Imaginary Property Rights whether it be Trademarks or Copyright are neither property nor rights.
This is just another example of the stupidity of the system.
A fair system would have the fees ~double every year to prevented fucking retarded ownership over symbols and words that belong to the general populace.
Before the media hijacked the term "hacking" as "destructive intrusion" it meant "curious intrusion." Hackers are curious people who just want to know how a system works.
Technically the definition is
1. A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. 2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming. 3. A person capable of appreciating {hack value}. 4. A person who is good at programming quickly. 5. An expert at a particular program, or one who frequently does work using it or on it; as in `a UNIX hacker'. (Definitions 1 through 5 are correlated, and people who fit them congregate.) 6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example. 7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations. 8. [deprecated] A malicious meddler who tries to discover sensitive information by poking around. Hence `password hacker', `network hacker'. The correct term is {cracker}.
I started hacking because:
a) I wanted to crack copy protected games, which involved learning 6502 assembly, and b) I wanted to figure out how the games worked -- how was the map represented, were were the sprites, how did the AI work, how did the collision detection work, where was the music stored. By learning how to cheat at them I didn't have to waste my time trying to master them; I would have more time to tear apart more games. Often times it was more fun to reverse engineer the game then play the game itself.
Too bad the general public is too apathetic to see how completely retarded patenting a common mathematical symbol is when the dam thing has been in use for THOUSANDS of years prior.
> You seem like someone that doesn't believe that the development of strong AI is inevitable.
I said "a.i. IS [eventually] coming."
The caveat is that with the _current_ understanding we will never get there until we change our paradigm. I use two acronyms to make the contradistinction:
* A.I. - the current broken perspective * a.i. - the future correct perspective
The problem with Reductionism and Materialism is that they start with an ass-backwards assumption:
Matter is unconscious. The brain "magically" becomes consciousness.
The opposite is actually true. Scientists have yet to realize:
1. ALL matter (or energy) is ALREADY conscious, 2. There are 7 different layers of consciousness, 3. Consciousness creates and interacts with meta-physical objects. Show me "Time" or a "2" ? These are NOT physical objects. Artificially limiting a mind to purely physical elements misses the whole point of what consciousness really is.
I started researching consciousness 10 years ago, and discovered that there was 2 layers below the human and 2 above. My experiences also showed me that you can transfer consciousness from one body to another and that the human consciousness can be over-ridden with a higher one. Curious with my results I started researching who else knew this? I discovered many religions already kew this thousands of years ago. I contacted a fellow mystic asking "I've rediscovered some really _strange_ stuff with consciousness. What do you know about it?" He confirmed there were 7 levels, again with Human Consciousness being in the middle, the intersection of the physical and meta-physical.
Here is an analogy to bring this back to reality:
We don't know what the hell _causes_ electricity or gravity but we have been "successful" in manipulating it. Once we have a way to actually _measure_ consciousness THEN we'll be able to manipulate it as well. Until then -- yeah, uhm, no.
That is why I write when Scientists finally know how to include consciousness in the physics equations THEN we'll have entered the glorious age of Silicon a.i.
The really cool part? We'll discover just as much interesting things about our _own_ consciousness as we will about theirs.
You'll have proof about non-human consciousness by 2024.
Spirituality is based upon gnosticism. That is, knowledge by direct experience. i.e. Someone can tell you everything there is to know about playing the drums but until you actually DO it you will never fully understand it.
Why are you artificially limiting spirituality to "observations" ?? Transcendent experience have the ability to teach much greater lessons.
There are no proofs for experiences. (i.e. Prove that you love your spouse.) You will have your "proof" for God after you are dead, but by then it won't matter since you won't need proofs -- you'll just know. In this physical life unless you meet your Higher Self the closest thing to proof at this stage you will have while alive is to:
* Look in the mirror.
Eventually you will grok the basic principles of "The All is the One. The One is the All." but you'll probably dismiss that as being "too simple." If not, then there is almost nothing that can be done to open your eyes other then living.
