Philosophers have nothing of use to say on matters of this sort; all they can do is play elaborate, aggressively argumentative word games, shifting their ground whenever they need to. Personally, I'm still waiting for a clear, SCIENTIFIC definition of "free will". Give me that, and I'll answer the question.**
It's a bit like the old saw about whether a tree falling in a forest makes a noise when there's no-one there to hear it. Define in scientific terms precisely what you mean by "a noise", and you'll find there's nothing to argue about. If a noise is a particular type of vibration in air or another medium, the answer is yes; if your definition's more complex, involving the detection and recognition of those vibrations in a human auditory system, the answer is no. Something inbetween will depend on your precise definition - but it will still be unambiguously answerable. The point is, definition is everything. Fail to define what you're arguing about - such as "free will" - and people will simply swap backwards and forwards all day between two or more conflicting definitions (without admitting or even necessarily recognising that the definitions are indeed conflicting), using each to argue that you're still wrong.
**For my money, by the way, the answer is almost certainly "no". The human brain is a hugely complex mechanism, true, but it's still just a mechanism, and I can't personally think of a definition of "free will" that isn't constrained by that. There's plenty of experimental evidence, for instance, to show that it reaches decisions, and that an observer with the right equipment can even detect those decisions, well before the individual becomes consciously aware of them, No - feed the identical information in under identical circumstances, get the same results from any randomisation mechanisms (such as quantum states) involved along the way (totally undo-able in reality, but we're talking theory here), and you'd get the exact same result out. So, even though I feel like I'm sitting here typing this because I decided "of my own free will" to do so, in fact it's simply a predictable consequence of my current mental state (combined with all my sensory input., etc., right now). Personally, I don't have a problem with that.
Myst was released 20 years ago, and the fact that Cyan feel the need to trade on the reputation of a property that old ought to be at least as much a warning sign as it is a cause for excitement. Yes, Cyan may technically be the company that produced it - but, whilst companies can theoretically live for ever, people move on. It's an absolute certainty that any new property would be produced by different people, under different management, with potentially different attitudes and values (and I've seen at first hand just HOW much of a difference 20 years of change in a company can make), using a different engine, to vastly different market expectations (Myst was good in its day - but if it launched today, I suspect it would barely make the discount shelves).
Good luck to them, by all means - new, quality products in the market are always welcome. And if they get to market, and it's any good, I may buy it. But this is no different to any other company coming along and saying "We plan to develop a new game, and it's going to be great, so give us the money to let us do it".
This isn't a discovery or a proof of anything. At heart, it's simply a (deeply academic) attempt to usefully define "computation".
From the abstract: "In this paper we introduce a formal framework that can be used to determine whether or not a physical system is performing a computation."
In other words - "We've developed a definition of computation, which we think is useful, under which some physical systems turn out to be performing computation, and others don't."
If you subscribe to the view that all physical events involve computation, that's not an ideal way of putting things - but, even if you don't subscribe to it as a definition of what is or is not computation per se, it still provides a way of classifying physical systems, that may be of use.
It's a worrying facet of law in the US, that it doesn't in general recognise territorial limits to its jurisdiction** (and that when the matter has been challenged in court, extraterritorial application of law has found to be perfectly legal). Whether a law is limited is down to a case-by-case examination. So - do anything, anywhere in the world, that's illegal in US criminal law, and the US will, in principle, charge you with it if it gets its hands on you - and will, and has on many occasions, do whatever it can "legally" get away with to get hold of "criminals" in order to bring them to trial (where "legally" is conveniently defined by the US, rather than some tin-pot, third-world country of no consequence, such as, say, China or Russia). Doesn't matter if what you did was perfectly legal in the country in question; US law doesn't care. Which comes down far too often of late to a US "might is right" approach - the US will do whatever it feels it can get away with. But then, no-one needed me to tell them that.
Two and a half years retired, and it's great.
