Intelligent life would change its surroundings to better suit its needs (survival first and foremost). It is of course possible that it could be different, that is, if this life was fundamentally different from ours in that it did not arise from a process of natural selection, if it lacked the means to change anything about its surroundings (in which case intelligence would be of no selective value whatsoever and must have arisen spontaneously, randomly), or if its surroundings as formed by natural forces are utterly perfect for its needs (in which case, again, I would argue that intelligence isn't likely to arise).
These options sounds exceedingly unlikely to me. No, we're not bound to catch an intelligence like that, any more than we are to catch intelligent rocks on our own planet. Such an exercise is best reserved for the likes of Deepak Chopra; science on the other hand is based on extrapolation of what we (think to) know.
A hypothetical tree dwelling civilisation would try to reign in the forces around it. A tree village would look differently from a forest, and I daresay, the scramble test would most likely show that as well. Though life itself is of course a low-entropy state, intelligence would most likely add a layer on top, no matter the exact circumstances.
Let us ignore that most (three out of four) of the faulty loans originated with private investment banks, and not with Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac -- that makes for a much more compelling straw man.
Sane people tend to take things they hear in church with a grain of salt. I can imagine how that can confuse people on the right end of the political spectrum, however.
Doublespeak is intended to confuse or deceive. In this instance it's neither. There is nothing wrong with rhetorical flourish per se, poor execution notwithstanding.
I suppose the truth behind this article depends solely on just how bad this economic downturn will be. If bands of feral children start roving our countrysides in search of screaming baby meat, then yes, open source software isn't going to be a high priority for anyone. Of course, neither will any software. On the other hand, if society manages to hold itself together for a few years, the increased unemployment in the IT sector (among others) might actually increase the number of (talented) people with time on their hands.
Sounds like a plan. We put a whole bunch of trees under ground, prevent global warming, and when our primitive descendants make their way out of the inevitable nuclear holocaust and go through their industrial revolution in a few million years, they will have a readily available supply of oil right underneath their feet, ready for the tapping.
All you are able to produce are mindless hysterics, not arguments. You are the quintessential russophobe that way.
No. I'm not special. But we must explain to western people who have had no close dealings with russians who the russians really are so they can make objective decisions what is happening.
You must explain, eh. I suppose that is why I must point out that you are an uninformed, hate-mongering bigot with a victim complex. But then, being an uninformed, hate-mongering bigot seems to get you modded +5, so how could I blame you, really.
But you are using typical russian last resort defence - Russians have suffered more than anybody else. So what? Your people - russians murdered, raped and enslaved.
I see you would rather argue with an imaginary Russian than me. That's fine. Let's pretend there's this pretend Russian. His name will be Boris. "Boris", you'll say, "your people are fascists because some bad things happened two generations ago". In this case, yes, Boris might reply that some pretty bad things happened in Russia, too. You see, this isn't an actual argument, it's simply a way to show that yours is nonsense. It's Boris' polite way of telling you that you are full of shit. Well, I'm not quite as polite as Boris: you're full of shit, pally.
"Russians murdered, raped, and enslaved"? I'm not entirely sure I should even dignify that with any sort of reply. I see you're a fine student of history. A gentleman and a scholar, say.
Germans also suffered because on nazis. At least they feel a bit ashamed because of what nazis did. Nazi symbolics are forbidden in germany.
You've never actually talked to any Germans, have you? Shame is the last thing on anyone's mind -- and why should it be, it hardly concerns anyone alive today.
The banning of Nazi symbols, by the way, is a flagrant violation of the freedom of speech, i.e. a basic human right, according to all such wonderfully enlightened countries such as your own -- and has been criticised by many, the world over.
Communist symbolics are used everywhere.
Oh really.
What the hell, even nazi symbolics are used openly in Moscow. You can buy russian copy of Mein Kampf on Red Square!
Oh really.
You should make up your mind. Those two things are mutually exclusive. Russia is either full of evil commies, or it's full of evil Nazis. Can't have both. Hell, one of the few reasons anyone still remembers the Soviet Union in anything close to a positive light is its victory over Nazism.
You even took back the old soviet union state hymn. Read the first part of it! There is clearly written who are responsible.
Ah yes. The Russian anthem. Witness the horror:
Russia - our sacred stronghold, Russia - our beloved country. A mighty will, a great glory - Your heritage for all time!
