+1 This ask slashdot is akin to: "Why people are so conservative that don't want their accelerator and brake pedals shifted around?".
The I in GUI is? It is an INTERFACE, the ideal interface stays out of the way, has a short learning curve, is consistent, is light, is adaptable to new needs as they arise is FAMILIAR.
All the rest is people wanting to leverage their new shiny DE to increase the difficulty of the average user in dealing with alternatives, and youngsters who actually buy the idea that the linux desktop needs something other than good applications.
> "Real" life requires it to drive its biological processes, and simulated life requires it to drive its simulation (regardless of the rules within the simulation)
Sure but the first is energy, the latter is meta-energy, from the point of view of the simulation, that is if you spoke to the artificial life creatures, you would be making a metaphysical, non demonstrable statement. The thermodynamic theory could not make sense or be conceivable, there.
About the latter point, yes that what I meant for useful myself. About the religious bureaucracy, though, are you sure that it justifies them? labels and miracles do not define Christians (Mt. 7:22-23). Their work, their love does. (much reference, Mt 21:31-32). So either it's some reverse psychology thing, or there are deviation from the spirit of the book for many interpretations of it.
> I could as easily see the argument *against* adapting: Go forth and fill all the niches I have made for you, but leave the others to their own occupants... As I see it, there were no others ATM. "Thou shalt not steal" came later.
> I don't disagree about the game of life example, but since the context being discussed is life in *this* universe, I don't see that it's applicable. My point was that, somewhere, it is not applicable: if we don't want to bring gods into the equation we must assume that awareness (of the same quality we experience) is a process. It can be implemented with the right programming of the brain and/or other relevant systems. This can be done according to our universe rules, but it should also be simulated when understood. In the simulation energy might not be needed or implemented the same way. So when you said "energy" I would say "change" which is more general. A minor issue, though.
I would not bother distinguishing simulated from real. All we have is systems. From the point of view of simulated entities, the simulated world is real. I don't mean it looks real, I mean it respects the definition of "real". Real is what you can experience and interact with, the simulated entities cannot reach our world, the system that is simulating them. It is not real for them, it is "meta". Stuff coming from the "meta" can be only represented according to the rules of the simulation.
About the upper limit on complexity, the problem you outline is a practical consideration, as you say. I make a different one: no matter if theories are scientific, religious, economic, they have success depending on how useful they are for the most influential persons.
Well, he was confident he could bribe the opponent's king into making a burning platform speech saying the only way out is to scrap all strategies and ask Gates directions, but the pawns did not buy it.
You say "a hypothetical creator must be found inside its creation" (the only way to have an experience of it) and you called it scientific. Science would proceed experimentally. Create an instance of the abstraction called "a game of tic tac toe" and then tell me where i can find evidence of yourself in it. Nowhere. OW.
And let's talk about the twin BS argument "a creator that is not found inside a creation and not detectable outside of it has no way to interfere with it, he's an indifferent observer". Create a not interactive abstraction, then destroy it, Well you have interacted with it. OW. Or start a non interactive deterministic simulation with an initial state, run it for a while, ask a friend to run it in reverse gear to discover what was the initial state, watch him go earlier than your initial state, until he finds something that looks minimal enough.
You don't realize the implications of getting evidence of the hypothetical god. You do not want scientific evidence, you want a spectacular enough exception to the model of the universe as you know it. In other times an eclipse would have had you.
Scientific evidence is impossible, nothing distinguishes a god from a powerful enough entity belonging to the universe. But this is too complex, let's make a simpler example of the abyss between an abstraction and the meta-world that causes it. In the abstraction called "a playlist", the list goes like: song A, song B, A, B.... Is the player in random mode (with no repeat of the last tune of course) or on linear mode? no way to tell. Are you sure that it has a no repeat the last tune, and does the player have only two songs? Cannot tell with 100% accuracy, if it is playing random there is one tiny chance song C never got selected and ABABABABAB happens with the same probability of any other permutation. So, the only way to know is to examine the player, that means ESCAPING the abstraction to get to the higher level. Any idea on how you can escape the universe, given that death is not enough? A god, or some people 2000 years ago, solved this problem, with the concept of faith, and with Mt 7:22, and that even provides an excuse for atheists that can say, I choose not to believe and be done with it! wow everyone's happy! but no way we have to persist with this scientific evidence argument. Formalize it at least, right now it is nothing more than a mantra.
