Well, each one of these superpositioned states effectively corresponds to a separate universe, since they a) don't normally interact with one another, and b) there is no way to single out one superpositioned state as more "real" than the others, so all the other states should be as real as ours.
The wave function is more than a distribution of probabilities. It appears to to be a physical wave, which can interact with other waves, and even with itself. For example, in the double-slit experiment, the wave function of a particle travels through both slits of the screen, and interferes with itself on the other side. That's not possible to explain if we view the wave function as a mere distribution of probabilities for a single particle's location. It is this that makes quantum theory hard to comprehend, and creates the need for various interpretations.
It provides a contractual obligation for the one who advertises the service and formulates the service agreement. Since Amazon/VISA have written their service agreements themselves, it's naturally harder for them to claim the terms are illegal or unfair.
Facebook is certainly not offering a "free" service out of the goodness of their hearts. It is a mutual exchange: Facebook offers their web site without charge, and in return, their users offer their personal information without charge.
It's one thing to post documents on-line that Governments would rather keep secret. It's another to do like Wikileaks did and edit video to fit their personal views. If these sites would just post and not add their opinion; credibility would improve.
It's not unlikely you're trolling, but I'll respond just to be on the safe side.
The US military didn't just classify the video where a US attack helicopter shoots down journalists in Iraq - they lied to the court and claimed it didn't exist.
Wikileaks exposed that lie by leaking the video. They published both an edited version with commentary, and the complete, unedited version, so everyone could see for themselves that they didn't distort anything. That Wikileaks bothered to publish the unedited version, proves that they were honest. It's more than what a regular news agency does.
Of course, when they release unedited material, they get criticised for that too. It's used to argue that they're not "a real news agency", since "real news agencies" provide reports, not raw data, and this in turn is used to support bizarre arguments that they shouldn't have the same right to free speech as other news providers.
So whatever Wikileaks does, they get criticised. I think it's amazing they haven't made more mistakes than they have, considering the sheer amount of material they've received and the controversies surrounding it.
Data is sent through transoceanic cables these days - the government have to shut down the earth-bound access points in and out of the country to effectively put a lid on the Internet. I'm not sure being a pirate ISP would help against that - couldn't the government just go to the telecommunications carrier that owns the physical cables and ask them to pull the switch?
A city with protesters, or even with a riot, is not a "war zone". A guy who is standing in clear sight on a street and bends down to pick up a small, unknown object is not a "sniper".
The rules of war do not apply when the military is trying to control protesting civilians. In a war, you're allowed to kill enemy combatants regardless of whether they're a threat to you right now (since enemy combatants will just come back and kill you tomorrow), but you're only allowed to use enough force to avert the immediate threat when dealing with civilians in peace time. And rightly so.
Actually, I believe those who revolt can and do think for and take care of themselves, especially those in a leading position. To successfully revolt takes a great deal of work and intelligence - it's not the same as rioting.
A large part of the problem with revolutions is that revolutionaries usually have no idea how to run a country once they seize power. The governments of civilised countries work because they have grown slowly over centuries, adding layers like a legal system, bureaucracy, market regulations, and so on. Someone who has gained power by force, usually try to order all those systems and institutions around, ruining their functions in the process. Chaos and inefficiency results, causing the ruler to assert even more control to try to set things right. But paradoxically, the governments of civilised countries work because they have less control, not more.
If it was only a matter of getting the competent to work for the government, the problem wouldn't be so hard - in real life, competence and political affiliation are not closely correlated, and the Soviet Union had plenty of competent engineers, economics and - believe it or not - entrepreneurs (called "fixers"), who gladly lended their services to the government. But yet, their economy failed miserably, because the premise of a centrally planned economy was fundamentally flawed.
Economy prize winner Friedrich Hayek described these (and other) mechanisms more than half a century ago, when he warned what would happen if Western democracies tried to nationalise their economies, like the Soviet Union and pre-World War II Germany.
