I'm not sure why you were flagged as a troll, because most of those are actually pretty good questions. Ultimately, however, most of those questions cannot reasonably be answered at this time because no experiments have been designed to address them, either because nobody knows how to design experiments that could practially address such questions, or else simply because of our own incomplete understanding of the universe.
It is, however, a far cry to suggest that simply because we do not yet (or will ever) know everything there is to know about the universe is somehow sufficient to probabilistically suggest that the things that we *do* believe that we know about it at any one time are actually entirely wrong... which I suppose someone may have interpreted your post as, and why it may have been flagged as a troll. To be fair, there are plenty of things that we don't even know about the universe that we actually *CAN* observe, while trying to conjecture about aspects of the universe that we have absolutely no technological means to objectively observe (nor based on our current understanding, are we ever likely to) can only be the subject of conjecture, and not science.
Long story short, you aren't liable to find any scientifically sustainable answers to those questions here, and because of how short a period of time that humans ordinarily live compared to the age of the cosmos, you are probably also not likely to find such answers to them in your lifetime. So while you can ask those questions, you shouldn't be surprised when you don't receive helpful answers.
Their conclusion.... "An all girls environment is reasonably necessary for the school to improve the self-confidence of girls in their academic abilities" is flawed... while there may be some statistical evidence that students in segregated education perform better academically than those in schools where the genders are together, they are completely mistaking correlation as causation. Demographically, there is a very strong correlation between family income and the school that one attends in the first place, and somehow they completely overlook that this might in any way be a contributing factor to improved academic performance rather than the academic environment itself. I don't argue that the academic environment may contribute to a small extent, but I'd bet its significance comes in at a distant second place compared to the environment in which the child was actually raised. I don't know of any study that shows that sexually segregated education performs statistically any better than conventional public education except to the extent that the people who usually go to those kinds of schools usually have a higher income and can in turn often afford a higher quality of education in the first place.
If I am being paid fairly for work I am actually doing, why should I care whether or not somebody who may happen to have a lesser education than I happens to be getting paid the same amount or something very similar? In my opinion, wasting anything more than a passing thought on the matter is just being childishly petty, and I think would amount to blaming other people for one's dissatisfaction with their own life. In fact, if one ever feels they are worth more just because somebody else that *they* think should be a lower pay grade is making just as much as they are, then I might suggest they actually have self-esteem issues that are entirely tied to how much they are making, which is a very very sad way to live one's life. Who, after all, am I to decide how much anyone else should be worth to someone else?
the summary stated that everyone *would* be getting a raise... indicating that perhaps many employees were not being paid fairly for the amount or types of work they were doing. Oh, and giving formerly underpaid employees fair compensation henceforth *IS* generally about the most an employer can do to provide incentive for them to work harder.
Nothing wrong with their driver *NOW*.... Their suckage comes from the fact that they could, at any time, stop making any real effort to support Linux with drivers of comparable quality to what they have for Windows, and it would leave the Linux community without any good options.
If (or when) NVidia stops putting effort into supporting Linux enough to produce drivers that are of a comparable quality to their larger markets is when you'll really start to hear an outcry. People are complaining now, but that's nothing compared to what will happen if or when NVidia decides that Linux is just not worth any effort to put any quality amount of effort into.
Of course, as I said... by that time it will be too late.
So... AMD or NVidia... it reminds me of an election where there are are really only two viable candidates and both of them suck.
The problem is the way that they covered up the cases and protected the abusers.
And the way this was done was identical to how child abuse can remain undetected in a family for years....
My point is that the real problem is not with the church or how it is organized, it is more deeply rooted in a type of social disfunction that can occur in any environment where there is implied element of trust. Such trust is not typically associated with public organizations outside of a church or similar setting, which is why it appears to happen more frequently in churches than elsewhere. In truth, it unfortunately happens more than an order of magnitude more frequently in families and people's own homes, often without anyone else being the wiser. Should we abolish families because of that?
While certainly religions of all kinds, including Catholicism, have been used to condone absolutely abhorrent behavior in the past, it is all that anyone can do to realize that mistakes have been made, and to at least try to avoid repeating the same ones, which is the policy that the Catholic church attempts to utilize.
