".. is absolutely unknowable." false, and a strawman.
"Since there is no way within human capabilities to express the underlying reality-- whatever that might be-- for human beings it is simply and completely unknowable"
You sound like someone discussing human flight 200 years ago.
"Since there is no way within human capabilities to express the underlying reality"
"no fixed underlying reality" there is, and it will roll right over you regardless of how you act or believe.
Umm, this is about discussing what happened and how observation meet with known factors. Speculating about more dimension is perfectly reasonable based on the mathematics models; which I'm sure you are up to speed on? You would just make this statement, would you?
You are aware if Edward Witton's work? Garrett Eise?
Nope, he is wrong. Fell into the classic trap of 'I know how to apply something therefore it's what everything is'.
What we(humans) have done is invented a way to describe events around with accurate but context specific predictions.
Example: I have to apples and you have two apples. I give you my apples. You know have twice as many apples. But do you have twice as much Apple? Probably note. If you have 5 pounds of Apples, and I give you 5 pounds of apples, do you have twice as many apples? probably not. Do you have twice as much apple? yes. Context specific.
" There is nothing that spectacular about humans" oh, I disagree. We can cross vast oceans, build tower to touch the sky, scream around the globe, communicate around the world, been to the moon, and hae a machine sending signals from the edge of the Solar System. We are pretty damn spectacular. Are we the center of everything? no.
we already know they don't exist. More accurate, every control test fails to show claimed evidences, so the null hypothesis remains: souls don't exist.
"Airplanes don't flap wings after all." but would be far more economical if they did.
" The real solution is probably going to be orders of magnitude simpler" nope. Sorry but no. IN your brain I can change they way you respond to the environment around you with some pretty simple chemical. I can change on part of your brain and change your behaviors and response, and it doesn't even need to be a large bit.
Most decision you make? are made before you think about them. The it also give the framework to how you interpret the world. A framework that won't exist in a machine. You need to think mare deeply about this. And I don't mean reading random websites and talking about idea with your buds . I mean study up on neurology.
The brain is not a machine, it's a chemical factory. If you can't even tell that difference then you should probably shut up.
"Do you believe in souls?" define soul.
When talking about good art , or love, or friends, that feeling is often called soul.
If you mean a incorporeal being, then no.
" You're already an AI running" by definition, that's false.
You also make the false assumption that AI = singularity. It does not. For some interpretation of singularity to do not need AI. I don't know which definition you are using.
If you think you will upload your brain and then YOU will be in the computer, you are wrong. A copy of you will exist on the system. One that diverges from the meat bag version immediately. Lets say you just uploaded you memories and responses into a machine, are you telling me the next day you don't mind if someone puts a gun in you mouth and pulls the trigger?
Unless you think 'who you are' can be moved from your brain into the machine becasue it's all part of an incorporeal being. You don't believe in incorporeal beings, do you?
You can't bring back the requirement, it's overly burdensome.
I have a patent for a omni-transducer polymer. I can't afford to get it made, so what? only people with money should be allowed to patent? Of course, the person who invented the LASER would never have been able to gat a patent with Reduction to Practice, and last I checked, the LASER was pretty damn useful.
And yes, business models, or any 'model' should be removed, a should software; which should be protected by copyright.
If you are violating a patent, then it is perfectly normal, and expect, for the patent holder to demand you stop or pay royalties. And yes, it might takes some time for then to discover you are violating the patent.
Read you last sentence again, you are basically saying 'If I do it then you have no patent protection'.
If they patent after you are in the market place, then it's trolling.
Trolling is when you great a broader patent in order to try to claim royalties on existing patents.
This nonsense about people trying to protect their rights, or license their patent, is trolling is a pile of crap. Generally supported by anti tort groups(i,e, insurance companies) that want to strip inventors of their rights.
Steve Jobs resuscitated Apple not by listening to investor. He did it by creating a demand for a product. A demand geared towards expensive items with high mark up that where desired by everyone. He did it by looking at grate ideas and pushing until they happened. Or pushing until they figured out the tech wasn't ready and moving on.
With the new plastic iPhone,Apple will become another Dell. No real innovation, trying to sell to the lowest common denominator for a razor thing mark up.
Apple has shown, very clearly, you do not need to sell to every human being to be profitable.
