I wasn't making an analogy... it was an example... An example of something that takes up no space.
We perceive data because that is how we interpret those EM vibrations, but they are there, regardless of how we manipulate them, and they do not take up any more or less space because of it.
If I shine a red light at your face, am I somehow taking up more space with the red photons (which do have a longer wavelength) than I am if I shine a blue light? You can interpret one as 1, and one as 0. They take up the same amount of space, regardless.
Network bandwidth has a physical component, namely the space occupied by your packet in the wires at any given time
Actually, it does not take up any space at all. The electrons take up space, but the electron count is going to be (roughly) the same regardless of the data that is pushed through the wire. The only thing that really changes with the data is the frequency or amplitude of particular EM oscillations which propagate through the wire, which always takes up exactly the same amount of physical space whether you are transmitting nothing at all or flooding your wires with data. The rate at which we can sample those vibrations with a certain reliability from a medium determines the actual digital bandwidth capabilities of the medium, not the physical space that the vibrations take up.
Stealing" can reasonably refer only to the unauthorized obtaining of a given resource. Whether or not the person or persons who had jurisdiction over that resource have actually lost anything of value because of it can be immaterial to that. Copyright infringement is stealing under that notion. However, this definition usually doesn't sit well with a lot of people.
So let's suppose that you decide to apply stealing to only mean the unauthorized deprivation of a resource to somebody else that they otherwise would have had. What is interesting, however, is that even in this specific context, copyright infringement could still rationally be considered stealing, as long as you as you consider resources that may not have any physical component (but assuming are of limited supply, such as network bandwidth, to give just one example) to be something that could reasonably be "stolen".
The reason copyright infringement is not usually perceived as stealing in this context, however, is that there is no widespread understanding of what anyone else is actually being deprived of. If the original copy still exists, what has actually been lost?
To answer this question, we have to go back to the origin of copyright itself... or, to be more specific, even further... back to before copyright existed.
In this era, all copying was done by hand... there were no computers or printing presses, and every copy of a work had to be painstakingly reproduced by hiring extremely expensive workers (slaves were not usually viable, since many were illiterate, and would not be capable of accurately copying text). This process was very labor intensive and often error prone. To that end, the originator of a work enjoyed a certain degree of natural exclusivity over his work on account of the difficulty for anyone who was not the originator to try to make unauthorized copies of it (it was expensive enough for those who were authorized, it was generally not viable for people who wanted to pirate the work). This didn't stop everybody, and some piracy still happened,. but in general, the natural difficulty associated with doing so tended to keep the problem of unauthorized copies in check... and again, to that end, the authorized publisher enjoyed a degree of exclusivity over their work. The reason that I am bringing this up is to establish that, at least originally, creators really had a form of natural right to control the distribution of their works. It was circumventable, but only with great effort and expense... and that tended to make the system work.
Then the printing press was invented, and it changed everything. Suddenly, copying something became much more feasible and affordable than it ever had been before, and there were no small number of content makers that were concerned about this.... since the existence of this invention could easily spell the end of the control they had formerly enjoyed over their works. Their options included to either self-censor themselves, and only publish a limited amount of their works, or to restrict their publications to a very selected audience, so they could retain a sense of control over the exclusivity that they enjoyed over where and when copies of their works were made. To encourage creators to publish more freely, however, and to thereby culturally enrich the society in which the work was published as a whole, the notion of copyright was invented... which was an artificial legal construct designed to preserve (to a limited extent) what the creator had formerly enjoyed. This gave creators a bit more incentive to publish freely, and utilize copyright, since it gave them the leverage they needed to ensure that any would-be unauthorized copiers could be discouraged from attempting it. It's important to note, however, that although the mechanism by which the creator's (or authorized publisher's) control over their exclusivity has altered, the net effect is relatively unchanged with respect to its impact on so
The ISPs will do everything they can short of disconnecting the user or harming their connection because all that will do is result in losing customers.
That's only likely to be true when a significant percentage of customers will actually consider another ISP to go to. Many people do not have a significant number of choices in which ISP's they receive internet service from... perhaps at most only two or three... unless they resort to dial-up.
