Yes, because as fucked as it may be, the legal system doesn't work on the logic of argument.. it works on what is "generally held to be true" in the community. So it is succeptible to paid comment.
Instead of faster, faster, faster, the OLPC is using Moore's Law for cheaper, cheaper, cheaper. Currently the OLPC costs about $130 per unit.. if demand keeps up, in 12 months we can expect that to drop to the goal of $100, but then what? That's right, those components which fall under Moore's Law (the ram, the cpu, the flash) will just keep dropping in price.
that's a question about changing the whole principle behind copyright (e.g., pushing it only into the commercial realm). I understand what you're saying and mostly agree with you, but I think you need to be made aware that copyright was, until recently, entirely in the commercial realm. Hell, only a few years ago the idea that the RIAA might start suing consumers was laughable.. then the crazy fuckers went and did it and, for some reason, the courts didn't immediately slap it down.
Because it doesn't go like that. The way it goes is:
A. Mr String Theory, can you give me some predictions so I can test this? B. Well, no, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle. C. No, seriously, give me some predictions already. D. Ok, here ya go, how about this? E. That's fine, I'll go test that... hey, turns out my experiment gave me different results to your predictions. F. Yes, that's right, String Theory doesn't just prediction what happens in the 4 spatial dimensions, it also has extra dimensions, which you can't observe, and my predictions are correct there. G. I can't observe your predictions, so they're right? H. That's correct. I. Uh huh... got any predictions that I can observe and if my experiment differs from you would agree your theory is wrong? J. No! All predictions come with this cavaete. K. Well that's just psuedoscience. L. No, it's descriptive. M. And pointless. N. Is not. O. Is so. P. Is not. Q. Is so. R. Is not infinity! S. Is not infinity + 1! T. You can't add one to infinity. U. Can so. V. Can not. W. Can so. X. Can not. Y. Can so. Z. If you don't mind, I'm busy working out complicated equations that can't reliably predict anything you can observe.. good day.
Fine. I will. One doesn't need to be able to perform an experiment that disproves the theory... One needs to be able to devise an experiment that, if the results disagree with the predictions made by the theory, would be accepted as a disproof of the theory. For example, if I have a theory that the only communication between bees is via dance, then I would accept my theory is invalid if you were to devise an exeriment where bees are shown to be communicating when they can't see each other. That's what makes my theory scientific: I can conceive of experiments that would disprove it, if they produced results that differ from the predictions made by the theory.
So, in the case of string theory, which is what we were talking about, is there any experiment that one could do which would disprove the theory, if the results differed from the predictions made by string theory? I believe it has been found, time and again, that this not the case... String theorists always have some reason why they can't accept that the theory is wrong.
String theory makes several predictions that are expected to be testable in the near future. Hehe, by that logic Christianity is science. Jesus is coming back real soon now, promise!
But you can test it, and see when it does work... Yes, that's what "disproving" means.. You only need one counter example to disprove. As for proving, I never said anything about "the provable".
It's real easy to beat up on an amateur on Slashdot isn't it? You'll even get modded up. Regardless, a wide segment of the scientific community look at string theory as something interesting which isn't much good for anything. Why? Because whenever someone finds a prediction with string theory that differs from observed data the string theorists have a reason why this doesn't disprove the theory. Time and again, string theory has been shown not to be disprovable. The standard model, on the other hand, has not. That's the difference.. that's what makes string theory not science. It may be interesting.. it may give us insights into how things may work, but you can't call it science. Now, if you disagree with me, please, don't take it up with me.. I'm just an amateur. Take it up with the scientific community.
They *look* like directories called ApplicationName.app.. that's the beauty of it. Oh, and DMG files are *not* just HFS+ images.. they can be, that's one format, but they are more commonly multiple HFS+ images slapped together with a partition table stuck on the end.. which btw, isn't in a fixed offset from the end of the file.. you have to *search* backwards from the end of the file to find the partition table and then decode it to find where each image starts. Oh, and did I mention that the images can be compressed? Yeah.. zlib compression is common.. unfortunately so are some undocumented compression schemes. This is why the Apple disc image kit is about the only thing that can read this stuff.
Are you actually suggesting that string theory might actually predict something that the standard model doesn't, and what it predicts might actually be measurable?! That's crazy talk! Next you'll be suggesting that string theory is disprovable and therefore actually science. I'll believe it when it happens.
Assuming, of course, that you beleive copyright should have anything to do with consumers. I'm of the opinion that little Billy shouldn't need to be educated as to what he is free to copy and what he isn't free to copy because everyone should be free to copy anything, and copyright should only apply to people who are selling copies. So, just like little Billy doesn't need to be taught the legality of insider trading, little Billy shouldn't need to be taught the legality of copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
Because, although they can only do 30 km/hr at the best of times, they feel the need to ride in traffic like they're a fuckin' car.
Yes, because as fucked as it may be, the legal system doesn't work on the logic of argument.. it works on what is "generally held to be true" in the community. So it is succeptible to paid comment.
