"The only thing I can think of reasonably needing a color printer for is photographs."
Well, exactly! That's what I bought it for. That's what I use it for. I print them on high gloss photo paper, usually as gifts for friends. Nicer to punch a button and have a print in two minutes than having to deal with a printing service.
And I wasn't exaggerating about people asking me what pro Print Shop I got them done at... happens every time, like clockwork. The quality is really that good with a decent modern photo printer.
Agreed for B&W absolutely... I have had a laser printer for about 8 years or so, and the original toner cartridge just ran out last year. Sure the cartridge costs $150 (CDN), but it lasts forever, and the text is sharp enough to shave with, and blacker than hell.
However, colour has its place, so when I finally bought an inkjet printer to print out photos from my digital camera, one of the primary factors was long term operating cost.
Epson printers are the top of the line for visual quality, and a very cheap initial purchase, but they gouge you on replacement cartridges later... so I went for a Canon (s820) instead, and am extremely pleased with both the print quality, and ink economy. It has SIX refillable cartridges (photo, or "light", magenta and cyan in addition to standard CMYB) as opposed to Epson's microchip crippled, non refillable 1 or 4 cartridge solutions.
The Canon is also way faster and quieter to boot, and everytime I show someone a photo I've printed, they want to know what professional Photo Lab I went to.:)
"Can you think of even one Java application that you use on your desktop and like?"
Sure... Borland JBuilder, versions 3 through 9. Awesome IDE.
"Do you deny that it still takes a shell script to start most Java apps on Unix?"
Yes. Package it in an executable JAR. Runs on any Java system. Hell, with JBuilder 8 Enterprise I can easily build native executable wrappers for Win32, Mac, Linux and Solaris.
"Do you deny that developing and building Java apps requires that you adjust you CLASSPATH in order for the compiler to find the locations of third-party libraries you are linking against?"
Yes. See previous point. Or, do what we did, write our own dynamic ClassLoader bootstrap which searches out required libraries and loads them automatically.
This is really the heart of your pet peeve against Java, isn't it? You struggled with some annoying CLASSPATH crap, it frustrated you, and you decided you hated the entire language? I do understand... that stuff is tedious when you're trying to get into it.
"Do you deny that running Java applications still requires you to obtain a JRE from Sun?"
You don't have to go to Sun. There are plenty of third party JREs.
"And that many applications require at minimum a certain version of the JRE?"
All software has system requirements, what's your point?
Gosh, I hope this'll be just as successful as their new "focus on security" last year, which has eliminated all security holes in Microsoft products across the board--
I think St. Anger is really good too, but have you noticed there's no lead solos in the entire album? At ALL? The crunchy thrash is back in top form, and I welcome it, but where are those soaring, majestic solos that helped make their earlier work so legendary and unforgettable? Is Kirk all tapped out, needed a break, or just wanted a change?
Dammit... here I DL this video, expecting "to watch an AMD K6/2 400mhz go up in flames" as promised, but all I got was this crappy Indy ripoff.. what a gyp.;P
I don't think predictability has to be at odds with free will.
Well, I think I would respectfully disagree with that, but perhaps this revolves around different ways of defining "free will", an elusive term if there ever was one. (The proof I mentioned offers a concrete definition) In any case, I don't think it's something we're going to solve here:) Thanks for the stimulating discussion though.
If you are interested, I looked up the original proof and discussion I have been referring to, it can be found here (on a gaming forum of all places, heh):
I have a couple replies on the second page, posting under the name "Morwynd". Yikes, it's grown quite a bit since I last read that thread.
Of course we all appear to make choices, but the real question is, if everything could be reset to the exact same state, is it possible we could choose differently? Or is every choice we make an inevitable outcome, that could be predicted with 100% accuracy if (Huge, huge IF there) every variable could be accounted for?
"Obviously, deterministic events do not demonstrate free will, so we can safely disregard these."
"Why?"
A deterministic system can be theoretically predicted given enough information. The fact that we cannot actually do this prediction, does not mean it's IMPOSSIBLE to predict, merely that it's too difficult. If an event can be predicted, then there cannot be any actual free will factor involved, only the illusion of it.
