Seems a bit too much like a James Bond Villian plot.
"That's right Mr. Bond. The japanese science missile is actually carrying a nuclear payload, and there is no one here to stop me MWHAHAHAH! Now I'm going to put this "stop missile" remote control over here and leave the room secure in the fact that you can't possibly escape your restraints... MWHAHAHAHAH!"
In the next few years we will see the emergence of an even more extreme battle of "Freedom of the Internet" vs. "Risk of Use" as people try ot lockdown the internet to prevent damage done when morons open up that "I Love You" E-mail.
Well I certainly agree with you. I suppose now the best thing to consider for everyone is, "Is it abuse or language evolution?" Even if it is incorrect usage.
Sounds to me that the particle doesn't change but in fact it is the variable in the equation. Once you know an answer you can fill in that X in your equation and all of a sudden the world makes sense when it failed to before.
Ok, I have heard of Schroedinger's cat and that whole spiel before. I suppose it didn't sit well with me though. Seems like this is all based on the "God" science issue. You can't prove or disprove. All on faith. In this case, as with most, I don't have faith in the unprovable.
Darwinism in it's original context was essentially a "Survival of the fittest" (not said by Darwin but by another biologist). The strong would surive to pass on their genes. And thus as the weak die off an fail to reproduce the species as a whole strengthens to survive in a given circumstance.
Nowadays it has another (similar) meaning. It is applied to things that have a selective process of any kind where some characteristics are chosen over others. Take candy development. They use a Darwinian process. The best tasting recipies are kept and modified. Then the modified versions are tested and modified and so on unti you get to what will hopefully be the best outcome.
The article talks of a selection process where reality chooses who has the best perceptions. Whoever has the perception closest to some arbitrary ideal gets to be the one chosen. In the new sense of "Darwinian" it does apply. You just don't like that the word Darwin is applied to anything other than biology I suppose?
I'm not a physicist so you can shut me up at any time. But I thought the "observation changes the object" was only true because to observe you you have to toss energy at it and see what happens. Then the act of tossing the energy changed it. How does this mean that "looking at Buckinham Palace" would do anything ever? You just look at it. Being aware of an electron does not make it change. What you do to the electron to know it's there is what changes it. I suppose I don't really know, so I won't claim to.
Oh by the way if we all percieve that the reality of quantum physicists is to disappear, I think they would disappear... or at least make themselves disappear to prove their own points.
See now this is the type of thinking that while might be technically wrong, leads to more interesting posts. Sticking to the direct facts all the time is just boring during nonproffesional speculation. =)
Granted this introductory tech won't allow the stuff I said. However, if this takes off later innovations will most likely make them at least possible in theory.
1. Viruses.
2. Malware forcing ads onto speedometer.
3. Hackers reversing the pedal controls.
and of course...
4. Car networks becoming sentient and attempting to destory humanity.
I didn't see anything on it, but have they done any dubbing? I personally prefer subtitles, but they may try to pull a "Must appeal to a wider audience" when they pull it over to the states. Will the English speaking version suck? Who knows.
As has been, and will be more, clear here is that the world has such different views on how property works. There's those who own the movies, and they want to squeeze every penny regardless of if it destroys the franchise. Then there are those who make the movies who themselves may be about money or they may be about the art. The creation of something that is worthy to share with the world. And finally there are the viewers. Do we need to pay to see a movie, something for entertainment. If it sucks do we in a way boycott the movie, or if we enjoy do we go and buy the movie anyway as a sign of gratitude. Or perhaps we simply can not buy the movie, don't we deserve to see it? All in all like this post it is too confusing to answer. But we whatever the answer we know the eventual outcome. The people who make the money win. While the viewer is out in the cold, no matter how many anonymous file sharing networks he may make or use, he will always lose; right or wrong.
Damn... ok no one will likely see this, but it's in a full year that the calendars synch for a quick change. So that's a bit of time, not enough if you ask me though. Which of course no-one did.
Knowing that part of our calendar is based on religious dogma makes me a little uneasy about our current calander and the new one.
