Bitcoin Forum
May 05, 2024, 10:01:06 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 [96] 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 ... 361 »
1901  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The problem with atheism. on: October 30, 2013, 01:15:48 AM
I fully expect that we will have to deal with extreme discrimination against thins like sentient custom-designed species (chimeras/furries) and artificial intelligence, possibly even within my lifetime. The arguments will be that, since they are not humans, and are not god's chosen subjects, they obviously have no souls, so it's ok to enslave or kill them. Religious fundamentalists and conservatives have to hate something...
1902  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The Origin of the Human DNA on: October 30, 2013, 01:00:23 AM
As many posters here pointed out the evolution doesn't care about things like "style of life" or try to optimize for something. It just happens. So according to that view horses, cows and pigs had equal chances as dinosaurs to begin evolving wings. Since we have agreed that ostriches don't get any disadvantages of having wings while still being incapable of flight, then we should have seen pigs with rudiments of wings too, but we didn't. Truly random mutations must have produced that. Yet we only see the mutations, where they make sense and eventually lead to an implementation of some higher-order concept.

The coccyx in humans is the rudiment of a tail (most of which has disappeared).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx


So, again, we got rid of the tail instead of growing a bigger one because it made sense, not because it reduced our ability to survive. I bet tails would make an office clerk's life troublesome Smiley

It wasn't because "it made sense," it was because our particular species of ape migrated to the grass plains for whatever reason, and had to rely more on running around than jumping around branches and hanging on trees. Long tails between our butt cheeks made running a tad inconvenient, and only gave predators something to grab on to.
1903  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The Origin of the Human DNA on: October 30, 2013, 12:55:25 AM
You'd think that there would have been umpteen examples of life starting in the billions of years the planet has been around but we know that it only happened once.

Actually we don't. It could have happened billions of times, in millions of puddles around the world, and just died out before it could get anywhere.
1904  Economy / Economics / Re: Technological unemployment is (almost) here on: October 30, 2013, 12:45:12 AM
the counterstrike heads of today will be the great generals of tomorrow Smiley

I have a feeling the counterstrike heads of today don't have the muscle to pick up an AK-47, let alone run around with it.
1905  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin the enabler - Truly Autonomous Software Agents roaming the net on: October 30, 2013, 12:37:55 AM
I could see this being a fiction book.

I could see this being a non-fiction book some day
1906  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: [ANN] BTCJam - Peer to Peer Bitcoin Lending on: October 30, 2013, 12:34:57 AM
is tulkas willing to sell the code? sell the site?

I doubt it  Tongue If only because it wuld take him or eer to get back to you even if you asked  Grin
1907  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Fort Hood soldiers say Army warned them off tea party, Christian groups on: October 30, 2013, 12:33:14 AM
I see far more calls on message boards by atheists to round up and kill Christians than by Christians to round up and kill atheists (or even abortion doctors).

And why is it OK to kill abortion babies but not abortion doctors?

I think you are getting trolled. Atheists don't care enough about any values to actually go out ad kill someone. They just want Christians to leave them alone
1908  Economy / Services / Re: Bitcoin 100: Developed Specifically for Non-Profits on: October 29, 2013, 11:14:40 PM
Another request. Can we use an innovative financial instrument to donate to a charity that focuses on innovative finance?

From Vanessa

Quote
Our charity is Lend for America (lendforamerica.org). We offer a platform to help college students practice microfinance in the U.S. Students raise small funds to make microloans to disadvantaged business owners in the community next to their university. We've grown from 3 campus MFIs in 2009 to 24 today and we offer several programs to help students including online toolkits, in-person training during site visits, an annual conference, and a year-long fellowship program. We were founded by and still remain within the legal structure of the Intersect Fund Corporation - tax ID #: 36-4636828. The Intersect Fund was founded by students at Rutgers University in 2008 to serve small business owners throughout New Jersey.

Please let me know what other information you may need.

This charity was actually introduced to us by DavidBAL, who found out about us at the Amsterdam conference, and was also at the Atlanta conference.
The first thing I notice, though, is that they don't have a donation page. Hmmm  Tongue
1909  Economy / Economics / Re: Technological unemployment is (almost) here on: October 29, 2013, 10:14:51 PM
Mercenaries with pure monetary interest always exist, but I don't think they will play major role in the EU and other civilized countries (about U.S. I am not sure).