Naturally your identity and nature affect your decisions, but where did these come from? Genetics and environment. Again, where is free will in this? Do we really have any say in who we become, or is it a set of dominoes falling since before we are even born, that build who we are?
Here's my pet theory on the Matrix: The whole idea of computers using humans as power sources, etc, doesn't HAVE to make sense... because the entire "world of Zion" ISN'T REAL EITHER. It's just a "pressure release valve", where rebellious elements from The Matrix can "escape" to, and give themselves purpose by playing freedom fighters against the Evil Nasty Life-Sucking Machines.
The more I see these movies (esp. the 2nd one), the more I see to support this theory. Neo stopping the sentinels at the end... maybe he's in a coma now because he "woke up" to the next layer, possibly reality? Smith "uploading" himself into the "Zion layer". How could he do that if it wasn't another simulation? Seems a big stretch to suggest that a computer program could "possess" an actual flesh and blood brain. But if the "person" he possessed is just an avatar in another level of the sim, it makes perfect sense. Hell.. "Morpheus" is a reference to the god of dreams. He certainly is, if Zion is a dream. He even says at the end of the movie, "I had a dream, but now that dream is taken from me". It all seems to point to it. I was sorta dissapointed in Reloaded the first time around, but I have a MUCH greater appreciation for it after I'd seen it a second time, with this stuff in mind. There's so many lines of dialogue and clues that take on a whole new meaning. (That I thought were kinda cheesy and pointless the first time around)
Maybe the "real" world is sunshine and roses, the machines have transformed the Earth into a utopian paradise and have all the energy they need, and they simulate existence for humans for some other reason completely... for instance:
To protect the planet from us... the machines aren't evil, and we DID create them, so they don't want to exterminate us outright, but they've decided we're too dangerous to have roaming around, so they contain us. As Smith said in the first movie "You are a disease, and we are the cure"
A giant research project. Perhaps they want to learn about aspects we have that they do not, for example, love. Many events in Reloaded point to the machines trying to comprehend and measure love. Witness Persephone demanding that Neo kiss her, "as if he truly loved her". And the entire end of the movie is expressly designed by the machines to test Trinity and Neo's love for each other, both when she enters to save him (self sacrifice), and when Neo apparently dooms the humans to extinction by going after Trinity. (sacrifice of EVERYTHING). The Architect seems very interested in how the emotion of love is overriding Neo's sense of logic.
Anyway, I think there's a lot more going on underneath the surface than it seems, and perhaps you might get more out of a second viewing. We'll have to wait for the third one to find out any real answers. Can't wait, personally. Thank goodness it's coming out so soon!:)
Nice thinking. I was recently reading a lengthy formal proof of the non-existence of free will. (I'd find a link but It's-Sunday-And-I'm-Too-Damn-Lazy)
Basically the gist of the argument was this: Only two conceivable types of events can happen in your brain: Deterministic (electrochemical meatware precisely obeying cause and effect), or non-deterministic (ie quantum level).
Obviously, deterministic events do not demonstrate free will, so we can safely disregard these.
Which leaves us with non-deterministic events. Are these evidence of free will? The proof stated that we are not in control of these non-deterministic events (a reasonable assertion), if they exist they are random, and therefore these events would not demonstrate free will either. QED.
I have to say it's pretty hard to find a hole in that logic. For shits and giggles I played devil's advocate and argued that it's an unproven conjecture that our consciousness cannot influence quantum events. Could free will manifest itself by altering quantum probabilities?
I followed the firefly message boards for a while (very interesting, many cast members posted occasionally, Adam Baldwin posted hundreds of times), and I do recall reading that the sets were taken down.:( (Joss said something to the effect of not to worry, they can be put back up again in no time flat)
"This is why the Oracle knows everything Neo and everyone else is going to do before it happens -- it's already happened 6 times before! (as per the Architect) -- and each time, the "One" has selected to walk through the door and set things in motion again (this is the control system used to counteract humans' tendencies toward choice). Where Neo differs is that he is not acting like the "Ones" that have come before him."