I would recommend starting with the beginning of ALL Wisdom:
Know Thyself.
Church Father Clement of Alexandria said it best: "... the greatest of all lessons to know one's self. For if one knows himself, he will know God; and knowing God, he will be made like God... and that man becomes God, since God so wills... "
Find your passion(s) (whatever that may be) and get lost in it. Eventually you will discover yourself and grok the great fundamental truth:
You are a spiritual being in a physical body having a human experience.
You are significantly much, much more then your body. The real interesting question is "How much more?"
Some use meditation, others lucid dreaming, some music, others religion, etc. Use whatever works.
Condemning another man's path simply because it doesn't work for you is the height ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity.
Theism is only 1 of the 4 paths.
-- First Contact is coming by 2024. Are ready for the next stage in Human development?
That is not intelligence; that is just a computer following a scripted set of instructions. There is no self awareness. No ability to haven an original thought / idea. To ask "What if?" or to ask "Why?"
Another/. poster already pointed this out, and one I completely agree with:
"The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald,
> While there is more to be determined about physics, there is no sign of irreproducible magic, which is what luddites must invoke to declare AI "impossible" or even "unlikely."
The problem with current physics is that there are ZERO equations to describe consciousness. Go ahead, I'll wait for you to list them...
Yet somehow consciousness "magically" appears out of the fundamental particles as some "emergent" property.
Scientists don't know:
a) how to measure it,
b) what it is composed of, or
c) how to reproduce it.
They basically don't know what the fuck it is. They are like a blind man groping around in the dark touching thing trunk of an elephant. All they know is that there is SOMETHING there. (Note that the parallel to Dark Matter (and Dark Energy) being the Aether of the new Millennium isn't ironic.)
The joke that passes for Artificial Ignorance (A.I.) these days will never happen until we first are able to measure and quantify consciousness. Until then, yeah uhm no.
However, with that all said, Actual Intelligence (a.i.) IS eventually coming with silicon consciousness.
Bio-organic computing looks the most promising. Instead of trying to create consciousness from scratch, modify an existing one.
> The brain is an organic machine, no more, no less.
1. The Brain is NOT the Mind. The Mind is _non-local_ -- that is, we are unable to identity WHERE in the brain it is. It appears to be stored holographically in the mind. But just because you can _represent_ something does not imply it is _functional_ at a self-aware level.
An easy to ready description of the various experiments neurologists have performed that shows how confusing the brain mind connection is The Holographic Universe; It is an great succinct summary.
2. Furthermore, Reductionism and Materialism are archaic perspectives. Peter Russell in his brilliant "The Primacy of Consciousness" shows why this "brain = machine" is a complete fallacy.
As Sherlock Homes said famously "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Singularity has nothing to do with first contact. The Earth is one of the most interesting places in the universe due to the gift/curse of Free Will. However we are not quite yet ready to have our universal paradigm shifted with First Contact; we are on the cusp of it.
First Contact will happen by 2024; the Singularity won't. It is a nerd's wet dream based on not understanding how the physical and meta-physical work.
> A civilization looks at the expanse of space, shrugs its shoulders, and decides to focus inward.
That is indeed a true spiritual awakening! But also consider that by studying the interior you also come to a understand the exterior -- and vice versa. Studying the exoteric you come to understand the esoteric -- and again vice versa. By studying Form you come to understand Function, etc. The point, knowledge is like a circle: it doesn't matter which direction you start from as long as you keep moving. Whether it be the objective or subjective, eventually you come to the polar opposite paradigm; keep going and you will loop around upon yourself. We have a word for that: Holographic Information. The same way "Know Thyself" is the beginning and end of knowledge.
The destination doesn't really matter anyways; only the journey along the way, and how we change our perception of others and ourself -- which is the entire purpose.
Science is a very good starting point. We all have a natural curiosity to understand. But as Einstein once wrote:
"Science without Spirituality is lame, Spirituality without science is blind.
