Make that polygonal sex with one partner fully clothed. What percentage of kids have had a sexual experience with the opposite of sex by the age of 17? I'd be willing to throw in a 80-90%. Now don't everybody chime in at once about how my figures are grossly exaggerated, this IS slashdot... don't mix up statistics with your own personal history.
When was the last time you switched your lights off? I only know of one person who can voluntarily will himself into unconsciousness, and he was trained to do it to avoid interrogation (special forces).
But take that a step further... can you permanently turn yourself off by thought alone? I've read about some Buddhist monks being able to do this. But last time I checked, most people had to use crude implements to turn themselves off. Sometimes I think some parts of our brains and ways of thinking are worse off than a lightswitch.
"The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you." Luke 17:20. is really the only verbose quote I can come up with. But the "among us" part makes that a bit disputable.
All of the Jesus quotes on heaven in the bible mostly just draw a distinction between heaven and earth... creating metaphors about those who have the least are the most blessed, those who make themselves like children (unexperience, blank slates) are blessed... etc. etc. To me that just says there is nothing to understand in any way (conceptually, emotionally, even unconsciously) about God or Heaven or how to experience either. Jesus says that the kingdom of God is "within you" in our "heart". What is at our "heart" is not really something perceptible. That's the whole question of "What are you? Where does 'you' begin?". Not much of an answerable question.
But I've been reading a lot of Thomas Merton lately, so that's where I'm getting my influence on the subject of God and nothingness. It's eastern thought more than it is contemporary western. I should also mention that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to God or nothingness... and that no one else does either.:)
Yes, in base 13... which is the dimensions of the scrabble board Arthur used to unconsciously pull the ultimate question out of his mind. On wikipedia.
My favorite is that if God is infinite but one can still perceive part of God, then they are perceiving a finite part of infinity... and any finite value over infinity counts for zero, so they're really not perceiving anything at all. Even Jesus says you can't perceive God or Heaven with the senses. But yet we have so many Christians out there who think that God is "speaking" to them. Bugs me out to no end.
Nah, now I can get hammered instead of my once-binary neurons simply saying "does not compute!". Getting drunk is a fuzzy operation.
Speaking of "does not compute!", my dance-floor options are also a little bit broader now.
I've been waiting for a scientist to tell me that I'm capable of thinking in abstract and fuzzy terms for years. Things I can now forget thanks to the brilliant scientist:
1.) The GPS coordinates of each key on my keyboard. 2.) The streaming audio of my name and all of my friends and families name. 3.) The bio-mechanical force sequences for the hundreds of muscles used in picking up a glass every morning.
$location={"Soviet Russia", "Mars", "Earth", "The known universe and possibily all of its parallels"} $object={"satellite", "Mars", "gravity", "spaceship", "CowboyNeal", "our new overlords"} $verb={"lands", "launches", "explores", "infests", "destroys"}
It all depends on the system architecture and the type of problem being solved. Certain problems will adhere better to certain architectures and thus allow for a smaller gap between the theoretical and actual performance. The gaps can also be inherent in the architecture itself (e.g. communications bandwidth like you said).
What people here aren't understanding is that according to this theory, if you are in fact able to travel back in time, you won't actually be travelling per se. Memories, consciousness, and everything (all matter/energy) will revert back to that point that you travel back to. You won't even be aware of the "travel". The reversal of time means the reveral of all matter existing and moving forwards through time.
This only becomes confusing because everyone is insistent on declaring their capacity for "choice" as an absolute. Say I decide to "randomly" put my hand on my head to prove that I choose that I can do whatever I want. That choice was motivated by a previous stimuli. I am reacting to the challenge to prove that I can do whatever I want. Me choosing my head is simply a matter of thinking to myself "what would seem 'random' to the person who is observing me?". There is not really a choice, but a psychological disposition that can be as complex as you are psychologically dispositioned to be... complexity does not mean choice.
The "now" presents the illusion of choice. The ego presents the illusion of choice. I do what I "choose" to do even though it is an illusion because there is nothing else I can do being stuck in the "now". Having a concept of all "spacetime" in its entirety is impossible because the concept would have to exist in our mind which exists in the "now" and can't supercede the "now".
