Calling the phrase "I think, therefore I am" a recursive structure is accurate, but doesn't convey the proper meaning. To be precise, the phrase would have to be called circular reasoning and be labelled a logical fallacy.
In coining the phrase "Cogito ergo sum" Descartes, in essence, gave up. He tried stripping away everything to reach the most basic proof of existance, but all he can find in the end is the belief in his own existance. At best, he has to assume that he is real in some sense of the word, and by extension that perhaps some or all of the rest of the world is real.
To say that "All that we know is that "I am", and logic implies that if one human is, than others probably are as well," would be somewhat untrue. a more accurate statement would be to say "All I know is that, as near as I can tell, I am. All else that exists does so part from me and the truth of it cannot be known." After all, just because I am certain I am real does not imply that all (or any) other humans are real, or even that I am human.
You mean HAL's Holographic storage units which were supposedly write-once read-many type devices? I don't know if I'd want something quite like that. if I had to write a virus every time I wanted to erase ome information, I might start writing them for no reason at all.
I am a PA reader, that's where I got the FF5000 idea, but it wasn't worth a positive moderation. or if it was, it might have been worth a + (one half point) mildly amusing, certainly not insightful.
I probably wasn't very clear (I rarely am, and thus my bad karma score) but yes, we're in agreement there. I feel that prayer is simply meditation, or possibly structured meditation (meditation for a specific goal such as answering a question or reaching a stable emotional state).
Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks
A few possibilities:
1) He's not very well endowed for a wookie, which means he may not be very popular with the female wookies, but might put him in the proper category to be very popular with female ewoks
2) He has a superiority complex and his great height helps reinforce that especially when contrasted with the diminutive ewoks. This could be a great boost to his self-esteem.
3) The forest moon of Endor may have lighter gravity than Chewbacca is accustomed to, thus imparting him the capacity for prodigious feats of might.
4) All of the above.
5) Other. Please specify ___________________
Makes perfect sense to me. Chewy is an under-endowed wookie with a superiority complex, self-esteem issues, and a need to prove himself stronger than those around him. He probably has a fixation on his mother as well.
On Endor, Wookies are always Positive.
Re:Deity does not help analyze things
on
Bad Science Awards
·
· Score: 0
That's identical to my list, except mine would prove the existance of God. how interesting. so if those happen then God simultaniously exists and non-exists. Which leaves us right back where we started.
On a similar line of reasoning:
Science doesn't have to prove the non-existance of God, science assumes God to not be part of the equation and attempts to find an alternate model. In cases where science has an alternate model, proof of God could be used to disprove the model (and thus the theory). In such a case, the burden falls on those who want to Prove the existance of God.
When someone claims the non-existance of God as their proof, then the burden of proof would fall to them. However, Science generally attempts to not use God at all and seek an explanation which matches the experimental results of multiple controlled tests. This is not attempting to disprove God, but rather attempting to find an explanation which provides consistantly accurate results.
The predictions go something like this, and they actually work. I shit you not.
"Read the Bible, when you encounter something you don't understand, pray about it. If, after doing so, you still don't understand, then you're free to say you're right. But GOD will speak to you and explain it, if you ask."
Rather than God telling you the answers to your questions about the bible, is it possible that the action of phrasing the question for God and thinking about it in a relaxed manner allows you to consider the concept on a slightly different conscious level and you reach understanding on your own rather than with the help of God?
If that's possible, then how would prayer be any different than meditation?
If it's not possible, then why? Can we empirically test this? I feel that no we can't. Empirical evidence cannot be acurately obtained from subjective experiences, which means we would need some way of providing a controlled experiment, which means we need to control God's influence on the groups so we can have one group which definitely has no "help" from God in determining the answers, and another group which does have "help" from God.
-That- would be an experiment. However, it can't be done because it tests the efficacy of God's influence on a group and so assumes the existance of God rather than providing an experiment for the verification of the existance of God.
it's 2k pro,with 64 and 64. and I frequently have it running for days at a time with trillian, and firefox for most of that time. Occasionally it runs VS 6.0 for an hour or two at a time.
Video doesn't use shared, ut it's only a 4meg card.
That said, I don't use it for much anymore now that my new linux box laptop are my primary machines.
Win2k uses 128? not on my 64MB win2k box (which is much snappier than my 256MB winXP box at work). and don't tell me it's virtual ram either, I don't have that much space free on the 2.2Gig hard drive in the machine (virtual memory is capped at 64MB and never fill sup to the point that it has to be resized).
they broke into the building with the parts of a bomb, and assembled it (possibly incorrectly) with the intent of using the future explosive blast to breach the vault and make off with the contents thereof.
I think the point is:
They may have intended to steal credit information and use it illegally, but they hadn't done it yet. what they had done was break into the system and install a program they had no authorization to install and which was put into place with the intent to commit a crime.
