Seems to me that if the universe is a simulation, then the obvious ending condition would be "when the residents figure out they're in a simulation".
Or maybe achieving such a level of "self-awareness" is our only hope. Maybe the simulators are allowed to perform tests at their discretion by their governing body so long as the subjects of the test are "still just a simulation." But when we become self-aware of a reality greater than our own, we introduce an element of morality into their tests and their superiors no longer allow them to "experiment" but instead require that they now develop a way to support us as a new life form.
Smashing galaxies into each other as part of a simulation is great for scientific study, but when the the galaxies begin to show evidence of supporting sentient life, it becomes wrong. As a superior society, they may have a highly developed sense of responsibility to care for the life they created.
Here's hoping that we're somehow worth keeping around.
Secondly if this is a VR sim, than there must be some Reality sufficiently advanced to where we could get replicated in RL from our VR selves after we proved our worth here! (another reason to be good!)
If "good" is what they're looking for. How do we know they're not using this simulation to train soldiers? They implement things like a "conscience" into the matrix for the purpose of filtering out those who are unable to "do what it takes."
Are you serious? I didn't know I even HAD cheat codes for it back then. The only ones I remember were the typable ones on the PC, I'm drawing a complete blank on sega controller ones.
Damn, if I still had it I'd go back and play it just for closure.
Mine worked fine. Funny that you mention Doom, though. I remember how angry I was when I got the PC version and realized that I was cheated on the 32X version. First of all, the graphics were dumbed down for the 32X version. Second, it didn't have the last level. It just... stopped. Right before you fight the second main boss, the thing with the rocket launcher. You go through the exit on the second to last level, they run some credits, and then fart you out to a blinking c:> prompt, at which point you just power off the unit.
That's the version that I have, actually. It may not be much to look at, but I don't consider design of the console itself to really be a selling point. I don't want to know what my parents spent on that thing when they got it for me all those years ago, but I will say this... It still entertains me to this day.
Sure, it was a market failure. But the hardware itself has survived several moves over thousands of miles during the past decade or more, and the games are still entertaining. (I don't have a link handy, but there was a gameshow game called Twisted that was absolutely fantastic.)
Too bad I can't find any games for it anymore. I remember at one point Babbages had a bin of them for $3 each. That was a great weekend.
So why is it with technology that no emphasis is put on catching vandals and bringing them to justice and a ton of emphasis is put on protecting your site from attack?
Because currently the latter is FAR easier than the former.
While I generally agree with the sentiment that it's not the web developer doing anything wrong, it's the hacker who's wrong... I would also argue that while, by not caring enough about security, the developer may not be "wrong," he is perhaps being "unwise."
But if you're in any way serious, just look at Penicillin. Why are bacteria increasingly resistant to it with each passing year? The fittest survived and reproduced. Evolution at work.
My high school biology teacher used to say (actually, he'd often sing it... he was an odd fellow) that he was a part of the luckiest generation on the planet today, because his lifespan has generally coincided with the effectiveness of Penicillin. By the time it's no longer useful, he'll likely be dead.
Ya, you can do that in pretty much any OS. But it doesn't exactly address the problem of what to do with the media that they're required to retain, does it?
The original poster gave a hypothesis as to the origin of the moon.
I thought one of the conditions for something to be considered a "hypothesis" was that it can, in some way, be tested. This would be what separates it from a "guess." Though, to be fair, I don't think what the poster quoted was either. I'd more accurately classify it as an "allegory."
On that note, all this is really doing is teaching astronomers the same lesson that biologists have been grappling with for years. When you insist on categorizing things, you'll always find stuff that fits into an "Other" category. Nature doesn't care about defining things into distinct groups, it just goes with what works.
I could give you several first-hand examples involving people you've never heard of. If this is not the norm elsewhere in society then all I can say is, "good."
Regardless, the problem is still the people, not the religion. No matter where they get such a belief, be it from an ancient text or the back of a cereal box (or from a scientific publication, I've met some athiests who are very devout in their beliefs*), any person who truly believes himself to be unequivocally "right" is probably deluding himself, and can be a dangerous person.
