In case all of you libtards (95% of slashdotters) were not aware, these are not all run-of-the-mill Republicans being voted into office. Those desirous of liberty and freedom have two choices for a party vehicle to facilitate change. Would you suggest they pick Democrats??? Both parties are representative of their constituents. A few American zombies have been waking up and paying attention lately. They call themselves tea partiers. They are helping the less evil candidates become even less evil.
For a bunch of smart people, people in technology fields are really pretty freaking dumb sometimes.
Ummm what do those rich guys do with their personal income then? Make wallpaper out of cash?
They either buy things, or they put it to use in the most productive ways. Well, and maybe donate some (those donations are 100% loses of course). But otherwise they invest.
And why do you suggest that they do not seek the most productive investments of their capital? (that would be those with the best returns, generally) Have you given thought to what exactly "most productive" means? (jobs are likely involved).
Ah... I see what you are about to do there. Don't cite foreign investment as cause for giving their investment capital to the poor instead. If politicians pandering to the poor (and otherwise attempting to re-architect our society) did not create such an inhospitable business environment all around the country, it might be less of an issue. So, let us "fix" the core issues. Not use our screw ups to do more screw ups.
Assuming what you are contending is true, (which I do not really admit is not-simple enough to be true), what makes you think you know how to rig a system to achieve the ends you desire? (nevermind the fact that you want to take from your peers to achieve your ends, and nevermind questioning why you ought to be able to obtain the authority to do that.) Why is your system more viable and better long term for all or even any?
And furthermore, who are you econocluelessts who think that poor people buying food and toilet paper is somehow a more productive use of the 9% capital?
Safety nets are good. Stop trying to reingineer society under the guise of concern for such noble inventions.
I've long believed that in order to properly simulate the brain, you must simulate the universe as well. After all, the difference between the interactions amongst the physical stuff that makes up my brain and my surroundings is not much different from the interactions that took place when the matter in the now most distant galaxy was nearer by. The difference is only in degree of separation.
So what is a simulated brain that does not take into account what is going on inside Jupiter? Or what is a simulated brain that does not take into account the brain activity taking place on Europa or Titan at this very moment? Not to mention the plasma being ejected from the sun a couple of days ago. I say, those simulated brains are necessarily less than real brains. And those who owe their thinking to pretend brains will remain second class citizens.
That's because the hardware on which the emulator runs has it's own real electrons, semi-conductive materials, and temeratures to take care of that need.
Re:dear libertarians and tea baggers:
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1
Actually they understand this position perfectly well, and they will take you one further to a point you have not yet considered, apparently. The most advantaged competitor (that would be what we call federal government, whether in a more limited capacity as a minor regulator to an all-out "public-option" provider) has a distinct ability and tendency to eat away at the whole of the system, like cancer. And the more intervention there is in the system by those that "know" how best to intervene, the more cancerous and debilitating the intervention becomes.
So a few years of seemingly blissful universal healthcare for all is not worth healthcare for no one at some not too distant point in the future. I hope you understand now.
ummm apparently you didn't perform your reading comprehension when you read my comment. I don't know if yours is even worth replying to... because it's as if you are replying to someone else's comment. But in the event that you are replying to my comment and/or in the event that others may be similarly confused (I think this is what I was referring to in my initial comment, actually) I will reply.
Science can NOT demonstrate that science MATTERS. There- I changed the order of the words. Hope that helps. "Matter-ing" is a matter of faith and belief.
This is really not up for dispute. (Unlike the position that children "ought" to be taught science and "ought not" be taught philosophy or religion or meta-physics, for example)
OMGosh, what is it with you science people? It seems that what is needed here is an introductory course in epistemology and philosophy 101 or something.
Sooo committed to pure science, so many of you are, yet unable or unwilling to realize that this very commitment is religious in nature. Science can not demonstrate that science is important, that we ought to teach it in our schools, or that is better than religion. If you believe any of the aforementioned, please realize that these are your beliefs. And if you fervently, even zealously, endeavor to defend, proselytize or promulgate these beliefs- you are a RELIGIOUS person. Why is this so difficult to grasp? I dunno, I dunno... But at any rate, if you now realize that you are one of these people, please stop attacking your religious brethren, as though they are the mindless.
