Well, you're just using different definitions of the same word. Such a discovery would just mean "nature" (in the sense of the word that scientists use) is bigger than we thought it was.
If supernatural should have any meaning, I would allow to apply it to something that acts on our reality, but has no explanaition in our reality.
Yes it would "just" mean that there is something outside our reality. Something over and above, something super to our reality, something supernatural.
If you observe spontanous energy and just say, "hey, that breaks the fundamental laws of physics, but since I've observed it it's natural", then you're denying the fact that this is something very different from everything else in nature that can (or probably can) be described through known mechanisms of our known reality.
Actually no. Let's say you can, through observation, prove that energy appears spontanously,then you would have scientific proof of something supernatural.
Or at least proof that something outside our existence is feeding our reality with energy. Which would be supernatural enough for me.
Being deterministic does not imply predictability. Actually being deterministic, but not predictable, is part of the requirements for a system being chaotic.
You assume ~A and draw the conclusion ~B. That's not justified.
One thing about logic is understanding when to use it.
You are correct that A->B does not imply ~A->~B.
When you have ~A you do not know anything about B, and cannot make a conclusion based on the model.
However, A->B was never ment to be a complete model of the possible relationships between conscious minds and conscious atoms. It describes only one relatinship. If we want to understand what ~A leads to, we need to look beyond A->B and at the world we're trying to model. And doing that, we see that if we have ~A (no free will) then there is no reason to suspect atoms with free will either.
So there is justification for extending the model and say that ~A->~B
So asuming atoms have not free will, since we don't, ~A from ~B, is a fair and valid conclusion. It's not a logical proof derived from A->B, but it was never claimed to be either.
The real error here was to use an incomplete model to say that a justified conclusion that was not part of the model was false.
What that sounds to me is "I dont want to have to pay for games, but I still want games, so -others- should pay for them, but not me".
Then you should read more carefully, because I wrote: "But still I think people who can afford games/movies/music/software should buy most of what they consume." Also I wrote: "I bought a PS3 a couple of months ago. I've so far bought 12 Blu-ray discs," And I also wrote: "There are plenty of cheap PC games around that are only a year old, and costs about a fifth." I even mentioned it is my moral belief that copying should be legal.
Put these together, and it should'nt be to difficult to infer that what you though you heard was totally wrong.
But I guess your generalizing autopilot kicked in and blocked all other information when you read that I thought it should be legal to copy.
Your inability to read aside, the reason I think (non comercial) copying should be legal, is that I think it is morally wrong to have laws that protect the profitability of a given business model at the cost of the freedom of private people.
You imply that no triple A games would be produced if this was the case. Well, heavy pirating has been going on for at least two decades, there's hardly any game you can't download if you want to. Still triple A games has been produced, and it ha been profitable thanks to people like me who prefer to buy games (as I also said in my other post!) even though pirated copies are available.
And, based on your indignation on behalf of the industry, it appears that you to would chose to actually buy a game or two. So I think you're wrong when you imply that the laws are the reason it is possible to make profit on games today.
I bought a PS3 a couple of months ago. I've so far bought 12 Blu-ray discs, and no games. The reason is the games are far to expensive. There are plenty of cheap PC games around that are only a year old, and costs about a fifth.
When buying games I stay away from anything with heavy DRM, as I hate that stuff. It makes life hard for legal customers who pay for games.
All of the Blu-Ray discs I've bought (except one miss) is region free. The DVD-regions have annoyed me so much over the years, that I just won't buy anything with region coding any more.
So I stay away from DRM (including region coding) as much as I can, and I stay away from the expensive games. The only exceptions are some must-have stuff.
Also my moral belief is that copying should be legal in a non-comercial situation. But still I think people who can afford games/movies/music/software should buy most of what they consume.
It doesn't really matter that the percentage drops. As long as the absolute number of people actually fixing bugs don't drop, the rate of bug fixing will remain constant.
The good thing about "anybody can find and fix the bugs" has never meant "I personally can fix the bugs". It means "somebody out there can fix bugs without having to be part of the developer team".
Fine by me. It's not the length of the copyright that is the problem, it's how the copyright laws extends into peoples private lives.
