all decisions you make,depend on the information you are in posession of at the time of the decisive act,the internet has and is expanding exponentialy.i would recommend a book by james glieck called "what just happened" or "faster" by the same author.

terence mckenna would be another good source of info on singularity related subjects

the answer is they are both intrinsic to the field,ie the print in this message is black,but without any contrasting white you wouldnt see it.

yin yang zen buddhism alan watts

constructive or destructive tendencies, yes! the only difference being the intention

well done your a well thought out and sensible genius, its been a pleasure talking with you Kuklapolitan

kuklapolitan and jessaid and joe its been a pleasure. you tube debates can be so primitive, i love this place though!!

the difference between a madman and a genius is thus,

a genius uses his madness constructively,whereas a madman will use his genius destructively,intention being the defining factor.

david tennant as the dr who character uses his madness constructively.the best doctor by far!!then tom baker was good too ,maybe i should start a debate on it!

this attempt is also close but we are missing a defining relativistic factor here!!

A genius IS a successful madman,but success or failure isnt relative to the question

salvador dali was a successful madman therefore a genius without doubt,what makes him a genius but hitler a failed madman?

Perhaps the good vs. evil that co-exist in madmen and geniuses are part of that.

yes now were zero ing in on the crux.

so how is the distinction between them defined?

good vs evil isnt the best analogy but we are making progress

im going to favor this one cause it sounds like a definition of the bush/cheney camp!!

were pinky and the brain,were pinky and the brain!!

what are we gonna do tonight dick,

same as we always do george, were going to take over the world!!!

your getting warm!!!but still no cookie!! still too vague,a definition must encompass all of its aspects directly.

are you pissed off yet and mad???

joe cavalry had good go this afternoon!

science is merely the act of observation and has nothing to do with the supernatural,therefore the argument between religion and science is a non argument

spookily paradoxical,intrinsically so!!!

not bad, but recognizing your infallibility,doesnt explain where the road forks as it were!!

the pissed off genius is close but needs refining!

just not direct enough!!

hitler recognized his infallibility,but was clearly one rizla short of a spliff,to coin a phrase!

there is a definition,but if i reveal now, theres no fun in it is there!!

slipping from genius to madman doesnt explain the process involved,no more than being a genius means you will be acknowledged as such.

merely an observation.

surely kurt cobain deserves a mention

i quite like this approach!

http://video.stumbleupon.com/ #p=ay12p58efd

its obvious that the sun is the driver in this system

the difference between cause and effect has been blurred by the very smart al gore in his video,notice i said smart not clever!

if global warming is a fact, which they like to shove down our throats,why would gordon brown pm of uk,who obviously endorses this view,still be expanding the scope of airport runways?

my point is the words and the actions dont add up

your answer doesnt define the line though does it!

i want a concise definition not a essay on madmen and geniuses!

they cant be "quite opposites" if there is a fine line between them both can they?!

nice try though!

ethics will eventually replace or reside alongside law and reason

Reptiles had eggs way before chickens. The egg came first?,this is an oxymoronic statement,so what came first the reptile or the egg,evolution is clearly an observable fact but doesnt answer the question.

the answer is they are both intrinsic to the field,ie the print in this message is black,but without any contrasting white you wouldnt see it.

yin yang zen buddhism alan watts

definitions only people,none of this, its a fine line, rubbish!!

morals are what you are taught is right and wrong,they are told to you,

ethics are what you personally feel is right,for instance,the US had every moral REASON to invade Iraq,but ethically,they had no right to invade a sovereign country,ethics are an extension of reason and law.