So x-rays must be completely harmless if I can't "detect" them?
Think of airplane noise, as it is permanent near large airports. Would be ridiculous to claim it seeds tumors in human bodies. It just disturbs attentiveness, concentration, calmness, sleep. If you are a sensitive person, these disturbances may severely affect your quality of life. Noises can be heard, i.e., "detected", so there's no dispute as to the possible harm they can do. But how adequate are these criteria? Consciousness is not a system monitor. It is a bonus that some species were endowed with. The human body is not a robot. Our physiological systems were not designed. They're not just modules with interfaces. Their behaviour is not just determined by a set of formal rules and a specified input. They're not circuit boards. When our bodies and their functions gradually evolved in nature's history, they were not exposed to electromagnetic fields of the quality that is in question now.
As long as life is not understood (and it isn't, unless we'll have succeeded in building living cells from scratch), it is not unreasonable to be cautious.
The cancer claim is notorious because any lesser claim is not shocking enough to make it to the news. It is a suicide bomb of reputation: You get some attention at the expense of credibility.
Shouldn't that read 'ability to inspect on incoming data'? I couldn't imagine a way to introspect on incoming data unless I happen to be the incoming data myself.
Things have changed a lot since the old Amiga days. The video game business has become a field where billions are being earned, and that's no longer a secret to investors. Things were different in the eighties when investing in video games was considered taking a high risk. (It still is, but not to the degree it was back then.)
To learn a bit about how thing work today, follow these hints:
1.) Try to trace the path the Yerli brothers of Crytek went with their X-Isle demo. I think they made just about 100% right in getting the support they needed. But keep in mind that they were very clever from the beginning, which was essential to their success.
2.) To learn more about publishers and their evil ways, read the following interview with legendary game developer Archer Maclean:
http://www.dadgum.com/halcyon/BOOK/MACLEAN.HTM
Furthermore, the case of Maclean and his brilliant game Mercury may also serve as an illustration of how the definition of what a good idea is may change a lot with a change of perspective. Mercury was the perfect game for all purists (like me), but it didn't sell very well. After Maclean had left, Ignition (his publisher) released a follow-up 'Mercury Meltdown', which was a commercial exploit of Maclean's ideas. And it worked. (I still like the original better, but the masses don't agree with me.)
Have as many old or seriously ill people as you can find (e.g., at your hospital's cancer treatment center) read it to analog audio or, even better, video tape.
Slashdot Mirror
So x-rays must be completely harmless if I can't "detect" them? Think of airplane noise, as it is permanent near large airports. Would be ridiculous to claim it seeds tumors in human bodies. It just disturbs attentiveness, concentration, calmness, sleep. If you are a sensitive person, these disturbances may severely affect your quality of life. Noises can be heard, i.e., "detected", so there's no dispute as to the possible harm they can do. But how adequate are these criteria? Consciousness is not a system monitor. It is a bonus that some species were endowed with. The human body is not a robot. Our physiological systems were not designed. They're not just modules with interfaces. Their behaviour is not just determined by a set of formal rules and a specified input. They're not circuit boards. When our bodies and their functions gradually evolved in nature's history, they were not exposed to electromagnetic fields of the quality that is in question now. As long as life is not understood (and it isn't, unless we'll have succeeded in building living cells from scratch), it is not unreasonable to be cautious. The cancer claim is notorious because any lesser claim is not shocking enough to make it to the news. It is a suicide bomb of reputation: You get some attention at the expense of credibility.
Shouldn't that read 'ability to inspect on incoming data'? I couldn't imagine a way to introspect on incoming data unless I happen to be the incoming data myself.
Things have changed a lot since the old Amiga days. The video game business has become a field where billions are being earned, and that's no longer a secret to investors. Things were different in the eighties when investing in video games was considered taking a high risk. (It still is, but not to the degree it was back then.) To learn a bit about how thing work today, follow these hints: 1.) Try to trace the path the Yerli brothers of Crytek went with their X-Isle demo. I think they made just about 100% right in getting the support they needed. But keep in mind that they were very clever from the beginning, which was essential to their success. 2.) To learn more about publishers and their evil ways, read the following interview with legendary game developer Archer Maclean: http://www.dadgum.com/halcyon/BOOK/MACLEAN.HTM Furthermore, the case of Maclean and his brilliant game Mercury may also serve as an illustration of how the definition of what a good idea is may change a lot with a change of perspective. Mercury was the perfect game for all purists (like me), but it didn't sell very well. After Maclean had left, Ignition (his publisher) released a follow-up 'Mercury Meltdown', which was a commercial exploit of Maclean's ideas. And it worked. (I still like the original better, but the masses don't agree with me.)
Have as many old or seriously ill people as you can find (e.g., at your hospital's cancer treatment center) read it to analog audio or, even better, video tape.
Rumor has it George W. is going to fund a rewrite of the entry on evolution.