Ben Banana

I am registered as a pizza. I love being part of the pizza party! Thanks for inviting me, I'm glad I'm cool enough! It's not HTML at all. It's called BB code. You use [] instead of <> Then you're obviously incapable of reading anything more intellectual... including the majority of material we discuss here.

Worse: What if Godzilla ate the engineers before they could design the airplane !? If there is fire and they manage to stop it from spreading, or they manage to put it out before they all die ... you'll still need to deal with smoke regardless of whether the fire is fatal. By the way, why are people upset that some aren't still discussing the matter of airplane fires anymore? That's actually not the point of the topic. It's politics, specifically regarding careless and inappropriate judgements made by politicians such as Mitt Romney. I'm the one who's off topic!

You've discussed celestial resource-gathering (asteroid mining) quite a bit. I don't have any more comments regarding this particular aspect of the topic's discussion yet. I have an idea for processing materials and resources within the *vacuum of space and zero-gravity. What do you think about utilizing artificial fusion as a core heat source (e.g. to melt things during metallurgic refinement)? I think we could discover a much broader variety of applications for fusion when considering its practice within space, which I suppose would happen to be a lot cheaper to construct than projects such as the ITER tokamak (which is probably fundamentally different in operational nature to my idea), due to the simplicity I assume is associated to performing controlled fusion in space. Of course, this is just a fat assumption I make, as I find it reasonable to believe fusion and space naturally go hand in hand. After all, what do stars do? Yet, when I speculate this practice a little more deeply (though still too vague and inexperienced of me to discuss), I do think the idea could work quite well. If this is completed into a closed system -- gathering, refining, constructing; constructing new equipment for gathering raw-resources, expanding the facility of refinement, and assembling more construction utility -- I think it's just a matter of fully deploying the first generation of equipment, and then we shouldn't need to do very much to sustain its growth (besides overhead instruction). Of course, depending on how much equipment you initially deploy, time will always be a great matter, though I still believe the system could thoroughly develop to yield production masses far greater than as produced by all the humans working on Earth (collective measurement) in a rather short time, comparatively. As of now, this is not really a legitimate engineering topic, but I'm just opening my ideas for discussion. We can discuss the best plausible techniques for practicing metallurgic refinement within space, and even some concepts relating to their concrete practice (specific matters of engineering). I admit that I naively suspect the potential for such practices to bear more successfully than any mass metallurgic-process currently operating on Earth, but I want to know if you foresee any complications as early as now (and even if you don't, that doesn't mean I have any exceptionally good ideas here). The next subject we haven't touched upon is the necessary array of modular construction utility which would be required to completely close this system. I'd broadly divide this array into the following categorization (anyone think they're a good manufacture-taxonomist?): Domains of Construction Basis of Manufacture Casting Machining Specialist/Miscellaneous Processes (e.g. pressing, grinding, inflating etc.) [*]The equivalent to cranes, train tracks and all forms of macro assembly. [*]... [*]Targets of Construction Facilitative Frameworks (if it really is best for the total system to actually be this discrete and compartmental i.e. mining hubs, metallurgic centers, construction cores etc.) Giant teddy bears. ... [*]The Framework of Construction-Facility Routing Delivery of Resources and Materials Ensemble-management of Constructive Components Route Behavior (Compression, relaxation; various issues of complexity) [*]Hierarchy Apples and oranges. Guns and bunnies. Orange bunnies who taste like apples with guns. Hairspray. [*]... [*]Some other stuff (well, lots of stuff) which isn't included because this vague and extremely incomplete taxonomy is merely illustratively directed towards the course of discussion.

I'm not exactly sure, but I think they do let in oxygen anyway, but they facilitate it first. Right? EDIT: Also, they have masks... you know? Those thingies that drop down? Yeah... it's also good that they are sealed and concentrated (no wasteful permeation/leakage or any smoke inhalation at all) because providing additional uncontrolled oxygen is just a great way to burn the people up faster!

Why did we all skip over my last response? I think it was quite important to this discussion. Immortal, could you please reply? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67990-why-scientific-realism-might-be-false/page__view__findpost__p__703988

So, we're being subjective here? Eh. Well, I'd say evolution got it terribly wrong. Evolution is a failure! Boooooooo! *cracks open a giant dinosaur foot shaped stamp subtracted with an 'F' and scornfully presses it into the desolate clay, then marks record into the universal grade-book of eternity with a cast of shame*

The supernatural? What's that? Flying pigs? Flying pigs are related to a wave pattern? That's nice. I'm thinking people don't understand what this experiment implies at all. It's misunderstanding and an incapacity to honestly judge scientific exhibitions.

