I know astrology is very old, but technically, the term itself still originally only meant what I was saying.. predicting when particular events would occur that are genuinely causally tied to the positions and movement of the sun, stars. moon, and planets, relative to how they are appear from earth. As I said, this could be used to predict eclipses, conjunctions, what time of year a particular star would be at its zenith, and many other natural phenomena. That this got somehow linked to other phenomena that actually happen on earth is technically not part of whaty astrology actually meant,, but it came to be so at some point. I can easily see that mindset starting to develop many thousands of years ago, but I do not think that the term itself came to refer rather exclusively to predicting the events that happen here on earth happened considerably more recently.
There may exist a way to test whether if there really is a god or not as well... it's just that you have to be actually dead to find out.... you certainly can't communicate the results to anyone, regardless.
The biblical god could also be considered to be disproved if humanity itself were utterly wiped out. Some future species which may evolve intelligence later, or aliens visiting earth and doing archeological research might stumble across the belief system and would be able to recognize it as false because of the outcome.
At the topmost level, math would have been an arbitrary invention by the creator of his or her simulation, but given that there would be many more simulated universes than not (since any unsimulated universe can run any number of simulated ones, and every simulated one can run any furrther number of simulated ones), this suggests that any given universe is much more likely to be a simulation than not one.
Even if the universe actually is deterministic, it appears to present us with an illusion of free will, that is, we can analyze a set of data presented before us, and make what we believe is a free willed decision about what to do in the future. This apparent free will is indistinguishable to us from what actual free will may be, and is, in fact, sufficient to suggest that both that free will actually does exist and in turn that the universe is non-deterministic.
Because if the universe were deterministic, then it would be somehow possible to anticipate what its state will be in the future from a given state, but with the appearance of free will, we can still make a decision (that appears to be free willed) with the data of such a prediction, which could, in turn, affect the state and change its outcome from what was predicted, if even only on a scale that is insignificant (for example, determining the color of socks that the person will supposedly wear the next day, and making the decision beforehand to deliberately wear a different color from whatever the prediction indicates). And if we could not choose to do something like this, then it would not be the case that we appear to have free will at all. Therefore we do, and the universe is non-deterministic.
Or perhaps the person is simply ignorant of any evidence to support such claims which you apparently seem to possess in such abundance. I actually haven't seen anything to support it either, for that matter, so from where I sit, the allegation strikes me more as being an unprovable conspiracy theory, and I would consider the notion as improbable as well.
Suggesting that someone who simply disbelieves a criticism must somehow be lying to protect them is even at best a variant of ad-hominem, and at worst, indicative of a possibly less than clear grasp of what is actually real and what is not.
The thing is, originally, astrology *was* a very scientific term. It refered to the practical application of astronomy to predict natural phenomena, such as when eclipses would occur, what time of year a partiicular star would be at its highest position in the sky, when planetary conjunctions would occur, etc.
Somewhere along the line, somebody got it in their head that the events which happen on earth and in individual people's lives are somehow causally connected to the movements of celestial objects as they are observed from earth, and so it started getting used to predict that as well (of course there was never any scientific basis for this), I think that perhaps because that use was something that everyone could identify with, whether or not they actually studed the stars at all, this may have been a contributing factor which caused it to become the most heavily associated application of the term, which in turn led to what we understand as the modern definition, for which again, there is no scientific basis.
Of course, this probably predates much of the english language itself, at least as we know it... the origins of how the term became more identified with what we know it as today than what it originally meant, which is actually very scientific in principle, is probably at least a thousand or more years old.
That would be assuming quite a lot on their part... most obviously it would be assuming that absolutely nobody else may be at the same address at the same time who also has a phone capable of calling 911 or streaming video. Reasonably, they would probably have to brick every phone within about a city block of where you are to be absolutely sure.
It said "Freely available", not just "publicly available" If it's freely available, that means that it's available without restrictions, or without costs, which I'm pretty sure would also mean legally public.
The summary specified "freely available", not merely "publicly available". Freely available connotes, by definition, being available for free, and not requiring any sort of payment. Just because something is open to the public doesn't mean that it's free.