You do of course realize that the frequency with which pedophilia occurs with clergy has been overblown by the media, right? I'm not excusing it or saying that it's ever going to be in any way acceptable, but the entire reason it that pedophilia in churches was ever such big news is not because of how frequently it was occurring, but because of the emotional response that such news effectively creates. Per capita, in fact, it is not any more probable in a church setting than what statistically occurs elsewhere... far less, in fact... it considerably more likely, for example, to be occurring inside one's own home, but because spinning the story in this way provokes a much stronger emotional response because it is something outside of one's own immediate control that people can get angry about, creating a sensationalistic media haven, and a veritable breeding ground for people to have passionate rather than well-reasoned responses, while just talking about pedophilia in homes, while certainly not any less wrong, would tend to produce a much more defensive response such as "well that doesn't happen in *MY* home", and thus are more dismissive of it.
Of course, none of this should be taken to ever *excuse* the clergy, or anyone for that matter, who abuse children in this way... my point is only that focusing only on how clergy commit pedophilia can take focus off of the fact that it is actually the crime that is truly abhorrent, and not the institution itself. Again, the institution was far less likely to harbor pedophiles than a home itself would be.
So perhaps that's actually part the problem, because the institution has a very communal flavor to it and there tends to be a stronger sense of trust, similar to what one might encounter in one's own home, among the people affiliated with such organizations than what may otherwise occur in a more contemporary public setting, it can conceivably make it statistically more likely to happen in that kind of organization than other types, and may be a contributing factor. Still it happens with disturbingly far more frequency in homes and in family settings than in a church.
Most churches today, owing in no small part to the sensationalistic news that was created about them when stories about them abusing children first broke out in a big way, now have a *LOT* of checks and balances in who they have in positions of authority and how they treat other people, small children or otherwise, and it is thankfully far safer in such environments in that respect now than even what it used to be. Is it perfect? No... but it's getting better, and that shouldn't be ignored.
Why, exactly, do you think religious radio stations don't play any music?
I'd suggest that the reason religious radio stations are excluded is not because they don't play music, but probably has to do with which music labels they can actually arrange to pay royalties to, and the fact that many religious music artists do not deal with those labels.
If one has an opinion, especially if it is backed by facts, that goes against mainstream or even what is politically correct, then that is a different story.
And yet, quite routinely, I have seen people getting flagged as trolls right here on slashdot, myself included, for doing no less and no more than precisely what you are describing here.
Unfortunately all too often on social media sites, expressing one's own opinion can get you ganged up upon and removed.
Clearly what matters is not so much what actually makes one a troll as much as whether other people, particularly people with power, inflluence, or control actually *believe* a person is a troll... Any non-trollish intent of the poster is entirely irrelevant.
If you saw a red light as green, then the speed you must have been approaching it at to induce an effective doppler shift from what was about 680 nm wavelength photons which are normally seen as red, to about 540 nm, or the green portion of the visible spectrum would suggest that you were speeding by no small margin.
Tetrachromatic vision doesn't quite fit the bill for "normal". It's common, sure... but still quite far from typical. As a trichromat, you are visually disadvantaged to, at the most, perhaps as much as 30% of the human race.
.. almost as long ago as when biittorrent was invented, as a means to abate so-called
flash crowds
on the internet... more colloquially known in these parts as the slashdot effect... If everyone visiting a web page with a large quantity of multimedia content helped to distribute the data that would otherwise have to be supplied by the website, the web server would be generally able to tolerate larger numbers of people simultaneously accessing it.
Except the EFF isn't arguing that.... nice strawman you did there.
The EFF is only arguing that the DMCA should not apply.... ordinary copyright law is still entirely applicable. If somebody else makes a server for your software by reverse engineering the protocol so that that the game could connect to it, then they haven't necessarily actually copied any of your work at all, but the DMCA would still apply. All the EFF suggests with their proposal is that after such a game has been abandoned because the copyright holder is no longer hosting said server, the DMCA would not apply to such activities. Conventional copyright law would still disallow actions that otherwise infringe on copyright, such as either making unauthorized copies of said work or creating derivative works.
