There is the police. It can prosecute violent 'customers' just like all other violent crimes. And if they feel the need for extra security, they can hire a guard (just like all other businesses). Health requirements can be set by law, again like all other professions.
The number of ways something can happen does not make it more likely. The important thing is the probability of each way happening. And in this case we have absolutely no idea about the probability of being in a simulation.
You kind of made my point for me. Not only is it possible to prove something that science 'believes' to be wrong, but the discovery is seen as a good thing (expanding human knowledge and all that). Sure he might be seen as a crackpot until the proof is done, but that does encourage efficiency (just imagine if 99% of science funding was spent retrying old experiments, just in case the guys who did them the first billion times were wrong).
In religions meanwhile, any dissent can only take root if enough people agree with it. So any new belief can become dominant simply with enough manpower.
But science expresses that faith quite differently. It does it's best to disprove whatever it 'believes' in. The religious equivalent of climbing the tallest building in town and breaking every commandment you can think of during a thunderstorm.
Religion on the other hand does it's best to not questing things that it's based on, while demanding that everyone lives in accordance with it's rules.
So do people walk around drinking alcohol all the time where you're from? Or do they exercise some self control and restrict their drinking to the evening.
Sure a few more people would do drugs, but the quality of the drugs would probably increase - why do crap drugs when you can get the new designer ones for a few dollars more. And those drugs would probably have fewer side effects.
Yes, the Saudi government probably doesn't care about religion. But it allied itself with the religious extremists in the country. And the longer this situation persists, the larger the number of extremists in the population will be - anyone not 'extreme' enough will be harassed by the religious police until they conform. And the government lets it happen, because it's their allies doing it, and it cuts down on the number of 'liberals' that might want to challenge the government itself. The government might be completely secular, but it does not matter. Now there are two options - either the government stays in power forever, or it eventually collapses. Since the oil in the region will run out eventually, and the US will have no further incentive for supporting them, the government is unlikely to survive (my guess is that the royal family will quietly slip out of the country when they see the party is over). So what happens then? The longer the current situation persists, the more likely it is that the extremists will take power, and the more 'extreme' they will be. They are already more or less part of the government, so the change will be easy for them - just replace the royal family with the clerics, and remove all those 'reform' laws that no one ever really followed. And what you'll have is a brand new religious state with a fairly modern army and no way to pay them, except with plunder. What could go wrong there.
As for the Arab Spring countries, what happened there was a fairly typical revolution - the oppressed came to power and did everything the opposite of the dictators that used to rule them. Just like France and Russia, where religion was closely tied to the government went and slaughtered as many priests as they could find, so the Arabs went back to their religion. Yes the situation will be chaotic for a while, but so was the situation after every revolution. And yes, further revolutions might be needed to bring true democracy to the region. But in the long run dictatorships are never good for the people. They might be preferable in the short term, since they bring stability. But letting them stay in power does not prevent revolutions, just delays them and makes them even more painful. But each revolution lets new ideas into the society, and if enough people embrace them, then a brighter future can begin.
The problem is that the Saudi government is also suppressing anyone that wants to reform the country in non-religious ways. Such as implementing democracy. At the same time they are willing to ally themselves with religious extremists that support terrorism in other countries and oppress women at home, all in exchange for their help in staying in power. So how exactly are they 'the best thing' for the people? That's like saying that being a slave is a good thing, since you might be homeless if your master set you free.
But the response hurts more non-militant Muslims then it does extremists. And those hurt or those whose families are killed are much more likely to become extremists - from helpless rage if nothing else.
Just look at how much hate 9/11 created in the US. Now imagine if your countrymen were killed nearly every day, just for living their lives in the 'wrong' country. Would you support the guys doing the killing, or would you join anyone that was trying to push them out. And if your new organization had a few crazies in charge, would you really care? Or would you accept them as the 'lesser' evil?
And during this time the US was still importing large numbers of (black) slaves. And the church was OK with it, since the blacks didn't have a soul (or was that the Indians?). The only difference is that the Muslims were more prone to making speeches.
