I would like to play "Disk of Tron" with millions of people across the world, because I really kick ass at that game, and I believe myself to be the Kasparov of "Disk of Tron".
Our place in the universe is indeed distinctive, being the place where gods
and turtles meet.)
That can't be by pure chance, can it? I mean, that we ended up HERE of all places? THE universe with all the right parameters tweaked just the right way, and right smack-dab in the middle of the hierarchy of Gods and the hierarchy of turtles? Someone had to make it that way on purpose.
Well, it's also because there is a rather narrowly held view of exactly what "Creationism" means. The same is true for "Christian". There are individuals and beliefs out there that are widely ranging, yet most people see "Creationism" as kooks who got into the Kansas board of education, or build museums to house slabs of mud showing human footprints side by side with dinosaur footprints, along with exhibits on Noahs Ark and the Great Flood.
There are, of course, more precise terms that philosophy majors and biblical scholars use for the various ranges in belief. But that ultimately has not solved the problem for the rest of us. (as far as I know, though, the term "Atheist" is a very precise one, it carries a lot of connotations, many of which aren't true in most cases - for instance, you don't have to be a communist to be an atheist, and vice-versa).
Everyone is going to have a different opinion. My personal rationalization for my beliefs in BOTH God and the Big Bang, is that my mind and it's logic are material things, and are of limited capacity and are informed by limited perceptions. If God created the universe, then he created time itself, and then I kind of accept the logical absurdity that since God is outside of time, that you don't need to apply a cause-effect model to God himself, who created God? Who created God WHEN? If Heaven (different from "the heavens") is as timeless as this concept of God, then there isn't a period of time that ever existed prior to God's existence, so you don't have to figure out who created God. The concept of time, is limited to our physical universe.
Then there's the question of what people are, why is it that we supposedly have eternal souls and free wills, yet we have these chemical reactions in our physical bodies which appear to cause behaviors, and we have activities in certain structures of the brain. We behave in some very mechanical, predictable ways.
Again, I have to build a strange rationalization to reconcile these beliefs. That since our souls are eternal, they're sort of "connected" somehow to our physical bodies, perhaps our awareness and certainly much of our emotions are artifacts of the physical. Perhaps questions about whether the tail is wagging the dog arise; again, the nature of the eternal precludes cause-effect relationships. Saying you have a feeling, and that that feeling accompanies some chemical reaction, a scientist would conclude, from his observations that the chemical reaction caused the feeling. But maybe the chemical reaction was an effect of the feeling, that preceeded your awareness of the feeling. But the true origin may have been spiritual, beyond the realm of time, and outside the rules of cause-and-effect.
As you can see, you need to be careful with this kind of thinking, because if you buy into it, you can be convinced of anything, and people who can be convinced of anything might do crazy things like give all their money to a cult, or build a car-bomb. I'm not trying to make excuses for the people who do those kinds of things, their religious beliefs center around philosophies which are undoubtedly not the basis of the Christian or Muslim faiths. (I'm not as well-versed on Judaism, so I won't make any statements on that). How are we supposed to know what the true basis is? From scripture? well, many Christians believe that Scripture is flawless, direct Word of God. I think that this belief is the fundamental flaw, because Scripture is a physical think in the physical universe, and by that very nature, must be flawed. There's a story in 1 Kings that talks about some guy's grain silo, and reports the measurements, and if you calculate the measurements, you come up with a value of PI being 3, which is clearly false. I don't know how bible-believers rationalize this, but in my mind, it's a signal from God that the text is not perfect. Humans transcribed it, humans translated it, and humans are, by definition, physical beings, and imperfect, though they are attached to eternal souls which are perfect. The story of the tower of Babel states that God scattered our languages for the express intent purpose of keeping us confused and unable to act as one (probably a protective measure against cultural meme viruses, that's my theory). But the point is, there are clear messages in the Bible, and a lot of other stuff that is not so clear, and easily misinterpreted, and, worse, easily perverted towards furthering some people's political or other agendas. This is how we ended up with things like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, and the Republican Party.
Now, clearly, you cannot describe a pefect being, using imperfect language, imperfect terms, written on imperfect paper with imperfect ink, by a soul living in an imperfect body (along with chemicals, hormones, glands, bad upbringing, economic conditions, etc.). The only way to experience the perfection of God is to look inwards, use the part of you that is eternal, closest to God, your soul.
On the other hand, I wonder if the use of the term "gates" was to imply that Windows, also was a third party technology that Intel (until recently) was dependent on. ..
