CHAP. XIV. -- NEITHER TIME PAST NOR FUTURE, BUT THE PRESENT ONLY, REALLY IS.
17. At no time, therefore, hadst Thou not made anything, because Thou hadst made time itself. And no times are co-eternal with Thee, because Thou remainest for ever; but should these continue, they would not be times. For what is time? Who can easily and briefly explain it? Who even in thought can comprehend it, even to the pronouncing of a word concerning it? But what in speaking do we refer to more familiarly and knowingly than time? And certainly we understand when we speak of it; we understand also when we hear it spoken of by another. What, then, is time? If no one ask of me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not. Yet I say with confidence, that I know that if nothing passed away, there would not be past time; and if nothing were coming, there would not be future time; and if nothing were, there would not be present time. Those two times, therefore, past and future, how are they, when even the past now is not; and the future is not as yet? But should the present be always present, and should it not pass into time past, time truly it could not be, but eternity. If, then, time present -- if it be time -- only comes into existence because it passes into time past, how do we say that even this is, whose cause of being is that it shall not be -- namely, so that we cannot truly say that time is, unless because it tends not to be?
I agree with your points, however I think in the larger context if online gambling were allowed, it seems to me that they would have to be subject to the same oversight and regulation as the "brick & mortar" casinos. So if such things can be applied and enforced for on-line based casinos, we would assume the incentive to cheat would be about the same.
Successful implementation of some kind accreditation of on-line casinos would probably mitigate off-shore ventures - almost by definition such would be untrusted.
Is it possible to designate "trusted" on-line casinos? Would potential customers use these over the others? The barriers seem very high to me to be able to create such an environment - but it seems like it ought to be possible.
But why? You get free drinks at brick & mortar casinos, even if you lose!
If the "artificial limitations" are "completely unnecessary, and unjustifiable", then consumers won't buy it. In your car analogy, people can still buy Chevys and Hondas.
I happen to agree about completely unnecessary - I suspect that Apple has a justification (they think they'll make more money), but their choice of what to make doesn't control my choice of what to buy.
I am very disappointed in what I've read about the iPad - but on the bright side, I'm going to save a lot of money!
I am not whining because my boss and I have different political views. In fact, I applaud that - that is what it means to live in a free country.
Just because I associate with somebody for the purposes of earning wages does not mean I should be compelled to give them a proxy to my right of free speech.
If you voluntarily join a group with the intent of having your opinions heard through the voice of others in that group, that is one thing. It seems entirely another thing to have the political leanings off my boss amplified through corporate profits which I help earn, whether I like it or not.
Right of free speech + right of association means that people can speak freely no matter who they associate with - it does not confer anything to the association. At least that is my opinion. Too bad it doesn't count.
If he sent the message to the airport or the cops or the news media, then it's a hoax. Sending a message to your friends is different. Completely different. Maybe in these times it warrants somebody following up to make sure there aren't any dots to connect - but after the facts are gathered and the police decide to press charges as if this guy was a terrorist? Had intended to shut down an airport? Irresponsible at best. How much time & effort, how many tax dollars are funding this miscarriage that could be better spent? Police actions in this case are diverting resources and making us all less safe.
Absolutely correct - either is great but taking both is better! Then take more. You learn how to solve hard problems logically in math classes - a skill that works everywhere and especially well with programming.
Public domain isn't about getting content for free, it is about creating a public pool of culture from which to base further creative works. If you found a torrent of "From Here To Eternity" you could not create a new work with those characters or the story or whatever.
Current copyright law (at least US copyright law) is stagnating the pool. We grow up surrounded by ideas and culture that inspire us, but which we can't use to create our own works.
...you can easily get away from it simply by turning off the device you're using to access it...
I think you've just saved the tax payers of Australia a ton of money - just replace the circle & line logo on the power button with the "friendly dolphin" icon and the children are safe!
Telling family/friends/neighbors that every single thing on the Internet is a lie has been the most effective thing I've come up with. Especially for email - it is all a lie, a damn lie. (Note - it is especially fun to tell them this via email.)
That and switching my mom to a Mac has really saved me a ton of time. I'm no Mac fanboy, but they do just seem to work.
I have had a Kindle for quite a while and recently got an iTouch - for other reasons than reading eBooks. But I tried out the Kindle app and - well, I almost exclusively use the iTouch now - for the reasons you specify.
One thing in the Kindle's favor - battery life. With the modem off, I get a couple weeks worth of use out of it between charges. The usability of the iTouch is great - but I can drain it in a day.
As far as contrast, however, I don't think that higher contrast always makes for better readability. You want enough, but not too much - I find the Kindle screen just about perfect. I usually have to dial down the brightness on the iTouch for reading.
Anyway - if you can only have one, I'd favor the iTouch. But if you are a gadget hound (like me), why not get both?
He didn't say he didn't want any radiation of any kind - he just didn't want any MORE radiation that the tower would surely bring. I don't think that is idiotic.