The linked article says that "a user cannot hack the server-based authentication and âoematchmakingâ access controls for console-based video games without also hacking the video game console access controls", and then applies the "wolf in sheep's clothing" metaphor to it. I won't argue that this might be a concern for the ESA, and if the concern were a legitimate one, I can even potentially see how it could be a problem with respect to software that hasn't been abandoned, but does anyone have any further details about how they actually came to that conclusion? Bearing in mind that even if such "hacking" were done for genuinely nefarious purposes with respect to inrfringing on the copyright of software that was current and hadn't been abandoned, the EFF isn't suggesting that copyright law have any less claim over such matters, and action could still be taken against such criminals anyways under ordinary copyright law, I just want to understand what kind of point the ESA believed that they had that would ever give them a justification to disallow what is by their own admission a superficially reasonable activity, to use their own metaphor's words, "in sheep's clothing", under the allegation that it could somehow actually be utilized in much more nefarious ways, or any alleged such connection only exists in their own imagination, and from what I can find on the matter, this is the conclusion I am inclined to come to. If the latter is genuinely applicable, then the ESA is basing their entire objection upon a concern that doesn't have any bearing on reality (as I suspect they may be),. and is doing nothing more or less with this objection than making a strawman argument, and should be called on that.
The halting problem illustrates the underlying principle that is generalized by the thought experiment. If the universe were genuinely deterministic, then its current state is sufficient to predict a future state... except the thought experiment shows that the current state cannot ever be sufficient to predict a future state where any possible alleged-future state that might be predicted from the current state will always be wrong. Even if the predictor it were wrapped up in a neat little magical black box that didn't really care what was being done with its information, but simply blindly presented a prediction that was supposedly accurate based on the universe's current state, there is no possibility that it could ever be correct if it were ever utilized in this fashion, and since insufficient information exists to predict a future in this scenario, the universe apparently cannot be deterministic.
The GPL is just the terms and conditions that you have to agree to in order to have permission to copy the work, and in particular, to create derivative works from it. The GPL can do this because stuff put under it is copyrighted, and you need the copyright holder's permission to make copies of copyrighted works outside of what would have ordinarily been considered fair use in the first place.... all the GPL does is outline the terms you have to agree to in order to receive such permission. If you don't want to comply, there's no permission given in the first place, so there's actually no unwanted viral aspect to it at all. If the terms are simply disagreeable to you, you may, at your option, try and contact the copyright holder to obtain alternate licensing arrangements for your special case, but the copyright holder is no more obligated to give anyone such permission than Paramount is obligated to give anyone permission to make their own for-profit Star Trek film.
You did preemptive multitasking on the Apple//? Way cool.... mine was strictly a cooperative multitasker, although it considered waiting for input (either from a remote connection or the keyboard) to be indicative that it was safe for the task requesting input to yield control. I had no hardware clock in my apple, so I could not do full-preemptive multitasking. As I said, when I was writing it I didn't even know the word 'multitasking' would describe what I was doing... I always described the mechanism as having "swappable stacks and I/O" so that it was easy to write in basic, for example, a multi-user bulletin board where the main program didn't have to concern itself with coordinating input and output for all other users (this was actually the specific purpose for which it was designed). With my OS extension taking care of which thread was talking to which I/O system (which modem, or the keyboard/screen) it actually was pretty cool.
And I know full well that prodos's basic.system is not a language, it was the part of the OS that was loaded into regular ram and interfaced with applesoft basic, understanding such things as ctrl-d on output being a DOS request. the mechanism I used replaced the basic.system file entirely. At the time, it was the largest assembly project I had ever tackled, clocking in at about 6.5K after it was assembled and linked, and sat at the top of ram, where basic.system ordinarily resided.
This coupled with the fact you can use the 256 bytes of zero page...
Except for the anoying detail that if you wanted to be interoperable with anything that was written in Applesoft Basic and ProDOS, weren't very many of them to really play around with.. One would usually have to resort to saving most of the entries they wanted to use, and then restoring them upon exit. This works, but I recall it wasn't very amenable to being interrupted with reset. While writing a custom reset handler mitigated some of that, in practice one would always need to reserve at least a couple of zero page memory locations that weren't being used by anyone else to actually have a genuinely robust system that wouldn't ever crash. When I was writing my Applesoft multitasker operating system as a replacement for ProDOS's basic.system back in the mid 1980's (I find it personally amusing when recalling the endeavor that I wrote it before I ever even knew what the word "multitasking" was, actually), I found that I needed to still have a few zero page memory locations that I would have to completely rely on to not get stomped on anything else even when my code was not actually running in order to have a usable system.
[Turing machines] don't figure out what they'd do and then do the opposite, unless you just invert the programming.
