Imagine that you are really rich and that you are a total techno-geek. You're now designing your own home and you want to make it as futuristically fantastic as possible in the technology department - you have to plan it such that the technology is totally integrated with the architecture and the interior design of the house. What would you do? Let your imagination run wild. How far out can you think?
-----
My imaginative faculties are certainly no match for this task, but, nevertheless, I'll throw in my own feeble attempt here.
First of all, every room of the house would be equipped with concealed speakers (with perfect architectural acoustics) and large numerous LCD screens embedded into the walls. Each room would have it's own CPU unit controlling not only the screens and the speakers but also all other electrical / electronic devices in the room such as the lights, fans, air conditioners, etc. The house would also have it's own central CPU unit to which all other CPUs are networked. It goes without saying that the entire house would have a strong Wi-Fi network with repeaters in every single room. The central CPU would also have an array of Hard Disks (or RAID) of about 100TB for multimedia etc. which every other CPU can access. It would be the ultimate home network.
When you open up your laptop, a single button will duplicate the display on to all the screens in that room wirelessly.
I would probably use my mobile device (iPhone / Android) to perform tasks such as unlocking my garage, unlocking my door, etc. The mobile device would also be integrated to the home network.
Ok, this is really, hard.... I'm going to take a break now.
I'm making a short trip to Germany and I hope to explore the local MtG scene a bit if possible. Can any German speakers here help me put together a list of basic MtG phrases that I will require in order to survive, say, a simple FNM? I already know some broken German but nothing related to MtG. I just need to know basic phrases like mulligan, play, draw, target, response, attack, block, damage, concede, etc.
What is the purpose of voting or changing my vote if it can have no affect on the outcome?
Suppose I vote for fracking to be legalized because I want fracking to be legal / I believe fracking should be legal. Soon after casting my vote, I realize that I actually voted for fracking to remain illegal (because I pressed the wrong button). Then, I'm told that as a result of my vote, fracking will remain illegal. I protest "hey, I actually believe that fracking should be legalized! Please let me change my vote!"
The response I get is: "Since, by changing your vote, you would actually accomplish what you want your vote to accomplish (i.e. fracking would become legalized), you cannot change your vote! However, if it were the case that changing your vote would not have accomplished what you wanted it to accomplish (i.e. if it would not have brought about the legalization of fracking), then you would have been free to change your vote."
Portable ACs are really simple to set up; they're pretty much "plug and play" devices. All you have to do for set up is plug in the power cord and connect the hose. You will need to position your AC unit close to a window (the length of the hose will determine how close to the window you need to position the AC unit). You really don't need to be a DIY-person to set it up; the hose comes in an adjustable window panel that you can fit onto any window of any size.
The main thing you have to consider when buying an AC is the power, measured in BTU. How much power you need depends on the size of your room. Common portable ACs range in power from 5000 BTU to about 14000 BTU.
Don't worry about the single hose vs. double hose distinction that you're worrying about. It isn't too significant; it refers to two different technologies. If you want to know more about this distinction, you can check out this website: http://www.sylvane.com/learning-center/portable-ac-faq.html#hosedesign
... or Christian Scientists are also nuts. It seems like that answer was obvious given the opinion stated.
Sorry, I don't quite understand what you've written. Why does your sentence begin with "... or"? Maybe you should fill in the "..." because it's not at all clear what that refers to. Further, what answer was obvious? And what was the opinion stated?
Christians that 'refuse medicine' in circumstances like these have a cop out. Either 'God will protect me', or, 'it was my time'.
Somehow, this is a perfectly legitimate argument, even though it could effectively be committing suicide. Which is illegal. The whole thing seems like nonsense to me.
I am fine with Christians taking this stance, ultimately. It is their life, to live as they choose. And if a vegan wanted to refuse antivenom because of ethical concerns, that should also be their choice. But I also feel that suicide should not be a 'crime'(nor should assisted suicide, though that is a completely different discussion).
You're right that it should effectively count as "committing suicide," although only a non-believer would characterize it as such (non-believer in Christian Science or non-believer in veganism). However, I'm not sure if the law characterizes it as such. Basically, if the doctor tells you that you have to take this anti-venom or else you're going to die - is it legal to say no?
pretty funny stuff. Makes sense. Once you budget, most people end up buying at the top of it (or even going over, certainly not substantially under).
