A big problem is that "observer" is entirely the wrong word. QM has nothing to do with "observation", but I suppose "observer" sounds more profound than "photon absorber".
Siblings procreating has the highest certainty of genetically damaged offspring. 1st cousins next.
Still only 4-7%, about the same as that women who are over 40, compared to 2-3% overall.
I think we can draw the line at siblings and 1st cousins.
So should siblings, one of which is sterile, be allowed to marry? If not, why not?
Also, where is marriage between first cousins illegal? It isn't in Canada or most of Europe. In the U.S., as far as I know, first-cousin marriage is only illegal in 15 states:Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa,Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, North & South Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. Strange mixture.
Psychotics are people who have hallucinations, but are convinced that what they are seeing/hearing is real - like Nash, the "Beautiful Mind" guy. Psychopaths are the consciousless manipulators.
You're forgetting one thing: PC software-based BD decoders like PowerDVD are regularly (and legally) updated whenever the BD codes change. All the crackers have to do is reverse engineer the latest version and they can use it to make an unencrypted disk.
Also, this stuff about the latest BD codes being uncrackable is just movie company FUD: all the major bluray movies, including ones released this week, can easily be cracked by AnyDVD. The twelve uncopyable disks listed above are the same ones they listed in March. Nobody cares enough about them to bother cracking them.
Canada isn't like the US. We don't have the population density to maintain and support a large number of stores in most cases, smaller shops have dried up and gone away. This is half of the problem, while I live in Southern Ontario if I want something to do with robotics I now travel to Toronto. Roughly 2hrs away.
I find that slightly depressing. Maybe moving to Japan would be a better choice if I want to continue this hobby. Then again I'd have to become a Japanese Citizen to continue my line of work.
That's what online robotics stores are for. Try robotshop.ca.
Is there any theoretical upper limit on the resolving power of a reflecting telescope? For example, would a kilometer mirror necessarily be better than a 100-meter mirror? Would a 100-kilometer mirror necessarily be better than a 10-kilometer mirror?
I was imagining an army of robots spreading out across the solar system, turning asteroids into telescopes. Over centuries these robots could create hundreds of thousands of reflecting telescopes whose images could be combined to produce higher and higher resolution pictures, perhaps imaging exoplanets as if they were in our solar system.
Is there any theoretical reason why this wouldn't work?
Additionally, if people can have all the food, drink and basic shelter they need, there had better be contraceptives added to the water. Otherwise the population would swell until there was no more room on the planet.
Speaking of contraception, has anybody ever heard any mention of religion among earthlings in Star Trek? If not, that may be the reason it is so peaceful.
The main issue is that correlation is a necessary condition for causation, but is not a sufficient condition. So, finding a correlation is only one hurdle in the process of determining causation.
It seems to me that people on slashdot unfairly criticize original research for seeming to misunderstand this, when in fact some sensationalistic journalist is nearly always blame.
The most likely explanation is that he's doing it for the publicity, and never had any intention of allowing it to go to court. Prosecutors who are elected sometimes do this to get their name before the public. Losing in court would be bad publicity, so generally what you want to do is commit some minor act against the defense that will be good grounds for dismissal, and then use that "mistake" as the reason that you "regretfully" decide not to prosecute.
Another reason prosecutors grandstand like this is to put pressure on the accused to accept a plea-bargain deal. Many will accept it, no matter how bad it is, for fear that it might go to trial and destroy their lives.
People always seem to misunderstand and/or misrepresent what Turing actually said. He never suggested that fooling a few people into believing that a machine is intelligent proved anything.
In Turing's day, computers barely existed and very few people had any idea what they could do or not do. At that time, philosophical arguments about whether a machine could, in principal, ever be intelligent were taken seriously. Turing responded to this nonsense by pointing out, correctly, that intelligence is as intelligence does. In other words, if something provides sufficient evidence of its intelligence, then we have to accept that it is in fact intelligent.
A lot of people at the time found this to be a rather abstract notion, so Turing provided an example of the kind of test that might be useful in making this determination: having a machine play a variation on popular palour game at the time whereby both a man and a woman try to convince a third party that each is in fact a woman. (Anybody familiar with Turing's private life would understand his interest in this). Note that Turing never suggested that passing any such test would constitute sufficient evidence of intelligence, only that it might serve as necessary evidence. In other words, if a machine cannot pass the test, it is definitely not intelligent, but passing it only grants the right to try another, harder test.
