So, let's see, I can buy a 3.2 ghz hexacore from AMD for ~$300 or one from Intel for ~$900 on NewEgg right now... 5% price difference my ass. Even if it were 10% slower it would still be a killer deal.
That was what Malcolm X advocated before his return from Mecca. Surprising though it may be in retrospect (if your exposure to black people is limited), there were many (and are still some) black people who prefer racial separation. I don't think it would help socially, but try reasoning with the militantly insular and see how far you get.
This. I think South Park provided the best insight when Chef was telling Mr. Garrison about how black people kept adjusting their vocabulary based on when white people starting imitating it.
I think it would be more awesome to have each of them train for a time under a group of east coast and west coast rappers respectively. Then after, say, a year of training, they meet for an ultimate rap battle at an arena and give their best attempts to 'serve' and/or 'school' each other from their given perspectives in mad rhymez.
I like how within your perspective a difference of opinion is 'total ignorance'. In that context, I will treat you with equivalent respect. Materialism is so long been disproved that leading biologists like Dr. Richard Dawkins still ascribe to it. Yes, I see what poor company I keep.
Really, you're going to peddle Peter Russell? A guy who makes his living selling pseudopsychological snake oil to businesses? Lynne McTaggart is even worse, she spreads FUD about modern medicine to suit some whackjob personal political agenda. I recognize that I am not assailing their arguments because they are not worth my time, nor are you, as I said I'm only going to give you as much respect as you've given me, which has been none.
Oh and Max Plan[c]k's [SIC] opinion of consciousness is about as meaningful as Jung's opinion of quantum electrodynamics. Planck did not have the background in the field of neuroscience or psychology to have an educated opinion about consciousness. He simply had an opinion, and that opinion gains no more automatic credence because he happened to have a Nobel prize in an unrelated field. Even if all of that were different, a lot can change in nearly a century.
I don't deny there are levels of consciousness, they're just all physical. Just as the levels in a computer are all physical. Software is nothing more than differential physical states on magnetic media and within circuits. The mind is the same, and below that level is electricity again not "spirit", just like in a computer coincidentally.
The fundamental assumption is that there is some kind of mystical brain/mind dualism. From where I sit, modeling environments really isn't a hard thing to do. Our brains develop minds by not much more than sensory feedback. Experiments with rat brain cells in petri dishes attached to electrodes that control robots have shown that brain cells respond to sensory feedback even in ad hoc configurations. If we can truly model what the brain is physically, then development will be a simple trial and error experience, not unlike training any other brain.
Mind is nothing more than categorized recollected experience extrapolated to understand unfolding or future/potential events.
To paraphrase something somebody wisely said in the previous thread about this topic, you don't need to model the electrons in the circuit of a machine to emulate an NES.
Yes, yes they can. The 'random number' outcomes you love to keep stroking were qualitative judgments only. Unless you can point me to a study that shows certified master sommeliers change their minds regularly on something as fundamental as varietals (a study, I assure you, does not exist), then what you are saying is bullshit. I agree that qualitative testing is subjective to person and mood and is objectively worthless and I never said otherwise, but certified sommeliers do know the difference between vintages no matter what day it is. For chrissake, that's part of the test to become a certified sommelier.
Yep, that's it: I've tried the full wine spectrum, taking advice from oenophiles, and never enjoyed drinking a single one... but I just must have "limited exposure".
You're being deliberately obtuse. You obviously fall into the other category, you simply just are not fond of wine. So what?
I also know of no 'wine lover' that would rather have a milkshake. I myself would prefer wine (even a mediocre one, let alone on of my favorites) to a milkshake, if no less reason than I am one of the odd few that is not all that fond of ice cream. If you had two brain cells to rub together, you might see an important principle in that.
There is a *lot* more going on here than taste, and to pretend that taste is an important, or even remotely relevant factor in deciding what the best wines are, is a pure delusion.
For me, that is all there is. 95% of the wine, sake, and mead that I buy is based on whim or my own previous experience. Rarely do I buy based on another's opinion, and almost never based on a review. In fact, I can recall being steered away from a mead once based on somebody else's experience, and I decided to find out for myself. I like it so much I bought three bottles.
In the oenophile world, yes, there are many layers of image and pretension to be considered, which is why repeated blind tests give almost random results on qualitative (and qualitative alone) factors. I think it's ridiculous to give wines 'scores' and more ridiculous to make purchasing decisions based on them. That does not mean that there are not good and bad wines in each person's opinion, and that is exactly why the market perpetuates at the widespread level that it does.
People drink wine to get the psychoactive effects while pretending to be refined so they can fit in with the kewl kidz.
