You mean it doesn't count as a copy when it doesn't copy the metal frame of itself or assemble it? Shucks. I was very surprised to see a lack of 'arms' and an abundance of metal on the thing. Seems both of those are required before it can make a true copy.
Last I was aware this law is actually going to screw stuff up in the future when private persons can look at their own DNA and pick insurance in a way that roflepwns the companies. Hello to one side having better information than the other, goodbye private health care.
I suppose there might be a requirement for a 'normal' noun (not proper or pro) or adjective before you can verb it. You could probably verb a preposition, but I think it might sound a bit funny.
Mickey Mouse is reasonable to hold as IP. DRM schemes are sufficient to keep most consumers honest. Software patents are ridiculous. Pretty much any patent for a process, widget, program, or chemical is a continuous strain on non-obvious.
You really want to make IP simple to protect, pass some sort of law where if you're caught pirating something the company can send you a bill for the price of the item (or maybe three times the price or some such). That'd cut down on frivolous piracy without becoming tyrannical.
I think Calvin and Hobbs ended this debate long ago with a simple comic about verbing words. Now that verb is a verb in and of itself, explicitly regarding the process of verbing a word, is there anything we can't verb? I think not.
Santa is not disprovable. You can't prove a that something doesn't exist, ever. You can certainly do an excellent job of checking the north pole, but who's to say the elfs don't have invisibility cloaks for the whole darn place. You can say you are certain beyond all doubt that you did a good looking and found no evidence though.
So if someone asks you, are you agnostic about santa, the answer is pure booleans should be yes (thus the technically disclaimer). If someone asked you "Do you believe in Santa" though, you'll still answer no. This is what makes you a asantaist (socially, despite the contradiction to your technical state). This is because as ampathee pointed out, there's a level of certainty at which we decide that the disclaimer of unprovability can be dropped.
You seem to feel you've reached that point with Santa, as do I. I also feel I've reached that point with god. The style in which I identify myself as an atheist is logical parallel to the style in which most of the world disbelieves in Santa.
Hmmm... I know that what you're saying is sometimes true. In regions where food is scare, obesity indicates wealth and is attractive. Once you get past the starving hunger it seems like being skinny becomes more alluring. I suppose it's just that the girls are hotter on the other side of the fence.
Technically, I'm an agnostic. I choose to identify myself as atheist due to my level of uncertainty. The term "weak atheist" or "agnostic atheist" could be used to apply to me. To try to build some perspective:
I'm almost certain my couch is brown. I can see it, I can take a picture of it an measure the color in my computer, I can ask my wife what color my couch is. Due to strict Pyrrhonism, I do not KNOW that my couch is brown. But if I'm going to assume one and only one thing, it's going to be that I can correctly perceive a reality with at least one of my senses. Assume any less and you might as well stop trying to think because it can't have meaning.
I'm very certain that Japan exists. I can talk to people about it, see pictures of it, and buy a plane ticket to go there if I want. However, I haven't perceived it.
I'm entirely uncertain whether there are more coins with their head up or tails up in my wallet right now. I just don't know.
And then we get to god. There is no evidence for God that stands up to scrutiny. So I have exactly as much evidence for God as I have for Santa. The only reason God gets more points than Santa is because the idea is more plausible (largely due to the vague definitions given).
I can't say that failing to find god was ever traumatic for me. Theologically speaking, I left christianity (methodist) around 12 due to what I saw as a fundamental contradiction: The Lord's Prayer and the Trinity. Explicitly "Our Father, which art in Heaven" has always signified to me that we are all the children of God, making the son a God a common position not limited simply to Jesus. From there the treatment of Jesus who should instead be viewed as a brother seemed heretical.
After that I entered my seeking phase, but I just never saw the evidence to pull me back in. I think unfortunately, as much as we'd both like to 'open the eyes' of each other, we're both solidly entrenched. I have my demand for evidence, you have faith. Neither one is capable of breaking down the other.
They are both 'possible'. If I had to put wagers up on probabilities, I'll admit that I'd rank god above santa, but only slightly. My real point is that while I can't be certain that god exists, there is such an underwhelming amount of evidence for the reality of a god that I feel I can safely 'discard' the notion that god exists, in a manner similar to the manner with which you discard the idea of the jolly fat dude in the sky.
As for your atheism, frankly is sounds like the emotionally motivated brand, which I hold in as high regard as any other form of faith. I'm merely an atheist because when I tried to find god I failed. I simply could not find an explanation that actually made sense. I simply could not find evidence to support the idea.
I think you nailed it right on the head. That's why I identify myself as an atheist despite by technical definition being an agnostic. Maybe reality is an illusion, but who cares?
Proof that things can exist independent of the observer (at least as far as the ability to continue interacting with forces):
1) I place a pot of water on the stove. I turn the stove on. I leave.
2) The stove, water, and pot cease to exist.
3) I ask my friend to go check on the water and they report back to me that the water is/is not boiling.