And on a semi-related note, I for one favor educating children in basic philosophical concepts, along with sciences, and perhaps even religious concepts if they so desire, so that when they "get big", they will not be so confused, as so many of "us" are.
Yes, parent up indeed for providing much needed context. Hawking could stand to communicate a little better, no offense to him. And Augustine was simply a genius, perhaps one of the greatest of all time.
And how I wish some of the anti-religion slashdot types would take some time to actually understand some theology and philosophy, and the history of both. Augustine set the stage for many disciples- in the 4th century no less.
And yes most slashdotters could stand to open their minds a bit in regard to religion. The intellectually honest will remain agnostic from a scientific perspective about extra-universe affairs. And Christianity has long maintained that God is transcendent, with respect to the "world" in which we experience our "being". Science has nothing to say about this! And by definition CAN NOT! It's so simple! What is so hard to understand about this? Ugh!
Wow... this is absurd. To think that one could abandon one's own worldview by voting for candidates holding diametrically opposite worldviews and philosophies... mind boggling, indeed! I think this is why "moderates", RINOs, and other forms of the linguine spined are so fun [and easy] to make fun of.
"Well, sure the Democrats have more faith in the governing than the governed, sure they support a legislative judiciary (for intrusive, backwards, liberal legislation, too!), don't take the threat of terrorism seriously, and are even willing to abandon what convictions they may have concerning homeland security and national defense for political gain, but hey! Those darned phone calls change everything!"
This phenomenon can be seen all over the net! Does anyone ever buy it? Highly unlikely.
I suggest that this is not so. What's happening in my neurons is [directly... or is it indirectly? What is the difference? (There is none!)] related to what is happening on Venus, at this very "moment". Not to mention other planets, solar systems, star systems, galaxies. I suggest that the "parts" and the "workings" of the entity (only the human brain, so far as i know) that give rise to consciousness are intrinsically, inextricably tied to the fabric of physical "being". One consequence of this is that what is going on in my brain right now is in fact inextricably related to what is happening everywhere else in the universe right "now".... and consequently everything that has ever happened in the universe in the "past".
The only way to simulate a brain is to simulate a universe in which to contain your simulated brain, and its seemingly countless "connections". And of course, a computer "of the universe" can not simulate the universe, given the laws of simulation.
Dear AC,
Do you have a blog or otherwise some form of contact information so that some of us may be informed of your progress? This is very interesting and useful information! TIA!
Re:How would Cringely's model work?
on
Own the Last Mile
·
· Score: 1
I would also love to hear of the experience. Would be very helpful indeed!
Simple - The company will fail and give rise to a competitor's potential success. Where well incentivized and intelligent employees will not do such things.
What do you know! There it is again, popping up its unpretty head, that silly presupposition that all cultures/faiths/ideologies of the world are "equal". Where oh where does this peculiar religious belief come from?? And why is it accepted so blindly???
I once knew a racist (well by the parent's definition and thinking, anyway) who actually had the nerve to call out some island cannibals for their questionable dining practices (oftentimes on unsuspecting island tourists/intruders). What a jerk! Needless to say, we are no longer friends.
Reading through the many posts on this matter, I can't help but notice the frequency with which oughtness is ascribed to matters of opinion.
-This or that ought not be in the classroom.
-This ought not be masqueraded as ID when it is in fact creationism.
-Science ought to be taught and learned in public education.
-Religion ought not be taught and learned in public education.
-Philosophy ought or ought not be taught in the public classroom.
-Fundie Christians really ought not tell us how things ought to be.
Let's see, we have the Bible, we have the Constitution (the Libertarian's Bible), the scientific method (the "scientisit's" Bible), and many more I'm sure.... a lot of really interesting religions with some very zealous followers.
