Being free is a relevant "feature" for many people. If it should be removed because it means nothing to you, then heck, remove any 3D acceleration support from it too because I don't need it.
They didn't clear the area, and there's no reason to believe they brought in a robot, given that they shot it in earshot of the rest of the travellers.
You should send your witnessed facts to Haaretz. I'm sure they'll appreciate another viewer's perspective.
I don't know, never been to Israel and don't plan on doing until it becomes less suicidal to do so. But on the bright side, they are refunding her laptop. Ever tried to get that from the US border agents?
Of course! How could they be so dumb? Everybody knows that terrorists carry bomb manuals explaining how to set off their bombs and stickers saying "Caution! Explosive" on their devices!
I was talking about the illusion vs. reality. You may think that you have the right to something, but the reality may prove different when you finally attempt to claim that right.
What I understand by "illusion of freedom" is that some rights are said to exist, but actually don't. But since most of the people don't really claim them, they live happily thinking that they're free.
It's not the same as misinterpreting freedom as the right to do absolutely anything you please without any consequences.
Your example applies to the later.
An example that could apply to the first would be:
A Chinese is free to speak against the government, until he tries to do so.
Fear not! Gene variety and mutation can bring back nearly anything lost on that dry, careless evolution process... as long as there's sufficient time to adapt to the new challenges.
First of all, whatever he had in mind, he used very unhappy words to express it.
Now, it's not the first time that I see the kind of association you made. The problem is not if the internet protects your privacy or not. The problem is a company intentionally breaking your privacy for profit, because nobody should have expected any in the first place.
I know you were hoping for it, so here's the car analogy:
If I park my car on a parking lot of a mall, I can't expect my car's license to remain private to me, but I wouldn't appreciate the mall selling information to third parties of what my car looks like, how often I go to that mall, how often I go back home with things I bought and how many, if I'm left-handed or if I limp when I walk, and all that linked to this particular license plate, all that just because I parked there.
Next morning I try to get a new assurance, they'll infer that I should pay more because now they're able to discriminate me by a certain limping that they were not supposed to know anything about, or because I have the strange habit of going to the mall 5 times a week without buying anything.
Maybe keeping kids away from the Internet by banning them isn't feasible, but it could be an alternative to putting responsibility on the other side of the chat. If the kid is there, it's not the other guy's problem since kids would be supposed to be banned.
Another option could be to clearly specify each chat level, like "adults only" here, "all welcome" there, and waive the other guy's responsibility if he chats to a kid on an "adults only" chat without knowing.
Maybe neither solution is good. But I do get concerned when people that have no interest in kids can be prosecuted if they think they chat to adults but happen to be chatting to a kid.
Free pizza doesn't have any added value to the public, whereas educational broadcasting does.
Corruption and imperialism destroyed Rome.
Oil helps, but it's no excuse for success or failure. Just see all the oil-rich countries in Middle East. Wait, no need to go that far. Look south, to Venezuela. The people is starving, there's no electricity, but gas costs 10 cents a gallon.
I like education. I like health. Not because it specifically favors me, but because it makes people a little more likely to do conscientious choices than the option. I also love pizza, but I don't see free pizza helping in that equation.
I think you're concentrating too much on bandwidth usage and neglecting user experience.
That one lousy http connection is likely to take 1 minute to download a content that should take 5 seconds in a non overloaded network.
It has little importance that the 0.1% user is only going for 0.1% if it takes forever for him to get the content he wants. And that's typically what happens when you have such a user next to a heavy P2P user clogging the uplink with thousands of TCP/UDP packets.
Ok, I think you mentioning my mother made everything clear to me;)
Seriously now, I think I see what the hyperreal idea is all about. There can be different orders of infinities if we take the absolute infinity (the one that would contain even my mother) and restrict it with rules such as specific sets. Depending on the rules applied, we can even compare them. For example, a set made of {1, 2, 3, 4,..., oo} would be bigger than a set made only of {1, 3, 5,..., oo} (set 1 less even numbers).
In any case, I was more concerned with arithmetic than sets:
if 2/0 = oo1 and 3/0 = oo2, is oo1 = oo2? I'd say yes.
if 1 + oo = oo1 and 2 + oo = oo2, is oo1 = oo2? I'd say no. And I'd say that oo1 oo2. Because: oo = oo1 - 1, so oo2 = 2 + oo1 - 1 = oo1 + 1, so oo2 = oo1 + 1.
Agreed. I myself only used to read the newspaper 10 years ago because it was there (somebody else bought it), but wouldn't go out of my way to buy it.
Nowadays I appreciate having something in paper media to read now and then. I find it visually more comfortable for some reason, or maybe it's just nostalgia. Either way, I don't see myself paying more or less for it if the news itself got more or less accessible.
