but what happens when the in-game pirates start playing their pirated pirated copies of Game Dev Tycoon? And the next generation? And the next? This game was mislabelled. It's not a game at all, it's an infinite pirate creation device.
We'd still have the desire to explore, to go places, to see new things, to go where no one has gone before. To actually have an experience. No matter how smart I'll become, I will always prefer exploring a cave system to reading about exploring a cave system, let alone another planet, especially one with aliens on it.
I also like the lack of awareness displayed by the author about his own argument. If you're going to claim claims about the future are inherently untrustworthy because of our limited viewpoint and intelligence, don't follow it up with a claim about the future.
Perhaps they would have benefited more from a gullible idiot detector. Though thinking about it, I guess that's already an additional purpose of these devices. The irony being, of course, than you can't use them for that purpose when you're a gullible idiot yourself.
Therefore, when we are forcibly reminded that there are bad people doing bad things, we should limit the liberties of everyone.
This guy is a moron and should not be in a position of power.
The Reuters article (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/14/us-usa-florida-snails-idUSBRE93D05620130414) about this mentions they eat through stucco and plasTERS, not plastics.
Your reply is just as much a rationalization, it's just based on a different system of ethics and what values in it you believe to be more and less important. The conflict that requires rationalization is just different. You rationalize your choice of not playing a game you would like to play (whether it be bioshock or anything else) with the thesis that 'piracy is wrong, no matter the context'; he rationalizes his choice to play a game that has features he would like it to not have with the thesis that 'by pirating this game, I'm denying the company profit, which is a suitable company behavior modifier'
Summed up, "(X) is just a rationalization" doesn't mean anything.
Oh, of course I will vote for the resolution denying Kim Jong Un access to his money, but that doesn't necessarily entail I will deny Kim Jong Un access to his money. Let's table that for now, while I vote in favor of a resolution to enact the resolution I voted for previously denying Kim Jong Un access to his money. Though, if that vote passes, and I hopte that it does, I will still refrain from denying Kim Jung Un access to his money; I remain agnostic about the entailment of that consequence by the resolution's resolution, as well as the subsequent resolution's resolution's resolution. Perhaps we should pass a resolution on the subject?
Out of interest? While I won't deny that conflict is a major innovator and force of progress, I'm pretty sure Einstein didn't come up with special relativity because of how much he wanted to embarrass Newton. Rather, he was interested in what simultaneity meant, and then started to think. I'm not sure why things would be different after the Singularity. It could even be argued that conflict is an inhibitor of progress in some cases: Darwin didn't publish his work on evolution for twenty years because of the conflicts he foresaw. It was only his discoverer's pride that stopped Alfred Russell Wallace from getting the scoop.
What is stopping us from having just one singularity? Surely after the Singularity a new 'normal' will establish itself, from which it will then be possible to again give rise to what then would be considered superintelligences. And again, and again, and again, singularity after singularity, until the end of time. Surely it would make more sense to focus on this process of change as a whole rather than individual singularities along the path?
I leave with this piece about chess, written in the 1500s.
"Chess is certainly a pleasing and ingenious amusement, but it seems to have one defect, which is that it is possible to have too much knowledge of it, so that whoever would excel in the game must give a great deal of time to it, as I believe, and as much study as if he would learn some noble science or perform well anything of importance; and yet in the end, for all his pains, he only knows how to play a game. Thus, I think a very unusual thing happens in this, namely that mediocrity is more to be praised than excellence."
Slashdot Mirror
Oh my god. And you have to live in a country like that.
Well I guess in addition to everything else you need to know to lead a productive and successful life, as well as the context of this article.
Really all you need to know.
but what happens when the in-game pirates start playing their pirated pirated copies of Game Dev Tycoon? And the next generation? And the next? This game was mislabelled. It's not a game at all, it's an infinite pirate creation device.
But there are many non-green reptiles as well, the gila monster being the most striking example.