Travelling into the future (I mean purely travelling into the future, not travelling at the speed of light to circumvent spacetime travel and avoid time) would fall under the same category. Travelling to the future would mean existing in some future time, where all of the experience inbetween now and that future time has already happened. We would only be aware of the journey in the future because of the fact that we decided to take the journey in the "past". But we would also have the memories of everything that took place in between those two times, so it wouldn't actually seem like we travelled anywhere. By all rights, sitting here and generating a memory of "I travelled 10 years into the future", then remembering that memory 10 years later is the same thing. Heck, I could even convince myself that this chair is a time travel machine and however many times I spin in it will take me that many years into the future... BECAUSE, I'm going to get to the future (even if I don't spin on the chair).
Therefore, time travel is irrelevant (unless you do the "lightspeed" time travel method, which allows you to actually "travel" into the future by avoiding time for as long as you want)... because matter/energy is going act as it is supposed to act, and nothing can change that (unless you are stubbornly insistent on the issue of "choice"... I most certainly am, because I don't have a choice but to believe in "choice" because I am always in the "now" which presents me with what appears to be "choice"). Everything (matter/energy) is going to do what it is supposed to do, and has already done what is was supposed to do... so travelling backwards or forwards simply means "being" in that state of matter that you decide to go to, which includes yourself and the state of matter you will be in at that time.
Because (2) still exists. Also, (2) creates more complications because they would have to support that documentation (if they wanted to make it a viable extension to their existing product that people would actually use) that only the engineers really have any sort involvement in and/or knowledge about. So if someone wants to suddenly tell a few of their engineers that they're now technical support, be my guest.
An easier and more profitable solution for the company is to provide custom solutions for $$. But that just degenerates into the whole MS vs. Linux customization argument.
All I know is that my couch beats my leather office chair any day. And my TV is much bigger than my screen (ok, it's 22 inches, maybe not MUCH bigger). Now if he has a CD-Video compatible DVD player and a CD writer and he's still doing VHS, then he needs to pull the tube amps out of his ears to wake up and smell the coffee made with a coffee machine that supports IPv6.
No, because the evil dictators were tyrannical towards people, not plants. Plants have a natural hatred for non-rooted organisms (since we're always eating them, burning them, rubbing their essense all over us), so naturally the persecution of the people brought great joy to the plants, and they flourished more than ever.
But who do you think is actually making the nanopants? Not the suits my friend. This is a double reverse conspiracy theory. The nanopants that the geeks are designing and will wear will be stunningly attractive and yet stain proof at the same time while maintaining an ambient level of pheremones (sold at your nearest spammed inbox). The suits that the geeks are designing but worn by the suits (the people suits, not the suit suits... damn your confusion of nouns!) will provide an attractive yet instantly sterilizing combination. This design was meant to be subtle (sterilization only, no poisions, stain-inducing material, or unstable molecular compounds) so that it would take a generation or two to weed out the suits.
Probably, they're both overhyped. Their aesthetics are similar. You take a good look at both of them and ask yourself, "Should I be enjoying this or something?".
Because with the temperature so low because of the fans, it will be hard to keep the temperature up... with the fans! Get it?
(There, that ends the +4/+5 Funny streak. No one will post any more puns out of fear of being modded down. I am a martyr for those who are on the brink of rage from all the puns.)
Slashdot Mirror
I think the government is involved in PI. I found my two phone numbers and my last name converted to ascii in there.
Please! Won't somebody think of the Symbiogenesists too?
We need to include them too!
Make that polygonal sex with one partner fully clothed. What percentage of kids have had a sexual experience with the opposite of sex by the age of 17? I'd be willing to throw in a 80-90%. Now don't everybody chime in at once about how my figures are grossly exaggerated, this IS slashdot... don't mix up statistics with your own personal history.
