I think the users are fully aware that it isn't spam and they did request it. They mark it as spam because they want to stop getting the email and marking it as spam is the best way they know how.
This list is legitimate and I suspect it's easy enough to unsubscribe, but we've all been trained to be wary of "unsubscribe" links in email. I don't know if the request will be honored or if I'll have to jump through a lot of hoops. I've seen unsubscribe pages that say I'll be removed from their list "in 2-3 weeks", obviously just so they can send me another few emails.
The spam button has a known functionality: it keeps emails out of the inbox. If it has the side-effect of mistraining the spam filter, so be it. In fact, that's better for the user if all they care about is getting rid of emails they don't want to see, solicited or not.
I haven't retained everything over that time, but what I've retained is both interesting and useful. Frivolous emails are certainly deletable.
The whole idea is formalizing the process of determining what information is frivolous and what is important. When you decide that something is important -- and you have six months to make that decision -- you should commit it to some official company record. That way, you can go to court and say with a straight face that anything not committed to the official company record obviously wasn't important.
Many times I have seen/.r's mocking end users for using the search feature on their homepage to get to another website, instead of using the address bar. There's nothing wrong with using a search engine for its intended purpose. The mock-worthy behavior comes when they enter the actual domain name into Google, complete with "www" and "com". If you know the domain name, use it. If you're not sure, don't include the parts you're not sure about.
My friends decided to flip two pieces without telling me, thinking that would really annoy me. They were quite disappointed when I solved the cube, as the second flip perfectly counteracted the effect of the first.
My post was only half-serious. Some of the comparisons don't fit exactly because I was just parroting the GP. Still, they fit close enough that I think it's fair to say that Jar Jar was Lucas' attempt at recycling the same formula.
As for the "offensive stereotype" bit, some have likened C3PO to an effeminate gay man. Call it a stretch if you want. Certainly people didn't react it to as they reacted to Jar Jar. In fact, some gay people are quite proud of C3PO, at least according to Anthony Daniels:
Regarding his Star Wars character: "I've had people come up to me and say, 'You're a gay icon.'"
C3PO has a high, whiny, irritating voice. He appears to be based on an incredibly offensive stereotype. He looks goofy at best. He's clumsy -- he may try to help, but if he actually does any good, it's only because of pure dumb luck.
I guess the problem is they didn't pair him up with a mute midget... or was that Anakin? No, I suppose he talked too much.
As someone who majored in psychology, worked in two labs, and read countless psychology papers, I can tell you that 99% of psychologists avoid math when possible, and the other 10% try to use it but make obvious errors. Please tell me that's a joke.
We already have that option in the US, it's just that they subsidize the cost of locked phones with a contract. An unlocked phone effectively raises your fees by the price of a new phone every two years.
I don't get what you mean about them not actually believing in God. If you're convinced something is true, doesn't that mean you believe it? If I'm a persuasive speaker, I might convince you that leprechauns were really tax collectors selected for their diminutive size so as not to appear threatening. From then on, you would believe that leprechauns once existed in exactly the same way that you believe that Canada exists.
The only difference in the case of faith is that "you" and "I" in that example refer to the same person.
Religious people differ from you or I in that they actually can choose to believe in something. They call it "faith". You might think of it as willful self-delusion.
Try this: Knowing what you know about people, psychology, the brain, etc., what would you do to convince someone that God exists? Don't worry about appealing to evidence or logic, fallacies work just as well. Employ plenty of sensory tricks to make them more suggestible. Present selected anecdotes embellished liberally.
Now do it all to yourself over and over until your rational mind surrenders and believes what you want it to believe. Should your rational mind recover (this is called "losing faith") you must work harder to convince yourself. Most religious people work at this constantly and frequently need assistance from trained specialists ("priests").
The child that you think you were several years ago no longer exists in any meaningful sense because that consciousness grew and changed into the present you. You state this as fact with no way to back it up. The truth of the matter is neither of us can define "consciousness" exactly to say that I do or do not share it with a previous version of myself. However, an exact definition is not necessary to say concretely that a completely separate entity would not share that consciousness. The proof is easy enough: there is nothing about making a software copy that would preclude your meat body from continuing as a separate entity.
It's just a portion of the configuration of the hardware, e.g. an aspect of the hardware state.... I guess what I'm trying to say is that only hardware exists, but software is the word we use to talk about the important relationships inherent in the hardware. And what I'm trying to say is that simply copying the configuration of that hardware to completely different hardware cannot possibly transfer consciousness.
What does it mean to cease to exist? Again you try to laden me with an impossible burden and again I say an exact definition is not necessary. It suffices to say that the end of consciousness in this sense is at least the same as with natural death, whatever that may be, because the process is identical. Copying the software of a person's brain would have no affect on their subjective experience of life. In fact, it might even be done without their knowledge. They would simply live the rest of their life for however long it lasts, then eventually die as they would anyway. That a separate entity exists with their personality and memories is irrelevant to that process.
