It can make quite a difference./. has a very good comment system but there's crud like digg out there, which can freeze firefox completely on loading a long thread. In which case yes it can make quite a big difference!
I doubt there's been enough life on this planet drinking and p*ssing for long enough that you could state with any confidence that each and every water molecule on the planet had at one time passed through some creature?
Assuming copyright continues to exist over the next decade or so, you've got the choice between it being enforced by the government, as with speeding fines and so on, or handled by civil cases brought by private companies.
If it's the government, punishment would be limited to a small fine or disconnection. If it's private civil cases you could end up hounded by lawyers and sued into oblivion like Jammie Thomas.
Either approach suffers from the extreme difficulty in proving someone actually broke the copyright in any meaningful way. Civil courts can just guess at what's most likely but if it's criminal law then you could just take it to court where they would need some nasty extra legislation to make anything stick. Again, this looks a lot like speed camera laws in the UK.
So in answer to your question, I think they just need to recognise that people are going to copy some files and mostly get away with it, just like people are mostly still getting away with speeding and are just careful to watch out for cameras!
I have a cyclone-vacuum, you know the bag-less type, and had a bit of an ant problem for a week or two which meant I was hoovering a lot of ants. By looking in the dirt-box (! but what else to call it?) I reckon about a third of the ants survived being cannoned off the bit of plastic opposite where the hose connects. I should think spiders are more delicate, so depending on the vacuum I would say not a lot.
Come on the two things have ENTIRELY different markets. Linux is, for the time being at least, a pro and enthusiast thing with a hook in the developing world, netbooks and so on. It is hard to sell it to consumers, who feel safer if they pay some cash. OSX on the other hand (if I were on digg I wouldn't say this because it'd be flamebait) comes with Macs, which are for people who want beautiful, well designed objects and don't mind paying. Windows is for those who walk into a shop and ask for "a computer". Server usage justifies Linux entirely. Hell, server usage justifies FreeBSD entirely!
So what? Seriously, what does that tell us except the universe is bigger than we thought it was. It doesn't help answer the question as such, if the question is "why is the universe the way it is?" or "why is the multiverse the way it is?". However many universes there are, it must be a finite number so there could always be something outside it.
Look at the state of Italy though - that's usually brought up when we debate PR in the UK. There are other examples. You can end up with such a deadlock that even sensible reforms are impossible to get through. That situation can last decades.
That's why I'm a simulationist. There's no way Mario can understand the world outside his NES, or even be aware of it. Not even if the NES was some sort of cosmic quantum string machine and therefore complex enough to make Mario alive in the sense we are. Because while his universe is a subset of the greater universe, the two are fundamentally disjoint; a disconnect which can never be bridged. Sure, Mario can sit around all day theorising about how it might be possible for a great big computer to simulate his entire universe, but he can never see it or get anything useful out of it. His universe was simply made in a way that prevents him answering those questions. Perhaps Mario should concentrate on jumping onto flagpoles and dumping turtle-dragons in boiling lava.
Which is fine, if you're talking about the Earth or the solar system or the Milky Way or the local cluster being just about perfect for life. Because there are loads of them, there's no mystery in there being at least one that's just right.
What this is talking about though is why are the fundamental properties of the universe, being as there is only one of them, just right for the existence of anything? If you changed some of the universal constants around, matter even wouldn't stick together.
There are two possible answers to this: 1) there are actually loads of universes 2) perhaps universal constants aren't all that constant.
I hate answer 1) and most scientists hate answer 2). A religious person might volunteer a third answer: 3) "because God made it", but that doesn't really answer anything, because it's the same as answer 1) in that you're just redefining the meaning of the word "universe".
No it's not very useful but then I didn't get into this (on Slashdot of all places!) because I wanted to a good answer to the ultimate question. Also, sorry for conflating god with purpose in your other post but I didn't think you had made that distinction until then. And yes, simulationism is completely useless, but given what we know, it is consistent and could be the correct answer - it's just unsatisfying. Just this then - if the Universe does have a definite purpose (and therefore a creator), how would you tell? Can you ever know the purpose of anything or even if something has a purpose, without some prior knowledge? If not, then perhaps the notion of purpose itself is a human construct and therefore the ultimate question is itself fairly meaningless.