There is a middle ground. For example, it's possible to have relatively high taxes and provide good social security and health care to everyone, and still have a well-functioning free-market system. Factors like absence of corruption, rule of law, a well-functioning beauracrcy, and personal safety and freedom are just as important for economic growth.
* Follow a set of written rules * Consider the wishes of your peers * Work with your peers towards a common goal
I.e, roughly the same skills which are important for being a law-abiding citizen and being able to hold a job.
That being said, I doubt a game in itself makes much difference. Those who already have the above-mentioned skills are more likely to start playing D&D, not the other way around.
I prefer the more neutral word "self-interest". "Greed" is a word with negative connotations which is normally only applied to self-interest which has gone too far, so it sounds strange to say that "greed can be good".
So you mean all that is required to slap a restraining order on someone, is to convince a judge that you have a chance to win the case - without the defendant being heard? I believe you, I just think it sounds like a very unreasonable legal procedure.
If Geohot eventually wins after a few years, he will effectively have been prevented from exercising his legal rights to reverse-engineer a publicly available commercial product until it is already outdated. To me, that sounds like abuse of the legal system.
To receive injunctive relief, the moving party must demonstrate "It has at least a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits."
There's a difference between "having a reasonable likelihood of success on its merits", and being "likely to succeed on its merits". The first wording is the one used in the law. The latter is a much stronger statement, and sounds somewhat bold for a judge to make before the case has even started.
The link you provide actually does not contain the phrase "likely to succeed on its merits", only the weaker wording "has at least a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits".
It's not just about Geohot's individual rights, it's about how a corporation tries to control the entire hacking community by going after a few individual members.
And I don't think it's reasonable to require someone to stop with an activity which *might* be illegal until the courts have sorted it out. I think these types of restraining orders are a bad idea in general. They give far too much power to the party who can afford good lawyers to exploit the loopholes and waiting times inherent in the legal system. The accused party can take their punishment if and when it actually turns out to be illegal, and if the accuser has a good case, the accused already has an incentive to stop with the activity.
If you can get and keep a job in Sweden, it's very easy to obtain citizenship. I think you can get naturalised after having lived and worked here for around a decade.
There are a number of backsides to Sweden too, of course, like the crushing political correctness, and a less than encouraging attitude to people who try to take initiatives (like starting new businesses).
For the submission system to be worth a damn, the submitters would have to be anonymous to NYTimes as well. No data on submitters, not even IP address, should be saved.
Making up facts makes the security questions pointless, since you have to remember your made-up facts. The "security questions" become merely a second, alternate password which has to be remembered.
So the security questions are either horribly insecure (if we answer them truthfully), or completely pointless (if we answer them with made-up facts). I'd call that a flawed concept.
I think there is a danger in dismissing this kind of bias as "lying": it could lead to the belief that you're immune to bias as long as you're honest with yourself.
Bias is inherent in all human perception, partly because humans are flawed, but also because we need to use shortcuts and simplified models of reality to be able to come to any conclusions at all. If we were to actually test all our assumptions before believing in them, we wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the morning, much less perform any meaningful research.
It's funny that you're making a connection between left-wing leanings and using science as a kind of religion substitute. Where I live (Northern Europe), it's more common for the right-wingers to believe in science and rationalism. The right tends to use rational, economic arguments to propose tax cuts, market de-regulations and decreasing the size of the government, whlle the socialist left tends to use arguments based on empathy and solidarity. Consequently, people with a belief in science and rationalism tend to end up on the right end of the political spectrum.
I suspect they're reasoning that the chance of getting caught is so low, they need to make the punishment draconic instead to get people to follow the law.
I.e, the punishment is not in proportion to the individual's guilt, but in proportion to society's need to quell file sharing (as perceived by the lobbyists and politicians).
Even if didn't think file sharing was harmless, I would find that reasoning dubious from a justice point of view.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, each one of these superpositioned states effectively corresponds to a separate universe, since they a) don't normally interact with one another, and b) there is no way to single out one superpositioned state as more "real" than the others, so all the other states should be as real as ours.
