"You move your hand and your hand starts to move and so you believe in your hand movement"
Sort of, except to begin with you don't know that what you're thinking is to move your hand... your brain fires off certain combo's of neurons, and through your various senses you over time become aware that thinking that makes your arm move. Over time your senses become more acute, as does your knowledge of what thoughts create what results, and you gain better control of your body.
For a computer to recognise what you're thinking would require a hell of a lot of work, so instead you get a computer to respond to certain thought patterns, then get the brain to learn to associate those thought patterns with the computers responses (the response can be anything, moving a virtual hand, vase, changing the brightness of the screen) - as the brain's already set up to be able to do this (usually easier with a younger mind). We do have enough knowledge of the brain and computers to be able to do this pretty well already, the problem is more a technical one with getting nodes of the computer close enough to the brain to be able to read it accurately enough, preferably without slicing open peoples heads.
Oh yeah the games you can play with a polygraph are great fun. My personal favourite is making up very suspisiously sounding alibi's to the police, demanding a lie detector test to "prove myself", and controlling my brain waves so the output forms a new Harrier Attack landscape, oh yes:-p
Joke as it may be, it's not as far from the truth as gpp's "So would you propose disconnecting them from the muscles" statement implies. There is in fact leakage; when thinking about, for example, raising your arm, small impulses do actually leave the brain. They can be picked up using sensitive enough equipment, but it's not enought to make the muscles respond.
One interesting time this happens is when you're dreaming. If, in the dream, you wiggle one of your fingers, this can actually be detected. Chemicals released during dream time do stop you from acting out your dreams, but they don't stop 100% of the signal from getting through.
nah you just join the roof-exchange program, where you put your solar cells on somebody's roof the other side of the planet (where it's light when it's dark for you), and they put theirs on yours. The most convenient option is to drag a cable from them to you (through the earth is the shortest route), but if that's too expensive for you (with the electicity savings, it won't be for long) they simply send you the electicity by shipping batteries they've charged to you. Simplicity.
"unless it starts to rain a whole bunch for the next 100k years, i think the pyramids will still be there"
yeah cuz they're actually just very large sandcastles... it's no real mystery how they were built, large buckets, filled with sand and patted down, and emptied on top of each other. So either rain, or an beach-style-egypt-bully comes along and stamps on 'em... yeah that's it:-p
Re:Some artists just want to be heard...
on
CRIA Falling Apart?
·
· Score: 1
No, investments -do- need protecting... if you invest money in property, there are laws protecting it saying that nobody can just take it from you. If you invest money inventing something, there are laws you can apply to protect your investment so you can get return on it (yes the laws there have gone too far and for too long, but that's another debate). Without a basic protection that somebody can't just come and take something you've paid for, you're not going to pay for it.
Not all music can rely p2p/direct downloads off the internet. Most of the music I listen to comes from vinyl, played by skilled DJ's in clubs etc. Producing vinyl costs.
I am part of a music community, I and others in the community let others download our music for free. We don't need to abolish one system to let another one work. Artists that wanna share their stuff can, very very easily. Artists that don't... well there's usually better stuff out there from people who do, so who cares? If you wanna be in the commercial music scene, then you can. If you don't, then good for you, you can end up finding a much better quality of music. Removing copyright laws, and raising the cost of discs through additional taxation, will hurt things more than it will help.
Re:Some artists just want to be heard...
on
CRIA Falling Apart?
·
· Score: 1
You're still trying to over complicating things and not thinking through to consequences.
"You cant buy Band X playing Song Y from company a, or company b or company c, you can only buy it from company a, ie, no competition"
This is because of one thing and one thing only - bands signing over their copyright to those companies, making it illegal for other companies to enter the market, so to stop this, you'd have to make it illegal for bands to sign contracts.
But then, if you take your idea of further taxing distribution costs, you're just making it even more difficult for other companies to start distributing.
