Whoops. I just RTFA. It talks about voles.
Anyway, according to TFA, this sort of thing happens to voles too, and voles presumably don't have religions.
It's because of the way our emotions work. There are voles with similar thoughts about relationships. If you take members of that species, some are happy keeping one partner for their entire lives. Others, not so much. They each feel different emotions different amounts. Some feel the monogamy emotion stronger, others don't.
I'd be willing to bet that what this gene they found does is make it so people like monogamy better, like the alternative less, or both.
So it seems only _fair_ (not to mention, again, that's what that treaty says) that the USA also recognizes the IP of someone in Venezuella as valid, legally-protected IP.
Then just have people email you as +notspam, and give your email to websites without it. Of course, those websites' emails will be marked as spam, which takes away the point of giving it to them anyway. I guess this would be for stuff where you only need to get the email once.
Anyway, this doesn't matter for what the parent is saying, because if you salt your email with +akjdsflej, then the spambots will actually have to guess that. You can't just take that part out of a hash.
The Chinese government now is arguably less oppressive than it was under Mao, and the Chinese people are experiencing greater economic growth than they have for decades. Why on Earth would they want to start a revolution now? Compared to the way it was, China is a utopia these days.
Not saying they would, but the easy answer is the exact same statement. The people there have learned that there is something better, and they can learn to desire it. Why would they willingly allow themselves to be forced back under a more oppressive regime if they could help it?
Helping it tends to involve a significant chance of dying. If they die in the current government, they miss out on a lot more than if they died under the older government. People won't revolt unless the current government is unlivable. The Chinese may not have many rights, but they can pretty consistently get food on the table, and in the end, that's all that really matters.
Besides that, anyone that's familiar with history would know that revolts just produce different governments. They might be better, but they might be worse. If it's anything like China's older governments, it'll be worse.
Of course, knowledge will make a small difference. If it wouldn't, China wouldn't bother with the Great Firewall. I think that's just to stop the occasional riots, rather than to prevent full-scale revolt.
I haven't looked into James Hill, but from what you said, here's what I can tell:
He needed land grants and money from JP Morgan.
He built the railroad with the intent of making money. He's not going to turn down money build it, and given that he's enough of an entrepreneur to build it in the first place, he'd fight for it if he could get it. If this was really worth doing, than he'd get money from venture capitalists instead.
He purchased much of the railroad from failing companies.
...or just join his with other people's. Naturally, it works out better if he buys it.
There was huge corruption and wall street issues from the trust. Something that required government intervention to break up. The practically destroyed wall street.
Let me guess: he made more money off of this than he strictly needed. If it wasn't still worth while, people wouldn't be using his railroad. They'd be no worse off than they would have been had it not been built.
He was able to stay in business by giving an unfair advantage to his other business using the rail road during hard times. Basically shifting money on paper.
I don't know what you mean here. If it wasn't for the last sentence, I'd say that you're referring to horizontal monopoly practices that help him and hurt others. Again, if his practices made the rail road not worth using, people would be no worse off than they would be had he not built the rail road.
He did build 1700 miles of track, but at nearly slave labor rates.
If the work wasn't worth the money, they wouldn't have worked for him.
The US government has done many very large and complex projects without corruption.
I can't really argue that point without you actually listing some such projects. It's probably better this way, as each of my counter-arguments would have to be as long as your post. All I can tell you is that if you can find any situation in which a large bureaucracy (which would include pretty much all governments besides dictatorships) that managed to do a large project without large amounts of corruption or incompetence, I will find it surprising.
Nobody in the US has enough money to fix the grid.
You don't need one person to fix the grid. Just make it so people can charge a toll on their power lines, and if it's worth building ones between cities, they'll be built.
The grid must be fixed for us to move into a new distributed system.
I think we all agree on that.
It's a perfect job for the government.
Honestly, I don't think it's so much that there are things that are perfect for the government as just things that are worse for everyone else. There are things that capitalism just won't do, but that doesn't make the government better at it.
Not to private contractors. That is where you get corruption, and failed projects.
So, not even private contractors working for the government? If the government does it on their own, they won't be able to get rid of the people when the project's over.
