It's simple: Something that is finite is bounded. Something that is infinite is unbounded. If something is finite and bounded, by definition, then, it must be contained with a larger "something". That larger something may or may not be finite.
You seem to think that finite is equvialent to bounded.
I think that they are logiclly different notions.
Hence the confusion, I believe.
How would the astronaut come to the conclusion that there is something "outside"? If you cannot observe the boundary in any way, how can you say that it exists?
I will say a couple of things though.
* any discussion of origins is not scientific in nature. Science deals with the observable and falsifiable. Example: "archaeopteryx is the transitional form between reptiles and birds". That is a completely unscientific statement - there is no way to test it or falsify it.
Ridiculous! Of course there is a way to falsify it. E.g., you found a way to extract DNA from the bones and it turned out that it is completely different from the modern birds.
Ah, don't think about the ant. Think about an astronaut who flies in his ship in a certain direction and comes back from the opposite direction. Where would he draw the boundary?
If it is finite, then something exists beyond its boundaries, even if that "something" is non-space, non-time, non-whatever.
But where are the boundaries?
Say you go in a certain direction for a period of time and come back from the opposite direction, just like the imaginary ant on the surface of the sphere. Where do you draw the boundary?
Well, as far as I am concerned, the problem is not with cookies per se. The problem is that google can easily collecta lot of sensitive information about you by looking at your search history. Cookies are just an easy way to store personalized information.
What is so inaccurate about this statement?
It is placed on your computer without your explicit authorization and it does transmit the information back, although passively.
In fact it is not all that different from the much-maligned
passive RFID tags.
There is no doubt they are shaking in their boots. However there are two main reasons why they can afford to wait a bit:
1. Movies are rather difficult to download. Relatively few people have the bandwith.
2. Movies make most of their money from the theaters. P2P is not a threat to that.
I think you are confusing Hollywood with the recording industry. Hollywood has been fairly quiet so far and has not sued ordinary people for downloading movies yet.
If you left your house door open and somebody entered and made a mess in your house (or worse!) then who is to blame? Who is at fault?
Let me see... The person who illegally entered and made the mess, perhaps?
Where I live now people routinely leave the doors unlocked.
Laws are there to be dodged and abused. Community cooperation and prevention strengthens us.
It is good to know the free spirit is still alive in some people. I am just a tiny bit surprized that a free thinker like you would want to cooperate with the community.
Being in a scientific field, you might have taken a
minute to read the article, where it says that the computer is designed for climate not weather forecast. I.e., you might get an accurate estimate for the probability of a hurricane within a given month, but don't expect to find out the weather for tomorrow.
Using the word pirate in that sense dates back to the 17th century, when they were called "land-pirates". Check the Oxford English Dictionary, if you wish.
Would it make you happier if I used "markets" instead of "captialism"? Natural selection is a market for genes, capitalism is a market for capital and labour.
There's this thing called capitalism, which is what will get us the robots in the first place and it's an implementation of a thing called natural selection, which is what got us you in the first place.
What is so natural about capitalism? Capitalism has to work within a framework of laws conciously created by people to direct the development of the society in a certain way. That is very different from natural selection.
nd the Oxford English Dictionary gives the following:
To take or appropriate dishonestly (anything belonging to another, whether material or immaterial).
Really? What version are you using?
Here is the main meaning of steal in the unabridged OED (I have online access):
1. a. trans. To take away dishonestly (portable property, cattle, etc., belonging to another); esp. to do this secretly or unobserved by the owner or the person in charge. Const. from (earlier dat.).
The notion of secrecy (cf. STEALTH) seems to be part of the original meaning of the vb., which, however, is also employed in a generic sense applicable to open as well as secret acts of theft. In mod. use it takes the place of REAVE v.1 5, ROB v. 5, and of combinations like 'to steal and reave'.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... Right, hard to see how it could be the end of something which had never begun.
And somehow this whole sorry business becomes a piece of news.
You seem to think that finite is equvialent to bounded.
I think that they are logiclly different notions. Hence the confusion, I believe.
The ball is just an abstraction.
How would the astronaut come to the conclusion that there is something "outside"?
If you cannot observe the boundary in any way, how can you say that it exists?
Ridiculous! Of course there is a way to falsify it. E.g., you found a way to extract DNA from the bones and it turned out that it is completely different from the modern birds.
Ah, don't think about the ant. Think about an astronaut who flies in his ship in a certain direction and comes back from the opposite direction. Where would he draw the boundary?
So there is no "inner" or "outer" vacuum, a sphere is just a way to visualize that.
But where are the boundaries?
Say you go in a certain direction for a period of time and come back from the opposite direction, just like the imaginary ant on the surface of the sphere. Where do you draw the boundary?
Imagine an ant on the surface of a sphere. Now imagine that the surface of that sphere is all that exists.
We are that ant. The Universe is that sphere. It is finite but the question what's on the other side is clearly meaningless.
Well, as far as I am concerned, the problem is not with cookies per se. The problem is that google can easily collecta lot of sensitive information about you by looking at your search history. Cookies are just an easy way to store personalized information.
I agree that the language is slightly misleading but it is close enough to being true as far as I am concerned.
In fact it is not all that different from the much-maligned passive RFID tags.
There is no doubt they are shaking in their boots. However there are two main reasons why they can afford to wait a bit:
1. Movies are rather difficult to download. Relatively few people have the bandwith.
2. Movies make most of their money from the theaters. P2P is not a threat to that.
I think you are confusing Hollywood with the recording industry. Hollywood has been fairly quiet so far and has not sued ordinary people for downloading movies yet.
Ah, but you forgot the punishment for the fifth offense, which is too terrible to utter.
Ok, that sounds better. However laws are useful tools in many situations.
Let me see... The person who illegally entered and made the mess, perhaps?
Where I live now people routinely leave the doors unlocked.
Laws are there to be dodged and abused. Community cooperation and prevention strengthens us.
It is good to know the free spirit is still alive in some people. I am just a tiny bit surprized that a free thinker like you would want to cooperate with the community.
Being in a scientific field, you might have taken a minute to read the article, where it says that the computer is designed for climate not weather forecast. I.e., you might get an accurate estimate for the probability of a hurricane within a given month, but don't expect to find out the weather for tomorrow.
doctors who go online provide better care
or doctors who provide better care are more likely to go online?
It is usually difficult to analyze causality with these population studies.
Using the word pirate in that sense dates back to the 17th century, when they were called "land-pirates".
Check the Oxford English Dictionary, if you wish.
Now that sounds like an interesting technology.
Even if copyright is property, a copyright infringer does not take the copyright from its owner.
No, that would not make my happier.
What is so natural about capitalism? Capitalism has to work within a framework of laws conciously created by people to direct the development of the society in a certain way.
That is very different from natural selection.
To take or appropriate dishonestly (anything belonging to another, whether material or immaterial).
Really? What version are you using?
Here is the main meaning of steal in the unabridged OED (I have online access):
1. a. trans. To take away dishonestly (portable property, cattle, etc., belonging to another); esp. to do this secretly or unobserved by the owner or the person in charge. Const. from (earlier dat.).
The notion of secrecy (cf. STEALTH) seems to be part of the original meaning of the vb., which, however, is also employed in a generic sense applicable to open as well as secret acts of theft. In mod. use it takes the place of REAVE v.1 5, ROB v. 5, and of combinations like 'to steal and reave'.