Your plan could work...but it would involve specifically avoiding disclosing to anyone who might be in a position of professional responsibility to do something about any internet disconnection you might receive in the future that you were actually practicing the downloading of pirated content.
If you were as open about your practices with people who might be able to do something to prevent you from being so "victimized" as you were just here, I am resolutely convinced that it's highly unlikely that you'd find somebody willing to take your side in this matter.
I would consider, instead that you vote with your wallet, and simply not endorse an ISP that would cut off your internet for engaging in practices that you appear to consider so unfair and unreasonable.
If 1 and 2 were applicable, then it also possible that the person could be unemployed. There would be consequences for being unable to pay bills, of course, but they would still not be working at a place that they believed was not the best, which is what the GP had asserted.
It was my understanding that the keychain is shared by all devices with the same user, and doing it the way you suggest would not differentiate between different devices that happen to be owned by the same person.
With UDID deprecated, the only (non deprecated) way to obtain equivalent functionality right now is to query the device's MAC address (which again, is cross-app, but there isn't anything like UDID that is application-specific).
I get that the cross-app nature of UDID was why Apple deprecated the UDID retrieval functions, I just really wish they had replaced those functions with ones that weren't necessarily cross-app, but were still at least functionally equivalent in the context of any given application.
This would enable a device running a specific application be to be uniquely identified from any other running the same application, and to be consistently identified as the same device, whenever it was running that application, even if the application and all of its associated data were deleted and then the application reinstalled.
They have by far the most developed ability to detect concealed threats
That statement, entirely by itself, should qualify dogs as a better option, but let me elaborate...
But dogs get distracted, cannot work around the clock and require expensive training...
so do employees. What's your point?
Dogs work. They work well. They are unsurpassed in reliability by any instrument we've been able to devise.... the fact that they can't be used like machines could should no more be a reason to not use them than the fact that humans can't work like machines should be a reason to not employ people.
When a machine can do a *BETTER* job at it than a dog... then I could see replacing them being viable. Until then, however, let Spot and Fido keep their jobs.
Actually, when the word theorem is being (correctly) used, it means that it *HAS* been proven. Otherwise it's just a conjecture.
Theories aren't proven, of course, and I think that's where the confusion happens with some people... because of the similarities between how those two words sound.
Actually, pi *IS* a real number... it is a characteristic of p (or any real number that is not rational, actually) that any decimal representation of it will always be an approximation.
But just because the most we can ever get out of it is an approximation, does not mean that it is not a real number.
As long as what the simulation is for doesn't depend on idiots existing.... Because if it does, then killing them would harm that simulation.
Although, I can agree with your premise that figuring out what the simulation is for could be very important (although if it were a simulation, there's absolutely no certainty that we ever could... the universe that we perceive to exist simply might not have enough information in it to determine that purpose with any reliability. Trying to do so could be not unlike trying to represent a 128kbit number with a lot of bit entropy in only 64 k of memory).
Of course we know what causes obesity: Excessive caloric intake with respect to an individual's actual metabolism.
Of course, the problem is that you can't just give any specific number of calories and say that is appropriate for everybody because everybody has a different metabolism, and metabolism isn't something that readily lends itself to quantitative measurement either, so it can sometimes be hard to say objectively exactly how much is too much.
I said that there is no law the patent holder can leverage which can prevent somebody from building their own implementation of a patented product for their own private use. The fact that there may be a part of the US code which accounts for it doesn't change the fact that a patent holder can't really utilize the law in such a case because if it really was for private use, the patent holder wouldn't even ever know that such infringement had ever actually happened in the first place, let alone be able to collect compensation for said infringement. The only way the law can ever really come into play is when there is some sort of distribution of the infringing product.
No... but if somebody tries to take it away from you, you can try and go and try to take it away from them right back. It doesn't belong to anybody, that's the point.
As long as you can resolve the dispute without resorting to any form of violence against the other party (which would be a violation of human rights, which are assumed to not be subject to national borders), there's no problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't making an analogy... it was an example... An example of something that takes up no space.
We perceive data because that is how we interpret those EM vibrations, but they are there, regardless of how we manipulate them, and they do not take up any more or less space because of it.
