Yes, sometimes I feel that just being smart and informed enough to cheat gives me a right to:D (Especially when it feels we've been cheated out of the stuff we're clawing back in the first place)
Every time products get deliberately borked in order to sell non-borked versions at a higher price, a part of me gets very angry. I can see the commercial sense in it, but it does not stop the anger.
I thought indenting was purely down to personal style and how the text editor is set up, not regulated by the languages at all. Does Python have some funny requirements with whitespace?
The games will never stop, The games will never stop. The games will never stop, The games will never stop. The gam--oh, wait./Apologies. It was necessary.
Perhaps it's a willingness to be surprised, be wrong, and adapt to situations. As someone above said, a climate of fear reduces the ability to find humour in things, and in that situation you don't allow for languid, experimental responses--you go for caution and safety, favouring things that have worked before.
And while I love the sort of religious people who have a sense of humour*, as they generally have both their heads and hearts screwed on (we can disagree about metaphysics, true, but mostly for fun), it's the other type that scares me.
As to senses of humour being age dependent... yes, to some extent it's a negative correlation. But that's mostly due, I think, to people's tendency to become more right-winged with age--more fearful of losing what they have, unable to take risks to get what they want, and disillusioned with their former ideals. But that doesn't have to be the case. You can stay playful and idealistic, even as your sense of humour matures with your experience. Man, I love mad leftie old people. I hope to be one.
* My core values in humanity are humour, compassion, curiosity and tolerance. At least, I think they are. I have a nagging feeling I left one out.
When you feel down-trodden and pushed aside, it's natural and healthy to make light of it. It's not just jews; immigrants and persecuted groups often do the same thing.
Then there's the question of what my girlfriend thinks is funny when she gets hyper. Answer: everything, pretty much; it's like she's on laughing gas and she usually just ends up repeating a word (or corrupted variation of it) over and over while giggling uncontrollably. It's like a short-circuit to the funny circuits of her brain, and perhaps could reveal something about the neurology of humour if analysed.
That feels like a different kind of humour - not at one's own expectations being subverted, but at an Other's perceived shortcomings being exploited in a status re-affirming way.
This makes sense in the context of something I've noticed: the more extreme and deeply-held your views, the less likely you are to have a functioning sense of humour. In particular, hard-core religious people seem to have none whatsoever. If your dogma is so entrenched and rigid, then you aren't going to make self-correction and ambiguity a strong part of your mental tool-kit.
Never trust someone without a sense of humour, kids.
(Of course, too much can be a bad thing, too, at least insofar as maniacal giggling whilst ripping your still-living victims organs out can be considered humorous...)
The Copenhagen Interpretation applies to the wavefunction itself - specifically, that it's just a mathematical convenience and don't ask questions about it.
What if Harry Potter is outside the universe? Not to mention flying monsters of the pasta persuasion? What makes this 'god' special? You think it's a reasonable proposition, but why? To me it is no less fantastical and arbitrary than the others,
Agnosticism to God or to Harry Potter and the FSM? Why should a 'true scientist' be expected to privilege the God hypothesis when it seems no more logical, coherent or justified than claims which only seem ridiculous in comparison because religion is culturally acceptable?
There is no way to check the claim because it is empty of content. It doesn't mean anything, but tries hard to sound like it does. And that, folks, is theology!
But it will happen. It's already starting to happen. The PC is on its way out.
There are things a PC is still needed for: serious gaming, or intensive modelling/media tasks, but that territory is being encroached and whittled down every day. Even laptops, which are the basic computing device of the moment, are finding themselves under attack. Computing is moving from big, monolithic workhorses to small, networked ubiquitous devices.
Soon enough, you'll do the processing with whatever portable/cloud-based systems you have to hand, and it will be displayed on and interacted via whatever devices are present and convenient. We're not going to be tied to the Big Box In The Corner anymore.
