And WTF do you care about how "dorky" they are when you're supposed to be looking that the screen and NOT each other?! Jesus! It's amazing how shallow people are regarding what they have to wear for two hours in a darkened room!
Here, just fit this over your penis for the maximum enjoyment of our theatre. Only seven thousand people have been injured, out of eight thousand. Enjoy!
If you upload a photograph of someone else, this does not apply because copyright is jointly held by the person taking the photograph and the person represented.
So keep two accounts, one uploads photos of the other. Done. Even better (i.e., more legally tight) if you have an SO. Regardless of how tight they are.
I thought 15 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia. So, how many of the remaining 4 were from Egypt? (Sincere question.) And, answered fairly quickly: exactly one of the hijackers was from Egypt (Mohammed Atta). (And yes, your statement is pedantically true; "one" is "a number".)
I see you made something like 10 typos in this post. Drinking in the afternoon? , because I'm drinking in the evening.:) I think it's really cool that you spent time in Moravec's lab.
Interesting thought from reading the above: birth is a singularity. (As is, I suppose, death.)
Your "shared joy" quote reminds me of Spider Robinson's writings, which leads to the next thought, which is that it seems you have introduced a False Dilemma fallacy: perhaps we go into the future holding each others' short and curlies?:) Or, less threateningly, perhaps just holding each others' genitals (referencing the tasp again).
Do you really think that all things can ever be equal?
The actual, meaningful phrase is "all other things being equal", because it's saying the same as a standard debugging process: "change this one variable, leave all the others alone, and see what the result would be".
In other words, I understand what you meant, but I still think precision in communication is important, hence this sincere feedback (with a slight attempt at humor).
After reading "The Brain that Changes Itself", I have a newfound disrespect for PETA. They slowed brain science down by illegally kidnapping research monkeys and driving them to Florida and back, greatly scaring and scarring the monkeys. To be clear, it was PETA's actions that caused the most damage to these monkeys' psyches.
Thanks for the thanks re: Dyson spheres. If you're working towards a book, more power to you. But if not, you may have one of my symptoms: I am a fast typist, and my corporate communication suffers as a result. You may have heard the rather old quote, "If I had had more time, I would have written a shorter letter" (attributed to Mark Twain but likely not him; also Cicero, and Blaise Pascal, which my brain now only pronounces in the Monty Python shrill voice) -- the idea being that the editing process is not free. But then, if you're working towards a book, the length makes more sense.
I have limited time, so I did not read any of the links you provided. I also skimmed portions of the text. This is what I refer to above by "fast typist" although it's also possible that the wall of text was mostly ready, and you just personalized it. But that's neither here nor there, except in the sense that it's the reason I'm comparing my shortcomings. (And, the reference to Italian cold fusion seems less likely that it was boilerplate.)
I've seen the first episode of Red Dwarf (years ago), didn't really capture my attention so I haven't watched the rest. Thanks though for the Netflix recognition. And as far as color-temperature, my goal is to reduce the leakage from the stars to an absolute minimum. If possible, capture every photon output from the star, and every joule of heat; given that this is my goal, perhaps another civilization (perhaps long-dead?) also had the same goal in mind, and this could explain the dark matter.
I wonder if we can detect whether any of the novas/supernovas that we are able to see, were caused by "unnatural" processes, i.e., the star blew up sooner than its cycle would indicate. This may be evidence of an advanced civilization creating feedstock, although I would hope that once we reach that level, we can create our own feedstock without all that waste.
Like I said, didn't follow the link to the PleasureTrap.htm, but it sounds an awful lot like Larry Niven's invention, the "tasp" (second Ringworld book).
As far as how long it'll take before we can achieve such things, I think the (W) Bush administration delayed our future by at least a decade, possibly two or three.
I like the idea (combining your reference of James P. Hogan, and JJ Abrams (Fringe, that is)) of tapping energy from another universe, causing them to react belligerently and try to destroy us.