Thus: Obviously, even while unoberseved, the kinetic energy of the water managed to change. Actions happened without observation, thus existence did not just 'pause' while I was away from the pot. The time to boil will remain unchanged regardless of observation level.
One could choose any interaction to test for this as well. Normal force (by placing a paint can on a board and then viewing only the paint can and not the board), chemical reactions, kinetic reactions (put a ball on a slide). Even if the physical atoms aren't there unobserved, the reactions occur and are recorded to be presented in atomic form when the area is next viewed.
Most people who I know who identify themselves as atheists, myself included are technically agnostic. Just like I'm agnostic that Santa exists. Which of course means that I realize I can't absolutely disprove it, and I'd believe if I saw compelling evidence, but for now I'm going to live my life like it's poppycock.
Even better, how many people who were out of the house for American Gladiator are about to be introduced to the world of piracy and bit torrent because of the broadcast flag?
Faith and delusional are derived from concepts involving evidence, reasoning, and proof. All logical concepts in the strictest meaning. It's generally considered that math (regardless of branch) is discovered, and that logic is a subset of math (discrete math). I think an alien would be hard pressed to be considered intelligent with no concept of logic, and would be capable of groking faith & delusion with.
However, earthform sex is never going to make any sense to those poor suckers.
I've always thought that it would be interesting to see other intelligent races reaction to humans. My guess is that aliens would notice a high tendency for delusion. Your faith is delusion to anyone who doesn't share it.
I'm quite certain that my anecdotal evidence is sufficient for establishing trends without statistical studies thank you. For one, the bug got fixed, so obviously open source is better. For two, the bug existed so obviously open source sucks. For three, contradiction, so obviously banana sunday!
Consumers really can make some choices here. Sad fact is that most of the world just doesn't care. Most chocolate is purchased from cocoa farms in the Ivory Coast, many of those farms use (child) slave labor. Lindt, Godiva, Dove, Hershey's, Nestle, and whatever brand of chocolate you like probably is made with at least some slave labor. Green & Black is the only slave free brand I'm aware of that you can find in a grocery store. People just don't care, even when they can choose.
Same thing used to be true with electronics too. We haven't always purchased electronics from china. Maybe we should have bought oppression free items before they went out of business.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean it doesn't count as a copy when it doesn't copy the metal frame of itself or assemble it? Shucks. I was very surprised to see a lack of 'arms' and an abundance of metal on the thing. Seems both of those are required before it can make a true copy.
Last I was aware this law is actually going to screw stuff up in the future when private persons can look at their own DNA and pick insurance in a way that roflepwns the companies. Hello to one side having better information than the other, goodbye private health care.
Ah, point.
I suppose there might be a requirement for a 'normal' noun (not proper or pro) or adjective before you can verb it. You could probably verb a preposition, but I think it might sound a bit funny.
Mickey Mouse is reasonable to hold as IP. DRM schemes are sufficient to keep most consumers honest. Software patents are ridiculous. Pretty much any patent for a process, widget, program, or chemical is a continuous strain on non-obvious.
You really want to make IP simple to protect, pass some sort of law where if you're caught pirating something the company can send you a bill for the price of the item (or maybe three times the price or some such). That'd cut down on frivolous piracy without becoming tyrannical.
I think Calvin and Hobbs ended this debate long ago with a simple comic about verbing words. Now that verb is a verb in and of itself, explicitly regarding the process of verbing a word, is there anything we can't verb? I think not.
Santa is not disprovable. You can't prove a that something doesn't exist, ever. You can certainly do an excellent job of checking the north pole, but who's to say the elfs don't have invisibility cloaks for the whole darn place. You can say you are certain beyond all doubt that you did a good looking and found no evidence though.
So if someone asks you, are you agnostic about santa, the answer is pure booleans should be yes (thus the technically disclaimer). If someone asked you "Do you believe in Santa" though, you'll still answer no. This is what makes you a asantaist (socially, despite the contradiction to your technical state). This is because as ampathee pointed out, there's a level of certainty at which we decide that the disclaimer of unprovability can be dropped.
You seem to feel you've reached that point with Santa, as do I. I also feel I've reached that point with god. The style in which I identify myself as an atheist is logical parallel to the style in which most of the world disbelieves in Santa.
Hmmm... I know that what you're saying is sometimes true. In regions where food is scare, obesity indicates wealth and is attractive. Once you get past the starving hunger it seems like being skinny becomes more alluring. I suppose it's just that the girls are hotter on the other side of the fence.
That and they increase the price of porn due to lower supply of hot gals to enlist in the industry.
Technically, I'm an agnostic. I choose to identify myself as atheist due to my level of uncertainty. The term "weak atheist" or "agnostic atheist" could be used to apply to me. To try to build some perspective:
I'm almost certain my couch is brown. I can see it, I can take a picture of it an measure the color in my computer, I can ask my wife what color my couch is. Due to strict Pyrrhonism, I do not KNOW that my couch is brown. But if I'm going to assume one and only one thing, it's going to be that I can correctly perceive a reality with at least one of my senses. Assume any less and you might as well stop trying to think because it can't have meaning.