Ghosts are hypothetical spiritual entities and the spiritual world could simply be a dimension with different laws, so for the sake of the argument belief in a ghost is equivalent to belief that your fave team will win the competition tomorrow.
Using biblical references triggers preconceptions, indeed, but not using it makes sure those won't ever be solved. Personally I have no problems imagining some ancient men with time on their hands building up their model of reality, be it with or without divine inspiration.
About adapting: the verb populate (fill up, whatever) applied to a set of different environments needs the subject to adapt, I don't see alternatives.
Good point about the self aware AI, it might be sentient without having undergone evolution, I guess things will get interesting when we are faced with different kinds of CG awareness.
About the need for energy, this is true but a detail of this universe. Some "game of life" simulation which basically makes stuff appear from nowhere has no need for that and might end up with darwinian-like stuff. Don't argue that the pc running the simulation needs energy because in the context of the simulation itself it is not implemented, while here it is. In fact the idea that nothing get created and nothing get destructed in the context of the game of life is complete nonsense.
About the deterministic universe, i think that there is no difference between deterministic and random once you remove time. Uncertain is who is subjected to time. Same for multiverses or quantum metaworlds where quantum states are resolved. There is no theoretical upper limit of complexity, especially for people like us, who live in a billion galaxies' universe and can't tell how many beans are in a jar without counting them.
And this takes me to the latter point: it is an elegant theory, and favoring elegance and simplicity is the way to go, but remember no upper limit on complexity means that the wildest models have basically the same probability of being true than the most likely ones.
A +5 insightful missing the critical part "...if you *redistribute it* you.." and what about "let me play with your stuff"? Please... Your stuff is yours, the gpled stuff is not only yours.
The GPL spirit is "freely ye have received, freely give".
All I want is to ssh -C -X and open remote apps and use them like local ones, seamless cutting and pasting. It is quite handy in a LAN. Remote desktop preserving state is useful for monitoring, this is useful for office work. Different scenarios.
So, the race now is between new faster compositors who need X protocols layered for compatibility and features and javascript obfuscated apps replacing networked native applications...
Are you comfortable using the biblical "Grow, multiply, populate" (that is, adapt to different conditions and stay, which rules out both crystals and fire BTW)
And exhibiting conscious-like attitude as a bonus.
As you point out, it must be done at scales different from ours and considering all kind of materials.
Finally, without detracting from the study, the tendency to obey the formula that describes heat dissipation is inherent IMHO to the fact that all combinations who do not dissipate enough heat will get too hot eventually. In oher words, life is matter * time. Things that do not grow, cannot survive division or do not multiply, do not adapt, are less likely to stay than those who do.
Don't take this vision as an argument against creationism, there is no difference between life created in one miracle step, or life being an eventual and maybe transient byproduct of universal laws.
If there is a god creator of all things, residing outside time necessarily, creation encompasses all past and future time in one step. This incidentally makes Dawkins an inaccurate theorist for not realizing the possibility.
If there is no god, a miraculous event can happen if its probability is above zero by any margin, if it did not happen we would not have been here to notice it.
I don't see how Christians should be embarassed by atheists persecuting each other.
The prankster is likely atheist. The right wing group persecuting him is provably atheist: being Christian is not defined by labeling yourself as such, proclaiming obedience. MT 21:28, MT 7:22. Forcing people to respect Christ is depriving them from the possibility of respecting its message freely, and that's not only atheist but anti-religious. Obedience is a value only if it comes from choice.
I don't see why commenters here don't attack Law also, since they attack Religion. Because Law was misapplied as Religion was ignored. Do you look for justifications for not following a religion? you do not need any, if you look for the truth honestly and don't find it there.
Maybe they are kids, maybe they are old dogs who got burned by environments who were devise to be weaponized, increasing some corporations' hold on the market. It is irrelevant to scream "but it is open source!", google itself has shown how raw engineering power can be used to control a project with android.
