The major question here is that now that you've dispensed with the existence of a "soul," you're left with the part where you copied your mind to "continue living" and yet all logic says that your personal experience with consciousness ends (you die) and there is another life form that now believes it is you (due to memories and the like).
First of all, I'm not convinced I want to live forever. Immortality sounds cool... But I suspect it would get dull after a while.
Eventually the world overpopulates.
People you care about die, or you have no friends FOREVER.
THINGS you care about die. Imagine living in a warrior society like recent (pre-WW2) Japan, where everyone around you is preoccupied with personal philosophy, the nature of beauty, honor, the like. Now think about all the bullshit you complain about in modern society, and think about Japan now with its culture influence from America and how Tokyo looks (giant screen TVs on buildings, lights everywhere, it's a pure commercial machine). Think about all the bullshit on CNN and CBS and Fox... that's all over in Japan now too, their society has devolved into that.
You'll see the world falling apart, worse than it is now. You'll have no friends, or you'll watch them all die.
Yes, and this would work why? (in practice, would it?) My point is we don't understand consciousness (and have no way to verify things like this actually work) and that the question is very complex. Even if you don't accept the concept of a "soul," you have a very difficult problem in front of you. If you DO accept the concept of a "soul," you have something confusing and complex in front of you.
This opens up a whole huge assload of debate again.
Let us assume they map out the brain, create an FPGA of memristor devices like this that can mimic the brain's exact structure.
First round it doesn't work.
Because robots can't have a soul. You need a spirit to have that kind of consciousness. You'll hear this argument immediately; I'm not going to argue directly against the spirituality thing, but the question to me is more complex than that, of course. Still, that'll be the first argument.
Then someone will make it work.
Now the interesting shit happens.
A lot of people have told me they're never going to die because, by the time they're old, technology will exist to copy their minds into machines. Think about that. Immortality through perpetuated consciousness.
Stop for a moment.
Realize you are alive, aware, and conscious.
Now, why do you experience consciousness?
You want to say, well, all that "soul" bullshit is weird and freaky. Scientifically unsound. I experience consciousness due to a series of electrochemical reactions in my brain. End of story.
Now suppose I move your brain's data into another organic brain, electronic brain, or anything else of the source. Would you continue to "live"? Would YOU continue to live?
To make the point more clear, what if I made an identical copy and booted both at the same time. Do you suddenly develop a psychic link with your other self, experiencing both existences at once, living in two different places?... ridiculous.
So you're bound to your brain. You cannot live forever unless your particular, specific, physical brain stays in tact. If I copy your brain to another cloned brain, yank yours out, and replace it with the clone, everyone else will interact with you as if you were you, no difference; but YOU would vanish into the blackness, you'd stop living, you'd die.
Why are you conscious?
Hmm that would be convenient for suicide cases. So much easier. Copy my brain into a biological clone brain, swap, and destroy mine. I get to die and nobody else has to worry about it because I don't die. The ultimate escape: you make your life someone else's problem!
The problem is people think X11 apps run directly back over SSH or something. SSH is not X11, and running httpd from bash via ssh won't make your computer start hosting port 80. People don't seem to get confused by running IRSII in ssh, even though the "server" is the IRC client.
In other words: people aren't looking at the supply of graphics output as a system service. Over a network, it becomes a network service. Even in Windows, Windows supplies a graphical device interface service (it may not be a separate process, I don't really know; but it's a service the kernel supplies at least) that GUI programs send requests to to have output drawn to the screen.
The whole "misunderstanding" comes from "idiots not knowing what they're dealing with." It's not that it's confusing; it's that they have no idea what they're doing. This is the same as people thinking that the "web site" is on their computer because they're looking at it on their computer.
Rewrite-in-place is a poor substitute for rewrite-from-API.
When you start refactoring code, you have to keep everything working nicely. You can't write a nice internal architecture on a nice shiny new internal API you export to your client-facing libraries; instead, everything has to work at every stage, so the innards have to make sense with the other innards. This means that you can't make a major design paradigm change--think like Linux deciding it needs to be Minix--because at intermediary stages something will break or just be ungodly slow, or put on a shim that's ungodly complex.
FWIW I found Kdrive pretty amazing. I used X11 VESA for a while and KDrive VESA was way more responsive.
