What the hell? If the means used to arrive at a figure is wrong, then the figure is wrong.
No. The figure could still very well be correct, even if it was generated randomly. A stopped watch will accurately report the time twice a day, you know.
I'm not saying that you are not experiencing consciousness, because clearly you are.
I didn't realize we'd solved the problem of other minds:) More seriously, if I'm conscious, it seems obvious that I'm not being fooled about being conscious.
Thanks, I've read Meditations.
It really doesn't seem like you have! Did you miss the part between the front and back covers?
I'm simply saying that it [consciousness] is nothing more then an internal construct of your mind, a tunnel through reality created by your phenomenological experience.
This is just plain incoherent. You may want to try that one again.
I don't know why you're pointing to the Matrix as proof that you're right... It's a good movie, but certainly not something to bring into a philosophical debate.
I'm not pointing to it as "proof that I'm right" -- I'm pointing to it as an example of how this basic concept is so commonly understood it's become part of popular culture.
Also this is not a philosophical debate. This is super basic stuff. A paragraph in Cliffs Notes. An "everyone's familiar with that" dismissal in a public lecture.
I've also read some things which are a little more up to date, such as "Being No One" by Metzinger. Try "The Ego Tunnel" for a short primer if you're interested.
If you can't handle Descartes, I doubt you could handle anything modern. We're talking about the basics of modern philosophy and you give me a hack like Metzinger? Why not just tell me to read Dennett?
No wonder you're so confused! Metzinger's popular garbage is at least as bad as Dennett's.
Yeah. On that point, his meditation still stands. You can't fool me in to thinking I'm conscious because that necessitates that I'm conscious. This isn't exactly complicated!
How is that an absurd statement in any way?
See above. Again, this is really really easy stuff here.
Anyone who has ever had a waking dream will recognize that the statement "I'm conscious of the fact that I'm being fooled about being conscious."
I don't even know how to begin explaining to you how incredibly wrong you are here. Descartes dealt with this in the meditation I refer to earlier. Fuck, the movie The Matrix dealt with this. Perception is not the same as consciousness.
Honestly, get any text -- even a laypersons text -- and do some reading.
Who says that a sophisticated enough camera, wouldn't?
Everyone sensible. It's pretty well established that syntax alone is insufficient for semantics.
It's been more than 30 years since we've been forced to deal with this somewhat obvious point and it still stands, stronger than ever. Fields as diverse as philosophy and cognitive neuroscience are desperate to see it overturned yet have nothing but decades of failure to show for it.
Ugh. Why people think this is somehow better than collapse interpretations I'll never know. I have a very hard time accepting that my coffee mug, while just sitting on my desk, is (as many worlds interpretations insist) spawning zillions of universes near continuously is positively ridiculous.
He didn't go that far. Had he gone that far, he probably wouldn't have posted here.
Remember that old joke? A philosophy professor walks in on the first day of class and announces "Before we begin, I just want to say that I'm a solipsist" A girl in the back stands up and exclaims "Thank goodness! I thought I was the only one!"
The 19th century mechanists that seem to dominate Slashdot can't explain it. Like creationists, they can't handle any science which doesn't conform to their preconceptions.
It's about what is, not what you know. That is, it's not that you can't know, say, a particular property due to some limit to our ability to measure it -- it's that the property doesn't have a definite state.
Why are people so desperate to believe that they live in some Newtonian billiard-ball universe? Hell, that didn't even work for Newton!
Yes! Even on the old OS you could load pages in tabs (OS 6 and up) in the background. On the new OS things are even better. For example, I can visit Pandora's website, start playing music, and continue browsing in other tabs or use other applications while the music continues to play.
On the browser on phones, quite a bit has changed as of OS 6 which came with a great browser on par with the iOS at the time, but with better HTML 5 support. I used Opera Mini myself until OS 6 came out. iOS 5 put the iPhone back in the lead over OS7, but that will change with the new OS.
On the new OS, soon to be on phones, the browser beats out most desktop browsers (everyone except Maxthon and Chrome) in terms of HTML 5 support. I expect that when OS10 replaces PlayBook OS2 (they're the same OS, btw) that support will be even better.
Or, you know, they could have download an email app from App World and had the same shit insecure email experience like every other tablet on the market. You really only needed bridge for the legendary security RIM offers.
Bridge offered more than just email, btw. It was perfect for enterprise deployments -- especially when you needed to share a pool of tablets in a department. As any reasonably sized enterprise already has BB's deployed, all a user needs to do is take a few seconds to pair their phone with the tablet and they've got all their files, email, etc. ready to go.