You said that science implies that there is no purpose, which is what I was disagreeing with. I agree with the rest of your posts entirely. I don't think it does, however there is a case that it assumes it. This is the philosopher's criticism of science - that you'll ultimately just end up with turtles all the way down. However, religion is no better in that respect and is in fact worse since the religious only consider the first turtle!
If it interests you at all I'm a simulationist myself (and therefore to some extent ignostic), although I should stress that I don't think that implies either an afterlife or any particular meaning. But there's no science in that, only an idle guessing game.
I'm quite interested in this rock vs. hammer thing you're on about. So is the universe more like a rock or more like a hammer? If you had never seen a hammer before, would you be able to say definitively whether it was a thing with a purpose and therefore different from a purposeless rock, or not? A hammer is probably less complicated but more regular than an average rock, that's about all I can think of right now.
Science doesn't imply the non-existence of God. It might imply the non-existence of God as you think of it, but then many people believe in a God who is actually very similar to Santa Claus.
Whether there is any overarching purpose for existence as you put it, is a question of philosophy. Science can't even begin to touch it, as GnomeChompsky (dreadful uname BTW) was saying. It's not the scientist's fault if you end up feeling that way.
Cruise has such an appalling case of NPD that Scientology may be the only thing preventing him from having a total meltdown. Don't forget, to achieve the level of success he has virtually requires some kind of personality disorder. Just look at Madonna's arms or Donald Trump's hair.
I've never heard anyone refer to that most famous of speeches in such terms! I'm guessing it doesn't mean much to you personally.
I would argue it's an awful lot more than a dead guy's hypothetical opinions, that most people would agree with that and that the parallels with last night's events are undeniable.
Slashdot Mirror
It can make quite a difference. /. has a very good comment system but there's crud like digg out there, which can freeze firefox completely on loading a long thread. In which case yes it can make quite a big difference!
I doubt there's been enough life on this planet drinking and p*ssing for long enough that you could state with any confidence that each and every water molecule on the planet had at one time passed through some creature?
By spreading it around I hope to bask in some slight reflected glory.
http://b3ta.com/board/8952395
Assuming copyright continues to exist over the next decade or so, you've got the choice between it being enforced by the government, as with speeding fines and so on, or handled by civil cases brought by private companies.
If it's the government, punishment would be limited to a small fine or disconnection. If it's private civil cases you could end up hounded by lawyers and sued into oblivion like Jammie Thomas.
Either approach suffers from the extreme difficulty in proving someone actually broke the copyright in any meaningful way. Civil courts can just guess at what's most likely but if it's criminal law then you could just take it to court where they would need some nasty extra legislation to make anything stick. Again, this looks a lot like speed camera laws in the UK.
So in answer to your question, I think they just need to recognise that people are going to copy some files and mostly get away with it, just like people are mostly still getting away with speeding and are just careful to watch out for cameras!
The W3C wasn't exactly voted into power by the people.
No but George W. Bush Was. Twice! What are you getting at?
You're missing the point. Silverlight having Windows API calls in it misses out a level of abstraction so it won't work on other OS's.
I have a cyclone-vacuum, you know the bag-less type, and had a bit of an ant problem for a week or two which meant I was hoovering a lot of ants. By looking in the dirt-box (! but what else to call it?) I reckon about a third of the ants survived being cannoned off the bit of plastic opposite where the hose connects. I should think spiders are more delicate, so depending on the vacuum I would say not a lot.
What does Google Mail/ Apps work on then?
Yes you're probably right about that! Hadn't considered mobile stuff to be fair.
I choose 2) Flash.
Like EVERYONE ELSE.
I think most people don't give a jot about gnash or the Adobe binaries.
Come on the two things have ENTIRELY different markets. Linux is, for the time being at least, a pro and enthusiast thing with a hook in the developing world, netbooks and so on. It is hard to sell it to consumers, who feel safer if they pay some cash. OSX on the other hand (if I were on digg I wouldn't say this because it'd be flamebait) comes with Macs, which are for people who want beautiful, well designed objects and don't mind paying. Windows is for those who walk into a shop and ask for "a computer". Server usage justifies Linux entirely. Hell, server usage justifies FreeBSD entirely!