Most reasonably, bricking a device OTA would require using a code which is set by the user of the device when they first get it, and does not get reset simply by changing sim cards. When a person legitimately sells their phone or trades it in for an upgraded phone, they would have to clear that code first,,, and clearing it should in turn require that the current one be entered on the device first.
Now obviously, this isn't going to stop a thief who is so desperate to steal your cell phone that he will threaten you with extreme bodily harm or death if you don't give him the code so that he can clear it himself, but I'd dare say that doesn't account for most cell phone thefts, which are probably just grab-n-dash.
Anyways... If the content is already freely available, then the content is already available to the public, isn't it? in what way would a hyperlink constitute an illegal communication to the public when the content itself is, in fact, already public?
Although the "guy in the sky" is frequently painted as being compassionate and forgiving, being forgiven by someone who allegedly knows exactly what's in everyone's heart would require considerably more than simply saying sorry, it would require actually *being* sorry. And not just circumstantially, either; since it's easy to express what feels like being sincerely sorry for something when you are facing imminent punishment for it. What sorriness in such circumstances often amounts to in actuality is usually just resentment for being caught, and not actually a genuine change of heart. There is a difference, you see, between just "being sorry", and "repentance". The latter is not just being sorry, it's being sorry enough to want to quit. For good.
Being religious isn't necessarily comforting... in fact, I'd suggest that in many ways it is far more comforting to believe that death is really the end of the line, rather than face the prospect of living with the consequences of the choices that one makes for all of eternity. In what way is that particulalry comforting unless you really believe yourself to be absolutely perfect (and most religious people I know do not).
Slashdot Mirror
We may not need every device to have a publicly routable address, but we will need more than what ipv4+nat can provide service for
I know astrology is very old, but technically, the term itself still originally only meant what I was saying.. predicting when particular events would occur that are genuinely causally tied to the positions and movement of the sun, stars. moon, and planets, relative to how they are appear from earth. As I said, this could be used to predict eclipses, conjunctions, what time of year a particular star would be at its zenith, and many other natural phenomena. That this got somehow linked to other phenomena that actually happen on earth is technically not part of whaty astrology actually meant,, but it came to be so at some point. I can easily see that mindset starting to develop many thousands of years ago, but I do not think that the term itself came to refer rather exclusively to predicting the events that happen here on earth happened considerably more recently.
Did you notice the part about it being built out of LEGO?
Obviously it's not a final production model..
There may exist a way to test whether if there really is a god or not as well... it's just that you have to be actually dead to find out.... you certainly can't communicate the results to anyone, regardless.
The biblical god could also be considered to be disproved if humanity itself were utterly wiped out. Some future species which may evolve intelligence later, or aliens visiting earth and doing archeological research might stumble across the belief system and would be able to recognize it as false because of the outcome.
At the topmost level, math would have been an arbitrary invention by the creator of his or her simulation, but given that there would be many more simulated universes than not (since any unsimulated universe can run any number of simulated ones, and every simulated one can run any furrther number of simulated ones), this suggests that any given universe is much more likely to be a simulation than not one.
Even if the universe actually is deterministic, it appears to present us with an illusion of free will, that is, we can analyze a set of data presented before us, and make what we believe is a free willed decision about what to do in the future. This apparent free will is indistinguishable to us from what actual free will may be, and is, in fact, sufficient to suggest that both that free will actually does exist and in turn that the universe is non-deterministic.
Because if the universe were deterministic, then it would be somehow possible to anticipate what its state will be in the future from a given state, but with the appearance of free will, we can still make a decision (that appears to be free willed) with the data of such a prediction, which could, in turn, affect the state and change its outcome from what was predicted, if even only on a scale that is insignificant (for example, determining the color of socks that the person will supposedly wear the next day, and making the decision beforehand to deliberately wear a different color from whatever the prediction indicates). And if we could not choose to do something like this, then it would not be the case that we appear to have free will at all. Therefore we do, and the universe is non-deterministic.
But this is? Which I think is the above poster's point.
Or perhaps the person is simply ignorant of any evidence to support such claims which you apparently seem to possess in such abundance. I actually haven't seen anything to support it either, for that matter, so from where I sit, the allegation strikes me more as being an unprovable conspiracy theory, and I would consider the notion as improbable as well.