My employer wanted to change my pension plan in ways that would have made me work years longer just to get my money back; I had to retire 6 years earlier than I planned. The money I lost out on by having to go early would have been useful, but I manage OK on what I have, and the lack of stress is wonderful. I potter around keeping physically and mentally active doing what takes my fancy (worthy or frivolous stuff, such as improving my juggling, learning languages and getting to grips with T'ai Chi competition sword form), and generally not giving a toss for what anyone else thinks. I'm healthier and fitter than I was in decades, as well - stopped drinking, got more on top of my diet, and dropped 50 pounds on my work weight. Although like lots of other retirees I know - I have NO idea how I ever found time for work. I'm still FAR too busy now, doing nothing much in particular.
It's a hard life.
You missed out the RM "Leave it on the doorstep in plain sight of passers-by, rather than spend 30 seconds finding out whether anyone's in" delivery option. Round here we get that one all the time.
It is only correct in modern English because it has been abused and incorrectly used for so long that the improper use has become accepted.
Well, yes. So what? That 's how language changes and grows. By well-educated 17th century standards, your "correct" English is appallingly bad. Presumably you'll go change the whole way you speak, now that I've pointed that out?
Because you really need your kid to spend his or her critical years getting bad education and lousy social interactions at a failing dump while YOU fight to make it better.
Part of the court's job (here in the UK, at least, and undoubtedly therefore in NZ as well) is to decide what the legislators intended when they drew up the instrument in question - not just what the words can be argued to say. So here we have, on the one hand, a clear, unambiguous and unqualified statement that computer programs are NOT patentable, and on the other a very literal reading of part of the detailed wording that would mean that almost all programs WERE patentable (i.e. not excluded by virtue, of having already been previously implemented wholly in hardware**.
I know where my money is. This act bans software patents. Don't go betting the farm on any weasel arguments to the contrary.
**Whatever, indeed, THAT means in legal terms, given that a good argument could be made that even the cards controlling a Jacquard loom are "software".
I have to take issue with the article. It may make for a good Slashdot headline to say "Galileo wrong", but it's factually inaccurate. In the core of the argument, Galileo was 100% correct, and Colombe was 100% wrong.
Almost always, when trying to explain why something in the real world happens, there are multiple effects involved, and prising them apart is not always easy at first. When it comes to whether something something floats or not, that's overwhelmingly about density, not shape. Colombe's demonstration with his ebony sliver was, as the report effectively points out, actually a demonstration that there is another effect at the surface of water (surface tension) that is normally miniscule but which can become significant in extreme cases (when the mass per unit area on the surface is sufficiently low). Colombe's massive (if you'll pardon the unintended pun) error was to take one small experiment as evidence for all cases, and conclude not only that shape can have a role but that it is all that matters. Galileo, by contrast was correct in following Archimedes as the primary effect and saying that something else was going on in Colombe's demonstration. His auxiliary hypothesis may have been incorrect, but it wasn't a bad stab on the spur of the moment, and his gut feeling and faith in his understanding of the fundamentals was correct.
Whilst the ability of American circuit courts to come up with decisions contrary to obvious and established law never ceases to amaze me, you have things back to front. Except where the intent to do something is itself explicitly an offence (intent to kill, for example), it's NOT normally an offence to simply be aware that you MAY be doing something illegal. The overriding issue is whether an offence actually took place - and that's purely a question of law. Prenda had authority to make the file available, and they made it available with the (undeniable) intent that it be shared. Further, they actively assisted in that sharing. A court might find otherwise - but, in my book at least, that's permission.
I would very much like to see it tried in court. Over here in the UK, I believe that Prenda's position is unsustainable. If they claim that putting the files up conveyed no implicit permission to download them, then their behaviour could well be judged to amount to "entrapment", which is a serious criminal offence in its own right (deliberately setting out to entice people who might otherwise not do so to commit an offence, with the intent of then prosecuting them for it). And if by contrast permission was indeed implicit (and it's not easy to see why a court would find otherwise if Prenda deny entrapment), no offence took place.
