Just wanted to say thank you for doing this. That is an example of excellent customer service and excellent sales tactics. Informed customers are happy customers, and happy customers come back to you. I wish more businesses would take the time to do what you do.
So some karmic kudos to you, sir. You deserve them.:-)
Of course, now that I think about it, the sight of a large pack of man-eating Rottweilers copiously fornicating on your front lawn would work as a repellent. Not only would you no longer have a problem with said door-to-door salesmen, but you'd no longer have to worry about neighbors, bratty kids, visiting in-laws, or women in general! Yup, I think you'd be able to relax in peaceful, relaxing tranquility, serenaded only by the lovely sounds of unholy carnal hell constantly erupting on your lawn.
"I'm gonna breed those dogs till they haven't got a fuck left in 'em..."
You're going to have an awful lot of cute, violently aggro puppies on your hands. Rotties aren't exactly known for their breeding restraint. Your cure might be worse than the solution here.
Oh will someone please mod this guy up! This is a classic example of 'daydreaming' at work, cuz we've ALL been there. I imagine productivity levels would soar if one was captivated for a few minutes by a lovely set of gazongas walking by.
Well, seeing as how South America has not yet devolved into a phorid-worm infested zombie hellhole, I don't think this is something you need to worry about.
I get your points. I'd like to say I disagree with the bad business model, but I'm a 'shades of gray' kind of guy. If some guy is trying to make a living solely off of the ads on his website that we're blocking... that's a bad business model. If on the other hand it's a well established website who sells out apportioned screen space to advertisers to augment revenue (but this isn't the core source of revenue), then it's a good business model.
Your second point is what I agree more with: I decide what's coming through on my connection.
are TOO successful.
You're a webmaster running a site that's partially (or completely) paid for by advertising. You see in your analytics report of hits that a significant percentage of viewers are running AdBlock. So not only are you NOT getting clicks, but your advertisers aren't even being seen to begin with. And let's assume you're honest (and that your advertisers are too), and that your ads aren't malicious and in fact serve a normal purpose: to advertise a legitimate product.
Given this, I can see why AdBlock might be considering this option. If they've gotten enough complaints from legitimate companies/websites with legitimate ads saying essentially "hey, your product is costing me a substantial amount of revenue loss", then its understandable that AdBlock would consider this. Since AdBlock's an open source/freeware product(hi Stallman!/Stallman's acolytes! Please do ignore my semi-ignorant malapropism... there's plenty of room for you in my colon!), basically AdBlock (and NoScript) are allowing users to get something for nothing... for free! We are cheating the system in a way.
So I say let AdBlock look at doing it. I'll admit, sometimes it's good to see advertising, especially if it's a product/service I'm interested in. I run AB/NS simply because I've been burned one too many time by a scriptkiddie, but I do allow websites I trust to show ads.
Nahh... I'm going to suggest something even more far-fetched: the question of God is irrelevant, the question of the existence of the soul is what matters.
Besides, why would a God create a universe to get the responses it wants? If it's that omnipotent, then why go to the trouble, the expense, and the time? Why bother to create something in as much detail as our reality is? What would be the point of the simulation?
And if we have souls, then the idea of the simulation goes out the window too.
Kurzweil's theory and predictions are predicated on the idea that we have no soul, that we are essentially very complicated biological machines with the illusion of sentience.
If he is correct, then you are correct: it will be technologically feasible someday to upload ourselves.
If on the other hand we DO have a soul, then all his predictions go out the window and a whole NEW slew of problems arise. Such as: how exactly did we end up with an indestructible self-aware essence that defies the laws of thermodynamics? And... what exactly created it?
The way I look at it, the entire history of mankind can be boiled down to the dualistic philosophical question: do we have a soul or not? If we do not have souls, then the universe is a harsh, dark mistress, there is no God, and all we see is all there really is.
If however we do have souls, then boy do we have problems. Because if we have souls, then we open up the door to the distinct possibility of a deity, or deities, and that our actions do matter because there is an afterlife. And (this is really scary) there might really be entities like Cthlulu out there in the void. That's IF we have souls though (defining a soul as an indestructible self-aware essence that defies the laws of thermodynamics).
Given that, I can see why people would prefer to believe that we are machines and that we should work on uploading ourselves as intelligent programs. There's nothing in the dark we'd have to fear save ourselves then.
running your 14.4K baud modem with your "I make Token Ring Networks" t-shirt and gaming via Com1...
on Windows 98 SE!!!!!