Also this guy probably should have given a bit more warning. I mean the holiday vendors don't have time to print up the modified Girls of Hooters gift wall calendars.
If you don't have anything to hide than what do you have to fear?
Oh yeah, I suppose since in a few years it will be rights infringment to use a copyrighted name in a negative sentence that there is plenty to fear. Call me Rossi The Prophet if someone ever attempts to pass such a law =)
But maybe they would use monitoring for something less evil? How about unknown public opinion polls? "57% of AIM users said they were displeased with last nights bombing of Iraq, a poll of all AIM conversations has found. More on this at 11."
Now why don't they take this tech an use it with soup? In fact why didn't they do soup first? After all if you are essentially just reheating coffee it will probablyt taste like crap, but re-heated soup doesn't often taste much worse than when it starts.
How long until Religious Nuts start claiming to see hidden messages encoded in our DNA telling us to love Jesus?
Or
How long until spies pass messages along in the form of biological matter by sneezing into a tissue?
Or
How long until we can buy books in readable vials full of liquid?
The possibilites are endless and cool but of course it will probably just be used to sell us Coca Cola... so much wasted potential.
I suppose I see this news as a bit inconsequential. It's important to know about this, but what's the point? Now, give this news bit along with some advice on if there is anything that can be done and it becomes more important. Slashdot should not become a "Computer Activists" website, but is there anything a person could do to change their actions? Write a senator or whatnot?
I guess my above comment could bring about the idea of why do news at all if we are powerless, I guess I wish the news didn't give the portrayal of powerlessness as major news agencies seem to. They keep the influence of the news out of the hands of the many and only in those who already control it.
Slashdot Mirror
Now how am I supposed to meet Christine, Joy, or all the other girls who desperatly seek my company?!
*Ahem* I mean Dec. 2, 2004
This story is over a month old. The story was origianlly posted Dec. 4, 2004.
Seems a bit too much like a James Bond Villian plot.
"That's right Mr. Bond. The japanese science missile is actually carrying a nuclear payload, and there is no one here to stop me MWHAHAHAH! Now I'm going to put this "stop missile" remote control over here and leave the room secure in the fact that you can't possibly escape your restraints... MWHAHAHAHAH!"
In the next few years we will see the emergence of an even more extreme battle of "Freedom of the Internet" vs. "Risk of Use" as people try ot lockdown the internet to prevent damage done when morons open up that "I Love You" E-mail.
Well I certainly agree with you. I suppose now the best thing to consider for everyone is, "Is it abuse or language evolution?" Even if it is incorrect usage.
Sounds to me that the particle doesn't change but in fact it is the variable in the equation. Once you know an answer you can fill in that X in your equation and all of a sudden the world makes sense when it failed to before.
Ok, I have heard of Schroedinger's cat and that whole spiel before. I suppose it didn't sit well with me though. Seems like this is all based on the "God" science issue. You can't prove or disprove. All on faith. In this case, as with most, I don't have faith in the unprovable.
Darwinism in it's original context was essentially a "Survival of the fittest" (not said by Darwin but by another biologist). The strong would surive to pass on their genes. And thus as the weak die off an fail to reproduce the species as a whole strengthens to survive in a given circumstance.
Nowadays it has another (similar) meaning. It is applied to things that have a selective process of any kind where some characteristics are chosen over others. Take candy development. They use a Darwinian process. The best tasting recipies are kept and modified. Then the modified versions are tested and modified and so on unti you get to what will hopefully be the best outcome.
The article talks of a selection process where reality chooses who has the best perceptions. Whoever has the perception closest to some arbitrary ideal gets to be the one chosen. In the new sense of "Darwinian" it does apply. You just don't like that the word Darwin is applied to anything other than biology I suppose?
I'm not a physicist so you can shut me up at any time. But I thought the "observation changes the object" was only true because to observe you you have to toss energy at it and see what happens. Then the act of tossing the energy changed it. How does this mean that "looking at Buckinham Palace" would do anything ever? You just look at it. Being aware of an electron does not make it change. What you do to the electron to know it's there is what changes it. I suppose I don't really know, so I won't claim to.