Fascists! I can feel my jewels shrivel. It's offensive. Really. Unlike the anthem of a nice, democratic, peace-loving, Nazi symbol-banning country such as Germany, say:
Unity and justice and freedom For the German fatherland! For these let us all strive Brotherly with heart and hand! Unity and justice and freedom Are the pledge of fortune
(And I'm not even talking about the Deutschland über alles first stanza of Das Deutschlandlied)
Oh no we poor russians suffered so bad!
In historical terms, yes, they have. Over a million deaths in the Great Purge alone.
Then why you want soviet union back?
There are some who do, yes. The Soviet Union mellowed out dramatically after Stalin's death, and for some (especially older) people, life simply got worse after the fall of the Soviet Union. This however is hardly a very widespread sent
Yes. I'm estonian. Let me to tell you a story. When i was a kid, I asked from my granny - where is my grandpa. My granny told me, that my grandpa died in a prison in Siberia. He was simple fisherman, who gave food to his relative who was seeked by russian police. Then I asked my father, where is my other grandpa. My other grandpa was forced to Red Army and was killed there. My mother in law was sent to Siberia by russians, when she was about 6, with her old grandma, because her mother wasn't cooperative enough. And this is the story of average estonian family. Of course i'm brainwashed by media!
And you think this makes you special? Most people in Europe will have sad stories to tell about the generations past. I could tell you stories just as sad about my (extended) family. Besides, let's not forget who bore the brunt of the brutality of the Soviet (and mostly Stalinist) regime -- the Russians themselves. Most Russians could tell you stories even sadder. So could a lot of Germans, Italians, Spaniards, Frenchmen, British, Jews -- and a lot of Arabs could tell you sob stories about stuff happening right now that our wonderful democratically elected governments are responsible for. Sorry, but sob stories don't make your misinformed opinions any more credible. Your russophobia, while wholly understandable, prevents you from taking any kind of an informed, objective stance on the matter.
You speak of the elections, and make an appeal to the majority opinion (in the West, anyway) -- "you don't honestly believe that Putin was fairly elected, do you?" Well, yes and no. Is 71% of the vote believable for a president who oversaw the largest increase in wealth that the public can remember? The Russian opposition is a joke that doesn't have a foot to stand on, especially as long as the standard of living continues its crawl upwards. I'm sure you'll bring up Kasparov -- who is equally a joke. Oh, certainly, he has made his little television tour through the United States and is thus very well-known in all the right circles, but there is zero substance to the man's "heroic struggle against fascism". He got locked up a few times for staging illegal protests. Illegal protests? But there's supposed to be free speech! Fascism! Not quite. I would suggest you google the fabled American "free speech zones".
You bring up the Russian media, and how it's supposedly government-dominated, but all anyone can ever say is that the three largest television networks are controlled by "Kremlin loyalists". So, apparently it's also fascism when someone who agrees with particular government policy controls a television network. Question: how many large networks are there in the United States, and who are they controlled by? Just how hard did they question, say, Bush' invasion of Iraq? But, you not only overstate the importance of these television networks, you also ignore everything else. I quote (it's a long-ish read):
Discussions of the Russian media typically imply that state control is total, when in fact there are more private media in Russia today than at any time in its history.
In 1997 there were just over 21,000 registered periodicals, virtually no electronic media, and just under 100 television companies. More than half of all media were owned by the state. A decade later, there are more than 58,000 periodicals, 14,000 electronic media, and 5,500 broadcasting companies. The state's share in the newspaper and journal market in 2006 was estimated to be less than 10%, while its share in electronic media, which today reach 25 million people, is even smaller. Today it is not the Russian state but foreign companies that own shares in more than half of all Russian broadcasting companies.
Critics, however, have zeroed in on the one area of the media where the state's presence still predominates - national television. Through its control of seats
Unfortunately, journalists are killed in Russia all the time. Only some of them are anti-Kremlin, and they tend to step on pretty large toes over the course of their careers.
Ah yes, the Russians should've stayed in Ossetia and whined to the international community that really doesn't give a shit because Georgia is the most flowering democratic democracy of all the democratic democracies that ever democratised. No, by no means should you ever move to take out the military infrastructure of a sovereign nation which knowingly and willingly sends its military to attack your troops.
If you aren't Polish, Estonian (maybe one of the other Baltic states, but it's less likely), Ukrainian, or Georgian, I'm going to eat my shoe. The butthurt is strong with this one.