Consenting adults like the 11 year old children I see snorting crack? Yes, I have at one point or another had tons of friends that were "Done with crack when I was 13." They started around 10 or 11. You can try the "extreme cases" argument, but you gotta understand this is an "uncommon" endpoint and by the time you hit 13 it's "less than common" and then 15 is "common." Mid-teens hard drug users are oddly more common than mid-20s hard drug users; college kids seem to stabilize on marijuana, but high school kids want to try heroin.
The fact of the matter is you're selling an impossible-to-regulate, highly-addictive, highly-toxic poison to people. Cigarettes are bad enough, alcohol's pretty bad, but it's mainly possible to cause long-term damage with those; I know you can kill yourself on too much booze at once, but try it and you'll find out it's REALLY fucking unpleasant to get that far. Cocaine and heroin and the like are well into the "suicide pill" category and are so fucking easy to die from on your first hit.
There is a large overlap in the people that bitch about how bad HFCS is for your health and those that want to stand against drug prohibition. I understand the difference between HFCS being "forced" on you (it's easy to avoid but you have to give up anything other than better-tasting Han's and Jones' sodas and make your own bread and such-- LOTS of work) and cocaine being "voluntary"; but it's still a strange position. Then you find the people that are against cigarettes but for legalized marijuana and cocaine, and one can only assume they're retarded.
Esoteric arguments about peoples' conflicting stances aside, there's a severe ethical problem with selling someone a simple poison with no benefit to get their money in your pocket. Cigarettes gradually damage your health and the "benefit" you get from initial nicotine high quickly fades into "tolerance" and "cravings"; good tobacco at least is enjoyable, and less toxic. Alcohol is the same way, a horrible substance with little benefit (although some significant in low daily dose); but good beer and good wine cannot be de-alcoholized without destroying the flavor and/or texture as well. What good can we say about opium in casual use? Cocaine?
"Server" isn't hardware. The idea of calling something "Server hardware" is the same as calling a pick-up truck a "truck." I use it to drive from place to place, like a regular vehicle; and I've used regular vehicles to move (a Mazda3 was my moving van). You run Apache off an old Compaq and you call THAT a server, you can stfu.
Confusing? X is the server, and handles connections to it telling it what to display. Like httpd (apache) is a server and handles a Web client telling it what Web page to send down the pipe. People weren't confused running the Tetrinet server, seeing the clients connect to them and output images to the screen; but they're confused running the X server, seeing the clients connect?
Ubuntu puts up the testing, coding, and support. That's the difference. They say, "We want to do this. It's probably broken now. In a couple releases it'll be probably working. After that it'll be standard." Fedora does that somewhat (rush in head-first to new versions), but on big technology switches they like to hang back a bit.
Yes, but as with anything, JavaScript was also extremely powerful. Flash not so much (extremely SLOW). A lot of really nice stuff exists solely because of javascript, without which we would have a lot more loading and reloading the same content.
We can and will abuse this technology with anti-forensics. Eventually our user agent will say, "Firefox on Windows. Fuck you, bitch." Today it says "Firefox on Windows XP with these plug-ins, these fonts, given time, screen resolution, patch level, version of.NET installed..." Uh. We should have a per-site configuration to even identify that Flash is installed or run add-ons, much less tell the world what we have or let them query everything through Javascript.
See this is what I'm thinking. Do-not-track regulation? Fuck that. What we need are general tools to fuck up their tracking. It's a system we're against? So we need laws? No, we need counter-tactics.
Right, a P2P decentralized DNS would need to rely on date-stamped, signed DNS entries with hierarchy control. Who owns slashdot.org? Does it DNS? No? Okay, find entries. Oh, here's several, but this one's outdated, and these three are newer than this still valid one signed by someone else. Well then that one should be valid. Okay, so the same entity should be signing *.slashdot.org entries... see?
Do you not believe we should try to solve problems? What should we do about them, ignore them? Simply let people suffer so that some other people may have more freedom to profit from their misery? Should we simply kill off the unproductive and the sick, because it sounds like that is your "solution" to the problem of suffering and injustice in the world: let the "weak" perish so the strong may be free.
The ideal that you can save everyone is a fairytale. The ideal that "well, we can't, but we can get close" is a great way to make everyone suffer but at least everyone suffers equally. It's like when you say, you know, compromise isn't so much everyone getting their way as making sure that the other guy is equally dissatisfied with the result.
People want to bend over backwards for the fairytale. They want to give up all their freedoms to save a couple people from dying. They want to give up access to good food because the food may be dangerous. They want to ban amusement rides because 10 or 15 people die on them a year, while hundreds of thousands find vast but brief periods of enjoyment in riding them.
