Barriers to market entry are created by both corporations and governments. You're an ideological fool if you think only regulations and taxes are significant, and Microsoft's dominance in the OS, Office, and online arenas are not at all significant. In fact monopoly dominance can be far more crushing than government regulation. Let's not forget that to interact with Microsoft in any meaningful way you have to agree to licenses and/or contracts, and they are usually the 500lb gorilla in the relationship. That makes it almost like government regulation (think leave the country == stop producing products for the Windows platform).
The idea being that "somehow" the measurement apparatus is communicating its setup to the distant particle, even though it really can't. This is really disturbing, but probably doesn't have any better explanation than "that's just how it is."
No, I think this paper by Prof. David Deutsch (expert on quantum computing) gives a better explanation:
All information in quantum systems is, notwithstanding Bell's theorem, localised. Measuring or otherwise interacting with a quantum system S
has no effect [my emphasis] on distant systems from which S is dynamically isolated, even if they are entangled with S. Using the Heisenberg picture to analyse quantum information processing makes this locality explicit, and reveals that under some circumstances (in particular, in Einstein-Podolski-Rosen experiments and in quantum teleportation) quantum information is transmitted through 'classical' (i.e. decoherent) information channels.
Interestingly, unsubtantiated reports claim that "The terrorists had obtained the White House code and a whole set of top-secret signals". Sounds a bit far-fetched to me... but if they have a mole who can give them that...
The problem is that a corporatist agenda is very often the same as the "agenda of the people", since people (by and large) make up corporations. It's an interesting phenomena when these interests are in conflict. My model places the "people" at the center of power over the long term, since corporate legitimacy lies in the realm of serving customers in an economically performant manner. No customers & no performance = no company.
You are so deluded. I don't know where to begin. What if there is a monopoly (Microsoft) and huge barriers to entry (backward compatibility)? What if all the choices for a given product (e.g. DVDs) are supporting something I disagree with?
I must stop. It simply isn't worth arguing with someone so deluded.
Our emotions are lizard reactions to stimulus, and while they serve us well in dealing with immediate threats to our safety, they aren't much use for long-term planning.
I think that's a little too simplistic. What about sympathy? What about anger? Without emotions it is arguable we would have no incentive to do anything at all.
For so many people, other people merely existing constitutes an attack on their own moral ideals. But those same people feel they deserve the freedom to preach their own morals wide and loud, or worse.
Why is there a contradiction between the two statements? Please elaborate.
What will it take to let make people recognize the reflexitivity of the situation, your rights == my rights, and live with it?
I'm sorry, but you're not making much sense to me. WHat do you mean?
So, you deny the possible, however unlikely, existence of God(s), rather than choose the more logically neutral position of agnosticism?
Do you believe in invisible pink elephants hiding in your bedroom? I hope my point is clear.
The difference here is that our government is set up to NOT allow it to impose much of its will on free people (parents), but as parents are often fond of saying to their kids, "as long as you're living under my roof this is NOT a democracy!"
Heheh. True. That's well recognised.
But what I find fascinating is how everyone (except socialists) seems to ignore the fact that democracy does not exist even among intelligent adults in most workplaces (except co-operatives and a few other places). It's as if the idea is too silly to even bring up. Well I don't think it is - I'm personally not particularly interested in making a profit, so if I were to start a business I might make it a non-profit democratic cooperative.
But when your kid rejects your attempt at a vegan indoctrination...
But maybe they won't - I've never heard of a child brought up as a vegan later giving it up. There could be some - but aren't all the surving members of the Phoenix family still vegan?
Please, stop ranting or bother to learn unbiased facts.
Where will I find them then? I think you will find intelligent left-wing commentators are generally closer to being objective than right-wing ones, but virtually no-one achieves the mythical Holy Grail of objectivity.
Actually, according to unofficial recounts, Gore would have won the Electoral College, if it weren't for the Supreme Court's despicable, underhand, unjustifiable vote-stealing.
Actually, you are incorrect. You do have the freedom to do those things, you don't have a control collar around your neck or a pain inducer implanted in your brain monitoring your thoughts to keep you from doing bad deeds. Yes, someone may well try and stop you.
That's not the kind of freedom we're talking about. We're talking about freedom in a legal sense - what you are legally allowed to do.
I'm an atheist, but your idea is patently ridiculous, as well as an absurd comparison. You can't prevent parents from talking to their kids about religion.
As a vegan with strong ethical views, I would be angry if the government forced me to bring up my child a meat-eater (unless he or she had a medical condition which necessitated eating meat - if there are any). In my personal opinion, neither meat-eating nor veganism is ethically neutral.
So I can see that a religious parent might feel angry if they were forced to bring up their child an atheist or an agnostic. To people with strong views on religion, there are no "neutral" positions.
