It seems you'll probably sell, and most people are telling you why or how you should sell, I'd just like to say why you may want to not sell.
Well that's more about why I wouldn't want to sell. I couldn't find a job, so I worked hard for 5 months on a commercial program, I didn't count my hours, I wasn't getting a cent for it for the first few months, it was awfully hard to sell at first. But then, through updates, new features, better communication after having learnt to promote it better, but mostly after building a momentum and getting a beginning of popularity. Then, it started to pay the bills, then all of them, then more.
It still makes up for a modest salary, but for various reasons I know it will soon double, and continue to increase. I work from home and now that things are rolling the workload is very reasonable, I do what I want with my product, I do what I like and while there are lots of people telling me what to do I can afford to dismiss most of what I'm told, cause I'm my own boss.
The cashflow's increasing, I have plans for various improvements and spin-off products, and I'm going back to college, which thankfully means I'll still get that "salary" while studying, which is great. Unsurprisingly I've never been proposed to be bought by a big company, but I wouldn't have sold anyways, nothing beats making a living out of doing freely what you like, mostly if you have big plans for it.
-Christian texts from the late 1st century onwards
-Non-christian texts from the 2nd century onwards
-Jewish records of a guy named vaguely like him executed by hanging for robbery about a decade after Jesus was supposed to have died.
Add to that the fact that Jews back then kept a record of pretty much everything they did but no records for anything that happened in the New Testament, be it the mass execution of toddlers or the execution of Jesus, that contemporary historians who went to Palestine back then only started hearing about Christians in the early 2nd century and never heard of Jesus when he was alive, and you've got solid evidence for his existence!
Man do I love it when people apply rigorous historical methodology to hot topics and base their opinions according to their methodological findings.
Ah, thanks for the insight. However that's like saying "In 10 years we'll be able to produce 1.21 Gigawatts" and turning it into "we'll be able to travel back in time".
I have a USB TV tuner, it doesn't even work, probably because I have a bad reception here. This being said many people here don't have a TV either just like me, the main reason being to avoid paying that TV tax. So you see, that's not as much bullshit as you'd like to believe. And I believe it's a growing trend, so I'm telling you, 10 years from now, a significant number of young people won't have a TV, just like a lot of them don't have a landline phone anymore, because it's been superseded. Internet supersedes the TV set.
Hmm, are you familiar with the concept of insular dwarfism? If these scientists say it's Homo erectus + insular dwarfism, what on Earth allows you to doubt it?
Are you kidding? Lots of young people, me included, have broadband and no TV. Why? Irish TV isn't that great, and I get all my shows from BitTorrent faster anyways and watch them when I want without any commercial break. And my flat is too small for a TV set.
Lots of people have realised that the Internet supersedes TV, hence why I like to claim that in 10 years we'll say that only old people have a TV.
Right, so what do you actually propose here, that we just let the Sahara invade the South? I for one would love to see what happens when a country of 200 million people like Nigeria turns into a big sandbox.
Yeah, pesky humans, just because the desert ruins their crops and invades their village they feel the need to prevent it from doing so. Please people wise up and let Mother Nature in its infinite wisdom and consideration destroy all you have and ruin your life. For interfering with her might anger her.
Now if you'll excuse me I need to catch my plane to Holland, got some dams standing in the way of Mother Nature that need to be take care of.
I live in Ireland and don't have a TV, so if they're gonna do that they best make all their RTE channels stream like it's TV. Right now all I have is the RTE News stream that repeats every 10 minutes, not exactly worth my 160 euros. It's only fair that they're give us all we're supposed to get for the price.
Medical imaging is to strong AI as the microscope is to teleportation. It's not because advances are great in a specific field that anything becomes possible. If people (you included) could possibly stop trying to rationalise their wishful thinking.
Well, let's say that we discover what really happens after death, let's say it's being born again as a new person, starting a whole new life, does it make you want to live to 400 with your mind in a computer? Of course as of now in the west we all assume that death is either the eternal nothing or the eternal Jesus Christ's Club Med of Eternity, neither which sound very appealing, but if death turns out not to be so bad, I mean, I'd rather start a new life than drag my old self for centuries in a computer. So that's one reason why immortality may not be so desirable. But as long as we'll see death is the absolute end of everything, even living a 1,000 years in a computer simulation sounds better than nothing.
More simply, another reason may be that when you get as old as 100, you may not necessarily live another 100 years of the same life in the same worsening conditions as you're living in. Middle aged people are scared of death, but they've got lots left to do. When you're very old, you're supposed to have lived a worthwhile and interesting life, and if everything went fine you've done anything you've wanted to and have witnessed the creation of your 4th generation of descendants. I'm just saying, old people aren't all scared of dying, a lot of them wouldn't mind, a number of them can't wait for it.
Look, for the last fucking time people, drop the fucking "We thought X was impossible when it really was therefore Y is possible even if it seems impossible" argument already. It's a logical fallacy. What allows you to think that any of that Singularity shit can happen besides wishful thinking and such?