And, yes, I know courts sometimes hand down contrary decisions based on, or even conflicting with, precedent (and non-legal "logic").
IANAL, but I do take an interest in the law and read quite a bit.
"Partner" has been the term of choice for a good couple of decades in the UK for a significant other to whom one is not married. It doesn't normally require clarification over here, and it seems unsurprising that Glenn Greenwald chose to use it; I presume it's simply the normal way in which he refers to David Miranda.
In my experience, signing up to something in the intent of cancelling at some point in the future is far more trouble than it's worth.
I'm with the OP on this. Time-shifting has, historically, been my primary reason for downloading torrents of stuff that's been aired. Demonoid (excellent and much lamented) was brilliant for that.
For me, it's not price, although I do think that e-books should be priced a lot cheaper because they cost a lot less to produce. No, the main reason is that I know that I'll still have the book I bought when I hit retirement. It's still readable.
With e-books, I know no such thing.
What I do know is that the books I bought in PeanutPress/eReader format (Peanutpress got bought by Palm who sold it to Motricity who sold it to Fictionwise who sold it to Barnes & Noble), I can no longer download or change the lock on. B&N killed it, with no compensation to the customers.
They can't do that with paper books. They're mine, and will be readable in my retirement years too.
Yeesss... you'll still have it provided you buy hardbacks. Far too many paperbacks made since about 1960 have been printed on paper high in acidity, resulting in the glue failing after a few years.
I still have many, many books I've bought over the years. Sadly, far too many of my favourites are pretty much just loose piles of paper now. But I agree with your general point; I don't entirely trust my ebooks to still be available, with confidence, in even 5 years, let alone in 20. And for books I expect to keep and reread, I'd rather have hard-copy.
Indeed. I don't want anyone collecting anything about what I do or don't decide to look at, and I certainly don't want them then going further by analysing it, sharing it and generally helping people I don't know and don't want to know to "tailor" my experience - however well-meaning the intent. When I'm on the net, I'm there because I want to be, for my reasons - not for the convenience of anyone else. Get off my lawn, Mozilla - stay out of my computer experience, and let me decide what I want to see, and when.
I sometimes get strong voice hallucinations just as I'm drowsing off. They're not anything coherent - just a random voice and a muddled phrase or two. On such occasions as I become aware of them, they're a sure sign I was right on the verge of sleep before something disturbed me. But they have a "real" quality - of actually hearing the sound - that simple memory doesn't, and clearly involve my auditory centre. I can understand how someone getting something similar whilst fully awake might be affected.
Spot on. If the software you're going to work on needs to do maths, you need to understand maths. If it doesn't, you probably don't.
I have a degree in mathematics. I was a commercial programmer for a decade and a software tester for some of IBM's (seriously complex) flagship mainframe software for another two decades, During that time I can't honestly say I ever directly used a single thing from my degree. Nor even were many of the people I worked with, mathematicians - sure, we had a fair sprinkling of them, but quite a lot of people from completely different disciplines as well (including several historians, for some reason - feel free to insert obligatory "fossil" jokes now, by all means). What everyone unquestionably did make use of were the discipline and ability to think critically that we picked up whilst studying.
I was taught CODE at university and on courses my employer sent me on.
I learnt HOW to code maintaining various business systems - modifying other people's code to do whatever the business now needed, in ways that hopefully wouldn't make it harder for the next guy, sometimes being dragged out of bed at two in the morning to sort out bugs in the batch runs before the start of the next working day. Along the line I got some pretty good ideas of what was good practice and what was awful, that stood me in good stead across numerous languages, platforms and techniques. I got sent on lots of theoretical courses along the line; none of them ever taught me half as much as changing other people's code, both good and bad. And along the line, sadly, I worked with far too many people who never learned the difference.