Sure Christianity acknowledges that it was wrong, but that doesn't stop them from still killing people - just look at Northern Ireland or Bosnia.
What has changed isn't so much the religion, as the societies where it's dominant. They figured out that ruling the world is hard and scaled back. Of course that left a power vacuum in the areas they used to control, which was filled by all sorts of extremists, many of them still supported by christian governments. And if those extremists managed to amass a lot of power and money, they started to export their ideas to other similar cultures.
China wouldn't have a problem with them. Do you think they'd freak out if terrorists blew up a few of their office buildings? They'd chalk it up to cost of doing business and export a few million more rifles to the governments of the region, unlike the US which started a decade of wars.
And those rights also sustain some grandchildren of the creators. The world needs some IP rights, but they are completely out of control right now. So if any negotiations are to be balanced, the anti-IP side has to start with wanting to abolish IP altogether, since the pro-IP side wants to extend it to eternity.
You hire people until all your income is spent do you? If that was the case for everyone, then there would be no 'filthy rich' - they would accumulate no money, since they'd spend it all as they 'earned' it.
Like it or not, there are only so many employes that a person needs. And once those slots are filled, any extra income is likely to be put into savings or investments, rather then new jobs.
Weren't all rockets built by private companies? So why not let private companies compete against NASA (which is now mostly just a wealth-transfer entity - subsidizing US corporations)
Now that it's been demonstrated that space can be cheaper then what NASA is used to doing, other companies can get in on the game. So NASA will be able to have some options in the selection of their manufacturers.
And what is that period? You should be able to drag out a trial by at least a few years. And if you transfer back the computer at the 'settlement offer' stage, you can probably drag that out for a few months at least.
You should create a corporation and sign your computer over to it. Then if it does get sued just have the corp sell you the computer for 1$, then let it go bankrupt in the suit. Isn't capitalism great?
We were supposed to learn how to make folders and type in word.
I learned that it was a lot of fun to delete/rename my classmates documents once they saved them. It was so fun when they panicked when all their 'work' vanished as soon as they were done with it. (0 security on the network)
Only when it's forced on it. If a species had infinite resources and infinite space, then it could expand indefinitely, and that would be the smart thing to do. In those circumstances an equilibrium would be pointless.
Now the question is: Do we have limited or (virtually) unlimited resources? If our technology advances enough that we are able to reach other star systems, then our resources will be nearly infinite. Even just mining our entire solar system would set us up nicely for centuries to come. So why go for an equilibrium now?
So? From the viewpoint of someone standing still, he can still not move faster then the speed of light. And any time he drops off a toy, he has to either slow down slowly, or subject the toy itself to extreme g forces. Since toys arrive in a non-squished condition (and they are generally not resistant to high g, as the kids soon discover), then Santa has to slow them down slowly - taking quite a bit of time for every toy dropped off.
It's not possible for a violent criminal to 'return' the health/life of the people they harm. And their crimes are much easier to repeat 'on a whim'. Imagine how much monitoring would be needed to protect society from a violent criminal, compared to protecting it from a fraudster. A fraudster requires trust to defraud people, and wearing an ankle monitor and having police monitor all your communications would seriously cut the chances of committing it, and make it nearly impossible to benefit from it - all your finances would be monitored until your debt is paid, so having a stash of money in the caymans won't help you.
Agree fully. Why put people like this in jail? Put them in indentured servitude instead. He could be put to work in a homeless shelter, making minimum wage. That way he can pay for his own upkeep AND be a benefit for society.
There is another problem. How can you guarantee that the picture is even coming from the camera, and not just a recording? Unless you have physical control of the computer recording the video, then that video can just be a rerun of a verification made some time ago.
Slashdot Mirror
There is the police. It can prosecute violent 'customers' just like all other violent crimes. And if they feel the need for extra security, they can hire a guard (just like all other businesses). Health requirements can be set by law, again like all other professions.