*Again, this statement is based on my experiences. Many of the self-proclaimed athiests I've met very strongly believe that there is no God, and can get pretty angry when suggested otherwise. The people I've met who don't care either way don't generally even care enough to refer to themselves as "athiests." To give an analogy, the devout athiests have a religious value of 0, the people who just aren't interested in the subject have a religious value of NULL. I find the latter to be the more level-headed and reasonable of the two.
Some people honestly believe that religion is a large source of the world's problems and to truly advance we need to abandon it.
I would argue that people are the main source of the world's problems, not religion. Religion doesn't really do anything, people do.
I've always wondered... When someone kills someone else and claims that God told them to do it, people claim that God is obviously a bad influence and should be abandoned. When someone kills someone else and claims that space aliens told them to do it, why doesn't anybody get mad at the space aliens?
Genesis 15:5 - "God took Abraham outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the starts. If indeed you can count them." Then He said to him, "So shall your offspring be."
As best I can tell, a literal interpretation of that is that God was telling Abraham that his descendants will be as innumerable as the stars in the sky. Which... is what I pointed out in my comment. So I guess I do take that particular verse literally, if that's what you're looking for.
What exactly are you looking for here? I guess I just don't understand your question in the context in which you asked it.
Genesis 15:5 He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars..."
Clarification: In that verse, God was not telling Abraham to study the heavens or anything of the sort. He was using the numerous (read: uncountable) stars in the sky to give Abraham a familiar frame of reference so he could understand God's promise of an unending family legacy (numerous, uncountable descendants).
Your point, however, remains otherwise valid. As a reasonable human being, I honestly don't understand how people can want to deny or suppress knowledge of the world around us. As a Christian, I give the credit where the credit is due. God created a beautiful universe, whether or not we know how it works.
It's my fault if I put anything on the social sites that could be used against me in the future
That brings up an interesting question, though. Your example of the bank robbers posting pictures of their crimes is something that could be used against them today. But what if you post information that's legally/socially benign today, but can be used against you in the future? It gets stored in your "permanent record" for some time, but then later resurfaces at a time when it _can_ be used against you?
Prosecutor: Your honor, these records from the NSA show that the defendant was sharing music files on his website in 2006. But in People v. Culture in 2008, it was determined that sharing music of any kind, independant of record companies other otherwise, is a criminal offense. Later that year, in People v. Common Sense, precendent was set that taking down the website doesn't absolve someone of criminal liability, and they can still be prosecuted after the fact.
Depends on that particular chain of command, really. I've seen CO's not do a damn thing if they figure it won't come back to bite them. The guy definitely doesn't sound like an officer, so a wise move above and beyond reporting the incident(s) to his CO would be a few well-placed phone calls to his First Sergeant and Sergeant Major (this is all if you can find out what unit he's in, of course) to help get the ball rolling.
One of my chaplains once said in a new soldier orientation: "In a world of good things and bad things, if the battalion Sergeant Major has to talk to your NCO about you, that is a very bad thing."
In what way are they not his? They were taken with his camera, uploaded to his account via his subscription. There's an old saying that possession is 9/10ths of the law, and at no point were these photos not in his possession. The camera was not in his possession, though it still belonged to him. But at no point were the photos, which are not physical objects, taken by or stored in any device not owned by him. They are his.
Perhaps she was innocent at first, if your interpretation of the events is close to true. But when she learned that it was stolen property and did nothing about it, she became what's called an "accessory." If she's underage then she's subject to juvenile prosecution for the crime, but prosecution for a crime nonetheless.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to me that if the universe is a simulation, then the obvious ending condition would be "when the residents figure out they're in a simulation".
Or maybe achieving such a level of "self-awareness" is our only hope. Maybe the simulators are allowed to perform tests at their discretion by their governing body so long as the subjects of the test are "still just a simulation." But when we become self-aware of a reality greater than our own, we introduce an element of morality into their tests and their superiors no longer allow them to "experiment" but instead require that they now develop a way to support us as a new life form.