Again, there is nothing that the Turing machine would ever need to figure out... it simply needs to just blindly do the opposite of whatever some black box says is supposed to happen... there is no "intelligence" behind this decision, it is simply flawlessly executing the instructions that would have been programmed into it, and the only way the box could ever be correct is if the machine were malfunctioning... a malfunction is not outside of the realm of possibility, but a malfunction is also generally outside of the scope of any thought experiment that involves a Turing machine in the first place. The only "thinking" that might arguably be involved is inside of the black box, which reports whatever it is that is about to happen.. But the only thing the Turing machine does is take the information the bllack box provides as its input and outputs the inverse. So in theory, the Turing machine would simply always do the opposite of whatever the black box said is going to happen happen, and in theory, the black box will always say what is about to happen.
Except of course... the black box *CAN'T* always say what is going to happen... as the thought experiment illustrates.
The fact that no such black box could ever be constructed does not change the fact that no possible quantity of information would ever be sufficient to predict a future where information about the future would ever be used to produce its opposite. The universe's current state is insufficient to predict the future and simply cannot be entirely deterministic.
It just means that you can't write down the state of the entire universe using only the matter present inside of it.
Except that's generally understood to be what materialistic determinism *IS*... so I'm not sure if you meant to or not, but you've really just sort of agreed with me there.
But of course...
I have no idea whether the universe is deterministic.
For someone who is professing to have no idea, you seem to be abnormally determined to convince me that my conclusions are invalid... perhaps you should try to figure out why you believe what you do.... or if you don't know what you believe, I might suggest you should stop trying to point out what you think may be wrong with another person's ideas just because you don't happen to agree with their conclusions, because otherwise you just come across as somebody who wants to disagree for the sake of being disagreeable, and not somebody who has actually made any real attempt to rationally think through their beliefs.
Again, it's not being suggested that walking is necessarily the overall most efficient means of unpowered transport, or necessarily anywhere even close... rather, it is being suggested that the way humans do it is about efficient in energy usage as you can physically get and still be able to actually still *call* it walking, and not just simply generalize it as "unpowered locomotion".
Cycling may use the same muscles as what walking does, but cycling isn't walking. You use the same muscles as walking while roller blading, arguably even more similarly to walking than cycling is, but that's not considered walking either.
The question at hand, however, is can *WALKING* be made much more efficient than the way humans do it naturally? This exoskeleton only improved efficiency very nominally... And the fact that there can exist no shortage of ways to get from point A to point B using the exact same muscles as walking far more efficiently than walking, but without walking in the first place, is entirely irrelevant.
Of course there is. If it's less efficient than cycling, then energy is lost somewhere in the system
Its less efficient than cycling, as was pointed out above, but again.... cycling isn't walking. I'm not arguing that there are much more energy efficient means of unpowered locomotion, the article merely suggests that the way that humans have evolved to walk may very well be nearly as efficient as *walking* can physically get.
The fact that there provably exists far more efficient modes of externally unpowered movement that no longer qualify as walking in the first place is entirely beside the point.
Suggesting that walking could be made more efficient simply because cycling happens to more efficient than walking is a complete non-sequitur, at best. It's like suggesting that you should be able to get just as much energy out of a coal furnace as a nuclear one of the same size. You have to completely change the way you are using the energy in the first place to get that much more efficient energy utilization, and after you've done that, you will end up with something that is no longer in the same category of system where you started (coal furnace vs nuclear furnace). Using this exoskeleton to move around is marginally more efficient than walking without it, but I'd suggest that using it still at least qualifies as walking. If you are going to argue that it doesn't, then that's a different matter... but it doesn't defeat the point being made about the way humans walk being very efficient
One might conclude that the only way to make unpowered locomotion much more efficient than how humans walk is to resort to mechanisms that no longer qualify as walking... cycling being just one obvious example.
You're not missing anything... Carly is just utilizing an ad-hominem to stir up people's emotions on the matter, and thereby incite a passionate response... some of that passion will fall in her favor, while most of the passion that happens to fall the other way will tend to get diffused by the people who might have already been opposed to her viewpoints, but already have a mindset that this is yet another example of Carly Fiorina just being her whiny and immature self (which is good... an equally passionate rebuttal would probably end badly for everyone... not just Ms Fiorina). It's nothing more or less than her being a manipulative little bitch. Of course, that's nothing new for Carly anyways.