Well, there ARE often physical altercations on the track (in fact, it's a part of racing in NASCAR, but then, so is chawin tabakky). I believe if two cars are vying for the inside lane on a turn, the one on the outside must yeild to the one on the inside IF the one on the inside is at least half a car length behind or less, in other words, if the outside car can't possibly make it around the inside car and safely into the "groove", he's got to stay outside, which is a longer distance and necessarily keeps that car "behind" for that turn.
This gets into sensing and computing complex spacial relationships, which I believe is FAR FAR beyond robotics at this point, especially in the time-frames we're talking about, with the input and sensing technologies we have today. IOW, I don't believe we have the technology currently to allow a robot-car to compete on a circuit at the same time as human-driven cars, without the humans quickly figuring out how to jocky into better positions, and force the car to either collide illegally, or back-off.
It's a very subjective decision that the driver has to make, and it's based more on gut instinct than logic, whether to attempt to get in the groove, or let the other driver go ahead and drop behind, or attempt to keep up alongside in the outer lane.
I think that in order to implement Asimov's laws, a robot would have to be smart enough to be able to identify a "human being". We're not there yet. Not anywhere near.
I think robots will be manufactured and used for many commercial tasks LONG before they figure "higher concepts" like that out.
Fuck, I worked my ass off to help build this company, I deserve every penny. But I'm also not going to forget what it was like to be poor. It really sucked. Everyone deserves a chance.
And no, my feelings weren't hurt by the bank. But I do find that the difference in treatment, the discrimination, was unethical.
I'm not talking about shooting anybody, I'm talking about -er, compelling Robert and Steve to work together so neither of them die. Robert can still have a much, much, unimaginably higher lifestyle than Steve. He worked for it, he deserves it, he can have it. Maybe he has to sacrifice solid-gold toilet seats for gold-plated, eh?
Very few people have been as vocal a critic of intel as I have. But after this statement, it shows an attitude of almost . . . human, humility.
Have our harsh anti-intel sentiments published on line finally gotten through to someone who makes decisions at intel? Are there really decent human beings in positions of power in corporate America?
I could only hope that Motorola can find enough grease for it's neck so they can pull their heads out of their asses as well. Otherwise, I might actually *sign* that OSXonIntel.com petition. ..
The big recession you speak of was fallout from high oil prices. Nothing more. Bush's daddy did us a big favor by stomping Iraq, but he should have finished the job.
I don't envy the next president, whomever that may be, because he's going to get screwed with high oil prices, and a sagging economy, no matter what he does. Whatever policy he uses will be trashed by idiots for the next 20 years in election debates, when the simple fact of the matter is that in our economy, everything is based originally on the cost of energy, which is oil. When that cost goes up, as a whole, the profits of everyone go down, and prices are forced up (inflation), then the FED goes in and raises interest rates, which raises the costs of doing business even more, having the opposite effect.
Cheap oil my friends, that's what it's all about. Nothing more. Other factors can provide minor tweaks, but only temporarily. When the cheap oil runs out, we're all totally screwed. And don't let anyone tell you that fusion is a viable alternative, because outside of a handful of scientists, nobody in power wants to see fusion happen ever, because the ones in power are the direct beneficiaries of our dependency on oil.
last election, I voted for Harry Browne of all people. What was I thinking? I was thinking: "I will *not* be forced into voting for Clinton just because I'm afraid of Dole."
I am PROUD to say that I did *NOT* vote for Clinton. I knew he was a stinker. Then in his last term, he showed us all what a stinker he was.
Gore, I'm not so sure about, but I've got a feeling. But I'm sure as hell not voting for Browne again either. Maybe Nader. Maybe Darth Maul. I dunno. Damn I wish Jesse Ventura was running under the Reform Party. Buchanan should be arrested for theft of platform.
Slashdot Mirror
got news for you, this country's already ruined.
GPS-assisted washroom finding
facilities?
. . .
needs some technology that can help the user bypass the queue. When ya gotta go, ya gotta go.
I would like to play "Disk of Tron" with millions of people across the world, because I really kick ass at that game, and I believe myself to be the Kasparov of "Disk of Tron".
Our place in the universe is indeed distinctive, being the place where gods
and turtles meet.)
That can't be by pure chance, can it? I mean, that we ended up HERE of all places? THE universe with all the right parameters tweaked just the right way, and right smack-dab in the middle of the hierarchy of Gods and the hierarchy of turtles? Someone had to make it that way on purpose.
Did the meanie God make all those turtles?
It's not a mainframe, it's a Palm Pilot.
