Research is currently showing that the whole purpose of sleep is to process and sort information gained during the day. Without sleep we wouldn't be able to learn things.
Cool. Might you be able to recommend a good book (or journal) on sleep for a scientifically literate non-specialist?
So these are not words appearing on my screen, but only representations of words? Or is it that my experience of these words is being "stimulated" by a computer, unlike the way that naturally occurring words are grasped? In short, is it the objects of experience or the experience itself that is "artificial," according to your theory?
add to this the fact that reality is an agreed upon concept, dependent upon a rather thin veneer of civilized humans for it's very existance, in fact existing in effect, and things no longer seem so black and white.
The age of reason brought us reality. It's been with us a very short time relative to recorded history. It's not a reality accepted by all, or even the majority of humans on the planet. Of those who do accept it, precious few understand the difference between their models of reality and the elusive thing they are still trying to understand.
The only thing that could explain this torrent of inconsequential verbiage is that you must have learned to talk by watching the Architect scene from the Matrix over and over again. Enjoy your dramatic life.
Isn't there a system in the brain that keeps messages from getting from the motor cortex to actual muscles during dreams? We might eventually be able to hack into that system in some way, no?
This reminds me: people who are really into this sort of thing should definitely read Merleau-Ponty's The Phenomenology of Perception. Among M-P's points is that our developed motor capacities are determinative of our ability to perceive.
Cue irresponsible speculation: one of the things the dream cut-off switch (of the motor cortex) might do is allow us a way to rehearse or practice complex motions and interactions while sleeping, as a way of cementing our development of those habits.
You've mistaken my question for a request for information. Also, the fact that you might be a bot is a red herring; I, at least, am still actually having an interaction that is in no way virtual. People can lie to one another when they are speaking face-to-face, too; does that make having a conversation with someone a form of "virtual" reality? If so, then your definition of "virtual" is too broad to be in any way useful.
One area in which Virtual Reality has been generating very positive effects is, unexpectedly (?), therapy against phobias and traumas.
Also, treatment of burn victims, for whom painkillers are not enough; they spend some time in an immersive 3D environment and it helps distract them from the pain in a soothing way.
Furthermore, it's proof of intelligent design: how else could such a fundamental number be rendered so random and yet so predictable and easy to calculate, were it not for the guiding hand of some loving creator?
Of course, even if code changes were necessary, you could probably pull it off with mach_inject...
Or you could save yourself the headache of potentially unsupported or unstable calls to the kernel (sheesh! talk about killing a fly with a shotgun), or you could just edit the.nib file in Interface Builder.
Only two people are porting it, and they are begging for corporate support and saying they won't be able to go on without $120,000/year. While I can certainly appreciate their predicament, I also am not reassured about the future quality of the product. Finally, a more worrisome thing is that they don't seem to have any plans to add scripting support. This is a problem, because the code for the GUI (Java, I think) is not exposed even to AppleScript's UI Element scripting (a framework for arbitrarily interacting with any program with a visible interface). In other words, NeoOffice/J is entirely un-automatable.
Two guys are bumming around with almost no money and no obvious prospects for entertaining themselves. A says: "How much money do we have?" B: "Five bucks." A: "Give it to me, I'll go to the store, and see if I can't find something fun--anything--for us to do." B: "Alright." A goes to the store, and comes back twenty minutes later, in an obvious state of happy agitation. B says: "What did you get?" A says: "We are so set, dude. I got a box of tampons!" B blinks his eyes a few times and finally manages a deadpan question: "What can we do with those?" A starts reading from the side of the box and says: "Look, it says we can do all sorts of things: we can play tennis, we can go swimming, go for a run...."
Forget your own abilities to code. Your license also prevents you from paying someone else to make modifications for you.
I'll admit I hadn't thought of that, and I can see how it could be important.
Now, I don't know anything about Logic Pro, but there *must* be things it doesn't do, that someone might want it to.
My point was rather that there are things it does (many good ones) that nothing else does or currently can do.
It's possible that a plugin architecture allows some of those things to be implemented without access to the Logic Pro source, but not all of them.
The plug-in architecture is common to other vendors' apps and is part of OS X (Core Audio, Audio Units); it is also pretty well documented and there are developers who make their living coding to it. I switched to OS X partly because Apple makes dev tools and info very free (gratis) and partly open. But I suppose the Free Software argument is that that currently leaves us at the mercy of Apple, who could decide to close things up whenever they wish.
I use Logic Pro 7, a piece of software that far outstrips my understanding of digital synthesis, signal processing, etc. It is proprietary, closed source, and as such I have no opportunity to modify or study the code. But I don't want to have to do that. I want to use it. And even if I could, I wouldn't, because I don't know shit about code for audio, real-time processing, etc.
I'm generally in favor of removing perverse incentives to violent behavior; that said, drugs themselves are still very harmful and even in places where they can be obtained fairly easily (e.g., Holland), they cause great misery and ruin many lives. Simply making them legal does not change that.
