In a word, NO. Stross wrote three books that are formally Singularity/Post Singularity novels, and I guarentee you he absolutely cannot write a nice utopic singularity (although Accelerando has a happy ending for some lobster dataclones, and some individual people in the Iron Sunrise duology make it through all the horrible things happening and have nice enough individual lives, a Strossian Singularity inevitiably includes mass extinctions.). His current series include one with a possible future singularity-like event looming over the protagonists, as directed by Lovecraft's Nyarlathotep, and a "fun with cultural misunderstandings of various robots, settling down after they have already killed off their human masters" series. Read his short novella, "Missle Gap", or "A Colder War", and THEN ask youself if he could write a story where where everything changes but nothing horrible happens to anyone. You could offer him income like J. K. Rowling's to do it, it's the one thing he just couldn't do.
20 years without actually using a device, or WITH using one? Popping off one little nuke, with witnesses, really changes the challenge factor there.
Anybody else remember the commercials they ran when that law was passed? i remember an Eskimo getting a fan in the mail and was like "Gee...thanks".
As for TFA surely the EU has a similar law, otherwise what would keep the bogus sales scams from picking on the old folks over there?
I mean, what do we want? We want to get rid of the commercials in our program. What is the problem? Well, identifying it, of course. If it could be auto detected, it could easily be auto removed.
And here they go and give us something to identify them.
I am unfortunately not an expert on videos and the like, but shouldn't it be possible to create something like a tool that can identify the volume of the programming and if it is beyond normal to switch to something sensible? Like, say a quick zapping through the rest of the current programming (and of course switch back to your show when they finally continue).
Or another idea. Commercials don't really change, at least not often. That's mainly what makes them so annoying. You get to see the same piece of junk being hawked in the same ridiculous manner that might have been at least remotely interesting the first time you saw it, but from then on it only gets worse. And you get to see the same commercial over and over and over. Isn't it possible to identify that drivel? It may be necessary to buffer the show and delay it by a few seconds so the commercial can be correctly identified, but it should be possible to do just that.
Canada's Fascist Prime Minister, Harper has been trying to sabotage their mail service as well. The same playbook in the USA is being played out in other western nations... makes one wonder who is orchestrating all this. It can't be they simply offer horrible ideas to each other at these G8 summits.
Before you think I'm exaggerating, go look up what a Fascist really is and how Harper would have been booted from office if it wasn't for a horrible loophole involving the Queen. He wants to privatize part of the healthcare system because the USA's is just so great...
You seem rather persistent in insisting that what you consider "necessary" or "worthwhile" is objectively so, demonstrated simply because you say it is
Not at all. I keep asking what separates the unprovable God hypothesis from other hypotheses (e.g. the teapot, the FSM, etc.). I'm asking *you* to tell me why the God hypothesis is worthwhile, when infinitely many other hypotheses that are equally (un)supported are not. (I presume you'd agree that it's not worth seriously considering the existence of a teapot orbiting the sun).
The scope of "worthwhile" is tautologically defined by the reality you already accept--if it is an extension of philosophical naturalism, it is worthwhile, if it is not, it is not worthwhile.
No, you misunderstand. It's not about me, you do it too. There are infinitely many potentially true things, and you only have finite time to consider them. How do you distinguish between the potentially true things you consider, and the ones that you don't?
You don't see this stance as rather... limiting?
Humans are limited creatures. It does us no good to pretend we know things that we actually do not.
it is simply untrue that knowing "God did it" tells us nothing. At minimum, it tells us God did it.
But that adds no explanatory power to our models. Saying "God did it" does not allow us to make more accurate predictions about observable reality. That's the same as telling us nothing.
My experiences are consistent with many others' as per the expectations of the religion. If there is disparity, you haven't demonstrated it.
"many" others. Try "all others". It only takes one contradictory observation to disprove a hypothesis.
So what? You get "different answers" asking anything from any diverse group, whether it be in politics, art, or for that matter, physics. From this we infer none of the positions is correct?
Politics and art are matters of opinion. In physics, no you don't get different measurements. If you get different measurements for the same phenomenon, you either discovered a novel effect(e.g. you weren't actually observing the same phenomenon), or your apparatus is broken.
Here's an example. The OPERA experiment measured the speed of neutrinos. Every experiment in every laboratory everywhere in the world had already determined through extensive observation that the speed of light is the fastest any particle with mass can go. This one experiment contradicted decades worth of experimental evidence, and got huge amounts of press coverage. As well they should have, it would have turned physics upside down if it were true. But as it turns out, it was a loose cable.