I'm very certain that Japan exists. I can talk to people about it, see pictures of it, and buy a plane ticket to go there if I want. However, I haven't perceived it.
I'm entirely uncertain whether there are more coins with their head up or tails up in my wallet right now. I just don't know.
And then we get to god. There is no evidence for God that stands up to scrutiny. So I have exactly as much evidence for God as I have for Santa. The only reason God gets more points than Santa is because the idea is more plausible (largely due to the vague definitions given).
I can't say that failing to find god was ever traumatic for me. Theologically speaking, I left christianity (methodist) around 12 due to what I saw as a fundamental contradiction: The Lord's Prayer and the Trinity. Explicitly "Our Father, which art in Heaven" has always signified to me that we are all the children of God, making the son a God a common position not limited simply to Jesus. From there the treatment of Jesus who should instead be viewed as a brother seemed heretical.
After that I entered my seeking phase, but I just never saw the evidence to pull me back in. I think unfortunately, as much as we'd both like to 'open the eyes' of each other, we're both solidly entrenched. I have my demand for evidence, you have faith. Neither one is capable of breaking down the other.
They are both 'possible'. If I had to put wagers up on probabilities, I'll admit that I'd rank god above santa, but only slightly. My real point is that while I can't be certain that god exists, there is such an underwhelming amount of evidence for the reality of a god that I feel I can safely 'discard' the notion that god exists, in a manner similar to the manner with which you discard the idea of the jolly fat dude in the sky.
As for your atheism, frankly is sounds like the emotionally motivated brand, which I hold in as high regard as any other form of faith. I'm merely an atheist because when I tried to find god I failed. I simply could not find an explanation that actually made sense. I simply could not find evidence to support the idea.
I think you nailed it right on the head. That's why I identify myself as an atheist despite by technical definition being an agnostic. Maybe reality is an illusion, but who cares?
I thought good encryption created the appearance of high-entropy random bytes.
I think the world would be a much better place without them.
The IPU is only invisible to those who haven't become fully enlightened. Those of us who know her grace and beauty can see her just fine.
Proof that things can exist independent of the observer (at least as far as the ability to continue interacting with forces): 1) I place a pot of water on the stove. I turn the stove on. I leave. 2) The stove, water, and pot cease to exist. 3) I ask my friend to go check on the water and they report back to me that the water is/is not boiling. Thus: Obviously, even while unoberseved, the kinetic energy of the water managed to change. Actions happened without observation, thus existence did not just 'pause' while I was away from the pot. The time to boil will remain unchanged regardless of observation level. One could choose any interaction to test for this as well. Normal force (by placing a paint can on a board and then viewing only the paint can and not the board), chemical reactions, kinetic reactions (put a ball on a slide). Even if the physical atoms aren't there unobserved, the reactions occur and are recorded to be presented in atomic form when the area is next viewed.
Most people who I know who identify themselves as atheists, myself included are technically agnostic. Just like I'm agnostic that Santa exists. Which of course means that I realize I can't absolutely disprove it, and I'd believe if I saw compelling evidence, but for now I'm going to live my life like it's poppycock.
I don't think the Japanese ever invaded France...
What species of ant overload is the question...
Even better, how many people who were out of the house for American Gladiator are about to be introduced to the world of piracy and bit torrent because of the broadcast flag?
Faith and delusional are derived from concepts involving evidence, reasoning, and proof. All logical concepts in the strictest meaning. It's generally considered that math (regardless of branch) is discovered, and that logic is a subset of math (discrete math). I think an alien would be hard pressed to be considered intelligent with no concept of logic, and would be capable of groking faith & delusion with. However, earthform sex is never going to make any sense to those poor suckers.
I've always thought that it would be interesting to see other intelligent races reaction to humans. My guess is that aliens would notice a high tendency for delusion. Your faith is delusion to anyone who doesn't share it.
So remember, no sex if safe sex, but if you watch sex use Norton!
I'm quite certain that my anecdotal evidence is sufficient for establishing trends without statistical studies thank you. For one, the bug got fixed, so obviously open source is better. For two, the bug existed so obviously open source sucks. For three, contradiction, so obviously banana sunday!
Consumers really can make some choices here. Sad fact is that most of the world just doesn't care. Most chocolate is purchased from cocoa farms in the Ivory Coast, many of those farms use (child) slave labor. Lindt, Godiva, Dove, Hershey's, Nestle, and whatever brand of chocolate you like probably is made with at least some slave labor. Green & Black is the only slave free brand I'm aware of that you can find in a grocery store. People just don't care, even when they can choose. Same thing used to be true with electronics too. We haven't always purchased electronics from china. Maybe we should have bought oppression free items before they went out of business.