>Regarding the 'multiverses': IMHO, one very important question remains: How you as yourself evolve in this multiverse. What decides which part you take in the multiverse?
First off, IANAP (Physicist). But...
Nothing makes that decision. 'You' evolve every which way in the multiverse, and each copy has the same continuity of consciousness that you do.
>Why is it that you only see one universe, that you only exist in one universe?
You only see one universe because the interference between them only happens on very small scales. You exist in every universe that exists from the moment you were born (assuming that you are still alive in them).
>What decices where you/your conscience goes? Maybe this is the free will? I don't know but this bothers me.
Your consciousness splits just like everything else.
I just bought a SL-5600 about a month ago, and the processor is reporting itself as a PXA-255. Apparently the older versions had the 250, which had a bug in the processor that kept it from running at full speed. Mine now runs my very own custom compiled kernel which runs a full 100 Dhrystones faster than it did when I bought it. I can even use it to watch full-speed movies with MPlayer now.:)
No, it's not possible for all the mountains in the world to have sprung up over a 40 day period. The amount of energy required to raise the Himalayas in that period of time would have turned the entire crust of the earth into a lava field.
Trillions of tons of mass raised miles into the air in 40 days?!? Just think about it for a second.
>And no, it's not self incrimination to force somebody to turn over their own records... because that's evidence.
Yes, and forcing someone to tell you how they committed a murder is also evidence, yet the fifth amendment makes it perfectly clear that you can't force someone to tell you something that might incriminate them. How is this any different from forcing someone to give up their encryption keys?
"The Supreme Court today, in Kyllo vs. U.S., ruled that authorities scanning a home with an infrared camera without a warrant constituted an unreasonable search barred by the Fourth Amendment."
>The hidden fact missing is that addicts behaviour only effects themselves. I'd agree with you if we could tell the junkies to pack sand when they want medical treatment or put them to death for destroying other peoples lives or property. But we can't
That's funny. I could swear that being high out of your mind was no excuse for causing mayhem. How about this as a rule: "If you hurt someone else, you will be punished". Being drunk/high/gambling is not necessarily harmful to anyone in itself, but if you do something stupid while in that state, you will rot in jail.
So which would you rather spend, billions trying to keep anyone from doing these activities, or billions 'fixing' the ones who can't handle the freedom that most other people can?
Me, I'd rather not spend it on either. If you screw up your life, it's your problem.
So what? The bnetd people developed that code on their own, and Blizzard has exactly zero right to stop them from distributing it. This is *exactly* as if Ford were trying to tell you that you could only use Ford-approved tires on your car.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
> What? Ecstasy is one of the "safest and least addictive" drugs? What kind of nonsense is that?
No kind of nonsense. Ecstasy is less addictive than caffeine and you have a better chance of dying when you get into your shower in the morning than you do from taking MDMA.
Once IBM knows exactly what code SCO is claiming is infringing, why couldn't they just remove that code from their version of the kernel and submit it to Linus as a 'maintainence patch'?
>Except that intellectual property laws are unconcerned with productivity. They are, however, very much concerned with *profit*, and profits can only be increased with scarcity due to the law of supply and demand (which has not be repealed, nor declared unconstitutional).
But supply and demand are not really in effect when the supply is being artificially restricted. If the supply of something is for all purposes infinite, don't expect me to pay much (if anything) for it.
When I run their test on my site, their test tells me:
"We detect that www.tekgnome.com is running Apache."
That's funny, because I'm using the Jetty servlet engine for my site and don't even have apache installed. If they can't even get that one little detail right, how good can the rest of their results be?
No we don't need to pick either because while Bush is a complete retard, his handlers (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc) are criminally evil. Bush just stands up there and repeats what's being fed into his ear. I don't even think Bush himself is so much malicious as he is just a plain old asshole.
>THC does have to be burnt or at least heated to work, eating loads of weed won't get you very high. you need to smoke it, or make a tea from it, to activate it properly.
You're just plain wrong. Eating completely uncooked pot (say with a piece of bread to make it chewable) will get you as high as any other way of ingesting it. Sure, it'll take a little longer to kick in, but it works perfectly well.
>Now, what happens in a gunfight on an airliner? Think pressurised cabins at high altitude....
This still would have been far better than allowing the planes to crash into 2 large, heavily populated buildings in New York City. If the terrorists had thought there was any way that a significant number of people might have been packing on thoses planes, they would never have even considered trying it.
When our government places the value of copyrights, which for almost all cases are simply forms of entertainment, above the value of patents, many of which actually lead to people living longer, healthier lives. What is the logic behind having patents last only 17 years (which is a reasonably length of time IMO), while copyrights last 95+ years?
It's no wonder that nobody respects copyright anymore. The whole system has become a bad joke.
A box that is simply 6x6x6 inches wouldn't exist at all unless it did so for some amount of time. Also, since inches measure the dimensions we call space, it makes no sense to measure time with them as well.
It doesn't matter what the 'skrink-wrap agreement' says after I've bought it and brought it home with me. It's already mine. I don't have to agree to anything because the sale is already done - a EULA is as good as toilet paper at that point.
Slashdot Mirror
>Regarding the 'multiverses': IMHO, one very important question remains: How you as yourself evolve in this multiverse. What decides which part you take in the multiverse?
First off, IANAP (Physicist). But...
Nothing makes that decision. 'You' evolve every which way in the multiverse, and each copy has the same continuity of consciousness that you do.
>Why is it that you only see one universe, that you only exist in one universe?
You only see one universe because the interference between them only happens on very small scales. You exist in every universe that exists from the moment you were born (assuming that you are still alive in them).
