Wouldn't the computational power required to generate a simulation the so accurately (or consistently, which lends itself to "accuracy" to those within the simulation) generates so many objects and events -- buildings, weather, shoes, everything -- require far more power than a few "endless fields" of batter towers of humans could possible generate? I mean, the proposal of The Matrix is that there are enough humans plugged in that their energy supplies not only enough power to generate this simulation, but also to run it all!
Of course, I would not be surprised if in reality of The Matrix, there are actually trillions upon trillions of humans in those fields -- so many any way, and not enough other information, to legitimately question the ability of said bodies to power the Matrix.
In a non-Matrix, purely theoretical or otherwise future simulation, there are virtually endless possibilities as to the technologies that may be developed that could deliver such power capabilities. For instance, what if some of our impossible dreams of today -- such as faster-than-light propulsion -- could be realized?
I would think the section you quoted essentially says that Windows PCs that are compatible with Explorer upgrades will be eligible for further IE updates. On the other hand, others will not be.
I don't see why this is such a bad thing. People who like Microsoft products will receive the focus, and whiny Slashdot geeks who get pissy just because IE is on a (MAC, Linux, [insert OS here]) for free (antitrust, blah, blah) will be stuck with the inferior IE, thus people on those systems will be likely either to switch to something else or switch to Windows (hah!).
The world will become better for those who choose Microsoft, and for those who do not. What's the big deal?
This also may explain why time travel seems impossible: we dont meet visitors from the future since only the present is being simulated.
It wouldn't matter when what or who is simulated or how or why or where. If it is indeed a simulation, the "architect" of the system could organize some feasible means of simulating beings from some imaginary future, which -- within the confines of the simulation -- would constitute time travel.
If this indeed were a simulation, the rules would only be as strict as the design allowed, and they would only be broken when the designer(s) allowed...
...unless, of course, you buy the Architect's explanation in the Matrix Reloaded that a perfect design, by which sentient entropy would never lend itself toward a "system crash", is slightly impossible.
Must Slashdot (or whoever submits the story) remind us every time that a new build of Mozilla is released of exactly what Mozilla is? We get the picture. It's an open-source browser, built for performance, compatibility, yadda yadda... Tell us something new or keep it simple!
Why not buy a new hard drive? Take a magnet to the heads and platters of the old drive, then roast it on an open flame. Problem solved. (This would be the expensive but more entertaining alternative.)
If I deleted it, what would be their proof? I know that evidence of a filename on my hard drive might seem damning, but what proof would they have that the filename matched the file itself? How much access would they actually have to my computer if I'm not redistributing the file? Presuming I wouldn't have bought it anyway, I'm doing them no harm.
This comment deserves moderation for being insightful.:-)
I know that there is no absolute rule governing the quality of songs. I think the only thing we can all truly agree on is that $1 per song is too much. We're still paying $10-20 per CD (if we choose to burn the songs), and a collection of 100 songs would cost $100. A family (or anyone) with only moderately diverse musical tastes would have to pay $400+ for only a CD's worth of music.
Isn't the idea to make downloading music profitable for the supplier yet reasonably priced for the consumer so as to make downloading an advantage?
Better question: now that so many have experienced free downloading, how likely is it that the public will accept a pay-for scenario? (Morality has nothing to do with the answer I want to this question...)
From what I understand, downloading isn't the crime; sharing is. Then again, it's criminal to use a stolen car stereo even if you bought it legitimately. Would someone like to point me to or explain the laws that clarify the criminal aspects of downloading and sharing copyrighted content (specifically movies in this case)?
Um, well, if it were my stuff they were "stealing", I would be glad that my stuff was good enough to steal, and I would be glad that someone was learning something from me, even if what I have to offer may not be worth much to the rest of the world. (Hey, as long as it holds some value to someone, I'm happy.)
See, I'm an individualist, and I believe everyone should have the right to be able to choose their own needs, methods, prices, etc... I think that, in the end, everything would balance out if everyone realized that they were each given the same benefit of the doubt. Just set up a few mechanisms to harshly punish the criminals.
