"I've always wanted to see a pirate and a mounty go at it."
Speaking seriously, the RCMP look just like anyone else, I know I had them show up at my door. You would not be able to tell RCMP apart from regular joes coming to you door asking for money or doling out cookies. In fact when the RCMP showed up at my door they were both women.
I wouldn't mind seeing a pirate like myself going at it with those kinds of RCMP officers either.
I have to say that anyone who hopes to keep onto the concept of privacy is in for a big shock as technology moves forward, at some point we will know everything about everyone, and the idea of privacy will be a feral relic of our animal heritage.
We should strive to become less animal, wanting privacy means you're trying to be territorial and passive-aggressive, (not in ALL instances) but in many.
This is not to say people don't need their personal space, or at least ILLUSIONS of privacy, but with the technology being developed today that exists at airports and whatnot and into the future, I have no doubt we will be able to see through walls sometime soon and it will slowly penetrate consumer electronics. It will be impossible to stop the gods of commerce in their quest for profit.
The only thing we can do now, is turn our technological eyes and erase the privacy of the gods of commerce.
Personally, I wouldn't want anyone incompetent driving a car that can move in full 3D in the air, we have enough problems with drivers on the ground. I'd want to see data and EXTREMELY stringent tests on people who get flying cars, you can hit anyone and anything at a moments notice. Not to mention turbelence and then the joy riding stupid people will do.
I imagine during the early years there will be many accidents. Even our airplanes while mostly safe because of the years of experience, still suffer from difficulty of control. I've flown to and from places and when the plane swerves this way and that, it makes me shudder at the idiots being able to drive in the air. I really hope the technology develops to the point where we either
1) Make it idiot proof or 2) It's all automatically for the most part controlled, with a user-failsafe, or you can go manual, but you have "levels" of liscence that you can go unautomated.
"Isn't it more likely that the brain responds to numbers, and is also able to learn an association between numerals and numbers?"
Actually the brain is geared to understand visual (and other) frequencies and "numbers" are nothing more then deduced descriptions of our visual geometric world. Math was built into the universe, and our systems of math are nothing more really then mutations of basic math embedded in nature. In fact we might say mathematics is lower down on the chain then visual geometry. Since symbolic math is a description OF visual geometry (or simply patterns of data).
"And even if it turns out to be a non-mundane phenomenon, what's the chances that it turns out to be something other than the explanation that appeals to you the most?"
I didn't even offer a physical explanation.... you're assuming I made an explanation in the previous post.
I drew a picture of something I had never seen in a game that wasn't even out yet. What is that an explanation of in terms of physics?? nothing. I was just saying we don't have a grasp on what kinds of physics would cause that.
i.e. can describe every link in the chain with experimental verification... how would they verify what I Was dreaming without the necessary technology?
I think you're being trapped by words that are constraining your thinking, I'm not saying "paranormal" exists, theworld "paranormal" is empty concept, I'm saying there is phenomena that is "classified" as paranormal (through miscategorization), and strange events ended up in the dirty "superstitious box", by association.
All I'm saying is - there must be a natural/physics explanation for what happened just that we don't have it in hand, that's all I said, and I also said that it may be that there is stuff we dont understand but I phrased it in a way that you interpreted it to mean there is some "new thing that will upend all physics", no... I'm saying "we don't know enough about physics/the universe..." yet to describe what occured to me. (all of it:P)
"The fact is, its almost pointless to subscribe if you have a broadband internet connection."
In the internet age, magazines are pointless. I'd rather subscribe to a website and have them email weekly updates to my mailbox, or have a monthly or bi-weekly pdf / html email of what's going around the industry.
Plus news sites like Digg, slashdot, and gamespot pretty make it all pointless. Because now you are a NEWS CHANNEL, similar to TV which is like CNN 24 round the clock news. This is why magazines should not have read the writing on the wall and tried to go the gamespot way. Gamespot has no "magazine" because they are a news and review site. They offer interactive real-time communication and updates.
