I see we have a future CEO here. That or Charles Manson.
If God told you it was right to rape and torture and murder, you'd happily do it wouldn't you... And not just because you'd fear punishment if you didn't, but because you'd honestly believe that there's nothing wrong with it. People like you make me sick.
And in fact, the materialist evolutionary theory should preclude the evolution of consciousness, as the only goal of such evolution could have been to produce beneficial responses to stimuli. Give one machine that performs the responses without consciousness and another, much more complex machine that performs the exact same responses but with consciousness, materialist evolution should require that the former machine is built, not the latter, as there would be no evolutionary pressure towards creating the consciousness as well. The physical responses are all that matter.
Why do we have all this research into AI when we can merely map all possible inputs to the best outputs? Oh wait, we can't. The thing about consciousness is that it's flexible and can adapt without the need for random mutations. I'd say that's an evolutionary advantage.
But this is backwards. What we know is primarily our thoughts, feelings, and inner perceptions (from which comes reason, logic, math, philosophy and religion), secondarily our sensual perceptions, and tertiarily the conclusions we form from our sensual perceptions (from which comes science). In that order. To raise tertiary knowledge above primary knowledge has no basis. To use it as a reason to argue that primary knowledge doesn't exist, is downright nutty.
Actually there have been studies showing that we make many decisions (tertiary) before we are consciously (primary) aware of them, and then make up reasons for the decisions afterwards. Personally, I'd say that the sensual perceptions come at the top.
Sure, It should be an obvious conclusion that consciousness is connected to the physical world, and that otherwise we could not perceive it. What is problematic is making the leap to consciousness being therefore physical itself. There's no basis for it. And there is currently nothing remotely close to a theoretical bridge to tie consciousness and matter together. If we want to explore the connection between consciousness and the physical world, we need tools that don't currently exist in science. Until then, the only alternatives that I see as tenable are to admit abject ignorance on the subject, to claim knowledge on the subject from a non-scientific external source, or to claim knowledge from inner perception itself, and from reason based on that perception. The latter is what Descartes did.
Or maybe the "physical world" that we see is just the shadows on the allegorical cave wall. But whatever is underneath it all, be it vibrating strings and probability waves or something no one has even considered, that's where everything originates and there is no physical/spiritual duality. That's what I would say is the real physical world, and whatever physical laws govern it, eventually govern everything we see and feel.
I know the feeling. The codebase I'm maintaining has plenty of spelling errors in the logs, and even in the reports it sends out to support teams. It's annoying, but to fix it you first have to open a ticket, get approval from QA that they can support it in the next release, etc etc. And its all internal software anyway, so the clients never see it. So the spelling errors remain.
Here's one way to ensure an Eclipse launch takes enough time for you to go grocery shopping:
Work in a windows environment in Virginia. Access the Eclipse workspace directory through a mounted drive pointing to your home directory on a UNIX box in Montana. On the UNIX machine, your home directory is actually mounted on a Windows box back in Virginia.
God help you if you have the "compile on save" option enabled. And don't even THINK of rebuilding the workspace.
Then this was not a test like this. In the test discussed here, nobody goes home. The execs just get together and guess what would happend if those employees didn't show up to work, while the employees themselves continue working.
Should've stuck to the original... Then all you'd have to do is strip naked, and the A's wouldn't be able to do squat to you. Of course that would be the signal for the T to show up, and then it's Game Over Man.
The first one was actually The Peter Principle. Still, the second one is a bit closer to The Dilbert Principle which is "Incompetent employees are intentionally promoted to prevent them from doing harm."
A Russian and an American are discussing the merits of their governments.
The American says, "We have full freedom of speech. I could stand on a soap box all day and yell 'The American government sucks, and the American president is a criminal' and I would not be arrested."
The Russian replies, "That's nothing. I could go into Kremlin, call a press conference with invitations to all the communist party leaders, and announce 'The American government sucks, and the American president is a criminal' and I would be commended."
Hilarious take is more like it. Not very PC though - bound to offend many non-Buddhists on the behalf of actual Buddhists. I don't think Buddhists themselves are offended by this, but in this age that doesn't really matter, does it.