Note: He originally used the word "religion" but that doesn't accurately convey the difference between religion and spirituality IMHO.
While we have developed our Science we have ignored our Spiritual maturity and are severely out of balance. That is about to change. Some would argue that First Contact is the catalyst for that change, but I would argue it is a sign that we are ready for the next stage of human development. One where we grow the fuck up as a species. As great as our Science is currently, we haven't seen nothing yet.
> That's the main problem the religious have with the whole deal, from big bang to evolution.
Inside its domain Science is a wonderful system.
Outside its domain Science has many, many problems.
For example, Science by Definition is amoral. It will tell you how to build a bomb, but it does't ask if we should build a bomb.
- It claims to have an answer for how the universe began but it has no repeatable experiments to back it up. - It appeals to "just take it on faith" that the universe "spontaneously" came into existence from nothing, not realizing the physical universe has always existed. [1] - It makes claims that there "must" be "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" yet has no way to measure it, let alone see it. - It still doesn't have a clue what gravity is, what consciousness is, what magnetism, why EMF is linked, why time flows in one direction, why we dream, what Lucid Dreaming and the Out-of-Body Experience is, the different types of consciousness, why we even exist in the first place, the purpose of the Universe (Answer: Relationships), etc.
Science is not interested in pursuing ALL answers to questions such as:
+ What happens before Life? + What happens after Death?
Because there are ZERO equations with consciousness in them. Scientists and Science is stuck in the archaic Reductionism and Materialism model that it can't think outside the box and grasp that meta-physical DOES exist, such as Time, Numbers, etc.
Carl Sagan once said
"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."
Max Planck wrote the biggest criticism of Science was:
Science advances one funeral at a time.
If Science was focused on THE fundamental question:
"Know Thyself!"
and if Scientists were more honest and admitted that Science has _some_ of the answers, instead of pretending it has _all_ the answers, if Science was used as a means to augment our understanding instead being a pseudo-replacement for Religion, of being genuine interested in pursing ALL knowledge answering "How" instead of letting ego get in the way pretending it has the answers to "Why", THEN it might be respected by everyone.
[1] Proof that the Physical Universe has always existed: 1. Einstein showed us Energy and Matter are equivalent 2. Thermodynamics shows us that Energy can not be created nor destroyed only change form. 3. Ergo, the Physical Universe has always existed.
* Science is the process of removing Falsehood, * Spirituality is the process of adding Truth, * Religion is one ritualistic process claiming to be the only way to Truth (aka Cult.)
The difference between Spirituality and Religion is:
Spirituality: One man telling another person how they could understand God, Religion: One man telling another person how they should understand God (typically along with peddling Heaven Insurance.)
Slashdot Mirror
Imaginary Property Rights whether it be Trademarks or Copyright are neither property nor rights.
This is just another example of the stupidity of the system.
A fair system would have the fees ~double every year to prevented fucking retarded ownership over symbols and words that belong to the general populace.
Or the original FDIV bug.
> Playing multi-voice music on an Apple II required learning hex-code "assembler" /Oblg. "Nibble Duet" on the Apple "squeeker" :-)
Here is the end music of Karateka in MIDI that one of the AppleWin dev's ripped and converted.
The one with faulty math.
Trash-80. Boo & Hiss. :-)
Apple ][ forever!
Of course the C64 guys would have the last laugh with its SID chip.
Before the media hijacked the term "hacking" as "destructive intrusion" it meant "curious intrusion." Hackers are curious people who just want to know how a system works.
Technically the definition is
1. A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary.
2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming.
3. A person capable of appreciating {hack value}.
4. A person who is good at programming quickly.
5. An expert at a particular program, or one who frequently does work using it or on it; as in `a UNIX hacker'. (Definitions 1 through 5 are correlated, and people who fit them congregate.)
6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example.
7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations.
8. [deprecated] A malicious meddler who tries to discover sensitive information by poking around. Hence `password hacker', `network hacker'. The correct term is {cracker}.