You just can't update paper like you can a website, it's old and out-dated and just isn't cost effective. But, this is not to say that paper is not great for permanent records, because we all know the nature of digital data is pretty fragile itself when considering disasters and whatnot for important data.
"$200-250 is a crazy amount to pay for a video card"
You can say the same thing about 8MB of ram, and computers 10 or 15 years ago, and even the first CD-ROM drives. I was an early adopter of 4X CD burner long before CD burners became mainstream and it cost me $600. Do I regret it? No because I knew thats the price you pay for early adoption and paying off R&D and research into new more efficient manufacturing processes.
A "video card" is a highly complicated specialized CPU, maybe you should look into the kind of money it takes to make and design modern CPU/GPU and the equipment you need to do it. The cost reflects the kind of talent, equipment and complexity you need.
Intel had presentation where they were showing that profits on CPU's were going down and profits on GPU's were going up, and the kind of investments they make in fabs are high risk.
Now also, to use a metaphor: As things get more complicated the more energy you have to expend until the next die-shrink.
"But after the story is published , the haziness has been removed and the story seems pretty obvious. Hence my reaction: "WTF? IS this even newsworthy?""
Agreed on the the haziness, but logically, google was built around english so it shouldn't be that surprising that it's workers best know english and they haven't really had enogh experience in other languages, I believe that is a possibility.
"You do realize that sometimes the parts of your brain that go "I've seen this before" or "this is important" go wonky?"
You're too limited by not having enough knowledge of the difference sciences, and phenomena out there. So your thinking is very very narrow.
Believe me that would have been the first explanation I would have looked for but it's impossible because:
I drew a in *exact detail* of something I have *never seen*, roughly 8 months before I see it (it would have been impossible) why? because the architecture was in a GAME that was being developed, once I bought it and was in the game and saw the architecture of the level (totally imagined by the way, since it was quake 3 CTF level).
No "memory error" can explain that. Sorry man, their are physics we don't understand that allow things that won't be discovered in before you and I are dead.
How do you thin spooky action at a distance works and quantum entanglement? Strange counter-intuitive stuff exists in physics, so no doubt once we have the ability to see into peoples minds eyes and dreasm and record them. It will be verified that random fragments of future events get imprinted on the mind by some strange physical phenomena our science and tools are too crude to measure and understand because we don't live long enough.
Think about how long it took to get even to darwins basic understanding (millions of years).
"Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I imagine it's reasonable for Valve to quick fucking with products people paid good money for and breaking things via remote control just because they're greedy."
This is exactly why intellectual property and internet activation is so Orwellian and tyrannical, modern propertarian ideology and greed that markets give birth to is pretty frightening as it stomps on our civil rights.
Well considering it was an event that happened 8 months before the game came out, and it was in EXACTLY detail (i.e. the textures, stairs, locations, lights, etc).
I know it was not:
1) Memory error, pure fantasy. 2) Confirmation bias.
So any explanation you have based on those two, cross off your list. If you have possible explanations I'd like to hear them.
Also an interesting video here about string theory and multiple dimensions:
No doubt, I'm interested in knowing the answer since I am certain that predictive dreams are real (I drew a picture of part of a architectural structure 6-7 months before I actually saw it.
The others not so much, our technology just isn't there yet - see brain recording devices in Final fantasy spirits within, neat idea! Most probably will happen some ways off in the future.
Note: I am tired (in case this doesn't come out right!)
"While the idea that the umpteen dimensions beyond those that we usually perceive might be the source of some of these unexplained phenomenon is certainly a valid argument, it is no more or less valid that one suggesting that the flying spaghetti monster is responsible.
What I am suggesting is an argument based upon current knowledge. Not that it is more correct, but it assumes far less and is thus more readily proven false, which is key to any scientific argument."
