Disclaimer: I am a believer in nearly an absolute right of freedom of association, so I support the right to fire employees for stupid reasons including racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, failure to keep kosher/halal, etc. I would agree if the only social principle at stake was freedom of association -- but it's not. Employees rely on their salaries to pay for food, housing and health care. Firing them thus jeopardises their rights to food, shelter and a decent standard of living. Anti-discrimination laws seek to balance this conflict of rights.
Given an advanced social welfare system which allowed the unemployed to maintain a high standard of living, one could probably relax the restrictions on employers. Free handouts come with their own set of problems though.
I guess if there was a simple solution we'd be using it already.:/
It's always funny to see someone who never designed professionally in their life suggest GIMP.
GIMP lacks so basic features such as a usable grid, 16-bit/HDR image support, and requires special plugins with numerical inputs to draw a simple rounded rectangle, let alone something more complex. Personally I have no trouble drawing rounded rectangles with rectangular select, growing the selection and the applying the fill tool. And you call yourself a professional.
While I agree completely that identical initial conditions will evolve to the same final state, I'm not sure this really illuminates the the "free will" issue. The real problem is that free will is a poorly defined property. I can't think of a way to test whether someone (or some entity) possesses free will. Naively, I would expect free will to mean that faced with a choice, there are multiple options the entity might pursue. This is trivially true of many choices where our knowledge of the state the entity is in is incomplete, and trivially false when we have a complete description of the entity's state.
For example, we say a chair has no free will because it obeys simple physical laws and we usually have enough knowledge of its state to completely determine its future behaviour (at least at the level relevant to our daily lives). We say a person has free will because our lack of knowledge of their internal state limits our ability to predict their actions.
Well, what do you think is going on inside yours? Are you quite sure that physics can paint a complete picture of the universe?
... explain how, barring magic, any sort of "free will" can exist in a physical universe.
I guess you do think that physics can completely describe the universe. But on what grounds are you claiming that this universe is [solely] a physical one? (Note that to approach the question of whether or not the universe is physical from the point of view of physics instantly involves you in question-begging again...)
For me, physics strives to completely describe the universe (by which I mean the complete set of sensory observations I, or presumably you encounter). Things like the mind, the soul, or other "non-physical" entities are either observable (in which case they fall inside the realm of physics) or unobservable (in which case they are irrelevant).
I don't think you understand reality (or at least the current scientific models of it) very well. In reality the future is completely fixed and the past is uncertain (just like in CAs).
Given a complete description of a scientific system, scientific models allow us to predict what the future state of the system will be. However, there is no guarantee that each starting state will reach a unique final one. So by observing the final state we cannot always uniquely determine the starting state.
A good example of this is any kind of equilibrium state. Once equilibrium is reached, there's no way of knowing which state the system started in.
So the "arrow of time" in CA's is the same as in reality.
That said, there are probably many other good reasons for rejecting cellular automata as the fundamental model of everything.:)
It's your *right* to copy software. Any software. Any Information.
Go read www.gnu.org. Especially the stuff on intellectual property.
The general points are:
1) How much money does a person have a right to make from an idea? If I come up with one vital idea a week before anyone else does, do I have the right to live in the lap of luxury for the rest of my life? I don't think so.
2) If you buy something, does the seller have any right to tell you what you may do with it?
3) Copying information is not stealing, unless you can steal potential profits. Microsoft had the same amount of money before and after I copied "their" software.
4) Enforcement of copyright eventually leads to the banning of open source [and free(dom)] software since they can be used to copy information. If you don't believe me, then just think back to the DeCSS fiasco.
Actually not all animals suffer from inbreeding the way humans do. Dogs and cats for instance are largely immune to the effects of inbreeding as far as I know.
Many mammals can tolerate incredibly small gene pools.
I think the higher apes are just genetically too fucked up to handle it.:)
A lot of people have been writing in saying that the comments which contain extracts from Microsoft webpages are a violation of copyright and should be removed. This is patently false.
Any person discussing/reviewing work contained in a copyrighten document may quote from that source. As long as the reviewer doesn't abuse this priveledge (i.e. 10 page 'quotes' with no content of his own), quoting is perfectly legal.
