He has increased the budget of the National Science Foundation for the next fiscal year by only 3.2%, compared to 10.4% this year. He thereby ignores a law, which he has himself signed into effect, to double the NSF budget within 5 years.
BTW, I'm not a US citizen, so I follow the political activities in the USA only very loosely. I'm sure you know the various budget proposals in your own country better than I do, so you should have no difficulties in understanding what Bush does to your scientific research.
Aliens would by default be hard-wired to understand their environments. For reasons explained two posts ago, this naturally incorporates concepts of space and time
So your statement about space-time being just one of a very large number of ways to perceive reality is complete horseshit.
Not at all. I have never made the claim that I could perceive reality like an alien, but merely that an alien could perceive reality like an alien. The fact that I cannot perceive reality like an alien hardly proves that an alien cannot perceive reality like an alien.
Given that you have no example of a model that does not include space and time, how do you know that such a model exists,
A model doesn't "exist", a model is made up by a thinking being. Therefore, an alien being with a way of thinking very different from ours could come up with a very different model.
You're trying to claim that a different model is better,
No need to apologize; I'm aware that I've put forward quite a controversial hypothesis. This is deliberate; after all, how much fun is a discussion where everyone agrees?:-)
I dont assume anything about how they MODEL reality, but, as i argued, it is unlikely that their physical forms/bodies could have developed in an environment where the difference between classical and non-classical physics could be perceived before the onset of high-intelligence.
So far, I agree.
However way they do model reality, i am sure it is with some model which in the appropriate limits will effectively reproduce classic physics.
Here I disagree. Even if the aliens have simplified models for everyday use (like our classical physics), these models (IMHO) need not necessarily include the concepts of space and time.
The reality is the same here and on the aliens' planet, but just because the human brain finds it convenient to model this reality in terms of space and time, does not mean this is also true for the aliens. If space and time are not inherent properties of reality (this hypothesis is my main point), the aliens' models could be very different from our classical physics, even though they describe the same reality.
Physics is not just about models, it is about models of reality as it is perceived/measured.
Yes, but the way the aliens perceive reality could wildly differ from the way we do.
To illustrate this point, please provide a model of reality that does not involve space and time.
I can't. My brain, like that of every human being, cannot avoid to think in categories of space and time. But that merely shows the limitations of the human brain, it doesn't prove that space and time are real.
The expression ++c++ is equivalent to ++(c++). Since the postfix increment operator yields an rvalue (unlike the prefix increment operator, which yields an lvalue), ++c++ is not a valid expression in C++.
Space and time themselves are much more fundamental,
This is the point I disagree about. Our human brains work in such a way that we think in terms of space and time, and therefore we apply these concepts when we model reality. But space and time are not inherent properties of reality.
(That is, of course, just my philosophy. I am fully aware that other, equally valid philosophies exist.)
How many ways of perceiving reality outside of space-time are you familiar with?
None. But that merely proves that my brain works like and has the limitations of a brain of a human being, not that no other ways of perceiving reality are possible.
there is btw. nothing wrong with the concepts of space and time.
I didn't say there's anything wrong with them. But space and time are not the reality, but just a model of reality. While this model is excellent for us human beings and our way of thinking, I could well imagine that aliens think in ways which require completely different models.
I'm a physicist myself, so this is not a "raving of a random science fiction fan." As a physicist, you are surely aware that physics is about models, not about reality itself. Why do you assume aliens model reality in the same way as we do?
How is that different? What makes you qualified to say
anything about how an alien would or would not think?
Space-time is just one out of a very large number of ways to perceive reality. Therefore, it is unlikely that aliens would think in the same way as us. That would be a rather great coincidence.
How many civilizations have looked at Sol with their telescopes and determined the presence of Jupiter from our star's wobble?
To detect our sun's wobble, the other civilizations would have to understand the concepts of space and time. I think it is unlikely that extraterrestrial beings think in such categories.
I mean, we humans already know (from quantum mechanics) that the concepts of space and time are of limited value as models of reality, although we cannot escape the way our brains are hardwired. Extraterrestrials will probably think in completely different categories, which are as much beyond our imagination as space and time are to them.
You do know that the US is where DARPAnet began, right? that little network that was the precursor of the internet?
Do you propose that companies that aren't prepared to undertake the expense and risk involved in doing business with every last country on the planet not be able to do business on the web?
I cannot follow your logic. Do you propose that, since DARPAnet was invented in the USA, only US companies should do business on the web?
