Let me help you nail this down with precision. I introduce the concept of "essential linkage" which means a transmission of the primary simulator function to and from the real world.
Thus, an essential linkage of a flight simulator would transmit the simulator function to a real aircraft in the real world. And the simulator would receive transmissions of response from a real aircraft in the real world. As we all know, when we crash our aircraft in a simulation, no real aircraft is actually plowed into a field.
Your simulation of a brain would have the essential linkage in a certain circumstance. The primary function of the simulation, the production of thoughts and the incorporation of stimuli, would have to be connected to the real world. Thus, your AI simulation would have to have an output (visual, audio, motion) in the real world through printers, screens, or robotic arms. But the simulation would also need input from cameras, microphones, etc in the real world.
If we were running a brain simulation inside of a world which had no essential linkage to our own world, it would be the same general kind of simulation. Thus, there is an implication that any computer intelligence must be capable of interacting with the real world before it can be considered a real person. A disconnected AI with no essential linkage would not be a person from our perspective.
The only way this statement makes any sense is if the poster your were responding to is a Democrat (who furthermore doesn't critize his own party for Rove-like activities). Otherwise, its not hypocritical (a lot of people here would critize the Democrats when they try the same crap). I never saw anyplace where the original poster claimed to be a Democrat, so it would appear to me that you simply assumed it.
Logically, you are 100% correct. However, the message is that Democrats are hypocritical. More than anything, I am making an advertising impression, not a logical point. I don't need actual Democrats to do that. I just need to call him a Democrat and *poof* he is one in a high percentage of people's minds. Easy.
And I agree that this damage isn't much to worry about. The structures underneath this particular section can actually take the heat if the skin is penetrated.
Both of the deadly shuttle accidents are directly attributable to the side-by-side nature of the orbiter and the fuel tanks and SRB's. This design should have been discarded. If the shuttle were stacked vertically, these particular failures would have been impossible.
Turn in your geek card. It wasn't the 80's, and the shuttle wasn't coming back because it hadn't been to space. It was the Enterprise, it was the 70's, and it was during the development of the shuttle.
You have no idea what fascist means. You're just throwing that name around willy-nilly. When real fascists come along, nobody's going to believe the boy who cried wolf, and they're going to take over.
If you disagree, give me the major points of fascism, and equate them to my own positions and statements. Otherwise, stop pretending to be educated or insightful.
Not necessarily. This kind of statement depends on context, and traditional use. For example, if I say that the Republicans are well known for fiscal responsibility, that implies the Democrats are not known for fiscal responsibility. Except, I didn't say it directly.
It would seem that you are assuming something
No, I am not assuming anything. This is rhetoric, not logic. I can say all kinds of things which are logically unsound, including exactly what you pointed out. It doesn't matter, because the rhetorical purpose is served.
It takes a VERY smart guy to master rhetoric like I have.
(at this point, you might be vaguely uneasy that I've implied that you're NOT a smart guy, even though I've said no such thing. This is just a demonstration...)
Only if you assume I have a time machine. By your own words, I'm joking about the tasty dead dolphins AFTER they are dead. Of course, I assume that you were concerned about the dolphins before they were dead.
Same for you. I didn't kill the dolphins. On the other hand, a case could be made for you that you LET the dolphins die. Apparently it matters to you, and you seem to take responsibilities for their deaths. So, the dolphins are dead DESPITE your best efforts. Sorry about your failure. I didn't do anything to the dolphins, so don't blame me.
That Democrats want to win election is not a hypothetical. It's the truth. I'm not sure why you are claiming that Democrats wanting to win and extend their power as a result of elections is false.
Republicans want to create conditions favorable to getting Republicans elected in the future. If Democrats don't want the same thing, then they are just bad politicians.
Collective future? Sounds vaguely communist to me. I'm more interested in worrying about my own future. I have control over that.
Further, a TRUE capitalist would be able to figure out how to MAKE money off of saving species like this.
What's a true capitalist? And what's your business model? And what's your market? The problem with your laughable statement is that you libs don't want to let true capitalists DO what capitalists DO. What if we could save that dolphin by farming it and turning it into a money making source of food. I can hear it now - "you're industrially farming FLIPPER!".
Hypocrites. You blame the problems on capitalists, saying that if we were really capitalists we'd be able to save the dolphin. But all of our solutions are rejected by environmentalist wackos for fuzzy animal loving reasons. Either you want to save the dolphin, which might mean farming it and productizing it, or you want to treat the dolphin like tiny humans and let it go extinct. Take your pick.