It is the same thing. Everyone wants to "help" others by mandate; they won't lift a finger themselves. They won't even give the poor a chance to work a day for a day's worth of bread and shelter; who wants these dirty people in their back yard? They'd rather the government make it everyone's problem (taxes) and keep them fed and housed AWAY from us. And oh by the way we think we can help everyone, not just a few, so this should be better right? The cost is disproportionate.
The world was never meant to be fair anyway. The laws of physics don't allow this any more than the laws of economics.
The kid talking about what he wants to do the money is not the same thing as his motivation for the idea itself.
Buying hockey equipment is not what I'm talking about. The quote given was, "I thought how I was going to make a lot of money." Then the question was raised about what to do with the money. His personal achievement was, "I am gonna be rich!" Not "Wow I invented something, and here is the patent!"
There is no hope of justice in this world because we believe "justice" means "equality for everyone," instead of "equality for equals."
More simply put, we live in a world where we're constantly trying to "solve" every problem, and--more importantly--where leaders can hide under that guise while wreaking havoc on our civil liberties. National healthcare, welfare, medicare, social security... we believe the sick/old/poor should have food, shelter, health, and comfort, even if they don't work for it (Social Security is, supposedly, the government doing the savings/investment work for you--I'd rather put the $300/mo into my 401(k)). That's a wonderful ideal; but reality doesn't work that way.
From here I guess I'm supposed to go on a rant about the liberal communists destroying the economy and overtaxing us on these misguided ideals and whatever. Instead I'd like to point out that in the same breath, we cry both for medical care for the poor and protection from the evil. The government, benevolent it is, forces welfare against the public outcry because "the public needs and wants it" (healthcare is a hot topic in this country: we want it but don't want the taxes, is the short of it). And our big, wonderful government that makes sure we're all cared for also protects us by continuous monitoring, warrantless arrests under national security motives, and other social invasions. But only against the bad people.
I honestly feel nobody wants to be accountable. People work because they have to, but they're not really glad to be functional; they're glad to not FEEL like a welfare case, having their own job. They'll gladly have employment but escape doing the work... lighter workload, lazy managers, etc. Fight the process changes so your job stays easy and routine. On the more extreme ends, they want unemployment and welfare and free healthcare so they don't have to have a job for very long ever (unless they're bored). And somewhere, you have people that want to voice for a "good cause," like "taking care of the sick and poor," without actually working in charities or soup kitchens or anything on their own time or money... instead, just argue that everyone should be made to pay for it.
Justice is not "everybody is happy" and "nobody is at an unfair disadvantage." Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work that way. I wish we had a more compassionate world, a world built on old and outdated ideals of honor. That's a world where people might look down on a beggar and tell him to work; but when the beggar offers work for food and shelter, they'll tell him to tend their garden and then give him a meal and a blanket and let him sleep in the shed. Hey, he worked, he got fed; you might think the pay is unfair, but he worked for a day and his means of life were sustained for a day. More amazing in today's world is the ideal that someone would actually give the guy the chance to work--unheard of!
Delusions aside, even (ESPECIALLY) an 8 year old shouldn't suddenly see dollars and gold pieces spinning around his head the moment he achieves something. Achievements are first personal, then monetary. Money isn't a human factor, no matter how much you want to think it's "human" to want wealth; the human factor is to be proud of your work, not to see everything as potential cash (which doesn't really equate to wealth).
That was my first thought too. We see cartoons where talking animals kick over a rock and it's a lump of gold and "GUH GUH GUH GUH GUH GUH GUH GUH GUHGUHGUHGUHGUH O_O"... I don't even do that when a hot 18 year old girl sits in my lap. I mean I make a grab for the hips and keep her close but hey. I certainly don't get an unmitigatable hard-on over a couple tens of thousands of dollars in front of me; my first thought is, "What's the catch?" (the catch is you have to market this shit, and you're minimally likely to change our cultural view of what outlets look like; this is a gimmick.)
A better man would have thought about the practical purpose of such an invention. A thinking man. A man who is going to invent something even better.
Slashdot Mirror
The major question here is that now that you've dispensed with the existence of a "soul," you're left with the part where you copied your mind to "continue living" and yet all logic says that your personal experience with consciousness ends (you die) and there is another life form that now believes it is you (due to memories and the like).
