two things either are or they are not: Consciousness and Existence. And neither can exist without the other.
Where did God come from?
he came from the splitting of the absence of anything at all, when teh emptiness became aware of itself and split giving us the whit boards of consciousness and existence.
Whats the purpose?
Simple survival, the religion of survival.
Everyone knows it too.
As god, how dod you know you exist and are not vanishing away into where you came from, if you are all that exist?
expansion, growth change....
And you would do thing to help insure growth and expansion, such as create life that will evolve and help growth and expansion, ie becoming knowledgeable as to how to crate a universe and doing so.
So now you know what you purpose is.
Will the LHC find the god particle?
no, as doing so will contradict the the conscious minds ability to create new things on its forever search for the knowing the existence of god.
And then there is kaballa, becoming one with the creator.
.... testing the waters via marketing that which may or not come into some form of existence.
They use the same tactic as well, to help suppress any interest a competitor might be getting with some technology by claiming they are doing the same, where often enough they kill teh support teh competitor was getting while never producing that which they claimed they were doing.
So take this current claim in such a light and you'll know "believe it when you know you have it and are using it, not even a split second before".
Imagine the argument the Elite Roman Numeral Accountants had against the concept that nothing can have value in the much easier to use Hindu Arabic decimal system with it zero place holder. It took 300 years for the Decimal system to over come the roman numeral system of mathematics.
Is it really any supprise the initial post was modded a troll?
That field is the one that unifies "human mental abilities to comprehend such aspects of physical reality" with actual physical reality.
Our theories are abstract representations of what we believe of physical reality and they only work as well as how well our theories are inline with physical reality.
However, it seems that what should be most obvious in unification, is not so obvious due to the inherent subjectivity of the human ability to create and manipulate abstractions which are in turn used to think and perform action by.
What should be obvious is the constraints we place on our own minds by the abstractions we use and that by understanding the physics of our abstraction creation and use process, we'd be better able to remove the constraints of our own abstractions, so to better perceive and think about physical reality.
"Einstein searched until the moment he died for the equation of the 'Unified Field Theory'. He never realized the missing element was the same element that caused so much of his life to be what it was" and that is "Human Consciousness" as defined by Julian Jaynes in his book "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind."
The missing field of research is that of Abstraction Physics , which is the unifying field of all things between human comprehension and physical reality, even in just parts of the "All". So seemingly obvious, yet so second nature its simply to subjective for most to consciously comprehend the importance of realizing its not second nature to computers, but certainly programmable into computers that we humans can be a bit more objective about it, enough to see and recognize the unifier values to be had.
There is just to damn much failures and corruption in the voting system and the politicians.
Instead what really needs to happen is that the American public need to tell the government how and on what to spend their tax money on, in this "for the people, by teh people" country.
Because when it gets right down to it, that's really what the elected official has to work with, the peoples tax money. And if the people are defining how the money is to be used, then that will eliminate the majority of the voting and political problems.
include a statement as to how the government is to use your tax money when you pay taxes.
I too once had a wikipedia entry. Don't know who started it. But when I went to correct it and elaborate a little I didn't have any problem. But given the main focus of the wikipedia entry on me, I created another wikipedia entry for clairification which was then shot down and as I saw it coming I suggested they also remove the wikipedia entry on me.
All of my efforts was to correct and clarify a wikipedia entry someone else started on me.
My conclusion is simple.
Wikipedia is a hearsay site! Hearsay being "found elsewhere" first.
With this in mind, Wikipedia avoids legal issues by putting the responsibility on others outside wikipedia.
Wikipedia should have as standard, a disclaimer on ALL pages. And it is as simple as that to address the ongoing issue.
Its another of a long and growing list of government abuses that are easily amounting to be worse than the terrorism its supposed to be protecting us from.
"Those who sacrifice freedom in exchange for security, will have neither."
... since its all about abstractions and translation, by doing it up front your have more control and opportunity to advance.
To deal with translation on the back end is avoidance or hindrance of genuine programming advancement in exchange for licensing fees for another level of abstraction/translation.
