Not only did they start out with the preposterous assumptions of the universe consiting of mega massive particles, the didn't even do all the calculations. What the hell where they simulating? Sure not my universe.
it just struck me as odd how completely devoid of meaning the word 'foreigner' is on the internet. Usually, the term doesn't apply to oneself, it must been the first time I heard it when it applied to me (from your perspective). Just 2 cents, isn't meant to be an attack:)
if your going to communicate but don't know how, the most important thing is latency. As an example, take telnet: When the whole 'do' and 'will do' thing starts ( server client negotioation) you don't want to ship of every single command on a piece of paper carried by a truck. Add to that the circumstance that there is no universial representation of anything. So what good does it if the 'truck' really is discovered and the terrabytes of data could be accessed but in no way understood, since the aliens may see sounds or xrays for all we know. Also, compare and contrast how every night, billions of humans 'receive' billions and billions of EM signals from all across the galaxy but exactly zero physical objects from outer space. Think about how hard it is to find the right trajectory to hit a planet, let alone how hard it is to find an earth sized planet in the first place. And even if we hit a planet like earth, with much water, and our probe survises reentry there is a good chance that it will hit an ocean and just sink to its bottom. No one would notice.
there is a true socialist;)... what makes you think that any intelligent creature would ever abandon the quest for making life easier? Minimize work, maximize leisure is logically the prevalent doctrine and if just because energy is not easy to come by.
well, but they didn't. They said, in the first article: its probably nothing anyways but its the best we got, we don't know where it could have originated (there is no star), it has these strange properties that make it an unlikely ET, we are not jumping up and down and so forth.
They weren't excited, nor was the new scientist. The whole article was like 'oops, something weird there'. Now they seem excited at the prospect of people actually wanting to know what it was.
It's like when a kid rejoices as it finds the cookie jar, but quickly realizes that this will arouse the parents interest, the last thing it wants now. Then mom calls 'what's so great' and the kids, caught off guard, says 'um, nothing, there is nothing nice here. All is bleak, no cook*cough* erhm... nothing'.
you are an idiot. Even with your education you haven't noticed that the profleaves you invented are debt entitlements. It's a contract that says: lend me your service, I will give you some of mine later. And here is the best part: this is exactly how government paper money started out: as debt bonds. The people, of course not being stupid, didn't fall for that the way the government intended, so it said (like you agree): oh well, I'll have my debt certificates back (because we wouldn't want those pesky people knocking on the white house to actually get their credit back) or else I'll shoot you (taxes) and to make things even better for me, I'll say it's legal tender everyone has to accept in transaction and, on fiat, my debt certificates suddently have a redeemability of infinite and will thusly propagate as money, replacing all else. So now the pay off is huge: the former debts that those bonds stood for can no longer be payed because all there is to pay for them are other bonds. And because this is so swell, the government can just keep printing the little buggers and so aquire goods for nothing because those that bear the cost are all people using the new 'money' in the form of diminished market value, inflation. Now the government only has to pay of a few econ profs so they'll say that inflation is natural and nothing to worry about and that government credit expansions actually helps the economy: presto, today.
Such a scam and you stand there and argue its all A-OK.
so what do you think greenspan does when he lowers interest rates once again? Where does the additional money come from for the new credits that are extended? Why, from the printing press of course. So 'regulated' is still true but doesn't have anything to do with keeping the money supply stable. In fact, every move towards 'paper' money happened at times when the government was really short on cash, like during the civil war, and helped it a great deal since new paper money is easier to create than gold. Libertarians call this the inflation tax.
well, if thats the time we need to involve einstein too. As he taught us, in the relativistic universe there is no absolute frame of reference. Hence, there just is no universal 3d coordinate grid and no absolute 'true' position. All the while, in my frame of reference, the car remains static as it doesn't move relative to me. So I think it is justified to say that the car 'maintains position in a 3 dimensional space (my frame of reference).
you are like the guy that, when the first train was tested, said: Oh no, 30 km/h is just too fast for the humain brain to handle. Every passenger will inevitably go crazy.
