I would interpret it to mean that many residents of Sturgis, Michigan, are shut-ins.Quote:
Originally Posted by learning c
Printable View
I would interpret it to mean that many residents of Sturgis, Michigan, are shut-ins.Quote:
Originally Posted by learning c
what's a shut in?
By the original statement; aren't you also suggesting that computers are just mechanical humans?
No he's not. That's the point we're trying to forget.
Who plays guitar?
i guess the thread is about exploring a comparison :)Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
I do :afrog:Quote:
Originally Posted by timeshifter
btw, I'm starting to take Martin's side now... :rolleyes:
Side on what?
How long have ya played? What kind of stuff? In a band?
Yes, it's an interview. Get used to it.
Why? We're not lame :afrog:Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheist
Very true. Guitar is better. :wave:
side of martin's perspective on this thread :DQuote:
Originally Posted by timeshifter
I've been playing acoustic (basics) for like 6 years,
electric for 2 years.
Acoustic, I play spanish and the older music like Scarborough fair and Stairway to Heaven etc.
On electric, I'm more of the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Arctic Monkeys.
At school we're arranging some kind of band, but schedules are tight at the moment.
I am a more proffessional player, so I respect both instruments *ehum*.Quote:
Originally Posted by timeshifter
Altough guitarr is more mainstream
:afrog:
Guitar is also much more versatile. I respect bass players for what they can do. Dave LaRue, who plays with Joe Satriani, is awesome. He throws stuff out there that is just plain amazing... but while it's awesome by bass standards, it's moderate by guitar standards, just because a good electric is ten times faster than a bass.
Could it be because you use a pick to pick a string up and down really fast? Real bassists use pure fingerpicking^^
Don't start.. you know I'll win this arguement.
Guitar>bass in terms of speed. Bass is just as capable in terms of style.
hehe ;) Perhaps its easier to play faster on a guitarr? I dont know, just guessing (since I dont play el guitarr) :cool:
real bassists use a bow. ;)
Playing a bass is a totally different animal than playing a guitar. In order to play a bass one must be blessed with a percise sense of rythm as well as large strong hands while being perfectly comfortable with the fact that said hands will never get to touch a chick after a gig. :lol:
I think your speaking for yourself, saying that last part :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Nah, I got little hands. I can play Guitar/Bass which is a lot different from actually "playing a bass". That was something a guy who jammed with us for years used to say. Of course I think drinking a pint of Jack Daniels and jumping around like a lottery ball for an hour straight probably had more to do with his lady troubles. Had to carry him to the truck 50% of the time. :wave:
all of this talk of bass is making me hungry, hmmm big mac please. :drool:
ok, where were we?
ah yes,
so we have the hu man dna that comes complete with an inbuilt terminal disease. it reminds me of blade runner.
could we built that into a pc? if we made it impossible for the software to escape the hardware, and made it so that it couldn't upgrade all its internal hardware, then eventually it would die with the hardware, for example by making every cpu and motherboard unique from the others.
Oh my god! Shut up about it already! You've lost! Most of the forum is your opposition on this case. We say the same damn thing repeatedly and YOU DON'T FREAKING GET IT!!!
Gads.. you're like a curious little kid... except I can't give you wall-to-wall councelling because I don't know where you live... let the freaking thread die.
alternatively you could do the same thing with the software and build in a terminal mental disease, something like an equivalent to schizophrenia that kicks in after a certain period of time.
So you duplicate your post and add a bit of stuff... ingenious. I wish I'd thought of that... oh wait.. there's a reason the forum prevents duplicates... it's because of IDIOTS LIKE YOU!!!
you're an annoying little flyQuote:
Originally Posted by timeshifter
what seems to be the problem? are you peturbed by considering yourself an organic computer?
Hmm... how many people do you see yelling at me to shut up about stupid things?
You've done nothing but drag this thread out after its been resolved several times... you don't get the rather subtle hints of four of us (at least) changing the subject... you've killed it. I can't speak for everyone else, but you're really pissing me off with this. I can kind of understand, given how new you are to the forums. You don't know the rules we have around the CC forum... but regardless of that, any person with even a miniscule amount of intelligence would have known to shut up about this thread about, oh... 12 pages ago.
Just shut up about this, and be glad I'm not running this place. I would have sent you on a vacation from this place quite a while ago. You contribute absolutely nothing, and push dead issues long past their time. People like you are the reason people like me go to therapy.
does it make the 33 college student's deaths seem less dramatic if it was only 33 organic computers?
Alright, that's about enough. Timeshifter, if you don't like the thread, don't reply to it. There's no need for name-calling.
like i said before, no one is forcing you to stay in this thread, and i don't mind if you leave...