It's one of those things that the more time passes the further away it seems. Like flying cars seemed 10 years away in 1957, now they seem 60 years away, tabletop fusion sounded so close a few decades ago, now it sounds no closer, same space colonies, all sorts of AI, etc...
There should be a Murphy's Law except for futuristic predictions. Something like "Futuristic predictions are bound to fail in two ways, fail to ever happen, and fail to predict what's really going to happen".
Well look at it this way, people like GP consider the brain like a computer, in that they want to simulate every transistor and hope it'll just work like your desktop machine does. Never any mention of any instructions in any ROM or even any OS. The common held belief is you just need to connect together a whole bunch of neurons on a sufficiently powerful computer and sentient beings will just pop up and give you the answer to anything in no time.
That's the problem with the myth of the megahertz. Even if the brain ran at a fixed clock rate, it's massively parallel, whereas a CPU typically does only one thing at a time at the scale of the clock cycle, the brain does a mega shitload of things in various places.
lol, you're joking, but it can actually happen, for example, people in ancient times invent a superstitious practice/rite based on wishful thinking, the wishful thinking part dies, but the practice becomes tradition or finds new rationalisations and gets to live on.
Don't you think you've just established that it's a bit early to call what will be possible and what won't be? You basically just said that we're at the beginning of what might be, and I'm sure we'll make tremendous progresses within this century regarding the brain and the mind, but knowing what we know it seems awfully early to say "we'll map and copy brains".
Indeed, the sad thing is (well, yet another of those sad things), you can't hear about the Singularity without hearing about Kurzweil, you can't hear about Strong AI (which may or may not be possible, what do we know?) without hearing of the Singularity, and you can't discuss AI without strong AI popping up.
So at the centre of this entire field of research you have that guy and his crazy ideas hogging up all the attention, and I'm afraid that he's only going to bring discredit to the discipline, just like any other discipline that has crackpots as figureheads, and that's no good.
Why not, although at that point we're speculating about the possibility of things we do not understand at all, so yeah, from that point of view nothing can be excluded.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems you'll probably sell, and most people are telling you why or how you should sell, I'd just like to say why you may want to not sell.
Well that's more about why I wouldn't want to sell. I couldn't find a job, so I worked hard for 5 months on a commercial program, I didn't count my hours, I wasn't getting a cent for it for the first few months, it was awfully hard to sell at first. But then, through updates, new features, better communication after having learnt to promote it better, but mostly after building a momentum and getting a beginning of popularity. Then, it started to pay the bills, then all of them, then more.
It still makes up for a modest salary, but for various reasons I know it will soon double, and continue to increase. I work from home and now that things are rolling the workload is very reasonable, I do what I want with my product, I do what I like and while there are lots of people telling me what to do I can afford to dismiss most of what I'm told, cause I'm my own boss.
The cashflow's increasing, I have plans for various improvements and spin-off products, and I'm going back to college, which thankfully means I'll still get that "salary" while studying, which is great. Unsurprisingly I've never been proposed to be bought by a big company, but I wouldn't have sold anyways, nothing beats making a living out of doing freely what you like, mostly if you have big plans for it.
Is that your evidence? That piece of "evidence" is about as controversial as the holy shroud.
Yeah, evidence, which falls into 3 categories :
-Christian texts from the late 1st century onwards
-Non-christian texts from the 2nd century onwards
-Jewish records of a guy named vaguely like him executed by hanging for robbery about a decade after Jesus was supposed to have died.
Add to that the fact that Jews back then kept a record of pretty much everything they did but no records for anything that happened in the New Testament, be it the mass execution of toddlers or the execution of Jesus, that contemporary historians who went to Palestine back then only started hearing about Christians in the early 2nd century and never heard of Jesus when he was alive, and you've got solid evidence for his existence!
Man do I love it when people apply rigorous historical methodology to hot topics and base their opinions according to their methodological findings.
Ah, thanks for the insight. However that's like saying "In 10 years we'll be able to produce 1.21 Gigawatts" and turning it into "we'll be able to travel back in time".
I have a USB TV tuner, it doesn't even work, probably because I have a bad reception here. This being said many people here don't have a TV either just like me, the main reason being to avoid paying that TV tax. So you see, that's not as much bullshit as you'd like to believe. And I believe it's a growing trend, so I'm telling you, 10 years from now, a significant number of young people won't have a TV, just like a lot of them don't have a landline phone anymore, because it's been superseded. Internet supersedes the TV set.
Hmm, are you familiar with the concept of insular dwarfism? If these scientists say it's Homo erectus + insular dwarfism, what on Earth allows you to doubt it?
Yeah, we have to dream. Great justification for wishful thinking. Mistaking your dreams for prophecies is hardly a good thing.
