Man, Mitnick's line is the same old tired shit. Social engineering this, social engineering that. We know, Kevin, we're social creatures with common sense too. It ain't rocket science so much as it amounts to brazen begging with a bit of highschool drama pitched in.
Mitnick, you're so yesteryear. Get a fuckin' life.
The best gamers are those who spend most of their time playing games so almost by definition they lack certain interpersonal communication and writing skills.
Now there's a sweeping generalization, but you don't have to roll dice on this one. The article tossed a hail Mary at the side of a barn and scored. Illiteracy is rampant; it is absolutely everywhere.
I happen to be one of the top two best players in Tron 2.0. At the risk of sounding pompous, my spelling and grammar are stellar and I have reported on the game's fine details with near scientific accuracy. The best gamers are the only ones people can count on to give thorough reviews.
NK almost seems to belong on another planet in how it's citizens behave... from all accounts it's closed society is in a different world... and supply aid to feed and maintain control of its' population.
Three attempts at the word "its", and you missed every single time. Bust out that dictionary.
Microsoft doesn't exactly operate from a firmly credibile foundation when it comes to operating system security, so can we take what they say seriously? That's the question.
Fear of mortality is the number one cause of the world's ills. Wanting to live forever is the pipe dream extension of that fear, and may actually escalate man's desperate desire to prolong himself. That's what I figure.
Of course I can be both observed and observer, why couldn't I?
You cannot. The implication is that there's a subject-object split between the seer and seen, and that perceived split is fictional. You are not two people -- one person doing the looking and a separate person being looked at, thus, all that you observe which you claim is you is in fact not you.
If you firmly want to believe otherwise, then this might assist you. A subject-object split implies an infinite recursion of observers. Said another way, ask yourself who is aware of you observing you? And so on.
Basicly it's "I'm self aware, therefore I am". It's as close to an objective observation as a human can get, so it's the logical starting point for reasoning about the world.
A person could only be aware of what is not himself. You cannot be both observer and the observed (subjective viewer and objectively viewed) at the same time. Once you have figured that out, you will have solved the conundrum of "I". Think about that.
What's interesting about a lot of questions without answers?
Where there are no answers, there are no questions. Funny thing is, you issue this statement not stoping to even blink at its implications. Perhaps I'm closer to that primordial truth than you are by virtue of my noticing the fact.
I'll let you in on a little something -- I am Zen Buddhist. Science is another attempt to understand the world around us, to find a deeper truth. It rules out the usage of blind faith and tries to stick to what is externally provable. As such it can be seen to be a step onward, and progress from our earlier attempt - religion.
I don't disagree that science is useful in uncovering some essential truths that benefit us throughout life, but it too takes a lot on blind faith. In all that I have read, no scientist has explored the possibility that time, for instance, might not be a physical property, but a property of mind. You have string theorists attempting to unify the high and low discplines of physics -- quantum theory and general relativity -- into an impenetrable accounting for of all phenomenae in the universe. All the while, indestructible Father Time and all the matter and space in the cosmos that are inseparably meshed with it are destoyed the moment man suspends mind. When he sleeps! For all one may know, mind may be another dimension of the universe that cannot be overlooked in our pursuit to full understanding of the things around us.
When simple experiments like this demonstrate the lack of constancy in what are supposed to be unassailable universal properties; when time can be stopped by closing one's eyes and falling into deep sleep, I believe humanity should not ignore consciousness' factoring into the whole equation, despite it not being quantifiable enough to satisfy hardcore scientific types. Moving in the other direction, from rationalising and attempting to objectify our understanding of the world, towards a subjective belief, would clearly be a step backwards. So no, I do not believe that the other direction can be called progress.
It is the logical foundations of science that cannot escape subjectivity. Every unit of logic attempts to cut apart a reality that boldy resists to be put into neat little categories. Science observes and measures in a thoroughly digital manner while reality is analog, so there is always bound to be something missing when science moves to conclusion. I used to be agnostic, but over the years I have become firmly atheist in my views. I believe that there is no god. No esoteric spirtual reality in which this one is embedded. At heart it is a simple case of Occam's Razor.
