Please speak for yourself. Not everyone considers the current 3D to be either useless or painful. I think it's rather pretty when done well and am interested in what can be done with it.
The handful of games and handful of 3d blurays available do not make 3d in the home compelling.
Put aside complaints about 3d tech, stupid glasses, whatever. Heard them all, I don't hate the tech like a lot of other folk. I even bought a 3d tv because it was a good tv in the price range I was looking for anyway.
I never get to use it!
And here in Australia they seem to want $60+ for a 3d bluray version of cloudy with a chance of meatballs, or Monsters vs Aliens. Seriously. Bad selection, bad prices. These things will kill it stone dead even if all the naysayers don't.
Nothing seemed to detect it or get rid of it, so she ended up reinstalling the whole OS. It doesn't sound like a particularly new idea, redirecting search, but the proxy aspect might be I suppose.
Then they can at the least be charged with destruction of evidence and perverting the course of justice, which are not trivial offences.
I'd be more sympathetic to your elaborate scenario if it had been shown that the police had declined to investigate the murder at least once and were thought to be on the take from the suspect, as we have here.
Also the overcoat thing is a nonsense because, while possession of the overcoat as a tangible item casts suspicion on the new possessor, the same cannot be said of lulzsec.
In fact pretty much none of your analogy fits what's going on here at all.
I think I'm rambling now so I hope I'm making sense.:)
Easily as much as I was!
I understand what you're saying, and I suppose it depends on how our theoretical transporter tech works. Does it actually transport matter in some manner, using physics as yet unknown (or unexplored) or does it do what some of us assume it does - perform a destructive read, encode the data and rebuild at the other end.
Until we actually have one then who the hell knows?
Why doesthis throw things into doubt? If they've been keeping emails for several years then there are probably multiple backups.
Also remember the UK is not the US, we don't exclude evidence at the drop of a hat. And at this point the company is looking filthy as f*ck, they cannot get away with playing the victim here.
Earlier today I went looking for some stuff I read about 8 years ago. It was a site about an AIM chatbot called vixenlove, who had a very limited vocabulary, pretended to be a 16 year old girl and logged all chats straight to the website.
It's gone. There are a couple of forum posts referring to it, and archive.org has the index page and nothing else. Unless there's some other magic internet recording service I don''t know about, something has disappeared!
(I agree with the principle, you should treat everything you write on the net as if it was going to stay there forever, because it might)
Scenario A) The you who steps in the machine "dies" and a "you" that is identical down to the last atom and thought steps out the other side. Result: The "you" which went in the transporter, in every internally and externally measurable and determinable way, steps out of the transporter Scenario B) The you who steps in the machine is deconstructed to the lowest level of existence, transmuted into energy, the energy is transmitted to the other end and reconstituted. No one dies and nothing is lost. Result: The "you" which went in the transporter, in every internally and externally measurable and determinable way, steps out of the transporter
If you are the sum total of your conscious mind, experiences, thoughts and feelings then the matter that holds that "you" is entirely irrelevant beyond the degree that it is necessary to support that mind. Thus, both scenarios are equivalent in all meaningful ways and the question is moot. If instead "you" are the sum total of your physical existence then that has been perfectly duplicated/transmitted and the situation is the same. You step in the transporter, you step out. QED.
QED is a little strong for conjecture don't you think?
Let's look at scenario B - what if we record the pattern, put in a whole new load of energy and replay it twice. There are now two of me. Do I have some sort of double consciousness?
Probably not IMHO. Instead there are now as many copies of me as wanted. Clearly they are distinguishable from each other, by being in different positions in space if nothing else.
Why, in your opinion, is my current continuous conscious experience carried only to the first of these copies?
I agree that the 'me' that steps out of a transporter is in every measurable way, both by the outside world and by the inside consciousness, the same one that stepped in. However if I consider myself to be be an entirely physical being, no 'soul' to transfer etc etc, what has been created at the other end of the transporter is just a copy, with the original dead.
It's why the idea of copying my consciousness to a machine substrata via any potential scheme I've heard also carries limited appeal. It is a copy that is made, not the original transferred. *I* as I experience myself, would not be within the machine. Something akin to a clone/child would be. It would give me pleasure to see that, but it would be a new entity.
Not being trained in philosophy I find it somewhat difficult to come up with the proper words and descriptions for these concepts, I hope they are coming across.
Someone else gets it! I have had a hard time explaining my objection to possible transport technologies in the past. It's precisely this.
Any outside observer would never be able to tell, anyone who had been through would never be able to tell. Everything would carry on as before but there's the distinct possibility that you die as you are deconstructed, and someone else, identical in every way, is rebuilt.
I know Turing didn't build colossus, didn't know he wasn't involved at all in the design.
It was a false start to me in that, brilliant as it was, it was not allowed to feed into continuing development of what we now know as computers and the computer industry because it was hidden, denied and dismantled. It's easy to say with hindsight that this put back progress for some time, however we obviously know a lot more about the potential of computers now. That's all. Not a false start as in wrong, or bad, just one that was not allowed to flourish.