Of course there are more efficient systems for getting around.... but is there much room for improvement for the practice of walking itself?
Walking may admittedly be overall quite inefficient as a means of motion when you compare it to something like cycling, but how humans walk still might be as about efficient as the practice of walking itself can still physically get.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure why you were flagged as a troll, because most of those are actually pretty good questions. Ultimately, however, most of those questions cannot reasonably be answered at this time because no experiments have been designed to address them, either because nobody knows how to design experiments that could practially address such questions, or else simply because of our own incomplete understanding of the universe.
It is, however, a far cry to suggest that simply because we do not yet (or will ever) know everything there is to know about the universe is somehow sufficient to probabilistically suggest that the things that we *do* believe that we know about it at any one time are actually entirely wrong... which I suppose someone may have interpreted your post as, and why it may have been flagged as a troll. To be fair, there are plenty of things that we don't even know about the universe that we actually *CAN* observe, while trying to conjecture about aspects of the universe that we have absolutely no technological means to objectively observe (nor based on our current understanding, are we ever likely to) can only be the subject of conjecture, and not science.
Long story short, you aren't liable to find any scientifically sustainable answers to those questions here, and because of how short a period of time that humans ordinarily live compared to the age of the cosmos, you are probably also not likely to find such answers to them in your lifetime. So while you can ask those questions, you shouldn't be surprised when you don't receive helpful answers.
Their conclusion.... "An all girls environment is reasonably necessary for the school to improve the self-confidence of girls in their academic abilities" is flawed... while there may be some statistical evidence that students in segregated education perform better academically than those in schools where the genders are together, they are completely mistaking correlation as causation. Demographically, there is a very strong correlation between family income and the school that one attends in the first place, and somehow they completely overlook that this might in any way be a contributing factor to improved academic performance rather than the academic environment itself. I don't argue that the academic environment may contribute to a small extent, but I'd bet its significance comes in at a distant second place compared to the environment in which the child was actually raised. I don't know of any study that shows that sexually segregated education performs statistically any better than conventional public education except to the extent that the people who usually go to those kinds of schools usually have a higher income and can in turn often afford a higher quality of education in the first place.
If I am being paid fairly for work I am actually doing, why should I care whether or not somebody who may happen to have a lesser education than I happens to be getting paid the same amount or something very similar? In my opinion, wasting anything more than a passing thought on the matter is just being childishly petty, and I think would amount to blaming other people for one's dissatisfaction with their own life. In fact, if one ever feels they are worth more just because somebody else that *they* think should be a lower pay grade is making just as much as they are, then I might suggest they actually have self-esteem issues that are entirely tied to how much they are making, which is a very very sad way to live one's life. Who, after all, am I to decide how much anyone else should be worth to someone else?
the summary stated that everyone *would* be getting a raise... indicating that perhaps many employees were not being paid fairly for the amount or types of work they were doing. Oh, and giving formerly underpaid employees fair compensation henceforth *IS* generally about the most an employer can do to provide incentive for them to work harder.
Nothing wrong with their driver *NOW*.... Their suckage comes from the fact that they could, at any time, stop making any real effort to support Linux with drivers of comparable quality to what they have for Windows, and it would leave the Linux community without any good options.
If (or when) NVidia stops putting effort into supporting Linux enough to produce drivers that are of a comparable quality to their larger markets is when you'll really start to hear an outcry. People are complaining now, but that's nothing compared to what will happen if or when NVidia decides that Linux is just not worth any effort to put any quality amount of effort into.
Of course, as I said... by that time it will be too late.
So... AMD or NVidia... it reminds me of an election where there are are really only two viable candidates and both of them suck.
And the way this was done was identical to how child abuse can remain undetected in a family for years....
My point is that the real problem is not with the church or how it is organized, it is more deeply rooted in a type of social disfunction that can occur in any environment where there is implied element of trust. Such trust is not typically associated with public organizations outside of a church or similar setting, which is why it appears to happen more frequently in churches than elsewhere. In truth, it unfortunately happens more than an order of magnitude more frequently in families and people's own homes, often without anyone else being the wiser. Should we abolish families because of that?
While certainly religions of all kinds, including Catholicism, have been used to condone absolutely abhorrent behavior in the past, it is all that anyone can do to realize that mistakes have been made, and to at least try to avoid repeating the same ones, which is the policy that the Catholic church attempts to utilize.
