Fair enough - as long as you also admit at the same time that gravity might stop working. In any case, what we know now is what we know. We can't keep doubting it for no reason. When some reason comes long, then we'll see if it needs correcting. Till then, let's have faith in what we know so far.
Those are loopholes easy to plug. We can even get innovative and make them pay a percentage of their last three years of profits! Let's see them wiggle around now:D
Like others have mentioned, court costs are minuscule for Apple. As it is for most big corporations. A better financial punishment I feel would be to pay a percentage of their profits for the next two years. The percentage depending on how frivolous the court thinks the case was.
Let's see Apple (or any other corporation) file a frivolous case now.
Just because we can't know a position and vector of a particle now doesn't mean we won't ever be able to.
Yes it does. The Heisenburg uncertainty principle is not a limitation of technology. It's a law of the universe. It's like saying "just because gravity exists today doesn't mean it will exist sometime in the future."
The main point is "so what?" Suppose detailed research actually shows that open source software is killing jobs, are we going to do anything about it? No. Open source software is here to stay and if it kills jobs, too bad.
When broadcasting a chess match, the camera should only zoom in on the piece the player is actually touching at the moment. Allowing a bird's eye view of the board will expose the various strategies the player uses and is considered proprietary information by the player and his or her team.
Wow - there has to be an easier way to explain this. A two three sentence summary perhaps? Like what the problem was before, what great thing was conceived of and what the threat currently is...
Fishes are pretty carnivorous. Pigs are omnivores too. Humans will eat anything, but most still have a strange aversion to some animals - don't know why.
I doubt if utility is a good enough reason. We could always create more dogs to eat and keep some for utility. Chickens, cows etc are all utility animals, but we rear them separately for separate functions. No reason why we can't eat horses using the same formula...
It can't be personal preference since the overwhelming majority of people have never tasted a dog...so what is the preference based on if not on taste?
I will blame Apple. I'm not saying what Apple is doing is illegal. I'm saying they're a jerk. They're not being "nice." And that costs them goodwill. People don't like companies which don't do "nice" things.
We're talking about a situation where a robot can provide everything you've laid out - even women who are indistinguishable from "real" women. So we'll have butler robots, butler chefs and maybe even butler musicians. The robots will also manufacture everything and even build more of themselves when needed. Since robots will be able to replicate themselves, the price of robots will drop to almost nothing since there will be an infinite supply of robots. We'll have an army to serve humans:D
Mmm...is she a pretty fairy and can she make me her size (or grow to mine) and does she like me?:) . No but seriously, if I stumble upon a fairy I'll have to reverse my disbelief and admit that I was wrong. I may blush with shame, but I'll do it!
Well, look at it this way. Let's say the probability of a unicorn/leprechaun/fairy/peter pan existing is 0.0000001% . Now I have two choices. Maintaining an agnostic position or not believing at all.
Admitting that there is a slight possibility of these things existing takes up a bit of mental resources for each item - since I'm on the look out for "evidence", justifying my possible belief to strangers who think I'm crazy, having to take into account the fact that a fairy is under every flower etc. Since the number of things that could exist is immense, I actually spend a lot of time factoring in that minuscule percentage for no good reason - since they probably don't exist.
Disbelieving entirely on the other hand is a far more efficient strategy. I'm not going to lose out on much - it's a risk I'll take!
I guess you're "agnostic" towards fairies and the bogey man too. Sheesh, how is it that religious people can't see that their "god" is as ridiculous as a leprechaun?
There are things which are "default" until proved otherwise. It's not belief. It's a given. It's a "default" that unicorns don't exist - not a belief. It's a "default" that fairies are imaginary - no one "believes" that fairies don't exist. They know. fairies don't exist. Because that's the default.
Similarly, it's a "default" that god is imaginary. No one is a "non-believer" in god. Those professing belief have to prove their belief. So we have believers in god. Not believers in no god.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough - as long as you also admit at the same time that gravity might stop working. In any case, what we know now is what we know. We can't keep doubting it for no reason. When some reason comes long, then we'll see if it needs correcting. Till then, let's have faith in what we know so far.
Those are loopholes easy to plug. We can even get innovative and make them pay a percentage of their last three years of profits! Let's see them wiggle around now :D
They can't do that. Their stock price would crash and their execs wouldn't get their bonuses etc...