First of all, I'm not convinced I want to live forever. Immortality sounds cool... But I suspect it would get dull after a while.
Eventually the world overpopulates.
People you care about die, or you have no friends FOREVER.
THINGS you care about die. Imagine living in a warrior society like recent (pre-WW2) Japan, where everyone around you is preoccupied with personal philosophy, the nature of beauty, honor, the like. Now think about all the bullshit you complain about in modern society, and think about Japan now with its culture influence from America and how Tokyo looks (giant screen TVs on buildings, lights everywhere, it's a pure commercial machine). Think about all the bullshit on CNN and CBS and Fox... that's all over in Japan now too, their society has devolved into that.
You'll see the world falling apart, worse than it is now. You'll have no friends, or you'll watch them all die.
No, immortality sucks.
Yes, and this would work why? (in practice, would it?) My point is we don't understand consciousness (and have no way to verify things like this actually work) and that the question is very complex. Even if you don't accept the concept of a "soul," you have a very difficult problem in front of you. If you DO accept the concept of a "soul," you have something confusing and complex in front of you.
This opens up a whole huge assload of debate again.
Let us assume they map out the brain, create an FPGA of memristor devices like this that can mimic the brain's exact structure.
First round it doesn't work.
Because robots can't have a soul. You need a spirit to have that kind of consciousness. You'll hear this argument immediately; I'm not going to argue directly against the spirituality thing, but the question to me is more complex than that, of course. Still, that'll be the first argument.
Then someone will make it work.
Now the interesting shit happens.
A lot of people have told me they're never going to die because, by the time they're old, technology will exist to copy their minds into machines. Think about that. Immortality through perpetuated consciousness.
Stop for a moment.
Realize you are alive, aware, and conscious.
Now, why do you experience consciousness?
You want to say, well, all that "soul" bullshit is weird and freaky. Scientifically unsound. I experience consciousness due to a series of electrochemical reactions in my brain. End of story.
Now suppose I move your brain's data into another organic brain, electronic brain, or anything else of the source. Would you continue to "live"? Would YOU continue to live?
To make the point more clear, what if I made an identical copy and booted both at the same time. Do you suddenly develop a psychic link with your other self, experiencing both existences at once, living in two different places? ... ridiculous.
So you're bound to your brain. You cannot live forever unless your particular, specific, physical brain stays in tact. If I copy your brain to another cloned brain, yank yours out, and replace it with the clone, everyone else will interact with you as if you were you, no difference; but YOU would vanish into the blackness, you'd stop living, you'd die.
Why are you conscious?
Hmm that would be convenient for suicide cases. So much easier. Copy my brain into a biological clone brain, swap, and destroy mine. I get to die and nobody else has to worry about it because I don't die. The ultimate escape: you make your life someone else's problem!
The problem is people think X11 apps run directly back over SSH or something. SSH is not X11, and running httpd from bash via ssh won't make your computer start hosting port 80. People don't seem to get confused by running IRSII in ssh, even though the "server" is the IRC client.
In other words: people aren't looking at the supply of graphics output as a system service. Over a network, it becomes a network service. Even in Windows, Windows supplies a graphical device interface service (it may not be a separate process, I don't really know; but it's a service the kernel supplies at least) that GUI programs send requests to to have output drawn to the screen.
The whole "misunderstanding" comes from "idiots not knowing what they're dealing with." It's not that it's confusing; it's that they have no idea what they're doing. This is the same as people thinking that the "web site" is on their computer because they're looking at it on their computer.
Rewrite-in-place is a poor substitute for rewrite-from-API.
When you start refactoring code, you have to keep everything working nicely. You can't write a nice internal architecture on a nice shiny new internal API you export to your client-facing libraries; instead, everything has to work at every stage, so the innards have to make sense with the other innards. This means that you can't make a major design paradigm change--think like Linux deciding it needs to be Minix--because at intermediary stages something will break or just be ungodly slow, or put on a shim that's ungodly complex.
FWIW I found Kdrive pretty amazing. I used X11 VESA for a while and KDrive VESA was way more responsive.
Consenting adults like the 11 year old children I see snorting crack? Yes, I have at one point or another had tons of friends that were "Done with crack when I was 13." They started around 10 or 11. You can try the "extreme cases" argument, but you gotta understand this is an "uncommon" endpoint and by the time you hit 13 it's "less than common" and then 15 is "common." Mid-teens hard drug users are oddly more common than mid-20s hard drug users; college kids seem to stabilize on marijuana, but high school kids want to try heroin.
