Casual copying has gone the way of the dodo in 1998 when Napster came about. It's easier (and faster) to click on a magnetlink and download a torrent than to make your own copy. DRM doesn't work. And Trusted Computing isn't about the content but about platform control.
Regardless of the technical merits (or lack thereof) of your statement, you can still hack the monitor and steal the data stream there. DRM CAN NOT WORK. PERIOD.
Dude, seriously? Morals? They did nothing more that fix the problem they were facing in the most effective way they could. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
My pipe is rather slow, but it's more than fast enough to use move terrabytes of data upstream. Most pipes over here in Europe are big enough for that, same for Asia, don't know what the deal is for the States/Canada/Australia. The thing is, the first full backup of all that data might take a while, but once it's done you only have to worry about new data.
I'm a photographer as well and I use Crashplan (they supported linux) and they're priced similarly (even cheaper I think). The application they provide supports backing up your data to their cloud *AND* other media. The way it works for me is as following:
- Backup to cloud (offsite online backup, new data gets priority)
- Backup to local NAS (onsite backup)
- Weekly backup to portable drive (offsite offline backup)
Crashplan+ is even cheaper and supports linux. I use it (got about 800GB backed up with 200GB more to add) and it works very well. Upload seems a bit slow but that might also be my crappy upstream pipe.
In Belgium there is a tax on any machine capable of copying books (wether or not anyone would be insane enough to even try it doesn't matter). Any copier, multifunctional printer & whatnot is taxed on it's speed and the money goes to "authors".
There once was a time where you had good radioshows. Hell, there even was a time MTV actually stood for Music TeleVision. However, the rise of 'payola' meant a decline in musical diversity on the radio's and even on MTV.
At this point, the cassette trading with friends got really popular, people would give eachother cassettes to listen to(and copy).
Later on, came the internet radio's that catered to specific publics that allowed people to yet again discover new music from smaller artists.
Fast forward to today: A lot of internet radio's have been killed and the few remaining ones are eighter access restricted (pandora is US only) or only available through subscriptions (last.fm & consorts). I happen to be a last.fm user and I live in Europe. This service is only available to me for a monthly fee, won't run on mobile devices (apperantly, the labels have seperate licences for internet access on a PC and on a 'mobile device', go figure) and still restricts various artists music from playing in several regions.
I still buy CD's, mostly from smaller artists, but were it not for the internet and piracy, I'd have less then 1/10th of the amount of CD's & albums I have now.
As a photographer I disagree with your statement. The advantage of working with raw picture files is that you have much more data available then you have after a lossy compression has been applied to your image. Shooting in RAW allows you to do all sorts of neat tricks that with a standard jpg are extremely difficult if not impossible.
Believe me, you do notice the difference between a processed jpg & a processed raw file.
All the issues you mention were typical for a specific platform (x86/Windows), there were systems even back then that lacked those issues. When I look at what NASA did with limited electronics and at we do now with our Gigahertz smartphones, I can't help but feel we're wasting that beautifull hardware with trivial un-optimised crapware, and that saddens me.
Just think, there is still an active (albeit small) Commodore 64 demoscene squezing tricks out of the old girl that the designers never thought were feasable. That for me is a lot more impressive than a smartphone rendering 3D virtual worlds.
Your whole argument hinges on the claim that I (or someone else) believes in the scientific method while I consider it to be a tool (for lack of a better word).
No. My argument hinges on a statement that I called A, and on your acceptance that A is true. That's why I said, 'Statement A could be "the scientific method is the best method we know of so far"...or it could be something else entirely.' Suppose for a moment that A is the statement, "Slashdot is news for nerds. Stuff that matters." That would be something else entirely than belief in the scientific method. However, my argument still works with that statement because my argument didn't depend on belief in the scientific method at any point. My argument depended only upon there being a statement that you accepted as being true. At this point we can stop supposing that statement A is "Slashdot is news for nerds. Stuff that matters." I make precisely two claims about A. First, it's a statement, and second, you accept it as being true. Now, by the law of generalization (and assuming my argument is valid and my premisses are true) then at least one of my four conclusions must be true. If my argument is invalid then I invite you to show me where I've made my mistake.
Again, your argument falls apart because using a methodology is not making a statement. My statement in that case was that I do not know of any better methology to gather knowledge. That statement does not lead to any of your four conclusions:
1) You believe in something that's unprovable.
2) You believe circular reasoning is valid.
3) You believe at least one statement that is inexpressible because it's infinitely long.
4) You state things are true when you actually don't believe they are.