Where does this end, so the machine will be judged intelligent? Turing never said, and indeed there is no answer that would satisfy everyone.
The fact that one can craft a situation in which a few people are fooled by such a machine proves exactly nothing. Another bullshit article from New Scientist.
Evolution does a very good job of explaining how localized low entropy can arise (at the expense of increased entropy elsewhere). What's more, evolution explains this unusual situation without resorting to the unexplained existence of an even lower entropy: an intelligent designer.
Actually, it doesn't: evolution explains how a very sophisticated mechanism (replication of DNA) continues to function under adverse circumstances, but as yet there is no explanation of how that sophisticated (and thus improbable) mechanism came to be.
Of course, invoking superstition (eg ID) explains nothing, so we are still left with a profound and fascinating problem.
And you clearly do not know how to format html. I have no idea which of these statements are yours, and which are quotes from people you disagree with.
c6gunner says: I'm sorry, but I fail to see how spending money on stocks is "not spending".
Holy crap, c6. That's pretty dumb, even for you.
When you spend money, like on a vacation, you don't expect to get your money back. When you invest in stocks on the other hand, you do expect to get your money back and something more. That "something more" is called profit, and is the whole point of investing in stocks.
School kids know that much.
- - - - - - - - - -
This will definitely go in my "best of c6gunner" collection.
Yes I do. And I would immediately forgive any teacher who was overwhelmed by malware. The idea that criminal charges could result from this simple mistake is disgusting.
America is fucked.
Slashdot Mirror
A big problem is that "observer" is entirely the wrong word. QM has nothing to do with "observation", but I suppose "observer" sounds more profound than "photon absorber".
Siblings procreating has the highest certainty of genetically damaged offspring. 1st cousins next.
Still only 4-7%, about the same as that women who are over 40, compared to 2-3% overall.
I think we can draw the line at siblings and 1st cousins.
So should siblings, one of which is sterile, be allowed to marry? If not, why not?
Also, where is marriage between first cousins illegal? It isn't in Canada or most of Europe. In the U.S., as far as I know, first-cousin marriage is only illegal in 15 states:Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa,Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, North & South Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. Strange mixture.
Psychotics are people who have hallucinations, but are convinced that what they are seeing/hearing is real - like Nash, the "Beautiful Mind" guy. Psychopaths are the consciousless manipulators.
No connection between the two.
You're forgetting one thing: PC software-based BD decoders like PowerDVD are regularly (and legally) updated whenever the BD codes change. All the crackers have to do is reverse engineer the latest version and they can use it to make an unencrypted disk.
Also, this stuff about the latest BD codes being uncrackable is just movie company FUD: all the major bluray movies, including ones released this week, can easily be cracked by AnyDVD. The twelve uncopyable disks listed above are the same ones they listed in March. Nobody cares enough about them to bother cracking them.
Canada isn't like the US. We don't have the population density to maintain and support a large number of stores in most cases, smaller shops have dried up and gone away. This is half of the problem, while I live in Southern Ontario if I want something to do with robotics I now travel to Toronto. Roughly 2hrs away.
I find that slightly depressing. Maybe moving to Japan would be a better choice if I want to continue this hobby. Then again I'd have to become a Japanese Citizen to continue my line of work.
That's what online robotics stores are for. Try robotshop.ca.
I have a noob question:
Is there any theoretical upper limit on the resolving power of a reflecting telescope? For example, would a kilometer mirror necessarily be better than a 100-meter mirror? Would a 100-kilometer mirror necessarily be better than a 10-kilometer mirror?
I was imagining an army of robots spreading out across the solar system, turning asteroids into telescopes. Over centuries these robots could create hundreds of thousands of reflecting telescopes whose images could be combined to produce higher and higher resolution pictures, perhaps imaging exoplanets as if they were in our solar system.
Is there any theoretical reason why this wouldn't work?
Additionally, if people can have all the food, drink and basic shelter they need, there had better be contraceptives added to the water. Otherwise the population would swell until there was no more room on the planet.