Why bother? The internet is there and has 99% of everything on it. Either the same text, or someone else's or (usually) something much more specific to the problem area you're looking at.
Finally the old place is getting some attention. I've been there a couple of times now. it's a great old place, it was important for the war, and it's something of a spiritual home for the computer.
Colossus may not have been the very first (there was a german machine?) and it was certainly kept secret for far too long after the war, but some lasting good leaked out of it through Turing's papers. It was one of a series of false starts that slowly, eventually led us here.
Of course the pioneer, the early bright light of our field was hounded to death for being gay, a man who had saved many lives and sped the end of the war. If there is one thing that should tell us homophobia is *bad* this is it.
And you are sure that your one anecdote, from you - a poster on a highly tech literate forum full of geeks - represents an error in the theory that the vast majority of people could get by happily with Office 97?
Counter examples are good. However I wouldn't be such a dick about it when you're using a personal anecdote to highlight a fault in an idea that concerns most users,
You may be using the wrong tools for the job. I'm not sure. You may wish to investigate the capabilities of desktop publishing/design software like Scribus or Inkscape.
It was your phrasing that made me ask if you were being sarcastic. The number of people wanting "greater network enabled collaborative features" is utterly tiny as far as I can tell, and "advanced multimedia documents" sounds like business speak for word documents with embedded animations, movies, music and other such horrific crap.
tl;dr - you set off my business-speak bullshit alarm. If you genuinely have a software need for these things then I apologise.
I have being trying to give people facts, not opinions. If I've made a mistake I'd like to know where.
Several places. One of them was asserting that chargeback was a negative, and calling it a factual error to say it's a feature.
"You can send them in any amount to anyone on the internet, and with almost no fees." Is a fact.
Yeah... no it's not, it's been pointed out to you several times before that it's not anyone, it's anyone with a wallet, and even if there are no fees now there will be later on.
Your repetitive shilling is entertaining, but misguided.
It's not got any of that old code in it, it's simply the name. It's (as previously mentioned) an OO.o fork ported to the eclipse framework.
Compared to mainline OO.o or Libre Office I'm really not a fan. It seems slow and heavyweight. But apparently it does bring some good stuff to the table, specifically there are supposed to have been a lot of improvements on the way it imports and exports various file formats.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear drb226,
Please speak for yourself. Not everyone considers the current 3D to be either useless or painful. I think it's rather pretty when done well and am interested in what can be done with it.
Sincerely,
me.
The handful of games and handful of 3d blurays available do not make 3d in the home compelling.
Put aside complaints about 3d tech, stupid glasses, whatever. Heard them all, I don't hate the tech like a lot of other folk. I even bought a 3d tv because it was a good tv in the price range I was looking for anyway.
I never get to use it!
And here in Australia they seem to want $60+ for a 3d bluray version of cloudy with a chance of meatballs, or Monsters vs Aliens. Seriously. Bad selection, bad prices. These things will kill it stone dead even if all the naysayers don't.
Wait, so you're into chiropractics and you think think that these are deadly dangerous...
Cool, they're probably fine then. I shall no longer worry about it. Not that I really did anyway.
While that's useful information to me, that wouldn't have helped her, as she's not a geek and was receiving remote advice from people via facebook...
Nothing seemed to detect it or get rid of it, so she ended up reinstalling the whole OS. It doesn't sound like a particularly new idea, redirecting search, but the proxy aspect might be I suppose.
Then they can at the least be charged with destruction of evidence and perverting the course of justice, which are not trivial offences.
I'd be more sympathetic to your elaborate scenario if it had been shown that the police had declined to investigate the murder at least once and were thought to be on the take from the suspect, as we have here.
Also the overcoat thing is a nonsense because, while possession of the overcoat as a tangible item casts suspicion on the new possessor, the same cannot be said of lulzsec.
In fact pretty much none of your analogy fits what's going on here at all.
Why would Lulzsec or Anon want to do anything about this?
The bitcoiners are getting an IRL trolling from this guy. I would have thought the Anon reaction would be to reach for the popcorn...
I think I'm rambling now so I hope I'm making sense. :)
Easily as much as I was!
I understand what you're saying, and I suppose it depends on how our theoretical transporter tech works. Does it actually transport matter in some manner, using physics as yet unknown (or unexplored) or does it do what some of us assume it does - perform a destructive read, encode the data and rebuild at the other end.
Until we actually have one then who the hell knows?
Why doesthis throw things into doubt? If they've been keeping emails for several years then there are probably multiple backups.
Also remember the UK is not the US, we don't exclude evidence at the drop of a hat. And at this point the company is looking filthy as f*ck, they cannot get away with playing the victim here.
Now why did I not find that. I must be losing my edge. Thankyou!
Not true!
Earlier today I went looking for some stuff I read about 8 years ago. It was a site about an AIM chatbot called vixenlove, who had a very limited vocabulary, pretended to be a 16 year old girl and logged all chats straight to the website.