One problem... the Oracle predicted that Trinity would fall in love with Neo. This love is what causes Neo to act differently. So how'd the Oracle predict that if it'd never happened before?
Fascinating thread... I am liking this movie the more I think about it, even though I must say my initial take on watching it was slightly dissapointed (I thought some of the dialogue was cheesy, and some scenes and fights seemed kinda pointless)
Here's a question I had that I haven't seen addressed anywhere... what's the deal with the hundreds of Neo images on the Architect's monitors all having different reactions, speaking out as if they were all independent entities?
The person I was with said she thought it represented his conflicting thoughts, but that just doesn't satisfy me. What do all these parallel Neo's signify?
Perhaps it is just the Architect peering into the tangled mess of his head... but it just seems like there was something more being hinted at there... maybe we'll see in the next movie.
'"We're interested in mythology, theology, and, to a certain extent, higher-level mathematics," Larry told Time in 1999. In a Warner Bros. Web chat that year, they were asked to what extent their allusions to myths and philosophy were intentional. "All of it," they said.'
"Human beings, on the other hand, require nothing but food, and the food can be manufactured from human waste."
Yeah, but not at 100% efficiency, or anywhere close. Each generation of waste, you lose energy. You can't sustain yourself on the energy content of your own waste, and adding billions more people won't improve anything.
All energy on Earth (except geothermal) comes from the Sun originally. Wind, the water cycle, solar power.. everything is driven by the Sun. Sure, there are non-renewable resources such as oil you could harvest, but adding human bodies into the mix as a conversion "solution" is simply ridiculous and makes no sense.
The human body CONSUMES about 1800 calories a day just sitting still.. breathing, pumping blood, etc. Building a power plant out of them would just drain massive amounts of energy, not produce it.
I love the movie, and I'm sure I'll love the sequels too.. but the whole "humans as power sources" thing is complete nonsense and has always bugged me.
You sure about that? Hemp is a renewable fuel source, and could threaten monopolistic oil profits, especially in the long term. (And I'm not even talking about plastics, fibres, paper, and the thousands of other things hemp is useful for) Now, tell me the current War on Terror has absolutely NOTHING to do with protecting oil interests.
It is in Big Oil's interests to supress hemp cultivation, and Big Oil is everywhere in American decision making.
"I used to have nightmares about being chased by guys in blue uniforms, searching and shooting chests, hoping it had grenades, and hoping EVEN MORE that I didn't blow them up! I remember tossing grenades at SS and missing, but having two more and deciding to put some distance between me and the guard, so tossing one at the wall (only if you're going up or down, otherwise you need two and too much time) and running through it, ducking behind a wall so I don't get shot. Intense stuff, dude. Nothing else has come close."
Dude, you need to play some online Battlefield 1942:)
"Well, I hate to break it to you, but most of these sightings usually can be explained. The rest cannot be verified one way or the other because of lack of data."
Exactly, MOST can be explained. Meaning many can't. And there IS lots of evidence. Radar records which correspond with visual sightings, for example. These records show, beyond any reasonable doubt, objects with 3 characteristics:
The objects are solid.
The objects are under intelligent control.
The objects are capable of manoeuvres far beyond any known propulsion technology.
You can't just dismiss these characteristics, and say "Oh, they're just swamp gas, or Venus, or space-time events.". They have been documented in abundant quantity, that would be more than enough evidence for any REAL scientific study.
But skeptics refuse to accept such evidence. They just shake their heads and say "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." This is NOT how the scientific method works. You don't demand higher levels of evidence just because you're uncomfortable with the conclusions they point to.
You quote Occam's... well what would Occam's say about this: Thousands and thousands of sightings (with more and more being verified with recording equipment) with no connection or pattern among the observers are ALL fraudulent, or could there actually be something to observe?
Slashdot Mirror
"The only thing I can think of reasonably needing a color printer for is photographs."
Well, exactly! That's what I bought it for. That's what I use it for. I print them on high gloss photo paper, usually as gifts for friends. Nicer to punch a button and have a print in two minutes than having to deal with a printing service.
