Maybe there's just no one, single satisfying interface for photo editing. Personally, I'm very much at home with Photoshop's layers. I understood it intuitively right away. I never could get used to the GIMP.
That said, maybe the opposite is true -- that some people take intuitively to the GIMP's UI but not to Photoshop.
'When a stone is thrown into a lake, waves spread radially in all directions. A similar wave can be created by the electrons on a metal surface when they are disturbed, for instance, by light.'
Continued Diaconescu, 'This is sure to make a splash in the community. Our detractors have been trying to sink our efforts, and have been making waves at the conferences about this effect not being real, but this will certainly throw them in the deep end. The real lifesaver, though, will be our refined dataset, which is in stark contrast to our previous watered-down set. They will drown in the data.'
Besides, there is no sure way for a person to determine the copyright status of a file.
As you can see, your Honor, this file, while it may look like the complete Over the Hedge, is, in reality, not. The characters are slightly fatter. And the voices are not quite that of these famous actors. There is a slight buzzing to their voices, and the high frequencies are missing. Therefore, this file is actually not copyright DreamWorks Animation.
And though humans learned stone tools remarkable close to finally learning to load CD-ROMs, the stone tools were paleolithic ("old stone"), while the CDs were at worst neolithic ("new stone").
In keeping with the naming of capital-A Ages after prevalent use of materials, I like to refer to the period from 1912 to 2045 as the "Plastic Age" (or possibly the "Polymer Age" or "Polyfantasic! Age"), covering the use of Bakelite on up in consumer goods.
Your guess as to what happens after 2045:) (Hint: Ray Kurzweil has something to say about that)
As long as the teleportation process is carried out at sufficient resolution to capture all the relevant details of my consciousness, and I emerge on the receiver pad with all my memories and personality
Oops, you've just commited an error where you assume what you set out to prove. You've referred to "I" as emerging on the receiver pad. Without defining "I", you can't say exactly what has emerged on the receiver pad.
My requirement is not only that the original is destroyed, but also that the original remains in uninterrupted, synchronized communication with the duplicate. That is, consciousness is being carried out by relying on *both* physical platforms at *both* origin and destination. Because if there is ever an independent consciousness produced, then it cannot be the original consciousness, else said consciousness would experience more than one reality at a time.
Probably, but consider this: can you really prove your consciousness remains continuous every time, say, you go to sleep and wake up the next morning.
Yes, I can, as long as I can prove that all the parts of me remain functionally continuous as well. If I can't prove that, then no, my consciousness is not continuous, and hence when the thing occupying my bed wakes up, it isn't me.
I say functionally continuous because cells die all the time, but are replaced in their function.
Again, without resort to the supernatural, I have (admittedly unilaterally) declared "consciousness" to be that which is formed by all the parts of me in their configuration and interaction.
It makes no practical difference. Do you avoid death in your daily life? Why? If you knew that you could do something that would appear, from your perspective, to be exactly the same as really dying, but would leave a replica of you living from the perspective of others, would you do it?
Do I avoid death every day? I certainly avoid certain death, which is what I have convinced myself "destructive copying" is. Also, why would I submit to dying regardless of whether or not a copy is made? Why would I care about the perspective of others? It's not them doing the dying!
It should be noted that quantum teleportation is not able to transfer matter or energy from transmitter to receiver. All the protocol can do is transfer the quantum state of a particle (or, in the future, groups of particles) from transmitter to receiver. That doesn't mean that humans can't be teleported, though; the receiver would simply keep a stock of raw materials such as carbon, hydrogen, calcium and oxygen atoms out of which to reconstruct the person.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Proof:
Scan yourself down to the most fundamental level (regardless of what that is), and build an exact duplicate without destroying the original. Press the start button on the duplicate, assuming instantaneous duplication and starting. Since the original's consciousness has maintained continuity in the original, even if the duplicate is an exact copy of the original's state, it cannot be continuous with the original's state because the duplicate exists at a different location and time. (I considered using "space-time locus", but it's difficult enough talking about this without resort to high-falutin' words:)
Therefore, the "you" that existed prior to duplication is the "you" of the original, and not the "you" of the duplicate. "You" suddenly don't perceive two different realities, one from the POV of the original, and one from the POV of the duplicate.