What are some of the offline-detection methods (not "observing") ? You're saying they're only asserting the "two stripe" result? It's never actually happened? If that's the case, then what the hell is wrong with these people!? There's nothing wrong with the wave pattern!

Create a system which can be configured to spam the user in a variety of unusual ways with the material found here: http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/OO_programming/

You must have been quite tired when you wrote this. The answer is yes.

I'm very happy with this response, because it's a lot more rigid than anything you've said before; however, I remain in disagreement. I still see a critical lack of connection between all of your discrete beliefs expressed there. 1. "the mind is something different from the human brain and that the empirical reality which includes also the brain and that the attributes of particles doesn't exist independent of the mind" 2. mind alone exists out there in the physical world then what's behind the human mind is the "Intellect" 3. what's behind the Intellect is the "Pleroma of God" representing the totality of divine powers Even if these were appropriately demonstrated to be strongly associated, by the collective manner they do not form a very robust belief. We can conclude the basis of just one of these components to be severely incorrect -- an event which has already occurred -- implying your total belief was weakly designated and nothing more. If these ideas don't logically correspond one-to-one, there's a great likelihood they were merely designated to unnaturally support a select core ideology: that means it's arbitrary.

Thank you for clarifying. Yes, I was going by my recollection. Unfortunately I'm not completely familiar with all of Kurt's word. My point is unaffected anyway (that's why I didn't care to research what you quoted). You probably can't even define "conscious thought" very well, and this is quite irrelevant. By the way, are you a zombie, and how can I be sure? Hahaha... I'm only joking. I'm not going to discuss this. This is also completely arbitrary. I don't see how it suggests that at all. Again, my point was that you're just drawing a circle around your favors. 'Seems like you've demonstrated that just there. Honestly, I have no clue how this coherently fits together: or in other-words, we're all about honestly understanding, not about having good ideas. It's incredibly easy to get lost in the possibility that an attractive idea you have is so special that it's worth more than the brains of everyone around you. This doesn't mean you're not 'intellectually honest,' <it suggests that I don't want to learn anything about religion or what other scientists who argue for a God hypothesis are saying>. Please demonstrate why this is not yet another arbitrary and exploitative mechanism you've senselessly employed to feel better. You're pulling off my reaction to your statement: My point thereafter was the same thing as above... you're interpreting it. You assert that it shows something correlated to your position as if everything manifests truth which inevitably supports your magically unbeatable argument. Bump of a question you shall answer soon: So how the hell does this amazing available evidence correspond to your arbitrary ideas?

Are you silly enough to be teased by the thought that he (possibly) preferred the human mind being more than a mere machine? Just from my recollection, he never specified which he believed in most anyway. Also, I think this is a silly prompt of Kurt. A lot of things are too big for the human mind, because otherwise we're omniscient; but the capacity of the human brain is astronomical. Or it shows that they don't understand any mechanics relevant to understanding intelligence. Shows... shows... Ahh, Vegas is not the right place for this discussion! No it doesn't. You're making an obvious exploitation of Godel's incompleteness theorems. 1. Whoever believes that statement assumes consistency is a principle at the ultimatum of comprehension... which is a very shallow assumption. The ability to "solve problems or answer questions" is extremely distant from Godel's work. What the hell are you thinking!? 2. Those evil "algorithms" are simply better at proving things than humans are. This is irrelevant anyway. "like the Turing machines." The Turing machines? You mean the Turing machine? (it's a theoretical model, not a physical machine) In my opinion, I think Turing completely misunderstood intelligence. They are intellectually honest? Okay... and there's amazing available evidence? Um... okay then (haha, no). So how the hell does this amazing available evidence correspond to your arbitrary ideas? Are you sure the amazing evidence is not counter-productively proving the great Flying Spaghetti Monster, rather than your cheese cake? In a nutshell: Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas? or in other-words, we're all about honestly understanding, not about having good ideas. It's incredibly easy to get lost in the possibility that an attractive idea you have is so special that it's worth more than the brains of everyone around you. This doesn't mean you're not 'intellectually honest,' it suggests that you're sincerely misguided.