Atheism asserts as much as it denies. In my opinion you may as well believe in god. Atheism and theism are identical in that they purport to have a solid basis for their assertion or denial of the existence of a creator; that you have had access to the most basic, final and irrefutable facts. But then again you say it's your belief that god doesn't exist. I figure that doesn't place you far from the realm of esoterics at all.
Of the experience of enlightenment: time again again, I have heard people say that this state is the most simple of states, the most utterly basic of states, yet they have come to full understanding of something to the point where the fundamental questions of existence they've had to that point simply vanished. Perhaps this describes the true Occam's Razor.
Good discussing things with you. Send me some e-mail sometime.
Slashdot Mirror
That should read "Slackware was removed from Gnome." Gnome consists of so much memory-hogging bloat, it begins to make sense.
- IP
Man, Mitnick's line is the same old tired shit. Social engineering this, social engineering that. We know, Kevin, we're social creatures with common sense too. It ain't rocket science so much as it amounts to brazen begging with a bit of highschool drama pitched in.
Mitnick, you're so yesteryear. Get a fuckin' life.
- IP
The best gamers are those who spend most of their time playing games so almost by definition they lack certain interpersonal communication and writing skills.
Now there's a sweeping generalization, but you don't have to roll dice on this one. The article tossed a hail Mary at the side of a barn and scored. Illiteracy is rampant; it is absolutely everywhere.
I happen to be one of the top two best players in Tron 2.0. At the risk of sounding pompous, my spelling and grammar are stellar and I have reported on the game's fine details with near scientific accuracy. The best gamers are the only ones people can count on to give thorough reviews.
- IP
NK almost seems to belong on another planet in how it's citizens behave... from all accounts it's closed society is in a different world... and supply aid to feed and maintain control of its' population.
Three attempts at the word "its", and you missed every single time. Bust out that dictionary.
- IP
and [Detroit artists] ripped off kraftwerk in the beginning...
Take a wild guess where Kraftwerk got their inspiration from? Soul music. James Brown.
- IP
I never did like Gnome. It reminds me of those big utility crayons you give to first-graders to teach them dexterity.
Enlightenment. Now that's a man's GUI.
- IP
Microsoft doesn't exactly operate from a firmly credibile foundation when it comes to operating system security, so can we take what they say seriously? That's the question.
- IP
And astronomers are wrong. Space, movement and time are figments of the imagination.
- IP
Do You Want to Live Forever?
Fear of mortality is the number one cause of the world's ills. Wanting to live forever is the pipe dream extension of that fear, and may actually escalate man's desperate desire to prolong himself. That's what I figure.
- IP
Look, just accept that sometimes other people, perhaps even quite a lot of them, are going to like something you dislike.
And your moral horse is how high?
- IP
Think you're clever? Next time, how about including the source of the quote you ripped off.
- IP
I find it remarkable that everyone knew how to form properly punctuated and capitalized sentences back then. Oh how far we've come.
- IP
If I am not the only thing which exists, then Ego must be the boundry between I and everything else.
Bingo.
- IP
Therefore, since I can state ["I exist"], I am.
Ego is, and that's the problem that needs to be solved, and you appear to be on the way.
- IP
life is a static.
Precisely, and thanks.
- IP
And a quote for your collection.
Let me remind you that the perceived cannot perceive. -- Huang Po
- IP
Of course I can be both observed and observer, why couldn't I?
You cannot. The implication is that there's a subject-object split between the seer and seen, and that perceived split is fictional. You are not two people -- one person doing the looking and a separate person being looked at, thus, all that you observe which you claim is you is in fact not you.
If you firmly want to believe otherwise, then this might assist you. A subject-object split implies an infinite recursion of observers. Said another way, ask yourself who is aware of you observing you? And so on.
- IP
Faster travel will be possible before light travel, will it?
