To say these games deserve to be "forgotten" is as stupid as saying Bluth Studios other works (american tail, secret of NIMH) deserve to be forgotten.
That's a fair point. The animation is nicely done, and we are talking about art. It should be featured as an example of how gameplay suffers when art (or showing off new technology) is the focus.
Good. Consider it a jobs program. The benefits of efficiency accrue only to the wealthy anyway, so what should the rest of us care?
Re:KDE is really good now..
on
KDE 4.6.3 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I threw KDE 4.6.something on a spare C2D box on a fresh install of Arch. That lasted about 2 minutes, as there was appreciable lag (at least half a second) switching between the tabs at the bottom of the app menu.
I would not call KDE 4.6 snappy by any stretch of the imagination. On the same machine, I can open as many windows as I want and still switch virtual desktops faster than it takes to redraw the screen. There's no excuse for any GUI element to take longer than a vblank interval to draw.
I don't understand his position on ethics. Ethics are a social construct. Things are unethical because they are likely to cause harm to other people. It makes no sense to have a code of ethics in a social vacuum, if you were the only person on earth nothing could possibly be unethical.
If unethical actions are harmful, then shouldn't we be making sure the people around us are behaving ethically? Wouldn't that decrease the net harm we suffer? If unethical actions aren't harmful, then what makes them unethical?
As for forcing his view on me, yes, he does want to force his version on me. He just did. I don't want to know the sexual perversions of other people. I don't care about it, as it is base and uncouth.
Please don't force your views on me. I don't want to know about the bigotry of other people, as it is base and uncouth.
OP's sex life is off topic, sure. But so is your hatred.
A machine is not capable of overriding its programing. A man is.
Sure, machines can override their programs. Have you ever heard of self modifying code? It's quite common in LISP. I think a large part of your problem here is that you completely fail to appreciate how much complexity even the simplest algorithms can exhibit.
I see you're pretty hung up on this free will stuff. So explain this to me. When you make one of these "free" choices, on what basis do you make it? Obviously, you're going to choose what you predict will give you what you want most. So how is it that you decide what you want?
The only way I can see to decide what you want is based on some higher order of wants. But then you fall in to the same problem, how do you decide which higher order wants you want? This sort of thing could go on forever. It's really much simpler once you realize that our wants are based in our biological and cultural traits, neither of which we have much control over.
Yes. Every waking moment of every day, I know that I am not a machine. I find it fascinating that you believe that you are.
Your belief that you are not a machine is not actually inconsistent with you being a machine. There's no reason to expect that software would be aware of what hardware it is running on (or that there is any hardware at all), unless it's been explicitly designed to do so. Since there's no evolutionary benefit to that awareness, it's not surprising that we are not directly aware of our mechanical nature.
When I say that that minds are machines, I mean that like saying that a bird is a flying machine. In principle birds and planes are bound by the same laws of physics(gravity) and use the same basic principles(Bernoulli) to remain aloft. Other than that, we can't conclude anything about birds from what we know about planes.
Minds are the same way. Brains and computers are both chunks of matter that process information. They both have to obey the laws of thermodynamics, Ohms law, Shannon's theorems, etc. Other than that you shouldn't expect many similarities between us and computers.
But I can violate f=ma in my head. It's quite easy actually. I can do it because my soul is not limited by the laws of physics. My body, however is. That's my whole point. My mind is not limited a series of chemical reactions.
Sure, you can program an artificial world where f=ma doesn't work too. But that program is still implemented in copper and silicon, similarly your imagination is still implemented in ions and proteins. As such, it is limited by chemical reactions. We can even experimentally limit your mind by manipulating those chemical reactions. Add benzodiazepines to the reaction and you will be unable to form memories. Or add amphetamines and you'll be unable to sleep. Take enough opiates and you will be unable to not want opiates. Add MDMA and you will be unable to hate, though you may be unable to love the next day.
I'm sorry, but ignorance does qualify you to ridicule that which you don't understand.
Oh I understand just fine. It's wishful thinking on the part of people terrified of the absolutely arbitrary nature of the universe, as well as being an opportunity to socialize, make a profit, and affect the spread of ideas. If there's anything more to it, I've never seen any evidence of it, and I looked really hard.
As for your repeated appeal to authority, yeah so what? Aristotle was wrong about lots of things, for instance, the shape of the solar system. He did what he could with the ideas that were available at the time. We have more and better ideas now, to the extend where we really don't need a deity to explain any observed phenomena. If you choose to believe in one anyway, perhaps for one of the reasons in the above paragraph, that's not a matter of intelligence that's a matter of opportunity cost. You're going to have to factor some teasing into that calculation, sorry.