I crap my pants every time my brain dredges THAT memory up. Now if you'll excuse me, I've done something unholy in my underroos YET again...
Ya know... if we can fly planes into hurricanes, and we can beam power-producing microwaves from space to earth... why couldn't we figure out a way to tap and store the energy of a hurricane?
I consider your point of view to be valid, and I'm sure I'd sleep very well in a city with no laws, governed by contracts, and populated with Libertarians of your exact mindset.
The problem is that you, sir, wouldn't be able to account for all the psycho whacked-out nutjobs also claiming the libertarian title who would want to move to your city because "hey, we're 'libertarians' too." And even if you were able to keep them out, population pressures would still guarantee that sooner or later someone in your city would exhibit deviancy of some sort. And at that point, you'd have to institute thought-crime contracts (since there are no laws).
Thoughts? Comments? Mod me down for being a pansy troll?
Well, that'll make the hard-core atheists AND the fundies stay awake at night... Just think, we're all the creation of some higher order of eight year old being...:-P
I feel you're on to something here:
Along the lines of the parent post I put on... let's assume that fractals are correct and that Palmer's right.
Would that then mean that there is a limit to the universe, in terms of using fractals to make sure we get the calculation just right to avoid 'hitting nothing' when calculating position and velocity?
If so, is non-existence quantifiable?
Or does the act of measuring it increase existence?
My head is starting to hurt here, so I'd like to ask if someone far more knowledgable than I am can answer this. What I'm thinking though, is that if Palmer's correct, then we might have found an edge of the universe (so to speak), and if we have, then wouldn't that put us a whole lot closer towards determining whether or not we are in a simulation (a better way to put it would be : we are the simulation?)
So if I understand this correctly, Palmer is saying that the universe has a finite amount of information variables and at some certain point it will reach that limit? And that every time we try a thought experiment to measure either the position or a velocity of a particle, we risk overstepping that finite limit and thus get results where we can only measure one or the other because to do both sets us beyond the limit?
So then can it be inferred that he's saying the universe has a limit then?
Slashdot Mirror
Just wanted to say thank you for doing this. That is an example of excellent customer service and excellent sales tactics. Informed customers are happy customers, and happy customers come back to you. I wish more businesses would take the time to do what you do. So some karmic kudos to you, sir. You deserve them. :-)
Of course, now that I think about it, the sight of a large pack of man-eating Rottweilers copiously fornicating on your front lawn would work as a repellent. Not only would you no longer have a problem with said door-to-door salesmen, but you'd no longer have to worry about neighbors, bratty kids, visiting in-laws, or women in general! Yup, I think you'd be able to relax in peaceful, relaxing tranquility, serenaded only by the lovely sounds of unholy carnal hell constantly erupting on your lawn.
"I'm gonna breed those dogs till they haven't got a fuck left in 'em..." You're going to have an awful lot of cute, violently aggro puppies on your hands. Rotties aren't exactly known for their breeding restraint. Your cure might be worse than the solution here.
Oh will someone please mod this guy up! This is a classic example of 'daydreaming' at work, cuz we've ALL been there. I imagine productivity levels would soar if one was captivated for a few minutes by a lovely set of gazongas walking by.
Well, seeing as how South America has not yet devolved into a phorid-worm infested zombie hellhole, I don't think this is something you need to worry about.
I yield to your point, sir.
I get your points. I'd like to say I disagree with the bad business model, but I'm a 'shades of gray' kind of guy. If some guy is trying to make a living solely off of the ads on his website that we're blocking... that's a bad business model. If on the other hand it's a well established website who sells out apportioned screen space to advertisers to augment revenue (but this isn't the core source of revenue), then it's a good business model. Your second point is what I agree more with: I decide what's coming through on my connection.
are TOO successful. You're a webmaster running a site that's partially (or completely) paid for by advertising. You see in your analytics report of hits that a significant percentage of viewers are running AdBlock. So not only are you NOT getting clicks, but your advertisers aren't even being seen to begin with. And let's assume you're honest (and that your advertisers are too), and that your ads aren't malicious and in fact serve a normal purpose: to advertise a legitimate product. Given this, I can see why AdBlock might be considering this option. If they've gotten enough complaints from legitimate companies/websites with legitimate ads saying essentially "hey, your product is costing me a substantial amount of revenue loss", then its understandable that AdBlock would consider this. Since AdBlock's an open source/freeware product(hi Stallman!/Stallman's acolytes! Please do ignore my semi-ignorant malapropism... there's plenty of room for you in my colon!), basically AdBlock (and NoScript) are allowing users to get something for nothing... for free! We are cheating the system in a way. So I say let AdBlock look at doing it. I'll admit, sometimes it's good to see advertising, especially if it's a product/service I'm interested in. I run AB/NS simply because I've been burned one too many time by a scriptkiddie, but I do allow websites I trust to show ads.
