Perhaps, but because of that I can now finally look at converting an older box with some select newer hardware into a FreeNAS box that lets me auto-manage backups, disk replacements, and allows me to keep my data independent from my workstation.:) Something I've been wanting to do on my home network for the last eight years or so.
Why do tech-minded people always seem to need to create obtuse and obviously false exaggerations for the purpose of conveying their point? Use your words and say what you mean.
Posts like this don't make you look clever, they make you look like a caricature.
There are plenty of ways to administer the free version of MySQL to get very good performance and options. Just because you have not been able to do that does not mean it cannot be done.
I think the point that was being made, however, was that if you want to put in that much effort, why wouldn't you use a database like Postgres that actually was built for you to do that?
I truly feel sorry for you. You are so stuck in "left brain" thinking that you don't even seem to understand what I'm saying, although you understand each of the words.
Oh yes, I didn't mean to imply that it was impossible to rectify the issues, rather I was suggesting that it opened up a lot of new theories and interpretations that had to be considered equally possible.
I have explained this several times, but the absence of CFD and presence of retrocausality allows for accurate, unreproducible results in experimental data. It's the reason that Physicists are so resistant to anything that is allowed to exceed the speed of light and still carry information/interact. If true it forces us to completely reevaluate how we perform science, or accept a much higher degree of uncertainty in the things we know.
No, I was not asking for proof. I was suggesting that the absence of CFD suggests that certain types of information which may be true about our Universe cannot be tested arbitrarily, which the Scientific Method depends on. Results must be reproducible.
With retrocausality and a lack of CFD, results do not have to be reproducible to be accurate, which presents several problems, not the least of which is that we would have trouble figuring out which unreproducible results are accurate and which are wrong.
Counterfactual Definiteness is a term that Physicists coined because realism was fuzzy and uncomfortable. I was using realism as an analog to CFD, as would be the only reasonable thing to do when discussing Physics.
The provable absence of CFD would open the possibility that realism in the philosopher sense depends on observation (that is, interaction) in order to hold. That is, things are only real because of their interaction with other things, and are not longer "real" when not interacting. This also opens up the possibility that all particles of any type are temporarily collapsed waveforms, such that there is no particle-wave duality, there is only perception of particles due to interaction.
I also was not aware that Physicists in general had embraced many-worlds. What evidence led them to do this years ago?
Hmmm... I suppose it's more clever to argue semantics.
Bell's Theorem was a mathematical inequality that implied possibly several things, but there was no experimental evidence to suggest which, if any, of the possibilities were true.
If you're genuinely curious, I would simply read about Bell's Theorem yourself, as it will be more informative than having me explain in detail.
He said causality OR relativity. If relativity holds true but transmission of information at FTL speeds is proved to be possible, then anything going faster than light will, from the point of view of the information being sent, arrive BEFORE it was sent. Hence, problems with causality, which are predicted in Bell's Theorem as I described above.
Again, this is only if relativity is true, and these findings are as well. It's more likely, IMO, that relativity is wrong than that causality is wrong, at least from an arbitrary view point. That is, as long as your view point is not constrained I believe causality will hold longer than relativity. But that's all just personal opinion, the science only gives us hints.
Tachyons, if real, cannot decelerate. They also have imaginary mass according to special relativity. Of course, perhaps relativity isn't as complete a theory as we once thought.
Bell's Theorem demands that either LHV or Realism (or both) are false assumptions. Physics was presented with evidence of the lack of causality almost 40 years ago, it's just that until now we haven't had any real evidence.
If this is a confirmed finding... we may have just proven that Realism is not a constant assumption of our Universe, which would make the Scientific Method itself a tool with limited but useful application. Or rather, it would prove that there are discoveries in our Universe that can be made that are impossible to arrive at via the Scientific Method.
(BTW, that to me is an argument for the exploration scientifically of other things, not a justification for blind faith as I'm sure many religious people will see if this is ever shown to be true.)
Hmmm... Why do we feel that we deserve to be the citizens of this land if both the internal and external sovereignty of it is not fought by us but by decision making machines. They, of course, only make decisions within the parameters of what we define, as we're not quite to Skynet yet... but ethically, instead, I ask the question. Is our commonly held status as "Americans" morally sound if we delegate all of the citizenship duties of our sovereignty, government, and society to machines that largely make decisions without our input? Even much of our voting is directed through machinery, and while the votes may or may not be intelligently altered, the polling models and media that shapes the votes people cast certainly are, and in that sense are every bit as responsible.
