flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > sleepsleep's vitally important things

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 111, 112, 113 ... 245, 246, 247  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
i had a dream in dream today, kinda weird, because i rarely have such dreams,

now i saw the outside of that wooden house, still there are 2 girls there, i saw their father,

and i saw the weird sun, as if something scratch over it, there are visible black lines, big portion in the center of the sun, as the sun spins on itself, i could see the black scratch moves,

and i saw something like a tiny black asteroid around it, i have no fear or etc feeling upon seeing such sky scene, weird,

the wooden house was high rise, beside it, got a tarred road, enough for a car to go through, i don't feel hot or cold, the weather just comfortable,

beside the wooden house, they got a workshop, not sure whats inside,

i woke up in dream, and i quick draw the sun and the view around that wooden house, thinking about uploading this drawing in fasm board later,

i finished drawing it on a paper, i woke up, realizing that, the drawing part is dreaming too,
Post 03 Sep 2017, 10:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
i was thinking about such idea,

why not a facebook account that actually used by 5 persons, basically, all the information is available for that 5 persons, message, group etc,

and we probably need some sort of monitoring apps to monitor our life progress,

back to the idea, why we did in the past 24 hours to increase our lifespan? support towards humanity? positive values? knowledge and attitude? outer space travel and living? etc

what we collect for the past 24 hours? and what we let go for the past 24 hours?

what kind of effort we did for the past 24 hours, for humanity? for earth? for our conscious? for our existence?

we could play and fool around, surely, but how long before we realize our candle is about to end?
Post 03 Sep 2017, 10:29
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
sleepsleep wrote:
why not a facebook account that actually used by 5 persons, basically, all the information is available for that 5 persons, message, group etc,
I think FB already allows this with business accounts. Or whatever they call them. Actually I don't care about FB so if they disallow it then whatever, up to them.
sleepsleep wrote:
and we probably need some sort of monitoring apps to monitor our life progress.
We don't need this at all. FB/Android/MS/etc. are certainly not welcome to monitor me.
Post 03 Sep 2017, 10:38
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
sleepsleep wrote:
we could play and fool around, surely, but how long before we realize our candle is about to end?
For poor people, a longer candle means more sufferings. So, "playing and fooling around" may be a sensible choice!

Wink
Post 03 Sep 2017, 10:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
YONG wrote:
For poor people, a longer candle means more sufferings. So, "playing and fooling around" may be a sensible choice!
This is curious. I see similarities in that statement with the religious claim of going to heaven/nirvana/<some great place> upon death, so why do they try so hard to live longer? And, yes, whenever I say this to people often the retort is "are you advocating suicide?" Well the answer is no, I don't advocate suicide, I'm just after an explanation for the apparent disconnect between the statement and the actions.
Post 03 Sep 2017, 10:53
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
revolution wrote:
whenever I say this to people often the retort is "are you advocating suicide?"
The same is true for euthanasia, I guess.

Wink
Post 03 Sep 2017, 12:18
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
revolution wrote:
YONG wrote:
For poor people, a longer candle means more sufferings. So, "playing and fooling around" may be a sensible choice!
This is curious. I see similarities in that statement with the religious claim of going to heaven/nirvana/<some great place> upon death, so why do they try so hard to live longer? And, yes, whenever I say this to people often the retort is "are you advocating suicide?" Well the answer is no, I don't advocate suicide, I'm just after an explanation for the apparent disconnect between the statement and the actions.

very good and straight to the point, Idea

they will come up with lots of excuses, after all, they don't want to die, Laughing
and they too ~ are not really convince about the existence of those places,

they will do medical checkup, see doctors when they fall sick, buy insurance (the greatest money game), consume healthy products,

i guess this are the ways to fool around, lying to own selves, because of the identity they associated themselves into,

because you need more power, courage to disassociate yourself with your predefined identity,

one could only change oneself when they decide to change, nobody can help,
Post 03 Sep 2017, 12:44
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
YONG wrote:
Yes, they do! They are the ones who, according to you, would be qualified to lead an immortal life. Obviously, they contribute to the unfavorable consequences of immortality.
Bullshit, your only argument against immortality is "overpopulation" aka breeding. Those people do NOT contribute to THIS problem you stated. Therefore, since there are no other problems with it, they contribute to absolutely no problems with it. Simple as that.

If you have other problems with immortality, then list them, so far yours doesn't work for people who don't breed, so it's not a problem for them.


I'm not naive at all. This is what is called logic. And yes, if people don't want to clean their own mess, FORCE THEM TO via law or taking off their rights. Now *that* would be a logical law I'd fully support: laws based around logic.

