That was kind of my point... the alleged fair dealing provisions that are found in the bill are essentially moot for practically any technology developed since the turn of the century, so it's not really any sort of "consumer protection" at all.
So I'm kind of wondering what sort of "compromise" they are talking about that allegedly benefits consumers that would somehow warrant that Canada still be on the "naughty list"?
Depending on your jurisdiction, merely knowingly possessing infringing copies of copyrighted works can be against the law too... much like knowingly possessing stolen merchandise, or counterfeit currency. Of course, the out on the matter of either of the latter is that, depending where you got it from, you may be able to plausibly present a case that you never knew its status... It's a bit trickier arguing that you don't know the status of works which you find on a site called "pirate bay", or any of a number of other sites that make no particular attempt to portray themselves as authorized sources for the content. Probably not impossible mind you, but almost certainly quite a bit trickier. In either case, the very least that would happen in such jurisdictions is that infringing copies would be destroyed, at the possessor's expense. How plausible any argument you might present that you didn't know its actual status would probably specify whether or not there would be criminal penalties applicable. At any rate, I'd imagine there's be a pretty good chance you wouldn't be able to use the same excuse again.
Possibly... but here they just made a crappy choice period. And the fact that it's not even really part of GNU means that they don't even have an excuse for it other than ignorance.
Perl is not a remotely elegant or clean language to develop in, and I have completely lost count of the number of projects I've seen written in it, as they evolved, showed a distinct propensity to quickly *DE*volve into an undecipherable mess. It's a language that is best avoided in the 21st century, because there are many alternatives, equally free, and equally, if not more, useful.
I'm Canadian... and I've tried to stay informed about the copyright reform laws, and I'm completely unaware of any sort of compromise that supposedly protects consumers. Bill C-32, which passed just last year, leaves consumers of copyrighted content with virtually no choices with respect to almost any technology developed since roughly the turn of the 21st century. So... how is buggery considered "protection", exactly?
ID does not attempt to remotely answer any "why"... it really only offers a hypothesis about "what". It's an alternative to the notion that life developed here entirely by chance. Nothing more, and nothing less. Creationism is entirely compatible with ID, but really, they aren't actually the same thing. ID only attempts to convey a notion of what happened to start life here, on this planet. Not elsewhere. It does not preclude the possibility that the originator of life here may have evolved elsewhere, while creationism does.
And if ID were actually true, it would not mean that the entire notion of natural selection was false, it would only mean that we, here and today, on this planet, were not actually a byproduct of that process.
For example, an unusual shaped mound of sand that you might find on the beach might have been formed by natural processes, but that does not necessarily mean that it *WAS*. Nor does it even mean that it was particularly likely (or unlikely for that matter).
As for notion that ID does not really answer "how", once we've created artificial life ourselves (and we're getting closer all the time), we may very well have an answer. In fact, that may arguably be the most interesting aspect of ID... when we "intelligently design" a new life form ourselves. The great irony would be if such life forms, upon developing intelligence, and many hundreds of thousands of generations later, started debating amongst themselves whether or not they were ever "intelligently designed", or if they would simply take the existence of phenomena that we had designed for them for granted as part of a natural process, that is completely unguided.
For what it's worth, ID does not equate to creationism. I'm not saying this to give it any more scientific credibility... I'm saying it because ID means only what ID stands for... "intelligent design". Sure. creationism is one possible (and certainly very popular interpretation of ID, but it's not the only one.. ID is not remotely mutually exclusive to the theory of evolution.... it is only mutually exclusive to the the notion that life happened here merely by chance. And believe it or not, it's the only hypothesis that we have about our origins that has even the smallest hope of a chance of ever being ultimately proven, unless we can ever invent time travel and observe what happened directly. Not that this makes it somehow more scientiically valid... it's only real strength is that it gives you a whole lot more to work with than the alternative, which is to just shrug and say that we'll probably never know for sure.
That's kind of my point.. If the fact that a hypothesis doesn't explain something it was never intended to explain should not be reasonably considered a weakness in the hypothesis, then why do is to so common for people criticize ID for the same?
But putting them BOTH in jail has a 66% percent chance of putting an innocent in jail (since in two out of the three possibilities, only one brother is actually guilty, and there is no particular reason to presume that they both are). So.... is a 100% chance of putting a guilty person in jail worth a 66% chance of jailing somebody who is innocent?
Whoever said that either one "always" does anything? Sure, you've alluded to a widely known logic problem, but it's entirely inapplicable to dealing with real people, who will not necessarily (and in fact, rarely) behave predictably.
If I recall correctly, he promised to pull troops out... I don't think he promised to evacuate completely. As for lowering gas prices, well... I don't think that those are actually subject to presidential decision, and it was foolish of him to have ever stated that he could.