I don't think that having good ol' fashioned humans die in our wars is morally required of a sovereign people, rather, I question how we can truly feel ownership of our society if we do not control it, protect it, assist it and direct it. We seem to believe as a group that our ownership is derived solely from the definition of society as being composed of people. Perhaps, but I see that as the societal scale of subsisting instead of living.
Perhaps we should let our robots and machines take over ever more of our society and assist us in the tasks we perform. But more-so, I think it should serve as a motivation to us. A motivation to make something of ourselves and our society. If the machines we don't even consider to be more sentient than our dogs can do all the tasks that baffle us so much right now, what are the things that we could strive for? Where could we aspire to when our computers can already aspire to things like playing chess, carrying on conversation, or telling us exactly where we are on the planet?
Stories about of technological progress on a societal scale should be building, pushing us ever higher. Instead I see it making us more complacent. Perhaps Rome never learned its lesson, and perhaps all Humans are Romans.
You shouldn't come to Portland either. We also have tons of rain, and... there's nothing to do here... so stay down in Cali where you're safe from the harmful drops of water that mysteriously fall to earth.
This guy is like a KKK version of Triumph the insult dog, only not really that funny, and trying way too hard.
Pro-tip: being bat-shit crazy isn't trolling or funny. It's just being bat-shit crazy. Also, I believe you just essentially said that poor people are animals.
By ignore I of course mean that he's on the oddly named Slashdot "enemies" list, which I've given a negative modifier. And of course, since you're using Slashdot I assume you know that you can browse at -1 and see everything no matter what, which is what I was doing.
Don't pay attention to Doc Ruby. He's been on my "ignore" list for over five years here. This is how he's always been. If he's a juvenile he's been one for at least half a decade.
Indeed, our country is a hive of villainy. Steven Colbert is a fine example of one of our brightest minds, fighting off the chains of oppression and knowledge. We all eat nearly 1.5 kg of red meat a day and drive at least 75 km no matter where we're going. We urinate in our public places because we're not intelligent enough to use the toilets. Our nuclear missiles are secured with the key "1-1-1-1" because then we only have to remember one number. By law we must spend 20% of our income of shit we don't need and will never use. At least 30% of our food must come from inhumane sources. I'm frankly astonished that the benevolent European I hired to type this for me understands my speech, since I'm so illiterate and uneducated.
You should probably never come. You might never get out.
If it can't be solved through education inherently, then humans are not nearly as sentient as we claim to be.
I guess that's what it really comes down to. I don't think that modifying the gene pool drastically is a good idea either, but I think that the human cognitive process is capable of understanding certain things. Because of that, I believe that we can take all the basic personality types and change the frame of reference, the paradigm, to something more useful or harmonious.
If not... I hope we stumble our way through some kind of large scale space program long enough for me to leave.
Only if we hold to society's currently held view that it is not in your best interest to help others. The paradigm shift that has to happen is not "we need to take action". People must eventually realize that it is in their best interest to help other people become better people however they feel they should.
I stated several times that the human race doesn't appear ready for this. But it will become a necessity. I do not see it as fantasy, it is an eventuality. It may not happen in my lifetime, but it will happen, or we will die.
I personally have my own ideas, but my ideas aren't really the point. I will explain them to you, so long as you understand there is virtually no chance that I am espousing truth... I may be closer to it than someone else, or than what we have now, but it is still only truth within the context of myself.
What you can do is embody the wisdom that you have. You go through life, and you learn what consequences choices have, and whether or not those choices are inherent or derived. That is, whether or not the consequences are because of the paradigm society is in, or because that consequence always arises from a particular choice.
Adultery has consequences that rely on both. There are inherent consequences: it is likely because of the structure of the human psyche that it will cause emotional harm to your partner. But it also has derived consequences: legal situations or cultural situations that arise because others within society find a behavior so abhorant that they want to provide additional consequence as punishment or deterrent.
As you learn these things going through life, many people make decisions in the moment. That is, decisions are made as part of a short term plan, and actions are taken as part of a long term plan. (A generalization, certainly.)
