Thinking about a universe simulator that predicts the future is fun; but should be impossible by the laws of information entropy. The absolute smallest space you could use to record the information about the position and rotation and composition of an atom would be at least the size of an atom; Even if your machine runs on the quark scale, you need to record information for every quark of the universe. Your machine could never achieve a greater bit "resolution" than the universe that it takes place in, so therefor you could only ever simulate a portion of the known universe. To simulate the entire universe, you would need a computer the size of the universe at least (if not much larger), IE the universe itself. You cannot fit a perfect copy of the universe inside of the universe. So short of somehow creating additional dimensions then you're SOL. That is, if the universe is indeed digital (as particles would suggest). If instead everything is continuous with infinite resoloution... there's a whole lot of questions to be answered.
a game that most of us had not heard of until this bundle.
Its UPLINK.
This is/.
Maybe you haven't heard of it, that's fine. But don't make assumptions.
Uplink has always been THE ONLY halfway decent hacking game. Hell, it came out in 2001! Uplink is a classic of PC gaming.
Seriously? So many patents these days are "we took idea X and added Y, so now we have a patent on X with Y." Where X and Y were both existing concepts. (As poster says, think/. karma + outlook delegates). I have no problem with Google developing their own software implementation, and I have no problem with google receiving protection for that IP Itself, the software. That should be protected. But that Google or anybody else can just go "FIRST!" and grab a monopoly for the foreseeable future... Uggh.
How freaking selfish are you that you'd rather keep somebody around to talk to than let them enjoy eternal bliss?
I immediately recognized that someone would want to have a friend or loved one around, that might be lonely or sad without them. However, if you love someone, would you sacrifice their happiness and eternal bliss for your own sadness? That is extremely selfish. Even if your sadness is a problem, taking away ABSOLUTE HEAVENLY BLISS from someone you love would be worse.
Have you never had a friend move away, and gotten sad because of that? Perhaps not.
Who do you think you are? Why do you have to straw-man me as a COMPLETE imbecile who has not experienced any part of human interaction? How about INSTEAD, you take a minute and use your brain.
This is why we can't have nice things. We don't discuss anymore, we don't debate, we don't think. We just look down at everybody else, and TELL them what we already know. Like you're omnipotent.
If you honestly believed 100% that when you die you go to a beautiful place then why mourn death?
Because their friends and family and loved ones have still lost someone very dear to them. If you think about it, funerals are for the living as much as they are for the dead, if not more.
They've only temporarily lost contact though. How freaking selfish are you that you'd rather keep somebody around to talk to than let them enjoy eternal bliss? If you truly believe, then you believe that you will absolutely join that person in Heaven soon, will be with them there for eternity. So why get sad? It doesn't make ANY sense, because it isn't logical.
If you honestly believed 100% that when you die you go to a beautiful place then why mourn death?
Exactly. Blows me freaking mind, people who look at me straight faced and tell me they KNOW that there is a God and they KNOW their loved one is in heaven, which they KNOW is the greatest place on earth and everybody will go there forever. And then they cry and weep and yell and ask God "Why???". Even as a child that seemed way off to me, I was tempted to remind them of their faith. None of it gets you anywhere. If everything is God's plan, why pray? Why dare ask God for something he didn't plan for? Why not trust his plan?
They don't really believe what they say they do. Its double-think. They believe in some aspects of it, but they don't think it through.
The other link was "Rich Jones of GUN.IO", I didn't know that a link about the person would have more information about the subject than the linked article would.
The only thing I would say is that Apple never, enticed Adobe to create a Flash compiler, but the end result was pretty similar.
Agh, I was trying to create a fictional example, and I stumbled onto another abusive truth. There's so many things wrong with the world you can't even make a decent hypothetical!
"I don't want to live on this planet anymore." - Farnsworth
Our theory of social wrong and our justice system are at least in theory based on reformation: people are punished in hope that they 'go forth and sin no more', to use the biblical phrasing. People are fired for gross misconduct at work and left to seek another job, not ostracized for life. Criminals are prosecuted, punished and then released under appropriate restrictions, not destroyed and left to suffer.
Why not just shoot him?