SOAP? WE use that all the time thanks. Nothing wrong with lightweight text interchange protocols...
So what? Seriously, what does that tell us except the universe is bigger than we thought it was. It doesn't help answer the question as such, if the question is "why is the universe the way it is?" or "why is the multiverse the way it is?". However many universes there are, it must be a finite number so there could always be something outside it.
Look at the state of Italy though - that's usually brought up when we debate PR in the UK. There are other examples. You can end up with such a deadlock that even sensible reforms are impossible to get through. That situation can last decades.
Dude, did you think of that or did you get from somewhere? That's truly awesome.
That's why I'm a simulationist. There's no way Mario can understand the world outside his NES, or even be aware of it. Not even if the NES was some sort of cosmic quantum string machine and therefore complex enough to make Mario alive in the sense we are. Because while his universe is a subset of the greater universe, the two are fundamentally disjoint; a disconnect which can never be bridged. Sure, Mario can sit around all day theorising about how it might be possible for a great big computer to simulate his entire universe, but he can never see it or get anything useful out of it. His universe was simply made in a way that prevents him answering those questions. Perhaps Mario should concentrate on jumping onto flagpoles and dumping turtle-dragons in boiling lava.
Which is fine, if you're talking about the Earth or the solar system or the Milky Way or the local cluster being just about perfect for life. Because there are loads of them, there's no mystery in there being at least one that's just right.
What this is talking about though is why are the fundamental properties of the universe, being as there is only one of them, just right for the existence of anything? If you changed some of the universal constants around, matter even wouldn't stick together.
There are two possible answers to this: 1) there are actually loads of universes 2) perhaps universal constants aren't all that constant.
I hate answer 1) and most scientists hate answer 2). A religious person might volunteer a third answer: 3) "because God made it", but that doesn't really answer anything, because it's the same as answer 1) in that you're just redefining the meaning of the word "universe".
No it's not very useful but then I didn't get into this (on Slashdot of all places!) because I wanted to a good answer to the ultimate question. Also, sorry for conflating god with purpose in your other post but I didn't think you had made that distinction until then. And yes, simulationism is completely useless, but given what we know, it is consistent and could be the correct answer - it's just unsatisfying. Just this then - if the Universe does have a definite purpose (and therefore a creator), how would you tell? Can you ever know the purpose of anything or even if something has a purpose, without some prior knowledge? If not, then perhaps the notion of purpose itself is a human construct and therefore the ultimate question is itself fairly meaningless.
You said that science implies that there is no purpose, which is what I was disagreeing with. I agree with the rest of your posts entirely. I don't think it does, however there is a case that it assumes it. This is the philosopher's criticism of science - that you'll ultimately just end up with turtles all the way down. However, religion is no better in that respect and is in fact worse since the religious only consider the first turtle!
If it interests you at all I'm a simulationist myself (and therefore to some extent ignostic), although I should stress that I don't think that implies either an afterlife or any particular meaning. But there's no science in that, only an idle guessing game.
I'm quite interested in this rock vs. hammer thing you're on about. So is the universe more like a rock or more like a hammer? If you had never seen a hammer before, would you be able to say definitively whether it was a thing with a purpose and therefore different from a purposeless rock, or not? A hammer is probably less complicated but more regular than an average rock, that's about all I can think of right now.
Science doesn't imply the non-existence of God. It might imply the non-existence of God as you think of it, but then many people believe in a God who is actually very similar to Santa Claus.
Whether there is any overarching purpose for existence as you put it, is a question of philosophy. Science can't even begin to touch it, as GnomeChompsky (dreadful uname BTW) was saying. It's not the scientist's fault if you end up feeling that way.
Cruise has such an appalling case of NPD that Scientology may be the only thing preventing him from having a total meltdown. Don't forget, to achieve the level of success he has virtually requires some kind of personality disorder. Just look at Madonna's arms or Donald Trump's hair.
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."
Further evidenced by Dubya's intention to retire.
a dead person's hypothetical opinions
I've never heard anyone refer to that most famous of speeches in such terms! I'm guessing it doesn't mean much to you personally.
I would argue it's an awful lot more than a dead guy's hypothetical opinions, that most people would agree with that and that the parallels with last night's events are undeniable.