If I shine a red light at your face, am I somehow taking up more space with the red photons (which do have a longer wavelength) than I am if I shine a blue light? You can interpret one as 1, and one as 0. They take up the same amount of space, regardless.
Actually, it does not take up any space at all. The electrons take up space, but the electron count is going to be (roughly) the same regardless of the data that is pushed through the wire. The only thing that really changes with the data is the frequency or amplitude of particular EM oscillations which propagate through the wire, which always takes up exactly the same amount of physical space whether you are transmitting nothing at all or flooding your wires with data. The rate at which we can sample those vibrations with a certain reliability from a medium determines the actual digital bandwidth capabilities of the medium, not the physical space that the vibrations take up.
Warning... a TL;DR wall of text follows:
Stealing" can reasonably refer only to the unauthorized obtaining of a given resource. Whether or not the person or persons who had jurisdiction over that resource have actually lost anything of value because of it can be immaterial to that. Copyright infringement is stealing under that notion. However, this definition usually doesn't sit well with a lot of people.
So let's suppose that you decide to apply stealing to only mean the unauthorized deprivation of a resource to somebody else that they otherwise would have had. What is interesting, however, is that even in this specific context, copyright infringement could still rationally be considered stealing, as long as you as you consider resources that may not have any physical component (but assuming are of limited supply, such as network bandwidth, to give just one example) to be something that could reasonably be "stolen".
The reason copyright infringement is not usually perceived as stealing in this context, however, is that there is no widespread understanding of what anyone else is actually being deprived of. If the original copy still exists, what has actually been lost?
To answer this question, we have to go back to the origin of copyright itself... or, to be more specific, even further... back to before copyright existed.
In this era, all copying was done by hand... there were no computers or printing presses, and every copy of a work had to be painstakingly reproduced by hiring extremely expensive workers (slaves were not usually viable, since many were illiterate, and would not be capable of accurately copying text). This process was very labor intensive and often error prone. To that end, the originator of a work enjoyed a certain degree of natural exclusivity over his work on account of the difficulty for anyone who was not the originator to try to make unauthorized copies of it (it was expensive enough for those who were authorized, it was generally not viable for people who wanted to pirate the work). This didn't stop everybody, and some piracy still happened,. but in general, the natural difficulty associated with doing so tended to keep the problem of unauthorized copies in check... and again, to that end, the authorized publisher enjoyed a degree of exclusivity over their work. The reason that I am bringing this up is to establish that, at least originally, creators really had a form of natural right to control the distribution of their works. It was circumventable, but only with great effort and expense... and that tended to make the system work.
Then the printing press was invented, and it changed everything. Suddenly, copying something became much more feasible and affordable than it ever had been before, and there were no small number of content makers that were concerned about this.... since the existence of this invention could easily spell the end of the control they had formerly enjoyed over their works. Their options included to either self-censor themselves, and only publish a limited amount of their works, or to restrict their publications to a very selected audience, so they could retain a sense of control over the exclusivity that they enjoyed over where and when copies of their works were made. To encourage creators to publish more freely, however, and to thereby culturally enrich the society in which the work was published as a whole, the notion of copyright was invented... which was an artificial legal construct designed to preserve (to a limited extent) what the creator had formerly enjoyed. This gave creators a bit more incentive to publish freely, and utilize copyright, since it gave them the leverage they needed to ensure that any would-be unauthorized copiers could be discouraged from attempting it. It's important to note, however, that although the mechanism by which the creator's (or authorized publisher's) control over their exclusivity has altered, the net effect is relatively unchanged with respect to its impact on so
That's only likely to be true when a significant percentage of customers will actually consider another ISP to go to. Many people do not have a significant number of choices in which ISP's they receive internet service from... perhaps at most only two or three... unless they resort to dial-up.
Your plan could work...but it would involve specifically avoiding disclosing to anyone who might be in a position of professional responsibility to do something about any internet disconnection you might receive in the future that you were actually practicing the downloading of pirated content.
If you were as open about your practices with people who might be able to do something to prevent you from being so "victimized" as you were just here, I am resolutely convinced that it's highly unlikely that you'd find somebody willing to take your side in this matter.
I would consider, instead that you vote with your wallet, and simply not endorse an ISP that would cut off your internet for engaging in practices that you appear to consider so unfair and unreasonable.