I think you're missing the point, I'm not saying ALL "paranormal" phenomena is real, nor am I trying to "prove" to anyone anything. My opinion is my own, I don't need to prove myself to anybody, since the scientific tools and crudely formed minds of this time are not exactly the of the highest quality. I'm saying what is classified as paranormal falls into two categories 1) Mistaken / error/ mistaken identity and 2) Fragments of real phenomena misinterpreted, but which has some sort of basis in the universes functioning itself even if our tools and science is not advanced enough to "objectify" (making it objective) it, via the usual multiple rigorous observations, measurements and testing, etc. So what I am saying is: Ssome of the (a subset) of features or claims of the socalled 'paranormal' have a natural explanation and are actually real (i.e. precognitive foresight).
Also, science is in constant flux, the state of scientiic 'truth' is dependent on
1) Quality of the minds 2) Quality of the tools 3) Falsifiability
I'm sure you would admit that science is fallible because science is based on fallible minds. I could use the argument that your mind and scienctific concepts and tools are too crude to comprehend my argument *at this time* and in this *age*, and it would be a valid argument. Even though I couldn't show you were wrong in the time and age in which we lived (due to our limited lifespans). Now for example, should we be immortal, we can wait and see who was right or wrong, but we don't have infinite time (i.e. time to search for evidence to support assertions claims in the - ritualized - scientific way (and lets face it, it is ritualized), many scientific things were not discovered in any prescribed rigorous way what-so-ever, and thats why I like Paul Feyabrand -- http://www.amazon.com/Against-Method-Paul-Feyerabend/dp/0860916464
He Feyerabend is not anti-reason, not anti-science and not a subjectivist. What he is advocating is scientific anarchism, meaning: science does not proceed by any set of rules, criterion or methods.
Now we know peoples of the past would not be able to comprehend our world because they would be too crude and misinformed, until they were brought up to speed. The problem is, what if someone perceives something that will be scientific in the future (i.e. evolution for instance, evolutionary ideas are older then darwin) but they didn't have a science to explain the *mechanics* of it? Science ultimately is about visual mechanics of how somethign works, hence why einstein said "If I can't visualize it, I can't understand it!". Language is a vulgar description of geometric objects which we 'see' be it seeing with our eyes, ears or minds, the concepts "objective" and "subjective" are empty phrases, since what was once "objective" became false, or pieces of it did, and therefore "subjective" as theories grow and are revised.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not sayin "ghosts" are real entities, I'm saying they could be echoes or shadows of information of things that exist. Once you get into string theory and some of the more weird quantum behaviour (where causality loses meaning, etc) it is more then possible that counterinuitive phenomena to todays science can be perceived by certain people for reasons not yet accessable to current scientific thinking.
We're still naturally born and not engineered, so that means we are hopelessly and ineffably crude. I have no doubt you also believe tha
"Better yet, let's direct our attention to our brain that is infinitely fallible.
I could get you names of a bunch of people who could fool your senses into seeing something you didn't see."
I agree some amount of skepticism is necessary, but lets face facts: Even great minds like philosophers acknowledged strange abilities in the ancient world, there is too much congruence with rational minds to think that there is not some real phenomena that is being misinterpreted that is MORE then brain signal errors and memory corruption.
Try explaining that when someone draws a picture of something they have never seen after when they remember the dream. I drew a picture of a Quake 3 CTF level, 8 months before the game was actually released. So I know you can't explain that. That's all the evidence I need. The only way to validate my experience would be to have recorded it on tape with a way to verify the date.
I've had precogntive dreams (just fragments of random future experience) that I both remember and don't remember. You're looking for a universal explanation, when there is more then one. Sure some peoples brains are fallible, but it does not follow all peoples are, or that all "paranormal phenomena" have no natural basis. Next once we get brain imaging equipment to record dreams (convert the data to the images the person actually sees) the evidence will be there and your argument will be weakened. This doesn't mean there still won't be cooks, but it will mean there is natural phenomena that people misinterpret that is genuine phenomena. Quantum theory is realyl counterintuitive, so I would imagine so would paranormal phenomena having some kind of natural explanation.