I'm not giggling over the dolphin. I'm giggling because I'm rich despite the best efforts of the birkenstock crowd.
When you make a statement, you imply the inverse. When you say that Karl Rove, in his evil ways, wanted to create a permanent Republican majority, you're implying that there is no idea in liberal minds of creating a permanent Democrat majority.
I don't think that's really true, so it's a bit hypocritical for you to criticize Rove for doing well what Democrats would love to do. Remember, Rove is where he was because of the outcome of an election. I don't really understand what your crying about interests not being represented fairly is all about then. If you don't like it, good luck in the next election. That's called democracy.
We're not responsible for it, and people who say that we are usually just want to end the capitalist system. So, don't start with me. All that'll happen is I'll giggle. A lot.
I guess I'd better save the one I have in my freezer for a really special dinner, because I won't have to get another one. And the dolphin they're putting in those little cans is often adulterated with tuna, which spoils it in my opinion.
One of the problems with generalizations like that is that another key hallmark of both Nazi German and the USSR is a populace which was also almost completely literate.
See the problem? Isolated criteria such as random searches aren't a good way to define any kind of political or economic system. Another problem is that your linkage of the single common criterion is made to two regiemes which were almost 180 degrees completely the opposite of each other in almost every way.
I'm not saying that random searches and seizures are a good thing, just that your analogy isn't very good because it's too broad.
Remember who you're responding to. I had no problem with your sick day policy. I had a problem with you saying that if a married couple worked for you, you would fire them right before Christmas to "teach them a lesson", independent of their work performance. That's sadistic. You're sadistic. I don't need to know anything else about you to know that I don't want to work under you.
Oh jeez, I should have reviewed the thread so this wouldn't have happened. And you should recognize a joke. It's *illegal* to discriminate on marital status, don't you know that?
Check your sense of humor, it's not firing right.
You don't know anything about my work ethic, my skills, or my past work experience.
I know that I'm the hypothetical boss, and you're the hypothetical employee. And I'm detecting a personality that is difficult to get along with, and therefore difficult for me to give a lot of money to. If the roles were reversed, I wouldn't expect a job from you either. I'd move along to a better place.
And you seriously think that's not a snap decision.
You don't get it. I'm the boss, and the standards don't apply to me. I ALWAYS make snap decisions. I have plenty of other faults. Never claimed that I didn't. I purposely hire people who don't make snap decisions, and that's why I'm rich today. Knowing your weaknesses allows you to be successful. If I worried about making snap decisions, I'd have just killed myself. Instead, I build teams that compliment what I'm not good at. I'm good at plenty of other things, and I let others carefully consider all the detail that I find boring. My skills lie more in making correct decisions *without* complete information. If an employee came to me with that skill, such as yourself, I'd just say thanks, but I don't need that skill here.
No, it's possible to be a pleasant person as a friend without being a pleasant person as a supervisor.
The snap judgements were NOT equivalent, because you made your decision based on incomplete information, whereas mine was made on complete information.
I required the people under me to NOT make decisions on incomplete information. On the other hand, if you had complete information you might have reached a different conclusion. Sure, I might be restrictive on sick days. But, do you know how many vacations and holidays my employees got? No, you don't. You also didn't know about my pay policies, or any number of other policies. That might have changed your mind.
So you see, I had all the information I needed to know about you, and I also know that there's quite a lot of information about me that you did not have.
t might be worth working under an unpleasant person, temporarily, for a high enough salary. Stress really messes up one's health, though, so long-term that's a bad strategy imo.
You're still sticking to that "unpleasant person" theory. That's fine, but you don't know me. You do know that the people who worked for me are my friends now, so that pretty much disproves your theory.
I didn't know he was in newspapers, but I did know he published almanacs. I have no clue how much Benjamin Franklin liked his career, and since he's been dead 200 years or so, I don't think you do either.
You might not think I do, and that's fine for you to believe that. However, Benjamin Franklin, being a man of letters, wrote an autobiography. And being famous, he has many biographies as well. He liked his job.
That you're donating your time to get people with similar political beliefs to yours elected doesn't prove that you liked your job.