... but even now as we pay taxes, we should be telling the government what we want them to spend it on. This way any election of persons "running' the government can at worse just bias such usage rather then run us into the ground with misusing your taxes and leaving us low and wet with no retirement or healthcare.
Someone said to me, when I suggested we tell the government "for the people by the people" how to spend our taxes, that the constitution of the US says we do not have the right to question how the government spends our taxes.
I agreed and said we will not question them, we will instead tell them how to use it.
The Linux ideal was applied when this country was first started, "for the people by the people" and reason, specific reasons, given is found in the "Declaration of Independence."
As an example of Government Abuse today, if you genuinely uphold the "Declaration of Independence" you WILL BE LABELED A TERRORIST and put of list of such people!
.... wanting to fully understand it I followed the links where I typically found a new link after the first paragraph, recursively. So after 15 minutes of reading I determined that I hadn't gotten anywhere in understanding much of anything except for one thing:
How many programs must we run, layer upon layer, in order to run an application? Doesn't adding more and more layers of complexity contribute to the failure side of the failure vs. success equation?
I do really understand the ideals behind.net, such as the CLI and CLR but I also note the downside as being one of addressing the general objective of doing such, to be that of failing to address the general objective much sooner in the software development cycle. Addressing the general objective at the later stage of runtime only overly complicates the fix.
To use an analogy, A social science teacher once described to the class how quality control was once done in the USSR. A fine china plate manufacture would produce the plates, put them on a truck and ship them to the store. To buy a plate you would stand in a line for a number and once you have number you'd stand in another line to pay for the plate where you'd then get a receipt. Then you'd stand in a third line to pick up your plate. Once you got to the front the line the store employee would look at your receipt and go over to the plates pick one up and with a wand, they woudl strike the dish as a quality control step. If it broke they would do the same with the next dish until they completed your order.
Likewise the ideal of write once run anywhere via a run time engine is the same sort of just in time for being to late in cost effective over complexity failure.
Where the general objective needs to be addresses is at the very beginning of the development process, perhaps even before code is written.
Programming language, anything above machine language, is an abstraction and this is recursive. But in application running the machine must see it in terms od machine language and as such, what ever the level of abstraction, it gets boiled down to machine language (granted quality of machine language results is defendant on TRANSLATION method used). This is common knowledge with anyone who knows anything about programming.
The Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) is the ideal of taking all the more popular programming concepts and data-types and combining them in a manner that is non-conflicting that is then used in the translation process to convert to an Common Intermediate Language that then runs on the Common Language Runtime.
The key point here is of "TRANSLATION" and by addressing translation early on in coding it become possible to translate whatever to whatever else to then compile and run anyway you want, be it directly on the hardware or native on any OS that is capable, or even on a VM.
The point is Computer programming languages are abstractions and it is in dealing with and translating such abstractions from one form to another, is where the magic of the future is to be found. It is in understanding the Natural Laws and Physics of Abstraction creation and use, understanding translation mechanics, where software development solutions will be genuinely found. Deal with Abstraction Translation prior to compile (though compile is itself a translation to machine binary)... But even in doing this focus on abstraction translation, there will evolve simpler yet powerful programming languages. Its the whole point of programming! to take some complexity and make it easier to use and reuse via defining it and a simplified interface to its use. Done of course, the only place it can be done, at the abstraction creation and use level.
Not in some down the line VM additional complexity that is designed mainly to generate licensing fees.
Slashdot Mirror
how to genetically alter humans to smell like dogs...
Are there any tests to find out who has natural immunity to HIV?
And on a related note, how much can such a person expect to get for their bone marrow?
Is this immune bone marrow replicatable via stem cells?
changes give their customers Yahoo web interface, even though I don't want any advertising, I got one word to say:
Ya-fu&-hoo!
Richard Stallman already said about Patents, to not look at them....
So again MS Does NOT get the credit for that advice.
Funny if there is anything they do get credit for its trying to take the credit for the works of others.
Quick someone patent "taking the credit for the works of others"....
two things either are or they are not: Consciousness and Existence. And neither can exist without the other.
Where did God come from?
he came from the splitting of the absence of anything at all, when teh emptiness became aware of itself and split giving us the whit boards of consciousness and existence.