The purpose of dart is probably to push chrome as the leading platform (which browsers are, nowadays). All you ask goes in the opposite direction. The LLVM as standard would be a great idea. Java ideals done right.
Quick impressions: first of all it's so butt ugly that nobody is going to keep a crosshair on it for long: good. I also notice that the rear wheels denote a higher load than the front wheels, either it's the engine department, or, more likely, a young official have invited another of the opposite sex there, eager to test "some aspects of the seating".
Did WWII came because Hitler came to power, or did Hitler came to power to wage WWII? I'd really wanted to know if those internet rumors about western financial backing of both USSR and Nazis are true, if they are WWII is a different kind civil war to shape up the not so pleasant society we seem headed to.
That a meta pc running win8 runs the universe is not provable. Even if it crashes or it performs poorly you would not notice from the inside of the simulation. Even if it performs incorrectly you wouldn't notice because you would model your logic and view of the world over the glitches.
About justin bieber, I think you mispelled james brown.
> and will likely continue to believe whatever they want to believe?
Yep I tend not to change idea, especially when people use tricks (this one is called "poisoning the well") in their rebuttal.
So the guy liked to party? Interesting. So he might have ODed in many occasions. It happened shortly before his most potentially influential presentation. What did your data point bring? Oh yes the GF point is moot now. He still fucked with the dosage at a very wrong moment. All of this is irrelevant 'till the presentation comes out.
Slashdot Mirror
+1
This ask slashdot is akin to: "Why people are so conservative that don't want their accelerator and brake pedals shifted around?".
The I in GUI is? It is an INTERFACE, the ideal interface stays out of the way, has a short learning curve, is consistent, is light, is adaptable to new needs as they arise is FAMILIAR.
All the rest is people wanting to leverage their new shiny DE to increase the difficulty of the average user in dealing with alternatives, and youngsters who actually buy the idea that the linux desktop needs something other than good applications.
Well it's designed by Adobe? Then, if you say it's bloated I take your word for it.
But what if this is only a precedent?
"First they came for CSS Regions, and I didn't speak up because they were a mess..."
> "Real" life requires it to drive its biological processes, and simulated life requires it to drive its simulation (regardless of the rules within the simulation)
Sure but the first is energy, the latter is meta-energy, from the point of view of the simulation, that is if you spoke to the artificial life creatures, you would be making a metaphysical, non demonstrable statement. The thermodynamic theory could not make sense or be conceivable, there.
About the latter point, yes that what I meant for useful myself. About the religious bureaucracy, though, are you sure that it justifies them? labels and miracles do not define Christians (Mt. 7:22-23). Their work, their love does. (much reference, Mt 21:31-32). So either it's some reverse psychology thing, or there are deviation from the spirit of the book for many interpretations of it.
> I could as easily see the argument *against* adapting: Go forth and fill all the niches I have made for you, but leave the others to their own occupants...
As I see it, there were no others ATM. "Thou shalt not steal" came later.
> I don't disagree about the game of life example, but since the context being discussed is life in *this* universe, I don't see that it's applicable.
My point was that, somewhere, it is not applicable: if we don't want to bring gods into the equation we must assume that awareness (of the same quality we experience) is a process. It can be implemented with the right programming of the brain and/or other relevant systems.
This can be done according to our universe rules, but it should also be simulated when understood. In the simulation energy might not be needed or implemented the same way.
So when you said "energy" I would say "change" which is more general. A minor issue, though.
I would not bother distinguishing simulated from real. All we have is systems.
From the point of view of simulated entities, the simulated world is real. I don't mean it looks real, I mean it respects the definition of "real". Real is what you can experience and interact with, the simulated entities cannot reach our world, the system that is simulating them. It is not real for them, it is "meta". Stuff coming from the "meta" can be only represented according to the rules of the simulation.
About the upper limit on complexity, the problem you outline is a practical consideration, as you say. I make a different one: no matter if theories are scientific, religious, economic, they have success depending on how useful they are for the most influential persons.