You're right, that doesn't. I never claimed it did, so your statement qualifies as a strawman. For you to know that I liked my job merely requires that I tell you. My enjoyment of my job is my own opinion anyway, so by telling you that I enjoyed my job, that's as much proof as I can offer over the Internet.
In fact, it means that you like political campaigning more than your former job, which supports my claim that you didn't like it.
Not necessarily true. You also have a terrible habit of coming to conclusions when there are possibilities that are unexplored. It's possible for a man to like more than a single thing in his life. That's true for me, and probably for you as well. I liked my former job, and I like this one as well. Lightning might not strike twice in the same place, but I'm trying to get it to strike twice in different places. It's a new challenge, and novelty is something that money can buy.
And thanks for telling me about the link error. Their website seems to be as reliable as their yachts. Mine is beautiful, but it would be cheaper to just employ my own full-time mechanic to keep it running.
Let me point out the irony that you just responded to my snap decision about you based on almost nothing by making a snap decision about me based on almost nothing:)
You're making a decision about what kind of person I am. I am making a decision about what kind of employee you would be. There's a difference. You might be a terrific fellow, but you make decisions without any real evidence. That's evident from a smaller set of data than your decision about what kind of person I am. I suppose paying 150% of the market rate doesn't offset anything else, does it? Or maybe you should have inquired further about my hiring and management practices before judging me.
But then, you go ahead and make more unjustified decisions, such as how much I liked my job. Did you know that Benjamin Franklin was a publisher? Newspapers and almanacs, in fact. He also made a pile of dough and retired. Was it because he didn't like his job? I doubt that very much. He started a second career, and so have I. I'm working hard to get Republicans elected, and if you haven't noticed it, we might need a little help with that in the near future. It's a real job, NOT for money, and most importantly, it proves me right, and it shows further that you just make shit up without real information.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me help you nail this down with precision. I introduce the concept of "essential linkage" which means a transmission of the primary simulator function to and from the real world.
Thus, an essential linkage of a flight simulator would transmit the simulator function to a real aircraft in the real world. And the simulator would receive transmissions of response from a real aircraft in the real world. As we all know, when we crash our aircraft in a simulation, no real aircraft is actually plowed into a field.
Your simulation of a brain would have the essential linkage in a certain circumstance. The primary function of the simulation, the production of thoughts and the incorporation of stimuli, would have to be connected to the real world. Thus, your AI simulation would have to have an output (visual, audio, motion) in the real world through printers, screens, or robotic arms. But the simulation would also need input from cameras, microphones, etc in the real world.
If we were running a brain simulation inside of a world which had no essential linkage to our own world, it would be the same general kind of simulation. Thus, there is an implication that any computer intelligence must be capable of interacting with the real world before it can be considered a real person. A disconnected AI with no essential linkage would not be a person from our perspective.
You need a simulated flea.
The only way this statement makes any sense is if the poster your were responding to is a Democrat (who furthermore doesn't critize his own party for Rove-like activities). Otherwise, its not hypocritical (a lot of people here would critize the Democrats when they try the same crap). I never saw anyplace where the original poster claimed to be a Democrat, so it would appear to me that you simply assumed it.
Logically, you are 100% correct. However, the message is that Democrats are hypocritical. More than anything, I am making an advertising impression, not a logical point. I don't need actual Democrats to do that. I just need to call him a Democrat and *poof* he is one in a high percentage of people's minds. Easy.
That's pretty much what I said WRT Enterprise.
And I agree that this damage isn't much to worry about. The structures underneath this particular section can actually take the heat if the skin is penetrated.
Both of the deadly shuttle accidents are directly attributable to the side-by-side nature of the orbiter and the fuel tanks and SRB's. This design should have been discarded. If the shuttle were stacked vertically, these particular failures would have been impossible.
Turn in your geek card. It wasn't the 80's, and the shuttle wasn't coming back because it hadn't been to space. It was the Enterprise, it was the 70's, and it was during the development of the shuttle.
You have no idea what fascist means. You're just throwing that name around willy-nilly. When real fascists come along, nobody's going to believe the boy who cried wolf, and they're going to take over.
If you disagree, give me the major points of fascism, and equate them to my own positions and statements. Otherwise, stop pretending to be educated or insightful.
Not necessarily. This kind of statement depends on context, and traditional use. For example, if I say that the Republicans are well known for fiscal responsibility, that implies the Democrats are not known for fiscal responsibility. Except, I didn't say it directly.