In fact, I want to share one of my favorite thought experiments: in the future, we will have nanocomputers which can simulate reality perfectly. Every one of us will have an "iNanoPhone" with which we can experience whatever we wish. Given that there will be billions (trillions) of these computers, what is the chance that we are living in the original? Very small. So, assume we're in a simulation. Here's where the humor comes in: we could be running on a grad student's professor's computer, taking only 1%, perhaps 2%, of the resources, so the professor doesn't mind. Right now, we only need to resolve larger objects, like "table", "chair", "wife", etc. Once our society has achieved nanotechnology, however, we will need to resolve every atom. This will increase the computing needs of the simulation. Eventually, the professor will say to his grad student, "This is cool and all, but I've got real work to do. Shut it down." And that will be our end. Which makes it really neat, that I perceive our salvation as "achieve nanotech" and given this possibility, it will also be our downfall. (Similar themes exist throughout religious writings.)
Was the Federal Reserve's 10% (as of 1927) of world's gold reserves intact after the false flag attack of 2001-09-11?
I suppose I must ask: are you human?
I've read the Shrike book too, so I know what you mean by ergs.:)
I have decided not to have human children, so I will have Mind Children instead (perhaps in ~19 years). This link I followed; I like the quote by the reviewer regarding Hans Moravec's 1998
"Rare natural resource" and "habitable planets" very much sound like scarcity to me. Culture and politics I'll grant, but the wars in space are little different from the wars we have historically: they're mostly about obtaining resources.
A decade or so ago, I was really into nanotechnology, and proselytized to all who would listen and many who wouldn't. I got somewhere with it, but mostly I just wasted time and money (and annoyed the pig). I'm not sure how best to approach it; the singularities are, by definition, "opaque" as in it's very difficult to know what's going to happen on the other side, due to the rapid technological change that we will experience.
I mean, just understanding the digital abundance is difficult for some. I signed my folks up for Netflix yesterday, and that got my dad to understand it partially, "Wow we can watch just about any movie" (except, of course, the first 3 he looked up...). But trying to explain to him that in the future, he'd be able to choose "Corvette" from the Netflix menu and one would appear in his yard, he said "yeah in science fiction"; he's clearly not ready.
I'm very much looking forward to the day when I can make reliable personal backups, so traveling will no longer have risk.
But in a very real sense, we will never be "post-scarcity". One of my goals is to Dyson-sphere off every available star, rationing the energy so that we can make the universe live longer (we know it will die a heat death rather than collapse, as of about 15 years ago). So even once we've achieved nanotechnology, we'll still be in conflict with other life forms that like their stars the way they are, thanks.
Anyway, last night's post was somewhat similar to the reaction I had about 30 pages into "The Gripping Hand", which was "please dear god let them stop using that phrase!":)
Having done no research, here's my thought: it's only the articles that receive fewer than "X" replies which are duped. (No idea what the value of "X" is.)
Some companies stopped giving options when their stock price stopped rising, and now give grants. They give out free stock, just a lot less of it (this way, they don't ever need to "re-price" the options). Microsoft is one of these companies.
Why? Is it impossible for someone to have saved some money during the dot-com boom, then lost their job in the recent shitty economy, and are (the equivalent of) flipping burgers now to get benefits? And, are still paying for the big house, bleeding their savings a little each month, hoping that the housing recovery will help make back some of their real-estate losses? I mean, sure, perhaps that type of discrepancy will result in an audit, but they're not doing anything wrong and should not be punished (well, other than that having an audit is financial punishment in and of itself).
Slashdot Mirror
How can you labo(u)r if you're rotting in jail?
So join the public sector, even if the wages are lower, because of the benefits?
Still, sounds like entrapment.
Yeah, I remember the "parallax, not".
And WTF do you care about how "dorky" they are when you're supposed to be looking that the screen and NOT each other?! Jesus! It's amazing how shallow people are regarding what they have to wear for two hours in a darkened room!