It's not true. It's been around in one form or another. Here is a little thinking applied to it:
If Shell(any company, really) had this tech they would make a mint licensing it. Remember it's about money, oil is just a product. I would guess they could gt 200 dollars a vehicle in licensing. So, Billions a year.(yes, it's based on a guess but I hope you see the point) These cars would still need Gas. They would have stopped any EV developments for at least a decade. And by sitting on it it means they risk someone else developing it, and then they would be screwed.
It's the same problem with most every other corporate conspiracy theory.
oh, and the discover it 50 years ago and no one else in the world did? No other engineer? no other non american car company?
Thanks for telling other people how to live! Without you who knows what chaos would reign? Who know the impact of having one less asshole? it would be crazy!
I suspect that by 'haven't found a good reference yu mean haven't found a good reference that supports my bias.
There are a munch of good reference on this thing called the 'internet'. You should go see if there is a way to search through files or something on this new fangled internet.
I mean really, there was a goof reference on the first google hit.
the fact that you can't make more money with an engineering degree is your fault, not the workers fault. Maybe you should stop taking it up the ass? Or drop the attitude that you have a degree therefore you should make more money?
"I learned the line workers' jobs in about one day." no you didn't.
"Why exactly should a job that requires roughly 1/1,000 of the learning time earn more money?" Demand. I know someone who has a PhD in literature. Does that mean they should make more money then me?
You should go beck to that school and demand they teach logic and critical thinking to engineering students, cause apparently you where screwed.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you high or stupid? or maybe a troll?
Hulu is supported on Roku:
http://www.hulu.com/support/article/332610
and Xbox:
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live/partners/hulu-plus
or do you mean you don't like them becasue they cost money to bring entertainment to you?
"that cannot predict anything"
false.
".. is absolutely unknowable."
false, and a strawman.
"Since there is no way within human capabilities to express the underlying reality-- whatever that might be-- for human beings it is simply and completely unknowable"
You sound like someone discussing human flight 200 years ago.
"Since there is no way within human capabilities to express the underlying reality"
"no fixed underlying reality"
there is, and it will roll right over you regardless of how you act or believe.
and now he goes to push the strawman over.
That's a bold statement. Mathematical proof? no?
Umm, this is about discussing what happened and how observation meet with known factors. Speculating about more dimension is perfectly reasonable based on the mathematics models; which I'm sure you are up to speed on? You would just make this statement, would you?
You are aware if Edward Witton's work? Garrett Eise?
"All direct observations to date point to a 3D universe."
false.
Also, short sighted and ignorant.
Nope, he is wrong. Fell into the classic trap of 'I know how to apply something therefore it's what everything is'.
What we(humans) have done is invented a way to describe events around with accurate but context specific predictions.
Example:
I have to apples and you have two apples.
I give you my apples. You know have twice as many apples.
But do you have twice as much Apple? Probably note.
If you have 5 pounds of Apples, and I give you 5 pounds of apples, do you have twice as many apples? probably not. Do you have twice as much apple? yes.
Context specific.
BZZZZZT! d6 not d10.
Also there is about 20 pages of rules, the ADDICT as well as breaking it into segments.
all in all it was pretty byzantine.
"Classical AD&D"
Assuming be classical you mean 1st edition. If you mean Classical D&D, well then you should have said.
D&D round were 10 seconds, AD&D rounds are 1 minute broken into 6 segments.
Since he is involved with it, I'll go with 'yes'
You will kill us all, and rip a hole in the time space continuum, you fool!
You must 'reverse' not 'invoke'.
Gah.
remember, Star trek is all about how bad science is.
believing in a soul is a religion.
"perhaps at a quantum level. "
sigh. get out.
" There is nothing that spectacular about humans"
oh, I disagree.
We can cross vast oceans, build tower to touch the sky, scream around the globe, communicate around the world, been to the moon, and hae a machine sending signals from the edge of the Solar System.
We are pretty damn spectacular. Are we the center of everything? no.
we already know they don't exist.
More accurate, every control test fails to show claimed evidences, so the null hypothesis remains: souls don't exist.
"Airplanes don't flap wings after all."
but would be far more economical if they did.
" The real solution is probably going to be orders of magnitude simpler"
nope. Sorry but no. IN your brain I can change they way you respond to the environment around you with some pretty simple chemical. I can change on part of your brain and change your behaviors and response, and it doesn't even need to be a large bit.
Most decision you make? are made before you think about them.
The it also give the framework to how you interpret the world. A framework that won't exist in a machine.
