first order logic is a universal language, and any society with a reasonable level of technology could understand it. we would need to think of a generic way to define an alphabet, and then just use it to construct a few basic notions (like real numbers). afterwards, reasonably complicated messages could be sent with this extended language (such as position in galaxy, how to build a better communication protocol, etc).
actually, your analogy is kind of wrong. Google is the nice guy you can ask for directions; usually, he tries to complete your question before you finish it. Now, he decided he wouldn't allways do that, so you have to finish your question.
That was kind of my point. The two theories don't fit, therefore we can't really say we understand either class of phenomena. I would say we understand something if we can predict the outcome of any experiment, but with gravity, there are experiments where we don't know what will happen. I think Zen-Mind was talking about the reason why a certain term appears in an equation, rather than a solution for the equation in certain parameter ranges (which we can obtain because some terms are very small and we ignore them). And this probably means a unified theory.
I laughed for at least a full minute. Anyway, when I realize that some people would actually say that and mean it, I can understand why americans like to have guns. "Second Hand Lions" (good movie by the way) had a pair of loonies who regularly shot at traveling salesmen. one of the reasons I love slashdot is that it's the place I found out about noscript.
let's be honest. Einstein gave us a very nice theory, but (so far) nobody can fit his theory with quantum physics. and quantum physics works. and unless you fit your gravity theory with quantum physics, you can't claim to truly understand gravity.
at least they're not simply updating the special effects to the movies they already have...
anyway, I agree with your view. my view is that movies 2 and 3 have absolutely nothing in common except the characters to movie 1: movie 1 is about a guy finding out he's living in a dream world, and him developping the power to break the rules of the dream; movies 2 and 3 are just superhero movies.
As long as they find it important to say they'd be in 3D, I'm pretty certain that these new movies will be new superhero movies. cool and funny just like 2 and 3, but not more.
read the article. it is the first, and it is notable: they have one camera, that basically generates video with a higher number of bits per pixel; they then use a custom display that can properly render this richer information. before them, as far as I know, everybody kept reducing information into the 24bit standard.
no, no, you got it all wrong. what we have to do is remove the gland that produces dopamine. or, even better, the portions of the brain that can receive dopamine (just like we remove the portions of society that receive drugs by putting them in jail).
offtopic: I wonder if this comment will turn up when I apply for jobs and stuff. oh well. *me turns up the volume
maybe I'm weird, but at some point I talked to my friends about rashes from shaving, and how to avoid them, and it seemed like an intimate discussion. What would happen to humans as social animals, if a lot of these physiological issues would be "discussed" only with automated systems? I mean... our minds are housed in these machines. Taking care of these machines is a big part of our time, and yet we have moments when we consider all this to be nonessential ("I am a thinking mind, concerned with math and science, not a body"). However, what would it really mean to remove all of the conversations about taking care of the machines from our social interactions? Maybe I'm just in a "back to the trees" phase today, sorry if this is seems like a nonissue.
there is an industry of creating paper, because we use it for various things that lead to food and shelter. some of us exercise our minds from time to time by playing tictactoe, and that doesn't seem directly related to our survival. however, that is still a sort of training. this particular story discusses some people who took a computer game and tried to recreate it with live creatures. it is wrong because there is no advantage in doing it with live creatures (even if there might be a point to actually proving that it can be done). If they can show that they learned someting new by doing this, then it might make sense. But from what I see, they're just saying that they're making chemistry more attractive. That doesn't make sense to me, because I'm sure it would be much cheaper to just reproduce the chemistry in an actual computer game, than working with the real thing.
I agree, and I don't really know why they modded you down. This is worse than organized dog/cock fights. I understand that these things don't have a mind of their own (as far as we can tell), but I say it's wrong.
people are less secure because attackers know that hitting them on the head with a rock will kill them. that's why there should be no biology taught in school, right?
well, first and foremost I assume you need some sort of selection process to end up with a new species. I understand that evolution is still happening to the human race, my mother (physician) told me that simply having 2 sexes allows for some sort of evolution. but anyway, you're right in the sense that as long as we send people to Mars and they don't have a hard time (which would mean selection), than any speciation taking place would be due to selection of those who are sent, not the conditions on Mars.
just like people living at high altitudes are a bit special, but they're not a different species.