The evidence at hand incriminates them both, equally. The innocent party would be entirely justified in denying that they did anything... and could not be considered to be hiding a crime if they did not otherwise know that the brother actually did it. Is there any evidence to suggest that both brothers knew about the incident before they were arrested?
Jar jar was quite skillfully manipulated by Palpatine, but I would not think the emperor-to-be could have necessarily as easily manipulated just anyone. Padme, for instance, having a much stronger will and being considerably wiser than Jar Jar had ever demonstrated himself to be, would probably not have been so hasty to have made that motion, knowing that such a turn of events would move the republic sharply away from a democracy, and heading firmly towards dictatorship, the very concept of which Padme herself expressed profound disapproval to Anakin while they were on Naboo. Palpatine almost certainly recognized this conviction in Padme's personality, which is why he conspired to try to get her off of Coruscant, so that the much more easily manipulatable Gungan would be compelled to be the Naboo representative in her stead.
Still... at no point was the character of Jar Jar ever really *supposed* to be likeable. Comic relief, perhaps... but never overly likeable.
Who says all ID proponents don't believe in evolution? The strongest case for ID isn't that evolution doesn't explain how life itself began, it's that we can't come up with a good justification for the alternative, which is to say "something mysterious happened", nor can we ever hope to actually say any more than this, since any efforts we might undertake to try to artificially recreate conditions in a lab, to see if life can really evolve "on its own" would ultimately be doomed to futility in this regard, because such those conditions would still be, themselves, "intelligently designed".
Most people that I know of who take exception to ID do it for one of three reasons: 1) they stubbornly reject it because of their existing beliefs, and without having any internal understanding of why; 2) it is not falsifiable; or 3) it leaves the question of where the other life began. I was asserting that position 3 is essentially identical to a similar weakness in evolution. If it is not part of evolution's job to explain how life began here, why should it be ID's job to explain how it began elsewhere? Position 1 is exactly the same reason that some religious people reject evolution, and is groundless. Position 2 is a legitimate reason to scientifically reject the hypothesis of ID, but it's important to realize that such rejection is not synonymous with falsehood (of course, such realization is not synonymous with veracity either... so the wisest thing to do is take the hypothesis with a very large grain of salt and move on to things that you actually *CAN* study and measure).
Not at all.... my point was dismissing ID because it does not explain where life originally came from is just as invalid as dismissing evolution for the same reason.
But you raise a good point. ID is far more of an alternative hypothesis to abiogenesis than it is to evolution.
News flash.... The character of Jar Jar isn't supposed to be a particularly likeable one... he's supposed to be an incompetent goof whose gullibility directly leads to Senator Palpatine's ascent to power as Emperor.
This so-called "failing" of ID is equally unaccounted for in the theory of evolution, which necessitates that life itself exists in the first place.
I'm not suggesting that ID is accurate... only that, as I said, short of inventing time travel and somebody going back in time to observe it happening, it's the only hypothesis that we can probably come up with which has even the remotest hope of ever actually being validated. (Of course, what would be truly interesting is if in the process of going back in time to observe it, we end up seeding the planet with the initial genetic material from which life on earth ended up evolving... not sure if you'd call that ID or not, however.)
ID's most significant failing is that it is not falsifiable. But unfalsifiable does not equate to the notion that it never happened (nor does it mean that it did, actually).
ID's only significantly attractive feature is that it is the only hypothesis that there is even the slightest hope of, short of inventing time travel, actually ever finding scientific evidence of (eg, we discover the remains of an ancient advanced alien civilization somewhere, and are able to archeologically ascertain that life on earth was actually genetically engineered by them... or else an ancient superpowerful entity who can observably manipulate reality itself makes him or herself visibly known to the world in a manner that is objectively verifiable).
Not necessarily really *wants* to destroy... probably more along the lines of thinking that the inconvenience (limited range, long recharge time, and drastically increased initial expense) isn't worth the benefit. At worst, they are shortsighted... not necessarily actively wanting to see the end of the world.
If electric cars had a comparable range and recharge time to gasoline cars, you'd see increased adoption. If EV's cost about 10% of what they do right now, you'd see *overwhelming* adoption... within a decade, it would probably be the norm that families would typically have one or more EV's for daily commuting, and probably own no more than one gasoline powered car that they would use only for rarer and much longer trips.
Slashdot Mirror
That was kind of my point... the alleged fair dealing provisions that are found in the bill are essentially moot for practically any technology developed since the turn of the century, so it's not really any sort of "consumer protection" at all.
So I'm kind of wondering what sort of "compromise" they are talking about that allegedly benefits consumers that would somehow warrant that Canada still be on the "naughty list"?