The number of ways something can happen does not make it more likely. The important thing is the probability of each way happening. And in this case we have absolutely no idea about the probability of being in a simulation.
You kind of made my point for me. Not only is it possible to prove something that science 'believes' to be wrong, but the discovery is seen as a good thing (expanding human knowledge and all that). Sure he might be seen as a crackpot until the proof is done, but that does encourage efficiency (just imagine if 99% of science funding was spent retrying old experiments, just in case the guys who did them the first billion times were wrong).
In religions meanwhile, any dissent can only take root if enough people agree with it. So any new belief can become dominant simply with enough manpower.
But science expresses that faith quite differently. It does it's best to disprove whatever it 'believes' in. The religious equivalent of climbing the tallest building in town and breaking every commandment you can think of during a thunderstorm.
Religion on the other hand does it's best to not questing things that it's based on, while demanding that everyone lives in accordance with it's rules.
So do people walk around drinking alcohol all the time where you're from? Or do they exercise some self control and restrict their drinking to the evening.
Sure a few more people would do drugs, but the quality of the drugs would probably increase - why do crap drugs when you can get the new designer ones for a few dollars more. And those drugs would probably have fewer side effects.
Yes, the Saudi government probably doesn't care about religion. But it allied itself with the religious extremists in the country. And the longer this situation persists, the larger the number of extremists in the population will be - anyone not 'extreme' enough will be harassed by the religious police until they conform. And the government lets it happen, because it's their allies doing it, and it cuts down on the number of 'liberals' that might want to challenge the government itself. The government might be completely secular, but it does not matter. Now there are two options - either the government stays in power forever, or it eventually collapses. Since the oil in the region will run out eventually, and the US will have no further incentive for supporting them, the government is unlikely to survive (my guess is that the royal family will quietly slip out of the country when they see the party is over). So what happens then? The longer the current situation persists, the more likely it is that the extremists will take power, and the more 'extreme' they will be. They are already more or less part of the government, so the change will be easy for them - just replace the royal family with the clerics, and remove all those 'reform' laws that no one ever really followed. And what you'll have is a brand new religious state with a fairly modern army and no way to pay them, except with plunder. What could go wrong there.
As for the Arab Spring countries, what happened there was a fairly typical revolution - the oppressed came to power and did everything the opposite of the dictators that used to rule them. Just like France and Russia, where religion was closely tied to the government went and slaughtered as many priests as they could find, so the Arabs went back to their religion. Yes the situation will be chaotic for a while, but so was the situation after every revolution. And yes, further revolutions might be needed to bring true democracy to the region. But in the long run dictatorships are never good for the people. They might be preferable in the short term, since they bring stability. But letting them stay in power does not prevent revolutions, just delays them and makes them even more painful. But each revolution lets new ideas into the society, and if enough people embrace them, then a brighter future can begin.
The problem is that the Saudi government is also suppressing anyone that wants to reform the country in non-religious ways. Such as implementing democracy. At the same time they are willing to ally themselves with religious extremists that support terrorism in other countries and oppress women at home, all in exchange for their help in staying in power. So how exactly are they 'the best thing' for the people? That's like saying that being a slave is a good thing, since you might be homeless if your master set you free.
But the response hurts more non-militant Muslims then it does extremists. And those hurt or those whose families are killed are much more likely to become extremists - from helpless rage if nothing else.
Just look at how much hate 9/11 created in the US. Now imagine if your countrymen were killed nearly every day, just for living their lives in the 'wrong' country. Would you support the guys doing the killing, or would you join anyone that was trying to push them out. And if your new organization had a few crazies in charge, would you really care? Or would you accept them as the 'lesser' evil?
And during this time the US was still importing large numbers of (black) slaves. And the church was OK with it, since the blacks didn't have a soul (or was that the Indians?). The only difference is that the Muslims were more prone to making speeches.