I started hacking because:
a) I wanted to crack copy protected games, which involved learning 6502 assembly, and
b) I wanted to figure out how the games worked -- how was the map represented, were were the sprites, how did the AI work, how did the collision detection work, where was the music stored. By learning how to cheat at them I didn't have to waste my time trying to master them; I would have more time to tear apart more games. Often times it was more fun to reverse engineer the game then play the game itself.
OpenWRT = famous open source firmware for routers
SoC = System on a Chip (CPU, IO, RAM, Video, etc)
Also see:
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNum...
The summary REALLY needs to also link to:
TMEP Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure April 2014
1202.17(b) Reviewing Marks Containing Symbols
http://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/det...
R. Schlafly (1994) obtained U.S. Patent 5373560 on the following two primes (expressed in hexadecimal notation):
98A3DF52AEAE9799325CB258D767EBD1F4630E9B
9E21732A4AFB1624BA6DF911466AD8DA960586F4
A0D5E3C36AF099660BDDC1577E54A9F402334433
ACB14BCB
and
93E8965DAFD9DFECFD00B466B68F90EA68AF5DC9
FED915278D1B3A137471E65596C37FED0C7829FF
8F8331F81A2700438ECDCC09447DC397C685F397
294F722BCC484AEDF28BED25AAAB35D35A65DB1F
D62C9D7BA55844FEB1F9401E671340933EE43C54
E4DC459400D7AD61248B83A2624835B31FFF2D95
95A5B90B276E44F9.
Too bad the general public is too apathetic to see how completely retarded patenting a common mathematical symbol is when the dam thing has been in use for THOUSANDS of years prior.
Reference:
* http://mathworld.wolfram.com/P...
Shari on her blog has a cached image
> You seem like someone that doesn't believe that the development of strong AI is inevitable.
I said "a.i. IS [eventually] coming."
The caveat is that with the _current_ understanding we will never get there until we change our paradigm. I use two acronyms to make the contradistinction:
* A.I. - the current broken perspective
* a.i. - the future correct perspective
The problem with Reductionism and Materialism is that they start with an ass-backwards assumption:
The opposite is actually true. Scientists have yet to realize:
1. ALL matter (or energy) is ALREADY conscious,
2. There are 7 different layers of consciousness,
3. Consciousness creates and interacts with meta-physical objects. Show me "Time" or a "2" ? These are NOT physical objects. Artificially limiting a mind to purely physical elements misses the whole point of what consciousness really is.
I started researching consciousness 10 years ago, and discovered that there was 2 layers below the human and 2 above. My experiences also showed me that you can transfer consciousness from one body to another and that the human consciousness can be over-ridden with a higher one. Curious with my results I started researching who else knew this? I discovered many religions already kew this thousands of years ago. I contacted a fellow mystic asking "I've rediscovered some really _strange_ stuff with consciousness. What do you know about it?" He confirmed there were 7 levels, again with Human Consciousness being in the middle, the intersection of the physical and meta-physical.
Here is an analogy to bring this back to reality:
We don't know what the hell _causes_ electricity or gravity but we have been "successful" in manipulating it.
Once we have a way to actually _measure_ consciousness THEN we'll be able to manipulate it as well. Until then -- yeah, uhm, no.
That is why I write when Scientists finally know how to include consciousness in the physics equations THEN we'll have entered the glorious age of Silicon a.i.
The really cool part? We'll discover just as much interesting things about our _own_ consciousness as we will about theirs.
You'll have proof about non-human consciousness by 2024.
Because I don't have the money or skill to drive a MotoGP motorcycle at 200+ MPH around a track.
Much safer to watch The Doctor
As a WebGL developer I 100% concur.
GPU's have been standard for what 10 years? And only now Microsoft is supporting "Compositing and Blending in Canvas 2D", "Mix Blend Mode" now ??
They can't even alphabetize properly. The "Sort by name" is broken ! Typical Microsoft; never gets anything right until the 3rd version.