Depending on your jurisdiction, merely knowingly possessing infringing copies of copyrighted works can be against the law too... much like knowingly possessing stolen merchandise, or counterfeit currency. Of course, the out on the matter of either of the latter is that, depending where you got it from, you may be able to plausibly present a case that you never knew its status... It's a bit trickier arguing that you don't know the status of works which you find on a site called "pirate bay", or any of a number of other sites that make no particular attempt to portray themselves as authorized sources for the content. Probably not impossible mind you, but almost certainly quite a bit trickier. In either case, the very least that would happen in such jurisdictions is that infringing copies would be destroyed, at the possessor's expense. How plausible any argument you might present that you didn't know its actual status would probably specify whether or not there would be criminal penalties applicable. At any rate, I'd imagine there's be a pretty good chance you wouldn't be able to use the same excuse again.
Possibly... but here they just made a crappy choice period. And the fact that it's not even really part of GNU means that they don't even have an excuse for it other than ignorance.
Perl is not a remotely elegant or clean language to develop in, and I have completely lost count of the number of projects I've seen written in it, as they evolved, showed a distinct propensity to quickly *DE*volve into an undecipherable mess. It's a language that is best avoided in the 21st century, because there are many alternatives, equally free, and equally, if not more, useful.
Why on earth would they have picked perl? Perl isn't really a native gnu project. At least gcc is.
I'm Canadian... and I've tried to stay informed about the copyright reform laws, and I'm completely unaware of any sort of compromise that supposedly protects consumers. Bill C-32, which passed just last year, leaves consumers of copyrighted content with virtually no choices with respect to almost any technology developed since roughly the turn of the 21st century. So... how is buggery considered "protection", exactly?
ID does not attempt to remotely answer any "why"... it really only offers a hypothesis about "what". It's an alternative to the notion that life developed here entirely by chance. Nothing more, and nothing less. Creationism is entirely compatible with ID, but really, they aren't actually the same thing. ID only attempts to convey a notion of what happened to start life here, on this planet. Not elsewhere. It does not preclude the possibility that the originator of life here may have evolved elsewhere, while creationism does.
And if ID were actually true, it would not mean that the entire notion of natural selection was false, it would only mean that we, here and today, on this planet, were not actually a byproduct of that process.
For example, an unusual shaped mound of sand that you might find on the beach might have been formed by natural processes, but that does not necessarily mean that it *WAS*. Nor does it even mean that it was particularly likely (or unlikely for that matter).
As for notion that ID does not really answer "how", once we've created artificial life ourselves (and we're getting closer all the time), we may very well have an answer. In fact, that may arguably be the most interesting aspect of ID... when we "intelligently design" a new life form ourselves. The great irony would be if such life forms, upon developing intelligence, and many hundreds of thousands of generations later, started debating amongst themselves whether or not they were ever "intelligently designed", or if they would simply take the existence of phenomena that we had designed for them for granted as part of a natural process, that is completely unguided.
For what it's worth, ID does not equate to creationism. I'm not saying this to give it any more scientific credibility... I'm saying it because ID means only what ID stands for... "intelligent design". Sure. creationism is one possible (and certainly very popular interpretation of ID, but it's not the only one.. ID is not remotely mutually exclusive to the theory of evolution.... it is only mutually exclusive to the the notion that life happened here merely by chance. And believe it or not, it's the only hypothesis that we have about our origins that has even the smallest hope of a chance of ever being ultimately proven, unless we can ever invent time travel and observe what happened directly. Not that this makes it somehow more scientiically valid... it's only real strength is that it gives you a whole lot more to work with than the alternative, which is to just shrug and say that we'll probably never know for sure.
That's kind of my point.. If the fact that a hypothesis doesn't explain something it was never intended to explain should not be reasonably considered a weakness in the hypothesis, then why do is to so common for people criticize ID for the same?
But putting them BOTH in jail has a 66% percent chance of putting an innocent in jail (since in two out of the three possibilities, only one brother is actually guilty, and there is no particular reason to presume that they both are). So.... is a 100% chance of putting a guilty person in jail worth a 66% chance of jailing somebody who is innocent?
Whoever said that either one "always" does anything? Sure, you've alluded to a widely known logic problem, but it's entirely inapplicable to dealing with real people, who will not necessarily (and in fact, rarely) behave predictably.
If I recall correctly, he promised to pull troops out... I don't think he promised to evacuate completely. As for lowering gas prices, well... I don't think that those are actually subject to presidential decision, and it was foolish of him to have ever stated that he could.
The evidence at hand incriminates them both, equally. The innocent party would be entirely justified in denying that they did anything... and could not be considered to be hiding a crime if they did not otherwise know that the brother actually did it. Is there any evidence to suggest that both brothers knew about the incident before they were arrested?