Yes, it would. A computer is something that can be built. It's replacable. The lives of those lost are not. I know I've thrown out several computers in the past, and felt no remorse about it because I knew it was being replaced by something better. You can't replace a person. I didn't know any of the people who were killed in that shooting, but that doesn't stop me from feeling sorry for their families and wondering what could possibly drive someone to do that kind of thing. Who has those feelings for a computer? Nobody. Because it's material. There is no substitute or recreation for human life.Quote:
Originally Posted by learning c
why don't you feel remorse when you throw a computer out?
because it doesn't have memories, because it doesn't think, because it can't do high level processing, because it can't communicate with other computer or people, or simply because it has been constructed as a slave.
can we compare a negro slave in the 1950s to a computer?
No. I don't feel remorse because the computer is not alive. It is not a living being that is capable of feeling. It is a machine, constructed to do work. It will be replaced when something superior comes out, such as a new computer.
A civil-war era slave is no comparison, because he was alive. He may not have been treated as such, but the fact remains. He was a living, breathing human being with feelings. He was considered lesser because he did not have the education of the white man. Some people still carry those feelings, but I am not among them. I know some very intelligent black people, and it is because they were given the chance to educate themselves... which brings us back to the issue of computers not being able to do that. They are taught things by us, or by a program that we wrote. Computers do only what we tell them to. They have no feelings about what they are doing. All a computer knows is 1 and 0. It sorts them as its' told to. A human can actually learn for itself. Your arguement is useless. You simply can't compare a machine to a human.
so are you saying that "alive" is defined by being able to extract oxygen and experience emotions?
I define 'alive' as 'not dead', and 'dead' more or less as 'beyond repair'. If you take a computer apart and then put it back together again it will work just as it did before. If you take a person apart and then put them back together again chances are they won't.
Those are certainly parts of it, but in no way the entirety
so at the moment a computer is not alive because:
1 it has been programmed as a slave
2 it has been programmed to be devoid of emotion
3 it is more repairble than a human
4 it uses electricity rather than organic energy sources and doesn't need oxygen.
?
Show me a computer that repairs itself without any thought.
Show me a computer that cries when you kick it for being non-responsive.
Show me a computer that physically grows as it learns.
Show me a computer that physically grows just because.
Show me a computer that develops its' own improvements when its' injured.
Show me a computer that has even a fraction of a human's memory capacity.
Show me a computer that doesn't need to be programmed with the ability to analyze a situation.
Show me a computer that doesn't need to be programmed period.
Do I really need to continue?
Show me a computer that repairs itself without any thought.
many computers have sensors and report wear and tear, some probably do fix themselves
Show me a computer that cries when you kick it for being non-responsive.
even you could write that code
Show me a computer that physically grows as it learns.
mentally requires more ram for bigger programs
Show me a computer that physically grows just because.
that's a body thing, however compare a pc to a mainframe
Show me a computer that develops its' own improvements when its' injured.
it could be coded
Show me a computer that has even a fraction of a human's memory capacity.
i saw a 500gb harddisk for $200
Show me a computer that doesn't need to be programmed with the ability to analyze a situation.
we have developed it not to be able to learn, however, it can be easily accomplished.
Show me a computer that doesn't need to be programmed period.
just need to code it to code itself.
in addition you could argue that hu mans are less alive than computers because
they have very few conscious threads running
are notoriously inaccurate with most observations and calculations
have a built in lifespan
are much less repairable
are suseptible to emotions that interupt their conscious threading
have other preoccupations that waste time, resources and energy such as sex
have to die to evolve
need i go on?
Please do... just go on with valid points.
The majority of the brain is occupied with the subconsious. Balancing, for instance. You don't think about your balance as you walk. It's instinct. Your subconscious takes care of it.Quote:
they have very few conscious threads running
Some more so than others, simply because they have not learned how to correctly analyze data. We learn how things work and our observations become sharper.Quote:
are notoriously inaccurate with most observations and calculations
that's just plain bullsh*t. Some people die of natural causes at age 40, while others live to be over 100... definitely not built in.Quote:
have a built in lifespan
Not at all. The body is designed to repair itself. In the case of broken limbs, external influence is needed to position it correctly so it heals correctly. The body doesn't need drugs, they only make things a bit easier. I don't take medicine because it makes the body less able to fight things itself.Quote:
are much less repairable
Look at that and tell me that's a true statement. Emotions are conscious thoughts, so you can't peg them as interruptions. They are part of how the brain works. If you don't like it, tough. Emotions contribute greatly to the decisions we make. I would call them much more of an assistance than a hinderance.Quote:
are suseptible to emotions that interupt their conscious threading
Not sure what rock you came from, but I happen to enjoy sex. It's definitely not a time waster, it's how we reproduce. There's not really much more that can be said to make it more important. Without sex, we wouldn't be here arguing about this.Quote:
have other preoccupations that waste time, resources and energy such as sex
Once again, pure bullsh*t. We evolve over time if we need to, and the majority of "major" evolutions are actually mutations, which happen during reproduction, not death... see your previous BS statement.Quote:
have to die to evolve
I'm pretty sure I just rendered every point you made absolutely useless. Care to give me more to disprove?