When was the last time you switched your lights off? I only know of one person who can voluntarily will himself into unconsciousness, and he was trained to do it to avoid interrogation (special forces). But take that a step further... can you permanently turn yourself off by thought alone? I've read about some Buddhist monks being able to do this. But last time I checked, most people had to use crude implements to turn themselves off. Sometimes I think some parts of our brains and ways of thinking are worse off than a lightswitch.
If God exists in infinite dimensions... let's shoot for at least existing in 5. I'll look that up though, paradox solutions rock my world.
"The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you." Luke 17:20. is really the only verbose quote I can come up with. But the "among us" part makes that a bit disputable.
:)
All of the Jesus quotes on heaven in the bible mostly just draw a distinction between heaven and earth... creating metaphors about those who have the least are the most blessed, those who make themselves like children (unexperience, blank slates) are blessed... etc. etc. To me that just says there is nothing to understand in any way (conceptually, emotionally, even unconsciously) about God or Heaven or how to experience either. Jesus says that the kingdom of God is "within you" in our "heart". What is at our "heart" is not really something perceptible. That's the whole question of "What are you? Where does 'you' begin?". Not much of an answerable question.
But I've been reading a lot of Thomas Merton lately, so that's where I'm getting my influence on the subject of God and nothingness. It's eastern thought more than it is contemporary western. I should also mention that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to God or nothingness... and that no one else does either.
Yes, in base 13... which is the dimensions of the scrabble board Arthur used to unconsciously pull the ultimate question out of his mind. On wikipedia.
My favorite is that if God is infinite but one can still perceive part of God, then they are perceiving a finite part of infinity... and any finite value over infinity counts for zero, so they're really not perceiving anything at all. Even Jesus says you can't perceive God or Heaven with the senses. But yet we have so many Christians out there who think that God is "speaking" to them. Bugs me out to no end.
Nah, now I can get hammered instead of my once-binary neurons simply saying "does not compute!". Getting drunk is a fuzzy operation.
Speaking of "does not compute!", my dance-floor options are also a little bit broader now.
I've been waiting for a scientist to tell me that I'm capable of thinking in abstract and fuzzy terms for years. Things I can now forget thanks to the brilliant scientist:
1.) The GPS coordinates of each key on my keyboard.
2.) The streaming audio of my name and all of my friends and families name.
3.) The bio-mechanical force sequences for the hundreds of muscles used in picking up a glass every morning.
Beer will no longer render my circuits useless!
Can we get some "Immune to overstatement but still technologically insightful" moderation in here?
If you're so freaked out about not having a heart, the inhabitants of Munchkin Land will have some solid advice for you.
Live by the sword, get modded redundant by the sword. It's a cruel way of life.
...To be modded redundant.
...Desist!
$location={"Soviet Russia", "Mars", "Earth", "The known universe and possibily all of its parallels"}
$object={"satellite", "Mars", "gravity", "spaceship", "CowboyNeal", "our new overlords"}
$verb={"lands", "launches", "explores", "infests", "destroys"}
print "In $location, $object $verb YOU!\n";
It all depends on the system architecture and the type of problem being solved. Certain problems will adhere better to certain architectures and thus allow for a smaller gap between the theoretical and actual performance. The gaps can also be inherent in the architecture itself (e.g. communications bandwidth like you said).
So what happens when Google gets into the twine-related industry? Cause I think that domain is probably taken.
I'm not talking about gtwine.com either.
What people here aren't understanding is that according to this theory, if you are in fact able to travel back in time, you won't actually be travelling per se. Memories, consciousness, and everything (all matter/energy) will revert back to that point that you travel back to. You won't even be aware of the "travel". The reversal of time means the reveral of all matter existing and moving forwards through time.
This only becomes confusing because everyone is insistent on declaring their capacity for "choice" as an absolute. Say I decide to "randomly" put my hand on my head to prove that I choose that I can do whatever I want. That choice was motivated by a previous stimuli. I am reacting to the challenge to prove that I can do whatever I want. Me choosing my head is simply a matter of thinking to myself "what would seem 'random' to the person who is observing me?". There is not really a choice, but a psychological disposition that can be as complex as you are psychologically dispositioned to be... complexity does not mean choice.