* There are 9 planets orbiting the sun. Turns out Pluto isn't even a planet.
Pluto isn't currently a planet. It was considered a planet before they defined planet so it wouldn't include Pluto. There are bigger rocks orbiting the sun, but I don't think they ever were very certain that there weren't.
(Note: I'm not very good at explaining these things, so if someone paraphrased it, you should read that version. If not, then please paraphrase this so everyone else can understand it.)
She doesn't say that momentum is conserved, she says it's conserved "through the portal". This may very well be a mistake, but it makes perfect sense for the following reason:
The definition of momentum involves direction, but using the portals, it is possible travel from point a, through the portal, and back to point a, without turning, but still be facing a different direction. Since you haven't turned, you must still be facing the same direction. The only way to reconcile this is to make direction dependent on the path taken. You end up facing a different direction taking the path through the portal (comparing the two directions without going through the portal, of course) in a similar manner as how you may go further taking the portal, but still end up in the same place. This all applies to momentum too, so your momentum is conserved through the portal, but not, for want of a better word, around the portal.
As for the programmers talking about it differently, this could be due to it being a mistake that coincidentally works, it be interpreted differently by the programmers then by the script writers, or it could be because in the actual program, rather than the story, direction not only comes out the same no matter how you compare it, but there's actually absolute directions. For that matter, there's also an absolute rest, an absolute origin position (i.e. the coordinates (0,0,0)), and many other things that don't exist in real life.
Incidentally, everything I said about the Half Life universe applies in real life. It makes an all-but-imperceptible difference which path you take (unless you get really close to a black hole or something like that), but it makes a difference nonetheless.
In order to cause fusion you need enormous pressure. No artificial fusor uses gravity to do it because in order to get enough pressure with that, the mass must be enormous. I'm looking at you, Sun. Ahh! My eyes!
Compatibilism and incompatibilism There's two basic philosophies of free will. Incompatibilism says that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive. Compatibilism says they are not. This is based more on the incompatibilist philosophy. From what the Wikipedia article says (Free will theorem it was linked to above), it seems to actually be defining free will as randomness.
If I'm not mistaken, all the proof really shows is that souls, if they exist, are not the sole source of randomness.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoops. I just RTFA. It talks about voles. Anyway, according to TFA, this sort of thing happens to voles too, and voles presumably don't have religions.
It's because of the way our emotions work. There are voles with similar thoughts about relationships. If you take members of that species, some are happy keeping one partner for their entire lives. Others, not so much. They each feel different emotions different amounts. Some feel the monogamy emotion stronger, others don't.
I'd be willing to bet that what this gene they found does is make it so people like monogamy better, like the alternative less, or both.
So it seems only _fair_ (not to mention, again, that's what that treaty says) that the USA also recognizes the IP of someone in Venezuella as valid, legally-protected IP.
Wikileaks is based in Sweden, not USA.
Then just have people email you as +notspam, and give your email to websites without it. Of course, those websites' emails will be marked as spam, which takes away the point of giving it to them anyway. I guess this would be for stuff where you only need to get the email once.
Anyway, this doesn't matter for what the parent is saying, because if you salt your email with +akjdsflej, then the spambots will actually have to guess that. You can't just take that part out of a hash.
Not saying they would, but the easy answer is the exact same statement. The people there have learned that there is something better, and they can learn to desire it. Why would they willingly allow themselves to be forced back under a more oppressive regime if they could help it?
Helping it tends to involve a significant chance of dying. If they die in the current government, they miss out on a lot more than if they died under the older government. People won't revolt unless the current government is unlivable. The Chinese may not have many rights, but they can pretty consistently get food on the table, and in the end, that's all that really matters.
Besides that, anyone that's familiar with history would know that revolts just produce different governments. They might be better, but they might be worse. If it's anything like China's older governments, it'll be worse.
Of course, knowledge will make a small difference. If it wouldn't, China wouldn't bother with the Great Firewall. I think that's just to stop the occasional riots, rather than to prevent full-scale revolt.
He needed land grants and money from JP Morgan.
He built the railroad with the intent of making money. He's not going to turn down money build it, and given that he's enough of an entrepreneur to build it in the first place, he'd fight for it if he could get it. If this was really worth doing, than he'd get money from venture capitalists instead.