Again, I'm no math nerd, so I may just be talking nonsense. Anyway, in my crazy mind I consider the following:
1. Infinite, the "number", must, well, be infinite. Meaning that once we get there, it contains absolutely everything and is bigger than anything measurable. Since it contains everything, there can't be two different infinites. Note that this goes against the Hyperreal and co. Which is a bad sign, but can still be.
2. Starting from the premise above, "infinite" cannot be directly manipulated arithmetically because:
2.1. Since it already contains everything, you simply can't add anything else to it. Whatever you think about adding, it already has. This is one particular part of my crazy theory that I'm far from being 100% sure.
2.2. If you take something from it, it's no longer infinite, but infinite - something. This is quite ok to me, although I'm not sure where you'd put that thing you're taking since infinite shouldn't let any space left to hide things.
2.3. Now, if you take everything from everything, you still get nothing. So oo - oo should be 0.
2.4. At the same time, if you divide everything by everything, there should still be an infinite number of parts of one, so oo / oo should be 1.
Note that points 2.2 to 2.4 could also apply to i (sqrt(-1)). i has the advantage that if you go i*i you get 1. But I'd be ok with considering that just a nice feature.
So you see, I'm quite convinced that if we use oo as a symbol just like we do to i, we should be able to go further in our arithmetic. oo seems to match much of the same criteria as i. Why discriminate?
The license for Linux is a distribution license, not a use license.
I believe that the original point was to illustrate how nobody really own a linux copy, except maybe Mr. Tovalds. You're still bound to whatever license applies to it.
"Counting" was used as a shortcut meaning "remembering and recognizing the number of steps they take". It certainly doesn't mean going "one, two, three,... one-million-six-hundred-twenty-one-thousand-seven-hundred-fifty-three! I'm home, yay!" on their head.
Remembering and recognizing a number of anything is still pretty close to counting, wouldn't you say? Especially since the number in question can be the equivalent of exactly 1,621,753 hits to your drum. I'd really love to see you do that exact number of hits without counting.
Slashdot Mirror
You totally lost me. Can you translate that into a car analogy?
Being free is a relevant "feature" for many people. If it should be removed because it means nothing to you, then heck, remove any 3D acceleration support from it too because I don't need it.
They didn't clear the area, and there's no reason to believe they brought in a robot, given that they shot it in earshot of the rest of the travellers.
You should send your witnessed facts to Haaretz. I'm sure they'll appreciate another viewer's perspective.
I don't know, never been to Israel and don't plan on doing until it becomes less suicidal to do so. But on the bright side, they are refunding her laptop. Ever tried to get that from the US border agents?
Of course! How could they be so dumb? Everybody knows that terrorists carry bomb manuals explaining how to set off their bombs and stickers saying "Caution! Explosive" on their devices!
Exactly! Know why they don't do that? Because they don't want it to detonate when everybody is expecting it to. Damn...
I was talking about the illusion vs. reality. You may think that you have the right to something, but the reality may prove different when you finally attempt to claim that right.
What I understand by "illusion of freedom" is that some rights are said to exist, but actually don't. But since most of the people don't really claim them, they live happily thinking that they're free.
It's not the same as misinterpreting freedom as the right to do absolutely anything you please without any consequences.
Your example applies to the later.
An example that could apply to the first would be:
A Chinese is free to speak against the government, until he tries to do so.
there is essentially no difference between believing you're free and actually being free.
That is, until one of your free behaviors tugs against one of the hidden leashes.
I believe that the singular vs. plural applies to this:
the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration
Meaning that the question refers to two entities, hence should be addressed in the plural.
Fear not! Gene variety and mutation can bring back nearly anything lost on that dry, careless evolution process... as long as there's sufficient time to adapt to the new challenges.
First of all, whatever he had in mind, he used very unhappy words to express it.
Now, it's not the first time that I see the kind of association you made. The problem is not if the internet protects your privacy or not. The problem is a company intentionally breaking your privacy for profit, because nobody should have expected any in the first place.
I know you were hoping for it, so here's the car analogy:
If I park my car on a parking lot of a mall, I can't expect my car's license to remain private to me, but I wouldn't appreciate the mall selling information to third parties of what my car looks like, how often I go to that mall, how often I go back home with things I bought and how many, if I'm left-handed or if I limp when I walk, and all that linked to this particular license plate, all that just because I parked there.
Next morning I try to get a new assurance, they'll infer that I should pay more because now they're able to discriminate me by a certain limping that they were not supposed to know anything about, or because I have the strange habit of going to the mall 5 times a week without buying anything.
Maybe keeping kids away from the Internet by banning them isn't feasible, but it could be an alternative to putting responsibility on the other side of the chat. If the kid is there, it's not the other guy's problem since kids would be supposed to be banned.
Another option could be to clearly specify each chat level, like "adults only" here, "all welcome" there, and waive the other guy's responsibility if he chats to a kid on an "adults only" chat without knowing.