The "now" presents the illusion of choice. The ego presents the illusion of choice. I do what I "choose" to do even though it is an illusion because there is nothing else I can do being stuck in the "now". Having a concept of all "spacetime" in its entirety is impossible because the concept would have to exist in our mind which exists in the "now" and can't supercede the "now".
Travelling into the future (I mean purely travelling into the future, not travelling at the speed of light to circumvent spacetime travel and avoid time) would fall under the same category. Travelling to the future would mean existing in some future time, where all of the experience inbetween now and that future time has already happened. We would only be aware of the journey in the future because of the fact that we decided to take the journey in the "past". But we would also have the memories of everything that took place in between those two times, so it wouldn't actually seem like we travelled anywhere. By all rights, sitting here and generating a memory of "I travelled 10 years into the future", then remembering that memory 10 years later is the same thing. Heck, I could even convince myself that this chair is a time travel machine and however many times I spin in it will take me that many years into the future... BECAUSE, I'm going to get to the future (even if I don't spin on the chair).
Therefore, time travel is irrelevant (unless you do the "lightspeed" time travel method, which allows you to actually "travel" into the future by avoiding time for as long as you want)... because matter/energy is going act as it is supposed to act, and nothing can change that (unless you are stubbornly insistent on the issue of "choice"... I most certainly am, because I don't have a choice but to believe in "choice" because I am always in the "now" which presents me with what appears to be "choice"). Everything (matter/energy) is going to do what it is supposed to do, and has already done what is was supposed to do... so travelling backwards or forwards simply means "being" in that state of matter that you decide to go to, which includes yourself and the state of matter you will be in at that time.
Just my two cents though...
Because (2) still exists. Also, (2) creates more complications because they would have to support that documentation (if they wanted to make it a viable extension to their existing product that people would actually use) that only the engineers really have any sort involvement in and/or knowledge about. So if someone wants to suddenly tell a few of their engineers that they're now technical support, be my guest.
An easier and more profitable solution for the company is to provide custom solutions for $$. But that just degenerates into the whole MS vs. Linux customization argument.
All I know is that my couch beats my leather office chair any day. And my TV is much bigger than my screen (ok, it's 22 inches, maybe not MUCH bigger). Now if he has a CD-Video compatible DVD player and a CD writer and he's still doing VHS, then he needs to pull the tube amps out of his ears to wake up and smell the coffee made with a coffee machine that supports IPv6.
No, because the evil dictators were tyrannical towards people, not plants. Plants have a natural hatred for non-rooted organisms (since we're always eating them, burning them, rubbing their essense all over us), so naturally the persecution of the people brought great joy to the plants, and they flourished more than ever.
But who do you think is actually making the nanopants? Not the suits my friend. This is a double reverse conspiracy theory. The nanopants that the geeks are designing and will wear will be stunningly attractive and yet stain proof at the same time while maintaining an ambient level of pheremones (sold at your nearest spammed inbox). The suits that the geeks are designing but worn by the suits (the people suits, not the suit suits... damn your confusion of nouns!) will provide an attractive yet instantly sterilizing combination. This design was meant to be subtle (sterilization only, no poisions, stain-inducing material, or unstable molecular compounds) so that it would take a generation or two to weed out the suits.
For a second there I thought you were talking about the AIDs virus. I must have skipped over the "computer" and "data" parts.
Probably, they're both overhyped. Their aesthetics are similar. You take a good look at both of them and ask yourself, "Should I be enjoying this or something?".
Bring it on Warhol fans.
How long can we keep these puns up?
Because with the temperature so low because of the fans, it will be hard to keep the temperature up... with the fans! Get it?
(There, that ends the +4/+5 Funny streak. No one will post any more puns out of fear of being modded down. I am a martyr for those who are on the brink of rage from all the puns.)
Sean: What's the difference between you and a mallard with a cold?
Alex Trabeck: Um, I don't know.
Sean: Well... one's a sick duck, I don't remember the rest, but your mother's a whore!