Am I the only one surprised the government was able to pull a project like this off? Or is this just propaganda to make us think they are more competent than they really are?
It's a criminal offense to harm them. If it is a crime to try to survive, the monkeys have already won, and the villagers will starve to death.
Seriously though. Last time I checked, fighting for survival never stopped being a right of every living thing on the planet. Even a court will have to recognize this.
You seem to misunderstand the difference between laws stemming from common sense and laws stemming from religion.
Except, it doesn't take being a Muslim to beat your wife. In fact, American men, whom demographically are not overwhelmingly Muslim, seem to be okay beating their wives to the tune of 22% of all women have been physically assaulted at some point in their lives.
Were all of those the 22% of women physically assaulted by their husbands. I'm as against domestic violence as the next culturally aware and enlightened dude, but lets at least make an attempt to keep statistics clear, eh?
It's not just the newspapers. South Park had an two-part episode about people trying to stop Family Guy from showing Muhammad. Eventually in the cartoon, Family Guy showed Muhammad (all he was doing was borrowing a football helmet or something.) However Comedy Central actually refused to allow Muhammad to be shown on TV and censored that portion of the episode .
I've read a statement by someone with inside knowledge (sorry, don't remember who and no link) that the limit is based on the average bandwidth in that area. Since most people do nothing but browse the web and read email, it stays low (1-3GB). Then anyone using 100X that amount is considered "over the limit." This is why they can't tell you what the limit is - it constantly changes.
Can you please remind me who put Saddam in place at first?
But we had common enemies back then, and were therefore friends! Next you'll be telling me we shouldn't be arming Sunni insurgents (oops, I meant ex-insurgents) for their fight against Al-Quaeda!
Slashdot Mirror
I see we have a future CEO here. That or Charles Manson.
If God told you it was right to rape and torture and murder, you'd happily do it wouldn't you... And not just because you'd fear punishment if you didn't, but because you'd honestly believe that there's nothing wrong with it. People like you make me sick.
There's such a thing as Terms of Service. Otherwise youtube would be full of porn by now.
And in fact, the materialist evolutionary theory should preclude the evolution of consciousness, as the only goal of such evolution could have been to produce beneficial responses to stimuli. Give one machine that performs the responses without consciousness and another, much more complex machine that performs the exact same responses but with consciousness, materialist evolution should require that the former machine is built, not the latter, as there would be no evolutionary pressure towards creating the consciousness as well. The physical responses are all that matter.
Why do we have all this research into AI when we can merely map all possible inputs to the best outputs? Oh wait, we can't. The thing about consciousness is that it's flexible and can adapt without the need for random mutations. I'd say that's an evolutionary advantage.
But this is backwards. What we know is primarily our thoughts, feelings, and inner perceptions (from which comes reason, logic, math, philosophy and religion), secondarily our sensual perceptions, and tertiarily the conclusions we form from our sensual perceptions (from which comes science). In that order. To raise tertiary knowledge above primary knowledge has no basis. To use it as a reason to argue that primary knowledge doesn't exist, is downright nutty.
Actually there have been studies showing that we make many decisions (tertiary) before we are consciously (primary) aware of them, and then make up reasons for the decisions afterwards. Personally, I'd say that the sensual perceptions come at the top.
Sure, It should be an obvious conclusion that consciousness is connected to the physical world, and that otherwise we could not perceive it. What is problematic is making the leap to consciousness being therefore physical itself. There's no basis for it. And there is currently nothing remotely close to a theoretical bridge to tie consciousness and matter together. If we want to explore the connection between consciousness and the physical world, we need tools that don't currently exist in science. Until then, the only alternatives that I see as tenable are to admit abject ignorance on the subject, to claim knowledge on the subject from a non-scientific external source, or to claim knowledge from inner perception itself, and from reason based on that perception. The latter is what Descartes did.
Or maybe the "physical world" that we see is just the shadows on the allegorical cave wall. But whatever is underneath it all, be it vibrating strings and probability waves or something no one has even considered, that's where everything originates and there is no physical/spiritual duality. That's what I would say is the real physical world, and whatever physical laws govern it, eventually govern everything we see and feel.