If you are talking about an extremely technologically advanced world, where jobs are being rapidly replaced by technology (and where things like taxation and regulations of goods and information are nearly impossible), then concepts like EU or US would no longer exist.
1910  Economy / Economics / Re: Technological unemployment is (almost) here on: October 29, 2013, 10:13:10 PM
Reading through this thread, one thing that is completely missing is the notion of human technological evolution. Everyone keeps mentioning AI as some separate thing that will take over, when a much more likely scenario will be that humans will augment themselves with AI, in the same way that we have been augmenting our math skills with calculators, and our general knowledge wth google. Who knows, maybe later on in the future we will be able to augment ourselves with technology that lets us generate portable electricity, and augment our bodies with technology that lets us generate portable protein and vitamins (some custom created bacteria that replicates wildly under sunlight for example). At that point, your need for food will be mostly taken care of, and your need to be knowledgeable, skilled, and creative will be taken care of as well. Even now, software developers don't need to rely on knowing everything there is to know about programming syntax, or cary huge books with programming references. They just need to understand the concepts of computer logic, and everything else regarding the actual specifics of programing are just a google search away.
1911  Economy / Economics / Re: Technological unemployment is (almost) here on: October 29, 2013, 09:55:54 PM
However we are running into a hard barrier in the next 10 to 16 years depending on how persimistic you are.  Even before that transistor density is probably going to under perform Moore's law.

Didn't we switch from transistor dencity to multiple cored running in parallel a while ago, so that performance can still continue to double simply by increasing the amount of work we can do at the same time?

Quote
BTW Moore's law deals with transistor density not performance directly (although performance has closely followed transistor density).  

Ah, I wasn't aware of that (I'll take your word for it though). We do have some nanotech developments in diamond-based cores that can run stably at 1,000C+ temperatures, and some rudimentary light-based processors. Maybe those will become more common as we start to reach a limit, and cheaper as we end up needing them more and more.
1912  Economy / Economics / Re: Technological unemployment is (almost) here on: October 29, 2013, 09:52:08 PM
You are thinking linearly while technology advances by exponential curve (BTW, the same fallacy caused many Bitcoin miners to buy ASICs not counting exponential rise of the difficulty which resulted in negative ROI for them).

I'm pretty sure the fault there was not exponential growth of technology, but rather extreme delays by a certain ASIC manufacturer, which made it impossible to predict when and how many new miners would be released on the market. Much of the negative ROI nowadays is coming from preorders that are just now being filled.
1913  Economy / Economics / Re: Technological unemployment is (almost) here on: October 29, 2013, 09:46:41 PM
Running low on foof is a pretty good "kick in the ass"
If you mean "food", it will more likely force them to riot and destroy "lucky working elite" property rather than be creative. Recent attacks on Google shuttle buses is good example what will happen.

I find this quote from the article puzzling: "Unfortunately, I’ve haven’t seen the tech giants who’ve colonized the neighborhood do much to give back."

Aren't the appartment owners, who actually own the apartments and property in the area, earning much more, now that their rental properties are paying them more a month? How is that not giving back?

Quote
I don't think these communities will be able to sustain for any considerable time - army and police will also understand what is happening and probably support 90% of "useless" population, not the working elite (because they also could be replaced with the drones).

The useless population won't be able to pay for army or police. Army and police work for a paycheck, too.

Quote
In 90's Russia people needed the same, but nevertheless sold free privatization shares (vouchers) to the oligarchs.

I didn't bring up Russia, but Russia is a place where people have been brainwashed into socialism and subservience for almost a century, and most people who weren't got the hell out way back in the late 80's/early 90's. So Russia is a horrible example of everything that's horrible.
1914  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The Origin of the Human DNA on: October 29, 2013, 09:23:02 PM
Quote
Consciousness likely evolved in gradual stages as well. To survive, animals have to be aware of their surroundings, of where their own limbs and bodies are, of things happening to and inside of their bodies (pain, illness, etc), and to predict where things will go in the short term, either to catch prey, or to avoid predators. Just from that you have all the basic building blocks of self awareness.