> they have made over ear headphones popular.
The technical term is Circumaural
Reference:
* Headphone Types
> No one wants balanced headphones but studio engineers.
I should call "Bullshit", but instead I'll say:
[Citation needed]
Gotcha.
Gotta agree with that. :-)
Spirituality is based upon gnosticism. That is, knowledge by direct experience.
i.e.
Someone can tell you everything there is to know about playing the drums but until you actually DO it you will never fully understand it.
Why are you artificially limiting spirituality to "observations" ?? Transcendent experience have the ability to teach much greater lessons.
There are no proofs for experiences. (i.e. Prove that you love your spouse.) You will have your "proof" for God after you are dead, but by then it won't matter since you won't need proofs -- you'll just know. In this physical life unless you meet your Higher Self the closest thing to proof at this stage you will have while alive is to:
* Look in the mirror.
Eventually you will grok the basic principles of "The All is the One. The One is the All." but you'll probably dismiss that as being "too simple." If not, then there is almost nothing that can be done to open your eyes other then living.
I would recommend starting with the beginning of ALL Wisdom:
Church Father Clement of Alexandria said it best: " ... the greatest of all lessons to know one's self. For if one knows himself, he will know God; and knowing God, he will be made like God ... and that man becomes God, since God so wills ... "
Find your passion(s) (whatever that may be) and get lost in it. Eventually you will discover yourself and grok the great fundamental truth:
You are significantly much, much more then your body. The real interesting question is "How much more?"
Some use meditation, others lucid dreaming, some music, others religion, etc. Use whatever works.
Condemning another man's path simply because it doesn't work for you is the height ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity.
Theism is only 1 of the 4 paths.
--
First Contact is coming by 2024. Are ready for the next stage in Human development?
> Ultimately, none of us from this tiny backwater of a planet have a clue how this universe came about.
That's a fallacy.
Pro-Tip: You look like an ass when you make assumptions about people you have never met.
> the event of Creation was 13 and a bit billion years ago.
13 billion is just an estimate. Newer data possibly suggests 18 billion years.
http://www.economist.com/node/...
What do you mean?
Note: I have Senns HD 380 Pro and the old Sony MDR 7506's
That is not intelligence; that is just a computer following a scripted set of instructions. There is no self awareness. No ability to haven an original thought / idea. To ask "What if?" or to ask "Why?"
Another /. poster already pointed this out, and one I completely agree with:
"The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald,
> While there is more to be determined about physics, there is no sign of irreproducible magic, which is what luddites must invoke to declare AI "impossible" or even "unlikely."
The problem with current physics is that there are ZERO equations to describe consciousness. Go ahead, I'll wait for you to list them ...
Yet somehow consciousness "magically" appears out of the fundamental particles as some "emergent" property.
Scientists don't know:
a) how to measure it,
b) what it is composed of, or
c) how to reproduce it.
They basically don't know what the fuck it is. They are like a blind man groping around in the dark touching thing trunk of an elephant. All they know is that there is SOMETHING there. (Note that the parallel to Dark Matter (and Dark Energy) being the Aether of the new Millennium isn't ironic.)
The joke that passes for Artificial Ignorance (A.I.) these days will never happen until we first are able to measure and quantify consciousness. Until then, yeah uhm no.
However, with that all said, Actual Intelligence (a.i.) IS eventually coming with silicon consciousness.
Bio-organic computing looks the most promising. Instead of trying to create consciousness from scratch, modify an existing one.
> The brain is an organic machine, no more, no less.
1. The Brain is NOT the Mind. The Mind is _non-local_ -- that is, we are unable to identity WHERE in the brain it is. It appears to be stored holographically in the mind. But just because you can _represent_ something does not imply it is _functional_ at a self-aware level.
An easy to ready description of the various experiments neurologists have performed that shows how confusing the brain mind connection is The Holographic Universe; It is an great succinct summary.