It would be nice for you to get a clue instead of just regurgitating what your media is telling you. It's interesting how the kinds of mental leaps that would make someone sound nutty otherwise (Bush did 9/11!) are perfectly acceptable when you're talking about Russia. We just love to hate them Russkies.
Bethesda promised an intelligent side for Oblivion, too. Perhaps the reason they are showing off the graphics and combat (which in my humble opinion aren't anything to write home about) is because there really isn't much else to it. The one quest we do know about, i.e. the quest to destroy Megaton, is hilariously bad.
So far, the data would suggest that the chances are 1 in 250 (and since the one is simply a result of the anthropic principle at work, you can't really count it as one). These odds aren't great.
The only thing you could argue to disspel this hypothesis, really, is that our sample so far is not really random.
Wanting something for less (free) is about as legitimate an excuse as you can get in a capitalist society. Of course, that's where other considerations enter the picture: you might want to support the developer; you might want to own a physical copy (which is where added value in the form of elaborate packaging and "extras" comes in); you might want to "do the right thing" (whatever the fuck that means) and get the warm fuzzy feeling inside.
I buy the games I love, because I love them. Unfortunately, those are few and far between, and I'll pirate to fill the time. Sometimes, I get pleasantly surprised, and go out and buy a game afterwards. Most of the time I don't. The experience, to me, is usually not worth the fifty bucks they try to charge for games. Sometimes, the experience will have been worth a tenner, say, but sadly, that option is unavailable -- so the next best thing is piracy. Besides, if after playing a game I have to think to myself that the game I've just played (or finished) would've been a huge waste of fifty of my hard-earned dollars, then I feel I'm fully justified to have pirated it anyway -- and those who would say that I should've wasted my money due to their particular brand of moral sentiment can go fuck themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Intelligent life would change its surroundings to better suit its needs (survival first and foremost). It is of course possible that it could be different, that is, if this life was fundamentally different from ours in that it did not arise from a process of natural selection, if it lacked the means to change anything about its surroundings (in which case intelligence would be of no selective value whatsoever and must have arisen spontaneously, randomly), or if its surroundings as formed by natural forces are utterly perfect for its needs (in which case, again, I would argue that intelligence isn't likely to arise).
These options sounds exceedingly unlikely to me. No, we're not bound to catch an intelligence like that, any more than we are to catch intelligent rocks on our own planet. Such an exercise is best reserved for the likes of Deepak Chopra; science on the other hand is based on extrapolation of what we (think to) know.
A hypothetical tree dwelling civilisation would try to reign in the forces around it. A tree village would look differently from a forest, and I daresay, the scramble test would most likely show that as well. Though life itself is of course a low-entropy state, intelligence would most likely add a layer on top, no matter the exact circumstances.
Is "more orderly" the same as "simpler"? Is higher entropy less simple than lower entropy? I would answer "no" to both questions.
Bought to resell in the secondary mortgage markets, to be precise.
Let us ignore that most (three out of four) of the faulty loans originated with private investment banks, and not with Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac -- that makes for a much more compelling straw man.
Sane people tend to take things they hear in church with a grain of salt. I can imagine how that can confuse people on the right end of the political spectrum, however.
Jeremiah Wright, who, incidentally, is not running for president.
As opposed to enlightened McCain supporters such as yourself, right?
In before some electric universe kook claims that this proves what he's been saying all along.
Hasn't GÃdel done pretty much exactly that?
Doublespeak is intended to confuse or deceive. In this instance it's neither. There is nothing wrong with rhetorical flourish per se, poor execution notwithstanding.
I suppose the truth behind this article depends solely on just how bad this economic downturn will be. If bands of feral children start roving our countrysides in search of screaming baby meat, then yes, open source software isn't going to be a high priority for anyone. Of course, neither will any software. On the other hand, if society manages to hold itself together for a few years, the increased unemployment in the IT sector (among others) might actually increase the number of (talented) people with time on their hands.
Sounds like a plan. We put a whole bunch of trees under ground, prevent global warming, and when our primitive descendants make their way out of the inevitable nuclear holocaust and go through their industrial revolution in a few million years, they will have a readily available supply of oil right underneath their feet, ready for the tapping.
Yes, but thanks to the credit crisis, Billy has moved up in the list again.