As others have already said, the WWW was invented in Switzerland, so one could equally well argue that only Swiss companies should do business on the web...;-)
Shortly after digital signatures became legally equivalent to regular signatures in Germany, Deutsche Post (the German postal service) offered digital authentication.
Maybe I misunderstand the Federal Register text, but I think the USPS doesn't intend to act as a CA itself, but to verify the identity of people for other CAs. The closest Deutsche Post equivalent to that would be PostIdent.
Can a company really be held liable for software it didn't write?
As far as I understand German law (I'm German, but not a lawyer, and additionally these laws have just recently been changed), yes.
An often quoted example is this: if you buy a piece of bread at a bakery, and there's a stone in it, so that you loose a tooth, the bakery is liable, even if the stone has already been in the flour without the baker's knowledge. Of course, the bakery can itself claim damages from the vendor of the flour.
If I purchase Red Hat and find a fault in Mozilla I could potentially hold Red Hat liable, even though they have nothing to do with it's developement?
Yes, but courts will probably apply a certain standard what constitutes a fault. A minor bug will most likely not be enough.
You should thank the opposition (VSI) for giving their money to investigate your contract. Read it wisely and improve where necessary.
This study is so self-contradictory that I can hardly see any use beyond spreading FUD. For example, two major conclusions are:
Open source software is bad for authors, because they might be held liable.
Open source software is bad for users, because they cannot hold anybody liable.
Yes, a court might decide that someone who sells (as opposed to: gives away without compensation) open source software is liable. This is no different from selling propietary software. Yes, it could be difficult for users to hold a vendor of open source software liable. This is no different from holding a proprietary software vendor liable.
So this guy is saying that the 'ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY' part has no effect in Germany?
If you give something away without compensation, your liability is very limited under German law, anyway. In particular, you can only be held liable in case of gross negligence or premeditation. So, for software authors who just offer their software for download, this is not a problem.
People who sell open source/free software (either written by themselves or someone else) might be held liable to a certain extent. In that, they're no different from people who sell propietary software.
im Auftrag des Verbandes der Softwareindustrie Deutschlands e.V. (VSI) means that the study was paid for by the German association of proprietary software makers.
The computer is a TOOL, not a way of life. The operating system is a TOOL, not a religion.
I strongly disagree. Technology should always be evaluated in a social/ethical context. Cars are not only a means of transportation, they also pollute the air. Nuclear fission can be used to produce energy or to kill a lot of people...
I've run an MRTG server on Debian for nearly two years - only downtime was a power outage that extended past my UPS. However, my next generation server will be NetBSD - leaner and meaner, more secure.
Considering that Red Hat doesn't ship non-free software either (and I think this is true of Mandrake also), remind me why Debian is "more concerned with liberty" again?
I would think that Red Hat's primary concern is to make money; they're a company, after all. What software they do and don't ship is influenced by what they think will be best for their profit.
Debian, on the other hand, has a Social Contract. Their motivation for not including non-free software is therefore different from Red Hat's.
If I were him [RMS] I'd probably kill myself because I'd think the world was just too ignorant to "get it".
In fact, RMS once had the thought of killing himself, as described in his biography Free as in Freedom. To find the paragraph, search Chapter 7 for the word "dynamite".
Slashdot Mirror
He has increased the budget of the National Science Foundation for the next fiscal year by only 3.2%, compared to 10.4% this year. He thereby ignores a law, which he has himself signed into effect, to double the NSF budget within 5 years.
Various important fields of research have to live with increases below the inflation rate. A group of Nobel Laureates and industry leaders already see the leading role of the USA endangered.
BTW, I'm not a US citizen, so I follow the political activities in the USA only very loosely. I'm sure you know the various budget proposals in your own country better than I do, so you should have no difficulties in understanding what Bush does to your scientific research.
I still disagree with the latter point.
Not at all. I have never made the claim that I could perceive reality like an alien, but merely that an alien could perceive reality like an alien. The fact that I cannot perceive reality like an alien hardly proves that an alien cannot perceive reality like an alien.
A model doesn't "exist", a model is made up by a thinking being. Therefore, an alien being with a way of thinking very different from ours could come up with a very different model.
I've never claimed such a thing.
No need to apologize; I'm aware that I've put forward quite a controversial hypothesis. This is deliberate; after all, how much fun is a discussion where everyone agrees? :-)
So far, I agree.
Here I disagree. Even if the aliens have simplified models for everyday use (like our classical physics), these models (IMHO) need not necessarily include the concepts of space and time.