Aside from the fact that every single damn human does every single goddamn thing in 3 dimensions because none of us could live 'within' a piece of paper, it is not possible to hit 'more' when flying. The number of objects you could hit is only limited by the number of objects, it doesn't matter whether you are flying or driving.
What magic prevents ordenary trucks from being used as bombs? See the oklahoma bombing or the first wtc bombing? 9/11 was not about 'how' the delievery worked but 'what' got delivered. Tons of kerosine, thats what. It's safe to assume that a million flying cars with 2 tons weight each is a lot better, from a terroism standpoint, than a single 747 carrying 50 tons fuel.
A cessna can easily land without the engines. What makes you think that every plane has to be so unglideable as modern passenger jets?
I already have developed an energy effiecent way of maintaining a position in 3 dimensions. It just required 1500 KJ daily. For my car its even better: 0 J.
To address the real point of your post: you didn't consider friction.
Notice how remarkably seldom your house is hit by small private airplane, large private airplane, small & large millitary airplane, one of the gazillion meteors hittng earth every day, space shuttles, souyuz rockets, esa rocktes, nasa rockets, xprice rockets, birds and shit from birds. Of course, also I am willing to bet that never has a 'cell phone' driver hit your house from sideways or anyother driver for that matter.
which country do you mean? To my knowledge there are only a few socialist countrys left, most notably cuba and north korea. Maybe most of the middle african countries as well. None of them have widespread internet access. A desk in itself is probably a luxury there. Capitalism worked not with slavery but against it. Do a little research and you will find that slavery is less profitable than just employing people the regular way. Also, I'd pick being owned by a private individual over being owned by the state or indeed the public any time. At least for the private individual I am an asset and my death would be a financial loss to him. In a commune, I could be just sacrificed to the 'higher good' anytime someone comes up with a reasonable explaination how my death could help the 'public'.
Its time to recognise the value of each individual and provide them the proper environment to explore their potential.
Its time to recognize that, in this reality, resources are scare. Time is scare. Energy is scare. Order (as opposed to chaos) requires energy. Commodities are certainly scare. Which is easily proven by their absence within say the rain forests. Natural life is a bitch and you die quickly. You are constantly underfed and therefore on the quest for food. There is no leisure and no time to explore your potential because the courses open to you are only: die or survive the day. This is the yard stick for an society. How much it can improve over *that*. Not having a large part of the population starving or the edge of it is a major achievement of the late 19th century. And only in countries that recognized the freedom of the indivual as the supreme good, ie. capitalistic societies. And only there has the standard of living so continually risen while at the same time the necessary work hours have fallen. Over the course of 'only' a hundred years, common wealth has at least quadrupled while the average hours spend working a week has been decreased by 50%. The situation has become so that an american bum that wont accept welfare for reasons of pride can do better by begging than an north korean working their 15 hours a day.
"In the capitalist society there prevails a tendency toward a steady increase in the per capita quota of capital invested . . . . Consequently, the marginal productivity of labor, wage rates, and the wager earners' standard of living tend to rise continually."
consider farming out labor to countries where their minimum wage and working conditions are lower than legally acceptable levels in the US is similar to slavery.
You can consider everything you want to be everything else. It doesn't make it so. The only meaningful definition of slavery is:
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]: 1. The condition of a slave; the state of entire subjection of one person to the will of another. 2. A condition of subjection or submission characterized by lack of freedom of action or of will.
I am quite certain that nike didn't make those vietnamise work at gun point. Also, compared to the 'rural' life there, which is struggling with the soil for your bare survival and without the aid of any machinery that can be, by a reasonable standard, be described aa 'modern', working for nike seems like a bliss. Which is exactly why people work there.
This is the markets way of preventing the use of ressources for adding minimaly 'more' technical merit at unreasonable costs or merit that is only that in the highly specialized persons eye. As previous posters pointed out, VHS won because it supported 2 hour tapes and was cheaper. People are only willing to pay 'that' much for a given base functionality (which both provided).
well, if plato is thought as 'good philosophy' and ayn rand not because it is 'bad philosophy' I'll just inverse good and bad when it comes to university philosophy classes. After all, plato is the principal architect of totalitarianism, slavery, the caste state, racial supremacy etc. So, bad unis teach bad philosophy, also there is no good uni.