When the employee passes the tablet on, it's just a matter of dropping the connection and the tablet is free of all the employees info. If the tablet is stolen or misplaced, no worries. Once the device is out of BT range, all their info is instantly gone from the tablet.
Other features like using your phone as a slideshow remote are just icing on the cake. If you can't see the advantages of Bridge in an enterprise environment -- especially at a time when companies were still trying to figure out how to develop a tablet strategy -- I can't help you. (RIM's solution was perfect: drop off stack of PlayBooks, no extra administration required!)
Bridge was absolutely brilliant. The only "complete failure" was on the tech press (who couldn't wrap their heads around such a simple and brilliant concept) and the RIM bashing parrots who inexplicably want a company with great technology like RIM to die.
Seriously, it took one search to find that you're posting incorrect information.
Except everything I've said is correct. Did you read the link you posted? Apparently not.
I'll be kind and not make jokes about why one would care about OTA app deployments on BlackBerry when there are no apps
There are tons of apps. There have been apps on BB longer than the iPhone has existed. Hell, the first iPhone didn't have apps!
've nothing invested either way in BlackBerry anything, but you've failed to list anything that BES can do that's its competition cannot.
I've posted enough links that the literate can figure that out on their own. As a kindness, I've given one example, which you incorrectly claimed was wrong.
Thanks for playing. Perhaps you should wait until you know something about the topic before you post?
This is why I didn't bother posting anything other than "do a google search" What a waste of a post. You clearly don't care what BES offers beyond email -- you just want to bash RIM.
Yes, BES does more than every other product. RIM offers the most sophisticated remote device management system on the planet. No other product even comes close in terms of features, security, and scope.
But a quick Google search shows that there is not one, but several solutions for Android for the same thing.
Which can't do half of what BES can do. Which you'd know if you could only figure out that complicated google search thing.
No matter the backend tool, as I've pointed out, you just can't manage iOS and Android to the degree that you can a BB. Hell, with iOS you can't even remotely deploy an app! (Oh, but you don't specifically need that feature, so it's useless, right?)
Why do you post so much nonsense about BES when you know so little about it and you're unwilling to do even the bare minimum to learn about it?
Are you saying that RIM doesn't have such a list?
Do you want a marketing page? You really couldn't find it with a simple google search? Did you even try their website? Of course not! It's much easier to spread misinformation than it is to learn about things you don't understand. Do you need me to read it aloud?
As you're likely interested in the advantages re enterprise device management check out BlackBerry Mobile Fusion for managing BB, iOS, and Android devices. You'll quickly see how limited other platforms are compared to BB when it comes to the enterprise. Simple things like wirelessly deploying an app to a users phone (which BES has done for ages on the BB platform) are just not possible on platforms like iOS, regardless of the backend tools.
Now, quit posting about things you don't understand. Read and think before spreading misinformation.
Funny, mine had email contacts and calendar since day one via BlackBerry Bridge.
Oh, you mean native applications written and preinstalled by RIM (because the ones in App World didn't count).
I won't argue that OS 2 brought a lot to the table -- the PlayBook was good, and now it's even better. I don't know that any other tablet really compares as far as the UI and overall UX are concerned. Even spec-wise, a year after launch, it's still a high-end tablet.
Slow? I've never once seen the UI slowdown, even when running multiple heavy applications. It's always fast and smooth.
Clumsy? Again, the UI and suite of gestures simply make for the best tablet expereince on the market. The Xoom doesn't even come close. iOS is just painful to use after using a well-designed UI like you find on the PlayBook.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is strange as there were a few FPS games designed by Carmack before Wolfenstein 3D (The Catacomb 3D series) with near identical game play.
Again, Bonch finds a way to shill for Apple.
Castle Wolfenstein and Beyond Castle Wolfenstein were available for a number of platforms. The C64 version was by far superior, of course.
What the hell? If the means used to arrive at a figure is wrong, then the figure is wrong.
No. The figure could still very well be correct, even if it was generated randomly. A stopped watch will accurately report the time twice a day, you know.
It actually IS deceptively complicated.
Apparently it is for some...
I'm not saying that you are not experiencing consciousness, because clearly you are.
I didn't realize we'd solved the problem of other minds :) More seriously, if I'm conscious, it seems obvious that I'm not being fooled about being conscious.
Thanks, I've read Meditations.
It really doesn't seem like you have! Did you miss the part between the front and back covers?
I'm simply saying that it [consciousness] is nothing more then an internal construct of your mind, a tunnel through reality created by your phenomenological experience.
This is just plain incoherent. You may want to try that one again.
I don't know why you're pointing to the Matrix as proof that you're right... It's a good movie, but certainly not something to bring into a philosophical debate.