2. Furthermore, Reductionism and Materialism are archaic perspectives. Peter Russell in his brilliant "The Primacy of Consciousness" shows why this "brain = machine" is a complete fallacy.
As Sherlock Homes said famously "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Singularity has nothing to do with first contact. The Earth is one of the most interesting places in the universe due to the gift/curse of Free Will. However we are not quite yet ready to have our universal paradigm shifted with First Contact; we are on the cusp of it.
First Contact will happen by 2024; the Singularity won't. It is a nerd's wet dream based on not understanding how the physical and meta-physical work.
> A civilization looks at the expanse of space, shrugs its shoulders, and decides to focus inward.
That is indeed a true spiritual awakening! But also consider that by studying the interior you also come to a understand the exterior -- and vice versa. Studying the exoteric you come to understand the esoteric -- and again vice versa. By studying Form you come to understand Function, etc. The point, knowledge is like a circle: it doesn't matter which direction you start from as long as you keep moving. Whether it be the objective or subjective, eventually you come to the polar opposite paradigm; keep going and you will loop around upon yourself. We have a word for that: Holographic Information. The same way "Know Thyself" is the beginning and end of knowledge.
The destination doesn't really matter anyways; only the journey along the way, and how we change our perception of others and ourself -- which is the entire purpose.
Science is a very good starting point. We all have a natural curiosity to understand. But as Einstein once wrote:
Note: He originally used the word "religion" but that doesn't accurately convey the difference between religion and spirituality IMHO.
While we have developed our Science we have ignored our Spiritual maturity and are severely out of balance. That is about to change. Some would argue that First Contact is the catalyst for that change, but I would argue it is a sign that we are ready for the next stage of human development. One where we grow the fuck up as a species. As great as our Science is currently, we haven't seen nothing yet.
> That's the main problem the religious have with the whole deal, from big bang to evolution.
Inside its domain Science is a wonderful system.
Outside its domain Science has many, many problems.
For example, Science by Definition is amoral. It will tell you how to build a bomb, but it does't ask if we should build a bomb.
- It claims to have an answer for how the universe began but it has no repeatable experiments to back it up.
- It appeals to "just take it on faith" that the universe "spontaneously" came into existence from nothing, not realizing the physical universe has always existed. [1]
- It makes claims that there "must" be "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" yet has no way to measure it, let alone see it.
- It still doesn't have a clue what gravity is, what consciousness is, what magnetism, why EMF is linked, why time flows in one direction, why we dream, what Lucid Dreaming and the Out-of-Body Experience is, the different types of consciousness, why we even exist in the first place, the purpose of the Universe (Answer: Relationships), etc.
Science is not interested in pursuing ALL answers to questions such as:
+ What happens before Life?
+ What happens after Death?
Because there are ZERO equations with consciousness in them. Scientists and Science is stuck in the archaic Reductionism and Materialism model that it can't think outside the box and grasp that meta-physical DOES exist, such as Time, Numbers, etc.
Carl Sagan once said
Max Planck wrote the biggest criticism of Science was:
If Science was focused on THE fundamental question:
and if Scientists were more honest and admitted that Science has _some_ of the answers, instead of pretending it has _all_ the answers, if Science was used as a means to augment our understanding instead being a pseudo-replacement for Religion, of being genuine interested in pursing ALL knowledge answering "How" instead of letting ego get in the way pretending it has the answers to "Why", THEN it might be respected by everyone.
[1] Proof that the Physical Universe has always existed:
1. Einstein showed us Energy and Matter are equivalent
2. Thermodynamics shows us that Energy can not be created nor destroyed only change form.
3. Ergo, the Physical Universe has always existed.
It is actually simpler then that:
* Science is the process of removing Falsehood,
* Spirituality is the process of adding Truth,
* Religion is one ritualistic process claiming to be the only way to Truth (aka Cult.)
The difference between Spirituality and Religion is:
Spirituality: One man telling another person how they could understand God,
Religion: One man telling another person how they should understand God (typically along with peddling Heaven Insurance.)