Smashing galaxies into each other as part of a simulation is great for scientific study, but when the the galaxies begin to show evidence of supporting sentient life, it becomes wrong. As a superior society, they may have a highly developed sense of responsibility to care for the life they created.
Here's hoping that we're somehow worth keeping around.
Secondly if this is a VR sim, than there must be some Reality sufficiently advanced to where we could get replicated in RL from our VR selves after we proved our worth here! (another reason to be good!)
If "good" is what they're looking for. How do we know they're not using this simulation to train soldiers? They implement things like a "conscience" into the matrix for the purpose of filtering out those who are unable to "do what it takes."
Am I missing something?
Yes.
125 / 7.5 = 16.67 seconds.
You're not converting your units properly. The 125 is measured in GB, while the 7.5 is measured in Gb.
So it automatically quits working?
That's genuinely the advantage of running a Microsoft product :)
I want minor chords when something is failing, and business as usual should play "Walking on Sunshine"...
Your ideal server condition is to be playing "Walking On Sunshine" _all the time_? God, I'd WANT things to fail after a while if that was the case :)
Are you serious? I didn't know I even HAD cheat codes for it back then. The only ones I remember were the typable ones on the PC, I'm drawing a complete blank on sega controller ones.
Damn, if I still had it I'd go back and play it just for closure.
Mine worked fine. Funny that you mention Doom, though. I remember how angry I was when I got the PC version and realized that I was cheated on the 32X version. First of all, the graphics were dumbed down for the 32X version. Second, it didn't have the last level. It just... stopped. Right before you fight the second main boss, the thing with the rocket launcher. You go through the exit on the second to last level, they run some credits, and then fart you out to a blinking c:> prompt, at which point you just power off the unit.
:)
You didn't miss anything
That's the version that I have, actually. It may not be much to look at, but I don't consider design of the console itself to really be a selling point. I don't want to know what my parents spent on that thing when they got it for me all those years ago, but I will say this... It still entertains me to this day. Sure, it was a market failure. But the hardware itself has survived several moves over thousands of miles during the past decade or more, and the games are still entertaining. (I don't have a link handy, but there was a gameshow game called Twisted that was absolutely fantastic.) Too bad I can't find any games for it anymore. I remember at one point Babbages had a bin of them for $3 each. That was a great weekend.
He is a 10th level Vice President, after all.
So why is it with technology that no emphasis is put on catching vandals and bringing them to justice and a ton of emphasis is put on protecting your site from attack?
Because currently the latter is FAR easier than the former.
While I generally agree with the sentiment that it's not the web developer doing anything wrong, it's the hacker who's wrong... I would also argue that while, by not caring enough about security, the developer may not be "wrong," he is perhaps being "unwise."
You call that a troll? Weak, dude.
But if you're in any way serious, just look at Penicillin. Why are bacteria increasingly resistant to it with each passing year? The fittest survived and reproduced. Evolution at work.
My high school biology teacher used to say (actually, he'd often sing it... he was an odd fellow) that he was a part of the luckiest generation on the planet today, because his lifespan has generally coincided with the effectiveness of Penicillin. By the time it's no longer useful, he'll likely be dead.
Ya, you can do that in pretty much any OS. But it doesn't exactly address the problem of what to do with the media that they're required to retain, does it?
The original poster gave a hypothesis as to the origin of the moon.
I thought one of the conditions for something to be considered a "hypothesis" was that it can, in some way, be tested. This would be what separates it from a "guess." Though, to be fair, I don't think what the poster quoted was either. I'd more accurately classify it as an "allegory."
Dare I start an evolution debate?
On that note, all this is really doing is teaching astronomers the same lesson that biologists have been grappling with for years. When you insist on categorizing things, you'll always find stuff that fits into an "Other" category. Nature doesn't care about defining things into distinct groups, it just goes with what works.
Google Images to the rescue:
http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/techchro n/2006/07/11/sony_ad300x225.jpg
If the President, Vice President and Speaker of the House die
One can dream...
What? When? In in what magical fairy-tale world?
