That might be tough since none of you are allowed to have guns;)
Why should one need to enforce its voice with a weapon in a democracy?
So a wellfounded idea, supported by a majority and thus forced into practice should be enforced by voilence in order to be able to call it a revolution?
When the prior structure tears down and law is not abided with anymore as those in power are taken from it, who will abide to the law at that moment? If you envision a fight between those in power and those trying take it from them, where they should defend themselves, wouldn't the sense of "law" and "democracy" already has been so skewed people would disregard the law in order to protect themselves? Hm isn't that what the law is there for in the first place?:) I don't like the idea of retards walking around with guns feeling "safe and macho" because it's glorified somewhere or somehow.
Lastly, guns are a weak argument in a discussion or politics.
May I also make you aware that guns aren't "forbidden" in Europe, you're quite misinformed. This might be an interesting read for you.
You raise interesting points and project a very interesting view of each moment being the product of numbers of organismes and mechanisms sustaining themselves and that expression being us as a contious being believing it's continious in its dynamic experience and being. I visualized the dynamic nature without massive organic renewal and sacrifice when I was pointing out the conscience would seem to be "untransferable", but you could pass it on as it would be an imprint of your current state.
The selfsacrifice is a known mechanism in cells. The tiny cell wont be able to conceptualize or understand its purpose. We can, as the an expression of it. Yet we don't know ourselves, for certain, what we are part of in a larger scale.
I don't know if I immediatly would stand in line. I'd humor the idea thoroughly first: Existence isn't always a pleasant thing, certainly not with our ability, psychology and often inability to adjust to drastic changes. (see the generation gaps fe.) If you compare "eternity" with your current concept of "all my life", it's incomprehensible.
I personally don't feel I live for self-continuity nor act upon that, I act upon my perceived register of past, current and the projections I make with that set, coloured by desire, emotion, and moral/social constructs and even less conscious processes we identify as instinct which is arguably in place to sustain oneself and reproduce. (if I don't eat I'm hungry, to acquire food, within my society, I have to generate income to be able to trade it with someone specialized in another trade which allows me to feed myself. If I hurt myself, I damage myself and might make it harder for me to sustain myself or in extension makes me a less preferable candidate for reproduction or protect my mate and sustain a shelter until my offspring is strong enough to survive, so it's instinctly discouraged with pain and discomfort.)
I believe you missinterpreted the grandparents post.
There *wont* be a different between you and your copy. Your copy will do what you would do, react in the same way, make the same decision and evolve the way you do based on your daily input and ability to output, process, link, associate and store creating a dynamic internal cerbral evolution. But he or she will be able to do that. You will still be stuck in your conscience, and not being able to be transfered in a way you get to experience it. Why not? it will still be a copy. Your copy will, if fully "transfered", have your conscience and feel like (s)he is you with your memories, but you yourself wont.
Good thing too though, I'd hate to wake up one day, seeing the world through a lowresolution optical sensor just processing that image over and over. Being bound to your master on what you input (unless you have autonomy)
Imagine waking up, someone holding a picture in front of you all day, as one and only input. FOR HOURS. it's like watching gras grow, but worse. And you cannot look away.
it's funny to see the FBI encouraging such behavior
It reminds me to the series of letters of George Mercies, about "Invisible Contracts".
[For example, in the U.S.S.R., the KGB is known
to have secretly "created" (sponsored is more like it) --
various protester groups for the sole purpose of throwing out
some attractive philosophy designed to attract a certain type of
individual, and then having "extracted" those individuals from
society, and having thus identified them -- then shutting down
the organization and arresting the members. This practice is a
utilization of the principle known as the "Doctrine of False
Opposition."]
Basically you wanted to conclude with an adressing to the parent poster as "dumb" ("you're dumb") but nuanced and limited it to his scenario only but forgot to change the verb?
So, we're not sure it has infiltrated? The first sentence of the article starts off explaining how it's orbiting our sun. "A comet orbiting our Sun may be an interloper from another star system."
Shouldn't be that, then, "Infiltrating comet might be alien"?
So why didn't it go anywhere with all that thrust? Any physicists?
As you can see, it's bolted to the launchpad, which is in return bolted to earth.
They actually tried to move earth into a higher orbit to cure global warming, to it makes sense the rocket didn't seem to be moving relative to earth, but earth did together with the rocket.
How coïncidental, there's an open jobposition for the local gay-insult-man here in Canada.
We're offering you this position, with a competitive wage.
All expenses for your travel and stay are ofcourse compensated for.
This "cloak"-technology is just a re-adjustment of your mental reference framework:
Soon, you'll get these kindof presentations:
"This! is the best thing ever since the previous thing that was the best thing ever!"
"Can I see?"
"It's right here, it's cloaked.. You can see it but you cannot perceive it. But believe me, it's there."
"If it's invisible, it must be good! *throws monnies*"
There should be a law to prevent bookmakers from accepting bets on events where they already know the result. There will be no scientific proof of God by the end of 2009 or even 20009.