I am that confident that we will find precognitive strangeness once we are able to record dreams/minds eye in real time, go get Final fantasy the spirits within, and notice the dream recording hardware. One day we will have that level of tech, to sort brain errors from truly recorded data.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)
In my opinion there is just too much evidence that there must be some natural phenomena going on in physics that gives rise to these paranormal and religious explanations... I've looked at the evidence and I'm sure a few people at slashdot MUST have experienced:
1) Precognition (see a random fragment of a future event in a dream before it happens, but not remember until the event occurs, but you have no control over it) 2) See a person or animal very clearly (can describe who what the object is in amazing detail) that is there for a second and then is gone in a blink.
I really think these phenomena are tied to physics and multidimensionality, not that there are "ghosts" but there are "SHADOWS", bugs and echoes from spatial dimensions that exist that occasionally allow our eyes or perception to percieve the information in the phenomena for a brief moment.
See 4th dimension article here for some ideas of higher dimensions casting 'shadows' on lower dimensional objects and the nature of it. There are a few good analogies, like a 3D person can see inside a 2D object, where a 2D person cannot.
"More engineers in this country means more engineering work has to come to this country, because that's where the engineers are, and that's where the work will be done best. More work for engineers means more demand for engineers, and more engineers with jobs HERE means countless other jobs will be created by the money they'll be spending."
I wish people would support these statements with actual studies and statistics, sure it sounds like all is fine and well, but what is the actual growth rate? I'd like to know.
"Yet I can't help but think when I hear "Pixar Quality" that "
The thing I hate about "Pixar quality" is that pixar quality is not even that good, I mean it's a STYLE. When I think "pixar" I think toy story, the incredibles and finding nemo.
Pixar quality is not bad but let's face it there are better styles then the rubbery-cartoon-playdough world of pixar.
"This will piss off all the existing users from playing those games and force them to upgrade their systems"
Actually it won't, if HD-DVD drives read regular DVD's it will just mean games can ALSO come on HD-DVD instead of just DVD's. It won't force anybody to do anything, just like my DVD rom did not force me to stop game companies from releasing games on CD's for the PC for that god-awful-length-of-time.
"Optimistic people may try things because they think there will be a good outcome."
I think we need both, I think they are survival tools that seperate good opportunities from bad ones, and being open since the opportunities and risks we can't know for sure, so we have a mechanism that tries its best to sort the two.
"This type of "Turing Machine" computational ability at the molecular level may be the key to inventing this product."
What I find so hilarious is that it already exists in biological systems, I really think if we want to go to the next level we really have to get our minds around what already exists and use that as a base, since so many things are already figured out we just don't understand them.
Then you MUST play Xenosaga, force your way through the boring parts and just follow the story for all three, and you will be amazed. It's probably one of the best Sci-fi RPG's I have EVER played.
"I have a similar view - only differing by a generation or so. I'm probably a bit younger than the author. In my very humble opinion, games have gone downhill ever since they moved from 2D to 3D."
I disagree, only certain genre's suffer from 2D-->3D and no once is pointing a gun to the devleopers head to make 3D games, there is the gameboy and DS if they really want to make a 2D game, and now there is Wii and Xbox arcade... if you want to see more oldschool 2D games then BUY oldschool downloadable games of the games you want sequels to or genres you like, make it know that developers can make money from it.
Next I think one reason some 2D games were better has to do with the COMPLEXITY and the amount of work that must go into 3D game art, object interaction and animation over a 2D one. Not all 3D games suffer from this, but 3D games are slowly getting better as console generations go by and the CPU's can do more.
Truth be told, there has been some damn amazing 3D games, so we might have given up some things from 2D games but we gained in other places. It'd be hard to say games like Prince of persia and God of war are "the suck!", and I'm sure any sane gamer would agree.
Slashdot Mirror
"I've always wanted to see a pirate and a mounty go at it."
