I don't know about that, but I know that the exact opposite can be true too. Games NOT bought through Steam can only be played through Steam. Example: The physical copy of Skyrim I got last christmas.
You would think a bunch of nerds would be too busy saying "ah, that is really cool" in response to learning some new amazing things the world is capable of, instead of clenching their ego in pain because something challenged what is taught in high school chemistry.
The thing is that the headline would have us think that the world just turned out to be capable of something amazing, because it would defy what was taught in high school chemistry,
As in turns out, what was achieved has nothing to do with any mechanics taught in high school chemistry. So what you end up with us to groups of people. Those who discard the news value because "it doesn't do what they said it does!" and therefore refuse to be impressed, and those who understand the more advanced interpretation of temperature, and who realize that this isn't really news, and isn't that spectacular and amazing.
I'm pretty sure Battle.net's password complexity requirement is "8 characters, combining letters and numbers". I know any harsher demands would invalidate my battle.net password.
The theory of psychological pricing is controversial. Some studies show that buyers, even young children, have a very sophisticated understanding of true cost and relative value and that, to the limits of the accuracy of the test, they behave rationally. Other researchers claim that this ignores the non-rational nature of the phenomenon and that acceptance of the theory requires belief in a subconscious level of thought processes, a belief that economic models tend to deny or ignore. Research using results from modern scanner data is mixed.
No, it does not.
There's only one game mode, and it's multiplayer. However, unless making your game public, only friends may join your game, and you have a checkbox option that prevents even them from entering without explicit consent.
But "single player mode" doesn't exist. My girlfriend has been playing "single player" all along, untill she needed help beating some boss, at which point I simply clicked the "join" button from my friend list, and poof - there I was, in her "single player game". Why is that possible? Because it was always a multiplayer game. She was just the only person in it.
Well, duh. Several lives are more valuable than a single life. To me, my life is worth more than yours, though I'm sure you'd disagree.
However, every life is worth more than a flat screen TV.
Btw, capitalism is doing just fine over here, despite lethal violence not being legal means for protecting property.
I'd imagine that from the point of view of any die-hard extremist atheist, it becomes really really hard to make fun of religious nuts if your beloved science isn't even based on the assumption of the existance of an objective reality.
Imagine a private person being able to put a fence around the city park and arrest people for tresspassing.
I kinda thought Linux guys in particular understood the difference between physical and digital goods.
A better analogy is having the gardener of the city park help you create your own garden, which is exactly identical, and you then decide to put a fence around it.
GPL is the gardener telling you in advance that he'll only help you if you never do such a thing. Not neccesarily unreasonable, but also not a no-brainer, and completely unacceptable if you planned to wall it off all along.
Because the nature of our sociology is a product of genetical properties, mainly intelligence?
You don't see lions going out of their way to mate with the weak and fetilize the infertile. The sociological difference between lions and humans are in no small part a product of a different genome.
At this day and age, what really defines humanity is not so much being bipedal and able to use tools. It's the fact that we've created civilization. That we're waging wars, creating art, asking grand questions about physics and philosophy, and share the answers we find with the coming generations.
Our genome was an enabler for our sociology, which is now affecting our genome.
So again, what makes you think you can seperate them?
He also doesn't care enough about the universe to manually guide it every step of the way, so he tossed in a couple of self-maintaining features such as quantum mechanics, and is now mostly just observing. God is omnipotent from the perspective of anyone trapped in the universe he created. He's not omnipotent compared to others of his kind.
Serious attempts at debunking the concept of God will only ever convince those who didn't need convincing in the first place. And the (admittedly vast) majority of religious people who are religious simply because they're trying to fit in with some religious social context.
However, there's those of us with a well above average understanding of science, who realizes that it absolutely falls miles short of anything even remotely resembling a conclusive evidence against God, and instead see a world too beautiful and complex to be a product of chance.
how do we know that Alice isn't actually determining Victor's choice?
To be honest, I'd be perfectly happy with that as well, if we can additionally tie Victors choice to the winner of a major sports event. I don't care whether I caused or predicted the result, as long as the bookies will take my wager.