I use my facebook to network. 90% of my "friends" on facebook are past clients, programmers, project managers, executives, creatives,... I've worked with as a consultant. It helps you to keep track, keep a certain connection and allow you utilize your network inthere, in a slightly more casual way... With other tools it's harder to maintain your network and have more of a feel with your network, and what they're busy with: after a while the image of someone waters down because of the excess of contacts as a consultant, so if you have a face and the conveyed personality you can more easily reconnect with how the person is/was while you worked with them.
It also helps teamspirit in a company: we've created a company group, post our company events, show off to eachother the events we've ended up with with clients and just fool around, have a bit of competitive fun as well. It creates a more tight bound with all our consultants and is just plain fun! Happy, fun developers are productive ones.
You can just imagine the high class of people that would want to live in this tin can.
None. But consider this; housing gets more expensive, so only the "high class" people can afford land and to build a house on it.
So, more individuals are forced to find a more affordable sollution; a tiny mobile house fit with media to numb down the mind. But you have no land! Oh, lets rent a standing space from the "high class", and lets move when we cannot afford it anymore...
You can put your sexy cool and nerdy pod on my land, if you pay yearly rent while you play your games and try to find a mate;)
I really like your arguments, I'm trying to see it from your perspective and support your viewpoint.
Yet I seem to be stuck on the ability to conceptualize and how we're stuck in our own frame of reference, the same way an alien species might be unable to.
The scientific society always had noble goals and dreams and, as far I'm aware, were minds who had destruction, war and suffering in mind and were searching for a higher truth. The room created for that, has been often war and power though: davinci made war weapons, Einstein wrote the President to warn resulting in the Manhatten project of what I know without further research. Those people weren't violent, yet the room created and their work was stimulated for some of those.
In some regard, WW2 was the cradle of an entire technology boost, the common directed energy to a common goal (survival, defense, or conquering to maintain wealth,...) sprouted certain innovations. The romans technology was far advanced, it wasn't very peaceful to the non-romans. Without conflict and all comfort, people wouldn't need new technology or innovation wouldn't be a factor. It seems to me an advanced "law of the fittest", or "most innovative" among humans.
I wished knowledge and innovation sprouted from a desire for more equality and peace. A cold war and game theory, combined with rocket propulsion (invented to kill people on a distance), did give us the ability to travel to other planets. On the backs of that 1%.
Slashdot Mirror
Or people in public by government cameras, police cameras and what not for that matter?
My PC is vulnurable to butterflies. I estimate 90% of all windowsmachines could be as well.
Why should one need to enforce its voice with a weapon in a democracy?
So a wellfounded idea, supported by a majority and thus forced into practice should be enforced by voilence in order to be able to call it a revolution?
When the prior structure tears down and law is not abided with anymore as those in power are taken from it, who will abide to the law at that moment? If you envision a fight between those in power and those trying take it from them, where they should defend themselves, wouldn't the sense of "law" and "democracy" already has been so skewed people would disregard the law in order to protect themselves? Hm isn't that what the law is there for in the first place? :) I don't like the idea of retards walking around with guns feeling "safe and macho" because it's glorified somewhere or somehow.
Lastly, guns are a weak argument in a discussion or politics.
May I also make you aware that guns aren't "forbidden" in Europe, you're quite misinformed. This might be an interesting read for you.
Sounds like a good idea, everybody in the US has a cellphone anyway. Glad to see there are innovating thinkers to improve the healthcare system ;)
You raise interesting points and project a very interesting view of each moment being the product of numbers of organismes and mechanisms sustaining themselves and that expression being us as a contious being believing it's continious in its dynamic experience and being. I visualized the dynamic nature without massive organic renewal and sacrifice when I was pointing out the conscience would seem to be "untransferable", but you could pass it on as it would be an imprint of your current state.
The selfsacrifice is a known mechanism in cells. The tiny cell wont be able to conceptualize or understand its purpose. We can, as the an expression of it. Yet we don't know ourselves, for certain, what we are part of in a larger scale.
I don't know if I immediatly would stand in line. I'd humor the idea thoroughly first: Existence isn't always a pleasant thing, certainly not with our ability, psychology and often inability to adjust to drastic changes. (see the generation gaps fe.)
If you compare "eternity" with your current concept of "all my life", it's incomprehensible.
I personally don't feel I live for self-continuity nor act upon that, I act upon my perceived register of past, current and the projections I make with that set, coloured by desire, emotion, and moral/social constructs and even less conscious processes we identify as instinct which is arguably in place to sustain oneself and reproduce. (if I don't eat I'm hungry, to acquire food, within my society, I have to generate income to be able to trade it with someone specialized in another trade which allows me to feed myself. If I hurt myself, I damage myself and might make it harder for me to sustain myself or in extension makes me a less preferable candidate for reproduction or protect my mate and sustain a shelter until my offspring is strong enough to survive, so it's instinctly discouraged with pain and discomfort.)
