I am GenX so I can speak from my personal experience, which I realize is not universal.
I actually bought "Rappers Delight" on a 45 rpm single the year it was released. But it's also true that Blondie's "Rapture" was the first rapping song I heard on the radio. I would have been 13 at the time and rap was far from a mainstream musical style.
Looking back now there certainly were specific individuals of GenX and Jones who had access to rap, but it was certainly not available to me as a suburban kid in Canada. Even that Sugarhill Gang single was hard to find because "rap" as a concept didn't really exist at that point. I am trying to find a recording of the Extras song "Hip Hop Hip Hip" as an example but it's so obscure neither YouTube nor my streaming service seem to have it available. It would be unrecognizable to you as hip hop because nobody knew what hip hop was then. People were experimenting broadly and some of those experiments are now considered part of the movement. But we didn't know that then. Another example that stands out for me was "White Lines" by Grandmaster Flash. It was largely spoken word and I would have identified it as funk then. Now I guess I don't know.
"Straight Outta Compton" came out when I was in university. I really liked it because of the anger. The raw emotion felt like the best of the punk movement from 15 years before.
So yeah I could have been clearer. The early seeds of what we now consider "rap" were around when I was young. But I would not have called it a popular genre in my circles, or even mainstream. I don't remember rap shows in the clubs (and I spent a lot of time there in my teens and twenties).
Measure differences in what? We can't ask *c. elegans * about it's state of mind let alone consciousness. There are several issues here; a philosophical issue here about what you are modeling (e.g. mind, consciousness or something else), a biological issue with what physical parameters and states you need to capture to produce that model, and how you would propose to test the fidelity of that model against the original organism. The scope of these issues is well outside a reply chain in Lemmy.
It's an analogy. There is actually an academic joke about the point you are making.
A mathematician and an engineer are sitting at a table drinking when a very beautiful woman walks in and sits down at the bar.
The mathematician sighs. "I'd like to talk to her, but first I have to cover half the distance between where we are and where she is, then half of the distance that remains, then half of that distance, and so on. The series is infinite. There'll always be some finite distance between us."
The engineer gets up and starts walking. "Ah, well, I figure I can get close enough for all practical purposes."
The point of the analogy is not that one can't get close enough so that the ear can't detect a difference, it's that in theory analog carries infinite information. It's true that vinyl recordings are not perfect analog systems because of physical limitations in the cutting process. It's also true for magnetic tape etc. But don't mistake the metaphor for the idea.
Ionic movement across membranes, especially at the scale we are talking about, and the density of channels in the system is much closer to an ideal system. How much of that fidelity can you lose before it's not your consciousness?
The article says "fully restored" which is dramatically different than "win". Of course Ukraine will be different after the war. I suspect you may be deliberately mischaracterizing the article to lobby against intervention.
Thanks fellow traveller for punching holes in computational stupidity. Everything you said is true but I also want to point out that the brain is an analog system so the information in a neuron is infinite relative to a digital system (cf: digitizing analog recordings). As I tell my students if you are looking for a binary event to start modeling, look to individual ions moving across the membrane.
God there was one where I bumped against the fridge and shifted a bunch of items that all showed up on my bill. I think a lot of the Disney hotels work on that system as well.
I am also learning here, but I always thought that any short positions or intended divestures had to be part of the prospectus. Otherwise the principals are open to a flurry of lawsuits. Not that those would scare him.
I'm in Mexico at a location that has ~50% totality. All day there have been drunk people looking up at the sky and screaming "Ohmigawd there it is that's so coooool". It's cloudy here.
The core point here is you are making a pedophile joke about someone who doesn't deserve it. So fuck you. I'm not saying he deserves citizen of the year, but that's a long way from being a punchline about raping a child.
Everybody who was exploited as a child has issues. Britney Spears, Michael, etc have all been in show business since they should have been learning to print. Are they fucked up? You bet, but they never got a childhood so maybe we can cut them some slack.
There are some protections now so Emma Watson, Daniele Radcliffe, Miley Cyrus had some protection, but those earlier generations had nothing.
Stop it. Jackson was never convicted criminally, found guilty in any of the civil suits, and the accusers appeared to fraudsters and in debt. His last years were miserable from people making false claims. Go pick on one of the million pedophiles in the church or politics.
Another article this morning (I'll link if I can find it) said that a normal bond (construction surety etc.) follows the rules you laid out. There is specific language in NY legislation with extra requirements for court bonds.
"For court bonds, as regulated by the CPLR, the law is clear about in-state license requirement," said Pollock, who noted that there are surety bonds used in other industries like construction that would not be subject to that rule.
But even so, why are people so quick to jump on her for what is clearly a choice? I don't like nose rings or ear plugs so I don't have them. So her aesthetic is not what you would choose. Fine. Don't do it.
Dr. Bob @ DrBob @lemmy.ca Posts 2Comments 564Joined 2 yr. ago
Structural use means load bearing. So no.