This illustrates why "rights" is such a problematic concept in ethics. Only a subset of pacifists believe that people should never be killed - and most people are not pacifists. So then we have the question of when do people "lose" their rights - and under what circumstances can their rights be "overriden" by more important concerns. E.g. when is killing innocent people acceptable, and how many innocents is it acceptable to kill before a war becomes immoral. You can't answer that by referring to "absolute human rights", because we just agreed they never were absolute anyway!
That's why "human rights" is good for political slogans (I'm all for good, well-meaning slogans), and can be good to enshrine in law (to prevent abuse) - but bad for making practical decisions, like wartime decisions.
You lose. Correlation does not imply causation. There are a large number of other factors. Just as I suspected, you believe in capitalism based on flimsy and unscientific arguments.
Apparently "Thou shalt now kill" has been amended "unless you're at war."
Actually, this has always been the standing interpretation in mainstream Christianity, as far as I'm aware. Why do you think the Crusades happened? Do you think they all just conveniently forgot about the Ten Commandments?
Slashdot Mirror
Er, if Britney was worried about that, don't you think she'd have left showbusiness long ago?
No, I think this paper by Prof. David Deutsch (expert on quantum computing) gives a better explanation:
I'm guessing the proof fails because that line does not converge, and is ambiguous.
Doh!! I should have noticed that big red flag! I am a moron.
You are so deluded. I don't know where to begin. What if there is a monopoly (Microsoft) and huge barriers to entry (backward compatibility)? What if all the choices for a given product (e.g. DVDs) are supporting something I disagree with?
I must stop. It simply isn't worth arguing with someone so deluded.
I think that's a little too simplistic. What about sympathy? What about anger? Without emotions it is arguable we would have no incentive to do anything at all.
What if they're already in the country? Deportion without trial? How spiffing.
Besides, it'd be bad for business, and it would let terrorists know someone was onto them (which is not always a good idea).
Why have completely open borders ?
Huh? The US doesn't have completely open borders. Do you think they would let Bin Laden waltz into America if he turned up tommorow?
Why is there a contradiction between the two statements? Please elaborate.
What will it take to let make people recognize the reflexitivity of the situation, your rights == my rights, and live with it?
I'm sorry, but you're not making much sense to me. WHat do you mean?
Do you believe in invisible pink elephants hiding in your bedroom? I hope my point is clear.
The difference here is that our government is set up to NOT allow it to impose much of its will on free people (parents), but as parents are often fond of saying to their kids, "as long as you're living under my roof this is NOT a democracy!"
Heheh. True. That's well recognised.
But what I find fascinating is how everyone (except socialists) seems to ignore the fact that democracy does not exist even among intelligent adults in most workplaces (except co-operatives and a few other places). It's as if the idea is too silly to even bring up. Well I don't think it is - I'm personally not particularly interested in making a profit, so if I were to start a business I might make it a non-profit democratic cooperative.
But when your kid rejects your attempt at a vegan indoctrination...
But maybe they won't - I've never heard of a child brought up as a vegan later giving it up. There could be some - but aren't all the surving members of the Phoenix family still vegan?
Where will I find them then? I think you will find intelligent left-wing commentators are generally closer to being objective than right-wing ones, but virtually no-one achieves the mythical Holy Grail of objectivity.
Consider that increases in (gasp) public spending CAN and HAVE stimulated economies. Even when accompanied by tax rises.
But economics is far more complicated than this, of course.
That's not the kind of freedom we're talking about. We're talking about freedom in a legal sense - what you are legally allowed to do.
I'm an atheist, but your idea is patently ridiculous, as well as an absurd comparison. You can't prevent parents from talking to their kids about religion.
As a vegan with strong ethical views, I would be angry if the government forced me to bring up my child a meat-eater (unless he or she had a medical condition which necessitated eating meat - if there are any). In my personal opinion, neither meat-eating nor veganism is ethically neutral.
So I can see that a religious parent might feel angry if they were forced to bring up their child an atheist or an agnostic. To people with strong views on religion, there are no "neutral" positions.
This illustrates why "rights" is such a problematic concept in ethics. Only a subset of pacifists believe that people should never be killed - and most people are not pacifists. So then we have the question of when do people "lose" their rights - and under what circumstances can their rights be "overriden" by more important concerns. E.g. when is killing innocent people acceptable, and how many innocents is it acceptable to kill before a war becomes immoral. You can't answer that by referring to "absolute human rights", because we just agreed they never were absolute anyway!
That's why "human rights" is good for political slogans (I'm all for good, well-meaning slogans), and can be good to enshrine in law (to prevent abuse) - but bad for making practical decisions, like wartime decisions.
Interesting. Do you have a link for that story? That would kind of disprove the "hardline Ismalic fundamentalists" line.
Actually, this has always been the standing interpretation in mainstream Christianity, as far as I'm aware. Why do you think the Crusades happened? Do you think they all just conveniently forgot about the Ten Commandments?