Way to presuppose a profit motive.
Instead of faster, faster, faster, the OLPC is using Moore's Law for cheaper, cheaper, cheaper. Currently the OLPC costs about $130 per unit.. if demand keeps up, in 12 months we can expect that to drop to the goal of $100, but then what? That's right, those components which fall under Moore's Law (the ram, the cpu, the flash) will just keep dropping in price.
As opposed to those huge microchips you get from Intel.
Because it doesn't go like that. The way it goes is:
A. Mr String Theory, can you give me some predictions so I can test this?
B. Well, no, waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle.
C. No, seriously, give me some predictions already.
D. Ok, here ya go, how about this?
E. That's fine, I'll go test that... hey, turns out my experiment gave me different results to your predictions.
F. Yes, that's right, String Theory doesn't just prediction what happens in the 4 spatial dimensions, it also has extra dimensions, which you can't observe, and my predictions are correct there.
G. I can't observe your predictions, so they're right?
H. That's correct.
I. Uh huh... got any predictions that I can observe and if my experiment differs from you would agree your theory is wrong?
J. No! All predictions come with this cavaete.
K. Well that's just psuedoscience.
L. No, it's descriptive.
M. And pointless.
N. Is not.
O. Is so.
P. Is not.
Q. Is so.
R. Is not infinity!
S. Is not infinity + 1!
T. You can't add one to infinity.
U. Can so.
V. Can not.
W. Can so.
X. Can not.
Y. Can so.
Z. If you don't mind, I'm busy working out complicated equations that can't reliably predict anything you can observe.. good day.
Fine. I will. One doesn't need to be able to perform an experiment that disproves the theory... One needs to be able to devise an experiment that, if the results disagree with the predictions made by the theory, would be accepted as a disproof of the theory. For example, if I have a theory that the only communication between bees is via dance, then I would accept my theory is invalid if you were to devise an exeriment where bees are shown to be communicating when they can't see each other. That's what makes my theory scientific: I can conceive of experiments that would disprove it, if they produced results that differ from the predictions made by the theory.
So, in the case of string theory, which is what we were talking about, is there any experiment that one could do which would disprove the theory, if the results differed from the predictions made by string theory? I believe it has been found, time and again, that this not the case... String theorists always have some reason why they can't accept that the theory is wrong.
Science is the study of the disprovable. Man. Shouldn't have to explain this stuff....
Remember, if there is no 2008 Olympics: we're all fucked.
It's real easy to beat up on an amateur on Slashdot isn't it? You'll even get modded up. Regardless, a wide segment of the scientific community look at string theory as something interesting which isn't much good for anything. Why? Because whenever someone finds a prediction with string theory that differs from observed data the string theorists have a reason why this doesn't disprove the theory. Time and again, string theory has been shown not to be disprovable. The standard model, on the other hand, has not. That's the difference.. that's what makes string theory not science. It may be interesting.. it may give us insights into how things may work, but you can't call it science. Now, if you disagree with me, please, don't take it up with me.. I'm just an amateur. Take it up with the scientific community.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfetbidVUYw
there's a link for people who prefer not to download an 18.8mb codec.
They *look* like directories called ApplicationName.app.. that's the beauty of it. Oh, and DMG files are *not* just HFS+ images.. they can be, that's one format, but they are more commonly multiple HFS+ images slapped together with a partition table stuck on the end.. which btw, isn't in a fixed offset from the end of the file.. you have to *search* backwards from the end of the file to find the partition table and then decode it to find where each image starts. Oh, and did I mention that the images can be compressed? Yeah.. zlib compression is common.. unfortunately so are some undocumented compression schemes. This is why the Apple disc image kit is about the only thing that can read this stuff.
Are you actually suggesting that string theory might actually predict something that the standard model doesn't, and what it predicts might actually be measurable?! That's crazy talk! Next you'll be suggesting that string theory is disprovable and therefore actually science. I'll believe it when it happens.
Havn't seen it. Got a link?
Assuming, of course, that you beleive copyright should have anything to do with consumers. I'm of the opinion that little Billy shouldn't need to be educated as to what he is free to copy and what he isn't free to copy because everyone should be free to copy anything, and copyright should only apply to people who are selling copies. So, just like little Billy doesn't need to be taught the legality of insider trading, little Billy shouldn't need to be taught the legality of copyright.
Balanced view of copyright: it's evil but a bunch of people have gotten rich and powerful from it, so now we can't get rid of it.
There's plenty of apps for Windows that don't require you to install them in C:\Program Files\ or whatever.. thing is, people *like* that.
Quick, someone put together a super hero to defend the public domain, fair use, and/or call for the outright abolishment of copyright.
Sigh. The *point* of an App bundle is that you don't "extract" it. The OS knows how to read these things and treats them as part of the filesystem.
It predates Darwin..
Actually, he was refering to App Bundles.. a Mac concept that has been replicated on Linux about a dozen times but has never taken.