Speaking seriously, the RCMP look just like anyone else, I know I had them show up at my door. You would not be able to tell RCMP apart from regular joes coming to you door asking for money or doling out cookies. In fact when the RCMP showed up at my door they were both women.
I wouldn't mind seeing a pirate like myself going at it with those kinds of RCMP officers either.
Notice I said "NOT IN ALL INSTANCES"... and I said going forward it would be harder and harder to keep privacy.
I have to say that anyone who hopes to keep onto the concept of privacy is in for a big shock as technology moves forward, at some point we will know everything about everyone, and the idea of privacy will be a feral relic of our animal heritage.
We should strive to become less animal, wanting privacy means you're trying to be territorial and passive-aggressive, (not in ALL instances) but in many.
This is not to say people don't need their personal space, or at least ILLUSIONS of privacy, but with the technology being developed today that exists at airports and whatnot and into the future, I have no doubt we will be able to see through walls sometime soon and it will slowly penetrate consumer electronics. It will be impossible to stop the gods of commerce in their quest for profit.
The only thing we can do now, is turn our technological eyes and erase the privacy of the gods of commerce.
Personally, I wouldn't want anyone incompetent driving a car that can move in full 3D in the air, we have enough problems with drivers on the ground. I'd want to see data and EXTREMELY stringent tests on people who get flying cars, you can hit anyone and anything at a moments notice. Not to mention turbelence and then the joy riding stupid people will do.
I imagine during the early years there will be many accidents. Even our airplanes while mostly safe because of the years of experience, still suffer from difficulty of control. I've flown to and from places and when the plane swerves this way and that, it makes me shudder at the idiots being able to drive in the air. I really hope the technology develops to the point where we either
1) Make it idiot proof or
2) It's all automatically for the most part controlled, with a user-failsafe, or you can go manual, but you have "levels" of liscence that you can go unautomated.
"Isn't it more likely that the brain responds to numbers, and is also able to learn an association between numerals and numbers?"
Actually the brain is geared to understand visual (and other) frequencies and "numbers" are nothing more then deduced descriptions of our visual geometric world. Math was built into the universe, and our systems of math are nothing more really then mutations of basic math embedded in nature. In fact we might say mathematics is lower down on the chain then visual geometry. Since symbolic math is a description OF visual geometry (or simply patterns of data).
"And even if it turns out to be a non-mundane phenomenon, what's the chances that it turns out to be something other than the explanation that appeals to you the most?"
:P)
I didn't even offer a physical explanation.... you're assuming I made an explanation in the previous post.
I drew a picture of something I had never seen in a game that wasn't even out yet. What is that an explanation of in terms of physics?? nothing. I was just saying we don't have a grasp on what kinds of physics would cause that.
i.e. can describe every link in the chain with experimental verification... how would they verify what I Was dreaming without the necessary technology?
I think you're being trapped by words that are constraining your thinking, I'm not saying "paranormal" exists, theworld "paranormal" is empty concept, I'm saying there is phenomena that is "classified" as paranormal (through miscategorization), and strange events ended up in the dirty "superstitious box", by association.
All I'm saying is - there must be a natural/physics explanation for what happened just that we don't have it in hand, that's all I said, and I also said that it may be that there is stuff we dont understand but I phrased it in a way that you interpreted it to mean there is some "new thing that will upend all physics", no... I'm saying "we don't know enough about physics/the universe..." yet to describe what occured to me. (all of it
The word is SPLIT, it's much clearer and aesthetically pleasing then "Fragmentized"
"The fact is, its almost pointless to subscribe if you have a broadband internet connection."
In the internet age, magazines are pointless. I'd rather subscribe to a website and have them email weekly updates to my mailbox, or have a monthly or bi-weekly pdf / html email of what's going around the industry.
Plus news sites like Digg, slashdot, and gamespot pretty make it all pointless. Because now you are a NEWS CHANNEL, similar to TV which is like CNN 24 round the clock news. This is why magazines should not have read the writing on the wall and tried to go the gamespot way. Gamespot has no "magazine" because they are a news and review site. They offer interactive real-time communication and updates.
