"I wish they'd put some numbers (if the crater is larger than "100 feet" then we are wrong. "If the ice detected in the debris is greater than X percent, we are wrong" etc."
Well spotted; scientific theories *must* be disprovable.
It must be possible, in principle, to disprove a theory otherwise its an axiom. And axioms need some justification (like Newtons laws of motion which are not scientific theories but (justifiable) axioms).
Oh man that reminds me of my three word conversation killer:
"WAR IS GAY"
Its offensive to absolutely everyone and conveys a positive and negative message simultaneously.
And besides what is war other than a bunch of guys standing in a field all waving their dicks at one another? Its just a great big dick-waving contest.
And thats gay, unless you are the only guy on both sides (as King Missile so eloquently put it).
In order to develop software, you either need an fairly exact idea as to what you are engineering or you need to engineer something that can find the solution for itself.
In the latter case, you need to engineer something that can *recognise* the solution when it has found it.
When it comes to consciousness or even *knowledge*, good luck on either one of those!
"The US is the world's largest grower of corn. It can provide enough *biodiesel* for the entire US and then some. The oil cartels and the politicans (e.g. Bush) who have alot to lose if we switch to biodiesel fear this"
Maybe someone can convince Dubbya that they could turn rainforests into biodiesel.
But then countries like Brazil, Indonesia and Congo would end up in the same position as the gulf states today and US foreign policy would be *right* back where it started...
Would it be possible to tell (even an educated guess) from a creatures genome, whether or not that genome had been subject to engineering at some point in its ancestry?
One thing that occurs to me is that if a genome were engineered from scratch, assuming that the engineer were not trying to conceal their handywork, the genome wouldn't be overcomplicated. I am assuming that the KISS principle applies to DNA.
I wouldn't call it governance at all. Its a different sort of manipulation. At one time it may have been necessary for the formation of governable states in some parts of the world. But that doesn't make it governance in itself.
Its more like a form of social moderation.
My guess is that it will be superceded by online moderation of blog comments.
"Daring to ask for proof was seen as a much weaker for of faith than belief without seeing."
Of course asking for proof is 'lesser' than pure faith if you are trying to manipulate societies by encouraging blind obedience. Which is what most religion is about.
Eg: Christianity, Islam and Judaism are not really religions; they are surviving remnants of ancient geopolitical systems.
Their motivation is not the spiritual betterment of their members, but the social control of their members.
"4. Fonts.. I really don't understand why users don't have their own fonts folder. I had to manually go into each computer, modify the registry to give permission to add fonts, adjust the fonts folder permissions, yada yada"
<facetious> Microsofts line might be something along the lines of: "Fonts are a potential vector for viruses and trojans. Should an exploit be found in the font rendering engine may be possible for a malicious, user-installed font to cause damage to your computer. For this reason, only those with administrator accounts should be allowed to install fonts." </facetious>
"Made in Scotland from Girders , But im not Irn Bru"
The first time I actually heard a Scotsman say that "Made in Scotland from Girders" my response was "Girdles? Tastes more like its made from used panties!"
(Non Scots/Englanders will have to appreciate the Scottish accent to understand the confusion).
Slashdot Mirror
"The terrorists thrive on this scenario"
You are absolutely right but you miss one thing; governments also thrive on this scenario.
Governments of nations such as the USA, UK and dare I say it, Israel (for example), are *equally* terrorists.
When the time comes to start smashing up robots, count me in!
No, too many architectures.
They won't release a security update until they have it working across all architectures.
Given that some of them are for remarkably slow hardware, it can take a while to compile and test.
Hence, debian security releases happen at the speed of the slowest.
Not ideal really.
The sudo hole was reported and fixed in openbsd about two weeks before debian. In gentoo and ubuntu about one week before debian.
no you are right the game was Falcon... it was so long ago. Ahhhh the days of CGA.
"I have heard that some of the more experienced F-16 pilots have been fairly consistent in out-maneuvering the F-22 in exercises."
You mean 'out-turning', right?
(or should that be 'in-turning'. Ouch my head is spinning now remembering the old F16 Eagle simulator on the PC)
"I wish they'd put some numbers (if the crater is larger than "100 feet" then we are wrong. "If the ice detected in the debris is greater than X percent, we are wrong" etc."
Well spotted; scientific theories *must* be disprovable.
It must be possible, in principle, to disprove a theory otherwise its an axiom. And axioms need some justification (like Newtons laws of motion which are not scientific theories but (justifiable) axioms).
"Please post your Intelligent Design crap elsewhere."
Get lost.
Intelligent design of species is a scientific possibility not a religious one.
I proposed that there may be scientific means by which genetic 'interference' may be detectable in the ancestors of GMO's. Thats all.
Oh man that reminds me of my three word conversation killer:
"WAR IS GAY"
Its offensive to absolutely everyone and conveys a positive and negative message simultaneously.
And besides what is war other than a bunch of guys standing in a field all waving their dicks at one another? Its just a great big dick-waving contest.
And thats gay, unless you are the only guy on both sides (as King Missile so eloquently put it).