As far as I understand things, minors are not without rights - their rights are merely temporarily looked after by their parents. As long as this is made clear, concerned parents can protect their own children from the effects of WAVE and other such programs.
For instance, should someone in authority attempt to use 'evidence' from WAVE as an excuse to search, expel or punish a school kid, the kid's parents are perfectly entitled to demand that a court order be issued.
Of course, should adults lose these rights too, we're in deep shit.
I have been reading through the comments and agree very much with the sentiment that no rating system for the net can possibly work (be fair and cater for a wide range of moral standards). I have a bad feeling that these laws will be passed anyway. Anyone who cites religious/moral arguments for censorship is completely oblivious to the *massive* cultural and ethnic variation present in our world. If anyone wants to voluntarily rate their pages, thats fine - but here's my proposal should anyone try and force us to:
I propose that we declare cyberwar on *ANY* government that tries to pass such legislation. I call on all hackers and/.ers to hack their websites, spam their emails, flame their news groups, shutdown their ISPs, make them listen. I'm damned if I'm going to let people steamroller my principles. I'm prepared to fight for what I believe in. Lets show them who really owns the net - us, the global public.
I am quite frankly horrified by the implications of this 'The Price of Genius' comment. Speaking from the position of a 'very smart person' I do not find myself lacking in any 'day-to-day' talents. I am quite capable of socialising, loving, caring and befriending when I so choose. If anything my feelings often run deeper that those of many of the 'less smart' people I am surrounded by.
The fact the many smart people seem aloof is easily explained by considering a few consequences of their high IQs :
1. Having to explain every step of your thoughts to 'less intelligent' people is tedious.
2. Being further from the center of the 'IQ bell-curve' means that there are fewer people who fall into the same bracket as you - thus possibly fewer friends.
3. A quick, flexible mind makes accepting and adapting new concepts (such as 'advanced technology') easier - this automatically makes you a target for those less adaptable who fear these advances. (Watch the genetists become Green Peace's new target)
4. 'Smart people' are often very curious and hence spend less time partaking in activities 'on the beaten track'. For instance sport, while a worthwhile physical activity, is often boring for intelligent people because once the basic rules have been learned it's just practice from there on. Soccer, the world's leading sport, hasn't change much since the middle ages. Such mundane social activities are when many friendships are formed.
Note that none of these points in anyway suggest that smart people have an impaired ability to interact socially. Rather, it is simply the enviroment in which 'smart people' find themselves which causes many of them to be less interested in social interaction than their 'less intelligent' peers.
In my personal experience, the opposite trend is in fact noticeable - those intelligent people who are inclined to make the effort, fare far better socially than their 'less intelligent' counterparts.
Finallly, it has occurred to me that this post might come across as somewhat elitist - it was not intended as such. Everyone is part of the giant bell-curve in the end, whether we like it or nay.
We have long since passed the point where any one person could possibly read everything they can get their hands on during their lifetime. The creation of the internet has simply made it possible for the 'average' person to access this information from within their home. If we are to survive the 'Cyberclysm' all we need to is accept this fact.
I personally read Slashdot and check email and a few websites daily, but I long ago learned not to worry over news missed or pages unread. If its really important it'll get to me eventually.
One aspect of the 'Cyberclysm' mentioned is what I'd call gadgetism - the continual procurement of the latest, most feature laden, hardware available. The PC industry has been guilty of this for at least a decade, although we've had our reasons. In my opinion this gadgetism seems to be dying down, rather than speeding up. In previous years a PC 6 months out of date was considered next to useless and PC magazines were filled with talk of 'upgradability'. Nowadays a Pentium 200 MMX runs Win98 adaquately (and of course, Linux) and I think anyone will be throwing them out to soon (or if they are, I'll gladly take them).
That said, Apple Macs have had long lifetimes almost since their inception. A PowerPC 8100 will run most applications easily (of course the new Macs just look so cool).
As far as I can tell, Corel's mistake was mainly to refer to this as a 'beta test'. If it is, as they claim, an in-house test then it should have been referred to as an 'alpha test'. The wider release that they are planning later would then be the beta test.