Yeah, it's the indiscernibles thing. My main point is that even if the different multiverse scenarios can be shown to be different, that difference requires a future observation that doesn't impinge upon the identical minds being identical _now_. It might even be shown that any parallel entities existing in one fashion necessitates further instantiations and parallelisations existing in the other ways too. I'll read your review though:)
I think of these different class multiverses as being partially equivalent, in many ways.
Let's say there's a parallel version of you out there, that is, the mind it generates is identical to yours in every single way. Other things in its local reality might be different -- cells that haven't yet contributed to its mindstate, the colour of a car behind it, galaxies far away being entirely different, etc., -- but the mind is the same.
Is there any real way to say which of these versions you, at this moment, actually inhabit? Does that question even make sense?
And does it make any difference whether that parallel version of you is separated in a time-like, space-like, extra-dimensional, or outrageously metaphysical way?
Oh come on - they merely switched focus to touchscreens once it became apparent how dominant they were going to be. They already had a touchscreen version that wasn't so different from what it turned in to; the main difference being more tweaking towards touch-friendliness (bigger, touch-oriented elements and no keypad fallbacks). That isn't really a massive revamp at all.
How about a website that examines what apps you have, and shows you a nice user-friendly set of links to any that have independent web-based stores? Do it right and it could be as easy and pretty as any app. (I have no idea what kind of privileges you need to see your installed apps, but even if it can't be done automatically, there should still be a way of exporting a list or entering them manually in a painless fashion.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, sometimes I feel that just being smart and informed enough to cheat gives me a right to :D (Especially when it feels we've been cheated out of the stuff we're clawing back in the first place)
Not only that, but chips with features deliberately disabled in order to have budget and premium versions :O
I know that some of that partly comes down to the manufacturing processes naturally making sub-standard chips, but still, /angry face/
Every time products get deliberately borked in order to sell non-borked versions at a higher price, a part of me gets very angry. I can see the commercial sense in it, but it does not stop the anger.
Good, bad, they're the guys with the lawyers.
(They ain't that good.)
I thought indenting was purely down to personal style and how the text editor is set up, not regulated by the languages at all. Does Python have some funny requirements with whitespace?
The games will never stop, /Apologies. It was necessary.
The games will never stop.
The games will never stop,
The games will never stop.
The gam--oh, wait.
Perhaps it's a willingness to be surprised, be wrong, and adapt to situations. As someone above said, a climate of fear reduces the ability to find humour in things, and in that situation you don't allow for languid, experimental responses--you go for caution and safety, favouring things that have worked before.
And while I love the sort of religious people who have a sense of humour*, as they generally have both their heads and hearts screwed on (we can disagree about metaphysics, true, but mostly for fun), it's the other type that scares me.
As to senses of humour being age dependent... yes, to some extent it's a negative correlation. But that's mostly due, I think, to people's tendency to become more right-winged with age--more fearful of losing what they have, unable to take risks to get what they want, and disillusioned with their former ideals. But that doesn't have to be the case. You can stay playful and idealistic, even as your sense of humour matures with your experience. Man, I love mad leftie old people. I hope to be one.
* My core values in humanity are humour, compassion, curiosity and tolerance. At least, I think they are. I have a nagging feeling I left one out.
When you feel down-trodden and pushed aside, it's natural and healthy to make light of it. It's not just jews; immigrants and persecuted groups often do the same thing.
Then there's the question of what my girlfriend thinks is funny when she gets hyper. Answer: everything, pretty much; it's like she's on laughing gas and she usually just ends up repeating a word (or corrupted variation of it) over and over while giggling uncontrollably. It's like a short-circuit to the funny circuits of her brain, and perhaps could reveal something about the neurology of humour if analysed.
PS if you're reading this, sorry, I love you :D
That feels like a different kind of humour - not at one's own expectations being subverted, but at an Other's perceived shortcomings being exploited in a status re-affirming way.
