"I normally am not a proponent of Occam, but this is one of those cases where it's just so apt. What possible explanatory purpose is served by adding or removing free will?"
The statement of addition of free will or removal of it could come into play in explaining higher dimensions. If you state that higher dimensions are like having our universe along with all the other possible causes for our universe, and all other ends or paths to the ends of universes, free will becomes important in determining the size of that sample space.
Obviously it would be a large number if free will is involved because the simple effect of you not doing something or not could ripple into the future changing many things for all time and eventually messing up everything, or keeping it from being messed up.
If there is no free will, however, and all things just play out according to a time line, then we have a much smaller set of possible universes. I would say that this number would be on the magnitude of the number of possible starts of the universe. Since the only thing that could change is how things started, it would be the only variance in those universes (aside from possibly the laws of physics, etc). If there is no free will action A will always lead to action B, and so on. So then, a vast majority of our work is done in calculating alternatives to our universe since we only have to figure out the possible rules and starts and we have all the possibilities.
I would say it is a rather large purpose to explain with the presence of free will.
I think as to this particular incident, it is up to the RIAA to decide what to do. If they sue the kids, then they can attempt to continue on their crusade against piracy. However, if they don't sue, then they cannot continue against anyone. It is only their choice,, but depending on the choice it can have some big consequences.
Man that was frustrating in FFXI. You are playing along just fine, then accidentally alt-tab to the desktop. POL says it no longer has focus and disconnects. By the time you log back in and get playing again, you have wasted 5 minutes, and probably have died and lost a good chunk of exp...
A gaming console is a specific computer made for the sole purpose of playing games / enjoying yourself. To that end, they should provide things that a standard PC is not really made to do, which is why I like the Wii. Yes, you can make the Wiimote work on a PC, but no game developer is going to try and market a PC game towards that. By creating one standard and interactive device for gamers to play with, Nintendo has given the Wii a good amount of backing for developers to market to. To that end, I see Nintendo doing well with the Wii.
Sony and Microsoft have a battle ahead of themselves, with each other. Both offer a system with some online capabilities, and similar game sets. The problem with both is that they don't really offer anything that a standard PC can't offer. People have had USB controllers for a long time, and have played games with them. The only real thing they offer is the online marketplace / community, but that can be somewhat easily done on a PC. What the two companies need to realize is that the 'hardcore' games that take a ton of hours to complete would be best suited for a PC anyway. On a PC you can run Ventrilo, Winamp, AIM, a web-browser, etc, all at the same time you play. That way, you can have you fun in the game, and add whatever else on top of it you want.
Because they are similar, and in my opinion in trouble, Microsoft and Sony have some work ahead of them. I feel that if Microsoft wants to continue to do well into the future, they would do best to shift to the PC gaming market. They already have an operating system they could work with, it just seems to make sense. I think if they continue as they currently have, they will do alright in the next gen (after 360), but die after that.
I think Sony will be too stubborn to change gears and will continue to try and push more hardware and expense into a box that people won't find fun. I believe that they might try to make a PS4 eventually, but it will fail miserably.
If either company tries to mimic Nintendo and make the console more interactive and offer more than a PC can, they will find a hard road. Nintendo already has the marketplace for that. It is much like the iPod and the Zune. The Zune may offer the same things as the iPod, plus a little bit, but it is just too late.
If game developers would simply make fun and interactive console games for things like the Wii, I think they would see the best success. If you want to develop a blockbuster of a game/movie, it would be best marketed to a PC, because you have a bigger audience, and less proprietary garbage to deal with.
Sorry to make it so long, but it is hard to show the picture I see with only part of it.
Slashdot Mirror
"I normally am not a proponent of Occam, but this is one of those cases where it's just so apt. What possible explanatory purpose is served by adding or removing free will?" The statement of addition of free will or removal of it could come into play in explaining higher dimensions. If you state that higher dimensions are like having our universe along with all the other possible causes for our universe, and all other ends or paths to the ends of universes, free will becomes important in determining the size of that sample space. Obviously it would be a large number if free will is involved because the simple effect of you not doing something or not could ripple into the future changing many things for all time and eventually messing up everything, or keeping it from being messed up. If there is no free will, however, and all things just play out according to a time line, then we have a much smaller set of possible universes. I would say that this number would be on the magnitude of the number of possible starts of the universe. Since the only thing that could change is how things started, it would be the only variance in those universes (aside from possibly the laws of physics, etc). If there is no free will action A will always lead to action B, and so on. So then, a vast majority of our work is done in calculating alternatives to our universe since we only have to figure out the possible rules and starts and we have all the possibilities. I would say it is a rather large purpose to explain with the presence of free will.
I think as to this particular incident, it is up to the RIAA to decide what to do. If they sue the kids, then they can attempt to continue on their crusade against piracy. However, if they don't sue, then they cannot continue against anyone. It is only their choice,, but depending on the choice it can have some big consequences.
Man that was frustrating in FFXI. You are playing along just fine, then accidentally alt-tab to the desktop. POL says it no longer has focus and disconnects. By the time you log back in and get playing again, you have wasted 5 minutes, and probably have died and lost a good chunk of exp...
A gaming console is a specific computer made for the sole purpose of playing games / enjoying yourself. To that end, they should provide things that a standard PC is not really made to do, which is why I like the Wii. Yes, you can make the Wiimote work on a PC, but no game developer is going to try and market a PC game towards that. By creating one standard and interactive device for gamers to play with, Nintendo has given the Wii a good amount of backing for developers to market to. To that end, I see Nintendo doing well with the Wii.
Sony and Microsoft have a battle ahead of themselves, with each other. Both offer a system with some online capabilities, and similar game sets. The problem with both is that they don't really offer anything that a standard PC can't offer. People have had USB controllers for a long time, and have played games with them. The only real thing they offer is the online marketplace / community, but that can be somewhat easily done on a PC. What the two companies need to realize is that the 'hardcore' games that take a ton of hours to complete would be best suited for a PC anyway. On a PC you can run Ventrilo, Winamp, AIM, a web-browser, etc, all at the same time you play. That way, you can have you fun in the game, and add whatever else on top of it you want.
Because they are similar, and in my opinion in trouble, Microsoft and Sony have some work ahead of them. I feel that if Microsoft wants to continue to do well into the future, they would do best to shift to the PC gaming market. They already have an operating system they could work with, it just seems to make sense. I think if they continue as they currently have, they will do alright in the next gen (after 360), but die after that.
I think Sony will be too stubborn to change gears and will continue to try and push more hardware and expense into a box that people won't find fun. I believe that they might try to make a PS4 eventually, but it will fail miserably.
If either company tries to mimic Nintendo and make the console more interactive and offer more than a PC can, they will find a hard road. Nintendo already has the marketplace for that. It is much like the iPod and the Zune. The Zune may offer the same things as the iPod, plus a little bit, but it is just too late.
If game developers would simply make fun and interactive console games for things like the Wii, I think they would see the best success. If you want to develop a blockbuster of a game/movie, it would be best marketed to a PC, because you have a bigger audience, and less proprietary garbage to deal with.
Sorry to make it so long, but it is hard to show the picture I see with only part of it.