The reality is the same here and on the aliens' planet, but just because the human brain finds it convenient to model this reality in terms of space and time, does not mean this is also true for the aliens. If space and time are not inherent properties of reality (this hypothesis is my main point), the aliens' models could be very different from our classical physics, even though they describe the same reality.
Yes, but the way the aliens perceive reality could wildly differ from the way we do.
I can't. My brain, like that of every human being, cannot avoid to think in categories of space and time. But that merely shows the limitations of the human brain, it doesn't prove that space and time are real.
The expression ++c++ is equivalent to ++(c++). Since the postfix increment operator yields an rvalue (unlike the prefix increment operator, which yields an lvalue), ++c++ is not a valid expression in C++.
This is the point I disagree about. Our human brains work in such a way that we think in terms of space and time, and therefore we apply these concepts when we model reality. But space and time are not inherent properties of reality.
(That is, of course, just my philosophy. I am fully aware that other, equally valid philosophies exist.)
None. But that merely proves that my brain works like and has the limitations of a brain of a human being, not that no other ways of perceiving reality are possible.
I didn't say there's anything wrong with them. But space and time are not the reality, but just a model of reality. While this model is excellent for us human beings and our way of thinking, I could well imagine that aliens think in ways which require completely different models.
I'm a physicist myself, so this is not a "raving of a random science fiction fan." As a physicist, you are surely aware that physics is about models, not about reality itself. Why do you assume aliens model reality in the same way as we do?
Space-time is just one out of a very large number of ways to perceive reality. Therefore, it is unlikely that aliens would think in the same way as us. That would be a rather great coincidence.
Read again what I wrote. I have said nothing about how aliens think, but about the categories they do not think in.
To detect our sun's wobble, the other civilizations would have to understand the concepts of space and time. I think it is unlikely that extraterrestrial beings think in such categories.
I mean, we humans already know (from quantum mechanics) that the concepts of space and time are of limited value as models of reality, although we cannot escape the way our brains are hardwired. Extraterrestrials will probably think in completely different categories, which are as much beyond our imagination as space and time are to them.
I cannot follow your logic. Do you propose that, since DARPAnet was invented in the USA, only US companies should do business on the web?
As others have already said, the WWW was invented in Switzerland, so one could equally well argue that only Swiss companies should do business on the web... ;-)
However, if you plot the same graph with a different range and scale, the rise in the last two months looks only like a minor fluctuation.
Maybe I misunderstand the Federal Register text, but I think the USPS doesn't intend to act as a CA itself, but to verify the identity of people for other CAs. The closest Deutsche Post equivalent to that would be PostIdent.
Out of curiosity, on what platform without a C++ compiler does Oracle software run?
As far as I understand German law (I'm German, but not a lawyer, and additionally these laws have just recently been changed), yes.
An often quoted example is this: if you buy a piece of bread at a bakery, and there's a stone in it, so that you loose a tooth, the bakery is liable, even if the stone has already been in the flour without the baker's knowledge. Of course, the bakery can itself claim damages from the vendor of the flour.
Yes, but courts will probably apply a certain standard what constitutes a fault. A minor bug will most likely not be enough.
This study is so self-contradictory that I can hardly see any use beyond spreading FUD. For example, two major conclusions are:
- Open source software is bad for authors, because they might be held liable.
- Open source software is bad for users, because they cannot hold anybody liable.
Yes, a court might decide that someone who sells (as opposed to: gives away without compensation) open source software is liable. This is no different from selling propietary software. Yes, it could be difficult for users to hold a vendor of open source software liable. This is no different from holding a proprietary software vendor liable.If you give something away without compensation, your liability is very limited under German law, anyway. In particular, you can only be held liable in case of gross negligence or premeditation. So, for software authors who just offer their software for download, this is not a problem.
People who sell open source/free software (either written by themselves or someone else) might be held liable to a certain extent. In that, they're no different from people who sell propietary software.
im Auftrag des Verbandes der Softwareindustrie Deutschlands e.V. (VSI) means that the study was paid for by the German association of proprietary software makers.
I strongly disagree. Technology should always be evaluated in a social/ethical context. Cars are not only a means of transportation, they also pollute the air. Nuclear fission can be used to produce energy or to kill a lot of people...
Debian is also being ported to NetBSD.
I would think that Red Hat's primary concern is to make money; they're a company, after all. What software they do and don't ship is influenced by what they think will be best for their profit.
Debian, on the other hand, has a Social Contract. Their motivation for not including non-free software is therefore different from Red Hat's.
In fact, RMS once had the thought of killing himself, as described in his biography Free as in Freedom . To find the paragraph, search Chapter 7 for the word "dynamite".