Science will eventualy provide a full explaination of consciousness, one without the need of fairytails about gods and mystical foobar. But our religious friends will probably not like it.
Umm, is that because it was take 17 doctorates to *know*? They won't like it because it won't make any sense. Simplify, man.
And you have to point out the benefit of being 'civilized', and finally, justify that benefit without invoking the God concept, because if you do, then it exists.
"In fact, many or most inventions were developed by people driven by curiosity or by a love of tinkering, in the absense of any initial demand for the product they had in mind."
Hitler was smart and didn't kill the Jews, instead relying on their latent physics abilities to develop said atom bombs. Later, they built those flying cars we can't seem to get right.
Like I said, it's quite a strange alternate Universe, and seems to be getting stranger every time I think of it.
Yea, the Nazi's won in that one. Churchhill tripped once as a teenager and hit his head a bit too hard on the pavement. He was finally killed by the SS when they marched through London. No, not in Parliament, on the street. He was a bum.
if something is everywhere at once it's speed in infinate.
It's my understanding that to accelerate some actual thing with mass, say like a person, to the speed of light, it would require the functional equivalent of all the energy in the Universe. If that were to be done, that thing would by the defintion of space-time be everywhere/when at once.
I probably am tring to translate mathematical concepts that don't mesh with 'reality' here, but if 'I' was to observe a photon in it's 'natural' frame of reference, traveling alongside the photon, it would appear to be everywhere. Or at least that's my understanding (and no, I can't to the math).
The two-slit experiment shows that a single photon will act as though there's interference even when there isn't another one out there for it to interfere with.
Umm, when exactly is there 'not another one there to interfere with'? If something travels at the speed of light doesn't that, functionally, mean that it is everywhere at once? (at least relative to itself)
I use it the same way. Plus, after I found some good dvd ripping software, it's a very portable VCR (although I might be talking about a different Archos product)>
Corporations like Enron did not prosper in the Bush years but in the Clinton years.
Ha, it was Bush's Texas that served as the major incubator for the Enron fiasco. They were down there, lying their asses off, for years under Bush. See who his biggest campaign contributor for 2000 was.
You other rhetoric is all well and good, and Bush is bad enough to justify a direct anit-vote. This is the first I'll vote for a Democrat in 4 presidential elections.
Nader got my vote last time, but there's not way that jackass is getting it this time. There ain't a lot of difference between the mainstream elements of both parites, but there is a damn slight bit of difference between the Neocons and sane leaders.
Once there is a critical mass of infrastructure, it seems things would take off regardless. Maybe not, it's tough to say, and even tougher to prove one way or another.
Re:Slashdotters==Curmudgeons?
on
iPod Mini Sells Out
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
with 512 MB SD cards currently around $140, you can get much of the functionality on smart phones. Some even have passable external speakers. Mines an mp3 player 7th instead of 1st, but it fills the gadget slot nicely for me.
This is a flaw in your reasoning that is neither subtle or overseeable.
I don't think I had mentioned directly which was happening more, IMHO, an elevation or a crash.
The only thing that is torn down is the price one can charge for access to those applications. What is elevated is the amount of work people can do with those applications, and are not barred from using them by prohibitive pricing.
"Gosh, I'd sure like to run a web page, but the server license is $300, the CMS software package is $2000, a database license is $150Xthe number of people using it, etc."
So the 'flaw' in the reasoning comes from a certain context in which you are measuring value. Perhaps we could just normalize on 'power' and skip the whole money equation entirely. But in that sense, and measured from a the standpoint of utility (and perhaps all the way up to utilitarian), the questions of who is being 'raised' and 'lowered' isn't as clear cut as you seem to think.
Although I'm assuming now, which is dangerous territory.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm reading it later...but does it say what kind of stuff you would be able to calculate at that point?
Any particulare function defined by the limit?
Science will eventualy provide a full explaination of consciousness, one without the need of fairytails about gods and mystical foobar. But our religious friends will probably not like it.
Umm, is that because it was take 17 doctorates to *know*? They won't like it because it won't make any sense. Simplify, man.
And you have to point out the benefit of being 'civilized', and finally, justify that benefit without invoking the God concept, because if you do, then it exists.
"In fact, many or most inventions were developed by people driven by curiosity or by a love of tinkering, in the absense of any initial demand for the product they had in mind."
I get some scientology and christian winger ads on my site.
Always seems to be a good reminder to point out the inanity of such endeavors.
sorry, forgot to mention that.
Hitler was smart and didn't kill the Jews, instead relying on their latent physics abilities to develop said atom bombs. Later, they built those flying cars we can't seem to get right.