If you want to say that consciousness ceases to exist before a person dies, then the burden is on you to come up with a different, more precise definition and substantiate that with evidence. Perhaps it does. I don't know, but then neither do you.
What I forgot to mention is under the original poster's idea, what would stop the $megaCorps from re-valuing the patent after the 'auction' by declaring that it's lost market value? A third company or even the original owner buying it from them at the new low price? If they want to reassess the value of the property, they'd have to put it up for auction.
If someone came to me with two dogs and asked me to determine if they were the same breed, I might have some trouble answering them. If they came to me instead with a mutt and a park bench, the answer would be clear. No one knows for sure where the dividing line is exactly, but there is at least an upper bound: without any part of your previous brain, your consciousness can't possibly persist.
Also, I would say that 'software' emulation in the case you describe is a misnomer. It may be that artificial neurons could slowly replace biological ones and retain the sense of consciousness. (It may also be that your consciousness actually does die a little with each neuron, replaced slowly by a new and different consciousness.) However, the software powering the neurons would not be where consciousness lies. As an abstract concept, software cannot "do" anything. It takes hardware to execute the software and actually perform the action. If we should ever figure out how to create consciousness through software, then it would still be the hardware that experiences consciousness.
The point is that we are not software, but hardware. If you replace that hardware outright, as the OP suggested, you will certainly cease to exist.
I don't know how the continuity of consciousness works to say that I am the same consciousness from 5 minutes ago, 5 days ago, or 5 years ago. Then again, neither do you know how it works to say that I'm not the same consciousness. One thing is clear though: the "software" copy would definitely not be the same consciousness. It's not that you will wake up in an electronic body, it's that you won't wake up at all, because you are your meat body. Even if that means you are only your meat body for the next day or few years, you will never be the electronic body.
The real implication to me, is that it will be possible to have machines capable of running the same 'software' that runs in our own minds. To be able to 'back up' people's states and memories, and all the implications behind that. Maybe some famous person would agree to do that as a favor to future generations, but I don't see how it would really be useful for average people. We are not the "software" that our brains run, we are our brains. The copy of "you" that runs on a computer for thousands of years won't really be you. You'll still be dead.
What bugs me is that they're pretty obviously just presenters. The people who do the real work are in the background or never even seen. MythBusters was intriguing because you see the effort they put into their designs, though even they're getting away from that now. Every time you see the Smash Lab presenters do any work, it's clearly just for the camera. Everything is set up just right for them to come in and attach that "last" piece, turn to the camera and exclaim how hard it was.
The worst example was probably in the hurricane-proof house episode. Two of the hosts set out to "build" an air cannon. Step one, they gather the parts to construct the air cannon, one of which was a fully constructed but obviously custom fabricated rig to hold the air tanks. After a few minutes of putting it (back) together, the cannon is completely operational and works perfectly on the first try.
I also love how they *tell* us that so-and-so is the "design" guy, the "ideas" guy, and the engineer. Yet they never show anyone doing any design, coming up with an idea more complicated than the title of the episode, or actually engineering anything. The woman is supposed to be a scientist, yet she's amazed by the miraculous properties of carbon fiber. (I get that they're trying to explain it to the audience, but they could do that without pretending to be morons.)
If the host goes offline, then the connection is de facto closed anyway. I'd think saving the connection would be the rare exception rather than the rule.
Cryptographically signed firmware is a bitch... Seems that the whole anti-theft system built into the XO is going to get in the way of Microsoft hijacking the project without OLPC's express consent. When the home brew folks do it to a PSP it's cool, but when Microsoft does it to the XO it's evil?
Slashdot Mirror
They were upset about a t-shirt that had (*gasp*) black text on a white background? That might just be more ridiculous than the mask explanation.
Oh, shit! I just noticed Slashdot uses black text on a white background! Nobody better write the word "Bejing"!
I think the users are fully aware that it isn't spam and they did request it. They mark it as spam because they want to stop getting the email and marking it as spam is the best way they know how.
This list is legitimate and I suspect it's easy enough to unsubscribe, but we've all been trained to be wary of "unsubscribe" links in email. I don't know if the request will be honored or if I'll have to jump through a lot of hoops. I've seen unsubscribe pages that say I'll be removed from their list "in 2-3 weeks", obviously just so they can send me another few emails.
The spam button has a known functionality: it keeps emails out of the inbox. If it has the side-effect of mistraining the spam filter, so be it. In fact, that's better for the user if all they care about is getting rid of emails they don't want to see, solicited or not.
That's why you're supposed to refer to her as "the fan base".
So then maybe you could explain how it avoids shorts if the contacts aren't protected?
I haven't retained everything over that time, but what I've retained is both interesting and useful. Frivolous emails are certainly deletable.
The whole idea is formalizing the process of determining what information is frivolous and what is important. When you decide that something is important -- and you have six months to make that decision -- you should commit it to some official company record. That way, you can go to court and say with a straight face that anything not committed to the official company record obviously wasn't important.