Where I question his judgment is looking at the amount of radiation that the tower would introduce - the article says 60,000 x lower than the legal limit for organic food. Seems he is a bit more careful that I am. But I'm not sure that makes him an idiot.
I was agreeing with the poster who I read as basically saying that the "truth" is probably somewhere between the extremes and by the way, what harm does cleaning up the environment do?
Actually, the market IS working in the environment that exists - that it, it is taking full advantage of the fact that the cell phone charging industry does not bear the external cost of disposing of perfectly good chargers every time we get a new device. We need the regulation to push that external cost to be part of the product - then market forces will adjust.
Rather than a universal charger designed by committee and consensus, I'd rather see regulation aimed directly at closing off the externality. Like maybe requiring cell phone companies to accept old charges back for a credit. Or not being allowed to package a charger along with the phone - make the consumer buy them separately. I think something along those lines would have the same effect, getting better, cheaper, and universal chargers with minimal overhead.
But either way, I sure hope it spills over to the US - and to other devices. If I have a device that needs 5v, seems like I should only need a transformer of the proper rating - not a random connector as well.
Have you seen Sugar? High school kids won't be doing their term papers in Sugar. It is for little kids. They will be learning about the keyboard, about the mouse, etc. They won't learn an OS, they will learn the basic skills necessary to navigate any of the modern graphical user interfaces. They'll be able to use the computer to practice other things they should be learning in school - reading, math, etc. They will hopefully have an opportunity to associate "fun" and "learning" and get practice using a very powerful tool at a much earlier age than I had the chance to.
Sprint can ASK - they can't *demand*. You can decline. They can decide to issue contract/credit as they wish; you can decide to accept it or not as you wish.
Just because a guy put a bomb in his shoe does not mean the next person will put a bomb in their shoe. If the confiscated liquids and plum jams are so dangerous that they can't be allowed on planes, why are they just chucked in a bin and not disposed of by the bomb squad? Answer, because it is total BS.
If you are really interested, here is some good info:
An alert border guard caught a guy trying to get across the border with a bunch of bomb stuff. This case with the finger prints doesn't sound like a case of anybody being "alert" - but for my money, training people to detect and investigate is far better than the ridiculous security theater we usually see - taking off shoes and having jars of plum jam confiscated.
Slashdot Mirror
From St. Augustine's Confessions, Book XI:
CHAP. XIV. -- NEITHER TIME PAST NOR FUTURE, BUT THE PRESENT ONLY, REALLY IS.
17. At no time, therefore, hadst Thou not made anything, because Thou hadst made time itself. And no times are co-eternal with Thee, because Thou remainest for ever; but should these continue, they would not be times. For what is time? Who can easily and briefly explain it? Who even in thought can comprehend it, even to the pronouncing of a word concerning it? But what in speaking do we refer to more familiarly and knowingly than time? And certainly we understand when we speak of it; we understand also when we hear it spoken of by another. What, then, is time? If no one ask of me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not. Yet I say with confidence, that I know that if nothing passed away, there would not be past time; and if nothing were coming, there would not be future time; and if nothing were, there would not be present time. Those two times, therefore, past and future, how are they, when even the past now is not; and the future is not as yet? But should the present be always present, and should it not pass into time past, time truly it could not be, but eternity. If, then, time present -- if it be time -- only comes into existence because it passes into time past, how do we say that even this is, whose cause of being is that it shall not be -- namely, so that we cannot truly say that time is, unless because it tends not to be?
I agree with your points, however I think in the larger context if online gambling were allowed, it seems to me that they would have to be subject to the same oversight and regulation as the "brick & mortar" casinos. So if such things can be applied and enforced for on-line based casinos, we would assume the incentive to cheat would be about the same.
Successful implementation of some kind accreditation of on-line casinos would probably mitigate off-shore ventures - almost by definition such would be untrusted.
Is it possible to designate "trusted" on-line casinos? Would potential customers use these over the others? The barriers seem very high to me to be able to create such an environment - but it seems like it ought to be possible.
But why? You get free drinks at brick & mortar casinos, even if you lose!
If the "artificial limitations" are "completely unnecessary, and unjustifiable", then consumers won't buy it. In your car analogy, people can still buy Chevys and Hondas.
I happen to agree about completely unnecessary - I suspect that Apple has a justification (they think they'll make more money), but their choice of what to make doesn't control my choice of what to buy.
I am very disappointed in what I've read about the iPad - but on the bright side, I'm going to save a lot of money!
Bart: Uh, say, are you guys crooks?
Fat Tony: Bart, um, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?
Bart: No.
Fat Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?
Bart: Uh uh.
Fat Tony: And, what if your family don't like bread? They like... cigarettes?
Bart: I guess that's okay.
Fat Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?
Bart: Hell, no!
I am not whining because my boss and I have different political views. In fact, I applaud that - that is what it means to live in a free country.
Just because I associate with somebody for the purposes of earning wages does not mean I should be compelled to give them a proxy to my right of free speech.
If you voluntarily join a group with the intent of having your opinions heard through the voice of others in that group, that is one thing. It seems entirely another thing to have the political leanings off my boss amplified through corporate profits which I help earn, whether I like it or not.