That said, I don't mind volunteering to give my own stuff away at all. The key to that is that I do it of my own volition, not because someone or something else compels me to do it. If you want to use my ideas, go for it. I hope it helps you. Out of respect, I would like you to give credit where credit is due, but if you don't, I don't really care that much. But that's just me. I'm sure that's not a normal point of view.
Or is that a Slashdot story with a bias in support of a Microsoft product over an Apple product?! I thought I'd never see the day...
But, seriously, a flat rate makes a helluva lot more sense to me than a per-song rate. Some songs are longer/better than others, and I'd hate to have to pay the same dollar for Blur's "Song 2", which kicks ass but is barely two minutes long, as I have to pay for Metallica's "One", which is arguably as good in its own ways and is nearly four times as long.
Penny per Megabyte or flat monthly rate, whichever is cheaper! Every body wins!
I use mostly Windows computers, but Macs come in handy for newspaper layout and such. The reason I prefer Windows, though, is that I feel like the interface is more intuitive and I have more power over how the system operates. That, and there's a lot more available software to do just about anything I can imagine. That is not to say Microsoft is better, but Windows can do more of what I want an operating system to do than Linux or Macs can -- and since the workplace standard is Windows, I'm better off using it.
Re:HERE HE IS, the bastard
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
I always thought of "poetic justice" as a fancy term for "hypocrisy".
This tactic is not limited to Microsoft. Look at the Ford Mustang.
And while you argue that Microsoft products have gotten worse, I disagree. Sure, there are better things out there, and Microsoft products may not be getting better at the same rate of improvement as some of the others, but Microsoft is a huge company with a lot on its plate, including lawsuits and other things (for instance, people like Slashdot's readership) trying to slow it down. There is no guarantee that Microsoft would be any better off without those hindrances, but there is certainly no guarantee that they wouldn't be.
I say leave the giant be, and let the people buy what they want. If they aren't exposed to the better, more underground stuff, then (1) be proud that you are aware of it and (2) try to inform them, if that's your prerogative. But please, please, please --- don't get pissed off when your favorite, unknown item becomes mainstream. Don't preach its superiority if you don't want everyone to find it and like it more than the inferior, mass-marketed item.
How would the spammers / postal service / world react if we started writing "RETURN TO SENDER" on every single unwanted piece of mail? (Well, you know, snail mail...)
Re:HERE HE IS, the bastard
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
Another question:
How does resorting to spamming the spammer solve the problem?
Wouldn't spamming a spammer defeat the purpose of defeating spam?
Hence my belief that I'm not the only one here. Metaphysically provable or not, I am quite convinced that my creative capacity is insufficient to create a universe this complex solely for my own edutainment.
If we were to make computer crashes a thing of the past, what would we have to do, both in our software and in our operating systems, to make this come to pass?
Sacrifice all sense of value and general utility. Innovation is not possible with imperfection. Mistakes are required, or there would be no room for improvement. That said, it would be nice if the only improvements were innovations, rather than fixes...
Oh, dear. I stopped thinking about crashnbur and now he no longer exists.
Two things. (1) You can not shake from your mind the fact that someone using the handle crashnbur indeed exists, at least inasmuch as you believe the words you are reading now were typed by that same someone. (2) What is my proof that anyone on the other side of the planet, on the other side of this screen, on the other side of the wall here -- how can it be proven that anything exists outside the confines of my "objective" reality. For all practical intents and purposes, nothing exists outside of what I know, though according to what I have learned, I am very much aware that there is probably more to the universe than I can imagine. So, in theory, perhaps things no longer exist when you stop thinking about them, and in your reality, I did disappear when you stopped thinking about crashnbur.
Consciousness is usually defined as either awareness, or attention.
