Well, if that were true, why wouldn't AMD release it's Athlon XP 2500+ just so it could say it's slightly ahead of Intel. When AMD's fastest chip was faster that Intel's fastest chip that really helped AMD with it's sales even among the slower chips.
I'm sure AMD has *plans* for faster chips, and I'm sure they've even made and tested them. That doesn't mean they're ready for primetime.
Really, I thought giving up a child was called adoption, not slavery. Hold on, let me check my dictionary.
Anyway, you can't give up your right to vote by contract, and they can't force you to vote Republican or Democrat by contract. You can't give up your right to free speech by contract (although they can prevent you from saying *specific* things.
Yet you see all forms of industry cannibalize each other by spending exorbitant, but approximately equal amounts on game theory. They waste a ton of money, but the end up no better than if they spent no money on advertising. See Game Theory.
You should know, in the early 20th century book publishers included ex post facto contracts, very similar to the EULA, restricting your right to resell your book among other things. Congress declared that no such contracts will be enforced.
What if they included in the EULA that by using the software you give up the right to your first born. Now, clearly, even if you signed that before you got the product, such a contract could not be enforced. There are certain rights that can not be signed away by anyone at all. I'm not saying the rights which the EULA restricts can not be signed away, but stop making these blanket statements and pretending everything is black and white.
It's kind of like people's reaction to a monopoly of a non-essential good. "Well if you don't like their prices, don't buy it!" In an efficient market there are other factors besides what you're willing to pay that will decide the price.
You seem to keep saying that anything that isn't science isn't worth looking at. Well, you should know, that science without philosophy is nearly as bad, or perhaps worse than philosophy without science. Mere observation cannot answer any questions; it is both making observations (science) and working on a logical model (philosophy) that leads to understanding. Agreed, what I'm doing now is the philosophy without the science, but "doing" philosophy on it's own can often push us in the right direction in science (that's what wolfram is trying to do).
So I agree, philosophy on it's own is about as worthless as basic observations, basic data, on it's own. But that doesn't make it worthless.
I'm willing to agree with your viewpoint about functionality, until it's *MY* consciousness at stake.
Considering this has only been tested as a thought experiment, it's most likely that once actually tried out, something which makes us question our consciousness, the functionality perspective will surely win out.
But the questions still remain. Just because certain questions cannot be answered by science does not make their investigation somehow bogus. The thing is I'm usually taking your viewpoint, and people are usually arguing with me with the kind of stuff I'm saying now (albeit, they are more extreme).
I've always said that consciousness is like a hall of mirrors. By it's very nature we cannot see or understand it, because we are using it as the tool to examine itself. It's like a blind spot in the whole rational process of our minds.
As much as I know that the only possible answer is that we are mere machines, very intelligent machines, but mere machines; as much as I know that on some level, I can never fully accept that, and I don't think you can either. I always use that same argument that you do, and, logically, it's airtight, but by using that argument we are only winning by ignoring the part that cannot be put into words.
You're kind of missing the point. Those things aren't subject to "evidence". If you leave everything to "logic" then we have no reason to continue living. Certain things aren't subject to logic, like our desires and instincts, because those are the assumptions upon which our logic is built.
Thing is, the strongest point in this post is not true. There are always more +2 posts than +3 posts and more +4 posts than +5 posts. Check this story, check every story. What you're saying is not true.
Well it just exposes the whole idea of consciousness and identity as flawed.
Listen, the fact is, I probably *would* go through the teleporter. But it would take a lot of thinking. I'm just explaining where the unease comes from.
Thing is, I'd tend to agree with you about that mumbo-jumbo about a soul, except there is one huge problem. What if to teleport you, they had to store all the data about each and every one of your molecules in a buffer. And on the other end they would reconstruct your matter based on that data. But what if recreating one of you, they would recreate two of you....Now again, I said, I agree with you; I believe that my thoughts and my being is just a consequence of the matter configuration in my body. But my self-preservation instinct doesn't like that idea, and I bet neither does yours.
Re:Has anyone here ever heard...
on
Wolframania
·
· Score: 2
Well, I think you left out one detail. He has a proven track record, and everyone agrees he is a genius. Taking that into account, I don't think it's so clear that he's a crackpot, or more accurately, that his book is bullshit.
Re:Has anyone here ever heard...
on
Wolframania
·
· Score: 2
Isn't it possible that he's such a unique guy that he doesn't fit any kind of mold you're aware of?
I was just reading about eclipses and the myths and misconceptions about staring at the sun. A CD is NOT a good filter, in fact it will probably cause more harm than good, since it blocks visible light, which allows your pupils to open. Then your eyes are fully exposed to the UV and other wavelength light.
Is it? There are something like a hundred billion stars in this galaxy alone. And like a hundred billion galaxies (not that those galaxies really matter, we'll never leave this one).
I saw something similar to that barbie doll on the simpsons...Did mattel really make a barbie doll that said "math is hard" or are you just thinking of the simpsons? (thinking makes you wrinkle).
Your cable company *is* the company you're stealing from. At least, most likely, more than any other company. AOL-Time Warner is the largest copyright holder in the world. They make it so hard to boycott, everywhere I turn they're there.
Your point about tolls is interesting, and so metered rates would make sense if the cable lines were congested. But they're not. As someone pointed out, the cable lines are very undersaturated. So a move like this is just a reflection of their monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
So I suppose libraries should just stop carrying books because the author doesn't like what he wrote anymore? I mean, what the fuck?