>What decices where you/your conscience goes? Maybe this is the free will? I don't know but this bothers me.
Your consciousness splits just like everything else.
Are you taking this test? Since you have such an amazing set of ears, you should be.
I just bought a SL-5600 about a month ago, and the processor is reporting itself as a PXA-255. Apparently the older versions had the 250, which had a bug in the processor that kept it from running at full speed. Mine now runs my very own custom compiled kernel which runs a full 100 Dhrystones faster than it did when I bought it. I can even use it to watch full-speed movies with MPlayer now. :)
No, it's not possible for all the mountains in the world to have sprung up over a 40 day period. The amount of energy required to raise the Himalayas in that period of time would have turned the entire crust of the earth into a lava field.
Trillions of tons of mass raised miles into the air in 40 days?!? Just think about it for a second.
>And no, it's not self incrimination to force somebody to turn over their own records... because that's evidence.
Yes, and forcing someone to tell you how they committed a murder is also evidence, yet the fifth amendment makes it perfectly clear that you can't force someone to tell you something that might incriminate them. How is this any different from forcing someone to give up their encryption keys?
>These devices can be used by citizens or law enforcement officials without need for warrant or even probable cause.
Not so.
"The Supreme Court today, in Kyllo vs. U.S., ruled that authorities scanning a home with an infrared camera without a warrant constituted an unreasonable search barred by the Fourth Amendment."
>The hidden fact missing is that addicts behaviour only effects themselves. I'd agree with you if we could tell the junkies to pack sand when they want medical treatment or put them to death for destroying other peoples lives or property. But we can't
That's funny. I could swear that being high out of your mind was no excuse for causing mayhem. How about this as a rule: "If you hurt someone else, you will be punished". Being drunk/high/gambling is not necessarily harmful to anyone in itself, but if you do something stupid while in that state, you will rot in jail.
So which would you rather spend, billions trying to keep anyone from doing these activities, or billions 'fixing' the ones who can't handle the freedom that most other people can?
Me, I'd rather not spend it on either. If you screw up your life, it's your problem.
Some people have no principles whatsoever. As long as you keep them fat and happy, they'll take whatever you dish out.
So what? The bnetd people developed that code on their own, and Blizzard has exactly zero right to stop them from distributing it. This is *exactly* as if Ford were trying to tell you that you could only use Ford-approved tires on your car.
Refusing to allow a search is *not* probable cause. If it were, then the 'right' to say no really wouldn't exist.
The APA might agree with you and get in trouble just the same. There are some things that we are just too culturally conditioned about to get over easily.
> What? Ecstasy is one of the "safest and least addictive" drugs? What kind of nonsense is that?
No kind of nonsense. Ecstasy is less addictive than caffeine and you have a better chance of dying when you get into your shower in the morning than you do from taking MDMA.
Once IBM knows exactly what code SCO is claiming is infringing, why couldn't they just remove that code from their version of the kernel and submit it to Linus as a 'maintainence patch'?
>Except that intellectual property laws are unconcerned with productivity. They are, however, very much concerned with *profit*, and profits can only be increased with scarcity due to the law of supply and demand (which has not be repealed, nor declared unconstitutional).
But supply and demand are not really in effect when the supply is being artificially restricted. If the supply of something is for all purposes infinite, don't expect me to pay much (if anything) for it.
You mean like this?
When I run their test on my site, their test tells me:
"We detect that www.tekgnome.com is running Apache."
That's funny, because I'm using the Jetty servlet engine for my site and don't even have apache installed. If they can't even get that one little detail right, how good can the rest of their results be?
No we don't need to pick either because while Bush is a complete retard, his handlers (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc) are criminally evil. Bush just stands up there and repeats what's being fed into his ear. I don't even think Bush himself is so much malicious as he is just a plain old asshole.
>THC does have to be burnt or at least heated to work, eating loads of weed won't get you very high. you need to smoke it, or make a tea from it, to activate it properly.
You're just plain wrong. Eating completely uncooked pot (say with a piece of bread to make it chewable) will get you as high as any other way of ingesting it. Sure, it'll take a little longer to kick in, but it works perfectly well.
>Now, what happens in a gunfight on an airliner? Think pressurised cabins at high altitude....
This still would have been far better than allowing the planes to crash into 2 large, heavily populated buildings in New York City. If the terrorists had thought there was any way that a significant number of people might have been packing on thoses planes, they would never have even considered trying it.
When our government places the value of copyrights, which for almost all cases are simply forms of entertainment, above the value of patents, many of which actually lead to people living longer, healthier lives. What is the logic behind having patents last only 17 years (which is a reasonably length of time IMO), while copyrights last 95+ years?
It's no wonder that nobody respects copyright anymore. The whole system has become a bad joke.
A box that is simply 6x6x6 inches wouldn't exist at all unless it did so for some amount of time. Also, since inches measure the dimensions we call space, it makes no sense to measure time with them as well.
It doesn't matter what the 'skrink-wrap agreement' says after I've bought it and brought it home with me. It's already mine. I don't have to agree to anything because the sale is already done - a EULA is as good as toilet paper at that point.
> They have the right to tell you what you may and may not do with their product, yes.
No, they don't. Once you've paid for it, it is yours to do with as you please unless you sign a contract that restricts you in some
way.
>Is it even legal to deny someone a job because of where they have worked before?
Sure is. What are your odds of being hired as an accountant at a church if you list that exotic dancing job on your resume?
>That's like denying people jobs just because they like people of the same sex.
No, it's not. You are perfectly free to consider the person's previous work history as an indicator for whether their character will fit the job.