it will happen, you just want to whine about how it will be economically viable as opposed to supporting a romanticized utopia? Yeah, that was real helpful. Can I have my five minutes back?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not missing anything, there is a self worth component here that people want to ignore because *it is* superficial. The definition of what a person is, what makes 'me', 'me' and 'you', 'you', is the crux of the matter. If a person is consciousness alone, which I what I believe, then continuity or duplication is absolutely irrelevant. It doesn't matter when, or how, a consciousness exists so long as it is able to act. These are arbitrary lines drawn in the sand. However, if a person is more than consciousness, if 'personhood' is as much biological self-image or continuity (a strange abstraction to be hung up on objectively, I think it's such a mental barrier simply because it's impossible currently to have a true lapse in continuity, the closest one can come is a coma or amnesia), then we have created a problem through that definition.
And again you're apparently one of those who thinks that gradual replacement is somehow different from replacement at a stroke. I'm sorry but that's nonsense. Why isn't replacing the last neuron suicide? Because 99.9continuing% is being done by an inorganic structure? So killing the last cell isn't suicide even when it's the only one left, but killing them all to achieve THE SAME LEVEL OF FUNCTION is? Nothing more than subjective nonsense about scale, driven by subjective and arbitrary importance placed on 'continuity'. The results are exactly the same.
I submit that continuity of consciousness is irrelevant. So long as the "new" consciousness is identical to the "old", it's really a subjective matter to the consciousness itself if that's important. It doesn't bother me, and if I were killed and *identical* duplicate took over from that point, it must *necessarily* not bother him or he wouldn't be identical. So, if it bothers you, if the technology should ever become available, simply don't do it. I'd rather, paradoxical though it may be, "die" in one form in order to not die in another, than just to die altogether.
It seems very superficial to base self-identity on the continuity of physical circumstances. Why is it so important to not know your consciousness has become inorganic? Ignorance is bliss? Sorry, I think ignorance is bullshit. I would be more unlike myself trying to hide from myself (which is a mental practice all to common among humans) than just understanding my own reality. If I lose an arm, I am not less myself because I am physically different from before I lost the arm. My outlook may be different, and my capabilities would be different, but there are few physical changes achievable without malice that would ever cause me to lose my self-identity.
I think that people, and I know there are many, who share your perspective are too wrapped up in self-identity as physiology. (Which is highly ironic when put in the context of people talking about souls, but that's human subjectivity for you. If it made sense I wouldn't have to bother.) If who you are is predicated on what you look like, or what you're made of, as opposed to what you know and how you think, then you've probably missed the self-actualization bus.
Semantic bullshit. Whether something is copied instantly as a whole or a small amount at a time is completely immaterial. It's still a copy. Considering that all human tissue is replaced roughly every seven years, we're all 'copies' of ourselves already. It doesn't matter if a neuron storing information is the same neuron that received it a decade ago. It similarly doesn't matter if it's not a neuron at all. What matters is the information and the consciousness to act on it.
Seriously. I was reading that and thinking, dude, if cancer cells had no metabolism they would die without apoptosis.
It's cultural, and it has nothing to do with thinking they're the master race. It actually applies to nearly all of Asia, not just China, which makes me suspect it's rooted in Confucianism.
Chinese xenophobia and attitude of cultural/racial superiority predates Master Kong. Even during the Hundred Schools of Thought era that held sway with the scholarly class in pre-Qin Dynasty China there was not one movement historically (that I know of) that challenged any of the superiority of the Chinese self-identity compared to other races/cultures. The very fact that, as you say yourself, the attitude is not unique to China among Asian cultures indicates that it likely not a result of Confucianism given that Confucianism's influence never spread much further than Korea and Vietnam (though a reasonable case can be made that it directly influenced Shintoism in Japan).
I like how concrete examples are modded down because the truth might get in the way of somebody's opinions. Way to go Slashdot leftist idealogue censorship moderators.
I've heard that logic before somewhere...
Solving one deficiency can occur in a separate channel and in a separate timeframe than other deficiencies and still be valuable in any sphere where development is not wholly homogeneous. Or, put more simply, where there are some people in the developing world that have all the prerequisites and still no internet, this potentially helps them (though I'm not sure how they're even expected to receive the signals).
This just in: some people are smart enough not to put weird looking things on their roofs. The fact is you don't even need LOS from origin if you have a repeating station close enough that can get LOS without looking weird. Just let the smart people figure it out and go back to playing with yourself.
(As a complete coincidence, I watched 'Pirate Radio' last night. Those people put a whole transmitter into a suitcase, rigged an antenna into an umbrella, and were microcasting coverage of the WTO protests live from that set up. I had no idea, and for that matter, neither did the authorities.)
For some reason it reminds me of that South Park episode where Randy Marsh steals a superconducting magnet that enables their pine box derby car to travel faster than light. I can imagine some kids trying to one up each other about how they made paper airplanes that went X feet, and then some engineer walks up and says 'yeah, well I once made a paper airplane that from Germany to Australia, bitch.'