Amen, brother. Sadly we live in a culture of revenge and small-minded egocentricity. It doesn't matter what your economic or governing system is, you can be a monarchy, a dictatorship, a republic, a democracy; you can be capitalist, socialist, communist, it doesn't matter; if your citizenry is made up of a bunch of Ghandis and Jesuses and MLKs, then everything is going to work fine. If King or the President or the Dictator has everyone's best interests to heart, and everybody else feels the same about him, it simply does not matter. The problem fundamentally is a cultural one, we need a paradigm shift, we need education, we need understanding and forgiveness.
The Chinese shot them, drove over them with tanks. The Democrat KKK killed civil rights activists with impunity under the tacit approval of local governments, even having victims handed to them by the police (who were often KKK themselves anyway). Khadaffi used snipers and helicopter gunships to kill dozens of people in just one protest. The protesters in Syria know full well their protesting is very likely to be deadly, with thousands dead so far.
An OWS protester has no real fear for his life in comparison to them.
SO? So if your life isn't on the line, you don't matter? What the hell?!
SO lemme get this straight. If I tax you to death, take away the constitution and the bill of rights and put you in jail for life without a trial, but I don't threaten to kill you... then its okay? We should ignore it?
That kind of moral relativism is just noise. You're just bothering people who are trying to fix things. EVERYTHING can be compared to something else that blows it out of proportion. SO?
The blacks and Tank Man couldn't be sure the government wouldn't kill them on purpose. They faced down the very real threat of death for participating in their movements.
For the OWS movement, any deaths caused by the government will be accidental.
This is what Microsoft was throughout the late '80s and entire '90s. People today look at Gates and see a great man donating billions to help starving people in Africa. Yes, he is that, but remember how he made those billions. He made them by crushing the rest of the PC software industry using heavy-handed, often blatantly illegal means, from his perch as CEO of a monopoly.
Gates is the modern day John D Rockefeller or Cornelius Vanderbilt.
And like Rockefeller, Gates will be idolized as a hero of industry, an example of the American Dream (what a joke) and the details of his crookery will drift into obscurity.
Then people wonder how we have corrupt politicians or bank CEOs that screw over the economy to win themselves a few more billion in bonuses. Hm.
If Steve Jobs showed up at Android developers and offered to work with them, I think they would be suspicious. If he promised to help them port their Android software to iOS, and then when they finished working on it after spending a year of development he said "haha, nope! just kidding, it doesn't work.", THEN that wouldn't be okay. That would be deceptive and bad. If you want to announce to the world you hate somebody and you want to compete with them, go right ahead.
Nobody is remotely claiming Microsoft shouldn't compete with their competitors. DUUUH. If you honestly think that is the issue at hand, maybe read TFA and do some research before commenting.
The problem is whether Microsoft unfairly led Novell to believe they were working together and they were going to support Novell's software, and then they internally decided to try to hamstring Novell and slow them down as much as possible. That sort of deceptive business practice is bad for competition and the free market.
The problem is that very clearly neither the Republican party nor the Democratic party will face these issues. They're both part of the same partisan shell-game that instills apathy and just gets more and more corrupt. Voting for either party is just a distraction, instead what is happening right now is an absolute no-confidence in government, and we need to ditch BOTH of the existing parties. Down with the two party system.
Yes, the website is supported by ads. However, trying to tell me that millions of people pirated the daily show when it is available for free on the internet is crazy. Unless they're referring to before that was available, in which case it seems like the problem was the business model; you could only watch the daily show with a cable subscription (and we aren't allowed to buy just one cable channel, another problem) people couldn't buy the daily show for a price that seemed appropriate. I would love to see some numbers here, supposed "pirates" of the daily show before and after they put it up on Hulu and then later on dailyshow.com itself.
This is gross. They draw conclusions which are tenuous at best, and completely ignore the actual issues.
Are these people ignorant, and were just told to say something for a video, or are they knowingly misinforming the public? Either way, I'm disgusted.
Slashdot Mirror
Thinking about a universe simulator that predicts the future is fun; but should be impossible by the laws of information entropy. The absolute smallest space you could use to record the information about the position and rotation and composition of an atom would be at least the size of an atom; Even if your machine runs on the quark scale, you need to record information for every quark of the universe. Your machine could never achieve a greater bit "resolution" than the universe that it takes place in, so therefor you could only ever simulate a portion of the known universe. To simulate the entire universe, you would need a computer the size of the universe at least (if not much larger), IE the universe itself. You cannot fit a perfect copy of the universe inside of the universe. So short of somehow creating additional dimensions then you're SOL. That is, if the universe is indeed digital (as particles would suggest). If instead everything is continuous with infinite resoloution... there's a whole lot of questions to be answered.
a game that most of us had not heard of until this bundle.