There have been a lot of comments slating this new OS, mostly along the lines of 'Linux Rules'. While I run Linux on my PC, I'd never run it on a PDA.
Firstly, I don't need a multiuser operating system for my PDA. Why waste precious space with useless code? The same goes for other great Linux features.
Secondly, James Gosling wrote Java for Cosumer Electronics (CEs). Sun was looking for a new direction. So they got a bunch of people together and decide to make a new operating system for CEs. Gosling then invented Oak. Sun decided that Oak made an awesome programming language, so they renamed it Java and the rest is history. (Ok, so I simplified a little). Some of the old CE vision for Oak still shows in Java, making it idea for this kind of programming.
Thirdly, if you have a processor which runs ByteCode (i.e. runs compiled Java natively) you can write an GUI plus OS which takes up less than 1mb. Sun did this a few years back, I think. I know there are some pretty small Linux installs but I don't know of any that small.
Caio. Simon. [Web page currently down due to selling of server]
If I read this correctly, then you have to use one of a list of 'accepted netnannies' whenever you access the net.
To my mind this raises 2 very important problems:
1. It effectively makes it illegal to connect any system using an OS for which no such software exists, to the net. While this is not a major obstacle for OSes with large support bases (Windows et al, Linux, FreeBSD, etc) it will be a pain for smaller OSes and stranger machines. Also how will the 'acceptance list' deal with open source. If I download the Bad-Aus-Net-Nanny source for my Linux machine and then edit the source to make it 'run' on my machine - is it still acceptable ?
2. The Australian government is effectively telling Australians what software they may run on their machines. And quite frankly, if I was Australian I'd tell them to !ffo ckuf . If someone passed laws telling me whether to run Enlightenment or Afterstep I'd be just as indignant.
Besides the above, client-side censorship is completely pointless. Either it involves blacklisting whole domains, which will fail unless the list of domains is updated at lightning speed. Or it involves scanning page content as it comes in, which is easily circumvented by encrypting the relevant pages.
Caio. Simon. [WebPage currently down due to selling of the server]
Slashdot Mirror
Given an advanced social welfare system which allowed the unemployed to maintain a high standard of living, one could probably relax the restrictions on employers. Free handouts come with their own set of problems though.
I guess if there was a simple solution we'd be using it already.
I believe the answer is U.S. Patent Number 1 by Cheapass Games.
Reading existing US patents is a pretty bad idea if you work in the field since it makes you liable for triple damages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treble_damages).
GIMP lacks so basic features such as a usable grid, 16-bit/HDR image support, and requires special plugins with numerical inputs to draw a simple rounded rectangle, let alone something more complex. Personally I have no trouble drawing rounded rectangles with rectangular select, growing the selection and the applying the fill tool. And you call yourself a professional.
While I agree completely that identical initial conditions will evolve to the same final state, I'm not sure this really illuminates the the "free will" issue. The real problem is that free will is a poorly defined property. I can't think of a way to test whether someone (or some entity) possesses free will. Naively, I would expect free will to mean that faced with a choice, there are multiple options the entity might pursue. This is trivially true of many choices where our knowledge of the state the entity is in is incomplete, and trivially false when we have a complete description of the entity's state.
For example, we say a chair has no free will because it obeys simple physical laws and we usually have enough knowledge of its state to completely determine its future behaviour (at least at the level relevant to our daily lives). We say a person has free will because our lack of knowledge of their internal state limits our ability to predict their actions.
Well, what do you think is going on inside yours? Are you quite sure that physics can paint a complete picture of the universe?
I guess you do think that physics can completely describe the universe. But on what grounds are you claiming that this universe is [solely] a physical one? (Note that to approach the question of whether or not the universe is physical from the point of view of physics instantly involves you in question-begging again...)
For me, physics strives to completely describe the universe (by which I mean the complete set of sensory observations I, or presumably you encounter). Things like the mind, the soul, or other "non-physical" entities are either observable (in which case they fall inside the realm of physics) or unobservable (in which case they are irrelevant).I don't think you understand reality (or at least the current scientific models of it) very well. In reality the future is completely fixed and the past is uncertain (just like in CAs).