In that sense, what is easiest (and hardest) for most people to do is to embody their wisdom. When you were young, did you learn through consequence what it felt like to be shunned? Did you learn through consequence what it meant to be hated? Did you learn through consequence what it meant to love? For these things, once you understand through the experience of them what these consequences mean, it is your responsibility to decide in the future, ever time the choice is presented, if you want to encourage these consequences upon others.
The problems are much deeper within society than our political systems. Fixing our political systems directly will probably never work. Not until we fix our social systems to represent the sum of our wisdom instead of the sum of our desires. I personally do not believe that our social structures, political systems, economies, or even our friendships will be productive and directed toward an actual goal until people come to feel that it is truly in their best interest to help other people become better people.
It is not a moral deficiency necessarily. We as a society interact with each other as if we still need to dominate in order to subsist. This is no longer true. Our technology has saved us from that, we just haven't realized it yet. It's not about holding hands and singing Kum-by-yah, it's much simpler. It benefits you the most to be positive and productive in society, because it allows others to also be positive and productive, and when we all can be positive and productive, we will almost surely discover not through song or religion that "love" is the answer, but rather being selfless is the most selfish action you can take. That when you go far enough in either direction, they become the same, and achieve the same things.
We have not given our political leaders a system that they could do good with even if they wanted to. If we want to design a system that allows them to do good, it's my opinion that we first have to learn how to "be good" ourselves, and really learn how to practice it with each other.
It all sounds lofty, and crazy, and idealist. The fact that it sounds that way is... sad. But I don't think it will always be that way, and one day I believe that our choices will be to adopt these lofty, crazy, idealist concepts, or to self-destruct by our own hands.
I've already made my choice between the two, and as much as I can, I try to embody it. It's what I can do that has the most positive impact on the most people, and when society is ready, they won't need to be convinced. We'll simply be able to decide how to make things better.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, but because of that I can now finally look at converting an older box with some select newer hardware into a FreeNAS box that lets me auto-manage backups, disk replacements, and allows me to keep my data independent from my workstation. :) Something I've been wanting to do on my home network for the last eight years or so.
Why do tech-minded people always seem to need to create obtuse and obviously false exaggerations for the purpose of conveying their point? Use your words and say what you mean.
Posts like this don't make you look clever, they make you look like a caricature.
There are plenty of ways to administer the free version of MySQL to get very good performance and options. Just because you have not been able to do that does not mean it cannot be done.
I think the point that was being made, however, was that if you want to put in that much effort, why wouldn't you use a database like Postgres that actually was built for you to do that?
Chief Operating/Operations Officer
Essentially, this position usually is the lead logistics position.
I truly feel sorry for you. You are so stuck in "left brain" thinking that you don't even seem to understand what I'm saying, although you understand each of the words.
How is providing artistic interpretation of imagined realities demented or lunatic?
Oh yes, I didn't mean to imply that it was impossible to rectify the issues, rather I was suggesting that it opened up a lot of new theories and interpretations that had to be considered equally possible.
I have explained this several times, but the absence of CFD and presence of retrocausality allows for accurate, unreproducible results in experimental data. It's the reason that Physicists are so resistant to anything that is allowed to exceed the speed of light and still carry information/interact. If true it forces us to completely reevaluate how we perform science, or accept a much higher degree of uncertainty in the things we know.
No, I was not asking for proof. I was suggesting that the absence of CFD suggests that certain types of information which may be true about our Universe cannot be tested arbitrarily, which the Scientific Method depends on. Results must be reproducible.
With retrocausality and a lack of CFD, results do not have to be reproducible to be accurate, which presents several problems, not the least of which is that we would have trouble figuring out which unreproducible results are accurate and which are wrong.
Counterfactual Definiteness is a term that Physicists coined because realism was fuzzy and uncomfortable. I was using realism as an analog to CFD, as would be the only reasonable thing to do when discussing Physics.
The provable absence of CFD would open the possibility that realism in the philosopher sense depends on observation (that is, interaction) in order to hold. That is, things are only real because of their interaction with other things, and are not longer "real" when not interacting. This also opens up the possibility that all particles of any type are temporarily collapsed waveforms, such that there is no particle-wave duality, there is only perception of particles due to interaction.
I also was not aware that Physicists in general had embraced many-worlds. What evidence led them to do this years ago?