In a commercial situation, I support that the artists should have control over their music. But in a private situation, where no one is making a living out of the music, the copyright should not apply.
I still prefer at good command line interface for most tasks.
Browsing the web or manipulating visual content, sure I use the mouse. Browsing the file system, starting programs etc. I prefer the keyboard and usually a good CLI, it is much faster and much more flexible for most tasks.
Of course, I don't use DOS, but Linux and a decent terminal application.
"Mr. Dorozhko invested $41,671 in put options that would expire worthless three days later unless IMS shares plunged before that. The next morning the share price did plunge, and Mr. Dorozhko made his money by selling the puts."
I don't understand this. He was buying, waiting for the share price to plunge, and then selling. Doesn't that mean he was selling lower than he bought? How did he make money?
For example: During the Cold War, theories of capitalism continued to be developed and elaborated in order to explain, justify, or criticize the private ownership of capital; to explain the operation of capitalistic markets; and to guide the application or elimination of government regulation of property and markets.
Anyway, my main point does not depend on how you define capitalism. Just because someone is capitalizing on something doesn't mean you can automatically blame capitalism. And DRM is regulation, which is not something that only happens in capitalistic systems.
>What it all really means, is "I can still buy a $5 latte and my favorite sit-com with the offensively stereo-typed ethnic characters is still on television and I can still follow my favorite commercial sports team, so I *must* have an ass-load of freedom!".
Personally I find this offensively stereo-typing americans.
>The big picture is that runaway Capitalism is where they have gone wrong.
Capitalism is about free competition. DRM, the cited problem here, is about regulation. Regulation is not the same as free competition.
Some people have a tendency to think that when exploitation and capitalizing on other people is going on, then automatically capitalism is to blame. It is of course not that simple. Exploitation and capitalizing on others happen under capitalism, but also under a lot of other systems.
This time it is not capitalism, it's regulation of competetion through DRM, in many ways the opposite of capitalism (yes, that statement is oversimplified), that is to blame.
>The big picture is that runaway Capitalism is where they have gone wrong.
Capitalism is about free competition. CRM, the cited problem here, is about regulation. Regulation is not the same as free competition.
Some people have a tendency to think that when exploitation and capitalizing on other people is going on, then automatically capitalism is to blame. It is of course not that simple. Exploitation and capitalizing on others happen under capitalism, but also under a lot of other systems.
This time it is not capitalism, it's regulation of competetion through CRM, in many ways the opposite of capitalism (yes, that statement is oversimplified), that is to blame.
Random drift is necessary for evolution to take place. Random drift introduces differences. Selection pressure ensures that genes causing drift in a positive direction is more likely to survive and spread.
So increased rate of genomes changing translates directly to increased evolutionary rate.
The two main reasons I'm not using Gimp for editing photography is that it is not possible to import RAW formats, and there is no support for 16 bit per channel color resolution. When this change, I might replace Photshop with the Gimp.
The user interface is no problem. I like having free floating windows. I hate the doctrine where all windows are locked to a single larger window. This makes the actual working area smaller. I have desktop, that is my "larger window". I use Linux, that gives me several virtual desktops so that I can devote one of them to Gimp if I want to. If a window I need is behind another window, I use alt+tab to quickly find it again.
In my oppinion the interface is good. People are just not used to it. Or they use it with windows which offers less flexibility since it lacks a good way of handling virtual desktops. I can understand it gets cluttered when you have lots of other applications on the same screen. Then one window per application makes more sense, since it becomes some sort of a virtual desktop substitue.
Clippy was just an example. Not chosen because it was so important, but because it was easily recognizable. Also by people who have no idea about what zero-day exploits are and doesn't care about per server/VM costs.
The point is, if Windows Office was open source, there would be available a version with no clippy in it. You wouldn't have to do change the code yourself. Someone else would, and you could download it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you're just using different definitions of the same word. Such a discovery would just mean "nature" (in the sense of the word that scientists use) is bigger than we thought it was.
If supernatural should have any meaning, I would allow to apply it to something that acts on our reality, but has no explanaition in our reality.
Yes it would "just" mean that there is something outside our reality. Something over and above, something super to our reality, something supernatural.