TL;DR: Learning a language and learning how to program are NOT the same thing.
What your rights are and what's socially acceptable are two different things. One right that you most definitely don't have in practice is to do whatever you feel like and be treated with social tolerance simply because your behaviour isn't actually illegal.
If Google Glass ever actually makes it to market, I certainly wouldn't advise any male wearing a set to go stand outside a primary (US elementary) school at a busy time, for example - I give them 10 minutes tops before the police turn up (and potentially a VERY uncomfortable time once they do).
From personal experience, that's pretty much what happened inside IBM itself. When IBM took over Lotus, it was decided at the highest level that the company had to be seen to be using its own products. Result - the whole workforce being pushed bodily over to Notes from the then-perfectly-adequate mail system being used. I'd say it took a good 5 years for things to settle down to the point where (a) everyone was finally comfortable with it, (b) the infrastructure was right, (c) it was being used sensibly, and (d) the company genuinely started to reap real internal benefits from the collaborative things Notes actually did quite well.
I'd go further. The human brain is a physical device. A very complex one, yes - but still just that. Any possible mechanism that anyone can point to as giving the brain "choice" can equally, in principle, be built into a robot. Which means that either robots are not inherently deterministic, or that we are**. Claiming anything else is people trying to have their cake and eat it (presumably for the same reason that "we" have assumed lots of wrong things in the past - because we think we must be somehow "special" and different. The difference is ultimately not one of function, but of complexity.
** There's evidence that we're deterministic. Not least that a brain scan can, under lab conditions, consistently predict a decision you're going to make as much as seven seconds before you, supposedly, make it.
...except that, instead of hitting the same key a variable number of times, you'll be hitting the screen multiple times (i.e. until you manage to focus in on your target). Perfectly do-able, but not ergonomically ideal.
Slashdot Mirror
Philosophers have nothing of use to say on matters of this sort; all they can do is play elaborate, aggressively argumentative word games, shifting their ground whenever they need to. Personally, I'm still waiting for a clear, SCIENTIFIC definition of "free will". Give me that, and I'll answer the question.**
It's a bit like the old saw about whether a tree falling in a forest makes a noise when there's no-one there to hear it. Define in scientific terms precisely what you mean by "a noise", and you'll find there's nothing to argue about. If a noise is a particular type of vibration in air or another medium, the answer is yes; if your definition's more complex, involving the detection and recognition of those vibrations in a human auditory system, the answer is no. Something inbetween will depend on your precise definition - but it will still be unambiguously answerable. The point is, definition is everything. Fail to define what you're arguing about - such as "free will" - and people will simply swap backwards and forwards all day between two or more conflicting definitions (without admitting or even necessarily recognising that the definitions are indeed conflicting), using each to argue that you're still wrong.
**For my money, by the way, the answer is almost certainly "no". The human brain is a hugely complex mechanism, true, but it's still just a mechanism, and I can't personally think of a definition of "free will" that isn't constrained by that. There's plenty of experimental evidence, for instance, to show that it reaches decisions, and that an observer with the right equipment can even detect those decisions, well before the individual becomes consciously aware of them, No - feed the identical information in under identical circumstances, get the same results from any randomisation mechanisms (such as quantum states) involved along the way (totally undo-able in reality, but we're talking theory here), and you'd get the exact same result out. So, even though I feel like I'm sitting here typing this because I decided "of my own free will" to do so, in fact it's simply a predictable consequence of my current mental state (combined with all my sensory input., etc., right now). Personally, I don't have a problem with that.
Myst was released 20 years ago, and the fact that Cyan feel the need to trade on the reputation of a property that old ought to be at least as much a warning sign as it is a cause for excitement. Yes, Cyan may technically be the company that produced it - but, whilst companies can theoretically live for ever, people move on. It's an absolute certainty that any new property would be produced by different people, under different management, with potentially different attitudes and values (and I've seen at first hand just HOW much of a difference 20 years of change in a company can make), using a different engine, to vastly different market expectations (Myst was good in its day - but if it launched today, I suspect it would barely make the discount shelves).
