Our market surveys have shown that over 98% of internet users plan on dying some day. With the advent of rfid and local burst wireless technology, the time to move into the online death notification market is now. We project that by the year 2010, www.eAaaargh.com will have over 45% market penetration in the over 100 million seat worldwide electronic death notice industry.
By logging in to www.eAaaargh.com, user's will be able to select several IMs, twitter accounts, and cell phone text recipients to receive notifications. When the bracelet worn by the host detects a lack of pulse, a wireless or G3 transmitter will send notification to a web service on www.eAaaargh.com which will then forward the text "Aaaargh!" to all recipients on the notification list.
Our initial test market research shows that people are willing to spend up to 7.99 USD monthly for such a service, particularly in California where they can't afford housing anyway. With just 800,000 USD in startup capitol, we project that we could reach break even by mid Q3 2009.
Let's consider a more "physical" example for a moment. Consider the case of a configuration of two hydrogen atoms. What if in a hypothetical universe, all the hydrogen was completely atomic. There was no H2 molecular hydrogen out there at all. Now, H2 is possible in the hypothetical universe, just none of it exists. So you come along, and you stick two H atoms together and make H2. Have you discovered H2, or have you invented it? Does invention cover something that is possible but doesn't yet exist?
As soon as you decide to create a symbolic framework, such as the integers, you invent a set of logically self-consistent possibilities. It is the invention of the simple computer described by the earlier poster. So, in my opinion, all math is invented. We invented all the math we are "discovering" now when we first counted from 0 to 1. The question of whether or not 0 and 1 (not-exist and exist) are properties of the universe that we co-opted into our mental models is the interesting one to me. For example, in a universe where nothing exists, an outside observer might decide that that universe could contain existence. Was that invented or discovered. Does the existence of non-existence imply the existence of existence without an example?
Does either interpretation really require a mind? My understanding is that "observation" can be any material interaction of a particle like, rather than wavelike, nature. Discuss amongst yourselves. You'll find snacks and coffee over on the table.
You can't really blame the content creators for this problem. It is a business, and in business, high sales volume typically brings greater success. Unfortunately, stories about how science and human nature interract in the world do not appeal to most people. Most people tend to think in terms of high level social heuristics: familial ties, social hierarchies, sexual webs, etc... It takes a certain type of "intelligence" to integrate non-social heuristics into one's understanding of the world. Hence, stories that try to explore how such non-social phenomena impact the human condition do not make sense to most people. They literally can't follow along.
Hence, if you realisticly want to change the nature of the movie industry, I would propose the following two pronged approach: genetic engineering and massive forced cyberization. By setting a standard intelligence level for all people, and using genetic and cyberized co-processor attachments to bring all people up to par, we would be able to create a market for intelligent science fiction.
I guess technically it is not, because their computer model is completable. There is some other term I am thinking of I think, but I can't remember what it is. Oh well, what a useful post on my part.
Slashdot Mirror
Our market surveys have shown that over 98% of internet users plan on dying some day. With the advent of rfid and local burst wireless technology, the time to move into the online death notification market is now. We project that by the year 2010, www.eAaaargh.com will have over 45% market penetration in the over 100 million seat worldwide electronic death notice industry. By logging in to www.eAaaargh.com, user's will be able to select several IMs, twitter accounts, and cell phone text recipients to receive notifications. When the bracelet worn by the host detects a lack of pulse, a wireless or G3 transmitter will send notification to a web service on www.eAaaargh.com which will then forward the text "Aaaargh!" to all recipients on the notification list. Our initial test market research shows that people are willing to spend up to 7.99 USD monthly for such a service, particularly in California where they can't afford housing anyway. With just 800,000 USD in startup capitol, we project that we could reach break even by mid Q3 2009.
Let's consider a more "physical" example for a moment. Consider the case of a configuration of two hydrogen atoms. What if in a hypothetical universe, all the hydrogen was completely atomic. There was no H2 molecular hydrogen out there at all. Now, H2 is possible in the hypothetical universe, just none of it exists. So you come along, and you stick two H atoms together and make H2. Have you discovered H2, or have you invented it? Does invention cover something that is possible but doesn't yet exist? As soon as you decide to create a symbolic framework, such as the integers, you invent a set of logically self-consistent possibilities. It is the invention of the simple computer described by the earlier poster. So, in my opinion, all math is invented. We invented all the math we are "discovering" now when we first counted from 0 to 1. The question of whether or not 0 and 1 (not-exist and exist) are properties of the universe that we co-opted into our mental models is the interesting one to me. For example, in a universe where nothing exists, an outside observer might decide that that universe could contain existence. Was that invented or discovered. Does the existence of non-existence imply the existence of existence without an example?
Does either interpretation really require a mind? My understanding is that "observation" can be any material interaction of a particle like, rather than wavelike, nature. Discuss amongst yourselves. You'll find snacks and coffee over on the table.
You can't really blame the content creators for this problem. It is a business, and in business, high sales volume typically brings greater success. Unfortunately, stories about how science and human nature interract in the world do not appeal to most people. Most people tend to think in terms of high level social heuristics: familial ties, social hierarchies, sexual webs, etc... It takes a certain type of "intelligence" to integrate non-social heuristics into one's understanding of the world. Hence, stories that try to explore how such non-social phenomena impact the human condition do not make sense to most people. They literally can't follow along. Hence, if you realisticly want to change the nature of the movie industry, I would propose the following two pronged approach: genetic engineering and massive forced cyberization. By setting a standard intelligence level for all people, and using genetic and cyberized co-processor attachments to bring all people up to par, we would be able to create a market for intelligent science fiction.
I guess technically it is not, because their computer model is completable. There is some other term I am thinking of I think, but I can't remember what it is. Oh well, what a useful post on my part.
So this makes angel hair pasta a Turing Oracle? Or is it just that their computational model is not optimal?