Here, just fit this over your penis for the maximum enjoyment of our theatre. Only seven thousand people have been injured, out of eight thousand. Enjoy!
Yeah I tagged "ihaveoneeye", which is the truth. No interest.
I know, right? From a sig that has been changed, I hear there's one being made in NYC.
If you upload a photograph of someone else, this does not apply because copyright is jointly held by the person taking the photograph and the person represented.
So keep two accounts, one uploads photos of the other. Done. Even better (i.e., more legally tight) if you have an SO. Regardless of how tight they are.
so i just keep my head low and make sure there is lower hanging fruit nearby for them to take away.
You keep slaves?
I thought 15 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia. So, how many of the remaining 4 were from Egypt? (Sincere question.) And, answered fairly quickly: exactly one of the hijackers was from Egypt (Mohammed Atta). (And yes, your statement is pedantically true; "one" is "a number".)
I see you made something like 10 typos in this post. Drinking in the afternoon? , because I'm drinking in the evening. :) I think it's really cool that you spent time in Moravec's lab.
Interesting thought from reading the above: birth is a singularity. (As is, I suppose, death.)
Your "shared joy" quote reminds me of Spider Robinson's writings, which leads to the next thought, which is that it seems you have introduced a False Dilemma fallacy: perhaps we go into the future holding each others' short and curlies? :) Or, less threateningly, perhaps just holding each others' genitals (referencing the tasp again).
all things being equal
Do you really think that all things can ever be equal?
The actual, meaningful phrase is "all other things being equal", because it's saying the same as a standard debugging process: "change this one variable, leave all the others alone, and see what the result would be".
In other words, I understand what you meant, but I still think precision in communication is important, hence this sincere feedback (with a slight attempt at humor).
Why would you sell computers with such features? Are your customers terrorists?
No, bankers. But then I repeat myself.
After reading "The Brain that Changes Itself", I have a newfound disrespect for PETA. They slowed brain science down by illegally kidnapping research monkeys and driving them to Florida and back, greatly scaring and scarring the monkeys. To be clear, it was PETA's actions that caused the most damage to these monkeys' psyches.
I wish I knew more about space.
Space is big
Space is dark
It's hard to find
A place to park.
(Burma-Shave!)
There's something Resident Evil about that.
Thanks for the thanks re: Dyson spheres. If you're working towards a book, more power to you. But if not, you may have one of my symptoms: I am a fast typist, and my corporate communication suffers as a result. You may have heard the rather old quote, "If I had had more time, I would have written a shorter letter" (attributed to Mark Twain but likely not him; also Cicero, and Blaise Pascal, which my brain now only pronounces in the Monty Python shrill voice) -- the idea being that the editing process is not free. But then, if you're working towards a book, the length makes more sense.
I have limited time, so I did not read any of the links you provided. I also skimmed portions of the text. This is what I refer to above by "fast typist" although it's also possible that the wall of text was mostly ready, and you just personalized it. But that's neither here nor there, except in the sense that it's the reason I'm comparing my shortcomings. (And, the reference to Italian cold fusion seems less likely that it was boilerplate.)
I've seen the first episode of Red Dwarf (years ago), didn't really capture my attention so I haven't watched the rest. Thanks though for the Netflix recognition. And as far as color-temperature, my goal is to reduce the leakage from the stars to an absolute minimum. If possible, capture every photon output from the star, and every joule of heat; given that this is my goal, perhaps another civilization (perhaps long-dead?) also had the same goal in mind, and this could explain the dark matter.
I wonder if we can detect whether any of the novas/supernovas that we are able to see, were caused by "unnatural" processes, i.e., the star blew up sooner than its cycle would indicate. This may be evidence of an advanced civilization creating feedstock, although I would hope that once we reach that level, we can create our own feedstock without all that waste.
Like I said, didn't follow the link to the PleasureTrap.htm, but it sounds an awful lot like Larry Niven's invention, the "tasp" (second Ringworld book).