All you are able to produce are mindless hysterics, not arguments. You are the quintessential russophobe that way.
No. I'm not special. But we must explain to western people who have had no close dealings with russians who the russians really are so they can make objective decisions what is happening.
You must explain, eh. I suppose that is why I must point out that you are an uninformed, hate-mongering bigot with a victim complex. But then, being an uninformed, hate-mongering bigot seems to get you modded +5, so how could I blame you, really.
But you are using typical russian last resort defence - Russians have suffered more than anybody else. So what? Your people - russians murdered, raped and enslaved.
I see you would rather argue with an imaginary Russian than me. That's fine. Let's pretend there's this pretend Russian. His name will be Boris. "Boris", you'll say, "your people are fascists because some bad things happened two generations ago". In this case, yes, Boris might reply that some pretty bad things happened in Russia, too. You see, this isn't an actual argument, it's simply a way to show that yours is nonsense. It's Boris' polite way of telling you that you are full of shit. Well, I'm not quite as polite as Boris: you're full of shit, pally.
"Russians murdered, raped, and enslaved"? I'm not entirely sure I should even dignify that with any sort of reply. I see you're a fine student of history. A gentleman and a scholar, say.
Germans also suffered because on nazis. At least they feel a bit ashamed because of what nazis did. Nazi symbolics are forbidden in germany.
You've never actually talked to any Germans, have you? Shame is the last thing on anyone's mind -- and why should it be, it hardly concerns anyone alive today.
The banning of Nazi symbols, by the way, is a flagrant violation of the freedom of speech, i.e. a basic human right, according to all such wonderfully enlightened countries such as your own -- and has been criticised by many, the world over.
Communist symbolics are used everywhere.
Oh really.
What the hell, even nazi symbolics are used openly in Moscow. You can buy russian copy of Mein Kampf on Red Square!
Oh really.
You should make up your mind. Those two things are mutually exclusive. Russia is either full of evil commies, or it's full of evil Nazis. Can't have both. Hell, one of the few reasons anyone still remembers the Soviet Union in anything close to a positive light is its victory over Nazism.
You even took back the old soviet union state hymn. Read the first part of it! There is clearly written who are responsible.
Ah yes. The Russian anthem. Witness the horror:
Russia - our sacred stronghold,
Russia - our beloved country.
A mighty will, a great glory -
Your heritage for all time!
Fascists! I can feel my jewels shrivel. It's offensive. Really. Unlike the anthem of a nice, democratic, peace-loving, Nazi symbol-banning country such as Germany, say:
Unity and justice and freedom
For the German fatherland!
For these let us all strive
Brotherly with heart and hand!
Unity and justice and freedom
Are the pledge of fortune
(And I'm not even talking about the Deutschland über alles first stanza of Das Deutschlandlied)
Oh no we poor russians suffered so bad!
In historical terms, yes, they have. Over a million deaths in the Great Purge alone.
Then why you want soviet union back?
There are some who do, yes. The Soviet Union mellowed out dramatically after Stalin's death, and for some (especially older) people, life simply got worse after the fall of the Soviet Union. This however is hardly a very widespread sent
Yes. I'm estonian. Let me to tell you a story. When i was a kid, I asked from my granny - where is my grandpa. My granny told me, that my grandpa died in a prison in Siberia. He was simple fisherman, who gave food to his relative who was seeked by russian police. Then I asked my father, where is my other grandpa. My other grandpa was forced to Red Army and was killed there. My mother in law was sent to Siberia by russians, when she was about 6, with her old grandma, because her mother wasn't cooperative enough. And this is the story of average estonian family. Of course i'm brainwashed by media!
And you think this makes you special? Most people in Europe will have sad stories to tell about the generations past. I could tell you stories just as sad about my (extended) family. Besides, let's not forget who bore the brunt of the brutality of the Soviet (and mostly Stalinist) regime -- the Russians themselves. Most Russians could tell you stories even sadder. So could a lot of Germans, Italians, Spaniards, Frenchmen, British, Jews -- and a lot of Arabs could tell you sob stories about stuff happening right now that our wonderful democratically elected governments are responsible for. Sorry, but sob stories don't make your misinformed opinions any more credible. Your russophobia, while wholly understandable, prevents you from taking any kind of an informed, objective stance on the matter.