This makes sense in the context of something I've noticed: the more extreme and deeply-held your views, the less likely you are to have a functioning sense of humour. In particular, hard-core religious people seem to have none whatsoever. If your dogma is so entrenched and rigid, then you aren't going to make self-correction and ambiguity a strong part of your mental tool-kit.
Never trust someone without a sense of humour, kids.
(Of course, too much can be a bad thing, too, at least insofar as maniacal giggling whilst ripping your still-living victims organs out can be considered humorous...)
The Copenhagen Interpretation applies to the wavefunction itself - specifically, that it's just a mathematical convenience and don't ask questions about it.
This would throw that out completely.
Just the other day, a scientist dismissed my idea of extra-dimensional omniscient radishes. What an idiot!
What if Harry Potter is outside the universe? Not to mention flying monsters of the pasta persuasion? What makes this 'god' special? You think it's a reasonable proposition, but why? To me it is no less fantastical and arbitrary than the others,
Agnosticism to God or to Harry Potter and the FSM? Why should a 'true scientist' be expected to privilege the God hypothesis when it seems no more logical, coherent or justified than claims which only seem ridiculous in comparison because religion is culturally acceptable?
There is no way to check the claim because it is empty of content. It doesn't mean anything, but tries hard to sound like it does. And that, folks, is theology!
wouldn't little-endian be SS:MM:HH DD-MM-YYYY?
That would make, for me, right now 44:22:17 11-09-2011
But it will happen. It's already starting to happen. The PC is on its way out.
There are things a PC is still needed for: serious gaming, or intensive modelling/media tasks, but that territory is being encroached and whittled down every day. Even laptops, which are the basic computing device of the moment, are finding themselves under attack. Computing is moving from big, monolithic workhorses to small, networked ubiquitous devices.
Soon enough, you'll do the processing with whatever portable/cloud-based systems you have to hand, and it will be displayed on and interacted via whatever devices are present and convenient. We're not going to be tied to the Big Box In The Corner anymore.
Yeah, it's the indiscernibles thing. My main point is that even if the different multiverse scenarios can be shown to be different, that difference requires a future observation that doesn't impinge upon the identical minds being identical _now_. It might even be shown that any parallel entities existing in one fashion necessitates further instantiations and parallelisations existing in the other ways too. I'll read your review though :)
The thing is, do identical minds originating from distinct physical systems also exist distinctly?
24*3+1=73
9^2-2^3=73
Are those 73's different, or do they refer to the same fundamental thing?
Does arising from different equations make them different, or are those equations simply rearrangements of the same thing?
Does arising from two identical bodies (albeit in different locations) make the minds distinct? In what way?
Would a hypothetical AI notice what hardware it was running on, or where, or how many times?
That which makes no difference _is_ no difference.
I think of these different class multiverses as being partially equivalent, in many ways.
Let's say there's a parallel version of you out there, that is, the mind it generates is identical to yours in every single way. Other things in its local reality might be different -- cells that haven't yet contributed to its mindstate, the colour of a car behind it, galaxies far away being entirely different, etc., -- but the mind is the same.
Is there any real way to say which of these versions you, at this moment, actually inhabit? Does that question even make sense?
And does it make any difference whether that parallel version of you is separated in a time-like, space-like, extra-dimensional, or outrageously metaphysical way?
To me it means that we should all choose to kill as many people as possible. Hey, it's art, damnit, and my interpretation is just as valid.
Oh come on - they merely switched focus to touchscreens once it became apparent how dominant they were going to be. They already had a touchscreen version that wasn't so different from what it turned in to; the main difference being more tweaking towards touch-friendliness (bigger, touch-oriented elements and no keypad fallbacks). That isn't really a massive revamp at all.
How about a website that examines what apps you have, and shows you a nice user-friendly set of links to any that have independent web-based stores? Do it right and it could be as easy and pretty as any app. (I have no idea what kind of privileges you need to see your installed apps, but even if it can't be done automatically, there should still be a way of exporting a list or entering them manually in a painless fashion.)