You do of course realize that the frequency with which pedophilia occurs with clergy has been overblown by the media, right? I'm not excusing it or saying that it's ever going to be in any way acceptable, but the entire reason it that pedophilia in churches was ever such big news is not because of how frequently it was occurring, but because of the emotional response that such news effectively creates. Per capita, in fact, it is not any more probable in a church setting than what statistically occurs elsewhere... far less, in fact... it considerably more likely, for example, to be occurring inside one's own home, but because spinning the story in this way provokes a much stronger emotional response because it is something outside of one's own immediate control that people can get angry about, creating a sensationalistic media haven, and a veritable breeding ground for people to have passionate rather than well-reasoned responses, while just talking about pedophilia in homes, while certainly not any less wrong, would tend to produce a much more defensive response such as "well that doesn't happen in *MY* home", and thus are more dismissive of it.
Of course, none of this should be taken to ever *excuse* the clergy, or anyone for that matter, who abuse children in this way... my point is only that focusing only on how clergy commit pedophilia can take focus off of the fact that it is actually the crime that is truly abhorrent, and not the institution itself. Again, the institution was far less likely to harbor pedophiles than a home itself would be.
So perhaps that's actually part the problem, because the institution has a very communal flavor to it and there tends to be a stronger sense of trust, similar to what one might encounter in one's own home, among the people affiliated with such organizations than what may otherwise occur in a more contemporary public setting, it can conceivably make it statistically more likely to happen in that kind of organization than other types, and may be a contributing factor. Still it happens with disturbingly far more frequency in homes and in family settings than in a church.
Most churches today, owing in no small part to the sensationalistic news that was created about them when stories about them abusing children first broke out in a big way, now have a *LOT* of checks and balances in who they have in positions of authority and how they treat other people, small children or otherwise, and it is thankfully far safer in such environments in that respect now than even what it used to be. Is it perfect? No... but it's getting better, and that shouldn't be ignored.
As they say...The more you know
Why, exactly, do you think religious radio stations don't play any music?
I'd suggest that the reason religious radio stations are excluded is not because they don't play music, but probably has to do with which music labels they can actually arrange to pay royalties to, and the fact that many religious music artists do not deal with those labels.
And yet, quite routinely, I have seen people getting flagged as trolls right here on slashdot, myself included, for doing no less and no more than precisely what you are describing here.
Clearly what matters is not so much what actually makes one a troll as much as whether other people, particularly people with power, inflluence, or control actually *believe* a person is a troll... Any non-trollish intent of the poster is entirely irrelevant.
If you saw a red light as green, then the speed you must have been approaching it at to induce an effective doppler shift from what was about 680 nm wavelength photons which are normally seen as red, to about 540 nm, or the green portion of the visible spectrum would suggest that you were speeding by no small margin.
Tetrachromatic vision doesn't quite fit the bill for "normal". It's common, sure... but still quite far from typical. As a trichromat, you are visually disadvantaged to, at the most, perhaps as much as 30% of the human race.
on the internet... more colloquially known in these parts as the slashdot effect... If everyone visiting a web page with a large quantity of multimedia content helped to distribute the data that would otherwise have to be supplied by the website, the web server would be generally able to tolerate larger numbers of people simultaneously accessing it.
Except the EFF isn't arguing that.... nice strawman you did there.
The EFF is only arguing that the DMCA should not apply.... ordinary copyright law is still entirely applicable. If somebody else makes a server for your software by reverse engineering the protocol so that that the game could connect to it, then they haven't necessarily actually copied any of your work at all, but the DMCA would still apply. All the EFF suggests with their proposal is that after such a game has been abandoned because the copyright holder is no longer hosting said server, the DMCA would not apply to such activities. Conventional copyright law would still disallow actions that otherwise infringe on copyright, such as either making unauthorized copies of said work or creating derivative works.
