Something, somewhere, just naturally occupies your thoughts when they'd otherwise be idle; there's something you'd rather be contemplating. For your life: find that.
But we can't all be professional sun-tan lotion applicators for hot Brazilian models!
We're not very touchy-feely here in the UK compared to most of the rest of the world. Japan is one of the few places I can think of that are more formal and up-tight, then again I'm not very up on my world culture.
In both of those scenarios the difficulty stays constant - only perceptions change. Nothing has become harder, they've just realised that they're not as easy as they initially suspected.
It's the same as people in the 60s who thought that we'd have intelligent robot house servants and flying cars by now..
Some scientists also believe that the technical hurdles to fusion have become more difficult to overcome
Somehow we have changed the universe to make fusion more difficult. We'd better be careful just how much research we do into it - if we do too much, the sun will stop working!
That or you work for someone else for a while, save diligently, and gather as much knowledge and experience as you can before striking out on your own with some street cred under your belt. I hear that's worked for a few people, too.
Exactly.
The other way is to take out a large-ish loan, but you'd have to very sure of your business plan, or very stupid, or both. Thankfully for software development you don't really need much money unless you are going to employ others.
Personally if I was really serious about starting my own software business I'd probably work at least 3 days a week on a 'real' job to keep earning enough to get by (with current savings there as a buffer), and work on my own software the rest of the time.
That's a bit overly PC IMO. If I was colour blind I wouldn't mind admitting my eyesight was "inferior" in some respects. Saying "varying limitations" is just another way of saying that some people have bigger limitations, which is another way of saying inferior (at least in the area of vision) to those who have less limitations. Different words, exactly the same meaning.
And he didn't say epilepsy was just inconvenient, he said colour blindness was inconvenient, and he's right. Trying to equate some mild defect like colour blindness with severe epilepsy or missing a limb is stupid. Even trying to equate all types of epilepsy with each other is stupid. Some forms are a lot more serious, while some others are more at the level of 'inconvenient' because the risk of seizure can be kept low by taking medication, avoiding caffeine/alcohol etc and avoiding flashing lights if you are photo-sensitive. Some epileptics are allowed to drive.
And in fact yes, not being able to drive is simply inconvenient rather than essential for living. Certainly for the majority of the world's population, and even for most of the western world where driving is just the done thing. None of my 3 siblings and a lot of my friends have not learned to drive yet, and they seem to be surviving okay out in the big bad world. I myself was banned from driving for 3 months last year and it was actually one of the best things to happen to me for years, because I started walking everywhere again and it got me into the mood for taking regular exercise, which I've continued despite having my license back. Of course we have comparatively small cities and decent public transport in this country, so most places are within walking distance, or if you want you can get wherever you want to go in the country by bus and train. In your country it might be different.
Little Bobby here wants to become a geneticist. But in a cruel twist of fate his parents have used genetic selection processes to make him the ultimate porn star, and sadly overlooked his mind in the process*.
*not saying that porn stars are necessarily dumb, only that it doesn't particularly matter how smart you are if that is your chosen field of work.
The backlash was widespread. Quoted in the New York Daily News on February 23, the Pope himself condemned the âoeobsessive search for the perfect child.â The pontiff complained, âoeA new mentality is creeping in that tends to justify a different consideration of life and personal dignity.â The roman Catholic Church objects to all applications of PGD because they invariably involve the destruction of blastocysts.
He objects to the disease resistance and sex choosing too, so mentioning him in the summary makes no sense IMO. I don't think Popes are usually known for their liberal viewpoints. An equally as pointless but slightly more sensible line would have been "The Pope objects, as usual".
I'm quite aware that current computer architectures share basically nothing in common with our brain architecture. I studied Psychology for 2 years at University level (which obviously covered topics including intelligence, learning and neurobiology), and I took AI courses as part of my 3rd and 4th years of Computer Science.
I'm just pointing out that in fact our brains are physical constructs, just as computers are.