I have a growing suspicion that familarizing yourself with quantum mechanics destroys your ability to solve logical puzzles. I base this on the fact that everyone who seems to know what they're talking about, is dodging the proposed exact method of using these findings to transmit information back in time, an on the subjective claim that there's nothing logical about quantum mechanics, and anyone claiming to actually understand it necessarily must be a total nutjob.
Anyway, if Alice and Bob compares their measurements of a particle pair, they will either find that the particles are most definitely NOT entangled, or that they might possible be entangled. Assuming we have a large batch of particles pairs - either the entire batch is entangled, or none of them are - when Alice and Bob compares measurements, they will either be able to say that the pairs are most definitely not entangled, or they'll be able to say with a certain amount of statistical certainty, proportional with the size of the batch, that the batch as a whole consists of individually entangled pairs.
Now, introduce Victor, who chooses whether or not to entangle entire batch of pairs, after the measurement has been made.
I realize this is not exactly what has been done, and would personally find it the whole experiment much more interesting if Victors random number generator had been replaced by a static "yes - DO entangle"-instruction stored in a system not accessible to Alice and Bob through conventional means, and check if Alice and Bob could confirm an entanglement which, although guaranteed to be about to take place, has not occured at their time of measurement.
However, assuming that the article and its findings are otherwise accurate, what's stopping one from sending information to the past using the method I just proposed?
tbh, sorting of search results, and which additional parameters may or may not be required to reach certain specifics... it seems entirely irrelevant for the case that camp owner is trying to make.
"The right to be forgotten". If the information is available one way or another, with any string of additional parameters attached or not, it was not forgotten. So either Google erases history, or they fail to comply.
As for finding relevant results and sorting them properly, it's in Google's best interest to do the best possible job at sorting by relevance. It's probably not an easy job, but I think it's pretty obvious that Google wants to rank campsites and maps higher than historical tragedies, if Google does in fact realize that you're looking for campsites and maps.
I'm not a Google fan, but forcing them by law to improve their already excellent search algorithms seems entirely unreasonable. I do however find it interesting to see the right to be forgotten being put to the test.
If Joe Average bangs a 50 year old woman at the age of 20, and this somehow ends up on the internet, it might unfairly prevent him from getting a job at a retirement home some 20 years later.
What obligations do Google have in preventing access to sex tapes of Paris Hilton, and pictues of Britney Spears' pussy? Is your right to be forgotten void when you're a celebrity, or only practically unenforceable?
What if Arnold Schwarzenegger wants the world to forget his part in Conan?
I'm thinking that the right to be forgotten is intended for personal matters, and although the line can sometimes get blurry, I'm pretty confident that the Alfaques disaster is to be considered a historical event.
If one defines free will as "the ability of the conscious mind to make long term plans and see them to fruition"
I define free will as "the ability to make decisions which is not a direct product of causality", and believe it doesn't exist.
I consider the human mind entirely capable of making long term plans and seeing them to fruition, which is the illusion of free will. If neuroscience questions this ability, then neuroscientists need to get out more.
I tried to read ACTA to have a clue what I was actually talking about. About half-way through, I decided it was a dull letter of intend to actually agree on taking minor, reasonable steps towards enforcing already-existing legislation. ACTA is littered with notes about how none of this should be allowed to affect law-abiding citizens.
Could one of you ACTA-opposers quote just a few of the paragraphs you find so horribly offensive? Trying to read it with an open mind gave me the clear impression that the opposition is composed of part ignorants, part people who want to keep on pirating.
It might have been kinda funny some 5+ years ago when someone first told it. Maybe if I came across it less than once per week, I'd eventually find it kind of amusing again.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about that, but I know that the exact opposite can be true too. Games NOT bought through Steam can only be played through Steam. Example: The physical copy of Skyrim I got last christmas.
You would think a bunch of nerds would be too busy saying "ah, that is really cool" in response to learning some new amazing things the world is capable of, instead of clenching their ego in pain because something challenged what is taught in high school chemistry.
The thing is that the headline would have us think that the world just turned out to be capable of something amazing, because it would defy what was taught in high school chemistry, As in turns out, what was achieved has nothing to do with any mechanics taught in high school chemistry. So what you end up with us to groups of people. Those who discard the news value because "it doesn't do what they said it does!" and therefore refuse to be impressed, and those who understand the more advanced interpretation of temperature, and who realize that this isn't really news, and isn't that spectacular and amazing.