You just can't update paper like you can a website, it's old and out-dated and just isn't cost effective. But, this is not to say that paper is not great for permanent records, because we all know the nature of digital data is pretty fragile itself when considering disasters and whatnot for important data.
"$200-250 is a crazy amount to pay for a video card"
You can say the same thing about 8MB of ram, and computers 10 or 15 years ago, and even the first CD-ROM drives. I was an early adopter of 4X CD burner long before CD burners became mainstream and it cost me $600. Do I regret it? No because I knew thats the price you pay for early adoption and paying off R&D and research into new more efficient manufacturing processes.
A "video card" is a highly complicated specialized CPU, maybe you should look into the kind of money it takes to make and design modern CPU/GPU and the equipment you need to do it. The cost reflects the kind of talent, equipment and complexity you need.
Intel had presentation where they were showing that profits on CPU's were going down and profits on GPU's were going up, and the kind of investments they make in fabs are high risk.
Now also, to use a metaphor: As things get more complicated the more energy you have to expend until the next die-shrink.
"But after the story is published , the haziness has been removed and the story seems pretty obvious. Hence my reaction: "WTF? IS this even newsworthy?""
Agreed on the the haziness, but logically, google was built around english so it shouldn't be that surprising that it's workers best know english and they haven't really had enogh experience in other languages, I believe that is a possibility.
"You do realize that sometimes the parts of your brain that go "I've seen this before" or "this is important" go wonky?"
You're too limited by not having enough knowledge of the difference sciences, and phenomena out there. So your thinking is very very narrow.
Believe me that would have been the first explanation I would have looked for but it's impossible because:
I drew a in *exact detail* of something I have *never seen*, roughly 8 months before I see it (it would have been impossible) why? because the architecture was in a GAME that was being developed, once I bought it and was in the game and saw the architecture of the level (totally imagined by the way, since it was quake 3 CTF level).
No "memory error" can explain that. Sorry man, their are physics we don't understand that allow things that won't be discovered in before you and I are dead.
How do you thin spooky action at a distance works and quantum entanglement? Strange counter-intuitive stuff exists in physics, so no doubt once we have the ability to see into peoples minds eyes and dreasm and record them. It will be verified that random fragments of future events get imprinted on the mind by some strange physical phenomena our science and tools are too crude to measure and understand because we don't live long enough.
Think about how long it took to get even to darwins basic understanding (millions of years).
"Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I imagine it's reasonable for Valve to quick fucking with products people paid good money for and breaking things via remote control just because they're greedy."
This is exactly why intellectual property and internet activation is so Orwellian and tyrannical, modern propertarian ideology and greed that markets give birth to is pretty frightening as it stomps on our civil rights.
Well considering it was an event that happened 8 months before the game came out, and it was in EXACTLY detail (i.e. the textures, stairs, locations, lights, etc).
I know it was not:
1) Memory error, pure fantasy.
2) Confirmation bias.
So any explanation you have based on those two, cross off your list. If you have possible explanations I'd like to hear them.
Also an interesting video here about string theory and multiple dimensions:
http://www.tenthdimension.com/
No doubt, I'm interested in knowing the answer since I am certain that predictive dreams are real (I drew a picture of part of a architectural structure 6-7 months before I actually saw it.
The others not so much, our technology just isn't there yet - see brain recording devices in Final fantasy spirits within, neat idea! Most probably will happen some ways off in the future.
Note: I am tired (in case this doesn't come out right!)
"While the idea that the umpteen dimensions beyond those that we usually perceive might be the source of some of these unexplained phenomenon is certainly a valid argument, it is no more or less valid that one suggesting that the flying spaghetti monster is responsible.
What I am suggesting is an argument based upon current knowledge. Not that it is more correct, but it assumes far less and is thus more readily proven false, which is key to any scientific argument."
