I don't buy the dualist approach either, but only because I refuse to relegate everthing I cannot explain to the realm of metaphysiscs. I would argue that a rational explanation for the subjective nature of consciousness exists independently of our ability to discover it--and that we may never be able to make that discovery. The question is whether a being can ever fully understand itself, or if an outside observer is required.
I have not read Dennett, but I have seen similar "mechanism" theories for consciousness. My trouble with these explanations is that they concentrate on external, objective descriptions of consciousness while doing little to address its subjective nature. A perfectly crafted theory of consciousness in the context of human behavior or chemical processes in the brain still does not explain the conscious experience, at least not to the satisfaction of a conscious being.
Now I suppose we get into the "how do I know if you are really conscious" debate... Personally, I do not believe humans can ever truly understand human consciousness.
Environmental impact aside, this is a decent idea for rentals. But why is the first thought on everyone's mind, "so I'll just need to rip it within 48 hours"? Say what you will about the nefarious plans of RIAA/MPAA; sometimes their paranoia makes sense. And the rest of the time, I'm busy fuming that they're still too paranoid to release a majority of albums on iTunes or Rhapsody.
I agree, cars ARE freedom and an absolute necessity in many cases. But I also believe cars are woefully overused in city centers and in other situations where healthy people could just as easily walk or bike. The car is so ingrained in our cultural consciousness that we often don't even consider not driving, myself included. No public transportation diatribes or anti-SUV rants here; just a plea to walk or bike more often.
I've been so some (non-U.S.) cities where bike routes have their own traffic signals, just like full-size roads. It can work alongside an existing infrastructure when implemented properly.
Too bad they don't address the cultural barriers to car-free cities in the United States. Cars represent freedom here, plain and simple. Until that mindset changes, we won't have a car-free city for all the urban planning in the world. Can you even imagine something as benign as London's new car toll happening in Los Angeles or New York? People would scream bloody murder. Granted, there's a geographic component to consider as well; our cities are larger and more sprawling than in Europe or elsewhere.
Interestingly, any frictionless tunnel that you bore from one point on the earth to any other point will work this way. It doesn't have to go through the center, and it doesn't have to be parabolic. In theory, you could bore a tunnel from your house to your workplace down the street and travel there with no energy expenditure. Transit time is another issue; any straight tunnel will take the same time no matter what the distance (I think it's about 90 minutes, although I'd have to dig out my orbital mechanics notes to verify that), and you can get better transit times with different trajectories. This is all assuming a uniform, spherical earth, no friction or drag, etc.
Step 1: Draw up plans for frictionless tunnel
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
Even hydraulic actuators have electromechanical servo valves, which I assume could be affected. For a large plane without pulley-and-cable backups, this could be catastrophic. The only kind of plane that would potentially be immune would be a small piston-engine, which does not require electricity of any sort -- not even in the ignition system (magnetos).
I was just worrying about not meeting my recommended daily allowance of EF radiation with this cellphone in my pocket and 10 PCs near my desk. Now I can build a HERF gun -- problem solved!
NASA and our government have been obsessed with the idea of a reusable launch vehicle since the 1970s, but they're missing the point entirely. It is still much cheaper and safer to launch and recover a ligher, capsule-style spacecraft like the Soyuz. Sure, the shuttle looks sexy flying back to earth like an airplane, but who are we kidding? The STS is much heavier and more expensive than it needs to be. And while NASA should have been designing the next STS, they were conducting feasibility studies of feasibility studies of single-stage vehicles. Privatize this bloated, ineffective organization (the space division, anyway), let industry compete for contacts to ferry humans and supplies to the ISS -- an X Prize on a larger scale -- and watch the prices fall while safety records improve. I believe spaceflight will always be dangerous and expensive, but we can do better.
That's my pipe dream, anyway.
To say the industry is dead is to imply there's nothing new under the sun. Wrong. Software is not a commodity; it's driven by innovation, and the next killer app is always on the way. I am assuming, of course, that open source folks won't be the only ones writing killer apps.
... just a glorified model airplane. This guy will no doubt confirm our fears that any terrorist with half a bachelor degree's worth of experience in control systems design can slap a GPS receiver and a cheap inertial system on a model plane and design it to fly autonomously into a populated area. Scary, yes. But nothing new; just look at any of the hundreds of amateur and university autonomous UAV projects.