It would seem that you are assuming something
No, I am not assuming anything. This is rhetoric, not logic. I can say all kinds of things which are logically unsound, including exactly what you pointed out. It doesn't matter, because the rhetorical purpose is served.
It takes a VERY smart guy to master rhetoric like I have.
(at this point, you might be vaguely uneasy that I've implied that you're NOT a smart guy, even though I've said no such thing. This is just a demonstration...)
And do you know stupid it IS that you bitch about democracy, but you don't see the point in voting? Basically, you're voting for a dictatorship.
Thank you for explaining my point more clearly than I was explaining it. The GP poster obviously thinks democrats don't actually try to win elections.
Only if you assume I have a time machine. By your own words, I'm joking about the tasty dead dolphins AFTER they are dead. Of course, I assume that you were concerned about the dolphins before they were dead.
But, it IS them versus us. It's not a trap, it's life. If you think this is not a zero-sum game, then quit crying when you lose elections.
I suggest that you take off your blinkers. On second thought, leave them on. Keep on believing that bipartisan politics is not actually date rape.
Republicans are under no such illusions, and we're not the ones letting ourselves get raped.
I agree. However, this is not philosophy, it's politics. One of the arts of politics is saying things without actually saying them directly.
Same for you. I didn't kill the dolphins. On the other hand, a case could be made for you that you LET the dolphins die. Apparently it matters to you, and you seem to take responsibilities for their deaths. So, the dolphins are dead DESPITE your best efforts. Sorry about your failure. I didn't do anything to the dolphins, so don't blame me.
This is the problem with your statement:
That Democrats want to win election is not a hypothetical. It's the truth. I'm not sure why you are claiming that Democrats wanting to win and extend their power as a result of elections is false.
Republicans want to create conditions favorable to getting Republicans elected in the future. If Democrats don't want the same thing, then they are just bad politicians.
Collective future? Sounds vaguely communist to me. I'm more interested in worrying about my own future. I have control over that.
Further, a TRUE capitalist would be able to figure out how to MAKE money off of saving species like this.
What's a true capitalist? And what's your business model? And what's your market? The problem with your laughable statement is that you libs don't want to let true capitalists DO what capitalists DO. What if we could save that dolphin by farming it and turning it into a money making source of food. I can hear it now - "you're industrially farming FLIPPER!".
Hypocrites. You blame the problems on capitalists, saying that if we were really capitalists we'd be able to save the dolphin. But all of our solutions are rejected by environmentalist wackos for fuzzy animal loving reasons. Either you want to save the dolphin, which might mean farming it and productizing it, or you want to treat the dolphin like tiny humans and let it go extinct. Take your pick.
I'm not giggling over the dolphin. I'm giggling because I'm rich despite the best efforts of the birkenstock crowd.
When you make a statement, you imply the inverse. When you say that Karl Rove, in his evil ways, wanted to create a permanent Republican majority, you're implying that there is no idea in liberal minds of creating a permanent Democrat majority.
I don't think that's really true, so it's a bit hypocritical for you to criticize Rove for doing well what Democrats would love to do. Remember, Rove is where he was because of the outcome of an election. I don't really understand what your crying about interests not being represented fairly is all about then. If you don't like it, good luck in the next election. That's called democracy.
We're not responsible for it, and people who say that we are usually just want to end the capitalist system. So, don't start with me. All that'll happen is I'll giggle. A lot.
I guess I'd better save the one I have in my freezer for a really special dinner, because I won't have to get another one. And the dolphin they're putting in those little cans is often adulterated with tuna, which spoils it in my opinion.
One of the problems with generalizations like that is that another key hallmark of both Nazi German and the USSR is a populace which was also almost completely literate.
See the problem? Isolated criteria such as random searches aren't a good way to define any kind of political or economic system. Another problem is that your linkage of the single common criterion is made to two regiemes which were almost 180 degrees completely the opposite of each other in almost every way.
I'm not saying that random searches and seizures are a good thing, just that your analogy isn't very good because it's too broad.
Remember who you're responding to. I had no problem with your sick day policy. I had a problem with you saying that if a married couple worked for you, you would fire them right before Christmas to "teach them a lesson", independent of their work performance. That's sadistic. You're sadistic. I don't need to know anything else about you to know that I don't want to work under you.