The existence of god is not a prerequisite for the existence of the universe. It can be claimed that it is, but really the argument that it just is has equal weight.
Ahhh..... so you don't find it necessary to hold to the tenant of causality. Using reason (dependent on causality) to make the above argument that one should abandon causality seems to me a bit silly, and I tend to score this sort of thing a -10 on a -10 to 10 scale.;-)
Seriously though, I can't overemphasize the degree to which this stands out glaringly to me, compounded by the fact that so many seem to so willingly or otherwise overlook it.
Meanwhile in other news, Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and Health and Human Services (and yes even the President of the United States himself!) along with Mrs. Coke CEO and Mr. Dr. Pepper CEO alllllll went home last night and consumed a tasty HFCS SOFT DRINK!!! Because that's what is in front of them too.
Crazy Fools are soo evil, they even do it to themselves.
AND don't let us overlook The evil softdrink CEOs. They are just doing what they were taught to do, cut costs, drive efficiencies, increase productivity, etc.... bottom line improve profitability. And then when they go home, they eat what was put in front of them too! I guess everyone is just doing what they were taught to do, huh? Why is anyone more responsible for being the way they were taught than someone else?
All silliness aside, this is just the byproduct of human nature in a free capitalist society. It's not someone's FAULT. To suggest that it is someone's fault would require that that someone is 1) authoratative and 2) should know better (unlike the rest of us who were taught what we know.) Perhaps you should be blaming God here?? (God being the only one who could meet requisites 1 and 2 above)
These may be the costs of freedom, economic and otherwise. Of course, we can address these costs in ways, seeking remedy, but we shouldn't forget or lose sight of the fact that the benefits of these systems far outweigh the downsides and the costs.
So, other people throughout the course of the last 5-6 years worth of history who have known and discussed the fact that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA are equally as 'guilty'?
The onus was not on Karl Rove to not do what he did (which was hardly anything). The only perspective from which it could be said that Rove should have done anything differently can be illustrated as such:
GWB: "Karl buddy, you ought to know better than to speak out loud. You know the media will make something out of every nothing-word they hear."
In that sense, he should have known better. But it's not like he really did anything WRONG....much less CRIMINAL. What do you think, one is supposed to assume that everyone who is associated with the CIA is covert? Is that it?? LOL I'm sure Rove thought to himself, if anything, "Oh Novak would tell me if the lady was covert. Heck, how would he even know if she was? It's not like I can go find out anyway... (that is, need to know / chain of custody....)
No, no, in fact, it turns out she was in some fashion 'covert' (although there is much debate as to how covert, how recently, and whether or not she should still be classified in that status or not)... and that means SOMEONE really DID leak this fact. Why is your outrage not directed there?? Who was it?? Judy Miller? Someone at the CIA? Colin Powell? Joe Wilson himself!!!? (highly possible, in my opinion)
Oh, I'm sure your outrage is and will be proportionally directed towards this currently unknown perpetrator, who sadly, turns out NOT to be Karl Rove after all... right, right??! LOL;-)
I'm surprised this thinking is just now beginning to take off... but given yesterday's revelation by the Times that Novak told Rove about Wilson's wife's role in his being selected for the Niger trip, and the fact that Rove had apparently already gotten wind of this from other media sources, the notion that Wilson is the ultimate source himself becomes increasingly plausible.
Although, one thing that stands out to me is that Novak attributed his source to a high-up administration official. But it seems clear that Novak did not know that Plame had any sort of 'covert' status himself. So... perhaps Novak's source was someone else in the administration besides Rove, who got the Plame info (sans covert info maybe) and passed it on to Novak. Which means there could be a lot of interesting source circles going on.... possibly leading ultimately back to Judy Miller, Joe Wilson, and/or Valery Plame/Wilson! Craziness....