You could always freely decide to switch ISP's if they did this. If enough people jumped ship over it, they may even change the policy.
If 1 and 2 were applicable, then it also possible that the person could be unemployed. There would be consequences for being unable to pay bills, of course, but they would still not be working at a place that they believed was not the best, which is what the GP had asserted.
It was my understanding that the keychain is shared by all devices with the same user, and doing it the way you suggest would not differentiate between different devices that happen to be owned by the same person.
With UDID deprecated, the only (non deprecated) way to obtain equivalent functionality right now is to query the device's MAC address (which again, is cross-app, but there isn't anything like UDID that is application-specific).
I get that the cross-app nature of UDID was why Apple deprecated the UDID retrieval functions, I just really wish they had replaced those functions with ones that weren't necessarily cross-app, but were still at least functionally equivalent in the context of any given application.
This would enable a device running a specific application be to be uniquely identified from any other running the same application, and to be consistently identified as the same device, whenever it was running that application, even if the application and all of its associated data were deleted and then the application reinstalled.
That statement, entirely by itself, should qualify dogs as a better option, but let me elaborate...
so do employees. What's your point?
Dogs work. They work well. They are unsurpassed in reliability by any instrument we've been able to devise.... the fact that they can't be used like machines could should no more be a reason to not use them than the fact that humans can't work like machines should be a reason to not employ people.
When a machine can do a *BETTER* job at it than a dog... then I could see replacing them being viable. Until then, however, let Spot and Fido keep their jobs.
Actually, when the word theorem is being (correctly) used, it means that it *HAS* been proven. Otherwise it's just a conjecture.
Theories aren't proven, of course, and I think that's where the confusion happens with some people... because of the similarities between how those two words sound.
Actually, pi *IS* a real number... it is a characteristic of p (or any real number that is not rational, actually) that any decimal representation of it will always be an approximation.
But just because the most we can ever get out of it is an approximation, does not mean that it is not a real number.
They are not required to be carrying the ID when they aren't at school, so what's the big deal?
They could store it in their locker, and put it in their pocket in the morning and put it back in the afternoon.
It could expedite roll call, and in some cases, might even be able to increase safety of students while they are in the school.
Really? You go and do that then.
Good luck.
No... the law exists because prostitution is perceived as offensive to traditional public decency.
More or less the same reason that homosexuality used to be illegal not even half a century ago.
It might help... but I'm sure it'd be far from over.
Damn... hit submit instead of preview. I really wish slashdot had an "edit" button that was effective for at least a couple of minutes...
I meant a 128kbyte number... not 128kbit.
Although, I can agree with your premise that figuring out what the simulation is for could be very important (although if it were a simulation, there's absolutely no certainty that we ever could... the universe that we perceive to exist simply might not have enough information in it to determine that purpose with any reliability. Trying to do so could be not unlike trying to represent a 128kbit number with a lot of bit entropy in only 64 k of memory).
Of course we know what causes obesity: Excessive caloric intake with respect to an individual's actual metabolism.
Of course, the problem is that you can't just give any specific number of calories and say that is appropriate for everybody because everybody has a different metabolism, and metabolism isn't something that readily lends itself to quantitative measurement either, so it can sometimes be hard to say objectively exactly how much is too much.
[nt]
What difference could it possibly make if the universe were a simulation? Would it even actually change anything?
Understood... although I think it's absurd, since it can't ever be enforced... by definition.
I said that there is no law the patent holder can leverage which can prevent somebody from building their own implementation of a patented product for their own private use. The fact that there may be a part of the US code which accounts for it doesn't change the fact that a patent holder can't really utilize the law in such a case because if it really was for private use, the patent holder wouldn't even ever know that such infringement had ever actually happened in the first place, let alone be able to collect compensation for said infringement. The only way the law can ever really come into play is when there is some sort of distribution of the infringing product.
ftfy.
No... but if somebody tries to take it away from you, you can try and go and try to take it away from them right back. It doesn't belong to anybody, that's the point.
As long as you can resolve the dispute without resorting to any form of violence against the other party (which would be a violation of human rights, which are assumed to not be subject to national borders), there's no problem.