Like I said, it's quite a strange alternate Universe, and seems to be getting stranger every time I think of it.
no patching for you, eh? :-)
Werner Heisenberg is the father of the Atom Bomb.
Just in an alternate universe.
Yea, the Nazi's won in that one. Churchhill tripped once as a teenager and hit his head a bit too hard on the pavement. He was finally killed by the SS when they marched through London. No, not in Parliament, on the street. He was a bum.
It's quite an alternate universe, let me tell ya.
The speed of light is finite.
Yes, when measured.
if something is everywhere at once it's speed in infinate.
It's my understanding that to accelerate some actual thing with mass, say like a person, to the speed of light, it would require the functional equivalent of all the energy in the Universe. If that were to be done, that thing would by the defintion of space-time be everywhere/when at once.
I probably am tring to translate mathematical concepts that don't mesh with 'reality' here, but if 'I' was to observe a photon in it's 'natural' frame of reference, traveling alongside the photon, it would appear to be everywhere. Or at least that's my understanding (and no, I can't to the math).
The two-slit experiment shows that a single photon will act as though there's interference even when there isn't another one out there for it to interfere with.
Umm, when exactly is there 'not another one there to interfere with'? If something travels at the speed of light doesn't that, functionally, mean that it is everywhere at once? (at least relative to itself)
Just a thought.
ooooohhhmmm.
...just a useful one.
as you were.
update your .sig.
Bugmenot
the maxim should more precisely be stated.
"I would like information to be free. The information does not disagree."
1. "OpenOffice is free." License cost makes up only a small portion of the total cost of ownership..... ...and all our damn revenues.
I wonder if you looked at a verion history of this using Word you would see something like...
5. Ignore that man behind the curtain, listen to me, the great and powerful [booming voice] Microsoft [/voice]
umm, I didn't know you could plug an iPod into a TV and record the show.
And then watch it later, wherever.
I use it the same way. Plus, after I found some good dvd ripping software, it's a very portable VCR (although I might be talking about a different Archos product)>
What are the means used to produce software?
In whose hands do they lie?
Who owns them? Who owns the software?
Come on, surely you can't think that Stallman never read Marx?
he did it back in 2000 and /. posts it like it happened last week.
Corporations like Enron did not prosper in the Bush years but in the Clinton years.
Ha, it was Bush's Texas that served as the major incubator for the Enron fiasco. They were down there, lying their asses off, for years under Bush. See who his biggest campaign contributor for 2000 was.
You other rhetoric is all well and good, and Bush is bad enough to justify a direct anit-vote. This is the first I'll vote for a Democrat in 4 presidential elections.
Nader got my vote last time, but there's not way that jackass is getting it this time. There ain't a lot of difference between the mainstream elements of both parites, but there is a damn slight bit of difference between the Neocons and sane leaders.
sorry, but his example of 'Rogue Squadron' as a seminal game is just sad. Lack of perspective and all that.
Knights of the Old Republic is a lot closer to a decent movie than Episode 4.
The graphics are the only commodity, good, involving gameplay is as rare as ever.
about the USS IRC?
Waters, ether, whats the difference.
or someone giving away software to sell hardware.
Once there is a critical mass of infrastructure, it seems things would take off regardless. Maybe not, it's tough to say, and even tougher to prove one way or another.
with 512 MB SD cards currently around $140, you can get much of the functionality on smart phones. Some even have passable external speakers. Mines an mp3 player 7th instead of 1st, but it fills the gadget slot nicely for me.
especially if its a 'one more time' email, that's when you get sloppy.
Like, "If I gotta explain to these guys how I'm hiding their Microsoft financing one more time..."
This is a flaw in your reasoning that is neither subtle or overseeable.
I don't think I had mentioned directly which was happening more, IMHO, an elevation or a crash.
The only thing that is torn down is the price one can charge for access to those applications. What is elevated is the amount of work people can do with those applications, and are not barred from using them by prohibitive pricing.
"Gosh, I'd sure like to run a web page, but the server license is $300, the CMS software package is $2000, a database license is $150Xthe number of people using it, etc."
So the 'flaw' in the reasoning comes from a certain context in which you are measuring value. Perhaps we could just normalize on 'power' and skip the whole money equation entirely. But in that sense, and measured from a the standpoint of utility (and perhaps all the way up to utilitarian), the questions of who is being 'raised' and 'lowered' isn't as clear cut as you seem to think.
Although I'm assuming now, which is dangerous territory.
So I'll stop.