We have a long way to go before making truly intelligent (in a general sense) and/or sentient machines, but we really are "just" biological machines ourselves - if we ever create a machine capable of human-like knowledge and intelligence, what qualitatively will be the difference between the machine's existence and our own? It's a very interesting question (in my opinion), and I find it silly when I hear people say computers are "just" machines. To make the situation a bit easier, imagine a robot that perfectly emulates a pet dog or cat - why should it be any less special than an actual pet dog or cat? People have developed a lot of attachment to pet AIBOs and even inanimate objects. It's all about perceptions really - if it seems real, does it matter in the end what is underneath? Is there anything underneath? I know that I am alive, but I can't explain why I experience life as I do, nor can I know if a metal machine would be capable of a similar state of consciousness to a biological one, or if it would only be capable of giving the appearance of consciousness. If our own consciousnesses are nothing more than electrical impulses then perhaps a machine really can be conscious in the same way. Anyway, it seems I'm probably going to end up talking about The Matrix if I don't stop now.
A computer is a billion switches. Even if we turned it into a googolplex switches, it's still nothing more than a googolplex switches.
Our brains are nothing but billions upon billions of neurons, synapses, etc. forming complex interconnections.. yes, any first generation intelligent AI would have to be created by humans, but if we exactly modelled a human brain in software and trained it like any other child (it would probably need the aid of a prosthetic or virtual body to be able to learn), what would really make the resulting AI different from ourselves if it reacted as we do? I know it's a big if, and that there probably isn't much point in creating an AI that has human flaws - but there is nothing in life to indicate that we are anything other than purely physical constructs. Otherwise, why bother with having bodies in the first place - unless perhaps our bodies are as to the soul as cars and aeroplanes are to humans?
Sorry, have never read any Dawkins, but this article here on/. came along at a time when I was already starting to have serious doubts about my faith just due to my own experiences and doubts over things like the purpose of prayer (which I now just believe to be a way to sustain your brainwashing). I'd always expected if there were to be any serious demonstration of evolution that it would have to come from something like bacteria, since they go through generations so incredibly quickly.
To claim you've got the whole universe comprehended, or even that you have an airtight argument for the correctness of your own worldview is, to my mind, inexcusably wrong-headed.
Quite right. Even when I was a Christian I knew that there was a chance I may not be right. Unfortunately most other Christians I speak to are so convinced that God is there that even if they were shown a clear and easy demonstration/proof/whatever of macro-evolution then they'd try their hardest to explain it away - never even considering for a second that their idea of what God is isn't true.
The existence of sentient life at all is obviously quite spectacular, and if we can exist then I don't see why some other superior form of life/intelligence in some other form of existence would be impossible, but I now believe the bible and the nature that Christians ascribe to god are just not true. There are a few things I thought of last summer which I think fairly logically show that he cannot be true - but like I said, if people already believe in him, they just discard logic.
The only difference between you and someone who doesn't understand logic is.. almost exactly nothing. Science doesn't require irrational belief, it is simply based upon more and more thorough observation and testable hypothesis', while religion is based upon shallow observation and wishful thinking.
The key difference to me between religion and science is that religious folks have to explain all new observations in such a way that it will fit into their current worldview, because they are terrified that conflicting ideas will mean their god doesn't exist. Most Christians in my family are terrified to look more into evolution, with the only time they view anything on it being when they read Christian articles to reassure themselves that it isn't true without doing any research. Scientists will simply say "oh well we were wrong about that, now we can record this new and more accurate understanding of things and keep working to understand even more". They do not let irrational fears restrict their thinking.
A great comment under the story says that LittleBigPlanet would have been more interesting if it was just shipped as a toolset with no pre-built levels. I'm inclined to agree!"
And I'm inclined to disagree. I enjoyed going through the pre-made content, more than any platform game I've ever played.
Hey I said once in a while, not all the time. I do enjoy repetitive humour when it's done right:) My sig is a reference rather than a direct quote, as you rightly point out. It's still repetitive humour, but at least I slightly modified the joke. It obviously isn't funny if you haven't seen the movie, since you won't have seen the electrolytes thing taken to farcical levels already.
So correlation is kind of like an annoying gossip who reckons two people might have a thing for each other, despite a complete lack of any demonstrable connection?
And no, the XKCD link really isn't obligatory, whoever is thinking of posting it (though the parent basically already did, just with no credit). You need to try coming up with your own jokes once in a while.
I did consider something like the power glove, but yes in addition to camera tracking it could work. People used the power glove as an example of why the Wii would fail, but it simply hasn't.