But, that the cause comes before the effect is a vital ingrediant for causation. Thinking the conclusions of the study farther would imply that the ability to do math depends on having a language that facilitats math before you ever thought about anything math related. So, now how is that supposed to work? Is the 'language' already existant, fully featured to contain all concepts of all times? Somehow, maybe reminicent of video games, you find the magic key and unlock features that enable you to think previously impossible thoughts? And if this is true for math, surely it must be true for all other concepts or thoughts. Therefore all thought is impossible without any language. Therefore language can not be a creation by humans. Therefore deity/aliens exist or language doesn't.
The assumptions of this study are ridiculos. To me at least, it is obvious that before naming or describing something, there has to be 'something', no matter if its a concept, phantasy, or physical object.
take note how wireless networks and webpads are noticely absent in non-capitalitic countries, along with jobs that would be suitable for home work. Or indeed, any jobs at all that don't treat humans as 'cheap labor robot'. Technology, abundance of wealth and leisure requires capital formation, a concept only possible in, guess what, capitalistic society. All the other models, socialism/communism/monarchy etc. are to busy keeping 'the people' from starving to archive any meaningful level of savings and therefore advance.
Well of course that theory falls on its face when you consider that even without work animals, pulling or pushing a wheeled cart is far easier and scalable then any alternate mode of transportation.
I think the test itself stinks. Maybe they just had no concept of matching? What then? It says nothing about their ability to cognitivly deal with numbers larger 2. Have you thought about the possibility that the tribe consitently thought a game of 'one up' was going on? That they knowingly put always 5 items because 5 = 4 + 1? Yeah, I know, one researcher claims to fluently speak the language. But with so few frames of referenc, I'd doubt any translation. As an example, I gave a wedding speech, being the best mate and all, in my native language (german) and eventhough I carefully worded it to precisely convey the meaning I had intended, at least one of the guests thought I advised the couple to often have sex with other partners. I wonder how you could speak in any relevant matter to those people at all. One test I would accept would be to present them with two sets one containing 10 and one 12 desirable items. I highly doubt that they'd pick less over more, if you could communicate the concept of 'pick this or pick that 'set''.
And I think ( after reading articles I mention) - modern western societies are still not prevented from slowly moving to fascism. And the mean - is not just peaceful acceptance of someone's opinion ( as the last seems could inadvertently lead to destructive ideas)- but the mean is more education, teaching those who thinks only on logical arguments to think on context avoiding pushing ideas which are context incoherent. So when people would be more educated ( by means which new technologies provide) then there would be better. while current thins like described here
"Article 1 - Culture and cognition" "Article 2 - How Culture Molds Habits of Thought" [trinicenter.com]
coupled with that - purely logical conclusions could lead to development of fascist and communist ideologies ( BTW - both theories came from Germany) I think that to trying to avoid inherited problems in thinking of western people would be a good help to the world. As I really think that at some point modern ' humanity' could come to fascism-like dictatorships.
I'll rephrase and hope I understood you: while still adhering to the rules of logic, people that are not paying attention to the correctness of the premises, could be led to convince that fashism or communism is the logical choice. I agree. The issues is not in the part where people follow the rules of logic but where obviously wrong premises are accepted as truth. As with the example: If all animals with fur have no ears and if rabbits have fur then rabbits have no ears. The line of reasoning is correct while one of the two premises 'all animals with fur have no ears' is not . There are two truths here: logically the sentence is true, factually it is not because the premise can be shown to be false by just finding one animal that has fur and ears ( which is easy, rabits for example;). In the case of fascism and communism (which are siblings, I think), the underlying premises are: no behaviour is more or less moral than an other, might makes right, the people are 'happy' when the state is 'happy', human nature can be changed, altruism is better than indiviualism, the free market is chaos and thusly inefficient, people need direction, liberty and wealth are no goal in itself, economic liberty and personal liberty can be seperated and so on. I agree that those premises have to be rigerously challenged.