The conclusion is that if someone destroyes the original, "you" die. Really die. The duplicate may have all your memories and skills, and will think it is the original, but it is not.
Really, the only way teleportation (or brain-to-computer transference) could work is if each individual part (for some definition of "part") were duplicated, placed in sync with the original, and then the original part destroyed. Since consciousness consists of the whole and not the parts (assuming we're not going to invoke the supernatural), the consciousness remains continuous with only one instantiation at any one time.
I've given this some thought, since I hope to download in 2045:)
It's not that we're ashamed of who we are. It's that other people will draw their own conclusions from your public persona, and use that to make decisions about you. That includes potential employers and current employers. For example, it's common in large corporations to fire employees who have been publically drunk in some situations, because the employee is considered to be representing the corporation -- even during off-hours.
Sadly, we all have to interact with other people, and that puts restrictions on your own actions, like it or not.
Because there are times where I want to work in Windows *and* Mac simultaneously. I can run a Win2K guest OS with my campus Novell client and have access to all the networked apps that I need to use, and still use my Mac apps.
I agree, 100%. I got Parallels on my Intel Macbook because my work has various web-based applications which refuse to run under Safari or Firefox, as well as Windows-only applications. Also, I hate to say it, but Microsoft Office runs much smoother and quicker and less *quirkier* under Parallels than either Office for Mac, or NeoOffice (sorry, guys).
And now I get to fool around with games in Parallels? *plunks money on table*
I know, remember when Gates was on Jon Stewart, and the moment the interview was over he sprang up out of his chair and booked the hell out of there? Totally unlike every other interviewee on the history of the show?
When you try to separate good science from pseudoscience, look for citations, folks. That's the lesson.
The moon is made of baked brie [1].
--Rob
[1] J. My Ass, 2003;42:210-214, "A malodorous investigation of the composition of Earth's primary satelite, slathered in a generous helping of male bovine fecal material."
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe there's just no one, single satisfying interface for photo editing. Personally, I'm very much at home with Photoshop's layers. I understood it intuitively right away. I never could get used to the GIMP.
That said, maybe the opposite is true -- that some people take intuitively to the GIMP's UI but not to Photoshop.
--Rob
'When a stone is thrown into a lake, waves spread radially in all directions. A similar wave can be created by the electrons on a metal surface when they are disturbed, for instance, by light.'
Continued Diaconescu, 'This is sure to make a splash in the community. Our detractors have been trying to sink our efforts, and have been making waves at the conferences about this effect not being real, but this will certainly throw them in the deep end. The real lifesaver, though, will be our refined dataset, which is in stark contrast to our previous watered-down set. They will drown in the data.'
As you can see, your Honor, this file, while it may look like the complete Over the Hedge, is, in reality, not. The characters are slightly fatter. And the voices are not quite that of these famous actors. There is a slight buzzing to their voices, and the high frequencies are missing. Therefore, this file is actually not copyright DreamWorks Animation.
The only phone even close to such a capability is the iPhone. And I would do anything my iPhone tells me to do!
--Rob
I absolutely agree. It's not a social club, it's a game. And I lurvs my fluffy kitty.
--Rob
Countersuit?
--Rob
I heard that he's going to have his last name changed to Titor!
--Rob
The Man from Mars considers cars (and bars) food. But when he's through with those delicacies, he'll only eat guitars.
--Rob
I honestly don't know whether that's insightful or funny. Even assuming I had mod points.
--Rob
Correction: "Jesus, in the New Testament, clarified the problem when he explained that..."
What you said means something very, very different! Although with all the religion revisionism going on, who the heck knows!
--Rob
You forgot the start- and end-markers for compression: o hai, and kthxbai.
--Rob
In keeping with the naming of capital-A Ages after prevalent use of materials, I like to refer to the period from 1912 to 2045 as the "Plastic Age" (or possibly the "Polymer Age" or "Polyfantasic! Age"), covering the use of Bakelite on up in consumer goods.