Wait, they have Falcon 1 and Falcon 9, but no Falcon 7?
My friends decided to flip two pieces without telling me, thinking that would really annoy me. They were quite disappointed when I solved the cube, as the second flip perfectly counteracted the effect of the first.
As for the "offensive stereotype" bit, some have likened C3PO to an effeminate gay man. Call it a stretch if you want. Certainly people didn't react it to as they reacted to Jar Jar. In fact, some gay people are quite proud of C3PO, at least according to Anthony Daniels: Regarding his Star Wars character: "I've had people come up to me and say, 'You're a gay icon.'"
C3PO has a high, whiny, irritating voice. He appears to be based on an incredibly offensive stereotype. He looks goofy at best. He's clumsy -- he may try to help, but if he actually does any good, it's only because of pure dumb luck.
I guess the problem is they didn't pair him up with a mute midget... or was that Anakin? No, I suppose he talked too much.
On my copy of XP, there is no "Install" button, only "OK". So it would appear that the dialog has actually been changed.
We already have that option in the US, it's just that they subsidize the cost of locked phones with a contract. An unlocked phone effectively raises your fees by the price of a new phone every two years.
I don't get what you mean about them not actually believing in God. If you're convinced something is true, doesn't that mean you believe it? If I'm a persuasive speaker, I might convince you that leprechauns were really tax collectors selected for their diminutive size so as not to appear threatening. From then on, you would believe that leprechauns once existed in exactly the same way that you believe that Canada exists.
The only difference in the case of faith is that "you" and "I" in that example refer to the same person.
Religious people differ from you or I in that they actually can choose to believe in something. They call it "faith". You might think of it as willful self-delusion.
Try this: Knowing what you know about people, psychology, the brain, etc., what would you do to convince someone that God exists? Don't worry about appealing to evidence or logic, fallacies work just as well. Employ plenty of sensory tricks to make them more suggestible. Present selected anecdotes embellished liberally.
Now do it all to yourself over and over until your rational mind surrenders and believes what you want it to believe. Should your rational mind recover (this is called "losing faith") you must work harder to convince yourself. Most religious people work at this constantly and frequently need assistance from trained specialists ("priests").
Pick any two.
If you want to say that consciousness ceases to exist before a person dies, then the burden is on you to come up with a different, more precise definition and substantiate that with evidence. Perhaps it does. I don't know, but then neither do you.
If someone came to me with two dogs and asked me to determine if they were the same breed, I might have some trouble answering them. If they came to me instead with a mutt and a park bench, the answer would be clear. No one knows for sure where the dividing line is exactly, but there is at least an upper bound: without any part of your previous brain, your consciousness can't possibly persist.
Also, I would say that 'software' emulation in the case you describe is a misnomer. It may be that artificial neurons could slowly replace biological ones and retain the sense of consciousness. (It may also be that your consciousness actually does die a little with each neuron, replaced slowly by a new and different consciousness.) However, the software powering the neurons would not be where consciousness lies. As an abstract concept, software cannot "do" anything. It takes hardware to execute the software and actually perform the action. If we should ever figure out how to create consciousness through software, then it would still be the hardware that experiences consciousness.
The point is that we are not software, but hardware. If you replace that hardware outright, as the OP suggested, you will certainly cease to exist.
I don't know how the continuity of consciousness works to say that I am the same consciousness from 5 minutes ago, 5 days ago, or 5 years ago. Then again, neither do you know how it works to say that I'm not the same consciousness. One thing is clear though: the "software" copy would definitely not be the same consciousness. It's not that you will wake up in an electronic body, it's that you won't wake up at all, because you are your meat body. Even if that means you are only your meat body for the next day or few years, you will never be the electronic body.
What bugs me is that they're pretty obviously just presenters. The people who do the real work are in the background or never even seen. MythBusters was intriguing because you see the effort they put into their designs, though even they're getting away from that now. Every time you see the Smash Lab presenters do any work, it's clearly just for the camera. Everything is set up just right for them to come in and attach that "last" piece, turn to the camera and exclaim how hard it was.
The worst example was probably in the hurricane-proof house episode. Two of the hosts set out to "build" an air cannon. Step one, they gather the parts to construct the air cannon, one of which was a fully constructed but obviously custom fabricated rig to hold the air tanks. After a few minutes of putting it (back) together, the cannon is completely operational and works perfectly on the first try.
I also love how they *tell* us that so-and-so is the "design" guy, the "ideas" guy, and the engineer. Yet they never show anyone doing any design, coming up with an idea more complicated than the title of the episode, or actually engineering anything. The woman is supposed to be a scientist, yet she's amazed by the miraculous properties of carbon fiber. (I get that they're trying to explain it to the audience, but they could do that without pretending to be morons.)
I'm sure Yahoo would gladly host Slashdot for free, as long as they could fill up the page with advertisements and rename it Yahoo! Slashdot!
If the host goes offline, then the connection is de facto closed anyway. I'd think saving the connection would be the rare exception rather than the rule.