Whats the purpose?
Simple survival, the religion of survival.
Everyone knows it too.
As god, how dod you know you exist and are not vanishing away into where you came from, if you are all that exist?
expansion, growth change....
And you would do thing to help insure growth and expansion, such as create life that will evolve and help growth and expansion, ie becoming knowledgeable as to how to crate a universe and doing so.
So now you know what you purpose is.
Will the LHC find the god particle?
no, as doing so will contradict the the conscious minds ability to create new things on its forever search for the knowing the existence of god.
And then there is kaballa, becoming one with the creator.
shrug...
.... for texting...
lets face it, its all very abusive.
Think of the spammers..... you know they will find a way to do what they do, for free, while the ISP's figure out ways to make you pay for it.
.... testing the waters via marketing that which may or not come into some form of existence.
They use the same tactic as well, to help suppress any interest a competitor might be getting with some technology by claiming they are doing the same, where often enough they kill teh support teh competitor was getting while never producing that which they claimed they were doing.
So take this current claim in such a light and you'll know "believe it when you know you have it and are using it, not even a split second before".
....untie the knot my cat did with the mop?
.... to my mod points
... is with electronic voting servers, to force paper ballots and more accurate counting.
... send them 1/10 of the price of windows vista. version dependant on how yo9u use ubuntu. that should help
Why worry about losing it when through embrace and extend we don't?
At least until someone yells antitrust.
Imagine the argument the Elite Roman Numeral Accountants had against the concept that nothing can have value in the much easier to use Hindu Arabic decimal system with it zero place holder. It took 300 years for the Decimal system to over come the roman numeral system of mathematics.
Is it really any supprise the initial post was modded a troll?
... to cause for windows servers...
imagine what directories will be deleted due to a typo!
... research.
That field is the one that unifies "human mental abilities to comprehend such aspects of physical reality" with actual physical reality.
Our theories are abstract representations of what we believe of physical reality and they only work as well as how well our theories are inline with physical reality.
However, it seems that what should be most obvious in unification, is not so obvious due to the inherent subjectivity of the human ability to create and manipulate abstractions which are in turn used to think and perform action by.
What should be obvious is the constraints we place on our own minds by the abstractions we use and that by understanding the physics of our abstraction creation and use process, we'd be better able to remove the constraints of our own abstractions, so to better perceive and think about physical reality.
"Einstein searched until the moment he died for the equation of the 'Unified Field Theory'. He never realized the missing element was the same element that caused so much of his life to be what it was" and that is "Human Consciousness" as defined by Julian Jaynes in his book "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind."
The missing field of research is that of Abstraction Physics , which is the unifying field of all things between human comprehension and physical reality, even in just parts of the "All". So seemingly obvious, yet so second nature its simply to subjective for most to consciously comprehend the importance of realizing its not second nature to computers, but certainly programmable into computers that we humans can be a bit more objective about it, enough to see and recognize the unifier values to be had.
Simple answer: NO!
There is just to damn much failures and corruption in the voting system and the politicians.
Instead what really needs to happen is that the American public need to tell the government how and on what to spend their tax money on, in this "for the people, by teh people" country.
Because when it gets right down to it, that's really what the elected official has to work with, the peoples tax money. And if the people are defining how the money is to be used, then that will eliminate the majority of the voting and political problems.
include a statement as to how the government is to use your tax money when you pay taxes.
Open source "for the people by the people" will eventually cause a replacement of the economic system to something much better.
I too once had a wikipedia entry. Don't know who started it. But when I went to correct it and elaborate a little I didn't have any problem. But given the main focus of the wikipedia entry on me, I created another wikipedia entry for clairification which was then shot down and as I saw it coming I suggested they also remove the wikipedia entry on me.
All of my efforts was to correct and clarify a wikipedia entry someone else started on me.
My conclusion is simple.
Wikipedia is a hearsay site! Hearsay being "found elsewhere" first.
With this in mind, Wikipedia avoids legal issues by putting the responsibility on others outside wikipedia.
Wikipedia should have as standard, a disclaimer on ALL pages. And it is as simple as that to address the ongoing issue.