> He should have brought a Chess computer.
Well, he was confident he could bribe the opponent's king into making a burning platform speech saying the only way out is to scrap all strategies and ask Gates directions, but the pawns did not buy it.
You say "a hypothetical creator must be found inside its creation" (the only way to have an experience of it) and you called it scientific. Science would proceed experimentally. Create an instance of the abstraction called "a game of tic tac toe" and then tell me where i can find evidence of yourself in it. Nowhere. OW.
And let's talk about the twin BS argument "a creator that is not found inside a creation and not detectable outside of it has no way to interfere with it, he's an indifferent observer". Create a not interactive abstraction, then destroy it, Well you have interacted with it. OW. Or start a non interactive deterministic simulation with an initial state, run it for a while, ask a friend to run it in reverse gear to discover what was the initial state, watch him go earlier than your initial state, until he finds something that looks minimal enough.
You don't realize the implications of getting evidence of the hypothetical god. You do not want scientific evidence, you want a spectacular enough exception to the model of the universe as you know it. In other times an eclipse would have had you.
Scientific evidence is impossible, nothing distinguishes a god from a powerful enough entity belonging to the universe. But this is too complex, let's make a simpler example of the abyss between an abstraction and the meta-world that causes it. In the abstraction called "a playlist", the list goes like: song A, song B, A, B.... Is the player in random mode (with no repeat of the last tune of course) or on linear mode? no way to tell. Are you sure that it has a no repeat the last tune, and does the player have only two songs? Cannot tell with 100% accuracy, if it is playing random there is one tiny chance song C never got selected and ABABABABAB happens with the same probability of any other permutation. So, the only way to know is to examine the player, that means ESCAPING the abstraction to get to the higher level. Any idea on how you can escape the universe, given that death is not enough? A god, or some people 2000 years ago, solved this problem, with the concept of faith, and with Mt 7:22, and that even provides an excuse for atheists that can say, I choose not to believe and be done with it! wow everyone's happy! but no way we have to persist with this scientific evidence argument. Formalize it at least, right now it is nothing more than a mantra.
Ghosts are hypothetical spiritual entities and the spiritual world could simply be a dimension with different laws, so for the sake of the argument belief in a ghost is equivalent to belief that your fave team will win the competition tomorrow.
Using biblical references triggers preconceptions, indeed, but not using it makes sure those won't ever be solved. Personally I have no problems imagining some ancient men with time on their hands building up their model of reality, be it with or without divine inspiration.
About adapting: the verb populate (fill up, whatever) applied to a set of different environments needs the subject to adapt, I don't see alternatives.
Good point about the self aware AI, it might be sentient without having undergone evolution, I guess things will get interesting when we are faced with different kinds of CG awareness.
About the need for energy, this is true but a detail of this universe. Some "game of life" simulation which basically makes stuff appear from nowhere has no need for that and might end up with darwinian-like stuff. Don't argue that the pc running the simulation needs energy because in the context of the simulation itself it is not implemented, while here it is. In fact the idea that nothing get created and nothing get destructed in the context of the game of life is complete nonsense.
About the deterministic universe, i think that there is no difference between deterministic and random once you remove time. Uncertain is who is subjected to time. Same for multiverses or quantum metaworlds where quantum states are resolved. There is no theoretical upper limit of complexity, especially for people like us, who live in a billion galaxies' universe and can't tell how many beans are in a jar without counting them.
And this takes me to the latter point: it is an elegant theory, and favoring elegance and simplicity is the way to go, but remember no upper limit on complexity means that the wildest models have basically the same probability of being true than the most likely ones.
It's been a pleasure.
A +5 insightful missing the critical part "...if you *redistribute it* you.." and what about "let me play with your stuff"? Please... Your stuff is yours, the gpled stuff is not only yours.
The GPL spirit is "freely ye have received, freely give".
> The GPL is as free as the common cold, and uses the same model for survival.
Yeah sure, you opt in for the virus and it doesn't affect you in any way except when you redistribute it around after altering it.