For something to appear self-aware is a completely mechanical notion. But as for you, sitting there in your body, aware of yourself and others, mechanics alone cannot begin to explain what "you" are doing "in there," as opposed your absence (in that you are absent from the experiences of others).

Why not? Why can't mechanics alone explain what is it that I am sensing and describing to myself?
1915  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The Origin of the Human DNA on: October 29, 2013, 09:18:53 PM
Why didn't horses or cows or even pigs start to evolve wings? Smiley

Because their style of life, consumption, and reproduction does not require them to fly? They went the run fast and be big enough to fight things off route, instead of the fly away route. Plus they are not carnivores, and birds evolved from carnivorous dinos that needed to swoop down on top of their prey.
1916  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Fort Hood soldiers say Army warned them off tea party, Christian groups on: October 29, 2013, 09:16:28 PM
Oh yeah, don't forget Russia's recent rise to infamy as being extremely anti-gay, with gays being beaten, killed, and when protesting, arrested despite being the ones who got assaulted. Why? Because after the fall of USSR, the church ended up taking power. Russia is basically becoming a Christian extremist nation.
1917  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Fort Hood soldiers say Army warned them off tea party, Christian groups on: October 29, 2013, 09:13:55 PM
Here are some facts.

1.  Since 1983, eight people have been killed in the USA from abortion clinic violence.  How many from muslim violence?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/AmericanAttacks.htm

3101 in 70 separate attacks in the USA.

Don't forget, we are actually actively trying to kill them there. And that still doesn't prove one way or another whether the christian nucases would go on a killing spree if they weren't concerned about the law coming down on them. They are quite vocal and supporting about stoping abortion by any means, after all.


Quote
2.  Kills gays and transsexuals?  Muslims do this routinely today.  Do Christians?  You might be thinking of the Matthew Shepard story.  The one you were lied to about.  Yeah, that one.

http://nypost.com/2013/10/28/uncomfortable-truth-behind-matthew-shepards-death/

Yeah, no, not that one. More like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_States#Violent_acts_against_LGBT_persons and even that is still a short lits. Used to be I would read about some gay person being beaten or killed almost every months just maybe 5 to 10 years ago. Typically people doing this are christian religious extremists.

Quote
3.  Is very racist and jingoistic?  I think this may be not an issue/or is equally an issue with either Muslim or Christian.  (not exactly NICE, but not in the same category as murder and violence).

That's true. They wait until we cross into their borders before shooting at us, unlike US military going into other countries, or the mexican border patrol rednecks taking potshots are illegals.

Quote
4.  Perfectly happy with stony sinners or burning them at the stake.

No.  These practices occurred in isolated cultures of Christianity, a long time ago.  You can't support an assertion that Christians would be happy with those things today with facts.

Are you sure about that? I'm not saying that all, or even the majority, of Christians are like that, but some of the religious zealotry out there (that has been caught on tape even) is downright scary  Embarrassed

Quote
So where you want to go with this equalizing stuff?

I will concede, Christian extremists are not AS crazy, insane, violent, and righteously-murderous as Muslim extremists. They are only somewhat crazy, insane, violent,  and murderous. (glad the KKK is almost gone, but we still have nutcases like the guy in Norway 2 years ago)
1918  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The Origin of the Human DNA on: October 29, 2013, 08:53:21 PM
Say we've got these self-replicating proteins that have combined into this incredibly complex, cooperative organism. Then it evolves a bit more and a living being with his or her own first-person sense of self emerges into that machine? I don't buy it. If mutation 'X' provides the special sauce for becoming basically alive and conscious, then I'll eat my hat!

Consciousness likely evolved in gradual stages as well. To survive, animals have to be aware of their surroundings, of where their own limbs and bodies are, of things happening to and inside of their bodies (pain, illness, etc), and to predict where things will go in the short term, either to catch prey, or to avoid predators. Just from that you have all the basic building blocks of self awareness.
1919  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The Origin of the Human DNA on: October 29, 2013, 08:49:18 PM
This theory was completely confirmed with the Large Hadron Colider, when we observed exactly that happening many times on a tiny scale - essentially numerous tiny big bangs creating mater and antimater, popping spontaneously into existance - though they were too tiny to survive in our already existing universe.