They should not have their guilt or innocence, or their sentencing, affected by the possible (probable, definite, etc) future misuse of illegally gathered information. The fact that what they had already done was a crime and had criminal intent should be the only consideration in the case. If that wasn't the only consideration, if a possible (probable... ) future event was considered (while bearing in mind that considering that future event does not prevent or deter it in any way) then the individuals are not being fairly tried.
then again, I'm not a lawyer, I could be wrong, or I might be an idiot.
base-10 can't be base 2 because then 2(base10) would be an undefined symbol, and if 2(base10) is undefined, then 10(base2(base10)) would be somewhat difficult to explain.
If he's trying to portray technology as evil and to be avoided, then he has an opposite effect on me. I find that Chricton's novels pique my interest in the various fields rather than cause me to shy away or reject them as evil.
Or it could be that I'm secretly evil so his works appeal to me on a destroy-the-world level.
The trick would be programming it. You'd need some way of storing information. My thinking would be to use a chain with links denoting one and zero. Then you'd just need a mechanism to read and write the chain.
Emulate: Computer Science. To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system.
According to that they're basically the same thing.
However, I believe the point that's being made is that reimplementation is binary compatible with applications for the original, while emulation strives to be just enough of the original to run applications for the original.
An emulator, therefor, is not a complete system in and of itself, it just implements or duplicates enough of another system to allow that system's stuff to run on another system.
Interesting. how does transistor density on integrated circuits doubling every 18 months translate to having 18 months to master the current technology before being left in the dust?
"render by any means" isn't necesarily a good thing. It encourages lazy non-standards-compliant pages, and may render standards-compliant pages incorrectly. So the coders will tweak their designs to look right on IE and thereby break everything that does it properly.
personally, I prefer the way opera does things, though I use IE at work and firefox on the home machines other than my laptop.
Slashdot Mirror
well sure, if you want them to see the message before you erase the drive.
Calling the phrase "I think, therefore I am" a recursive structure is accurate, but doesn't convey the proper meaning. To be precise, the phrase would have to be called circular reasoning and be labelled a logical fallacy.
In coining the phrase "Cogito ergo sum" Descartes, in essence, gave up. He tried stripping away everything to reach the most basic proof of existance, but all he can find in the end is the belief in his own existance. At best, he has to assume that he is real in some sense of the word, and by extension that perhaps some or all of the rest of the world is real.
To say that "All that we know is that "I am", and logic implies that if one human is, than others probably are as well," would be somewhat untrue. a more accurate statement would be to say "All I know is that, as near as I can tell, I am. All else that exists does so part from me and the truth of it cannot be known." After all, just because I am certain I am real does not imply that all (or any) other humans are real, or even that I am human.
shouldn't that be
10 SYSTEM "Format C: \Y"
20 PRINT "INITIALIZING HACK"
30 GOTO 10
?
You mean HAL's Holographic storage units which were supposedly write-once read-many type devices? I don't know if I'd want something quite like that. if I had to write a virus every time I wanted to erase ome information, I might start writing them for no reason at all.
I am a PA reader, that's where I got the FF5000 idea, but it wasn't worth a positive moderation. or if it was, it might have been worth a + (one half point) mildly amusing, certainly not insightful.
what... the.... helll?
Mod-person, that had to be my least insightful post ever..., it's not worthy of karma.
I swear, you mods are trying to drive me crazy (and I think you're winning)
Correction: Slashdot was wanged.
by the Fruit Fucker 5000
I probably wasn't very clear (I rarely am, and thus my bad karma score) but yes, we're in agreement there. I feel that prayer is simply meditation, or possibly structured meditation (meditation for a specific goal such as answering a question or reaching a stable emotional state).
Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks
A few possibilities:
1) He's not very well endowed for a wookie, which means he may not be very popular with the female wookies, but might put him in the proper category to be very popular with female ewoks
2) He has a superiority complex and his great height helps reinforce that especially when contrasted with the diminutive ewoks. This could be a great boost to his self-esteem.
3) The forest moon of Endor may have lighter gravity than Chewbacca is accustomed to, thus imparting him the capacity for prodigious feats of might.
4) All of the above.
5) Other. Please specify ___________________
Makes perfect sense to me. Chewy is an under-endowed wookie with a superiority complex, self-esteem issues, and a need to prove himself stronger than those around him. He probably has a fixation on his mother as well.
On Endor, Wookies are always Positive.
That's identical to my list, except mine would prove the existance of God. how interesting. so if those happen then God simultaniously exists and non-exists. Which leaves us right back where we started.