All I want is to ssh -C -X and open remote apps and use them like local ones, seamless cutting and pasting. It is quite handy in a LAN. Remote desktop preserving state is useful for monitoring, this is useful for office work. Different scenarios.
So, the race now is between new faster compositors who need X protocols layered for compatibility and features and javascript obfuscated apps replacing networked native applications...
Are you comfortable using the biblical "Grow, multiply, populate" (that is, adapt to different conditions and stay, which rules out both crystals and fire BTW)
And exhibiting conscious-like attitude as a bonus.
As you point out, it must be done at scales different from ours and considering all kind of materials.
Finally, without detracting from the study, the tendency to obey the formula that describes heat dissipation is inherent IMHO to the fact that all combinations who do not dissipate enough heat will get too hot eventually.
In oher words, life is matter * time. Things that do not grow, cannot survive division or do not multiply, do not adapt, are less likely to stay than those who do.
Don't take this vision as an argument against creationism, there is no difference between life created in one miracle step, or life being an eventual and maybe transient byproduct of universal laws.
If there is a god creator of all things, residing outside time necessarily, creation encompasses all past and future time in one step. This incidentally makes Dawkins an inaccurate theorist for not realizing the possibility.
If there is no god, a miraculous event can happen if its probability is above zero by any margin, if it did not happen we would not have been here to notice it.
It's all fun and games until they ship you the lingerie you were checking out one late night and it is a different size than your wife's.
I don't see how Christians should be embarassed by atheists persecuting each other.
The prankster is likely atheist.
The right wing group persecuting him is provably atheist: being Christian is not defined by labeling yourself as such, proclaiming obedience. MT 21:28, MT 7:22. Forcing people to respect Christ is depriving them from the possibility of respecting its message freely, and that's not only atheist but anti-religious. Obedience is a value only if it comes from choice.
I don't see why commenters here don't attack Law also, since they attack Religion. Because Law was misapplied as Religion was ignored. Do you look for justifications for not following a religion? you do not need any, if you look for the truth honestly and don't find it there.
> I think the OP meant 'machine code.'
machine code OTOH is what gets executed.
Maybe they are kids, maybe they are old dogs who got burned by environments who were devise to be weaponized, increasing some corporations' hold on the market. It is irrelevant to scream "but it is open source!", google itself has shown how raw engineering power can be used to control a project with android.
> one of the bees is named Fox Mulder and is about to reveal the entire operation to the colony.
The X Flies.
The purpose of dart is probably to push chrome as the leading platform (which browsers are, nowadays). All you ask goes in the opposite direction.
The LLVM as standard would be a great idea. Java ideals done right.
Fedora 21 (Black Jack)
I'm calling it that, and I dont care if Fedora leaves it nameless.
Don't hold back, make your own distro.
With blackjack and hookers.
Quick impressions:
first of all it's so butt ugly that nobody is going to keep a crosshair on it for long: good.
I also notice that the rear wheels denote a higher load than the front wheels, either it's the engine department, or, more likely, a young official have invited another of the opposite sex there, eager to test "some aspects of the seating".
Did WWII came because Hitler came to power, or did Hitler came to power to wage WWII? I'd really wanted to know if those internet rumors about western financial backing of both USSR and Nazis are true, if they are WWII is a different kind civil war to shape up the not so pleasant society we seem headed to.
That a meta pc running win8 runs the universe is not provable. Even if it crashes or it performs poorly you would not notice from the inside of the simulation. Even if it performs incorrectly you wouldn't notice because you would model your logic and view of the world over the glitches.
About justin bieber, I think you mispelled james brown.
No way, the simulation has produced Justin Bieber and Microsoft 8, yet it's still running. If there is an OFF button, it is jammed.
Indeed, all of that is very childish.
Also, I beat you.
> and will likely continue to believe whatever they want to believe?
Yep I tend not to change idea, especially when people use tricks (this one is called "poisoning the well") in their rebuttal.
So the guy liked to party? Interesting. So he might have ODed in many occasions. It happened shortly before his most potentially influential presentation. What did your data point bring? Oh yes the GF point is moot now. He still fucked with the dosage at a very wrong moment. All of this is irrelevant 'till the presentation comes out.