Ergo, your argument fails.
If my premisses aren't true, then I invite you to tell me why you keep making statements.
Because statements in themselves do not lead to any of your four conclusions.
My question is simple: Why do you believe in your religion (be it hindusm or christianity) and not in the others?
That may be your question now, but it certainly wasn't what I responded to. What I responded to was your quotation of Stephen F. Roberts, which I repeat here.
Stephen F. Roberts: "...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
My claim amounted to saying that Roberts' quotation was worthless insofar as rejecting the existence of any one particular god, analogously to it's worth in rejecting the number 2 as the only even prime.
The intent of that quote is not to make you reject your god(s), but to make you think why you reject others. This is the core sentence in that quote: "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods". The quote does in no way invalidate the existance of a god or gods, nor does it in itself offer any argument why you should dismiss your god(s). Those arguments are provided by yourself once you awnser why you reject other gods.
I still haven't seen you provide anything to change my mind regarding that.
It's plain English. If you do not grasp it that is not my shortcoming.
Let me summarise by saying that I am making two claims. Firstly, you (probably) believe in something without proof. And secondly, Mr. Robert's insight doesn't permit one to reject the existence any particular god.
~Loyal
You are mistaking in the first one and you do not grasp the core idea behind the second.
Perhaps I've explained myself poorly. Let me try again. You've made the claim, "No, I don't believe that," which presumably means that you don't believe that the scientific method is a good way to learn about the universe. I have a little trouble reconciling that with the later claim you made that you accept that the scientific method is the best way we know so far, but I suppose it's possible that the scientific is both the best way we know so far and not a good way.
No you misunderstand me, let me clarify:
I accept that the scientific method is the best way to gather knowledge that I know of. I do not believe it is in absolute terms the best method, but since I do not know any better ways I stick with said method.
The reason why I use with this method is because it's methodolical and falsifiable, it has nothing to do with believes, but is purely a practical desision.
The reason I say that your claim amounts to a claim that the scientific method is not a good way to learn about the universe is because I said (verbatim,) "do you believe that the scientific method is a good way to learn about the universe?" to which you replied (also verbatim,) "No, I don't believe that." However, I don't want to get bogged down in those details too much, because I have these other details that I want to get bogged down in.
Let's suppose you have a belief, which I'll call A. I don't mean that in the sense of taking A on faith, but rather in the sense that you accept A as being true. Statement A could be "the scientific method is the best method we know of so far" or it could be "no, I don't believe that," or it could be "the method is simple," or it could be "there is no logical, reasonable or provable argument why your faith would be correct and others wrong," or it could be something else entirely. There are only two requirements on A; it is a statement and you accept it as being true. Given that you accept A, there are only two possibilities--either there is a reason for believing A, or there isn't. Let's consider the latter first. If there isn't a reason for believing A then you believe in something that's unprovable (which is something that you've claimed is untrue.) Now let's consider the former. Here, again there are only two possibilities. Either the reason for believing A is A, itself, or it's something else. If the reason for believing A is A itself, then you accept circular reasoning as being valid, and you cannot reject the bible's claim to be accurate--or rather you cannot reject it on the basis of circular reasoning being invalid. If you reject it then it must be on some other basis. If the reason for believing A is something else, then let's give it a name in order to make it easier to reason about. I'll call it A-1. This is where the infinite recursion comes in, because I ask what reason you have for accepting A-1? It must either be unsupportable, or in the A through A-k list, or it must be a new reason which I'll call A-2. The reason that always creating a new reason is a problem is that all finite reasons can be expressed with a finite number of characters, which would mean that you believe at least one thing that cannot be expressed. Now let's turn to the final possibility, that A doesn't exist. That would mean that you don't believe anything. The problem with that is that you've made a large number of statements, and you don't believe any of them. So, to summarize, the following are the only possibilities:
1) You believe in something that's unprovable.
2) You believe circular reasoning is valid.
3) You believe at least one statement that is inexpressible because it's infinitely long.
4) You state things are true when you actually don't believe they are.
The scientific method is a tool, just like mathematics, language and a hammer. Do you believe in a hammer? Or do you accept that a hammer is a proper tool for the proper job?
Slashdot Mirror
AC/DC's "Shoot to thrill" is about sex. S.E.X. Not violence.
Wouldn't work. Hell, you could just grab the raw data that's sent to the TFT panel if you were so inclined.
Don't these things get hacked on a daily basis?