The fact of the matter is you're selling an impossible-to-regulate, highly-addictive, highly-toxic poison to people. Cigarettes are bad enough, alcohol's pretty bad, but it's mainly possible to cause long-term damage with those; I know you can kill yourself on too much booze at once, but try it and you'll find out it's REALLY fucking unpleasant to get that far. Cocaine and heroin and the like are well into the "suicide pill" category and are so fucking easy to die from on your first hit.
There is a large overlap in the people that bitch about how bad HFCS is for your health and those that want to stand against drug prohibition. I understand the difference between HFCS being "forced" on you (it's easy to avoid but you have to give up anything other than better-tasting Han's and Jones' sodas and make your own bread and such-- LOTS of work) and cocaine being "voluntary"; but it's still a strange position. Then you find the people that are against cigarettes but for legalized marijuana and cocaine, and one can only assume they're retarded.
Esoteric arguments about peoples' conflicting stances aside, there's a severe ethical problem with selling someone a simple poison with no benefit to get their money in your pocket. Cigarettes gradually damage your health and the "benefit" you get from initial nicotine high quickly fades into "tolerance" and "cravings"; good tobacco at least is enjoyable, and less toxic. Alcohol is the same way, a horrible substance with little benefit (although some significant in low daily dose); but good beer and good wine cannot be de-alcoholized without destroying the flavor and/or texture as well. What good can we say about opium in casual use? Cocaine?
"Server" isn't hardware. The idea of calling something "Server hardware" is the same as calling a pick-up truck a "truck." I use it to drive from place to place, like a regular vehicle; and I've used regular vehicles to move (a Mazda3 was my moving van). You run Apache off an old Compaq and you call THAT a server, you can stfu.
Some African that Bought Debian For Loosechange.
I've long wanted to write a brand new X server from scratch. Xorg is based on the old XFree86 codebase, based on X11 from X.org....
Confusing? X is the server, and handles connections to it telling it what to display. Like httpd (apache) is a server and handles a Web client telling it what Web page to send down the pipe. People weren't confused running the Tetrinet server, seeing the clients connect to them and output images to the screen; but they're confused running the X server, seeing the clients connect?
Ubuntu puts up the testing, coding, and support. That's the difference. They say, "We want to do this. It's probably broken now. In a couple releases it'll be probably working. After that it'll be standard." Fedora does that somewhat (rush in head-first to new versions), but on big technology switches they like to hang back a bit.
I tend to push death penalty for drug dealers. Works better.
It's a modded Xbox. Nobody has used it yet to get online, to play games, or whatever.
7 and 8 make my comment redundant. Was going to say, wtf perl, for the pathologically eclectic retard in your life?
Yes, but as with anything, JavaScript was also extremely powerful. Flash not so much (extremely SLOW). A lot of really nice stuff exists solely because of javascript, without which we would have a lot more loading and reloading the same content.
We can and will abuse this technology with anti-forensics. Eventually our user agent will say, "Firefox on Windows. Fuck you, bitch." Today it says "Firefox on Windows XP with these plug-ins, these fonts, given time, screen resolution, patch level, version of .NET installed..." Uh. We should have a per-site configuration to even identify that Flash is installed or run add-ons, much less tell the world what we have or let them query everything through Javascript.
it'd be like random swapping of addresses. Think how ZIP codes work.
See this is what I'm thinking. Do-not-track regulation? Fuck that. What we need are general tools to fuck up their tracking. It's a system we're against? So we need laws? No, we need counter-tactics.
Right, a P2P decentralized DNS would need to rely on date-stamped, signed DNS entries with hierarchy control. Who owns slashdot.org? Does it DNS? No? Okay, find entries. Oh, here's several, but this one's outdated, and these three are newer than this still valid one signed by someone else. Well then that one should be valid. Okay, so the same entity should be signing *.slashdot.org entries... see?
Do you not believe we should try to solve problems? What should we do about them, ignore them? Simply let people suffer so that some other people may have more freedom to profit from their misery? Should we simply kill off the unproductive and the sick, because it sounds like that is your "solution" to the problem of suffering and injustice in the world: let the "weak" perish so the strong may be free.
The ideal that you can save everyone is a fairytale. The ideal that "well, we can't, but we can get close" is a great way to make everyone suffer but at least everyone suffers equally. It's like when you say, you know, compromise isn't so much everyone getting their way as making sure that the other guy is equally dissatisfied with the result.