Developing and/or procuring a propulsion system capable of carrying this thing more than 100 miles is the real challenge for amateurs and our friends on other continents. That, or sneaking a small, 100-mile version through the port of Los Angeles.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be in my bunker.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't buy the dualist approach either, but only because I refuse to relegate everthing I cannot explain to the realm of metaphysiscs. I would argue that a rational explanation for the subjective nature of consciousness exists independently of our ability to discover it--and that we may never be able to make that discovery. The question is whether a being can ever fully understand itself, or if an outside observer is required.
:)
In the meantime, I will go read Dennett's book
I have not read Dennett, but I have seen similar "mechanism" theories for consciousness. My trouble with these explanations is that they concentrate on external, objective descriptions of consciousness while doing little to address its subjective nature. A perfectly crafted theory of consciousness in the context of human behavior or chemical processes in the brain still does not explain the conscious experience, at least not to the satisfaction of a conscious being.
Now I suppose we get into the "how do I know if you are really conscious" debate... Personally, I do not believe humans can ever truly understand human consciousness.
Environmental impact aside, this is a decent idea for rentals. But why is the first thought on everyone's mind, "so I'll just need to rip it within 48 hours"? Say what you will about the nefarious plans of RIAA/MPAA; sometimes their paranoia makes sense. And the rest of the time, I'm busy fuming that they're still too paranoid to release a majority of albums on iTunes or Rhapsody.
I agree, cars ARE freedom and an absolute necessity in many cases. But I also believe cars are woefully overused in city centers and in other situations where healthy people could just as easily walk or bike. The car is so ingrained in our cultural consciousness that we often don't even consider not driving, myself included. No public transportation diatribes or anti-SUV rants here; just a plea to walk or bike more often.
I've been so some (non-U.S.) cities where bike routes have their own traffic signals, just like full-size roads. It can work alongside an existing infrastructure when implemented properly.
Oops, here is the correct link.
Too bad they don't address the cultural barriers to car-free cities in the United States. Cars represent freedom here, plain and simple. Until that mindset changes, we won't have a car-free city for all the urban planning in the world. Can you even imagine something as benign as London's new car toll happening in Los Angeles or New York? People would scream bloody murder. Granted, there's a geographic component to consider as well; our cities are larger and more sprawling than in Europe or elsewhere.
Interestingly, any frictionless tunnel that you bore from one point on the earth to any other point will work this way. It doesn't have to go through the center, and it doesn't have to be parabolic. In theory, you could bore a tunnel from your house to your workplace down the street and travel there with no energy expenditure. Transit time is another issue; any straight tunnel will take the same time no matter what the distance (I think it's about 90 minutes, although I'd have to dig out my orbital mechanics notes to verify that), and you can get better transit times with different trajectories. This is all assuming a uniform, spherical earth, no friction or drag, etc.
Step 1: Draw up plans for frictionless tunnel
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
Even hydraulic actuators have electromechanical servo valves, which I assume could be affected. For a large plane without pulley-and-cable backups, this could be catastrophic. The only kind of plane that would potentially be immune would be a small piston-engine, which does not require electricity of any sort -- not even in the ignition system (magnetos).
I was just worrying about not meeting my recommended daily allowance of EF radiation with this cellphone in my pocket and 10 PCs near my desk. Now I can build a HERF gun -- problem solved!
NASA and our government have been obsessed with the idea of a reusable launch vehicle since the 1970s, but they're missing the point entirely. It is still much cheaper and safer to launch and recover a ligher, capsule-style spacecraft like the Soyuz. Sure, the shuttle looks sexy flying back to earth like an airplane, but who are we kidding? The STS is much heavier and more expensive than it needs to be. And while NASA should have been designing the next STS, they were conducting feasibility studies of feasibility studies of single-stage vehicles. Privatize this bloated, ineffective organization (the space division, anyway), let industry compete for contacts to ferry humans and supplies to the ISS -- an X Prize on a larger scale -- and watch the prices fall while safety records improve. I believe spaceflight will always be dangerous and expensive, but we can do better. That's my pipe dream, anyway.
To say the industry is dead is to imply there's nothing new under the sun. Wrong. Software is not a commodity; it's driven by innovation, and the next killer app is always on the way. I am assuming, of course, that open source folks won't be the only ones writing killer apps.
... just a glorified model airplane. This guy will no doubt confirm our fears that any terrorist with half a bachelor degree's worth of experience in control systems design can slap a GPS receiver and a cheap inertial system on a model plane and design it to fly autonomously into a populated area. Scary, yes. But nothing new; just look at any of the hundreds of amateur and university autonomous UAV projects. Developing and/or procuring a propulsion system capable of carrying this thing more than 100 miles is the real challenge for amateurs and our friends on other continents. That, or sneaking a small, 100-mile version through the port of Los Angeles. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be in my bunker.