Speaking of contraception, has anybody ever heard any mention of religion among earthlings in Star Trek? If not, that may be the reason it is so peaceful.
The main issue is that correlation is a necessary condition for causation, but is not a sufficient condition. So, finding a correlation is only one hurdle in the process of determining causation.
It seems to me that people on slashdot unfairly criticize original research for seeming to misunderstand this, when in fact some sensationalistic journalist is nearly always blame.
This would make the ultimate DDR pad.
Another reason prosecutors grandstand like this is to put pressure on the accused to accept a plea-bargain deal. Many will accept it, no matter how bad it is, for fear that it might go to trial and destroy their lives.
People always seem to misunderstand and/or misrepresent what Turing actually said. He never suggested that fooling a few people into believing that a machine is intelligent proved anything.
In Turing's day, computers barely existed and very few people had any idea what they could do or not do. At that time, philosophical arguments about whether a machine could, in principal, ever be intelligent were taken seriously. Turing responded to this nonsense by pointing out, correctly, that intelligence is as intelligence does. In other words, if something provides sufficient evidence of its intelligence, then we have to accept that it is in fact intelligent.
A lot of people at the time found this to be a rather abstract notion, so Turing provided an example of the kind of test that might be useful in making this determination: having a machine play a variation on popular palour game at the time whereby both a man and a woman try to convince a third party that each is in fact a woman. (Anybody familiar with Turing's private life would understand his interest in this). Note that Turing never suggested that passing any such test would constitute sufficient evidence of intelligence, only that it might serve as necessary evidence. In other words, if a machine cannot pass the test, it is definitely not intelligent, but passing it only grants the right to try another, harder test.
Where does this end, so the machine will be judged intelligent? Turing never said, and indeed there is no answer that would satisfy everyone.
The fact that one can craft a situation in which a few people are fooled by such a machine proves exactly nothing. Another bullshit article from New Scientist.
Warren Buffet has made a lot of money from investing in stocks, bonds and other investments instruments. So have millions of other people.
Nobody has ever made money by spending it on vacations, restaurant meals, rent, utilities, and other things that can't be sold back.
That's a pretty fundamental difference.
Evolution does a very good job of explaining how localized low entropy can arise (at the expense of increased entropy elsewhere). What's more, evolution explains this unusual situation without resorting to the unexplained existence of an even lower entropy: an intelligent designer.
Actually, it doesn't: evolution explains how a very sophisticated mechanism (replication of DNA) continues to function under adverse circumstances, but as yet there is no explanation of how that sophisticated (and thus improbable) mechanism came to be.
Of course, invoking superstition (eg ID) explains nothing, so we are still left with a profound and fascinating problem.
And you clearly do not know how to format html.
I have no idea which of these statements are yours, and which are quotes from people you disagree with.
c6gunner says:
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how spending money on stocks is "not spending".
Holy crap, c6. That's pretty dumb, even for you.
When you spend money, like on a vacation, you don't expect to get your money back.
When you invest in stocks on the other hand, you do expect to get your money back and something more.
That "something more" is called profit, and is the whole point of investing in stocks.
School kids know that much.
- - - - - - - - - -
This will definitely go in my "best of c6gunner" collection.
Younger? No.
More immature?Almost certainly.
Child abuse is a serious crime, one Lori Drew was clearly guilty of. Why was was she not charged with that?
Or child abuse.
Why didn't they charge her with that?
If the facts warrant the case, why not? I believe the facts did warrant this case, but hey -- IANAL.
No, but you AAAH.*
*(Are An Ass Hat) .
You don't have kids do you?
Yes I do.
And I would immediately forgive any teacher who was overwhelmed by malware.
The idea that criminal charges could result from this simple mistake is disgusting.
America is fucked.
Finally, someone got it right. Why do so many distinguished scholars find this so hard to understand?
We are only special to us. The rest of the universe doesn't give a crap.
I used to love playing the "Beat your Horse to Death" game on my SNES.
And wasn't he a douchebag?
Questions:
1. How is "being stuck in an endless quagmire" the same thing as "winning"?
2. How is this "insightful"?
Hell if I know.