.
He's got the whole world, in his hands, He's got the whole wide world, in his hands. .
where did all this matter come from?
don't you know anything?
there is no spoon!
oops, now where did that blue pill go again?
I thought "Cracker" was a term for those white-male folks from down south who own pickup trucks, watch NASCAR and like chawin' tabakky.
Well, it's also because there is a rather narrowly held view of exactly what "Creationism" means. The same is true for "Christian". There are individuals and beliefs out there that are widely ranging, yet most people see "Creationism" as kooks who got into the Kansas board of education, or build museums to house slabs of mud showing human footprints side by side with dinosaur footprints, along with exhibits on Noahs Ark and the Great Flood.
There are, of course, more precise terms that philosophy majors and biblical scholars use for the various ranges in belief. But that ultimately has not solved the problem for the rest of us. (as far as I know, though, the term "Atheist" is a very precise one, it carries a lot of connotations, many of which aren't true in most cases - for instance, you don't have to be a communist to be an atheist, and vice-versa).
Everyone is going to have a different opinion. My personal rationalization for my beliefs in BOTH God and the Big Bang, is that my mind and it's logic are material things, and are of limited capacity and are informed by limited perceptions. If God created the universe, then he created time itself, and then I kind of accept the logical absurdity that since God is outside of time, that you don't need to apply a cause-effect model to God himself, who created God? Who created God WHEN? If Heaven (different from "the heavens") is as timeless as this concept of God, then there isn't a period of time that ever existed prior to God's existence, so you don't have to figure out who created God. The concept of time, is limited to our physical universe.
Then there's the question of what people are, why is it that we supposedly have eternal souls and free wills, yet we have these chemical reactions in our physical bodies which appear to cause behaviors, and we have activities in certain structures of the brain. We behave in some very mechanical, predictable ways.
Again, I have to build a strange rationalization to reconcile these beliefs. That since our souls are eternal, they're sort of "connected" somehow to our physical bodies, perhaps our awareness and certainly much of our emotions are artifacts of the physical. Perhaps questions about whether the tail is wagging the dog arise; again, the nature of the eternal precludes cause-effect relationships. Saying you have a feeling, and that that feeling accompanies some chemical reaction, a scientist would conclude, from his observations that the chemical reaction caused the feeling. But maybe the chemical reaction was an effect of the feeling, that preceeded your awareness of the feeling. But the true origin may have been spiritual, beyond the realm of time, and outside the rules of cause-and-effect.
As you can see, you need to be careful with this kind of thinking, because if you buy into it, you can be convinced of anything, and people who can be convinced of anything might do crazy things like give all their money to a cult, or build a car-bomb. I'm not trying to make excuses for the people who do those kinds of things, their religious beliefs center around philosophies which are undoubtedly not the basis of the Christian or Muslim faiths. (I'm not as well-versed on Judaism, so I won't make any statements on that). How are we supposed to know what the true basis is? From scripture? well, many Christians believe that Scripture is flawless, direct Word of God. I think that this belief is the fundamental flaw, because Scripture is a physical think in the physical universe, and by that very nature, must be flawed. There's a story in 1 Kings that talks about some guy's grain silo, and reports the measurements, and if you calculate the measurements, you come up with a value of PI being 3, which is clearly false. I don't know how bible-believers rationalize this, but in my mind, it's a signal from God that the text is not perfect. Humans transcribed it, humans translated it, and humans are, by definition, physical beings, and imperfect, though they are attached to eternal souls which are perfect. The story of the tower of Babel states that God scattered our languages for the express intent purpose of keeping us confused and unable to act as one (probably a protective measure against cultural meme viruses, that's my theory). But the point is, there are clear messages in the Bible, and a lot of other stuff that is not so clear, and easily misinterpreted, and, worse, easily perverted towards furthering some people's political or other agendas. This is how we ended up with things like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, and the Republican Party.
Now, clearly, you cannot describe a pefect being, using imperfect language, imperfect terms, written on imperfect paper with imperfect ink, by a soul living in an imperfect body (along with chemicals, hormones, glands, bad upbringing, economic conditions, etc.). The only way to experience the perfection of God is to look inwards, use the part of you that is eternal, closest to God, your soul.
How you do that, I have no idea.
Yeah, but what were the 2 oversexed humping turtles standing on?
Of course, now Microsoft will have to buy it so they can tell Apple to stuff it with their whining about who invented the GUI.
On the other hand, I wonder if the use of the term "gates" was to imply that Windows, also was a third party technology that Intel (until recently) was dependent on. . .