Well, if that were true, why wouldn't AMD release it's Athlon XP 2500+ just so it could say it's slightly ahead of Intel. When AMD's fastest chip was faster that Intel's fastest chip that really helped AMD with it's sales even among the slower chips.
I'm sure AMD has *plans* for faster chips, and I'm sure they've even made and tested them. That doesn't mean they're ready for primetime.
Really, I thought giving up a child was called adoption, not slavery. Hold on, let me check my dictionary.
Anyway, you can't give up your right to vote by contract, and they can't force you to vote Republican or Democrat by contract. You can't give up your right to free speech by contract (although they can prevent you from saying *specific* things.
Yet you see all forms of industry cannibalize each other by spending exorbitant, but approximately equal amounts on game theory. They waste a ton of money, but the end up no better than if they spent no money on advertising. See Game Theory.
You should know, in the early 20th century book publishers included ex post facto contracts, very similar to the EULA, restricting your right to resell your book among other things. Congress declared that no such contracts will be enforced.
What if they included in the EULA that by using the software you give up the right to your first born. Now, clearly, even if you signed that before you got the product, such a contract could not be enforced. There are certain rights that can not be signed away by anyone at all. I'm not saying the rights which the EULA restricts can not be signed away, but stop making these blanket statements and pretending everything is black and white.
It's kind of like people's reaction to a monopoly of a non-essential good. "Well if you don't like their prices, don't buy it!" In an efficient market there are other factors besides what you're willing to pay that will decide the price.
You seem to keep saying that anything that isn't science isn't worth looking at. Well, you should know, that science without philosophy is nearly as bad, or perhaps worse than philosophy without science. Mere observation cannot answer any questions; it is both making observations (science) and working on a logical model (philosophy) that leads to understanding. Agreed, what I'm doing now is the philosophy without the science, but "doing" philosophy on it's own can often push us in the right direction in science (that's what wolfram is trying to do).
So I agree, philosophy on it's own is about as worthless as basic observations, basic data, on it's own. But that doesn't make it worthless.
I'm willing to agree with your viewpoint about functionality, until it's *MY* consciousness at stake.
Considering this has only been tested as a thought experiment, it's most likely that once actually tried out, something which makes us question our consciousness, the functionality perspective will surely win out.
But the questions still remain. Just because certain questions cannot be answered by science does not make their investigation somehow bogus. The thing is I'm usually taking your viewpoint, and people are usually arguing with me with the kind of stuff I'm saying now (albeit, they are more extreme).
I've always said that consciousness is like a hall of mirrors. By it's very nature we cannot see or understand it, because we are using it as the tool to examine itself. It's like a blind spot in the whole rational process of our minds.
As much as I know that the only possible answer is that we are mere machines, very intelligent machines, but mere machines; as much as I know that on some level, I can never fully accept that, and I don't think you can either. I always use that same argument that you do, and, logically, it's airtight, but by using that argument we are only winning by ignoring the part that cannot be put into words.
You're kind of missing the point. Those things aren't subject to "evidence". If you leave everything to "logic" then we have no reason to continue living. Certain things aren't subject to logic, like our desires and instincts, because those are the assumptions upon which our logic is built.
Thing is, the strongest point in this post is not true. There are always more +2 posts than +3 posts and more +4 posts than +5 posts. Check this story, check every story. What you're saying is not true.
Well it just exposes the whole idea of consciousness and identity as flawed.
Listen, the fact is, I probably *would* go through the teleporter. But it would take a lot of thinking. I'm just explaining where the unease comes from.
Thing is, I'd tend to agree with you about that mumbo-jumbo about a soul, except there is one huge problem. What if to teleport you, they had to store all the data about each and every one of your molecules in a buffer. And on the other end they would reconstruct your matter based on that data. But what if recreating one of you, they would recreate two of you....Now again, I said, I agree with you; I believe that my thoughts and my being is just a consequence of the matter configuration in my body. But my self-preservation instinct doesn't like that idea, and I bet neither does yours.
Well, I think you left out one detail. He has a proven track record, and everyone agrees he is a genius. Taking that into account, I don't think it's so clear that he's a crackpot, or more accurately, that his book is bullshit.
Isn't it possible that he's such a unique guy that he doesn't fit any kind of mold you're aware of?
Right...and I bet you believe that if demand were higher, it would be simply impossible to ramp up production.
Have you ever considered that Apple is making as many iPods as it can sell?
I was just reading about eclipses and the myths and misconceptions about staring at the sun. A CD is NOT a good filter, in fact it will probably cause more harm than good, since it blocks visible light, which allows your pupils to open. Then your eyes are fully exposed to the UV and other wavelength light.
Is it? There are something like a hundred billion stars in this galaxy alone. And like a hundred billion galaxies (not that those galaxies really matter, we'll never leave this one).
Too bad it wasn't you.
Maybe in the world we live in today those two words don't go together, but I wish the could.
I saw something similar to that barbie doll on the simpsons...Did mattel really make a barbie doll that said "math is hard" or are you just thinking of the simpsons? (thinking makes you wrinkle).
Your cable company *is* the company you're stealing from. At least, most likely, more than any other company. AOL-Time Warner is the largest copyright holder in the world. They make it so hard to boycott, everywhere I turn they're there.
Your point about tolls is interesting, and so metered rates would make sense if the cable lines were congested. But they're not. As someone pointed out, the cable lines are very undersaturated. So a move like this is just a reflection of their monopoly.
You sir, are an advertiser's wet dream. Get with it.
Yeah I read stuff here all the time, in fact, I browse at -1. I dunno, I've never seen that troll before.
LOL, sorry I've never seen that troll before....
Is this really true?