My only problem with your original post is the word "ridicule".
And I have no problem using that word. Belief in god is as ridiculous as belief in Santa Claus. It's not OK for an educated adult to engage in such silliness.
There is nothing in that explanation that adequately explains why I am me and you are you
Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean that "god did it". Even if it did, how would you decide which god did it, and why? Our lack of understanding is not a reason to believe, it is a reason for disbelief.
Chemical reactions don't explain why my personality is not transferred to the compost that I will eventually become.
This is very much like saying "Chemical reactions don't explain why my Calculus homework is not transferred to the ash pile that forms after I throw my hard disk into an incinerator". Do you have problems with that concept too?
By claiming we are merely chemical, biological reactions, you are denying that you are self aware or have any control over your actions
This is not the case. All it means is that my self awareness has a physical substrate (which is to be expected, since all other known phenomena have physical substrates), and that my self control is bound by the laws of physics. If you doubt that, I encourage you to violate f=ma with your free will.
Why would I put a man in prison for raping a child when he is nothing more than a series of chemicals interacting with each other?
Why would you stop a fire from burning down a city when it's nothing more than a bunch of chemical interactions?
Why does the child matter as she is nothing more than chemical reactions is a different container.
Because empathy is a trait that has provided us an evolutionary advantage. Especially when children are involved.
BTW, nice subtle "atheists are in favor of child molestation" jab there. I bet that kind of emotional manipulation goes over well with the kind of people you usually talk to about religion.
Brilliant philosophers have argued both sides of the issue and both sides have made perfectly logically, well reasoned arguments
Really? Who? When? The only ones I'm aware of are circular arguments peppered with hand-waving and wishful thinking. Like your entire post here, for instance. Or the first-mover argument you alluded to before. (Which, BTW, doesn't prove anything besides your own personal discomfort with quantum weirdness.)
But rather than do that, ask yourself if you feel like chemicals.
I do! Everything I know about myself (and everyone else) makes the most sense when I consider myself (and everyone else) a biochemical machine. Do you have experiences that are inconsistent with that explanation?
1) Fair enough. They key point isn't provability, but falsifiability. It may make sense to believe in something non-provable, if there's a preponderance of evidence for it. It never makes sense to believe in something non-falsifiable.
2) Appeal to authority never proves anything, and this is a particularly bad one. People are products of their time. I can no more condemn Newton for believing in god than I can condemn George Washington for holding slaves. Further, the fact that Pasteur was a great chemist doesn't necessarily mean that he was great at anything else.
Not sure what exactly you're trying to do with this line of argument. Would I get in Pasteur's face and laugh at him if I met him? No, that's just rude. Do I think less of someone like Donald Knuth because of his devout belief? Yes I do. He should know better. Does Knuth's or Pasteur's personal failings overshadow the good work that they have done? No.
You are correct that a great many of our most respected cultural figures believed in God. Many of them were also alcoholics, philanderers, or gamblers. So what?
If you're going to configure everything the way you want it, why not just use Debian? Ubuntu is for people who want their computer to "just work". If it's not working for them, they are right to complain.
I can no longer recommend Ubuntu to people wanting to give Linux a spin. That's going to be a problem for Ubuntu.
I agree with everything in this post, but I don't think it's an answer to my question. It's a good explanation for why religious people have voluntary lobotomies and conjure up invisible friends. It's not an alternative to that fact.
So, because everything is to some degree uncertain, you argue that everything is equally uncertain, regardless of how much evidence there is? Really?
Also, did you read my post? Did I ever say that no one should believe in the unproven? No. I said no one should believe in the unprovable.
You're not doing well in advancing the case that religious people are not deserving of ridicule. With logic and reading comprehension skills like that, it's no wonder you believe in God.
I didn't mean technologically complex, but logistically complex. Why misappropriate hardware from your employer, when you probably already have the hardware you need in a box in the attic?
Slashdot Mirror
To say these games deserve to be "forgotten" is as stupid as saying Bluth Studios other works (american tail, secret of NIMH) deserve to be forgotten.
That's a fair point. The animation is nicely done, and we are talking about art. It should be featured as an example of how gameplay suffers when art (or showing off new technology) is the focus.
In the dust bins of history where it belongs.
Use SMB4K.
It's also about the only remaining Linux DE with a lot of exposed customization.