("Oh no, not Finrand!")
Old Slashdot = Lack of Change. Did I really have to spell that out?
And your attempt to turn my argument against me violates causality. If all the users whining about things changing or not changing had already left, I wouldn't be whining, so I wouldn't have to leave.
The only thing worse than people who whine about New Slashdot (waaaah Idle sucks waaaah I hate kdawson waaaah why isn't there a CowboyNeal option in every poll) are the people who whine about Old Slashdot. At least the former group has to come to grips with some kind of change, regardless of how petty or minor, but dude, really, this is what you signed up for. It's not a surprise or a secret. If you don't like it, there's the door. After all, if they ever changed it, it would just be another thing for the other group with no life to whine about.
I could go to the Library of Congress and have a hundred antebellum political cartoons and presidential campaign pamphlets from the period by this time tomorrow, and there would be thrice plus as many more after that.
It's not a matter of one weekly periodical's circulation. (Not to mention that the number only seems small in contemporary terms. The whole antebellum nation was smaller than 30 million people. That's smaller than all of California today. And remember, prior to "Jacksonian Democracy" only the generally more literate, land-owning white men could vote, so those were the only ones political pamphlets and advertisements had to reach.) Every urban center had periodicals, and they were more valuable in that period than today. You can't judge them anachronistically by the modern standard of buying a paper and throwing it out an hour later. Periodicals of 18th-19th century were passed from person to person from the urban centers out into the rural areas. People sent each other clippings in the mail. I'm afraid if you're unaware of such basic social norms in the period you're unqualified to render judgment.
Actually, he was elected, but I understand your meaning, he just wasn't elected President. Dwight Eisenhower then.
See, now I can tell it's a Photoshop from some of the pixels and having seen quite a few Photoshops in my time.
When was the last time you saw a balding man, or a short man, elected president?
1) Balding: Gerald Ford.
2) Short: Jimmy Carter.
Neither were the first.
(More interestingly, prior to the Civil War, for what heights were known, a man was more likely to be elected if he was not the tallest candidate. Perhaps that was because the electorate was not as superficial in that era. Interesting pattern given the demographic changes to enfranchisement over time, but I am not prepared to draw conclusions without further research.)
As for George Washington, 'no military experience of note' is far too harsh a criticism for somebody who rose to the rank of colonel and served five years before the Revolution, mostly with success and distinction. Who do you think would have been more qualified? Philip Schuyler? Artemas Ward? They were both made major generals even though they had barely seen any previous combat. The only more legitimate choice might have been Charles Lee, but he was not as politically powerful as Washington, nor was his loyalty as certain. He had both the history and attitude of a mercenary, and that rubbed revolutionary ideals the wrong way.
The take home point here is that it is overly simplistic to try to boil down political success to who looks best. It is also a mistake to think that Anonymous is looking for political success. Wikileaks might be, but Anonymous is only doing what it wants, primarily for the lulz.
I wonder if his parents would rather he were a little less resourceful if it would get them back the shed his 'invention' burned down according to TFA.
Buy candles?! Luxury! Make the wench make the candles from rendered fat like a proper chandler!
At least in the last version I could search my own comment history. Now that's broken. And when I try to revisit comments to look at replies, I have to expand everything from zero. That's fun. And most of the comment children are hidden even if they are at a threshold to be abbreviated unless you expand all the comment parents. So I've changed the full threshold to 2. Sorry, version 3 sucks ass. 2 might have been slow and buggy, but it didn't completely inconvenience me by design. 3 does.
He is doing it correctly, you're the one assuming that a growth trend will remain fixed, sorry, but the real world doesn't work that way, no matter how hard environmentalists try to pretend it does.
There are Neo-Druidic groups that use it for a purpose related to its design (which may or may not overlap with its 'intended purpose' as that is lost to history and only guessed at by archaeology and anthropology), so yes.
Sorry, but no. The Antikythera mechanism has been reproduced several times in fully functional form and 'used' by those reproducing it.
You would also do well to read your own link, depending on whose definition you're using 'henges' may not have been, categorically, tools at all. Some had astrological functions, others appear not to have had anything more than local topographical significance, which really doesn't make them tools any more than the landscaping at a community park.
Holy crap, that stuff is sick... somebody call NPR because those things are definitely the nail in this topic's coffin.
Never did I say rootkit==backdoor. The parent I was replying to was saying that Sony wouldn't do a thing that opened the PS3 to malware writers, and the rootkit, by *your* own example "assisting some viruses in the process" did exactly ... what? The same thing. Before. Do you get it yet?
So, the short summary of that agenda-driven polemic appears to be that you agree it will happen, you just want to whine about how it will be economically viable as opposed to supporting a romanticized utopia? Yeah, that was real helpful. Can I have my five minutes back?