If you observe spontanous energy and just say, "hey, that breaks the fundamental laws of physics, but since I've observed it it's natural", then you're denying the fact that this is something very different from everything else in nature that can (or probably can) be described through known mechanisms of our known reality.
You assume the source can be found. That's not given.
The source might never be part of our reality, our nature, it would be outside and beyond our reality and thus it would be supernatural.
Our will is just as free as the results of thrown dice are random.
Actually no. Let's say you can, through observation, prove that energy appears spontanously,then you would have scientific proof of something supernatural.
Or at least proof that something outside our existence is feeding our reality with energy. Which would be supernatural enough for me.
Moderate the above up.
Being deterministic does not imply predictability. Actually being deterministic, but not predictable, is part of the requirements for a system being chaotic.
You assume ~A and draw the conclusion ~B. That's not justified.
One thing about logic is understanding when to use it.
You are correct that A->B does not imply ~A->~B.
When you have ~A you do not know anything about B, and cannot make a conclusion based on the model.
However, A->B was never ment to be a complete model of the possible relationships between conscious minds and conscious atoms. It describes only one relatinship. If we want to understand what ~A leads to, we need to look beyond A->B and at the world we're trying to model. And doing that, we see that if we have ~A (no free will) then there is no reason to suspect atoms with free will either.
So there is justification for extending the model and say that ~A->~B
So asuming atoms have not free will, since we don't, ~A from ~B, is a fair and valid conclusion. It's not a logical proof derived from A->B, but it was never claimed to be either.
The real error here was to use an incomplete model to say that a justified conclusion that was not part of the model was false.
What that sounds to me is "I dont want to have to pay for games, but I still want games, so -others- should pay for them, but not me".
Then you should read more carefully, because I wrote: "But still I think people who can afford games/movies/music/software should buy most of what they consume."
Also I wrote: "I bought a PS3 a couple of months ago. I've so far bought 12 Blu-ray discs,"
And I also wrote: "There are plenty of cheap PC games around that are only a year old, and costs about a fifth."
I even mentioned it is my moral belief that copying should be legal.
Put these together, and it should'nt be to difficult to infer that what you though you heard was totally wrong.
But I guess your generalizing autopilot kicked in and blocked all other information when you read that I thought it should be legal to copy.
Your inability to read aside, the reason I think (non comercial) copying should be legal, is that I think it is morally wrong to have laws that protect the profitability of a given business model at the cost of the freedom of private people.
You imply that no triple A games would be produced if this was the case. Well, heavy pirating has been going on for at least two decades, there's hardly any game you can't download if you want to. Still triple A games has been produced, and it ha been profitable thanks to people like me who prefer to buy games (as I also said in my other post!) even though pirated copies are available.
And, based on your indignation on behalf of the industry, it appears that you to would chose to actually buy a game or two. So I think you're wrong when you imply that the laws are the reason it is possible to make profit on games today.
I bought a PS3 a couple of months ago. I've so far bought 12 Blu-ray discs, and no games. The reason is the games are far to expensive. There are plenty of cheap PC games around that are only a year old, and costs about a fifth.
When buying games I stay away from anything with heavy DRM, as I hate that stuff. It makes life hard for legal customers who pay for games.
All of the Blu-Ray discs I've bought (except one miss) is region free. The DVD-regions have annoyed me so much over the years, that I just won't buy anything with region coding any more.
So I stay away from DRM (including region coding) as much as I can, and I stay away from the expensive games. The only exceptions are some must-have stuff.
Also my moral belief is that copying should be legal in a non-comercial situation. But still I think people who can afford games/movies/music/software should buy most of what they consume.
It doesn't really matter that the percentage drops. As long as the absolute number of people actually fixing bugs don't drop, the rate of bug fixing will remain constant.
The good thing about "anybody can find and fix the bugs" has never meant "I personally can fix the bugs". It means "somebody out there can fix bugs without having to be part of the developer team".
HA-HA!
Fine by me. It's not the length of the copyright that is the problem, it's how the copyright laws extends into peoples private lives.
In a commercial situation, I support that the artists should have control over their music. But in a private situation, where no one is making a living out of the music, the copyright should not apply.