But the truth is that this doesn't mean much. Me, I want to understand the universe. I see it as a natural consequence of that need that I should attempt to communicate with as many rational beings as possible, so that I may have contact with different views of the universe. I am a meat eater however. When the question is raised "how do we treat nonhuman intelligence", I realize that all our notions of morality are pointless. I can't lie to myself, and say that I'll stop killing animals for food. But if the situation arrises, I would probably eat another human in order to stay alive. I rationalize this by saying that different situations should be handled differently. I consider myself lucky because I don't have to make a lot of "hard decisions" (I did kill a duck in order to eat it once, and I've caught a few fish). What we can do is not grant dolphins rights, but work to educate powerful intelligent beings. In the end, humans are not the smartest beings on the planet, we're just lucky, and we have technology. A few hundred thousands of years ago, aliens visiting the earth might very well have been much more enthusiastic about dolphins than humans. With our societies where knowledge can be passed on efficiently from one generation to the other, we have great advantages and power over other species. If we're really honest with ourselves, the only thing we can do is try to minimize our negative impact on other beings, corresponding to our perception of them. This cannot be considered moral, because you cannot define morality when it comes to interspecies interaction. It's just the best we can do.
And, for all the idiots saying "no" without thinking: I am more and more certain that within the next fifty years, intelligent machines, at least as capable as humans, will be built. And when the machines will be smarter than us, why should they grant us any rights if we don't grant dolphins rights?
I don't have a facebook account, and I don't plan on having one. My opinion is that we should let other people be idiots if they really want to. I still have a modem on my laptop, and I can still talk to another modem through a telephone if I really want to, independently of the unprivate internet. I think.
kjella was kind enough to discuss the operating system. now, regarding the use: games, desktop effects, working with extremely large files (highschoolers editing movies), ridiculously large images, and so on. I won't mention actual professions. Anyway, the first hint is "Desktop" user. someone who only wants instant messaging and facebook will be satisfied with a laptop.
I assume their justification was that the entire neighbourhood was considered just one house in this particular instance. Seeing that they arrested everyone else, it is reasonable. The way they did it seems unreasonable. And I don't understand why they had to take the judge with them. He could just have signed warrants for all the appartments, and stay home afterwards. And the truth is, as I was reading your description, I kept remembering scenes from "The Pianist" or "Schindler's List".
Slashdot Mirror
just a rough idea:
first order logic is a universal language, and any society with a reasonable level of technology could understand it. we would need to think of a generic way to define an alphabet, and then just use it to construct a few basic notions (like real numbers). afterwards, reasonably complicated messages could be sent with this extended language (such as position in galaxy, how to build a better communication protocol, etc).
actually, your analogy is kind of wrong. Google is the nice guy you can ask for directions; usually, he tries to complete your question before you finish it. Now, he decided he wouldn't allways do that, so you have to finish your question.
That was kind of my point. The two theories don't fit, therefore we can't really say we understand either class of phenomena.
I would say we understand something if we can predict the outcome of any experiment, but with gravity, there are experiments where we don't know what will happen.
I think Zen-Mind was talking about the reason why a certain term appears in an equation, rather than a solution for the equation in certain parameter ranges (which we can obtain because some terms are very small and we ignore them). And this probably means a unified theory.
I laughed for at least a full minute.
Anyway, when I realize that some people would actually say that and mean it, I can understand why americans like to have guns. "Second Hand Lions" (good movie by the way) had a pair of loonies who regularly shot at traveling salesmen.
one of the reasons I love slashdot is that it's the place I found out about noscript.
let's be honest. Einstein gave us a very nice theory, but (so far) nobody can fit his theory with quantum physics. and quantum physics works. and unless you fit your gravity theory with quantum physics, you can't claim to truly understand gravity.
at least they're not simply updating the special effects to the movies they already have...
anyway, I agree with your view. my view is that movies 2 and 3 have absolutely nothing in common except the characters to movie 1: movie 1 is about a guy finding out he's living in a dream world, and him developping the power to break the rules of the dream; movies 2 and 3 are just superhero movies.
As long as they find it important to say they'd be in 3D, I'm pretty certain that these new movies will be new superhero movies. cool and funny just like 2 and 3, but not more.
I love the meta joke of you being modded informative. By the way, are you allowed to make Chuck Norris jokes using Bruce Willis?
read the article. it is the first, and it is notable: they have one camera, that basically generates video with a higher number of bits per pixel; they then use a custom display that can properly render this richer information.
before them, as far as I know, everybody kept reducing information into the 24bit standard.
no, no, you got it all wrong. what we have to do is remove the gland that produces dopamine. or, even better, the portions of the brain that can receive dopamine (just like we remove the portions of society that receive drugs by putting them in jail).
offtopic: I wonder if this comment will turn up when I apply for jobs and stuff. oh well.
*me turns up the volume
maybe I'm weird, but at some point I talked to my friends about rashes from shaving, and how to avoid them, and it seemed like an intimate discussion. What would happen to humans as social animals, if a lot of these physiological issues would be "discussed" only with automated systems?