Hmmm... I suppose it's more clever to argue semantics.
Bell's Theorem was a mathematical inequality that implied possibly several things, but there was no experimental evidence to suggest which, if any, of the possibilities were true.
If you're genuinely curious, I would simply read about Bell's Theorem yourself, as it will be more informative than having me explain in detail.
He said causality OR relativity. If relativity holds true but transmission of information at FTL speeds is proved to be possible, then anything going faster than light will, from the point of view of the information being sent, arrive BEFORE it was sent. Hence, problems with causality, which are predicted in Bell's Theorem as I described above.
Again, this is only if relativity is true, and these findings are as well. It's more likely, IMO, that relativity is wrong than that causality is wrong, at least from an arbitrary view point. That is, as long as your view point is not constrained I believe causality will hold longer than relativity. But that's all just personal opinion, the science only gives us hints.
Tachyons, if real, cannot decelerate. They also have imaginary mass according to special relativity. Of course, perhaps relativity isn't as complete a theory as we once thought.
Bell's Theorem demands that either LHV or Realism (or both) are false assumptions. Physics was presented with evidence of the lack of causality almost 40 years ago, it's just that until now we haven't had any real evidence.
If this is a confirmed finding... we may have just proven that Realism is not a constant assumption of our Universe, which would make the Scientific Method itself a tool with limited but useful application. Or rather, it would prove that there are discoveries in our Universe that can be made that are impossible to arrive at via the Scientific Method.
(BTW, that to me is an argument for the exploration scientifically of other things, not a justification for blind faith as I'm sure many religious people will see if this is ever shown to be true.)
Hmmm... Why do we feel that we deserve to be the citizens of this land if both the internal and external sovereignty of it is not fought by us but by decision making machines. They, of course, only make decisions within the parameters of what we define, as we're not quite to Skynet yet... but ethically, instead, I ask the question. Is our commonly held status as "Americans" morally sound if we delegate all of the citizenship duties of our sovereignty, government, and society to machines that largely make decisions without our input? Even much of our voting is directed through machinery, and while the votes may or may not be intelligently altered, the polling models and media that shapes the votes people cast certainly are, and in that sense are every bit as responsible.
I don't think that having good ol' fashioned humans die in our wars is morally required of a sovereign people, rather, I question how we can truly feel ownership of our society if we do not control it, protect it, assist it and direct it. We seem to believe as a group that our ownership is derived solely from the definition of society as being composed of people. Perhaps, but I see that as the societal scale of subsisting instead of living.
Perhaps we should let our robots and machines take over ever more of our society and assist us in the tasks we perform. But more-so, I think it should serve as a motivation to us. A motivation to make something of ourselves and our society. If the machines we don't even consider to be more sentient than our dogs can do all the tasks that baffle us so much right now, what are the things that we could strive for? Where could we aspire to when our computers can already aspire to things like playing chess, carrying on conversation, or telling us exactly where we are on the planet?
Stories about of technological progress on a societal scale should be building, pushing us ever higher. Instead I see it making us more complacent. Perhaps Rome never learned its lesson, and perhaps all Humans are Romans.
There are those people, yes. And unfortunately, those people tend to talk about other people, and the things they say about other people ALSO show up.
You shouldn't come to Portland either. We also have tons of rain, and... there's nothing to do here... so stay down in Cali where you're safe from the harmful drops of water that mysteriously fall to earth.
This guy is like a KKK version of Triumph the insult dog, only not really that funny, and trying way too hard.
Pro-tip: being bat-shit crazy isn't trolling or funny. It's just being bat-shit crazy. Also, I believe you just essentially said that poor people are animals.
Haha... "Foes" I meant, not enemies.
By ignore I of course mean that he's on the oddly named Slashdot "enemies" list, which I've given a negative modifier. And of course, since you're using Slashdot I assume you know that you can browse at -1 and see everything no matter what, which is what I was doing.
Not as exciting as you probably expected.
Don't pay attention to Doc Ruby. He's been on my "ignore" list for over five years here. This is how he's always been. If he's a juvenile he's been one for at least half a decade.