Good luck to them, by all means - new, quality products in the market are always welcome. And if they get to market, and it's any good, I may buy it. But this is no different to any other company coming along and saying "We plan to develop a new game, and it's going to be great, so give us the money to let us do it".
This isn't a discovery or a proof of anything. At heart, it's simply a (deeply academic) attempt to usefully define "computation". From the abstract: "In this paper we introduce a formal framework that can be used to determine whether or not a physical system is performing a computation." In other words - "We've developed a definition of computation, which we think is useful, under which some physical systems turn out to be performing computation, and others don't." If you subscribe to the view that all physical events involve computation, that's not an ideal way of putting things - but, even if you don't subscribe to it as a definition of what is or is not computation per se, it still provides a way of classifying physical systems, that may be of use.
It's a worrying facet of law in the US, that it doesn't in general recognise territorial limits to its jurisdiction** (and that when the matter has been challenged in court, extraterritorial application of law has found to be perfectly legal). Whether a law is limited is down to a case-by-case examination. So - do anything, anywhere in the world, that's illegal in US criminal law, and the US will, in principle, charge you with it if it gets its hands on you - and will, and has on many occasions, do whatever it can "legally" get away with to get hold of "criminals" in order to bring them to trial (where "legally" is conveniently defined by the US, rather than some tin-pot, third-world country of no consequence, such as, say, China or Russia). Doesn't matter if what you did was perfectly legal in the country in question; US law doesn't care. Which comes down far too often of late to a US "might is right" approach - the US will do whatever it feels it can get away with. But then, no-one needed me to tell them that.
**Read, for example, the following Congressional research document: "Extraterritorial Application of American Criminal Law".
Oh, and spending too much time on line, reading slashDot, playing MMOs and generally chilling.
Two and a half years retired, and it's great. My employer wanted to change my pension plan in ways that would have made me work years longer just to get my money back; I had to retire 6 years earlier than I planned. The money I lost out on by having to go early would have been useful, but I manage OK on what I have, and the lack of stress is wonderful. I potter around keeping physically and mentally active doing what takes my fancy (worthy or frivolous stuff, such as improving my juggling, learning languages and getting to grips with T'ai Chi competition sword form), and generally not giving a toss for what anyone else thinks. I'm healthier and fitter than I was in decades, as well - stopped drinking, got more on top of my diet, and dropped 50 pounds on my work weight. Although like lots of other retirees I know - I have NO idea how I ever found time for work. I'm still FAR too busy now, doing nothing much in particular. It's a hard life.
You missed out the RM "Leave it on the doorstep in plain sight of passers-by, rather than spend 30 seconds finding out whether anyone's in" delivery option. Round here we get that one all the time.
It is only correct in modern English because it has been abused and incorrectly used for so long that the improper use has become accepted.
Well, yes. So what? That 's how language changes and grows. By well-educated 17th century standards, your "correct" English is appallingly bad. Presumably you'll go change the whole way you speak, now that I've pointed that out?
Because you really need your kid to spend his or her critical years getting bad education and lousy social interactions at a failing dump while YOU fight to make it better.
Part of the court's job (here in the UK, at least, and undoubtedly therefore in NZ as well) is to decide what the legislators intended when they drew up the instrument in question - not just what the words can be argued to say. So here we have, on the one hand, a clear, unambiguous and unqualified statement that computer programs are NOT patentable, and on the other a very literal reading of part of the detailed wording that would mean that almost all programs WERE patentable (i.e. not excluded by virtue, of having already been previously implemented wholly in hardware**.
I know where my money is. This act bans software patents. Don't go betting the farm on any weasel arguments to the contrary.