Though I completely agree that peaceful talk is what is nessesary to find solutions. But seems we speak peacefully:).
yeah, I needed to point it out since you said my bais was fascist;)
Slashdot Mirror
Not only did they start out with the preposterous assumptions of the universe consiting of mega massive particles, the didn't even do all the calculations. What the hell where they simulating? Sure not my universe.
it just struck me as odd how completely devoid of meaning the word 'foreigner' is on the internet. Usually, the term doesn't apply to oneself, it must been the first time I heard it when it applied to me (from your perspective). Just 2 cents, isn't meant to be an attack :)
if your going to communicate but don't know how, the most important thing is latency. As an example, take telnet: When the whole 'do' and 'will do' thing starts ( server client negotioation) you don't want to ship of every single command on a piece of paper carried by a truck. Add to that the circumstance that there is no universial representation of anything. So what good does it if the 'truck' really is discovered and the terrabytes of data could be accessed but in no way understood, since the aliens may see sounds or xrays for all we know.
Also, compare and contrast how every night, billions of humans 'receive' billions and billions of EM signals from all across the galaxy but exactly zero physical objects from outer space. Think about how hard it is to find the right trajectory to hit a planet, let alone how hard it is to find an earth sized planet in the first place. And even if we hit a planet like earth, with much water, and our probe survises reentry there is a good chance that it will hit an ocean and just sink to its bottom. No one would notice.
there is a true socialist ;) ... what makes you think that any intelligent creature would ever abandon the quest for making life easier? Minimize work, maximize leisure is logically the prevalent doctrine and if just because energy is not easy to come by.
well, but they didn't. They said, in the first article: its probably nothing anyways but its the best we got, we don't know where it could have originated (there is no star), it has these strange properties that make it an unlikely ET, we are not jumping up and down and so forth.
... nothing'.
They weren't excited, nor was the new scientist. The whole article was like 'oops, something weird there'. Now they seem excited at the prospect of people actually wanting to know what it was.
It's like when a kid rejoices as it finds the cookie jar, but quickly realizes that this will arouse the parents interest, the last thing it wants now. Then mom calls 'what's so great' and the kids, caught off guard, says 'um, nothing, there is nothing nice here. All is bleak, no cook*cough* erhm
you are an idiot. Even with your education you haven't noticed that the profleaves you invented are debt entitlements. It's a contract that says: lend me your service, I will give you some of mine later. And here is the best part: this is exactly how government paper money started out: as debt bonds. The people, of course not being stupid, didn't fall for that the way the government intended, so it said (like you agree): oh well, I'll have my debt certificates back (because we wouldn't want those pesky people knocking on the white house to actually get their credit back) or else I'll shoot you (taxes) and to make things even better for me, I'll say it's legal tender everyone has to accept in transaction and, on fiat, my debt certificates suddently have a redeemability of infinite and will thusly propagate as money, replacing all else.
So now the pay off is huge: the former debts that those bonds stood for can no longer be payed because all there is to pay for them are other bonds. And because this is so swell, the government can just keep printing the little buggers and so aquire goods for nothing because those that bear the cost are all people using the new 'money' in the form of diminished market value, inflation. Now the government only has to pay of a few econ profs so they'll say that inflation is natural and nothing to worry about and that government credit expansions actually helps the economy: presto, today.
Such a scam and you stand there and argue its all A-OK.
so what do you think greenspan does when he lowers interest rates once again? Where does the additional money come from for the new credits that are extended? Why, from the printing press of course. So 'regulated' is still true but doesn't have anything to do with keeping the money supply stable. In fact, every move towards 'paper' money happened at times when the government was really short on cash, like during the civil war, and helped it a great deal since new paper money is easier to create than gold. Libertarians call this the inflation tax.
well, if thats the time we need to involve einstein too. As he taught us, in the relativistic universe there is no absolute frame of reference. Hence, there just is no universal 3d coordinate grid and no absolute 'true' position. All the while, in my frame of reference, the car remains static as it doesn't move relative to me. So I think it is justified to say that the car 'maintains position in a 3 dimensional space (my frame of reference).
well, TCP seems kinda out of the question anyways. Unless you have SO_TIMEOUT interpreted as days instead of milliseconds ;)
you are like the guy that, when the first train was tested, said: Oh no, 30 km/h is just too fast for the humain brain to handle. Every passenger will inevitably go crazy.