Indeed, our country is a hive of villainy. Steven Colbert is a fine example of one of our brightest minds, fighting off the chains of oppression and knowledge. We all eat nearly 1.5 kg of red meat a day and drive at least 75 km no matter where we're going. We urinate in our public places because we're not intelligent enough to use the toilets. Our nuclear missiles are secured with the key "1-1-1-1" because then we only have to remember one number. By law we must spend 20% of our income of shit we don't need and will never use. At least 30% of our food must come from inhumane sources. I'm frankly astonished that the benevolent European I hired to type this for me understands my speech, since I'm so illiterate and uneducated.
You should probably never come. You might never get out.
If it can't be solved through education inherently, then humans are not nearly as sentient as we claim to be.
I guess that's what it really comes down to. I don't think that modifying the gene pool drastically is a good idea either, but I think that the human cognitive process is capable of understanding certain things. Because of that, I believe that we can take all the basic personality types and change the frame of reference, the paradigm, to something more useful or harmonious.
If not... I hope we stumble our way through some kind of large scale space program long enough for me to leave.
Only if we hold to society's currently held view that it is not in your best interest to help others. The paradigm shift that has to happen is not "we need to take action". People must eventually realize that it is in their best interest to help other people become better people however they feel they should.
I stated several times that the human race doesn't appear ready for this. But it will become a necessity. I do not see it as fantasy, it is an eventuality. It may not happen in my lifetime, but it will happen, or we will die.
This article was about two things, IMO:
1. The possible shutdown of YouTube because of IP laws.
2. The greater topic of the WikiLeaks cables that have been released.
I chose to talk about the second. I guess most of Slashdot agrees with you though, since my post was modded Offtopic.
I personally have my own ideas, but my ideas aren't really the point. I will explain them to you, so long as you understand there is virtually no chance that I am espousing truth... I may be closer to it than someone else, or than what we have now, but it is still only truth within the context of myself.
What you can do is embody the wisdom that you have. You go through life, and you learn what consequences choices have, and whether or not those choices are inherent or derived. That is, whether or not the consequences are because of the paradigm society is in, or because that consequence always arises from a particular choice.
Adultery has consequences that rely on both. There are inherent consequences: it is likely because of the structure of the human psyche that it will cause emotional harm to your partner. But it also has derived consequences: legal situations or cultural situations that arise because others within society find a behavior so abhorant that they want to provide additional consequence as punishment or deterrent.
As you learn these things going through life, many people make decisions in the moment. That is, decisions are made as part of a short term plan, and actions are taken as part of a long term plan. (A generalization, certainly.)
In that sense, what is easiest (and hardest) for most people to do is to embody their wisdom. When you were young, did you learn through consequence what it felt like to be shunned? Did you learn through consequence what it meant to be hated? Did you learn through consequence what it meant to love? For these things, once you understand through the experience of them what these consequences mean, it is your responsibility to decide in the future, ever time the choice is presented, if you want to encourage these consequences upon others.
The problems are much deeper within society than our political systems. Fixing our political systems directly will probably never work. Not until we fix our social systems to represent the sum of our wisdom instead of the sum of our desires. I personally do not believe that our social structures, political systems, economies, or even our friendships will be productive and directed toward an actual goal until people come to feel that it is truly in their best interest to help other people become better people.
It is not a moral deficiency necessarily. We as a society interact with each other as if we still need to dominate in order to subsist. This is no longer true. Our technology has saved us from that, we just haven't realized it yet. It's not about holding hands and singing Kum-by-yah, it's much simpler. It benefits you the most to be positive and productive in society, because it allows others to also be positive and productive, and when we all can be positive and productive, we will almost surely discover not through song or religion that "love" is the answer, but rather being selfless is the most selfish action you can take. That when you go far enough in either direction, they become the same, and achieve the same things.
We have not given our political leaders a system that they could do good with even if they wanted to. If we want to design a system that allows them to do good, it's my opinion that we first have to learn how to "be good" ourselves, and really learn how to practice it with each other.
It all sounds lofty, and crazy, and idealist. The fact that it sounds that way is... sad. But I don't think it will always be that way, and one day I believe that our choices will be to adopt these lofty, crazy, idealist concepts, or to self-destruct by our own hands.
I've already made my choice between the two, and as much as I can, I try to embody it. It's what I can do that has the most positive impact on the most people, and when society is ready, they won't need to be convinced. We'll simply be able to decide how to make things better.