Sure Christianity acknowledges that it was wrong, but that doesn't stop them from still killing people - just look at Northern Ireland or Bosnia.
What has changed isn't so much the religion, as the societies where it's dominant. They figured out that ruling the world is hard and scaled back. Of course that left a power vacuum in the areas they used to control, which was filled by all sorts of extremists, many of them still supported by christian governments. And if those extremists managed to amass a lot of power and money, they started to export their ideas to other similar cultures.
China wouldn't have a problem with them. Do you think they'd freak out if terrorists blew up a few of their office buildings? They'd chalk it up to cost of doing business and export a few million more rifles to the governments of the region, unlike the US which started a decade of wars.
Wasn't Mad Cow caused by cows eating parts of other cows, not sheep? Just like human versions of it are common in cultures that practice cannibalism.
Well DMA-BUF (what this article is about) seems to be pretty innovative. And it is covered by GPL.
And a species not slowing down its growth does not beam that it's not intelligent. It just means that it can still grow.
And those rights also sustain some grandchildren of the creators. The world needs some IP rights, but they are completely out of control right now. So if any negotiations are to be balanced, the anti-IP side has to start with wanting to abolish IP altogether, since the pro-IP side wants to extend it to eternity.
You hire people until all your income is spent do you? If that was the case for everyone, then there would be no 'filthy rich' - they would accumulate no money, since they'd spend it all as they 'earned' it.
Like it or not, there are only so many employes that a person needs. And once those slots are filled, any extra income is likely to be put into savings or investments, rather then new jobs.
Weren't all rockets built by private companies? So why not let private companies compete against NASA (which is now mostly just a wealth-transfer entity - subsidizing US corporations)
Now that it's been demonstrated that space can be cheaper then what NASA is used to doing, other companies can get in on the game. So NASA will be able to have some options in the selection of their manufacturers.
And what is that period? You should be able to drag out a trial by at least a few years. And if you transfer back the computer at the 'settlement offer' stage, you can probably drag that out for a few months at least.
You should create a corporation and sign your computer over to it. Then if it does get sued just have the corp sell you the computer for 1$, then let it go bankrupt in the suit. Isn't capitalism great?
We were supposed to learn how to make folders and type in word.
I learned that it was a lot of fun to delete/rename my classmates documents once they saved them. It was so fun when they panicked when all their 'work' vanished as soon as they were done with it. (0 security on the network)
Only when it's forced on it. If a species had infinite resources and infinite space, then it could expand indefinitely, and that would be the smart thing to do. In those circumstances an equilibrium would be pointless.
Now the question is: Do we have limited or (virtually) unlimited resources? If our technology advances enough that we are able to reach other star systems, then our resources will be nearly infinite. Even just mining our entire solar system would set us up nicely for centuries to come. So why go for an equilibrium now?
So? From the viewpoint of someone standing still, he can still not move faster then the speed of light. And any time he drops off a toy, he has to either slow down slowly, or subject the toy itself to extreme g forces. Since toys arrive in a non-squished condition (and they are generally not resistant to high g, as the kids soon discover), then Santa has to slow them down slowly - taking quite a bit of time for every toy dropped off.
It's not possible for a violent criminal to 'return' the health/life of the people they harm. And their crimes are much easier to repeat 'on a whim'. Imagine how much monitoring would be needed to protect society from a violent criminal, compared to protecting it from a fraudster.
A fraudster requires trust to defraud people, and wearing an ankle monitor and having police monitor all your communications would seriously cut the chances of committing it, and make it nearly impossible to benefit from it - all your finances would be monitored until your debt is paid, so having a stash of money in the caymans won't help you.
Agree fully. Why put people like this in jail? Put them in indentured servitude instead. He could be put to work in a homeless shelter, making minimum wage. That way he can pay for his own upkeep AND be a benefit for society.
There is another problem. How can you guarantee that the picture is even coming from the camera, and not just a recording? Unless you have physical control of the computer recording the video, then that video can just be a rerun of a verification made some time ago.