I know the feeling. The codebase I'm maintaining has plenty of spelling errors in the logs, and even in the reports it sends out to support teams. It's annoying, but to fix it you first have to open a ticket, get approval from QA that they can support it in the next release, etc etc. And its all internal software anyway, so the clients never see it. So the spelling errors remain.
Here's one way to ensure an Eclipse launch takes enough time for you to go grocery shopping:
Work in a windows environment in Virginia. Access the Eclipse workspace directory through a mounted drive pointing to your home directory on a UNIX box in Montana. On the UNIX machine, your home directory is actually mounted on a Windows box back in Virginia.
God help you if you have the "compile on save" option enabled. And don't even THINK of rebuilding the workspace.
And yes, I know this from experience.
Can't he sue them for copyright infringement?
Then this was not a test like this. In the test discussed here, nobody goes home. The execs just get together and guess what would happend if those employees didn't show up to work, while the employees themselves continue working.
Is that how you replied to the allegations of the Sony music CD "rootkit"?
Should've stuck to the original... Then all you'd have to do is strip naked, and the A's wouldn't be able to do squat to you. Of course that would be the signal for the T to show up, and then it's Game Over Man.
The first one was actually The Peter Principle. Still, the second one is a bit closer to The Dilbert Principle which is "Incompetent employees are intentionally promoted to prevent them from doing harm."
Reminds me of an old Soviet joke:
A Russian and an American are discussing the merits of their governments.
The American says, "We have full freedom of speech. I could stand on a soap box all day and yell 'The American government sucks, and the American president is a criminal' and I would not be arrested."
The Russian replies, "That's nothing. I could go into Kremlin, call a press conference with invitations to all the communist party leaders, and announce 'The American government sucks, and the American president is a criminal' and I would be commended."
Please, don't give anyone any ideas!
Hilarious take is more like it. Not very PC though - bound to offend many non-Buddhists on the behalf of actual Buddhists. I don't think Buddhists themselves are offended by this, but in this age that doesn't really matter, does it.
Am I the only one surprised the government was able to pull a project like this off? Or is this just propaganda to make us think they are more competent than they really are?
It's a criminal offense to harm them. If it is a crime to try to survive, the monkeys have already won, and the villagers will starve to death.
Seriously though. Last time I checked, fighting for survival never stopped being a right of every living thing on the planet. Even a court will have to recognize this.
You seem to misunderstand the difference between laws stemming from common sense and laws stemming from religion.
Except, it doesn't take being a Muslim to beat your wife. In fact, American men, whom demographically are not overwhelmingly Muslim, seem to be okay beating their wives to the tune of 22% of all women have been physically assaulted at some point in their lives.
Were all of those the 22% of women physically assaulted by their husbands. I'm as against domestic violence as the next culturally aware and enlightened dude, but lets at least make an attempt to keep statistics clear, eh?
It's not just the newspapers. South Park had an two-part episode about people trying to stop Family Guy from showing Muhammad. Eventually in the cartoon, Family Guy showed Muhammad (all he was doing was borrowing a football helmet or something.) However Comedy Central actually refused to allow Muhammad to be shown on TV and censored that portion of the episode .
I've read a statement by someone with inside knowledge (sorry, don't remember who and no link) that the limit is based on the average bandwidth in that area. Since most people do nothing but browse the web and read email, it stays low (1-3GB). Then anyone using 100X that amount is considered "over the limit." This is why they can't tell you what the limit is - it constantly changes.
The thing I wonder is: who is the other guard they were talking about?
Probably an orangutan.
If you think human beings evolved from monkeys, you need to have a little chat with The Librarian (and watch out for donkey carts.)
Or maybe they like their privacy and decided to cloak themselves.
is brought to you by bionically emulation a First Post troll.
Oh yeah? I'd love to see Chuck Norris try to take on... Sailor Moon!
Can she also intercept wireless signals with her brain?
Can you please remind me who put Saddam in place at first?
But we had common enemies back then, and were therefore friends! Next you'll be telling me we shouldn't be arming Sunni insurgents (oops, I meant ex-insurgents) for their fight against Al-Quaeda!