Right, but as someone so eloquently put it before, without the ability to recognize consciousness, one is not aware of that attention. It is the recognition of consciousness that defines itself. For instance, a flower is aware of sunlight, but is it aware of its attention to the sunlight? Is it aware of its intentions?
Consciousness, as I have always heard it, is defined as awareness combined with an ability to reason, if only on the simplest levels -- like the mental ability to differentiate between light and dark, sound and silence, etc. A plant can differentiate between these things, but it is not aware or conscious because there is no guiding cognitive process. In other words, consciousness, as I see it, is an extremely complex ability to differentiate.
The confines of a causal or chaotic reality make no difference, for it is within the context of that reality that consciousness exists.
I test on Mozilla, Netscape, IE, KDE/Konqueror, and a couple of lesser-knowns. My site loads in every one that is no more than 18 months old (excluding IE for Macs), which is more than enough time to upgrade.
<sarcasm>As for your Microsoft bashing, you assume far too much. Do you really believe someone as intelligent as me would put all of their eggs into one basket, especially Microsoft's?</sarcasm>
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, I would not be surprised if in reality of The Matrix, there are actually trillions upon trillions of humans in those fields -- so many any way, and not enough other information, to legitimately question the ability of said bodies to power the Matrix.
In a non-Matrix, purely theoretical or otherwise future simulation, there are virtually endless possibilities as to the technologies that may be developed that could deliver such power capabilities. For instance, what if some of our impossible dreams of today -- such as faster-than-light propulsion -- could be realized?
You think that's air you're breathing now? Hmm...
I don't see why this is such a bad thing. People who like Microsoft products will receive the focus, and whiny Slashdot geeks who get pissy just because IE is on a (MAC, Linux, [insert OS here]) for free (antitrust, blah, blah) will be stuck with the inferior IE, thus people on those systems will be likely either to switch to something else or switch to Windows (hah!).
The world will become better for those who choose Microsoft, and for those who do not. What's the big deal?
If this indeed were a simulation, the rules would only be as strict as the design allowed, and they would only be broken when the designer(s) allowed...
...unless, of course, you buy the Architect's explanation in the Matrix Reloaded that a perfect design, by which sentient entropy would never lend itself toward a "system crash", is slightly impossible.
Oh, um, but thanks for the heads up. (downloads)
Why not buy a new hard drive? Take a magnet to the heads and platters of the old drive, then roast it on an open flame. Problem solved. (This would be the expensive but more entertaining alternative.)
If I deleted it, what would be their proof? I know that evidence of a filename on my hard drive might seem damning, but what proof would they have that the filename matched the file itself? How much access would they actually have to my computer if I'm not redistributing the file? Presuming I wouldn't have bought it anyway, I'm doing them no harm.
I know that there is no absolute rule governing the quality of songs. I think the only thing we can all truly agree on is that $1 per song is too much. We're still paying $10-20 per CD (if we choose to burn the songs), and a collection of 100 songs would cost $100. A family (or anyone) with only moderately diverse musical tastes would have to pay $400+ for only a CD's worth of music.
Isn't the idea to make downloading music profitable for the supplier yet reasonably priced for the consumer so as to make downloading an advantage?
Better question: now that so many have experienced free downloading, how likely is it that the public will accept a pay-for scenario? (Morality has nothing to do with the answer I want to this question...)
From what I understand, downloading isn't the crime; sharing is. Then again, it's criminal to use a stolen car stereo even if you bought it legitimately. Would someone like to point me to or explain the laws that clarify the criminal aspects of downloading and sharing copyrighted content (specifically movies in this case)?
See, I'm an individualist, and I believe everyone should have the right to be able to choose their own needs, methods, prices, etc... I think that, in the end, everything would balance out if everyone realized that they were each given the same benefit of the doubt. Just set up a few mechanisms to harshly punish the criminals.
That said, I don't mind volunteering to give my own stuff away at all. The key to that is that I do it of my own volition, not because someone or something else compels me to do it. If you want to use my ideas, go for it. I hope it helps you. Out of respect, I would like you to give credit where credit is due, but if you don't, I don't really care that much. But that's just me. I'm sure that's not a normal point of view.