Oh jeez, I should have reviewed the thread so this wouldn't have happened. And you should recognize a joke. It's *illegal* to discriminate on marital status, don't you know that?
Check your sense of humor, it's not firing right.
You don't know anything about my work ethic, my skills, or my past work experience.
I know that I'm the hypothetical boss, and you're the hypothetical employee. And I'm detecting a personality that is difficult to get along with, and therefore difficult for me to give a lot of money to. If the roles were reversed, I wouldn't expect a job from you either. I'd move along to a better place.
And you seriously think that's not a snap decision.
You don't get it. I'm the boss, and the standards don't apply to me. I ALWAYS make snap decisions. I have plenty of other faults. Never claimed that I didn't. I purposely hire people who don't make snap decisions, and that's why I'm rich today. Knowing your weaknesses allows you to be successful. If I worried about making snap decisions, I'd have just killed myself. Instead, I build teams that compliment what I'm not good at. I'm good at plenty of other things, and I let others carefully consider all the detail that I find boring. My skills lie more in making correct decisions *without* complete information. If an employee came to me with that skill, such as yourself, I'd just say thanks, but I don't need that skill here.
No, it's possible to be a pleasant person as a friend without being a pleasant person as a supervisor.
That's true, but not common.
The snap judgements were NOT equivalent, because you made your decision based on incomplete information, whereas mine was made on complete information.
I required the people under me to NOT make decisions on incomplete information. On the other hand, if you had complete information you might have reached a different conclusion. Sure, I might be restrictive on sick days. But, do you know how many vacations and holidays my employees got? No, you don't. You also didn't know about my pay policies, or any number of other policies. That might have changed your mind.
So you see, I had all the information I needed to know about you, and I also know that there's quite a lot of information about me that you did not have.
t might be worth working under an unpleasant person, temporarily, for a high enough salary. Stress really messes up one's health, though, so long-term that's a bad strategy imo.
You're still sticking to that "unpleasant person" theory. That's fine, but you don't know me. You do know that the people who worked for me are my friends now, so that pretty much disproves your theory.
I didn't know he was in newspapers, but I did know he published almanacs. I have no clue how much Benjamin Franklin liked his career, and since he's been dead 200 years or so, I don't think you do either.
You might not think I do, and that's fine for you to believe that. However, Benjamin Franklin, being a man of letters, wrote an autobiography. And being famous, he has many biographies as well. He liked his job.
That you're donating your time to get people with similar political beliefs to yours elected doesn't prove that you liked your job.
You're right, that doesn't. I never claimed it did, so your statement qualifies as a strawman. For you to know that I liked my job merely requires that I tell you. My enjoyment of my job is my own opinion anyway, so by telling you that I enjoyed my job, that's as much proof as I can offer over the Internet.
In fact, it means that you like political campaigning more than your former job, which supports my claim that you didn't like it.
Not necessarily true. You also have a terrible habit of coming to conclusions when there are possibilities that are unexplored. It's possible for a man to like more than a single thing in his life. That's true for me, and probably for you as well. I liked my former job, and I like this one as well. Lightning might not strike twice in the same place, but I'm trying to get it to strike twice in different places. It's a new challenge, and novelty is something that money can buy.
And thanks for telling me about the link error. Their website seems to be as reliable as their yachts. Mine is beautiful, but it would be cheaper to just employ my own full-time mechanic to keep it running.
Let me point out the irony that you just responded to my snap decision about you based on almost nothing by making a snap decision about me based on almost nothing :)
You're making a decision about what kind of person I am. I am making a decision about what kind of employee you would be. There's a difference. You might be a terrific fellow, but you make decisions without any real evidence. That's evident from a smaller set of data than your decision about what kind of person I am. I suppose paying 150% of the market rate doesn't offset anything else, does it? Or maybe you should have inquired further about my hiring and management practices before judging me.
But then, you go ahead and make more unjustified decisions, such as how much I liked my job. Did you know that Benjamin Franklin was a publisher? Newspapers and almanacs, in fact. He also made a pile of dough and retired. Was it because he didn't like his job? I doubt that very much. He started a second career, and so have I. I'm working hard to get Republicans elected, and if you haven't noticed it, we might need a little help with that in the near future. It's a real job, NOT for money, and most importantly, it proves me right, and it shows further that you just make shit up without real information.
Someone marked 42 down. Unbelievable. Someone on Slashdot has an un-earned geek card.
I've got a theory. 42.