:)
Given a complete description of a scientific system, scientific models allow us to predict what the future state of the system will be. However, there is no guarantee that each starting state will reach a unique final one. So by observing the final state we cannot always uniquely determine the starting state.
A good example of this is any kind of equilibrium state. Once equilibrium is reached, there's no way of knowing which state the system started in.
So the "arrow of time" in CA's is the same as in reality.
That said, there are probably many other good reasons for rejecting cellular automata as the fundamental model of everything.
Just thought you'd all like to know that "cipa" is Polish for "cunt".
It's your *right* to copy software. Any software. Any Information.
Go read www.gnu.org. Especially the stuff on intellectual property.
The general points are:
1) How much money does a person have a right to make from an idea? If I come up with one vital idea a week before anyone else does, do I have the right to live in the lap of luxury for the rest of my life? I don't think so.
2) If you buy something, does the seller have any right to tell you what you may do with it?
3) Copying information is not stealing, unless you can steal potential profits. Microsoft had the same amount of money before and after I copied "their" software.
4) Enforcement of copyright eventually leads to the banning of open source [and free(dom)] software since they can be used to copy information. If you don't believe me, then just think back to the DeCSS fiasco.
Copy software. It's your right.
Ping!
Simon
Actually not all animals suffer from inbreeding the way humans do. Dogs and cats for instance are largely immune to the effects of inbreeding as far as I know.
:)
Many mammals can tolerate incredibly small gene pools.
I think the higher apes are just genetically too fucked up to handle it.
A lot of people have been writing in saying that the comments which contain extracts from Microsoft webpages are a violation of copyright and should be removed. This is patently false.
Any person discussing/reviewing work contained in a copyrighten document may quote from that source. As long as the reviewer doesn't abuse this priveledge (i.e. 10 page 'quotes' with no content of his own), quoting is perfectly legal.
Ciao
Simon
As far as I understand things, minors are not without rights - their rights are merely temporarily looked after by their parents. As long as this is made clear, concerned parents can protect their own children from the effects of WAVE and other such programs.
For instance, should someone in authority attempt to use 'evidence' from WAVE as an excuse to search, expel or punish a school kid, the kid's parents are perfectly entitled to demand that a court order be issued.
Of course, should adults lose these rights too, we're in deep shit.
I have been reading through the comments and agree very much with the sentiment that no rating system for the net can possibly work (be fair and cater for a wide range of moral standards). I have a bad feeling that these laws will be passed anyway. Anyone who cites religious/moral arguments for censorship is completely oblivious to the *massive* cultural and ethnic variation present in our world. If anyone wants to voluntarily rate their pages, thats fine - but here's my proposal should anyone try and force us to:
/.ers to hack their websites, spam their emails, flame their news groups, shutdown their ISPs, make them listen. I'm damned if I'm going to let people steamroller my principles. I'm prepared to fight for what I believe in. Lets show them who really owns the net - us, the global public.
I propose that we declare cyberwar on *ANY* government that tries to pass such legislation. I call on all hackers and
Amandla!
Simon.
I am quite frankly horrified by the implications of this 'The Price of Genius' comment. Speaking from the position of a 'very smart person' I do not find myself lacking in any 'day-to-day' talents. I am quite capable of socialising, loving, caring and befriending when I so choose. If anything my feelings often run deeper that those of many of the 'less smart' people I am surrounded by.
The fact the many smart people seem aloof is easily explained by considering a few consequences of their high IQs :
1. Having to explain every step of your thoughts to 'less intelligent' people is tedious.
2. Being further from the center of the 'IQ bell-curve' means that there are fewer people who fall into the same bracket as you - thus possibly fewer friends.
3. A quick, flexible mind makes accepting and adapting new concepts (such as 'advanced technology') easier - this automatically makes you a target for those less adaptable who fear these advances. (Watch the genetists become Green Peace's new target)
4. 'Smart people' are often very curious and hence spend less time partaking in activities 'on the beaten track'. For instance sport, while a worthwhile physical activity, is often boring for intelligent people because once the basic rules have been learned it's just practice from there on. Soccer, the world's leading sport, hasn't change much since the middle ages. Such mundane social activities are when many friendships are formed.