I think you're missing the point, I'm not saying ALL "paranormal" phenomena is real, nor am I trying to "prove" to anyone anything. My opinion is my own, I don't need to prove myself to anybody, since the scientific tools and crudely formed minds of this time are not exactly the of the highest quality. I'm saying what is classified as paranormal falls into two categories 1) Mistaken / error/ mistaken identity and 2) Fragments of real phenomena misinterpreted, but which has some sort of basis in the universes functioning itself even if our tools and science is not advanced enough to "objectify" (making it objective) it, via the usual multiple rigorous observations, measurements and testing, etc. So what I am saying is: Ssome of the (a subset) of features or claims of the socalled 'paranormal' have a natural explanation and are actually real (i.e. precognitive foresight).
Also, science is in constant flux, the state of scientiic 'truth' is dependent on
1) Quality of the minds
2) Quality of the tools
3) Falsifiability
I'm sure you would admit that science is fallible because science is based on fallible minds. I could use the argument that your mind and scienctific concepts and tools are too crude to comprehend my argument *at this time* and in this *age*, and it would be a valid argument. Even though I couldn't show you were wrong in the time and age in which we lived (due to our limited lifespans). Now for example, should we be immortal, we can wait and see who was right or wrong, but we don't have infinite time (i.e. time to search for evidence to support assertions claims in the - ritualized - scientific way (and lets face it, it is ritualized), many scientific things were not discovered in any prescribed rigorous way what-so-ever, and thats why I like Paul Feyabrand -- http://www.amazon.com/Against-Method-Paul-Feyerabend/dp/0860916464
He Feyerabend is not anti-reason, not anti-science and not a subjectivist. What he is advocating is scientific anarchism, meaning: science does not proceed by any set of rules, criterion or methods.
Now we know peoples of the past would not be able to comprehend our world because they would be too crude and misinformed, until they were brought up to speed. The problem is, what if someone perceives something that will be scientific in the future (i.e. evolution for instance, evolutionary ideas are older then darwin) but they didn't have a science to explain the *mechanics* of it? Science ultimately is about visual mechanics of how somethign works, hence why einstein said "If I can't visualize it, I can't understand it!". Language is a vulgar description of geometric objects which we 'see' be it seeing with our eyes, ears or minds, the concepts "objective" and "subjective" are empty phrases, since what was once "objective" became false, or pieces of it did, and therefore "subjective" as theories grow and are revised.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not sayin "ghosts" are real entities, I'm saying they could be echoes or shadows of information of things that exist. Once you get into string theory and some of the more weird quantum behaviour (where causality loses meaning, etc) it is more then possible that counterinuitive phenomena to todays science can be perceived by certain people for reasons not yet accessable to current scientific thinking.
We're still naturally born and not engineered, so that means we are hopelessly and ineffably crude. I have no doubt you also believe tha
"Better yet, let's direct our attention to our brain that is infinitely fallible.
I could get you names of a bunch of people who could fool your senses into seeing something you didn't see."
I agree some amount of skepticism is necessary, but lets face facts: Even great minds like philosophers acknowledged strange abilities in the ancient world, there is too much congruence with rational minds to think that there is not some real phenomena that is being misinterpreted that is MORE then brain signal errors and memory corruption.
Try explaining that when someone draws a picture of something they have never seen after when they remember the dream. I drew a picture of a Quake 3 CTF level, 8 months before the game was actually released. So I know you can't explain that. That's all the evidence I need. The only way to validate my experience would be to have recorded it on tape with a way to verify the date.
I've had precogntive dreams (just fragments of random future experience) that I both remember and don't remember. You're looking for a universal explanation, when there is more then one. Sure some peoples brains are fallible, but it does not follow all peoples are, or that all "paranormal phenomena" have no natural basis. Next once we get brain imaging equipment to record dreams (convert the data to the images the person actually sees) the evidence will be there and your argument will be weakened. This doesn't mean there still won't be cooks, but it will mean there is natural phenomena that people misinterpret that is genuine phenomena. Quantum theory is realyl counterintuitive, so I would imagine so would paranormal phenomena having some kind of natural explanation.