In other words, donations optional. Sort of like how it works now. Except include a more convenient method for donating...?
But wouldn't the second and third be second and third posts?
Other than being Java-based, what's the point of this web browser?
But, seriously, a flat rate makes a helluva lot more sense to me than a per-song rate. Some songs are longer/better than others, and I'd hate to have to pay the same dollar for Blur's "Song 2", which kicks ass but is barely two minutes long, as I have to pay for Metallica's "One", which is arguably as good in its own ways and is nearly four times as long.
Penny per Megabyte or flat monthly rate, whichever is cheaper! Every body wins!
I understood the movie fine, I just don't think we'll understand where it's going until the third film.
I use mostly Windows computers, but Macs come in handy for newspaper layout and such. The reason I prefer Windows, though, is that I feel like the interface is more intuitive and I have more power over how the system operates. That, and there's a lot more available software to do just about anything I can imagine. That is not to say Microsoft is better, but Windows can do more of what I want an operating system to do than Linux or Macs can -- and since the workplace standard is Windows, I'm better off using it.
I always thought of "poetic justice" as a fancy term for "hypocrisy".
And while you argue that Microsoft products have gotten worse, I disagree. Sure, there are better things out there, and Microsoft products may not be getting better at the same rate of improvement as some of the others, but Microsoft is a huge company with a lot on its plate, including lawsuits and other things (for instance, people like Slashdot's readership) trying to slow it down. There is no guarantee that Microsoft would be any better off without those hindrances, but there is certainly no guarantee that they wouldn't be.
I say leave the giant be, and let the people buy what they want. If they aren't exposed to the better, more underground stuff, then (1) be proud that you are aware of it and (2) try to inform them, if that's your prerogative. But please, please, please --- don't get pissed off when your favorite, unknown item becomes mainstream. Don't preach its superiority if you don't want everyone to find it and like it more than the inferior, mass-marketed item.
How would the spammers / postal service / world react if we started writing "RETURN TO SENDER" on every single unwanted piece of mail? (Well, you know, snail mail...)
How does resorting to spamming the spammer solve the problem?
Wouldn't spamming a spammer defeat the purpose of defeating spam?
Hence my belief that I'm not the only one here. Metaphysically provable or not, I am quite convinced that my creative capacity is insufficient to create a universe this complex solely for my own edutainment.
Of course, I meant... "Innovation is not possible without imperfection." Whoops.
Two things. (1) You can not shake from your mind the fact that someone using the handle crashnbur indeed exists, at least inasmuch as you believe the words you are reading now were typed by that same someone. (2) What is my proof that anyone on the other side of the planet, on the other side of this screen, on the other side of the wall here -- how can it be proven that anything exists outside the confines of my "objective" reality. For all practical intents and purposes, nothing exists outside of what I know, though according to what I have learned, I am very much aware that there is probably more to the universe than I can imagine. So, in theory, perhaps things no longer exist when you stop thinking about them, and in your reality, I did disappear when you stopped thinking about crashnbur.
Right, but as someone so eloquently put it before, without the ability to recognize consciousness, one is not aware of that attention. It is the recognition of consciousness that defines itself. For instance, a flower is aware of sunlight, but is it aware of its attention to the sunlight? Is it aware of its intentions?
Consciousness, as I have always heard it, is defined as awareness combined with an ability to reason, if only on the simplest levels -- like the mental ability to differentiate between light and dark, sound and silence, etc. A plant can differentiate between these things, but it is not aware or conscious because there is no guiding cognitive process. In other words, consciousness, as I see it, is an extremely complex ability to differentiate.
The confines of a causal or chaotic reality make no difference, for it is within the context of that reality that consciousness exists.
<sarcasm>As for your Microsoft bashing, you assume far too much. Do you really believe someone as intelligent as me would put all of their eggs into one basket, especially Microsoft's?</sarcasm>