I still prefer at good command line interface for most tasks.
Browsing the web or manipulating visual content, sure I use the mouse. Browsing the file system, starting programs etc. I prefer the keyboard and usually a good CLI, it is much faster and much more flexible for most tasks.
Of course, I don't use DOS, but Linux and a decent terminal application.
Thanks for the information. There's obviously a lot about stock trading I don't know about.
But that's what you get for complexity, more possibilities to exploit the system.
"Mr. Dorozhko invested $41,671 in put options that would expire worthless three days later unless IMS shares plunged before that. The next morning the share price did plunge, and Mr. Dorozhko made his money by selling the puts."
I don't understand this. He was buying, waiting for the share price to plunge, and then selling. Doesn't that mean he was selling lower than he bought? How did he make money?
You should read the whole article you're quoting.
For example:
During the Cold War, theories of capitalism continued to be developed and elaborated in order to explain, justify, or criticize the private ownership of capital; to explain the operation of capitalistic markets; and to guide the application or elimination of government regulation of property and markets.
Anyway, my main point does not depend on how you define capitalism. Just because someone is capitalizing on something doesn't mean you can automatically blame capitalism. And DRM is regulation, which is not something that only happens in capitalistic systems.
>What it all really means, is "I can still buy a $5 latte and my favorite sit-com with the offensively stereo-typed ethnic characters is still on television and I can still follow my favorite commercial sports team, so I *must* have an ass-load of freedom!".
Personally I find this offensively stereo-typing americans.
>The big picture is that runaway Capitalism is where they have gone wrong.
Capitalism is about free competition. DRM, the cited problem here, is about regulation. Regulation is not the same as free competition.
Some people have a tendency to think that when exploitation and capitalizing on other people is going on, then automatically capitalism is to blame. It is of course not that simple. Exploitation and capitalizing on others happen under capitalism, but also under a lot of other systems.
This time it is not capitalism, it's regulation of competetion through DRM, in many ways the opposite of capitalism (yes, that statement is oversimplified), that is to blame.
>The big picture is that runaway Capitalism is where they have gone wrong.
Capitalism is about free competition. CRM, the cited problem here, is about regulation. Regulation is not the same as free competition.
Some people have a tendency to think that when exploitation and capitalizing on other people is going on, then automatically capitalism is to blame. It is of course not that simple. Exploitation and capitalizing on others happen under capitalism, but also under a lot of other systems.
This time it is not capitalism, it's regulation of competetion through CRM, in many ways the opposite of capitalism (yes, that statement is oversimplified), that is to blame.
For the fear of doing this I have never usubscribed from a single mailing list in my whole life...
Gotta go. Just received an email.
Random drift is necessary for evolution to take place. Random drift introduces differences. Selection pressure ensures that genes causing drift in a positive direction is more likely to survive and spread.
So increased rate of genomes changing translates directly to increased evolutionary rate.
The two main reasons I'm not using Gimp for editing photography is that it is not possible to import RAW formats, and there is no support for 16 bit per channel color resolution. When this change, I might replace Photshop with the Gimp.
:)
The user interface is no problem. I like having free floating windows. I hate the doctrine where all windows are locked to a single larger window. This makes the actual working area smaller. I have desktop, that is my "larger window". I use Linux, that gives me several virtual desktops so that I can devote one of them to Gimp if I want to. If a window I need is behind another window, I use alt+tab to quickly find it again.
In my oppinion the interface is good. People are just not used to it. Or they use it with windows which offers less flexibility since it lacks a good way of handling virtual desktops. I can understand it gets cluttered when you have lots of other applications on the same screen. Then one window per application makes more sense, since it becomes some sort of a virtual desktop substitue.
Wow, this post got much longer than I intended.
Gimp is not "most linux applications". It isn't even representable for "most linux applications".
Clippy was just an example. Not chosen because it was so important, but because it was easily recognizable. Also by people who have no idea about what zero-day exploits are and doesn't care about per server/VM costs.
The point is, if Windows Office was open source, there would be available a version with no clippy in it. You wouldn't have to do change the code yourself. Someone else would, and you could download it.
I can't believe they left out Konqueror!