Aside from the fact that every single damn human does every single goddamn thing in 3 dimensions because none of us could live 'within' a piece of paper, it is not possible to hit 'more' when flying. The number of objects you could hit is only limited by the number of objects, it doesn't matter whether you are flying or driving.
What magic prevents ordenary trucks from being used as bombs? See the oklahoma bombing or the first wtc bombing? 9/11 was not about 'how' the delievery worked but 'what' got delivered. Tons of kerosine, thats what. It's safe to assume that a million flying cars with 2 tons weight each is a lot better, from a terroism standpoint, than a single 747 carrying 50 tons fuel.
A cessna can easily land without the engines. What makes you think that every plane has to be so unglideable as modern passenger jets?
I already have developed an energy effiecent way of maintaining a position in 3 dimensions. It just required 1500 KJ daily. For my car its even better: 0 J.
To address the real point of your post: you didn't consider friction.
Notice how remarkably seldom your house is hit by small private airplane, large private airplane, small & large millitary airplane, one of the gazillion meteors hittng earth every day, space shuttles, souyuz rockets, esa rocktes, nasa rockets, xprice rockets, birds and shit from birds. Of course, also I am willing to bet that never has a 'cell phone' driver hit your house from sideways or anyother driver for that matter.
Its time to recognise the value of each individual and provide them the proper environment to explore their potential.
Its time to recognize that, in this reality, resources are scare. Time is scare. Energy is scare. Order (as opposed to chaos) requires energy. Commodities are certainly scare. Which is easily proven by their absence within say the rain forests. Natural life is a bitch and you die quickly. You are constantly underfed and therefore on the quest for food. There is no leisure and no time to explore your potential because the courses open to you are only: die or survive the day. This is the yard stick for an society. How much it can improve over *that*. Not having a large part of the population starving or the edge of it is a major achievement of the late 19th century. And only in countries that recognized the freedom of the indivual as the supreme good, ie. capitalistic societies. And only there has the standard of living so continually risen while at the same time the necessary work hours have fallen. Over the course of 'only' a hundred years, common wealth has at least quadrupled while the average hours spend working a week has been decreased by 50%. The situation has become so that an american bum that wont accept welfare for reasons of pride can do better by begging than an north korean working their 15 hours a day.
To quote an article http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1590
that in turn quotes the Austrian economist Ludwig van Mises thusly:
"In the capitalist society there prevails a tendency toward a steady increase in the per capita quota of capital invested . . . . Consequently, the marginal productivity of labor, wage rates, and the wager earners' standard of living tend to rise continually."
consider farming out labor to countries where their minimum wage and working conditions are lower than legally acceptable levels in the US is similar to slavery.
You can consider everything you want to be everything else. It doesn't make it so. The only meaningful definition of slavery is:
I am quite certain that nike didn't make those vietnamise work at gun point. Also, compared to the 'rural' life there, which is struggling with the soil for your bare survival and without the aid of any machinery that can be, by a reasonable standard, be described aa 'modern', working for nike seems like a bliss. Which is exactly why people work there.
This is the markets way of preventing the use of ressources for adding minimaly 'more' technical merit at unreasonable costs or merit that is only that in the highly specialized persons eye. As previous posters pointed out, VHS won because it supported 2 hour tapes and was cheaper. People are only willing to pay 'that' much for a given base functionality (which both provided).
well, if plato is thought as 'good philosophy' and ayn rand not because it is 'bad philosophy' I'll just inverse good and bad when it comes to university philosophy classes. After all, plato is the principal architect of totalitarianism, slavery, the caste state, racial supremacy etc. So, bad unis teach bad philosophy, also there is no good uni.
But, that the cause comes before the effect is a vital ingrediant for causation. Thinking the conclusions of the study farther would imply that the ability to do math depends on having a language that facilitats math before you ever thought about anything math related. So, now how is that supposed to work? Is the 'language' already existant, fully featured to contain all concepts of all times? Somehow, maybe reminicent of video games, you find the magic key and unlock features that enable you to think previously impossible thoughts? And if this is true for math, surely it must be true for all other concepts or thoughts. Therefore all thought is impossible without any language. Therefore language can not be a creation by humans. Therefore deity/aliens exist or language doesn't.