Jar jar was quite skillfully manipulated by Palpatine, but I would not think the emperor-to-be could have necessarily as easily manipulated just anyone. Padme, for instance, having a much stronger will and being considerably wiser than Jar Jar had ever demonstrated himself to be, would probably not have been so hasty to have made that motion, knowing that such a turn of events would move the republic sharply away from a democracy, and heading firmly towards dictatorship, the very concept of which Padme herself expressed profound disapproval to Anakin while they were on Naboo. Palpatine almost certainly recognized this conviction in Padme's personality, which is why he conspired to try to get her off of Coruscant, so that the much more easily manipulatable Gungan would be compelled to be the Naboo representative in her stead.
Still... at no point was the character of Jar Jar ever really *supposed* to be likeable. Comic relief, perhaps... but never overly likeable.
Because a normal DNA test only tests about 400 base pairs. Telling identical twins apart requires testing billions.
Is it worth punishing the innocent to be certain that you punish the guilty?
If both brothers are saying that the other brother must have done it, and if only one of them actually did, then one of them *is* telling the truth.
Depends.
Has he been dishonest about other things?
Who says all ID proponents don't believe in evolution? The strongest case for ID isn't that evolution doesn't explain how life itself began, it's that we can't come up with a good justification for the alternative, which is to say "something mysterious happened", nor can we ever hope to actually say any more than this, since any efforts we might undertake to try to artificially recreate conditions in a lab, to see if life can really evolve "on its own" would ultimately be doomed to futility in this regard, because such those conditions would still be, themselves, "intelligently designed".
Most people that I know of who take exception to ID do it for one of three reasons: 1) they stubbornly reject it because of their existing beliefs, and without having any internal understanding of why; 2) it is not falsifiable; or 3) it leaves the question of where the other life began. I was asserting that position 3 is essentially identical to a similar weakness in evolution. If it is not part of evolution's job to explain how life began here, why should it be ID's job to explain how it began elsewhere? Position 1 is exactly the same reason that some religious people reject evolution, and is groundless. Position 2 is a legitimate reason to scientifically reject the hypothesis of ID, but it's important to realize that such rejection is not synonymous with falsehood (of course, such realization is not synonymous with veracity either... so the wisest thing to do is take the hypothesis with a very large grain of salt and move on to things that you actually *CAN* study and measure).
Then they weren't "inhabiting" it at the time.
Not at all.... my point was dismissing ID because it does not explain where life originally came from is just as invalid as dismissing evolution for the same reason.
But you raise a good point. ID is far more of an alternative hypothesis to abiogenesis than it is to evolution.
*MOST* of the inhabitants???
News flash.... The character of Jar Jar isn't supposed to be a particularly likeable one... he's supposed to be an incompetent goof whose gullibility directly leads to Senator Palpatine's ascent to power as Emperor.
This so-called "failing" of ID is equally unaccounted for in the theory of evolution, which necessitates that life itself exists in the first place.
I'm not suggesting that ID is accurate... only that, as I said, short of inventing time travel and somebody going back in time to observe it happening, it's the only hypothesis that we can probably come up with which has even the remotest hope of ever actually being validated. (Of course, what would be truly interesting is if in the process of going back in time to observe it, we end up seeding the planet with the initial genetic material from which life on earth ended up evolving... not sure if you'd call that ID or not, however.)
ID's most significant failing is that it is not falsifiable. But unfalsifiable does not equate to the notion that it never happened (nor does it mean that it did, actually).
ID's only significantly attractive feature is that it is the only hypothesis that there is even the slightest hope of, short of inventing time travel, actually ever finding scientific evidence of (eg, we discover the remains of an ancient advanced alien civilization somewhere, and are able to archeologically ascertain that life on earth was actually genetically engineered by them... or else an ancient superpowerful entity who can observably manipulate reality itself makes him or herself visibly known to the world in a manner that is objectively verifiable).
6 words:
Alexander Graham-Bell vs. Elisha Gray.
One excellent example of practically simultaneous invention.... was it therefore too obvious to have warranted a patent at the time?
I mean, quite frankly, I agree with you... at least in principle. But it's worth considering what it really means for future inventors.
Not necessarily really *wants* to destroy... probably more along the lines of thinking that the inconvenience (limited range, long recharge time, and drastically increased initial expense) isn't worth the benefit. At worst, they are shortsighted... not necessarily actively wanting to see the end of the world.
If electric cars had a comparable range and recharge time to gasoline cars, you'd see increased adoption. If EV's cost about 10% of what they do right now, you'd see *overwhelming* adoption... within a decade, it would probably be the norm that families would typically have one or more EV's for daily commuting, and probably own no more than one gasoline powered car that they would use only for rarer and much longer trips.