The wave function is more than a distribution of probabilities. It appears to to be a physical wave, which can interact with other waves, and even with itself. For example, in the double-slit experiment, the wave function of a particle travels through both slits of the screen, and interferes with itself on the other side. That's not possible to explain if we view the wave function as a mere distribution of probabilities for a single particle's location. It is this that makes quantum theory hard to comprehend, and creates the need for various interpretations.
That's so typical for you Tauruses to say.
It provides a contractual obligation for the one who advertises the service and formulates the service agreement. Since Amazon/VISA have written their service agreements themselves, it's naturally harder for them to claim the terms are illegal or unfair.
Facebook is certainly not offering a "free" service out of the goodness of their hearts. It is a mutual exchange: Facebook offers their web site without charge, and in return, their users offer their personal information without charge.
The US military has admitted the video is genuine by trying to defend the actions portrayed on it.
It's one thing to post documents on-line that Governments would rather keep secret. It's another to do like Wikileaks did and edit video to fit their personal views. If these sites would just post and not add their opinion; credibility would improve.
It's not unlikely you're trolling, but I'll respond just to be on the safe side.
The US military didn't just classify the video where a US attack helicopter shoots down journalists in Iraq - they lied to the court and claimed it didn't exist.
Wikileaks exposed that lie by leaking the video. They published both an edited version with commentary, and the complete, unedited version, so everyone could see for themselves that they didn't distort anything. That Wikileaks bothered to publish the unedited version, proves that they were honest. It's more than what a regular news agency does.
Of course, when they release unedited material, they get criticised for that too. It's used to argue that they're not "a real news agency", since "real news agencies" provide reports, not raw data, and this in turn is used to support bizarre arguments that they shouldn't have the same right to free speech as other news providers.
So whatever Wikileaks does, they get criticised. I think it's amazing they haven't made more mistakes than they have, considering the sheer amount of material they've received and the controversies surrounding it.
Data is sent through transoceanic cables these days - the government have to shut down the earth-bound access points in and out of the country to effectively put a lid on the Internet. I'm not sure being a pirate ISP would help against that - couldn't the government just go to the telecommunications carrier that owns the physical cables and ask them to pull the switch?
A city with protesters, or even with a riot, is not a "war zone". A guy who is standing in clear sight on a street and bends down to pick up a small, unknown object is not a "sniper".
The rules of war do not apply when the military is trying to control protesting civilians. In a war, you're allowed to kill enemy combatants regardless of whether they're a threat to you right now (since enemy combatants will just come back and kill you tomorrow), but you're only allowed to use enough force to avert the immediate threat when dealing with civilians in peace time. And rightly so.
Actually, I believe those who revolt can and do think for and take care of themselves, especially those in a leading position. To successfully revolt takes a great deal of work and intelligence - it's not the same as rioting.
A large part of the problem with revolutions is that revolutionaries usually have no idea how to run a country once they seize power. The governments of civilised countries work because they have grown slowly over centuries, adding layers like a legal system, bureaucracy, market regulations, and so on. Someone who has gained power by force, usually try to order all those systems and institutions around, ruining their functions in the process. Chaos and inefficiency results, causing the ruler to assert even more control to try to set things right. But paradoxically, the governments of civilised countries work because they have less control, not more.
If it was only a matter of getting the competent to work for the government, the problem wouldn't be so hard - in real life, competence and political affiliation are not closely correlated, and the Soviet Union had plenty of competent engineers, economics and - believe it or not - entrepreneurs (called "fixers"), who gladly lended their services to the government. But yet, their economy failed miserably, because the premise of a centrally planned economy was fundamentally flawed.
Economy prize winner Friedrich Hayek described these (and other) mechanisms more than half a century ago, when he warned what would happen if Western democracies tried to nationalise their economies, like the Soviet Union and pre-World War II Germany.
There is a middle ground. For example, it's possible to have relatively high taxes and provide good social security and health care to everyone, and still have a well-functioning free-market system. Factors like absence of corruption, rule of law, a well-functioning beauracrcy, and personal safety and freedom are just as important for economic growth.