So no, it's not OK to get different answers. If your revelation tells you one thing, and another person's revelation tells them something contradictory, at least one of you is wrong. Since you are both using the same technique, you have to conclude that the technique is unreliable.
Remarkable, given it was presented in this very thread, to you. You neither challenged the evidence nor acknowledged it. "Not seeing it", however, seems remarkably unlikely.
No idea what you're talking about here. Link or quote.
You have not explained how or why hypoxia results in these specific experiences, consistently.
Nor do I need to. That we do not have an explanation for consciousness currently does not mean that deity is required.
Which, ironically, is precisely what you just did. Conjecturing and asserting your conjecture regarding the writings is true.
I did not assert that my conjecture was true. I asserted that it was plausible. If a plausible naturalistic explanation exists, there's no reason for us to assume a supernatural explanation. Remember, I said it was important that evidence be *inconsistant* with the model you are trying to reject. Currently your "evidence" is consistant with both a theistic and naturalistic model of the universe. Show me something inconsistant with a naturalistic model of the universe.
"The evidence" is for the dominant model of the time, in science in particular. For it to expand, someone has to propose a model contrary to the known evidence, and initially, their hypothesis-formation is highly speculative. This is precisely how we came to accept Einstein's Relativity. This will be how we will determine whether String Theory is ultimately correct. This is how we will determine which of the Interpretations of QM is correct--and one of them is, and none of them are differentiable by testing.
Nope. We follow the evidence. Relativity was prompted by the observation that the speed of light is constant in all directions. String theory was prompted by the observation that two extremely well supported models produce nonsensical results when combined.
Can speculation be useful? Sure, but until you have something testable, it's just speculation. Including string theory. Asking "what if" questions is all well and good. The problem comes when you like the answer enough to forget it's a "what if" and call it an "is".
Then people are correct or incorrect based purely and exclusively on whether or not they are correct, based on what actually happened. Conjecturing what might have happened, or noting a lack of knowledge as to what happened, does not alter what happened. If someone saw what happened, they know what happened, regardless of the lack of knowledge of others.
I agree with this entirely. If Bill shot Steve, the people who saw Steve shoot Bill are wrong, the people who saw Andy shoot both of them are wrong, and the people who saw no one shoot anyone are wrong. Using the arbitrarily assigned numbers I made up for illustration, that means that 3 out of 4 eye witnesses are wrong.
But you're an eye witness too! If you know that 3/4 of eye witnesses are wrong, how can you not doubt your own eyes? Their incorrect beliefs were based on "direct empirically derived direct experience", just as yours is. But they were all still wrong! What kind of hubris does it take to make you think that your eyes don't lie, when everyone else's eyes do?
If it's not clear, eyesight here is used as an analogy for revelation.
Are they providing a sensible version of GNOME? I very want to shuck Ubuntu, and this would let me have my Steam games *and* a usable desktop system.
(I know there are GNOME alternatives, but I'm hoping for the easy way out.)
Are there black helicopters flying over your bedroom collecting your thoughts?
Why would they need black helicopters to fly over your bedroom when they can just get them directly from your email?
Is the US Government doing it?
You know they are.
Are other governments?
Not the free ones.
Holy crap, I agree with cold fjord!
Which doesn't make it illegal to feed the poor, that just means you need a permit to do so. As long as those permits aren't ridiculous then why is that a problem?
For two reasons:
1) Why should you need a permission to give away your stuff? Requiring a permit for an action is pure authoritarianism. It might be a lesser evil in some cases - for example, hunting licenses to keep an animal population from collapsing - but it's an evil nonetheless, and should only be used if grave consequences force the hand. And no, "I feel uncomfortable seeing poor people" is not a grave consequence.
2) This particular permit is specifically aimed against poor people, and as such will cotribute the economic and moral decay caused by pretending poverty and prosperity are earned by vice and virtue respectively. It's our good old friend the Just World Fallacy doing its usual disgusting work, by both reassuring you that you are quite safe (since you're moral) and that the victims don't deserve a single cent of your help. Unfortunately, a fallacy is endangered by exposure to reality, thus the need ot keep the realities of poverty out of sight. So, this particular permit exists to help reinforce a particularly evil and self-destructive form of self-delusion.
Um... no... See "Broken window fallacy"
Broken window fallacy only applies to idealised conditions of a perfectly efficient market that utilizes all available resources 100% at all times. If that condition is not met - for example, if a window maker can't find a new job fast enough to avoid falling into poverty and possibly triggering a cascade effect at that, or if you need to keep one available for emergencies yet the prevailing culture doesn't allow you to rise taxes to support a public retainer - then breaking windows can actually be the best available option.