And I wasn't exaggerating about people asking me what pro Print Shop I got them done at... happens every time, like clockwork. The quality is really that good with a decent modern photo printer.
Agreed for B&W absolutely... I have had a laser printer for about 8 years or so, and the original toner cartridge just ran out last year. Sure the cartridge costs $150 (CDN), but it lasts forever, and the text is sharp enough to shave with, and blacker than hell.
:)
However, colour has its place, so when I finally bought an inkjet printer to print out photos from my digital camera, one of the primary factors was long term operating cost.
Epson printers are the top of the line for visual quality, and a very cheap initial purchase, but they gouge you on replacement cartridges later... so I went for a Canon (s820) instead, and am extremely pleased with both the print quality, and ink economy. It has SIX refillable cartridges (photo, or "light", magenta and cyan in addition to standard CMYB) as opposed to Epson's microchip crippled, non refillable 1 or 4 cartridge solutions.
The Canon is also way faster and quieter to boot, and everytime I show someone a photo I've printed, they want to know what professional Photo Lab I went to.
"Can you think of even one Java application that you use on your desktop and like?"
Sure... Borland JBuilder, versions 3 through 9. Awesome IDE.
"Do you deny that it still takes a shell script to start most Java apps on Unix?"
Yes. Package it in an executable JAR. Runs on any Java system. Hell, with JBuilder 8 Enterprise I can easily build native executable wrappers for Win32, Mac, Linux and Solaris.
"Do you deny that developing and building Java apps requires that you adjust you CLASSPATH in order for the compiler to find the locations of third-party libraries you are linking against?"
Yes. See previous point. Or, do what we did, write our own dynamic ClassLoader bootstrap which searches out required libraries and loads them automatically.
This is really the heart of your pet peeve against Java, isn't it? You struggled with some annoying CLASSPATH crap, it frustrated you, and you decided you hated the entire language? I do understand... that stuff is tedious when you're trying to get into it.
"Do you deny that running Java applications still requires you to obtain a JRE from Sun?"
You don't have to go to Sun. There are plenty of third party JREs.
"And that many applications require at minimum a certain version of the JRE?"
All software has system requirements, what's your point?
Got some more questions?
Gosh, I hope this'll be just as successful as their new "focus on security" last year, which has eliminated all security holes in Microsoft products across the board--
Ahh crap.
I think St. Anger is really good too, but have you noticed there's no lead solos in the entire album? At ALL? The crunchy thrash is back in top form, and I welcome it, but where are those soaring, majestic solos that helped make their earlier work so legendary and unforgettable? Is Kirk all tapped out, needed a break, or just wanted a change?
Dammit... here I DL this video, expecting "to watch an AMD K6/2 400mhz go up in flames" as promised, but all I got was this crappy Indy ripoff.. what a gyp. ;P
I don't think predictability has to be at odds with free will.
:) Thanks for the stimulating discussion though.
Well, I think I would respectfully disagree with that, but perhaps this revolves around different ways of defining "free will", an elusive term if there ever was one. (The proof I mentioned offers a concrete definition) In any case, I don't think it's something we're going to solve here
If you are interested, I looked up the original proof and discussion I have been referring to, it can be found here (on a gaming forum of all places, heh):
I have a couple replies on the second page, posting under the name "Morwynd". Yikes, it's grown quite a bit since I last read that thread.
Cheers.
Of course we all appear to make choices, but the real question is, if everything could be reset to the exact same state, is it possible we could choose differently? Or is every choice we make an inevitable outcome, that could be predicted with 100% accuracy if (Huge, huge IF there) every variable could be accounted for?
"Obviously, deterministic events do not demonstrate free will, so we can safely disregard these."
"Why?"
A deterministic system can be theoretically predicted given enough information. The fact that we cannot actually do this prediction, does not mean it's IMPOSSIBLE to predict, merely that it's too difficult. If an event can be predicted, then there cannot be any actual free will factor involved, only the illusion of it.