Oh by the way if we all percieve that the reality of quantum physicists is to disappear, I think they would disappear... or at least make themselves disappear to prove their own points.
"Oh look a Metal Gear Port.. horray downloading..."
"Dude you're cell.. it's dying I think..."
"Snake? SNAKE?! SSSSSNNNNAAAAAKKKKEEEEEE!!!!!!"
See now this is the type of thinking that while might be technically wrong, leads to more interesting posts. Sticking to the direct facts all the time is just boring during nonproffesional speculation. =)
Granted this introductory tech won't allow the stuff I said. However, if this takes off later innovations will most likely make them at least possible in theory.
1. Viruses.
2. Malware forcing ads onto speedometer.
3. Hackers reversing the pedal controls.
and of course...
4. Car networks becoming sentient and attempting to destory humanity.
I didn't see anything on it, but have they done any dubbing? I personally prefer subtitles, but they may try to pull a "Must appeal to a wider audience" when they pull it over to the states. Will the English speaking version suck? Who knows.
As has been, and will be more, clear here is that the world has such different views on how property works. There's those who own the movies, and they want to squeeze every penny regardless of if it destroys the franchise. Then there are those who make the movies who themselves may be about money or they may be about the art. The creation of something that is worthy to share with the world. And finally there are the viewers. Do we need to pay to see a movie, something for entertainment. If it sucks do we in a way boycott the movie, or if we enjoy do we go and buy the movie anyway as a sign of gratitude. Or perhaps we simply can not buy the movie, don't we deserve to see it? All in all like this post it is too confusing to answer. But we whatever the answer we know the eventual outcome. The people who make the money win. While the viewer is out in the cold, no matter how many anonymous file sharing networks he may make or use, he will always lose; right or wrong.
Now all those Valley Girls who use cell phones all the time will get super powers.
"We have to, like, go save the president, you know. hee hee! *Laser Beam Eye Sound Effects*"
Damn... ok no one will likely see this, but it's in a full year that the calendars synch for a quick change. So that's a bit of time, not enough if you ask me though. Which of course no-one did.
Knowing that part of our calendar is based on religious dogma makes me a little uneasy about our current calander and the new one.
Also this guy probably should have given a bit more warning. I mean the holiday vendors don't have time to print up the modified Girls of Hooters gift wall calendars.
If you don't have anything to hide than what do you have to fear?
Oh yeah, I suppose since in a few years it will be rights infringment to use a copyrighted name in a negative sentence that there is plenty to fear. Call me Rossi The Prophet if someone ever attempts to pass such a law =)
But maybe they would use monitoring for something less evil? How about unknown public opinion polls? "57% of AIM users said they were displeased with last nights bombing of Iraq, a poll of all AIM conversations has found. More on this at 11."
Now why don't they take this tech an use it with soup? In fact why didn't they do soup first? After all if you are essentially just reheating coffee it will probablyt taste like crap, but re-heated soup doesn't often taste much worse than when it starts.
9:32 Restate My Assumptions.
Been too long since I've seen Pi =) So the 3 word quote I gave is probably wrong.
How long until Religious Nuts start claiming to see hidden messages encoded in our DNA telling us to love Jesus?
Or
How long until spies pass messages along in the form of biological matter by sneezing into a tissue?
Or
How long until we can buy books in readable vials full of liquid?
The possibilites are endless and cool but of course it will probably just be used to sell us Coca Cola... so much wasted potential.
BEST. GAME. EVER.
I hope to buy the newer enhanced version for a chistmas gift to me. =
I suppose I see this news as a bit inconsequential. It's important to know about this, but what's the point? Now, give this news bit along with some advice on if there is anything that can be done and it becomes more important. Slashdot should not become a "Computer Activists" website, but is there anything a person could do to change their actions? Write a senator or whatnot?
I guess my above comment could bring about the idea of why do news at all if we are powerless, I guess I wish the news didn't give the portrayal of powerlessness as major news agencies seem to. They keep the influence of the news out of the hands of the many and only in those who already control it.
Ok, I just did a social commentary, sorry.