This is called projecting. You think that whatever you do and the perspective you have is somehow the objective truth, and when you perceive that others might behave differently, you egoistically distort it such that those people must really be exactly like you on the inside, they're just hiding under superficial differences.
Sorry to disappoint you, but people really are different. Yeah, I know people who drink to get drunk, but that doesn't mean everybody does. I drink for taste, always have, and hopefully always will (if you perceive this and must distort or deny it, you are losing congruence). I have been truly drunk maybe twice in my life.
Get over yourself.
Let's recap. I'm saying that people can like wine for the taste (an inherently rational statement of possibility), and I use myself as an example, but acknowledge that others like you may not which is not my problem. You're saying that people cannot like wine for the taste (an inherently irrational statement of impossibility) because you don't, and if somebody says they do they are deluding themselves because you're more right about everybody else's true self than they are about themselves because you're some kind of all-wise demigod (which is a neurotic projection of personal deficiencies onto others as a coping mechanism for a perceived lack of value in the self).
At the end of the day it's a matter of 'what will the market tolerate?' It's not like there was a technical limitation to paper books that prevented them from making them like magazines where every other page was an ad. Simply nobody wanted to buy books like that. The same will hold true with ebooks. Even if some ebook publishers start to throw in tons of ads, the likely effect will be that many will leave that purveyor behind and move to other publishers who don't use such methods.
Every niche has an equilibrium state, which unsurprisingly represents a compromise between consumer taste/inconvenience and the perceived value of the service/product.
Ah, I see, I can 'fuck off' for stating facts. Classy. I also like how you put the reference to ads already in use in scare quotes, as though by some virtue of their location they are somehow less 'ads' than other 'ads'.
There is a fundamental difference between wine and cables. Cables have technical specifications, if they operate within those parameters which can be tested and measured objectively then they are good cables. Any branding or subjective opinion on top of that is superfluous. While wine has specific knowns about it (vintage, origin, etc.) those objective facts don't make it good or bad. Good or bad is in the mouth of the taster.
One of your fundamentally incorrect assumptions is that I am defending the objectivity of qualitative testing. I am not, and have not said anything like that. All I have said and continue to say is that it is possible to enjoy wine for the taste, and if you don't ("[all] wine tastes like sour acetone"), that remains your personal problem, either because your exposure is too limited OR because it's just not something you're disposed to like.
AC has a point. Advertisements in books are already common, I could find dozens easily in the paperbacks I have, so everybody can get off their high horse about how this is some kind of unprecedented sign of the contemporary consumerist apocalypse. It's the same business as usual as the rest of the last century of publishing.
Yeah, that's real cute, except that when done that actually creates a lot of non sequiturs, equating music with players and so forth. The overarching situation here remains the same, you don't like something, therefore you think everybody else shouldn't like it either, and if they continue to like it anyway, they're 'rationalizing'. GFY.
Spoken like somebody who has never had a good bottle, or maybe you just don't like wine. For my part I have had $8 bottles that I have loved, and $40 bottles which I wanted to love (when something is more expensive you do *want* to like it) but in fact hated. Point being, price doesn't correlate with taste, and I rarely buy anything I know any background for so there is no prejudice there.
If you don't like the taste of wine generally that's just your problem, but don't assume that it cannot be enjoyed for its taste by others.
Quite frankly I'm not at all surprised that rankings would change day to day even by the same people. Taste is very tied to mood. People tend not to want to eat the same thing all the time, even when it's something they like.
You're talking about quality assessments which are much more subjective than 'wine is from x year and y region aged in z barrels' which are either right or wrong and thus would not change.
It really is a matter of taste, which is why more and more contemporary booze critics emphasize 'drink what you like' (although some can take it too far, you practically can't get a recommendation out of Beau Timken because he thinks palettes are so subjective).
I happen to like a good Retsina, which frequently gets me warnings at restaurants because so many people apparently don't like it when they try it (since it is made with pine resin). Not that there aren't bad Retsinas intrinsically... like Malamatina... revolting.
But... but... Mark Roberti says it hasn't ever been successfully misused! How is this possible?!?! Could it be that he doesn't know shit and is just shilling for an industry he effectively represents and serves?
You could have left it alone and then if somebody jumped on you could have claimed you were making an imperative like 'accept it!' However, now you have convicted yourself. Smooth move, Exlax.
Slashdot Mirror
Feeding the troll:
So, let's see, I can buy a 3.2 ghz hexacore from AMD for ~$300 or one from Intel for ~$900 on NewEgg right now... 5% price difference my ass. Even if it were 10% slower it would still be a killer deal.
He didn't say public lashing.
That was what Malcolm X advocated before his return from Mecca. Surprising though it may be in retrospect (if your exposure to black people is limited), there were many (and are still some) black people who prefer racial separation. I don't think it would help socially, but try reasoning with the militantly insular and see how far you get.