Don't forget about Awesome. It's nothing but exposed customization.
Good. Consider it a jobs program. The benefits of efficiency accrue only to the wealthy anyway, so what should the rest of us care?
I threw KDE 4.6.something on a spare C2D box on a fresh install of Arch. That lasted about 2 minutes, as there was appreciable lag (at least half a second) switching between the tabs at the bottom of the app menu.
I would not call KDE 4.6 snappy by any stretch of the imagination. On the same machine, I can open as many windows as I want and still switch virtual desktops faster than it takes to redraw the screen. There's no excuse for any GUI element to take longer than a vblank interval to draw.
There is overhead in a context switch from kernel space to user space.
Doesn't this have the possibility of replacing the computers in the computer lab?
Depends. Is David Braben going to give school administrators better kick-backs than Microsoft?
Do schizophrenics typically have eidetic memories? This is not a symptom I was aware of.
I don't understand his position on ethics. Ethics are a social construct. Things are unethical because they are likely to cause harm to other people. It makes no sense to have a code of ethics in a social vacuum, if you were the only person on earth nothing could possibly be unethical.
If unethical actions are harmful, then shouldn't we be making sure the people around us are behaving ethically? Wouldn't that decrease the net harm we suffer? If unethical actions aren't harmful, then what makes them unethical?
As for forcing his view on me, yes, he does want to force his version on me. He just did. I don't want to know the sexual perversions of other people. I don't care about it, as it is base and uncouth.
Please don't force your views on me. I don't want to know about the bigotry of other people, as it is base and uncouth.
OP's sex life is off topic, sure. But so is your hatred.
Mark slashdot.org as untrusted.
Switch to classic discussion mode in your preferences.
The identity of the people behind this attack are unknown. In other words, they are anonymous. That's the downside of being anonymous.
A machine is not capable of overriding its programing. A man is.
Sure, machines can override their programs. Have you ever heard of self modifying code? It's quite common in LISP. I think a large part of your problem here is that you completely fail to appreciate how much complexity even the simplest algorithms can exhibit.
I see you're pretty hung up on this free will stuff. So explain this to me. When you make one of these "free" choices, on what basis do you make it? Obviously, you're going to choose what you predict will give you what you want most. So how is it that you decide what you want?
The only way I can see to decide what you want is based on some higher order of wants. But then you fall in to the same problem, how do you decide which higher order wants you want? This sort of thing could go on forever. It's really much simpler once you realize that our wants are based in our biological and cultural traits, neither of which we have much control over.
I was building BSD firewalls based on Gauntlet more than 2 decades ago
Your TTL is running out. Packet is about to die!
No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
Then block it. I use NoScript. Set your discussion preferences to "Classic Discussion System (D1)" for best effect.
Yes. Every waking moment of every day, I know that I am not a machine. I find it fascinating that you believe that you are.
Your belief that you are not a machine is not actually inconsistent with you being a machine. There's no reason to expect that software would be aware of what hardware it is running on (or that there is any hardware at all), unless it's been explicitly designed to do so. Since there's no evolutionary benefit to that awareness, it's not surprising that we are not directly aware of our mechanical nature.
When I say that that minds are machines, I mean that like saying that a bird is a flying machine. In principle birds and planes are bound by the same laws of physics(gravity) and use the same basic principles(Bernoulli) to remain aloft. Other than that, we can't conclude anything about birds from what we know about planes.
Minds are the same way. Brains and computers are both chunks of matter that process information. They both have to obey the laws of thermodynamics, Ohms law, Shannon's theorems, etc. Other than that you shouldn't expect many similarities between us and computers.
But I can violate f=ma in my head. It's quite easy actually. I can do it because my soul is not limited by the laws of physics. My body, however is. That's my whole point. My mind is not limited a series of chemical reactions.
Sure, you can program an artificial world where f=ma doesn't work too. But that program is still implemented in copper and silicon, similarly your imagination is still implemented in ions and proteins. As such, it is limited by chemical reactions. We can even experimentally limit your mind by manipulating those chemical reactions. Add benzodiazepines to the reaction and you will be unable to form memories. Or add amphetamines and you'll be unable to sleep. Take enough opiates and you will be unable to not want opiates. Add MDMA and you will be unable to hate, though you may be unable to love the next day.
I'm sorry, but ignorance does qualify you to ridicule that which you don't understand.