Its UPLINK. /.
This is
Maybe you haven't heard of it, that's fine. But don't make assumptions.
Uplink has always been THE ONLY halfway decent hacking game. Hell, it came out in 2001! Uplink is a classic of PC gaming.
Seriously? So many patents these days are "we took idea X and added Y, so now we have a patent on X with Y." Where X and Y were both existing concepts. (As poster says, think /. karma + outlook delegates). I have no problem with Google developing their own software implementation, and I have no problem with google receiving protection for that IP Itself, the software. That should be protected. But that Google or anybody else can just go "FIRST!" and grab a monopoly for the foreseeable future... Uggh.
How freaking selfish are you that you'd rather keep somebody around to talk to than let them enjoy eternal bliss?
I immediately recognized that someone would want to have a friend or loved one around, that might be lonely or sad without them. However, if you love someone, would you sacrifice their happiness and eternal bliss for your own sadness? That is extremely selfish. Even if your sadness is a problem, taking away ABSOLUTE HEAVENLY BLISS from someone you love would be worse.
Have you never had a friend move away, and gotten sad because of that? Perhaps not.
Who do you think you are? Why do you have to straw-man me as a COMPLETE imbecile who has not experienced any part of human interaction? How about INSTEAD, you take a minute and use your brain.
This is why we can't have nice things. We don't discuss anymore, we don't debate, we don't think. We just look down at everybody else, and TELL them what we already know. Like you're omnipotent.
If you honestly believed 100% that when you die you go to a beautiful place then why mourn death?
Because their friends and family and loved ones have still lost someone very dear to them. If you think about it, funerals are for the living as much as they are for the dead, if not more.
They've only temporarily lost contact though. How freaking selfish are you that you'd rather keep somebody around to talk to than let them enjoy eternal bliss? If you truly believe, then you believe that you will absolutely join that person in Heaven soon, will be with them there for eternity. So why get sad? It doesn't make ANY sense, because it isn't logical.
If you honestly believed 100% that when you die you go to a beautiful place then why mourn death?
Exactly. Blows me freaking mind, people who look at me straight faced and tell me they KNOW that there is a God and they KNOW their loved one is in heaven, which they KNOW is the greatest place on earth and everybody will go there forever. And then they cry and weep and yell and ask God "Why???". Even as a child that seemed way off to me, I was tempted to remind them of their faith. None of it gets you anywhere. If everything is God's plan, why pray? Why dare ask God for something he didn't plan for? Why not trust his plan?
They don't really believe what they say they do. Its double-think. They believe in some aspects of it, but they don't think it through.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/percentage Get off your fucking high horse.
Calm down. The first link which was titled "how not to get heatstroke" takes you to a very useless page:
http://www.itworld.com/cloud-computing/227687/worthless-osha-app-federal-government-costs-200000 I read through the whole page, thank you very much. So I did read the fucking article.
The other link was "Rich Jones of GUN.IO", I didn't know that a link about the person would have more information about the subject than the linked article would.
I'd be curious to know what the minimum number of connections necessary to link any two persons is, over the average.
I really wish we could see the app, a screenshot or anything. The story here hinges on how useful / trivial / pointless it is.
The only thing I would say is that Apple never, enticed Adobe to create a Flash compiler, but the end result was pretty similar.
Agh, I was trying to create a fictional example, and I stumbled onto another abusive truth. There's so many things wrong with the world you can't even make a decent hypothetical!
"I don't want to live on this planet anymore." - Farnsworth
Our theory of social wrong and our justice system are at least in theory based on reformation: people are punished in hope that they 'go forth and sin no more', to use the biblical phrasing. People are fired for gross misconduct at work and left to seek another job, not ostracized for life. Criminals are prosecuted, punished and then released under appropriate restrictions, not destroyed and left to suffer. Why not just shoot him?
Amen, brother. Sadly we live in a culture of revenge and small-minded egocentricity. It doesn't matter what your economic or governing system is, you can be a monarchy, a dictatorship, a republic, a democracy; you can be capitalist, socialist, communist, it doesn't matter; if your citizenry is made up of a bunch of Ghandis and Jesuses and MLKs, then everything is going to work fine. If King or the President or the Dictator has everyone's best interests to heart, and everybody else feels the same about him, it simply does not matter. The problem fundamentally is a cultural one, we need a paradigm shift, we need education, we need understanding and forgiveness.