So, there's your answer. A big sum of nothing spontaneously popped into existence out of nothing.

But it didn't. It took the Hadron Collider, 30 years of man made effort, $6 billion in materials and labour, the worlds greatest scientific minds to create an atmosphere to prove that you need a Hadron Collider to make something come from nothing?

The Hadron Colider doesn't actually create anything. It's a large sensor that senses stuff happening in our universe, or things our universe is composed of. Essentially, "30 years of man made effort, $6 billion in materials and labour, the worlds greatest scientific minds to create" a really damn good microscope, which was able to see things come from nothing.

Did you know black holes form all around us all the time too? We don't notice them, because they are too tiny, burn out too quickly, and exist for too short a period of time for us to notice them (like, tiny fractions of a nanosecond). We could use things like the Hadron Colider to detect them, but that doesn't mean they exist only in its tube. They're everywhere... o.o
1920  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The Origin of the Human DNA on: October 29, 2013, 08:32:29 PM
Then why don't we see those flightless birds to eventually get rid of the wings completely in the process of evolution? Why doesn't evolution optimize for that?

Penguins used to have wings, but have evolved them into more like fuzzy flippers instead, since in their environment they get more food by "flying" under water than flying through the air. If you ever get a chance to see them doing that at a zoo, do it. They are quite amazing to watch.


Whenever I ponder evolution, I can never get my head round the basics. People always debating the finer technicalities of it, but the simple question of 'can something come from nothing?' always baffles me. Any evolutionist I have spoken to has attempted to explain it but always leads to me asking...where did that come from? to which he answers and I reply, and where did that come from? eventually it comes to the point that the evolutionist states 'we don't currently know the answer to that yet, but technological advancements will explain that one day', which leads me to the conclusion that the foundation of evolution right now is based on blind faith that technology will one day answer how 'something came from nothing'. That's why the finer details of macro and micro evolution are immaterial, why discuss the finer details when there is currently no foundation for the theory?

I'm very willing to entertain good explanations for this, as I would genuinely like to learn....not anti-evolution here...


Species evolved through random genetic mutations, which were selected by their environment (viable mutations reproduced, bad mutations died off). Birds, mamals, and reptiles all came from the same fish ancestors. Insects came from crustasians like crabs and trilobytes. Plants came from seaweed, which came from algae. All three of those classes came from complex sponges and from single-celled organisms, some photosynthetic in nature, some predatoreal. Those came from even more basic single-cell life, which came from proto-life consisting of very basic proteins, which was created in gasy bubbly pools of water, mud, geothermal activity (volcanoes), and air. Those things came from planet Earth, which formed when dust clouds from a prior star (or a number of stars) congealed with gravity to form the big round balls we call planets, and the giant ball of gas we call the sun. Of those previous stars, some were formed from the most basic element hydrogen, and some were formed from more complex elements, but their enormous pressure and fusion was what transformed the basic elements and gasses into the more heavier elements, like calcium, carbon, iron, oxygen, sillicon, and other elements that we and our planet are made of. Those stars, in turn, were formed from gravity pulling together very basic elements which originated from the big bang, which until recently was theorized to have come from nothing. When measuring the mass of the universe by observing how things move and gravitate around each other, we discovered that the parts we are able to see only make up half of the universe. The theory was that our universe is composed of matter that we can see (electrons around protons) and anti-mater which we can't (protons around electrons) which nonetheless has gravitational mass, and that our universe is composed of equal parts matter and anti-matter. As such, if you take all of the stuff in universe and put it together, it will all cancel each other out (matter canceling out anti-mater), meaning our universe is still technically a sum of nothing. The theory also claimed that an event that can spontaneously create a bunch of matter and antimater (in exactly equal parts so as to maintain that "energy can not be created or destroyed") could happen randomly, at any time, completely on its own. This theory was completely confirmed with the Large Hadron Colider, when we observed exactly that happening many times on a tiny scale - essentially numerous tiny big bangs creating mater and antimater, popping spontaneously into existance - though they were too tiny to survive in our already existing universe.

So, there's your answer. A big sum of nothing spontaneously popped into existence out of nothing.
Pages: « 1 ... 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 [96] 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 ... 361 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!