Oh I understand just fine. It's wishful thinking on the part of people terrified of the absolutely arbitrary nature of the universe, as well as being an opportunity to socialize, make a profit, and affect the spread of ideas. If there's anything more to it, I've never seen any evidence of it, and I looked really hard.
As for your repeated appeal to authority, yeah so what? Aristotle was wrong about lots of things, for instance, the shape of the solar system. He did what he could with the ideas that were available at the time. We have more and better ideas now, to the extend where we really don't need a deity to explain any observed phenomena. If you choose to believe in one anyway, perhaps for one of the reasons in the above paragraph, that's not a matter of intelligence that's a matter of opportunity cost. You're going to have to factor some teasing into that calculation, sorry.
My only problem with your original post is the word "ridicule".
And I have no problem using that word. Belief in god is as ridiculous as belief in Santa Claus. It's not OK for an educated adult to engage in such silliness.
There is nothing in that explanation that adequately explains why I am me and you are you
Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean that "god did it". Even if it did, how would you decide which god did it, and why? Our lack of understanding is not a reason to believe, it is a reason for disbelief.
Chemical reactions don't explain why my personality is not transferred to the compost that I will eventually become.
This is very much like saying "Chemical reactions don't explain why my Calculus homework is not transferred to the ash pile that forms after I throw my hard disk into an incinerator". Do you have problems with that concept too?
By claiming we are merely chemical, biological reactions, you are denying that you are self aware or have any control over your actions
This is not the case. All it means is that my self awareness has a physical substrate (which is to be expected, since all other known phenomena have physical substrates), and that my self control is bound by the laws of physics. If you doubt that, I encourage you to violate f=ma with your free will.
Why would I put a man in prison for raping a child when he is nothing more than a series of chemicals interacting with each other?
Why would you stop a fire from burning down a city when it's nothing more than a bunch of chemical interactions?
Why does the child matter as she is nothing more than chemical reactions is a different container.
Because empathy is a trait that has provided us an evolutionary advantage. Especially when children are involved.
BTW, nice subtle "atheists are in favor of child molestation" jab there. I bet that kind of emotional manipulation goes over well with the kind of people you usually talk to about religion.
Brilliant philosophers have argued both sides of the issue and both sides have made perfectly logically, well reasoned arguments
Really? Who? When? The only ones I'm aware of are circular arguments peppered with hand-waving and wishful thinking. Like your entire post here, for instance. Or the first-mover argument you alluded to before. (Which, BTW, doesn't prove anything besides your own personal discomfort with quantum weirdness.)
But rather than do that, ask yourself if you feel like chemicals.
I do! Everything I know about myself (and everyone else) makes the most sense when I consider myself (and everyone else) a biochemical machine. Do you have experiences that are inconsistent with that explanation?
Why? What's the significant difference?
1) Fair enough. They key point isn't provability, but falsifiability. It may make sense to believe in something non-provable, if there's a preponderance of evidence for it. It never makes sense to believe in something non-falsifiable.
2) Appeal to authority never proves anything, and this is a particularly bad one. People are products of their time. I can no more condemn Newton for believing in god than I can condemn George Washington for holding slaves. Further, the fact that Pasteur was a great chemist doesn't necessarily mean that he was great at anything else.
Not sure what exactly you're trying to do with this line of argument. Would I get in Pasteur's face and laugh at him if I met him? No, that's just rude. Do I think less of someone like Donald Knuth because of his devout belief? Yes I do. He should know better. Does Knuth's or Pasteur's personal failings overshadow the good work that they have done? No.
You are correct that a great many of our most respected cultural figures believed in God. Many of them were also alcoholics, philanderers, or gamblers. So what?
If you're going to configure everything the way you want it, why not just use Debian? Ubuntu is for people who want their computer to "just work". If it's not working for them, they are right to complain.
I can no longer recommend Ubuntu to people wanting to give Linux a spin. That's going to be a problem for Ubuntu.
I agree with everything in this post, but I don't think it's an answer to my question. It's a good explanation for why religious people have voluntary lobotomies and conjure up invisible friends. It's not an alternative to that fact.
So, because everything is to some degree uncertain, you argue that everything is equally uncertain, regardless of how much evidence there is? Really?
Also, did you read my post? Did I ever say that no one should believe in the unproven? No. I said no one should believe in the unprovable.
You're not doing well in advancing the case that religious people are not deserving of ridicule. With logic and reading comprehension skills like that, it's no wonder you believe in God.
I didn't mean technologically complex, but logistically complex. Why misappropriate hardware from your employer, when you probably already have the hardware you need in a box in the attic?