The linked article says that "a user cannot hack the server-based authentication and âoematchmakingâ access controls for console-based video games without also hacking the video game console access controls", and then applies the "wolf in sheep's clothing" metaphor to it. I won't argue that this might be a concern for the ESA, and if the concern were a legitimate one, I can even potentially see how it could be a problem with respect to software that hasn't been abandoned, but does anyone have any further details about how they actually came to that conclusion? Bearing in mind that even if such "hacking" were done for genuinely nefarious purposes with respect to inrfringing on the copyright of software that was current and hadn't been abandoned, the EFF isn't suggesting that copyright law have any less claim over such matters, and action could still be taken against such criminals anyways under ordinary copyright law, I just want to understand what kind of point the ESA believed that they had that would ever give them a justification to disallow what is by their own admission a superficially reasonable activity, to use their own metaphor's words, "in sheep's clothing", under the allegation that it could somehow actually be utilized in much more nefarious ways, or any alleged such connection only exists in their own imagination, and from what I can find on the matter, this is the conclusion I am inclined to come to. If the latter is genuinely applicable, then the ESA is basing their entire objection upon a concern that doesn't have any bearing on reality (as I suspect they may be),. and is doing nothing more or less with this objection than making a strawman argument, and should be called on that.
The halting problem illustrates the underlying principle that is generalized by the thought experiment. If the universe were genuinely deterministic, then its current state is sufficient to predict a future state... except the thought experiment shows that the current state cannot ever be sufficient to predict a future state where any possible alleged-future state that might be predicted from the current state will always be wrong. Even if the predictor it were wrapped up in a neat little magical black box that didn't really care what was being done with its information, but simply blindly presented a prediction that was supposedly accurate based on the universe's current state, there is no possibility that it could ever be correct if it were ever utilized in this fashion, and since insufficient information exists to predict a future in this scenario, the universe apparently cannot be deterministic.
The GPL is just the terms and conditions that you have to agree to in order to have permission to copy the work, and in particular, to create derivative works from it. The GPL can do this because stuff put under it is copyrighted, and you need the copyright holder's permission to make copies of copyrighted works outside of what would have ordinarily been considered fair use in the first place.... all the GPL does is outline the terms you have to agree to in order to receive such permission. If you don't want to comply, there's no permission given in the first place, so there's actually no unwanted viral aspect to it at all. If the terms are simply disagreeable to you, you may, at your option, try and contact the copyright holder to obtain alternate licensing arrangements for your special case, but the copyright holder is no more obligated to give anyone such permission than Paramount is obligated to give anyone permission to make their own for-profit Star Trek film.
You did preemptive multitasking on the Apple //? Way cool.... mine was strictly a cooperative multitasker, although it considered waiting for input (either from a remote connection or the keyboard) to be indicative that it was safe for the task requesting input to yield control. I had no hardware clock in my apple, so I could not do full-preemptive multitasking. As I said, when I was writing it I didn't even know the word 'multitasking' would describe what I was doing... I always described the mechanism as having "swappable stacks and I/O" so that it was easy to write in basic, for example, a multi-user bulletin board where the main program didn't have to concern itself with coordinating input and output for all other users (this was actually the specific purpose for which it was designed). With my OS extension taking care of which thread was talking to which I/O system (which modem, or the keyboard/screen) it actually was pretty cool.
And I know full well that prodos's basic.system is not a language, it was the part of the OS that was loaded into regular ram and interfaced with applesoft basic, understanding such things as ctrl-d on output being a DOS request. the mechanism I used replaced the basic.system file entirely. At the time, it was the largest assembly project I had ever tackled, clocking in at about 6.5K after it was assembled and linked, and sat at the top of ram, where basic.system ordinarily resided.
Except for the anoying detail that if you wanted to be interoperable with anything that was written in Applesoft Basic and ProDOS, weren't very many of them to really play around with.. One would usually have to resort to saving most of the entries they wanted to use, and then restoring them upon exit. This works, but I recall it wasn't very amenable to being interrupted with reset. While writing a custom reset handler mitigated some of that, in practice one would always need to reserve at least a couple of zero page memory locations that weren't being used by anyone else to actually have a genuinely robust system that wouldn't ever crash. When I was writing my Applesoft multitasker operating system as a replacement for ProDOS's basic.system back in the mid 1980's (I find it personally amusing when recalling the endeavor that I wrote it before I ever even knew what the word "multitasking" was, actually), I found that I needed to still have a few zero page memory locations that I would have to completely rely on to not get stomped on anything else even when my code was not actually running in order to have a usable system.