People want to bend over backwards for the fairytale. They want to give up all their freedoms to save a couple people from dying. They want to give up access to good food because the food may be dangerous. They want to ban amusement rides because 10 or 15 people die on them a year, while hundreds of thousands find vast but brief periods of enjoyment in riding them.
It is the same thing. Everyone wants to "help" others by mandate; they won't lift a finger themselves. They won't even give the poor a chance to work a day for a day's worth of bread and shelter; who wants these dirty people in their back yard? They'd rather the government make it everyone's problem (taxes) and keep them fed and housed AWAY from us. And oh by the way we think we can help everyone, not just a few, so this should be better right? The cost is disproportionate.
The world was never meant to be fair anyway. The laws of physics don't allow this any more than the laws of economics.
The kid talking about what he wants to do the money is not the same thing as his motivation for the idea itself.
Buying hockey equipment is not what I'm talking about. The quote given was, "I thought how I was going to make a lot of money." Then the question was raised about what to do with the money. His personal achievement was, "I am gonna be rich!" Not "Wow I invented something, and here is the patent!"
There is no hope of justice in this world because we believe "justice" means "equality for everyone," instead of "equality for equals."
More simply put, we live in a world where we're constantly trying to "solve" every problem, and--more importantly--where leaders can hide under that guise while wreaking havoc on our civil liberties. National healthcare, welfare, medicare, social security... we believe the sick/old/poor should have food, shelter, health, and comfort, even if they don't work for it (Social Security is, supposedly, the government doing the savings/investment work for you--I'd rather put the $300/mo into my 401(k)). That's a wonderful ideal; but reality doesn't work that way.
From here I guess I'm supposed to go on a rant about the liberal communists destroying the economy and overtaxing us on these misguided ideals and whatever. Instead I'd like to point out that in the same breath, we cry both for medical care for the poor and protection from the evil. The government, benevolent it is, forces welfare against the public outcry because "the public needs and wants it" (healthcare is a hot topic in this country: we want it but don't want the taxes, is the short of it). And our big, wonderful government that makes sure we're all cared for also protects us by continuous monitoring, warrantless arrests under national security motives, and other social invasions. But only against the bad people.
I honestly feel nobody wants to be accountable. People work because they have to, but they're not really glad to be functional; they're glad to not FEEL like a welfare case, having their own job. They'll gladly have employment but escape doing the work... lighter workload, lazy managers, etc. Fight the process changes so your job stays easy and routine. On the more extreme ends, they want unemployment and welfare and free healthcare so they don't have to have a job for very long ever (unless they're bored). And somewhere, you have people that want to voice for a "good cause," like "taking care of the sick and poor," without actually working in charities or soup kitchens or anything on their own time or money... instead, just argue that everyone should be made to pay for it.
Justice is not "everybody is happy" and "nobody is at an unfair disadvantage." Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work that way. I wish we had a more compassionate world, a world built on old and outdated ideals of honor. That's a world where people might look down on a beggar and tell him to work; but when the beggar offers work for food and shelter, they'll tell him to tend their garden and then give him a meal and a blanket and let him sleep in the shed. Hey, he worked, he got fed; you might think the pay is unfair, but he worked for a day and his means of life were sustained for a day. More amazing in today's world is the ideal that someone would actually give the guy the chance to work--unheard of!
I bet he doesn't make any money.
Delusions aside, even (ESPECIALLY) an 8 year old shouldn't suddenly see dollars and gold pieces spinning around his head the moment he achieves something. Achievements are first personal, then monetary. Money isn't a human factor, no matter how much you want to think it's "human" to want wealth; the human factor is to be proud of your work, not to see everything as potential cash (which doesn't really equate to wealth).
That was my first thought too. We see cartoons where talking animals kick over a rock and it's a lump of gold and "GUH GUH GUH GUH GUH GUH GUH GUH GUHGUHGUHGUHGUH O_O" ... I don't even do that when a hot 18 year old girl sits in my lap. I mean I make a grab for the hips and keep her close but hey. I certainly don't get an unmitigatable hard-on over a couple tens of thousands of dollars in front of me; my first thought is, "What's the catch?" (the catch is you have to market this shit, and you're minimally likely to change our cultural view of what outlets look like; this is a gimmick.)
A better man would have thought about the practical purpose of such an invention. A thinking man. A man who is going to invent something even better.