Or even play a reasonable game of Go.
Well, since mechanical devices are "female" (She's breaking up Captain!), then I would assume that it could *not* parallel park.
I am not being sexist. I simply have never known a woman who could parallel park. Or juggle three objects.
Well, there ARE often physical altercations on the track (in fact, it's a part of racing in NASCAR, but then, so is chawin tabakky). I believe if two cars are vying for the inside lane on a turn, the one on the outside must yeild to the one on the inside IF the one on the inside is at least half a car length behind or less, in other words, if the outside car can't possibly make it around the inside car and safely into the "groove", he's got to stay outside, which is a longer distance and necessarily keeps that car "behind" for that turn.
This gets into sensing and computing complex spacial relationships, which I believe is FAR FAR beyond robotics at this point, especially in the time-frames we're talking about, with the input and sensing technologies we have today. IOW, I don't believe we have the technology currently to allow a robot-car to compete on a circuit at the same time as human-driven cars, without the humans quickly figuring out how to jocky into better positions, and force the car to either collide illegally, or back-off.
It's a very subjective decision that the driver has to make, and it's based more on gut instinct than logic, whether to attempt to get in the groove, or let the other driver go ahead and drop behind, or attempt to keep up alongside in the outer lane.
I think that in order to implement Asimov's laws, a robot would have to be smart enough to be able to identify a "human being". We're not there yet. Not anywhere near.
I think robots will be manufactured and used for many commercial tasks LONG before they figure "higher concepts" like that out.
. . . and I guess Apple will now license RAMBUS technology for Macintoshes.
Fuck, I worked my ass off to help build this company, I deserve every penny. But I'm also not going to forget what it was like to be poor. It really sucked. Everyone deserves a chance.
And no, my feelings weren't hurt by the bank. But I do find that the difference in treatment, the discrimination, was unethical.
I'm not talking about shooting anybody, I'm talking about -er, compelling Robert and Steve to work together so neither of them die. Robert can still have a much, much, unimaginably higher lifestyle than Steve. He worked for it, he deserves it, he can have it. Maybe he has to sacrifice solid-gold toilet seats for gold-plated, eh?
No, silly. Hardware!
Yes.
.
Very few people have been as vocal a critic of intel as I have. But after this statement, it shows an attitude of almost . . . human, humility.
Have our harsh anti-intel sentiments published on line finally gotten through to someone who makes decisions at intel? Are there really decent human beings in positions of power in corporate America?
I could only hope that Motorola can find enough grease for it's neck so they can pull their heads out of their asses as well. Otherwise, I might actually *sign* that OSXonIntel.com petition. .
"In retrospect, it was a mistake to be dependent on a third party for a technology that
gates your performance"
I suppose this doesn't apply at all to the Apple-Motorola situation, does it?
The big recession you speak of was fallout from high oil prices. Nothing more. Bush's daddy did us a big favor by stomping Iraq, but he should have finished the job.
I don't envy the next president, whomever that may be, because he's going to get screwed with high oil prices, and a sagging economy, no matter what he does. Whatever policy he uses will be trashed by idiots for the next 20 years in election debates, when the simple fact of the matter is that in our economy, everything is based originally on the cost of energy, which is oil. When that cost goes up, as a whole, the profits of everyone go down, and prices are forced up (inflation), then the FED goes in and raises interest rates, which raises the costs of doing business even more, having the opposite effect.
Cheap oil my friends, that's what it's all about. Nothing more. Other factors can provide minor tweaks, but only temporarily. When the cheap oil runs out, we're all totally screwed. And don't let anyone tell you that fusion is a viable alternative, because outside of a handful of scientists, nobody in power wants to see fusion happen ever, because the ones in power are the direct beneficiaries of our dependency on oil.
If Bush wins, it might just be an oncoming oil tanker.
Then again, Gore is heavily invested in oil too. I think they both own oil companies.
last election, I voted for Harry Browne of all people. What was I thinking? I was thinking: "I will *not* be forced into voting for Clinton just because I'm afraid of Dole."
I am PROUD to say that I did *NOT* vote for Clinton. I knew he was a stinker. Then in his last term, he showed us all what a stinker he was.
Gore, I'm not so sure about, but I've got a feeling. But I'm sure as hell not voting for Browne again either. Maybe Nader. Maybe Darth Maul. I dunno. Damn I wish Jesse Ventura was running under the Reform Party. Buchanan should be arrested for theft of platform.
or in other words;
"nobody likes a math-geek, Sculley."