But instead we have cycles of abuse.
No intent to kill.
The Chinese shot them, drove over them with tanks. The Democrat KKK killed civil rights activists with impunity under the tacit approval of local governments, even having victims handed to them by the police (who were often KKK themselves anyway). Khadaffi used snipers and helicopter gunships to kill dozens of people in just one protest. The protesters in Syria know full well their protesting is very likely to be deadly, with thousands dead so far.
An OWS protester has no real fear for his life in comparison to them.
SO? So if your life isn't on the line, you don't matter? What the hell?!
SO lemme get this straight. If I tax you to death, take away the constitution and the bill of rights and put you in jail for life without a trial, but I don't threaten to kill you... then its okay? We should ignore it?
That kind of moral relativism is just noise. You're just bothering people who are trying to fix things. EVERYTHING can be compared to something else that blows it out of proportion. SO?
The blacks and Tank Man couldn't be sure the government wouldn't kill them on purpose. They faced down the very real threat of death for participating in their movements.
For the OWS movement, any deaths caused by the government will be accidental.
So?
This is what Microsoft was throughout the late '80s and entire '90s. People today look at Gates and see a great man donating billions to help starving people in Africa. Yes, he is that, but remember how he made those billions. He made them by crushing the rest of the PC software industry using heavy-handed, often blatantly illegal means, from his perch as CEO of a monopoly.
Gates is the modern day John D Rockefeller or Cornelius Vanderbilt.
And like Rockefeller, Gates will be idolized as a hero of industry, an example of the American Dream (what a joke) and the details of his crookery will drift into obscurity.
Then people wonder how we have corrupt politicians or bank CEOs that screw over the economy to win themselves a few more billion in bonuses. Hm.
If Steve Jobs showed up at Android developers and offered to work with them, I think they would be suspicious. If he promised to help them port their Android software to iOS, and then when they finished working on it after spending a year of development he said "haha, nope! just kidding, it doesn't work.", THEN that wouldn't be okay. That would be deceptive and bad. If you want to announce to the world you hate somebody and you want to compete with them, go right ahead.
Nobody is remotely claiming Microsoft shouldn't compete with their competitors. DUUUH. If you honestly think that is the issue at hand, maybe read TFA and do some research before commenting.
The problem is whether Microsoft unfairly led Novell to believe they were working together and they were going to support Novell's software, and then they internally decided to try to hamstring Novell and slow them down as much as possible. That sort of deceptive business practice is bad for competition and the free market.
Turns out they're significantly wealthier, whiter and more educated than the average American.
Do you understand percentages? Above average is still included in 99% ...
For example - since they're all dirty hippie Marxists
*sigh*
They're ALL dirty, hippie, marxists? Are you sure?
Parent is illogical.
Makes no sense!
In what way is OWS not part of the 99%? You're claiming the hippies are the top 1% earners in America?
wut?
The problem is that very clearly neither the Republican party nor the Democratic party will face these issues. They're both part of the same partisan shell-game that instills apathy and just gets more and more corrupt. Voting for either party is just a distraction, instead what is happening right now is an absolute no-confidence in government, and we need to ditch BOTH of the existing parties. Down with the two party system.
Though even then people can claim its shopp'd
Yes, the website is supported by ads. However, trying to tell me that millions of people pirated the daily show when it is available for free on the internet is crazy. Unless they're referring to before that was available, in which case it seems like the problem was the business model; you could only watch the daily show with a cable subscription (and we aren't allowed to buy just one cable channel, another problem) people couldn't buy the daily show for a price that seemed appropriate. I would love to see some numbers here, supposed "pirates" of the daily show before and after they put it up on Hulu and then later on dailyshow.com itself.
Farnsworth (Youtube) Obligatory.
This is gross. They draw conclusions which are tenuous at best, and completely ignore the actual issues. Are these people ignorant, and were just told to say something for a video, or are they knowingly misinforming the public? Either way, I'm disgusted.
You've just discovered Behaviorism. :) But yes, I agree, I am in the "nurture over nature" camp.
For a really fun experiment, use clones!