Yeah the 1960s are over, dawg. The only thing left of black nationalism is Kwanzaa, and even that is a joke.
This. I think South Park provided the best insight when Chef was telling Mr. Garrison about how black people kept adjusting their vocabulary based on when white people starting imitating it.
It was actually pretty cheap because Geeks in Space wasn't using it anymore.
I think it would be more awesome to have each of them train for a time under a group of east coast and west coast rappers respectively. Then after, say, a year of training, they meet for an ultimate rap battle at an arena and give their best attempts to 'serve' and/or 'school' each other from their given perspectives in mad rhymez.
Ha ha, well put. Almost wish I had used that format as a comeback, except that I don't want to be 'that guy'.
I like how within your perspective a difference of opinion is 'total ignorance'. In that context, I will treat you with equivalent respect. Materialism is so long been disproved that leading biologists like Dr. Richard Dawkins still ascribe to it. Yes, I see what poor company I keep.
Really, you're going to peddle Peter Russell? A guy who makes his living selling pseudopsychological snake oil to businesses? Lynne McTaggart is even worse, she spreads FUD about modern medicine to suit some whackjob personal political agenda. I recognize that I am not assailing their arguments because they are not worth my time, nor are you, as I said I'm only going to give you as much respect as you've given me, which has been none.
Oh and Max Plan[c]k's [SIC] opinion of consciousness is about as meaningful as Jung's opinion of quantum electrodynamics. Planck did not have the background in the field of neuroscience or psychology to have an educated opinion about consciousness. He simply had an opinion, and that opinion gains no more automatic credence because he happened to have a Nobel prize in an unrelated field. Even if all of that were different, a lot can change in nearly a century.
I don't deny there are levels of consciousness, they're just all physical. Just as the levels in a computer are all physical. Software is nothing more than differential physical states on magnetic media and within circuits. The mind is the same, and below that level is electricity again not "spirit", just like in a computer coincidentally.
The fundamental assumption is that there is some kind of mystical brain/mind dualism. From where I sit, modeling environments really isn't a hard thing to do. Our brains develop minds by not much more than sensory feedback. Experiments with rat brain cells in petri dishes attached to electrodes that control robots have shown that brain cells respond to sensory feedback even in ad hoc configurations. If we can truly model what the brain is physically, then development will be a simple trial and error experience, not unlike training any other brain.
Mind is nothing more than categorized recollected experience extrapolated to understand unfolding or future/potential events.
To paraphrase something somebody wisely said in the previous thread about this topic, you don't need to model the electrons in the circuit of a machine to emulate an NES.
But nobody can distinguish these objective facts!
Yes, yes they can. The 'random number' outcomes you love to keep stroking were qualitative judgments only. Unless you can point me to a study that shows certified master sommeliers change their minds regularly on something as fundamental as varietals (a study, I assure you, does not exist), then what you are saying is bullshit. I agree that qualitative testing is subjective to person and mood and is objectively worthless and I never said otherwise, but certified sommeliers do know the difference between vintages no matter what day it is. For chrissake, that's part of the test to become a certified sommelier.
Yep, that's it: I've tried the full wine spectrum, taking advice from oenophiles, and never enjoyed drinking a single one ... but I just must have "limited exposure".
You're being deliberately obtuse. You obviously fall into the other category, you simply just are not fond of wine. So what?
I also know of no 'wine lover' that would rather have a milkshake. I myself would prefer wine (even a mediocre one, let alone on of my favorites) to a milkshake, if no less reason than I am one of the odd few that is not all that fond of ice cream. If you had two brain cells to rub together, you might see an important principle in that.
There is a *lot* more going on here than taste, and to pretend that taste is an important, or even remotely relevant factor in deciding what the best wines are, is a pure delusion.
For me, that is all there is. 95% of the wine, sake, and mead that I buy is based on whim or my own previous experience. Rarely do I buy based on another's opinion, and almost never based on a review. In fact, I can recall being steered away from a mead once based on somebody else's experience, and I decided to find out for myself. I like it so much I bought three bottles.
In the oenophile world, yes, there are many layers of image and pretension to be considered, which is why repeated blind tests give almost random results on qualitative (and qualitative alone) factors. I think it's ridiculous to give wines 'scores' and more ridiculous to make purchasing decisions based on them. That does not mean that there are not good and bad wines in each person's opinion, and that is exactly why the market perpetuates at the widespread level that it does.
People drink wine to get the psychoactive effects while pretending to be refined so they can fit in with the kewl kidz.
This is called projecting. You think that whatever you do and the perspective you have is somehow the objective truth, and when you perceive that others might behave differently, you egoistically distort it such that those people must really be exactly like you on the inside, they're just hiding under superficial differences.