More generally, the concept of a fallacy does not apply to economics, which is applied psychology rather than logic. "Under the most rigorously controlled conditions of pressure, temperature, humidity, and other variables, the organism will do as it damn well pleases."
Leave aside your disdain for the term--what is it that you consider fundamentally different, epistemologically, between religious faith and, say, the "undemonstrated belief" that String Theory is valid?
String theory is a worthwhile exercise because it potentially explains a real gap in our knowledge. If true, it could explain the discrepancies between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Eventually the models will become sophisticated enough and technology will advance to the point where something testable will fall out. And if it doesn't, theoretical physics is a small investment that has paid for itself a million times over already.
God on the other hand is not needed to explain any natural phenomena. If there is a phenomenon we cannot currently explain, saying "god did it" does not actually increase our understanding.
I have tested it using the recommended methodology for testing for spiritual phenomena
There are only phenomena, and the recommended methodology is the same for all phenomena. The scientific method. Valid observations have to be repeatable, verifiable by third parties, and if you're going to accept or discard a hypothesis they have to be compatible with only one truth value for that hypothesis. Your proposed method fails all of those points.
How does that matter?
It matters if you care about accuracy. If I weigh an object, and get 5 kilos, then you weigh the same object and get 8 kilos, we'd throw away the scale. It's not a reliable tool.
On the other hand, if you ask your deity how old the Earth is, and a Hindu asks his deity how old the Earth is, you'll get different answers. Your measurements are unreliable, yet you're not willing to throw away your instrument.
What is true is contingent on what you've personally seen?
Not at all. That was not a claim that religion is false because I have not seen evidence. That was an invitation for you to present evidence.
I just posted peer-reviewed information supporting the veracity of theism.
You posted a peer reviewed paper supporting the existence of subjective experiences during extreme hypoxia. That is entirely consistent with a naturalistic explanation of consciousness.
I also posted information regarding its predictions (i.e. "prophecy") along with a survey of proposed improbability if it were random guessing.
Self-fullfilling prophesies, generous readings, confirmation bias, and retconning.
e.g. I'd be surprised if there weren't a dozen individuals who fit the very nonspecific description in that first prophesy, but were not successful enough for record to survive.
e.g. for the second prophesy, what evidence is there that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, besides gospels written decades after his death by people with a vested interest in linking him to messianic prophesy?
e.g. You don't think it's likely the author of Matthew engaged in some poetic license? How would he have known exactly what the cost of the bribe was?
And so on...
That doesn't mean that it can't be, that is, that there is a correct resolution to the question, and that scientific method cannot address.
Again, just because the scientific method can't address a question doesn't mean it's OK to make things up.
And how do you make this determination of what is "worth consideration" a priori?
You don't. You follow the evidence. You observe the world and make a model of it based on those observations. Then you look for predictions made by that model, and see if they match further observations. So far there are no observations that require a God to be part of our model, and our model makes no predictions about the existence or non-existence of God. As LaPlace apocryphally said to Napoleon, "I have no need of that hypothesis".
If I see Bill shoot Steve in a back alley, I have all the evidence I need that Bill shot Steve. I do not need to replicate the event for you or prove it for it to be evidence
What if a billion people claimed to see Bill shoot Steve? And another billion people claimed to see Steve shoot Bill? And yet another people claimed that Andy shot both Steve and Bill? And another billion people claimed that no one shot anyone at all?
Wouldn't you start to doubt that your eyes are a reliable instrument for observing reality? That's exactly the case with revelation. Your personal subjective experience of God cannot be a valid experiment because billions of people have done the same experiment and gotten different results.
Yeah, your posting style and that website scream "INSTALL MY TROJAN HORSE" I'll simply copy a hosts file manually and avoid your file.
Competitors OS? I dont think you have a clue as to how the world operates....
Stop being complete idiots. Release your flagship and 1 step down smartphones with a clean Android on them instead of Windows.
You will almost instantly become the #1 android phone overnight. The hardware on the Lumia 1520 is an incredible Nokia quality phone. It's HTC-ONE level of refinement, it's just stuck with a crap operating system that nobody wants.
You have the hardware already done, just unlock the bootloader and delivers some docs about the hardware to the public and let the Cyanogenmod guys port Android to it almost overnight.
This is a no brainer, you can start climbing again back to the top of the cellphone maker pile within 60 days if you simply do this ONE thing and stop crippling your hardware.