You also have another problem - what company is going to want to invest in making an artist well known, when another company can then just swoop in, and sell the CDs at a lower cost because they've not had to market them? Investments -need- protecting, otherwise people won't invest (look at why the patent system was originally developed).
If you really want to protect artists you'd have to unionise them, so that all artists would have to strike against companiest that exploit them, and also put a low statute of limitation on how long a record company can hold copyrights to an artists tracks, to stop record companies sitting on artists while not letting them produce.
Yes, people do say that... usually the people who it's least true for say it. People who it/is/ true for, in many cases, actually don't like saying it. It's not a nice thought, being out of control, even if deep down you know you are. People who are in control, but don't like to be responsible, you'll often hear them saying it.
"For example, the poor fool who claims to have the 'disease' of alocolholism: would the person have the disease if alcohol had never been created?"
That's horrible... if alcohol never existed, then ppl with alcoholism would NEVER be able to give it up!!! Thank god alcohol does in fact exist then!!!
"Brain chemistry cannot be altered through the power of the mind"
Well it can, I can do it, as can many people, but yes there are limits to how much and in what ways. The biggest rule is how much of the mind is on "your side" of the conflict (if we take kicking an addiction for example, yes the bit that feels like "you" may want to kick it, but the rest of your brain doesn't; this is what you have to fight to change).
Of cause there are other circumstances, eg not being able to produce enough of a certain required chemical, damage to certain neurons/receptor sites etc, this is eqivalent to a minority having the loudest voice, and weapons, you need weapons to fight back, and there's no guarentee.
I'd even go one step further and say I think that there is/only/ non-relative truth out there. Take "I think it's possible to fly using the power of the mind"... if the person really does think that, it is true, but only with the first two words (ie, the person really does think it, so the statement's true, but what the person is thinking -isn't- true). So the statement "It's possible to fly using the power of the mind, because I think it is" is not a true statement.
(all of this assuming it's not possible to fly with just the power of the mind, something I'm not gonna waste time debating).
"Actually, your attitude is a sort of religious fanaticism"
Nice argument... yeah I'd be relieved too, if it wasn't OPPOSITE DAY!!!
Seriously, do you have any reason for saying that, that's directly related to the post you replied to? How is it anywhere close to religious fanaticism?
Either way, it's still 'your choice', because the state your brain is in at any point in time *is* you. Even if it's not a choice you can consciously change, your subconscious is still part of you, making it still your choice (although I sometimes refer to my brain as if it were another person, it's a great way to relinquish responsibility:-p "my brain made me", "my brain just noticed something")
You'd need at least one atom for each atom you were "simulating", so in effect you'd actually be duplicating the universe rather than simulating it... so of cause you could not actually do it within the universe (well, maybe with some -very clever- fractal mathmatics, that could be fun:-p)
"Dell not using AMD X2 processors in their servers? Want economy with speed it is faster and just as reliable"
I think there's a bit more to it than that really. It appears that AMD couldn't supply Dell with enough processors to make it worth while for Dell to push AMD. I don't know whether the same's true of Apple too, but I'd say that "probably" would be a good guess.
I must strongly disagree with this; until a person's has been proved guilty in a court of law, they should be fully entitled to defend themselves. For a lawyer to defend someone in court can shows that they respect the system more than you obviously do. What about all the wrongly accused? I do believe that legal fees are far FAR higher than they should be in probably most cases, but the role is an important one. The public are far too quick to assume someone is guilty, the accused need protecting from this, which is one of the roles of the legal system as a whole.
Re:Some artists just want to be heard...
on
CRIA Falling Apart?
·
· Score: 1
The other option, of cause, is to tax the coke and hookers;-)
Slashdot Mirror
"You move your hand and your hand starts to move and so you believe in your hand movement"
Sort of, except to begin with you don't know that what you're thinking is to move your hand... your brain fires off certain combo's of neurons, and through your various senses you over time become aware that thinking that makes your arm move. Over time your senses become more acute, as does your knowledge of what thoughts create what results, and you gain better control of your body.