Maybe neither solution is good. But I do get concerned when people that have no interest in kids can be prosecuted if they think they chat to adults but happen to be chatting to a kid.
Wonderful rhetoric. Except...
Free pizza doesn't have any added value to the public, whereas educational broadcasting does.
Corruption and imperialism destroyed Rome.
Oil helps, but it's no excuse for success or failure. Just see all the oil-rich countries in Middle East. Wait, no need to go that far. Look south, to Venezuela. The people is starving, there's no electricity, but gas costs 10 cents a gallon.
I like education. I like health. Not because it specifically favors me, but because it makes people a little more likely to do conscientious choices than the option. I also love pizza, but I don't see free pizza helping in that equation.
I think you're concentrating too much on bandwidth usage and neglecting user experience.
That one lousy http connection is likely to take 1 minute to download a content that should take 5 seconds in a non overloaded network.
It has little importance that the 0.1% user is only going for 0.1% if it takes forever for him to get the content he wants. And that's typically what happens when you have such a user next to a heavy P2P user clogging the uplink with thousands of TCP/UDP packets.
Ok, I think you mentioning my mother made everything clear to me ;)
Seriously now, I think I see what the hyperreal idea is all about. There can be different orders of infinities if we take the absolute infinity (the one that would contain even my mother) and restrict it with rules such as specific sets. Depending on the rules applied, we can even compare them. For example, a set made of {1, 2, 3, 4, ..., oo} would be bigger than a set made only of {1, 3, 5, ..., oo} (set 1 less even numbers).
In any case, I was more concerned with arithmetic than sets:
if 2/0 = oo1 and 3/0 = oo2, is oo1 = oo2? I'd say yes.
if 1 + oo = oo1 and 2 + oo = oo2, is oo1 = oo2? I'd say no. And I'd say that oo1 oo2. Because: oo = oo1 - 1, so oo2 = 2 + oo1 - 1 = oo1 + 1, so oo2 = oo1 + 1.
+1 Truth indeed. Thank you.
Agreed. I myself only used to read the newspaper 10 years ago because it was there (somebody else bought it), but wouldn't go out of my way to buy it.
Nowadays I appreciate having something in paper media to read now and then. I find it visually more comfortable for some reason, or maybe it's just nostalgia. Either way, I don't see myself paying more or less for it if the news itself got more or less accessible.
Again, I'm no math nerd, so I may just be talking nonsense. Anyway, in my crazy mind I consider the following:
1. Infinite, the "number", must, well, be infinite. Meaning that once we get there, it contains absolutely everything and is bigger than anything measurable. Since it contains everything, there can't be two different infinites. Note that this goes against the Hyperreal and co. Which is a bad sign, but can still be.
2. Starting from the premise above, "infinite" cannot be directly manipulated arithmetically because:
2.1. Since it already contains everything, you simply can't add anything else to it. Whatever you think about adding, it already has. This is one particular part of my crazy theory that I'm far from being 100% sure.
2.2. If you take something from it, it's no longer infinite, but infinite - something. This is quite ok to me, although I'm not sure where you'd put that thing you're taking since infinite shouldn't let any space left to hide things.
2.3. Now, if you take everything from everything, you still get nothing. So oo - oo should be 0.
2.4. At the same time, if you divide everything by everything, there should still be an infinite number of parts of one, so oo / oo should be 1.
Note that points 2.2 to 2.4 could also apply to i (sqrt(-1)). i has the advantage that if you go i*i you get 1. But I'd be ok with considering that just a nice feature.
So you see, I'm quite convinced that if we use oo as a symbol just like we do to i, we should be able to go further in our arithmetic. oo seems to match much of the same criteria as i. Why discriminate?
The license for Linux is a distribution license, not a use license.
I believe that the original point was to illustrate how nobody really own a linux copy, except maybe Mr. Tovalds. You're still bound to whatever license applies to it.
Isn't SQL somewhat like that? I mean:
select color from hair where name = "Mike";
It can't get dumber than this.
Not really. Would it be impairing? I always heard that ants could navigate according to Earth's magnetic field too.
People are stealing because they know intuitively in their gut that they are being ripped off
Damn, and I thought it was just human nature to prefer taking over buying, allied to an impressive tendency to lie to oneself.
"Counting" was used as a shortcut meaning "remembering and recognizing the number of steps they take". It certainly doesn't mean going "one, two, three, ... one-million-six-hundred-twenty-one-thousand-seven-hundred-fifty-three! I'm home, yay!" on their head.
Remembering and recognizing a number of anything is still pretty close to counting, wouldn't you say? Especially since the number in question can be the equivalent of exactly 1,621,753 hits to your drum. I'd really love to see you do that exact number of hits without counting.
From TFA:
It's already known that ants use celestial clues to establish the general direction home