You need to think mare deeply about this. And I don't mean reading random websites and talking about idea with your buds .
I mean study up on neurology.
The brain is not a machine, it's a chemical factory. If you can't even tell that difference then you should probably shut up.
"Do you believe in souls?"
define soul.
When talking about good art , or love, or friends, that feeling is often called soul.
If you mean a incorporeal being, then no.
" You're already an AI running"
by definition, that's false.
You also make the false assumption that AI = singularity. It does not. For some interpretation of singularity to do not need AI.
I don't know which definition you are using.
If you think you will upload your brain and then YOU will be in the computer, you are wrong.
A copy of you will exist on the system. One that diverges from the meat bag version immediately.
Lets say you just uploaded you memories and responses into a machine, are you telling me the next day you don't mind if someone puts a gun in you mouth and pulls the trigger?
Unless you think 'who you are' can be moved from your brain into the machine becasue it's all part of an incorporeal being. You don't believe in incorporeal beings, do you?
You can't bring back the requirement, it's overly burdensome.
I have a patent for a omni-transducer polymer. I can't afford to get it made, so what? only people with money should be allowed to patent?
Of course, the person who invented the LASER would never have been able to gat a patent with Reduction to Practice, and last I checked, the LASER was pretty damn useful.
And yes, business models, or any 'model' should be removed, a should software; which should be protected by copyright.
Bullshit
If you are violating a patent, then it is perfectly normal, and expect, for the patent holder to demand you stop or pay royalties.
And yes, it might takes some time for then to discover you are violating the patent.
Read you last sentence again, you are basically saying 'If I do it then you have no patent protection'.
If they patent after you are in the market place, then it's trolling.
Don't let the ignorant convince you otherwise.
Trolling is when you great a broader patent in order to try to claim royalties on existing patents.
This nonsense about people trying to protect their rights, or license their patent, is trolling is a pile of crap.
Generally supported by anti tort groups(i,e, insurance companies) that want to strip inventors of their rights.
That's not true, but you keep sucking that NRA cock.
Everyone country that instituted enforced gun control or ban has seen a drop in crime.
It was predicted through regression to the mean.
Now ignorant people are cherry picking it as if a predicted single even undermine all other data.
For fuck sake stop this ignorant nonsense.
Steve Jobs resuscitated Apple not by listening to investor.
He did it by creating a demand for a product. A demand geared towards expensive items with high mark up that where desired by everyone. He did it by looking at grate ideas and pushing until they happened. Or pushing until they figured out the tech wasn't ready and moving on.
With the new plastic iPhone,Apple will become another Dell. No real innovation, trying to sell to the lowest common denominator for a razor thing mark up.
Apple has shown, very clearly, you do not need to sell to every human being to be profitable.
It's not true. It's been around in one form or another. Here is a little thinking applied to it:
If Shell(any company, really) had this tech they would make a mint licensing it. Remember it's about money, oil is just a product. I would guess they could gt 200 dollars a vehicle in licensing. So, Billions a year.(yes, it's based on a guess but I hope you see the point)
These cars would still need Gas.
They would have stopped any EV developments for at least a decade.
And by sitting on it it means they risk someone else developing it, and then they would be screwed.
It's the same problem with most every other corporate conspiracy theory.
oh, and the discover it 50 years ago and no one else in the world did? No other engineer? no other non american car company?
Stop spreading lies.
Oh yes, keepinn jobs, helping a major economic driver get out of trouble, and all for a net taxpayer gain.
ohhh. so horrible.
Idiot.
Thanks for telling other people how to live! Without you who knows what chaos would reign?
Who know the impact of having one less asshole? it would be crazy!
I suspect that by 'haven't found a good reference yu mean haven't found a good reference that supports my bias.
There are a munch of good reference on this thing called the 'internet'. You should go see if there is a way to search through files or something on this new fangled internet.
I mean really, there was a goof reference on the first google hit.
And the system worked fine.
the fact that you can't make more money with an engineering degree is your fault, not the workers fault.
Maybe you should stop taking it up the ass? Or drop the attitude that you have a degree therefore you should make more money?
"I learned the line workers' jobs in about one day."
no you didn't.
"Why exactly should a job that requires roughly 1/1,000 of the learning time earn more money?"
Demand. I know someone who has a PhD in literature. Does that mean they should make more money then me?
You should go beck to that school and demand they teach logic and critical thinking to engineering students, cause apparently you where screwed.