1. You assume that people are always happy to receive truth. That is incorrect.:-( It depends of how much of a fundamentalist (theist/atheist) they were. The truth can indeed set people free -- IF they are willing to receive it.
2. Science by _definition_ is amoral; which is incomplete as you point out. It prompts Scientists to ask:
* (How) Can we do this?
but it doesn't ask:
* Should we do this?
Morality, which is subjective, is overlaid on top of Science; while Secularism is indeed a key foundation, it still, literally, misses the bigger picture. Both Politics and Religion are applied external philosophies -- all you have done is traded one set of dogma for another. That is not the solution.
While we have made just a blip in technical knowledge the planet is still spiritually immature. This will change by 2024 when we start to learn how to balance Science & Spirituality.
As a mystic I have _knowledge_ by definition, aka experience.
Athiest telling other people what they can and cannot know is the height of ignorance and arrogance. They are literally like the blind man telling those who can see color that they are delusional.
> A lot more people than atheists tacitly believe that God doesn't exist,
FTFY.
To know means: to be able to prove OR to have experienced. Since the existence of God is NOT some mathematical equation to be proven but experienced, atheists do NOT know -- all they have is lack of belief.
Since you are confused about definitions:
* Theist: With Belief in God, * Atheist: Without Belief in God, * Agnostic: Without Knowledge in God, * Gnostic: With Knowledge in God.
The ignorance of Atheism is pretending their path is the only valid path. The arrogance of Theism is pretending that their path is the only valid path. As a Mystic, the first 3 groups LACK KNOWLEDGE, however ALL paths are valid.
Atheists will be in for a rude awakening when they die as they will realize that their belief was incomplete. Regardless, they can be just as good, (or as bad) as theists if they practice the golden rule. Your internal philosophy matters little; what matters is your external philosophy:
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
Fantastic rebuttal ! You hit the nail right on the head.
This bullshit handwaving about "machine rights" is total nonsense. Like you said once Actual Intelligence happens instead of the joke that passes for artificial ignorance today then we can talk about "rights" of machines.
Castle Wolfenstein on the Apple ][ actually used C strings! There will be a post reverse engineering the game in c.e.a2 soonish once the next version of AppleWin 1.25 is ready...
Applesoft ROM used low-ascii, and a high-ascii as a end of terminator. The assembler directive was DCI for Merlin and official Apple Assembler. i.e. http://i.imgur.com/lD9Na9K.png
That is why I say: "The best AI ever designed was a live human opponent"
Lazy developers & designers would rather jack the hitpoints of a boss up to be 10x your life then to spend time making it behaving in an interesting fashion.
If you haven't played Dark Souls 1 & 2 with its PvP --- check it out.
Slashdot Mirror
1. You assume that people are always happy to receive truth. That is incorrect. :-( It depends of how much of a fundamentalist (theist/atheist) they were. The truth can indeed set people free -- IF they are willing to receive it.
2. Science by _definition_ is amoral; which is incomplete as you point out. It prompts Scientists to ask:
* (How) Can we do this?
but it doesn't ask:
* Should we do this?
Morality, which is subjective, is overlaid on top of Science; while Secularism is indeed a key foundation, it still, literally, misses the bigger picture. Both Politics and Religion are applied external philosophies -- all you have done is traded one set of dogma for another. That is not the solution.
While we have made just a blip in technical knowledge the planet is still spiritually immature. This will change by 2024 when we start to learn how to balance Science & Spirituality.
As a mystic I have _knowledge_ by definition, aka experience.
Athiest telling other people what they can and cannot know is the height of ignorance and arrogance. They are literally like the blind man telling those who can see color that they are delusional.
As one alien species said (about humans):
"You mean you have to pay to live on the planet you were born on??"
> A lot more people than atheists tacitly believe that God doesn't exist,
FTFY.
To know means: to be able to prove OR to have experienced. Since the existence of God is NOT some mathematical equation to be proven but experienced, atheists do NOT know -- all they have is lack of belief.
Since you are confused about definitions:
* Theist: With Belief in God,
* Atheist: Without Belief in God,
* Agnostic: Without Knowledge in God,
* Gnostic: With Knowledge in God.
The ignorance of Atheism is pretending their path is the only valid path.
The arrogance of Theism is pretending that their path is the only valid path.