Slashdot Mirror
In case all of you libtards (95% of slashdotters) were not aware, these are not all run-of-the-mill Republicans being voted into office. Those desirous of liberty and freedom have two choices for a party vehicle to facilitate change. Would you suggest they pick Democrats??? Both parties are representative of their constituents. A few American zombies have been waking up and paying attention lately. They call themselves tea partiers. They are helping the less evil candidates become even less evil.
For a bunch of smart people, people in technology fields are really pretty freaking dumb sometimes.
Stop it! You'll give the statists a headache.
Ummm what do those rich guys do with their personal income then? Make wallpaper out of cash?
They either buy things, or they put it to use in the most productive ways. Well, and maybe donate some (those donations are 100% loses of course). But otherwise they invest.
And why do you suggest that they do not seek the most productive investments of their capital? (that would be those with the best returns, generally) Have you given thought to what exactly "most productive" means? (jobs are likely involved).
Ah... I see what you are about to do there. Don't cite foreign investment as cause for giving their investment capital to the poor instead. If politicians pandering to the poor (and otherwise attempting to re-architect our society) did not create such an inhospitable business environment all around the country, it might be less of an issue. So, let us "fix" the core issues. Not use our screw ups to do more screw ups.
Assuming what you are contending is true, (which I do not really admit is not-simple enough to be true), what makes you think you know how to rig a system to achieve the ends you desire? (nevermind the fact that you want to take from your peers to achieve your ends, and nevermind questioning why you ought to be able to obtain the authority to do that.) Why is your system more viable and better long term for all or even any? And furthermore, who are you econocluelessts who think that poor people buying food and toilet paper is somehow a more productive use of the 9% capital? Safety nets are good. Stop trying to reingineer society under the guise of concern for such noble inventions.
I've long believed that in order to properly simulate the brain, you must simulate the universe as well. After all, the difference between the interactions amongst the physical stuff that makes up my brain and my surroundings is not much different from the interactions that took place when the matter in the now most distant galaxy was nearer by. The difference is only in degree of separation. So what is a simulated brain that does not take into account what is going on inside Jupiter? Or what is a simulated brain that does not take into account the brain activity taking place on Europa or Titan at this very moment? Not to mention the plasma being ejected from the sun a couple of days ago. I say, those simulated brains are necessarily less than real brains. And those who owe their thinking to pretend brains will remain second class citizens.
That's because the hardware on which the emulator runs has it's own real electrons, semi-conductive materials, and temeratures to take care of that need.
Actually they understand this position perfectly well, and they will take you one further to a point you have not yet considered, apparently. The most advantaged competitor (that would be what we call federal government, whether in a more limited capacity as a minor regulator to an all-out "public-option" provider) has a distinct ability and tendency to eat away at the whole of the system, like cancer. And the more intervention there is in the system by those that "know" how best to intervene, the more cancerous and debilitating the intervention becomes. So a few years of seemingly blissful universal healthcare for all is not worth healthcare for no one at some not too distant point in the future. I hope you understand now.
ummm apparently you didn't perform your reading comprehension when you read my comment. I don't know if yours is even worth replying to... because it's as if you are replying to someone else's comment. But in the event that you are replying to my comment and/or in the event that others may be similarly confused (I think this is what I was referring to in my initial comment, actually) I will reply.
Science can NOT demonstrate that science MATTERS. There- I changed the order of the words. Hope that helps. "Matter-ing" is a matter of faith and belief. This is really not up for dispute. (Unlike the position that children "ought" to be taught science and "ought not" be taught philosophy or religion or meta-physics, for example)
OMGosh, what is it with you science people? It seems that what is needed here is an introductory course in epistemology and philosophy 101 or something.
Sooo committed to pure science, so many of you are, yet unable or unwilling to realize that this very commitment is religious in nature. Science can not demonstrate that science is important, that we ought to teach it in our schools, or that is better than religion. If you believe any of the aforementioned, please realize that these are your beliefs. And if you fervently, even zealously, endeavor to defend, proselytize or promulgate these beliefs- you are a RELIGIOUS person. Why is this so difficult to grasp? I dunno, I dunno... But at any rate, if you now realize that you are one of these people, please stop attacking your religious brethren, as though they are the mindless.