And I am not too fussed about anything MS release, even if it worked perfectly I doubt I would get a 360. I avoided the 360 precisely because it was an MS product, and that has stood me in good stead so far. I do like the idea though (if it was mixed with other controller ideas - pure body language is a poor way to play a game), and I expect Sony and Nintendo will come out with something just as good for the next gen if it turns out to be worthwhile.
I'm quite looking forward to the PS3's motion system though, and I don't see any reason to consider it vapourware seeing that they have already demonstrated it working rather well. Now we just have to see if they can make it available at a decent price point, and get some developers onboard to make some decent games for it. Developing games for a control system is kind of doing things the wrong way round though.
I'm glad I'm not the only crazy one that thinks entertainment is actually worth paying for.
Not that I have been a saint myself, but now that I have a job I pay for stuff - even some stuff that I have already acquired through other means when I was a student.
Exactly. I mostly think of RPGs as a pointless waste of time (apart from the community aspect), because of the grinding often required to get anywhere. The weird thing is though, that when I do play those types of games I still find it easy to get addicted. Combining RPG gameplay with an exercise plan would be an easy way to make it feel more worthwhile.
In the same way, I taught myself to play drums as my friends and I wanted to start a band but we were all guitarists. Once the band fell apart I hardly ever played even though I had acquired an electronic kit to practice on. Then I bought Rock Band and suddenly I was getting graded on how well I played and had the challenge of 'beating' songs instead of just playing them. I have seriously become a much better drummer just through playing a lot of Rock Band, it helped a lot with limb separation. Playing in a band is great fun too, but it wouldn't have taught me how to play new rhythms or rewarded me as much for keeping perfect time, I think there are some great possibilities for learning via computer games, whether that's learning physical skills or more academic ones.
Yep, I think the best controllers for this type of thing would be solidly (not with a strap like the wii-mote but with a proper plastic moulded mount) attached to your wrists so that there are a set of buttons accessible by your hands, but you don't need to keep a grip all the time, and they won't flail around or slide out of your hands if you wave your arms about.
Slashdot Mirror
Something, somewhere, just naturally occupies your thoughts when they'd otherwise be idle; there's something you'd rather be contemplating. For your life: find that.
But we can't all be professional sun-tan lotion applicators for hot Brazilian models!
Or perhaps as if the mods were moderating entirely appropriately. Wait a minute, who disrupted the mods' crack supply?
We're not very touchy-feely here in the UK compared to most of the rest of the world. Japan is one of the few places I can think of that are more formal and up-tight, then again I'm not very up on my world culture.
Not true.
We can give all the trees umbrellas!
In both of those scenarios the difficulty stays constant - only perceptions change. Nothing has become harder, they've just realised that they're not as easy as they initially suspected.
It's the same as people in the 60s who thought that we'd have intelligent robot house servants and flying cars by now..
Better off than when we started indeed:
Some scientists also believe that the technical hurdles to fusion have become more difficult to overcome
Somehow we have changed the universe to make fusion more difficult. We'd better be careful just how much research we do into it - if we do too much, the sun will stop working!
That or you work for someone else for a while, save diligently, and gather as much knowledge and experience as you can before striking out on your own with some street cred under your belt. I hear that's worked for a few people, too.
Exactly.
The other way is to take out a large-ish loan, but you'd have to very sure of your business plan, or very stupid, or both. Thankfully for software development you don't really need much money unless you are going to employ others.
Personally if I was really serious about starting my own software business I'd probably work at least 3 days a week on a 'real' job to keep earning enough to get by (with current savings there as a buffer), and work on my own software the rest of the time.
If you don't can't muster a thousand dollars to buy your initial hardware, I don't think you're in a good position to consider working for yourself.
Ditto for Trend here, we've not had any serious problems with viruses for a few years now.
That's a bit overly PC IMO. If I was colour blind I wouldn't mind admitting my eyesight was "inferior" in some respects. Saying "varying limitations" is just another way of saying that some people have bigger limitations, which is another way of saying inferior (at least in the area of vision) to those who have less limitations. Different words, exactly the same meaning.
And he didn't say epilepsy was just inconvenient, he said colour blindness was inconvenient, and he's right. Trying to equate some mild defect like colour blindness with severe epilepsy or missing a limb is stupid. Even trying to equate all types of epilepsy with each other is stupid. Some forms are a lot more serious, while some others are more at the level of 'inconvenient' because the risk of seizure can be kept low by taking medication, avoiding caffeine/alcohol etc and avoiding flashing lights if you are photo-sensitive. Some epileptics are allowed to drive.