Suggesting that someone who simply disbelieves a criticism must somehow be lying to protect them is even at best a variant of ad-hominem, and at worst, indicative of a possibly less than clear grasp of what is actually real and what is not.
The thing is, originally, astrology *was* a very scientific term. It refered to the practical application of astronomy to predict natural phenomena, such as when eclipses would occur, what time of year a partiicular star would be at its highest position in the sky, when planetary conjunctions would occur, etc.
Somewhere along the line, somebody got it in their head that the events which happen on earth and in individual people's lives are somehow causally connected to the movements of celestial objects as they are observed from earth, and so it started getting used to predict that as well (of course there was never any scientific basis for this), I think that perhaps because that use was something that everyone could identify with, whether or not they actually studed the stars at all, this may have been a contributing factor which caused it to become the most heavily associated application of the term, which in turn led to what we understand as the modern definition, for which again, there is no scientific basis.
Of course, this probably predates much of the english language itself, at least as we know it... the origins of how the term became more identified with what we know it as today than what it originally meant, which is actually very scientific in principle, is probably at least a thousand or more years old.
That would be assuming quite a lot on their part... most obviously it would be assuming that absolutely nobody else may be at the same address at the same time who also has a phone capable of calling 911 or streaming video. Reasonably, they would probably have to brick every phone within about a city block of where you are to be absolutely sure.
My point being that if they had ever had any legitimate right to do so, then by definition, the content would not have been "freely available".
It said "Freely available", not just "publicly available" If it's freely available, that means that it's available without restrictions, or without costs, which I'm pretty sure would also mean legally public.
Which is why the first two words of my above post were carefully chosen: "Most reasonably,...."
The summary specified "freely available", not merely "publicly available". Freely available connotes, by definition, being available for free, and not requiring any sort of payment. Just because something is open to the public doesn't mean that it's free.
Most reasonably, bricking a device OTA would require using a code which is set by the user of the device when they first get it, and does not get reset simply by changing sim cards. When a person legitimately sells their phone or trades it in for an upgraded phone, they would have to clear that code first,,, and clearing it should in turn require that the current one be entered on the device first.
Now obviously, this isn't going to stop a thief who is so desperate to steal your cell phone that he will threaten you with extreme bodily harm or death if you don't give him the code so that he can clear it himself, but I'd dare say that doesn't account for most cell phone thefts, which are probably just grab-n-dash.
(but as my wife would say.... what else is new?)
Anyways... If the content is already freely available, then the content is already available to the public, isn't it? in what way would a hyperlink constitute an illegal communication to the public when the content itself is, in fact, already public?
Wasn't Android derived from Linux?
And isn't Linux GPL?
What's going on here? Why is Google allowed to limit what others can do with GPL code?
I didn't see any of them that look like they'd do stairs...Also, I'm unsure if any of them would do both hard floor and carpets equally well.
Which has what to do with games or 3d engines, exactly?
Go ahead.... take a wild guess how well that excuse holds up if you ever get dinged with a fine for reselling.
Although the "guy in the sky" is frequently painted as being compassionate and forgiving, being forgiven by someone who allegedly knows exactly what's in everyone's heart would require considerably more than simply saying sorry, it would require actually *being* sorry. And not just circumstantially, either; since it's easy to express what feels like being sincerely sorry for something when you are facing imminent punishment for it. What sorriness in such circumstances often amounts to in actuality is usually just resentment for being caught, and not actually a genuine change of heart. There is a difference, you see, between just "being sorry", and "repentance". The latter is not just being sorry, it's being sorry enough to want to quit. For good.
Ah... I did not realize that the person to whom they were responding was actually modded at -1, and I did not see their post at all.
Being religious isn't necessarily comforting... in fact, I'd suggest that in many ways it is far more comforting to believe that death is really the end of the line, rather than face the prospect of living with the consequences of the choices that one makes for all of eternity. In what way is that particulalry comforting unless you really believe yourself to be absolutely perfect (and most religious people I know do not).
it's not my boycott... I thought the whole idea was ridiculous.
Weren't you guys supposed to be boycotting slashdot this week?