Though the methodology is probably flawed, since it's hard to see what kind of controls would work for a study like this.
This survey is really vague and I can't really tell how it determines anything at all.
That being said, I disagree with the claim that budgeting for your gadget would make you spend more than you would have otherwise spent.
However, I do agree wholeheartedly with the claim that researching your gadget on the internet (and reading reviews, etc.) will certainly make you spend more than you would have otherwise spent. Here's a funny XKCD strip where he makes a similar point: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/reviews.png
No. I don't think any vegan would say nuts to the antivenom.
Well, I certainly wouldn't characterize any vegan who refused antivenom as a rational person. However, this certainly isn't grounds to deny somebody's existence. There are many people and groups of people existing in the world today who I think are extremely irrational (from my point of view).
Isn't the case of a vegan refusing medicine quite similar to the case of a Christian Scientist refusing medicine? And there are certainly many Christian Scientists in the world today who refuse various forms of medicine. So, why is it unreasonable to suppose that in a similar vein there also exist many vegans who would refuse antivenom?
Of course, one is a religious consideration while the other is an ethical consideration - but I don't think this fact should have a significant impact on the outcome.
You're getting maddeningly annoying again mystery - you keep saying I don't understand when I do, I just think it's a very odd caveat to have that you can't adjust your vote in case of error when it effects the outcome.
Yes, I really don't understand why Mystery keeps saying that you are not understanding. You two just seem to have a disagreement about whether or not senators should be allowed to change their votes and I don't think that your disagreement is based on any misunderstanding - it's just a difference of opinion.
@Mystery
You say, "she would have been able to change her vote if it didn't affect the outcome." What would be the point of this? The whole point of voting is to have an effect on the outcome.
You say, "she is in a state congress people like her don't get passes. she could have changed her vote easily if it hadn't changed the outcome. unfortuantly for her it would have." Again, what's the point of changing a vote that can have no effect on the outcome? Also, you seem to think that if somebody is in the state congress they should be perfect, error-free human beings? Why do you think this?
@Vaclav
It would be nice to be able to correct simple errors like this but this would raise a whole host of complicated questions. Obviously, if you meant to press the green button but accidentally pressed the red button you should be able to change the vote. But how can we identify these cases? How can anyone be sure that the person in question actually made an error? Perhaps the voter is now just changing her mind after the fact. Perhaps she was bribed or coerced into changing her vote...
While I can see the enthusiasm on a provincial level, it doesn't really do much as people can still go for refills and other such things. A "sin tax" similar to liquor would raise more money that could be used for subsidizing diseases that deal with chronic diseases associated with these types of foods and life style choices.
I agree. However, I also think that the money / effort would be better directed towards educating the future generations not to make the same food and lifestyle choices.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that he was only a "popularizer." He certainly was also a philosopher in his own right (and some might even say he was a great philosopher), but his status as a member of the intelligentsia or the intellectual elite is not owed to his greatness as a philosopher or as a logician.
As the co-author of Principia Mathematica, certainly he does deserve a place of his own in the history of philosophy and in the history of logic. But his place in the history of philosophy is far overshadowed by figures such as Frege and Wittgenstein and his place in the history of logic is far overshadowed by Goedel. You could also consider his place in the history of mathematics but once again you'll find that it wasn't of significant impact because modern mathematics is founded on axiomatic set theory (which is quite opposed to Russell's own proposal of a type-theory). There is no field (mathematics, logic or philosophy) in which the Principia Mathematica is of singular importance. There is no work in any of these fields presently that builds on Russell's Principia - it is just a historical artifact.
He was sort of a Jack of all trades. He ventured in to many areas of philosophy and got to some level of depth in all of them, but when he encountered a really deep problem, he always pushed it aside rather than encounter it head on. Thus, he wasn't a thinker of great depth.
James Conant, a prominent scholar of analytic philosophy, has written an article called "On Going the Bloody Hard Way in Philosophy" that tries to explain a sentiment expressed by Wittgenstein in the preface to the Tractatus: Wittgenstein says
"I will only mention that to the great works of Frege and the writings of my friend Bertrand Russell I owe in large measure the stimulation of my thoughts."