Naturally your identity and nature affect your decisions, but where did these come from? Genetics and environment. Again, where is free will in this? Do we really have any say in who we become, or is it a set of dominoes falling since before we are even born, that build who we are?
* MATRIX RELOADED SPOILERS * MATRIX RELOADED SPOILERS *
-
* MATRIX RELOADED SPOILERS * MATRIX RELOADED SPOILERS *
-
-
-
Here's my pet theory on the Matrix: The whole idea of computers using humans as power sources, etc, doesn't HAVE to make sense... because the entire "world of Zion" ISN'T REAL EITHER. It's just a "pressure release valve", where rebellious elements from The Matrix can "escape" to, and give themselves purpose by playing freedom fighters against the Evil Nasty Life-Sucking Machines.
The more I see these movies (esp. the 2nd one), the more I see to support this theory. Neo stopping the sentinels at the end... maybe he's in a coma now because he "woke up" to the next layer, possibly reality? Smith "uploading" himself into the "Zion layer". How could he do that if it wasn't another simulation? Seems a big stretch to suggest that a computer program could "possess" an actual flesh and blood brain. But if the "person" he possessed is just an avatar in another level of the sim, it makes perfect sense. Hell.. "Morpheus" is a reference to the god of dreams. He certainly is, if Zion is a dream. He even says at the end of the movie, "I had a dream, but now that dream is taken from me". It all seems to point to it. I was sorta dissapointed in Reloaded the first time around, but I have a MUCH greater appreciation for it after I'd seen it a second time, with this stuff in mind. There's so many lines of dialogue and clues that take on a whole new meaning. (That I thought were kinda cheesy and pointless the first time around)
Maybe the "real" world is sunshine and roses, the machines have transformed the Earth into a utopian paradise and have all the energy they need, and they simulate existence for humans for some other reason completely... for instance:
Anyway, I think there's a lot more going on underneath the surface than it seems, and perhaps you might get more out of a second viewing. We'll have to wait for the third one to find out any real answers. Can't wait, personally. Thank goodness it's coming out so soon!
Nice thinking. I was recently reading a lengthy formal proof of the non-existence of free will. (I'd find a link but It's-Sunday-And-I'm-Too-Damn-Lazy)
Basically the gist of the argument was this: Only two conceivable types of events can happen in your brain: Deterministic (electrochemical meatware precisely obeying cause and effect), or non-deterministic (ie quantum level).
Obviously, deterministic events do not demonstrate free will, so we can safely disregard these.
Which leaves us with non-deterministic events. Are these evidence of free will? The proof stated that we are not in control of these non-deterministic events (a reasonable assertion), if they exist they are random, and therefore these events would not demonstrate free will either. QED.
I have to say it's pretty hard to find a hole in that logic. For shits and giggles I played devil's advocate and argued that it's an unproven conjecture that our consciousness cannot influence quantum events. Could free will manifest itself by altering quantum probabilities?
It looked to me like they blew up the city that took place in, immediately after.
I followed the firefly message boards for a while (very interesting, many cast members posted occasionally, Adam Baldwin posted hundreds of times), and I do recall reading that the sets were taken down. :( (Joss said something to the effect of not to worry, they can be put back up again in no time flat)
But there were a lot more than 6.. and still, how could they be on the monitors, reacting to events?
And that also supposes all incarnations of the One look identical... which seems a bit silly, and we are given no reason to think that.
"This is why the Oracle knows everything Neo and everyone else is going to do before it happens -- it's already happened 6 times before! (as per the Architect) -- and each time, the "One" has selected to walk through the door and set things in motion again (this is the control system used to counteract humans' tendencies toward choice). Where Neo differs is that he is not acting like the "Ones" that have come before him."
One problem... the Oracle predicted that Trinity would fall in love with Neo. This love is what causes Neo to act differently. So how'd the Oracle predict that if it'd never happened before?
"Why can Neo see the future... well just like the oracle because *has has already lived it!*"
There's one thing that bothers me about this... if the Oracle can see the future because she's already lived it...
How does she know Trinity and Neo will fall in love? Isn't this the first time that's happened?