Well, if that's the case, nice semantics then.
- IP
Basicly it's "I'm self aware, therefore I am". It's as close to an objective observation as a human can get, so it's the logical starting point for reasoning about the world.
A person could only be aware of what is not himself. You cannot be both observer and the observed (subjective viewer and objectively viewed) at the same time. Once you have figured that out, you will have solved the conundrum of "I". Think about that.
- IP
Dude, ever hear of something called a paragraph?
- IP
How do Slashdot readers make international calls?
I, um, pay for them of course.
- Icephreak
Regarding Mike Tyson's Punchout..
Garret: "Mike Tyson" is bad publicity for this game.
Parker: Nothing is bad publicity.
Garret: Maybe Mr. T is Nintendo's marketing director. Mike Tyson was all like, "I'm gonna eat your dogs, I'm gonna eat your kids."
Rachel: I'm not really one who likes eating people.
Bobby: I'm gonna eat your momma.
Bobby o'er yonder, all ten years of him, is quite a way ahead of his time.
- IP
What's interesting about a lot of questions without answers?
Where there are no answers, there are no questions. Funny thing is, you issue this statement not stoping to even blink at its implications. Perhaps I'm closer to that primordial truth than you are by virtue of my noticing the fact.
- IP
I've also spent a lot of time exploring Zen..
I'll let you in on a little something -- I am Zen Buddhist.
Science is another attempt to understand the world around us, to find a deeper truth. It rules out the usage of blind faith and tries to stick to what is externally provable. As such it can be seen to be a step onward, and progress from our earlier attempt - religion.
I don't disagree that science is useful in uncovering some essential truths that benefit us throughout life, but it too takes a lot on blind faith. In all that I have read, no scientist has explored the possibility that time, for instance, might not be a physical property, but a property of mind. You have string theorists attempting to unify the high and low discplines of physics -- quantum theory and general relativity -- into an impenetrable accounting for of all phenomenae in the universe. All the while, indestructible Father Time and all the matter and space in the cosmos that are inseparably meshed with it are destoyed the moment man suspends mind. When he sleeps! For all one may know, mind may be another dimension of the universe that cannot be overlooked in our pursuit to full understanding of the things around us.
When simple experiments like this demonstrate the lack of constancy in what are supposed to be unassailable universal properties; when time can be stopped by closing one's eyes and falling into deep sleep, I believe humanity should not ignore consciousness' factoring into the whole equation, despite it not being quantifiable enough to satisfy hardcore scientific types.
Moving in the other direction, from rationalising and attempting to objectify our understanding of the world, towards a subjective belief, would clearly be a step backwards. So no, I do not believe that the other direction can be called progress.
It is the logical foundations of science that cannot escape subjectivity. Every unit of logic attempts to cut apart a reality that boldy resists to be put into neat little categories. Science observes and measures in a thoroughly digital manner while reality is analog, so there is always bound to be something missing when science moves to conclusion.
I used to be agnostic, but over the years I have become firmly atheist in my views. I believe that there is no god. No esoteric spirtual reality in which this one is embedded. At heart it is a simple case of Occam's Razor.
Atheism asserts as much as it denies. In my opinion you may as well believe in god. Atheism and theism are identical in that they purport to have a solid basis for their assertion or denial of the existence of a creator; that you have had access to the most basic, final and irrefutable facts. But then again you say it's your belief that god doesn't exist. I figure that doesn't place you far from the realm of esoterics at all.
Of the experience of enlightenment: time again again, I have heard people say that this state is the most simple of states, the most utterly basic of states, yet they have come to full understanding of something to the point where the fundamental questions of existence they've had to that point simply vanished. Perhaps this describes the true Occam's Razor.
Good discussing things with you. Send me some e-mail sometime.
icephreak AT lycos DOT com
- IP
Would this be the same moon we sent some dudes up to tromp around on?
LOL! Good point. And that in itself highlights another presumed fact, but I won't go there.
- IP