And on a semi-related note, I for one favor educating children in basic philosophical concepts, along with sciences, and perhaps even religious concepts if they so desire, so that when they "get big", they will not be so confused, as so many of "us" are.
Yes, parent up indeed for providing much needed context. Hawking could stand to communicate a little better, no offense to him. And Augustine was simply a genius, perhaps one of the greatest of all time.
And how I wish some of the anti-religion slashdot types would take some time to actually understand some theology and philosophy, and the history of both. Augustine set the stage for many disciples- in the 4th century no less.
And yes most slashdotters could stand to open their minds a bit in regard to religion. The intellectually honest will remain agnostic from a scientific perspective about extra-universe affairs. And Christianity has long maintained that God is transcendent, with respect to the "world" in which we experience our "being". Science has nothing to say about this! And by definition CAN NOT! It's so simple! What is so hard to understand about this? Ugh!
ah yes... yes indeed. Those were the good old days, Rumsfeld telling them the way it is. That is precisely why I love him so. I will miss him, surely!
Wow... this is absurd. To think that one could abandon one's own worldview by voting for candidates holding diametrically opposite worldviews and philosophies... mind boggling, indeed! I think this is why "moderates", RINOs, and other forms of the linguine spined are so fun [and easy] to make fun of.
"Well, sure the Democrats have more faith in the governing than the governed, sure they support a legislative judiciary (for intrusive, backwards, liberal legislation, too!), don't take the threat of terrorism seriously, and are even willing to abandon what convictions they may have concerning homeland security and national defense for political gain, but hey! Those darned phone calls change everything!"
This phenomenon can be seen all over the net! Does anyone ever buy it? Highly unlikely.
What do you think about fundamentalist naturalists and secularists? They can be quite fanatical, you know.
I suggest that this is not so. What's happening in my neurons is [directly... or is it indirectly? What is the difference? (There is none!)] related to what is happening on Venus, at this very "moment". Not to mention other planets, solar systems, star systems, galaxies. I suggest that the "parts" and the "workings" of the entity (only the human brain, so far as i know) that give rise to consciousness are intrinsically, inextricably tied to the fabric of physical "being". One consequence of this is that what is going on in my brain right now is in fact inextricably related to what is happening everywhere else in the universe right "now".... and consequently everything that has ever happened in the universe in the "past".
The only way to simulate a brain is to simulate a universe in which to contain your simulated brain, and its seemingly countless "connections". And of course, a computer "of the universe" can not simulate the universe, given the laws of simulation.
To those who aren't familiar with these products, I bet this sounds absolutely RIDICULOUS!! Because it is...
Dear AC, Do you have a blog or otherwise some form of contact information so that some of us may be informed of your progress? This is very interesting and useful information! TIA!
I would also love to hear of the experience. Would be very helpful indeed!
Simple - The company will fail and give rise to a competitor's potential success. Where well incentivized and intelligent employees will not do such things.
What do you know! There it is again, popping up its unpretty head, that silly presupposition that all cultures/faiths/ideologies of the world are "equal". Where oh where does this peculiar religious belief come from?? And why is it accepted so blindly???
I once knew a racist (well by the parent's definition and thinking, anyway) who actually had the nerve to call out some island cannibals for their questionable dining practices (oftentimes on unsuspecting island tourists/intruders). What a jerk! Needless to say, we are no longer friends.
Reading through the many posts on this matter, I can't help but notice the frequency with which oughtness is ascribed to matters of opinion.
-This or that ought not be in the classroom.
-This ought not be masqueraded as ID when it is in fact creationism.
-Science ought to be taught and learned in public education.
-Religion ought not be taught and learned in public education.
-Philosophy ought or ought not be taught in the public classroom.
-Fundie Christians really ought not tell us how things ought to be.
Let's see, we have the Bible, we have the Constitution (the Libertarian's Bible), the scientific method (the "scientisit's" Bible), and many more I'm sure.... a lot of really interesting religions with some very zealous followers.