Fascinating thread... I am liking this movie the more I think about it, even though I must say my initial take on watching it was slightly dissapointed (I thought some of the dialogue was cheesy, and some scenes and fights seemed kinda pointless)
Here's a question I had that I haven't seen addressed anywhere... what's the deal with the hundreds of Neo images on the Architect's monitors all having different reactions, speaking out as if they were all independent entities?
The person I was with said she thought it represented his conflicting thoughts, but that just doesn't satisfy me. What do all these parallel Neo's signify?
Perhaps it is just the Architect peering into the tangled mess of his head... but it just seems like there was something more being hinted at there... maybe we'll see in the next movie.
It seems pretty clear to me that serious thought HAS gone into The Matrix. Unlike Lucas, these guys are still focused on imaginative storytelling.
You seem to be dismissing even the possibilty of any intellectual value, simply because it has mass appeal and numerous action sequences.
'"We're interested in mythology, theology, and, to a certain extent, higher-level mathematics," Larry told Time in 1999. In a Warner Bros. Web chat that year, they were asked to what extent their allusions to myths and philosophy were intentional. "All of it," they said.'
"Human beings, on the other hand, require nothing but food, and the food can be manufactured from human waste."
Yeah, but not at 100% efficiency, or anywhere close. Each generation of waste, you lose energy. You can't sustain yourself on the energy content of your own waste, and adding billions more people won't improve anything.
Just wanted to add, of course the energy consumed doesn't vanish.. you can harvest it as heat byproduct.. but there will always be net loss.
Botton line, they need an external power source, you can't recycle a closed system indefinitely unless you have 100% efficiency, which doesn't exist.
All energy on Earth (except geothermal) comes from the Sun originally. Wind, the water cycle, solar power.. everything is driven by the Sun. Sure, there are non-renewable resources such as oil you could harvest, but adding human bodies into the mix as a conversion "solution" is simply ridiculous and makes no sense.
The human body CONSUMES about 1800 calories a day just sitting still.. breathing, pumping blood, etc. Building a power plant out of them would just drain massive amounts of energy, not produce it.
I love the movie, and I'm sure I'll love the sequels too.. but the whole "humans as power sources" thing is complete nonsense and has always bugged me.
"it doesn't have anything to do with terrorism"
You sure about that? Hemp is a renewable fuel source, and could threaten monopolistic oil profits, especially in the long term. (And I'm not even talking about plastics, fibres, paper, and the thousands of other things hemp is useful for) Now, tell me the current War on Terror has absolutely NOTHING to do with protecting oil interests.
It is in Big Oil's interests to supress hemp cultivation, and Big Oil is everywhere in American decision making.
"I used to have nightmares about being chased by guys in blue uniforms, searching and shooting chests, hoping it had grenades, and hoping EVEN MORE that I didn't blow them up! I remember tossing grenades at SS and missing, but having two more and deciding to put some distance between me and the guard, so tossing one at the wall (only if you're going up or down, otherwise you need two and too much time) and running through it, ducking behind a wall so I don't get shot. Intense stuff, dude. Nothing else has come close."
:)
Dude, you need to play some online Battlefield 1942
I've been looking for a good random number generator, someone finally came up with one! :)
Exactly, MOST can be explained. Meaning many can't. And there IS lots of evidence. Radar records which correspond with visual sightings, for example. These records show, beyond any reasonable doubt, objects with 3 characteristics:
- The objects are solid.
- The objects are under intelligent control.
- The objects are capable of manoeuvres far beyond any known propulsion technology.
You can't just dismiss these characteristics, and say "Oh, they're just swamp gas, or Venus, or space-time events.". They have been documented in abundant quantity, that would be more than enough evidence for any REAL scientific study.But skeptics refuse to accept such evidence. They just shake their heads and say "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." This is NOT how the scientific method works. You don't demand higher levels of evidence just because you're uncomfortable with the conclusions they point to.
You quote Occam's... well what would Occam's say about this: Thousands and thousands of sightings (with more and more being verified with recording equipment) with no connection or pattern among the observers are ALL fraudulent, or could there actually be something to observe?