I'm not pointing to it as "proof that I'm right" -- I'm pointing to it as an example of how this basic concept is so commonly understood it's become part of popular culture.
Also this is not a philosophical debate. This is super basic stuff. A paragraph in Cliffs Notes. An "everyone's familiar with that" dismissal in a public lecture.
I've also read some things which are a little more up to date, such as "Being No One" by Metzinger. Try "The Ego Tunnel" for a short primer if you're interested.
If you can't handle Descartes, I doubt you could handle anything modern. We're talking about the basics of modern philosophy and you give me a hack like Metzinger? Why not just tell me to read Dennett?
No wonder you're so confused! Metzinger's popular garbage is at least as bad as Dennett's.
You think Descartes was right?
Yeah. On that point, his meditation still stands. You can't fool me in to thinking I'm conscious because that necessitates that I'm conscious. This isn't exactly complicated!
How is that an absurd statement in any way?
See above. Again, this is really really easy stuff here.
Anyone who has ever had a waking dream will recognize that the statement "I'm conscious of the fact that I'm being fooled about being conscious."
I don't even know how to begin explaining to you how incredibly wrong you are here. Descartes dealt with this in the meditation I refer to earlier. Fuck, the movie The Matrix dealt with this. Perception is not the same as consciousness.
Honestly, get any text -- even a laypersons text -- and do some reading.
You want to elevate sentience to some mythical level, but really it is an illusion.
So ... if it's an illusion, what is being fooled? For goodness sake, even Descartes would have laughed at such a ridiculous statement!
Apply it to you and see how absurd what you're saying actually is: "I'm conscious of the fact that I'm being fooled about being conscious." LOL!
You're more than three centuries behind everyone else. You have some serious catching up to do.
Who says that a sophisticated enough camera, wouldn't?
Everyone sensible. It's pretty well established that syntax alone is insufficient for semantics.
It's been more than 30 years since we've been forced to deal with this somewhat obvious point and it still stands, stronger than ever. Fields as diverse as philosophy and cognitive neuroscience are desperate to see it overturned yet have nothing but decades of failure to show for it.
The question is, which universe do you inhabit?
Ugh. Why people think this is somehow better than collapse interpretations I'll never know. I have a very hard time accepting that my coffee mug, while just sitting on my desk, is (as many worlds interpretations insist) spawning zillions of universes near continuously is positively ridiculous.
That's just solipsism
He didn't go that far. Had he gone that far, he probably wouldn't have posted here.
Remember that old joke? A philosophy professor walks in on the first day of class and announces "Before we begin, I just want to say that I'm a solipsist" A girl in the back stands up and exclaims "Thank goodness! I thought I was the only one!"
Rather than spend the majority of your life working with computers to come to your "conclusion" you could have just read Descartes.
It would have saved you a lot of time -- time you could have spent catching up with a few hundred years worth of philosophical thought.
+3 Insightful for Cogito ergo sum ... amazing.
The 19th century mechanists that seem to dominate Slashdot can't explain it. Like creationists, they can't handle any science which doesn't conform to their preconceptions.
It's about what is, not what you know. That is, it's not that you can't know, say, a particular property due to some limit to our ability to measure it -- it's that the property doesn't have a definite state.
Why are people so desperate to believe that they live in some Newtonian billiard-ball universe? Hell, that didn't even work for Newton!
DO NOT PRINT AT HOME
One of the rare examples where typing in all-caps is appropriate.
In case anyone missed the best piece of advice you'll ever get regarding your digital pictures, it was:
DO NOT PRINT AT HOME
Anyone else care to repeat?
That's the current standard, isn't it?
Yes! Even on the old OS you could load pages in tabs (OS 6 and up) in the background. On the new OS things are even better. For example, I can visit Pandora's website, start playing music, and continue browsing in other tabs or use other applications while the music continues to play.
On the browser on phones, quite a bit has changed as of OS 6 which came with a great browser on par with the iOS at the time, but with better HTML 5 support. I used Opera Mini myself until OS 6 came out. iOS 5 put the iPhone back in the lead over OS7, but that will change with the new OS.
On the new OS, soon to be on phones, the browser beats out most desktop browsers (everyone except Maxthon and Chrome) in terms of HTML 5 support. I expect that when OS10 replaces PlayBook OS2 (they're the same OS, btw) that support will be even better.
I hope that answers your questions.
I read # as "octothorpe" you insensitive clod!
Or, you know, they could have download an email app from App World and had the same shit insecure email experience like every other tablet on the market. You really only needed bridge for the legendary security RIM offers.