Right of free speech + right of association means that people can speak freely no matter who they associate with - it does not confer anything to the association. At least that is my opinion. Too bad it doesn't count.
If he sent the message to the airport or the cops or the news media, then it's a hoax. Sending a message to your friends is different. Completely different. Maybe in these times it warrants somebody following up to make sure there aren't any dots to connect - but after the facts are gathered and the police decide to press charges as if this guy was a terrorist? Had intended to shut down an airport? Irresponsible at best. How much time & effort, how many tax dollars are funding this miscarriage that could be better spent? Police actions in this case are diverting resources and making us all less safe.
Absolutely correct - either is great but taking both is better! Then take more. You learn how to solve hard problems logically in math classes - a skill that works everywhere and especially well with programming.
Public domain isn't about getting content for free, it is about creating a public pool of culture from which to base further creative works. If you found a torrent of "From Here To Eternity" you could not create a new work with those characters or the story or whatever.
Current copyright law (at least US copyright law) is stagnating the pool. We grow up surrounded by ideas and culture that inspire us, but which we can't use to create our own works.
...you can easily get away from it simply by turning off the device you're using to access it...
I think you've just saved the tax payers of Australia a ton of money - just replace the circle & line logo on the power button with the "friendly dolphin" icon and the children are safe!
Telling family/friends/neighbors that every single thing on the Internet is a lie has been the most effective thing I've come up with. Especially for email - it is all a lie, a damn lie. (Note - it is especially fun to tell them this via email.)
That and switching my mom to a Mac has really saved me a ton of time. I'm no Mac fanboy, but they do just seem to work.
I have had a Kindle for quite a while and recently got an iTouch - for other reasons than reading eBooks. But I tried out the Kindle app and - well, I almost exclusively use the iTouch now - for the reasons you specify.
One thing in the Kindle's favor - battery life. With the modem off, I get a couple weeks worth of use out of it between charges. The usability of the iTouch is great - but I can drain it in a day.
As far as contrast, however, I don't think that higher contrast always makes for better readability. You want enough, but not too much - I find the Kindle screen just about perfect. I usually have to dial down the brightness on the iTouch for reading.
Anyway - if you can only have one, I'd favor the iTouch. But if you are a gadget hound (like me), why not get both?
I thought the apex of this sort of technology was the mood ring.
What if you want to live in a world where 2+2=5? I think you'd have to do an OS hack for that.
He didn't say he didn't want any radiation of any kind - he just didn't want any MORE radiation that the tower would surely bring. I don't think that is idiotic.
Where I question his judgment is looking at the amount of radiation that the tower would introduce - the article says 60,000 x lower than the legal limit for organic food. Seems he is a bit more careful that I am. But I'm not sure that makes him an idiot.
I think it would be called a Hot Glacier!
I was agreeing with the poster who I read as basically saying that the "truth" is probably somewhere between the extremes and by the way, what harm does cleaning up the environment do?
Well said!
Sounds great, what could possibly go wrong?
Actually, the market IS working in the environment that exists - that it, it is taking full advantage of the fact that the cell phone charging industry does not bear the external cost of disposing of perfectly good chargers every time we get a new device. We need the regulation to push that external cost to be part of the product - then market forces will adjust.
Rather than a universal charger designed by committee and consensus, I'd rather see regulation aimed directly at closing off the externality. Like maybe requiring cell phone companies to accept old charges back for a credit. Or not being allowed to package a charger along with the phone - make the consumer buy them separately. I think something along those lines would have the same effect, getting better, cheaper, and universal chargers with minimal overhead.
But either way, I sure hope it spills over to the US - and to other devices. If I have a device that needs 5v, seems like I should only need a transformer of the proper rating - not a random connector as well.
Have you seen Sugar? High school kids won't be doing their term papers in Sugar. It is for little kids. They will be learning about the keyboard, about the mouse, etc. They won't learn an OS, they will learn the basic skills necessary to navigate any of the modern graphical user interfaces. They'll be able to use the computer to practice other things they should be learning in school - reading, math, etc. They will hopefully have an opportunity to associate "fun" and "learning" and get practice using a very powerful tool at a much earlier age than I had the chance to.
Sprint can ASK - they can't *demand*. You can decline. They can decide to issue contract/credit as they wish; you can decide to accept it or not as you wish.
Just because a guy put a bomb in his shoe does not mean the next person will put a bomb in their shoe. If the confiscated liquids and plum jams are so dangerous that they can't be allowed on planes, why are they just chucked in a bin and not disposed of by the bomb squad? Answer, because it is total BS.
If you are really interested, here is some good info:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/terrorism_secur.html
Actually, yes:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/pacificnw/2001/1125/cover.html
An alert border guard caught a guy trying to get across the border with a bunch of bomb stuff. This case with the finger prints doesn't sound like a case of anybody being "alert" - but for my money, training people to detect and investigate is far better than the ridiculous security theater we usually see - taking off shoes and having jars of plum jam confiscated.