And yet, you call this "authoritarian", what the fuck man? Eye for an eye is not authoritarian.
Post 03 Sep 2017, 12:47
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sinsi



Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 693
Location: Adelaide
sinsi
revolution wrote:
YONG wrote:
For poor people, a longer candle means more sufferings. So, "playing and fooling around" may be a sensible choice!
This is curious. I see similarities in that statement with the religious claim of going to heaven/nirvana/<some great place> upon death, so why do they try so hard to live longer? And, yes, whenever I say this to people often the retort is "are you advocating suicide?" Well the answer is no, I don't advocate suicide, I'm just after an explanation for the apparent disconnect between the statement and the actions.


Suicide is a sin, so you can't short circuit your earthly life to gain heaven early (Not Fair!).
The religious have it covered...
Post 03 Sep 2017, 13:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
Bullshit, your only argument against immortality is "overpopulation" aka breeding.
How come you could keep putting words in my mouth?

Re-read my posts. My concern is over the carrying capacity of the planet!

Human population is just one of the factors; populations of animals and crops as well as their diversities are the other factors that need to be taken into account when examining the carrying capacity.

Read some textbooks on environmental science if you want to know more.

Exclamation
Post 03 Sep 2017, 13:27
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
YONG wrote:
Re-read my posts. My concern is over the carrying capacity of the planet!
Explain the difference between this and overpopulation. Now you're just arguing semantics.

Besides, an immortal person who does not breed does not contribute to the "carrying capacity of the planet" in a negative way, so it's invalid no matter how you twist it.

Sure he does consume resources forever, but there's no child to consume any resources since he doesn't breed, in the end actually resulting in less consumption (no need for re-education, no need for growing up, etc)

I'd even argue, immortality (with no breed law) results in better situation for the planet.
Post 03 Sep 2017, 13:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
Explain the difference between this and overpopulation. Now you're just arguing semantics.
Read the definition of carrying capacity yourself!

Carrying capacity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity

Don't pretend that you are an expert in everything!

And stop putting words in my mouth!

Sigh!

Exclamation
Post 03 Sep 2017, 13:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
Strictly speaking, the definition makes no sense:
Wikipedia wrote:
The carrying capacity of a biological species in an environment is the maximum population size of the species that the environment can sustain indefinitely.
There is no such thing as indefinitely. Every action requires energy (from the Sun). Everything will die off, eventually.

However, if it's a "reasonable" time frame, then explain how does a population remain at an exact, fixed number cause it to degrade over time, when in fact they will reduce it over time due to improved technologies?
Post 03 Sep 2017, 13:45
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
sinsi wrote:
Suicide is a sin, so you can't short circuit your earthly life to gain heaven early (Not Fair!).
The religious have it covered...
Okay, I get that. But there are ways to speed up one's journey into <the great place> (so to speak) without suicide. But in general people feel compelled to do the opposite and engage in actions that will prolong their existence and delay the journey into <better places>. So I think the whole thing looks like a cop-out only. A way of dealing with grandmas death by pretending she is better off.


Last edited by revolution on 03 Sep 2017, 16:43; edited 1 time in total
Post 03 Sep 2017, 16:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Furs wrote:
Strictly speaking, the definition makes no sense:
Wikipedia wrote:
The carrying capacity of a biological species in an environment is the maximum population size of the species that the environment can sustain indefinitely.
There is no such thing as indefinitely. Every action requires energy (from the Sun). Everything will die off, eventually.

However, if it's a "reasonable" time frame, then explain how does a population remain at an exact, fixed number cause it to degrade over time, when in fact they will reduce it over time due to improved technologies?
Indefinite does not mean eternal. I think in this instance is means until such a time as conditions change, which won't happen at a definite time, thus it is indefinite. As long as all the conditions remain the same then the carrying capacity also remains the same.
Post 03 Sep 2017, 16:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
That's not a good definition then, since we can change the conditions ourselves (slowly or not). But still, immortality brings nothing bad there, even with such definition. (I mean, immortality without breeding, obviously).

What's the difference between an immortal man (who has no children of his own, adoption is fine since those children would exist already) who eats, shits, sleeps, etc... and a normal man who does the same stuff but once in a while there's 2 of them (him + his offspring) consuming twice as many resources until the old man dies?

Immortal man is better for the planet in this respect than the cycle of birth and death. There's a point where two of them exist in the cycle, and that point is where the cycle ends up behind immortality in how clean it is to the planet.

The immortal man is always "1". The alternative is sometimes 1, sometimes 1+1, then back to 1, and so on. (assuming population does not grow, being generous here, though non-immortality would make it even worse since we know people tend to breed alot)
Post 03 Sep 2017, 16:59
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
technologies will advance, probably into a state, we don't have to eat or drink so much, or we simply don't have to physically eat anymore, there are signals that copy paste into our mind to let us feel the food,

check
http://www.senescence.info/physical_immortality_myths.html

Quote:

Overall, catastrophic overpopulation concerns due to a cure for aging are exaggerated. Curing aging may aggravate overpopulation issues in some regions of the world, but this will take decades and must be considered together with technological advances in other areas that are impossible to predict. Fears of overpopulation are not a valid reason to reject curing aging, or any other medical breakthrough that extends lifespan for that matter.