I mean... our minds are housed in these machines. Taking care of these machines is a big part of our time, and yet we have moments when we consider all this to be nonessential ("I am a thinking mind, concerned with math and science, not a body"). However, what would it really mean to remove all of the conversations about taking care of the machines from our social interactions?
Maybe I'm just in a "back to the trees" phase today, sorry if this is seems like a nonissue.
actually, I think cows can also cary human children to term, so...
there is an industry of creating paper, because we use it for various things that lead to food and shelter. some of us exercise our minds from time to time by playing tictactoe, and that doesn't seem directly related to our survival. however, that is still a sort of training.
this particular story discusses some people who took a computer game and tried to recreate it with live creatures. it is wrong because there is no advantage in doing it with live creatures (even if there might be a point to actually proving that it can be done). If they can show that they learned someting new by doing this, then it might make sense. But from what I see, they're just saying that they're making chemistry more attractive. That doesn't make sense to me, because I'm sure it would be much cheaper to just reproduce the chemistry in an actual computer game, than working with the real thing.
I agree, and I don't really know why they modded you down.
This is worse than organized dog/cock fights.
I understand that these things don't have a mind of their own (as far as we can tell), but I say it's wrong.
people are less secure because attackers know that hitting them on the head with a rock will kill them. that's why there should be no biology taught in school, right?
mod parent informative.
and thanks.
well, first and foremost I assume you need some sort of selection process to end up with a new species.
I understand that evolution is still happening to the human race, my mother (physician) told me that simply having 2 sexes allows for some sort of evolution.
but anyway, you're right in the sense that as long as we send people to Mars and they don't have a hard time (which would mean selection), than any speciation taking place would be due to selection of those who are sent, not the conditions on Mars.
just like people living at high altitudes are a bit special, but they're not a different species.
But the truth is that this doesn't mean much.
Me, I want to understand the universe. I see it as a natural consequence of that need that I should attempt to communicate with as many rational beings as possible, so that I may have contact with different views of the universe.
I am a meat eater however. When the question is raised "how do we treat nonhuman intelligence", I realize that all our notions of morality are pointless. I can't lie to myself, and say that I'll stop killing animals for food. But if the situation arrises, I would probably eat another human in order to stay alive. I rationalize this by saying that different situations should be handled differently. I consider myself lucky because I don't have to make a lot of "hard decisions" (I did kill a duck in order to eat it once, and I've caught a few fish). What we can do is not grant dolphins rights, but work to educate powerful intelligent beings.
In the end, humans are not the smartest beings on the planet, we're just lucky, and we have technology. A few hundred thousands of years ago, aliens visiting the earth might very well have been much more enthusiastic about dolphins than humans. With our societies where knowledge can be passed on efficiently from one generation to the other, we have great advantages and power over other species.
If we're really honest with ourselves, the only thing we can do is try to minimize our negative impact on other beings, corresponding to our perception of them. This cannot be considered moral, because you cannot define morality when it comes to interspecies interaction. It's just the best we can do.
And, for all the idiots saying "no" without thinking: I am more and more certain that within the next fifty years, intelligent machines, at least as capable as humans, will be built. And when the machines will be smarter than us, why should they grant us any rights if we don't grant dolphins rights?
I don't have a facebook account, and I don't plan on having one. My opinion is that we should let other people be idiots if they really want to. I still have a modem on my laptop, and I can still talk to another modem through a telephone if I really want to, independently of the unprivate internet. I think.
no, no. the news is the comment for the second video "this comment will randomly get lots of thumbs up.", which did get lots of thumbs up.
no, no, you got it all wrong.
you just gotta kill the bullies while in kindergarden, so they don't make up new nasty words.
(just in case: I AM NOT BEING SERIOUS.)
just some guy getting payed by facebook to get publicity. relax.
kjella was kind enough to discuss the operating system.
now, regarding the use: games, desktop effects, working with extremely large files (highschoolers editing movies), ridiculously large images, and so on. I won't mention actual professions.
Anyway, the first hint is "Desktop" user. someone who only wants instant messaging and facebook will be satisfied with a laptop.
I don't have a facebook account. I guess I should start running now.
"sucking down temperatures"
funny, thank you.
I assume their justification was that the entire neighbourhood was considered just one house in this particular instance. Seeing that they arrested everyone else, it is reasonable. The way they did it seems unreasonable. And I don't understand why they had to take the judge with them. He could just have signed warrants for all the appartments, and stay home afterwards.
And the truth is, as I was reading your description, I kept remembering scenes from "The Pianist" or "Schindler's List".