For a computer to recognise what you're thinking would require a hell of a lot of work, so instead you get a computer to respond to certain thought patterns, then get the brain to learn to associate those thought patterns with the computers responses (the response can be anything, moving a virtual hand, vase, changing the brightness of the screen) - as the brain's already set up to be able to do this (usually easier with a younger mind). We do have enough knowledge of the brain and computers to be able to do this pretty well already, the problem is more a technical one with getting nodes of the computer close enough to the brain to be able to read it accurately enough, preferably without slicing open peoples heads.
MS would secretely be checking your brain for memories of legally purchasing your copy of windows, we're screwed!
a bug that makes me wet my pants start calling my left shoe "Herman"
Oh you're gonna start blaming that on the computer now?!!
Oh yeah the games you can play with a polygraph are great fun. My personal favourite is making up very suspisiously sounding alibi's to the police, demanding a lie detector test to "prove myself", and controlling my brain waves so the output forms a new Harrier Attack landscape, oh yes :-p
Yeah just like your mouse can make you dial expensive phone numbers when you're not looking.
Apparently you're confusing the I and O parts of I/O.
Joke as it may be, it's not as far from the truth as gpp's "So would you propose disconnecting them from the muscles" statement implies. There is in fact leakage; when thinking about, for example, raising your arm, small impulses do actually leave the brain. They can be picked up using sensitive enough equipment, but it's not enought to make the muscles respond.
One interesting time this happens is when you're dreaming. If, in the dream, you wiggle one of your fingers, this can actually be detected. Chemicals released during dream time do stop you from acting out your dreams, but they don't stop 100% of the signal from getting through.
nah you just join the roof-exchange program, where you put your solar cells on somebody's roof the other side of the planet (where it's light when it's dark for you), and they put theirs on yours. The most convenient option is to drag a cable from them to you (through the earth is the shortest route), but if that's too expensive for you (with the electicity savings, it won't be for long) they simply send you the electicity by shipping batteries they've charged to you. Simplicity.
"unless it starts to rain a whole bunch for the next 100k years, i think the pyramids will still be there"
:-p
yeah cuz they're actually just very large sandcastles... it's no real mystery how they were built, large buckets, filled with sand and patted down, and emptied on top of each other. So either rain, or an beach-style-egypt-bully comes along and stamps on 'em... yeah that's it
No, investments -do- need protecting... if you invest money in property, there are laws protecting it saying that nobody can just take it from you. If you invest money inventing something, there are laws you can apply to protect your investment so you can get return on it (yes the laws there have gone too far and for too long, but that's another debate). Without a basic protection that somebody can't just come and take something you've paid for, you're not going to pay for it.
Not all music can rely p2p/direct downloads off the internet. Most of the music I listen to comes from vinyl, played by skilled DJ's in clubs etc. Producing vinyl costs.
I am part of a music community, I and others in the community let others download our music for free. We don't need to abolish one system to let another one work. Artists that wanna share their stuff can, very very easily. Artists that don't... well there's usually better stuff out there from people who do, so who cares? If you wanna be in the commercial music scene, then you can. If you don't, then good for you, you can end up finding a much better quality of music. Removing copyright laws, and raising the cost of discs through additional taxation, will hurt things more than it will help.
You're still trying to over complicating things and not thinking through to consequences.
"You cant buy Band X playing Song Y from company a, or company b or company c, you can only buy it from company a, ie, no competition"
This is because of one thing and one thing only - bands signing over their copyright to those companies, making it illegal for other companies to enter the market, so to stop this, you'd have to make it illegal for bands to sign contracts.
But then, if you take your idea of further taxing distribution costs, you're just making it even more difficult for other companies to start distributing.
You also have another problem - what company is going to want to invest in making an artist well known, when another company can then just swoop in, and sell the CDs at a lower cost because they've not had to market them? Investments -need- protecting, otherwise people won't invest (look at why the patent system was originally developed).