Again, there is nothing that the Turing machine would ever need to figure out... it simply needs to just blindly do the opposite of whatever some black box says is supposed to happen... there is no "intelligence" behind this decision, it is simply flawlessly executing the instructions that would have been programmed into it, and the only way the box could ever be correct is if the machine were malfunctioning... a malfunction is not outside of the realm of possibility, but a malfunction is also generally outside of the scope of any thought experiment that involves a Turing machine in the first place. The only "thinking" that might arguably be involved is inside of the black box, which reports whatever it is that is about to happen.. But the only thing the Turing machine does is take the information the bllack box provides as its input and outputs the inverse. So in theory, the Turing machine would simply always do the opposite of whatever the black box said is going to happen happen, and in theory, the black box will always say what is about to happen.
Except of course... the black box *CAN'T* always say what is going to happen... as the thought experiment illustrates. The fact that no such black box could ever be constructed does not change the fact that no possible quantity of information would ever be sufficient to predict a future where information about the future would ever be used to produce its opposite. The universe's current state is insufficient to predict the future and simply cannot be entirely deterministic.
Except that's generally understood to be what materialistic determinism *IS*... so I'm not sure if you meant to or not, but you've really just sort of agreed with me there.
But of course...
For someone who is professing to have no idea, you seem to be abnormally determined to convince me that my conclusions are invalid... perhaps you should try to figure out why you believe what you do.... or if you don't know what you believe, I might suggest you should stop trying to point out what you think may be wrong with another person's ideas just because you don't happen to agree with their conclusions, because otherwise you just come across as somebody who wants to disagree for the sake of being disagreeable, and not somebody who has actually made any real attempt to rationally think through their beliefs.
And lowering yourself to her level by namecalling accomplishes what, exactly?
Again, it's not being suggested that walking is necessarily the overall most efficient means of unpowered transport, or necessarily anywhere even close... rather, it is being suggested that the way humans do it is about efficient in energy usage as you can physically get and still be able to actually still *call* it walking, and not just simply generalize it as "unpowered locomotion".
Cycling may use the same muscles as what walking does, but cycling isn't walking. You use the same muscles as walking while roller blading, arguably even more similarly to walking than cycling is, but that's not considered walking either.
The question at hand, however, is can *WALKING* be made much more efficient than the way humans do it naturally? This exoskeleton only improved efficiency very nominally... And the fact that there can exist no shortage of ways to get from point A to point B using the exact same muscles as walking far more efficiently than walking, but without walking in the first place, is entirely irrelevant.
Its less efficient than cycling, as was pointed out above, but again.... cycling isn't walking. I'm not arguing that there are much more energy efficient means of unpowered locomotion, the article merely suggests that the way that humans have evolved to walk may very well be nearly as efficient as *walking* can physically get.
The fact that there provably exists far more efficient modes of externally unpowered movement that no longer qualify as walking in the first place is entirely beside the point.
Suggesting that walking could be made more efficient simply because cycling happens to more efficient than walking is a complete non-sequitur, at best. It's like suggesting that you should be able to get just as much energy out of a coal furnace as a nuclear one of the same size. You have to completely change the way you are using the energy in the first place to get that much more efficient energy utilization, and after you've done that, you will end up with something that is no longer in the same category of system where you started (coal furnace vs nuclear furnace). Using this exoskeleton to move around is marginally more efficient than walking without it, but I'd suggest that using it still at least qualifies as walking. If you are going to argue that it doesn't, then that's a different matter... but it doesn't defeat the point being made about the way humans walk being very efficient
One might conclude that the only way to make unpowered locomotion much more efficient than how humans walk is to resort to mechanisms that no longer qualify as walking... cycling being just one obvious example.
You're not missing anything... Carly is just utilizing an ad-hominem to stir up people's emotions on the matter, and thereby incite a passionate response... some of that passion will fall in her favor, while most of the passion that happens to fall the other way will tend to get diffused by the people who might have already been opposed to her viewpoints, but already have a mindset that this is yet another example of Carly Fiorina just being her whiny and immature self (which is good... an equally passionate rebuttal would probably end badly for everyone... not just Ms Fiorina). It's nothing more or less than her being a manipulative little bitch. Of course, that's nothing new for Carly anyways.
Of course there are more efficient systems for getting around.... but is there much room for improvement for the practice of walking itself?
Walking may admittedly be overall quite inefficient as a means of motion when you compare it to something like cycling, but how humans walk still might be as about efficient as the practice of walking itself can still physically get.