revolution wrote:
sinsi wrote:
Suicide is a sin, so you can't short circuit your earthly life to gain heaven early (Not Fair!).
The religious have it covered...
Okay, I get that. But there are ways to speed up one's journey into <the great place> (so to speak) without suicide. But in general people feel compelled to do the opposite and engage in actions that will prolong their existence and delay the journey into <better places>. So I think the whole thing looks like a cop-out only. A way of dealing with grandmas death by pretending she is better off.

if we reverse the statement, it sounds very true also,
if death means death, gone, non-exist,
why we still doing our 9 to 5 and watching the drama unfold? Wink
leisuring as if we will be the unique one to skip death,

i believe, if the smarts gathering around, doing a hackathon on this bug, we will definitely find ways to rid this bug,

but too much factors to bring smarts into a group, nation secrets, ego, let me talk first, i am right you are wrong, wait ~ how much monies we gonna get, etc

the house is on fire, and people still arguing, what to take first, which door to open,
Post 03 Sep 2017, 17:53
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
@sleepsleep: interesting article. It's funny he said China's one-child policy had "social and ethical problems". There's absolutely nothing ethically wrong with it, actually it's not even doing enough.

What's unethical is thinking you should have full right in bringing innocent children into the world (without asking them since that's impossible) without you being able to sustain them. No child asks to be born into poverty and suffer, yet they're never asked. Because OMG the poor parents want to have offspring, and it's "unethical" to forbid it if they can't sustain the child. No it's not unethical, what's unethical is them thinking it's their right to do it.

Children are not your toys or to satisfy your selfish breeding desires.

Why am I speaking about this? It's simple.

Let's assume the resources are almost depleted -- i.e. "overpopulation problems". Now what happens is that the finite resources are distributed among the people in specific ways -- let's use "money" since that's realistic. Money is finite. Therefore, one person's gain is another's loss in this case (since no more resources).

If you are rich, then you can have children as long as they can be sustained, i.e. the overpopulation problems don't exist for you. This is a decentralized approach, with the goal of having innocent children live a good life.

If you are poor, you lose your right to breed by consequence of not being able to sustain your child. Either that, or you lose all your assets and the child gains them, and probably die of starvation yourself. So all of your resources (money) gets poured into the child.

This is not me being authoritarian as YONG puts it. This is simply helping the innocent children live a decent life. They never asked for a shitty life.

Poor people are disgusting thinking that they can breed as much as they want and have "the state" care of their children even if that's impossible. No, it's NOT your right to breed unless you can TAKE CARE of the child. Failure to do it results in you forfeiting your life or your assets to the innocent child. It's not unethical to control birth to only people who can sustain their children properly. What's unethical is people who have zero responsibility and think they can breed anyway no matter what their situation is. More selfish than this it cannot get.

Children are not their fucking toys.


How does this tie into immortality? Well, again, finite resources means money is also very finite and distributed finitely amongst people. There will be rich people who can breed until eventually they won't be able to breed either as they exhaust all their assets.

The equilibrium will be when nobody will be able to breed anymore (because they can't sustain the child). It's simple. Can't sustain child -> not allowed to breed. Finite resources mean that a majority won't be able to sustain the child if they are mortal, so... yeah, simple logic 1+1 = 2.

You can't have "someone else" take care of him (like the state), sorry. Thus there is NOTHING unethical about it, it's in fact, not even centralized. It's simply protecting children's rights. Yes, innocent children's rights are more important than a selfish parent's.

Of course, you can give your life (become mortal) for a child if you are really so desperate to have offspring. You can't have both though, unless you have enough assets to do it. End of story. Stop asking the fucking state to solve your own problems.
Post 03 Sep 2017, 18:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
There is no such thing as indefinitely.
revolution wrote:
Indefinite does not mean eternal.
Furs wrote:
That's not a good definition then ...
"Indefinitely" simply means "for an unspecified period of time". Many people wrongly think that it means "forever".

Of course, to Furs, the generally-accepted definition is always "inferior" to his own makeup definition. He would then present his radical arguments based on his unconventional definition. When other forum members challenge his definition, he would argue that the others just "appeal to authority" and are not thinking independently.

Sigh!

Exclamation
Post 04 Sep 2017, 02:31
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
Immortal man is better for the planet in this respect than the cycle of birth and death.
You are oversimplifying the situation.

First, a great deal of medical resources would be needed to keep a man immortal (assuming that it could be done).

Second, I have pointed out earlier that immortality could have grave consequences to human evolution. Yeah, I know, someone would come along and say, "Human evolution is no longer needed." Is that true?

Third, issues of intellectual and cultural stagnation, which is closely linked to the lack of human evolution, would definitely arise.

One of the forum members doesn't give a shit to the above problems, I guess!

Confused
Post 04 Sep 2017, 02:50
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 111, 112, 113 ... 245, 246, 247  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.