And in fact yes, not being able to drive is simply inconvenient rather than essential for living. Certainly for the majority of the world's population, and even for most of the western world where driving is just the done thing. None of my 3 siblings and a lot of my friends have not learned to drive yet, and they seem to be surviving okay out in the big bad world. I myself was banned from driving for 3 months last year and it was actually one of the best things to happen to me for years, because I started walking everywhere again and it got me into the mood for taking regular exercise, which I've continued despite having my license back. Of course we have comparatively small cities and decent public transport in this country, so most places are within walking distance, or if you want you can get wherever you want to go in the country by bus and train. In your country it might be different.
Little Bobby here wants to become a geneticist. But in a cruel twist of fate his parents have used genetic selection processes to make him the ultimate porn star, and sadly overlooked his mind in the process*.
*not saying that porn stars are necessarily dumb, only that it doesn't particularly matter how smart you are if that is your chosen field of work.
From TFA:
The backlash was widespread. Quoted in the New York Daily News on February 23, the Pope himself condemned the âoeobsessive search for the perfect child.â The pontiff complained, âoeA new mentality is creeping in that tends to justify a different consideration of life and personal dignity.â The roman Catholic Church objects to all applications of PGD because they invariably involve the destruction of blastocysts.
He objects to the disease resistance and sex choosing too, so mentioning him in the summary makes no sense IMO. I don't think Popes are usually known for their liberal viewpoints. An equally as pointless but slightly more sensible line would have been "The Pope objects, as usual".
I'm quite aware that current computer architectures share basically nothing in common with our brain architecture. I studied Psychology for 2 years at University level (which obviously covered topics including intelligence, learning and neurobiology), and I took AI courses as part of my 3rd and 4th years of Computer Science.
I'm just pointing out that in fact our brains are physical constructs, just as computers are.
We have a long way to go before making truly intelligent (in a general sense) and/or sentient machines, but we really are "just" biological machines ourselves - if we ever create a machine capable of human-like knowledge and intelligence, what qualitatively will be the difference between the machine's existence and our own? It's a very interesting question (in my opinion), and I find it silly when I hear people say computers are "just" machines. To make the situation a bit easier, imagine a robot that perfectly emulates a pet dog or cat - why should it be any less special than an actual pet dog or cat? People have developed a lot of attachment to pet AIBOs and even inanimate objects. It's all about perceptions really - if it seems real, does it matter in the end what is underneath? Is there anything underneath? I know that I am alive, but I can't explain why I experience life as I do, nor can I know if a metal machine would be capable of a similar state of consciousness to a biological one, or if it would only be capable of giving the appearance of consciousness. If our own consciousnesses are nothing more than electrical impulses then perhaps a machine really can be conscious in the same way. Anyway, it seems I'm probably going to end up talking about The Matrix if I don't stop now.
A computer is a billion switches. Even if we turned it into a googolplex switches, it's still nothing more than a googolplex switches.
Our brains are nothing but billions upon billions of neurons, synapses, etc. forming complex interconnections.. yes, any first generation intelligent AI would have to be created by humans, but if we exactly modelled a human brain in software and trained it like any other child (it would probably need the aid of a prosthetic or virtual body to be able to learn), what would really make the resulting AI different from ourselves if it reacted as we do? I know it's a big if, and that there probably isn't much point in creating an AI that has human flaws - but there is nothing in life to indicate that we are anything other than purely physical constructs. Otherwise, why bother with having bodies in the first place - unless perhaps our bodies are as to the soul as cars and aeroplanes are to humans?
Sorry, have never read any Dawkins, but this article here on /. came along at a time when I was already starting to have serious doubts about my faith just due to my own experiences and doubts over things like the purpose of prayer (which I now just believe to be a way to sustain your brainwashing). I'd always expected if there were to be any serious demonstration of evolution that it would have to come from something like bacteria, since they go through generations so incredibly quickly.
To claim you've got the whole universe comprehended, or even that you have an airtight argument for the correctness of your own worldview is, to my mind, inexcusably wrong-headed.
Quite right. Even when I was a Christian I knew that there was a chance I may not be right. Unfortunately most other Christians I speak to are so convinced that God is there that even if they were shown a clear and easy demonstration/proof/whatever of macro-evolution then they'd try their hardest to explain it away - never even considering for a second that their idea of what God is isn't true.