As far as how long it'll take before we can achieve such things, I think the (W) Bush administration delayed our future by at least a decade, possibly two or three.
I like the idea (combining your reference of James P. Hogan, and JJ Abrams (Fringe, that is)) of tapping energy from another universe, causing them to react belligerently and try to destroy us.
In fact, I want to share one of my favorite thought experiments: in the future, we will have nanocomputers which can simulate reality perfectly. Every one of us will have an "iNanoPhone" with which we can experience whatever we wish. Given that there will be billions (trillions) of these computers, what is the chance that we are living in the original? Very small. So, assume we're in a simulation. Here's where the humor comes in: we could be running on a grad student's professor's computer, taking only 1%, perhaps 2%, of the resources, so the professor doesn't mind. Right now, we only need to resolve larger objects, like "table", "chair", "wife", etc. Once our society has achieved nanotechnology, however, we will need to resolve every atom. This will increase the computing needs of the simulation. Eventually, the professor will say to his grad student, "This is cool and all, but I've got real work to do. Shut it down." And that will be our end. Which makes it really neat, that I perceive our salvation as "achieve nanotech" and given this possibility, it will also be our downfall. (Similar themes exist throughout religious writings.)
Was the Federal Reserve's 10% (as of 1927) of world's gold reserves intact after the false flag attack of 2001-09-11?
I suppose I must ask: are you human?
I've read the Shrike book too, so I know what you mean by ergs. :)
I have decided not to have human children, so I will have Mind Children instead (perhaps in ~19 years). This link I followed; I like the quote by the reviewer regarding Hans Moravec's 1998
The Federation, at least, is post-scarcity.
"Rare natural resource" and "habitable planets" very much sound like scarcity to me. Culture and politics I'll grant, but the wars in space are little different from the wars we have historically: they're mostly about obtaining resources.
A decade or so ago, I was really into nanotechnology, and proselytized to all who would listen and many who wouldn't. I got somewhere with it, but mostly I just wasted time and money (and annoyed the pig). I'm not sure how best to approach it; the singularities are, by definition, "opaque" as in it's very difficult to know what's going to happen on the other side, due to the rapid technological change that we will experience.
I mean, just understanding the digital abundance is difficult for some. I signed my folks up for Netflix yesterday, and that got my dad to understand it partially, "Wow we can watch just about any movie" (except, of course, the first 3 he looked up...). But trying to explain to him that in the future, he'd be able to choose "Corvette" from the Netflix menu and one would appear in his yard, he said "yeah in science fiction"; he's clearly not ready.
I'm very much looking forward to the day when I can make reliable personal backups, so traveling will no longer have risk.
But in a very real sense, we will never be "post-scarcity". One of my goals is to Dyson-sphere off every available star, rationing the energy so that we can make the universe live longer (we know it will die a heat death rather than collapse, as of about 15 years ago). So even once we've achieved nanotechnology, we'll still be in conflict with other life forms that like their stars the way they are, thanks.
Anyway, last night's post was somewhat similar to the reaction I had about 30 pages into "The Gripping Hand", which was "please dear god let them stop using that phrase!" :)
Having done no research, here's my thought: it's only the articles that receive fewer than "X" replies which are duped. (No idea what the value of "X" is.)
Not to rain on your parade, but please quit parading your irony? I mean, by now it's slashvertising...
You stop on land that our tribe owns.
Some companies stopped giving options when their stock price stopped rising, and now give grants. They give out free stock, just a lot less of it (this way, they don't ever need to "re-price" the options). Microsoft is one of these companies.
Why? Is it impossible for someone to have saved some money during the dot-com boom, then lost their job in the recent shitty economy, and are (the equivalent of) flipping burgers now to get benefits? And, are still paying for the big house, bleeding their savings a little each month, hoping that the housing recovery will help make back some of their real-estate losses? I mean, sure, perhaps that type of discrepancy will result in an audit, but they're not doing anything wrong and should not be punished (well, other than that having an audit is financial punishment in and of itself).