Like others have mentioned, court costs are minuscule for Apple. As it is for most big corporations. A better financial punishment I feel would be to pay a percentage of their profits for the next two years. The percentage depending on how frivolous the court thinks the case was.
Let's see Apple (or any other corporation) file a frivolous case now.
Just because we can't know a position and vector of a particle now doesn't mean we won't ever be able to.
Yes it does. The Heisenburg uncertainty principle is not a limitation of technology. It's a law of the universe. It's like saying "just because gravity exists today doesn't mean it will exist sometime in the future."
The main point is "so what?" Suppose detailed research actually shows that open source software is killing jobs, are we going to do anything about it? No. Open source software is here to stay and if it kills jobs, too bad.
When broadcasting a chess match, the camera should only zoom in on the piece the player is actually touching at the moment. Allowing a bird's eye view of the board will expose the various strategies the player uses and is considered proprietary information by the player and his or her team.
Thank you! Now I understand.
Wow - there has to be an easier way to explain this. A two three sentence summary perhaps? Like what the problem was before, what great thing was conceived of and what the threat currently is...
If only that logic applied to Dolphins....
I think it's pretty clear that there are no "rules" here. It's just random.
Fishes are pretty carnivorous. Pigs are omnivores too. Humans will eat anything, but most still have a strange aversion to some animals - don't know why.
I doubt if utility is a good enough reason. We could always create more dogs to eat and keep some for utility. Chickens, cows etc are all utility animals, but we rear them separately for separate functions. No reason why we can't eat horses using the same formula...
It can't be personal preference since the overwhelming majority of people have never tasted a dog...so what is the preference based on if not on taste?
Dogs...mmmmm! Is there any reason why dogs should avoid ending up on people's plates worldwide?
I will blame Apple. I'm not saying what Apple is doing is illegal. I'm saying they're a jerk. They're not being "nice." And that costs them goodwill. People don't like companies which don't do "nice" things.
But we'll design robots to not have a "survival instinct" so they'll be miserable without humans to care for. In other words, no selfish robots.
That's a great idea. A "salary" to each person will ensure that no one consumes far more than their fair share.
We're talking about a situation where a robot can provide everything you've laid out - even women who are indistinguishable from "real" women. So we'll have butler robots, butler chefs and maybe even butler musicians. The robots will also manufacture everything and even build more of themselves when needed. Since robots will be able to replicate themselves, the price of robots will drop to almost nothing since there will be an infinite supply of robots. We'll have an army to serve humans :D
It'll be the era of everything being free. Humans can sit back and relax while machines grow our food and take care of us. Everything will be free :)
As someone else posted this link above - Xerox sues Apple: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html
:D
:) . No but seriously, if I stumble upon a fairy I'll have to reverse my disbelief and admit that I was wrong. I may blush with shame, but I'll do it!
Mmm...is she a pretty fairy and can she make me her size (or grow to mine) and does she like me?
Well, look at it this way. Let's say the probability of a unicorn/leprechaun/fairy/peter pan existing is 0.0000001% . Now I have two choices. Maintaining an agnostic position or not believing at all.
Admitting that there is a slight possibility of these things existing takes up a bit of mental resources for each item - since I'm on the look out for "evidence", justifying my possible belief to strangers who think I'm crazy, having to take into account the fact that a fairy is under every flower etc. Since the number of things that could exist is immense, I actually spend a lot of time factoring in that minuscule percentage for no good reason - since they probably don't exist.
Disbelieving entirely on the other hand is a far more efficient strategy. I'm not going to lose out on much - it's a risk I'll take!
I guess you're "agnostic" towards fairies and the bogey man too. Sheesh, how is it that religious people can't see that their "god" is as ridiculous as a leprechaun?
There are things which are "default" until proved otherwise. It's not belief. It's a given. It's a "default" that unicorns don't exist - not a belief. It's a "default" that fairies are imaginary - no one "believes" that fairies don't exist. They know. fairies don't exist. Because that's the default.
Similarly, it's a "default" that god is imaginary. No one is a "non-believer" in god. Those professing belief have to prove their belief. So we have believers in god. Not believers in no god.
No - screw the children. I'm tired of looking out for the little runts all the time. I don't even have kids, so...not my problem!