The existence of sentient life at all is obviously quite spectacular, and if we can exist then I don't see why some other superior form of life/intelligence in some other form of existence would be impossible, but I now believe the bible and the nature that Christians ascribe to god are just not true. There are a few things I thought of last summer which I think fairly logically show that he cannot be true - but like I said, if people already believe in him, they just discard logic.
The only difference between you and someone who doesn't understand logic is.. almost exactly nothing. Science doesn't require irrational belief, it is simply based upon more and more thorough observation and testable hypothesis', while religion is based upon shallow observation and wishful thinking.
The key difference to me between religion and science is that religious folks have to explain all new observations in such a way that it will fit into their current worldview, because they are terrified that conflicting ideas will mean their god doesn't exist. Most Christians in my family are terrified to look more into evolution, with the only time they view anything on it being when they read Christian articles to reassure themselves that it isn't true without doing any research. Scientists will simply say "oh well we were wrong about that, now we can record this new and more accurate understanding of things and keep working to understand even more". They do not let irrational fears restrict their thinking.
A great comment under the story says that LittleBigPlanet would have been more interesting if it was just shipped as a toolset with no pre-built levels. I'm inclined to agree!"
And I'm inclined to disagree. I enjoyed going through the pre-made content, more than any platform game I've ever played.
it has given up
Maybe if you gave it a month or two it would get back to you eventually ;)
The image has an alt-text containing the same text as the image, so you can still copy and paste from the page source if you wish
Hey I said once in a while, not all the time. I do enjoy repetitive humour when it's done right :) My sig is a reference rather than a direct quote, as you rightly point out. It's still repetitive humour, but at least I slightly modified the joke. It obviously isn't funny if you haven't seen the movie, since you won't have seen the electrolytes thing taken to farcical levels already.
So correlation is kind of like an annoying gossip who reckons two people might have a thing for each other, despite a complete lack of any demonstrable connection?
And no, the XKCD link really isn't obligatory, whoever is thinking of posting it (though the parent basically already did, just with no credit). You need to try coming up with your own jokes once in a while.
I did consider something like the power glove, but yes in addition to camera tracking it could work. People used the power glove as an example of why the Wii would fail, but it simply hasn't.
And I am not too fussed about anything MS release, even if it worked perfectly I doubt I would get a 360. I avoided the 360 precisely because it was an MS product, and that has stood me in good stead so far. I do like the idea though (if it was mixed with other controller ideas - pure body language is a poor way to play a game), and I expect Sony and Nintendo will come out with something just as good for the next gen if it turns out to be worthwhile.
I'm quite looking forward to the PS3's motion system though, and I don't see any reason to consider it vapourware seeing that they have already demonstrated it working rather well. Now we just have to see if they can make it available at a decent price point, and get some developers onboard to make some decent games for it. Developing games for a control system is kind of doing things the wrong way round though.
I'm glad I'm not the only crazy one that thinks entertainment is actually worth paying for.
Not that I have been a saint myself, but now that I have a job I pay for stuff - even some stuff that I have already acquired through other means when I was a student.
Exactly. I mostly think of RPGs as a pointless waste of time (apart from the community aspect), because of the grinding often required to get anywhere. The weird thing is though, that when I do play those types of games I still find it easy to get addicted. Combining RPG gameplay with an exercise plan would be an easy way to make it feel more worthwhile.
In the same way, I taught myself to play drums as my friends and I wanted to start a band but we were all guitarists. Once the band fell apart I hardly ever played even though I had acquired an electronic kit to practice on. Then I bought Rock Band and suddenly I was getting graded on how well I played and had the challenge of 'beating' songs instead of just playing them. I have seriously become a much better drummer just through playing a lot of Rock Band, it helped a lot with limb separation. Playing in a band is great fun too, but it wouldn't have taught me how to play new rhythms or rewarded me as much for keeping perfect time, I think there are some great possibilities for learning via computer games, whether that's learning physical skills or more academic ones.
Yep, I think the best controllers for this type of thing would be solidly (not with a strap like the wii-mote but with a proper plastic moulded mount) attached to your wrists so that there are a set of buttons accessible by your hands, but you don't need to keep a grip all the time, and they won't flail around or slide out of your hands if you wave your arms about.