**Whatever, indeed, THAT means in legal terms, given that a good argument could be made that even the cards controlling a Jacquard loom are "software".
I have to take issue with the article. It may make for a good Slashdot headline to say "Galileo wrong", but it's factually inaccurate. In the core of the argument, Galileo was 100% correct, and Colombe was 100% wrong.
Almost always, when trying to explain why something in the real world happens, there are multiple effects involved, and prising them apart is not always easy at first. When it comes to whether something something floats or not, that's overwhelmingly about density, not shape. Colombe's demonstration with his ebony sliver was, as the report effectively points out, actually a demonstration that there is another effect at the surface of water (surface tension) that is normally miniscule but which can become significant in extreme cases (when the mass per unit area on the surface is sufficiently low). Colombe's massive (if you'll pardon the unintended pun) error was to take one small experiment as evidence for all cases, and conclude not only that shape can have a role but that it is all that matters. Galileo, by contrast was correct in following Archimedes as the primary effect and saying that something else was going on in Colombe's demonstration. His auxiliary hypothesis may have been incorrect, but it wasn't a bad stab on the spur of the moment, and his gut feeling and faith in his understanding of the fundamentals was correct.
Whilst the ability of American circuit courts to come up with decisions contrary to obvious and established law never ceases to amaze me, you have things back to front. Except where the intent to do something is itself explicitly an offence (intent to kill, for example), it's NOT normally an offence to simply be aware that you MAY be doing something illegal. The overriding issue is whether an offence actually took place - and that's purely a question of law. Prenda had authority to make the file available, and they made it available with the (undeniable) intent that it be shared. Further, they actively assisted in that sharing. A court might find otherwise - but, in my book at least, that's permission.
I would very much like to see it tried in court. Over here in the UK, I believe that Prenda's position is unsustainable. If they claim that putting the files up conveyed no implicit permission to download them, then their behaviour could well be judged to amount to "entrapment", which is a serious criminal offence in its own right (deliberately setting out to entice people who might otherwise not do so to commit an offence, with the intent of then prosecuting them for it). And if by contrast permission was indeed implicit (and it's not easy to see why a court would find otherwise if Prenda deny entrapment), no offence took place. And, yes, I know courts sometimes hand down contrary decisions based on, or even conflicting with, precedent (and non-legal "logic"). IANAL, but I do take an interest in the law and read quite a bit.
"Partner" has been the term of choice for a good couple of decades in the UK for a significant other to whom one is not married. It doesn't normally require clarification over here, and it seems unsurprising that Glenn Greenwald chose to use it; I presume it's simply the normal way in which he refers to David Miranda.
In my experience, signing up to something in the intent of cancelling at some point in the future is far more trouble than it's worth. I'm with the OP on this. Time-shifting has, historically, been my primary reason for downloading torrents of stuff that's been aired. Demonoid (excellent and much lamented) was brilliant for that.
For me, it's not price, although I do think that e-books should be priced a lot cheaper because they cost a lot less to produce. No, the main reason is that I know that I'll still have the book I bought when I hit retirement. It's still readable. With e-books, I know no such thing. What I do know is that the books I bought in PeanutPress/eReader format (Peanutpress got bought by Palm who sold it to Motricity who sold it to Fictionwise who sold it to Barnes & Noble), I can no longer download or change the lock on. B&N killed it, with no compensation to the customers. They can't do that with paper books. They're mine, and will be readable in my retirement years too.
Yeesss... you'll still have it provided you buy hardbacks. Far too many paperbacks made since about 1960 have been printed on paper high in acidity, resulting in the glue failing after a few years.
I still have many, many books I've bought over the years. Sadly, far too many of my favourites are pretty much just loose piles of paper now. But I agree with your general point; I don't entirely trust my ebooks to still be available, with confidence, in even 5 years, let alone in 20. And for books I expect to keep and reread, I'd rather have hard-copy.
"computer system design services and the modification, integration, enhancement, installation or configuration of standardized software".