Why does Wittgenstein thank his mentors Frege and Russell in this curious way? He invites us to contrast the work of his two mentors - one the one hand we have the great works of Frege and on the other hand we have the mere writings of his friend Bertrand Russell. Why this indifference from Russell's own protege? Conant explains this difference by analyzing the differences in philosophical style between the works of Russell and Frege - the point being that Russell refuses to go the "bloody hard way," i.e. when the going gets tough, he gets going. Frege's writings on the other hand are willing to think problems through all the way to the end.
This topic is also explored by Ray Monk, who is a prominent biographer of both Russell and Wittgenstein. He has written the most well respected biographies of both of these figures and he offers a similar estimation of Russell from a biographical point of view.
Pure genius!
It's too late now for the posts in question; but that's certainly the perfect solution if I run into this problem again in future.
-----
My imaginative faculties are certainly no match for this task, but, nevertheless, I'll throw in my own feeble attempt here.
First of all, every room of the house would be equipped with concealed speakers (with perfect architectural acoustics) and large numerous LCD screens embedded into the walls. Each room would have it's own CPU unit controlling not only the screens and the speakers but also all other electrical / electronic devices in the room such as the lights, fans, air conditioners, etc. The house would also have it's own central CPU unit to which all other CPUs are networked. It goes without saying that the entire house would have a strong Wi-Fi network with repeaters in every single room. The central CPU would also have an array of Hard Disks (or RAID) of about 100TB for multimedia etc. which every other CPU can access. It would be the ultimate home network.
When you open up your laptop, a single button will duplicate the display on to all the screens in that room wirelessly.
I would probably use my mobile device (iPhone / Android) to perform tasks such as unlocking my garage, unlocking my door, etc. The mobile device would also be integrated to the home network.
Ok, this is really, hard.... I'm going to take a break now.
Please help!
Still waiting eagerly for that article!
Especially with so much misunderstanding floating around these forums on the subject of reprints and pricing.
What do you think about shocklands being reprinted in Return to Ravnica? Will it drive their prices up or down?
Vielen Dank im Voraus!
What is the purpose of voting or changing my vote if it can have no affect on the outcome?
Suppose I vote for fracking to be legalized because I want fracking to be legal / I believe fracking should be legal. Soon after casting my vote, I realize that I actually voted for fracking to remain illegal (because I pressed the wrong button). Then, I'm told that as a result of my vote, fracking will remain illegal. I protest "hey, I actually believe that fracking should be legalized! Please let me change my vote!"
The response I get is: "Since, by changing your vote, you would actually accomplish what you want your vote to accomplish (i.e. fracking would become legalized), you cannot change your vote! However, if it were the case that changing your vote would not have accomplished what you wanted it to accomplish (i.e. if it would not have brought about the legalization of fracking), then you would have been free to change your vote."
WTF?
Mastodon vs. beast89
Tuesday, July 10, 11.59PM (Eastern Daylight Time)
---
EDIT: Confirmed
The main thing you have to consider when buying an AC is the power, measured in BTU. How much power you need depends on the size of your room. Common portable ACs range in power from 5000 BTU to about 14000 BTU.
Don't worry about the single hose vs. double hose distinction that you're worrying about. It isn't too significant; it refers to two different technologies. If you want to know more about this distinction, you can check out this website: http://www.sylvane.com/learning-center/portable-ac-faq.html#hosedesign
Sorry, I don't quite understand what you've written. Why does your sentence begin with "... or"? Maybe you should fill in the "..." because it's not at all clear what that refers to. Further, what answer was obvious? And what was the opinion stated?
You're right that it should effectively count as "committing suicide," although only a non-believer would characterize it as such (non-believer in Christian Science or non-believer in veganism). However, I'm not sure if the law characterizes it as such. Basically, if the doctor tells you that you have to take this anti-venom or else you're going to die - is it legal to say no?
This survey is really vague and I can't really tell how it determines anything at all.
That being said, I disagree with the claim that budgeting for your gadget would make you spend more than you would have otherwise spent.