We'd still have the desire to explore, to go places, to see new things, to go where no one has gone before. To actually have an experience. No matter how smart I'll become, I will always prefer exploring a cave system to reading about exploring a cave system, let alone another planet, especially one with aliens on it. I also like the lack of awareness displayed by the author about his own argument. If you're going to claim claims about the future are inherently untrustworthy because of our limited viewpoint and intelligence, don't follow it up with a claim about the future.
Perhaps they would have benefited more from a gullible idiot detector. Though thinking about it, I guess that's already an additional purpose of these devices. The irony being, of course, than you can't use them for that purpose when you're a gullible idiot yourself.
Therefore, when we are forcibly reminded that there are bad people doing bad things, we should limit the liberties of everyone. This guy is a moron and should not be in a position of power.
The list of things I have heard now contains everything.
Computers are not magic.
The trolling potential for Smell-o-vision hooked up to the internet is... mind-boggling. It's like I'm seeing colours I've never seen before.
Not really, you could just turn off his speaker.
The Reuters article (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/14/us-usa-florida-snails-idUSBRE93D05620130414) about this mentions they eat through stucco and plasTERS, not plastics.
Your reply is just as much a rationalization, it's just based on a different system of ethics and what values in it you believe to be more and less important. The conflict that requires rationalization is just different. You rationalize your choice of not playing a game you would like to play (whether it be bioshock or anything else) with the thesis that 'piracy is wrong, no matter the context'; he rationalizes his choice to play a game that has features he would like it to not have with the thesis that 'by pirating this game, I'm denying the company profit, which is a suitable company behavior modifier' Summed up, "(X) is just a rationalization" doesn't mean anything.
I would also enjoy playing video games for real for a living as well. My life would literally be a sci fi novel.
Oh, of course I will vote for the resolution denying Kim Jong Un access to his money, but that doesn't necessarily entail I will deny Kim Jong Un access to his money. Let's table that for now, while I vote in favor of a resolution to enact the resolution I voted for previously denying Kim Jong Un access to his money. Though, if that vote passes, and I hopte that it does, I will still refrain from denying Kim Jung Un access to his money; I remain agnostic about the entailment of that consequence by the resolution's resolution, as well as the subsequent resolution's resolution's resolution. Perhaps we should pass a resolution on the subject?
Next time I'm traversing the Warrens, looking for the Decanter of Endless Water, I'll remember that this is how that bullshit started.
If you only took away the amount of weight I gained from eating deep fried pizzas every meal, I actually lost weight last year!
"Have you tried turning it off and on again?"
What's the most common method used to try to deceive you and claim the JREF prize?
Out of interest? While I won't deny that conflict is a major innovator and force of progress, I'm pretty sure Einstein didn't come up with special relativity because of how much he wanted to embarrass Newton. Rather, he was interested in what simultaneity meant, and then started to think. I'm not sure why things would be different after the Singularity. It could even be argued that conflict is an inhibitor of progress in some cases: Darwin didn't publish his work on evolution for twenty years because of the conflicts he foresaw. It was only his discoverer's pride that stopped Alfred Russell Wallace from getting the scoop.
What is stopping us from having just one singularity? Surely after the Singularity a new 'normal' will establish itself, from which it will then be possible to again give rise to what then would be considered superintelligences. And again, and again, and again, singularity after singularity, until the end of time. Surely it would make more sense to focus on this process of change as a whole rather than individual singularities along the path?
I leave with this piece about chess, written in the 1500s. "Chess is certainly a pleasing and ingenious amusement, but it seems to have one defect, which is that it is possible to have too much knowledge of it, so that whoever would excel in the game must give a great deal of time to it, as I believe, and as much study as if he would learn some noble science or perform well anything of importance; and yet in the end, for all his pains, he only knows how to play a game. Thus, I think a very unusual thing happens in this, namely that mediocrity is more to be praised than excellence."
QQ more noob