You speak of the elections, and make an appeal to the majority opinion (in the West, anyway) -- "you don't honestly believe that Putin was fairly elected, do you?" Well, yes and no. Is 71% of the vote believable for a president who oversaw the largest increase in wealth that the public can remember? The Russian opposition is a joke that doesn't have a foot to stand on, especially as long as the standard of living continues its crawl upwards. I'm sure you'll bring up Kasparov -- who is equally a joke. Oh, certainly, he has made his little television tour through the United States and is thus very well-known in all the right circles, but there is zero substance to the man's "heroic struggle against fascism". He got locked up a few times for staging illegal protests. Illegal protests? But there's supposed to be free speech! Fascism! Not quite. I would suggest you google the fabled American "free speech zones".
You bring up the Russian media, and how it's supposedly government-dominated, but all anyone can ever say is that the three largest television networks are controlled by "Kremlin loyalists". So, apparently it's also fascism when someone who agrees with particular government policy controls a television network. Question: how many large networks are there in the United States, and who are they controlled by? Just how hard did they question, say, Bush' invasion of Iraq? But, you not only overstate the importance of these television networks, you also ignore everything else. I quote (it's a long-ish read):
Discussions of the Russian media typically imply that state control is total, when in fact there are more private media in Russia today than at any time in its history.
In 1997 there were just over 21,000 registered periodicals, virtually no electronic media, and just under 100 television companies. More than half of all media were owned by the state. A decade later, there are more than 58,000 periodicals, 14,000 electronic media, and 5,500 broadcasting companies. The state's share in the newspaper and journal market in 2006 was estimated to be less than 10%, while its share in electronic media, which today reach 25 million people, is even smaller. Today it is not the Russian state but foreign companies that own shares in more than half of all Russian broadcasting companies.
Critics, however, have zeroed in on the one area of the media where the state's presence still predominates - national television. Through its control of seats
Okay, rachit, where's the reading comprehension?
Unfortunately, journalists are killed in Russia all the time. Only some of them are anti-Kremlin, and they tend to step on pretty large toes over the course of their careers.
Ah yes, the Russians should've stayed in Ossetia and whined to the international community that really doesn't give a shit because Georgia is the most flowering democratic democracy of all the democratic democracies that ever democratised. No, by no means should you ever move to take out the military infrastructure of a sovereign nation which knowingly and willingly sends its military to attack your troops.
If you aren't Polish, Estonian (maybe one of the other Baltic states, but it's less likely), Ukrainian, or Georgian, I'm going to eat my shoe. The butthurt is strong with this one.
It would be nice for you to get a clue instead of just regurgitating what your media is telling you. It's interesting how the kinds of mental leaps that would make someone sound nutty otherwise (Bush did 9/11!) are perfectly acceptable when you're talking about Russia. We just love to hate them Russkies.
Bethesda promised an intelligent side for Oblivion, too. Perhaps the reason they are showing off the graphics and combat (which in my humble opinion aren't anything to write home about) is because there really isn't much else to it. The one quest we do know about, i.e. the quest to destroy Megaton, is hilariously bad.
So far, the data would suggest that the chances are 1 in 250 (and since the one is simply a result of the anthropic principle at work, you can't really count it as one). These odds aren't great.
The only thing you could argue to disspel this hypothesis, really, is that our sample so far is not really random.
A person with honor would send the company money in the amount of how much it was worth to them.
That, my dear, is what bargain bins are for.
Wanting something for less (free) is about as legitimate an excuse as you can get in a capitalist society. Of course, that's where other considerations enter the picture: you might want to support the developer; you might want to own a physical copy (which is where added value in the form of elaborate packaging and "extras" comes in); you might want to "do the right thing" (whatever the fuck that means) and get the warm fuzzy feeling inside.
I buy the games I love, because I love them. Unfortunately, those are few and far between, and I'll pirate to fill the time. Sometimes, I get pleasantly surprised, and go out and buy a game afterwards. Most of the time I don't. The experience, to me, is usually not worth the fifty bucks they try to charge for games. Sometimes, the experience will have been worth a tenner, say, but sadly, that option is unavailable -- so the next best thing is piracy. Besides, if after playing a game I have to think to myself that the game I've just played (or finished) would've been a huge waste of fifty of my hard-earned dollars, then I feel I'm fully justified to have pirated it anyway -- and those who would say that I should've wasted my money due to their particular brand of moral sentiment can go fuck themselves.
Do you mean Linux, or Vista?