He purchased much of the railroad from failing companies.
...or just join his with other people's. Naturally, it works out better if he buys it.
There was huge corruption and wall street issues from the trust. Something that required government intervention to break up. The practically destroyed wall street.
Let me guess: he made more money off of this than he strictly needed. If it wasn't still worth while, people wouldn't be using his railroad. They'd be no worse off than they would have been had it not been built.
He was able to stay in business by giving an unfair advantage to his other business using the rail road during hard times. Basically shifting money on paper.
I don't know what you mean here. If it wasn't for the last sentence, I'd say that you're referring to horizontal monopoly practices that help him and hurt others. Again, if his practices made the rail road not worth using, people would be no worse off than they would be had he not built the rail road.
He did build 1700 miles of track, but at nearly slave labor rates.
If the work wasn't worth the money, they wouldn't have worked for him.
The US government has done many very large and complex projects without corruption.
I can't really argue that point without you actually listing some such projects. It's probably better this way, as each of my counter-arguments would have to be as long as your post. All I can tell you is that if you can find any situation in which a large bureaucracy (which would include pretty much all governments besides dictatorships) that managed to do a large project without large amounts of corruption or incompetence, I will find it surprising.
Nobody in the US has enough money to fix the grid.
You don't need one person to fix the grid. Just make it so people can charge a toll on their power lines, and if it's worth building ones between cities, they'll be built.
The grid must be fixed for us to move into a new distributed system.
I think we all agree on that.
It's a perfect job for the government.
Honestly, I don't think it's so much that there are things that are perfect for the government as just things that are worse for everyone else. There are things that capitalism just won't do, but that doesn't make the government better at it.
Not to private contractors. That is where you get corruption, and failed projects.
So, not even private contractors working for the government? If the government does it on their own, they won't be able to get rid of the people when the project's over.
* There are 9 planets orbiting the sun. Turns out Pluto isn't even a planet.
Pluto isn't currently a planet. It was considered a planet before they defined planet so it wouldn't include Pluto. There are bigger rocks orbiting the sun, but I don't think they ever were very certain that there weren't.
(Note: I'm not very good at explaining these things, so if someone paraphrased it, you should read that version. If not, then please paraphrase this so everyone else can understand it.)
She doesn't say that momentum is conserved, she says it's conserved "through the portal". This may very well be a mistake, but it makes perfect sense for the following reason:
The definition of momentum involves direction, but using the portals, it is possible travel from point a, through the portal, and back to point a, without turning, but still be facing a different direction. Since you haven't turned, you must still be facing the same direction. The only way to reconcile this is to make direction dependent on the path taken. You end up facing a different direction taking the path through the portal (comparing the two directions without going through the portal, of course) in a similar manner as how you may go further taking the portal, but still end up in the same place. This all applies to momentum too, so your momentum is conserved through the portal, but not, for want of a better word, around the portal.
As for the programmers talking about it differently, this could be due to it being a mistake that coincidentally works, it be interpreted differently by the programmers then by the script writers, or it could be because in the actual program, rather than the story, direction not only comes out the same no matter how you compare it, but there's actually absolute directions. For that matter, there's also an absolute rest, an absolute origin position (i.e. the coordinates (0,0,0)), and many other things that don't exist in real life.
Incidentally, everything I said about the Half Life universe applies in real life. It makes an all-but-imperceptible difference which path you take (unless you get really close to a black hole or something like that), but it makes a difference nonetheless.
I have seen a photo in uncanny valley. It was a picture of a gynoid (AKA fembot).
In order to cause fusion you need enormous pressure. No artificial fusor uses gravity to do it because in order to get enough pressure with that, the mass must be enormous. I'm looking at you, Sun. Ahh! My eyes!
Compatibilism and incompatibilism There's two basic philosophies of free will. Incompatibilism says that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive. Compatibilism says they are not. This is based more on the incompatibilist philosophy. From what the Wikipedia article says (Free will theorem it was linked to above), it seems to actually be defining free will as randomness.
If I'm not mistaken, all the proof really shows is that souls, if they exist, are not the sole source of randomness.