On a similar line of reasoning:
Science doesn't have to prove the non-existance of God, science assumes God to not be part of the equation and attempts to find an alternate model. In cases where science has an alternate model, proof of God could be used to disprove the model (and thus the theory). In such a case, the burden falls on those who want to Prove the existance of God.
When someone claims the non-existance of God as their proof, then the burden of proof would fall to them. However, Science generally attempts to not use God at all and seek an explanation which matches the experimental results of multiple controlled tests. This is not attempting to disprove God, but rather attempting to find an explanation which provides consistantly accurate results.
Remember: I'm crazy. Ignore me.
The predictions go something like this, and they actually work. I shit you not.
"Read the Bible, when you encounter something you don't understand, pray about it. If, after doing so, you still don't understand, then you're free to say you're right. But GOD will speak to you and explain it, if you ask."
Rather than God telling you the answers to your questions about the bible, is it possible that the action of phrasing the question for God and thinking about it in a relaxed manner allows you to consider the concept on a slightly different conscious level and you reach understanding on your own rather than with the help of God?
If that's possible, then how would prayer be any different than meditation?
If it's not possible, then why? Can we empirically test this? I feel that no we can't. Empirical evidence cannot be acurately obtained from subjective experiences, which means we would need some way of providing a controlled experiment, which means we need to control God's influence on the groups so we can have one group which definitely has no "help" from God in determining the answers, and another group which does have "help" from God.
-That- would be an experiment. However, it can't be done because it tests the efficacy of God's influence on a group and so assumes the existance of God rather than providing an experiment for the verification of the existance of God.
I wonder if they host that server in chine to avoid the traditional slashdot effect.
After all, in Chine, the Slashdot Effect is always positive.
nah, it doesn't quite work.
it's 2k pro,with 64 and 64. and I frequently have it running for days at a time with trillian, and firefox for most of that time. Occasionally it runs VS 6.0 for an hour or two at a time.
Video doesn't use shared, ut it's only a 4meg card.
That said, I don't use it for much anymore now that my new linux box laptop are my primary machines.
that means that it isn't 0, and if it isn't 0 it might as well be 1.
My post is at zero because so many of my posts are far less helpful that the mods need to protect the world from my babbling.
Actually, I think I should thank them for it some day.
Win2k uses 128? not on my 64MB win2k box (which is much snappier than my 256MB winXP box at work). and don't tell me it's virtual ram either, I don't have that much space free on the 2.2Gig hard drive in the machine (virtual memory is capped at 64MB and never fill sup to the point that it has to be resized).
Wouldn't a more apt analogy be
they broke into the building with the parts of a bomb, and assembled it (possibly incorrectly) with the intent of using the future explosive blast to breach the vault and make off with the contents thereof.
I think the point is:
They may have intended to steal credit information and use it illegally, but they hadn't done it yet. what they had done was break into the system and install a program they had no authorization to install and which was put into place with the intent to commit a crime.
They should not have their guilt or innocence, or their sentencing, affected by the possible (probable, definite, etc) future misuse of illegally gathered information. The fact that what they had already done was a crime and had criminal intent should be the only consideration in the case. If that wasn't the only consideration, if a possible (probable... ) future event was considered (while bearing in mind that considering that future event does not prevent or deter it in any way) then the individuals are not being fairly tried.
then again, I'm not a lawyer, I could be wrong, or I might be an idiot.
base-10 can't be base 2 because then 2(base10) would be an undefined symbol, and if 2(base10) is undefined, then 10(base2(base10)) would be somewhat difficult to explain.
If he's trying to portray technology as evil and to be avoided, then he has an opposite effect on me. I find that Chricton's novels pique my interest in the various fields rather than cause me to shy away or reject them as evil.
Or it could be that I'm secretly evil so his works appeal to me on a destroy-the-world level.
The trick would be programming it. You'd need some way of storing information. My thinking would be to use a chain with links denoting one and zero. Then you'd just need a mechanism to read and write the chain.
I have just two words for you.
Paper.
Tape.
better yet, give use a cygwin package that will let us run enlightenment on our cygwin live CDs.
Emulate: Computer Science. To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system.
According to that they're basically the same thing.
However, I believe the point that's being made is that reimplementation is binary compatible with applications for the original, while emulation strives to be just enough of the original to run applications for the original.
An emulator, therefor, is not a complete system in and of itself, it just implements or duplicates enough of another system to allow that system's stuff to run on another system.
or maybe I'm babbling again.
Interesting. how does transistor density on integrated circuits doubling every 18 months translate to having 18 months to master the current technology before being left in the dust?
"render by any means" isn't necesarily a good thing. It encourages lazy non-standards-compliant pages, and may render standards-compliant pages incorrectly. So the coders will tweak their designs to look right on IE and thereby break everything that does it properly.
personally, I prefer the way opera does things, though I use IE at work and firefox on the home machines other than my laptop.