"No problem; we only did one of those, not both..."
Indeed. I don't want anyone collecting anything about what I do or don't decide to look at, and I certainly don't want them then going further by analysing it, sharing it and generally helping people I don't know and don't want to know to "tailor" my experience - however well-meaning the intent. When I'm on the net, I'm there because I want to be, for my reasons - not for the convenience of anyone else. Get off my lawn, Mozilla - stay out of my computer experience, and let me decide what I want to see, and when.
I sometimes get strong voice hallucinations just as I'm drowsing off. They're not anything coherent - just a random voice and a muddled phrase or two. On such occasions as I become aware of them, they're a sure sign I was right on the verge of sleep before something disturbed me. But they have a "real" quality - of actually hearing the sound - that simple memory doesn't, and clearly involve my auditory centre. I can understand how someone getting something similar whilst fully awake might be affected.
Spot on. If the software you're going to work on needs to do maths, you need to understand maths. If it doesn't, you probably don't.
I have a degree in mathematics. I was a commercial programmer for a decade and a software tester for some of IBM's (seriously complex) flagship mainframe software for another two decades, During that time I can't honestly say I ever directly used a single thing from my degree. Nor even were many of the people I worked with, mathematicians - sure, we had a fair sprinkling of them, but quite a lot of people from completely different disciplines as well (including several historians, for some reason - feel free to insert obligatory "fossil" jokes now, by all means). What everyone unquestionably did make use of were the discipline and ability to think critically that we picked up whilst studying.
I was taught CODE at university and on courses my employer sent me on.
I learnt HOW to code maintaining various business systems - modifying other people's code to do whatever the business now needed, in ways that hopefully wouldn't make it harder for the next guy, sometimes being dragged out of bed at two in the morning to sort out bugs in the batch runs before the start of the next working day. Along the line I got some pretty good ideas of what was good practice and what was awful, that stood me in good stead across numerous languages, platforms and techniques. I got sent on lots of theoretical courses along the line; none of them ever taught me half as much as changing other people's code, both good and bad. And along the line, sadly, I worked with far too many people who never learned the difference.
TL;DR: Learning a language and learning how to program are NOT the same thing.
What your rights are and what's socially acceptable are two different things. One right that you most definitely don't have in practice is to do whatever you feel like and be treated with social tolerance simply because your behaviour isn't actually illegal. If Google Glass ever actually makes it to market, I certainly wouldn't advise any male wearing a set to go stand outside a primary (US elementary) school at a busy time, for example - I give them 10 minutes tops before the police turn up (and potentially a VERY uncomfortable time once they do).
From personal experience, that's pretty much what happened inside IBM itself. When IBM took over Lotus, it was decided at the highest level that the company had to be seen to be using its own products. Result - the whole workforce being pushed bodily over to Notes from the then-perfectly-adequate mail system being used. I'd say it took a good 5 years for things to settle down to the point where (a) everyone was finally comfortable with it, (b) the infrastructure was right, (c) it was being used sensibly, and (d) the company genuinely started to reap real internal benefits from the collaborative things Notes actually did quite well.
I'd go further. The human brain is a physical device. A very complex one, yes - but still just that. Any possible mechanism that anyone can point to as giving the brain "choice" can equally, in principle, be built into a robot. Which means that either robots are not inherently deterministic, or that we are**. Claiming anything else is people trying to have their cake and eat it (presumably for the same reason that "we" have assumed lots of wrong things in the past - because we think we must be somehow "special" and different. The difference is ultimately not one of function, but of complexity.
** There's evidence that we're deterministic. Not least that a brain scan can, under lab conditions, consistently predict a decision you're going to make as much as seven seconds before you, supposedly, make it.
...except that, instead of hitting the same key a variable number of times, you'll be hitting the screen multiple times (i.e. until you manage to focus in on your target). Perfectly do-able, but not ergonomically ideal.