I'm pretty sure Battle.net's password complexity requirement is "8 characters, combining letters and numbers". I know any harsher demands would invalidate my battle.net password.
It works.
Oh really? From your link:
The theory of psychological pricing is controversial. Some studies show that buyers, even young children, have a very sophisticated understanding of true cost and relative value and that, to the limits of the accuracy of the test, they behave rationally. Other researchers claim that this ignores the non-rational nature of the phenomenon and that acceptance of the theory requires belief in a subconscious level of thought processes, a belief that economic models tend to deny or ignore. Research using results from modern scanner data is mixed.
Why not?
I'm not familiar with either either Apple or Amazon App Store, but I was of the impression that the prices were roughly equal?
In which case, the Apple model is "Make a lot of profit from hardware AND content, because people will buy our stuff anyway."
However, Apple will soon assist by providing accessories to alleviate the problem. This time in the shape of tinted glasses.
This. Really. If you can't be arsed to walk down to a voting booth to make your voice count, I do NOT want you to influence my government.
No, that's saying people who are stupid, lazy or just don't care have to rely on their masters. That's the way it should be.
Preventing people who can't be bothered go move their physical asses down to a physical voting booth is an effective way to achieve the same.
No, it does not. There's only one game mode, and it's multiplayer. However, unless making your game public, only friends may join your game, and you have a checkbox option that prevents even them from entering without explicit consent. But "single player mode" doesn't exist. My girlfriend has been playing "single player" all along, untill she needed help beating some boss, at which point I simply clicked the "join" button from my friend list, and poof - there I was, in her "single player game". Why is that possible? Because it was always a multiplayer game. She was just the only person in it.
Well, duh. Several lives are more valuable than a single life. To me, my life is worth more than yours, though I'm sure you'd disagree.
However, every life is worth more than a flat screen TV.
Btw, capitalism is doing just fine over here, despite lethal violence not being legal means for protecting property.
I'd imagine that from the point of view of any die-hard extremist atheist, it becomes really really hard to make fun of religious nuts if your beloved science isn't even based on the assumption of the existance of an objective reality.
Are you actually that stupid, or are you intentionally illustrating the only possible way OP could've failed more miserable at reading comprehension?
Imagine a private person being able to put a fence around the city park and arrest people for tresspassing.
I kinda thought Linux guys in particular understood the difference between physical and digital goods.
A better analogy is having the gardener of the city park help you create your own garden, which is exactly identical, and you then decide to put a fence around it.
GPL is the gardener telling you in advance that he'll only help you if you never do such a thing. Not neccesarily unreasonable, but also not a no-brainer, and completely unacceptable if you planned to wall it off all along.
Why do you think you can't?
Because the nature of our sociology is a product of genetical properties, mainly intelligence?
You don't see lions going out of their way to mate with the weak and fetilize the infertile. The sociological difference between lions and humans are in no small part a product of a different genome.
At this day and age, what really defines humanity is not so much being bipedal and able to use tools. It's the fact that we've created civilization. That we're waging wars, creating art, asking grand questions about physics and philosophy, and share the answers we find with the coming generations.
Our genome was an enabler for our sociology, which is now affecting our genome.
So again, what makes you think you can seperate them?
He also doesn't care enough about the universe to manually guide it every step of the way, so he tossed in a couple of self-maintaining features such as quantum mechanics, and is now mostly just observing. God is omnipotent from the perspective of anyone trapped in the universe he created. He's not omnipotent compared to others of his kind.
Serious attempts at debunking the concept of God will only ever convince those who didn't need convincing in the first place. And the (admittedly vast) majority of religious people who are religious simply because they're trying to fit in with some religious social context.
However, there's those of us with a well above average understanding of science, who realizes that it absolutely falls miles short of anything even remotely resembling a conclusive evidence against God, and instead see a world too beautiful and complex to be a product of chance.
how do we know that Alice isn't actually determining Victor's choice?