Casual copying has gone the way of the dodo in 1998 when Napster came about. It's easier (and faster) to click on a magnetlink and download a torrent than to make your own copy. DRM doesn't work. And Trusted Computing isn't about the content but about platform control.
Regardless of the technical merits (or lack thereof) of your statement, you can still hack the monitor and steal the data stream there. DRM CAN NOT WORK. PERIOD.
I know the solution: Implants!
And before napster those same people copied tapes from friends and such. Piracy existed before the Net.
Who's on third
Dude, seriously? Morals? They did nothing more that fix the problem they were facing in the most effective way they could. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Crashplan
My pipe is rather slow, but it's more than fast enough to use move terrabytes of data upstream. Most pipes over here in Europe are big enough for that, same for Asia, don't know what the deal is for the States/Canada/Australia. The thing is, the first full backup of all that data might take a while, but once it's done you only have to worry about new data.
I'm a photographer as well and I use Crashplan (they supported linux) and they're priced similarly (even cheaper I think). The application they provide supports backing up your data to their cloud *AND* other media. The way it works for me is as following:
- Backup to cloud (offsite online backup, new data gets priority)
- Backup to local NAS (onsite backup)
- Weekly backup to portable drive (offsite offline backup)
All with one application.
Crashplan+ is even cheaper and supports linux. I use it (got about 800GB backed up with 200GB more to add) and it works very well. Upload seems a bit slow but that might also be my crappy upstream pipe.
Dude, seriously? LOL That's some sloppy tech support
I thought you were dead
In Belgium there is a tax on any machine capable of copying books (wether or not anyone would be insane enough to even try it doesn't matter). Any copier, multifunctional printer & whatnot is taxed on it's speed and the money goes to "authors".
How about a Pepsi can?
What the hell did Toyota do to get on that list?
Real fans still buy albums & cd's. Those you mention will just find another source.
There once was a time where you had good radioshows. Hell, there even was a time MTV actually stood for Music TeleVision.
However, the rise of 'payola' meant a decline in musical diversity on the radio's and even on MTV.
At this point, the cassette trading with friends got really popular, people would give eachother cassettes to listen to(and copy).
Later on, came the internet radio's that catered to specific publics that allowed people to yet again discover new music from smaller artists.
Fast forward to today: A lot of internet radio's have been killed and the few remaining ones are eighter access restricted (pandora is US only) or only available through subscriptions (last.fm & consorts). I happen to be a last.fm user and I live in Europe. This service is only available to me for a monthly fee, won't run on mobile devices (apperantly, the labels have seperate licences for internet access on a PC and on a 'mobile device', go figure) and still restricts various artists music from playing in several regions.
I still buy CD's, mostly from smaller artists, but were it not for the internet and piracy, I'd have less then 1/10th of the amount of CD's & albums I have now.
As a photographer I disagree with your statement. The advantage of working with raw picture files is that you have much more data available then you have after a lossy compression has been applied to your image. Shooting in RAW allows you to do all sorts of neat tricks that with a standard jpg are extremely difficult if not impossible.
Believe me, you do notice the difference between a processed jpg & a processed raw file.
Ritchie is already dead :(
TMZ?
All the issues you mention were typical for a specific platform (x86/Windows), there were systems even back then that lacked those issues. When I look at what NASA did with limited electronics and at we do now with our Gigahertz smartphones, I can't help but feel we're wasting that beautifull hardware with trivial un-optimised crapware, and that saddens me.
Just think, there is still an active (albeit small) Commodore 64 demoscene squezing tricks out of the old girl that the designers never thought were feasable. That for me is a lot more impressive than a smartphone rendering 3D virtual worlds.
Your whole argument hinges on the claim that I (or someone else) believes in the scientific method while I consider it to be a tool (for lack of a better word).
No. My argument hinges on a statement that I called A, and on your acceptance that A is true. That's why I said, 'Statement A could be "the scientific method is the best method we know of so far"...or it could be something else entirely.' Suppose for a moment that A is the statement, "Slashdot is news for nerds. Stuff that matters." That would be something else entirely than belief in the scientific method. However, my argument still works with that statement because my argument didn't depend on belief in the scientific method at any point. My argument depended only upon there being a statement that you accepted as being true. At this point we can stop supposing that statement A is "Slashdot is news for nerds. Stuff that matters." I make precisely two claims about A. First, it's a statement, and second, you accept it as being true. Now, by the law of generalization (and assuming my argument is valid and my premisses are true) then at least one of my four conclusions must be true. If my argument is invalid then I invite you to show me where I've made my mistake.