Note that none of these points in anyway suggest that smart people have an impaired ability to interact socially. Rather, it is simply the enviroment in which 'smart people' find themselves which causes many of them to be less interested in social interaction than their 'less intelligent' peers.
In my personal experience, the opposite trend is in fact noticeable - those intelligent people who are inclined to make the effort, fare far better socially than their 'less intelligent' counterparts.
Finallly, it has occurred to me that this post might come across as somewhat elitist - it was not intended as such. Everyone is part of the giant bell-curve in the end, whether we like it or nay.
Simon.
We have long since passed the point where any one person could possibly read everything they can get their hands on during their lifetime. The creation of the internet has simply made it possible for the 'average' person to access this information from within their home. If we are to survive the 'Cyberclysm' all we need to is accept this fact.
I personally read Slashdot and check email and a few websites daily, but I long ago learned not to
worry over news missed or pages unread. If its really important it'll get to me eventually.
One aspect of the 'Cyberclysm' mentioned is what I'd call gadgetism - the continual procurement of the latest, most feature laden, hardware available. The PC industry has been guilty of this for at least a decade, although we've had our reasons. In my opinion this gadgetism seems to be dying down, rather than speeding up. In previous years a PC 6 months out of date was considered next to useless and PC magazines were filled with talk of 'upgradability'. Nowadays a Pentium 200 MMX runs Win98 adaquately (and of course, Linux) and I think anyone will be throwing them out to soon (or if they are, I'll gladly take them).
That said, Apple Macs have had long lifetimes almost since their inception. A PowerPC 8100 will run most applications easily (of course the new Macs just look so cool).
Caio.
Simon.
As far as I can tell, Corel's mistake was mainly to refer to this as a 'beta test'. If it is, as they claim, an in-house test then it should have been referred to as an 'alpha test'. The wider release that they are planning later would then be the beta test.
Ciao
Simon
Here goes.
There have been a lot of comments slating this new OS, mostly along the lines of 'Linux Rules'. While I run Linux on my PC, I'd never run it on a PDA.
Firstly, I don't need a multiuser operating system for my PDA. Why waste precious space with useless code? The same goes for other great Linux features.
Secondly, James Gosling wrote Java for Cosumer Electronics (CEs). Sun was looking for a new direction. So they got a bunch of people together and decide to make a new operating system for CEs. Gosling then invented Oak. Sun decided that Oak made an awesome programming language, so they renamed it Java and the rest is history. (Ok, so I simplified a little). Some of the old CE vision for Oak still shows in Java, making it idea for this kind of programming.
Thirdly, if you have a processor which runs ByteCode (i.e. runs compiled Java natively) you can write an GUI plus OS which takes up less than 1mb. Sun did this a few years back, I think. I know there are some pretty small Linux installs but I don't know of any that small.
Caio.
Simon.
[Web page currently down due to selling of server]
If I read this correctly, then you have to use one of a list of 'accepted netnannies' whenever you access the net.
To my mind this raises 2 very important problems:
1. It effectively makes it illegal to connect any system using an OS for which no such software exists, to the net. While this is not a major obstacle for OSes with large support bases (Windows et al, Linux, FreeBSD, etc) it will be a pain for smaller OSes and stranger machines. Also how will the 'acceptance list' deal with open source. If I download the Bad-Aus-Net-Nanny source for my Linux machine and then edit the source to make it 'run' on my machine - is it still acceptable ?
2. The Australian government is effectively telling Australians what software they may run on their machines. And quite frankly, if I was Australian I'd tell them to !ffo ckuf . If someone passed laws telling me whether to run Enlightenment or Afterstep I'd be just as indignant.
Besides the above, client-side censorship is completely pointless. Either it involves blacklisting whole domains, which will fail unless the list of domains is updated at lightning speed. Or it involves scanning page content as it comes in, which is easily circumvented by encrypting the relevant pages.
Caio.
Simon.
[WebPage currently down due to selling of the server]