Sorry to disappoint you, but people really are different. Yeah, I know people who drink to get drunk, but that doesn't mean everybody does. I drink for taste, always have, and hopefully always will (if you perceive this and must distort or deny it, you are losing congruence). I have been truly drunk maybe twice in my life.
Get over yourself.
Let's recap. I'm saying that people can like wine for the taste (an inherently rational statement of possibility), and I use myself as an example, but acknowledge that others like you may not which is not my problem. You're saying that people cannot like wine for the taste (an inherently irrational statement of impossibility) because you don't, and if somebody says they do they are deluding themselves because you're more right about everybody else's true self than they are about themselves because you're some kind of all-wise demigod (which is a neurotic projection of personal deficiencies onto others as a coping mechanism for a perceived lack of value in the self).
Who needs to get over themselves here? Really?
At the end of the day it's a matter of 'what will the market tolerate?' It's not like there was a technical limitation to paper books that prevented them from making them like magazines where every other page was an ad. Simply nobody wanted to buy books like that. The same will hold true with ebooks. Even if some ebook publishers start to throw in tons of ads, the likely effect will be that many will leave that purveyor behind and move to other publishers who don't use such methods.
Every niche has an equilibrium state, which unsurprisingly represents a compromise between consumer taste/inconvenience and the perceived value of the service/product.
I remember books from 60s and 70s that had inserts in the middle. I still might have a few around.
Ah, I see, I can 'fuck off' for stating facts. Classy. I also like how you put the reference to ads already in use in scare quotes, as though by some virtue of their location they are somehow less 'ads' than other 'ads'.
There is a fundamental difference between wine and cables. Cables have technical specifications, if they operate within those parameters which can be tested and measured objectively then they are good cables. Any branding or subjective opinion on top of that is superfluous. While wine has specific knowns about it (vintage, origin, etc.) those objective facts don't make it good or bad. Good or bad is in the mouth of the taster.
One of your fundamentally incorrect assumptions is that I am defending the objectivity of qualitative testing. I am not, and have not said anything like that. All I have said and continue to say is that it is possible to enjoy wine for the taste, and if you don't ("[all] wine tastes like sour acetone"), that remains your personal problem, either because your exposure is too limited OR because it's just not something you're disposed to like.
AC has a point. Advertisements in books are already common, I could find dozens easily in the paperbacks I have, so everybody can get off their high horse about how this is some kind of unprecedented sign of the contemporary consumerist apocalypse. It's the same business as usual as the rest of the last century of publishing.
Yeah, that's real cute, except that when done that actually creates a lot of non sequiturs, equating music with players and so forth. The overarching situation here remains the same, you don't like something, therefore you think everybody else shouldn't like it either, and if they continue to like it anyway, they're 'rationalizing'. GFY.
Spoken like somebody who has never had a good bottle, or maybe you just don't like wine. For my part I have had $8 bottles that I have loved, and $40 bottles which I wanted to love (when something is more expensive you do *want* to like it) but in fact hated. Point being, price doesn't correlate with taste, and I rarely buy anything I know any background for so there is no prejudice there.
If you don't like the taste of wine generally that's just your problem, but don't assume that it cannot be enjoyed for its taste by others.
Quite frankly I'm not at all surprised that rankings would change day to day even by the same people. Taste is very tied to mood. People tend not to want to eat the same thing all the time, even when it's something they like.
You're talking about quality assessments which are much more subjective than 'wine is from x year and y region aged in z barrels' which are either right or wrong and thus would not change.
It really is a matter of taste, which is why more and more contemporary booze critics emphasize 'drink what you like' (although some can take it too far, you practically can't get a recommendation out of Beau Timken because he thinks palettes are so subjective).
I happen to like a good Retsina, which frequently gets me warnings at restaurants because so many people apparently don't like it when they try it (since it is made with pine resin). Not that there aren't bad Retsinas intrinsically... like Malamatina... revolting.
If your 'non-generic' tea doesn't taste better than your generic tea, you're doing it seriously wrong.
That guy should honestly receive an honorary "I spotted the fed!" t-shirt at every DefCon for the rest of his life.
But... but... Mark Roberti says it hasn't ever been successfully misused! How is this possible?!?! Could it be that he doesn't know shit and is just shilling for an industry he effectively represents and serves?
That is an urban legend. There are metals in the paper that induct microwaves and heat (even burn/explode), but these are not RFID chips.
Figures that somebody whining about capitalism and libertarians in their sig would spread such FUD.
You could have left it alone and then if somebody jumped on you could have claimed you were making an imperative like 'accept it!' However, now you have convicted yourself. Smooth move, Exlax.