I am that confident that we will find precognitive strangeness once we are able to record dreams/minds eye in real time, go get Final fantasy the spirits within, and notice the dream recording hardware. One day we will have that level of tech, to sort brain errors from truly recorded data.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)
In my opinion there is just too much evidence that there must be some natural phenomena going on in physics that gives rise to these paranormal and religious explanations... I've looked at the evidence and I'm sure a few people at slashdot MUST have experienced:
1) Precognition (see a random fragment of a future event in a dream before it happens, but not remember until the event occurs, but you have no control over it)
2) See a person or animal very clearly (can describe who what the object is in amazing detail) that is there for a second and then is gone in a blink.
I really think these phenomena are tied to physics and multidimensionality, not that there are "ghosts" but there are "SHADOWS", bugs and echoes from spatial dimensions that exist that occasionally allow our eyes or perception to percieve the information in the phenomena for a brief moment.
See 4th dimension article here for some ideas of higher dimensions casting 'shadows' on lower dimensional objects and the nature of it. There are a few good analogies, like a 3D person can see inside a 2D object, where a 2D person cannot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_dimension
"More engineers in this country means more engineering work has to come to this country, because that's where the engineers are, and that's where the work will be done best. More work for engineers means more demand for engineers, and more engineers with jobs HERE means countless other jobs will be created by the money they'll be spending."
I wish people would support these statements with actual studies and statistics, sure it sounds like all is fine and well, but what is the actual growth rate? I'd like to know.
"Yet I can't help but think when I hear "Pixar Quality" that "
The thing I hate about "Pixar quality" is that pixar quality is not even that good, I mean it's a STYLE. When I think "pixar" I think toy story, the incredibles and finding nemo.
Pixar quality is not bad but let's face it there are better styles then the rubbery-cartoon-playdough world of pixar.
"This will piss off all the existing users from playing those games and force them to upgrade their systems"
Actually it won't, if HD-DVD drives read regular DVD's it will just mean games can ALSO come on HD-DVD instead of just DVD's. It won't force anybody to do anything, just like my DVD rom did not force me to stop game companies from releasing games on CD's for the PC for that god-awful-length-of-time.
"Optimistic people may try things because they think there will be a good outcome."
I think we need both, I think they are survival tools that seperate good opportunities from bad ones, and being open since the opportunities and risks we can't know for sure, so we have a mechanism that tries its best to sort the two.
"This type of "Turing Machine" computational ability at the molecular level may be the key to inventing this product."
What I find so hilarious is that it already exists in biological systems, I really think if we want to go to the next level we really have to get our minds around what already exists and use that as a base, since so many things are already figured out we just don't understand them.
Then you MUST play Xenosaga, force your way through the boring parts and just follow the story for all three, and you will be amazed. It's probably one of the best Sci-fi RPG's I have EVER played.
"I have a similar view - only differing by a generation or so. I'm probably a bit younger than the author. In my very humble opinion, games have gone downhill ever since they moved from 2D to 3D."
I disagree, only certain genre's suffer from 2D-->3D and no once is pointing a gun to the devleopers head to make 3D games, there is the gameboy and DS if they really want to make a 2D game, and now there is Wii and Xbox arcade... if you want to see more oldschool 2D games then BUY oldschool downloadable games of the games you want sequels to or genres you like, make it know that developers can make money from it.
Next I think one reason some 2D games were better has to do with the COMPLEXITY and the amount of work that must go into 3D game art, object interaction and animation over a 2D one. Not all 3D games suffer from this, but 3D games are slowly getting better as console generations go by and the CPU's can do more.
Truth be told, there has been some damn amazing 3D games, so we might have given up some things from 2D games but we gained in other places. It'd be hard to say games like Prince of persia and God of war are "the suck!", and I'm sure any sane gamer would agree.
... more then one facebook account. I know I have.