The existence of god is not a prerequisite for the existence of the universe. It can be claimed that it is, but really the argument that it just is has equal weight.
;-)
Ahhh..... so you don't find it necessary to hold to the tenant of causality. Using reason (dependent on causality) to make the above argument that one should abandon causality seems to me a bit silly, and I tend to score this sort of thing a -10 on a -10 to 10 scale.
Seriously though, I can't overemphasize the degree to which this stands out glaringly to me, compounded by the fact that so many seem to so willingly or otherwise overlook it.
1: "Only the Sith deal in absolutes."
-Are you absolutely sure about that?-
2: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
-Absolutely!-
Meanwhile in other news, Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and Health and Human Services (and yes even the President of the United States himself!) along with Mrs. Coke CEO and Mr. Dr. Pepper CEO alllllll went home last night and consumed a tasty HFCS SOFT DRINK!!! Because that's what is in front of them too.
Crazy Fools are soo evil, they even do it to themselves.
AND don't let us overlook The evil softdrink CEOs. They are just doing what they were taught to do, cut costs, drive efficiencies, increase productivity, etc.... bottom line improve profitability. And then when they go home, they eat what was put in front of them too! I guess everyone is just doing what they were taught to do, huh? Why is anyone more responsible for being the way they were taught than someone else?
All silliness aside, this is just the byproduct of human nature in a free capitalist society. It's not someone's FAULT. To suggest that it is someone's fault would require that that someone is 1) authoratative and 2) should know better (unlike the rest of us who were taught what we know.) Perhaps you should be blaming God here?? (God being the only one who could meet requisites 1 and 2 above)
These may be the costs of freedom, economic and otherwise. Of course, we can address these costs in ways, seeking remedy, but we shouldn't forget or lose sight of the fact that the benefits of these systems far outweigh the downsides and the costs.
So, other people throughout the course of the last 5-6 years worth of history who have known and discussed the fact that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA are equally as 'guilty'?
;-)
The onus was not on Karl Rove to not do what he did (which was hardly anything). The only perspective from which it could be said that Rove should have done anything differently can be illustrated as such:
GWB: "Karl buddy, you ought to know better than to speak out loud. You know the media will make something out of every nothing-word they hear."
In that sense, he should have known better. But it's not like he really did anything WRONG....much less CRIMINAL. What do you think, one is supposed to assume that everyone who is associated with the CIA is covert? Is that it?? LOL I'm sure Rove thought to himself, if anything, "Oh Novak would tell me if the lady was covert. Heck, how would he even know if she was? It's not like I can go find out anyway... (that is, need to know / chain of custody....)
No, no, in fact, it turns out she was in some fashion 'covert' (although there is much debate as to how covert, how recently, and whether or not she should still be classified in that status or not)... and that means SOMEONE really DID leak this fact. Why is your outrage not directed there?? Who was it?? Judy Miller? Someone at the CIA? Colin Powell? Joe Wilson himself!!!? (highly possible, in my opinion)
Oh, I'm sure your outrage is and will be proportionally directed towards this currently unknown perpetrator, who sadly, turns out NOT to be Karl Rove after all... right, right??! LOL
I'm surprised this thinking is just now beginning to take off... but given yesterday's revelation by the Times that Novak told Rove about Wilson's wife's role in his being selected for the Niger trip, and the fact that Rove had apparently already gotten wind of this from other media sources, the notion that Wilson is the ultimate source himself becomes increasingly plausible.
. asp/
http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200507150827
Although, one thing that stands out to me is that Novak attributed his source to a high-up administration official. But it seems clear that Novak did not know that Plame had any sort of 'covert' status himself. So... perhaps Novak's source was someone else in the administration besides Rove, who got the Plame info (sans covert info maybe) and passed it on to Novak. Which means there could be a lot of interesting source circles going on.... possibly leading ultimately back to Judy Miller, Joe Wilson, and/or Valery Plame/Wilson! Craziness....