Are you kidding? Lots of young people, me included, have broadband and no TV. Why? Irish TV isn't that great, and I get all my shows from BitTorrent faster anyways and watch them when I want without any commercial break. And my flat is too small for a TV set.
Lots of people have realised that the Internet supersedes TV, hence why I like to claim that in 10 years we'll say that only old people have a TV.
Right, so what do you actually propose here, that we just let the Sahara invade the South? I for one would love to see what happens when a country of 200 million people like Nigeria turns into a big sandbox.
Yeah, pesky humans, just because the desert ruins their crops and invades their village they feel the need to prevent it from doing so. Please people wise up and let Mother Nature in its infinite wisdom and consideration destroy all you have and ruin your life. For interfering with her might anger her.
Now if you'll excuse me I need to catch my plane to Holland, got some dams standing in the way of Mother Nature that need to be take care of.
I live in Ireland and don't have a TV, so if they're gonna do that they best make all their RTE channels stream like it's TV. Right now all I have is the RTE News stream that repeats every 10 minutes, not exactly worth my 160 euros. It's only fair that they're give us all we're supposed to get for the price.
Oh yeah oops, good point. When I'm arguing with a bunch of people all at the same time I just tend to merge what they say together.
I get 30 for "God uses Windows", 899 for "God uses a Mac" and 29 for "God uses Linux", but alright.. This being said, the C64 runs Linux.
Medical imaging is to strong AI as the microscope is to teleportation. It's not because advances are great in a specific field that anything becomes possible. If people (you included) could possibly stop trying to rationalise their wishful thinking.
Read some of my other comments in this thread, your question is a bit broad so that might answer it better.
Well, let's say that we discover what really happens after death, let's say it's being born again as a new person, starting a whole new life, does it make you want to live to 400 with your mind in a computer? Of course as of now in the west we all assume that death is either the eternal nothing or the eternal Jesus Christ's Club Med of Eternity, neither which sound very appealing, but if death turns out not to be so bad, I mean, I'd rather start a new life than drag my old self for centuries in a computer. So that's one reason why immortality may not be so desirable. But as long as we'll see death is the absolute end of everything, even living a 1,000 years in a computer simulation sounds better than nothing.
More simply, another reason may be that when you get as old as 100, you may not necessarily live another 100 years of the same life in the same worsening conditions as you're living in. Middle aged people are scared of death, but they've got lots left to do. When you're very old, you're supposed to have lived a worthwhile and interesting life, and if everything went fine you've done anything you've wanted to and have witnessed the creation of your 4th generation of descendants. I'm just saying, old people aren't all scared of dying, a lot of them wouldn't mind, a number of them can't wait for it.
Look, for the last fucking time people, drop the fucking "We thought X was impossible when it really was therefore Y is possible even if it seems impossible" argument already. It's a logical fallacy. What allows you to think that any of that Singularity shit can happen besides wishful thinking and such?
It's one of those things that the more time passes the further away it seems. Like flying cars seemed 10 years away in 1957, now they seem 60 years away, tabletop fusion sounded so close a few decades ago, now it sounds no closer, same space colonies, all sorts of AI, etc...
There should be a Murphy's Law except for futuristic predictions. Something like "Futuristic predictions are bound to fail in two ways, fail to ever happen, and fail to predict what's really going to happen".
Well look at it this way, people like GP consider the brain like a computer, in that they want to simulate every transistor and hope it'll just work like your desktop machine does. Never any mention of any instructions in any ROM or even any OS. The common held belief is you just need to connect together a whole bunch of neurons on a sufficiently powerful computer and sentient beings will just pop up and give you the answer to anything in no time.
That's the problem with the myth of the megahertz. Even if the brain ran at a fixed clock rate, it's massively parallel, whereas a CPU typically does only one thing at a time at the scale of the clock cycle, the brain does a mega shitload of things in various places.
lol, you're joking, but it can actually happen, for example, people in ancient times invent a superstitious practice/rite based on wishful thinking, the wishful thinking part dies, but the practice becomes tradition or finds new rationalisations and gets to live on.
Don't you think you've just established that it's a bit early to call what will be possible and what won't be? You basically just said that we're at the beginning of what might be, and I'm sure we'll make tremendous progresses within this century regarding the brain and the mind, but knowing what we know it seems awfully early to say "we'll map and copy brains".
Indeed, the sad thing is (well, yet another of those sad things), you can't hear about the Singularity without hearing about Kurzweil, you can't hear about Strong AI (which may or may not be possible, what do we know?) without hearing of the Singularity, and you can't discuss AI without strong AI popping up.
So at the centre of this entire field of research you have that guy and his crazy ideas hogging up all the attention, and I'm afraid that he's only going to bring discredit to the discipline, just like any other discipline that has crackpots as figureheads, and that's no good.
Why not, although at that point we're speculating about the possibility of things we do not understand at all, so yeah, from that point of view nothing can be excluded.
Maybe, but being more sensible that something utterly senseless isn't such a great thing in itself.
What valid point?