I could give you several first-hand examples involving people you've never heard of. If this is not the norm elsewhere in society then all I can say is, "good."
Regardless, the problem is still the people, not the religion. No matter where they get such a belief, be it from an ancient text or the back of a cereal box (or from a scientific publication, I've met some athiests who are very devout in their beliefs*), any person who truly believes himself to be unequivocally "right" is probably deluding himself, and can be a dangerous person.
*Again, this statement is based on my experiences. Many of the self-proclaimed athiests I've met very strongly believe that there is no God, and can get pretty angry when suggested otherwise. The people I've met who don't care either way don't generally even care enough to refer to themselves as "athiests." To give an analogy, the devout athiests have a religious value of 0, the people who just aren't interested in the subject have a religious value of NULL. I find the latter to be the more level-headed and reasonable of the two.
Some people honestly believe that religion is a large source of the world's problems and to truly advance we need to abandon it.
I would argue that people are the main source of the world's problems, not religion. Religion doesn't really do anything, people do.
I've always wondered... When someone kills someone else and claims that God told them to do it, people claim that God is obviously a bad influence and should be abandoned. When someone kills someone else and claims that space aliens told them to do it, why doesn't anybody get mad at the space aliens?
The verse in question?
Genesis 15:5 - "God took Abraham outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the starts. If indeed you can count them." Then He said to him, "So shall your offspring be."
As best I can tell, a literal interpretation of that is that God was telling Abraham that his descendants will be as innumerable as the stars in the sky. Which... is what I pointed out in my comment. So I guess I do take that particular verse literally, if that's what you're looking for.
What exactly are you looking for here? I guess I just don't understand your question in the context in which you asked it.
Genesis 15:5 He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars..."
Clarification: In that verse, God was not telling Abraham to study the heavens or anything of the sort. He was using the numerous (read: uncountable) stars in the sky to give Abraham a familiar frame of reference so he could understand God's promise of an unending family legacy (numerous, uncountable descendants).
Your point, however, remains otherwise valid. As a reasonable human being, I honestly don't understand how people can want to deny or suppress knowledge of the world around us. As a Christian, I give the credit where the credit is due. God created a beautiful universe, whether or not we know how it works.
with way too much time on my hands
That's nothing! You should see what they're finding in MY hands on the internet!
It's my fault if I put anything on the social sites that could be used against me in the future
That brings up an interesting question, though. Your example of the bank robbers posting pictures of their crimes is something that could be used against them today. But what if you post information that's legally/socially benign today, but can be used against you in the future? It gets stored in your "permanent record" for some time, but then later resurfaces at a time when it _can_ be used against you?
Prosecutor: Your honor, these records from the NSA show that the defendant was sharing music files on his website in 2006. But in People v. Culture in 2008, it was determined that sharing music of any kind, independant of record companies other otherwise, is a criminal offense. Later that year, in People v. Common Sense, precendent was set that taking down the website doesn't absolve someone of criminal liability, and they can still be prosecuted after the fact.
Depends on that particular chain of command, really. I've seen CO's not do a damn thing if they figure it won't come back to bite them. The guy definitely doesn't sound like an officer, so a wise move above and beyond reporting the incident(s) to his CO would be a few well-placed phone calls to his First Sergeant and Sergeant Major (this is all if you can find out what unit he's in, of course) to help get the ball rolling.
One of my chaplains once said in a new soldier orientation: "In a world of good things and bad things, if the battalion Sergeant Major has to talk to your NCO about you, that is a very bad thing."
they're not his photos
In what way are they not his? They were taken with his camera, uploaded to his account via his subscription. There's an old saying that possession is 9/10ths of the law, and at no point were these photos not in his possession. The camera was not in his possession, though it still belonged to him. But at no point were the photos, which are not physical objects, taken by or stored in any device not owned by him. They are his.
I, ANAL
Perhaps she was innocent at first, if your interpretation of the events is close to true. But when she learned that it was stolen property and did nothing about it, she became what's called an "accessory." If she's underage then she's subject to juvenile prosecution for the crime, but prosecution for a crime nonetheless.