To play D&D, you need to learn to:
* Follow a set of written rules
* Consider the wishes of your peers
* Work with your peers towards a common goal
I.e, roughly the same skills which are important for being a law-abiding citizen and being able to hold a job.
That being said, I doubt a game in itself makes much difference. Those who already have the above-mentioned skills are more likely to start playing D&D, not the other way around.
I prefer the more neutral word "self-interest". "Greed" is a word with negative connotations which is normally only applied to self-interest which has gone too far, so it sounds strange to say that "greed can be good".
So you mean all that is required to slap a restraining order on someone, is to convince a judge that you have a chance to win the case - without the defendant being heard? I believe you, I just think it sounds like a very unreasonable legal procedure.
If Geohot eventually wins after a few years, he will effectively have been prevented from exercising his legal rights to reverse-engineer a publicly available commercial product until it is already outdated. To me, that sounds like abuse of the legal system.
To receive injunctive relief, the moving party must demonstrate "It has at least a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits."
There's a difference between "having a reasonable likelihood of success on its merits", and being "likely to succeed on its merits". The first wording is the one used in the law. The latter is a much stronger statement, and sounds somewhat bold for a judge to make before the case has even started.
The link you provide actually does not contain the phrase "likely to succeed on its merits", only the weaker wording "has at least a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits".
It's not just about Geohot's individual rights, it's about how a corporation tries to control the entire hacking community by going after a few individual members.
And I don't think it's reasonable to require someone to stop with an activity which *might* be illegal until the courts have sorted it out. I think these types of restraining orders are a bad idea in general. They give far too much power to the party who can afford good lawyers to exploit the loopholes and waiting times inherent in the legal system. The accused party can take their punishment if and when it actually turns out to be illegal, and if the accuser has a good case, the accused already has an incentive to stop with the activity.
If you can get and keep a job in Sweden, it's very easy to obtain citizenship. I think you can get naturalised after having lived and worked here for around a decade.
There are a number of backsides to Sweden too, of course, like the crushing political correctness, and a less than encouraging attitude to people who try to take initiatives (like starting new businesses).
For the submission system to be worth a damn, the submitters would have to be anonymous to NYTimes as well. No data on submitters, not even IP address, should be saved.
And? Isn't the main thing that vital information becomes available to the public?
And if NYTimes can make it cheaper and easier for themselves, isn't that a good thing? Much like rationalising a manufacturing process.
Making up facts makes the security questions pointless, since you have to remember your made-up facts. The "security questions" become merely a second, alternate password which has to be remembered.
So the security questions are either horribly insecure (if we answer them truthfully), or completely pointless (if we answer them with made-up facts). I'd call that a flawed concept.
It's only lying if you do it intentionally.
I agree with you, I'd just like to point out that there is a significant amount of intentional fraud in some fields, especilly medicine.
I think there is a danger in dismissing this kind of bias as "lying": it could lead to the belief that you're immune to bias as long as you're honest with yourself.
Bias is inherent in all human perception, partly because humans are flawed, but also because we need to use shortcuts and simplified models of reality to be able to come to any conclusions at all. If we were to actually test all our assumptions before believing in them, we wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the morning, much less perform any meaningful research.
It's funny that you're making a connection between left-wing leanings and using science as a kind of religion substitute. Where I live (Northern Europe), it's more common for the right-wingers to believe in science and rationalism. The right tends to use rational, economic arguments to propose tax cuts, market de-regulations and decreasing the size of the government, whlle the socialist left tends to use arguments based on empathy and solidarity. Consequently, people with a belief in science and rationalism tend to end up on the right end of the political spectrum.
Yes.
I suspect they're reasoning that the chance of getting caught is so low, they need to make the punishment draconic instead to get people to follow the law.
I.e, the punishment is not in proportion to the individual's guilt, but in proportion to society's need to quell file sharing (as perceived by the lobbyists and politicians).
Even if didn't think file sharing was harmless, I would find that reasoning dubious from a justice point of view.
Good point, but it's still grossly out of proportion, considering 35'000 games cost a lot more than 24 songs.