As a Mystic, the first 3 groups LACK KNOWLEDGE, however ALL paths are valid.
Atheists will be in for a rude awakening when they die as they will realize that their belief was incomplete. Regardless, they can be just as good, (or as bad) as theists if they practice the golden rule. Your internal philosophy matters little; what matters is your external philosophy:
> If the theory that the Moon was ejected from the Earth from a massive asteroid impact is correct.
It is not. The moon is a billion years older then the earth.
Considering light was slowed down to zero a few years back, you are now just catching up to it? :)
> - doesn't like hardware raid (apparently a lot of the pros rely on talkign to an actual disk)
There is ZERO point of using hardware RAID with ZFS.
You can NOT _trust_ RAID in the first place -- it doesn't matter how fast your RAID is if it can silently fail!
ZFS RAID Z0, Z1, or Z2 gives you more advantages of RAID without its disadvantages.
You can have it fast & insecure OR slow & safe. Pick one.
Minetest is a joke.
I've subscribed to the GitHub bug list.
Lacks tons of features, devs argue over pointless features and bugs, most the devs write amateur, translation, shitty code.
It will probably never amount to anything sadly.
Main St. refers to the Wild West.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
The time frame you are talking about is after 1920's -- far after America jumped the shark ~ 1819.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Indeed.
"Main St. built America,
Wall St. destroyed America."
That was back in the 90's, there was _no_ compiler warning. That was the problem. :-/
That too !
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
> the rest of us are too smart to join in.
FTFY. :-)
.. looks like consumers are on the bleeding edge.
Fantastic rebuttal ! You hit the nail right on the head.
This bullshit handwaving about "machine rights" is total nonsense. Like you said once Actual Intelligence happens instead of the joke that passes for artificial ignorance today then we can talk about "rights" of machines.
Seriously, how does this effect web browsing for the average Joe?
One is an absolute total.
One is a relative offset.
i.e.
// same location
*(pArray + 0) = pArray[ 0 ];
> but 0x0D on Apple II
You mean 0x8D. :-)
Castle Wolfenstein on the Apple ][ actually used C strings! There will be a post reverse engineering the game in c.e.a2 soonish once the next version of AppleWin 1.25 is ready ...
Applesoft ROM used low-ascii, and a high-ascii as a end of terminator. The assembler directive was DCI for Merlin and official Apple Assembler.
i.e.
http://i.imgur.com/lD9Na9K.png
> if (a = b) assigns the contents of b to a and executes the code following if b 0. Who the hell thought that would be a good idea?
There are indeed times it is useful but I 100% agree, using the _same_ syntax as assignment was full retard. They should of used:
to tell the compiler, yes, I know that I am assigning inside an if statement -- a programmer couldn't accidently use it by mistake then.
i.e.
:= b ) { // do true logic
if( a
}
I know one game shipped with buggy AI because somebody forgot to use two equal signs inside an if statement!
The other part of the problem was that stupid compilers didn't warn about an assignment inside an if statement.
The C/C++ community doesn't have a clue about standardizing compiler warnings, errors, and pragmas.
> the Hex output that is entirely useless
useless??
If you don't know how to search for the first error code you probably shouldn't be using Windows ...
Free: m48
https://itunes.apple.com/us/ap...
$10.99: m48+
https://itunes.apple.com/us/ap...
Free: i48
https://itunes.apple.com/us/ap...
That is why I say: "The best AI ever designed was a live human opponent"
Lazy developers & designers would rather jack the hitpoints of a boss up to be 10x your life then to spend time making it behaving in an interesting fashion.
If you haven't played Dark Souls 1 & 2 with its PvP --- check it out.
At the risk of being pedantic, you mean Apple ][ and Apple //e, but now that is out of the way ...
Lots of game programmers never bothered with a CS degree.
The world has moved from the 1980's. Whether it be programming, or devops, having a degree helps make you stand out and get past the HR drones.
Once you have 5-10 years _experience_, no on cares about the _theory_ that you learnt, or were supposed to know.
Having a degree gives you the possibility for more doors to be open for you. Not having a degree doesn't give you the same opportunities.
--
"Theory always comes after Application"
I would be more worried about North Korea.
However, humanity is not going to end. You'll have proof by 2024.