There *wont* be a different between you and your copy. Your copy will do what you would do, react in the same way, make the same decision and evolve the way you do based on your daily input and ability to output, process, link, associate and store creating a dynamic internal cerbral evolution. But he or she will be able to do that. You will still be stuck in your conscience, and not being able to be transfered in a way you get to experience it. Why not? it will still be a copy. Your copy will, if fully "transfered", have your conscience and feel like (s)he is you with your memories, but you yourself wont.
Good thing too though, I'd hate to wake up one day, seeing the world through a lowresolution optical sensor just processing that image over and over. Being bound to your master on what you input (unless you have autonomy)
Imagine waking up, someone holding a picture in front of you all day, as one and only input. FOR HOURS. it's like watching gras grow, but worse. And you cannot look away.
You mean it's plastified and thus waterproof?
Mine has an invisibility cloak!
It reminds me to the series of letters of George Mercies, about "Invisible Contracts".
Basically you wanted to conclude with an adressing to the parent poster as "dumb" ("you're dumb") but nuanced and limited it to his scenario only but forgot to change the verb?
I could with my remaining eye, but now I can't anymore.
So, we're not sure it has infiltrated? The first sentence of the article starts off explaining how it's orbiting our sun.
"A comet orbiting our Sun may be an interloper from another star system."
Shouldn't be that, then, "Infiltrating comet might be alien"?
Ofcourse I can write a line of code!
Behold, in al its glory:
printf("hello world");
Google sea?
Firstly, 65C, isn't that the just above the heat of a warm bath, and doesn't a sauna reach up to 110C ? Second, since when does a skin melt?
Who can give some more indepth information about this?
As you can see, it's bolted to the launchpad, which is in return bolted to earth.
They actually tried to move earth into a higher orbit to cure global warming, to it makes sense the rocket didn't seem to be moving relative to earth, but earth did together with the rocket.
Why you ask? To avoid planet Nibiru ofcourse.
How coïncidental, there's an open jobposition for the local gay-insult-man here in Canada.
We're offering you this position, with a competitive wage.
All expenses for your travel and stay are ofcourse compensated for.
Eagerly anticipating your arrival...
This "cloak"-technology is just a re-adjustment of your mental reference framework:
Soon, you'll get these kindof presentations:
"This! is the best thing ever since the previous thing that was the best thing ever!" "Can I see?"
"It's right here, it's cloaked.. You can see it but you cannot perceive it. But believe me, it's there."
"If it's invisible, it must be good! *throws monnies*"
I'm betting for 20010!
It seems he silenced the webserver as well ;)
My guess is that he used a hammer to silence his harddrive?
Telescopes don't know fear...
I use my facebook to network. 90% of my "friends" on facebook are past clients, programmers, project managers, executives, creatives, ... I've worked with as a consultant. It helps you to keep track, keep a certain connection and allow you utilize your network inthere, in a slightly more casual way... With other tools it's harder to maintain your network and have more of a feel with your network, and what they're busy with: after a while the image of someone waters down because of the excess of contacts as a consultant, so if you have a face and the conveyed personality you can more easily reconnect with how the person is/was while you worked with them.
It also helps teamspirit in a company: we've created a company group, post our company events, show off to eachother the events we've ended up with with clients and just fool around, have a bit of competitive fun as well. It creates a more tight bound with all our consultants and is just plain fun! Happy, fun developers are productive ones.
Yes.
Yes, but now they're accessable and acceptably fashionable for StarWars nerds ;)
None. But consider this; housing gets more expensive, so only the "high class" people can afford land and to build a house on it.
So, more individuals are forced to find a more affordable sollution; a tiny mobile house fit with media to numb down the mind. But you have no land! Oh, lets rent a standing space from the "high class", and lets move when we cannot afford it anymore...
You can put your sexy cool and nerdy pod on my land, if you pay yearly rent while you play your games and try to find a mate ;)
I really like your arguments, I'm trying to see it from your perspective and support your viewpoint.
Yet I seem to be stuck on the ability to conceptualize and how we're stuck in our own frame of reference, the same way an alien species might be unable to.
The scientific society always had noble goals and dreams and, as far I'm aware, were minds who had destruction, war and suffering in mind and were searching for a higher truth. The room created for that, has been often war and power though: davinci made war weapons, Einstein wrote the President to warn resulting in the Manhatten project of what I know without further research. Those people weren't violent, yet the room created and their work was stimulated for some of those.
In some regard, WW2 was the cradle of an entire technology boost, the common directed energy to a common goal (survival, defense, or conquering to maintain wealth, ...) sprouted certain innovations. The romans technology was far advanced, it wasn't very peaceful to the non-romans. Without conflict and all comfort, people wouldn't need new technology or innovation wouldn't be a factor. It seems to me an advanced "law of the fittest", or "most innovative" among humans.
I wished knowledge and innovation sprouted from a desire for more equality and peace. A cold war and game theory, combined with rocket propulsion (invented to kill people on a distance), did give us the ability to travel to other planets. On the backs of that 1%.