Your guess as to what happens after 2045 :) (Hint: Ray Kurzweil has something to say about that)
--Rob
"Print" does not mean stipping out all graphics and ads, but leaving the number of pages the same.
>:(
--Rob
But only in Soviet Russia.
--Rob
Oops, you've just commited an error where you assume what you set out to prove. You've referred to "I" as emerging on the receiver pad. Without defining "I", you can't say exactly what has emerged on the receiver pad.
My requirement is not only that the original is destroyed, but also that the original remains in uninterrupted, synchronized communication with the duplicate. That is, consciousness is being carried out by relying on *both* physical platforms at *both* origin and destination. Because if there is ever an independent consciousness produced, then it cannot be the original consciousness, else said consciousness would experience more than one reality at a time.
--Rob
Yes, I can, as long as I can prove that all the parts of me remain functionally continuous as well. If I can't prove that, then no, my consciousness is not continuous, and hence when the thing occupying my bed wakes up, it isn't me.
I say functionally continuous because cells die all the time, but are replaced in their function.
Again, without resort to the supernatural, I have (admittedly unilaterally) declared "consciousness" to be that which is formed by all the parts of me in their configuration and interaction.
--Rob
Do I avoid death every day? I certainly avoid certain death, which is what I have convinced myself "destructive copying" is. Also, why would I submit to dying regardless of whether or not a copy is made? Why would I care about the perspective of others? It's not them doing the dying!
--Rob
Thanks, but no thanks.
Proof:
Scan yourself down to the most fundamental level (regardless of what that is), and build an exact duplicate without destroying the original. Press the start button on the duplicate, assuming instantaneous duplication and starting. Since the original's consciousness has maintained continuity in the original, even if the duplicate is an exact copy of the original's state, it cannot be continuous with the original's state because the duplicate exists at a different location and time. (I considered using "space-time locus", but it's difficult enough talking about this without resort to high-falutin' words :)
Therefore, the "you" that existed prior to duplication is the "you" of the original, and not the "you" of the duplicate. "You" suddenly don't perceive two different realities, one from the POV of the original, and one from the POV of the duplicate.
The conclusion is that if someone destroyes the original, "you" die. Really die. The duplicate may have all your memories and skills, and will think it is the original, but it is not.
Really, the only way teleportation (or brain-to-computer transference) could work is if each individual part (for some definition of "part") were duplicated, placed in sync with the original, and then the original part destroyed. Since consciousness consists of the whole and not the parts (assuming we're not going to invoke the supernatural), the consciousness remains continuous with only one instantiation at any one time.
I've given this some thought, since I hope to download in 2045 :)
--Rob
If it was hard to write, it should be hard to... use?
--Rob
It's not that we're ashamed of who we are. It's that other people will draw their own conclusions from your public persona, and use that to make decisions about you. That includes potential employers and current employers. For example, it's common in large corporations to fire employees who have been publically drunk in some situations, because the employee is considered to be representing the corporation -- even during off-hours.
Sadly, we all have to interact with other people, and that puts restrictions on your own actions, like it or not.
--Rob
I guess that explains the 200 meter lines at Heathrow :(
--Rob
I think the OP meant "disparate." :)
--Rob
I agree, 100%. I got Parallels on my Intel Macbook because my work has various web-based applications which refuse to run under Safari or Firefox, as well as Windows-only applications. Also, I hate to say it, but Microsoft Office runs much smoother and quicker and less *quirkier* under Parallels than either Office for Mac, or NeoOffice (sorry, guys).
And now I get to fool around with games in Parallels? *plunks money on table*
--Rob
I know, remember when Gates was on Jon Stewart, and the moment the interview was over he sprang up out of his chair and booked the hell out of there? Totally unlike every other interviewee on the history of the show?
--Rob
The moon is made of baked brie [1].
--Rob
[1] J. My Ass, 2003;42:210-214, "A malodorous investigation of the composition of Earth's primary satelite, slathered in a generous helping of male bovine fecal material."