Bridge offered more than just email, btw. It was perfect for enterprise deployments -- especially when you needed to share a pool of tablets in a department. As any reasonably sized enterprise already has BB's deployed, all a user needs to do is take a few seconds to pair their phone with the tablet and they've got all their files, email, etc. ready to go.
When the employee passes the tablet on, it's just a matter of dropping the connection and the tablet is free of all the employees info. If the tablet is stolen or misplaced, no worries. Once the device is out of BT range, all their info is instantly gone from the tablet.
Other features like using your phone as a slideshow remote are just icing on the cake. If you can't see the advantages of Bridge in an enterprise environment -- especially at a time when companies were still trying to figure out how to develop a tablet strategy -- I can't help you. (RIM's solution was perfect: drop off stack of PlayBooks, no extra administration required!)
Bridge was absolutely brilliant. The only "complete failure" was on the tech press (who couldn't wrap their heads around such a simple and brilliant concept) and the RIM bashing parrots who inexplicably want a company with great technology like RIM to die.
Seriously, it took one search to find that you're posting incorrect information.
Except everything I've said is correct. Did you read the link you posted? Apparently not.
I'll be kind and not make jokes about why one would care about OTA app deployments on BlackBerry when there are no apps
There are tons of apps. There have been apps on BB longer than the iPhone has existed. Hell, the first iPhone didn't have apps!
've nothing invested either way in BlackBerry anything, but you've failed to list anything that BES can do that's its competition cannot.
I've posted enough links that the literate can figure that out on their own. As a kindness, I've given one example, which you incorrectly claimed was wrong.
Thanks for playing. Perhaps you should wait until you know something about the topic before you post?
You could have downloaded any number of PIM apps from AppWorld.
Sure.
The OS, from a technical perspective.
The User Interface, especially when it comes to multitasking. (We could go on for days here about what RIM does better than every other platform)
Multitasking, both technically and from a UI perspective (compared to iOS and Android)
Remote management (enterprise stuff, you probably don't care about)
Let's not forget about Bridge, which let's you do some pretty amazing things that you simply can't do with other equivalent phone/tablet pairs.
The web browser (the best HTML 5 support -- beating out iOS and Android by a mile).
That's just for starters. Narrow it down a bit and we can talk specifics. :)
This is why I didn't bother posting anything other than "do a google search" What a waste of a post. You clearly don't care what BES offers beyond email -- you just want to bash RIM.
Yes, BES does more than every other product. RIM offers the most sophisticated remote device management system on the planet. No other product even comes close in terms of features, security, and scope.
But a quick Google search shows that there is not one, but several solutions for Android for the same thing.
Which can't do half of what BES can do. Which you'd know if you could only figure out that complicated google search thing.
No matter the backend tool, as I've pointed out, you just can't manage iOS and Android to the degree that you can a BB. Hell, with iOS you can't even remotely deploy an app! (Oh, but you don't specifically need that feature, so it's useless, right?)
I'm done. This has been a huge waste of my time.
Why do you post so much nonsense about BES when you know so little about it and you're unwilling to do even the bare minimum to learn about it?
Are you saying that RIM doesn't have such a list?
Do you want a marketing page? You really couldn't find it with a simple google search? Did you even try their website? Of course not! It's much easier to spread misinformation than it is to learn about things you don't understand. Do you need me to read it aloud?
As you're likely interested in the advantages re enterprise device management check out BlackBerry Mobile Fusion for managing BB, iOS, and Android devices. You'll quickly see how limited other platforms are compared to BB when it comes to the enterprise. Simple things like wirelessly deploying an app to a users phone (which BES has done for ages on the BB platform) are just not possible on platforms like iOS, regardless of the backend tools.
Now, quit posting about things you don't understand. Read and think before spreading misinformation.
Start here for some simple answers
Dig through here for more
Funny, mine had email contacts and calendar since day one via BlackBerry Bridge.
Oh, you mean native applications written and preinstalled by RIM (because the ones in App World didn't count).
I won't argue that OS 2 brought a lot to the table -- the PlayBook was good, and now it's even better. I don't know that any other tablet really compares as far as the UI and overall UX are concerned. Even spec-wise, a year after launch, it's still a high-end tablet.
The playbook is clumsy and slow.
Clearly, you've never used one.
Slow? I've never once seen the UI slowdown, even when running multiple heavy applications. It's always fast and smooth.
Clumsy? Again, the UI and suite of gestures simply make for the best tablet expereince on the market. The Xoom doesn't even come close. iOS is just painful to use after using a well-designed UI like you find on the PlayBook.
You're completely out of your mind.