Again, your argument falls apart because using a methodology is not making a statement. My statement in that case was that I do not know of any better methology to gather knowledge. That statement does not lead to any of your four conclusions:
1) You believe in something that's unprovable. 2) You believe circular reasoning is valid. 3) You believe at least one statement that is inexpressible because it's infinitely long. 4) You state things are true when you actually don't believe they are.
Ergo, your argument fails.
If my premisses aren't true, then I invite you to tell me why you keep making statements.
Because statements in themselves do not lead to any of your four conclusions.
My question is simple: Why do you believe in your religion (be it hindusm or christianity) and not in the others?
That may be your question now, but it certainly wasn't what I responded to. What I responded to was your quotation of Stephen F. Roberts, which I repeat here.
Stephen F. Roberts: "...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
My claim amounted to saying that Roberts' quotation was worthless insofar as rejecting the existence of any one particular god, analogously to it's worth in rejecting the number 2 as the only even prime.
The intent of that quote is not to make you reject your god(s), but to make you think why you reject others. This is the core sentence in that quote: "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods". The quote does in no way invalidate the existance of a god or gods, nor does it in itself offer any argument why you should dismiss your god(s). Those arguments are provided by yourself once you awnser why you reject other gods.
I still haven't seen you provide anything to change my mind regarding that.
It's plain English. If you do not grasp it that is not my shortcoming.
Let me summarise by saying that I am making two claims. Firstly, you (probably) believe in something without proof. And secondly, Mr. Robert's insight doesn't permit one to reject the existence any particular god.
~Loyal
You are mistaking in the first one and you do not grasp the core idea behind the second.
No, I don't believe that.
Perhaps I've explained myself poorly. Let me try again. You've made the claim, "No, I don't believe that," which presumably means that you don't believe that the scientific method is a good way to learn about the universe. I have a little trouble reconciling that with the later claim you made that you accept that the scientific method is the best way we know so far, but I suppose it's possible that the scientific is both the best way we know so far and not a good way.
No you misunderstand me, let me clarify: I accept that the scientific method is the best way to gather knowledge that I know of. I do not believe it is in absolute terms the best method, but since I do not know any better ways I stick with said method. The reason why I use with this method is because it's methodolical and falsifiable, it has nothing to do with believes, but is purely a practical desision.
The reason I say that your claim amounts to a claim that the scientific method is not a good way to learn about the universe is because I said (verbatim,) "do you believe that the scientific method is a good way to learn about the universe?" to which you replied (also verbatim,) "No, I don't believe that." However, I don't want to get bogged down in those details too much, because I have these other details that I want to get bogged down in.
Let's suppose you have a belief, which I'll call A. I don't mean that in the sense of taking A on faith, but rather in the sense that you accept A as being true. Statement A could be "the scientific method is the best method we know of so far" or it could be "no, I don't believe that," or it could be "the method is simple," or it could be "there is no logical, reasonable or provable argument why your faith would be correct and others wrong," or it could be something else entirely. There are only two requirements on A; it is a statement and you accept it as being true. Given that you accept A, there are only two possibilities--either there is a reason for believing A, or there isn't. Let's consider the latter first. If there isn't a reason for believing A then you believe in something that's unprovable (which is something that you've claimed is untrue.) Now let's consider the former. Here, again there are only two possibilities. Either the reason for believing A is A, itself, or it's something else. If the reason for believing A is A itself, then you accept circular reasoning as being valid, and you cannot reject the bible's claim to be accurate--or rather you cannot reject it on the basis of circular reasoning being invalid. If you reject it then it must be on some other basis. If the reason for believing A is something else, then let's give it a name in order to make it easier to reason about. I'll call it A-1. This is where the infinite recursion comes in, because I ask what reason you have for accepting A-1? It must either be unsupportable, or in the A through A-k list, or it must be a new reason which I'll call A-2. The reason that always creating a new reason is a problem is that all finite reasons can be expressed with a finite number of characters, which would mean that you believe at least one thing that cannot be expressed. Now let's turn to the final possibility, that A doesn't exist. That would mean that you don't believe anything. The problem with that is that you've made a large number of statements, and you don't believe any of them. So, to summarize, the following are the only possibilities: 1) You believe in something that's unprovable. 2) You believe circular reasoning is valid. 3) You believe at least one statement that is inexpressible because it's infinitely long. 4) You state things are true when you actually don't believe they are.
The scientific method is a tool, just like mathematics, language and a hammer. Do you believe in a hammer? Or do you accept that a hammer is a proper tool for the proper job?
Your whole