If you really want to protect artists you'd have to unionise them, so that all artists would have to strike against companiest that exploit them, and also put a low statute of limitation on how long a record company can hold copyrights to an artists tracks, to stop record companies sitting on artists while not letting them produce.
Yes, people do say that... usually the people who it's least true for say it. People who it /is/ true for, in many cases, actually don't like saying it. It's not a nice thought, being out of control, even if deep down you know you are. People who are in control, but don't like to be responsible, you'll often hear them saying it.
"For example, the poor fool who claims to have the 'disease' of alocolholism: would the person have the disease if alcohol had never been created?"
That's horrible... if alcohol never existed, then ppl with alcoholism would NEVER be able to give it up!!! Thank god alcohol does in fact exist then!!!
"Brain chemistry cannot be altered through the power of the mind"
Well it can, I can do it, as can many people, but yes there are limits to how much and in what ways. The biggest rule is how much of the mind is on "your side" of the conflict (if we take kicking an addiction for example, yes the bit that feels like "you" may want to kick it, but the rest of your brain doesn't; this is what you have to fight to change).
Of cause there are other circumstances, eg not being able to produce enough of a certain required chemical, damage to certain neurons/receptor sites etc, this is eqivalent to a minority having the loudest voice, and weapons, you need weapons to fight back, and there's no guarentee.
You talk about "your brain" as if it's a different person... it's not... it is you.
I'd even go one step further and say I think that there is /only/ non-relative truth out there. Take "I think it's possible to fly using the power of the mind"... if the person really does think that, it is true, but only with the first two words (ie, the person really does think it, so the statement's true, but what the person is thinking -isn't- true). So the statement "It's possible to fly using the power of the mind, because I think it is" is not a true statement.
(all of this assuming it's not possible to fly with just the power of the mind, something I'm not gonna waste time debating).
"Actually, your attitude is a sort of religious fanaticism"
Nice argument... yeah I'd be relieved too, if it wasn't OPPOSITE DAY!!!
Seriously, do you have any reason for saying that, that's directly related to the post you replied to? How is it anywhere close to religious fanaticism?
Either way, it's still 'your choice', because the state your brain is in at any point in time *is* you. Even if it's not a choice you can consciously change, your subconscious is still part of you, making it still your choice (although I sometimes refer to my brain as if it were another person, it's a great way to relinquish responsibility :-p "my brain made me", "my brain just noticed something")
You'd need at least one atom for each atom you were "simulating", so in effect you'd actually be duplicating the universe rather than simulating it... so of cause you could not actually do it within the universe (well, maybe with some -very clever- fractal mathmatics, that could be fun :-p)
Would probably get sued by the John Cage Trust :-/
Then I found out the artist was suing google because they got their works out to a wider audience, and I thought "fuck off, Miro"
Then you found out wrong, nobody was suing google over it, especially not the dead artist Miro, idiot.
"people know we are good, we don't have to have some low IQ bimbo hopping around nakkid to sell our stuff"
So they're depriving us of nekkid girls now too? Ooo, they're just asking for it!
"Dell not using AMD X2 processors in their servers? Want economy with speed it is faster and just as reliable"
I think there's a bit more to it than that really. It appears that AMD couldn't supply Dell with enough processors to make it worth while for Dell to push AMD. I don't know whether the same's true of Apple too, but I'd say that "probably" would be a good guess.
"I don't think an antitrust suit is justified"
:-p
It does seem a a bit of a cop-out from AMD... perhaps at the most there should be a charge of "attempted abuse of monopoly power"
Which kinda makes AMD look like they're not /really/ trying, other than suing, huh.
I must strongly disagree with this; until a person's has been proved guilty in a court of law, they should be fully entitled to defend themselves. For a lawyer to defend someone in court can shows that they respect the system more than you obviously do. What about all the wrongly accused? I do believe that legal fees are far FAR higher than they should be in probably most cases, but the role is an important one. The public are far too quick to assume someone is guilty, the accused need protecting from this, which is one of the roles of the legal system as a whole.
The other option, of cause, is to tax the coke and hookers ;-)