"Mining the Sky" for Earth? Why is there only talk of bringing it back down to Earth? What would we even do with such resources? Most Sci-Fi resides beyond Earth. Megastructures are under my eye (i.e. spaceships, Dyson spheres and artificial worlds!) Zero-gravity provides a very free medium which should simplify automated construction. Automatized production systems could be highly modular, reproductive and self-maintaining; principles which yield a system capable of building virtually anything we can imagine that is theoretically-feasible! I think we should do our best to live within the confines of Earth and crunch down as much efficiency as we can before considering extraterrestrial resources as core supplements, so I believe that we should extend beyond Earth with distributed (even discrete) ventures, rather than with the ambition to supply an extremely centralized system. I guess the term 'Astrology' would be renewed for an engineering practice, and that's just fruit-loopin cool. And, your thoughts?

*sigh* WHY SO!? Seriously. Don't expand on what it means. Tell me why you care.

WHY!?

Oh yes. This even applies to "Are bananas better than apples?" Really, I think this law usually predicts the behavior of threads strongly connected to ideological subjects. Stuff like that. And I think it's quite genuine too. Ideological discussions should be cut away from every community upon the World Wide Web which fears the results of nasty debate-phenomena such as Godwin's law. Squeeze all the gravitas out and sell it to the physics forum! I recommend the Administration to simply delete the Religion forum. Oddly enough, I've participated in it more than any other forum (at the moment), and I hate it more than any. I'm madly disturbed by this.

What do you care about the Gospel of Thomas? Tell me precisely. Read this after you respond with a good answer:

I am not highly experienced with such algorithms, though I do have minimal experience. A few nights ago... I was working on some utility for managing buffers in a cache-like way, but I was merely winging it. In fact, I haven't even heard of these terms until today, but I did a quick search on them and soon realized what you are asking. Do you have a working MRU implementation? As far as I can speak, I recommend you do the experimental science and confirm the answer yourself. There's also the likelihood that someone who has a deeper theoretical background in cache algorithms could easily answer this question without necessarily testing it. I'm sorry I can not be of more help to you. Cheers

To me, it seems quite apparent that theism is arbitrary and nothing more. Whether theism is arbitrary or not yields a critical truth corresponding to theism as a fact, doesn't it? Do you believe theism is not arbitrary (I suspect you believe so), and if so, could you elaborate in your own argument (please no bogus citations) why? Please read: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/arbitrary Oh, yourself? Not another source? Is it finally time for an argument directly from yourself? Well, then please continue... I think another remark like this would just be wild. How does it show that at all? Buddy, that's just called your feelings, they're not absolute. In conclusion -- holding away delusion -- you've lost. Now read yourself. Really, you're pulling a dead argument. Could you stop now? The entire nature of this discussion has prominently involved you pulling script-cards ('citations') out of a bag, running out, scratching your head and restarting the cycle. Not only do your sources suck, but also the way you use them doesn't build your argument very well. This is my perspective projected onto the essence of your responses: "Oh, I see you've brought another thing up. I don't have any time to address that myself, so try reading stuff from this webpage and maybe you'll even realize why it's relevant (reading tip: 'oughta be a deluded theist first): <flying spaghetti monster>. That's my counter-argument. Well, um, I'm going to eat some donuts in my laundry room, for some reason, so I'll see you later."

Like what?

I probably won't answer this accurately, but I can do it while entertaining myself: Do you know what a network ping is? I like to think of it in that way. You know how it takes some time to download content from a 'website'? Yeah, well, now imagine that the server gets eaten by a giant cheese monster before the server can send you (the client) the content which was requested. That's rather easy to imagine. Now imagine another web server, which is slowly and cruelly being propelled into the loneliness of outer-space by a llama. What will happen? When your connection rate eventually becomes slow enough, you will soon muster in frustration and say: "The connection *disappeared*!" There's more: imagine a server which is being carried away by Einstein bagels. The smell of these bagels stretches spacetime, causing the server to move away faster than the speed of light. It's like being caught into the event-horizon of a blackhole, but the counterpart phenomenon.

I could stab this with so many 'good' guesses. It might just have a very broad range of causes. Interesting topic, though. EDIT: Would it be fine if, in the case of lacking a strong appeal towards any specific probable explanation, we could simply list a number of 'good' ones, then further weed them out, generalize and perhaps classify by discussion? This will be interesting.