Slashdot Mirror
# /usr/bin/perl -w
use English;
s/(ba)u(lked)/$1$2/;
It's "crack tEam," damn it! Copyediting is not rocket science, people. I should know.
Cool. Might you be able to recommend a good book (or journal) on sleep for a scientifically literate non-specialist?
So these are not words appearing on my screen, but only representations of words? Or is it that my experience of these words is being "stimulated" by a computer, unlike the way that naturally occurring words are grasped? In short, is it the objects of experience or the experience itself that is "artificial," according to your theory?
The age of reason brought us reality. It's been with us a very short time relative to recorded history. It's not a reality accepted by all, or even the majority of humans on the planet. Of those who do accept it, precious few understand the difference between their models of reality and the elusive thing they are still trying to understand.
The only thing that could explain this torrent of inconsequential verbiage is that you must have learned to talk by watching the Architect scene from the Matrix over and over again. Enjoy your dramatic life.
This reminds me: people who are really into this sort of thing should definitely read Merleau-Ponty's The Phenomenology of Perception. Among M-P's points is that our developed motor capacities are determinative of our ability to perceive.
Cue irresponsible speculation: one of the things the dream cut-off switch (of the motor cortex) might do is allow us a way to rehearse or practice complex motions and interactions while sleeping, as a way of cementing our development of those habits.
You've mistaken my question for a request for information. Also, the fact that you might be a bot is a red herring; I, at least, am still actually having an interaction that is in no way virtual. People can lie to one another when they are speaking face-to-face, too; does that make having a conversation with someone a form of "virtual" reality? If so, then your definition of "virtual" is too broad to be in any way useful.
So, are you simulating a person who has that opinion?
Also, treatment of burn victims, for whom painkillers are not enough; they spend some time in an immersive 3D environment and it helps distract them from the pain in a soothing way.
24 is the highest number, you bunch of fazools. Fuhgeddaboutit.
Furthermore, it's proof of intelligent design: how else could such a fundamental number be rendered so random and yet so predictable and easy to calculate, were it not for the guiding hand of some loving creator?
Or you could save yourself the headache of potentially unsupported or unstable calls to the kernel (sheesh! talk about killing a fly with a shotgun), or you could just edit the .nib file in Interface Builder.
Only two people are porting it, and they are begging for corporate support and saying they won't be able to go on without $120,000/year. While I can certainly appreciate their predicament, I also am not reassured about the future quality of the product. Finally, a more worrisome thing is that they don't seem to have any plans to add scripting support. This is a problem, because the code for the GUI (Java, I think) is not exposed even to AppleScript's UI Element scripting (a framework for arbitrarily interacting with any program with a visible interface). In other words, NeoOffice/J is entirely un-automatable.
Someone get that boy a Slashie.
Two guys are bumming around with almost no money and no obvious prospects for entertaining themselves. A says: "How much money do we have?" B: "Five bucks." A: "Give it to me, I'll go to the store, and see if I can't find something fun--anything--for us to do." B: "Alright." A goes to the store, and comes back twenty minutes later, in an obvious state of happy agitation. B says: "What did you get?" A says: "We are so set, dude. I got a box of tampons!" B blinks his eyes a few times and finally manages a deadpan question: "What can we do with those?" A starts reading from the side of the box and says: "Look, it says we can do all sorts of things: we can play tennis, we can go swimming, go for a run...."
Here is your summons to appear ... in Record Court!
I'll admit I hadn't thought of that, and I can see how it could be important.
Now, I don't know anything about Logic Pro, but there *must* be things it doesn't do, that someone might want it to.
My point was rather that there are things it does (many good ones) that nothing else does or currently can do.
It's possible that a plugin architecture allows some of those things to be implemented without access to the Logic Pro source, but not all of them.
The plug-in architecture is common to other vendors' apps and is part of OS X (Core Audio, Audio Units); it is also pretty well documented and there are developers who make their living coding to it. I switched to OS X partly because Apple makes dev tools and info very free (gratis) and partly open. But I suppose the Free Software argument is that that currently leaves us at the mercy of Apple, who could decide to close things up whenever they wish.
How is this a problem?
Whoops! Misread that headline.
You should have that ressentiment removed. If that thing swells up in later years, it could rot your balls right off.
No thanks, mister. Sounds like baaad luck.
Hmm, why does that sound familiar? Viralg Oy. Viralg Oy. Vi-ralg Oy. AHA!
"Viral Goy"!
The secret message is that we gentiles are reproducing too quickly! I suspect the Pope.
I'm generally in favor of removing perverse incentives to violent behavior; that said, drugs themselves are still very harmful and even in places where they can be obtained fairly easily (e.g., Holland), they cause great misery and ruin many lives. Simply making them legal does not change that.
SYN!
ACK/SYN, yo.
Logic Pro just got bumped to 7.1, with some fixes and a few new features.