The assumptions of this study are ridiculos. To me at least, it is obvious that before naming or describing something, there has to be 'something', no matter if its a concept, phantasy, or physical object.
take note how wireless networks and webpads are noticely absent in non-capitalitic countries, along with jobs that would be suitable for home work. Or indeed, any jobs at all that don't treat humans as 'cheap labor robot'. Technology, abundance of wealth and leisure requires capital formation, a concept only possible in, guess what, capitalistic society. All the other models, socialism/communism/monarchy etc. are to busy keeping 'the people' from starving to archive any meaningful level of savings and therefore advance.
not to mention the difficulty of identifiying a message as a message. That's probably the really hard part.
If 6 words where the limit for replicator commands, I'd prefer 'female' to 'hot'.
1. obscure Dogma reference
;)
2. ???
3. Karma
Good joke
you mean his not having gotten the 'white boy phone' is a special case? I didn't either.
You missed his point, I think.
a very good reply. Thanks for pointing out my ignorance so clearly. What doesn't kill, makes stronger ... goes a saying in german ;) Have a good night!
Well of course that theory falls on its face when you consider that even without work animals, pulling or pushing a wheeled cart is far easier and scalable then any alternate mode of transportation.
I think the test itself stinks. Maybe they just had no concept of matching? What then? It says nothing about their ability to cognitivly deal with numbers larger 2. Have you thought about the possibility that the tribe consitently thought a game of 'one up' was going on? That they knowingly put always 5 items because 5 = 4 + 1? Yeah, I know, one researcher claims to fluently speak the language. But with so few frames of referenc, I'd doubt any translation. As an example, I gave a wedding speech, being the best mate and all, in my native language (german) and eventhough I carefully worded it to precisely convey the meaning I had intended, at least one of the guests thought I advised the couple to often have sex with other partners. I wonder how you could speak in any relevant matter to those people at all. One test I would accept would be to present them with two sets one containing 10 and one 12 desirable items. I highly doubt that they'd pick less over more, if you could communicate the concept of 'pick this or pick that 'set''.
And I think ( after reading articles I mention) - modern western societies are still not prevented from slowly moving to fascism. And the mean - is not just peaceful acceptance of someone's opinion ( as the last seems could inadvertently lead to destructive ideas)- but the mean is more education, teaching those who thinks only on logical arguments to think on context avoiding pushing ideas which are context incoherent. So when people would be more educated ( by means which new technologies provide) then there would be better. while current thins like described here "Article 1 - Culture and cognition" "Article 2 - How Culture Molds Habits of Thought" [trinicenter.com] coupled with that - purely logical conclusions could lead to development of fascist and communist ideologies ( BTW - both theories came from Germany) I think that to trying to avoid inherited problems in thinking of western people would be a good help to the world. As I really think that at some point modern ' humanity' could come to fascism-like dictatorships.
;). In the case of fascism and communism (which are siblings, I think), the underlying premises are: no behaviour is more or less moral than an other, might makes right, the people are 'happy' when the state is 'happy', human nature can be changed, altruism is better than indiviualism, the free market is chaos and thusly inefficient, people need direction, liberty and wealth are no goal in itself, economic liberty and personal liberty can be seperated and so on. I agree that those premises have to be rigerously challenged.
:) . ;)
I'll rephrase and hope I understood you: while still adhering to the rules of logic, people that are not paying attention to the correctness of the premises, could be led to convince that fashism or communism is the logical choice. I agree. The issues is not in the part where people follow the rules of logic but where obviously wrong premises are accepted as truth. As with the example: If all animals with fur have no ears and if rabbits have fur then rabbits have no ears. The line of reasoning is correct while one of the two premises 'all animals with fur have no ears' is not . There are two truths here: logically the sentence is true, factually it is not because the premise can be shown to be false by just finding one animal that has fur and ears ( which is easy, rabits for example
Though I completely agree that peaceful talk is what is nessesary to find solutions. But seems we speak peacefully
yeah, I needed to point it out since you said my bais was fascist