Nahh... I'm going to suggest something even more far-fetched: the question of God is irrelevant, the question of the existence of the soul is what matters. Besides, why would a God create a universe to get the responses it wants? If it's that omnipotent, then why go to the trouble, the expense, and the time? Why bother to create something in as much detail as our reality is? What would be the point of the simulation? And if we have souls, then the idea of the simulation goes out the window too.
Kurzweil's theory and predictions are predicated on the idea that we have no soul, that we are essentially very complicated biological machines with the illusion of sentience. If he is correct, then you are correct: it will be technologically feasible someday to upload ourselves. If on the other hand we DO have a soul, then all his predictions go out the window and a whole NEW slew of problems arise. Such as: how exactly did we end up with an indestructible self-aware essence that defies the laws of thermodynamics? And... what exactly created it? The way I look at it, the entire history of mankind can be boiled down to the dualistic philosophical question: do we have a soul or not? If we do not have souls, then the universe is a harsh, dark mistress, there is no God, and all we see is all there really is. If however we do have souls, then boy do we have problems. Because if we have souls, then we open up the door to the distinct possibility of a deity, or deities, and that our actions do matter because there is an afterlife. And (this is really scary) there might really be entities like Cthlulu out there in the void. That's IF we have souls though (defining a soul as an indestructible self-aware essence that defies the laws of thermodynamics). Given that, I can see why people would prefer to believe that we are machines and that we should work on uploading ourselves as intelligent programs. There's nothing in the dark we'd have to fear save ourselves then.
Mod parent up. Although he expressed anti-MS sentiment, he also asked a good question.
is some drunken golfer dropping his pants and crapping down the exhaust pipe of his cart.
running your 14.4K baud modem with your "I make Token Ring Networks" t-shirt and gaming via Com1... on Windows 98 SE!!!!! I crap my pants every time my brain dredges THAT memory up. Now if you'll excuse me, I've done something unholy in my underroos YET again...
Mod parent up please. This is insightful for an opinion piece.
Ya know... if we can fly planes into hurricanes, and we can beam power-producing microwaves from space to earth... why couldn't we figure out a way to tap and store the energy of a hurricane?
I consider your point of view to be valid, and I'm sure I'd sleep very well in a city with no laws, governed by contracts, and populated with Libertarians of your exact mindset. The problem is that you, sir, wouldn't be able to account for all the psycho whacked-out nutjobs also claiming the libertarian title who would want to move to your city because "hey, we're 'libertarians' too." And even if you were able to keep them out, population pressures would still guarantee that sooner or later someone in your city would exhibit deviancy of some sort. And at that point, you'd have to institute thought-crime contracts (since there are no laws). Thoughts? Comments? Mod me down for being a pansy troll?
This entire thread is simply freakin' brilliant! Mod ALL these guys up!
Well, that'll make the hard-core atheists AND the fundies stay awake at night... Just think, we're all the creation of some higher order of eight year old being... :-P
Mod parent up. This is not a troll, this is a personal statement of difference.
I feel you're on to something here: Along the lines of the parent post I put on... let's assume that fractals are correct and that Palmer's right. Would that then mean that there is a limit to the universe, in terms of using fractals to make sure we get the calculation just right to avoid 'hitting nothing' when calculating position and velocity? If so, is non-existence quantifiable? Or does the act of measuring it increase existence? My head is starting to hurt here, so I'd like to ask if someone far more knowledgable than I am can answer this. What I'm thinking though, is that if Palmer's correct, then we might have found an edge of the universe (so to speak), and if we have, then wouldn't that put us a whole lot closer towards determining whether or not we are in a simulation (a better way to put it would be : we are the simulation?)
So if I understand this correctly, Palmer is saying that the universe has a finite amount of information variables and at some certain point it will reach that limit? And that every time we try a thought experiment to measure either the position or a velocity of a particle, we risk overstepping that finite limit and thus get results where we can only measure one or the other because to do both sets us beyond the limit? So then can it be inferred that he's saying the universe has a limit then?
Duly noted.
You're just INVITING to be clubbed with Godwin, aren't you?
But Jello is not! Come on, what is better than Jello?
Thank you Langelgjm. I appreciate your response. :-) I'll look at the link and go from there.