However, I do agree wholeheartedly with the claim that researching your gadget on the internet (and reading reviews, etc.) will certainly make you spend more than you would have otherwise spent. Here's a funny XKCD strip where he makes a similar point: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/reviews.png
Well, I certainly wouldn't characterize any vegan who refused antivenom as a rational person. However, this certainly isn't grounds to deny somebody's existence. There are many people and groups of people existing in the world today who I think are extremely irrational (from my point of view).
Isn't the case of a vegan refusing medicine quite similar to the case of a Christian Scientist refusing medicine? And there are certainly many Christian Scientists in the world today who refuse various forms of medicine. So, why is it unreasonable to suppose that in a similar vein there also exist many vegans who would refuse antivenom?
Of course, one is a religious consideration while the other is an ethical consideration - but I don't think this fact should have a significant impact on the outcome.
Yes, I really don't understand why Mystery keeps saying that you are not understanding. You two just seem to have a disagreement about whether or not senators should be allowed to change their votes and I don't think that your disagreement is based on any misunderstanding - it's just a difference of opinion.
@Mystery
You say, "she would have been able to change her vote if it didn't affect the outcome." What would be the point of this? The whole point of voting is to have an effect on the outcome.
You say, "she is in a state congress people like her don't get passes. she could have changed her vote easily if it hadn't changed the outcome. unfortuantly for her it would have." Again, what's the point of changing a vote that can have no effect on the outcome? Also, you seem to think that if somebody is in the state congress they should be perfect, error-free human beings? Why do you think this?
@Vaclav
It would be nice to be able to correct simple errors like this but this would raise a whole host of complicated questions. Obviously, if you meant to press the green button but accidentally pressed the red button you should be able to change the vote. But how can we identify these cases? How can anyone be sure that the person in question actually made an error? Perhaps the voter is now just changing her mind after the fact. Perhaps she was bribed or coerced into changing her vote...
I agree. However, I also think that the money / effort would be better directed towards educating the future generations not to make the same food and lifestyle choices.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that he was only a "popularizer." He certainly was also a philosopher in his own right (and some might even say he was a great philosopher), but his status as a member of the intelligentsia or the intellectual elite is not owed to his greatness as a philosopher or as a logician.
As the co-author of Principia Mathematica, certainly he does deserve a place of his own in the history of philosophy and in the history of logic. But his place in the history of philosophy is far overshadowed by figures such as Frege and Wittgenstein and his place in the history of logic is far overshadowed by Goedel. You could also consider his place in the history of mathematics but once again you'll find that it wasn't of significant impact because modern mathematics is founded on axiomatic set theory (which is quite opposed to Russell's own proposal of a type-theory). There is no field (mathematics, logic or philosophy) in which the Principia Mathematica is of singular importance. There is no work in any of these fields presently that builds on Russell's Principia - it is just a historical artifact.
He was sort of a Jack of all trades. He ventured in to many areas of philosophy and got to some level of depth in all of them, but when he encountered a really deep problem, he always pushed it aside rather than encounter it head on. Thus, he wasn't a thinker of great depth.
James Conant, a prominent scholar of analytic philosophy, has written an article called "On Going the Bloody Hard Way in Philosophy" that tries to explain a sentiment expressed by Wittgenstein in the preface to the Tractatus: Wittgenstein says
"I will only mention that to the great works of Frege and the writings of my friend Bertrand Russell I owe in large measure the stimulation of my thoughts."
Why does Wittgenstein thank his mentors Frege and Russell in this curious way? He invites us to contrast the work of his two mentors - one the one hand we have the great works of Frege and on the other hand we have the mere writings of his friend Bertrand Russell. Why this indifference from Russell's own protege? Conant explains this difference by analyzing the differences in philosophical style between the works of Russell and Frege - the point being that Russell refuses to go the "bloody hard way," i.e. when the going gets tough, he gets going. Frege's writings on the other hand are willing to think problems through all the way to the end.
This topic is also explored by Ray Monk, who is a prominent biographer of both Russell and Wittgenstein. He has written the most well respected biographies of both of these figures and he offers a similar estimation of Russell from a biographical point of view.