This is why I am skeptical of AI.
In order to develop software, you either need an fairly exact idea as to what you are engineering or you need to engineer something that can find the solution for itself.
In the latter case, you need to engineer something that can *recognise* the solution when it has found it.
When it comes to consciousness or even *knowledge*, good luck on either one of those!
"The US is the world's largest grower of corn. It can provide enough *biodiesel* for the entire US and then some. The oil cartels and the politicans (e.g. Bush) who have alot to lose if we switch to biodiesel fear this"
Maybe someone can convince Dubbya that they could turn rainforests into biodiesel.
But then countries like Brazil, Indonesia and Congo would end up in the same position as the gulf states today and US foreign policy would be *right* back where it started...
Something I've wondered about...
Would it be possible to tell (even an educated guess) from a creatures genome, whether or not that genome had been subject to engineering at some point in its ancestry?
One thing that occurs to me is that if a genome were engineered from scratch, assuming that the engineer were not trying to conceal their handywork, the genome wouldn't be overcomplicated. I am assuming that the KISS principle applies to DNA.
Just throwing it out there as a possibility.
"If you studied latin as I did, and have a good knowledge of how the language evolved, then you can glean extra meaning from words."
That might give *you* ideas about the 'extra meaning of words' but that doesn't necessarily reflect the intended meaning of the other person using it.
They may not have your 'specialised knowledge' and be using the word as per 'common usage' not etymological history.
In other words, your 'extra meaning' could very easily be (effectively) *imaginary* and confined to your head.
Natural languages change.
If you think that natural languages are rule-based (I do not) then the rules must be subject to change over time.
Such linguistic changes are not (usually) deliberate, but emerge from common usage.
Natural languages are essentially *defined* by the way in which their community of speakers use them.
As that usage changes, so the language changes.
Formal languages may be set-in-stone, natural languages are NOT formal languages.
My word to pedants? Deal with it.
Linguistic pedantry is an insistence on application of standards suitable to formal languages to natural languages.
"society keeping each other in check"
I don't know if I'd describe it in terms of 'each other' either.
For one thing, the religious institution tends to take on a life of its own.
For another its more subtly manipulative than that and directed by 'religious leaders' not peer-to-peer (as it were).
And it often sets the standard and framework for legal institutions. Well, historically anyway; thats what we inherit from the past.
I wouldn't call it governance at all. Its a different sort of manipulation. At one time it may have been necessary for the formation of governable states in some parts of the world. But that doesn't make it governance in itself.
Its more like a form of social moderation.
My guess is that it will be superceded by online moderation of blog comments.
an unmanned, cryogenic-fuel rocket powered by liquid hydrogen doesn't count as a hydrogen-powered UAV?
Oh dear I seem to be in 'pedant' mode...
"There was a company called Tadpole that made SPARC laptops before."
And then theres the SPARCstation Voyager, actually made by Sun. If you can call it a 'laptop'. It can be battery powered and has an LCD screen.
Might be a bit incomfortable on the lap though...
"Daring to ask for proof was seen as a much weaker for of faith than belief without seeing."
Of course asking for proof is 'lesser' than pure faith if you are trying to manipulate societies by encouraging blind obedience. Which is what most religion is about.
Eg: Christianity, Islam and Judaism are not really religions; they are surviving remnants of ancient geopolitical systems.
Their motivation is not the spiritual betterment of their members, but the social control of their members.
oh well sorry I didn't think that to qualify as a 'who' one had to be human... Lawyers are, after all, sentient beings much *like* humans...
"Who wins? No-one."
Bzzzt Wrong; not 'No-one'.
The correct answer was "Lawyers".
"4. Fonts .. I really don't understand why users don't have their own fonts folder. I had to manually go into each computer, modify the registry to give permission to add fonts, adjust the fonts folder permissions, yada yada"
<facetious>
Microsofts line might be something along the lines of: "Fonts are a potential vector for viruses and trojans. Should an exploit be found in the font rendering engine may be possible for a malicious, user-installed font to cause damage to your computer. For this reason, only those with administrator accounts should be allowed to install fonts."
</facetious>
"Made in Scotland from Girders , But im not Irn Bru"
The first time I actually heard a Scotsman say that "Made in Scotland from Girders" my response was "Girdles? Tastes more like its made from used panties!"
(Non Scots/Englanders will have to appreciate the Scottish accent to understand the confusion).
'I have in mind a mental image of a guy at an ATM fumbling with a keyring of "eye-sticks"'
You get into exactly that situation in the (classic) game 'Fallout 2' except they arn't "eye-sticks" they are preserved eyeballs.
"Dude...happens all the time. Take a look at Acxiom Corporation . That IS their business. I used to work there way back. "
Where is this place? Sounds like an ideal spot for an EMP bomb.
"and Kiore rats were introduced by Maori settlers"
:)
They are also fat and delicious.
Mainly fruiti-vores, they are less interested in eating eggs etc than the black or brown rat.
Very mild mannered creatures. Typically enormously fat and slow moving.
They should be farmed not eradicated