To be honest, I'd be perfectly happy with that as well, if we can additionally tie Victors choice to the winner of a major sports event. I don't care whether I caused or predicted the result, as long as the bookies will take my wager.
I have a growing suspicion that familarizing yourself with quantum mechanics destroys your ability to solve logical puzzles. I base this on the fact that everyone who seems to know what they're talking about, is dodging the proposed exact method of using these findings to transmit information back in time, an on the subjective claim that there's nothing logical about quantum mechanics, and anyone claiming to actually understand it necessarily must be a total nutjob.
Anyway, if Alice and Bob compares their measurements of a particle pair, they will either find that the particles are most definitely NOT entangled, or that they might possible be entangled. Assuming we have a large batch of particles pairs - either the entire batch is entangled, or none of them are - when Alice and Bob compares measurements, they will either be able to say that the pairs are most definitely not entangled, or they'll be able to say with a certain amount of statistical certainty, proportional with the size of the batch, that the batch as a whole consists of individually entangled pairs.
Now, introduce Victor, who chooses whether or not to entangle entire batch of pairs, after the measurement has been made.
I realize this is not exactly what has been done, and would personally find it the whole experiment much more interesting if Victors random number generator had been replaced by a static "yes - DO entangle"-instruction stored in a system not accessible to Alice and Bob through conventional means, and check if Alice and Bob could confirm an entanglement which, although guaranteed to be about to take place, has not occured at their time of measurement.
However, assuming that the article and its findings are otherwise accurate, what's stopping one from sending information to the past using the method I just proposed?
tbh, sorting of search results, and which additional parameters may or may not be required to reach certain specifics... it seems entirely irrelevant for the case that camp owner is trying to make.
"The right to be forgotten". If the information is available one way or another, with any string of additional parameters attached or not, it was not forgotten. So either Google erases history, or they fail to comply.
As for finding relevant results and sorting them properly, it's in Google's best interest to do the best possible job at sorting by relevance. It's probably not an easy job, but I think it's pretty obvious that Google wants to rank campsites and maps higher than historical tragedies, if Google does in fact realize that you're looking for campsites and maps.
I'm not a Google fan, but forcing them by law to improve their already excellent search algorithms seems entirely unreasonable. I do however find it interesting to see the right to be forgotten being put to the test.
If Joe Average bangs a 50 year old woman at the age of 20, and this somehow ends up on the internet, it might unfairly prevent him from getting a job at a retirement home some 20 years later.
What obligations do Google have in preventing access to sex tapes of Paris Hilton, and pictues of Britney Spears' pussy? Is your right to be forgotten void when you're a celebrity, or only practically unenforceable?
What if Arnold Schwarzenegger wants the world to forget his part in Conan?
I'm thinking that the right to be forgotten is intended for personal matters, and although the line can sometimes get blurry, I'm pretty confident that the Alfaques disaster is to be considered a historical event.
Primer:
Men invents time machine.
Men create paradox.
Drama ensures.
Openended final leaves you to make your own conclusions.
Wow, you're absolutely right. And it's not even hard.
Men serve the exact same purpose as women - giving the counterpart something to breed with.
The similarities kind of end right there.
If one defines free will as "the ability of the conscious mind to make long term plans and see them to fruition"
I define free will as "the ability to make decisions which is not a direct product of causality", and believe it doesn't exist.
I consider the human mind entirely capable of making long term plans and seeing them to fruition, which is the illusion of free will. If neuroscience questions this ability, then neuroscientists need to get out more.
I tried to read ACTA to have a clue what I was actually talking about. About half-way through, I decided it was a dull letter of intend to actually agree on taking minor, reasonable steps towards enforcing already-existing legislation. ACTA is littered with notes about how none of this should be allowed to affect law-abiding citizens.
Could one of you ACTA-opposers quote just a few of the paragraphs you find so horribly offensive? Trying to read it with an open mind gave me the clear impression that the opposition is composed of part ignorants, part people who want to keep on pirating.
It's Googles fault exactly because it's done to achieve the end result of ignoring user preferences.
Is it really that hard to understand? Are you really that blinded by your love for Google?
It might have been kinda funny some 5+ years ago when someone first told it. Maybe if I came across it less than once per week, I'd eventually find it kind of amusing again.