Have they done this disclaimer?
its users to a yahoo home page....
hmmmm....
... sorry but this shit just ain't acceptable.
Its another of a long and growing list of government abuses that are easily amounting to be worse than the terrorism its supposed to be protecting us from.
"Those who sacrifice freedom in exchange for security, will have neither."
who said that?
... just curse your ass off when you tell it...
And I'm sure this will work wonders for actors and other celebrities against the paparatzies...
... since its all about abstractions and translation, by doing it up front your have more control and opportunity to advance.
To deal with translation on the back end is avoidance or hindrance of genuine programming advancement in exchange for licensing fees for another level of abstraction/translation.
... but even now as we pay taxes, we should be telling the government what we want them to spend it on.
This way any election of persons "running' the government can at worse just bias such usage rather then run us into the ground with misusing your taxes and leaving us low and wet with no retirement or healthcare.
Someone said to me, when I suggested we tell the government "for the people by the people" how to spend our taxes, that the constitution of the US says we do not have the right to question how the government spends our taxes.
I agreed and said we will not question them, we will instead tell them how to use it.
The Linux ideal was applied when this country was first started, "for the people by the people" and reason, specific reasons, given is found in the "Declaration of Independence."
As an example of Government Abuse today, if you genuinely uphold the "Declaration of Independence" you WILL BE LABELED A TERRORIST and put of list of such people!
.... wanting to fully understand it I followed the links where I typically found a new link after the first paragraph, recursively. So after 15 minutes of reading I determined that I hadn't gotten anywhere in understanding much of anything except for one thing:
How many programs must we run, layer upon layer, in order to run an application?
Doesn't adding more and more layers of complexity contribute to the failure side of the failure vs. success equation?
I do really understand the ideals behind .net, such as the CLI and CLR but I also note the downside as being one of addressing the general objective of doing such, to be that of failing to address the general objective much sooner in the software development cycle. Addressing the general objective at the later stage of runtime only overly complicates the fix.
To use an analogy, A social science teacher once described to the class how quality control was once done in the USSR. A fine china plate manufacture would produce the plates, put them on a truck and ship them to the store. To buy a plate you would stand in a line for a number and once you have number you'd stand in another line to pay for the plate where you'd then get a receipt. Then you'd stand in a third line to pick up your plate. Once you got to the front the line the store employee would look at your receipt and go over to the plates pick one up and with a wand, they woudl strike the dish as a quality control step. If it broke they would do the same with the next dish until they completed your order.
Likewise the ideal of write once run anywhere via a run time engine is the same sort of just in time for being to late in cost effective over complexity failure.
Where the general objective needs to be addresses is at the very beginning of the development process, perhaps even before code is written.
Programming language, anything above machine language, is an abstraction and this is recursive. But in application running the machine must see it in terms od machine language and as such, what ever the level of abstraction, it gets boiled down to machine language (granted quality of machine language results is defendant on TRANSLATION method used). This is common knowledge with anyone who knows anything about programming.
The Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) is the ideal of taking all the more popular programming concepts and data-types and combining them in a manner that is non-conflicting that is then used in the translation process to convert to an Common Intermediate Language that then runs on the Common Language Runtime.
The key point here is of "TRANSLATION" and by addressing translation early on in coding it become possible to translate whatever to whatever else to then compile and run anyway you want, be it directly on the hardware or native on any OS that is capable, or even on a VM.
The point is Computer programming languages are abstractions and it is in dealing with and translating such abstractions from one form to another, is where the magic of the future is to be found.
It is in understanding the Natural Laws and Physics of Abstraction creation and use, understanding translation mechanics, where software development solutions will be genuinely found. Deal with Abstraction Translation prior to compile (though compile is itself a translation to machine binary)... But even in doing this focus on abstraction translation, there will evolve simpler yet powerful programming languages. Its the whole point of programming! to take some complexity and make it easier to use and reuse via defining it and a simplified interface to its use. Done of course, the only place it can be done, at the abstraction creation and use level.
Not in some down the line VM additional complexity that is designed mainly to generate licensing fees.
See: Abstraction Physics