It's gone. There are a couple of forum posts referring to it, and archive.org has the index page and nothing else. Unless there's some other magic internet recording service I don''t know about, something has disappeared!
(I agree with the principle, you should treat everything you write on the net as if it was going to stay there forever, because it might)
Scientifically, it does mean there's no way of testing it, because the inputs and outputs are necessarily identical....
I like your optimism. I don't share it though!
QED is a little strong for conjecture don't you think?
Let's look at scenario B - what if we record the pattern, put in a whole new load of energy and replay it twice. There are now two of me. Do I have some sort of double consciousness?
Probably not IMHO. Instead there are now as many copies of me as wanted. Clearly they are distinguishable from each other, by being in different positions in space if nothing else.
Why, in your opinion, is my current continuous conscious experience carried only to the first of these copies?
I agree that the 'me' that steps out of a transporter is in every measurable way, both by the outside world and by the inside consciousness, the same one that stepped in. However if I consider myself to be be an entirely physical being, no 'soul' to transfer etc etc, what has been created at the other end of the transporter is just a copy, with the original dead.
It's why the idea of copying my consciousness to a machine substrata via any potential scheme I've heard also carries limited appeal. It is a copy that is made, not the original transferred. *I* as I experience myself, would not be within the machine. Something akin to a clone/child would be. It would give me pleasure to see that, but it would be a new entity.
Not being trained in philosophy I find it somewhat difficult to come up with the proper words and descriptions for these concepts, I hope they are coming across.
How would you know?
The 'you' reconstructed at the other end would quite possibly report that, but you could never know.
The only way to know is to build it and come up with some experiments to establish what's going on.
Good luck with that. I'd love to hear some ideas on how this could be tested.
Hooray!
Someone else gets it! I have had a hard time explaining my objection to possible transport technologies in the past. It's precisely this.
Any outside observer would never be able to tell, anyone who had been through would never be able to tell. Everything would carry on as before but there's the distinct possibility that you die as you are deconstructed, and someone else, identical in every way, is rebuilt.
I know Turing didn't build colossus, didn't know he wasn't involved at all in the design.
It was a false start to me in that, brilliant as it was, it was not allowed to feed into continuing development of what we now know as computers and the computer industry because it was hidden, denied and dismantled. It's easy to say with hindsight that this put back progress for some time, however we obviously know a lot more about the potential of computers now. That's all. Not a false start as in wrong, or bad, just one that was not allowed to flourish.
You're right, I should read more about it.
Never really have.
Why bother? The internet is there and has 99% of everything on it. Either the same text, or someone else's or (usually) something much more specific to the problem area you're looking at.
Books.... meh.
It is good to hear isn't it?
Finally the old place is getting some attention. I've been there a couple of times now. it's a great old place, it was important for the war, and it's something of a spiritual home for the computer.
Colossus may not have been the very first (there was a german machine?) and it was certainly kept secret for far too long after the war, but some lasting good leaked out of it through Turing's papers. It was one of a series of false starts that slowly, eventually led us here.
Of course the pioneer, the early bright light of our field was hounded to death for being gay, a man who had saved many lives and sped the end of the war. If there is one thing that should tell us homophobia is *bad* this is it.
These are three things I like.
You can probably still track me if I visit you site, but I'm damned if I'm going to help you.
And you are sure that your one anecdote, from you - a poster on a highly tech literate forum full of geeks - represents an error in the theory that the vast majority of people could get by happily with Office 97?
Counter examples are good. However I wouldn't be such a dick about it when you're using a personal anecdote to highlight a fault in an idea that concerns most users,
You may be using the wrong tools for the job. I'm not sure. You may wish to investigate the capabilities of desktop publishing/design software like Scribus or Inkscape.
It was your phrasing that made me ask if you were being sarcastic. The number of people wanting "greater network enabled collaborative features" is utterly tiny as far as I can tell, and "advanced multimedia documents" sounds like business speak for word documents with embedded animations, movies, music and other such horrific crap.
tl;dr - you set off my business-speak bullshit alarm. If you genuinely have a software need for these things then I apologise.
Huh, didn't know that.
Meh, either way MS were late to the game.
I have being trying to give people facts, not opinions. If I've made a mistake I'd like to know where.
Several places. One of them was asserting that chargeback was a negative, and calling it a factual error to say it's a feature.
"You can send them in any amount to anyone on the internet, and with almost no fees."
Is a fact.
Yeah... no it's not, it's been pointed out to you several times before that it's not anyone, it's anyone with a wallet, and even if there are no fees now there will be later on.
Your repetitive shilling is entertaining, but misguided.
Oh hell yes!
It's not got any of that old code in it, it's simply the name. It's (as previously mentioned) an OO.o fork ported to the eclipse framework.
Compared to mainline OO.o or Libre Office I'm really not a fan. It seems slow and heavyweight. But apparently it does bring some good stuff to the table, specifically there are supposed to have been a lot of improvements on the way it imports and exports various file formats.
Advanced multimedia documents?
I hope that was sarcasm, I hope I missed the joke, because.... yuck.